[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 219 (Tuesday, November 12, 1996)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 58022-58028]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-28732]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 85
[FRL-5649-4]
Retrofit/Rebuild Requirements for 1993 and Earlier Model Year
Urban Buses; Additional Update of Post-Rebuild Emission Levels in 1997
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: Today's notice of proposed rulemaking describes proposed
amendments to the current regulations regarding EPA's Urban Bus
Retrofit/Rebuild Program. Today's proposed rule would allow one
additional year for equipment manufacturers to certify equipment that
might influence compliance under Option 2 of the program. Such a
revision will remove the incentive to switch compliance options by
guaranteeing the two options remain equivalent, as EPA originally
intended. In the absence of such a revision to the program regulations,
the two compliance options will not remain equivalent as EPA intended,
and urban buses may not be utilizing the ``best retrofit technology * *
* reasonably achievable'' as Congress required. In addition, urban
areas, many of which are not in compliance with National Ambient Air
Quality Standards (NAAQS) for PM, will not realize the full PM benefits
of this program.
DATES: Written comments on this proposal will be accepted until
December 12, 1996, or 30 days after the date of a public hearing, if
one is held.
EPA will hold a public hearing on this proposal on December 6, 1996
if it receives a request by November 22, 1996. EPA will cancel this
hearing if no one requests to testify. Members of the public should
call the contact person indicated below to notify EPA of their interest
in testifying at the hearing. Interested parties may call the contact
person to determine whether the hearing will be held.
Further information on the public hearing and the submission of
comments can be found under ``Public Participation'' in the
Supplementary Information'' section of today's document.
ADDRESSES: Interested parties may submit written comments (in
duplicate, if possible) to Public Docket No. A-91-28 (Category VII) at
the address listed below.
Interested parties may contact the person listed in FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT to determine the time and location of the public
hearing, if one is requested. A court reporter will be present to make
a written transcript of the proceedings and a copy will be placed in
the public docket following the hearing.
Materials relevant to this proposed rulemaking are contained in
Public Docket A-91-28 (Category VII). This docket is located in room M-
1500, Waterside Mall (Ground Floor), U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, 401 M Street SW, Washington, D.C. 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 the EPA
for copying docket materials.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Tom Stricker, Engine Programs and
Compliance Division (6403-J), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 401
M Street SW, Washington, D.C. 20460. Telephone: (202) 233-9322.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Regulated Entities
Entities potentially regulated by this proposed action consist of
the same entities currently regulated by 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, who operate
1993 and earlier model year
urban buses, or who rebuild or
replace such bus engines.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 58023]]
This table is not meant to be exhaustive, but rather provides a
guide for readers regarding entities likely to be regulated by this
action. This table lists the type of entities that EPA is now 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 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 23, 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.
I. Introduction
Section 219(d) of the Clean Air Act 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.
On April 21, 1993, EPA published final Retrofit/Rebuild
Requirements for 1993 and Earlier Model Year Urban Buses (58 FR 21359).
The Urban Bus Retrofit/Rebuild Program requires affected operators of
urban buses to choose between two compliance options. Option 1
establishes particulate matter (PM) emissions requirements for each
urban bus in an operator's fleet whose 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.
In the final rule, EPA stated that it would review the retrofit/
rebuild equipment that was certified by July 1, 1994, and again by July
1, 1996, and publish the post-rebuild PM emission levels for urban bus
engines affected by the program. These post-rebuild levels are to be
used by transit operators choosing to comply with Option 2 for
calculating their fleet emission levels. In two previous Federal
Register notices (59 FR 45626, September 2, 1994, and 60 FR 42763,
August 16, 1996), EPA published post-rebuild PM levels based on
equipment that was certified as of these two dates. Today's notice
proposes, as described below, that EPA review certified equipment for a
third time and publish the post-rebuild PM emissions levels
accordingly, based on equipment certified as of July 1, 1997.
II. Background
A. Compliance Options
EPA promulgated the final rule regarding the Urban Bus Retrofit/
Rebuild Program on April 23, 1993 (58 FR 21359). In short, the rule
requires operators of 1993 and earlier model year urban buses, in MSA's
and CMSA's with a 1980 population of 750,000 or more, to comply with
one of two program options.
Option 1 is a performance based program requiring that affected
urban buses 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 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). (EPA chose to allow a six month
lead time before requiring such equipment to allow transit operators to
plan their budgeting and procurement activities, and to help ensure 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
under 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 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 the
affected bus engine 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 requiring that affected
urban bus operators meet an annual average fleet PM level, rather than
requiring that each individual rebuilt engine meet a specific PM level.
The transit operator must reduce PM emission from its buses to a level
low enough to meet an annual average target level for the fleet (TLF).
The TLF is calculated for each calendar year of the program, beginning
in calendar year 1996, and is based on EPA's determination of the
projected PM emission level for each engine model in the affected
fleet, and on assumed engine rebuild and retirement schedules. The
actual fleet level attained (FLA) must remain equal to, or below, the
TLF for each year of the program. 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 affected engine is determined by the PM
certification level of the equipment used to retrofit the engine. If no
retrofit equipment is installed on the engine, or if no retrofit
equipment is certified for the engine, then the PM level is based on
EPA's determination of the projected PM emission level for the engine
model.
EPA established the pre-rebuild PM levels for each engine model in
the final rule. The pre-rebuild PM level for an engine model is based
on new-engine certification data, if available, for that engine model.
Otherwise, the level is based on EPA's estimate of such emissions based
on data from similar engine models. In addition, EPA projected post-
rebuild PM levels for each engine model based on the expectation that
retrofit equipment would be certified for certain engine models and
would achieve certain reductions. EPA recognized that these projections
may not accurately reflect future equipment certification, and that
transit operators may not be able to comply if the TLF were based on
unrealistic PM levels. Therefore, the final rule contained requirements
that EPA revise the post-rebuild PM levels based on equipment that was
actually certified.
When determining when it would revise the post-rebuild PM levels,
EPA considered several factors. First, EPA had to estimate the time
frame during which equipment manufacturers would likely certify
equipment for this program. For example, revising the post-rebuild PM
levels in 1995, and again in 1999, would be meaningless if
certification activity ceased in 1994. Second, EPA wanted to ensure
that Option 2 remained comparable in terms of cost, lead time, and
emissions benefit, to Option 1. Third, EPA wanted to ensure Option 2
remained a workable and feasible compliance option.
EPA assumed that certification activity under this program would
likely be completed by 1996. The retrofit program only affects 1993 and
earlier model year urban buses, which will only be in operation until
around 2008. In order to recuperate development costs, EPA expected
equipment manufacturers to certify equipment as early as possible, and
for the most popular engine models. In fact, some retrofit kits already
existed and were in use prior to the publication of the final rule, and
EPA expected those equipment manufacturers to seek certification
immediately after the rule was published.
With early certification activity expected, a revision of post-
rebuild PM
[[Page 58024]]
levels prior to the start of the program (January 1, 1995) was
determined appropriate. In addition, with certification activity
expected to be completed by 1996, a second revision of the post-rebuild
levels in mid-1996 was also determined appropriate. Limiting the number
of revisions to the post-rebuild PM levels was important to provide
stability in the averaging program and make it a viable compliance
option. Having more than two revisions could lead to a ``moving
target'' for transit operators. Selection of the specific dates for the
two revisions is discussed below.
Under Option 1, transit operators are not required to use equipment
until six months after it is certified as meeting both emissions and
cost requirements. This lead time is vital to transit operators to
effectively plan their budgeting and procurement activities. Similarly,
under Option 2, EPA believes six months of lead time are also
appropriate. As a result, EPA determined that the first revision of
post-rebuild PM levels would be based on equipment certified as of July
1, 1994. This date would allow inclusion of equipment certified early,
and would also allow Option 2 transit operators six months prior to the
program start date to plan their budgeting and procurement activities
in order to meet the TLF for 1996 (TLF96). (Although the first TLF
calculation for Option 2 is effective for calendar 1996 (TLF96),
transit operators will likely take actions beginning January 1, 1995 to
ensure compliance with TLF96 on January 1, 1996.) EPA determined
the second (and final) revision to post-rebuild PM levels would be
based on equipment certified as of July 1, 1996.
This date would allow six months of lead time for transit operators
to plan their budgeting and procurement activities in order to meet
TLF98. (Again, transit operators will likely take actions
beginning January 1, 1997 to ensure compliance with TLF98 on
January 1, 1998). In addition, by revising the post-rebuild PM levels
after certification activity was complete, EPA could be assured that
buses would be using the ``best retrofit technology * * * reasonably
achievable'' as Congress required.1
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Clean Air Act Section 219(d), 42 U.S.C. 7554(d).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In addition to the timing of the post-rebuild PM level revisions,
EPA was also concerned about the content of the revisions. From an
environmental standpoint, the lowest PM level certified for an engine
model would be the most desirable post-rebuild PM level to include in
the revision. However, low emitting technologies could be quite costly.
Under Option 1, transit operators are not required to use technology
unless it can meet certain cost limits. In order to maintain equity
between Option 1 and Option 2 programs, the final rule requires that
certified equipment must meet the life cycle cost limits of Option 1 in
order to be considered for inclusion in the Option 2 revisions of post-
rebuild PM levels. Among the certified equipment that meets the Option
1 cost limits, the numerically lowest PM certification level for a
given engine model will establish the revised post-rebuild PM level for
that engine model.
Default provisions were also included in the final rule in the
event equipment meeting cost limits were not certified.
B. Current Status of Program
Certification activity under the retrofit program has lagged
substantially behind the schedule anticipated by EPA. In fact, when EPA
published revised post-rebuild levels based on equipment certified as
of July 1, 1994 (59 FR 45626, September 2, 1994), no equipment had been
certified. That revision included no updated post-rebuild PM levels,
but instead is based on default provisions of the final rule (40 CFR
85.1403(c)(1)(iii)(B)(5)). The first approval of a certification for
this program occurred on May 31, 1995 (60 FR 28402), almost a year
after the post-rebuild levels were revised the first time. Although six
retrofit kits have been certified by EPA as of August 1996, no
equipment has been certified as meeting the 0.10 g/bhp-hr PM standard
for under the life cycle cost limit of $7,940 (in 1992 dollars).
Therefore,the recent revision to the post-rebuild PM levels were based
on 25 percent reduction equipment, or on no equipment (for those engine
models for which no equipment was certified as meeting emissions and
cost requirements).
Not only has EPA's assumption that certification activity would
begin early proven incorrect, but more importantly, EPA's assumption
that certification activity would be complete by mid-1996 has proven
incorrect. EPA is currently processing several applications for
certification, including one aimed at meeting the 0.10 g/bhp-hr PM
standard for less than the life cycle cost limit of $7,940 (in 1992
dollars). Several more equipment manufacturers have made initial
contact with EPA regarding certification of equipment, including
additional technologies aimed at meeting the 0.10 g/bhp-hr standard.
Consistent with the current program regulations, none of the
potentially promising retrofit technologies certified after the July 1,
1996 final post-rebuild PM level revision can influence compliance
under Option 2.
C. Potential Inequity Between Compliance Options
As discussed above, technologies certified after the final post-
rebuild PM revision of July 1996 cannot influence compliance under
Option 2. In other words, under the current regulations, transit
operators choosing to comply with Option 2 would never be required to
reduce their fleet PM levels below those PM levels contained in the
recent post-rebuild level revision based on equipment certified as of
July 1, 1996. However, consistent with the final program regulations,
transit operators choosing to comply with Option 1 would be required to
use equipment certified to the 0.10 g/bhp-hr standard, even if the
standard is triggered after July 1, 1996. The result is that Option 1
could become a much more stringent compliance option. Given the level
of current certification activity, and the continued interest from
equipment manufacturers, eventual certification of a 0.10 g/bhp-hr
technology, and thus the likelihood of program inequity, is likely.
As discussed above, EPA intended the two compliance options to be
equivalent in terms of cost, emissions reduction and lead time.
However, future certification of technology which triggers the 0.10 g/
bhp-hr standard could result in Option 2 being much less costly than
Option 1. Further, Option 1 would yield significantly more PM
reductions. The root cause of this inequity is that equipment
certification activity will continue longer than originally
anticipated. If the current program regulations are not amended, then
transit operators, the majority of whom EPA currently believes are
complying with Option 1, will have a great incentive to switch to
Option 2. Obviously, 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''.
III. Description of Today's Proposal
EPA is proposing to amend the current program regulations to
include an additional revision of post-rebuild PM levels based on
equipment certified as of July 1, 1997. EPA is currently in receipt of
one equipment certification application intended to meet the 0.10 g/
bhp-hr standard for less than the life cycle cost limit of $7,940 (in
1992
[[Page 58025]]
dollars), and expects to receive more in the near future. As such, one
additional year is expected to allow ample time for equipment
manufacturers to certify 0.10 g/bhp-hr technology for those engine
models for which equipment could reasonably be certified.
The purpose and effect of today's proposed action is simple and
straightforward. First, the purpose of today's proposal is to close an
unintended compliance loophole in the original regulations. Unless EPA
amends the current regulations, certification of a 0.10 g/bhp-hr
technology which meets cost limits will likely cause eligible transit
operators choosing to comply with Option 1 to switch to Option 2 to
avoid potentially high equipment costs. Under this scenario, a mass-
switch to Option 2 will result in PM reductions which fall short of
those expected from this program, and would negate the benefits of
certifying the 0.10 g/bhp-hr technology. However, if post-rebuild PM
levels are revised in mid-1997 to include any eligible 0.10 g/bhp-hr
technology, there will be no incentive for transit operators to switch
to Option 2. If 0.10 g/bhp-hr is included in the revised post-rebuild
PM levels, the Option 2 TLF for future calendar years will be
substantially reduced, effectively requiring Option 2 transit operators
to use 0.10 g/bhp-hr technology or retire a substantial number of buses
early in order to comply with the TLF. In effect, both Option 1 and
Option 2 would require the use low-emitting technology.
EPA believes today's proposal is consistent with intent of the
original regulations and with the intent of Congress. As discussed
above, EPA originally intended Option 1 and Option 2 to be equivalent
in terms of emissions reductions, costs, lead time, and stability.
Moreover, this proposed revision would ensure that EPA's requirements
reflect the ``best retrofit technology and maintenance practice
reasonably achieveable'' as required under section 219(d) and intended
by EPA's initial regulations.
Clearly, failure to amend the regulations as proposed will result
in vastly differing PM reductions between the options as transit
operators using Option 2 will avoid using low-emitting technology. On
the contrary, amending the regulations as proposed will result in both
options essentially requiring the use of low-emitting technology, and
should result in similar PM reductions.
Regarding costs, EPA originally intended that the cost of the two
options be comparable, such that both options were truly viable choices
for transit operators. Today's proposal will ensure that the two
options remain consistent in terms of cost. Note that today's proposal
does not result in any additional costs to transit operators not
previously contemplated in the original rulemaking. EPA is not
proposing any changes to the life cycle cost requirements or the
requirement to use certified equipment.
Today's proposal does not change the six month lead time that
transit operators would be allowed to plan their budgeting and
procurement strategies. EPA is proposing to base the final revision of
post-rebuild PM levels on equipment certified as of July 1, 1997, which
is six months prior to the date on which transit operators would likely
begin taking actions to ensure compliance with TLF99.
Finally, regarding program stability, EPA believes today's proposal
is consistent with the original regulations, and in addition, provides
further stability beyond the original regulations. EPA originally
limited the number of post-rebuild PM level revisions to two in order
to avoid a ``moving target'' for transit operators. Too much
instability would likely discourage transit operators from considering
Option 2 as a viable compliance option. As discussed previously in
today's notice, EPA determined that revisions of post-rebuild PM levels
would be based on equipment certified as of July 1, 1994, and again as
of July 1, 1996. The primary reason these dates were determined
appropriate at the time of the original rulemaking is that EPA believed
equipment certification would begin as soon as the final rule was
published on April 23, 1993, and would be completed by mid-1996.
Discussions with industry and comments from the public gave no
indication that certification activity would not follow this assumed
schedule. In fact, retrofit kits already existed and were being used by
transit operators when the final rule was published.
For a variety of reasons, certification activity has lagged behind
the schedule anticipated by EPA, so much so that no equipment had been
certified as of July 1, 1994. The first revision of post-rebuild PM
levels resulted in no revision at all. The recent revision based on
equipment certified as of July 1, 1996 did contain several updated
post-rebuild PM levels. In effect, adding a third revision based on
equipment certified as of July 1, 1997 would be just the second
revision of any substance. In this regard, the stability of Option 2 is
still maintained as EPA originally intended. Furthermore, EPA expects
that option switching that might occur without an additional post-
rebuild PM level revision could be more disruptive to program stability
than today's proposal.
EPA believes today's proposed action is consistent with Congress'
intent that urban buses utilize the ``best retrofit technology * * *
reasonably achievable.'' Clearly, low-emitting equipment such as
equipment which meets a 0.10 g/bhp-hr standard would represent the best
retrofit technology. The fact that transit operators will only be
required to use such equipment if it meets certain life cycle cost
limits means that such equipment will be reasonably achievable. The
fact that EPA miscalculated the time table on which low emitting
technology would be developed by a year or less does not itself imply
that such technology is not reasonably achievable.
EPA solicits comments on this proposal and its effect on the Urban
Bus Retrofit/Rebuild Program, transit operators and equipment
manufacturers. In particular, EPA solicits comments on the need to add
a third revision of post-rebuild PM levels, the timing of a third
revision, the consistency of today's proposal 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 today's proposal does not happen again in the future, and any other
aspects of the proposed action.
IV. Environmental Impact
The environmental impacts expected to result from the retrofit/
rebuild program are outlined in the final Regulatory Support Document
(RSD) for the original rulemaking and can be found in public docket A-
91-28 (see ADDRESSES section above). Today's proposed action would not
result in any additional emissions reductions beyond those outlined in
the RSD. However, today's action would help ensure these expected
reductions are actually achieved by closing an unintended compliance
loophole. If transit operators are allowed to take advantage of the
potential loophole in the current program, 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.
V. Economic Impact
Today's proposed action would have no additional economic impact
compared to the economic impact
[[Page 58026]]
described in original regulations finalized on April 23, 1993. While
failure to take the proposed action could result in reduced costs for
those transit operators who 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 proposed
action. The costs associated with this program have already been
determined to be reasonable and the program to be cost-effective.
VI. Public Participation
A. Comments and the Public Docket
EPA solicits comments on all aspects of this proposal from all
interested parties since it is our desire to ensure full public
participation in arriving at final decisions. Wherever applicable,
complete supporting data and analyses should be submitted to allow EPA
to make the maximum use of comments. Commenters are encouraged to
provide specific suggestions for changes to any of the proposal. All
comments should be directed to the EPA Air Docket No. A-91-28 (Category
VII) (See ADDRESSES).
B. Public Hearing
EPA will hold a public hearing on this proposal on December 6, 1996
if it receives a request by November 22, 1996. EPA will cancel this
hearing if no one requests to testify. Members of the public should
call the contact person indicated above to notify EPA of their interest
in testifying at the hearing. Interested parties may call the contact
person after November 22, 1996 to determine whether the hearing will be
held and the time and location of the hearing.
VII. Administrative Designation and Regulatory Analysis
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, the economy,
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.
VIII. Impact on Small Entities
The Regulatory Flexibility Act requires Federal agencies to
consider potentially adverse impacts of proposed federal regulations
upon small entities. In instances where significant impacts are
possible on a substantial number of these entities, agencies perform a
proposed Regulatory Flexibility Analysis.
I certify that there will not be a significant adverse impact on a
substantial number of small business entities due to the proposed
revision of the urban bus retrofit/rebuild program. The urban bus
operators affected by the program regulations are generally not small
businesses. In addition, EPA determined the original regulations
relating to the urban bus retrofit/rebuild program did not have an
adverse impact on a substantial number of small entities. Today's
proposed revision 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.
IX. 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. The regulatory revisions proposed in today's
notice do not include any provisions for the collection of information
from non-Federal respondents.
X. Unfunded Mandates Act
Section 202 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (signed
into law on March 22, 1995) requites that EPA 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 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
inconsistant with law.
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 85
Environmental protection, Imports, Labeling, Motor vehicle
pollution, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Research,
Warranties.
Dated: November 1, 1996.
Carol M. Browner,
Administrator.
For the purposes set out in the preamble, part 85 of title 40,
chapter I of the Code of Federal Regulations is proposed to be 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.
Subpart O--[Amended]
2. Section 85.1403 is proposed to be amended by revising paragraph
(c)(1)(iii)(C) 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) * * *
(C) For TLF calculations for calendar year 1998, 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)(C)(4) of this section) for which equipment has
been certified by July 1, 1996 as meeting the emission and cost
requirements of paragraph (b)(1) of this section for all affected urban
bus operators;
[[Page 58027]]
(2) For any engine model for which no equipment has been certified
by July 1, 1996 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 for any such equipment;
(3) For any engine model for which no equipment has been certified
by July 1, 1996 as meeting the requirements of either paragraph (b)(1)
or paragraph (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; and
(5) Notwithstanding paragraph (c)(1)(iii)(C)(3) of this section, if
by July 1, 1996, no equipment has been certified to meet the emission
requirements of paragraph (b)(1) or paragraph (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.
(D) For TLF calculations for calendar year 1999 and thereafter,
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 for which equipment has
been certified by July 1, 1997 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, 1997 as meeting the requirements of paragraph (b)(1) of this
section for all affected urban bus operators, for which equipment has
been certified by July 1, 1997 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 for any such equipment;
(3) For any engine model for which no equipment has been certified
by July 1, 1997 as meeting the emission and cost requirements of
paragraph (b)(1) or paragraph (b)(2) of this section for all affected
urban bus operators, 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, 1997, no equipment has been certified 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 as indicated 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, 1997, equipment has been certified to meet the emissions
requirements of paragraph (b)(1) or paragraph (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, 1996 to meet the life-cycle cost requirements of paragraph
(b)(1) or paragraph (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.............................. 0.30 0.30
DDC 6V92TA DDECI............................. 1986-1987.............................. 0.30 0.30
DDC 6V92TA DDECII............................ 1988-1991.............................. 0.31 0.25
1992................................... 0.25 0.25
1993 (no trap)......................... 0.25 0.25
1993 (trap)............................ 0.07 0.07
DDC Series 50................................ 1993................................... 0.16 0.16
DDC 6V71N.................................... 1973-1987.............................. 0.50 0.50
1988-1989.............................. 0.50 0.50
DDC 6V71T.................................... 1985-1986.............................. 0.50 0.50
DDC 8V71N.................................... 1973-1984.............................. 0.50 0.50
DDC 6L71TA................................... 1990................................... 0.59 0.59
1988-1989.............................. 0.31 0.31
DDC 6L71TA DDEC.............................. 1990-1991.............................. 0.30 0.30
Cummins L10.................................. 1985-1987.............................. 0.65 0.46
1988-1989.............................. 0.55 0.46
1990-1991.............................. 0.46 0.46
Cummins L10 EC............................... 1992................................... 0.25 0.25
1993 (trap)............................ 0.05 0.05
Alternatively-fueled Engines................. Pre-1994............................... 0.10 0.10
Other Engines................................ Pre-1988............................... 0.50 0.50
1988-1993.............................. \1\ \1\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Certification level.
[[Page 58028]]
[FR Doc. 96-28732 Filed 11-8-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
