[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 239 (Wednesday, December 13, 1995)]
[Notices]
[Pages 64048-64051]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-30403]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
[FRL-5344-7]
Retrofit/Rebuild Requirements for 1993 and Earlier Model Year
Urban Buses; Public Review of a Notification of Intent to Certify
Equipment
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency.
ACTION: Notice of agency receipt of a notification of intent to certify
equipment and initiation of 45 day public review and comment period.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Agency has received a notification of intent to certify
urban bus retrofit/rebuild equipment pursuant to 40 CFR Part 85,
Subpart O. Pursuant to Sec. 85.1407(a)(7), today's Federal Register
notice summarizes the notification below, announces that the
notification is available for public review and comment, and initiates
a 45-day period during which comments can be submitted. The Agency will
review this notification of intent to certify, as well as comments
received, to determine whether the equipment described in the
notification of intent to certify should be certified. If certified,
the equipment can be used by urban bus operators to reduce the
particulate matter of urban bus engines.
The Johnson Matthey, Inc. (JMI) notification of intent to certify,
as well as other materials specifically relevant to it, are contained
in category XI-A of Public Docket A-93-42, entitled ``Certification of
Urban Bus Retrofit/Rebuild Equipment''. This docket is located at the
address below.
Today's notice initiates a 45 day period during which the Agency
will accept written comments relevant to whether or not the equipment
included in this notification of intent to certify should be certified.
Comments should be provided in writing to Public Docket A-93-42,
Category XI-A, at the address below. An identical copy should be
submitted to Anthony Erb, also at the address below.
DATES: Comments must be submitted on or before January 29, 1996.
ADDRESSES: Submit separate copies of comments to each of the two
following addresses:
1. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Public Docket A-93-42
(Category XI--A), Room M-1500, 401 M Street S.W., Washington, DC 20460.
[[Page 64049]]
2. Anthony Erb, Engine Compliance Programs Group, Engine Programs and
Compliance Division (6405J), 401 ``M'' Street S.W., Washington, DC
20460.
The JMI notification of intent to certify, as well as other
materials specifically relevant to it, are contained in the public
docket indicated above. Docket items may be inspected from 8:00 a.m.
until 5:30 p.m., Monday through Friday. As provided in 40 CFR Part 2, a
reasonable fee may be charged by the Agency for copying docket
materials.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Anthony Erb, Engine Compliance and
Programs Division (6405J), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 401 M
Street S.W., Washington, DC 20460. Telephone: (202) 233-9259.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Background
On April 21, 1993, the Agency published final Retrofit/Rebuild
Requirements for 1993 and Earlier Model Year Urban Buses (58 FR 21359).
The retrofit/rebuild program is intended to reduce the ambient levels
of particulate matter (PM) in urban areas and is limited to 1993 and
earlier model year (MY) urban buses operating in metropolitan areas
with 1980 populations of 750,000 or more, whose engines are rebuilt or
replaced after January 1, 1995. Operators of the affected buses are
required to choose between two compliance options: Program 1 sets
particulate matter emissions requirements for each urban bus engine in
an operator's fleet which is rebuilt or replaced; Program 2 is a fleet
averaging program that establishes specific annual target levels for
average PM emissions from urban buses in an operator's fleet.
A key aspect of the program is the certification of retrofit/
rebuild equipment. To meet either of the two compliance options,
operators of the affected buses must use equipment which has been
certified by the Agency. Emissions requirements under either of the two
compliance options depend on the availability of retrofit/rebuild
equipment certified for each engine model. To be used for Program 1,
equipment must be certified as meeting a 0.10 g/bhp-hr PM standard or
as achieving a 25 percent reduction in PM. Equipment used for Program 2
must be certified as providing some level of PM reduction that would in
turn be claimed by urban bus operators when calculating their average
fleet PM levels attained under the program. For Program 1, information
on life cycle costs must be submitted in the notification of intent to
certify in order for certification of the equipment to initiate (or
trigger) program requirements. To trigger program requirements, the
certifier must guarantee that the equipment will be available to all
affected operators for a life cycle cost of $7,940 or less at the 0.10
g/bhp-hr PM level, or for a life cycle cost of $2,000 or less for the
25 percent or greater reduction in PM. Both of these values are based
on 1992 dollars.
II. Notification Of Intent To Certify
By a notification of intent to certify signed September 6, 1995,
Johnson Matthey, Inc. (JMI) has applied for certification of equipment
applicable to all Detroit Diesel Corporation (DDC) two-cycle engines
originally equipped in an urban bus from model year 1979 to model year
1993, exclusive of the DDC 6L71TA 1990 model year engines (see Table
A). The notification of intent to certify states that the equipment
being certified is a catalytic exhaust muffler (CEM). The CEM contains
an oxidation catalyst developed specifically for diesel applications,
packaged as a direct replacement for the muffler. The application
states that the candidate equipment provides a 25 percent or greater
reduction in emissions of particulate matter (PM) for petroleum fueled
diesel engines relative to an original engine configuration with no
after treatment installed. The engines may either be rebuilt to
original specifications, or not rebuilt but able to meet specified
engine calibrations. A 25 percent reduction is also claimed for engines
that have been retrofit/rebuilt with certified new rebuild kits that do
not include after treatment devices. The latter would apply to the DDC
retrofit/rebuild kit which was certified on October 2, 1995 (60 FR
51472).
Table A.--Certification Levels
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PM Level 1
Engine Models Model Year with CEM Code Family
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
6V92TA........................ 1979-87.......... 0.38 All.............. All.
MUI
1988-1989........ 0.23 All.............. All.
6V92TA........................ 1986-89.......... 0.23 All.............. All
DDEC I
6V92TA........................ 1988-91.......... 0.23 All.............. All.
DDEC II
1992-93.......... 0.19 All.............. All.
6V71N......................... 1973-87.......... 0.38 All.............. All.
6V71N......................... 1988-89.......... 0.38 All.............. All.
6V71T......................... 1985-86.......... 0.38 All.............. All.
8V71N......................... 1973-84.......... 0.38 All.............. All.
6L71TA........................ 1988-89.......... 0.23 All.............. All.
6LV71TA....................... 1990-91.......... 0.23 All.............. All.
DDEC
8V92TA........................ 1979-87.......... 0.40 All.............. 8V92TA
1988............. 0.29 All.............. 8V92TA
8V92TA-DD..................... 1988............. 0.31 ALL.............. 8V92TA-
DDEC II
8V92TA........................ 1989............. 0.35 9E70............. KDD0736FW8
9
8V92TA........................ 1989............. 0.29 9A90............. KDD0736FW8
9
8V92TA........................ 1989............. 0.26 9G85............. KDD0736FW8
9
[[Page 64050]]
8V92TA........................ 1989............. 0.31 1A............... KDD0736FZH
DDEC 4
8V92TA........................ 1990............. 0.35 9E70............. LDD0736FAH
9
8V92TA........................ 1990............. 0.37 1A............... LDD0736FZH
DDEC 3
8V92TA........................ 1991............. 0.19 1A or 5A......... MDD0736FZH
DDEC 2
8V92TA........................ 1992-93.......... 0.16 1D............... NDD0736FZH
DDEC 1 &
PDD0736FZH
X
8V92TA........................ 1992-93.......... 0.22 6A............... NDD0736FZH
DDEC 1 &
PDD0736FZH
X
8V92TA........................ 1992-93.......... 0.15 5A............... NDD0736FZH
DDEC 1 &
PDD0736FZH
X
8V92TA........................ 1992-93.......... 0.19 1A............... NDD0736FZH
DDEC 1 &
PDD0736FZH
X
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The original PM certification levels for the 1991 6V92TA DDEC II, 6LV71TA DDEC and 8V92TA DDEC engine models
are based on Federal Emission Limits (FELs) under the averaging, banking and trading program. These limits are
higher than the 1991 PM standard of 0.25 g/bhp-hr. The PM level listed in this table for the engines that are
equipped with the CEM provide at least a 25% reduction from the original certification levels. The 1992 to
1993 6V92TA DDEC II and 8V92TA DDEC engine models were also certified using FELs under the trading and banking
program and likewise the PM levels for the engines equipped with the CEM represent at least a 25% reduction
from the original certification levels.
Transit pricing level data has been submitted with the
notification, along with a guarantee that the equipment will be offered
to all affected operators for less than the incremental life cycle cost
ceiling of $2,000 in 1992 dollars. JMI indicates that the maximum cost
in 1995 dollars will not exceed $2,173.00. Equipment cost is listed to
be $1,926.00 and installation costs are not to exceed $247.00 (6.5
hours of labor time maximum). JMI states that there is no fuel economy
impact, and that no incremental maintenance will be necessary due to
this equipment. Therefore, this equipment may qualify as a trigger for
program requirements for the 25% reduction standard. However, it is
noted that designation as a trigger is not necessary in this case as
trigger technology is already certified for the 25% reduction standard
for every engine model for which this technology would be certified.
However, in the future this technology may lower the target PM level
for bus operators under Program 2 for particular engine models, if the
PM level for this technology is lower than the PM certification level
for any other certified technology.
JMI presents data from testing the equipment on a 2-stroke 1986
model year DDC 6V92TA engine documenting PM emissions reduction under
two different scenarios. In applications involving aftertreatment
devices, the use of a ``worst case'' engine during testing allows the
certifier to extrapolate the results to engines known to have engine
out PM levels that are equal to or less than the test engine. Based on
a pre-rebuild PM level for the 6V92TA of 0.50, from the table in 40 CFR
section 85.1403(c)(1)(iii)(A), the 6V92TA qualifies as a ``worst case''
for all two-stroke/cycle engines with the exception of the 1990 DDC
6L71TA.
In the first test sequence, the baseline test was performed on the
engine prior to rebuild. Then the catalytic converter was added to the
exhaust system and another test was performed. The results are
presented in Table B. When the results of the two tests are compared,
the test on the engine that was equipped with the catalytic converter
shows a 50% decrease in PM emissions compared to the baseline engine.
This test also shows that hydrocarbon (HC), carbon monoxide (CO), and
oxides of nitrogen (NOX) emissions are within the applicable
emission standards.
Table B.--Certification Emission Test Results
[Pre-Rebuild Composite Test Results (g/bhp-hr)]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Baseline Engine Percent
engine with CEM reduction
------------------------------------------------------------------------
PM..................................... 0.44 0.22 50
HC..................................... 0.7 0.4 43
CO..................................... 1.0 0.6 40
NOx.................................... 10.5 10.2 3
Smoke:
Accel (percent)...................... 2 1
Lug (percent)........................ 1 1
Peak (percent)....................... 4 3
------------------------------------------------------------------------
In the second test sequence, the baseline test was performed on the
engine after rebuild. Then, as in the first test sequence, the
catalytic converter was added and a comparison test was performed. The
results are presented in Table C. When the results of these tests are
compared, the test on the engine with the catalytic converter installed
shows a 38% reduction in PM emissions when compared with the test
results for the baseline engine. The HC, CO, and NOX emissions for
this test are within the applicable emission standards.
JMI also provided smoke emission measurements for the engine in the
[[Page 64051]]
rebuilt condition with the catalytic converter installed. These
measurements indicate that the engine complies with the applicable
smoke standards.
Table C.--Certification Emission Test Results
[Post-Rebuild Composite Test Results (g/bhp-hr)]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Baseline Engine Percent
engine with CEM reduction
------------------------------------------------------------------------
PM..................................... 0.13 0.08 38
HC..................................... 0.6 0.3 50
CO..................................... 0.7 0.4 43
NOX.................................... 9.7 9.4 3
Smoke:
Accel (percent)...................... 1 1
Lug (percent)........................ 1 1
Peak (percent)....................... 6 5
------------------------------------------------------------------------
The information submitted by JMI shows that this equipment achieves
a 25% or greater reduction in PM emissions and will be sold for less
than the cost ceiling of $2,000 (1992 dollars). If EPA approves the
request for certification of this equipment, urban bus operators will
be required to use this equipment or other equipment that is already
certified to provide 25% or greater equivalent reductions to comply
with Program 1 of this regulation beginning December 1, 1995. This
requirement will continue unless other equipment which reduces PM
emissions to 0.10 g/bhp-hr is certified at or below the $7,940 life
cycle cost ceiling.
If EPA approves JMI's certification request, urban bus operators
who chose to comply under Option 2 of this regulation may also use this
equipment. If certification is approved by EPA, the emission levels of
the JMI equipment may be used to modify the Option 2 post rebuild
levels in July 1996, unless other rebuild kits with life cycle costs
below the life-cycle cost ceiling and lower PM emission levels are
certified before July 1996.
At a minimum, EPA expects to evaluate this notification of intent
to certify, and other materials submitted as applicable, to determine
whether there is adequate demonstration of compliance with: (1) The
certification requirements of Sec. 85.1406, including whether the
testing accurately substantiates the claimed emission reduction or
emission levels; and, (2) the requirements of Sec. 85.1407 for a
notification of intent to certify, including whether the data provided
by JMI complies with the life cycle cost requirements.
The Agency requests that those commenting also consider these
regulatory requirements, plus provide comments on any experience or
knowledge concerning: (a) Problems with installing, maintaining, and/or
using the candidate equipment on applicable engines; and, (b) whether
the equipment is compatible with affected vehicles.
The date of this notice initiates a 45 day period during which the
Agency will accept written comments relevant to whether or not the
equipment described in the JMI notification of intent to certify should
be certified pursuant to the urban bus retrofit/rebuild regulations.
Interested parties are encouraged to review the notification of intent
to certify and provide comment during the 45 day period. Please send
separate copies of your comments to each of the above two addresses.
The Agency will review this notification of intent to certify,
along with comments received from interested parties, and attempt to
resolve or clarify issues as necessary. During the review process, the
Agency may add additional documents to the docket as a result of the
review process. These documents will also be available for public
review and comment within the 45 day period.
Dated: December 1, 1995.
Mary D. Nichols,
Assistant Administrator for Air and Radiation.
[FR Doc. 95-30403 Filed 12-12-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
