[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 239 (Wednesday, December 13, 1995)]
[Notices]
[Pages 64051-64056]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-30405]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
[FRL-5344-6]
Retrofit/Rebuild Requirements for 1993 and Earlier Model Year
Urban Buses; Public Review of a Notification of Intent To Certify
Equipment
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency.
ACTION: Notice of agency receipt of a notification of intent to certify
equipment and initiation of 45-day public review and comment period.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: Twin Rivers Technologies' (TRT) has submitted to the Agency a
notification of intent to certify urban bus retrofit/rebuild equipment
pursuant to 40 CFR Part 85, Subpart O. The notification describes
equipment consisting of biodiesel fuel additive in combination with a
particular exhaust system catalyst. Pursuant to Sec. 85.1407(a)(7),
today's Federal Register notice summarizes the notification, announces
that the notification is available for public review and comment, and
initiates a 45-day period during which comments can be submitted. The
Agency will review this notification of intent to certify, as well any
comments it receives, to determine whether the equipment described in
the notification of intent to certify should be certified. If
certified, the equipment can be used by urban bus operators to reduce
the particulate matter of urban bus engines.
The notification of intent to certify, as well as other materials
specifically relevant to it, are contained in category X of Public
Docket A-93-42, entitled ``Certification of Urban Bus Retrofit/Rebuild
Equipment''. This docket is located at the address listed below.
Today's notice initiates a 45-day period during which the Agency
will accept written comments relevant to whether or not the equipment
included in this notification of intent to certify should be certified.
Comments should be provided in writing to Public Docket A-93-42,
Category X, at the address below, and an identical copy should be
submitted to William Rutledge, also at the address below.
DATES: Comments must be submitted on or before January 29, 1996.
ADDRESSES: Submit identical copies of comments to each of the two
following addresses: 1. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Public
Docket A-93-42 (Category X), Room M-1500, 401 M Street S.W.,
Washington, DC 20460.
2. William Rutledge, Engine Compliance Group, Engine Programs and
Compliance Division (6403J), 401 ``M'' Street S.W., Washington, DC
20460.
The TRT notification of intent to certify, as well as other
materials specifically relevant to it, are contained in the public
docket indicated above. Docket items may be inspected from 8:00 a.m.
until 5:30 p.m., Monday through Friday. As provided in 40 CFR Part 2, a
reasonable fee may be charged by the Agency for copying docket
materials.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: William Rutledge, Engine Programs and
Compliance Division (6403J), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 401
M Street S.W., Washington, DC 20460. Telephone: (202) 233-9297.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Background
On April 21, 1993, the Agency published final Retrofit/Rebuild
Requirements for 1993 and Earlier Model Year Urban Buses (58 FR 21359).
The retrofit/rebuild program is intended
[[Page 64052]]
to reduce the ambient levels of particulate matter (PM) in urban areas
and is limited to 1993 and earlier model year (MY) urban buses
operating in metropolitan areas with 1980 populations of 750,000 or
more, whose engines are rebuilt or replaced after January 1, 1995.
Operators of the affected buses are required to choose between two
compliance options: Program 1 establishes PM emissions requirements for
each urban bus engine in an operator's fleet which is rebuilt or
replaced. Program 2 is a fleet averaging program that establishes
specific annual target levels for average PM emissions from urban buses
in an operator's fleet.
A key aspect of the program is the certification of retrofit/
rebuild equipment. To meet either of the two compliance options,
operators of the affected buses must use equipment which has been
certified by the Agency. Emissions requirements under either of the two
compliance programs depend on the availability of retrofit/rebuild
equipment certified for each engine model. To be used for program 1,
equipment must be certified as meeting a 0.10 g/bhp-hr PM standard or
as achieving a 25 percent reduction in PM. Equipment used for Program 2
must be certified as providing some level of PM reduction that would in
turn be claimed by urban bus operators when calculating their average
fleet PM levels attained under the program. For program 1, information
on life cycle costs must be submitted in the notification of intent to
certify in order for certification of the equipment to initiate (or
trigger) program requirements. To trigger program requirements, the
certifier must guarantee that the equipment will be available to all
affected operators for a life cycle cost of $7,940 or less at the 0.10
g/bhp-hr PM level, or for a life cycle cost of $2,000 or less for the
25 percent or greater reduction in PM. Both of these values are based
on 1992 dollars.
As noted above, operators of affected buses must use equipment
which has been certified by EPA. An important element of the
certification process is input from the public based on review of
notifications of intent to certify. It is expected that engine
manufacturers, bus manufacturers, transit operators, and industry
associations will be able to provide valuable information related to
the installation and use of particular equipment by transit operators.
Such information will be useful to the Engine Programs and Compliance
Division in its role of determining whether any specific equipment can
be certified.
II. Notification Of Intent To Certify
By a notification of intent to certify signed August 18, 1995, and
subsequently modified by letter dated October 5, 1995, Twin Rivers
Technologies, Limited Partnership (TRT), with principal place of
business at 780 Washington Street, Quincy, Massachusetts 02169, applied
for certification of equipment applicable to certain urban bus engines
manufactured by Detroit Diesel Corporation (DDC). The notification
states that the candidate equipment will provide reductions in exhaust
PM, as discussed below, dependent upon the configuration used, from
petroleum-fueled diesel engines that have been properly calibrated or
rebuilt to the original engine manufacturer's specifications.
TRT requests certification for the following two configurations of
equipment: (1) Biodiesel fuel additive blended with diesel fuel (the
blend is referred to as ``B20'') in combination with a particular
exhaust system oxidation catalyst; and, (2) B20 and the catalyst, plus
retarded fuel injection timing. Certification, if approved by the
Agency, would apply to the combination of catalyst and biofuel supplied
by TRT or its licensed distributors. The fuel B20 (alone) is not
candidate for certification under this notification.
One configuration of the candidate equipment, as applied to some
engines, provides PM reductions greater than 25 percent and the other
configuration does not. This is discussed further below. TRT has not
provided life cycle cost information with the notification and has not
requested to be certified as being available for less than the life
cycle cost ceiling.
A key component of both configurations of the candidate equipment
is use of biodiesel as an additive at a 20 percent by volume blend
ratio with diesel fuel. Biodiesel is an ester-based fuel oxygenate
derived from biological sources for use in compression-ignition (that
is ``diesel'') engines. Biodiesel is the alkyl ester product of the
transesterification reaction of biological triglycerides, or
biologically-derived oils. Any biological oil source, such as vegetable
oils, animal fats or used cooking oils and fats, can produce esters
through this reaction. TRT has registered biodiesel under the Agency's
Fuel/Fuel Additive Registration Program, which defines Twin Rivers
biodiesel (marketed as ``EnviroDieselTM'' and ``EnviroDiesel
PlusTM'') as an alkyl ester containing C1-C4 alcohols and C6-C24
acids. The fuel handling procedure differs from that for diesel fuel
only in that it requires mixing by the fuel distributor or bus operator
of 20 percent by volume biodiesel with low-sulfur diesel fuel. TRT is a
company created specifically for the production of biodiesel.
A key component of both configurations of the candidate equipment
is a particular oxidation catalyst-muffler unit (discussed further
below) designed to replace the typical noise muffler in the exhaust
system of applicable recipient engines. In a report included as an
attachment to TRT's notification, it is indicated that the combination
of B20 and the catalyst achieve greater PM reductions than with the
catalyst alone. Improved PM reduction associated with that combination
may be due to an apparent shift in the composition of total exhaust
particulates, when using B20, toward a lower soot fraction and higher
soluble organic fraction (SOF). It is the SOF portion of the exhaust
particulates that an oxidation catalyst is most effective in reducing.
The exhaust catalysts are to be matched to specific urban bus and
engine configurations. Further, the maximum allowable exhaust pipe
length between engine and catalyst is 108 inches. Exhaust system
backpressure is designed to remain within the engine manufacturer's
specified limits. The catalyst unit has no additional maintenance
requirements for the life of the catalyst.
The second configuration of the candidate equipment includes the
retard of fuel injection timing in combination with B20 and the above-
described exhaust catalyst. All applicable engines using this second
configuration and equipped with mechanical unit injection (MUI) would
use a timing retard of four (4) degrees. All applicable engines using
this configuration and equipped with electronically-controlled fuel
injection would use a timing retard of one (1) degree. The notification
states that timing is retarded by a shift of the timing sensor. The
Agency requests comment and information concerning the reasonability of
these timing specifications.
For its certification testing, TRT used catalytic muffler units
that were manufactured by Engelhard Corporation and are the same
formulation and configuration that is certified by the Agency for use
in the urban bus program (see 60 FR 28402, dated May 31, 1995, for that
certification). While an agreement is in place for Engelhard to supply
TRT with catalysts, the physical specifications of the catalyst to be
used in production are neither part of the
[[Page 64053]]
TRT notification of intent to certify nor provided to TRT as part of
that agreement. In general, the Agency has concerns when a certifier is
not aware of the technical specifications of equipment it wants to
certify and when the potential exists for a change in equipment
specifications to adversely affect emissions reduction performance.
Such a change in specifications may occur, for example, with a change
in catalyst production which may not be known to the certifier. In a
letter provided to the Agency, Engelhard states that it will notify
both TRT and the Agency in the event of changes to specifications of
the catalytic converter muffler provided to TRT. The specifications for
the catalyst have been provided to the Agency as a confidential part of
Engelhard's notification of intent to certify its CMXTM catalyst
muffler. A copy of this letter can be found in the public docket at the
address indicated above. This provides the Agency with assurance that
changes to catalyst specifications will be brought to the Agency's
attention, and the Agency proposes to restrict certification for
candidate TRT equipment to use of catalyst muffler units supplied by
Engelhard and covered by Engelhard's certification, and require that
use of catalysts supplied by any other supplier be the subject of a
separate notification of intent to certify.
TRT presents exhaust emission data from testing the candidate
equipment configurations on three engines using the federal engine-
dynamometer test procedures of 40 CFR Part 86, as well as chassis
dynamometer testing. A 1977 model year DDC 6V71N and 1988 model year
DDC 6V92TA DDEC II were tested on engine dynamometers, and another 1988
model year DDC 6V92TA DDEC II was tested on a chassis dynamometer. The
6V71N engine was selected to represent a ``worst case'', with respect
to PM, for most of the engines for which certification of the equipment
is being sought, and also to represent engines equipped with MUI. Based
on a pre-rebuild PM level for the 6V71N of 0.50, from the table in 40
CFR section 85.1403(c)(1)(iii)(A), TRT states that the 6V71N qualities
as ``worst case'' for all two-stroke/cycle engines with the exception
of the 1990 DDC 6L71TA. The 1988 6V92TA DDEC engines were tested to
show the results of the biodiesel fuel on engines having electronic
fuel control, and also to represent the ``worst case'' engine
configuration for such engines, based on their ``pre-rebuild'' level of
0.31 g/bhp-hr. The notification states that the fuel used for testing,
both the biodiesel and diesel, are representative of commercially
available biodiesel and low-sulfur diesel fuels.
Baseline testing was conducted after two of the test engines were
rebuilt to the original engine manufacturer's configurations. A third
engine had not been used prior to testing. Baseline testing was
conducted using low sulfur test fuel having a maximum sulfur level of
0.05 weight percent. Subsequent testing of the engines was done after
the candidate equipment was installed.
Table 1A below summarizes the emission levels from the engine
dynamometer testing. Table 1B summarizes the chassis testing in terms
of range of impact on exhaust emissions of the candidate equipment from
three driving cycles. The driving cycles used for the chassis testing
were the Central Business District, New York Bus Composite Cycle, and
the Arterial Cycle. A report attached to TRT's notification provides
specific emission rates measured for each driving cycle and equipment
configuration. Table 2 summarizes, for each test engine, the changes in
PM and NOX emissions with use of each configuration of the
equipment. The reductions listed for the chassis testing include double
weighting of the emission data from the Arterial Cycle, because TRT
believes the resultant combination of the chassis driving cycles is
more representative of the Agency's Urban Dynamometer Driving Schedule
for Heavy-Duty Vehicles (40 CFR Part 86, Appendix I). Table 3 provides
a summary of all engine models for which TRT intends the equipment to
apply, and the associated percent reductions in PM emissions for these
models, based on the test data. Table 4 summarizes the PM certification
levels for each engine model for which certification is sought, based
on reductions of Table 3 applied to the pre-rebuild levels established
in the program regulations. Additional testing information is provided
in reports from the facilities which conducted the emission testing
(these reports are attachments to the notification).
Table 1A.--Test Engine Emissions
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Gaseous and Particulate Smoke
Engine --------------------------------------------------------------- Comment
HC CO NOX PM ACC LUG Peak
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(3) g/bhp-hr
(2) percent opacity
Engine Dyno................................. 1.3 15.5 10.7 0.60 20 15 50 1988 EPA stds.
1977 6V71N MUI.............................. 0.86 3.18 11.72 0.282 1.2 1.8 1.8 Baseline (low S, 2D).
1977 6V71N MU............................... 0.38 0.86 12.11 0.166 0.9 1.7 1.7 B20 + cat.
1977 6V71N MU............................... 0.42 0.94 8.47 0.213 2.2 2.8 2.9 B20, cat + 4 deg. retard.
1988 6V92TA DDEC II......................... 0.60 1.60 8.52 0.20 6.0 5.3 8.7 Baseline (low S, 2D).
1988 6V92TA DDEC II......................... 0.21 0.95 9.12 0.11 3.7 1.7 6.9 B20 + cat.
1988 6V92TA DDEC II......................... 0.25 1.05 8.35 0.12 5.1 2.5 8 B20, cat + 1 deg. retard.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table 1B.--Chassis Testing: Range of Percentage Change \1\ in Emissions From Baseline (Low Sulfur Diesel)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pollutant B20 + catalyst B20 + catalyst + 1.5 deg. retard
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
HC..................................... -59 to -39................ -33 to +3
CO..................................... -85 to -54................ -38 to -19
NOX.................................... +4 to +8.................. -5 to -2
PM..................................... -56 to -22................ -46 to -7
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Three different chassis driving cycles were used.
[[Page 64054]]
Table 2.--Emissions Changes From Test Engines
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Configuration Per cent
Test Engine ---------------------------------------- Per cent NoX Test/dyno
B20 CAT Timing retard PM change change
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1977 6V71N...................... None.......... -41 +3 Engine.
MUI............................. 4 deg......... -24.5 -28 ................
1988 6V92TA DDEC................ None.......... -45 +6 Engine.
II.............................. 1 deg......... -40 -2 ................
1988 6V92TA DDEC................ None.......... -40 +4 Chassis.
II.............................. 1.5 deg....... -27 -5 ................
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table 3.--Applicable Engines and PM Reduction
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Configuration and per
Cent PM Reduction
Engine model Model year -------------------------
B20, cat +
B20 + cat retard
------------------------------------------------------------------------
6V92TA MUI....................... 79-87 41.1 24.5
6V92TA MUI....................... 88-89 41.1 24.5
6V92TA DDEC I.................... 86-87 45.0 40.0
6V92TA DDEC II................... 88-91 45.0 40.0
6V92TA DDEC II................... 92-93 45.0 40.0
6V71N MUI........................ 73-87 41.1 24.5
6V71N MUI........................ 88-89 41.1 24.5
6V71T MUI........................ 85-86 41.1 24.5
8V71N MUI........................ 73-84 41.1 24.5
6L71TA MUI....................... 90 41.1 24.5
6L71TA MUI....................... 88-89 41.1 24.5
6L71TA DDEC...................... 90-91 45.0 40.0
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table 4.--PM Certification Levels
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Equipment Configuration
-------------------------
Engine model Model year B20, cat +
B20 + cat retard
------------------------------------------------------------------------
6V92TA MUI....................... 79-87 0.29 0.38
6V92TA MUI....................... 88-89 0.17 0.23
6V92TA DDEC I.................... 86-87 0.17 0.18
6V92TA DDEC II................... 88-91 0.17 0.19
6V92TA DDEC II................... 92-93 0.14 0.15
6V71N MUI........................ 73-87 0.29 0.38
6V71N MUI........................ 88-89 0.29 0.38
6V71T MUI........................ 85-86 0.29 0.38
8V71N MUI........................ 73-84 0.29 0.38
6L71TA MUI....................... 90 0.34 0.44
6L71TA MUI....................... 88-89 0.18 0.23
6L71TA DDEC...................... 90-91 0.17 0.18
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Section 85.1406(a) of the program regulations state ``The test
results must demonstrate that the retrofit/rebuild equipment * * * will
not cause the urban bus engine to fail to meet any applicable Federal
emission requirements set for that engine in the applicable portions of
40 CFR part 86 * * *''. TRT's emission test data indicate that both
configurations of the candidate equipment reduce hydrocarbon (HC) and
carbon monoxide (CO), when compared with baseline (pre-retrofit)
emissions. There is, however, potential for concern with regard to
NOX emissions from other engines with which the candidate
equipment might be certified, because an increase of three percent was
measured for the MUI test engine when equipped with the B20-catalyst
configuration without fuel injection retard, and six percent for the
electronically-timed DDEC II test engine. Because test data is not
available on all engines for which certification of the equipment is
sought, TRT performed analyses to determine whether such increases
would indicate that other engines exceed applicable NOX standards.
The analysis, in general, applies each of the measured increases to the
NOX certification levels established by the engine manufacturer
for engines tested under the Agency's new engine certification program.
(New engine certification testing results are reported yearly by the
Agency in its ``Federal Certification Test Results''.) Three percent
increase in NOX is evaluated for engines equipped with MUI, and
six percent increase is evaluated for engines equipped with
electronically-timed injection. The increased NOX level is
compared with the relevant standard for the particular engine. TRT's
analyses is in the public docket, and discussed below.
[[Page 64055]]
TRT's analysis for MUI engines is broken down by engine model year
to account for two new engine certification test procedures, each
having particular emissions standards. The ``13 mode'' engine
dynamometer test procedure was used for heavy-duty engine testing prior
to the 1985 model year, and the ``transient'' engine dynamometer test
procedure is used for 1985 and later model years. For certification
under the urban bus program, TRT tested the 1977 model year 6V71N MUI
engine using the ``transient'' procedure. While the ``13 mode'' test
was used for new engine certification of the 1977 model year, the
``transient'' test is the current standard test procedure for heavy-
duty engines and is generally recognized as more representative than
the ``13-mode'' test. Therefore, the Agency believes that the NOX
increase measured by TRT using the ``transient'' test data is a
relevant gauge of the impact of the candidate equipment. TRT's analysis
applies the increase to the new engine certification data available for
engines of 1984 and earlier model years. Prior to 1985, there was no
federal emission standard for NOX alone. The relevant emission
standards (for engines that were certified using the ``13-mode''
procedure) are 16 g/bhp-hr for 1974 through 1978 model year engines and
10 g/bhp-hr for 1979 through 1984 model year engines, for the sum of HC
emissions added to NOX emissions. TRT's initial analysis applied
three percent increase to the new engine certification levels for HC +
NOX emissions for 1982 and later model year engines for which such
data is available. This predicts that only one engine (a 325 horsepower
version of 1982 model year 6V92TA engine family CGM0552FWG5) would
exceed its NOX standard. Further analysis for this engine,
applying three percent increase in its NOX emission level added to
50 percent decrease in its reported HC certification level, indicates
that the combined federal emission standard would not be exceeded for
this engine if equipped with the candidate equipment. Based on this
analysis and TRT's emission test data indicating significant reductions
in HC emissions (at least 50 percent), the Agency believes that for any
applicable pre-1985 engine equipped with MUI, an increase in NOX
emissions of the percentage measured on the 1977 6V71N MUI test engine
will be more than offset by a decrease in HC emissions, such that the
HC + NOX standard will not be exceeded.
Another part of TRT's analysis pertains to engines equipped with
MUI and certified using the ``transient'' test procedure (that is, the
engines of model year 1985 and later). TRT's analysis, applying three
percent increase to NOX levels developed during new engine
certification testing, indicates that no 1985 or later engine equipped
with MUI would exceed the applicable federal standard if equipped with
the candidate equipment. TRT also analyzed the impact of six percent
increase in NOX emissions on electronically-controlled engines,
because their data show that NOX emissions for the 1988 model year
6V92TA DDEC II test engine increase roughly six percent when equipped
with the B20-catalyst configuration without injection retard. This
increase in NOX emissions is important, especially because federal
standards for NOX were lowered to 6.0 g/bhp-hr for the 1990 model
year and 5.0 g/bhp-hr for the 1991 model year. Therefore, TRT analyzed
the impact of six percent increase in NOX emission levels
developed during new-engine certification testing on Detroit Diesel
Corporation's DDEC engines. (Under the new engine certification
program, all DDEC engines have been tested using the ``transient''
procedure.) The results indicate that NOX levels for the engine
families in Table 5 would exceed the appropriate federal emission
standard. Therefore, the Agency proposes that use of the candidate
equipment without fuel injection retard on any urban bus engines of the
engine families listed in Table 5 not be covered by certification under
the urban bus program.
Table 5.--Engine Families not Covered by Certification
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Configuration: B20 and Catalyst (without injection retard)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Model year Model Engine family
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1990........................ 6V92TA DDEC II...... LDD0552FZG6
6V92TA DDEC II Coach LDD0552FZL2
1991........................ 6L71TA DDEC ALCC.... MDD0426FZFX
6V92TA DDEC II...... MDD0552FZG5
6V92TA DDEC II...... MDD0552FZL1
1992........................ 6V92TA DDEC II...... NDD0552FZG4
6V92TA DDEC II Coach NDD0552FZL0
1993........................ 6V92TA DDEC II...... PDD0552FZG2
6V92TA DDEC II Coach PDD0552FZL9
------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Agency requests comment, additional analysis, or additional
emission test data or for engine families to which the equipment is
intended to apply, to determine whether regulatory requirements are met
with urban bus engines using the candidate equipment.
While absolute smoke opacity levels during testing of the 1977
6V71N MUI test engine were well below relevant standards, increases
were measured between the baseline test and testing using B20, catalyst
and retarded timing. This is not of significant concern because the
Agency believes the absolute level of increase is more relevant than
the percentage increase. Further, the absolute level of increase in
opacity is believed not significant in the context of the current smoke
test and opacity standards (in other words, there is probably no real
increase in smoke opacity, given the nature of the smoke test and level
of the standards). Finally, smoke emissions from heavy duty diesel
engines, in general, have declined over the years as engines are
designed to comply with declining federal PM emissions standards. The
Agency believes that even if this test data accurately predicts an
increase in smoke emission opacity with other engines for which the
equipment is intended to apply, it is not a significant increase. The
Agency requests comment regarding the applicability of that data to
other engines having MUI for which the equipment is intended to apply.
Smoke emission measurements for the 1988 engine indicate compliance
with applicable standards.
As indicated in the notification, the 6V71N test engine qualities
as a ``worst case'' for all two-stroke/cycle engines with exception of
the 1990 DDC
[[Page 64056]]
6L71TA. (The 1990 model year DDC 6L71TA has a pre-rebuild PM level of
0.59 g/bhp-hr.) While TRT requests certification coverage for the 1990
DDC 6L71TA and warrants comparable particulate emissions reduction
percentages for it as is demonstrated by the 6V71N test engine, the
requirement of the program regulations have not been met. Therefore,
the Agency believes that the notification lacks sufficient basis for
certification of the candidate equipment with the 1990 DDC 6L71TA.
Section 85.1406(d) of the regulations governing urban bus equipment
certification states, in part, ``* * * installation of any certified
retrofit/rebuild equipment shall not cause or contribute to an
unreasonable risk to the public health, welfare or safety * * *''.
Information for considering whether B20 in this context would affect
any potential human health risks associated with exposure to
conventional diesel emissions has been provided by TRT with its
notification of intent to certify. This information will be reviewed by
the Agency. The Agency has made this information part of the public
docket at the address listed above. Any findings based on this
information, together with any other information that may be
considered, will be made part of the public docket located at the
address noted above, and considered by the Agency in its decision
regarding certification of the candidate equipment. The Agency requests
additional information, including information on combustion by-
products, for considering whether and, if so how, the use of the
subject biodiesel blend, that is, B20, in diesel engines would affect
any potential health risks associated with exposure to conventional
diesel emissions.
Section 211 of the Clean Air Act sets forth fuel and fuel additive
prohibitions, and gives the Agency authority to waive certain of those
prohibitions. The Agency, however, does not believe that TRT must
obtain a fuel additive waiver under Section 211(f)(4) of the Clean Air
Act before certifying its additive system for the following reasons.
The Act prohibits the introduction into commerce of any fuel or
fuel additive that is not substantially similar to a fuel or fuel
additive used in the certification of any model year 1975 or later
vehicle or engine under Section 206. The Administrator may waive this
prohibition, if she determines that certain criteria are met. The
Agency believes that certification of an urban bus retrofit system
constitutes the certification of an engine under Section 206 for the
purposes of the urban bus retrofit/rebuild program, and, since the
additive is used in the certification of the system, a waiver is not
required to market the additive in the limited context of use with the
certified retrofit system. This determination does not affect whether
the additive is ``substantially similar to any fuel or fuel additive''
outside the context of the urban bus retrofit/rebuild program. The
Agency's position on this matter is discussed in additional detail as
it relates to use of another fuel additive (Lubrizol Corporation) at 60
FR 36139 on July 13, 1995.
If the Agency certifies the candidate TRT equipment, operators may
use it immediately, as discussed below. TRT's notification indicates
that the candidate equipment is to be certified for compliance program
2; however, as discussed below, the Agency believes that configurations
utilizing the catalytic muffler and reducing PM by at least 25 percent
may also be used in compliance with current program 1 requirements.
In a Federal Register notice dated May 31, 1995 (60 FR 28402), the
Agency certified an exhaust catalyst manufactured by the Engelhard
Corporation, as a trigger of program requirements. For urban bus
operators affected by this program and electing to comply with program
1 requirements, that certification means that rebuilds and replacements
of all applicable urban bus engines, performed 6 months or more after
that date of certification (that is, rebuilds or replacements after
December 1, 1995), must be performed with equipment certified to reduce
PM emissions by 25 percent or more. Under Program 1, operators could
use the TRT equipment if certified to reduce PM by at least 25 percent,
or other equipment certified to provide at least a 25 percent
reduction, until equipment is certified which triggers the 0.10 g/bhp-
hr PM standard. For Program 1, operators may also use the B20 blend
with the Engelhard catalyst and injection retard only for the following
engines: 6V92TA DDEC I and DDEC II, and 6L71TA DDEC.
Operators who choose to comply with Program 2 and install the TRT
equipment, would use the PM emission level(s) established during the
certification process, in their calculations for target or fleet level
as specified in the program regulations.
In accordance with the program requirements of section 85.1404(a),
operators using the candidate equipment would have to maintain purchase
records of the B20 blend if the operator purchases the premixed blend
from a fuel supplier, or, of biodiesel and low-sulfur diesel fuel if
the operator mixes the B20. Such records would be subject to review in
the event of an audit of a urban bus operator by the Agency. To be in
compliance with program requirements, operators must be able to
demonstrate that B20 is being used in the proper proportions required
by the candidate equipment.
At a minimum, EPA expects to evaluate this notification of intent
to certify, and other materials submitted as applicable, to determine
whether there is adequate demonstration of compliance with: (1) The
certification requirements of 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.
The Agency requests that those commenting also consider these
regulatory requirements, plus provide comments on any experience or
knowledge concerning: (a) problems with installing, maintaining, and/or
using the candidate equipment on applicable engines; and, (b) whether
the equipment is compatible with affected vehicles.
The date of this notice initiates a 45-day period during which the
Agency will accept written comments relevant to whether or not the
equipment described in the TRT notification of intent to certify should
be certified pursuant to the urban bus retrofit/rebuild regulations.
Interested parties are encouraged to review the notification of intent
to certify and provide comment during the 45-day period. Please send
separate copies of your comments to each of the above two addresses.
The Agency will review this notification of intent to certify,
along with comments received from interested parties, and attempt to
resolve or clarify issues as necessary. During the review process, the
Agency may add additional documents to the docket as a result of the
review process. These documents will also be available for public
review and comment within the 45-day period.
Dated: December 1, 1995.
Mary D. Nichols,
Assistant Administrator for Air and Radiation.
[FR Doc. 95-30405 Filed 12-12-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
