[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 43 (Monday, March 4, 1996)]
[Notices]
[Pages 8275-8278]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-4954]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
[FRL-5433-6]
Retrofit/Rebuild Requirements for 1993 and Earlier Model Year
Urban Buses; Public Review of Cost Information Related to the
Certification of Retrofit/Rebuild Equipment
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency.
ACTION: Notice of agency receipt of cost information related to
certification of equipment and initiation of 45-day public review and
comment period.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This notice addresses a shortcoming in the current
certification of certain equipment certified under the urban bus
retrofit/rebuild program. The effective date of certification of
Detroit Diesel Corporation's (DDC) equipment for upgrading its 1979
through 1989 model year urban bus engines of model 6V92TA equipped with
mechanical unit injection (MUI) is October 2, 1995 (60 FR 51472). That
certification was based on reduction in particulate matter (PM) of 25
percent or more, but not on DDC's guarantee to make the equipment
available to all operators for less than the applicable life cycle
ceiling (hereinafter referred to as ``cost/availability''). Although
DDC, in its notification of intent to certify, requested certification
on the basis of cost/availability, as stated in the October 2, 1995
Federal Register notice, the Agency at that time saw no advantage to
certification on that basis. Upon reconsideration, the Agency believes
that it may be beneficial to the program to expand the basis of
certification of DDC's upgrade kit to include the basis of cost/
availability. Further, in addition to the request in its notification
of intent to certify signed March 16, 1995, DDC reiterated its request
in a letter to the Agency dated December 15, 1995, that this equipment
be certified on the basis of cost/availability. Copies of both DDC's
notification and the letter are available for review in the public
docket located at the address indicated above.
DDC has submitted to the Agency new information relevant to the
certification of urban bus retrofit/rebuild equipment pursuant to 40
CFR Part 85, Subpart O. Pursuant to section 85.1407(a)(7), today's
Federal Register notice announces that the information is available for
public review and comment, and initiates a 45-day period during which
comments can be submitted. The Agency will review this information, as
well as comments received, to determine whether certification of the
DDC equipment should be expanded to include the basis of cost/
availability. If DDC's certification is expanded to include the cost/
availability basis, then the certification level of the equipment may
be considered when ``post-rebuild'' PM levels are established in mid-
1996. The post-rebuild levels to be established in mid-1996 would be
used by operators complying with compliance program 2 when calculating
average fleet emissions for 1998 and thereafter. Therefore, to expand
DDC's certification to include the basis of cost/availability may tend
to lower ambient levels of PM emissions from fleets which comply with
compliance program 2.
Category VII of Public Docket A-93-42, entitled ``Certification of
Urban Bus Retrofit/Rebuild Equipment'' contains the new cost
information and DDC's notification of intent to certify, as well as
other materials specifically relevant to it. 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 the certification of
DDC's equipment should be expanded to include the basis of cost/
availability. Comments should be provided in writing to Public Docket
A-93-42, Category VII, at the address below. An identical copy should
be submitted to William Rutledge, also at the address below.
DATES: Comments must be submitted on or before April 18, 1996.
ADDRESSES: Submit separate copies of comments to each of the two
following addresses:
[[Page 8276]]
1. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Public Docket A-93-42
(Category VII), Room M-1500, 401 M Street S.W., Washington, DC 20460.
2. William Rutledge, Engine Programs and Compliance Division (mail code
6403J), 401 ``M'' Street S.W., Washington, DC 20460.
The DDC 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 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. In
general, to meet either of the two compliance options, operators of the
affected buses must use equipment which has been certified by the
Agency.
A key aspect of the program is the certification of retrofit/
rebuild equipment. 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,
if equipment is not certified as meeting the 0.10 PM standard, 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 emissions. Both of these values
are based on 1992 dollars and are increments above costs associated
with a standard rebuild. If the Agency determines that the life cycle
cost limit is met, then certification would be based on ``cost/
availability'' in addition to reducing PM emissions.
Under program 2, operators calculate their average fleet emissions
using specified ``pre-rebuild'' and ``post-rebuild'' engine PM emission
levels (as well as other factors). The final rulemaking of April 21,
1993, established the pre-rebuild emissions levels, and intended that
post-rebuild levels be established at two subsequent points in time,
based on the certification levels of equipment certified by those
points. Post-rebuild levels were established for the first two years of
the program in a Federal Register notice of September 2, 1994 (59 FR
45626), which set 0.30 g/bhp-hr for 6V92TA engines of model years 1979
through 1987. This level was established as required by the final rule,
that is, as a ``default'' level for these engines in the event that no
equipment was certified by July 1, 1994. As explained in the final
rulemaking and the September 2, 1994, Federal Register, EPA determined
that this ``default'' level could be attained by rebuilding the engines
with the available DDC upgrade kit which, although not certified by
July 1, 1994 under the urban bus program, has emissions performance
supported by data from the Agency's new-engine certification program.
The post-rebuild level established by the above-mentioned September
2, 1994, Federal Register notice for the 1979-1987 6V92TA engines (0.30
g/bhp-hr) is less than the pre-rebuild level (0.50 g/bhp-hr). That
reduction in PM levels, and the assumed rebuild schedule of the
regulation [Sec. 85.1403(c)(1)(iv)], means that operators choosing to
comply with compliance program 2 and having 6V92TA MUI engines of
certain model years must reduce average fleet PM emissions during
calendar years 1995 and 1996 an amount equivalent to rebuilding those
model year engines with DDC's upgrade kit.
Section 85.1403(c) requires that final post-rebuild levels be
established based on equipment certified by July 1, 1996, to meet the
PM standard and as being available to all operators for less than an
appropriate life cycle cost ceiling. These ``post-rebuild'' levels are
to be used in the calculations of fleet target levels for 1998 and
thereafter, for engines scheduled for retrofit/rebuild in calendar
years 1997 and thereafter. Section 85.1403(c)(1)(iii) requires that
post-rebuild emission levels be the lowest emission level (greater than
0.1 g/bhp-hr) certified as meeting the emission and cost requirements
of Sec. 85.1403(b)(2), for any engine model for which no equipment has
been certified by July 1, 1996 as meeting the requirements of
Sec. 85.1403(b)(1).
The Agency announced certification of the DDC upgrade kit for the
1979-1989 6V92TA engines in the Federal Register on October 2, 1995 (60
FR 51472) based on compliance with the 25% reduction standard, but
without determination of compliance with the life cycle cost ceiling.
That certification does not restrict use of the upgrade kit by
operators under either compliance program 1 or 2, until other equipment
is certified which triggers the 0.10 g/bhp-hr standard.
Section 85.1403 of the program regulations requires that the post-
rebuild emission levels established in mid-1996 be the lowest emission
level (greater than 0.10 g/bhp-hr) certified as meeting the emission
and life cycle cost requirements. The DDC upgrade kit is currently
certified to 0.30 g/bhp-hr for the above-mentioned 1979 through 1987
6V92TA engines, but unless certification includes the basis of cost/
availability, it would not be considered when we establish the final
post-rebuild levels. Other equipment is certified to 0.38 g/bhp-hr for
the 1979 through 1987 6V92TA engines and is also certified as available
to all operators for no more than the applicable life cycle cost. If no
other equipment is certified in the meantime, the ``post-rebuild''
level would probably be set to this 0.38 level.
Additionally, as noted above, the post-rebuild level for the 1979
through 1987 6V92TA engines has already been established at 0.30 g/bhp-
hr (the Federal Register notice of September 2, 1994), but only for the
first two years of the program. Therefore, if no other equipment is
certified prior to July 1, 1996 to a lower level, and lacking any
compelling reason not to certify this equipment on the basis of cost/
[[Page 8277]]
availability, then it would not be consistent with the Federal Register
notice of September 2, 1994 to establish the post-rebuild level higher
than 0.30 g/bhp-hr.
II. Information Concerning Cost and Availability
By a notification of intent to certify signed March 16, 1995, and
with cover letter dated April 11, 1995, Detroit Diesel Corporation
(DDC) applied for certification of equipment applicable to its 6V92TA
model engines having mechanical unit injectors (MUI) that were
originally manufactured between January 1979 and December 1989. The
effective date of certification of that DDC equipment was established
in the Federal Register on October 2, 1995 (60 FR 51472). That
certification is currently based on reduction in particulate matter
(PM) of 25 per cent or more. DDC, in its notification of intent to
certify, requests certification on the basis of cost/availability and
guarantees to make the equipment available to all operators for less
than the applicable life cycle ceiling (hereinafter referred to as
``cost/availability''). As stated in the Federal Register notice of
October 2, 1995, however, the Agency saw no advantage to such
certification at that time because the emission standard had been
triggered earlier by certification of other equipment. As explained
above, the Agency upon reconsideration believes that it may be
beneficial to the program to expand the basis of certification of DDC's
upgrade kit to include the basis of cost/availability.
In its notification, DDC states that the equipment will be offered
to all affected urban bus operators for a maximum purchase price of
$5,562, and has submitted life cycle cost information. DDC claims that
the life cycle cost is less than $2,000 (1992 dollars) incremental to
the cost for a standard rebuild. DDC claims that the only incremental
cost, compared to a standard rebuild, is the cost of a blower by-pass
valve assembly, which DDC states has a suggested price of $97.36 if
purchased separately. DDC indicates that there is no incremental
installation cost, fuel cost, or maintenance cost compared to that
related to a standard engine overhaul.
In addition to its initial request in its notification of intent to
certify, DDC re-iterated its request that this equipment be certified
on the basis of cost/availability in a letter to the Agency dated
December 15, 1995, and provided updated information concerning transit
pricing level. DDC indicates that the suggested transit list price of
the upgrade kit is less than the suggested list price of the individual
components, if purchased separately, that are currently replaced or
reworked during a standard rebuild. In other words, all of the
components of their upgrade kit, with exception of the blower by-pass
valve assembly, are non-incremental to a ``standard'' rebuild. Other
new information in the docket include a summary of a survey conducted
by the American Public Transit Association (APTA) on engine rebuilding
practices.
Several public comments concerning cost/availability were received
in response to DDC's notification. The following is a summary of the
comments, along with the Agency's response, as appropriate:
The People Moving Company of the Greater Bridgeport Transit
District states that thirteen of its engines have been rebuilt using
DDC's low-emission rebuild kits, and their experience has been
positive. They support DDC's claim that the kits provide better fuel
economy.
The Muncie Indiana Transit System comments that the DDC kit exceeds
the life cycle cost ceiling and does not contain all parts to rebuild
an engine, such as rod and main bearings. Muncie, however, does not
provide any detailed information to support its claim concerning costs.
The comment that the kit does not contain all of the parts necessary to
rebuild an engine, may be correct. However, there is no requirement
that every part necessary to rebuild an engine be included with
equipment certified under the program. The life cycle cost ceiling is
meant to reflect costs of certified equipment which are incremental to
costs of a standard rebuild. In particular, section 85.1403(b)(2)
states that the purchase price of retrofit/rebuild equipment excludes
equipment costs incurred for a standard rebuild. Therefore, to the
extent that a component (such as a bearing) is replaced in a standard
rebuild, it is not necessary to include the component as part of the
certified upgrade kit, or to include its cost in the purchase price of
the kit.
Muncie also questions whether tune-ups and related emissions-
affecting parts are considered warranty items. The emissions
performance and defect warranties, required pursuant to section
85.1409, apply to all parts of the certified equipment described in
DDC's notification of intent to certify, for the mileage intervals
specified in section 85.1409. In its notification, DDC states that the
scheduled maintenance and parts necessary to perform the scheduled
maintenance are identical before and after rebuild and, therefore,
there are no incremental maintenance costs involved.
The Engelhard Corporation provides in-depth comments concerning the
life cycle costs. Engelhard states that the DDC upgrade kit will exceed
the life cycle cost ceiling, and notes three areas that DDC has not
addressed in its life cycle cost analysis. First, Engelhard indicates
that an engine must be removed from a bus in order to install the
components of the DDC upgrade kit, which would require additional labor
hours over an in-frame overhaul. Second, Engelhard states that the DDC
kit contains additional components which are not typically replaced
during an in-frame overhaul, including camshafts, turbocharger,
rollers, injectors, heads, and valves. Third, Engelhard notes that
transit operators commonly use aftermarket components which are priced
substantially less than DDC components.
With regard to Engelhard's first concern, the preamble to the final
rulemaking (April 21, 1993, 58 FR 21367) is clear--the certifier may
assume that the engine is removed from the coach during a standard
rebuild. It is therefore not necessary for DDC to include cost related
to removing an engine for installation of the DDC upgrade kit. Second,
the Agency believes that the parts, which Engelhard refers to as
``additional'' and not typically replaced during an in-frame overhaul,
are emission-related components. The Agency believes that it is not
unreasonable to include emission-related components in a kit because it
provides assurance that engines so rebuilt will result in a known
condition and a known engine emissions configuration, both of which are
important to in-use emissions performance. Further, DDC indicates that
all of the parts in its kit, with exception of the blower bypass valve
assembly, are normally replaced at engine overhaul.
Third, the cost differential related to use of aftermarket parts is
addressed by a cost analysis presented by Engelhard. Engelhard provides
an analysis of the cost of a rebuild using aftermarket parts, and
compares it to the purchase price of the DDC kit added to the cost of
the labor required to remove and install an engine. This comparison
indicates that the difference in costs is greater than the life cycle
cost ceiling of $2,000. The Agency notes, however, that when the engine
removal/installation costs are not included pursuant to the above
discussion, the cost differential is less than $2,000. Therefore, this
data does not substantiate Engelhard's claim that the life cycle cost
ceiling is exceeded.
[[Page 8278]]
Copies of the DDC notification, DDC's letter to the Agency dated
December 15, 1995, the summary of the APTA survey, and public comments
are available for review in the public docket located at the address
indicated above.
Today's Federal Register notice announces that information is
available for public review and comment, and initiates a 45-day period
during which comments can be submitted. The Agency will review this
information, as well as comments received, to determine whether
certification of the DDC equipment should be expanded to include the
basis of cost/availability. If the Agency expands the certification of
this equipment to include the basis of cost/availability, then the
certification emission levels of the equipment will be considered by
the Agency when it establishes final post-rebuild levels as required
pursuant to 85.1403(c)(1)(iii). DDC's upgrade kit is certified to
emission levels of 0.30 g/bhp-hr for 1979 through 1987 model year
6V92TA MUI engines, and 0.23 g/bhp-hr for 1988 and 1989 model year
6V92TA MUI engines. If either or both of those certification levels are
established as post-rebuild values, then operators complying with
compliance program 2 would use such levels, as appropriate, in
calculations for determining fleet target emissions for 1998 and
thereafter.
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 the cost/
availability requirements of Sec. 85.1403(b)(2) and Sec. 85.1407(a)(2),
including whether the data provided by DDC complies with the life cycle
cost requirements.
The Agency requests that those commenting also consider the
regulatory requirements, plus provide comments on experience and/or
knowledge related to rebuilding DDC 6V92TA MUI engines, including the
specific parts, respective frequency of usage in rebuilds, and costs.
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 DDC 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 the cost information related to the
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: February 23, 1996.
Richard Wilson,
Acting Assistant Administrator for Air and Radiation.
[FR Doc. 96-4954 Filed 3-1-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
