Retrofit/Rebuild Requirements for 1993 and Earlier Model Year
Urban Buses; Public Review of a Notification of Intent To Certify
Equipment
Related Material
[Federal Register: November 20, 1997 (Volume 62, Number 224)]
[Notices]
[Page 62052-62057]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr20no97-88]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
[FRL-5924-7]
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 (EPA).
ACTION: Notice of agency receipt of a notification of intent to certify
equipment and initiation of 45-day public review and comment period.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: NOPEC Corporation has submitted to EPA 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 section 85.1407(a)(7), today's Federal Register
document 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. EPA 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 as discussed below.
The candidate equipment is identical to equipment supplied by Twin
Rivers Technologies, Limited Partnership, and which was previously
certified as described in the Federal Register on October 22, 1996 (61
FR 54790).
The NOPEC notification of intent to certify, as well as other
materials specifically relevant to it, are contained in category XVIII
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 document initiates a 45-day period during which EPA will
accept written comments, as discussed further below, relevant to
whether or not the equipment described in the NOPEC notification of
intent to certify should be certified. Comments should be provided in
writing to Public Docket A-93-42, Category XVIII, 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 5, 1998.
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 XVIII), 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.
[[Page 62053]]
The NOPEC 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 a.m. until
5:30 p.m., Monday through Friday. As provided in 40 CFR part 2, a
reasonable fee may be charged by EPA for copying docket materials.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: William Rutledge, Engine Programs and
Compliance Division (6403J), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 401
M Street S.W., Washington, DC 20460. Telephone: (202) 564-9297.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Program Background
On April 21, 1993, EPA 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: Option 1 establishes
PM emissions requirements for each urban bus engine in an operator's
fleet which is rebuilt or replaced. Option 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 EPA. 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 Option 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 Option 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 Option 1, information
on life cycle costs must be submitted in the notification of intent to
certify if certification of the equipment is intended 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 February 6, 1997,
NOPEC Corporation, with principal place of business at 1248 George
Jenkins Boulevard, Lakeland, Florida 33815, applied for certification
of equipment applicable to certain urban bus engines manufactured by
Detroit Diesel Corporation (DDC).
The NOPEC notification of intent to certify is unique in that the
NOPEC candidate equipment conforms to the specifications of equipment
previously certified by EPA for use in the Urban Bus Retrofit/Rebuild
program. The specifications for the previously-certified equipment,
supplied by Twin Rivers Technologies, Limited Partnership, are public
information and described in a Federal Register document dated October
22, 1996 (61 FR 54790). The October 1996 document provides complete
equipment specifications, including specifications of the biodiesel
component of the certified Twin Rivers' equipment. The NOPEC
notification relies on the same emissions certification data that is
the basis of the Twin Rivers' certification. Both the emissions test
data and biodiesel specification referenced in the NOPEC notification,
are public information. As just noted, the specifications for the
biodiesel was published in the October 1996 document. The testing used
to demonstrate the emissions performance of the Twin Rivers' equipment
was conducted under the auspices of the National Biodiesel Board, which
has indicated in a letter to EPA that the data is in the public domain.
Additionally, as with the Twin Rivers' equipment, the NOPEC equipment
utilizes the same Engelhard exhaust catalyst and, with some
configurations, fuel injection retard.
Today's document will begin a 45-day period during which the public
can review and comment on the candidate equipment and other aspects of
the NOPEC notification. The following is a brief description of the
candidate equipment.
III. Description of Previously-Certified Equipment and Identical
Candidate Equipment
The equipment is applicable to petroleum-fueled Detroit Diesel
Corporation (DDC) two-stroke/cycle engines originally equipped in urban
buses from model year 1979 to model year 1993, excluding the 1990 model
year DDC model 6L71TA engines. The two configurations of the equipment,
described more fully below, are: (1) a biodiesel fuel additive used in
conjunction with an exhaust system catalytic converter muffler; and,
(2) the biodiesel additive and catalytic converter used in conjunction
with a fuel injection timing retard.
The certification announced in the Federal Register document of
October 22, 1996, applies to equipment configurations of B20, catalyst,
and timing retard that comply with specifications described below.
NOPEC intends to comply with identical specifications.
The key component of the equipment is a particular oxidation
catalyst-muffler unit designed to replace the typical noise muffler in
the exhaust system of applicable recipient engines. The particular
catalyst is the CMX'' manufactured by the Engelhard Corporation and
certified for use in the urban bus retrofit/rebuild program on May 31,
1995 (60 FR 28402). The NOPEC equipment must use CMX'' catalyst muffler
units supplied by Engelhard and meeting the specifications covered by
Engelhard's certification of May 31, 1995. EPA requires that use of
catalysts of any other specification, or supplied by any other catalyst
supplier, be the subject of a separate notification of intent to
certify. In a letter to EPA dated February 17, 1997, Engelhard states
that it will notify EPA and NOPEC if the specifications for its
catalyst change. Engelhard's letter is in the public docket. The
technical specifications for the CMX are confidential information
available to EPA.
Another component of the equipment is use of biodiesel provided by
NOPEC as an additive that complies with the specifications below. In
general, biodiesel is an ester-based fuel oxygenate derived from
biological
[[Page 62054]]
sources for use in compression-ignition (that is ``diesel'') engines.
It is the alkyl ester product of the transesterification reaction of
biological triglycerides, or biologically-derived oils. While many
biological oil sources can produce esters through this reaction, the
candidate equipment is limited to the identical specification of the
certification announced in the Federal Register document of October 22,
1996. It will comply with the following specification.
The biodiesel component of the equipment is to be supplied by NOPEC
and must be blended at a nominal 20 percent volume with federally-
required low sulfur diesel fuel (with a maximum sulfur content of 0.05
weight percent). This blend is referred to as ``B20''. The B20 blend is
no less than 19 percent and no more than 21 percent by volume
biodiesel, with the specified diesel. The use of B20 alone (that is,
without the catalyst) is not candidate for certification because
emissions test data is not available which sufficiently demonstrate
that it will reduce PM. The biodiesel component is limited to mono-
alkyl methyl esters meeting the specifications of Table 1 below.
Table 1.--Biodiesel Component Specifications
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Feedstock: Original-use, plant oil sources only
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Composition: Methyl esters of the following carbon chain length:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sum of C16 + C18's.................... 90.5 wt % min...................... Determined by GC.
Fraction < C16........................ 2.0 wt % max....................... Determined by GC.
Fraction > C18........................ 7.5 wt % max....................... Determined by GC.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Blend Ratio: minimum 19 percent and maximum 21 percent by volume biodiesel complying with the above
specifications for feedstock and composition, and the balance federally required low sulfur diesel fuel
complying with 40 CFR Section 80.29.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The biodiesel component of the candidate equipment must comply with
the specifications of Table 1. The biodiesel component of the NOPEC
notification is limited to a nominal B20 blend, and to biodiesel
meeting the specified carbon chain-lengths and consisting of esters
produced from methyl alcohol and feedstocks of original-use plant oil
sources. Because the certification testing was conducted solely using
soy methyl ester, EPA believes that compliance with the carbon chain-
length specifications and the specified blend ratio of Table 1 are
appropriate to provide assurance of the emissions performance. This
specification, including the feedstock and alcohol limitations, is
discussed further in the following section. Consistent with the
previously certified Twin Rivers' equipment, blend ratios less than 19
percent or greater than 21 percent is not part of the NOPEC
notification.
The candidate equipment includes a biodiesel component having a
relatively limited specification. Biodiesel not complying with the
specifications of Table 1, and biodiesel provided or produced by
others, must be certified to be used in compliance with the urban bus
program. Certification by other parties or involving other biodiesel
specifications may be appropriate upon satisfactory compliance with the
requirements of the urban bus program (40 CFR part 85, subpart O).
EPA understands that industry consensus-based fuel specifications
of such physical and fuel properties for biodiesel is being developed
by the American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM), in
cooperation with petroleum, engine, and biodiesel industry interests.
NOPEC states that it will maintain compliance with ASTM specifications
as they evolve.
For certain DDC engines equipped with MUI as indicated in Table 2,
the candidate equipment includes fuel injection timing retard from zero
to four (4) degrees from stock timing. The emission data indicate that
PM is reduced 24.5 percent when timing is retarded four (4) degrees.
While these data do not show 25 percent reduction, EPA believes the
data support certification of retard from zero to three (3) degrees as
providing PM reduction of at least 25 percent on MUI engines. Zero to
three (3) degree range of retard, then, can be used by operators
electing either compliance program 1 or 2 and otherwise in compliance
with program requirements. MUI engines retarded four (4) degrees do not
reduce PM emissions by at least 25 percent and, therefore, can be used
only by operators electing compliance Option 2. Operators electing
compliance program 2 and using any retard, must use the PM
certification level specified in Table 3 for the applicable engine when
calculating fleet emissions averages.
Injection retard on MUI engines is accomplished by adjusting fuel
injector height (for four degrees retard, 0.028 inches is added to the
stock injector timing height).
As discussed in the Federal Register document of October 22, 1996,
analysis indicates that 1990 through 1993 model year Detroit Diesel
Corporation 6V92TA DDEC engines (when using B20 with catalyst) will
exceed applicable federal standards for NO<INF>x</INF> unless timing
retard is used. Therefore, the only configuration for these engines
requires retarding the injection timing one (1) degree. The NOPEC
notification states that one (1) degree retard on these DDEC engines is
accomplished by relocating the reference timing sensor.
IV. Emissions Test Data and Certification Levels
Reductions in PM emissions are demonstrated using engine
dynamometer (transient) testing in accordance with the Federal Test
Procedure for heavy-duty diesel engines. The engine dynamometer data,
the same used previously by Twin Rivers, are shown below in Table 2,
and are the bases for the PM reduction attributed to the candidate
NOPEC equipment when used on applicable engines. The emissions test
data are part of NOPEC's notification of intent to certify. A letter
from the National Biodiesel Board (NBB) states that the emissions data
are in the public domain. All testing was conducted using soy methyl
ester (SME) additive blended with #2 low-sulfur diesel fuel.
Hereinafter, the term B20 is used to mean biodiesel blended at the
ratio of 20 percent by volume with federally required low-sulfur diesel
fuel (with a maximum sulfur content of 0.05 weight percent). The letter
from NBB and NOPEC's notification are available in the public docket
located at the above-mentioned address.
[[Page 62055]]
Table 2.--Test Engine Emissions (Transient Tests)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Gaseous and particulate Smoke
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Comment
HC CO NO<INF>X PM <greek-D>PM ACC LUG PEAK
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Engine:
(3)g/bhp-hr (percent
)
(2)Percent opacity
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1.3 15.5 10.7 0.60 ........... 20 15 50 1988 HDDE Standards.
Engine Dyno:
1977 6V71N MUI \1\............... 0.86 3.18 11.72 0.282 ........... 1.2 1.8 1.8 Baseline (2D).
Do........................... 0.42 1.64 11.72 0.159 -43.6 1.4 2.1 2.1 2D + cat.
Do........................... 0.38 0.86 12.11 0.166 -41.1 0.9 1.7 1.7 B20 \3\ + cat.\4\
Do........................... 0.53 1.37 8.1 0.247 -12.4 4.6 5.4 5.6 2D, cat + 4 deg. retard.
Do........................... 0.42 0.94 8.47 0.213 -24.5 2.2 2.8 2.9 B20, cat + 4 deg. retard.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(3)g/bhp-hr <greek-D
>PM
(percent
)
(2)Percent opacity
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1988 6V92TA DDEC \2\ II.......... 0.60 1.60 8.52 0.20 ........... 6.0 5.3 8.7 Baseline (2D).
Do........................... 0.21 0.95 9.06 0.11 -45.0 3.7 1.7 6.9 B20 + cat.
Do........................... 0.29 1.21 8.18 0.14 -30.0 6.5 2.1 11.6 2D, cat + 1 deg. retard.
Do........................... 0.25 1.05 8.35 0.12 -40.0 5.1 2.5 8 B20, cat + 1 deg. retard.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ MUI = Mechanical Unit Injector.
\2\ DDEC = Detroit Diesel Electronic Control.
\3\ The B20 used is SME blended 20 percent by volume with low-sulfur diesel fuel.
\4\ The data include an invalid cold cycle. See the Federal Register document on October 22, 1996 (61 FR 54790) for discussion.
Table 3 below lists PM certification levels for the equipment.
These levels are determined by applying the PM percentage reductions,
predicted by the test data of Table 2, to the pre-rebuild PM levels
provided in the program regulations [section 85.1403(c)]. The test data
indicate that PM is reduced by 41.1 percent on the MUI engines (24.5
percent with 4 degrees retard) and 45.0 percent on DDEC engines (40.0
percent with 1 degree retard). No configuration of the candidate
equipment is certified for the 6L71TA MUI of model year 1990, because
the MUI test engine was determined not to be a ``worst-case'' test
engine as required by the program regulations at section 85.1406(a)(2).
Table 3.--Equipment Configurations and PM Emissions Levels
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Equipment configuration
Engine model Model year -----------------------------------------------------------------
B20, Cat + stock timing B20, Cat + retard \1\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
6V92TA MUI....................... 79-87 0.29.................................. 0.38 \2\
6V92TA MUI....................... 88-89 0.18.................................. 0.23 \2\
6V92TA DDEC I.................... 86-87 0.16.................................. 0.18
6V92TA DDEC II................... 88-89 0.17.................................. 0.19
6V92TA DDEC II................... 90-91 Not certified......................... 0.19
6V92TA DDEC II................... 92-93 Not certified......................... 0.15
6V71N MUI........................ 73-87 0.29.................................. 0.38 \2\
6V71N MUI........................ 88-89 0.29.................................. 0.38 \2\
6V71T MUI........................ 85-86 0.29.................................. 0.38 \2\
8V71N MUI........................ 73-84 0.29.................................. 0.38 \2\
6L71TA MUI....................... 90 Not certified......................... Not certified
6L71TA MUI....................... 88-89 0.18.................................. 0.23 \2\
6L71TA DDEC...................... 90-91 0.16.................................. 0.18
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Up to and including four (4) degrees fuel injection retard for MUI engines, and one (1) degree retard for
DDEC engines.
\2\ Not certified for compliance program 1.
As discussed in the Federal Register document of October 22, 1996,
the data support a net programmatic benefit from certifying B20 with
the oxidation catalyst, basically because it shows PM reductions
compared with the baseline of conventional (low sulfur) diesel fuel
without an exhaust catalyst. EPA believes that most of the reduction in
PM emissions from the kit is probably attributable to the exhaust
catalyst, although some additional PM emissions reduction is expected
to be realized from addition of biodiesel.
The Federal Register document of October 22, 1996, discussed
limited data provided by Twin Rivers which indicate that engine-out
emissions of unregulated aldehydes may increase when fuel injection
timing is retarded. As stated in that document, it is uncertain whether
there would be an increase in ambient levels of aldehydes or, if there
is an increase, whether it would become irritating to exposed
populations. Operators concerned with the possibility for increased
irritation to exposed populations may want to minimize the potential
for increased ambient levels through management practices. Additional
discussion is provided in the Federal Register document of October 22,
1996.
As stated in the October 1996 Federal Register, EPA is, in general,
concerned when unregulated emissions increase. While EPA has not
conducted a formal health risk analysis associated with the
[[Page 62056]]
above-mentioned increase in unregulated aldehyde emissions, it is
uncertain whether there is any potential for an increased health risk.
In the judgement of the Director of the Engine Programs and Compliance
Division, the increase in emissions does not appear to be significant.
Additionally, EPA believes that certifying the Twin Rivers'
configurations with retarded timing is beneficial, for several reasons.
The configuration of B20, catalyst, and timing retard meet the program
requirement to reduce PM emissions, when compared to the baseline of
neat diesel fuel without catalyst, plus provide a benefit of reduced
emissions of NOX. The Twin Rivers' certification made those
configurations available as options to interested operators.
In summary, while there are uncertainties, in EPA's judgement, the
program benefits and above factors offset these uncertainties.
Therefore, EPA certified the Twin Rivers configurations with retarded
injection timing and proposes to certify the NOPEC equipment likewise.
While unregulated aldehyde emissions data from buses using the
certified Twin Rivers' equipment and the candidate equipment described
in today's Federal Register document are limited, the data indicate
that the directional changes in emissions relative to conventional
diesel are dependent upon the fuel injection timing employed with a
catalyst. If stock timing is used, aldehyde emissions can be expected
to decrease relative to a baseline of conventional diesel without a
catalyst. However, if retarded timing is used, then aldehyde emissions
can be expected to increase relative to the baseline. Transit operators
should be aware that with configurations using retarded timing, there
is a possibility for ambient levels of aldehydes to increase. An
increase in ambient levels is most likely to occur in micro
environments having topographic or construction features (e.g., without
adequate ventilation) that limit ambient dispersion of pollutants, such
as enclosed bus malls or maintenance bays. If there is an increase in
ambient levels, then there may be increased respiratory irritation by
exposed populations. In summary, it is uncertain whether there would be
an increase in ambient levels or, if there is an increase, whether it
would become irritating to exposed populations. Operators concerned
with the possibility may want to minimize the potential for increased
ambient levels through its management practices, such as bus routing,
bus scheduling, and/or mix of emission reduction technologies.
In the October 1996 Federal Register document, EPA stated that it
is interested in gathering additional information on unregulated
aldehyde emissions, and requested the public and industry provide
information with regard to the content of the exhaust of compression-
ignition engines fueled with any blend of biodiesel. Additionally, we
requested operators using the retarded configuration to provide EPA
information on related public complaints or comments, and actions taken
to avert or correct perceived problems. No new information has been
received since that document.
All configurations, that is, the biodiesel additive and catalyst,
are covered by emissions performance and defect warranties offered by
NOPEC described by the urban bus regulations at section 85.1409.
Section 211 of the Clean Air Act establishes fuel and fuel additive
prohibitions, and gives EPA authority to waive certain of those
prohibitions. EPA, however, does not believe that NOPEC 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. EPA
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. EPA'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 EPA certifies the candidate NOPEC equipment, then operators may
use it immediately, as discussed below. NOPEC's notification indicates
that the candidate equipment is to be certified for compliance option
2; however, as discussed below, EPA believes that configurations
utilizing the catalytic muffler and reducing PM by at least 25 percent
may also be used in compliance with some option 1 requirements (that
is, for those particular engines requiring equipment certified to
reduce PM by at least 25 percent). It cannot be used for engines for
which the 0.10 g/bhp-hr standard is triggered.
In a Federal Register document dated May 31, 1995 (60 FR 28402),
EPA certified the CMX<SUP>TM</SUP> exhaust catalyst manufactured by the
Engelhard Corporation, as a trigger of program requirements. Until the
0.10 g/bhp-hr PM standard is triggered, that certification means that
rebuilds and replacements of 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 using equipment
certified to reduce PM emissions by 25 percent or more. Under Option 1,
operators could use the NOPEC equipment if certified to reduce PM by at
least 25 percent, or other equipment certified to provide at least a 25
percent reduction, unless equipment is certified which triggers the
0.10 g/bhp-hr PM standard. The 0.10 g/bhp-hr standard has been
triggered for 6V92TA MUI engines, such that rebuilds or replacements
after September 14, 1997 must be performed using equipment certified to
the 0.10 g/bhp-hr standard. The configuration of B20 blend, Engelhard
catalyst, and injection retard has been demonstrated to comply with the
standard to reduce PM by at least 25 percent, but only when used with
the following engines: 6V92TA DDEC I and DDEC II, and 6L71TA DDEC.
Operators who choose to comply with Option 2 and install the NOPEC
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 NOPEC 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 an urban bus operator by
EPA. 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 the NOPEC notification of
intent to certify, and other materials submitted as applicable, to
determine whether there is adequate
[[Page 62057]]
demonstration of compliance with: (1) the certification requirements of
section 85.1406, including whether the testing accurately substantiates
the claimed emission reduction or emission levels; and, (2) the
requirements of section 85.1407 for a notification of intent to
certify.
EPA 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 document initiates a 45-day period during which
EPA will accept written comments relevant to whether or not the
equipment described in the NOPEC 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.
Additionally, EPA is aware that the biodiesel industry is working
to address other regulatory issues related to the EPA's fuel and fuel
additive requirements under 40 CFR part 79. Today's Federal Register
document applies to the limited context of the urban bus program, and
is not intended to set precedent as a generic definition of
``biodiesel.''
EPA 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, EPA 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: November 13, 1997.
Robert D. Brenner,
Acting Assistant Administrator for Air and Radiation.
[FR Doc. 97-30519 Filed 11-19-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
![[logo] US EPA](https://webarchive.library.unt.edu/eot2008/20090510205422im_/http://www.epa.gov/epafiles/images/logo_epaseal.gif){kind=logo}