Retrofit/Rebuild Requirements for 1993 and Earlier Model Year Urban Buses; Additional Update of Post-Rebuild Emission Levels in 1997

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 85

[FRL-5649-4]

Retrofit/Rebuild Requirements for 1993 and Earlier Model Year

Urban Buses; Additional Update of Post-Rebuild Emission Levels in 1997

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: Today's notice of proposed rulemaking describes proposed

amendments to the current regulations regarding EPA's Urban Bus

Retrofit/Rebuild Program. Today's proposed rule would allow one

additional year for equipment manufacturers to certify equipment that

might influence compliance under Option 2 of the program. Such a

revision will remove the incentive to switch compliance options by

guaranteeing the two options remain equivalent, as EPA originally

intended. In the absence of such a revision to the program regulations,

the two compliance options will not remain equivalent as EPA intended,

and urban buses may not be utilizing the ``best retrofit technology * *

* reasonably achievable'' as Congress required. In addition, urban

areas, many of which are not in compliance with National Ambient Air

Quality Standards (NAAQS) for PM, will not realize the full PM benefits

of this program.

DATES: Written comments on this proposal will be accepted until

December 12, 1996, or 30 days after the date of a public hearing, if

one is held.

EPA will hold a public hearing on this proposal on December 6, 1996

if it receives a request by November 22, 1996. EPA will cancel this

hearing if no one requests to testify. Members of the public should

call the contact person indicated below to notify EPA of their interest

in testifying at the hearing. Interested parties may call the contact

person to determine whether the hearing will be held.

Further information on the public hearing and the submission of

comments can be found under ``Public Participation'' in the

Supplementary Information'' section of today's document.

ADDRESSES: Interested parties may submit written comments (in

duplicate, if possible) to Public Docket No. A-91-28 (Category VII) at

the address listed below.

Interested parties may contact the person listed in FOR FURTHER

INFORMATION CONTACT to determine the time and location of the public

hearing, if one is requested. A court reporter will be present to make

a written transcript of the proceedings and a copy will be placed in

the public docket following the hearing.

Materials relevant to this proposed rulemaking are contained in

Public Docket A-91-28 (Category VII). This docket is located in room M-

1500, Waterside Mall (Ground Floor), U.S. Environmental Protection

Agency, 401 M Street SW, Washington, D.C. 20460. Dockets may be

inspected from 8 a.m. until 5:30 p.m., Monday through Friday. As

provided in 40 CFR Part 2, a reasonable fee may be charged by the EPA

for copying docket materials.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Tom Stricker, Engine Programs and

Compliance Division (6403-J), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 401

M Street SW, Washington, D.C. 20460. Telephone: (202) 233-9322.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Regulated Entities

Entities potentially regulated by this proposed action consist of

the same entities currently regulated by existing Retrofit/Rebuild

Requirements of 40 CFR Part 85, Subpart O, and include urban transit

operators in Metropolitan Statistical Areas (MSA's) and Consolidated

Metropolitan Statistical Areas (CMSA's) with 1980 populations of

750,000 or more, and equipment manufacturers who voluntarily seek

equipment certification pursuant to the program regulations. Regulated

categories and entities include:

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Category Examples of regulated entities

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Industry............................. Equipment manufacturers who

voluntarily seek equipment

certification pursuant to the

program regulations.

Transit operators.................... Transit bus operators in

Metropolitan Statistical Areas

(MSA's) and Consolidated

Metropolitan Statistical Areas

(CMSA's) with 1980 populations

of 750,000 or more, who operate

1993 and earlier model year

urban buses, or who rebuild or

replace such bus engines.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 58023]]

This table is not meant to be exhaustive, but rather provides a

guide for readers regarding entities likely to be regulated by this

action. This table lists the type of entities that EPA is now aware

could potentially be regulated by this action. Other types of entities

not listed in the table could also be regulated. To determine whether

your facility or company is regulated by this action, you carefully

examine the existing urban bus retrofit/rebuild regulations contained

in 40 CFR Part 85, Subpart O, and the preamble to the final rule (58 FR

21359, April 23, 1993). If you have any questions regarding the

applicability of this action to a particular entity, consult the person

listed in the preceding FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section.

I. Introduction

Section 219(d) of the Clean Air Act requires EPA to promulgate

regulations that require certain 1993 and earlier model year urban

buses, having engines which are replaced or rebuilt after January 1,

1995, to comply with an emission standard or control technology

reflecting the best retrofit technology and maintenance practices

reasonably achievable.

On April 21, 1993, EPA published final Retrofit/Rebuild

Requirements for 1993 and Earlier Model Year Urban Buses (58 FR 21359).

The Urban Bus Retrofit/Rebuild Program requires affected operators of

urban buses to choose between two compliance options. Option 1

establishes particulate matter (PM) emissions requirements for each

urban bus in an operator's fleet whose engine is rebuilt or replaced.

Option 2 is a fleet averaging program that sets out specific annual

target levels for average PM emissions from urban buses in an

operator's fleet. The two compliance options are designed to yield

equivalent emissions reductions for approximately the same cost.

In the final rule, EPA stated that it would review the retrofit/

rebuild equipment that was certified by July 1, 1994, and again by July

1, 1996, and publish the post-rebuild PM emission levels for urban bus

engines affected by the program. These post-rebuild levels are to be

used by transit operators choosing to comply with Option 2 for

calculating their fleet emission levels. In two previous Federal

Register notices (59 FR 45626, September 2, 1994, and 60 FR 42763,

August 16, 1996), EPA published post-rebuild PM levels based on

equipment that was certified as of these two dates. Today's notice

proposes, as described below, that EPA review certified equipment for a

third time and publish the post-rebuild PM emissions levels

accordingly, based on equipment certified as of July 1, 1997.

II. Background

A. Compliance Options

EPA promulgated the final rule regarding the Urban Bus Retrofit/

Rebuild Program on April 23, 1993 (58 FR 21359). In short, the rule

requires operators of 1993 and earlier model year urban buses, in MSA's

and CMSA's with a 1980 population of 750,000 or more, to comply with

one of two program options.

Option 1 is a performance based program requiring that affected

urban buses meet a 0.10 g/bhp-hr PM standard at the time of engine

rebuild or replacement, if equipment has been certified by EPA for six

months as meeting the 0.10 g/bhp-hr standard for less than a life cycle

cost limit of $7,940 (in 1992 dollars). (EPA chose to allow a six month

lead time before requiring such equipment to allow transit operators to

plan their budgeting and procurement activities, and to help ensure an

adequate supply of parts are available from equipment manufacturers.)

If equipment is not certified as meeting the 0.10 g/bhp-hr standard for

under the life cycle cost limit, then affected buses must receive

equipment which reduces PM emissions by 25 percent, if such equipment

has been certified by EPA for six months as meeting the 25 percent

reduction standard for less than a life cycle cost limit of $2,000 (in

1992 dollars). If no equipment is certified to meet either the 0.10 g/

bhp-hr standard, or the 25 percent reduction standard, then the

affected bus engine must be rebuilt to the original engine

configuration, or to an engine configuration certified to have a PM

level lower than that of the original engine.

Option 2 is an averaging based program requiring that affected

urban bus operators meet an annual average fleet PM level, rather than

requiring that each individual rebuilt engine meet a specific PM level.

The transit operator must reduce PM emission from its buses to a level

low enough to meet an annual average target level for the fleet (TLF).

The TLF is calculated for each calendar year of the program, beginning

in calendar year 1996, and is based on EPA's determination of the

projected PM emission level for each engine model in the affected

fleet, and on assumed engine rebuild and retirement schedules. The

actual fleet level attained (FLA) must remain equal to, or below, the

TLF for each year of the program. The FLA is a fleet weighted average

PM level based on the ``actual'' PM level of each affected engine. The

``actual'' PM level of each affected engine is determined by the PM

certification level of the equipment used to retrofit the engine. If no

retrofit equipment is installed on the engine, or if no retrofit

equipment is certified for the engine, then the PM level is based on

EPA's determination of the projected PM emission level for the engine

model.

EPA established the pre-rebuild PM levels for each engine model in

the final rule. The pre-rebuild PM level for an engine model is based

on new-engine certification data, if available, for that engine model.

Otherwise, the level is based on EPA's estimate of such emissions based

on data from similar engine models. In addition, EPA projected post-

rebuild PM levels for each engine model based on the expectation that

retrofit equipment would be certified for certain engine models and

would achieve certain reductions. EPA recognized that these projections

may not accurately reflect future equipment certification, and that

transit operators may not be able to comply if the TLF were based on

unrealistic PM levels. Therefore, the final rule contained requirements

that EPA revise the post-rebuild PM levels based on equipment that was

actually certified.

When determining when it would revise the post-rebuild PM levels,

EPA considered several factors. First, EPA had to estimate the time

frame during which equipment manufacturers would likely certify

equipment for this program. For example, revising the post-rebuild PM

levels in 1995, and again in 1999, would be meaningless if

certification activity ceased in 1994. Second, EPA wanted to ensure

that Option 2 remained comparable in terms of cost, lead time, and

emissions benefit, to Option 1. Third, EPA wanted to ensure Option 2

remained a workable and feasible compliance option.

EPA assumed that certification activity under this program would

likely be completed by 1996. The retrofit program only affects 1993 and

earlier model year urban buses, which will only be in operation until

around 2008. In order to recuperate development costs, EPA expected

equipment manufacturers to certify equipment as early as possible, and

for the most popular engine models. In fact, some retrofit kits already

existed and were in use prior to the publication of the final rule, and

EPA expected those equipment manufacturers to seek certification

immediately after the rule was published.

With early certification activity expected, a revision of post-

rebuild PM

[[Page 58024]]

levels prior to the start of the program (January 1, 1995) was

determined appropriate. In addition, with certification activity

expected to be completed by 1996, a second revision of the post-rebuild

levels in mid-1996 was also determined appropriate. Limiting the number

of revisions to the post-rebuild PM levels was important to provide

stability in the averaging program and make it a viable compliance

option. Having more than two revisions could lead to a ``moving

target'' for transit operators. Selection of the specific dates for the

two revisions is discussed below.

Under Option 1, transit operators are not required to use equipment

until six months after it is certified as meeting both emissions and

cost requirements. This lead time is vital to transit operators to

effectively plan their budgeting and procurement activities. Similarly,

under Option 2, EPA believes six months of lead time are also

appropriate. As a result, EPA determined that the first revision of

post-rebuild PM levels would be based on equipment certified as of July

1, 1994. This date would allow inclusion of equipment certified early,

and would also allow Option 2 transit operators six months prior to the

program start date to plan their budgeting and procurement activities

in order to meet the TLF for 1996 (TLF96). (Although the first TLF

calculation for Option 2 is effective for calendar 1996 (TLF96),

transit operators will likely take actions beginning January 1, 1995 to

ensure compliance with TLF96 on January 1, 1996.) EPA determined

the second (and final) revision to post-rebuild PM levels would be

based on equipment certified as of July 1, 1996.

This date would allow six months of lead time for transit operators

to plan their budgeting and procurement activities in order to meet

TLF98. (Again, transit operators will likely take actions

beginning January 1, 1997 to ensure compliance with TLF98 on

January 1, 1998). In addition, by revising the post-rebuild PM levels

after certification activity was complete, EPA could be assured that

buses would be using the ``best retrofit technology * * * reasonably

achievable'' as Congress required.1

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\1\ Clean Air Act Section 219(d), 42 U.S.C. 7554(d).

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

In addition to the timing of the post-rebuild PM level revisions,

EPA was also concerned about the content of the revisions. From an

environmental standpoint, the lowest PM level certified for an engine

model would be the most desirable post-rebuild PM level to include in

the revision. However, low emitting technologies could be quite costly.

Under Option 1, transit operators are not required to use technology

unless it can meet certain cost limits. In order to maintain equity

between Option 1 and Option 2 programs, the final rule requires that

certified equipment must meet the life cycle cost limits of Option 1 in

order to be considered for inclusion in the Option 2 revisions of post-

rebuild PM levels. Among the certified equipment that meets the Option

1 cost limits, the numerically lowest PM certification level for a

given engine model will establish the revised post-rebuild PM level for

that engine model.

Default provisions were also included in the final rule in the

event equipment meeting cost limits were not certified.

B. Current Status of Program

Certification activity under the retrofit program has lagged

substantially behind the schedule anticipated by EPA. In fact, when EPA

published revised post-rebuild levels based on equipment certified as

of July 1, 1994 (59 FR 45626, September 2, 1994), no equipment had been

certified. That revision included no updated post-rebuild PM levels,

but instead is based on default provisions of the final rule (40 CFR

85.1403(c)(1)(iii)(B)(5)). The first approval of a certification for

this program occurred on May 31, 1995 (60 FR 28402), almost a year

after the post-rebuild levels were revised the first time. Although six

retrofit kits have been certified by EPA as of August 1996, no

equipment has been certified as meeting the 0.10 g/bhp-hr PM standard

for under the life cycle cost limit of $7,940 (in 1992 dollars).

Therefore,the recent revision to the post-rebuild PM levels were based

on 25 percent reduction equipment, or on no equipment (for those engine

models for which no equipment was certified as meeting emissions and

cost requirements).

Not only has EPA's assumption that certification activity would

begin early proven incorrect, but more importantly, EPA's assumption

that certification activity would be complete by mid-1996 has proven

incorrect. EPA is currently processing several applications for

certification, including one aimed at meeting the 0.10 g/bhp-hr PM

standard for less than the life cycle cost limit of $7,940 (in 1992

dollars). Several more equipment manufacturers have made initial

contact with EPA regarding certification of equipment, including

additional technologies aimed at meeting the 0.10 g/bhp-hr standard.

Consistent with the current program regulations, none of the

potentially promising retrofit technologies certified after the July 1,

1996 final post-rebuild PM level revision can influence compliance

under Option 2.

C. Potential Inequity Between Compliance Options

As discussed above, technologies certified after the final post-

rebuild PM revision of July 1996 cannot influence compliance under

Option 2. In other words, under the current regulations, transit

operators choosing to comply with Option 2 would never be required to

reduce their fleet PM levels below those PM levels contained in the

recent post-rebuild level revision based on equipment certified as of

July 1, 1996. However, consistent with the final program regulations,

transit operators choosing to comply with Option 1 would be required to

use equipment certified to the 0.10 g/bhp-hr standard, even if the

standard is triggered after July 1, 1996. The result is that Option 1

could become a much more stringent compliance option. Given the level

of current certification activity, and the continued interest from

equipment manufacturers, eventual certification of a 0.10 g/bhp-hr

technology, and thus the likelihood of program inequity, is likely.

As discussed above, EPA intended the two compliance options to be

equivalent in terms of cost, emissions reduction and lead time.

However, future certification of technology which triggers the 0.10 g/

bhp-hr standard could result in Option 2 being much less costly than

Option 1. Further, Option 1 would yield significantly more PM

reductions. The root cause of this inequity is that equipment

certification activity will continue longer than originally

anticipated. If the current program regulations are not amended, then

transit operators, the majority of whom EPA currently believes are

complying with Option 1, will have a great incentive to switch to

Option 2. Obviously, PM reductions would be significantly reduced in

those cities where transit operators switch to Option 2. Furthermore,

such a loophole is in direct conflict with the Clean Air Act language

that urban buses use the ``best retrofit technology * * * reasonably

achievable''.

III. Description of Today's Proposal

EPA is proposing to amend the current program regulations to

include an additional revision of post-rebuild PM levels based on

equipment certified as of July 1, 1997. EPA is currently in receipt of

one equipment certification application intended to meet the 0.10 g/

bhp-hr standard for less than the life cycle cost limit of $7,940 (in

1992

[[Page 58025]]

dollars), and expects to receive more in the near future. As such, one

additional year is expected to allow ample time for equipment

manufacturers to certify 0.10 g/bhp-hr technology for those engine

models for which equipment could reasonably be certified.

The purpose and effect of today's proposed action is simple and

straightforward. First, the purpose of today's proposal is to close an

unintended compliance loophole in the original regulations. Unless EPA

amends the current regulations, certification of a 0.10 g/bhp-hr

technology which meets cost limits will likely cause eligible transit

operators choosing to comply with Option 1 to switch to Option 2 to

avoid potentially high equipment costs. Under this scenario, a mass-

switch to Option 2 will result in PM reductions which fall short of

those expected from this program, and would negate the benefits of

certifying the 0.10 g/bhp-hr technology. However, if post-rebuild PM

levels are revised in mid-1997 to include any eligible 0.10 g/bhp-hr

technology, there will be no incentive for transit operators to switch

to Option 2. If 0.10 g/bhp-hr is included in the revised post-rebuild

PM levels, the Option 2 TLF for future calendar years will be

substantially reduced, effectively requiring Option 2 transit operators

to use 0.10 g/bhp-hr technology or retire a substantial number of buses

early in order to comply with the TLF. In effect, both Option 1 and

Option 2 would require the use low-emitting technology.

EPA believes today's proposal is consistent with intent of the

original regulations and with the intent of Congress. As discussed

above, EPA originally intended Option 1 and Option 2 to be equivalent

in terms of emissions reductions, costs, lead time, and stability.

Moreover, this proposed revision would ensure that EPA's requirements

reflect the ``best retrofit technology and maintenance practice

reasonably achieveable'' as required under section 219(d) and intended

by EPA's initial regulations.

Clearly, failure to amend the regulations as proposed will result

in vastly differing PM reductions between the options as transit

operators using Option 2 will avoid using low-emitting technology. On

the contrary, amending the regulations as proposed will result in both

options essentially requiring the use of low-emitting technology, and

should result in similar PM reductions.

Regarding costs, EPA originally intended that the cost of the two

options be comparable, such that both options were truly viable choices

for transit operators. Today's proposal will ensure that the two

options remain consistent in terms of cost. Note that today's proposal

does not result in any additional costs to transit operators not

previously contemplated in the original rulemaking. EPA is not

proposing any changes to the life cycle cost requirements or the

requirement to use certified equipment.

Today's proposal does not change the six month lead time that

transit operators would be allowed to plan their budgeting and

procurement strategies. EPA is proposing to base the final revision of

post-rebuild PM levels on equipment certified as of July 1, 1997, which

is six months prior to the date on which transit operators would likely

begin taking actions to ensure compliance with TLF99.

Finally, regarding program stability, EPA believes today's proposal

is consistent with the original regulations, and in addition, provides

further stability beyond the original regulations. EPA originally

limited the number of post-rebuild PM level revisions to two in order

to avoid a ``moving target'' for transit operators. Too much

instability would likely discourage transit operators from considering

Option 2 as a viable compliance option. As discussed previously in

today's notice, EPA determined that revisions of post-rebuild PM levels

would be based on equipment certified as of July 1, 1994, and again as

of July 1, 1996. The primary reason these dates were determined

appropriate at the time of the original rulemaking is that EPA believed

equipment certification would begin as soon as the final rule was

published on April 23, 1993, and would be completed by mid-1996.

Discussions with industry and comments from the public gave no

indication that certification activity would not follow this assumed

schedule. In fact, retrofit kits already existed and were being used by

transit operators when the final rule was published.

For a variety of reasons, certification activity has lagged behind

the schedule anticipated by EPA, so much so that no equipment had been

certified as of July 1, 1994. The first revision of post-rebuild PM

levels resulted in no revision at all. The recent revision based on

equipment certified as of July 1, 1996 did contain several updated

post-rebuild PM levels. In effect, adding a third revision based on

equipment certified as of July 1, 1997 would be just the second

revision of any substance. In this regard, the stability of Option 2 is

still maintained as EPA originally intended. Furthermore, EPA expects

that option switching that might occur without an additional post-

rebuild PM level revision could be more disruptive to program stability

than today's proposal.

EPA believes today's proposed action is consistent with Congress'

intent that urban buses utilize the ``best retrofit technology * * *

reasonably achievable.'' Clearly, low-emitting equipment such as

equipment which meets a 0.10 g/bhp-hr standard would represent the best

retrofit technology. The fact that transit operators will only be

required to use such equipment if it meets certain life cycle cost

limits means that such equipment will be reasonably achievable. The

fact that EPA miscalculated the time table on which low emitting

technology would be developed by a year or less does not itself imply

that such technology is not reasonably achievable.

EPA solicits comments on this proposal and its effect on the Urban

Bus Retrofit/Rebuild Program, transit operators and equipment

manufacturers. In particular, EPA solicits comments on the need to add

a third revision of post-rebuild PM levels, the timing of a third

revision, the consistency of today's proposal with the original

regulations, the need to address the potential compliance loophole that

may exist, how to ensure the same compliance loophole issue addressed

by today's proposal does not happen again in the future, and any other

aspects of the proposed action.

IV. Environmental Impact

The environmental impacts expected to result from the retrofit/

rebuild program are outlined in the final Regulatory Support Document

(RSD) for the original rulemaking and can be found in public docket A-

91-28 (see ADDRESSES section above). Today's proposed action would not

result in any additional emissions reductions beyond those outlined in

the RSD. However, today's action would help ensure these expected

reductions are actually achieved by closing an unintended compliance

loophole. If transit operators are allowed to take advantage of the

potential loophole in the current program, PM reductions will not be

achieved at the level EPA originally anticipated. In addition, to the

extent that transit operators can avoid installing low-emitting

technology on buses, such buses will not reflect the ``best retrofit

technology * * * reasonably achievable'' as Congress required.

V. Economic Impact

Today's proposed action would have no additional economic impact

compared to the economic impact

[[Page 58026]]

described in original regulations finalized on April 23, 1993. While

failure to take the proposed action could result in reduced costs for

those transit operators who could take advantage of the loophole, no

additional costs unaccounted for in the original regulations would be

imposed on any transit operators as a result of today's proposed

action. The costs associated with this program have already been

determined to be reasonable and the program to be cost-effective.

VI. Public Participation

A. Comments and the Public Docket

EPA solicits comments on all aspects of this proposal from all

interested parties since it is our desire to ensure full public

participation in arriving at final decisions. Wherever applicable,

complete supporting data and analyses should be submitted to allow EPA

to make the maximum use of comments. Commenters are encouraged to

provide specific suggestions for changes to any of the proposal. All

comments should be directed to the EPA Air Docket No. A-91-28 (Category

VII) (See ADDRESSES).

B. Public Hearing

EPA will hold a public hearing on this proposal on December 6, 1996

if it receives a request by November 22, 1996. EPA will cancel this

hearing if no one requests to testify. Members of the public should

call the contact person indicated above to notify EPA of their interest

in testifying at the hearing. Interested parties may call the contact

person after November 22, 1996 to determine whether the hearing will be

held and the time and location of the hearing.

VII. Administrative Designation and Regulatory Analysis

Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735 (October 4, 1993)), EPA

must determine whether a regulatory action is ``significant'' and

therefore subject to OMB review and the requirements of the executive

order. The order defines ``significant regulatory action'' as one that

is likely to result in a rule that may:

(1) Have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more or

adversely affect in a material way the economy, a sector, the economy,

productivity, competition, jobs, the environment, public health or

safety, or State, local, or tribal governments or communities;

(2) Create a serious inconsistency or otherwise interfere with an

action taken or planned by another agency;

(3) Materially alter the budgetary impact of entitlement, grants,

user fees, or loan programs or the rights and obligations of recipients

thereof;

(4) Raise novel legal policy issues arising out of legal mandate,

the President's priorities, or the principles set forth in the order.

EPA has determined that this rule is not a ``significant regulatory

action'' under the terms of Executive Order 12866 and is therefore not

subject to OMB review.

VIII. Impact on Small Entities

The Regulatory Flexibility Act requires Federal agencies to

consider potentially adverse impacts of proposed federal regulations

upon small entities. In instances where significant impacts are

possible on a substantial number of these entities, agencies perform a

proposed Regulatory Flexibility Analysis.

I certify that there will not be a significant adverse impact on a

substantial number of small business entities due to the proposed

revision of the urban bus retrofit/rebuild program. The urban bus

operators affected by the program regulations are generally not small

businesses. In addition, EPA determined the original regulations

relating to the urban bus retrofit/rebuild program did not have an

adverse impact on a substantial number of small entities. Today's

proposed revision does not impose any new costs above those included in

the original rulemaking. Today's action will affect only a few

businesses using the retrofit fleet averaging program and will likely

have an effect solely on a small portion of the businesses' fleet.

There may be benefit to those small business entities that manufacture

retrofit/rebuild equipment, since urban bus operators may be required

to use such equipment.

IX. Reporting and Recordkeeping Requirements

Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.,

EPA must obtain OMB clearance for any activity that will involve

collecting substantially the same information from 10 or more non-

Federal respondents. The regulatory revisions proposed in today's

notice do not include any provisions for the collection of information

from non-Federal respondents.

X. Unfunded Mandates Act

Section 202 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (signed

into law on March 22, 1995) requites that EPA prepare a budgetary

impact statement before promulgating a rule that includes a Federal

mandate that may result in expenditure by State, local, and tribal

governments, in aggregate, or by the private sector, of $100 million or

more in any one year. Section of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

requires EPA to establish a plan for obtaining input from and

informing, educating and advising any small governments that may be

significantly or uniquely affected by the rule.

Under section 205 of the Unfunded Mandates Act EPA, must identify

and consider a reasonable number of regulatory alternatives before

promulgating a rule for which a budgetary impact statement must be

prepared. EPA must select from those alternatives the least costly,

most costly, most cost effective, or least burdensome alternative that

achieves the objectives of the rule, unless EPA explains why this

alternative is not selected or the selection of this alternative is

inconsistant with law.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 85

Environmental protection, Imports, Labeling, Motor vehicle

pollution, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Research,

Warranties.

Dated: November 1, 1996.

Carol M. Browner,

Administrator.

For the purposes set out in the preamble, part 85 of title 40,

chapter I of the Code of Federal Regulations is proposed to be amended

as follows:

PART 85--[AMENDED]

1. The authority citation for part 85 is revised to read as

follows:

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401-7671q.

Subpart O--[Amended]

2. Section 85.1403 is proposed to be amended by revising paragraph

(c)(1)(iii)(C) and adding paragraph (c)(1)(iii)(D) to read as follows:

Sec. 85.1403 Particulate standard for pre-1994 model year urban buses

effective at time of engine rebuild or engine replacement.

* * * * *

(c) * * *

(1) * * *

(iii) * * *

(C) For TLF calculations for calendar year 1998, post-rebuild

particulate emission levels for a specific engine model shall be equal

to the following:

(1) 0.10 g/bhp-hr, for any engine model (other than those indicated

in paragraph (c)(1)(iii)(C)(4) of this section) for which equipment has

been certified by July 1, 1996 as meeting the emission and cost

requirements of paragraph (b)(1) of this section for all affected urban

bus operators;

[[Page 58027]]

(2) For any engine model for which no equipment has been certified

by July 1, 1996 as meeting the requirements of paragraph (b)(1) of this

section for all affected urban bus operators, but for which equipment

has been certified by July 1, 1996 as meeting the emission and cost

requirements of paragraph (b)(2) of this section for all affected urban

bus operators, the post-rebuild particulate emission level shall equal

the lowest emission level (greater than or equal to 0.10 g/bhp-hr)

certified for any such equipment;

(3) For any engine model for which no equipment has been certified

by July 1, 1996 as meeting the requirements of either paragraph (b)(1)

or paragraph (b)(2) of this section, the post-rebuild particulate

emission level shall equal the pre-rebuild particulate level;

(4) For any engine model with a pre-rebuild particulate level below

0.10 g/bhp-hr, the post-rebuild particulate emission level shall equal

the pre-rebuild particulate level; and

(5) Notwithstanding paragraph (c)(1)(iii)(C)(3) of this section, if

by July 1, 1996, no equipment has been certified to meet the emission

requirements of paragraph (b)(1) or paragraph (b)(2) of this section

for any of the engine models listed in the table at paragraph

(c)(1)(iii)(A) of this section, then the post-rebuild particulate

levels shall be the pre-rebuild particulate levels specified in the

table at paragraph (c)(1)(iii)(A) of this section.

(D) For TLF calculations for calendar year 1999 and thereafter,

post-rebuild particulate emission levels for a specific engine model

shall be equal to the following:

(1) 0.10 g/bhp-hr, for any engine model for which equipment has

been certified by July 1, 1997 as meeting the emission and cost

requirements of paragraph (b)(1) of this section for all affected urban

bus operators;

(2) For any engine model for which no equipment has been certified

by July 1, 1997 as meeting the requirements of paragraph (b)(1) of this

section for all affected urban bus operators, for which equipment has

been certified by July 1, 1997 as meeting the emission and cost

requirements of paragraph (b)(2) of this section for all affected urban

bus operators, the post-rebuild particulate emission level shall equal

the lowest emission level (greater than or equal to 0.10 g/bhp-hr)

certified for any such equipment;

(3) For any engine model for which no equipment has been certified

by July 1, 1997 as meeting the emission and cost requirements of

paragraph (b)(1) or paragraph (b)(2) of this section for all affected

urban bus operators, the post-rebuild particulate emission level shall

equal the pre-rebuild particulate level;

(4) For any engine model with a pre-rebuild particulate level below

0.10 g/bhp-hr, the post-rebuild particulate emission level shall equal

the pre-rebuild particulate level;

(5) Notwithstanding paragraph (c)(1)(iii)(D)(3) of this section, if

by July 1, 1997, no equipment has been certified for any of the engine

models listed in the table at paragraph (c)(1)(iii)(A) of this section,

then the post-rebuild particulate levels shall be as indicated in the

table at paragraph (c)(1)(iii)(A) of this section; and

(6) Notwithstanding paragraph (c)(1)(iii)(D)(3) of this section, if

by July 1, 1997, equipment has been certified to meet the emissions

requirements of paragraph (b)(1) or paragraph (b)(2) of this section

for any of the engine models listed in the table at paragraph

(c)(1)(iii)(A) of this section, but no equipment has been certified by

July 1, 1996 to meet the life-cycle cost requirements of paragraph

(b)(1) or paragraph (b)(2) of this section, then the post-rebuild

particulate levels shall be as specified in the following table:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Post-

Pre-rebuild rebuild PM

Engine model Model year sold PM level level (g/

(g/bhp-hr) bhp-hr)

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

DDC 6V92TA................................... 1979-1987.............................. 0.50 0.30

1988-1989.............................. 0.30 0.30

DDC 6V92TA DDECI............................. 1986-1987.............................. 0.30 0.30

DDC 6V92TA DDECII............................ 1988-1991.............................. 0.31 0.25

1992................................... 0.25 0.25

1993 (no trap)......................... 0.25 0.25

1993 (trap)............................ 0.07 0.07

DDC Series 50................................ 1993................................... 0.16 0.16

DDC 6V71N.................................... 1973-1987.............................. 0.50 0.50

1988-1989.............................. 0.50 0.50

DDC 6V71T.................................... 1985-1986.............................. 0.50 0.50

DDC 8V71N.................................... 1973-1984.............................. 0.50 0.50

DDC 6L71TA................................... 1990................................... 0.59 0.59

1988-1989.............................. 0.31 0.31

DDC 6L71TA DDEC.............................. 1990-1991.............................. 0.30 0.30

Cummins L10.................................. 1985-1987.............................. 0.65 0.46

1988-1989.............................. 0.55 0.46

1990-1991.............................. 0.46 0.46

Cummins L10 EC............................... 1992................................... 0.25 0.25

1993 (trap)............................ 0.05 0.05

Alternatively-fueled Engines................. Pre-1994............................... 0.10 0.10

Other Engines................................ Pre-1988............................... 0.50 0.50

1988-1993.............................. \1\ \1\

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

\1\ Certification level.

[[Page 58028]]

[FR Doc. 96-28732 Filed 11-8-96; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-P