Retrofit/Rebuild Requirements for 1993 and Earlier Model Year Urban Buses; Certification of Equipment

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[FRL-6196-5]

Retrofit/Rebuild Requirements for 1993 and Earlier Model Year

Urban Buses; Certification of Equipment

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice of Agency certification of equipment.

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

SUMMARY: EPA received an application dated March 6, 1998 from Johnson

Matthey, Incorporated (JM), for certification of urban bus retrofit/

rebuild equipment pursuant to 40 CFR 85.1401--85.1415. The kit is

identified as the Cam Converter Technology (CCTTM) Upgrade

Kit and applies to Detroit Diesel Corporation's (DDC) 6V92TA model

engines of model years 1985 through 1993 with power ratings of 253 and

277 horsepower and having electronically-controlled fuel injection

(DDEC). Applicable engines include those certified to meet federal and

California emissions standards.

On May 14, 1998, EPA published a notice in the Federal Register (63

FR 26795) that the notification had been received and made the

notification available for public review and comment for a period of 45

days. EPA has completed its review and the Director of the Vehicle

Programs and Compliance Division has determined that it meets the

requirements for certification, conditioned on the terms discussed

below in section IV. The effective date of certification is discussed

below under DATES.

The certified equipment complies with the particulate matter (PM)

standard of 0.10 gram per brake horsepower-hour (g/bhp-hr).

In addition, two methods of marketing the CCT kit, discussed below

as supply options, are approved by EPA.

Certification of the CCT kit, as it applies to all applicable

engines of model years 1985 through 1990 and all applicable engines of

model years 1991 through 1993 that are not equipped with ECM programs

#259 through #264 for kit operation on diesel fuel #1, is conditioned

upon JM complying with the terms discussed below in section IV.

Certification is unconditional for 1991 through 1993 model year engines

that are equipped with ECM programs #259, #260, #261, #262, #263, or

#264 and operate on diesel fuel #1 after kit installation.

The certification of this equipment does not trigger any new

requirements for transit operators. However, EPA certification makes

the CCT kit available as an option to those operators that are required

to use equipment certified to the 0.10 g/bhp-hr standard.

ADDRESSES: The JM application, as well as other materials specifically

relevant to it, are contained in Public Docket A-93-42, Category XXI-A,

entitled ``Certification of Urban Bus Retrofit/Rebuild Equipment''.

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.

DATES: Today's Federal Register notice announces the Agency's decision

to certify the CCT equipment, as described below.

The effective date of certification was established in a letter

dated October 21, 1998, from the Director of the Vehicle Programs and

Compliance Division to Johnson Matthey. (A copy of the letter is in the

public docket, which is located at the address noted above.)

This certified equipment may be used immediately by urban bus

operators, subject to the condition in Section IV.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: William Rutledge, Engine Programs and

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

M St. SW, Washington, D.C. 20460. Telephone: (202) 564-9297.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background and Equipment Identification

In a notification of intent to certify signed March 6, 1998,

Johnson Matthey, with principal place of business at 434 Devon Park

Drive, Wayne, Pennsylvania 19087-1889, applied for certification of

equipment under the urban bus program. The notification and equipment

are further clarified in letters provided subsequently from JM to EPA,

and are available from the public docket at the address above.

JM states that the equipment, referred to as the Cam Converter

Technology (CCTTM) upgrade kit, consists of patented engine

cam shafts, a CEM IITM catalytic exhaust muffler, specified

engine rebuild parts, and a set of instructions. The instructions

specify fuel injector height, 0.015 offset key size, and electronic

control module (ECM) software program. The kit composition and supply

options are described below in this section.

JM provides emissions data from testing two baseline engines, one

certification engine, and one test engine in an uncertified

configuration. The results of the engine testing are summarized below

in Table 1. The emissions data were developed using engine dynamometer

testing conducted in accordance with the Federal Test Procedure (FTP)

for heavy-duty diesel engines (40 CFR Part 86), and conducted using

test engines rated at 277 horsepower.

One of the baseline engines was rebuilt to a 1988 model year

configuration and the other rebuilt to a 1991 configuration.

Certification testing, using both diesel fuel #1 and #2, was performed

on an engine rebuilt with the appropriate CCT Upgrade Kits. The parts

used to rebuild the engines are provided in the March 6, 1998

notification and letters dated September 28 and October 7, 1998.

Documents can be found in the public docket at the address listed

above.

The data of Table 1 indicate that, when an engine is rebuilt with

the CCTTM kit having the 0.015 offset key, PM emissions are

less than 0.10 g/bhp-hr, and emissions of hydrocarbon (HC), carbon

monoxide (CO), oxides of nitrogen (NOX), and smoke opacity

are less than or equal to the federal and California standards

applicable to the 1993 model year. The certification test data were

provided to EPA in the March 6, 1998 notification and in a letter from

JM dated September 28, 1998. One certification test was conducted using

diesel fuel #1, and all of the other tests were conducted using diesel

fuel #2.

The ``uncertified kit'' of Table 1, using an 0.010 offset key, does

not comply with the 5.0 g/bhp-hr NOX standard and is not the

certified configuration of today's Federal Register notice. That

``uncertified kit'' consisted of all of the parts of the CCT kit except

for use of an 0.010 offset key. The data is provided as support data

demonstrating compliance with the 0.10 g/bhp-hr PM standard.

EPA believes that CCT-equipped engines using the 0.015 offset key

will meet the 0.10 g/bhp-hr PM standard because installation of the kit

upon engine rebuild results in the replacement of all emissions-related

parts with a specific set of parts. JM has provided testing which

demonstrates compliance of this set of parts with the 0.10 g/bhp-hr PM

standard. The fuel consumption impact of the CCT kit is discussed in

section II below.

[[Page 66799]]

Table 1.--Summary of Johnson Matthey Testing

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

Transient emission engine test (g/bhp-hr) of 6V92TA DDEC II

1991 HDDE -------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Gaseous and particulate test: standards 1988 baseline 1991 baseline Uncertified

\1\ \2\ CCT kit \3\ CCT kit \4\ kit \5\

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

HC...................................................... 1.3 0.4 0.46 0.2 0.3 0.2

CO...................................................... 15.5 1.2 1.2 0.6 0.77 0.8

NOX..................................................... 5.0 8.4 4.9 5.0 4.19 5.8

PM...................................................... 0.25 0.15 0.19 0.091 0.090 0.097

BSFC \5\................................................ .............. 0.459 0.483 0.489 0.497 0.483

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

Smoke test: Standards

percent Percent opacity

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

ACCEL................................................... 20 2.9 2.7 2.3 4.0 2.3

LUG..................................................... 15 0.8 1.2 1.2 2.1 0.3

PEAK.................................................... 50 4.3 3.7 3.7 5.6 4.7

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

\1\ Engine id number 6VF160626 using 2D fuel.

\2\ Engine id number 6VF186640 using 2D fuel.

\3\ Engine id number 6VF186640 using 2D fuel and 0.015 offset key.

\4\ Engine id number 6VF186640 using 1D fuel and 0.015 offset key.

\5\ Engine id number 6VF160626 using 2D fuel and 0.010 offset key (not certified).

\6\ Brake Specific Fuel Consumption (BSFC) is measured in units of lb/bhp-hr.

The CCT kit is applicable to all Detroit Diesel Corporation (DDC)

6V92TA DDEC two-stroke/cycle urban bus engines from model years 1985

through 1993 with power ratings of 253 and 277 horsepower (hp),

including those certified to federal and California standards.

The CCT kit is intended to be installed at the time of a standard

engine rebuild using standard DDC rebuild practices, except where

amended by JM. The contents of the CCT kit, shown in Table 2, will vary

depending upon the supply option and the particular engine to be

rebuilt. If the first supply option is selected by the installer, then

Johnson Matthey will provide all of the following parts: CEM II

catalytic muffler, patented engine camshafts, CCT cylinder kits, 0.015

offset key, fuel injectors, 40T blower gear, turbo charger, blower

assembly, blower bypass valve, and if necessary, ECM program. In

addition, the kit for 1985 through 1987 DDEC 1 engines, regardless of

supply option, will include the DDEC I to DDEC II conversion parts

listed in the letter dated September 28, 1998 from JM to EPA. If the

second supply option is selected by the installer, then JM will provide

only the ``unique'' parts (including, if necessary, the ECM program)

for the particular engine to be rebuilt. The balance of the CCT kit

parts, that is, the ``non-unique'' parts, must be acquired by the

installer through other channels. The non-unique parts are parts that

would be replaced during the standard rebuild of particular engines,

and must be the particular DDC components specified in the CCT kit.

Table 2.--CCT Kit Parts \1\ Provided Under Supply Option 2

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

1985-87 DDEC 1 1988-90 DDEC 1991-93 DDEC II

Part provided in kit? -------------------------II----------------------------------------

Diesel 1 & 2 Diesel 1 & 2 Diesel 1 Diesel 2

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

CEM II...................................... Yes Yes Yes Yes

Patented Cams............................... Yes Yes Yes Yes

CCT Cylinder kits........................... Yes Yes Yes Yes

0.015 Offset Key............................ Yes Yes Yes Yes

Fuel Injectors.............................. Yes Yes No No

ECM Program................................. Yes Yes \3\ No Yes

40T Blower Gear............................. Yes No No No

Turbo Charger............................... Yes No No No

Blower Assembly............................. Yes No No No

Blower Bypass Valve......................... Yes No No No

DDEC 1 to DDEC 2............................ \2\ Yes not applicable

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

\1\ The balance of the CCT kit parts must be acquired by the installer and must be the DDC components specified

in the CCT kit.

\2\ The kit for 1985 through 1987 DDEC I engines, regardless of supply option, will include the DDEC I to DDEC

II conversion parts.

\3\ 1991-93 engines having ECM program 259 through 264 for CCT kit operation on diesel fuel #1 do not require a

new ECM program.

The CEM II is a direct, bolt-on replacement for the original

equipment muffler, and is designed to fit the specific bus/engine

combination. The 0.015 offset key replaces the standard Woodruff key

between the pulse wheel and camshaft, and functions to offset the

electronic pulse wheel to retard fuel injection timing. The list of

specific engine parts is provided in the notification of intent to

certify dated March 6, 1998.

All CCT kits will include a CEM II catalytic muffler, patented

engine camshafts, CCT cylinder kits, and 0.015 offset key, regardless

of supply option. For 1985 through 1987 model year engines, all of the

parts of Table 2 are unique parts and therefore, required to be

provided in the certified CCT kit. For 1988 to 1990 model year engines,

the CCT kit includes fuel injectors and an upgrade of the ECM program.

For the 1991-1993 model year engines, the fuel injectors, turbocharger,

blower assembly, blower bypass valve, and 40 teeth blower drive gear

are non-unique,

[[Page 66800]]

standard rebuild components and therefore, not required to be in the

certified CCT kit. To complete a rebuild using supply option 2, an

operator must acquire on its own, the other required (specified)

standard engine rebuild parts. The parts not provided with the kit are

required to be the DDC-supplied parts specified with the kit

instructions, because DDC components were used for JM's certification

testing. JM is required to provide a 100,000 mile defect warranty and

150,000 mile emissions performance warranty for the components supplied

to the transit operator in each kit.

All 1985 through 1990 model year engines will require a change of

ECM program. A change of ECM program is required for any 1991-1993

model year engine that is not equipped with ECM program 259 through 264

for kit operation on diesel fuel #1. When a change in ECM program is

necessary, it will be included in the purchase price of the kit. In

summary, if a transit operator has an engine that does not have the

CCT-identified ECM program for its particular parameters (hp, rotation,

fuel type, peak torque), then it must change the existing ECM program

to the appropriate CCT-identified program. The ECM programs, often

referred to by DDC as certification word codes (CWC), are listed in

letters from JM dated August 19 and September 28, 1998, from Johnson

Matthey to EPA.

The CCT kit is certified to a PM emission level of 0.10 g/bhp-hr

for all 1985 through 1993 DDC 6V92TA DDEC I and II urban bus engines

using either diesel fuel #1 or #2 (including engines originally

certified, or rebuilt, to meet California emissions standards). Table 3

lists the applicable engine models and certification levels associated

with the certification announced in today's Federal Register.

Table 3.--Certification Levels

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

Applicable models \1\ Engine code Certified PM Level

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

1985-1993 Detroit Diesel ALL (including those 0.10 g/bhp-hr

6V92TA DDEC I and II rated certified or

at 253 or 277 hp. rebuilt to meet

California or 50-

state emissions

standards).

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

\1\ Conditional certification applies to most engines. See discussion in

sections I and IV.

II. Summary and Analysis of Comments

Comments were received from three parties in response to the

Federal Register notice of May 14, 1998 (63 FR 26795): Detroit Diesel

Corporation (DDC), Engelhard Corporation (Engelhard), and Chicago

Transit Authority (CTA). DDC is the original manufacturer of the

engines to which the CCT kit applies, and also supplies equipment

certified to meet the 0.10 g/bhp-hr PM standard under the urban bus

program for these engines. Engelhard has certified several kits under

the Urban Bus Rebuild Program, including the ETX-2002TM

Emissions Rebuild Kit applicable to 1988 through 1998 model year 6V92TA

DDEC II engines. Certification of the ETX kit triggers the requirement

on affected operators to use equipment certified to the 0.10 g/bhp-hr

standard when 1988-1993 DDC DDEC II engines are rebuilt or replaced

after March 22, 1999. (This is discussed further below in section V.)

CTA is a transit operator of an urban bus fleet in an area to which the

Urban Bus Rebuild Requirements apply.

DDC states that it is concerned with the equipment which is

proposed to be certified because it not only involves the addition of

an after-treatment device, but it modifies many of the critical

internal engine components and creates combinations of internal

components for which DDC has no experience. Engelhard states that it

has significant concerns with the ability of the CCT to meet the 0.10

g/bhp-hr standard, and that the kit should not be certified until JM

has provided sufficient data and valid responses to all questions and

concerns. As discussed below in this section relative to prominent

comments, EPA believes that JM has satisfied the requirements necessary

for certification of the CCT kit for applicable DDEC engines.

Comments and issues generally fell into the following categories:

(a) Equipment identification and specification; (b) engine rating; (c)

emissions and testing; (d) durability and in-service concerns; (e)

installation and maintenance instructions; (f) catalyst checking

procedure; (g) components of the kit; and, (h) life cycle cost. These

are discussed below. Copies of the complete comments and other

documentation are available in the public docket, which is located at

the address stated above.

a. Equipment Identification and Specification

DDC comments that it is their understanding that the purpose of the

offset key is to advance fuel injection timing at all operating

conditions compared to the standard DDC timing. However, based on the

description in the JM installation guide, DDC believes that the timing

offset will be in the retard direction. In response, JM states that the

procedure as written will accomplish the intent to retard the injection

timing.

DDC also notes several other clarifications relating to the JM. DDC

notes that JM application erroneously states that the original coach

engine cylinder liner had a 0.95 inch inlet port. Actually, the 0.95

inch liner was used only for the 1985 through 1989 model years. DDC

also notes that DDC does not supply the special engine camshafts or

0.015 offset key as stated in the application.

In response, JM revises its statements to clarify these points

consistent with DDC statements. Additionally, JM states that the

positioning of the offset key is to retard, not advance, the fuel

injection timing.

Engelhard comments that the JM certification engine was installed

with DDC's ECM program number 483, which is a program that DDC

developed for certain engines originally equipped with exhaust traps

and subsequently converted to catalytic converter/mufflers under an

agreement with EPA in 1994. Engelhard notes that some of the programs

specified by JM for the CCT kit are not the same type of program as the

one used for certification. All of the programs in the CCT kit parts

list for use with diesel fuel #2 are ``trap replacement'' programs, but

the programs for diesel fuel #1 are ``standard'' ECM programs. (EPA

notes that the ``standard'' programs to which Engelhard refers are DDC

programs with which the 1991 through 1993 model year 6V92TA urban bus

engine families were certified under EPA's new engine certification

program.) Engelhard states that additional information and data are

need to justify the request for certification using ECM programs for

diesel fuel #1. Engelhard states that the CCT kit, without additional

information, should not be certified for diesel fuel #1. Also, since

the certification engines used an ECM program for trap replacement, all

versions of the CCT kit

[[Page 66801]]

must use that type of program to meet 0.10 g/bhp-hr.

In its letter dated September 28, JM presents emissions data from

testing the CCT kit using diesel fuel #1 with an ECM program that DDC

developed for use with 1991 through 1993 6V92TA DDEC II coach engines

operating on diesel fuel #1. That data acceptably demonstrates

compliance with the 0.10 g/bhp-hr PM standard. The data is listed in

summary Table 1.

b. Engine Rating

DDC comments that the CCT kit appears to be incompletely specified,

because JM did not specify ECM programs that are compatible with the

original DDC 253 horsepower (hp) ``low-torque'' rating. DDC said that

this could be a significant problem for some bus installations where

the increase torque would exceed drive-line or cooling system

capabilities.

In its letter to EPA dated August 19, 1998, JM noted that the

original certification package was for the high-torque only, stated

that its intent is to offer CCT kits for both high and low torque

ratings, and provided an updated list of ECM programs for the kit which

provides for both low and high torque versions of the 253 hp rating.

EPA is certifying these because the certification test data provided by

JM is determined, at least on torque rating, to be a worse-case test

engine.

c. Emissions and Testing

DDC comments that the certification testing presented by JM does

not represent worst case PM emissions because the test engine was not

set to the worst-case idle speed. DDC states that the effects of

turbocharger lag become more significant and FTP particulate emissions

increase as idle speed is reduced, and that certification testing

should be conducted with the minimum idle speed setting in order to

demonstrate ``worst case'' PM emissions. The JM application shows that

the certification testing was conducted with the engine idle speed set

to 700 rpm, even though DDC originally certified and routinely supplied

6V92TA DDEC engines with a minimum idle speed of 600 rpm. DDC states

that certification should be limited to engines with idle speed

settings of 700 rpm and above unless JM provides FTP data demonstrating

compliance with the 0.10 g/bhp-hr standard when tested with idle speed

settings below 700 rpm.

In its letter dated September 2, 1998, responding to concerns about

the idle speed, JM states that use of the 700 rpm idle setting for its

certification testing was an oversight. When the ECM program was

downloaded into the ECM module, the idle setting was not reset to 600

rpm, but rather it remained at 700 rpm. JM conducted additional

testing, discussed further below, to determine whether the idle speed

would affect the PM level.

The idle speed specified in DDC's application for new engine

certification for the 1991 through 1993 model year 6V92TA DDEC II

engines is listed as 600 rpm (minimum). Additionally, EPA notes that

idle speed on DDEC engines can be programmed in the field with a DDEC

basic code reader. No data has been provided to show how significant

idle speed is with respect to particulate emissions, what fraction of

new engines were supplied with the 600 rpm idle, or how prevalent the

600 rpm idle is in-service. It is not clear that there will not be a

significant PM difference resulting from idle settings of 600 and 700

rpm, and EPA believes that the JM test condition with idle speed set to

700 rpm is reasonably close to 600 rpm. The idle speed of 700 rpm also

complies with the DDC specification. In its September 2 letter, JM

presents data from additional transient testing that it conducted to

determine whether the PM level would be affected by the 600 versus 700

rpm idle setting. While there are concerns with details of this

testing, it indicates minimal to no emissions impact resulting from a

change from 600 to 700 idle rpm. For the above reasons, EPA is not

limiting certification to idle settings of 700 rpm and above, and is

not requiring JM to retest at a lower idle rpm.

Engelhard comments that the JM baseline engine, showing a PM level

of 0.19 g/bhp-hr, is unrepresentative of the typical performance for a

1991 6V92TA DDEC engine, and provides emissions from one DDC test and

several Engelhard tests with PM results between 0.22 and 0.28 g/bhp-hr.

Engelhard questions whether the components utilized in the

certification test engine provided superior emissions performance

compared to typical parts. The low baseline emissions raises concerns

about the CCT kit's ability to meet the 0.10 g/bhp-hr standard when

used with typical engine parts. Engelhard states that JM needs to

provide a complete explanation of the rebuild process, and submit test

data on a baseline engine that has normal PM emissions.

In response, JM states that no exceptional steps were taken in

rebuilding this baseline engine. No exceptional steps were taken in

rebuilding the engine--it was rebuilt using standard DDC engine parts

in accordance with recommended DDC rebuild procedures. Some of the

parts used in the certification test engine were also used in the

baseline test engine because the parts are common to both the CCT kit

and typical 1992 DDEC engine. Further, JM notes that there can be

tremendous variations in emissions from engine to engine. As JM states

in its letter to EPA dated September 28, 1998, after the certification

test the test engine had the cylinder kits, camshafts, ECM program and

offset key changed to the baseline configuration for the baseline test.

The baseline test engine shared fuel injectors, turbocharger, blower

and bypass valve, and cylinder heads, with the certification test

engine.

EPA has not determined that the JM baseline PM emission level is

atypically low. Other data developed for use in certifying equipment

under the urban bus program has shown PM emissions from DDEC II engines

that compare with the JM baseline. The 6V92TA DDEC II engine tested at

Southwest Research Institute (SwRI) for the National Biodiesel Board on

August 24, 1994 (test BL-2D) showed baseline engine PM emissions of

0.20 g/bhp-hr. The 6V92TA DDEC II engine tested at SwRI for Engine

Control Systems on October 25, 1995 (test E1025) showed baseline

emissions of 0.18 g/bhp-hr. EPA also notes that the DDC data, cited by

Engelhard having PM emissions of 0.218 g/bhp-hr (provided by DDC for

certification of DDC's 25 percent DDEC II upgrade kit) was conducted

using diesel #2 fuel having sulfur content between 0.08 and 0.12 weight

percent. On the other hand, testing for the urban bus program is

required pursuant to 85.1406 to use diesel fuel having a maximum of

0.05 weight percent sulfur. While we have not quantified the effect of

sulfur reduction in diesel fuel on PM emissions from 6V92TA DDEC

engines, in the final rule reducing the sulfur level of diesel fuel (55

FR 34121; August 21, 1990), EPA notes that reductions in fuel sulfur

result in small reductions in engine-out particulate. Additionally, as

shown in Table 1 above, the baseline 1988 model year 6V92TA DDEC II

engine tested at SwRI for Johnson Matthey on March 5, 1997 showed PM

emissions of 0.15 g/bhp-hr.

In addition, in its letter to EPA dated September 28, 1998 JM

provides emission data in support of its demonstration that the CCT kit

will comply with the 0.10 g/bhp-hr standard, albeit not the 5.0 g/bhp-

hr NOX standard. This data indicates compliance with the

0.10 g/bhp-hr PM standard on an engine equipped with offset key 0.010

inch (not the specification for the offset key of the

[[Page 66802]]

certified CCT kit of today's Federal Register notice) and emitting 5.8

g/bhp-hr NOX.

The JM baseline data is lower than that produced by Engelhard.

However, EPA does not conclude, from the available data, that the JM

baseline is atypically low or unrepresentative. If it is atypically

low, then it is not clear whether it is the result of test-to-test

variability, and/or engine-to-engine variability. The available

baseline test data are limited in number. If the JM baseline test is

low, then the level might be attributable to the cylinder liners that

were changed before the test conducted on the JM 1991 model year

baseline engine. EPA is not denying certification because of the PM

level of the JM baseline engine.

EPA notes that the JM baseline testing was conducted after the

certification testing and, while the data is low compared with the

Engelhard baseline tests, there is no regulatory requirement to provide

baseline data to demonstrate compliance with the 0.10 g/bhp-hr standard

when life cycle cost information is not provided. The availability of

the baseline data conducted for JM and others, may benefit bus

operators that are interested in the fuel consumption impact of the

certified equipment. EPA appreciates that JM conducted and provided the

baseline data, when it may not have been required in accordance with

the regulations.

Engelhard notes that the CCT kit operates on the principle of

camshaft induced EGR and injection timing advance, that EPA is

currently investigating electronically controlled engines for increased

``off-cycle'' NOX emissions, and asks whether the JM

camshafts and injection timing advance will irritate this situation. In

response, JM states that the CCT kit uses mechanical means to reduce

NOX and PM along with specific ECM programming, and the PM

level is then further reduced by the CEM II catalytic muffler. JM

points out that the offset key retards the injection timing for

reducing NOX emissions and, if there is an effect, it will

be to reduce off-cycle NOX emissions. EPA believes that,

generally speaking, injection retard would tend to decrease

NOX emissions.

Engelhard comments that the converter muffler for the CCT kit had a

reading of over 4 inches of mercury during a smoke test, and asks

whether that level is typical for a JM converter muffler.

JM states that the CEM and CEM II catalytic exhaust mufflers are

designed to function with the DDC specified back-pressure limits during

normal transit operation. The exhaust back-pressure reading that

Engelhard refers to during the smoke test is a function of the test

itself, and has no relation to the back-pressure observed during normal

transit bus operation.

EPA notes that the smoke test should be conducted in accordance

with 40 CFR Part 86 Subpart I. Section 86.884-8(c) of that subpart

states: ``The smoke exhaust system shall present an exhaust back-

pressure within 0.2 inch Hg of the upper limit at maximum

rated horsepower, as established by the engine manufacturer in his

sales and service literature for vehicle application.'' EPA believes

that the test data presented by JM for certification of the CCT kit was

collected under a worst case test condition for smoke generation.

d. Durability and In-service Concerns

DDC comments that there is insufficient information in the JM

notification to assess performance and durability impacts. DDC notes

that the CCT kit includes proprietary camshafts that reduce engine

airflow and cylinder scavenging, 15:1 compression ratio piston domes

instead of the 17:1 domes used by DDC, and an offset key that modifies

the injection timing compared with the DDC design. DDC has no

experience with the kit's combination of components and that it

represents a substantial departure from DDC's original design which

could have significant effects on engine performance and durability.

DDC refers to the possibility of reduced engine airflow and cylinder

scavenging, raised cylinder temperatures, degraded cylinder component

life, difficult cold starting, and increased cold smoke and noise

emissions. DDC believes that EPA should consider performance and

durability before certifying equipment.

Engelhard also comments that JM has specified a piston dome that

provides 15:1 compression ratio, and asks whether JM has conducted

testing to verify that a 2-point reduction in compression ratio will

not cause starting and operational problems in cold weather.

In response, JM notes that it has had a CCT kit in trial on a 6V92

DDEC bus in New York state since June 1997 with no problems, including

no cold weather starting problems. Also, JM points out that the same

type of system (proprietary cams, specified engine parts, and CEM

catalytic muffler) has already been certified by EPA for 6V92 MUI

engines, and a significant number of the kits have been installed, are

running well, and have operated during this past winter in cold weather

with no cold start problems. Based on this record, JM states that

performance and durability are not issues.

EPA notes that the urban bus retrofit/rebuild regulations do not

require a durability demonstration as a condition of certification.

Rather, equipment certifiers, including Engelhard, are required

pursuant to 40 CFR Section 85.1409 to provide a 100,000 mile equipment

defect warranty and a 150,000 mile emissions performance warranty. The

available information does not indicate a performance or durability

concern with the equipment certified in today's notice.

CTA comments that durability problems are a big concern to it, and

states that this issue must be addressed prior to certification,

because of ``excessive'' failures of certified catalytic converters on

retrofit/rebuilt engines. This is especially important when internal

engine components are replaced. CTA states that there are no

requirements for durability, and notes EPA's authority to decertify

equipment that fail to meet program requirements. However, CTA states

that this does not address the concerns of transit operators that have

spent substantial amounts of money on kits, and would not get

reimbursed for the cost of ``decertified'' kits.

CTA also has a couple comments about warranties. First, the

warranty does not cover the labor and consequential damage due to use

of a kit. CTA believes that warranty repair is not part of normal

maintenance and should not be the responsibility of the transit

operator. Second, CTA has had ``negative'' experience with warranty on

certified catalytic converters--failures are being replaced with brand

new units that are warranted only for the balance of the warranty

period for the original unit.

EPA notes that, while the program does not require a demonstration

of durability, JM has provided information on its in-service experience

with the CCT kit. As discussed in a previous paragraph, JM has had a

DDEC CCT kit in trial on a bus in New York State and a significant

number of MUI CCT kits have been installed. JM states that performance

and durability are not issues.

Additionally, CTA is incorrect in presuming that the program has no

durability requirements. The program regulations at 40 CFR 85.1409

require that certifiers provide both an emissions defect warranty for

100,000 miles, and an emissions performance warranty for 150,000 miles.

Under the performance warranty, certifiers are responsible for the in-

use performance of their

[[Page 66803]]

equipment for 150,000 miles. (Additional discussion on the emissions

performance warranty can be found in the preamble to the final rule of

April 21, 1993 at 58 FR 21359.) Under the defect warranty, certifiers

are responsible for replacing defective parts of a certified kit, free

of charge. CTA has not identified any problematic catalytic converters

or any situations in which warranty claims were denied by an equipment

certifier.

EPA appreciates that transit operators are concerned with the

durability of retrofit/rebuild equipment. When internal engines

components are supplied as part of a certified kit, those parts are

covered by the defect warranty for 100,000 miles.

As noted previously, the urban bus rebuild regulations do not

require an in-service durability demonstration as a condition of

certification. Rather, the regulations require equipment certifiers,

including Johnson Matthey, to warranty their equipment. EPA believes

that equipment suppliers will evaluate the durability of their

equipment in order to minimize their liability resulting from the

emissions defect and performance warranties. The available information

does not indicate a performance or durability concern with the

equipment certified in today's notice, and therefore, does not provide

sufficient basis to deny certification on these grounds. EPA will

continue to monitor problems with this, and other certified equipment,

and encourages transit operators to provide specific detailed

information regarding excessive in-service problems with certified

equipment.

CTA is correct that the defect warranty does not cover labor and

consequential damage to use of a kit. As noted in the preamble to the

final rule (April 21, 1993; 58 FR 21381), transit operators are

responsible for proper installation and maintenance of certified

equipment, and are responsible for the emissions performance of

equipment operated beyond the 150,000 miles emissions warranty period.

Additionally, as CTA has noted, the program warranty does not require

coverage of ``secondary'' or ``consequential'' damage due to use of

certified equipment.

With regard to CTA's concern with an extended warranty for

equipment replaced under warranty, the program requires that coverage

extend for the warranty period of the initially-purchased equipment.

There is no program requirement that a warranty period be extended

beyond the period of the initially-purchased kit, even when an original

unit is replaced with a brand-new one under the warranty. In other

words, only one warranty period accompanies each kit purchase,

regardless of how many times parts may be replaced under that warranty.

JM responds that it takes its warranty obligations very seriously,

and is their practice to work with any transit that has a warranty

claim, to identify and correct any problems with Johnson Matthey-

supplied equipment.

CTA notes that they have no way to determine whether a catalyst is

continuing to function as designed and, in some cases involving

warranty, CTA suspects the catalyst has lost ability to reduce

emissions due to the physical deterioration of the catalyst.

EPA currently knows of no method that is readily available to

transit operators for accurately testing PM performance of a catalyst

in the field. However, to the extent a catalyst is mechanically

clogging, use of the defect warranty may be an appropriate remedy.

e. Installation and Maintenance Instructions

Engelhard notes that JM requires that a DDEC data reader be used to

determine the current ECM program, and asks several questions: (1) Do

transits have the data reader; (2) how much will it cost; (3) is JM

required to provide the ECM re-programming; (4) how will JM verify that

the correct program is used; (5) is the cost of the re-programming

included with the CCT kit price; and, (6) why does JM specify ``non-

trap'' (that is, ``standard'') ECM programs for use with diesel fuel #1

when a ``trap-replacement'' program was used for certification?

JM responds that if a transit operator does not have a data reader,

then JM authorized distributors have the capability to read the ECM

program number. The proper ECM program will be downloaded by authorized

DDC distributors. The proper ECM number will be confirmed by submittal

of the warranty card for the CCT kit.

EPA notes that JM will include ECM reprogramming, if it is

necessary, with the purchase price of the kit. As Engelhard notes, JM

specifies the particular ECM programs to be used with diesel fuel #1.

The specified programs are consistent with what JM tested to

demonstrate compliance with the 0.10 g/bhp-hr standard when diesel fuel

#1 is used.

Additionally, EPA has authority to conduct audits of transit

operators to determine compliance with the Urban Bus Rebuild

Requirements. During such audits, EPA has authority to review actual

bus engines, documentation, and records to determine whether certified

kits have been properly installed in bus engines. EPA may check ECMs to

verify whether or not the correct ECM program is installed.

Engelhard comments that the JM application lists the kit as

applicable to DDEC 1 engines. Engelhard understands that the DDEC I

version differs significantly from the DDEC II and will require

significant changes to the ECM and sensors for upgrading to a DDEC II

configuration. JM must provide full explanation of the changes required

to upgrade this engine, plus life cycle cost information.

EPA notes that life cycle cost information is required only when

equipment is certified as a trigger of a particular emissions standard.

Because JM does not intend to trigger the 0.10 g/bhp-hr standard, life

cycle cost information is not required. A list of parts required for

conversion of DDEC I engines to DDEC II is provided by JM in its letter

to EPA dated September 28.

Engelhard provided multiple comments concerning JM's Installation

Guidelines: First, Engelhard states several questions relating to

identification marks that JM places on parts of the CCT kit. Engelhard

asks where the marks on the parts are located, whether the marks will

wear off, whether the warranty will be voided if the marks wear off,

and, how JM will verify that parts have the mark.

In response, JM states that their identification mark is a non-

intrusive, harmless mark that is placed on a non-critical surface. The

intent of marking the parts is to ensure compliance with use of all the

correct parts and to minimize warranty issues regarding use of the

parts. Piston rings are marked with an indelible paint, while other

parts are etched. The marks do not come off during normal operation.

EPA notes that the program regulations are silent with regard to

marking parts of a kit, but that the bus operator is responsible for

the correct installation of certified kits.

Second, Engelhard comments that the JM Installation Guide states

that piston gauge J-2539-A cannot be used with the CCT kit, and asks

which gauge should be used.

In response, JM states that neither DDC nor Kent Moore supply a

gauge to identify the 15:1 compression-ratio pistons of the CCT kit.

The statement in the Installation Guide is intended as a caution to

installers against use of piston gauge J-2539-A with the 15:1 pistons,

because that gauge is limited to identifying 17:1 or 19:1 pistons. If

for any reason the engine is being rebuilt, the 15:1 mark on the piston

crown would be covered with soot, and use of the piston gauge J-2539-A

would be misleading.

[[Page 66804]]

Finally, Engelhard questions why the Installation guide requires

that an installer ``thoroughly inspect the camshaft for any

contamination in the passage through the cam''. JM needs to provide

guidance for this procedure and an estimation of how long it will take.

JM responds that, while it does not expect any contamination to be

present, issues with handling or storage could result in contamination.

The inspection will take a few minutes and, if cleaning is necessary,

it can be done in a few minutes with standard cleaners.

f. Catalyst Checking Procedure

DDC opposes the procedure recommended by JM for determining whether

the catalyst unit requires cleaning.

JM's instructions involve operating the engine at full load, wide

open throttle or at full stall, and measuring the exhaust pressure at

the pressure tap located on the manifold immediately after the engine.

In the CEM II clean-out procedure it is noted that a pressure

measurement gage should be installed ``in the pressure tap located on

the inlet side of the CEM II''.

DDC, however, contends that back-pressure should be measured just

downstream of the turbocharger outlet. DDC states that its back-

pressure limits apply at all engine operating conditions and should be

checked at the maximum exhaust flow condition (rated engine speed and

full load). DDC states that neither of JM's alternative test conditions

(full load, wide open throttle or, full stall) are adequate. ``Full

load, wide open throttle'' is an ambiguous condition, and ``full

stall'' is inadequate because it does not produce a maximum exhaust

flow condition. An exhaust system which just meets DDC's specified back

pressure limit at WOT, no load (which can be how the JM procedure is

conducted) will likely exceed the DDC limit over a large portion of the

engine speed/load operating map and thus would be in violation of DDC's

guidelines. Excessive back pressure results in fuel economy and power

losses, and raises cylinder temperatures and increases soot build-up in

the lubricating oil. These effects can reduce engine life.

JM states that it stands by its CEM II back-pressure procedure, and

notes that it is the same procedure that DDC recommends using in its

own 0.10 DDEC kit.

EPA is not requiring JM to revise the screening procedure, for

several reasons. First, and in general, the program regulations do not

require any specific check procedures for any components of certified

kits. Second, EPA notes that the maximum exhaust back pressure

specification for several engine calibrations (codes) of the 6V92TA

DDEC II engines is 4.0 inches of mercury (as specified in DDC's

application for certification of 1991 and 1992 6V92TA DDEC engines

under EPA's new engine certification program), and that the back

pressure specification for the JM procedure is 3.0 inches of mercury.

Third, the JM procedure is intended as a ``screen'' to determine

whether a catalyst muffler needs cleaning, not to measure exhaust back

pressure for comparison with DDC's maximum specifications. For

additional discussion of the issue, refer to page 12177 of the Federal

Register notice describing certification of Engelhard's ETX kit for

6V92TA MUI engines (62 FR 12166; March 14, 1997.

Any future information provided by interested parties regarding the

impacts of certified equipment on exhaust back pressure would be taken

under consideration. EPA appreciates that there may room for

improvement in maintenance procedures of equipment certified under this

program. Such concerns, in general, can also occur with procedures

relating to new engines. EPA encourages all equipment certifiers to

issue revised check procedures when appropriate. If JM determines that

another check is appropriate, or if EPA becomes aware that back

pressure is exceeding manufacturer limits on in-use buses, then JM

should revise such procedures. Pursuant to 40 CFR Section 85.1413, EPA

has authority to decertify equipment that does not comply with the

requirements of the regulations.

g. Components of the Kit

CTA notes that the CCT kit replaces all ``emissions-related''

parts, many of which are standard DDC parts, and asks whether these

parts are required to be purchased through JM, or whether the standard

parts can be purchased elsewhere.

As described above, JM requested to supply the CCT kit to

installers under different supply options. EPA approves two options of

supply, in order to provide as much flexibility to transit operators as

possible while assuring emissions reductions. At JM's option, either

option can be made available, because this certification does not

trigger program requirements. For the first supply option, transit

operators purchase the entire CCT kit from JM or its distributors. For

the second option, transit operators purchase all of the unique parts

of the kit from JM, and acquire the non-unique DDC engine parts

specified by JM through sources of its own choosing. Both supply

options must provide all parts which are unique to a standard rebuild

for the particular engine to be rebuilt. Parts which would typically be

acquired by an installer for a standard rebuild of a particular model

year engine are not required to be part of the CCT kit under supply

option 2. The specified parts must be acquired by the transit operator.

Aftermarket parts are not permitted for the specified parts of the

CCT kit under the certification described today. Because the

certification testing was conducted on an engine equipped with DDC

components, EPA has no assurance that an engine equipped with other

parts can achieve the 0.10 g/bhp-hr PM standard. JM is required to

provide the applicable 100,000 mile emissions defect warranty and the

150,000 mile emissions performance warranty for all parts of the kit

which it supplies to the transit operator.

The CCT kit includes a list of the specific engine rebuild parts

that are required to be used upon engine rebuild with the CCT kit. EPA

notes that in accordance with 85.1404, operators are required to

maintain records of all parts used in rebuilds. Using incorrect

components with the CCT kit at the time of kit installation can be

considered as failure to install a certified kit under the urban bus

rebuild requirements, and subject the operator to the significant

penalties provided by the regulation.

h. Life Cycle Cost

Engelhard comments that JM has not provided a life cycle cost

analysis to justify their certification. EPA notes that life cycle cost

information is not required for certification of equipment which would

not trigger a standard.

Chicago Transit Authority (CTA) understands that certification of

the CCT kit will not trigger program requirements, but comments that

life cycle costs are very important. CTA asks what the kit will cost.

JM responds that it currently is not able to provide a list price

for the DDEC CCT kit, but will provide CTA with a list price as soon as

possible.

CTA asks whether data is available on the emissions, fuel economy,

and exhaust back-pressure for the 253 Hp rating. Back-pressure, fuel

economy, and oil life appear to be affected by some catalytic converter

installations which can affect engine life and operating costs.

In response, JM states that its certification, based on testing the

highest power rating (277 Hp) on diesel fuel #2, covers 253 Hp engines

and both diesel fuels #1 and #2. EPA notes that JM provided data from

testing using

[[Page 66805]]

diesel fuel #1, but has not provided any data on the 253 Hp rating.

Engelhard comments that JM does not include information on the fuel

economy impact of installing the CCT kit, and that this type of

information is essential for a transit operator to make a complete

evaluation of the kit. In analysis that Engelhard performs, it notes

that the CCT kit uses 0.489 pounds of fuel per brake-horsepower-hour

(lb/bhp-hr), compared to 0.483 lb/bhp-hr for a 1991 model year baseline

engine tested by JM. This is a 1.2 percent fuel economy penalty for

1991-1993 DDEC engines. Furthermore, JM's baseline data for a 1988

federal engine shows a fuel consumption of 0.459 lb/bhp-hr, which

translates into a 6.5 percent fuel penalty if the CCT kit is installed

on a 1988 to 1990 engine. Engelhard also asks about the fuel

consumption impact of the CCT kit on DDEC 1 engines.

In response, JM states that it has not applied as a trigger

technology for the 0.10 g/bhp-hr standard. JM notes that it has placed

in the public docket, baseline data for 1991-1993 and 1988-1990 model

year engines.

In general, EPA agrees that the impact of a kit on fuel consumption

would be of interest to transit operators. However, fuel consumption

data is not required for equipment which would not trigger a standard.

The availability of the baseline data conducted for JM and others, as

discussed in a section above, may benefit bus operators that are

interested in the fuel consumption impact of the certified equipment.

EPA appreciates that JM conducted and provided the baseline data.

III. California Engines

The NOX emission standard for new engine certification

applicable to 1988 through 1990 model year engines sold in the State of

California is 6.0 g/bhp-hr. For 1991 through 1993, the standard is 5.0

g/bhp-hr. The emissions testing presented by Johnson Matthey

demonstrate a NOX emissions level that complies with the 5.0

g/bhp-hr standard. Therefore, today's description of the CCT kit for

DDEC II engines applies to engines certified to meet California

emissions standards, subject to the conditions discussed below.

The equipment certified today may require additional review by the

California Air Resources Board (CARB) before use in the State of

California. EPA recognizes that special situations may exist in

California that are reflected in the unique emissions standards, engine

calibrations, and fuel specifications of the State. While requirements

of the federal urban bus program apply to several metropolitan areas in

California, EPA understands the view of CARB that equipment certified

under the urban bus program, to be used in California, must be provided

with an executive order exempting it from the anti-tampering

prohibitions of that State. Parties interested in additional

information should contact the Aftermarket Part Section of CARB, at

(626) 575-6848.

IV. Certification and Conditional Certification

EPA has reviewed this notification, along with comments received

from interested parties, and finds the equipment described in this

notification of intent to certify:

(1) Complies with a particulate matter emissions standard of 0.10

g/bhp-hr, without causing the applicable engine families to exceed

other applicable emission requirements, subject to the conditions

discussed below;

(2) Will not cause an unreasonable risk to the public health,

welfare or safety;

(3) Will not result in any additional range of parameter

adjustability; and

(4) Meets other requirements necessary for certification under the

Urban Bus Rebuild Requirements (40 CFR Sections 85.1401 through

85.1415).

With the following conditions, EPA hereby certifies this equipment

for use in the Urban Bus Retrofit/Rebuild Program. As noted above, the

equipment being certified today includes for some engines, an upgraded

control program for the electronic control module. EPA has recently

become concerned that many electronically controlled engines may have

been equipped by the original manufacturers with strategies designed to

decrease fuel consumption during certain driving modes not

substantially included in the federal test procedure, with the effect

of substantially increasing NOX during these modes. Such

electronic control strategies have the potential to be ``defeat

devices'' as defined at 40 CFR 86.094-22, and thus may violate 40 CFR

85.1406 and 85.1408 if included in an urban bus retrofit application.

Most of the upgraded control programs used for the CCT kit must

therefore be reviewed for such violations. As a result, certification

of the CCT kit, as it applies to the following engines is conditioned

upon Johnson Matthey demonstrating by January 1, 1999 that any

replacement engine control module (ECM) or ECM program used in

conjunction with the certified kit will not adversely impact the

emissions of NOX in comparison to the ECM or ECM program

that is being replaced under conditions which may reasonably be

expected to be encountered in normal vehicle operation and use unless

such conditions are substantially included in the Federal emission test

procedure. Certification is conditional as it applies to all applicable

engines of model years 1985 through 1990, and all applicable engines of

model years 1991 through 1993 that are not equipped with ECM programs

#259 through #264 for kit operation on diesel fuel #1.

The equipment, the CCTTM Upgrade Kit, may be used

immediately by transit operators in compliance with requirements of

this program, subject to the above condition. Unconditional

certification is provided for the CCT kit as it is applied to 1991

through 1993 model year engines that are equipped with ECM programs

#259, 260, 261, 262, 263, or 264, for operation on diesel fuel #1 after

kit installation.

V. Transit Operator Responsibilities

In a Federal Register notice dated September 21, 1998 (63 FR

50225), EPA announced certification of a retrofit/rebuild kit supplied

by the Engelhard Corporation (the ETXTM kit for DDEC

engines). That certification triggers the 0.10 g/bhp-hr PM standard for

1988 through 1993 model year DDC 6V92TA DDEC model engines, which means

that urban bus operators using compliance program 1 must use equipment

certified to the 0.10 g/bhp-hr standard when rebuilding or replacing

these engines after March 21, 1999.

Today's Federal Register notice announces certification of the

Johnson Matthey CCT Upgrade kit, when properly applied, as meeting the

0.10 g/bhp-hr particulate matter standard of the Urban Bus Rebuild

Program. Affected urban bus operators who choose to comply with

compliance program 1 are required to use this, or other equipment that

is certified to meet the 0.10 g/bhp-hr particulate matter standard for

1988 through 1993 model year DDC 6V92TA DDEC model engines which are

rebuilt or replaced on or after March 22, 1999, subject to the

condition of Section IV.

Urban bus operators who choose to comply with compliance program 2

may use the CCT equipment, and those that use this equipment may claim

the certification level from Table 3 when calculating their Fleet Level

Attained (FLA), subject to the condition of Section IV. Under program

2, an operator must use sufficient certified equipment so that its

actual fleet emission level complies with the target level for its

fleet.

Urban bus operators must be aware of their responsibility for

maintenance of

[[Page 66806]]

records pursuant to 40 CFR Sections 85.1403 through 85.1404. The CCT

kit may not include, depending upon the supply option selected and the

particular applicable engine, certain emissions-related parts that are

required to complete the CCT kit. As stated in the program regulations

(40 CFR 85.1401 through 85.1415), operators should maintain records for

each engine in their fleet to demonstrate that they are in compliance

with the Urban Bus Rebuild Requirements beginning on January 1, 1995.

These records include purchase records, receipts, and part numbers for

the parts and components used in the rebuilding of urban bus engines.

Urban bus operators must be able to demonstrate that all parts used in

the rebuilding of engines are in compliance with program requirements.

In other words, urban bus operators must be able to demonstrate that

all required components of the kit described in today's Federal

Register notice are installed on applicable engines.

Dated: November 24, 1998.

Robert Perciasepe,

Assistant Administrator for Air and Radiation.

[FR Doc. 98-32071 Filed 12-2-98; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-P