[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 28 (Tuesday, February 11, 1997)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 6366-6405]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-3223]



[[Page 6365]]

_______________________________________________________________________

Part III





Environmental Protection Agency





_______________________________________________________________________



40 CFR Parts 85, 89 and 92



Emission Standards for Locomotives and Locomotive Engines; Proposed 
Rule

Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 28 / Tuesday, February 11, 1997 / 
Proposed Rules

[[Page 6366]]



ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Parts 85, 89 and 92

[FRL-5686-1]
RIN 2060-AD33


Emission Standards for Locomotives and Locomotive Engines

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM).

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

SUMMARY: EPA is proposing regulatory requirements for the control of 
emissions from locomotives and engines used in locomotives as required 
by Clean Air Act section 213(a)(5). The primary focus of this proposal 
is reduction of the emissions of oxides of nitrogen (NO<INF>X). The 
proposed standards will result in more than a 60 percent reduction in 
NO<INF>X from freshly manufactured locomotives beginning in 2005, with 
lesser reductions from locomotives originally manufactured from 1973 
through 2004. NO<INF>X is a precursor to the formation of ground level 
ozone, which causes health problems such as damage to lung tissue, 
reduction of lung function, and sensitization of lungs to other 
irritants, as well as damage to terrestrial and aquatic ecosystems. EPA 
is also proposing standards for emissions of hydrocarbons (HC), carbon 
monoxide (CO), particulate matter (PM), and smoke. The cost 
effectiveness of today's proposed emissions standards is 173 dollars 
per ton of NO<INF>X and PM reduced.
    Three separate sets of standards are proposed, with applicability 
of the standards dependent on the date a locomotive is first 
manufactured. The first set of standards (Tier 0) are proposed to apply 
to locomotives and locomotive engines originally manufactured from 1973 
through 1999, any time they are remanufactured in calendar year 2000 or 
later. The second set of standards (Tier I) apply to locomotives and 
locomotive engines originally manufactured from 2000 through 2004. Such 
locomotives and locomotive engines would be required to meet the Tier I 
standards at the time of original manufacture and at each subsequent 
remanufacture. The final set of standards (Tier II) are proposed to 
apply to locomotives and locomotive engines originally manufactured in 
2005 and later. Such locomotives and locomotive engines would be 
required to meet the Tier II standards at the time of original 
manufacture and at each subsequent remanufacture.
    Today's proposal includes a variety of provisions to implement the 
standards and to ensure that the standards are met in-use. These 
provisions include certification test procedures, and assembly line and 
in-use compliance testing programs. Also included in today's proposal 
is an emissions averaging, banking and trading program to provide 
flexibility in achieving compliance with the proposed standards. 
Finally, EPA is proposing regulations that would preempt certain state 
and local requirements relating to the control of emissions from new 
locomotives and new locomotive engines, pursuant to Clean Air Act 
section 209(e).

DATES: Comments must be received on or before April 14, 1997. A public 
hearing will be held on March 13, 1997, starting at 9:30 a.m. Persons 
wishing to present oral testimony are requested to notify EPA on or 
before March 6, 1997, to allow for an orderly scheduling of oral 
testimony.

ADDRESSES:
    Written comments: Interested parties may submit written comments 
(in triplicate if possible) for EPA consideration. The comments are to 
be addressed to: EPA Air and Radiation Docket, Attention: Docket No. A-
94-31, Room M-1500, Mail Code 6102, U.S. EPA, 401 M Street, S.W., 
Washington DC 20460. The docket is open for public inspection from 8 
a.m. until 5:30 p.m. Monday through Friday, except on government 
holidays. As provided in 40 CFR part 2, a reasonable fee may be charged 
for copying docket materials. Should a commenter wish to provide 
confidential business information (CBI) to EPA, such CBI should NOT be 
included with the information sent to the docket. Materials sent to the 
docket should, however, indicate that CBI was provided to EPA. One copy 
of CBI, along with the remainder of the written comments, should be 
sent to Charles Moulis at the address provided in FOR FURTHER 
INFORMATION CONTACT below.
    Public hearing: The public hearing will be held at: (Holiday Inn--
North Campus, 3600 Plymouth Rd, Ann Arbor, MI 48105, (313) 769-9800).

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For information on this rulemaking 
contact: Charles Moulis, U.S. EPA, Engine Programs and Compliance 
Division, 2565 Plymouth Road, Ann Arbor, MI 48105; Telephone: (313) 
741-7826, Fax: (313) 741-7816. Requests for hard copies of the 
preamble, regulation text and regulatory support document (RSD) should 
be directed to Carol Connell at (313) 668-4349.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Regulated Entities
II. Statutory Authority
III. Background
IV. Emissions from Present Locomotives
V. Description of the Proposal
VI. Emission Reduction Technology
VII. Benefits
VIII. Costs
IX. Cost-Effectiveness
X. Public Participation
XI. Administrative Designation and Regulatory Assessment 
Requirements
XII. Copies of Rulemaking Documents

I. Regulated Entities

    Entities potentially regulated by this proposed action are those 
which manufacture and/or remanufacture locomotives and locomotive 
engines; those which own and operate railroads; and state and local 
governments. Regulated categories and entities include:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
              Category                  Examples of regulated entities  
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Industry............................  Manufacturers and remanufacturers 
                                       of locomotives and locomotive    
                                       engines, railroad owners and     
                                       operators.                       
Government..........................  State and local governments.\1\   
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ It should be noted that the proposed provisions do not impose any   
  requirements that state and local governments (other than those that  
  own or operate local and regional railroads) must meet, but rather    
  implement the Clean Air Act preemption provisions for locomotives. It 
  should also be noted that some state and local governments also own or
  operate local and regional railroads.                                 

    This table is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a 
guide for readers regarding entities likely to be regulated by this 
proposal. This table lists the types of entities that EPA is now aware 
could potentially be regulated by this proposal. Other types of 
entities not listed in the table could also be regulated. To determine 
whether your company is regulated by this proposal, you should 
carefully examine the applicability criteria in Secs.  92.001 and 
92.901 of the proposed regulatory text. If you have questions regarding 
the applicability of this proposal to a particular entity, consult the 
person listed in the preceding FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section.

II. Statutory Authority

    Authority for the actions proposed in this notice is granted to the 
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) by sections 114, 203, 204, 205, 
206, 207, 208, 209, 213, 215, 216 and 301(a) of the Clean Air Act as 
amended in 1990 (CAA or ``the Act'') (42 U.S.C. 7414, 7522, 7523, 7524, 
7525, 7541, 7542, 7543, 7547, 7549, 7550 and 7601(a)).

[[Page 6367]]

    EPA is proposing emissions standards for new locomotives and new 
engines used in locomotives pursuant to its authority under section 213 
of the Clean Air Act. Section 213(a)(5) directs EPA to adopt emissions 
standards for new locomotives and new engines used in locomotives that 
achieve the greatest degree of emissions reductions achievable through 
the use of technology that the Administrator determines will be 
available for such vehicles and engines, taking into account the cost 
of applying such technology within the available time period, and 
noise, energy, and safety factors associated with the application of 
such technology. As described in this notice and in the regulatory 
support document, EPA has evaluated the available information to 
determine the technology that will be available for locomotives and 
engines proposed to be subject to EPA standards.
    EPA is also acting under its authority to implement and enforce the 
locomotive emission standards. Section 213(d) provides that the 
standards EPA adopts for new locomotives and new engines used in 
locomotives ``shall be subject to sections 206, 207, 208, and 209'' of 
the Clean Air Act, with such modifications that the Administrator deems 
appropriate to the regulations implementing these sections.<SUP>1 In 
addition, the locomotive standards ``shall be enforced in the same 
manner as [motor vehicle] standards prescribed under section 202'' of 
the Act. Section 213(d) also grants EPA authority to promulgate or 
revise regulations as necessary to determine compliance with, and 
enforce, standards adopted under section 213. Pursuant to this 
authority, EPA is proposing that manufacturers (including 
remanufacturers) of new locomotives and new engines used in locomotives 
must obtain a certificate of compliance with EPA's emissions standards 
and requirements, and must subject the locomotives and engines to 
assembly line and in-use testing. The language of section 213(d) 
directs EPA to generally enforce the locomotive emissions standards in 
the same manner as it enforces motor vehicle emissions standards. 
Pursuant to this authority, EPA is proposing regulations similar to 
those adopted for motor vehicles and engines under section 203 of the 
Act, which prescribes certain enforcement-related prohibitions, 
including a prohibition against introducing a new vehicle or engine 
that is not covered by a valid certificate of conformity into commerce, 
a prohibition against tampering, and a prohibition on importing a 
vehicle or engine into the United States without a valid, applicable 
certificate of conformity. In addition, EPA is proposing emission 
defect regulations that require manufacturers to report to EPA 
emissions-related defects that affect a given class or category of 
engines.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\  Sections 206, 207, 208, and 209 of the Act cover compliance 
testing and certification, in-use compliance, information 
collection, and state standards, respectively.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    EPA is also proposing regulations to clarify the scope of 
preemption of state regulation. Section 209(e) prohibits states from 
adopting and enforcing standards and other requirements relating to the 
control of emissions from new locomotives and new engines used in 
locomotives. This provision also grants EPA authority to adopt 
regulations to implement section 209(e). Pursuant to this authority, 
EPA is proposing to adopt regulations to implement the express 
preemption of state emissions standards for new locomotives and new 
engines used in locomotives, for the purpose of clarifying the scope of 
preemption for states and industry.

III. Background

A. Locomotives

    Locomotives generally fall into three broad categories based on 
their intended use. Switch locomotives, typically 1500 kilowatts (kW) 
or less, (2000 horsepower (hp)), are the least powerful locomotives, 
and are used in freight yards to assemble and disassemble trains, or 
for short hauls of small trains. Passenger locomotives are powered by 
engines of approximately 2200 kW (3000 hp), and may be equipped with an 
auxiliary engine to provide hotel power for the train, although they 
may also generate hotel power (i.e., electrical power used for 
lighting, heating, etc. in the passenger cars) with the main engine. 
Freight or line-haul locomotives are the most powerful locomotives and 
are used to power freight train operations over long distances. Older 
line-haul locomotives are typically powered by engines of approximately 
2,200 kW (3,000 hp), while newer line-haul locomotives are powered by 
engines of approximately 3,000 kW (4,000 hp). In some cases, older 
line-haul locomotives (especially lower powered ones) are used in 
switch applications. The industry expects that the next generation of 
freshly manufactured line-haul locomotives will be powered by 4,500 kW 
(6,000 hp) engines.
    One unique feature of locomotives that makes them different than 
other, currently regulated mobile sources is the way that power is 
transferred from the engine to the wheels. Most mobile sources utilize 
mechanical means (i.e., a transmission) to transfer energy from the 
engine to the wheels (or other site of use). This results in engine 
operation which is very transient in nature, with respect to changes in 
both speed and load. In contrast, locomotive engines are typically 
connected to an electrical generator to convert the mechanical energy 
to electricity. This electricity is then used to power traction motors 
which turn the wheels. This lack of a direct, mechanical connection 
between the engine and the wheels allows the engine to operate in an 
essentially steady state mode in a number of discrete power settings, 
or notches. Current locomotives typically have eight power notches, as 
well as one or two idle settings.
    A second unique feature of locomotives setting them apart from 
other mobile sources is their braking system. In this braking system, 
called the dynamic brake, the traction motors act as generators, with 
the generated power being dissipated as heat through an electric 
resistance grid. While the engine is not generating motive power (i.e., 
power to propel the locomotive, also known as tractive power) in the 
dynamic brake mode, it is generating power to operate the resistance 
grid cooling fans. As such, the engine is operating in a power mode 
that is different than the power notches or idle settings just 
discussed. While most diesel electric locomotives have dynamic brakes, 
some do not (generally switch locomotives).

B. Railroads

    In the United States, freight railroads are subdivided into three 
classes by the Federal Surface Transportation Board (STB), based on 
annual revenue. In 1994 a railroad was classified as a Class I railroad 
if annual revenue was $255.9 million or greater, as a Class II railroad 
with annual revenue of between $20.5 and 255.8 million, and as a Class 
III railroad with revenues of under $20.5 million. In 1994, there were 
12 Class I railroads and 519 Class II and III railroads operating in 
the U.S. Due to a recent merger of two railroads, there are currently 
11 Class I railroads operating in the U.S. Class I railroads presently 
operate approximately 18,500 locomotives in the U.S., while Class II 
and III railroads operate approximately 2,650 locomotives.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\  Railroad Facts, 1995 Edition, Association of American 
Railroads, September, 1995.

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

[[Page 6368]]

C. Locomotive Usage

    Movement of freight by Class I railroads totaled approximately 910 
billion ton-miles in 1981, increasing to approximately 1,201 billion 
ton-miles in 1994; an increase of approximately 32 percent. At present, 
more than \1/3\ of total intercity revenue freight ton-miles moved in 
the U.S. by all transportation means are moved by train.<SUP>3
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ Id. A revenue freight ton-mile is the commercial movement 
(i.e., for revenue) of one ton of freight one mile.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

D. Locomotive Sales and Rebuild Practices

    From 1985 through 1994, annual sales of freshly manufactured 
locomotives fluctuated somewhat, but averaged approximately 450 units. 
Class I railroads typically purchase all of these freshly manufactured 
locomotives. Older locomotives owned by Class I railroads are either 
sold to smaller railroads, scrapped, or purchased by an independent 
entity for remanufacture and resale. The total life of a locomotive is 
approximately 40 years, during which period the engine and the 
locomotive undergo several extensive remanufacturing operations. These 
remanufacturing operations generally consist of, at a minimum, the 
replacement of the power assemblies (i.e., pistons, piston rings, 
cylinder liners, cylinder heads, fuel injectors, valves, etc.) with new 
components (or components that are in new condition) to bring the 
locomotive back to the condition it was in when originally manufactured 
with respect to performance, durability and emissions.

E. Locomotive and Locomotive Engine Manufacturers and Remanufacturers

    Locomotives used in the United States are primarily produced by two 
manufacturers: the Electromotive Division of General Motors (EMD) and 
General Electric Transportation Systems (GE). These manufacturers 
produce both the locomotive chassis and the propulsion engines, and 
also remanufacture engines. MotivePower Industries (formerly MK Rail 
Corporation) recently entered the market and has manufactured some 
locomotives using engines manufactured by Caterpillar, Inc. Detroit 
Diesel Corporation and Cummins Engine Company, Inc. also produce 
engines which may be used in locomotives. U.S. railroads do not tend to 
purchase locomotives or locomotive engines from manufacturers outside 
of the U.S.
    The two primary manufacturers of freshly manufactured locomotives 
also provide remanufacturing services to their customers. Several 
additional entities also remanufacture locomotives. Many Class I 
railroads remanufacture locomotive engines for their own units and on a 
contract basis for other railroads. Additionally, there are a small 
number of independent remanufacturing operations in existence.

F. Interstate Commerce

    Current railroad networks (rail lines) are geographically 
widespread across the United States, serving every major city in the 
country. Today, approximately one-third of the freight hauled in the 
United States is hauled by train. There are very few industries or 
citizens in the U.S. who are not ultimate consumers of the services 
provided by the American railroad companies. Efficient train 
transportation is a vital factor in the strength of the U.S. economy.
    Class I railroads operate regionally. This is why railroad 
companies and the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA), have stressed 
the importance of unhindered rail access across all state boundaries. 
If states regulated locomotives differently, a railroad could 
conceivably be forced to change locomotives at state boundaries, and/or 
have state-specific locomotive fleets. Currently, facilities for such 
changes do not exist, and even if switching areas were available at 
state boundaries, it would be a costly and time consuming disruption of 
interstate commerce. Any disruption in the efficient interstate 
movement of trains throughout the U.S. would have an impact on the 
health and well-being of not only the rail industry but the entire U.S. 
economy as well.

G. Modal Shift

    Another important point requiring consideration in the regulation 
of locomotives is the potential for modal shift. A modal shift is a 
change from one form of transportation, such as trains, to another 
form, such as trucks. Modal shift can have negative or positive effects 
on national and local emissions inventories. Negative modal shift 
occurs when there is a shift to a more polluting form of 
transportation.
    Information currently available to EPA shows that truck-based 
freight movement generates more pollutants per ton-mile of freight 
hauled than current, unregulated rail-based forms of freight movement. 
Estimates quantifying the difference indicate that locomotives are on 
the order of three times cleaner than trucks on an emissions per ton-
mile basis.<SUP>4 Thus, overly stringent regulation of the rail 
industry or a disruption in interstate rail movement could cause rail 
prices to increase and thus cause a negative modal shift. Regulations 
that were overly stringent could raise equipment and/or operating costs 
to the point that it might be a wiser economic choice to move current 
rail freight by truck. Additionally, delays caused by changing 
locomotives at state boundaries due to separate state locomotive 
regulations could be costly to railroad companies. These increased 
costs would be reflected in the price of hauling freight by rail and 
may even eliminate some rail carriers from the market. In both of these 
cases customers could switch to trucks for the movement of their 
freight. Any freight normally carried by rail that is hauled by trucks 
instead of by rail would increase overall emissions, even at current 
emissions levels.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\  Note from F. Peter Hutchins to Joanne I. Goldhand, dated 2/
14/94, and entitled ``Estimate of Relative NO<INF>X Emissions 
Resulting from Movement of Freight by Truck and by Train.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

H. Health and Environmental Impacts of Ambient NO<INF>X and PM

    Oxides of nitrogen (NO<INF>X) are a family of reactive gaseous 
compounds that contribute to air pollution in both urban and rural 
environments. NO<INF>X emissions are produced during the combustion of 
fuels at high temperatures. The primary sources of atmospheric NO<INF>X 
include highway sources (such as light-duty and heavy-duty vehicles), 
nonroad sources (such as construction and agricultural equipment, and 
locomotives) and stationary sources (such as power plants and 
industrial boilers). Ambient levels of NO<INF>X can be directly harmful 
to human health and the environment. More importantly, from an overall 
health and welfare perspective, NO<INF>X contributes to the production 
of secondary chemical products that in turn cause additional health and 
welfare effects. Prominent among these are ozone and nitrate 
particulate.
    The component of NO<INF>X that is of most concern from a health 
standpoint is nitrogen dioxide, NO<INF>2. EPA has set a primary 
(health-related) NAAQS for NO<INF>2 of 100 micrograms per cubic meter, 
or 0.053 parts per million. Direct exposure to NO<INF>2 can reduce 
breathing efficiency and increase lung and airway irritation in healthy 
people, as well as in the elderly and in people with pre-existing 
pulmonary conditions. Exposure to NO<INF>2 at or near the level of the 
ambient standard appears to increase symptoms of respiratory illness, 
lung congestion, wheeze, and

[[Page 6369]]

increased bronchitis in children. In addition to the direct effects of 
NO<INF>X, the chemical transformation products of NO<INF>X also 
contribute to adverse health and environmental impacts. These secondary 
impacts of NO<INF>X include ground-level ozone, nitrate particulate 
matter, acid deposition, eutrophication (plant overgrowth) of coastal 
waters, and transformation of other pollutants into more dangerous 
chemical forms.
    Ozone is a highly reactive chemical compound that can affect both 
biological tissues and man-made materials. Ozone exposure causes a 
range of human pulmonary and respiratory health effects. While ozone's 
effects on the pulmonary function of sensitive individuals or 
populations (e.g., asthmatics) are of primary concern, evidence 
indicates that high ambient levels of ozone can cause respiratory 
symptoms in healthy adults and children as well. For example, exposure 
to ozone for several hours at moderate concentrations, especially 
during outdoor work and exercise, has been found to decrease lung 
function, increase airway inflammation, increase sensitivity to other 
irritants, and impair lung defenses against infections in otherwise 
healthy adults and children. Other symptoms include chest pain, 
coughing, and shortness of breath.
    In recent years, significant efforts have been made on both a 
national and state level to reduce air quality problems associated with 
ground-level ozone, with a focus on its main precursors, oxides of 
nitrogen (NO<INF>X) and volatile organic compounds (VOCs).<SUP>5 The 
precursors to ozone and ozone itself are transported long distances 
under some commonly occurring meteorological conditions. Specifically, 
concentrations of ozone and its precursors in a region and the 
transport of ozone and precursor pollutants into, out of, and within a 
region are very significant factors in the accumulation of ozone in any 
given area. Regional-scale transport may occur within a state or across 
one or more state boundaries. Local source NO<INF>X and VOC controls 
are key parts of the overall attainment strategy for nonattainment 
areas. However, the ability of an area to achieve ozone attainment and 
thereby reduce ozone-related health and environmental effects is often 
heavily influenced by the ozone and precursor emission levels of upwind 
areas. Thus, for many of these areas, EPA believes that attainment of 
the ozone NAAQS will require control programs much broader than 
strictly locally focused controls to take into account the effect of 
emissions and ozone far beyond the boundaries of any individual 
nonattainment area.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ VOCs consist mostly of hydrocarbons (HC).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    EPA therefore believes that effective ozone control requires an 
integrated strategy that combines cost-effective reductions in 
emissions from both mobile and stationary sources. EPA's current 
initiatives, including the national locomotive emissions standards 
proposed in this action, are components of the Agency's integrated 
ozone reduction strategy.
    In addition to ozone, airborne particulate matter (PM) has been a 
major air quality concern in many regions. Ozone and PM have both been 
linked to a range of serious respiratory health problems and a variety 
of adverse environmental effects. As was previously discussed, ozone 
causes harmful respiratory effects including chest pain, coughing, and 
shortness of breath. Similarly, PM exposure is associated with health 
effects including shortness of breath, aggravation of existing 
respiratory disease, cancer, and premature death.
    Beyond their effects on human health, other negative environmental 
effects are also associated with ozone, NO<INF>X, and PM. Ozone has 
been shown to injure plants and materials; NO<INF>X contributes to the 
secondary formation of PM (nitrates), acid deposition, and the 
overgrowth of algae in coastal estuaries. PM can damage materials and 
impair visibility. These effects are extensively discussed in EPA's 
``air quality criteria'' documents for NO<INF>X, ozone, and PM.<SUP>6 7 
8 EPA recently proposed revisions to the national ambient air quality 
standards (NAAQS) for ozone and PM.<SUP>9
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ Air Quality Criteria Document for Oxides of Nitrogen, EPA-
600/8-91/049aF-cF, August 1993 (NTIS #: PB92-17-6361/REB,- 6379/REB, 
-6387/REB).
    \7\ Air Quality Criteria Document for Ozone and Related 
Photochemical Oxidants (External Review Draft), EPA/600/P-93/004aF-
cF, 1996.
    \8\ Air Quality Criteria for Particulate Matter (External Review 
Draft), EPA-600/AP-95/001a-a, April 1995.
    \9\ 61 FR 65638 (PM) and 61 FR 65716 (ozone), December 13, 1996.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Emissions from Present Locomotives

A. National Inventories

    Contributions by locomotives to the national emissions inventories 
for volatile organic compounds (VOC), carbon monoxide (CO), oxides of 
nitrogen (NO<INF>X) and particulate matter (as PM-10) are summarized in 
Table IV-1. The values shown in Table IV-1 are the total national 
inventories from all sources, from mobile sources, and from locomotives 
for 1990. The railroad inventories, expressed as the percentage 
contributions by commercial railroads to the total national inventories 
and to the transportation sources inventories, are shown in Table IV-2. 
The Agency recognizes that not all of the locomotives in service are 
owned and operated by commercial (including public) railroads. The 
locomotives not operated by the commercial railroads are generally used 
to transport equipment and materials within an industrial facility. 
However, in light of the small percentage of in-use locomotives that 
are not operated by commercial railroads, EPA believes that the 
emissions from these locomotives are an extremely small percentage of 
the total emissions from all locomotives in service. Thus, for the 
purposes of this discussion it is assumed that locomotive and railroad 
emission inventories are equivalent.

         TABLE IV-1<SUP>1.--1990 National Emission Inventories: All Sources, Mobile Sources, and Locomotives         
                                            [millions of metric tons]                                           
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                  Total from all                                
                            Emission                                  sources     Mobile sources    Locomotives 
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NO<INF>X.............................................................           20.90            9.37            0.98
PM-10...........................................................           39.31            0.66            .024
VOC.............................................................           21.41            8.14            .038

[[Page 6370]]

                                                                                                                
CO..............................................................           91.31           70.31             .11
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
<SUP>1 Data for all pollutants from all sources and mobile sources is taken from ``National Air Pollutant Emission   
  Trends, 1900-1994'', U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, EPA-454/R-95-011, October 1995. Locomotive         
  pollutant estimates are derived from emission factors (contained in Table IV-3), along with fuel consumption  
  data and a bhp-hr/gallon conversion factor. The trends report, based on older locomotive emission factors,    
  reports locomotive PM-10 at 0.04 million metric tons. The trends report mobile source inventories were not    
  updated to reflect the revised railroad inventories, but nonetheless provide an idea of the magnitude of      
  locomotive emissions. The trends report mobile source inventory for VOC does not specify the emissions        
  contribution of locomotives.                                                                                  


TABLE IV-2.--Locomotive Contributions to National Inventory in 1990 as a
             Percentage of All Sources and of Mobile Sources            
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                          Percent of all    Percent of  
                                              sources     mobile sources
                Emission                  contributed by  contributed by
                                            locomotives     locomotives 
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NO<INF>X.....................................            4.67            10.4
PM-10...................................           0.061            3.65
VOC.....................................             .18            0.47
CO......................................             .12            0.16
------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. Locomotive Emission Rates

    EPA received information from EMD, GE and the Association of 
American Railroads (AAR) regarding emissions of HC, CO, NO<INF>X and PM 
from locomotives. This information is summarized in the Regulatory 
Support Document (RSD) for this rulemaking. Based on this information, 
EPA calculated estimates of average emissions rates for line-haul and 
switch locomotives. Table IV-3 shows estimated nationwide average 
emissions for each category, expressed in grams per brake horsepower-
hour (g/bhp-hr). It should be noted that, although line-haul 
locomotives appear to be much cleaner than switch locomotives, this is 
merely an artifact of the fact that g/bhp-hr emission rates are much 
higher at low power modes, and switch locomotives operate in low power 
modes a greater percentage of time than do line-haul locomotives. A 
description of the methodology used by EPA in determining these 
emission rates is included in the RSD in the docket. EPA requests 
comment on these estimated emissions rates. Commenters are encouraged 
to include additional emissions data where possible.

                                TABLE IV-3.--Current Estimated Line-haul and Switch Locomotive Emissions Rates (g/bhp-hr)                               
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                       HC           CO          NO<INF>X           PM                    Smoke (percent opacity)             
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Line-hau........................................          0.5          1.5         13.5         0.34  Equivalent to HDDE \1\                            
Switch..........................................          1.1          2.4         19.8         0.41  Equivalent to HDDE.                               
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Heavy-duty diesel motor vehicle engine.                                                                                                             

V. Description of the Proposal

    This section contains a description of today's proposed emissions 
control program for new locomotives and locomotive engines. The 
subjects discussed are applicability, emission standards, test 
procedures, certification and testing requirements, enforcement, 
railroad requirements, preemption, and other miscellaneous topics. This 
section also includes a discussion of the various options EPA 
considered in developing the proposal. The Agency requests comments on 
these other options, as well as on the actual proposal. The interested 
reader is referred to the proposed regulatory text and the RSD for a 
more detailed discussion of many of these issues.

A. Applicability

    Section 213(a)(5) of the Act specifies that EPA shall establish 
emission standards for ``new locomotives and new engines used in 
locomotives.'' Thus, the general applicability of this action is 
determined by the definition of ``new locomotive'' and ``new locomotive 
engine''. The Act, however, does not define ``new locomotive'' or ``new 
locomotive engine,'' which gives the Agency some discretion in defining 
the category of locomotives and locomotives engines that should be 
considered ``new''. EPA proposes to define ``new locomotive'' and ``new 
locomotive engine'' to mean a locomotive or locomotive engine the 
equitable or legal title to which has never been transferred to an 
ultimate purchaser; and a locomotive or locomotive engine that has been 
remanufactured, until it is placed back into service. Where the 
equitable or legal title to a locomotive or locomotive engine is not 
transferred before the engine or vehicle is placed into service, then 
the locomotive or locomotive engine will be new until it is placed into 
service. EPA also proposes to define imported locomotives and 
locomotive engines to be new unless they are covered by a certificate 
of conformity at the time of importation. Finally, EPA proposes to 
limit the applicability of the definition of new locomotive and new 
locomotive engine to locomotives and locomotive engines originally 
manufactured after 1972. As is described in the RSD, the applicability 
would be limited in this manner to eliminate the unwarranted

[[Page 6371]]

burden of bringing very old locomotives into compliance.
    EPA is aware of a practice in the locomotive industry known as 
upgrading. During an upgrade, a locomotive remanufacturer will 
typically take an older engine model and remanufacture it in such a 
manner that it is in essentially all respects a more recent model, both 
in terms of its performance and the expected remaining service life 
following the upgrade. EPA is proposing a definition of remanufacture 
that includes this process of upgrading. EPA proposes that any pre-1973 
locomotives which are upgraded to post-1972 specifications be required 
to meet the same emissions standards as locomotives originally 
manufactured after 1972. Also, for the purposes of the various 
compliance programs discussed later (certification, production line 
testing, in-use testing), upgraders will be treated as remanufacturers. 
<SUP>10 The Agency requests comment on its definition of upgrade, as 
contained in the proposed regulatory text, and whether it should be 
written to optionally (the remanufacturer's option) include any 
remanufactured pre-1973 locomotive that complies with the Tier 0 
emission standards.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ Unless specified otherwise, all provisions discussed in 
this preamble applicable to remanufacturers shall also be considered 
to be applicable to upgraders.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The proposed definition of ``new locomotive'' and ``new locomotive 
engine'' would be consistent with, but not identical to, the definition 
of ``new nonroad engine'' and ``new nonroad vehicle'' that EPA 
promulgated on July 20, 1994 (59 FR 36969), and revised on October 4, 
1996 (61 FR 52102). The definition of ``new nonroad engine'' includes 
only ``freshly manufactured'' engines, while the proposed definition of 
``new locomotive'' and ``new locomotive engine'' includes both freshly 
manufactured and remanufactured locomotives and engines. EPA believes 
it is appropriate to regulate remanufactured locomotive engines as new 
engines because of the nature of the remanufacturing process for such 
engines. Remanufacturing locomotives typically involves inspecting the 
relevant components and replacing most or all of them as necessary with 
components that are functionally equivalent to freshly manufactured 
components. The relevant components include those that control the 
delivery of fuel to the combustion process, those that control the 
condition and delivery of air to the combustion process, and those that 
are directly involved in the combustion process, (at a minimum, the 
fuel injectors, turbocharger, charge air cooler, pistons and piston 
rings, cylinders, valves, valve springs, camshaft, and cylinder head). 
This process is a more complete overhaul than the typical rebuilding of 
an on-highway diesel engine. Since a remanufactured locomotive engine 
is in all material ways like a freshly manufactured engine, both 
mechanically and in terms of how it is used, EPA proposes to define 
``new locomotive engine'' to include remanufactured engines. As with 
freshly manufactured locomotives, such engines would be new until sold 
or placed into service.
    This approach is further supported by the role remanufactured 
engines play in the locomotive industry. Locomotive engines are 
typically remanufactured periodically, as many as ten times during 
their total service lifetimes, and may be used in different locomotives 
following a remanufacture. Many smaller railroad operators do not 
purchase freshly manufactured locomotives, relying solely on the 
purchase of used locomotives from other railroad operators and the 
subsequent remanufacturing of these engines. Because of these 
remanufacturing practices, a locomotive engine will generally be used 
for many years, resulting in an extremely slow industry-wide fleet 
turnover rate. As a result, a narrow definition of new locomotive 
engines, limited to freshly manufactured engines, would effectively 
undercut the ability of the Agency to reduce emissions contribution 
from this segment of the nonroad inventory. EPA notes that the 
practices related to the use of remanufactured locomotive engines 
distinguishes this situation from other kinds of rebuilding, such as 
for other nonroad engines, and motor vehicle engines, or aircraft 
engines. Even aircraft engines do not typically remain in active 
service for 40 years moreover, there are fewer events that could be 
considered remanufacturing as described here for locomotives, because, 
among other things, the maintenance practices in the airline industry 
typically are more continuous than in the railroad industry. In 
addition, because the engines have fundamentally different designs (jet 
engine as compared to diesel engine), the overhaul of our aircraft 
engine is not comparable to the remanufacturing of a diesel locomotive. 
EPA is requesting comments on the inclusion of remanufactured 
locomotives in the definition of ``new'' for this rulemaking.
    The Agency is proposing to define ``remanufacture'' of a locomotive 
engine as a process in which all of the power assemblies of an engine 
are replaced (with freshly manufactured (containing no previously used 
parts) or refurbished power assemblies) or inspected and qualified. 
Inspecting and qualifying previously used parts can be done in several 
ways, including such things as cleaning, measuring physical dimensions 
for proper size and tolerance, and running performance tests to assure 
that the parts are functioning properly and according to 
specifications. The refurbished power assemblies would include some 
combination of freshly manufactured parts, reconditioned parts from 
other previously used power assemblies, and reconditioned parts from 
the power assemblies that were replaced. In cases where all of the ower 
assemblies are not replaced at a single time, the engine would be 
considered to be ``remanufactured'' (and therefore ``new'') if all of 
the power assemblies from the previously new engine had been replaced 
within a five year period. EPA requests comment on this definition in 
general, and specifically whether it should include some different time 
limit for engines not remanufactured during a single event. Commenters 
are requested to address both the legal, economic, and environmental 
implications of considering an engine which does not have all of its 
power assemblies replaced in a single event to be ``new''.
    EPA is proposing to include in its definition of ``remanufacture'' 
the conversion of a locomotive or locomotive engine to operate on a 
fuel other than the fuel it was originally designed and manufactured to 
operate on. Such conversions typically involve, at a minimum, the 
replacement or modification of the fuel delivery system, and often 
involve the replacement or modification of other emissions-critical 
components, as well as the recalibration of some engine operating 
parameters. For these reasons EPA is proposing to include alternative 
fuel conversions in its definition of remanufacture. Such conversions 
would thus be considered ``new'' and subject to today's proposed 
regulations.
    EPA also requests comment on possible alternative definitions of 
these terms, including two suggested alternatives raised by the 
affected industries. Railroad operators and locomotive manufacturers 
have indicated to EPA that it should consider a definition of ``new'' 
that would include any locomotive or locomotive engine manufactured or 
remanufactured after the effective date of the 1990 amendments to the 
Clean Air Act

[[Page 6372]]

(November 15, 1990). Under this alternative approach, EPA would define 
as ``new'' any locomotive or engine that is first manufactured after 
November 15, 1990, and any locomotive or engine, including those 
manufactured before November 15, 1990, that is remanufactured after 
that date. Since a locomotive would be new based solely on when it was 
manufactured or remanufactured, once it is new it would continue as new 
from then on. It would always be a new locomotive.
    EPA also solicits comment on a second alternative definition of 
``new'' for locomotives and locomotive engines, a variation of the 
first alternative. Locomotives and engines would be categorized as new 
from the time of first manufacture, or upon remanufacture, but only for 
the full extent of their useful life as defined by EPA regulations, and 
as long thereafter as they were shown to be in compliance with the 
applicable federal emissions standards and requirements.
    EPA invites comment on these two alternatives, including the 
expected emissions impacts, the impacts on states, and whether the 
Agency would have the discretion under the Act to adopt such 
alternatives. On the last issue, EPA specifically invites comment on 
whether it has the authority and whether it would be appropriate to 
adopt a definition of new for locomotive and locomotive engine that 
differs so significantly from the definition of ``new'' adopted for all 
other nonroad vehicles and engines, and the Act's definition of new 
motor vehicle and new motor vehicle engine under section 216.

B. Emission Standards

    As is described in the following sections, EPA is proposing three 
different sets of locomotive emissions standards, with the 
applicability of each dependent on the date a locomotive is first 
manufactured (i.e., 1973-1999, 2000-2004, or 2005 and later). Every 
locomotive covered by this proposal would be required to meet emission 
standards when operated over duty-cycles EPA believes are 
representative of average line-haul and switch operation. Also, any 
covered locomotive would be required to meet the standards over its 
full useful life, as defined by EPA regulations. The following sections 
discuss the proposed standards in detail, as well as presenting the 
other options EPA considered in their development.

B.1. Duty-Cycles

    A duty-cycle describes a usage pattern for any class of equipment, 
using the percent of time at defined loads, speeds or other readily 
identifiable and measurable parameters. EPA's emission standards for 
mobile sources are typically numerical standards for emissions 
performance measured during a test procedure that embodies a specific 
duty-cycle for that kind of equipment. For example, the federal test 
procedure for passenger cars and light trucks is a procedure that 
specifies, second by second, the speed of the test vehicle, with 
simultaneous loading on the engine equivalent to loading which occurs 
on the road. Since the emissions of a particular type of equipment are 
dependent upon the way the equipment is operated, the duty-cycle used 
for emission testing directly affects the kind of design changes 
required to meet the standards. In this notice, the Agency is proposing 
a series of steady-state test modes, with the duty-cycles being used to 
weight the different test modes, resulting in an average emission rate 
for the duty-cycles. A brief overview of the duty-cycles EPA proposes 
to use for certification and compliance will be presented here, rather 
than in the test procedures section.
    The Agency used a variety of available information to arrive at the 
proposed duty-cycles for locomotive testing, including several duty-
cycles historically used by railroads and locomotive manufacturers to 
assess fuel and equipment usage. These duty-cycles were evaluated by 
EPA in light of actual in-use data on recent locomotive operations. 
Based on this analysis, EPA developed separate duty-cycles for line-
haul, passenger and switch locomotives that account for the 
fundamentally different types of service these three categories of 
locomotives experience in use. These duty-cycles are presented in Table 
V-1. Since these duty-cycles merely represent the percent of time 
locomotives typically spend in each throttle notch and are not used 
during actual emissions testing, they are termed throttle notch 
weighting factors for the purposes of this proposal. A complete 
discussion of the historical cycles, in-use data, EPA's analysis of the 
relevant information, and development of these weighting factors is 
contained in the RSD.

  TABLE V-1.--Proposed Throttle Notch Weighting Factors for Locomotives 
                         and Locomotive Engines                         
                      [Percent weighting per notch]                     
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                             Line-                      
              Throttle notch                  haul    Passenger   Switch
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Idle......................................     38.0        47.4     59.8
Dynamic Brake.............................     12.5         6.2      0.0
1.........................................      6.5         7.0     12.4
2.........................................      6.5         5.1     12.3
3.........................................      5.2         5.7      5.8
4.........................................      4.4         4.7      3.6
5.........................................      3.8         4.0      3.6
6.........................................      3.9         2.9      1.5
7.........................................      3.0         1.4      0.2
8.........................................     16.2        15.6      0.8
------------------------------------------------------------------------

B.2. Emission Standards

    Tables V-2 through V-6 contain the emissions standards EPA is 
proposing to adopt for locomotives and locomotive engines. Standards 
are proposed for three categories of locomotives based on date of 
original manufacture (i.e., the Tier 0, Tier I and Tier II standards). 
The date of original manufacture is an appropriate factor to use in 
categorizing locomotives for emissions control purposes because it 
affects the emission reduction technologies that can either be 
retrofitted (for remanufacturing of existing locomotives) or are 
projected to be available in 2000 or 2005 for freshly manufactured 
locomotives.
    EPA requests comments on the appropriateness of the levels of the 
standards, including the Tier II standards for NO<INF>X and PM. The 
proposed Tier II standards would require more than a 60 percent 
reduction in NO<INF>X and a 50 percent reduction on PM from 
uncontrolled levels. However, given the fact that locomotives 
contribute a substantial portion of the national NO<INF>X inventory 
while their contribution to the PM inventory is much less substantial, 
EPA requests comment on whether it should set Tier II emissions 
standards that are more stringent for NO<INF>X than the levels noted 
above and less stringent for PM. For example, EPA requests comment on 
Tier II standards which would achieve a 70 to 75 percent reduction in 
NO<INF>X but smaller (e.g., 30 percent, rather than the 50 percent 
reduction of the proposed Tier II PM standards) or even no reductions 
in PM compared to uncontrolled levels. EPA believes that, given the 
inherent tradeoff between NO<INF>X and PM emissions control in diesel 
engines, such a tradeoff of NO<INF>X and PM reductions in this option 
compared to the proposed Tier II standards may not change costs 
substantially compared to

[[Page 6373]]

the proposed Tier II standards, but may require a somewhat different 
technology mix. An analysis of the cost and technology implications of 
this option are contained in the public docket. EPA requests comment on 
all aspects of this option, including its technology and cost 
implications. EPA also requests comment on the cost and technology 
implications of requiring additional NO<INF>X reductions, including the 
implications for control of PM. Finally, EPA requests comment on 
whether it should consider more stringent Tier II PM standards than 
those proposed, and what the implications of such standards might be 
for NO<INF>X control, as well as their cost and technology 
implications.
    Should the Agency consider tightening the particulate standards for 
Tier 0 and Tier I locomotives to ensure that particulate emissions do 
not exceed the current baseline level (0.34 g/bhp-hr for line-haul 
locomotives); and would more stringent particulate standards require 
relaxation of the NO<INF>X standards? For example, EPA could set the 
particulate standard for Tier 0 locomotives at 0.40 g/bhp-hr to 
effectively prevent any Tier 0 locomotives from emitting above the 
current baseline; and set the particulate standard for Tier I 
locomotives at 0.3 g/bhp-hr to achieve a 25 percent reduction in 
emissions from the current baseline level. If the Agency were to adopt 
more stringent particulate standards for Tier 0 locomotives should they 
be phased-in to provide more leadtime to remanufacturers? The Agency 
requests comment on whether it should consider giving some form of 
credit for locomotives that are designed to shut down at idle, given 
that such locomotives would not be generating idle emissions in use, 
but would have idle emissions measured during emissions testing. 
Finally, the Agency requests comment on the stringency and form of the 
smoke standards.
    Auxiliary engines used only to provide hotel power for the 
passenger cars of a train are currently subject to the applicable 
emissions standards previously adopted for nonroad compression ignition 
(CI) engines over 37 kW <SUP>11. These standards, shown in Table V-6, 
will apply regardless of which of the duty-cycle options discussed is 
adopted.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\  59 FR 31335, June 17, 1994, and 40 CFR part 89.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition to proposing separate emissions standards for the three 
categories of locomotives based on date of original manufacture, the 
Agency considered three options for separate emissions standards for 
each of the three distinct types of locomotive operation described 
above (switch, passenger and line-haul). Of the three options 
considered, EPA is proposing the ``dual-cycle'' option, where all 
locomotives, regardless of their intended usage, would be required to 
meet both switch and line-haul duty-cycle standards. Details of this 
option, as well as the other two duty-cycle based options EPA 
considered (i.e., the ``class-specific'' and the ``single-cycle'' 
options) are discussed in the following paragraphs.
    The standards being proposed are designed to achieve very 
significant reductions in NO<INF>X emissions from the beginning of the 
program, while significant reductions in the emissions of other 
pollutants would only be achieved under the Tier II standards, 
effective in 2005. This is because NO<INF>X is the only pollutant for 
which locomotive emissions contribute more than one percent of the 
estimated national inventories (see Table IV-2). EPA believes that the 
Tier 0 and Tier I emission standards for NO<INF>X might not be 
achievable if significant reductions in HC, CO, and PM were also 
required. Thus, the standards being proposed are intended to achieve 
the greatest environmental benefits as early as possible.

Class-Specific Option

    Given the three distinct types of locomotive operation discussed 
above (i.e., switch, passenger and line-haul), the first option the 
Agency considered was separate emission standards and duty-cycle 
weightings for each type (i.e., the class specific option). Separate 
duty-cycle standards were intended to address the wide disparity in 
usage patterns for the different groups, and the effect of such use on 
emissions.
    Although duty-cycles were developed for average locomotive 
operation, wide variations in actual operations do occur within the 
three basic types of operation (i.e., switch, passenger and line-haul). 
To prevent substantial disparity between the in-use emissions rate and 
the emissions rate during the test cycle, EPA considered notch-by-notch 
emissions standards for all notches (i.e., notch caps) for all 
pollutants. It should be noted that if a locomotive were operating at 
the levels of the notch caps for all notches, its duty-cycle-weighted 
emissions would be much higher than the duty-cycle standards. Thus, the 
proposed duty-cycle standards would prevent any locomotive from 
emitting at levels of the notch caps for all (or even most) notches. 
These notch-by-notch values were chosen to allow manufacturers and 
remanufacturers some degree of flexibility in meeting the duty-cycle 
standards, while at the same time insuring that differences in the 
utilization of locomotives which normally occur will not cause 
significant divergence from the duty-cycle emission standard. To 
provide additional flexibility to manufacturers and remanufacturers, 
EPA also considered a provision allowing a limited number of notch 
standards to be exceeded by a specified small amount provided there is 
compliance with the duty-cycle standards. The duty-cycle-weighted 
emissions standards and NO<INF>X and PM notch caps considered under 
this option are shown in Tables V-2 through V-5 for line-haul, switch 
and passenger locomotives equipped with a single engine. Notch caps for 
HC and CO which are 25 percent above the applicable line-haul duty-
cycle standards were also considered under this option.

Dual Cycle Option

    The manufacturers indicated to EPA that it would be burdensome to 
comply with three sets of emission standards when essentially the same 
engine (differing only, for example, in the number of cylinders) could 
be used for all three types of locomotives (switch, passenger and line-
haul). The manufacturers' concern is not based on testing burden since, 
as discussed in the test procedures section, the same test results on a 
notch-by-notch basis are simply weighted differently to determine 
compliance with the different standards. Rather, the issue is one of 
having to design three different versions of a single engine to meet 
three different sets of emission standards.
    The Agency believes that the line-haul/switch dual cycle approach 
has some merit due to its ability to control idle emissions from switch 
locomotives as well as high notch emissions from line-haul and 
passenger locomotives. However, EPA is concerned that the lack of notch 
caps creates a situation where, with the use of electronic controls, 
the duty-cycle standards can be met during testing according to the 
proposed test procedure, but in-use emissions reductions are not fully 
realized. One way that this could happen would be if the average in-use 
duty-cycle changed to include greater percentages of time in notches 
which have disproportionately high emissions. Notch caps in individual 
modes would reduce this concern since it would require emissions 
control in all notches. A locomotive could also be designed such that 
the emissions during operation at notch eight (which are heavily 
weighted in the line-haul duty-

[[Page 6374]]

cycle) are low, while notch seven is calibrated for low fuel 
consumption (and possibly high emissions, due to the inherent tradeoffs 
between performance, fuel economy and emissions control) but at a power 
level near the notch eight power level. A locomotive operator could 
then use notch seven where notch eight would normally be employed, 
resulting in a savings in fuel consumed, and minimal impact in train 
schedules, at the expense of emissions performance. Notch caps on the 
higher power notches would be useful in preventing such situations. 
However, the manufacturers have indicated to EPA their concern that any 
notch caps would constrain their flexibility in meeting the emissions 
standards, especially at low power notches where emissions are more 
difficult to control than at the high power notches. EPA agrees that 
low power notch caps could be an unreasonable burden on manufacturers 
under this option, especially given the ability of the switch cycle to 
control those emissions. Thus, under this option, EPA is proposing 
notch caps only for notches four through eight. EPA requests comment on 
the need for notch caps under this option. The Agency recognizes that 
the compliance burden associated with such notch caps could be greater 
for remanufacturers of existing locomotives, and therefore requests 
comment on whether notch caps should be limited to Tier I and Tier II 
locomotives.
    EPA believes that the dual cycle approach proposed in this notice 
provides the same emission reductions as the three duty-cycle approach 
previously discussed, but with a maximum of flexibility. Under the dual 
cycle approach, the line-haul duty-cycle standards will ensure control 
of emissions at high power notches, which account for the vast majority 
of in-service operations, while the switch duty-cycle standards will 
ensure control of emissions at the idle and low power notches 
characteristic of switch locomotive operations. Thus, the Agency is 
proposing to require all new locomotives and new engines used in 
locomotives to meet both the switch and line-haul duty-cycle standards. 
EPA is also proposing to require new locomotives equipped with hotel 
power to comply with both the switch and line-haul duty-cycle standards 
in both tractive power only and tractive plus hotel power mode in order 
to account for passenger locomotive emissions. EPA requests comment on 
whether it should require such locomotives to comply only with the 
line-haul duty-cycle standards when operating in tractive plus hotel 
power mode, rather than requiring compliance with both the switch and 
line-haul duty-cycle standards in this mode.

Single Cycle Option

    The Agency considered a second approach suggested by the 
manufacturers under which a single duty-cycle would apply to all 
categories of locomotives, regardless of use. EPA is concerned about 
the ability of a single duty-cycle to effectively control emissions of 
all locomotives because of the emission effects of the differing uses. 
Switch locomotives tend to have very high percentages of idle time. 
Line-haul and passenger locomotives tend to spend less time at idle 
than switch locomotives, but more time in the high power notches. Using 
a single duty-cycle for all three classes would likely result in higher 
emissions in cases where the locomotive's operation does not resemble 
the duty cycle throttle notch weightings used for emissions testing. 
For this reason, the single cycle approach would not achieve emissions 
reductions equivalent to the proposed approach unless accompanied by 
very stringent individual notch caps, with no provisions for some small 
exceedance of the notch caps. EPA requests comment on the 
appropriateness of such a single duty-cycle and set of standards that 
would be based on the line-haul duty-cycle, but with stringent caps on 
idle and low power notch emissions in order to assure that switch 
locomotives certified to these standards achieve the same levels of 
emission reductions as switch locomotives certified to the switch 
locomotive standards described earlier.
    EPA also requests comment on the proposed dual-cycle approach to 
applying the proposed standards, as well as the alternative options 
described in this notice, and other duty-cycle standard approaches. The 
Agency believes that all three options described could provide similar 
emission reductions. EPA requests comment on whether more than one 
option should be adopted, with the manufacturer given a choice of which 
option to comply with. In such a scenario, should a manufacturer be 
allowed to certify some engine families to the single or dual cycle and 
others to the class-specific cycle, or should a manufacturer be 
required to certify all of its production in compliance with only one 
of the options? The Agency also requests comment on how passenger 
locomotive hotel power should be handled under any of these approaches.

High Baseline Locomotives

    EPA believes the proposed standards to be appropriate under section 
213 of the Act. The proposed standards would achieve the greatest 
degree of reduction in emissions achievable through the use of 
technology that will be available, in light of cost, leadtime and other 
factors. However, in the course of this proposal's development the 
locomotive manufacturers expressed some concern about the ability of 
all 1973-1999 locomotives to meet the Tier 0 standards. This concern 
relates to some engine families produced during this period which, due 
to their design, have higher emissions than other locomotives produced 
during the same period, and for which the cost-effective technologies 
which are projected to be used to comply with the Tier 0 standards will 
not reduce emissions from these locomotives to the levels of the 
proposed Tier 0 standards. Additionally, the manufacturers believe that 
it would be difficult to certify these engines under the proposed 
averaging banking and trading program (ABT, discussed later in this 
notice), due to concerns about the availability of credits. They are 
concerned that independent remanufacturers would certify systems for 
those Tier 0 locomotive engine families that are easy to bring into 
compliance without putting in the extra effort that would allow them to 
generate emissions credits from those engine families. These 
remanufacturers may not develop emission control systems for those 
engine families that are more difficult to bring into compliance. This 
would leave the manufacturers to develop them, without the benefit of 
being able to use credits that could be generated from the engine 
families that are easy to bring into compliance. Thus, assuring that 
all Tier 0 engine families are certified under the ABT program would 
require much cooperation and coordination among railroads and the 
various entities certifying remanufactured locomotives.
    Because of the reasons just discussed, the Agency is proposing, and 
requesting comment on, a provision by which manufacturers and 
remanufacturers can petition EPA to allow certification of Tier 0 
locomotives based on a demonstration of a 33 percent NO<INF>X reduction 
from pre-control levels for that specific engine family, rather than 
meeting the proposed Tier 0 NO<INF>X standards. Under this option the 
Tier 0 standards for all pollutants other than NO<INF>X would still 
apply. A 33 percent reduction for NO<INF>X was chosen because this is 
the approximate average reduction the Tier 0 NO<INF>X standards

[[Page 6375]]

would achieve from fleet average baseline levels (when factoring in the 
expected NO<INF>X compliance margin of 5 percent). Such a petition 
would be granted based on the certifier's demonstration of 
infeasibility or excessive cost, as determined by the Administrator. 
The numerical NO<INF>X emissions standard applicable to a given engine 
family certified under this option would be established by emissions 
testing five well-maintained locomotives in the engine family. The 
average of the results of these five tests would then be used as the 
baseline emissions level and the applicable NO<INF>X standard would be 
set at a level 33 percent below baseline. Once the applicable NO<INF>X 
standard is determined through this procedure, the certification 
process would be the same as for other Tier 0 locomotives, as discussed 
later in this notice. The Agency requests comment on the 
appropriateness of and need for this option, and whether Tier 0 
locomotives and locomotive engines should be excluded from the ABT 
program if this certification option is adopted. EPA specifically 
requests comment on the need for this option in the event that the 
railroad-based Tier 0 certification provisions discussed in the engine 
family certification section of this notice are finalized. EPA believes 
that a railroad-based certification program would eliminate or reduce 
the concerns expressed about the ability of the ABT program to allow 
these locomotives to be certified because a railroad would have control 
over the locomotives it operated and could better plan for their 
remanufacture in a given year whereas a remanufacturer would have to 
estimate the engine family mix that it would remanufacture in a given 
year in order to plan its ABT strategy for that year. EPA requests 
comment on other alternative plans for addressing the issue of Tier 0 
locomotives which have trouble meeting the Tier 0 standards (either for 
reasons of excessive cost or infeasibility), including such options as 
allowing Tier 0 locomotives under 2000 hp to certify to the switch 
duty-cycle standards (and applicable caps) only, and not requiring such 
locomotives to comply with the line-haul duty-cycle standards.

Other Nonroad Engines

    A second issue raised by the manufacturers is the replacement of an 
existing tractive power locomotive engine (i.e., repowering) with an 
engine generally used in equipment other than locomotives. Such engines 
are subject to EPA's standards for nonroad engines over 37 kW, and only 
a small percentage of the total production of such engines would be 
used in locomotives. The smallest of these engines (under 1000 hp) are 
likely to be used in locomotives which are in captive use moving 
materials and equipment within industrial sites, rather than being used 
by railroads. Thus, their use is more likely to resemble that of 
industrial equipment than locomotives. Therefore, EPA is proposing that 
such vehicles not be defined as locomotives, and therefore would not be 
subject to today's proposed regulations. Engines in such vehicles must 
be certified as meeting the over 37 kW regulations.
    Slightly larger engines (between 1000 and 2000 hp) used for 
repowering are more typically sold for use in locomotives for railroad 
switching operations. EPA is concerned that it might be overly 
burdensome to require such engines to be certified to two different 
sets of federal standards (i.e., the over 37 kW nonroad engine 
standards and the locomotive standards), especially given the small 
number used in locomotives. Further, the over 37 kW nonroad engine 
regulations provide emission reductions that are roughly comparable to 
the proposed Tier I standards for locomotives. Thus, the Agency is 
proposing to allow manufacturers to sell a limited number of these 
nonroad engines a year for use in locomotives without specifically 
certifying to the locomotive standards. Such engines must be certified 
as meeting the over 37 kW regulations.
    In determining what an appropriate number of engines the Agency 
should allow to be sold for use in locomotives under this provision the 
Agency considered an exemption that is included in the aircraft 
regulations.<SUP>12 Aircraft, like locomotives, have an extremely low 
annual sales volume compared to other mobile source categories. In the 
aircraft regulations an exemption from the emissions standards is 
provided for engine families of 20 or fewer annual sales, in a market 
with total annual sales of approximately 1400. Using a similar ratio, 
the Agency considered a range for this locomotive provision from 10 per 
year (when compared to annual sales of freshly manufactured 
locomotives) to 40 per year (when compared to annual remanufactures). 
The Agency is thus proposing the midpoint of this range, or 25 a year, 
to be the number of engines (between 1000 and 2000 hp) certified to the 
over 37 kW regulations that can be sold for use in locomotives.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ See 40 CFR 87.7(b)(1).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    While EPA believes that the over 37 kW regulations provide similar 
environmental benefits as do the proposed Tier I locomotive 
regulations, based on the percent emissions reductions from 
uncontrolled baselines, the Agency is nonetheless concerned about the 
differences between the test procedures proposed for locomotives and 
those that currently apply to other nonroad engines (resulting from 
different duty-cycles) and the potential environmental impacts of those 
differences. Since the over 37 kW regulations do not apply to engines 
in the 1000 to 2000 hp range until 2000, EPA currently has no way of 
evaluating those impacts because there are no engines meeting the over 
37 kW regulations which can be used to compare the results over the two 
test procedures. Thus, as a condition of being allowed to sell such 
engines for use in locomotives, the Agency would retain the authority 
to require that testing done for certification to the over 37 kW 
standards also include testing done at the locomotive power notch 
points. EPA will use this data to determine the validity of this 
provision (i.e., allowing engines certified to the over 37 kW standards 
to be used in locomotives) from an environmental perspective, and may 
choose through future rulemaking action to eliminate, limit or expand 
the availability of this provision on the basis of the data.
    The Agency believes that the provisions for allowing some engines 
certified to the over 37 kW standards to be used in locomotives, as 
just described, are reasonable for several reasons. First, such engines 
are expected to have emissions levels similar to Tier I locomotive 
engines, but would most likely replace older locomotive engines which 
would otherwise remain uncontrolled (i.e., those in pre-1973 
locomotives) or be remanufactured to the Tier 0 standards (i.e., 1973-
1999 locomotives). Thus, an emissions benefit is expected from these 
engines relative to the engines they replace. Second, this provision is 
limited to engines under 2000 hp which, due to their lower power, tend 
to have lower mass emissions than higher powered line-haul locomotives 
(which make up the vast majority of both locomotives in service and 
locomotive emissions). Finally, these engines are not expected to have 
useful lives as long as other locomotive engines, nor are they expected 
to be remanufactured as many times throughout their service lives. 
These last two points would serve to minimize any unanticipated adverse 
effects of this provision.
    The Agency requests comment on several aspects of this proposed 
provision for repowering. Should the

[[Page 6376]]

Agency require, rather than just have the option of requiring, that 
these engines be tested at locomotive power notches, in addition to the 
testing required for the over 37 kW nonroad engine certification for 
all engines covered by these provisions? How should such engines be 
treated with respect to preemption? Should this allowance be limited to 
engines of less than 2000 hp, as proposed, or should there be separate 
restrictions for higher horsepower, or no restrictions at all on 
horsepower? Is 25 an appropriate number of engines to allow under this 
provision, or would a higher or lower number be more appropriate? 
Commenters on the proposed horsepower and sales restrictions are 
requested to provide economic and environmental data in support of 
their comments. Should this option be eliminated when the Tier II 
standards take effect, given that the current over 37 kW standards are 
not as stringent as the Tier II standards for locomotives? Commenters 
on this last point are requested to take into account the fact that EPA 
is currently in the process of developing a phase II regulation for 
nonroad engines over 37 kW. The Agency requests comment on whether it 
should consider a separate provision for engines used in repowers which 
are not certified according to the over 37 kW regulations which would 
allow manufacturers to pre-select from production those engines which 
will be used for in-use testing. Such a provision would make it easier 
for those engine manufacturers to keep track of their engines for the 
in-use test program. Finally, EPA developed this repower provision 
based on the current state of the locomotive market, where 
manufacturers of engines that are used in locomotives do not sell them 
to locomotive manufacturers to be used in locomotives with freshly 
manufactured chassis. EPA requests comment on whether it should extend 
this provision, or a similar one, to engine manufacturers for engines 
to be used in locomotives with freshly manufactured chassis.
    As discussed later in the engine family certification section, EPA 
is proposing that certificates of conformity be issued for locomotives, 
not locomotive engines. However, EPA is proposing that engines used for 
repowering of existing locomotives that are not eligible to use the 
provisions just discussed, because they exceed either the sales or 
horsepower limits, be certified as locomotive engines, not locomotives. 
This is because such engines go into existing locomotives, which the 
engine manufacturer cannot control (in terms of their operating 
parameters such as percent of engine power in notches, engine cooling 
hardware, etc.). However, due to the logistical problems associated 
with pulling a locomotive engine from a locomotive to test it during 
in-use testing (discussed later), EPA is proposing that in-use testing 
for these engines be done on locomotives. The engine manufacturer could 
choose, in the event of a failure of locomotives containing its engines 
during the in-use testing program, to either accept the results of the 
locomotive tests, or to test the actual engines.

TABLE V-2.--Tier 0 Exhaust Emission Standards--Locomotives and Locomotive Engines Manufactured From 1973 Through
                                                      1999                                                      
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                          Gaseous and particulate emissions (g/bhp-hr)          
              Duty-cycle or notch              -----------------------------------------------------------------
                                                    THC<SUP>1        NMHC<SUP>2          CO          NO<INF>X           PM     
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Line-haul and passenger duty-cycle............          1.0          1.0          5.0          9.5          0.60
Switch duty-cycle.............................          2.1          2.1          8.0         14.0          0.72
Low and normal idle...........................  ...........  ...........  ...........        140.0         13.7 
Hotel idle and notch 1........................  ...........  ...........  ...........         20.5          1.7 
Notches 2 and 3...............................  ...........  ...........  ...........         12.0          1.1 
Notches 4 through 8...........................  ...........  ...........  ...........         11.9          0.75
Dynamic brake.................................  ...........  ...........  ...........         57.0         13.7 
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Applicable to any fuel except natural gas (or any combination of fuels where natural gas is the primary     
  fuel).                                                                                                        
\2\ Only applicable to natural gas, or any combination of fuels where natural gas is the primary fuel.          


  TABLE V-3.--Tier I Exhaust Emission Standards Locomotives and Locomotive Engines Manufactured 2000 and Later  
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                    Gaseous and particulate emissions (g/bhp-hr)                
        Duty-cycle or notch        -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                       THC <SUP>1      NMHC <SUP>2      THCE <SUP>3     Aldhyd <SUP>3      CO      NO<INF>X        PM    
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Line-haul and Passenger Duty-cycle        0.55        0.55        0.55       0.035      2.2      7.4        0.45
Switch duty-cycle.................        1.2         1.2         1.2        0.076      2.5     11.0        0.54
Low and normal idle...............  ..........  ..........  ..........  ..........  .......     50.0        6.8 
Hotel idle and notch 1............  ..........  ..........  ..........  ..........  .......     10.8        0.75
Notches 2 and 3...................  ..........  ..........  ..........  ..........  .......      9.7        0.5 
Notches 4 through 8...............  ..........  ..........  ..........  ..........  .......      9.3        0.57
Dynamic brake.....................  ..........  ..........  ..........  ..........  .......     31.4        6.8 
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Applicable to diesel, bio-diesel, or any combination of fuels with diesel as the primary fuel.              
\2\ Only applicable to natural gas, or any combination of fuels where natural gas is the primary fuel.          
\3\ Applicable to alcohol(s), or any combination of fuels where alcohol is the primary fuel.                    


[[Page 6377]]


                      TABLE V-4.--Tier II Exhaust Emission Standards Locomotives and Locomotive Engines Manufactured 2005 and Later                     
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                     Gaseous and particulate emissions (g/bhp-hr)                       
                     Duty-cycle or notch                     -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                THC \1\      NMHC \2\     THCE \3\    Aldhyd \3\        CO          NO<INF>X           PM    
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Line-haul and passenger duty-cycle..........................          0.3          0.3          0.3         0.018          1.5          5.5         0.20
Switch duty-cycle...........................................          0.6          0.6          0.6         0.036          2.4          8.1         0.24
Low and normal idle.........................................         ----         ----         ----      ----             ----         20.0         0.35
Hotel idle..................................................         ----         ----         ----      ----             ----         10.8         0.25
Notches 1 through 8.........................................         ----         ----         ----      ----             ----          6.9         0.25
Dynamic brake...............................................         ----         ----         ----      ----             ----         15.0         0.35
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Applicable to diesel, bio-diesel, or any combination fuels where diesel is the primary fuel.                                                        
\2\ Only applicable to natural gas, or any combination of fuels where natural gas is the primary fuel.                                                  
\3\ Applicable to alcohol(s), or any combination of fuels where alcohol is the primary fuel.                                                            


                                TABLE V-5.--Smoke (Percent Opacity) StandardS \1\                               
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                              Examined plume      Steady-     30-sec     3-sec  
         Number of stacks             Exhaust  diameter           section          state       peak       peak  
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Single exhaust stack..............  12'' or less.........  Total...............         20         35         50
                                    More than 12''.......  Each 6'' Segment, or         10         15         20
                                                           Total \2\...........         30         40         55
                                    12'' or less.........  Any one.............         20         35         50
                                                           Sum of stacks.......         30         40         55
                                                           Each 6'' segment, or         10         15         20
Multiple exhaust stacks...........  More than 12''.......  Total for any one...         30         40         55
                                                           Sum of stacks.......         40         50         60
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Measurement performed continuously during testing.                                                          
\2\ Sum of each 6'' segment or the total, whichever is lower.                                                   


                                        TABLE V-6.--Exhaust Emission Standards for Nonroad Engines Above 37 kW\1\                                       
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                     Gaseous and particulate emissions (g/bhp-hr)                                            Smoke (Percent opacity)                    
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
         HC                    CO                    NO<INF>X                   PM                   Accel                  Lug                  Peak        
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
0.97................                8.5                  6.86                   0.4                    20                    15                   50    
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ 59 FR 31335, June 17, 1994, and 40 CFR 89.112-96 and 89.113-96.                                                                                     

Alternate Standards

    EPA is proposing an alternate set of CO and particulate standards 
that are intended primarily to address locomotives which operate on 
alternative fuels such as natural gas. Such locomotives are expected to 
have higher (and more difficult to control) CO emissions than diesel-
fueled locomotives, but lower PM emissions. These differences are due 
to the different molecular structure of alternative fuels compared to 
diesel fuel which result in the need to operate under different 
conditions (e.g., different air/fuel ratios, spark ignition vs. 
compression ignition). The proposed alternate standards would allow 
higher CO emissions, but would also require lower particulate 
emissions. Although these alternate standards are primarily intended to 
address issues associated with alternative fuels, EPA is proposing that 
they be available for application to any locomotive. The Agency 
believes this is appropriate since the primary focus of today's 
proposal is NO<INF>X and PM reductions, and the alternate standards 
would result in further PM reductions than the standards contained in 
Tables V-2 through V-4, with the same NO<INF>X reductions. 
Manufacturers and remanufacturers could choose to comply with these 
alternate standards, shown in Table V-7, instead of the CO and 
particulate standards listed in Tables V-2 through V-4. They would not 
be allowed to mix the alternate CO standards with the primary 
particulate standards for a single engine family. Also, the particulate 
notch caps would apply in the same manner as under the primary option.

                              TABLE V-7.--Alternate CO and PM Standards (g/bhp-hr)                              
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                          Line-haul cycle                  Switch Cycle         
                                                 ---------------------------------------------------------------
                                                        CO              PM              CO              PM      
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tier 0..........................................            10.0            0.30            12.0            0.36
Tier I..........................................            10.0            0.22            12.0            0.27
Tier II.........................................             5.0            0.10             6.0            0.12
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 6378]]

B.3. Leadtime

    The Agency is proposing an effective date of January 1, 2000 for 
the Tier 0 emission standards for existing locomotives (i.e., 
locomotives manufactured from 1973 through 1999) upon remanufacture, 
and for the Tier I standards for freshly manufactured locomotives. The 
Tier II standards for freshly manufactured locomotives are proposed to 
take effect January 1, 2005. See Tables V-2 through V-4. EPA believes 
that these implementation dates allow sufficient leadtime for the 
development and application of the needed emission control technology. 
In the case of the Tier 0 and Tier I standards, discussions with the 
locomotive manufacturers have led the Agency to believe that the 
technology required is well understood as it is essentially technology 
currently used (or being developed for application in the 1998 model 
year) for on-highway diesel engines, and that the application of this 
technology is feasible in the timeframe proposed. EPA does not believe 
that it is feasible to begin the applicability of the Tier 0 and Tier I 
standards sooner than 2000 since this rulemaking is not expected to be 
completed until late 1997. While the technology required to meet these 
standards is currently well understood, EPA believes that the 
manufacturers will need two years leadtime to develop and finalize 
production plans for model year 2000 production. The 2005 
implementation date proposed for the Tier II standards allows several 
additional years for the development and application of the technology 
needed in addition to that used to comply with the Tier I standards. 
The Agency believes that seven years total leadtime is appropriate for 
the Tier II standards since the locomotive industry is currently 
unregulated, and EPA believes that the industry needs some experience 
under the less stringent Tier 0 and Tier I standards before assuming 
liability for emissions performance under the more stringent Tier II 
standards. Finally, industry has known for some time the approximate 
levels that the Agency is proposing, and has already begun working 
toward compliance. The levels of the standards the Agency is proposing 
have been discussed in numerous meetings with the manufacturers, and 
were included in the development of a federal implementation plan (FIP) 
for ozone nonattainment areas in California.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ The California FIP, signed by the Administrator 2/14/95, is 
located in EPA Air Docket A-94-09, item number V-A-1. The FIP was 
vacated by an act of Congress before it became effective.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Agency requests comment on whether the leadtime proposed is 
appropriate to allow compliance with the standards. Any comments 
suggesting that either more or less leadtime is required should include 
technical justification of the need as well as an estimate of the 
appropriate leadtime. Also, the Agency requests that comments favoring 
more leadtime address the impacts that a delay of the proposed 
implementation schedule would have on the ability of severe and extreme 
ozone nonattainment areas to attain the national ambient air quality 
standard for ozone by the applicable date (2005 or 2007 for severe 
areas, and 2010 for the South Coast nonattainment area in California, 
currently the only extreme ozone nonattainment area), and on the 
ability of attainment areas to maintain that status. Finally, EPA 
requests that comments favoring more leadtime address the possibility 
of other approaches to resolving the issue, such as a phase-in of the 
Tier 0 and/or Tier I standards, or less stringent standards for Tier I.

B.4. Useful Life

    EPA proposes that a locomotive or locomotive engine covered by 
today's standards be required to comply with the standards throughout 
its useful life. The useful life would be defined using the typical 
period that a locomotive engine is expected to be properly functioning. 
A locomotive engine's emissions-critical components should be built to 
be at least as durable as the rest of the engine. That is to say, for 
the time period that the engine is expected to be functioning properly, 
with respect to reliability and power output, it must comply with the 
proposed emission standards. This time period is one that EPA sets 
based on general practice, not an engine by engine time period that 
ends if the locomotive engine is poorly manufactured and stops 
functioning properly earlier than expected. It should be noted that 
greatest practical significance of the useful life period is that it 
defines where in-use compliance testing will be conducted (i.e., in-use 
testing is conducted at 75 percent of useful life), as is discussed 
later in this notice.
    Given the above description, the Agency has decided to base its 
numerical definition of a locomotive engine family's useful life on the 
average period between remanufactures (or from remanufacture to 
scrappage) for that family. EPA believes that this period is most 
closely linked to the period during which a locomotive is designed to 
be properly functioning. However, because the average period between 
remanufactures varies from railroad to railroad for any given 
locomotive model, EPA has decided to propose minimum (or default) 
useful life numbers for each Tier of standards. EPA believes that the 
best indicator of the interval between remanufactures is work done 
(expressed as MW-hr), which is dependent on the horsepower (hp) of a 
locomotive. Thus, the proposed definition of useful life is based on 
MW-hr. However, mileage between remanufactures is also meaningful, and 
many existing locomotives are not equipped with MW-hr meters. 
Therefore, the proposed definition for minimum locomotive useful life 
for Tier 0 locomotives is expressed both as miles and MW-hr, with the 
MW-hr levels being a function of the rated power of a locomotive. Tier 
0 locomotive useful life is proposed to be defined as mileage for 
locomotives not equipped with a MW-hr meter, and mileage or MW-hr, 
whichever occurs first, for Tier 0 locomotives equipped with MW-hr 
meters. The proposed values are shown in Table V-8. The Agency is not 
proposing that mileage values be included in the minimum useful life 
definitions for Tier I and Tier II locomotives, but is presenting them 
for comment in Table V-8. Similarly, EPA is not proposing that the 
number of years be included in the minimum useful life definitions, but 
has included year values in Table V-8 for comment. If EPA were to adopt 
more than one criteria for useful life in its definition (e.g., miles 
and MW-hr), the end of a locomotive's useful life would occur at the 
point when the first of those multiple criteria is met (e.g., useful 
life is defined as miles or MW-hr, whichever occurs first).
    The Agency expects that locomotive manufacturers will continue work 
on developing locomotives which will operate longer between 
remanufactures than current locomotives. For this reason, EPA is 
proposing that locomotive and locomotive engine manufacturers be 
required to specify a longer useful life than the minimum if a longer 
period between remanufactures is intended for the locomotive than the 
minimum useful life interval. EPA would determine if a longer useful 
life is needed based on information such as a manufacturer's 
recommended time to remanufacture, or on in-use data showing that a 
locomotive engine family is consistently operating properly well past 
its useful life period. The Agency will also allow manufacturers to 
petition for shorter useful lives in unusual circumstances where an

[[Page 6379]]

individual engine family does not achieve the minimum useful life in-
use.
    The remanufacture data provided by the railroad industry showed 
that average remanufacture intervals for different models of 
locomotives operated by different railroads varied from about 300,000 
to 1,400,000 miles, or about 9,300 to 35,000 MW-hr. This variation made 
the task of establishing a minimum useful life period very difficult, 
especially for Tier 0 locomotives. The proposed minimum values fall in 
middle of these ranges, which means that some current locomotives are 
being remanufactured long before they reach the proposed minimum useful 
life values. However, EPA believes that the proposed values are 
appropriate for several reasons. First, future locomotives are expected 
to last longer between remanufactures than the existing fleet. The Tier 
0 minimum useful life values will not only apply to locomotives 
remanufactured in 2000, but also to locomotives remanufactured well 
into the next century. Second, the proposed regulations include 
flexibility to allow manufacturers to request a shorter useful life for 
any engine family that is typically remanufactured before reaching the 
minimum useful life. Finally, EPA believes that there is a significant 
environmental risk associated with a useful life that is too short. It 
is possible that significant noncompliance could occur if most 
locomotives continue to operate significantly beyond the point at which 
they are tested for compliance in-use. A long useful life ensures that 
the period of operation after testing will be minimized.
    The Agency requests comment on all aspects of the proposed useful 
life definition. Specifically, comment is requested on whether MW-hrs 
and miles are the most appropriate measure of a locomotive's useful 
life, or whether other measures (e.g., fuel usage, years) should be 
considered and, if so, how they should be measured. The Agency is also 
considering a separate useful life definition of 12 years for Tier 0 
locomotives dedicated to switching operation. This is because it is 
often difficult to quantify mileage accumulation for switch 
locomotives. EPA requests comment on this possible approach to Tier 0 
switch locomotive useful life definition, and whether periods higher or 
lower than 12 years would be more appropriate. The Agency also requests 
comment on whether it should consider allowing different useful lives 
within a given engine family for locomotives which will be used in 
substantially different applications than other locomotives in the same 
engine family. Finally, the Agency recognizes that the useful life 
definition just presented is based on a limited amount of remanufacture 
data, and encourages the inclusion of additional remanufacture data 
with comments. The Agency will fully consider any new data on the 
average period between remanufactures.

                                     TABLE V-8.--Minimum Useful Life Values                                     
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                      Megawatt- 
                                                                                                      hours for 
                                                 Miles        Years            Megawatt-hours          4000 HP  
                                                                                                      Locomotive
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tier 0......................................      750,000           10  7.5 X hp                          30,000
Tier I......................................      800,000           10  8.0 X hp                          32,000
Tier II.....................................      900,000           10  9.0 X hp                          36,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

B.5. Averaging, Banking and Trading

    Consistent with the Act's requirement that EPA set emissions 
standards for new locomotives and new locomotive engines which achieve 
the greatest degree of emissions reductions achievable while 
considering cost and other factors, EPA is proposing a certification 
averaging, banking and trading (ABT) program for manufacturers and 
remanufacturers of locomotives and locomotive engines. Such a program 
would allow the manufacturers and remanufacturers the flexibility to 
meet overall emissions goals at the lowest cost, while allowing EPA to 
set emissions standards at levels more stringent than they would be if 
each and every engine family had to comply with the same numerical 
standards. This program would allow certification of one or more engine 
families within a given manufacturer's or remanufacturer's product line 
at levels above the emission standard, provided the increased emissions 
are offset by one or more families certified below the emission 
standard, such that the average of all considered emissions for a 
particular manufacturer's product line (weighted by horsepower, 
production volume and useful life) is at or below the level of the 
emission standard. Within the engine family, each engine must comply 
with the standard set for that family (the family emission limit, or 
FEL). The proposed banking program would also allow manufacturers and 
remanufacturers to generate emission ``credits'' and bank them for 
future use in averaging or trading. This proposed ABT program is 
modeled after similar programs already in place for on-highway and 
nonroad engines. While the practical effect of the proposed ABT program 
is that a manufacturer's or remanufacturer's production must, on 
average, meet the applicable emissions standards, compliance with the 
program is calculated on a total mass basis. This is to account for 
differences in the horsepower and useful life of different engine 
families (i.e., the credits for an engine family are weighted according 
to horsepower, production volume and useful life).
    When a manufacturer or a remanufacturer uses ABT, it would be 
required to certify each participating engine family to a family 
emission limit (FEL) which is determined by the manufacturer or 
remanufacturer during certification testing. A discussion of the 
proposed engine family definition is contained in the section on 
compliance issues. A separate FEL would be determined for each 
pollutant which the manufacturer or remanufacturer is including in the 
ABT program. EPA is proposing an FEL ceiling of 1.25 times the 
applicable standard, so that no engine family could be certified at an 
emissions level higher than 1.25 times the applicable standard.
    As was previously discussed, the Agency is proposing to require 
that all locomotives meet both the line-haul and switch duty-cycle 
standards, so that more than one standard (and accompanying duty cycle) 
applies to a single pollutant. This presents a unique situation for the 
proposed locomotive ABT program in comparison to other mobile source 
ABT programs where the participating vehicles or engines only have to 
meet one standard for a particular pollutant. The Agency is proposing 
separate switch and line-haul ABT programs in order to address the

[[Page 6380]]

issues that multiple standards for the same pollutant raise. Each 
engine family would be allowed to participate in both the switch and 
line-haul ABT programs. However, line-haul credits could not be used to 
meet the switch standards, and vice versa.
    EPA is proposing that ABT credits be weighted according to a 
locomotive's useful life, if specified as work, or a combination of 
horsepower (hp) and useful life if the useful life is defined as miles. 
This is consistent with the Agency's ABT program for on-highway heavy-
duty engines. EPA is considering restricting the exchange of credits 
between locomotives above 2000 hp and below 2000 hp to prevent credits 
generated by higher powered engine families from being used to allow 
lower powered switch locomotive engine families to remain essentially 
uncontrolled. Reducing emissions from switch locomotives is a 
significant concern given that switch locomotives are more likely to 
operate exclusively in urban areas, and EPA is concerned that allowing 
free exchange of credits between high and low powered locomotive engine 
families would not achieve such reductions. The Agency requests comment 
on whether it should prohibit or restrict credit exchange between 
locomotives above and below 2000 hp.
    Consistent with the ABT program for on-highway heavy-duty engines, 
the locomotive ABT program is proposed to be limited to NO<INF>X and PM 
emissions only. EPA does not believe that the proposed CO, HC and smoke 
standards are so stringent that they should be included in the ABT 
program. Also, The ABT program is proposed to be applicable to the 
duty-cycle emissions only. EPA believes that extending the ABT program 
to include the individual notch caps would result in a program that is 
too complex to be practical. Individual notch caps would be adjusted 
for locomotives which participate in the ABT program by prorating them 
on the basis of the ratio of the standard and the FEL. Averaging, 
banking and trading of credits would be limited to locomotive engines 
subject to the same set of standards (i.e., Tier 0, Tier I, Tier II). 
For example, credits generated on a Tier I locomotive could not be used 
towards a Tier II locomotive's compliance. The Agency requests comment 
on whether it should allow some degree of credit use across different 
sets of standards and, if so, for how long, and what effect if any this 
should have on the level of the standards. For example, should EPA 
allow Tier I credits to be used toward the first year (or more) of Tier 
II compliance?
    EPA is also proposing to exclude from the ABT program Tier 0 
locomotives certified pursuant to the 33 percent NO<INF>X reduction 
option discussed in the above section on emission standards. As was 
discussed previously, the 33 percent NO<INF>X reduction option is being 
proposed due to the potential difficulties of certifying certain Tier 0 
engine families under the proposed ABT program. Additionally, the 
Agency is proposing that a remanufacturer who certifies a Tier 0 engine 
family under this option not be allowed to include any of its other 
Tier 0 engine families in the averaging, banking and trading program, 
and requests comment on this proposed prohibition.
    As was previously discussed, the Agency is proposing that engine 
families which contain passenger locomotives equipped with a single 
engine for both traction power and hotel power be required to meet both 
the line-haul and switch duty-cycle standards both when providing 
traction power only, and when providing both traction power and hotel 
power. For the purposes of ABT, EPA is proposing that a single FEL for 
each pollutant be declared for such engine families based on the mode 
of operation of the higher emission rate. These FELs would cover the 
locomotive in both power modes.
    The ABT program raises a unique issue for remanufactures of 
locomotives and locomotive engines. A manufacturer of freshly 
manufactured locomotives can plan its year's production in advance with 
the ABT program in mind. However, a remanufacturer is much less able to 
plan for the complexities of the program due to the greater number of 
engine families, the fact that more than one entity could remanufacture 
a given engine family, the larger number of customers for remanufacture 
kits than for freshly manufactured locomotives, the inability to 
predict how many engines will be remanufactured in a given year, and 
other factors. To account for this situation, EPA is proposing that a 
locomotive or locomotive engine subject to the Tier I or Tier II 
standards, when remanufactured, must meet the standards and/or FELs it 
was certified as meeting when it was originally manufactured (or, in 
the case of Tier 0 locomotives and locomotive engines, when it was 
first remanufactured following the effective date of these proposed 
standards). The Agency is requesting comment on several aspects of this 
provision. First, should EPA allow a remanufacturer to generate credits 
by certifying a remanufacture at a level below the locomotive's 
original FELs? Second, should the Agency consider simply ignoring the 
locomotive's original FELs, and institute an averaging, banking and 
trading program for remanufactured locomotives and locomotive engines 
under which credits would be generated on the basis of reductions 
beyond the remanufacture standards (as applicable), rather than on the 
basis of reductions beyond any FELs the locomotive or locomotive engine 
was previously certified as meeting? Finally, should the Agency place 
any restrictions on the exchange of credits between remanufactured and 
freshly manufactured locomotives?
    As was previously mentioned, EPA is proposing to weight ABT credits 
according to useful life, and power (if useful life is expressed in 
miles). This raises a unique situation for the treatment of Tier 0 
locomotives, whose useful lives can be expressed as either MW-hr (if 
equipped with a MW-hr meter) or miles (if not equipped with a MW-hr 
meter). These two definitions of useful life for Tier 0 locomotives 
result in a situation where credits based on one definition are not 
interchangeable with credits based on the other definition, and there 
is no reliable way to correlate between the two (i.e., there is no 
standard relationship that would allow accurate conversion from one 
form to the other). The Agency is proposing that separate averaging 
sets be established for Tier 0 locomotives, one for those whose useful 
life is defined in MW-hr and one for those whose useful life is defined 
in miles, in order to deal with incompatible credit calculations. 
Credit use would be restricted to within each of the two sets. The 
Agency requests comment on this approach, as well as two other options 
it considered. The first alternative has a parallel in other mobile 
source ABT programs such as those for on-highway heavy-duty engines and 
nonroad compression ignition engines over 37 kW. In those programs, 
when a participating engine family has engines of more than one power 
(hp) rating, the manufacturer is required to generate credits based on 
the lowest hp rating in an engine family, but can only use credits 
based on the highest hp rating in an engine family. Using a similar 
approach for locomotives, an estimated range of conversion factors to 
equate MW-hr and mileage would be established. When generating or using 
credits, the endpoints of the range would be used in a conservative 
fashion to minimize credit generation and maximize credit usage. The 
second alternative EPA considered was simply

[[Page 6381]]

to require that all Tier 0 locomotives be equipped with MW-hr meters, 
thus resulting in a single useful life definition (MW-hrs) for Tier 0 
locomotives, and a single category of credits for Tier 0 locomotives.
    The leadtime the Agency is proposing for compliance with today's 
emissions standards is intended to allow all engine families to be able 
to comply. EPA recognizes that some engine families may be able to 
comply prior to the effective date of the proposed standards. However, 
EPA expects that these proposed regulations will be finalized in 
December of 1997, by which time the manufacturers are expected to have 
finalized their 1998 and 1999 production plans. Thus, the Agency does 
not believe it would be practical to require a phase-in of the proposed 
standards prior to 2000 across the entire industry, but would like to 
encourage the early introduction of cleaner locomotives. Thus, EPA is 
proposing to allow manufacturers and remanufacturers to begin banking 
credits for locomotives and locomotive engines as early as one year 
prior to the effective date of the standard, (i.e., the 1999 model 
year). EPA is proposing that, for early banking, manufacturers and 
remanufacturers could receive NO<INF>X and/or PM emission credits for 
engines certified to FELs below the NO<INF>X and/or PM standards which 
take effect in 2000. The NO<INF>X and PM credits would be calculated 
based on the difference between the FEL and the corresponding emission 
standard for the appropriate duty-cycle. The Agency requests comment on 
whether it should further encourage the early introduction of cleaner 
locomotives and locomotive engines by giving credits for early 
certification in excess of what would be generated relative to the 
applicable standards. For example, should a locomotive which is 
certified as meeting the Tier I standards in 1999 be given credit 
relative to the Tier 0 standards, given that it would otherwise not 
have to meet any standards initially, and only the Tier 0 standards at 
remanufacture? EPA recognizes that credits generated early could be 
used in later years and that there may be little net benefit in the 
long term from such an approach, but nonetheless sees a benefit in 
encouraging earlier emissions reductions.
    Consistent with the current ABT program for nonroad engines over 37 
kW, credits are proposed to have a three year lifetime with no annual 
discounting. The Agency requests comment on the proposed three year 
credit life, as well as an infinite credit life. The Agency also 
requests comment on the proposal that credits not be discounted with 
time, as well as annual discounting rates of up to 20 percent.
    Participation in the proposed locomotive ABT program would be 
voluntary. For those manufacturers and remanufacturers who choose to 
utilize the program, compliance for participating engine families would 
be evaluated in two ways. First, compliance of individual engine 
families with their FELs would be determined and enforced in the same 
manner as compliance with the emission standards in the absence of an 
averaging, banking and trading program. Each engine family must certify 
to the FEL (or FELs, as applicable), and the FEL would be treated as 
the emission limit for certification, production-line and in-use 
testing for each engine in the family. Second, the final number of 
credits available to the manufacturer or remanufacturer at the end of a 
model year after considering the manufacturer's or remanufacturer's use 
of credits from averaging, banking and trading must be greater than or 
equal to zero.
    When credits are generated and traded in the same model year, EPA 
proposes to make both buyers and sellers of credits potentially liable 
for any credit shortfalls, except in cases where fraud is involved. 
This provision is consistent with other mobile source ABT programs. The 
certificates of both parties issued for locomotives and locomotive 
engines involved in the violating trading transaction could be voided 
ab initio (i.e., back to date of issue) if the engine family or 
families exceed emission standards as a result of a credit shortfall.
    The integrity of the proposed locomotive averaging, banking and 
trading program depends on accurate recordkeeping and reporting by 
manufacturers and remanufacturers, and effective tracking and auditing 
by EPA. Failure of a manufacturer or remanufacturer to maintain the 
required records would result in the certificates for the affected 
engine family or families being voided retroactively. Violations of 
reporting requirements could result in a manufacturer or remanufacturer 
being subject to civil penalties as authorized by sections 213 and 205 
of the Clean Air Act.
    EPA requests comment on all aspects of the proposed averaging, 
banking and trading program. Specific comment is requested as to 
whether the program should be limited to just NO<INF>X and PM, as 
proposed, or whether the other regulated pollutants should be included. 
Also, the Agency requests comment on the various restrictions 
(averaging sets, etc.) proposed for this program.

C. Compliance Assurance

    Section 213(d) of the Clean Air Act, which applies to EPA's 
proposed emissions standards for locomotives, provides that such 
standards ``shall be enforced in the same manner as standards 
prescribed under section (202)'' of the Act (applicable to new motor 
vehicles and new motor vehicle engines). This provision also grants EPA 
discretion to revise the regulations implementing certification, in-use 
testing and recall if appropriate for locomotives and other nonroad 
vehicles and engines. EPA uses several mechanisms to enforce its motor 
vehicle emissions standards, including certification, production line 
testing, in-use testing and recall. This section covers the various 
aspects of these proposed compliance programs for locomotives. A 
discussion of the proposed definition of locomotive engine family is 
presented first, followed by discussions of the three main compliance 
programs (certification, production line testing and in-use testing).

C.1. Engine Family Definition

    EPA defines engine family for all other mobile sources as a group 
of engines expected to have similar emissions characteristics 
throughout their useful lives. The engine family concept facilitates 
more efficient certification of engines or vehicles by allowing those 
with similar emissions characteristics to be grouped together, thus 
reducing testing costs. In defining engine family for locomotives and 
locomotive engines, the Agency sought to balance the economic advantage 
of a broad definition that would minimize testing and certification 
costs, and the environmental advantage of a narrow definition that 
would better assure that the testing of an engine family would 
accurately represent all engines in that family. The Agency is 
proposing to define engine family for locomotives using many of the 
same parameters which are currently used to define on-highway and 
nonroad engine families. These parameters include aspects of both the 
physical design of the engine (e.g., combustion chamber configuration, 
cylinder bore and stroke) as well as operating characteristics (e.g., 
fuel injection pressure and rate, turbocharger and inlet air cooling 
characteristics). A complete list of the parameters is included in 
section 92.010 of the proposed regulations.
    While the proposed locomotive engine family definition uses many of

[[Page 6382]]

the same parameters as engine family definitions adopted by EPA for 
other classes of mobile sources, the engine family definition proposed 
here for locomotives is somewhat more narrowly defined, especially for 
Tier I and Tier II. Characteristics such as fuel injection pressures 
and turbocharger and aftercooler performance are included in this 
definition.
    EPA does not believe that the above outlined approach to defining 
engine family will result in an excessive number of engine families. 
For Tier I and Tier II the Agency expects that a manufacturer may only 
have a single engine family in a given model year. However, the Agency 
is requesting comment on whether it should allow for the combining of 
small Tier 0 engine families into a single engine family in order to 
reduce the testing burden imposed by the Tier 0 standards. Comments 
should address the size of the engine families which can participate, 
as well as the justification for allowing them to be classified as a 
single engine family and recommended criteria for separating families.

C.2. Engine Family Certification

    Certification is the process whereby a manufacturer or 
remanufacturer obtains a certificate of conformity for a particular 
engine family of locomotives. A certificate of conformity must be 
obtained before a manufacturer or remanufacturer may lawfully offer for 
sale or otherwise introduce (or reintroduce) into commerce new 
locomotives and new locomotive engines. The CAA establishes an annual 
certification requirement for new vehicles and engines, including new 
locomotives and new locomotive engines.<SUP>14 Under the proposed 
regulations, a separate certificate must be obtained for each engine 
family. Applications must be submitted every year, even when the engine 
family does not change from the previous certificate, although 
representative test data could be reused in the succeeding year's 
application in order to minimize the testing burden.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ Section 206 of the Clean Air Act requires certification on 
a yearly basis. This has been interpreted to mean certification for 
each model year, as defined in section 202(b)(3)(A)(i) of the CAA. 
Section 206 applies to locomotives, pursuant to section 213(d) of 
the Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As discussed in the following paragraphs, EPA is proposing that 
locomotives (rather than engines) be tested for demonstration of 
compliance with the applicable emissions standards. EPA is also 
proposing an exception to this requirement which would allow test data 
from a development engine to be used for certification, rather than 
requiring testing of a pre-production prototype locomotive. 
Nevertheless, it is the actual locomotive, not the engine, for which a 
certificate of conformity would be issued, and the Agency is proposing 
that locomotives, not engines, be tested during production line and in-
use testing programs. These programs are discussed later in this 
notice. The only exception to the proposed requirement that a 
certificate of conformity be issued for locomotives, rather than 
engines, is in the case of engines which are sold for purposes of 
repowering existing locomotives, as previously discussed. This 
exception is not proposed to be extended to locomotive engines which 
are sold to locomotive manufacturers for use in freshly manufactured 
chassis. The Agency is also proposing to prohibit defeat devices which 
sense operation outside of the normal certification test conditions and 
reduce the ability of the engine to control emissions under non-test 
conditions. Finally, EPA is proposing that manufacturers and 
remanufacturers of locomotives be required to specify a range for 
adjustable parameters which can affect emissions such that the 
locomotives will comply with the applicable standards with the 
parameters set anywhere within their specified range. These provisions 
are discussed in the following paragraphs.
    Under EPA's current motor vehicle program, the certification 
process includes an up-front showing of emissions durability. This is 
done through an emissions durability vehicle which is operated more or 
less continually to accumulate mileage representative of in-use 
operation. Thus, a motor vehicle's ability to meet the emission 
standards throughout its useful life is demonstrated as part of the 
initial certification process, although under somewhat artificial 
conditions. With locomotives, which are built to operate continually 
and have very long useful lives, this type of accelerated usage is not 
feasible. Such a demonstration would take several years to complete, 
compared to several months for on-highway passenger cars, and could 
require more than $1 million in fuel. Thus, including a durability 
showing in the initial certification process is not appropriate in 
light of the cost and time involved in making such a showing. The 
Agency is, therefore, proposing no durability demonstration be required 
for certification. However, a manufacturer or remanufacturer must still 
estimate in-use emissions deterioration as part of the certification 
process (through engineering evaluation or other means), but need not 
do so by operating a locomotive for its entire useful life. Compliance 
over the full useful life will be ensured by the production line and 
in-use testing programs (discussed in the following sections), which 
EPA considers extremely important aspects of the proposed program to 
control emissions from locomotives. The Agency is considering, and 
requests comment on, whether it should develop optional assigned 
deterioration factors based on the initial results of the in-use 
testing program (discussed later).
    EPA believes that, in order to accurately measure locomotive 
emissions, the locomotive, not just the engine, should be tested. 
However, EPA recognizes that the locomotive manufacturing industry is 
unusual in the way it develops new products. Typically, a manufacturer 
will have a single engine mounted on a dynamometer which may remain 
there for years. This development engine serves as a test bed for 
changes in the engine's design. Given the relatively small volume of 
locomotives and locomotive engines manufactured, combined with their 
very high per-unit cost, the Agency is proposing that as an option to 
certification testing of a complete locomotive, test data from this 
development engine be allowed to be submitted for certification. This 
is in contrast to other EPA mobile source programs where a pre-
production prototype engine or vehicle is used to generate emissions 
data. As a condition of certifying a locomotive using data from a 
locomotive engine rather than a complete locomotive, a manufacturer or 
remanufacturer must accept liability for a certificate suspension and/
or recall action based on production line or in-use testing of 
locomotives. Additionally, for engine families which are certified 
using development engine data, one of the first five locomotives 
manufactured will be tested as part of the production line testing 
program, which is discussed later.
    This development engine would be required to be tested at power 
points which correspond to the actual notches of the locomotive the 
engine will be used in. In general, the certification testing is the 
only time that EPA proposes that the engine, rather than the 
locomotive, could be tested. For production line and in-use testing 
(discussed next), EPA proposes that the actual locomotives be tested in 
order to assure that the locomotive engine is being operated at 
conditions that represent those in a locomotive (e.g., intake air and 
coolant temperatures,

[[Page 6383]]

power at throttle notches). As is discussed in the section on 
production line testing, a waiver from the requirement that locomotives 
(not engines) be tested under the production line testing program will 
be available for those manufacturers and remanufacturers which only 
manufacture or remanufacture engines used to repower existing 
locomotives.
    While EPA is proposing to allow data from a development engine to 
be used for certification testing, the Agency is aware that parts of 
this engine may have been in operation for some time when the engine is 
tested. Thus, the data used for certification may not accurately 
reflect the emissions performance of a freshly manufactured engine. The 
application for certification would include a demonstration, which 
could be based on good engineering judgement, that the locomotive or 
locomotive engine will meet the applicable emission standards 
throughout its useful life. Thus, the manufacturer or remanufacturer 
would be required to use engineering judgement or test data to develop 
a deterioration factor (df), subject to EPA approval, for the 
development engine which would account for any expected emissions 
deterioration. As part of the application for certification, EPA 
proposes to require the applicant to also provide a df, also subject to 
EPA approval and based on engineering judgement or test data, which 
could be applied to a freshly manufactured unit to give its emissions 
rate at the end of its useful life. This df might be different than the 
one generated for use with the development engine data, and it would be 
used for production line testing of new locomotives and locomotive 
engines.
    When no significant changes to an engine family occur from one 
model year to the next, EPA proposes to allow manufacturers and 
remanufacturers the flexibility to submit emission test data used to 
certify the engine family in previous years in lieu of actual testing 
for current year certification. This can be done to certify an engine 
family which is the same as, or substantially similar to (as determined 
by the Administrator), the previously certified engine family, provided 
these data show that the test engine would comply with the applicable 
regulations. This allows manufacturers the ability to ``carry over'' 
test data from the same engine family from one model year to another.
    The proposed remanufacture requirements for locomotives raise a 
unique question regarding who should be required (or allowed) to hold 
the certificate of conformity for a remanufactured locomotive engine 
family. Section 206 of the Act, which applies to locomotives pursuant 
to section 213(d), states that the Administrator shall test new 
vehicles and engines submitted by a manufacturer to determine 
compliance with applicable emissions standards and shall issue a 
certificate of conformity if the vehicle or engine conforms to EPA 
regulations. Section 203(a)(1) prohibits manufacturers from introducing 
into commerce new vehicles and engines that are not covered by a 
certificate of conformity issued by EPA. Because section 213(d) states 
that EPA's locomotive emissions standards shall be enforced in the same 
manner as the federal motor vehicle emissions standards, it is 
appropriate to apply the prohibition against introduction into commerce 
without a valid certificate to manufacturers of new locomotives and new 
engines used in locomotives. Since EPA proposes to define 
remanufactured locomotives as new, these provisions apply to both 
remanufactured and freshly manufactured locomotives. Section 216 
defines ``manufacturer'' as any person engaged in the manufacturing or 
assembling of new nonroad vehicles or new nonroad engines. This 
definition envisions manufacturing of a new vehicle or engine, at least 
in some cases, as being something other than simply assembling the new 
vehicle or engine. EPA has considered the remanufacturing process for 
locomotives and engines to determine which entity or entities should be 
considered a manufacturer for purposes of compliance with emissions 
standards. For remanufactured locomotives and engines, several 
different entities may be ``engaged in the manufacturing or 
assembling'' of the new locomotive or engine, potentially resulting in 
multiple manufacturers of a remanufactured locomotive or engine. A 
railroad company may remanufacture its locomotives or engines itself. A 
railroad may otherwise play a significant role in the process of 
design, production, or installation of parts in the remanufacturing 
process. A third party may install the remanufacturing kit. Such kits, 
in turn, could be produced by a different entity. All of these parties 
are involved in the remanufacturing process to some extent, and can 
therefore be considered to be ``engaged in the manufacturing or 
assembling'' of the resulting new locomotive or engine. This is 
significantly different from the motor vehicle industry, in that no 
single entity conducts the entire process of manufacturing a new 
vehicle or engine.
    The entity that makes the remanufacturing kit, containing parts 
used to remanufacture locomotives or engines, can be considered a 
manufacturer of the new locomotive or engine because such entity 
actually produces the components that will constitute the 
remanufactured locomotive or engine. The installer of the 
remanufacturing kit, who may or may not be a different entity, can be 
considered a manufacturer of the remanufactured locomotive or engine 
because such entity performs the installation of the remanufacturing 
kit to result in a new locomotive or engine. Finally, the railroad 
company that remanufactures its own engine, or is otherwise involved to 
any significant degree in the remanufacturing process, such as hire 
another entity to install a remanufacturing kit according to the 
railroad's specifications, can be considered a manufacturer of the 
resulting new locomotive or engine, because the railroad plays a 
significant role in determining the specific manner in which the 
locomotive or engine will be remanufactured. Because any of these 
entities could be considered the remanufacturer, the Agency is 
proposing that any of them could hold the certificate of conformity. 
The Agency requests comment on its legal authority to call a railroad a 
manufacturer in cases where the railroad is in no way involved in the 
remanufacturing of its locomotives.
    It is possible that, given the number of entities that could be 
engaged in manufacturing or assembling a remanufactured locomotive 
engine family, there will be cases where the certificate holder will be 
an entity other than the installer (e.g., the entity which designs the 
system or manufactures the components). In such cases the certificate 
holder would be required, as a condition of the certificate of 
conformity under section 206(a) of the Act, to provide to the installer 
along with a remanufacture kit (which would include the necessary 
components or a component list including specifications for the 
components) instructions for the proper installation and calibration of 
those components, as well as any other instructions or calibrations 
required for that remanufactured engine family to meet the applicable 
emissions standards. Specific provisions for how remanufacture kits 
would be handled with respect to production line testing and liability 
are discussed later in this notice.
    The Agency requests comment on whether it should require emission 
testing for remanufacturers certifying kits that are equivalent to kits

[[Page 6384]]

previously certified by other remanufacturers. Would there be any 
benefit to such emission testing, and if not, would it therefore be 
unreasonable to require it? EPA is concerned, however, that if it were 
to allow such certification, that it would be unfair to the original 
certificate holder that would have been required to perform the 
emission testing. One way to address this concern would involve not 
allowing such certification until several years after the original 
certificate holder had obtained the certificate; thereby giving the 
original certificate holder time to recover its investment. This also 
raises an issue of whether EPA would have authority under section 
206(a) of the Act to refuse to issue a certificate based on this 
reason. EPA therefore requests comment on whether certification of 
equivalent kits without testing should only be allowed for kits that 
were originally certified at least five years previous.
    As described above, the process of remanufacturing an existing 
locomotive or engine to result in a new locomotive or engine is unique 
to the locomotive industry, and is not common practice for other mobile 
sources. Pursuant to section 213(d), EPA has discretion to modify its 
regulations implementing sections 206 and 207 of the CAA as the Agency 
determines is appropriate for locomotives. EPA has analyzed the current 
industry practice of remanufacturing existing locomotives and engines, 
as well as the technical aspects of remanufacturing, and is considering 
an approach to certification of remanufactured locomotives and engines 
under which the entity that owns the locomotive or engine being 
remanufactured (generally a railroad company) would be primarily 
responsible for meeting the obligations of the manufacturer of such 
locomotive or engine to meet the Tier 0 standards.
    As stated above, a railroad company that hires another entity to 
install a remanufacturing kit according to the railroad's 
specifications can be considered to be engaged in the manufacturing or 
assembling of the resulting new locomotive or engine, as can the entity 
hired to install the kit. In such a case, both the railroad and the 
installer would be subject to the obligations and prohibitions that 
apply to manufacturers of new vehicles and engines. To simplify the 
certification and enforcement process, EPA is considering specifying by 
regulation that the owner of the locomotive or engine being 
remanufactured shall be considered the primary manufacturer of the 
remanufactured locomotive or engine, and, as such, shall be the entity 
that EPA will look to for compliance with certification and enforcement 
requirements relating to its remanufactured locomotives and engines. 
EPA believes that it is appropriate to specify the owner of the 
remanufactured locomotive or engine as the primary manufacturer, rather 
than the installer of the kit, because the former entity has the 
greatest degree of control over the manner in which the existing 
locomotive or engine is remanufactured; the railroad provides the 
specifications that the remanufactured engine must meet and maintains 
ownership of the locomotive, or physical control in the case of a 
leased locomotive. The installer simply follows the directions provided 
by the owner; while installation of the remanufacturing kit renders the 
installer a manufacturer of a new locomotive or engine under the CAA 
definition, EPA would not expect to seek recourse against the installer 
as the manufacturer of the remanufactured locomotive or engine (nor 
against any other entities that meet the definition of a manufacturer) 
unless the owner of such engine failed to meet its obligations as a 
manufacturer. However, if the primary manufacturer failed to meet 
certain requirements, such as failing to obtain a certificate prior to 
introducing the remanufactured engine into commerce, then all parties 
who meet the definition of manufacturer, with regard to such engines 
would be considered to be in violation of section 203(a)(1) of the Act, 
not just the primary manufacturer.
    EPA believes that such an approach could potentially have much less 
impact on the existing markets for parts and remanufacturing for these 
locomotives. EPA also believes that such an approach would ensure 
compliance with the proposed emission standards equivalent to that of 
the proposed remanufacturer based certification process previously 
discussed. EPA is concerned, however, that there could be unforeseen 
problems associated with attempting to establish a program that is 
fundamentally different from all other mobile source programs. The 
Agency does not believe that there is the same potential for negative 
market impacts for the remanufacture of locomotives originally built 
after the effective date of this rule due to the fact that those 
locomotives would slowly be introduced into the fleet, and thus the 
remanufacturing market for them would develop slowly as they aged. 
Nonetheless, EPA also requests comments on whether a railroad-based 
certification program should be established for the remanufacture of 
Tier I and Tier II locomotives.
    Under the railroad-based certification program being considered, 
the certification requirements would be largely the same as those that 
are being proposed under the remanufacturer based certification 
approach. Locomotives and locomotive engines would still be grouped 
together in engine families, certification test data would still be 
required from a representative worst-case configuration, and small 
numbers of locomotives would still be audited on the production line 
and tested in-use. The main difference would be that the railroads 
would be primarily responsible for submitting an application for 
certification and conducting all of the production line auditing and 
in-use testing, and would be liable for the emissions performance.
    Under this approach, railroads would be allowed to purchase kits 
from manufacturers, or any other suppliers, that could be applied to 
engines during remanufacture to achieve the necessary emissions 
reductions. Railroads would also be allowed to use emissions test data 
collected by a kit supplier for certification. Moreover, the railroads 
could even make commercial arrangements to hold the kit supplier liable 
for in-use emission problems. Thus, the railroads could choose to 
certify in a manner that would be practically very similar to the 
manner in which it would be handled under the remanufacturer-based 
approach that is being proposed. Also, the smallest railroads would 
still be able to be exempted from the proposed compliance requirements, 
as discussed later in the railroad requirements section.
    EPA is also proposing to reduce the reporting burden associated 
with the application for certification. EPA believes that it is 
appropriate to require manufacturers and remanufacturers to collect and 
maintain certification application information, but that it should not 
be necessary for them to submit this information in all cases unless 
specifically requested. The authority, as proposed, to modify what 
information must actually be submitted versus maintained will allow EPA 
to exercise some flexibility in designing and implementing the 
certification process for locomotives and locomotive engines. When the 
Agency exercises its authority to modify the information submission 
requirements, it will provide manufacturers and remanufacturers with a 
guidance document, similar to the manufacturer guidance issued under 
the on-highway

[[Page 6385]]

program, that explains the modification(s). These modifications to the 
information submission requirements will in no way change the actual 
requirements of the regulations in terms of the emissions standards, 
test procedures, etc. Manufacturers and remanufacturers must retain 
records that comprise the certification application whether or not EPA 
requires that all such records be submitted to the Agency at the time 
of certification. The Administrator would retain the right to review 
records at any time and at any place she designates.
    As is the case for other regulated nonroad and on-highway vehicles 
and engines, the proposed certification regulations make it illegal for 
any manufacturer, remanufacturer, or any other person to use a device 
on a locomotive or locomotive engine which senses operation outside 
normal emission test conditions and reduces the ability of the emission 
control system to control the engine's emissions through, for example, 
the optimization of fuel economy at the expense of emissions 
performance. Such ``defeat'' devices are specifically prohibited for 
motor vehicles under section 203 of the Act. Section 213(d) of the Act 
directs the Agency to enforce the locomotive standards in the same 
manner as it enforces motor vehicle standards. EPA considers the 
current motor vehicle programs' prohibition against the use of defeat 
devices to be an essential tool in ensuring in-use compliance with 
emissions standards. For this reason, lack of a comparable prohibition 
for locomotives could result in a real and significant risk that 
locomotives will not comply with applicable standards during actual 
operation.
    Moreover, there is no indication in the Act that Congress intended 
to prohibit defeat devices for motor vehicles and engines, but to allow 
such practices for nonroad vehicles and engines. In fact, the overall 
structure of the nonroad vehicle and engine provisions of the Act, as 
well as the explicit reference to enforcement in section 213(d), 
support an approach to enforcement of the emissions standards for such 
vehicles and engines (including locomotives) comparable to the approach 
used for motor vehicle enforcement. Therefore, EPA is proposing in the 
certification regulations an explicit prohibition against defeat 
devices applicable to locomotives subject to the federal standards. 
Since the use of defeat devices effectively renders the specified test 
procedures for certification, production line, and in-use testing 
inadequate to predict in-use emissions, EPA would reserve the right to 
test a certification test locomotive or engine, or require the 
manufacturer or remanufacturer to perform such testing over a modified 
test procedure if EPA has reason to believe a defeat device is being 
used by a manufacturer or remanufacturer on a particular locomotive or 
locomotive engine. EPA solicits comments on this proposed provision.
    EPA regulations applicable to on-highway vehicles contain 
provisions which allow for testing with any adjustable parameter set 
anywhere within its adjustable range. The purpose of these provisions 
is to ensure that variation in parameters which mechanics or vehicle 
operators can adjust using low cost tools, when set anywhere within the 
adjustable range, would not cause the vehicle to exceed emissions 
standards. Production tolerances on such large engines, as well as the 
need to grind smooth, plate, or otherwise process certain parts during 
remanufacture in such a way that their physical dimensions change, 
result in the need for locomotive adjustable parameters to have much 
wider ranges of adjustability than those of on-highway vehicles. An 
engine which is designed to be remanufactured numerous times throughout 
its service life needs to be manufactured such that some of its 
parameters have physically adjustable ranges which are much larger than 
their functional ranges when the engine is running in order to account 
for the change in dimension of parts which are processed in some way 
during remanufacture, as described above. Requiring that a locomotive 
be able to demonstrate compliance with applicable emissions standards 
with its parameters adjusted anywhere within their adjustable range is 
not reasonable. However, correct setting of adjustable parameters 
(e.g., injection timing) is critical for good emissions performance. 
EPA is proposing that manufacturers and remanufacturers specify a 
tolerance range for each adjustable parameter within which compliance 
with emissions standards will be achieved. Any locomotives which are 
inspected and found to have adjustable parameters set outside of the 
range specified by the manufacturer or remanufacturer will be 
considered to have been tampered with, and the owner/operator of such 
locomotives will be subject to tampering penalties, as discussed below 
in the tampering section.
    EPA is authorized under section 217 of the Clean Air Act to 
establish fees to recover compliance program costs associated with 
sections 206 and 207 of the Act. Sections 206 and 207 apply to 
locomotives and locomotive engines pursuant to section 213(d) of the 
Act. Therefore, EPA has authority to establish fees for locomotive and 
locomotive engine testing pursuant to section 217. EPA proposes to 
establish fees for this locomotive compliance program at some future 
time after the program is in place and the associated costs to EPA can 
be determined.

C.3. Production Line Testing Program

    EPA is proposing a production line testing (PLT) program pursuant 
to the Agency's authority to implement and enforce the locomotive 
emissions standards. Section 213(d) subjects the nonroad (including 
locomotive) standards to the provisions of section 206 of the Act, with 
such modifications that the Administrator deems appropriate to the 
regulations implementing section 206, and directs EPA to enforce the 
nonroad standards in the same manner as the Agency enforces motor 
vehicle standards.
    Section 206(a) provides EPA authority to issue certificates of 
conformity with applicable emissions standards to vehicles that 
demonstrate compliance with such standards. Section 206(b) authorizes 
testing of new vehicles and engines being manufactured to determine 
whether such vehicles and engines actually comply with the certificate 
of conformity (i.e., testing of vehicles and engines as they come off 
the production line). If the results of such testing show that all or 
part of the relevant vehicles or engines do not comply with the 
certificate, EPA may suspend or revoke the certificate in whole or in 
part. Section 206(b)(1) provides that such testing may be conducted 
directly by the Agency, or by the manufacturer in accordance with 
conditions specified by the Agency.
    Pursuant to its authority under section 206, as applied to 
locomotive emissions standards according to section 213(d), EPA is 
proposing that manufacturers and, in some cases, remanufacturers of 
locomotives perform production line testing of newly manufactured and 
remanufactured locomotives. The PLT program would be an emission 
compliance program in which manufacturers would be required to test 
locomotives as they leave the point where the manufacture is completed. 
The objective of the PLT program is to allow manufacturers, 
remanufacturers and EPA to determine, with reasonable certainty, 
whether certification designs have been translated into production 
locomotives that meet applicable standards and/or FELs from the 
beginning, and before excess emissions are generated in-use.

[[Page 6386]]

    EPA believes that a PLT program is necessary to verify that new 
locomotives and new locomotive engines comply with applicable 
regulations. This program is especially important given that EPA is 
proposing to allow certification of freshly manufactured locomotives 
and locomotive engines based on data from a development engine, rather 
than a pre-production prototype locomotive. The Agency is concerned 
that testing conditions during engine testing (percent power at 
notches, air and coolant temperatures, etc.) may not accurately reflect 
actual operation in a locomotive, resulting in emissions which may not 
accurately reflect actual locomotive emissions. It is for this reason 
that EPA is proposing that one of the first five freshly manufactured 
locomotives produced be tested as part of the PLT program if 
development engine test data is used for certification. EPA is 
proposing different PLT programs for freshly manufactured and 
remanufactured locomotives and locomotive engines. As discussed in the 
following paragraphs, the Agency is proposing that the PLT program for 
freshly manufactured units be based on actual testing, while the PLT 
program for remanufactured units would be based on an audit of the 
remanufacture (e.g., assuring that the correct parts are used and they 
are installed properly), with EPA having the ability to require testing 
if in-use data indicates a possible problem with production.
    Manufacturers of freshly manufactured locomotives would be required 
to demonstrate that locomotives randomly selected by them meet 
applicable emissions standards and requirements. All PLT emission 
results and quarterly production figures would be required to be 
reported electronically to EPA each quarter. EPA would review PLT data 
and the procedures used in acquiring the data to assess the validity 
and representativeness of each manufacturer's PLT program.
    The proposed program for freshly manufactured locomotives assures 
that locomotives from each engine family will be tested periodically 
and that their compliance will be continuously monitored. The frequency 
of testing would depend on an engine family's production volume, with 
greatly reduced testing for small volume engine families, and a cap on 
the total number of tests in a given year for larger engine families. 
In general, testing will be performed on locomotives. However, 
manufacturers who only manufacture locomotive engines can perform PLT 
testing on engines provided those engines are only used to repower 
existing locomotives. If any engines produced by an engine manufacturer 
are used for locomotives with freshly manufactured chassis, the Agency 
can require that some PLT testing be done on a locomotive, rather than 
allowing all PLT testing to be done on engines.
    EPA recognizes the need to develop a PLT scheme that does not 
impose an unreasonable burden on the manufacturers and remanufacturers. 
While EPA believes that it has developed a PLT program which takes into 
account the circumstances of this industry, it also understands that 
alternative plans may be developed that better account for the 
individual needs of a manufacturer or remanufacturer. Thus, provisions 
are proposed to allow a manufacturer or remanufacturer to submit an 
alternative plan for a PLT program, subject to approval of the 
Administrator. A manufacturer's petition to use an alternative plan 
should address the need for the alternative, and should include 
justifications for the number and representativeness of locomotives 
tested, as well as having specific provisions regarding what 
constitutes a PLT failure for an engine family.
    Under the proposed PLT program, manufacturers would select 
locomotives from each engine family at a one percent sampling rate for 
emissions testing. EPA has the right to reject any locomotives selected 
by the manufacturers if it determines that such locomotives are not 
representative of actual production. Manufacturers and remanufacturers 
would be required to conduct testing in accordance with the applicable 
federal testing procedures for locomotives. Tests must be distributed 
evenly throughout the model year, to the extent possible.
    The required sample size for an engine family would be the lesser 
of five tests per year or one percent of projected annual production. 
For engine families with production of less than 100, a minimum of one 
test per year per engine family would be required. These numbers were 
chosen to minimize the testing burden on the manufacturers but still 
allow an adequate testing sample to determine conformity with the 
applicable requirements. Manufacturers could elect to test additional 
locomotives. Manufacturers would be required to submit quarterly 
reports to EPA summarizing locomotive test results, test procedures, 
and events such as the date, time, and location of each test. Quarterly 
reporting will allow EPA to continually monitor the PLT data, and is 
consistent with current reporting requirements in the PLT program of 
the marine engine regulations and on the voluntary assembly line test 
program for on-highway vehicles and engines. If no testing is performed 
during a quarter, no report would be required.
    Under this testing scheme, if a locomotive fails a production line 
test, the manufacturer would test two additional locomotives out of the 
next fifteen produced in that engine family in accordance with the 
applicable federal testing procedures for locomotives. When the average 
of the three test results, for any pollutant, are greater than the 
applicable duty-cycle, FEL, or notch standard for any pollutant, the 
manufacturer fails the PLT for that engine family. In all cases, 
individual locomotives which failed a test in the PLT program would be 
required to be brought into compliance.
    This program is different than the approach that EPA has 
traditionally used for mobile sources, such as on-highway motor 
vehicles and nonroad marine engines. The more traditional approach used 
for assuring that the engines are produced as designed for other mobile 
sources is called Selective Enforcement Auditing (SEA). In the SEA 
program, EPA audits the emissions of new production engines by 
requiring manufacturers to test engines pulled off the production line 
on short notice. This spot checking approach relies largely on the 
deterrent effect: The premise is that manufacturers would design their 
engines and production processes and take other steps necessary to make 
sure their engines are produced as designed and thereby avoid the 
penalties associated with failing SEA tests, should EPA unexpectedly 
conduct an SEA.
    In the marine engine SEA program, EPA employs a statistical 
procedure known as the Cumulative Sum (CumSum) Procedure that enables 
manufacturers to select engines at appropriate sampling rates for 
emission testing and will determine whether production line engines are 
complying on average with emission standards. For an engine family to 
experience a failure under this approach, the CumSum statistic, which 
is based on previous emissions test results, must reach an appropriate 
action limit. Under the proposed PLT program, for a locomotive engine 
family to experience a failure, the average of any pollutant for three 
consecutive tests must be greater than the applicable standard or FEL. 
The procedure used for marine engines is appropriate for the marine 
industry which has a much higher total annual production than the 
locomotive industry. This procedure could prove very burdensome for the 
locomotive industry, so EPA feels it is appropriate to design a 
production line testing

[[Page 6387]]

program that is more suitable for their annual production volumes.
    EPA has taken a different approach in the locomotive production 
line testing program: This program implements a more flexibly organized 
testing regime that acts as a quality control method that manufacturers 
will utilize and monitor to assure compliance. Manufacturers will 
continue to take steps to produce engines within statistical tolerances 
and assure compliance aided by the quality control data generated by 
PLT which will identify poor quality in real time.
    In the proposed PLT program, the Administrator could suspend or 
revoke the manufacturer's certificate of conformity in whole or in part 
fifteen days after an EPA noncompliance determination for an engine 
family that fails the PLT, or if the locomotive manufacturer's 
submittal reveals that the PLT tests were not performed in accordance 
with the applicable testing procedure. During the fifteen day period 
following a determination of noncompliance, EPA would coordinate with 
the manufacturer to facilitate the approval of the required production 
line remedy in order to eliminate the need to halt production, to the 
greatest extent possible. The manufacturer must then address (i.e., 
bring into compliance, remove from service, etc.) the locomotives 
produced prior to the suspension or revocation of the certificate of 
conformity. EPA could reinstate the certificate of conformity 
subsequent to a suspension, or reissue one subsequent to a revocation, 
after the manufacturer demonstrates (through its PLT program) that 
improvements, modifications, or replacement had brought the locomotive 
and/or engine family into compliance. The proposed regulations include 
hearing provisions which provide a mechanism to resolve disputes 
between EPA and manufacturers regarding a suspension or revocation 
decision based on noncompliance with the PLT. It is important to point 
out that the Agency would retain the legal authority to inspect and 
test locomotives and locomotive engines should such problems arise in 
the PLT program.
    The Agency requests comment on all aspects of this proposed PLT 
program. Specifically, EPA requests comment on whether it should select 
the individual locomotives to be tested, or whether this should be done 
by the manufacturer, with the selection subject to EPA approval. Also, 
the Agency requests comment on whether manufacturers which only 
manufacture locomotive engines (rather than complete locomotives) and 
whose engines only go toward the repowering of existing locomotives 
should be allowed to do PLT testing on locomotive engines, as proposed, 
or whether such engines should be required to be installed in 
locomotives prior to PLT testing. Comments in support of requiring 
testing of a locomotive in this situation should address logistical 
issues such as how much mileage should be allowed in order to get the 
locomotive to a suitable testing site.
    During the development of today's proposal, the locomotive and 
locomotive engine manufacturers developed an alternative PLT program. 
Citing cost and time concerns with running a PLT program based on the 
full federal test procedure (FTP), as just described, they proposed a 
program based on a short test. This short test would only test 
locomotives at notches five and eight, rather than at all notches as in 
the full FTP. It would also utilize less accurate measurement 
equipment, and would not require the same level of training for those 
running the test as the proposed FTP would. EPA solicits public comment 
on this approach, and particularly on the liability that would be 
associated with a failure of such a short test, and whether the Agency 
could take appropriate enforcement action based on failure of a 
production line test which is different than the test used for initial 
certification. The Agency also requests commenters to address whether a 
less rigorous PLT program would be appropriate in light of a strong in-
use testing program.
    The Agency is proposing a separate program for assuring the 
production quality of remanufactured locomotives. Under this proposed 
program, the certificate holder, as a condition of the certificate, 
would be required to audit its remanufacture of locomotives for the use 
of the proper parts, their proper installation, and all proper 
calibrations as a condition of the certificate of conformity. The 
certificate holder would be required to perform these audits on 5% of 
its annual production. For certificate holders which sell their kits 
for installation by others, the audits would be required to be spread 
out proportionally among every entity installing them. The Agency 
recognizes that it may be difficult for a remanufacturer to audit kit 
installations from a variety of installers located throughout the 
country. Thus, EPA is proposing to allow a remanufactured locomotive 
subject to an audit to operate up to 10,000 miles prior to the audit. 
This will allow for audits at sites other than where the installation 
occurs, as well as providing the flexibility in the timing of the 
audits (i.e., not having to audit a locomotive the moment it completes 
remanufacture). A case of uninstalled, misinstalled, misadjusted or 
incorrect parts would constitute a failure, and additional locomotives 
would be required to be audited. Actions in the event of an audit 
failure would be determined on a case-by-case basis, depending on 
whether the failure is considered tampering, causing of tampering, 
inappropriate parts in kit, etc. EPA would retain the right to order, 
on a case-by-case basis, a PLT testing program for remanufactured 
locomotives in the same manner as the PLT program for freshly 
manufactured locomotives if in-use testing or kit audits showed 
evidence of noncompliance. EPA requests comment on the impacts of this 
proposed audit program for remanufactured locomotives on small 
businesses, and whether it should consider an exemption from this 
requirement for small businesses.

C.4. In-Use Testing Program

    A critical element in the success of the proposed locomotive 
program is ensuring that manufacturers, remanufacturers, and upgraders 
produce new locomotives that continue to meet emission standards beyond 
certification and production stages, during actual operation and use. 
EPA is proposing to adopt an in-use testing program pursuant to the 
Agency's authority to implement and enforce the locomotive emissions 
standards, and pursuant to its authority to collect information from 
entities subject to the Act's requirements.
    EPA believes that the best way to ensure that the in-use emissions 
reductions expected to result from implementation of today's proposed 
standards are actually achieved is to perform in-use testing on a 
number of locomotives every year. This is especially important in the 
absence of an upfront durability showing. The Agency is proposing an 
in-use compliance program with two distinct components. EPA is first 
proposing a program to be performed by the manufacturers and 
remanufacturers aimed primarily at testing locomotives from all engine 
families under the full FTP. Second, the Agency is proposing to require 
that Class I railroads annually test 10 percent of their locomotives 
which have met or exceeded their useful lives using a modified version 
of the FTP, as discussed in the test procedures section. The purpose of 
this second component is to assure that locomotive useful life periods 
are appropriate and to assure states that locomotives are continuing to 
meet applicable emissions

[[Page 6388]]

standards for the time period during which certain state standards are 
preempted beyond useful life, as described later in this notice. Each 
of these two components of the proposed in-use testing program are 
discussed in more detail in the following paragraphs.
    The first major component of the proposed in-use testing program 
includes requirements that apply to manufacturers and remanufacturers. 
EPA is proposing to require manufacturers and remanufacturers to test 
emissions from in-use locomotives pursuant to its authority under 
section 208 of the Act. This provision applies to the locomotive and 
locomotive engine emissions standards as provided in section 213(d). 
Section 208 requires manufacturers to submit information and conduct 
tests that EPA may reasonably require to determine whether such 
manufacturer is in compliance with Title II of the Act and its 
implementing regulations, or to otherwise carry out the provisions of 
Title II. The proposed testing program is designed to minimize the 
burden on industry, while providing a strong incentive for 
manufacturers and remanufacturers to build engines that meet standards 
beyond the certification and production stages, when in actual use.
    Under the proposed in-use testing scheme, manufacturers and 
remanufacturers will be required to test in-use locomotives from one 
engine family per year, using the full FTP. The Agency is proposing one 
engine family per year in order to limit the testing burden on 
manufacturers and remanufacturers. EPA will specify the engine family 
to be tested each year, with selection based on criteria such as 
production quantity, past emission performance (including performance 
in the proposed railroad test program), and engine and emission control 
technology. All in-use testing is proposed to be performed on 
locomotives, with no allowances for engine testing (except for engines 
used for repowering, and then only after locomotive testing has been 
performed). In order to limit the testing burden for small engine 
families, the in-use testing requirement would not apply to engine 
families with production of less than ten locomotives per year, except 
where there is evidence of in-use failures. EPA will provide 
manufacturers and remanufacturers suitable advance notice about which 
engine families are to be tested in any given year. EPA would have the 
authority to waive this in-use testing requirement for a given 
manufacturer or remanufacturer based on evidence of consistent in-use 
compliance. This waiver would not be available for a manufacturer or 
remanufacturer that has not yet demonstrated the durability of each of 
its engine families (i.e., has one or more engine families that have 
not been tested in-use), or if there is evidence, from railroad or 
other testing, that one of its engine families may not be complying in-
use. EPA expects that after this program has been in place for several 
years, the in-use testing burden will be much smaller, as long as in-
use failures were very infrequent.
    The Agency is proposing that all locomotives tested under the 
manufacturer and remanufacturer in-use testing program will have 
reached at least 75 percent of their useful lives. While testing of 
locomotives will be limited to between 75 and 100 percent of their 
useful lives, actual repair in the event of a determination of 
noncompliance under section 207(c) of the Act, however, would not be 
limited by useful life. For example, compliance testing of an engine 
family might be limited to 75 to 100 percent of its useful life; 
however, any resulting remedy repair would be required to be applied to 
all locomotives of that family, regardless of whether the locomotives 
had exceeded their useful lives. This is consistent with EPA's recall 
policy for on-highway vehicles and engines and large compression-
ignition nonroad engines.<SUP>15 Further, EPA proposes that it may 
require that any remedy in the event of a nonconformity extend to 
locomotives of the same engine family, but different model years, that 
were certified using the proposed certification carry over provisions. 
Such an extension of the remedy to other model years is proposed to be 
limited to two model years before and one model year after the model 
year of the nonconforming engine family. Such a provision would thus 
limit the liability in the event of a nonconformity to four model 
years' production.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ See Center for Auto Safety v. EPA, 747 F.2d 1 [D.C. Cir. 
1984].
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Under EPA's proposed testing program, a manufacturer or 
remanufacturer would be required to test in-use locomotives from an 
engine family specified by EPA when that family reached an appropriate 
age. The Agency is proposing that an appropriate age to begin in-use 
testing would be 75 percent of a locomotive's useful life. EPA has 
chosen 75 percent of useful life in order to balance the need to 
accurately assess in-use emissions performance, which argues for 
testing late in useful life, with the desire to maximize the benefits 
of any remedial action in the event of an in-use failure, which argues 
for testing earlier in useful life. The in-use test program is intended 
to assess in-use emissions deterioration, not production quality (which 
is assessed in the production line testing program). Thus, it is most 
appropriate to test later in a locomotive's useful life, rather than 
earlier, to ensure that test results reflect actual in-use 
deterioration, which tends to increase with age. However, testing too 
late may present two problems. First, the later in useful life the 
testing is done, the more difficult it may be to find well-maintained 
locomotives to test, since many may be remanufactured before the end of 
useful life. Second, testing extremely late in useful life would 
minimize the benefits achieved from any remedial action taken in the 
event an in-use nonconformity is identified. Thus, EPA believes that 
testing at 75 percent of useful life strikes a balance between these 
different issues. EPA requests comment on whether a lower age or range 
(e.g., 50 to 75 percent of useful life) would be more appropriate for 
such testing, including commenters' reasons for suggesting different 
ages.
    To achieve the Agency's goal of establishing a strong enforcement 
program while minimizing the burden on manufacturers, EPA is proposing 
a sampling process for the selection of locomotives for in-use testing 
which is designed to provide adequate data for the Agency to use as a 
basis for compliance decisions, while expediting testing of engine 
families found to emit below the standard. This proposed selection 
process to achieve this goal is described in the following paragraphs.
    The number of locomotives of a targeted family to be tested by a 
manufacturer or remanufacturer would be determined by the following 
method:
    1. A minimum of two locomotives per year for the specified family 
after it reaches the minimum age specified, provided that no locomotive 
fails any standard. For each failing locomotive, two more locomotives 
would be tested up to a maximum of 10 locomotives tested.
    2. If the following conditions are met, only one locomotive per 
family per year must be tested: (1) The engine family has been 
previously tested under step 1 above; (2) the engine family has not 
changed significantly from the previously tested family (i.e., has been 
certified using carryover emission data); and (3) EPA has not informed 
the manufacturer of an emission concern with that family. If that 
locomotive fails for any pollutant, testing must be conducted as 
outlined in step 1 above, up to a maximum of ten locomotives.

[[Page 6389]]

    A manufacturer or remanufacturer could test more locomotives than 
the minimum above or could concede that the engine family failed to 
comply with applicable standards before reaching locomotive number 10. 
EPA would consider failure rates, average emission levels, and the 
existence of any defects in tested locomotives, among other things in 
determining whether to pursue remedial action. EPA may order a recall 
before testing reaches the maximum number of locomotives.
    In EPA's motor vehicle compliance program, EPA determines the 
schedule for testing engine families and conducts the testing itself. 
EPA recognizes that it would reduce the burden of testing to afford 
maximum flexibility in determining the test schedules for in-use 
testing programs to locomotive manufacturers and remanufacturers so 
that such programs could be coordinated with the schedules of the 
railroads whose locomotives are to be tested (e.g., schedules for 
maintenance and safety inspections). For this reason, EPA is proposing 
to allow manufacturers and remanufacturers to set their own schedule 
for in-use testing. However, EPA could require that in-use tests be 
distributed throughout the year in order to prevent all testing for the 
year from being performed at times when the weather is most favorable 
for low emissions results.
    The Agency recognizes that locomotive manufacturers and 
remanufacturers may have difficulty procuring locomotives for in-use 
testing due to the fact that they are in revenue-generating service. 
Therefore, EPA is proposing to allow manufacturers and remanufacturers 
twelve months after the receipt of testing notification to complete the 
testing of an engine family. (Testing by the Agency of an engine family 
in the motor vehicle program is usually completed within a three-month 
period.) The Agency believes that providing manufacturers and 
remanufacturers with twelve months to complete this testing provides 
them significant flexibility in conducting their test programs and 
adequately addresses any difficulties which would arise during the 
locomotive procurement and testing, and requests comment on this 
provision. Furthermore, the Agency is willing to consider extensions to 
this requirement when the manufacturers or remanufacturers present 
circumstances which warrant such extensions.
    Test locomotives would be required to be randomly selected and to 
have a maintenance and use history representative of a properly 
maintained and operated locomotive. To comply with this requirement a 
manufacturer or remanufacturer would question the end user regarding 
the accumulated usage, maintenance and operating conditions of the test 
locomotive. Manufacturers or remanufacturers could, with EPA approval, 
delete locomotives from their test sample and replace them with others 
if they could document abuse or malmaintenance that might significantly 
affect emissions durability. The manufacturer or remanufacturer would 
document reasons for deletion in its test report to EPA. The 
manufacturer or remanufacturer may perform minimal maintenance on a 
test locomotive. One valid emission test conducted under the federal 
test procedure established for locomotives would be required for each 
selected locomotive.
    EPA is proposing to require locomotive manufacturers and 
remanufacturers to submit to the Administrator, within three months of 
completion of testing, all emission testing results generated from the 
in-use testing program. EPA envisions that manufacturers and 
remanufacturers will simply provide quarterly statements of all 
emission results obtained during the previous quarter, including a 
summary table of any engine family that has completed testing during 
that quarter. At the Administrator's request, a manufacturer or 
remanufacturer would be required to provide documents used in the 
locomotive procurement process, including criteria used in the 
procurement screening process and information from the end user(s) 
related to use and maintenance of the selected locomotives, and 
information about locomotives, if any, that were deleted from the 
program.
    If an in-use nonconformity is found to occur in an engine family, 
EPA will work with the manufacturer or remanufacturer to implement a 
remedial action on a voluntary basis. If the manufacturer or 
remanufacturer does not implement a remedial action, the Administrator 
may order one pursuant to section 207(c) of the Act. Under this 
section, as applied to locomotives according to section 213(d), the 
Administrator has authority to require manufacturers or remanufacturers 
to submit a plan to remedy applicable locomotives or locomotive engines 
if EPA determines that a substantial number of a class or category of 
properly maintained and used locomotives or locomotive engines do not 
conform with the requirements prescribed under section 213 of the Act. 
Other requirements applicable in the event of a determination under 
section 207(c) of the Act include submittal of the manufacturer's 
remedial plan for EPA approval, procedures for notification of 
locomotive owners, submittal of quarterly reports on the progress of 
the recall campaign, and procedures to be followed in the event that 
the manufacturer requests a public hearing to contest the 
Administrator's finding of nonconformity. If a determination of 
nonconformity with the requirements of section 207(c) of the Act is 
made, the manufacturer or remanufacturer would not have the option of 
an alternate remedial action, and an actual recall would be required.
    EPA requests comment regarding the circumstances under which 
alternatives to conventional recall should be considered as a voluntary 
action, prior to EPA making the formal determination of nonconformity. 
EPA contemplates that recall of locomotives will be the primary method 
for addressing in-use nonconformities. However, the Agency recognizes 
that in some cases, the actual recall and repair of locomotives could 
impose severe financial hardship on a manufacturer or remanufacturer if 
the necessary repair was extremely complex and expensive, and could 
also impact railroads when locomotives are required to be taken out of 
service for those repairs. In such cases, and assuming that the 
Administrator had not yet rendered a determination of nonconformity, 
alternatives to traditional recall would be strongly considered. These 
alternatives would be required to have the same or greater 
environmental benefit as conventional recall and to provide equivalent 
incentives to manufacturers and remanufacturers to produce locomotives 
which durably and reliably control emissions. EPA requests comment on 
how manufacturers or remanufacturers who have repeated nonconformities 
should be handled as compared to those who have only occasional 
nonconformities. The Agency invites comment on the factors the Agency 
should consider in evaluating proposed alternatives.
    EPA recognizes the need to develop a testing program to provide 
assurance that in-use locomotives are meeting emissions standards while 
taking into account the burden of in-use testing on railroads and 
locomotive manufacturers and remanufacturers. EPA requests comments on 
its proposed in-use testing program as well as specific proposals for 
in-use locomotive test schemes that will address the concerns described 
above, and possible alternative designs for in-use testing programs 
(such as independent third party testing paid for by manufacturers and/
or remanufacturers) or other effective enforcement mechanisms. However, 
any

[[Page 6390]]

alternatives must produce a compliance scheme that provides EPA with an 
enforceable program which provides substantial incentive to 
manufacturers and remanufacturers to produce clean, durable 
locomotives.
    EPA envisions the second major component of the proposed in-use 
compliance program, the railroad in-use test program, as a screening 
program whereby relatively large numbers of locomotives would be 
tested. Section 114 of the Act provides EPA authority to collect 
information, require records to be kept, and inspect and monitor 
emissions. Pursuant to its authority under this provision, EPA proposes 
an in-use testing program that applies to certain owners and operators 
of locomotives covered by the proposed emissions standards. Section 114 
states, in relevant part, that, for the purposes of ``carrying out any 
provisions of (the Act),'' EPA may require any person who owns or 
operates any emission source to establish and maintain records, sample 
emissions (according to specifications prescribed by the 
Administrator), and to provide ``such other information as the 
Administrator may reasonably require.'' <SUP>16
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ An exemption from Section 114 authority is provided for 
carrying out provisions of Title II of the CAA with respect to 
manufacturers of new motor vehicles and new motor vehicles engines. 
The proposed in-use testing program would not impose any testing 
requirements on such manufacturers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The proposed in-use testing program is necessary to ensure that 
locomotives will remain in reasonable compliance with emissions 
standards during the period of preemption beyond their useful lives in 
order to ensure that their emissions do not significantly increase 
during such period of preemption, when certain state standards would be 
prohibited. Railroad operators are clearly owners or operators of an 
emissions source, and therefore, pursuant to section 114, EPA has 
authority to require railroad operators to sample the emissions from 
their locomotives, to report the results of such testing to EPA, and to 
provide other information that can be reasonably required. In addition 
to providing authority to require such in-use testing, section 114 
explicitly authorizes EPA to require that such testing be performed 
according to ``such procedures or methods, at such locations, at such 
interval, during such periods and in such manner as the Administrator 
shall prescribe.'' EPA solicits public comment on its authority to 
require railroad operators to conduct in-use testing according to the 
requirements specified below.
    This railroad operator in-use testing program would be intended to 
evaluate the emissions performance of locomotives which have reached or 
exceeded their useful lives, as defined by federal regulations. The 
proposed railroad in-use testing program would apply at the end of 
useful life, where the manufacturer/remanufacturer in-use testing 
program leaves off. The data will serve to indirectly evaluate 
emissions performance at the end of useful life as well as provide 
information about emissions during the time period for which many state 
standards or requirements would be preempted because of their expected 
effect on how manufacturers and remanufacturers design new locomotives 
and new locomotive engines. The tests would be carried out on 10 
percent of Class I railroad locomotives which have reached the end of 
their full useful lives each year. The number of tests a given railroad 
would have to perform for a given year would be determined based on the 
number of locomotives that railroad has that have reached the end of 
their useful lives at the beginning of that year. However, the actual 
locomotives tested would be randomly selected throughout the year from 
any that have reached the end of their useful lives, not necessarily 
only from those that were counted at the beginning of the year to 
determine the number of tests required (i.e., they could include 
locomotives which reached the end of their useful lives during that 
year). EPA proposes that it have the authority to lower the number of 
tests required if the testing costs are substantially higher than EPA 
estimates or if the testing shows that in-use locomotives have 
consistently good emissions performance beyond their useful lives. 
Testing is proposed to be limited to Class I railroads because they 
operate most of the locomotives, and the costs to smaller railroads of 
conducting in-use tests would be very high and would likely provide 
information that merely duplicates that received from Class I 
railroads.
    The locomotives tested would be randomly selected by the railroads, 
and the tests could be performed in conjunction with a Federal Railroad 
Administration inspection in order to minimize downtime. Testing of any 
locomotive will not take place until it has reached the end of its 
useful life. This is because the manufacturer and remanufacturer in-use 
testing program would provide for testing in-use locomotives up to the 
end of useful life. The testing, to be performed at all notches, would 
be done using field quality measurement equipment. NO<INF>X, CO, 
CO<INF>2 and HC concentrations are proposed to be measured, as well as 
smoke opacity. These concentrations will be compared to the 
concentrations measured during certification testing. EPA recognizes 
that effective HC measurement of diesel engine exhaust requires a 
heated flame ionization detector (HFID) as opposed to a standard, or 
unheated FID. Such units are more expensive and more difficult to 
maintain than unheated FIDs, making them less suitable for use as field 
quality equipment. The Agency is requesting comment on whether the 
requirement to use an HFID is problematic, and whether the requirement 
for HC measurement should therefore be dropped. If so, would this 
compromise the effectiveness of the in-use short test?
    The Agency proposes that the railroads be required to submit 
quarterly reports summarizing all emissions testing performed. If a 
particular engine family had consistent problems in all the railroads' 
fleets then it would likely be considered a problem with the design or 
manufacture of the locomotives. Since the engines tested under this 
proposed program would be past their useful lives, no direct 
enforcement action could be taken against the manufacturer or 
remanufacturer in the event of a failure. However, EPA could use this 
information to target engine families to be tested in the manufacturer/
remanufacturer in-use testing program. If the failures were limited to 
one railroad's fleet then it would suggest the possibility of tampering 
or malmaintenance, which could be enforceable under the tampering 
prohibition, discussed later in this notice.
    The Agency is considering, as an option, an alternative in-use test 
program proposed by the railroads. Under this option, the railroads 
would perform testing using the full FTP (with the exception of PM 
measurement) instead of the test procedure described above. However, 
tests would be performed at a much lower sampling rate (e.g., one 
percent) than the ten percent the Agency is proposing. EPA requests 
comment on this alternative in-use testing scheme. EPA also requests 
comment on a second alternative whereby a smoke test would be used with 
the number of locomotives tested being much greater than the ten 
percent in the proposed railroad in-use testing program. EPA 
specifically requests comment on a program in which the Agency would 
require that every locomotive covered by today's proposed standards be 
tested annually by its

[[Page 6391]]

owner/operator for smoke emissions. Such a requirement would apply 
throughout a locomotive's useful life, as well as beyond it, in 
contrast to the previously discussed railroad testing programs, which 
only require testing after a locomotive has reached the end of its 
useful life. Under such a program, the railroads would be required to 
maintain the test result records and make them available to EPA upon 
request. Finally, EPA requests comment on combinations of the 
previously discussed options, as well as other alternative in-use 
testing schemes.
    The Agency specifically requests comments on the merits of 
replacing the proposed two-component (i.e., manufacturer and railroad) 
in-use testing program with a unified program that is conducted 
entirely by the railroads. Such a program could potentially be 
significantly more convenient for all parties involved, especially for 
certificate holders that do not have their own emission testing 
facilities. On the other hand, such a program could be unreasonably 
burdensome to the railroads. Furthermore, manufacturers have 
historically been very skeptical of the quality of emission testing 
performed by third parties, and thus might challenge any EPA finding of 
nonconformity based on such data. Finally, if the Agency does not 
finalize a unified in-use testing program, should it create provisions 
that would specifically allow it to be adopted voluntarily by the 
railroads?

D. Test Procedures

    Due to the fundamental similarity between the emissions components 
of locomotive engines and on-highway heavy-duty diesel engines, the 
test procedures being proposed today are based on the test procedures 
previously established for on-highway heavy-duty diesel engines in 40 
CFR part 86 subparts D and N. Specifically, the raw sampling procedures 
and many of the instrument calibration procedures are based on subpart 
D, and the dilute particulate sampling procedures and general test 
procedures are based on subpart N. The most significant aspects of the 
proposed test procedures are described below. Also, as with EPA's test 
procedures for other engines, the regulations would allow, with advance 
EPA approval, alternate test procedures demonstrated to yield 
equivalent or superior results.

D.1. Federal Test Procedure (FTP) for Locomotives

    EPA proposes to use a steady-state test procedure to measure 
gaseous and particulate emissions from locomotives; that is, a 
procedure wherein measurements of gaseous and particulate emissions are 
performed with the engine at a series of steady-state speed and load 
conditions. Measurement of smoke would be performed during both steady-
state operations and during periods of engine accelerations between 
notches. Specifically, the engine would be started, if not already 
running, and warmed up to normal operating temperature in accordance 
with warm-up procedures for in-service locomotives as specified by the 
manufacturer. For locomotive testing, the engine would remain in the 
locomotive chassis, and the power output would be dissipated as heat 
from resistive load banks (internal or external). The engine would be 
considered to be warmed up, and ready for emissions testing when 
coolant and lubricant temperatures are approximately at the mid-points 
of the normal in-service operating temperatures for these materials as 
specified by the manufacturer. After the engine has reached normal 
operating temperature, the engine would be operated at full power 
(i.e., highest power notch) for 5 minutes, then returned to idle, or 
low idle if so equipped. The 5-minute period at full power is intended 
to ensure that the engine is at a realistic operating temperature, and 
to improve test repeatability. Measurement of exhaust emissions, fuel 
consumption, inlet and cooling air temperature, power output, etc. 
would then begin, and would continue through each higher power 
operating mode to maximum power. In the event of test equipment failure 
during data acquisition, testing may be resumed by repeating the last 
test mode for which valid data was collected, provided the engine is at 
normal operating temperature. The minimum duration of the initial test 
point (idle or low idle), and each test point when power is being 
increased is 6 minutes, with the exception of the maximum power point, 
where the minimum duration of operation is 15 minutes.
    Concentrations of gaseous exhaust pollutants are proposed to be 
measured by drawing samples of the raw exhaust to chemical analyzers; a 
chemiluminescence analyzer for NO<INF>X, a heated flame ionization 
detector (HFID) for HC, and nondispersive infrared (NDIR) detector for 
CO and CO<INF>2. Smoke would be measured with a smoke opacity meter, 
and particulates would be measured by drawing a diluted sample of the 
exhaust through a filter and weighing the mass of particulate 
collected. The Agency is not proposing to establish dilute sampling 
procedures for the total exhaust stream for gaseous and particulate 
emissions because it is not necessary to dilute the total exhaust 
stream prior to sampling for HC, CO<INF>2, CO, NO<INF>X, and 
particulate during steady state operations. In addition, the equipment 
that would be required for dilute sampling is very large and expensive. 
Not including such provisions would not preclude the use of dilute 
sampling as an alternative procedure. EPA requests comments regarding 
the need for dilute sampling procedures. In order to ensure good 
reliability of test results, EPA is also proposing calibration and 
verification requirements similar to those applicable to on-highway 
heavy-duty engines, and requests comments regarding the proposed 
methods and frequency of these requirements. It should also be noted 
that the Agency is in the process of making minor technical revisions 
to the particulate measurement procedures of 40 CFR 86, and that many 
of these technical amendments would be relevant to measurement of 
particulate emissions from locomotives. These amendments are expected 
to be finalized later this year. The Agency will incorporate these 
changes in the final rule for locomotives, as appropriate.
    The Agency is proposing that the NMHC, alcohol and aldehyde 
measurement procedures that are currently applicable to on-highway 
natural gas- and methanol-fueled engines (40 CFR part 86) be used for 
natural gas- and alcohol-fueled locomotives. EPA recognizes, however, 
the possibility of unforeseen problems that could result during the use 
of such procedures with locomotive engines, especially with alcohol-
fueled locomotives (which currently do not exist). Among the potential 
problems are the lack of information on whether the specifications for 
dilute alcohol and aldehyde sample temperatures and flow rates are 
appropriate for locomotives, as well as the complete lack of such 
specifications for raw exhaust. At this time, EPA believes that it is 
appropriate to specify the on-highway procedures in the absence of 
definitiveness of potential problems, but may reconsider alcohol and 
aldehyde sampling issues on a case-by-case basis, should alcohol-fueled 
locomotives come into use.
    EPA's experience in testing engines is that it is difficult to 
accurately measure engine power at extremely low levels. Thus, EPA is 
considering, and requests comment on, assigning engine power levels for 
idle and dynamic brake

[[Page 6392]]

modes, expressed as a percent of the locomotive's rated power (e.g., 
0.2% at idle and 1.0% at dynamic brake), and not requiring that it be 
measured. These assigned levels, rather than measured levels, would be 
used in the emissions calculations. This approach would alleviate 
concerns expressed by industry about the ability to accurately measure 
engine power output during idle and dynamic brake operation. This would 
also provide a regulatory incentive to reduce fuel consumption in these 
two modes since the engine power used in the calculations for these 
modes would always be the same. This would in turn reduce total mass 
emissions. EPA requests comment on all aspects of this option, 
including what levels would be appropriate for the assigned power 
levels. The Agency also requests comments as to whether a similar 
approach should be used to provide an incentive for the development of 
an automatic shutdown mechanism that could shut off an engine 
automatically after some extended period of idling. One such approach 
would be to reduce the weighting factor for the idle emission rate, for 
engines equipped with automatic shutdown mechanisms, but use the higher 
power weighting factor that is specified in the proposed regulations. 
This approach would account for the emissions benefits of a shutdown 
mechanism whereas the proposed test procedures do not.
    EPA is proposing that test conditions such as ambient test 
temperature and pressure be fully representative of in-use conditions. 
Specifically, the Agency is proposing that locomotives comply with 
emissions standards when tested at temperatures from 45 deg. F to 
105 deg. F and at both sea level and high altitude conditions (i.e., up 
to 7,000 feet above sea level). The Agency is not proposing that the 
test conditions include temperatures below 45 deg. F because the Agency 
does not believe that there are significant benefits from such a 
requirement for diesel locomotives as compared to the benefits from 
controlling cold temperature emissions from gasoline-fueled vehicles 
(where EPA does currently have cold temperature requirements) since 
diesel engines are not associated with low temperature emissions 
problems.
    The Agency is not proposing specific correction factors that would 
be used to account for the effects of ambient test conditions, such as 
temperature or humidity, on emission rates. In existing mobile source 
programs, EPA does require that NO<INF>X emission rates be corrected to 
account for the effect of ambient humidity. (Water present in the 
intake air is known to lead to lower NO<INF>X emissions, as it absorbs 
energy from the combustion process and decreases peak combustion 
temperatures.) EPA considered using the NO<INF>X-humidity correction 
factor that is currently being used for highway and general nonroad 
diesel engines (40 CFR parts 86 and 89), but concluded that the data 
upon which that correction factor was based is not adequate for this 
rulemaking. In particular, EPA has concerns about the applicability of 
data from older pre-control highway engines to current and future 
locomotives that incorporate NO<INF>X-reduction technologies. More 
importantly, however, the data is inappropriate as a basis for such 
correction factors for locomotives because the range of test conditions 
being proposed for locomotives is much broader than was used in the 
collection of that data. EPA is in the process of developing revised 
correction factors for inclusion in the final rule and will place any 
relevant information in the docket as soon as it is available. These 
would be used to correct emission rates to typical ambient summer 
conditions of 86  deg.F and 60 grains of water per pound of dry air. 
EPA requests comments on the need for any correction factors, 
especially a NO<INF>X correction factor, and whether proposed the 
conditions to which emissions would be corrected are appropriate. 
Commenters supporting the use of correction factors are encouraged to 
include test data that could be used to develop meaningful correction 
factors for future locomotives.
    The Agency is proposing test fuel specifications for compliance 
testing (certification, PLT and manufacturer/remanufacturer in-use 
testing) which are consistent with test fuel specifications for on-
highway heavy-duty engine certification testing, with the exception of 
the sulfur specification. In the case of the sulfur specification, EPA 
is proposing a lower limit of 0.3 weight percent,<SUP>17 and is 
proposing that there be no upper bound for the sulfur level. This lower 
limit is intended to approximate worst case in-use conditions; in those 
cases where in-use locomotives are operated on low sulfur on-highway 
fuel, particulate emissions entering the atmosphere can be expected to 
be lower than levels measured when using the certification test fuel. 
EPA is taking this approach because there is no reason to believe that 
in-use locomotives will use only low sulfur on-highway fuel, especially 
given the potential price differences between low and high sulfur 
diesel fuels, and potential availability problems in some areas of the 
country.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ Typical untreated (high sulfur) nonroad diesel fuel 
contains about 0.2-0.5 weight percent sulfur.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Since the proposed test for the railroad in-use testing program is 
not the proposed FTP, and railroad in-use testing carries no liability 
with it, there is less of a need to use the fuel specified for 
certification for this railroad in-use testing. Given the cost and 
inconvenience of using a specific fuel for in-use testing, EPA is not 
proposing any fuel specifications for in-use railroad testing, and will 
allow the railroad testing to be done whatever fuel is in the 
locomotive's tank at the time of testing.
    The Agency recognizes that the potential exists for future 
locomotives to include additional power notches, or even continuously 
variable throttles, and is proposing alternate testing requirements for 
such locomotives. Using the proposed FTP for such locomotives would 
result in an emissions measurement that does not accurately reflect 
their in-use emissions performance because it would not be a reasonable 
representation of their in-use operation. Thus, locomotives having 
additional notches would be tested at each notch, and the mass emission 
rates for the additional notches would be averaged with the nearest 
``standard'' notch. Locomotives having continuously variable throttles 
would be tested at idle, dynamic brake, and 15 power levels assigned by 
the Administrator (including full power), with average emission rates 
for two power levels (excluding full power) assigned to the nearest 
``standard'' notch. The 15 power levels proposed represent one level 
for full power and two, to be averaged, for each of the seven 
intermediate power levels used on current locomotives. The 
Administrator would retain the authority to prescribe other procedures 
for alternate throttle/power configurations.

D.2. FTP for Engines

    The proposed test procedures are intended primarily for the testing 
of locomotives, rather than locomotive engines. However, EPA does 
recognize that engine testing will be reasonable in some cases, such as 
data collection from a development engine. For these cases, the engine 
would be mounted on a stand, with its crankshaft attached to an 
electric dynamometer. Because the Agency believes that it is critical 
that engine testing be as representative of actual locomotive operation 
as can practically be achieved, it is proposing that important 
operating conditions such as engine speed, engine load, and the 
temperature of the charge air

[[Page 6393]]

entering the cylinder be the same as in a locomotive in use (within a 
reasonable tolerance limit).

D.3. Short Test for Locomotives

    The Agency is also proposing a short test to be used by the 
railroads for in-use testing. This test procedure would be similar to 
the FTP test, but would not require measurement of the fuel flow rate 
and engine power output (which require mechanical work on the 
locomotive), or particulate emissions (which requires a fairly 
expensive sampling system). Also, less precise analytical equipment 
would be allowed. These allowances are all included to minimize testing 
time and cost. This test would not allow direct calculation of the mass 
emission rates, but rather, would be limited to measurement of 
concentrations which would be compared to concentration measurements 
made during certification testing. If the fuel flow rate and power 
output of the engine are both assumed to be the same as measured at 
certification, however, approximate mass emission rates could be 
determined.

E. Railroad Requirements

    Historically, EPA has not adopted specific federal requirements for 
end users of regulated mobile source engines and vehicles. However, 
there are some factors unique to the railroad industry and to the 
proposed regulation of locomotives that require the railroads to take a 
more active role in assuring compliance with today's proposed 
standards. These characteristics include the proposed broad preemption 
of state regulation, the industry practice of periodically 
remanufacturing locomotives and the proposed definition of such 
locomotives as new, and the unique relationship between the locomotive 
manufacturers and the railroads.
    As discussed in the section on compliance, EPA is proposing two in-
use testing programs for locomotives: one conducted by manufacturers 
and remanufacturers, and another conducted by railroads. For the first 
program, manufacturers and remanufacturers would need to obtain test 
locomotives from the railroads. EPA expects that the railroads will 
cooperate with the manufacturers in order to provide locomotives for 
this testing. The Agency recognizes that the railroads have a strong 
financial interest in keeping their locomotives in revenue service and 
minimizing scheduling disruptions, and that this could make it 
difficult for manufacturers to procure locomotives for in-use testing. 
Thus, as was mentioned in the in-use testing program discussion, EPA is 
proposing a relatively long period of time in which the in-use testing 
can be done, as well as a fairly small number of locomotives required 
to be tested, in order to minimize such disruptions. EPA expects the 
railroads to provide reasonable assistance to the manufacturers and 
remanufacturers in support of the in-use testing program. However, if a 
manufacturer or remanufacturer is unable to obtain a sufficient number 
of locomotives for testing, the Agency may require that the railroads 
do the testing themselves, under the authority of section 114 of the 
Act. In the second program, the railroads will be required to conduct 
their own in-use testing, as discussed above in the section on in-use 
testing programs.
    EPA is proposing additional provisions to avoid unnecessary burdens 
on smaller railroads. First, the in-use testing requirement would apply 
only to Class I railroads. The potential benefits of obtaining 
extensive in-use test data from non-Class I railroads do not justify 
the costs that would be incurred if each railroad was required to 
maintain an emissions testing facility, especially in light of the fact 
that the information provided by the non-Class I railroads would be 
duplicative of that provided by the Class I railroads. EPA is also 
proposing to exempt the smallest railroads (as defined later in the 
paragraph) from compliance with the Tier 0 standards for locomotives 
that have never been brought into compliance. More specifically, these 
railroads would be allowed to rebuild their existing locomotives and 
locomotives that they purchased after the effective date of the Tier 0 
standards according to their current practice, provided such 
locomotives were not originally manufactured or previously 
remanufactured to comply with federal emission standards. This 
exemption would allow these railroads to avoid the costs of converting 
a pre-existing, noncomplying locomotive into one which complies with 
the Tier 0 standards. All locomotives already certified to the Tier 0 
standards, either by that railroad or a previous owner, would be 
required to remain in compliance with EPA regulations each subsequent 
time that they are remanufactured, since this would be much less 
expensive than converting a noncomplying locomotive into one which 
complies with the Tier 0 standards. As is discussed in the RSD, the 
cost of remanufacturing a locomotive so that it complies with the Tier 
0 standards is much greater the first time it is brought into 
compliance as compared to subsequent remanufactures due to the one-time 
costs associated with the installation of such things as charge air 
cooling systems. The Agency believes that such an exemption is 
appropriate since the emissions impact of such an exemption would be 
minimal. As discussed in the RSD, such an exemption would likely amount 
to less than one percent of emissions initially, and would decrease and 
eventually disappear as the fleet turns over to Tier I and Tier II 
locomotives. EPA is proposing that this exemption would be limited to 
railroads that have 500 or fewer employees and are not owned by 
companies that the Small Business Administration would not classify as 
small businesses, and requests comments as to whether this criteria is 
appropriate, and whether some other criterion, such as annual revenue, 
should be used. The Agency requests comment on how it should treat 
holding companies which own small railroads with respect to this 
exemption. All railroads taking advantage of this exemption would also 
be exempted from the reporting requirements listed above. The Agency 
requests comment on how such exempted locomotives should be treated 
with respect to the preemption of certain state standards or 
requirements, as discussed later in the preemption section.
    EPA is proposing that any locomotive operator that knowingly fails 
to properly maintain (as defined by EPA at the time of certification) a 
locomotive subject to this regulation would be subject to civil 
penalties for tampering. EPA is proposing that locomotive operators 
should be required to perform a minimum amount of maintenance specified 
by manufacturers and remanufacturers for components that critically 
affect emissions performance. EPA is proposing to limit the frequency 
and type of maintenance that could be required by manufacturers and 
remanufacturers, and to make such requirements subject to the 
Administrator's approval. Examples of the type of maintenance that 
could be required are replacement of fuel injectors and air filters, 
and cleaning of turbochargers. The Agency believes that this 
requirement is appropriate given the high standards of maintenance and 
repair observed in the railroad industry, the reasonable expectation by 
locomotive manufacturers and remanufacturers that this maintenance will 
be done, and the importance of such maintenance for ensuring proper 
emissions performance.

[[Page 6394]]

    The Agency recognizes that, while many railroads own the 
locomotives that they operate, there is also a substantial amount of 
leasing of locomotives within the railroad industry. The Agency is 
proposing that the railroad requirements described in this section 
apply to the railroads (i.e., the locomotive operators), but requests 
comment on whether these requirements would more appropriately be 
applied to the locomotive owners in cases where the owner an operator 
are not the same entity.

F. Miscellaneous

F.1. Liability for Remanufactured Locomotives and Locomotive Engines

    As was previously discussed in the engine family certification 
section, EPA expects that in some cases locomotives and locomotive 
engines may be remanufactured using a remanufacture kit that was 
developed and manufactured by one entity but installed by another. In 
these cases, it is most likely that the kit manufacturer will be the 
certificate holder.<SUP>18 For example, one of the primary locomotive 
manufacturers could sell a remanufacture kit (to possibly include a 
collection of replacement parts or parts specifications, along with 
installation and maintenance instructions) to a railroad that would use 
it to remanufacture one of its locomotive engines. EPA believes it is 
critical to clearly define which entity would then be liable for the 
emissions performance of that remanufactured locomotive engine. As a 
starting point, the Agency considered how it handles the installation 
of aftermarket alternative fuel conversion systems for on-highway 
vehicles.<SUP>19 With such conversions, EPA holds the certificate 
holder liable for the in-use performance of the vehicles. EPA is 
proposing a similar presumptive liability approach for locomotive 
remanufacturing. Specifically, EPA is proposing that the primary 
liability for the in-use emissions performance of a remanufactured 
locomotive or locomotive engine would be with the certificate holder. 
In cases where the certificate holder and installer are separate 
entities, the certificate holder would be required to provide adequate 
installation instructions with the kit. Since the primary liability 
would be presumed to apply to the certificate holder, the certificate 
holder would also have an incentive to ensure that the kits were being 
properly installed. Ultimately, the installer would be liable for 
improper installation under the proposed tampering prohibitions. It 
should be noted that such an installer would still be considered to be 
a remanufacturer, and thus would also be potentially liable under other 
provisions of this part and of the Act. The Agency requests comment on 
this proposed liability scheme for remanufactured locomotives and 
locomotive engines.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ For the purposes of this discussion, EPA is proposing that 
the certificate holder for a remanufacture kit be termed the 
remanufacturer. The entity which installs the remanufacture kit 
would be termed the installer. The remanufacturer can also be the 
installer.
    \19\ 59 FR 48472, Sept. 21, 1994 and 59 FR 50042, Sept. 30, 
1994.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

F.2. Defect Reporting

    EPA is proposing that a manufacturer or remanufacturer of 
locomotives or locomotive engines be required to file a defect 
information report whenever the manufacturer or remanufacturer 
identifies the existence of a specific emission-related defect in a 
locomotive, or locomotive engine. These proposed reporting requirements 
are similar in structure to the requirements found in the on-highway 
and nonroad over 37 kW programs for compression ignition 
engines,<SUP>20 except that EPA proposes that a report be filed when a 
single locomotive, rather than 25 (as in the on-highway and over 37 kW 
programs) is found to be defective. During the rulemaking in which the 
defect reporting requirements (including the threshold of 25) were 
adopted for on-highway vehicles and engines (42 FR 28123), the Agency 
considered a lower threshold, but decided that it would be too 
burdensome. However, there are three reasons why a lower threshold 
would be appropriate for locomotives. First, since reliability is a 
very critical concern for locomotive purchasers, locomotives and 
locomotive engines tend to be very carefully manufactured. As such, the 
number of emission-related defects that would actually occur is 
expected to be small. Second, the number of locomotives produced under 
a single certificate will be much smaller for locomotives than for most 
on-highway or nonroad engine families. While 25 would be a very small 
fraction of a light-duty engine family of 100,000 vehicles, it could be 
one-quarter or more of the annual production volume of a locomotive 
engine family. Finally, given the size of locomotive engines (30 to 40 
times the horsepower of a typical light-duty vehicle), and their long 
service lives (up to one million miles between rebuilds), the 
environmental impact of even a single defective engine could easily be 
much more significant than 25 defective light-duty vehicles.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ 40 CFR part 89, subpart T.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

F.3. Importation of Nonconforming Locomotives

    EPA is proposing to prohibit the importation of locomotives and 
locomotive engines that are originally manufactured after the effective 
date of this rule, but are not covered by a certificate of conformity, 
except as provided below. The proposed prohibition is similar to 
existing regulations for the importation of nonconforming motor 
vehicles, motor vehicle engines (on-highway program), large (over 37 
kW) compression-ignition nonroad engines and other regulated mobile 
sources.
    Under EPA's current motor vehicle regulations, Independent 
Commercial Importers (ICIs) are allowed to import uncertified vehicles 
and engines into the U.S. but are required to comply with the same 
requirements that are applicable to motor vehicle manufacturers (e.g., 
certification, testing, labeling, warranty, recall, maintaining 
records). EPA provides for an ICI program for motor vehicles and motor 
vehicle engines because significant importation of such vehicles and 
engines occurs. EPA does not anticipate, however, any importation of 
nonconforming locomotives and locomotive engines. Therefore, an ICI 
program is not necessary for locomotives or locomotive engines, and EPA 
is not proposing such a program.
    This proposal includes certain exemptions to the prohibition on 
importing nonconforming locomotives and locomotive engines under the 
authority of section 203(b) of the Act. These include temporary 
importation exemptions for repairs and alterations, testing, 
precertification, display, national security, and certain locomotives 
and locomotive engines shown to be identical, in all material respects, 
to their corresponding United States certified versions. In previous 
rulemakings, EPA has provided for an exemption for motor vehicles and 
engines greater than 20 original production years old. However, EPA is 
not proposing a similar exemption for locomotives and locomotive 
engines. Since it is normal industry practice for locomotives to be in 
service for more than 40 years, these older locomotives constitute a 
large fraction of the in-use fleet, much larger than do motor vehicles 
over 20 years old. The Agency is proposing emission standards that will 
apply to all locomotives originally manufactured on or after January 1, 
1973 when those locomotives and locomotive engines are remanufactured, 
including those more than 20 original production years old. It would be

[[Page 6395]]

inappropriate for EPA to allow the importation of nonconforming 
locomotives simply because they are more than 20 years old. EPA 
requests comment on the absence of such an exemption.
    Importation regulations are issued by both EPA and the United 
States Department of the Treasury (Customs Service). The citation for 
United States Customs Service, Department of Treasury regulations 
governing import requirements is reserved. The citation will be 
inserted upon promulgation by the United States Customs Service of the 
applicable regulations.

F.4. Tampering

    EPA is proposing provisions that would prohibit any person from 
tampering with any locomotive or locomotive engine emission-related 
component or system installed on or in a locomotive or locomotive 
engine in accordance with EPA regulations. These provisions would help 
ensure that in-use locomotive engines remain in certified 
configurations and continue to comply with the applicable emission 
standards. All persons would be prohibited from removing or rendering 
inoperative any emission-related device or element of design installed 
on or in a locomotive or locomotive engine. These provisions would 
include a prohibition on the adjustment of engine parameters such as 
injection timing outside of the specified ranges. Knowingly failing to 
maintain emissions-critical components would also be considered 
tampering. The manufacturing, sale, and installation of a component 
intended for use with a locomotive or locomotive engine, where a 
principal effect of the component is to bypass, defeat, or render 
inoperative an emission-related device or element of design of the 
locomotive or locomotive engine would also be prohibited.
    EPA expects that the implementation of these provisions would be 
generally similar to the implementation of existing on-highway 
tampering provisions.<SUP>21 The prohibition of tampering would extend 
beyond a locomotive's useful life, until the locomotive or engine is 
scrapped. The prohibition on tampering would begin once a locomotive 
becomes subject to today's proposed regulations, either by being 
freshly manufactured or by being remanufactured. Thus, any replacement 
of parts (including complete rebuilds) which cause a locomotive to 
exceed applicable standards or FELS, or any adjustments to the engine 
outside of the range specified in the application for certification 
(such as changing injection timing) would be considered tampering even 
if performed beyond the locomotive's useful life.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\ Office of Enforcement and General Counsel; Mobile Source 
Enforcement Memorandum No. 1A, June 25, 1974.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

F.5. Nonconformance Penalties

    Pursuant to section 206(g)(1) of the CAA, the on-highway heavy-duty 
engine emission compliance program provides that, in certain cases, 
engine manufacturers whose engines cannot meet emission standards may 
receive a certificate of conformity and continue to sell their engines 
provided they pay a nonconformance penalty (NCP). EPA has concluded 
that the use of NCPs is not warranted for locomotives and locomotive 
engines. NCPs are designed to provide relief for engine manufacturers 
who are technology developing laggards in the emission control 
technology needed to meet technology forcing standards.<SUP>22 Based on 
the levels of the standards proposed in this NPRM, EPA has concluded 
that there will be no locomotive or locomotive engine manufacturers or 
remanufacturers that are unable to develop the necessary emission 
control technology to bring their locomotives and locomotive engines 
into emission compliance. Thus, the Agency is not proposing any NCPs. 
EPA requests comment on the possibility of there being a manufacturer 
or remanufacturer that would be unable to comply with the proposed 
standards.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \22\ See 40 CFR 86.1103-87.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

F.6. Emission Warranty

    EPA is proposing an emission warranty period for all locomotive and 
locomotive engine emission-related parts equivalent to the full useful 
life of the locomotive or locomotive engine. Specifically, the 
manufacturer or remanufacturer must warrant that the locomotive, 
locomotive engine, or remanufacture kit is designed, built and equipped 
to conform, at the time of sale or time of return to service following 
remanufacture, with all applicable regulations, and that it is free 
from defects that would cause nonconformity in use. The warranty is not 
required, however, to cover normal maintenance such as cleaning or 
replacing fuel injectors. EPA requests comment on how to treat the 
unscheduled maintenance of other components, such as power assemblies 
or turbochargers, that are often replaced during the useful life of a 
locomotive. These warranty provisions are authorized by section 207(a) 
of the Act, which applies to the locomotive standards pursuant to 
section 213(d). EPA is not proposing any regulations at this time under 
section 207(b) of the Act, which directs EPA to establish special test 
procedures for on-highway vehicles and engine, if certain conditions 
are met, to ascertain whether vehicles and engines comply with 
applicable federal emissions standards for their useful life. If the 
Agency were to establish test procedures under this provisions, 
manufacturers would be required to warrant that their vehicles and 
engines would pass such tests. Furthermore, EPA believes that states 
would not be preempted from establishing an in-use emissions testing 
program for locomotives based on the performance warranty provisions of 
section 207, provided that it used federally-specified test procedures 
and pass/fail criteria. In such a situation, compliance with the 
performance warranty based on state testing would in effect be a 
federal requirement.
    While a shorter warranty period may be adequate to ensure gross 
failures to performance systems and components do not occur, longer 
warranty periods are necessary to guard against emission control system 
failures. The warranty period must be of sufficient length to give the 
manufacturer or remanufacturer proper incentive to provide durable 
emission control equipment. EPA requests comments on the 
appropriateness of the length of the warranty period. The proposed 
warranty periods ensure the locomotive or locomotive engine 
manufacturer or remanufacturer has sufficient incentive to build 
emission-related systems that work and last. Further, it gives the 
locomotive or locomotive engine owner/operator the incentive to get 
emission-related system failures repaired, since failures to the 
emission control system might not always affect the ability of a 
locomotive or locomotive engine to continue to work. Should the 
warranty period be too short, a large number of noncomplying 
locomotives and locomotive engines could continue to produce excess 
emissions. EPA requests comment on how it should integrate these 
warranty provisions with the proposed required maintenance provisions.
    An advisory parts list issued by EPA on July 15, 1991 gives 
manufacturers notice of EPA's current view concerning the emission-
related parts that are covered by warranty under section 207(a). Given 
the similarity between the basic design of locomotive engines with that 
of other diesel engines, EPA intends to apply an updated version of 
this list to locomotives and locomotive engines.

[[Page 6396]]

A copy of this list is in the docket for this rulemaking.

F.7. Locomotives From Canada and Mexico

    This proposal applies to new locomotives and locomotive engines 
which are sold or introduced into commerce in the United States. The 
Agency is concerned about the possibility of nonconforming locomotives 
from Canada and/or Mexico operating extensively within the U.S., under 
the ownership of either a U.S. or foreign railroad. EPA requests 
comment on EPA's legal authority to limit such activity. Comments 
should address whether EPA should limit export exemptions of 
nonconforming locomotives, since locomotives used in Canada and Mexico 
are often produced in the U.S, and whether the Agency would have the 
authority to do so. EPA is also seeking to address this issue with the 
North American Automotive Standards Council by exploring the potential 
for Canada and Mexico to adopt the same emissions standards for 
locomotives that EPA ultimately adopts. The Agency believes that the 
most effective solution to this potential problem would be for the 
Canadian and Mexican governments to adopt comparable (or identical) 
standards and other requirements for locomotives.

F.8. Aftermarket Parts

    As is the case for on-highway vehicles and engines, there is 
currently an aftermarket parts market for locomotive parts. For on-
highway vehicles and engines, the Agency currently has a two-fold 
approach to assuring that aftermarket parts do not degrade the 
emissions performance of a certified vehicle or engine configuration. 
First, there is a voluntary aftermarket parts certification procedure 
contained in 40 CFR part 85, subpart V, which allows aftermarket parts 
manufacturers to certify the emissions performance of their parts. 
Second, for those parts which are not certified under this voluntary 
program the Agency applies the principles of EPA Mobile Source 
Enforcement Memorandum No. 1A, which outlines the Agency's position on 
tampering with respect to the use of replacement components on 
certified vehicles and engines.<SUP>23 EPA is proposing that this 
approach to aftermarket parts be extended to locomotive parts as well, 
and requests comment on whether this approach is sufficient to assure 
the proper emissions performance of locomotives which utilize 
aftermarket parts.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \23\ June 25, 1974. Available in the public docket for this 
rulemaking.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Agency is also requesting comments on whether it should 
establish provisions that would allow suppliers of aftermarket parts 
and parts remanufacturers to sell some emission-related parts for 
locomotive remanufacturing without being part of a certified 
remanufacture kit. Such provisions could create an exemption which 
would allow Class II and Class III railroads to have their locomotives 
remanufactured without a certificate of compliance, provided that the 
remanufacture resulted in the locomotive being returned to a previously 
certified configuration. If EPA were to establish such an allowance, 
should it limit it based on the size of the railroad, the size of the 
supplier or remanufacturer, or the number of such remanufactures 
performed annually? What, if any, reporting and recordkeeping 
requirements would be necessary to ensure compliance with the 
provisions? Finally, what would be the economic and environmental 
impacts of such provisions? EPA also requests comment on a streamlined 
certification program for modified kits. Such a program would allow an 
entity to apply for a modified certificate which would allow the use of 
parts other than those included in a certified kit. Such a certificate 
would only be granted with the permission of the original certificate 
holder, and the holder of the modified certificate would then assume 
all liability for locomotives remanufactured under the modified 
certificate. EPA requests comment on this and any other options for the 
streamlined certification of remanufactured locomotives.

F.9. Onboard Diagnostics

    EPA has recently established regulations <SUP>24 that require 
light-duty vehicles to be equipped with onboard diagnostic (OBD) 
systems that indicate to the operator any occurrence of specific 
emission control failures. While EPA has not included any such 
provisions in the regulations being proposed today, it is requesting 
comment on the potential and need for such diagnostics for locomotives. 
EPA believes that it would be inappropriate to require that such 
systems be retrofitted to existing locomotives due to the cost, but 
that it may be appropriate to require them on freshly manufactured 
locomotives (Tier I and Tier II), which are expected to have advanced 
onboard computer displays for other purposes. Commenters are encourage 
to address the following issues, as well as any other relevant issues: 
(1) The extent to which easily measured parameters such as engine 
exhaust temperature or pressure drop across an air filter correlate 
with emissions performance; (2) the feasibility of monitoring injection 
timing; (3) how such OBD systems should be considered with respect to 
required maintenance; and (4) the extent to which advanced OBD systems 
affect the appropriate frequency of in-use testing.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \24\ 40 CFR 86.094-17
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

G. Preemption

    EPA is proposing to define through regulation those state or local 
standards or requirements that are preempted pursuant to section 
209(e)(1)(B) of the Clean Air Act. Section 209(e) directs EPA to 
promulgate regulations to implement that subsection. To implement 
section 209(e), and specifically section 209(e)(1)(B), it is 
appropriate for EPA to interpret these provisions in light of other 
provisions in the statute as well as relevant case law and 
circumstances specific to locomotives. EPA believes that establishing 
regulations to define the scope of preemption under section 
209(e)(1)(B) and providing EPA's interpretation of the statute and 
implementing regulation would provide clear guidelines to 
states,<SUP>25 and certainty to industry. EPA believes that because of 
the interstate nature of locomotive travel and the fact that regulation 
of locomotives is generally national in scope, it is especially 
important to provide clarity and certainty to the industry and states 
regarding preemption of state and local emission control regulation of 
locomotives.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \25\ The term ``states'' when used in this section includes both 
state and local governments.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Under the regulations proposed today, states would be preempted 
from adopting and enforcing standards or other requirements relating to 
the control of emissions from new locomotives and new engines used in 
locomotives. The proposed regulation defines the period of time 
following the manufacture or remanufacture of a locomotive or engine 
during which certain state controls would be explicitly preempted under 
this criteria. This preemption period would be defined as the useful 
life plus 25 percent. EPA's rationale for choosing this preemption 
period is described later in this section.
    EPA believes that section 209(e)(1)(B) and the regulations proposed 
today would preempt states from adopting in-use regulations relating to 
the control of emissions that would be expected to

[[Page 6397]]

affect how a manufacturer designs a new locomotive or new locomotive 
engine (including both freshly manufactured and remanufactured 
units).<SUP>26 Such state regulation would be considered as ``relating 
to the control of emissions from (new locomotives or locomotive 
engines)'' and would be preempted. This interpretation appropriately 
implements Congressional intent, in the unique circumstances applicable 
to locomotives. It is also consistent with the case law interpreting a 
similar provision that applies to state motor vehicle controls.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \26\ The proposed approach is intended to address real and 
concrete effects, whether or not large; however, it is not intended 
to address speculative or trivial effects.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In Allway Taxi v. City of New York <SUP>27, the court discussed the 
scope of federal preemption under section 209(a), which prohibits state 
or local standards relating to the control of emissions from new motor 
vehicles, and noted that the definition of ``new motor vehicle'' in 
section 216 of the Clean Air Act ``reveals a clear Congressional intent 
to preclude states and localities from setting their own exhaust 
emission control standards only with respect to the manufacture and 
distribution of new automobiles.'' <SUP>28 The court concluded that 
while Congress did not preempt states from regulating the use or 
movement of motor vehicles after they are no longer new, a state or 
locality is not free to impose its own emission control standards on 
motor vehicles that are no longer new where that would circumvent the 
Congressional purpose of preventing obstruction to interstate commerce.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \27\ Allway Taxi, Inc. v. City of New York, 340 F.Supp. 1120 
(S.D.N.Y.), aff'd, 468 F.2d. 624 (2d. Cir. 1972).
    \28\ 340 F.Supp. at 1124.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In an earlier rulemaking action, EPA discussed the application of 
the Allway Taxi case to non-road vehicles and engines other than 
locomotives, and stated that the Agency expected the principles of 
Allway Taxi to apply to state adoption of emission controls on non-road 
vehicles and engines after they are no longer new. See 59 FR 36969, 
36973 (July 20, 1994). In that notice, EPA stated that the Agency 
expected the same reasoning and policy would also apply to locomotives, 
although the implementation of that policy would depend on the ultimate 
definition of ``new locomotive.'' EPA today proposes to apply the same 
principles to state regulation of emissions from locomotives; however, 
because of compelling factual and policy considerations relating to 
regulation of locomotives as compared to regulation of motor vehicles 
and other nonroad vehicles and engines, the implementation of these 
principles would be expected to differ to a significant degree.
    In the context of motor vehicle regulation, the Allway Taxi court 
noted that a state's imposition of its own emission control 
requirements immediately after a new motor vehicle is purchased by an 
ultimate consumer and registered would be ``an obvious circumvention of 
the Clean Air Act and would defeat the Congressional purpose (in 
preempting states from regulating emissions from new motor vehicles) of 
preventing obstruction to interstate commerce.'' <SUP>29 However, 
states may impose emission control standards after some period of time 
following the sale of a motor vehicle, provided that those standards 
would not require a vehicle manufacturer to redesign a new motor 
vehicle. The court stated that such requirements, such as standards 
directed primarily at intrastate activities where the burden of 
compliance does not effectively impact manufacturers and distributors, 
cause only minimal interference with interstate commerce. <SUP>30
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \29\ Id.
    \30\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Applying this analysis to state regulation of locomotives, section 
209(e)(1)(B) and the regulations proposed today would preempt states 
from adopting in-use regulations relating to the control of emissions 
that would be expected to affect how a manufacturer designs a new 
locomotive or new locomotive engine (including both freshly 
manufactured and remanufactured engines). Such a state standard would 
be considered as ``relating to the control of emissions from [new 
locomotives or locomotive engines]'' and would be preempted. The 
practical effect of applying the principles of Allway Taxi to 
locomotives is different than for other mobile sources because of the 
nature of the relationship between locomotive manufacturers and their 
customers (railroad operators). Emission related requirements imposed 
on railroads can reasonably be expected to have a very significant 
effect on locomotive manufacturers and remanufacturers. This is 
especially true of the Class I railroads which purchase nearly all of 
the freshly manufactured locomotives. With so few primary customers, 
manufacturers and remanufacturers must be very responsive to changes in 
design requested by these railroads. Although there are significantly 
more non-Class I railroads than there are Class I railroads, their 
number is still fairly small. Therefore, state requirements on 
railroads are much more likely to effect changes in how manufacturers 
and remanufacturers design new locomotives and new locomotive engines 
than would similar requirements on end users of other mobile sources, 
such as automobile owners. The fact that locomotive engines become new 
again when they are remanufactured will also have an effect on how the 
principles of Allway Taxi are applied. EPA solicits comment on this 
interpretation of Allway Taxi as applied to locomotive regulation.
    In addition to the unique factual circumstances surrounding 
locomotives, there are compelling policy reasons that support uniform, 
national regulation of locomotive emissions. The legislative history of 
section 209(e) indicates that Congress intended a broad preemption of 
any state regulation of emissions from new locomotives or new 
locomotive engines, in large part because of the significant interstate 
commerce concerns raised by state-by-state regulation of locomotives. 
The House bill would have preempted states from regulating emissions 
from all new nonroad engines and vehicles.<SUP>31 By contrast, the 
Senate bill contained no preemption of state regulation of nonroad 
engines.<SUP>32 In conference, the House and Senate agreed to limit the 
House bill's broad preemption, and prohibited state standards and other 
requirements for only two categories of nonroad vehicles and engines: 
new farm and construction equipment of 175 hp or less, and new 
locomotives.<SUP>33 The following statement made by Rep. Dingell during 
the House debate on the Senate bill indicates Congress' concern that 
state regulation of locomotives in particular could result in a 
disruption of interstate commerce:

    \31\ 2 A Legislative History of the 1990 Clean Air Act 
Amendments of 1990 at 3092 (1993).
    \32\ 3 A Legislative History of the Clean Air Act Amendments of 
1990 at 4370 (1993).
    \33\ California was permitted to promulgate and enforce state 
standards and other requirements for other nonroad engines, if it 
received authorization from EPA. Other states could then promulgate 
standards identical to California's for these other engines.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    With regard to (new locomotives and new engines used in 
locomotives), we balanced the need to control emissions from new 
locomotives against our belief that State efforts to regulate 
locomotive emissions or operations would impose an unconstitutional 
burden on interstate commerce.<SUP>34
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \34\ 1 Legislative History of Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 
at 1126 (1993).

    The legislative history of section 209(e) does not contain a 
similar statement regarding any other category of nonroad vehicles, 
indicating

[[Page 6398]]

Congress' specific concern with the interstate commerce burden that 
could result from state regulation of new locomotives. Therefore, EPA 
believes that it is appropriate and reasonable to interpret section 
209(e)(1)(B) as preempting states from adopting any regulation that 
affects how a manufacturer designs (or produces) new locomotives or new 
locomotive engines (including remanufactured engines). This will 
implement the Congressional intent that interstate operation of 
locomotives not be burdened by such state emissions regulations.<SUP>35 
EPA is proposing a regulatory provision that codifies this approach in 
today's notice, and solicits comment on this issue.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \35\ The Commerce Clause of the U.S. Constitution is, of course, 
an additional limitation on state authority that is independent of 
federal preemption under the Clean Air Act. The regulations proposed 
today are based on section 209 of the Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    EPA recognizes that certainty with respect to when state controls 
would be preempted would be advantageous to states and localities, as 
well as to industry; therefore, EPA is proposing to define the time 
period of preemption under section 209(e)(1)(B) more explicitly than in 
previous rules, for purposes of locomotives and locomotive engines. 
During this time, given the relationship between manufacturers and 
railroads, a broad range of potential in-use controls would be expected 
to affect how a manufacturer designs or produces new engines, and would 
be preempted during this time period. Those controls are discussed 
later in this section.
    EPA believes that a period of preemption similar to but slightly 
longer than the useful life of the locomotive is appropriate (where 
useful life is approximately the average life of a locomotive between 
rebuilds and is also the period that locomotives would be required to 
remain in compliance with federal emissions standards). This approach 
would effectively provide the railroads with some flexibility with 
respect to scheduling when each locomotive is to be remanufactured, and 
it is consistent with the criteria for preemption, as discussed in the 
following paragraphs. To balance the need for such flexibility with 
EPA's concerns about emissions reductions the Agency is proposing that 
the period of preemption be 25 percent longer than the applicable 
useful life of a locomotive. For example, for a locomotive with a 
useful life of 30,000 MW-hr which reached the end of its useful life 
after 50 months of service, this period would be 7,500 MW-hr or about 
12.5 months of additional service (assuming the same rate of use). 
Based on an analysis of current remanufacturing practices (see RSD), 
EPA believes that this approach would allow industry to largely 
continue its current remanufacturing practices. The Agency also 
requests comment on an alternative approach to the period of preemption 
whereby a single period of preemption (defined in years, miles, or work 
done) would apply to all locomotives, irrespective of their useful 
lives.
    It is important to note that the Agency expects that emission 
performance will not suddenly degrade at the end of a locomotive's 
useful life, but rather that any deterioration which does occur would 
generally be gradual. In fact, given the rigorous compliance program 
which is being proposed, EPA expects that most locomotives will be 
designed and built such that those that are operated within this 25 
percent window would generally remain in compliance with the applicable 
emissions standards. Moreover, as was discussed previously, the Agency 
specifications for useful life are based on average time between 
remanufacturing events. If a majority of locomotives were being 
operated significantly longer than their useful lives, the proposed 
regulations would require that manufacturers and remanufacturers begin 
to specify longer useful lives.
    EPA believes that certain categories of potential state 
requirements would be preempted under the proposed approach, including 
numerical emissions standards for new locomotives, fleet average 
standards, certification requirements (such as testing), aftermarket 
(retrofit) equipment requirements, and in-use testing. Numerical 
emissions standards and certification testing requirements for new 
locomotives and new locomotive engines are clearly standards or other 
requirements that are explicitly preempted by section 209(e)(1). EPA 
believes that a state fleet average standard would also be preempted 
since EPA expects that requiring compliance with any such standard 
would in effect ban the sale or production of certain new locomotives 
or new locomotive engines (including remanufactured locomotives that 
are new) for use in a state. Given the logistical challenges of 
operating an interstate locomotive fleet, the only practical way in 
which a railroad could comply would be to remanufacture all of its 
locomotives to comply with the fleet standard. This would effectively 
establish a state emissions standard for new locomotives in violation 
of section 209(e)(1).
    Because of the unique factual circumstances surrounding 
locomotives, a state retrofit requirement that applied during the time 
period between each remanufacture (or between an engine's original 
manufacture and first remanufacture) would be preempted because such a 
requirement would affect the design, manufacture and/or remanufacture 
of new locomotives. Most retrofit requirements would affect engine 
performance, and thus lead to design changes. For example, the 
installation of a catalyst-type add-on system would require the 
original manufacturer or remanufacturer to design the locomotive and/or 
engine differently to account for the resulting increase in exhaust 
back pressure. Moreover, aftermarket devices (such as engine heaters, 
selective reduction catalysts, particulate traps, and exhaust gas 
recirculation (EGR)) would take up a significant amount of space in a 
locomotive; therefore, a state aftermarket equipment requirement on 
locomotives would be expected to cause the original manufacturer or 
remanufacturer to redesign the locomotive differently at the time it is 
first manufactured, or during remanufacturing, to account for the later 
addition of the aftermarket equipment. It is important to note that 
space is a critical issue for locomotive manufacturers and 
remanufacturers because rail systems operate with very tight 
specifications for width, height, and length. The width and height of a 
locomotive must be small enough to pass through tunnels and other such 
restrictions, while the length must be short enough to allow the 
locomotive to negotiate curves in existing tracks. EPA believes that 
retrofit equipment that states could require on non-new locomotives 
would also be preempted under the criteria described above. This is 
especially true given the unique circumstances associated with 
locomotives and locomotive engines. A retrofit requirement that would 
have little or no effect on the original manufacture of a locomotive or 
locomotive engine could have a significant effect on the remanufacture 
of that locomotive or engine. Given that the definition of new 
locomotive and new locomotive engine includes remanufactured 
locomotives and engines, retrofit requirements on locomotives and 
locomotive engines are more likely to have an effect on new locomotives 
and locomotive engines than would similar requirements on motor 
vehicles and other nonroad engines.
    As with retrofit requirements, EPA believes that states would be 
preempted from adopting or enforcing non-federal in-use emissions 
testing programs.

[[Page 6399]]

Given the unique circumstances of this industry, especially the extent 
to which railroads can influence locomotive design, EPA expects that 
manufacturers of new locomotives would be compelled by their customers 
to design and produce their locomotives to comply with any state in-use 
emissions standards, amounting to a control on emissions from new 
locomotives. In making this determination, the Agency considered 
potential state in-use testing programs in three groups: (1) Those 
which would hold locomotives to standards other than the federal 
standards; (2) those which would hold locomotives to the same numerical 
standards, but used different test procedures; and (3) those which 
would replicate the federal in-use testing program.
    Under the proposed approach, states would be preempted from 
adopting any emissions standards for in-use locomotives. Since there is 
little that a locomotive operator can do to reduce emissions from in-
use locomotive engines, the action needed to comply with an in-use 
emission standard would in effect need to be taken by the manufacturer 
or remanufacturer of the engine. Any meaningful attempt by a state to 
achieve emission reductions through in-use emission standards would be 
expected to require some actions to comply. As described above, this 
would necessarily affect the manufacturers and/or remanufacturers. This 
would apply to all state test programs designed to enforce any 
nonfederal standards, and would also hold true for state test programs 
using nonfederal test procedures, since both would have the practical 
effect of impacting locomotive design.
    However, EPA is not sure whether states are preempted from adopting 
an in-use test program to enforce the federal standards. A duplicative 
state program would increase the total number of in-use locomotive 
emission tests conducted each year; the greater the number of states 
that adopt such a program, the greater the number of in-use tests. 
Given the relatively small number of new engines produced each year, 
and the small total number of in-use locomotives, the proliferation of 
such duplicative programs could effectively require manufacturers to 
include larger compliance margins in the design of their engines to 
deal with this unknown risk. This is because manufacturers recognize 
that, given manufacturing, facility, product and test variability, 
measured emissions will vary from locomotive to locomotive and there 
will always be a nonzero probability of in-use failure. However, the 
more testing that is conducted, the greater likelihood that at least 
one failure would be identified. In response to this probability and 
the customers' desire that no failures occur in use, manufacturers 
might feel compelled to design their locomotives such that the average 
emissions rate is far enough below the level of the standard that the 
risk of their locomotives failing an in-use test program approaches 
zero. This could affect the original locomotive engine design because 
achieving lower average levels means that lower emission targets are 
necessary. Nevertheless, EPA is not sure that these arguments justify a 
categorical preemption of state testing of locomotives in-use using the 
federal test procedure. EPA requests comment on this position.
    Based on the limited ability of operators to reduce emissions, the 
relationship between operators and new locomotive manufacturers or 
remanufacturers, the expectation that states would only adopt in-use 
emission standards that would require additional reductions, and the 
potential impact of in-use testing on interstate commerce, EPA believes 
that nonfederal state in-use testing programs should be preempted as 
they would amount to emission standards for the manufacturer or 
remanufacturer of new locomotive engines. This combination of factors 
appears unique to this industry, and EPA would not expect the same 
preemption result to apply under other circumstances. The Agency 
continues to believe that state in-use testing programs for motor 
vehicles and other nonroad engines, including inspection and 
maintenance (I/M) programs, are not preempted under the Act.
    This discussion of state controls that would be preempted under the 
regulation proposed today is not intended to be exclusive. Any state 
control that would affect how a manufacturer designs or produces new 
(including remanufactured) locomotives or locomotive engines would be 
preempted. EPA believes that section 209(e)(1)(B) and the regulations 
proposed today should be interpreted broadly in this context, in 
recognition of the unique circumstances affecting this industry as 
described above, including the impact on interstate commerce of state 
emissions controls on locomotives. EPA believes this is consistent with 
the text of section 209(e)(1)(B), the legislative history, and the 
applicable case law. The Agency believes that any state control within 
the specific categories described above would act as an emission 
standard or requirement for new locomotives or engines and should be 
preempted. EPA invites comment on this view, including whether 
regulatory provisions should be included to allow states to show that a 
specific control does not affect how a manufacturer or remanufacturer 
designs a new locomotive or engine, and would therefore not be 
preempted.
    It is important to note that certain categories of potential state 
requirements would also be prohibited under the proposed regulations 
because they would require operators to make adjustments to a 
locomotive that would constitute tampering under the Act and the 
proposed regulations. Under section 203(a)(3) of the Act, tampering 
includes actions that can reasonably be expected to contribute to an 
increase in emissions of a regulated pollutant. For example, a state 
requirement to alter the fuel injection system or air intake system of 
a locomotive to achieve NO<INF>X reductions is likely to cause 
increased PM and smoke emissions. Therefore, it is highly likely that a 
railroad operator could not comply with the state requirement without 
making an adjustment to its locomotive that can reasonably be expected 
to result in an increase in emissions of a regulated pollutant, and 
would therefore be violating the federal prohibition against tampering. 
In such cases where it would be impossible to comply with the state 
requirement without violating a federal prohibition, the federal law 
would preempt the state law. For this reason, such state requirements 
would be prohibited under the proposed national rule.

VI. Emission Reduction Technology

    This rulemaking will be the first time locomotives and locomotive 
engines have been subject to EPA regulation for the pollutants of HC, 
CO, NO<INF>X, PM and smoke. Much of this discussion of the emission 
reduction technologies is based on EPA's experience regulating similar 
but smaller diesel engines used in highway trucks since the 1970's. 
While many of the emission control technologies for highway trucks are 
applicable to locomotives and locomotive engines, the design and 
operation of locomotives and locomotive engines may preclude the 
effective use of some of these technologies. The following paragraphs 
discuss the emission control strategies that EPA believes are likely to 
be available to comply with today's proposed standards. These emission 
control strategies are considered separately for the three levels of 
proposed standards (i.e., Tier 0, Tier I and Tier II standards).
    Technologies EPA believes could be used to comply with the proposed

[[Page 6400]]

emission standards are listed in Table VI-1. As is discussed below, EPA 
has estimated which of these technologies are most likely to be 
employed by manufacturers and remanufacturers to meet today's proposed 
standards. These estimates are for purposes of calculating cost-
effectiveness and appropriate levels of control only; they are not 
mandated control strategies. EPA developed these estimates based on its 
past experience with on-highway diesel engines, as well as numerous 
discussions with manufacturers and railroads. An extended discussion of 
these technologies and their potential to reduce emissions from 
locomotives is included in the RSD.

              Table VI 1.--Emission Reduction Technologies              
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                        
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                        NO<INF>X Reduction Strategies                        
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Air Handling...........................  Turbocharging.                 
                                         Air to liquid charge air       
                                          cooling.                      
                                         Air to air charge air cooling. 
                                         Turbo compounding.             
                                         Exhaust Gas Recirculation      
                                          (EGR).                        
                                         Compression Ratio, Closed      
                                          crankcase.                    
Fuel Delivery Systems..................  Injection pressure and Nozzle  
                                          Design.                       
                                         Reoptimized injection timing.  
                                         Increased injection rate.      
                                         Injection rate shaping.        
Electronic Control Systems.............  Electronic controls.           
Combustion chamber design..............  Geometry, swirl.               
Aftertreatment.........................  Reduction catalyst.            
                                         Chemical Addition.             
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                  PM and Smoke Reduction Strategies \1\                 
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Combustion chamber design..............  Increased swirl.               
                                         Reduced crevice volume.        
                                         Ceramic materials.             
Fuel delivery Systems..................  Increased injection pressure.  
                                         Limit sac volume.              
Aftertreatment.........................  Trap or catalytic oxidizer.    
Smoke Control..........................  Limiter on rate of increase of 
                                          fueling.                      
Lubricants.............................  Synthetic oils.                
                                         Reduction in engine oil        
                                          consumption.                  
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Most technologies that reduce particulate emissions will also reduce
  HC, CO and smoke to some extent.                                      

A. Tier 0 Standards

    EPA expects that locomotives currently equipped with turbocharged 
engines will most likely employ improved fuel injection, enhanced 
charge air cooling, and to some extent retarding of injection timing to 
reduce NO<INF>X emissions to below the level of the proposed standards. 
(Note: the proposed Tier 0 standards would not require emission 
reductions in HC, CO, or PM compared to current, uncontrolled levels. 
The Tier 0 standards for HC, CO and PM are essentially caps to prevent 
large increases in those emissions compared to current levels.) Where 
practical and cost-effective, some of the pre-2000 locomotives may be 
equipped with electronic controls as a means of avoiding a loss in fuel 
efficiency resulting from injection timing retard. Improved fuel 
injection is expected to include injection rate changes, modifications 
to the spray patterns, and a reduction in injector sac volume. There 
may also be some small modifications to the piston design. 
Additionally, some models may require enhanced smoke controls to limit 
smoke during increases in engine power. In the case of naturally 
aspirated engines, modified/improved fuel injection and some retarding 
of injection timing are expected to be the control strategies of 
choice. The addition of electronic controls may also be employed.

B. Tier I Standards

    The proposed Tier I emission standards will require an 
approximately 48 percent reduction in NO<INF>X emissions from current 
levels, and may require some small reductions in HC, CO, and PM 
emissions (actual reductions will depend upon the size of the 
compliance margins that manufacturers choose to include in their 
designs). These locomotives can be expected to incorporate the 
technologies as outlined above for the Tier 0 standards, in conjunction 
with or superseded by the following additional technologies. Engine 
combustion temperatures will need to be reduced further; additional 
improvements in charge air cooling can therefore be expected. This 
could require a charge air cooling system using a separate coolant as 
the cooling medium. To achieve additional reductions, engine 
manufacturers are expected to employ a comprehensive emission 
management system consisting of optimized engine fuel injection 
strategies through electronic controls. Changes in the configuration of 
the combustion chamber and piston ring location may begin to appear in 
engines complying with the Tier I standards.

C. Tier II Standards

    The proposed Tier II emission standards will require more than a 60 
percent reduction in NO<INF>X emissions and 50 percent reduction in PM 
and HC emissions from current levels, with smaller, but significant, 
reductions in CO emissions. EPA's current estimate of the technologies 
that will be used to comply with these emission standards includes 
continued improvement in charge air cooling, fuel management (including 
the introduction of ``rate shaping''), and combustion chamber 
configuration, in conjunction with an optimized electronic control 
system. It is uncertain, at this time, whether some form of exhaust gas 
recirculation (EGR) or reduced oil consumption will also be necessary.
    EPA requests comment on its viewpoints and expectations expressed 
in this section. Commenters are encouraged to direct their comments 
toward a description of the technologies they believe would be 
necessary to meet the standards discussed above. Commenters should 
address issues of feasibility, durability and costs of the technologies 
they believe will be required.

[[Page 6401]]

VII. Benefits

    This section contains a brief summary of the emission benefits 
expected from the proposed national locomotive and locomotive engine 
rulemaking. The complete analysis of the expected benefits is contained 
in the RSD. The primary focus of this rulemaking is on reducing 
NO<INF>X and PM emissions. There are also reductions in HC and CO.
    The benefits analysis was performed in three steps. First, the 
baseline locomotive fleet composition, emissions rates and total 
inventory were determined. Second, future fleet composition was 
projected, from which percentage emissions reductions for the fleet 
were calculated for NO<INF>X and PM. Finally, those percent reductions 
were applied to the baseline fleet emissions inventories to arrive at 
mass emissions reductions for the fleet. Table VII-1 contains a summary 
of both the fleet percentage and mass reductions for both NO<INF>X and 
PM. In addition to the NO<INF>X and PM benefits shown in Table VII-1, 
today's proposed regulations provide reductions in HC and CO. EPA 
estimated those reductions by calculating the ratios of the proposed HC 
and CO emissions standard percent reductions to the PM standard 
reductions, and applying those ratios to the PM benefits previously 
calculated. EPA estimated that by 2040 the proposed regulations will 
result in total reductions of 274924 metric tons of HC and 240075 
metric tons of CO. These total HC and CO reductions amount to average 
annual reductions of 6705 metric tons of HC and 5855 metric tons of CO 
per year. EPA requests comment on all aspects of this benefits 
analysis.

           TABLE VII-1.--Nationwide Emission Reductions of NO<INF>X and PM Compared to 1990 Baseline Levels          
                                             [Metric tons per year]                                             
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                NO<INF>X                             PM              
                                                 ---------------------------------------------------------------
                      Year                            Percent          Mass           Percent          Mass     
                                                     reduction       reduction       reduction       reduction  
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2000............................................             6.7          65,538             0.0               0
2005............................................            35.7         348,022             1.2             291
2010............................................            39.2         382,361             7.3           1,747
2020............................................            46.2         451,038            19.3           4,657
2040............................................            59.7         581,934            42.4          10,224
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

VIII. Costs

    This section contains a summary of EPA's estimate of costs 
associated with the proposed national locomotive rulemaking. In 
general, the Agency used a conservative approach to estimating costs by 
using the higher end of any cost ranges that were developed for 
specific cost components. Costs are presented for Tier 0, Tier I and 
Tier II locomotives on a per locomotive basis. Cost components consist 
of initial equipment costs, which include the one-time hardware costs 
associated with meeting the standards (i.e., hardware, such as 
aftercoolers, which are required to meet the standards initially, but 
are not typically replaced during remanufacture), as well as research 
and development costs; remanufacturing costs; fuel economy costs; 
<SUP>36 and certification, production line and in-use testing costs. 
These per locomotive costs are presented in Tables VIII-1 through VIII-
3. Overall program costs and average annual program costs calculated 
from the per locomotive costs and projections of future locomotive 
fleet composition, and based on a forty-one year time period, are 
presented in Table VIII-4. Where applicable, costs are presented in 
actual and discounted format. A complete discussion of the methodology 
EPA used in calculating these costs is contained in the RSD. EPA 
requests comment on all aspects of this costs analysis, and especially 
encourages information and estimates from manufacturers and 
remanufacturers regarding the potential costs of compliance with the 
proposed regulations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \36\ The fuel economy estimates used in this analysis are worst 
case. Based on EPA's experience in regulating on-highway diesel 
engines, compliance with emission standards often improves fuel 
economy, especially in cases where electronic control systems are 
utilized.

          TABLE VIII-1.--Cost Per Locomotive--Tier 0 Standards          
------------------------------------------------------------------------
         Cost component                  Cost              Comments     
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Initial Equipment...............  $75,000...........   Occurs in year 1.
Remanufacture...................  3,000.............  $1000 per         
                                                       remanufacture    
                                                       (average of 3    
                                                       over lifetime).  
Fuel............................  0.................  Total lifetime    
                                                       cost.            
Testing:                                                                
    Cert........................  125...............  Occurs in year 1. 
    Prod Line...................  20................  Occurs in year 1. 
    In-use......................  10 FTP............  Occurs in years 1-
                                                       40.              
                                  115 Short Test....  (Average of 17).  
                                 ---------------------------------------
        Total Cost..............  80,270............  xl                
------------------------------------------------------------------------


          TABLE VIII-2.--Cost Per Locomotive--Tier I Standards          
------------------------------------------------------------------------
         Cost component                  Cost              Comments     
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Initial Equipment...............  $100,000..........  Occurs in year 1. 

[[Page 6402]]

                                                                        
Remanufacture...................  12,000............  $2000 in Years 6, 
                                                       12, 18, 24, 36.  
Fuel............................  0.................  Total lifetime    
                                                       cost.            
Testing:                                                                
    Cert........................  378...............  Occurs in year 1. 
    Prod Line...................  238...............  Occurs in year 1. 
    In-use......................  10 Full FTP.......  Occurs in years 1-
                                  115 Short Test....   40.              
                                 ---------------------------------------
        Total Cost..............  117,616                               
------------------------------------------------------------------------


          Table VIII-3.--Cost Per Locomotive--Tier II Standards         
------------------------------------------------------------------------
         Cost component                  Cost              Comments     
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Initial Equipment...............  $200,000 <SUP>1........  Occurs in year 1. 
Remanufacture...................  18,000............  $3000 in Years    
                                                       6,12,18,24,30,36.
Fuel............................  42,500............  Total lifetime    
                                                       cost.            
Testing:                                                                
    Cert........................  703 <SUP>1.............  Occurs in year 1. 
    Prod Line...................  281...............  Occurs in year 1. 
    In-use......................  10 Full FTP.......  Occurs in years 1-
                                  115 Short Test....   40.              
                                 ---------------------------------------
        Total Cost..............  266,484 <SUP>1                             
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ For first five years of production, assuming the research,          
  development and certification costs are recovered in five years. Total
  costs would drop to $85,781 per locomotive after five years.          


    TABLE VIII-4.--Summary of 41 Year Total Locomotive Program Costs    
                               [millions]                               
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                      Actual     NPV\1\ 
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tier 0............................................     $1,526     $1,193
Tier I............................................        286        211
Tier II...........................................      1,301        428
Average Annual....................................         76         45
                                                   ---------------------
    Total.........................................      3,113      1,831
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The NPV costs are based on a seven percent discount rate. A three   
  percent rate would yield an average annual cost of $58 million and a  
  total cost of $2,360 million.                                         

IX. Cost-Effectiveness

    The costs for NO<INF>X or PM reductions are difficult to assign to 
a single pollutant due to the relationship between NO<INF>X and PM 
emission generation. EPA computed cost-effectiveness for this 
rulemaking using only the NO<INF>X reductions, and using the combined 
NO<INF>X and PM reductions. Costs presented below are for all 
reductions. It should be remembered that there would also be some 
emission reductions in HC and CO that would be achieved from the same 
technology that is used for NO<INF>X and PM control, enhancing the 
benefits of the program without significantly impacting the cost.
    The following table (Table IX-1) summarizes the costs and emission 
benefits of the national locomotive rulemaking. Costs and emission 
benefits were computed over a 41 year program run. <SUP>37 In computing 
costs, EPA has generally used conservative estimates which are fairly 
consistent with the manufacturers' own cost estimates. EPA therefore 
believes this analysis to be a worst-case scenario in terms of cost to 
industry.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \37\  EPA used a 41-year program run to more accurately reflect 
lifetime costs associated with locomotives and locomotive engines, 
which have long lives (40 years or more).

                     TABLE IX-1.--Cost Effectiveness                    
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                    NO<INF>X        NO<INF>X + PM 
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total Emission Reductions (millions metric                              
 tons)........................................        17.83        18.02
Total Costs (million $).......................        3,113        3,113
Annual Emission Reductions (millions metric                             
 tons)........................................         0.43         0.44
Annual Costs (millions $).....................           76           76
Cost Effectiveness($/ton).....................          175          173
------------------------------------------------------------------------

X. Public Participation

A. Comments and the Public Docket

    EPA desires full public participation in arriving at final 
rulemaking decisions. EPA solicits comments on all aspects of today's 
proposal from all interested parties. Wherever applicable, full 
supporting data and detailed analyses should also be submitted to allow 
EPA to make maximum use of the comments. Commenters are especially 
encouraged to provide specific suggestions for changes to any aspects 
of the proposal that they believe need to be modified or improved. All 
comments should be directed to the EPA Air Docket Section, Docket No. 
A-94-31 (see ADDRESSES).
    Commenters desiring to submit proprietary information for 
consideration should clearly distinguish such information from other 
comments to the greatest extent possible and label it ``Confidential 
Business Information.'' Submissions containing such

[[Page 6403]]

proprietary information should be sent directly to the contact person 
listed above, and not to the public docket, to insure that proprietary 
information is not inadvertently placed in the docket. If a commenter 
wants EPA to base the final rule in part on a submission labeled as 
confidential business information, then a nonconfidential version of 
the document which summarizes the key data or information should be 
sent to the docket.
    Information covered by a claim of confidentiality will be disclosed 
by EPA only to the extent allowed and by the procedures set forth in 40 
CFR part 2. If no claim of confidentiality accompanies the submission 
when it is received by EPA, it may be made available to the public 
without further notice to the commenter.

B. Public Hearing

    Any person desiring to present testimony regarding this proposal at 
the public hearing (see DATES) should, if possible, notify the contact 
person listed above of such intent at least seven days prior to the day 
of the hearing to allow for orderly scheduling of the testimony. The 
contact person should also be provided an estimate of the time required 
for the presentation of the testimony and notification of any need for 
audio/visual equipment.
    It is suggested that sufficient copies of the statement or material 
to be presented be brought to the hearing for distribution to the 
audience. In addition, it will be helpful for EPA to receive an advance 
copy of any statement or material to be presented at the hearing prior 
to the scheduled hearing date, in order for EPA staff to give such 
material full consideration. Such advance copies should be submitted to 
the contact person listed above.
    The official record of the hearing will be kept open for 30 days 
following the hearing to allow submission of rebuttal and supplementary 
testimony. All such submittals should be directed to the EPA Air Docket 
Section, Docket No. A-94-31 (see ADDRESSES)

XI. Administrative Designation and Regulatory Assessment Requirements

A. Executive Order 12866

    Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993) the 
Agency must determine whether the 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 of the economy, productivity, 
competition, jobs, the environment, public health or safety, or State, 
local, or tribal government or communities; (2) create a serious 
inconsistency or otherwise interfere with action taken or planned by 
another agency; (3) materially alter the budgetary impact of 
entitlements, grants, user fees, or loan programs or the rights and 
obligations of recipients thereof; or (4) raise novel legal or policy 
issues arising out of legal mandates, the President's priorities, or 
the principles set forth in the Executive Order.
    Pursuant to the terms of Executive Order 12866, EPA has determined 
that this is a ``significant regulatory action'' within the meaning of 
the Executive Order. EPA has submitted this action to OMB for review. 
Changes made in response to OMB suggestions or recommendations will be 
documented in the public record.

B. Regulatory Flexibility

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) <SUP>38 generally requires an 
agency to conduct a regulatory flexibility analysis of any rule subject 
to notice and comment rulemaking requirements unless the agency 
certifies that the rule will not have a significant economic impact on 
a substantial number of small entities. Small entities include small 
businesses, small not-for-profit enterprises, and small governmental 
jurisdictions. This proposal would not have a significant impact on a 
substantial number of small entities. The Agency has identified two 
types of small entities which could potentially be impacted by this 
proposal: Small businesses involved in locomotive remanufacturing and 
small short line railroads. EPA believes that, while today's proposal 
could potentially affect both of these groups, the impacts would be 
minimal or nonexistent for the following reasons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \38\ 5 U.S.C. 605(b).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In the case of small remanufacturing businesses, the proposed rules 
governing remanufacturing of locomotives or locomotive engines require 
that any remanufacture of post-1972 locomotives or engines (except 
those exempted from the remanufacture requirements, as discussed in the 
next paragraph) be done such that the resultant locomotive or 
locomotive engine is in a configuration certified as meeting applicable 
emissions standards. The certification of a remanufactured locomotive 
or engine configuration has two cost components associated with it. The 
first is the cost of developing and manufacturing the requisite 
emission control technology. The second is the cost of emission testing 
associated with compliance. Small remanufacturing businesses often do 
not do their own research and development for the technology they use, 
but instead purchase the hardware from larger firms. It is expected 
that today's proposed requirements will not change this practice, and 
that these small firms will enter into contractual agreements with 
larger firms. Under such an arrangement the larger firms will continue 
to do the development work and will be the certificate holder for a 
particular engine family and, as the certificate holder, would be 
responsible for providing an emissions warranty and conducting the PLT 
and in-use testing programs, as required by the proposed regulations. 
This type of arrangement is expected to resolve the issue of technology 
development and manufacturing costs for small remanufacturing 
businesses. The Agency requests comments regarding whether additional 
provisions should be established to minimize market shifts that could 
adversely affect small businesses that either manufacture or 
remanufacture parts for locomotive remanufacturing.
    In the case of the small railroads, the Agency believes that the 
amount of leadtime provided in today's proposal should allow for 
sufficient advance planning to minimize the impacts. First, these small 
railroads do not tend to purchase freshly manufactured locomotives, but 
instead purchase used locomotives from the Class I railroads. For this 
reason the costs associated with the compliance of freshly manufactured 
locomotives would not be borne by the small railroads. Additionally, 
these small railroads will likely have several years following the 
effective date of today's proposed standards before any used 
locomotives they purchase will be remanufactured, and thus required to 
comply with these standards. Furthermore, the Agency proposes to allow 
an exemption for railroads with 500 employees or less from the Tier 0 
standards, as discussed earlier in this notice. Finally, the Agency is 
proposing that the railroad in-use test program only apply to Class I 
railroads, thus exempting all small railroads from this testing 
requirement. In developing this proposed regulation, EPA has tailored 
the requirements so as to minimize or eliminate the effects on small 
entities. Therefore, I certify that this action will not have a 
significant economic impact

[[Page 6404]]

on a substantial number of small entities.

C. Paperwork Reduction Act

    The information collection requirements in this proposed rule will 
be submitted for approval to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) 
under the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C 3501 et seq. An Information 
Collection Request has been prepared by EPA (ICR No. 1800.01) and a 
copy may be obtained from Sandy Farmer, OPPE Regulatory Information 
Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (2137), 401 M St., SW., 
Washington, DC 20460 or by calling (202) 260-2740.
    The information being collected is to be used by EPA to certify new 
locomotives and new locomotive engines in compliance with applicable 
emissions standards, and to assure that locomotives and locomotive 
engines comply with applicable emissions standards when produced and 
in-use.
    The annual public reporting and recordkeeping burden for this 
collection of information is estimated to average 494 hours per 
response, with collection required quarterly or annually (depending on 
what portion of the program the collection is in response to). The 
estimated number of respondents is 20 and the estimated number of 
responses is 126. The total annualized capital/startup cost is $1.8 
million. Burden means the total time, effort, or financial resources 
expended by persons to generate, maintain, retain, or disclose or 
provide information to or for a Federal agency. This includes the time 
needed to review instructions; develop, acquire, install, and utilize 
technology and systems for the purposes of collecting, validating, and 
verifying information, processing and maintaining information, and 
disclosing and providing information; adjusting the existing ways to 
comply with any previously applicable instructions and requirements; 
train personnel to be able to respond to a collection of information; 
search data sources; complete and review the collection of information; 
and transmit or otherwise disclose the information.
    An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required 
to respond to a collection of information unless it displays a 
currently valid OMB control number. The OMB control numbers for EPA's 
regulations are displayed in 40 CFR part 9 and 48 CFR Chapter 15.
    Comments are requested on the Agency's need for this information, 
the accuracy of the provided burden estimates, and any suggested 
methods for minimizing respondent burden, including through the use of 
automated collection techniques. Send comments on the ICR to the 
Director, OPPE Regulatory Information Division, U.S. Environmental 
Protection Agency (2137), 401 M St., SW, Washington, DC 20460, and to 
the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management 
and Budget, 725 17th St., NW, Washington, DC 20503, marked ``Attention: 
Desk Officer for EPA.'' Include the ICR number in any correspondence. 
Since OMB is required to make a decision concerning the ICR between 30 
and 60 days after February 11, 1997, a comment to OMB is best assured 
of having its full effect if OMB receives it by March 13, 1997. The 
final rule will respond to any OMB or public comments on the 
information collection requirements contained in this proposal.

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

    Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), Pub. 
L. 104-4, establishes requirements for Federal agencies to assess the 
effects of their regulatory actions on State, local, and tribal 
governments and the private sector. Under section 202 of the UMRA, EPA 
generally must prepare a written statement, including a cost-benefit 
analysis, for proposed and final rules with ``Federal mandates'' that 
may result in expenditures to State, local, and tribal governments, in 
the aggregate, or to the private sector, of $100 million or more in any 
one year. Before promulgating an EPA rule for which a written statement 
is needed, section 205 of the UMRA generally requires EPA to identify 
and consider a reasonable number of regulatory alternatives and adopt 
the least costly, most cost-effective or least burdensome alternative 
that achieves the objectives of the rule. The provisions of section 205 
do not apply when they are inconsistent with applicable law. Moreover, 
section 205 allows EPA to adopt an alternative other than the least 
costly, most cost-effective or least burdensome alternative if the 
Administrator publishes with the final rule an explanation why that 
alternative was not adopted. Before EPA establishes any regulatory 
requirements that may significantly or uniquely affect small 
governments, including tribal governments, it must have developed under 
section 203 of the UMRA a small government agency plan. The plan must 
provide for notifying potentially affected small governments, enabling 
officials of affected small governments to have meaningful and timely 
input in the development of EPA regulatory proposals with significant 
Federal intergovernmental mandates, and informing, educating, and 
advising small governments on compliance with the regulatory 
requirements.
    Today's rule contains no Federal mandates (under the regulatory 
provisions of Title II of the UMRA) for State, local, or tribal 
governments because the rule imposes no enforceable duty on any State, 
local or tribal governments. Nothing in the proposed program would 
significantly or uniquely affect small governments. EPA has determined 
that this rule contains federal mandates that may result in 
expenditures of $100 millon or more in any one year for the private 
sector. EPA believes that the proposed program represents the least 
costly, most cost effective approach to achieving the air quality goals 
of the proposed rule. EPA has performed the required analyses under 
Executive Order 12866 which contains identical analytical requirements.

XII. Copies of Rulemaking Documents

    The preamble, draft regulatory language and draft Regulatory 
Support Document (RSD) are available in the public docket as described 
under ``ADDRESSES'' above and are also available electronically on the 
Technology Transfer Network (TTN), which is an electronic bulletin 
board system (BBS) operated by EPA's Office of Air Quality Planning and 
Standards and via the internet. The service is free of charge, except 
for the cost of the phone call.

A. Technology Transfer Network (TTN)

    Users are able to access and download TTN files on their first call 
using a personal computer and modem per the following information.

TTN BBS: 919-541-5742 (1200-14400 bps, no parity, 8 data bits, 1 stop 
bit)
Voice Helpline: 919-541-5384
Also accessible via Internet: TELNET ttnbbs.rtpnc.epa.gov Off-line: 
Mondays from 8:00 AM to 12:00 Noon ET

    A user who has not called TTN previously will first be required to 
answer some basic informational questions for registration purposes. 
After completing the registration process, proceed through the 
following menu choices from the Top Menu to access information on this 
rulemaking.

<T>  GATEWAY TO TTN TECHNICAL AREAS (Bulletin Boards)
<M>  OMS--Mobile Sources Information
<K>  Rulemaking & Reporting
<6>  Non-Road
<3> File area #3 * * * Locomotive Emission Standards

    At this point, the system will list all available files in the 
chosen category in

[[Page 6405]]

reverse chronological order with brief descriptions. To download a 
file, select a transfer protocol that is supported by the terminal 
software on your own computer, then set your own software to receive 
the file using that same protocol.
    If unfamiliar with handling compressed (i.e. ZIP'ed) files, go to 
the TTN top menu, System Utilities (Command: 1) for information and the 
necessary program to download in order to unZIP the files of interest 
after downloading to your computer. After getting the files you want 
onto your computer, you can quit the TTN BBS with the <G>oodbye 
command.
    Please note that due to differences between the software used to 
develop the document and the software into which the document may be 
downloaded, changes in format, page length, etc. may occur.

B. Internet

    Rulemaking documents may be found on the internet as follows:

World Wide Web
    http://www.epa.gov/omswww

FTP
    ftp://ftp.epa.gov Then CD to the/pub/gopher/OMS/directory

Gopher
    gopher://gopher.epa.gov:70/11/Offices/Air/OMS
    Alternatively, go to the main EPA gopher, and follow the menus:
    gopher.epa.gov
    EPA Offices and Regions
    Office of Air and Radiation
    Office of Mobile Sources

List of Subjects

40 CFR Part 85

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Railroads.

40 CFR Part 89

    Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure, 
Air pollution control, Nonroad source pollution.

40 CFR Part 92

    Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure, 
Air pollution control, Railroads, Reporting and recordkeeping 
requirements.

    Dated: January 31, 1997.
Carol M. Browner,
Administrator.
[FR Doc. 97-3223 Filed 2-10-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P