6366 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 28 / Tuesday, February 11, 1997 / Proposed Rules

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 (NOX). The proposed standards

will result in more than a 60 percent

reduction in NOX from freshly

manufactured locomotives beginning in

2005, with lesser reductions from

locomotives originally manufactured

from 1973 through 2004. NOX 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 NOX 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 §§ 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)).
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 28 / Tuesday, February 11, 1997 / Proposed Rules 6367

1 Sections 206, 207, 208, and 209 of the Act cover

compliance testing and certification, in-use

compliance, information collection, and state

standards, respectively.

2 Railroad Facts, 1995 Edition, Association of

American Railroads, September, 1995.

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.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 enforcementrelated 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.

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 linehaul locomotives are powered by

engines of approximately 3,000 kW

(4,000 hp). In some cases, older linehaul 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
6368 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 28 / Tuesday, February 11, 1997 / Proposed Rules

3 Id. A revenue freight ton-mile is the commercial

movement (i.e., for revenue) of one ton of freight

one mile.

4 Note from F. Peter Hutchins to Joanne I.

Goldhand, dated 2/14/94, and entitled ‘‘Estimate of

Relative NOX Emissions Resulting from Movement

of Freight by Truck and by Train.’’

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.3

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 tonmile basis.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.

H. Health and Environmental Impacts of

Ambient NOX and PM

Oxides of nitrogen (NOX) are a family

of reactive gaseous compounds that

contribute to air pollution in both urban

and rural environments. NOX emissions

are produced during the combustion of

fuels at high temperatures. The primary

sources of atmospheric NOX 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 NOX can be directly harmful to

human health and the environment.

More importantly, from an overall

health and welfare perspective, NOX

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 NOX that is of most

concern from a health standpoint is

nitrogen dioxide, NO2. EPA has set a

primary (health-related) NAAQS for

NO2 of 100 micrograms per cubic meter,

or 0.053 parts per million. Direct

exposure to NO2 can reduce breathing

efficiency and increase lung and airway

irritation in healthy people, as well as

in the elderly and in people with preexisting pulmonary conditions.

Exposure to NO2 at or near the level of

the ambient standard appears to

increase symptoms of respiratory

illness, lung congestion, wheeze, and
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 28 / Tuesday, February 11, 1997 / Proposed Rules 6369

5 VOCs consist mostly of hydrocarbons (HC).

6Air Quality Criteria Document for Oxides of

Nitrogen, EPA–600/8–91/049aF–cF, August 1993

(NTIS #: PB92–17–6361/REB,– 6379/REB, –6387/

REB).

7Air Quality Criteria Document for Ozone and

Related Photochemical Oxidants (External Review

Draft), EPA/600/P–93/004aF–cF, 1996.

8Air 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.

increased bronchitis in children. In

addition to the direct effects of NOX, the

chemical transformation products of

NOX also contribute to adverse health

and environmental impacts. These

secondary impacts of NOX 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 (NOX)

and volatile organic compounds

(VOCs).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 NOX 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.

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, NOX, and

PM. Ozone has been shown to injure

plants and materials; NOX 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 NOX, ozone, and PM.6 7 8

EPA recently proposed revisions to the

national ambient air quality standards

(NAAQS) for ozone and PM.9

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 (NOX) 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–11.—1990 NATIONAL EMISSION INVENTORIES: ALL SOURCES, MOBILE SOURCES, AND LOCOMOTIVES

[millions of metric tons]

Emission Total from all

sources

Mobile

sources Locomotives

NOX .............................................................................................................................................. 20.90 9.37 0.98

PM–10 .......................................................................................................................................... 39.31 0.66 .024

VOC .............................................................................................................................................. 21.41 8.14 .038
6370 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 28 / Tuesday, February 11, 1997 / Proposed Rules

TABLE IV–11.—1990 NATIONAL EMISSION INVENTORIES: ALL SOURCES, MOBILE SOURCES, AND LOCOMOTIVES—

Continued

[millions of metric tons]

Emission Total from all

sources

Mobile

sources Locomotives

CO ................................................................................................................................................ 91.31 70.31 .11

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

Emission

Percent of all

sources contributed by locomotives

Percent of mobile sources

contributed by

locomotives

NOX .......................................................................................................................................................................... 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, NOX 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 NOX PM Smoke (percent opacity)

Line-hau ........................................................................... 0.5 1.5 13.5 0.34 Equivalent to HDDE1

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
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 28 / Tuesday, February 11, 1997 / Proposed Rules 6371

10Unless specified otherwise, all provisions

discussed in this preamble applicable to

remanufacturers shall also be considered to be

applicable to upgraders.

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. 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.

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
6372 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 28 / Tuesday, February 11, 1997 / Proposed Rules

(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 dutycycles 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 linehaul, 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, inuse 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]

Throttle notch Linehaul 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 NOX and PM. The

proposed Tier II standards would

require more than a 60 percent

reduction in NOX and a 50 percent

reduction on PM from uncontrolled

levels. However, given the fact that

locomotives contribute a substantial

portion of the national NOX 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 NOX 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 NOX 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

NOX and PM emissions control in diesel

engines, such a tradeoff of NOX and PM

reductions in this option compared to

the proposed Tier II standards may not

change costs substantially compared to
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 28 / Tuesday, February 11, 1997 / Proposed Rules 6373

11 59 FR 31335, June 17, 1994, and 40 CFR part

89.

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

NOX 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 NOX 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 NOX 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 kW11. These standards, shown in

Table V–6, will apply regardless of

which of the duty-cycle options

discussed is adopted.

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 dutycycle 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 NOX 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 NOX

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 NOX 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 dutycycle 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 dutycycle 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-cycleweighted emissions standards and NOX

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 linehaul/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-
6374 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 28 / Tuesday, February 11, 1997 / Proposed Rules

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 inservice 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 dutycycle 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. Linehaul and passenger locomotives tend to

spend less time at idle than switch

locomotives, but more time in the high

power notches. Using a single dutycycle 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 dutycycle, 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 NOX

reduction from pre-control levels for

that specific engine family, rather than

meeting the proposed Tier 0 NOX

standards. Under this option the Tier 0

standards for all pollutants other than

NOX would still apply. A 33 percent

reduction for NOX was chosen because

this is the approximate average

reduction the Tier 0 NOX standards
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 28 / Tuesday, February 11, 1997 / Proposed Rules 6375

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

would achieve from fleet average

baseline levels (when factoring in the

expected NOX 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 NOX

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 NOX

standard would be set at a level 33

percent below baseline. Once the

applicable NOX 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.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.

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
6376 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 28 / Tuesday, February 11, 1997 / Proposed Rules

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

Duty-cycle or notch

Gaseous and particulate emissions (g/bhp-hr)

THC1 NMHC2 CO NOX 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

1Applicable to any fuel except natural gas (or any combination of fuels where natural gas is the primary fuel).

2Only 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

Duty-cycle or notch

Gaseous and particulate emissions (g/bhp-hr)

THC 1 NMHC 2 THCE3 Aldhyd 3 CO NOX 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

1Applicable to diesel, bio-diesel, or any combination of fuels with diesel as the primary fuel.

2Only applicable to natural gas, or any combination of fuels where natural gas is the primary fuel.

3Applicable to alcohol(s), or any combination of fuels where alcohol is the primary fuel.
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 28 / Tuesday, February 11, 1997 / Proposed Rules 6377

TABLE V–4.—TIER II EXHAUST EMISSION STANDARDS LOCOMOTIVES AND LOCOMOTIVE ENGINES MANUFACTURED 2005

AND LATER

Duty-cycle or notch

Gaseous and particulate emissions (g/bhp-hr)

THC 1 NMHC 2 THCE3 Aldhyd 3 CO NOX 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

1Applicable to diesel, bio-diesel, or any combination fuels where diesel is the primary fuel.

2Only applicable to natural gas, or any combination of fuels where natural gas is the primary fuel.

3Applicable to alcohol(s), or any combination of fuels where alcohol is the primary fuel.

TABLE V–5.—SMOKE (PERCENT OPACITY) STANDARDS 1

Number of stacks Exhaust

diameter Examined plume section Steadystate

30-sec

peak

3-sec

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.

2Sum of each 6′′ segment or the total, whichever is lower.

TABLE V–6.—EXHAUST EMISSION STANDARDS FOR NONROAD ENGINES ABOVE 37 KW1

Gaseous and particulate emissions (g/bhp-hr) Smoke (Percent opacity)

HC CO NOX 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 NOX 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 NOX 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
6378 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 28 / Tuesday, February 11, 1997 / Proposed Rules

13The 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.

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

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

Miles Years Megawatthours

Megawatthours for

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
6380 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 28 / Tuesday, February 11, 1997 / Proposed Rules

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 NOX 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 NOX

reduction option discussed in the above

section on emission standards. As was

discussed previously, the 33 percent

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

and/or PM emission credits for engines

certified to FELs below the NOX and/or

PM standards which take effect in 2000.

The NOX 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 NOX 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, inuse 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 onhighway 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
6382 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 28 / Tuesday, February 11, 1997 / Proposed Rules

14Section 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.

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.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.

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 inuse 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,
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 28 / Tuesday, February 11, 1997 / Proposed Rules 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
6384 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 28 / Tuesday, February 11, 1997 / Proposed Rules

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
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 28 / Tuesday, February 11, 1997 / Proposed Rules 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 onhighway 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 onhighway 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.
6386 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 28 / Tuesday, February 11, 1997 / Proposed Rules

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 onhighway 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
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 28 / Tuesday, February 11, 1997 / Proposed Rules 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
6388 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 28 / Tuesday, February 11, 1997 / Proposed Rules

15See Center for Auto Safety v. EPA, 747 F.2d 1

[D.C. Cir. 1984].

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 inuse 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.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.

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 wellmaintained 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.
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 28 / Tuesday, February 11, 1997 / Proposed Rules 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 inuse 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 revenuegenerating 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 inuse testing programs (such as

independent third party testing paid for

by manufacturers and/or

remanufacturers) or other effective

enforcement mechanisms. However, any
6390 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 28 / Tuesday, February 11, 1997 / Proposed Rules

16An 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.

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.’’ 16

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. NOX,

CO, CO2 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 inuse 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
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 28 / Tuesday, February 11, 1997 / Proposed Rules 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 inuse 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 steadystate 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 warmup 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 NOX, a

heated flame ionization detector (HFID)

for HC, and nondispersive infrared

(NDIR) detector for CO and CO2. 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, CO2,

CO, NOX, 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 alcoholfueled 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
6392 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 28 / Tuesday, February 11, 1997 / Proposed Rules

17Typical untreated (high sulfur) nonroad diesel

fuel contains about 0.2–0.5 weight percent sulfur.

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 inuse conditions. Specifically, the Agency

is proposing that locomotives comply

with emissions standards when tested at

temperatures from 45° F to 105° 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° 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 NOX emission rates be

corrected to account for the effect of

ambient humidity. (Water present in the

intake air is known to lead to lower NOX

emissions, as it absorbs energy from the

combustion process and decreases peak

combustion temperatures.) EPA

considered using the NOX-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 precontrol highway engines to current and

future locomotives that incorporate

NOX-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 °F and 60 grains of water per pound

of dry air. EPA requests comments on

the need for any correction factors,

especially a NOX 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,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.

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
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 28 / Tuesday, February 11, 1997 / Proposed Rules 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 inuse 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 inuse 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.
6394 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 28 / Tuesday, February 11, 1997 / Proposed Rules

18For 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. 20 40 CFR part 89, subpart T.

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.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.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.

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,20 except that EPA proposes that

a report be filed when a single

locomotive, rather than 25 (as in the onhighway 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 onhighway 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 onhighway 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 lightduty 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.

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
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 28 / Tuesday, February 11, 1997 / Proposed Rules 6395

21 Office of Enforcement and General Counsel;

Mobile Source Enforcement Memorandum No. 1A,

June 25, 1974. 22 See 40 CFR 86.1103–87.

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 inuse 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.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.

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.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.

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 emissionrelated 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.
6396 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 28 / Tuesday, February 11, 1997 / Proposed Rules

23 June 25, 1974. Available in the public docket

for this rulemaking. 24 40 CFR 86.094–17

25The term ‘‘states’’ when used in this section

includes both state and local governments.

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 twofold 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.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.

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 emissionrelated 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 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.

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,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.

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 inuse regulations relating to the control of

emissions that would be expected to
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 28 / Tuesday, February 11, 1997 / Proposed Rules 6397

26The 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.

27Allway 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.

29 Id.

30 Id.

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).

33California 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.

34 1 Legislative History of Clean Air Act

Amendments of 1990 at 1126 (1993).

affect how a manufacturer designs a

new locomotive or new locomotive

engine (including both freshly

manufactured and remanufactured

units).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.

In Allway Taxi v. City of New York 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.’’ 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.

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.’’ 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. 30

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.31 By

contrast, the Senate bill contained no

preemption of state regulation of

nonroad engines.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.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:

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.34

The legislative history of section

209(e) does not contain a similar

statement regarding any other category

of nonroad vehicles, indicating
6398 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 28 / Tuesday, February 11, 1997 / Proposed Rules

35The 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.

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.35 EPA is

proposing a regulatory provision that

codifies this approach in today’s notice,

and solicits comment on this issue.

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 inuse 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.
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 28 / Tuesday, February 11, 1997 / Proposed Rules 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 inuse tests. Given the relatively small

number of new engines produced each

year, and the small total number of inuse 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 inuse 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 inuse 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 NOX 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, NOX, 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
6400 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 28 / Tuesday, February 11, 1997 / Proposed Rules

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

NOX 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

NOX 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 NOX 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 NOX 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.
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 28 / Tuesday, February 11, 1997 / Proposed Rules 6401

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.

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 NOX 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 NOX 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

NOX and PM. In addition to the NOX

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 NOX and PM Compared to 1990 BASELINE LEVELS

[Metric tons per year]

Year

NOX PM

Percent

reduction

Mass

reduction

Percent

reduction

Mass

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; 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.

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.
6402 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 28 / Tuesday, February 11, 1997 / Proposed Rules

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 VIII–2.—COST PER LOCOMOTIVE—TIER I STANDARDS—Continued

Cost component Cost Comments

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 ..................................................

115 Short Test .............................................

Occurs in years 1–40.

Total Cost ....................................... 117,616

TABLE VIII–3.—COST PER LOCOMOTIVE—TIER II STANDARDS

Cost component Cost Comments

Initial Equipment ............................................... $200,000 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 1 .................................................................. Occurs in year 1.

Prod Line ................................................... 281 .................................................................... Occurs in year 1.

In-use ......................................................... 10 Full FTP .......................................................

115 Short Test ..................................................

Occurs in years 1–40.

Total Cost ........................................... 266,484 1

1For 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 NPV1

Tier 0 ......................... $1,526 $1,193

Tier I .......................... 286 211

Tier II ......................... 1,301 428

Average Annual ........ 76 45

Total ................... 3,113 1,831

1The 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 NOX or PM reductions

are difficult to assign to a single

pollutant due to the relationship

between NOX and PM emission

generation. EPA computed costeffectiveness for this rulemaking using

only the NOX reductions, and using the

combined NOX 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 NOX 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. 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.

TABLE IX–1.—COST EFFECTIVENESS

NOX NOX + 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
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 28 / Tuesday, February 11, 1997 / Proposed Rules 6403

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

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) 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.

In the case of small remanufacturing

businesses, the proposed rules

governing remanufacturing of

locomotives or locomotive engines

require that any remanufacture of post1972 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
6404 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 28 / Tuesday, February 11, 1997 / Proposed Rules

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