Emission Standards for Locomotives and Locomotive Engines

Related Material

[Federal Register: February 11, 1997 (Volume 62, Number 28)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 6365-6405]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Parts 85, 89 and 92
[FRL-5686-1]
RIN 2060-AD33

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM).

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

SUMMARY: EPA is proposing regulatory requirements for the control of
emissions from locomotives and engines used in locomotives as required
by Clean Air Act section 213(a)(5). The primary focus of this proposal
is reduction of the emissions of oxides of nitrogen (NO_x). The
proposed standards will result in more than a 60 percent reduction in
NO_x from freshly manufactured locomotives beginning in 2005, with
lesser reductions from locomotives originally manufactured from 1973
through 2004. NO_x is a precursor to the formation of ground level
ozone, which causes health problems such as damage to lung tissue,
reduction of lung function, and sensitization of lungs to other
irritants, as well as damage to terrestrial and aquatic ecosystems. EPA
is also proposing standards for emissions of hydrocarbons (HC), carbon
monoxide (CO), particulate matter (PM), and smoke. The cost
effectiveness of today's proposed emissions standards is 173 dollars
per ton of NO_x and PM reduced.
Three separate sets of standards are proposed, with applicability
of the standards dependent on the date a locomotive is first
manufactured. The first set of standards (Tier 0) are proposed to apply
to locomotives and locomotive engines originally manufactured from 1973
through 1999, any time they are remanufactured in calendar year 2000 or
later. The second set of standards (Tier I) apply to locomotives and
locomotive engines originally manufactured from 2000 through 2004. Such
locomotives and locomotive engines would be required to meet the Tier I
standards at the time of original manufacture and at each subsequent
remanufacture. The final set of standards (Tier II) are proposed to
apply to locomotives and locomotive engines originally manufactured in
2005 and later. Such locomotives and locomotive engines would be
required to meet the Tier II standards at the time of original
manufacture and at each subsequent remanufacture.
Today's proposal includes a variety of provisions to implement the
standards and to ensure that the standards are met in-use. These
provisions include certification test procedures, and assembly line and
in-use compliance testing programs. Also included in today's proposal
is an emissions averaging, banking and trading program to provide
flexibility in achieving compliance with the proposed standards.
Finally, EPA is proposing regulations that would preempt certain state
and local requirements relating to the control of emissions from new
locomotives and new locomotive engines, pursuant to Clean Air Act
section 209(e).

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

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

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

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

I. Regulated Entities

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

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

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

II. Statutory Authority

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

[[Page 6367]]

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

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

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

III. Background

A. Locomotives

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

B. Railroads

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

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

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

[[Page 6368]]

C. Locomotive Usage

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

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

D. Locomotive Sales and Rebuild Practices

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

E. Locomotive and Locomotive Engine Manufacturers and Remanufacturers

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

F. Interstate Commerce

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

G. Modal Shift

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

\4\ Note from F. Peter Hutchins to Joanne I. Goldhand, dated 2/
14/94, and entitled ``Estimate of Relative NO_x Emissions
Resulting from Movement of Freight by Truck and by Train.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

H. Health and Environmental Impacts of Ambient NO_x and PM

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

[[Page 6369]]

increased bronchitis in children. In addition to the direct effects of
NO_x, the chemical transformation products of NO_x also
contribute to adverse health and environmental impacts. These secondary
impacts of NO_x include ground-level ozone, nitrate particulate
matter, acid deposition, eutrophication (plant overgrowth) of coastal
waters, and transformation of other pollutants into more dangerous
chemical forms.
Ozone is a highly reactive chemical compound that can affect both
biological tissues and man-made materials. Ozone exposure causes a
range of human pulmonary and respiratory health effects. While ozone's
effects on the pulmonary function of sensitive individuals or
populations (e.g., asthmatics) are of primary concern, evidence
indicates that high ambient levels of ozone can cause respiratory
symptoms in healthy adults and children as well. For example, exposure
to ozone for several hours at moderate concentrations, especially
during outdoor work and exercise, has been found to decrease lung
function, increase airway inflammation, increase sensitivity to other
irritants, and impair lung defenses against infections in otherwise
healthy adults and children. Other symptoms include chest pain,
coughing, and shortness of breath.
In recent years, significant efforts have been made on both a
national and state level to reduce air quality problems associated with
ground-level ozone, with a focus on its main precursors, oxides of
nitrogen (NO_x) 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 NO_x and VOC controls
are key parts of the overall attainment strategy for nonattainment
areas. However, the ability of an area to achieve ozone attainment and
thereby reduce ozone-related health and environmental effects is often
heavily influenced by the ozone and precursor emission levels of upwind
areas. Thus, for many of these areas, EPA believes that attainment of
the ozone NAAQS will require control programs much broader than
strictly locally focused controls to take into account the effect of
emissions and ozone far beyond the boundaries of any individual
nonattainment area.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

EPA therefore believes that effective ozone control requires an
integrated strategy that combines cost-effective reductions in
emissions from both mobile and stationary sources. EPA's current
initiatives, including the national locomotive emissions standards
proposed in this action, are components of the Agency's integrated
ozone reduction strategy.
In addition to ozone, airborne particulate matter (PM) has been a
major air quality concern in many regions. Ozone and PM have both been
linked to a range of serious respiratory health problems and a variety
of adverse environmental effects. As was previously discussed, ozone
causes harmful respiratory effects including chest pain, coughing, and
shortness of breath. Similarly, PM exposure is associated with health
effects including shortness of breath, aggravation of existing
respiratory disease, cancer, and premature death.
Beyond their effects on human health, other negative environmental
effects are also associated with ozone, NO_x, and PM. Ozone has
been shown to injure plants and materials; NO_x contributes to the
secondary formation of PM (nitrates), acid deposition, and the
overgrowth of algae in coastal estuaries. PM can damage materials and
impair visibility. These effects are extensively discussed in EPA's
``air quality criteria'' documents for NO_x, ozone, and PM.6 7
8 EPA recently proposed revisions to the national ambient air quality
standards (NAAQS) for ozone and PM.9
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

IV. Emissions from Present Locomotives

A. National Inventories

Contributions by locomotives to the national emissions inventories
for volatile organic compounds (VOC), carbon monoxide (CO), oxides of
nitrogen (NO_x) and particulate matter (as PM-10) are summarized in
Table IV-1. The values shown in Table IV-1 are the total national
inventories from all sources, from mobile sources, and from locomotives
for 1990. The railroad inventories, expressed as the percentage
contributions by commercial railroads to the total national inventories
and to the transportation sources inventories, are shown in Table IV-2.
The Agency recognizes that not all of the locomotives in service are
owned and operated by commercial (including public) railroads. The
locomotives not operated by the commercial railroads are generally used
to transport equipment and materials within an industrial facility.
However, in light of the small percentage of in-use locomotives that
are not operated by commercial railroads, EPA believes that the
emissions from these locomotives are an extremely small percentage of
the total emissions from all locomotives in service. Thus, for the
purposes of this discussion it is assumed that locomotive and railroad
emission inventories are equivalent.

TABLE IV-11.--1990 National Emission Inventories: All Sources, Mobile Sources, and Locomotives
[millions of metric tons]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total from all
Emission sources Mobile sources Locomotives
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NO_x............................................................. 20.90 9.37 0.98
PM-10........................................................... 39.31 0.66 .024
VOC............................................................. 21.41 8.14 .038

[[Page 6370]]

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

TABLE IV-2.--Locomotive Contributions to National Inventory in 1990 as a
Percentage of All Sources and of Mobile Sources
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Percent of all Percent of
sources mobile sources
Emission contributed by contributed by
locomotives locomotives
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NO_x..................................... 4.67 10.4
PM-10................................... 0.061 3.65
VOC..................................... .18 0.47
CO...................................... .12 0.16
------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. Locomotive Emission Rates

EPA received information from EMD, GE and the Association of
American Railroads (AAR) regarding emissions of HC, CO, NO_x and PM
from locomotives. This information is summarized in the Regulatory
Support Document (RSD) for this rulemaking. Based on this information,
EPA calculated estimates of average emissions rates for line-haul and
switch locomotives. Table IV-3 shows estimated nationwide average
emissions for each category, expressed in grams per brake horsepower-
hour (g/bhp-hr). It should be noted that, although line-haul
locomotives appear to be much cleaner than switch locomotives, this is
merely an artifact of the fact that g/bhp-hr emission rates are much
higher at low power modes, and switch locomotives operate in low power
modes a greater percentage of time than do line-haul locomotives. A
description of the methodology used by EPA in determining these
emission rates is included in the RSD in the docket. EPA requests
comment on these estimated emissions rates. Commenters are encouraged
to include additional emissions data where possible.

TABLE IV-3.--Current Estimated Line-haul and Switch Locomotive Emissions Rates (g/bhp-hr)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
HC CO NO_x PM Smoke (percent opacity)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Line-hau........... 0.5 1.5 13.5 0.34 Equivalent to HDDE \1\Switch.. 1.1 2.4 19.8 0.41 Equivalent to HDDE.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Heavy-duty diesel motor vehicle engine.

V. Description of the Proposal

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

A. Applicability

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

[[Page 6371]]

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

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

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

[[Page 6372]]

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

B. Emission Standards

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

B.1. Duty-Cycles

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

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

B.2. Emission Standards

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

[[Page 6373]]

the proposed Tier II standards, but may require a somewhat different
technology mix. An analysis of the cost and technology implications of
this option are contained in the public docket. EPA requests comment on
all aspects of this option, including its technology and cost
implications. EPA also requests comment on the cost and technology
implications of requiring additional NO_x reductions, including the
implications for control of PM. Finally, EPA requests comment on
whether it should consider more stringent Tier II PM standards than
those proposed, and what the implications of such standards might be
for NO_x control, as well as their cost and technology
implications.
Should the Agency consider tightening the particulate standards for
Tier 0 and Tier I locomotives to ensure that particulate emissions do
not exceed the current baseline level (0.34 g/bhp-hr for line-haul
locomotives); and would more stringent particulate standards require
relaxation of the NO_x standards? For example, EPA could set the
particulate standard for Tier 0 locomotives at 0.40 g/bhp-hr to
effectively prevent any Tier 0 locomotives from emitting above the
current baseline; and set the particulate standard for Tier I
locomotives at 0.3 g/bhp-hr to achieve a 25 percent reduction in
emissions from the current baseline level. If the Agency were to adopt
more stringent particulate standards for Tier 0 locomotives should they
be phased-in to provide more leadtime to remanufacturers? The Agency
requests comment on whether it should consider giving some form of
credit for locomotives that are designed to shut down at idle, given
that such locomotives would not be generating idle emissions in use,
but would have idle emissions measured during emissions testing.
Finally, the Agency requests comment on the stringency and form of the
smoke standards.
Auxiliary engines used only to provide hotel power for the
passenger cars of a train are currently subject to the applicable
emissions standards previously adopted for nonroad compression ignition
(CI) engines over 37 kW 11. These standards, shown in Table V-6,
will apply regardless of which of the duty-cycle options discussed is
adopted.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

In addition to proposing separate emissions standards for the three
categories of locomotives based on date of original manufacture, the
Agency considered three options for separate emissions standards for
each of the three distinct types of locomotive operation described
above (switch, passenger and line-haul). Of the three options
considered, EPA is proposing the ``dual-cycle'' option, where all
locomotives, regardless of their intended usage, would be required to
meet both switch and line-haul duty-cycle standards. Details of this
option, as well as the other two duty-cycle based options EPA
considered (i.e., the ``class-specific'' and the ``single-cycle''
options) are discussed in the following paragraphs.
The standards being proposed are designed to achieve very
significant reductions in NO_x emissions from the beginning of the
program, while significant reductions in the emissions of other
pollutants would only be achieved under the Tier II standards,
effective in 2005. This is because NO_x is the only pollutant for
which locomotive emissions contribute more than one percent of the
estimated national inventories (see Table IV-2). EPA believes that the
Tier 0 and Tier I emission standards for NO_x might not be
achievable if significant reductions in HC, CO, and PM were also
required. Thus, the standards being proposed are intended to achieve
the greatest environmental benefits as early as possible.

Class-Specific Option

Given the three distinct types of locomotive operation discussed
above (i.e., switch, passenger and line-haul), the first option the
Agency considered was separate emission standards and duty-cycle
weightings for each type (i.e., the class specific option). Separate
duty-cycle standards were intended to address the wide disparity in
usage patterns for the different groups, and the effect of such use on
emissions.
Although duty-cycles were developed for average locomotive
operation, wide variations in actual operations do occur within the
three basic types of operation (i.e., switch, passenger and line-haul).
To prevent substantial disparity between the in-use emissions rate and
the emissions rate during the test cycle, EPA considered notch-by-notch
emissions standards for all notches (i.e., notch caps) for all
pollutants. It should be noted that if a locomotive were operating at
the levels of the notch caps for all notches, its duty-cycle-weighted
emissions would be much higher than the duty-cycle standards. Thus, the
proposed duty-cycle standards would prevent any locomotive from
emitting at levels of the notch caps for all (or even most) notches.
These notch-by-notch values were chosen to allow manufacturers and
remanufacturers some degree of flexibility in meeting the duty-cycle
standards, while at the same time insuring that differences in the
utilization of locomotives which normally occur will not cause
significant divergence from the duty-cycle emission standard. To
provide additional flexibility to manufacturers and remanufacturers,
EPA also considered a provision allowing a limited number of notch
standards to be exceeded by a specified small amount provided there is
compliance with the duty-cycle standards. The duty-cycle-weighted
emissions standards and NO_x and PM notch caps considered under
this option are shown in Tables V-2 through V-5 for line-haul, switch
and passenger locomotives equipped with a single engine. Notch caps for
HC and CO which are 25 percent above the applicable line-haul duty-
cycle standards were also considered under this option.

Dual Cycle Option

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

[[Page 6374]]

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

Single Cycle Option

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

High Baseline Locomotives

EPA believes the proposed standards to be appropriate under section
213 of the Act. The proposed standards would achieve the greatest
degree of reduction in emissions achievable through the use of
technology that will be available, in light of cost, leadtime and other
factors. However, in the course of this proposal's development the
locomotive manufacturers expressed some concern about the ability of
all 1973-1999 locomotives to meet the Tier 0 standards. This concern
relates to some engine families produced during this period which, due
to their design, have higher emissions than other locomotives produced
during the same period, and for which the cost-effective technologies
which are projected to be used to comply with the Tier 0 standards will
not reduce emissions from these locomotives to the levels of the
proposed Tier 0 standards. Additionally, the manufacturers believe that
it would be difficult to certify these engines under the proposed
averaging banking and trading program (ABT, discussed later in this
notice), due to concerns about the availability of credits. They are
concerned that independent remanufacturers would certify systems for
those Tier 0 locomotive engine families that are easy to bring into
compliance without putting in the extra effort that would allow them to
generate emissions credits from those engine families. These
remanufacturers may not develop emission control systems for those
engine families that are more difficult to bring into compliance. This
would leave the manufacturers to develop them, without the benefit of
being able to use credits that could be generated from the engine
families that are easy to bring into compliance. Thus, assuring that
all Tier 0 engine families are certified under the ABT program would
require much cooperation and coordination among railroads and the
various entities certifying remanufactured locomotives.
Because of the reasons just discussed, the Agency is proposing, and
requesting comment on, a provision by which manufacturers and
remanufacturers can petition EPA to allow certification of Tier 0
locomotives based on a demonstration of a 33 percent NO_x reduction
from pre-control levels for that specific engine family, rather than
meeting the proposed Tier 0 NO_x standards. Under this option the
Tier 0 standards for all pollutants other than NO_x would still
apply. A 33 percent reduction for NO_x was chosen because this is
the approximate average reduction the Tier 0 NO_x standards

[[Page 6375]]

would achieve from fleet average baseline levels (when factoring in the
expected NO_x compliance margin of 5 percent). Such a petition
would be granted based on the certifier's demonstration of
infeasibility or excessive cost, as determined by the Administrator.
The numerical NO_x emissions standard applicable to a given engine
family certified under this option would be established by emissions
testing five well-maintained locomotives in the engine family. The
average of the results of these five tests would then be used as the
baseline emissions level and the applicable NO_x standard would be
set at a level 33 percent below baseline. Once the applicable NO_x
standard is determined through this procedure, the certification
process would be the same as for other Tier 0 locomotives, as discussed
later in this notice. The Agency requests comment on the
appropriateness of and need for this option, and whether Tier 0
locomotives and locomotive engines should be excluded from the ABT
program if this certification option is adopted. EPA specifically
requests comment on the need for this option in the event that the
railroad-based Tier 0 certification provisions discussed in the engine
family certification section of this notice are finalized. EPA believes
that a railroad-based certification program would eliminate or reduce
the concerns expressed about the ability of the ABT program to allow
these locomotives to be certified because a railroad would have control
over the locomotives it operated and could better plan for their
remanufacture in a given year whereas a remanufacturer would have to
estimate the engine family mix that it would remanufacture in a given
year in order to plan its ABT strategy for that year. EPA requests
comment on other alternative plans for addressing the issue of Tier 0
locomotives which have trouble meeting the Tier 0 standards (either for
reasons of excessive cost or infeasibility), including such options as
allowing Tier 0 locomotives under 2000 hp to certify to the switch
duty-cycle standards (and applicable caps) only, and not requiring such
locomotives to comply with the line-haul duty-cycle standards.

Other Nonroad Engines

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

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

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

[[Page 6376]]

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

TABLE V-2.--Tier 0 Exhaust Emission Standards--Locomotives and Locomotive Engines Manufactured From 1973 Through
1999
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Gaseous and particulate emissions (g/bhp-hr)
Duty-cycle or notch -----------------------------------------------------------------
THC1 NMHC2 CO NO_x PM
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Line-haul and passenger duty-cycle...... 1.0 1.0 5.0 9.5 0.60
Switch duty-cycle....................... 2.1 2.1 8.0 14.0 0.72
Low and normal idle..................... ........... ........... ........... 140.0 13.7
Hotel idle and notch 1.................. ........... ........... ........... 20.5 1.7
Notches 2 and 3......................... ........... ........... ........... 12.0 1.1
Notches 4 through 8..................... ........... ........... ........... 11.9 0.75
Dynamic brake........................... ........... ........... ........... 57.0 13.7
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Applicable to any fuel except natural gas (or any combination of fuels where natural gas is the primary
fuel).
\2\ Only applicable to natural gas, or any combination of fuels where natural gas is the primary fuel.

TABLE V-3.--Tier I Exhaust Emission Standards Locomotives and Locomotive Engines Manufactured 2000 and Later
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Gaseous and particulate emissions (g/bhp-hr)
Duty-cycle or notch -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
THC 1 NMHC 2 THCE 3 Aldhyd 3 CO NO_x PM
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Line-haul and Passenger Duty-cycle 0.55 0.55 0.55 0.035 2.2 7.4 0.45
Switch duty-cycle........... 1.2 1.2 1.2 0.076 2.5 11.0 0.54
Low and normal idle......... .......... .......... .......... .......... ....... 50.0 6.8
Hotel idle and notch 1...... .......... .......... .......... .......... ....... 10.8 0.75
Notches 2 and 3............. .......... .......... .......... .......... ....... 9.7 0.5
Notches 4 through 8......... .......... .......... .......... .......... ....... 9.3 0.57
Dynamic brake............... .......... .......... .......... .......... ....... 31.4 6.8
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Applicable to diesel, bio-diesel, or any combination of fuels with diesel as the primary fuel.
\2\ Only applicable to natural gas, or any combination of fuels where natural gas is the primary fuel.
\3\ Applicable to alcohol(s), or any combination of fuels where alcohol is the primary fuel.

[[Page 6377]]

TABLE V-4.--Tier II Exhaust Emission Standards Locomotives and Locomotive Engines Manufactured 2005 and Later
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Gaseous and particulate emissions (g/bhp-hr)
Duty-cycle or notch -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
THC \1\ NMHC \2\ THCE \3\ Aldhyd \3\ CO NO_x PM
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Line-haul and passenger duty-cycle...... 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.018 1.5 5.5 0.20
Switch duty-cycle....................... 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.036 2.4 8.1 0.24
Low and normal idle..................... ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- 20.0 0.35
Hotel idle.............................. ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- 10.8 0.25
Notches 1 through 8..................... ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- 6.9 0.25
Dynamic brake........................... ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- 15.0 0.35
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Applicable to diesel, bio-diesel, or any combination fuels where diesel is the primary fuel.
\2\ Only applicable to natural gas, or any combination of fuels where natural gas is the primary fuel.
\3\ Applicable to alcohol(s), or any combination of fuels where alcohol is the primary fuel.

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

TABLE V-6.--Exhaust Emission Standards for Nonroad Engines Above 37 kW\1\
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Gaseous and particulate emissions (g/bhp-hr) Smoke (Percent opacity)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
HC CO NO_x PM Accel Lug Peak
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
0.97................ 8.5 6.86 0.4 20 15 50
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ 59 FR 31335, June 17, 1994, and 40 CFR 89.112-96 and 89.113-96.

Alternate Standards

EPA is proposing an alternate set of CO and particulate standards
that are intended primarily to address locomotives which operate on
alternative fuels such as natural gas. Such locomotives are expected to
have higher (and more difficult to control) CO emissions than diesel-
fueled locomotives, but lower PM emissions. These differences are due
to the different molecular structure of alternative fuels compared to
diesel fuel which result in the need to operate under different
conditions (e.g., different air/fuel ratios, spark ignition vs.
compression ignition). The proposed alternate standards would allow
higher CO emissions, but would also require lower particulate
emissions. Although these alternate standards are primarily intended to
address issues associated with alternative fuels, EPA is proposing that
they be available for application to any locomotive. The Agency
believes this is appropriate since the primary focus of today's
proposal is NO_x and PM reductions, and the alternate standards
would result in further PM reductions than the standards contained in
Tables V-2 through V-4, with the same NO_x reductions.
Manufacturers and remanufacturers could choose to comply with these
alternate standards, shown in Table V-7, instead of the CO and
particulate standards listed in Tables V-2 through V-4. They would not
be allowed to mix the alternate CO standards with the primary
particulate standards for a single engine family. Also, the particulate
notch caps would apply in the same manner as under the primary option.

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

[[Page 6378]]

B.3. Leadtime

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

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

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

B.4. Useful Life

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

[[Page 6379]]

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

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

B.5. Averaging, Banking and Trading

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

[[Page 6380]]

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

[[Page 6381]]

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

C. Compliance Assurance

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

C.1. Engine Family Definition

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

[[Page 6382]]

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

C.2. Engine Family Certification

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

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

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

[[Page 6383]]

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

[[Page 6384]]

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

[[Page 6385]]

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

C.3. Production Line Testing Program

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

[[Page 6386]]

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

[[Page 6387]]

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

C.4. In-Use Testing Program

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

[[Page 6388]]

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

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

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

[[Page 6389]]

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

[[Page 6390]]

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

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

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

[[Page 6391]]

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

D. Test Procedures

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

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

EPA proposes to use a steady-state test procedure to measure
gaseous and particulate emissions from locomotives; that is, a
procedure wherein measurements of gaseous and particulate emissions are
performed with the engine at a series of steady-state speed and load
conditions. Measurement of smoke would be performed during both steady-
state operations and during periods of engine accelerations between
notches. Specifically, the engine would be started, if not already
running, and warmed up to normal operating temperature in accordance
with warm-up procedures for in-service locomotives as specified by the
manufacturer. For locomotive testing, the engine would remain in the
locomotive chassis, and the power output would be dissipated as heat
from resistive load banks (internal or external). The engine would be
considered to be warmed up, and ready for emissions testing when
coolant and lubricant temperatures are approximately at the mid-points
of the normal in-service operating temperatures for these materials as
specified by the manufacturer. After the engine has reached normal
operating temperature, the engine would be operated at full power
(i.e., highest power notch) for 5 minutes, then returned to idle, or
low idle if so equipped. The 5-minute period at full power is intended
to ensure that the engine is at a realistic operating temperature, and
to improve test repeatability. Measurement of exhaust emissions, fuel
consumption, inlet and cooling air temperature, power output, etc.
would then begin, and would continue through each higher power
operating mode to maximum power. In the event of test equipment failure
during data acquisition, testing may be resumed by repeating the last
test mode for which valid data was collected, provided the engine is at
normal operating temperature. The minimum duration of the initial test
point (idle or low idle), and each test point when power is being
increased is 6 minutes, with the exception of the maximum power point,
where the minimum duration of operation is 15 minutes.
Concentrations of gaseous exhaust pollutants are proposed to be
measured by drawing samples of the raw exhaust to chemical analyzers; a
chemiluminescence analyzer for NO_x, a heated flame ionization
detector (HFID) for HC, and nondispersive infrared (NDIR) detector for
CO and CO<INF>2. Smoke would be measured with a smoke opacity meter,
and particulates would be measured by drawing a diluted sample of the
exhaust through a filter and weighing the mass of particulate
collected. The Agency is not proposing to establish dilute sampling
procedures for the total exhaust stream for gaseous and particulate
emissions because it is not necessary to dilute the total exhaust
stream prior to sampling for HC, CO<INF>2, CO, NO_x, and
particulate during steady state operations. In addition, the equipment
that would be required for dilute sampling is very large and expensive.
Not including such provisions would not preclude the use of dilute
sampling as an alternative procedure. EPA requests comments regarding
the need for dilute sampling procedures. In order to ensure good
reliability of test results, EPA is also proposing calibration and
verification requirements similar to those applicable to on-highway
heavy-duty engines, and requests comments regarding the proposed
methods and frequency of these requirements. It should also be noted
that the Agency is in the process of making minor technical revisions
to the particulate measurement procedures of 40 CFR 86, and that many
of these technical amendments would be relevant to measurement of
particulate emissions from locomotives. These amendments are expected
to be finalized later this year. The Agency will incorporate these
changes in the final rule for locomotives, as appropriate.
The Agency is proposing that the NMHC, alcohol and aldehyde
measurement procedures that are currently applicable to on-highway
natural gas- and methanol-fueled engines (40 CFR part 86) be used for
natural gas- and alcohol-fueled locomotives. EPA recognizes, however,
the possibility of unforeseen problems that could result during the use
of such procedures with locomotive engines, especially with alcohol-
fueled locomotives (which currently do not exist). Among the potential
problems are the lack of information on whether the specifications for
dilute alcohol and aldehyde sample temperatures and flow rates are
appropriate for locomotives, as well as the complete lack of such
specifications for raw exhaust. At this time, EPA believes that it is
appropriate to specify the on-highway procedures in the absence of
definitiveness of potential problems, but may reconsider alcohol and
aldehyde sampling issues on a case-by-case basis, should alcohol-fueled
locomotives come into use.
EPA's experience in testing engines is that it is difficult to
accurately measure engine power at extremely low levels. Thus, EPA is
considering, and requests comment on, assigning engine power levels for
idle and dynamic brake

[[Page 6392]]

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

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

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

D.2. FTP for Engines

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

[[Page 6393]]

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

D.3. Short Test for Locomotives

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

E. Railroad Requirements

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

[[Page 6394]]

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

F. Miscellaneous

F.1. Liability for Remanufactured Locomotives and Locomotive Engines

As was previously discussed in the engine family certification
section, EPA expects that in some cases locomotives and locomotive
engines may be remanufactured using a remanufacture kit that was
developed and manufactured by one entity but installed by another. In
these cases, it is most likely that the kit manufacturer will be the
certificate holder.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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

F.2. Defect Reporting

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

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

F.3. Importation of Nonconforming Locomotives

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

[[Page 6395]]

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

F.4. Tampering

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

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

F.5. Nonconformance Penalties

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

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

F.6. Emission Warranty

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

[[Page 6396]]

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

F.7. Locomotives From Canada and Mexico

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

F.8. Aftermarket Parts

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

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

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

F.9. Onboard Diagnostics

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

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

G. Preemption

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

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

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

[[Page 6397]]

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

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

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

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

In an earlier rulemaking action, EPA discussed the application of
the Allway Taxi case to non-road vehicles and engines other than
locomotives, and stated that the Agency expected the principles of
Allway Taxi to apply to state adoption of emission controls on non-road
vehicles and engines after they are no longer new. See 59 FR 36969,
36973 (July 20, 1994). In that notice, EPA stated that the Agency
expected the same reasoning and policy would also apply to locomotives,
although the implementation of that policy would depend on the ultimate
definition of ``new locomotive.'' EPA today proposes to apply the same
principles to state regulation of emissions from locomotives; however,
because of compelling factual and policy considerations relating to
regulation of locomotives as compared to regulation of motor vehicles
and other nonroad vehicles and engines, the implementation of these
principles would be expected to differ to a significant degree.
In the context of motor vehicle regulation, the Allway Taxi court
noted that a state's imposition of its own emission control
requirements immediately after a new motor vehicle is purchased by an
ultimate consumer and registered would be ``an obvious circumvention of
the Clean Air Act and would defeat the Congressional purpose (in
preempting states from regulating emissions from new motor vehicles) of
preventing obstruction to interstate commerce.'' 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
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

Applying this analysis to state regulation of locomotives, section
209(e)(1)(B) and the regulations proposed today would preempt states
from adopting in-use regulations relating to the control of emissions
that would be expected to affect how a manufacturer designs a new
locomotive or new locomotive engine (including both freshly
manufactured and remanufactured engines). Such a state standard would
be considered as ``relating to the control of emissions from [new
locomotives or locomotive engines]'' and would be preempted. The
practical effect of applying the principles of Allway Taxi to
locomotives is different than for other mobile sources because of the
nature of the relationship between locomotive manufacturers and their
customers (railroad operators). Emission related requirements imposed
on railroads can reasonably be expected to have a very significant
effect on locomotive manufacturers and remanufacturers. This is
especially true of the Class I railroads which purchase nearly all of
the freshly manufactured locomotives. With so few primary customers,
manufacturers and remanufacturers must be very responsive to changes in
design requested by these railroads. Although there are significantly
more non-Class I railroads than there are Class I railroads, their
number is still fairly small. Therefore, state requirements on
railroads are much more likely to effect changes in how manufacturers
and remanufacturers design new locomotives and new locomotive engines
than would similar requirements on end users of other mobile sources,
such as automobile owners. The fact that locomotive engines become new
again when they are remanufactured will also have an effect on how the
principles of Allway Taxi are applied. EPA solicits comment on this
interpretation of Allway Taxi as applied to locomotive regulation.
In addition to the unique factual circumstances surrounding
locomotives, there are compelling policy reasons that support uniform,
national regulation of locomotive emissions. The legislative history of
section 209(e) indicates that Congress intended a broad preemption of
any state regulation of emissions from new locomotives or new
locomotive engines, in large part because of the significant interstate
commerce concerns raised by state-by-state regulation of locomotives.
The House bill would have preempted states from regulating emissions
from all new nonroad engines and vehicles.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:

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

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

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

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

[[Page 6398]]

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

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

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

[[Page 6399]]

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

VI. Emission Reduction Technology

This rulemaking will be the first time locomotives and locomotive
engines have been subject to EPA regulation for the pollutants of HC,
CO, NO_x, PM and smoke. Much of this discussion of the emission
reduction technologies is based on EPA's experience regulating similar
but smaller diesel engines used in highway trucks since the 1970's.
While many of the emission control technologies for highway trucks are
applicable to locomotives and locomotive engines, the design and
operation of locomotives and locomotive engines may preclude the
effective use of some of these technologies. The following paragraphs
discuss the emission control strategies that EPA believes are likely to
be available to comply with today's proposed standards. These emission
control strategies are considered separately for the three levels of
proposed standards (i.e., Tier 0, Tier I and Tier II standards).
Technologies EPA believes could be used to comply with the proposed

[[Page 6400]]

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

Table VI 1.--Emission Reduction Technologies
------------------------------------------------------------------------

------------------------------------------------------------------------
NO_x Reduction Strategies
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Air Handling........................... Turbocharging.
Air to liquid charge air
cooling.
Air to air charge air cooling.
Turbo compounding.
Exhaust Gas Recirculation
(EGR).
Compression Ratio, Closed
crankcase.
Fuel Delivery Systems.................. Injection pressure and Nozzle
Design.
Reoptimized injection timing.
Increased injection rate.
Injection rate shaping.
Electronic Control Systems............. Electronic controls.
Combustion chamber design.............. Geometry, swirl.
Aftertreatment......................... Reduction catalyst.
Chemical Addition.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
PM and Smoke Reduction Strategies \1\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Combustion chamber design.............. Increased swirl.
Reduced crevice volume.
Ceramic materials.
Fuel delivery Systems.................. Increased injection pressure.
Limit sac volume.
Aftertreatment......................... Trap or catalytic oxidizer.
Smoke Control.......................... Limiter on rate of increase of
fueling.
Lubricants............................. Synthetic oils.
Reduction in engine oil
consumption.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Most technologies that reduce particulate emissions will also reduce
HC, CO and smoke to some extent.

A. Tier 0 Standards

EPA expects that locomotives currently equipped with turbocharged
engines will most likely employ improved fuel injection, enhanced
charge air cooling, and to some extent retarding of injection timing to
reduce NO_x emissions to below the level of the proposed standards.
(Note: the proposed Tier 0 standards would not require emission
reductions in HC, CO, or PM compared to current, uncontrolled levels.
The Tier 0 standards for HC, CO and PM are essentially caps to prevent
large increases in those emissions compared to current levels.) Where
practical and cost-effective, some of the pre-2000 locomotives may be
equipped with electronic controls as a means of avoiding a loss in fuel
efficiency resulting from injection timing retard. Improved fuel
injection is expected to include injection rate changes, modifications
to the spray patterns, and a reduction in injector sac volume. There
may also be some small modifications to the piston design.
Additionally, some models may require enhanced smoke controls to limit
smoke during increases in engine power. In the case of naturally
aspirated engines, modified/improved fuel injection and some retarding
of injection timing are expected to be the control strategies of
choice. The addition of electronic controls may also be employed.

B. Tier I Standards

The proposed Tier I emission standards will require an
approximately 48 percent reduction in NO_x emissions from current
levels, and may require some small reductions in HC, CO, and PM
emissions (actual reductions will depend upon the size of the
compliance margins that manufacturers choose to include in their
designs). These locomotives can be expected to incorporate the
technologies as outlined above for the Tier 0 standards, in conjunction
with or superseded by the following additional technologies. Engine
combustion temperatures will need to be reduced further; additional
improvements in charge air cooling can therefore be expected. This
could require a charge air cooling system using a separate coolant as
the cooling medium. To achieve additional reductions, engine
manufacturers are expected to employ a comprehensive emission
management system consisting of optimized engine fuel injection
strategies through electronic controls. Changes in the configuration of
the combustion chamber and piston ring location may begin to appear in
engines complying with the Tier I standards.

C. Tier II Standards

The proposed Tier II emission standards will require more than a 60
percent reduction in NO_x emissions and 50 percent reduction in PM
and HC emissions from current levels, with smaller, but significant,
reductions in CO emissions. EPA's current estimate of the technologies
that will be used to comply with these emission standards includes
continued improvement in charge air cooling, fuel management (including
the introduction of ``rate shaping''), and combustion chamber
configuration, in conjunction with an optimized electronic control
system. It is uncertain, at this time, whether some form of exhaust gas
recirculation (EGR) or reduced oil consumption will also be necessary.
EPA requests comment on its viewpoints and expectations expressed
in this section. Commenters are encouraged to direct their comments
toward a description of the technologies they believe would be
necessary to meet the standards discussed above. Commenters should
address issues of feasibility, durability and costs of the technologies
they believe will be required.

[[Page 6401]]

VII. Benefits

This section contains a brief summary of the emission benefits
expected from the proposed national locomotive and locomotive engine
rulemaking. The complete analysis of the expected benefits is contained
in the RSD. The primary focus of this rulemaking is on reducing
NO_x and PM emissions. There are also reductions in HC and CO.
The benefits analysis was performed in three steps. First, the
baseline locomotive fleet composition, emissions rates and total
inventory were determined. Second, future fleet composition was
projected, from which percentage emissions reductions for the fleet
were calculated for NO_x and PM. Finally, those percent reductions
were applied to the baseline fleet emissions inventories to arrive at
mass emissions reductions for the fleet. Table VII-1 contains a summary
of both the fleet percentage and mass reductions for both NO_x and
PM. In addition to the NO_x and PM benefits shown in Table VII-1,
today's proposed regulations provide reductions in HC and CO. EPA
estimated those reductions by calculating the ratios of the proposed HC
and CO emissions standard percent reductions to the PM standard
reductions, and applying those ratios to the PM benefits previously
calculated. EPA estimated that by 2040 the proposed regulations will
result in total reductions of 274924 metric tons of HC and 240075
metric tons of CO. These total HC and CO reductions amount to average
annual reductions of 6705 metric tons of HC and 5855 metric tons of CO
per year. EPA requests comment on all aspects of this benefits
analysis.

TABLE VII-1.--Nationwide Emission Reductions of NO_x and PM Compared to 1990 Baseline Levels
[Metric tons per year]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NO_x PM
---------------------------------------------------------------
Year Percent Mass Percent Mass
reduction reduction reduction reduction
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2000............................................ 6.7 65,538 0.0 0
2005............................................ 35.7 348,022 1.2 291
2010............................................ 39.2 382,361 7.3 1,747
2020............................................ 46.2 451,038 19.3 4,657
2040............................................ 59.7 581,934 42.4 10,224
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

VIII. Costs

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

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

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

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

[[Page 6402]]

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

Table VIII-3.--Cost Per Locomotive--Tier II Standards
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cost component Cost Comments
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Initial Equipment............... $200,000 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....... Occurs in years 1-
115 Short Test.... 40.
---------------------------------------
Total Cost.............. 266,484 1
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ For first five years of production, assuming the research,
development and certification costs are recovered in five years. Total
costs would drop to $85,781 per locomotive after five years.

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

IX. Cost-Effectiveness

The costs for NO_x or PM reductions are difficult to assign to
a single pollutant due to the relationship between NO_x and PM
emission generation. EPA computed cost-effectiveness for this
rulemaking using only the NO_x reductions, and using the combined
NO_x and PM reductions. Costs presented below are for all
reductions. It should be remembered that there would also be some
emission reductions in HC and CO that would be achieved from the same
technology that is used for NO_x and PM control, enhancing the
benefits of the program without significantly impacting the cost.
The following table (Table IX-1) summarizes the costs and emission
benefits of the national locomotive rulemaking. Costs and emission
benefits were computed over a 41 year program run. 37 In computing
costs, EPA has generally used conservative estimates which are fairly
consistent with the manufacturers' own cost estimates. EPA therefore
believes this analysis to be a worst-case scenario in terms of cost to
industry.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

TABLE IX-1.--Cost Effectiveness
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NO_x NO_x + PM
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total Emission Reductions (millions metric
tons)........................................ 17.83 18.02
Total Costs (million $)....................... 3,113 3,113
Annual Emission Reductions (millions metric
tons)........................................ 0.43 0.44
Annual Costs (millions $)..................... 76 76
Cost Effectiveness($/ton)..................... 175 173
------------------------------------------------------------------------

X. Public Participation

A. Comments and the Public Docket

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

[[Page 6403]]

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

B. Public Hearing

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

XI. Administrative Designation and Regulatory Assessment Requirements

A. Executive Order 12866

Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993) the
Agency must determine whether the regulatory action is ``significant''
and therefore subject to OMB review and the requirements of the
Executive Order. The Order defines ``significant regulatory action'' as
one that is likely to result in a rule that may: (1) Have an annual
effect on the economy of $100 million or more or adversely affect in a
material way the economy, a sector of the economy, productivity,
competition, jobs, the environment, public health or safety, or State,
local, or tribal government or communities; (2) create a serious
inconsistency or otherwise interfere with action taken or planned by
another agency; (3) materially alter the budgetary impact of
entitlements, grants, user fees, or loan programs or the rights and
obligations of recipients thereof; or (4) raise novel legal or policy
issues arising out of legal mandates, the President's priorities, or
the principles set forth in the Executive Order.
Pursuant to the terms of Executive Order 12866, EPA has determined
that this is a ``significant regulatory action'' within the meaning of
the Executive Order. EPA has submitted this action to OMB for review.
Changes made in response to OMB suggestions or recommendations will be
documented in the public record.

B. Regulatory Flexibility

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

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

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

[[Page 6404]]

on a substantial number of small entities.

C. Paperwork Reduction Act

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

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

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

XII. Copies of Rulemaking Documents

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

A. Technology Transfer Network (TTN)

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

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

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

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

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

[[Page 6405]]

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

B. Internet

Rulemaking documents may be found on the internet as follows:

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

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

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

List of Subjects

40 CFR Part 85

Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Railroads.

40 CFR Part 89

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

40 CFR Part 92

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

Dated: January 31, 1997.

Carol M. Browner,
Administrator.

[FR Doc. 97-3223 Filed 2-10-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P

Notices For
2009
2008
2007
2006
2005
2004
2003
2002
2001
2000
1999
1998
1997
1996
1995
1994

Emission Standards for Locomotives and Locomotive Engines

Related Material

Local Navigation