Emission Standards for Locomotives and Locomotive Engines

SUMMARY: EPA is proposing regulatory requirements for the control of

emissions from locomotives and engines used in locomotives as required

by Clean Air Act section 213(a)(5). The primary focus of this proposal

is reduction of the emissions of oxides of nitrogen (NOX). The

proposed standards will result in more than a 60 percent reduction in

NOX from freshly manufactured locomotives beginning in 2005, with

lesser reductions from locomotives originally manufactured from 1973

through 2004. NOX is a precursor to the formation of ground level

ozone, which causes health problems such as damage to lung tissue,

reduction of lung function, and sensitization of lungs to other

irritants, as well as damage to terrestrial and aquatic ecosystems. EPA

is also proposing standards for emissions of hydrocarbons (HC), carbon

monoxide (CO), particulate matter (PM), and smoke. The cost

effectiveness of today's proposed emissions standards is 173 dollars

per ton of NOX and PM reduced.

Three separate sets of standards are proposed, with applicability

of the standards dependent on the date a locomotive is first

manufactured. The first set of standards (Tier 0) are proposed to apply

to locomotives and locomotive engines originally manufactured from 1973

through 1999, any time they are remanufactured in calendar year 2000 or

later. The second set of standards (Tier I) apply to locomotives and

locomotive engines originally manufactured from 2000 through 2004. Such

locomotives and locomotive engines would be required to meet the Tier I

standards at the time of original manufacture and at each subsequent

remanufacture. The final set of standards (Tier II) are proposed to

apply to locomotives and locomotive engines originally manufactured in

2005 and later. Such locomotives and locomotive engines would be

required to meet the Tier II standards at the time of original

manufacture and at each subsequent remanufacture.

Today's proposal includes a variety of provisions to implement the

standards and to ensure that the standards are met in-use. These

provisions include certification test procedures, and assembly line and

in-use compliance testing programs. Also included in today's proposal

is an emissions averaging, banking and trading program to provide

flexibility in achieving compliance with the proposed standards.

Finally, EPA is proposing regulations that would preempt certain state

and local requirements relating to the control of emissions from new

locomotives and new locomotive engines, pursuant to Clean Air Act

section 209(e).

DATES: Comments must be received on or before April 14, 1997. A public

hearing will be held on March 13, 1997, starting at 9:30 a.m. Persons

wishing to present oral testimony are requested to notify EPA on or

before March 6, 1997, to allow for an orderly scheduling of oral

testimony.

ADDRESSES:

Written comments: Interested parties may submit written comments

(in triplicate if possible) for EPA consideration. The comments are to

be addressed to: EPA Air and Radiation Docket, Attention: Docket No. A-

94-31, Room M-1500, Mail Code 6102, U.S. EPA, 401 M Street, S.W.,

Washington DC 20460. The docket is open for public inspection from 8

a.m. until 5:30 p.m. Monday through Friday, except on government

holidays. As provided in 40 CFR part 2, a reasonable fee may be charged

for copying docket materials. Should a commenter wish to provide

confidential business information (CBI) to EPA, such CBI should NOT be

included with the information sent to the docket. Materials sent to the

docket should, however, indicate that CBI was provided to EPA. One copy

of CBI, along with the remainder of the written comments, should be

sent to Charles Moulis at the address provided in FOR FURTHER

INFORMATION CONTACT below.

Public hearing: The public hearing will be held at: (Holiday Inn--

North Campus, 3600 Plymouth Rd, Ann Arbor, MI 48105, (313) 769-9800).

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For information on this rulemaking

contact: Charles Moulis, U.S. EPA, Engine Programs and Compliance

Division, 2565 Plymouth Road, Ann Arbor, MI 48105; Telephone: (313)

741-7826, Fax: (313) 741-7816. Requests for hard copies of the

preamble, regulation text and regulatory support document (RSD) should

be directed to Carol Connell at (313) 668-4349.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Regulated Entities

II. Statutory Authority

III. Background

IV. Emissions from Present Locomotives

V. Description of the Proposal

VI. Emission Reduction Technology

VII. Benefits

VIII. Costs

IX. Cost-Effectiveness

X. Public Participation

XI. Administrative Designation and Regulatory Assessment

Requirements

XII. Copies of Rulemaking Documents

I. Regulated Entities

Entities potentially regulated by this proposed action are those

which manufacture and/or remanufacture locomotives and locomotive

engines; those which own and operate railroads; and state and local

governments. Regulated categories and entities include:

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

Category Examples of regulated entities

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

Industry............................ Manufacturers and remanufacturers

of locomotives and locomotive

engines, railroad owners and

operators.

Government.......................... State and local governments.\1\

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

\1\ It should be noted that the proposed provisions do not impose any

requirements that state and local governments (other than those that

own or operate local and regional railroads) must meet, but rather

implement the Clean Air Act preemption provisions for locomotives. It

should also be noted that some state and local governments also own or

operate local and regional railroads.

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

guide for readers regarding entities likely to be regulated by this

proposal. This table lists the types of entities that EPA is now aware

could potentially be regulated by this proposal. Other types of

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

whether your company is regulated by this proposal, you should

carefully examine the applicability criteria in 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 NOX Emissions

Resulting from Movement of Freight by Truck and by Train.''

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

H. Health and Environmental Impacts of Ambient NOX and PM

Oxides of nitrogen (NOX) are a family of reactive gaseous

compounds that contribute to air pollution in both urban and rural

environments. NOX emissions are produced during the combustion of

fuels at high temperatures. The primary sources of atmospheric NOX

include highway sources (such as light-duty and heavy-duty vehicles),

nonroad sources (such as construction and agricultural equipment, and

locomotives) and stationary sources (such as power plants and

industrial boilers). Ambient levels of NOX can be directly harmful

to human health and the environment. More importantly, from an overall

health and welfare perspective, NOX contributes to the production

of secondary chemical products that in turn cause additional health and

welfare effects. Prominent among these are ozone and nitrate

particulate.

The component of NOX that is of most concern from a health

standpoint is nitrogen dioxide, NO2. EPA has set a primary

(health-related) NAAQS for NO2 of 100 micrograms per cubic meter,

or 0.053 parts per million. Direct exposure to NO2 can reduce

breathing efficiency and increase lung and airway irritation in healthy

people, as well as in the elderly and in people with pre-existing

pulmonary conditions. Exposure to NO2 at or near the level of the

ambient standard appears to increase symptoms of respiratory illness,

lung congestion, wheeze, and

[[Page 6369]]

increased bronchitis in children. In addition to the direct effects of

NOX, the chemical transformation products of NOX also

contribute to adverse health and environmental impacts. These secondary

impacts of NOX include ground-level ozone, nitrate particulate

matter, acid deposition, eutrophication (plant overgrowth) of coastal

waters, and transformation of other pollutants into more dangerous

chemical forms.

Ozone is a highly reactive chemical compound that can affect both

biological tissues and man-made materials. Ozone exposure causes a

range of human pulmonary and respiratory health effects. While ozone's

effects on the pulmonary function of sensitive individuals or

populations (e.g., asthmatics) are of primary concern, evidence

indicates that high ambient levels of ozone can cause respiratory

symptoms in healthy adults and children as well. For example, exposure

to ozone for several hours at moderate concentrations, especially

during outdoor work and exercise, has been found to decrease lung

function, increase airway inflammation, increase sensitivity to other

irritants, and impair lung defenses against infections in otherwise

healthy adults and children. Other symptoms include chest pain,

coughing, and shortness of breath.

In recent years, significant efforts have been made on both a

national and state level to reduce air quality problems associated with

ground-level ozone, with a focus on its main precursors, oxides of

nitrogen (NOX) and volatile organic compounds (VOCs).5 The

precursors to ozone and ozone itself are transported long distances

under some commonly occurring meteorological conditions. Specifically,

concentrations of ozone and its precursors in a region and the

transport of ozone and precursor pollutants into, out of, and within a

region are very significant factors in the accumulation of ozone in any

given area. Regional-scale transport may occur within a state or across

one or more state boundaries. Local source NOX and VOC controls

are key parts of the overall attainment strategy for nonattainment

areas. However, the ability of an area to achieve ozone attainment and

thereby reduce ozone-related health and environmental effects is often

heavily influenced by the ozone and precursor emission levels of upwind

areas. Thus, for many of these areas, EPA believes that attainment of

the ozone NAAQS will require control programs much broader than

strictly locally focused controls to take into account the effect of

emissions and ozone far beyond the boundaries of any individual

nonattainment area.

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

\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, NOX, and PM. Ozone has

been shown to injure plants and materials; NOX contributes to the

secondary formation of PM (nitrates), acid deposition, and the

overgrowth of algae in coastal estuaries. PM can damage materials and

impair visibility. These effects are extensively discussed in EPA's

``air quality criteria'' documents for NOX, ozone, and PM.6 7

8 EPA recently proposed revisions to the national ambient air quality

standards (NAAQS) for ozone and PM.9

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

\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 (NOX) and particulate matter (as PM-10) are summarized in

Table IV-1. The values shown in Table IV-1 are the total national

inventories from all sources, from mobile sources, and from locomotives

for 1990. The railroad inventories, expressed as the percentage

contributions by commercial railroads to the total national inventories

and to the transportation sources inventories, are shown in Table IV-2.

The Agency recognizes that not all of the locomotives in service are

owned and operated by commercial (including public) railroads. The

locomotives not operated by the commercial railroads are generally used

to transport equipment and materials within an industrial facility.

However, in light of the small percentage of in-use locomotives that

are not operated by commercial railroads, EPA believes that the

emissions from these locomotives are an extremely small percentage of

the total emissions from all locomotives in service. Thus, for the

purposes of this discussion it is assumed that locomotive and railroad

emission inventories are equivalent.

TABLE IV-11.--1990 National Emission Inventories: All Sources, Mobile Sources, and Locomotives

[millions of metric tons]

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

Total from all

Emission sources Mobile sources Locomotives

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

NOX............................................................. 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

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

NOX..................................... 4.67 10.4

PM-10................................... 0.061 3.65

VOC..................................... .18 0.47

CO...................................... .12 0.16

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

B. Locomotive Emission Rates

EPA received information from EMD, GE and the Association of

American Railroads (AAR) regarding emissions of HC, CO, NOX and PM

from locomotives. This information is summarized in the Regulatory

Support Document (RSD) for this rulemaking. Based on this information,

EPA calculated estimates of average emissions rates for line-haul and

switch locomotives. Table IV-3 shows estimated nationwide average

emissions for each category, expressed in grams per brake horsepower-

hour (g/bhp-hr). It should be noted that, although line-haul

locomotives appear to be much cleaner than switch locomotives, this is

merely an artifact of the fact that g/bhp-hr emission rates are much

higher at low power modes, and switch locomotives operate in low power

modes a greater percentage of time than do line-haul locomotives. A

description of the methodology used by EPA in determining these

emission rates is included in the RSD in the docket. EPA requests

comment on these estimated emissions rates. Commenters are encouraged

to include additional emissions data where possible.

TABLE IV-3.--Current Estimated Line-haul and Switch Locomotive Emissions Rates (g/bhp-hr)

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

HC CO NOX PM Smoke (percent opacity)

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

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

parts) or refurbished power assemblies) or inspected and qualified.

Inspecting and qualifying previously used parts can be done in several

ways, including such things as cleaning, measuring physical dimensions

for proper size and tolerance, and running performance tests to assure

that the parts are functioning properly and according to

specifications. The refurbished power assemblies would include some

combination of freshly manufactured parts, reconditioned parts from

other previously used power assemblies, and reconditioned parts from

the power assemblies that were replaced. In cases where all of the ower

assemblies are not replaced at a single time, the engine would be

considered to be ``remanufactured'' (and therefore ``new'') if all of

the power assemblies from the previously new engine had been replaced

within a five year period. EPA requests comment on this definition in

general, and specifically whether it should include some different time

limit for engines not remanufactured during a single event. Commenters

are requested to address both the legal, economic, and environmental

implications of considering an engine which does not have all of its

power assemblies replaced in a single event to be ``new''.

EPA is proposing to include in its definition of ``remanufacture''

the conversion of a locomotive or locomotive engine to operate on a

fuel other than the fuel it was originally designed and manufactured to

operate on. Such conversions typically involve, at a minimum, the

replacement or modification of the fuel delivery system, and often

involve the replacement or modification of other emissions-critical

components, as well as the recalibration of some engine operating

parameters. For these reasons EPA is proposing to include alternative

fuel conversions in its definition of remanufacture. Such conversions

would thus be considered ``new'' and subject to today's proposed

regulations.

EPA also requests comment on possible alternative definitions of

these terms, including two suggested alternatives raised by the

affected industries. Railroad operators and locomotive manufacturers

have indicated to EPA that it should consider a definition of ``new''

that would include any locomotive or locomotive engine manufactured or

remanufactured after the effective date of the 1990 amendments to the

Clean Air Act

[[Page 6372]]

(November 15, 1990). Under this alternative approach, EPA would define

as ``new'' any locomotive or engine that is first manufactured after

November 15, 1990, and any locomotive or engine, including those

manufactured before November 15, 1990, that is remanufactured after

that date. Since a locomotive would be new based solely on when it was

manufactured or remanufactured, once it is new it would continue as new

from then on. It would always be a new locomotive.

EPA also solicits comment on a second alternative definition of

``new'' for locomotives and locomotive engines, a variation of the

first alternative. Locomotives and engines would be categorized as new

from the time of first manufacture, or upon remanufacture, but only for

the full extent of their useful life as defined by EPA regulations, and

as long thereafter as they were shown to be in compliance with the

applicable federal emissions standards and requirements.

EPA invites comment on these two alternatives, including the

expected emissions impacts, the impacts on states, and whether the

Agency would have the discretion under the Act to adopt such

alternatives. On the last issue, EPA specifically invites comment on

whether it has the authority and whether it would be appropriate to

adopt a definition of new for locomotive and locomotive engine that

differs so significantly from the definition of ``new'' adopted for all

other nonroad vehicles and engines, and the Act's definition of new

motor vehicle and new motor vehicle engine under section 216.

B. Emission Standards

As is described in the following sections, EPA is proposing three

different sets of locomotive emissions standards, with the

applicability of each dependent on the date a locomotive is first

manufactured (i.e., 1973-1999, 2000-2004, or 2005 and later). Every

locomotive covered by this proposal would be required to meet emission

standards when operated over duty-cycles EPA believes are

representative of average line-haul and switch operation. Also, any

covered locomotive would be required to meet the standards over its

full useful life, as defined by EPA regulations. The following sections

discuss the proposed standards in detail, as well as presenting the

other options EPA considered in their development.

B.1. Duty-Cycles

A duty-cycle describes a usage pattern for any class of equipment,

using the percent of time at defined loads, speeds or other readily

identifiable and measurable parameters. EPA's emission standards for

mobile sources are typically numerical standards for emissions

performance measured during a test procedure that embodies a specific

duty-cycle for that kind of equipment. For example, the federal test

procedure for passenger cars and light trucks is a procedure that

specifies, second by second, the speed of the test vehicle, with

simultaneous loading on the engine equivalent to loading which occurs

on the road. Since the emissions of a particular type of equipment are

dependent upon the way the equipment is operated, the duty-cycle used

for emission testing directly affects the kind of design changes

required to meet the standards. In this notice, the Agency is proposing

a series of steady-state test modes, with the duty-cycles being used to

weight the different test modes, resulting in an average emission rate

for the duty-cycles. A brief overview of the duty-cycles EPA proposes

to use for certification and compliance will be presented here, rather

than in the test procedures section.

The Agency used a variety of available information to arrive at the

proposed duty-cycles for locomotive testing, including several duty-

cycles historically used by railroads and locomotive manufacturers to

assess fuel and equipment usage. These duty-cycles were evaluated by

EPA in light of actual in-use data on recent locomotive operations.

Based on this analysis, EPA developed separate duty-cycles for line-

haul, passenger and switch locomotives that account for the

fundamentally different types of service these three categories of

locomotives experience in use. These duty-cycles are presented in Table

V-1. Since these duty-cycles merely represent the percent of time

locomotives typically spend in each throttle notch and are not used

during actual emissions testing, they are termed throttle notch

weighting factors for the purposes of this proposal. A complete

discussion of the historical cycles, in-use data, EPA's analysis of the

relevant information, and development of these weighting factors is

contained in the RSD.

TABLE V-1.--Proposed Throttle Notch Weighting Factors for Locomotives

and Locomotive Engines

[Percent weighting per notch]

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

Line-

Throttle notch haul Passenger Switch

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

Idle...................................... 38.0 47.4 59.8

Dynamic Brake............................. 12.5 6.2 0.0

1......................................... 6.5 7.0 12.4

2......................................... 6.5 5.1 12.3

3......................................... 5.2 5.7 5.8

4......................................... 4.4 4.7 3.6

5......................................... 3.8 4.0 3.6

6......................................... 3.9 2.9 1.5

7......................................... 3.0 1.4 0.2

8......................................... 16.2 15.6 0.8

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

B.2. Emission Standards

Tables V-2 through V-6 contain the emissions standards EPA is

proposing to adopt for locomotives and locomotive engines. Standards

are proposed for three categories of locomotives based on date of

original manufacture (i.e., the Tier 0, Tier I and Tier II standards).

The date of original manufacture is an appropriate factor to use in

categorizing locomotives for emissions control purposes because it

affects the emission reduction technologies that can either be

retrofitted (for remanufacturing of existing locomotives) or are

projected to be available in 2000 or 2005 for freshly manufactured

locomotives.

EPA requests comments on the appropriateness of the levels of the

standards, including the Tier II standards for NOX and PM. The

proposed Tier II standards would require more than a 60 percent

reduction in NOX and a 50 percent reduction on PM from

uncontrolled levels. However, given the fact that locomotives

contribute a substantial portion of the national NOX inventory

while their contribution to the PM inventory is much less substantial,

EPA requests comment on whether it should set Tier II emissions

standards that are more stringent for NOX than the levels noted

above and less stringent for PM. For example, EPA requests comment on

Tier II standards which would achieve a 70 to 75 percent reduction in

NOX but smaller (e.g., 30 percent, rather than the 50 percent

reduction of the proposed Tier II PM standards) or even no reductions

in PM compared to uncontrolled levels. EPA believes that, given the

inherent tradeoff between NOX and PM emissions control in diesel

engines, such a tradeoff of NOX and PM reductions in this option

compared to the proposed Tier II standards may not change costs

substantially compared to

[[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 NOX reductions, including the

implications for control of PM. Finally, EPA requests comment on

whether it should consider more stringent Tier II PM standards than

those proposed, and what the implications of such standards might be

for NOX control, as well as their cost and technology

implications.

Should the Agency consider tightening the particulate standards for

Tier 0 and Tier I locomotives to ensure that particulate emissions do

not exceed the current baseline level (0.34 g/bhp-hr for line-haul

locomotives); and would more stringent particulate standards require

relaxation of the NOX standards? For example, EPA could set the

particulate standard for Tier 0 locomotives at 0.40 g/bhp-hr to

effectively prevent any Tier 0 locomotives from emitting above the

current baseline; and set the particulate standard for Tier I

locomotives at 0.3 g/bhp-hr to achieve a 25 percent reduction in

emissions from the current baseline level. If the Agency were to adopt

more stringent particulate standards for Tier 0 locomotives should they

be phased-in to provide more leadtime to remanufacturers? The Agency

requests comment on whether it should consider giving some form of

credit for locomotives that are designed to shut down at idle, given

that such locomotives would not be generating idle emissions in use,

but would have idle emissions measured during emissions testing.

Finally, the Agency requests comment on the stringency and form of the

smoke standards.

Auxiliary engines used only to provide hotel power for the

passenger cars of a train are currently subject to the applicable

emissions standards previously adopted for nonroad compression ignition

(CI) engines over 37 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 NOX emissions from the beginning of the

program, while significant reductions in the emissions of other

pollutants would only be achieved under the Tier II standards,

effective in 2005. This is because NOX is the only pollutant for

which locomotive emissions contribute more than one percent of the

estimated national inventories (see Table IV-2). EPA believes that the

Tier 0 and Tier I emission standards for NOX might not be

achievable if significant reductions in HC, CO, and PM were also

required. Thus, the standards being proposed are intended to achieve

the greatest environmental benefits as early as possible.

Class-Specific Option

Given the three distinct types of locomotive operation discussed

above (i.e., switch, passenger and line-haul), the first option the

Agency considered was separate emission standards and duty-cycle

weightings for each type (i.e., the class specific option). Separate

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 NOX and PM notch caps considered under

this option are shown in Tables V-2 through V-5 for line-haul, switch

and passenger locomotives equipped with a single engine. Notch caps for

HC and CO which are 25 percent above the applicable line-haul duty-

cycle standards were also considered under this option.

Dual Cycle Option

The manufacturers indicated to EPA that it would be burdensome to

comply with three sets of emission standards when essentially the same

engine (differing only, for example, in the number of cylinders) could

be used for all three types of locomotives (switch, passenger and line-

haul). The manufacturers' concern is not based on testing burden since,

as discussed in the test procedures section, the same test results on a

notch-by-notch basis are simply weighted differently to determine

compliance with the different standards. Rather, the issue is one of

having to design three different versions of a single engine to meet

three different sets of emission standards.

The Agency believes that the 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 NOX reduction

from pre-control levels for that specific engine family, rather than

meeting the proposed Tier 0 NOX standards. Under this option the

Tier 0 standards for all pollutants other than NOX would still

apply. A 33 percent reduction for NOX was chosen because this is

the approximate average reduction the Tier 0 NOX standards

[[Page 6375]]

would achieve from fleet average baseline levels (when factoring in the

expected NOX compliance margin of 5 percent). Such a petition

would be granted based on the certifier's demonstration of

infeasibility or excessive cost, as determined by the Administrator.

The numerical NOX emissions standard applicable to a given engine

family certified under this option would be established by emissions

testing five well-maintained locomotives in the engine family. The

average of the results of these five tests would then be used as the

baseline emissions level and the applicable NOX standard would be

set at a level 33 percent below baseline. Once the applicable NOX

standard is determined through this procedure, the certification

process would be the same as for other Tier 0 locomotives, as discussed

later in this notice. The Agency requests comment on the

appropriateness of and need for this option, and whether Tier 0

locomotives and locomotive engines should be excluded from the ABT

program if this certification option is adopted. EPA specifically

requests comment on the need for this option in the event that the

railroad-based Tier 0 certification provisions discussed in the engine

family certification section of this notice are finalized. EPA believes

that a railroad-based certification program would eliminate or reduce

the concerns expressed about the ability of the ABT program to allow

these locomotives to be certified because a railroad would have control

over the locomotives it operated and could better plan for their

remanufacture in a given year whereas a remanufacturer would have to

estimate the engine family mix that it would remanufacture in a given

year in order to plan its ABT strategy for that year. EPA requests

comment on other alternative plans for addressing the issue of Tier 0

locomotives which have trouble meeting the Tier 0 standards (either for

reasons of excessive cost or infeasibility), including such options as

allowing Tier 0 locomotives under 2000 hp to certify to the switch

duty-cycle standards (and applicable caps) only, and not requiring such

locomotives to comply with the line-haul duty-cycle standards.

Other Nonroad Engines

A second issue raised by the manufacturers is the replacement of an

existing tractive power locomotive engine (i.e., repowering) with an

engine generally used in equipment other than locomotives. Such engines

are subject to EPA's standards for nonroad engines over 37 kW, and only

a small percentage of the total production of such engines would be

used in locomotives. The smallest of these engines (under 1000 hp) are

likely to be used in locomotives which are in captive use moving

materials and equipment within industrial sites, rather than being used

by railroads. Thus, their use is more likely to resemble that of

industrial equipment than locomotives. Therefore, EPA is proposing that

such vehicles not be defined as locomotives, and therefore would not be

subject to today's proposed regulations. Engines in such vehicles must

be certified as meeting the over 37 kW regulations.

Slightly larger engines (between 1000 and 2000 hp) used for

repowering are more typically sold for use in locomotives for railroad

switching operations. EPA is concerned that it might be overly

burdensome to require such engines to be certified to two different

sets of federal standards (i.e., the over 37 kW nonroad engine

standards and the locomotive standards), especially given the small

number used in locomotives. Further, the over 37 kW nonroad engine

regulations provide emission reductions that are roughly comparable to

the proposed Tier I standards for locomotives. Thus, the Agency is

proposing to allow manufacturers to sell a limited number of these

nonroad engines a year for use in locomotives without specifically

certifying to the locomotive standards. Such engines must be certified

as meeting the over 37 kW regulations.

In determining what an appropriate number of engines the Agency

should allow to be sold for use in locomotives under this provision the

Agency considered an exemption that is included in the aircraft

regulations.12 Aircraft, like locomotives, have an extremely low

annual sales volume compared to other mobile source categories. In the

aircraft regulations an exemption from the emissions standards is

provided for engine families of 20 or fewer annual sales, in a market

with total annual sales of approximately 1400. Using a similar ratio,

the Agency considered a range for this locomotive provision from 10 per

year (when compared to annual sales of freshly manufactured

locomotives) to 40 per year (when compared to annual remanufactures).

The Agency is thus proposing the midpoint of this range, or 25 a year,

to be the number of engines (between 1000 and 2000 hp) certified to the

over 37 kW regulations that can be sold for use in locomotives.

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

\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 NOX PM

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

Line-haul and passenger duty-cycle............ 1.0 1.0 5.0 9.5 0.60

Switch duty-cycle............................. 2.1 2.1 8.0 14.0 0.72

Low and normal idle........................... ........... ........... ........... 140.0 13.7

Hotel idle and notch 1........................ ........... ........... ........... 20.5 1.7

Notches 2 and 3............................... ........... ........... ........... 12.0 1.1

Notches 4 through 8........................... ........... ........... ........... 11.9 0.75

Dynamic brake................................. ........... ........... ........... 57.0 13.7

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

\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 NOX PM

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

Line-haul and Passenger Duty-cycle 0.55 0.55 0.55 0.035 2.2 7.4 0.45

Switch duty-cycle................. 1.2 1.2 1.2 0.076 2.5 11.0 0.54

Low and normal idle............... .......... .......... .......... .......... ....... 50.0 6.8

Hotel idle and notch 1............ .......... .......... .......... .......... ....... 10.8 0.75

Notches 2 and 3................... .......... .......... .......... .......... ....... 9.7 0.5

Notches 4 through 8............... .......... .......... .......... .......... ....... 9.3 0.57

Dynamic brake..................... .......... .......... .......... .......... ....... 31.4 6.8

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

\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 NOX PM

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

Line-haul and passenger duty-cycle.......................... 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.018 1.5 5.5 0.20

Switch duty-cycle........................................... 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.036 2.4 8.1 0.24

Low and normal idle......................................... ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- 20.0 0.35

Hotel idle.................................................. ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- 10.8 0.25

Notches 1 through 8......................................... ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- 6.9 0.25

Dynamic brake............................................... ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- 15.0 0.35

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

\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 NOX PM Accel Lug Peak

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

0.97................ 8.5 6.86 0.4 20 15 50

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

\1\ 59 FR 31335, June 17, 1994, and 40 CFR 89.112-96 and 89.113-96.

Alternate Standards

EPA is proposing an alternate set of CO and particulate standards

that are intended primarily to address locomotives which operate on

alternative fuels such as natural gas. Such locomotives are expected to

have higher (and more difficult to control) CO emissions than diesel-

fueled locomotives, but lower PM emissions. These differences are due

to the different molecular structure of alternative fuels compared to

diesel fuel which result in the need to operate under different

conditions (e.g., different air/fuel ratios, spark ignition vs.

compression ignition). The proposed alternate standards would allow

higher CO emissions, but would also require lower particulate

emissions. Although these alternate standards are primarily intended to

address issues associated with alternative fuels, EPA is proposing that

they be available for application to any locomotive. The Agency

believes this is appropriate since the primary focus of today's

proposal is NOX and PM reductions, and the alternate standards

would result in further PM reductions than the standards contained in

Tables V-2 through V-4, with the same NOX reductions.

Manufacturers and remanufacturers could choose to comply with these

alternate standards, shown in Table V-7, instead of the CO and

particulate standards listed in Tables V-2 through V-4. They would not

be allowed to mix the alternate CO standards with the primary

particulate standards for a single engine family. Also, the particulate

notch caps would apply in the same manner as under the primary option.

TABLE V-7.--Alternate CO and PM Standards (g/bhp-hr)

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

Line-haul cycle Switch Cycle

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

CO PM CO PM

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

Tier 0.......................................... 10.0 0.30 12.0 0.36

Tier I.......................................... 10.0 0.22 12.0 0.27

Tier II......................................... 5.0 0.10 6.0 0.12

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

[[Page 6378]]

B.3. Leadtime

The Agency is proposing an effective date of January 1, 2000 for

the Tier 0 emission standards for existing locomotives (i.e.,

locomotives manufactured from 1973 through 1999) upon remanufacture,

and for the Tier I standards for freshly manufactured locomotives. The

Tier II standards for freshly manufactured locomotives are proposed to

take effect January 1, 2005. See Tables V-2 through V-4. EPA believes

that these implementation dates allow sufficient leadtime for the

development and application of the needed emission control technology.

In the case of the Tier 0 and Tier I standards, discussions with the

locomotive manufacturers have led the Agency to believe that the

technology required is well understood as it is essentially technology

currently used (or being developed for application in the 1998 model

year) for on-highway diesel engines, and that the application of this

technology is feasible in the timeframe proposed. EPA does not believe

that it is feasible to begin the applicability of the Tier 0 and Tier I

standards sooner than 2000 since this rulemaking is not expected to be

completed until late 1997. While the technology required to meet these

standards is currently well understood, EPA believes that the

manufacturers will need two years leadtime to develop and finalize

production plans for model year 2000 production. The 2005

implementation date proposed for the Tier II standards allows several

additional years for the development and application of the technology

needed in addition to that used to comply with the Tier I standards.

The Agency believes that seven years total leadtime is appropriate for

the Tier II standards since the locomotive industry is currently

unregulated, and EPA believes that the industry needs some experience

under the less stringent Tier 0 and Tier I standards before assuming

liability for emissions performance under the more stringent Tier II

standards. Finally, industry has known for some time the approximate

levels that the Agency is proposing, and has already begun working

toward compliance. The levels of the standards the Agency is proposing

have been discussed in numerous meetings with the manufacturers, and

were included in the development of a federal implementation plan (FIP)

for ozone nonattainment areas in California.\13\

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

\13\ The California FIP, signed by the Administrator 2/14/95, is

located in EPA Air Docket A-94-09, item number V-A-1. The FIP was

vacated by an act of Congress before it became effective.

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

The Agency requests comment on whether the leadtime proposed is

appropriate to allow compliance with the standards. Any comments

suggesting that either more or less leadtime is required should include

technical justification of the need as well as an estimate of the

appropriate leadtime. Also, the Agency requests that comments favoring

more leadtime address the impacts that a delay of the proposed

implementation schedule would have on the ability of severe and extreme

ozone nonattainment areas to attain the national ambient air quality

standard for ozone by the applicable date (2005 or 2007 for severe

areas, and 2010 for the South Coast nonattainment area in California,

currently the only extreme ozone nonattainment area), and on the

ability of attainment areas to maintain that status. Finally, EPA

requests that comments favoring more leadtime address the possibility

of other approaches to resolving the issue, such as a phase-in of the

Tier 0 and/or Tier I standards, or less stringent standards for Tier I.

B.4. Useful Life

EPA proposes that a locomotive or locomotive engine covered by

today's standards be required to comply with the standards throughout

its useful life. The useful life would be defined using the typical

period that a locomotive engine is expected to be properly functioning.

A locomotive engine's emissions-critical components should be built to

be at least as durable as the rest of the engine. That is to say, for

the time period that the engine is expected to be functioning properly,

with respect to reliability and power output, it must comply with the

proposed emission standards. This time period is one that EPA sets

based on general practice, not an engine by engine time period that

ends if the locomotive engine is poorly manufactured and stops

functioning properly earlier than expected. It should be noted that

greatest practical significance of the useful life period is that it

defines where in-use compliance testing will be conducted (i.e., in-use

testing is conducted at 75 percent of useful life), as is discussed

later in this notice.

Given the above description, the Agency has decided to base its

numerical definition of a locomotive engine family's useful life on the

average period between remanufactures (or from remanufacture to

scrappage) for that family. EPA believes that this period is most

closely linked to the period during which a locomotive is designed to

be properly functioning. However, because the average period between

remanufactures varies from railroad to railroad for any given

locomotive model, EPA has decided to propose minimum (or default)

useful life numbers for each Tier of standards. EPA believes that the

best indicator of the interval between remanufactures is work done

(expressed as MW-hr), which is dependent on the horsepower (hp) of a

locomotive. Thus, the proposed definition of useful life is based on

MW-hr. However, mileage between remanufactures is also meaningful, and

many existing locomotives are not equipped with MW-hr meters.

Therefore, the proposed definition for minimum locomotive useful life

for Tier 0 locomotives is expressed both as miles and MW-hr, with the

MW-hr levels being a function of the rated power of a locomotive. Tier

0 locomotive useful life is proposed to be defined as mileage for

locomotives not equipped with a MW-hr meter, and mileage or MW-hr,

whichever occurs first, for Tier 0 locomotives equipped with MW-hr

meters. The proposed values are shown in Table V-8. The Agency is not

proposing that mileage values be included in the minimum useful life

definitions for Tier I and Tier II locomotives, but is presenting them

for comment in Table V-8. Similarly, EPA is not proposing that the

number of years be included in the minimum useful life definitions, but

has included year values in Table V-8 for comment. If EPA were to adopt

more than one criteria for useful life in its definition (e.g., miles

and MW-hr), the end of a locomotive's useful life would occur at the

point when the first of those multiple criteria is met (e.g., useful

life is defined as miles or MW-hr, whichever occurs first).

The Agency expects that locomotive manufacturers will continue work

on developing locomotives which will operate longer between

remanufactures than current locomotives. For this reason, EPA is

proposing that locomotive and locomotive engine manufacturers be

required to specify a longer useful life than the minimum if a longer

period between remanufactures is intended for the locomotive than the

minimum useful life interval. EPA would determine if a longer useful

life is needed based on information such as a manufacturer's

recommended time to remanufacture, or on in-use data showing that a

locomotive engine family is consistently operating properly well past

its useful life period. The Agency will also allow manufacturers to

petition for shorter useful lives in unusual circumstances where an

[[Page 6379]]

individual engine family does not achieve the minimum useful life in-

use.

The remanufacture data provided by the railroad industry showed

that average remanufacture intervals for different models of

locomotives operated by different railroads varied from about 300,000

to 1,400,000 miles, or about 9,300 to 35,000 MW-hr. This variation made

the task of establishing a minimum useful life period very difficult,

especially for Tier 0 locomotives. The proposed minimum values fall in

middle of these ranges, which means that some current locomotives are

being remanufactured long before they reach the proposed minimum useful

life values. However, EPA believes that the proposed values are

appropriate for several reasons. First, future locomotives are expected

to last longer between remanufactures than the existing fleet. The Tier

0 minimum useful life values will not only apply to locomotives

remanufactured in 2000, but also to locomotives remanufactured well

into the next century. Second, the proposed regulations include

flexibility to allow manufacturers to request a shorter useful life for

any engine family that is typically remanufactured before reaching the

minimum useful life. Finally, EPA believes that there is a significant

environmental risk associated with a useful life that is too short. It

is possible that significant noncompliance could occur if most

locomotives continue to operate significantly beyond the point at which

they are tested for compliance in-use. A long useful life ensures that

the period of operation after testing will be minimized.

The Agency requests comment on all aspects of the proposed useful

life definition. Specifically, comment is requested on whether MW-hrs

and miles are the most appropriate measure of a locomotive's useful

life, or whether other measures (e.g., fuel usage, years) should be

considered and, if so, how they should be measured. The Agency is also

considering a separate useful life definition of 12 years for Tier 0

locomotives dedicated to switching operation. This is because it is

often difficult to quantify mileage accumulation for switch

locomotives. EPA requests comment on this possible approach to Tier 0

switch locomotive useful life definition, and whether periods higher or

lower than 12 years would be more appropriate. The Agency also requests

comment on whether it should consider allowing different useful lives

within a given engine family for locomotives which will be used in

substantially different applications than other locomotives in the same

engine family. Finally, the Agency recognizes that the useful life

definition just presented is based on a limited amount of remanufacture

data, and encourages the inclusion of additional remanufacture data

with comments. The Agency will fully consider any new data on the

average period between remanufactures.

TABLE V-8.--Minimum Useful Life Values

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

Megawatt-

hours for

Miles Years Megawatt-hours 4000 HP

Locomotive

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

Tier 0...................................... 750,000 10 7.5 X hp 30,000

Tier I...................................... 800,000 10 8.0 X hp 32,000

Tier II..................................... 900,000 10 9.0 X hp 36,000

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

B.5. Averaging, Banking and Trading

Consistent with the Act's requirement that EPA set emissions

standards for new locomotives and new locomotive engines which achieve

the greatest degree of emissions reductions achievable while

considering cost and other factors, EPA is proposing a certification

averaging, banking and trading (ABT) program for manufacturers and

remanufacturers of locomotives and locomotive engines. Such a program

would allow the manufacturers and remanufacturers the flexibility to

meet overall emissions goals at the lowest cost, while allowing EPA to

set emissions standards at levels more stringent than they would be if

each and every engine family had to comply with the same numerical

standards. This program would allow certification of one or more engine

families within a given manufacturer's or remanufacturer's product line

at levels above the emission standard, provided the increased emissions

are offset by one or more families certified below the emission

standard, such that the average of all considered emissions for a

particular manufacturer's product line (weighted by horsepower,

production volume and useful life) is at or below the level of the

emission standard. Within the engine family, each engine must comply

with the standard set for that family (the family emission limit, or

FEL). The proposed banking program would also allow manufacturers and

remanufacturers to generate emission ``credits'' and bank them for

future use in averaging or trading. This proposed ABT program is

modeled after similar programs already in place for on-highway and

nonroad engines. While the practical effect of the proposed ABT program

is that a manufacturer's or remanufacturer's production must, on

average, meet the applicable emissions standards, compliance with the

program is calculated on a total mass basis. This is to account for

differences in the horsepower and useful life of different engine

families (i.e., the credits for an engine family are weighted according

to horsepower, production volume and useful life).

When a manufacturer or a remanufacturer uses ABT, it would be

required to certify each participating engine family to a family

emission limit (FEL) which is determined by the manufacturer or

remanufacturer during certification testing. A discussion of the

proposed engine family definition is contained in the section on

compliance issues. A separate FEL would be determined for each

pollutant which the manufacturer or remanufacturer is including in the

ABT program. EPA is proposing an FEL ceiling of 1.25 times the

applicable standard, so that no engine family could be certified at an

emissions level higher than 1.25 times the applicable standard.

As was previously discussed, the Agency is proposing to require

that all locomotives meet both the line-haul and switch duty-cycle

standards, so that more than one standard (and accompanying duty cycle)

applies to a single pollutant. This presents a unique situation for the

proposed locomotive ABT program in comparison to other mobile source

ABT programs where the participating vehicles or engines only have to

meet one standard for a particular pollutant. The Agency is proposing

separate switch and line-haul ABT programs in order to address the

[[Page 6380]]

issues that multiple standards for the same pollutant raise. Each

engine family would be allowed to participate in both the switch and

line-haul ABT programs. However, line-haul credits could not be used to

meet the switch standards, and vice versa.

EPA is proposing that ABT credits be weighted according to a

locomotive's useful life, if specified as work, or a combination of

horsepower (hp) and useful life if the useful life is defined as miles.

This is consistent with the Agency's ABT program for on-highway heavy-

duty engines. EPA is considering restricting the exchange of credits

between locomotives above 2000 hp and below 2000 hp to prevent credits

generated by higher powered engine families from being used to allow

lower powered switch locomotive engine families to remain essentially

uncontrolled. Reducing emissions from switch locomotives is a

significant concern given that switch locomotives are more likely to

operate exclusively in urban areas, and EPA is concerned that allowing

free exchange of credits between high and low powered locomotive engine

families would not achieve such reductions. The Agency requests comment

on whether it should prohibit or restrict credit exchange between

locomotives above and below 2000 hp.

Consistent with the ABT program for on-highway heavy-duty engines,

the locomotive ABT program is proposed to be limited to NOX and PM

emissions only. EPA does not believe that the proposed CO, HC and smoke

standards are so stringent that they should be included in the ABT

program. Also, The ABT program is proposed to be applicable to the

duty-cycle emissions only. EPA believes that extending the ABT program

to include the individual notch caps would result in a program that is

too complex to be practical. Individual notch caps would be adjusted

for locomotives which participate in the ABT program by prorating them

on the basis of the ratio of the standard and the FEL. Averaging,

banking and trading of credits would be limited to locomotive engines

subject to the same set of standards (i.e., Tier 0, Tier I, Tier II).

For example, credits generated on a Tier I locomotive could not be used

towards a Tier II locomotive's compliance. The Agency requests comment

on whether it should allow some degree of credit use across different

sets of standards and, if so, for how long, and what effect if any this

should have on the level of the standards. For example, should EPA

allow Tier I credits to be used toward the first year (or more) of Tier

II compliance?

EPA is also proposing to exclude from the ABT program Tier 0

locomotives certified pursuant to the 33 percent NOX reduction

option discussed in the above section on emission standards. As was

discussed previously, the 33 percent NOX reduction option is being

proposed due to the potential difficulties of certifying certain Tier 0

engine families under the proposed ABT program. Additionally, the

Agency is proposing that a remanufacturer who certifies a Tier 0 engine

family under this option not be allowed to include any of its other

Tier 0 engine families in the averaging, banking and trading program,

and requests comment on this proposed prohibition.

As was previously discussed, the Agency is proposing that engine

families which contain passenger locomotives equipped with a single

engine for both traction power and hotel power be required to meet both

the 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 NOX and/or PM emission credits for

engines certified to FELs below the NOX and/or PM standards which

take effect in 2000. The NOX and PM credits would be calculated

based on the difference between the FEL and the corresponding emission

standard for the appropriate duty-cycle. The Agency requests comment on

whether it should further encourage the early introduction of cleaner

locomotives and locomotive engines by giving credits for early

certification in excess of what would be generated relative to the

applicable standards. For example, should a locomotive which is

certified as meeting the Tier I standards in 1999 be given credit

relative to the Tier 0 standards, given that it would otherwise not

have to meet any standards initially, and only the Tier 0 standards at

remanufacture? EPA recognizes that credits generated early could be

used in later years and that there may be little net benefit in the

long term from such an approach, but nonetheless sees a benefit in

encouraging earlier emissions reductions.

Consistent with the current ABT program for nonroad engines over 37

kW, credits are proposed to have a three year lifetime with no annual

discounting. The Agency requests comment on the proposed three year

credit life, as well as an infinite credit life. The Agency also

requests comment on the proposal that credits not be discounted with

time, as well as annual discounting rates of up to 20 percent.

Participation in the proposed locomotive ABT program would be

voluntary. For those manufacturers and remanufacturers who choose to

utilize the program, compliance for participating engine families would

be evaluated in two ways. First, compliance of individual engine

families with their FELs would be determined and enforced in the same

manner as compliance with the emission standards in the absence of an

averaging, banking and trading program. Each engine family must certify

to the FEL (or FELs, as applicable), and the FEL would be treated as

the emission limit for certification, production-line and in-use

testing for each engine in the family. Second, the final number of

credits available to the manufacturer or remanufacturer at the end of a

model year after considering the manufacturer's or remanufacturer's use

of credits from averaging, banking and trading must be greater than or

equal to zero.

When credits are generated and traded in the same model year, EPA

proposes to make both buyers and sellers of credits potentially liable

for any credit shortfalls, except in cases where fraud is involved.

This provision is consistent with other mobile source ABT programs. The

certificates of both parties issued for locomotives and locomotive

engines involved in the violating trading transaction could be voided

ab initio (i.e., back to date of issue) if the engine family or

families exceed emission standards as a result of a credit shortfall.

The integrity of the proposed locomotive averaging, banking and

trading program depends on accurate recordkeeping and reporting by

manufacturers and remanufacturers, and effective tracking and auditing

by EPA. Failure of a manufacturer or remanufacturer to maintain the

required records would result in the certificates for the affected

engine family or families being voided retroactively. Violations of

reporting requirements could result in a manufacturer or remanufacturer

being subject to civil penalties as authorized by sections 213 and 205

of the Clean Air Act.

EPA requests comment on all aspects of the proposed averaging,

banking and trading program. Specific comment is requested as to

whether the program should be limited to just NOX and PM, as

proposed, or whether the other regulated pollutants should be included.

Also, the Agency requests comment on the various restrictions

(averaging sets, etc.) proposed for this program.

C. Compliance Assurance

Section 213(d) of the Clean Air Act, which applies to EPA's

proposed emissions standards for locomotives, provides that such

standards ``shall be enforced in the same manner as standards

prescribed under section (202)'' of the Act (applicable to new motor

vehicles and new motor vehicle engines). This provision also grants EPA

discretion to revise the regulations implementing certification, in-use

testing and recall if appropriate for locomotives and other nonroad

vehicles and engines. EPA uses several mechanisms to enforce its motor

vehicle emissions standards, including certification, production line

testing, 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

This text is long and has been trimmed here. Open the source document for the complete record.