federal register - U.S. Government Printing Office

Recommendations

Info

Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 28 / Tuesday, February 11, 1997 / Proposed Rules6371burden of bringing very old locomotivesinto compliance.EPA is aware of a practice in thelocomotive industry known asupgrading. During an upgrade, alocomotive remanufacturer willtypically take an older engine modeland remanufacture it in such a mannerthat it is in essentially all respects amore recent model, both in terms of itsperformance and the expectedremaining service life following theupgrade. EPA is proposing a definitionof remanufacture that includes thisprocess of upgrading. EPA proposes thatany pre-1973 locomotives which areupgraded to post-1972 specifications berequired to meet the same emissionsstandards as locomotives originallymanufactured after 1972. Also, for thepurposes of the various complianceprograms discussed later (certification,production line testing, in-use testing),upgraders will be treated asremanufacturers. 10 The Agency requestscomment on its definition of upgrade, ascontained in the proposed regulatorytext, and whether it should be writtento optionally (the remanufacturer’soption) include any remanufacturedpre-1973 locomotive that complies withthe Tier 0 emission standards.The proposed definition of ‘‘newlocomotive’’ and ‘‘new locomotiveengine’’ would be consistent with, butnot identical to, the definition of ‘‘newnonroad engine’’ and ‘‘new nonroadvehicle’’ that EPA promulgated on July20, 1994 (59 FR 36969), and revised onOctober 4, 1996 (61 FR 52102). Thedefinition of ‘‘new nonroad engine’’includes only ‘‘freshly manufactured’’engines, while the proposed definitionof ‘‘new locomotive’’ and ‘‘newlocomotive engine’’ includes bothfreshly manufactured andremanufactured locomotives andengines. EPA believes it is appropriateto regulate remanufactured locomotiveengines as new engines because of thenature of the remanufacturing processfor such engines. Remanufacturinglocomotives typically involvesinspecting the relevant components andreplacing most or all of them asnecessary with components that arefunctionally equivalent to freshlymanufactured components. The relevantcomponents include those that controlthe delivery of fuel to the combustionprocess, those that control the conditionand delivery of air to the combustionprocess, and those that are directlyinvolved in the combustion process, (at10 Unless specified otherwise, all provisionsdiscussed in this preamble applicable toremanufacturers shall also be considered to beapplicable to upgraders.a minimum, the fuel injectors,turbocharger, charge air cooler, pistonsand piston rings, cylinders, valves,valve springs, camshaft, and cylinderhead). This process is a more completeoverhaul than the typical rebuilding ofan on-highway diesel engine. Since aremanufactured locomotive engine is inall material ways like a freshlymanufactured engine, bothmechanically and in terms of how it isused, EPA proposes to define ‘‘newlocomotive engine’’ to includeremanufactured engines. As with freshlymanufactured locomotives, suchengines would be new until sold orplaced into service.This approach is further supported bythe role remanufactured engines play inthe locomotive industry. Locomotiveengines are typically remanufacturedperiodically, as many as ten timesduring their total service lifetimes, andmay be used in different locomotivesfollowing a remanufacture. Manysmaller railroad operators do notpurchase freshly manufacturedlocomotives, relying solely on thepurchase of used locomotives fromother railroad operators and thesubsequent remanufacturing of theseengines. Because of theseremanufacturing practices, a locomotiveengine will generally be used for manyyears, resulting in an extremely slowindustry-wide fleet turnover rate. As aresult, a narrow definition of newlocomotive engines, limited to freshlymanufactured engines, wouldeffectively undercut the ability of theAgency to reduce emissionscontribution from this segment of thenonroad inventory. EPA notes that thepractices related to the use ofremanufactured locomotive enginesdistinguishes this situation from otherkinds of rebuilding, such as for othernonroad engines, and motor vehicleengines, or aircraft engines. Evenaircraft engines do not typically remainin active service for 40 years moreover,there are fewer events that could beconsidered remanufacturing asdescribed here for locomotives, because,among other things, the maintenancepractices in the airline industrytypically are more continuous than inthe railroad industry. In addition,because the engines have fundamentallydifferent designs (jet engine ascompared to diesel engine), theoverhaul of our aircraft engine is notcomparable to the remanufacturing of adiesel locomotive. EPA is requestingcomments on the inclusion ofremanufactured locomotives in thedefinition of ‘‘new’’ for this rulemaking.The Agency is proposing to define‘‘remanufacture’’ of a locomotive engineas a process in which all of the powerassemblies of an engine are replaced(with freshly manufactured (containingno previously used parts) or refurbishedpower assemblies) or inspected andqualified. Inspecting and qualifyingpreviously used parts can be done inseveral ways, including such things ascleaning, measuring physicaldimensions for proper size andtolerance, and running performancetests to assure that the parts arefunctioning properly and according tospecifications. The refurbished powerassemblies would include somecombination of freshly manufacturedparts, reconditioned parts from otherpreviously used power assemblies, andreconditioned parts from the powerassemblies that were replaced. In caseswhere all of the ower assemblies are notreplaced at a single time, the enginewould be considered to be‘‘remanufactured’’ (and therefore‘‘new’’) if all of the power assembliesfrom the previously new engine hadbeen replaced within a five year period.EPA requests comment on thisdefinition in general, and specificallywhether it should include somedifferent time limit for engines notremanufactured during a single event.Commenters are requested to addressboth the legal, economic, andenvironmental implications ofconsidering an engine which does nothave all of its power assembliesreplaced in a single event to be ‘‘new’’.EPA is proposing to include in itsdefinition of ‘‘remanufacture’’ theconversion of a locomotive orlocomotive engine to operate on a fuelother than the fuel it was originallydesigned and manufactured to operateon. Such conversions typically involve,at a minimum, the replacement ormodification of the fuel delivery system,and often involve the replacement ormodification of other emissions-criticalcomponents, as well as the recalibrationof some engine operating parameters.For these reasons EPA is proposing toinclude alternative fuel conversions inits definition of remanufacture. Suchconversions would thus be considered‘‘new’’ and subject to today’s proposedregulations.EPA also requests comment onpossible alternative definitions of theseterms, including two suggestedalternatives raised by the affectedindustries. Railroad operators andlocomotive manufacturers haveindicated to EPA that it should considera definition of ‘‘new’’ that wouldinclude any locomotive or locomotiveengine manufactured or remanufacturedafter the effective date of the 1990amendments to the Clean Air Act
6372 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 28 / Tuesday, February 11, 1997 / Proposed Rules(November 15, 1990). Under thisalternative approach, EPA would defineas ‘‘new’’ any locomotive or engine thatis first manufactured after November 15,1990, and any locomotive or engine,including those manufactured beforeNovember 15, 1990, that isremanufactured after that date. Since alocomotive would be new based solelyon when it was manufactured orremanufactured, once it is new it wouldcontinue as new from then on. It wouldalways be a new locomotive.EPA also solicits comment on asecond alternative definition of ‘‘new’’for locomotives and locomotive engines,a variation of the first alternative.Locomotives and engines would becategorized as new from the time of firstmanufacture, or upon remanufacture,but only for the full extent of theiruseful life as defined by EPAregulations, and as long thereafter asthey were shown to be in compliancewith the applicable <strong>federal</strong> emissionsstandards and requirements.EPA invites comment on these twoalternatives, including the expectedemissions impacts, the impacts onstates, and whether the Agency wouldhave the discretion under the Act toadopt such alternatives. On the lastissue, EPA specifically invites commenton whether it has the authority andwhether it would be appropriate toadopt a definition of new for locomotiveand locomotive engine that differs sosignificantly from the definition of‘‘new’’ adopted for all other nonroadvehicles and engines, and the Act’sdefinition of new motor vehicle andnew motor vehicle engine under section216.B. Emission StandardsAs is described in the followingsections, EPA is proposing threedifferent sets of locomotive emissionsstandards, with the applicability of eachdependent on the date a locomotive isfirst manufactured (i.e., 1973–1999,2000–2004, or 2005 and later). Everylocomotive covered by this proposalwould be required to meet emissionstandards when operated over dutycyclesEPA believes are representativeof average line-haul and switchoperation. Also, any covered locomotivewould be required to meet the standardsover its full useful life, as defined byEPA regulations. The following sectionsdiscuss the proposed standards indetail, as well as presenting the otheroptions EPA considered in theirdevelopment.B.1. Duty-CyclesA duty-cycle describes a usage patternfor any class of equipment, using thepercent of time at defined loads, speedsor other readily identifiable andmeasurable parameters. EPA’s emissionstandards for mobile sources aretypically numerical standards foremissions performance measured duringa test procedure that embodies a specificduty-cycle for that kind of equipment.For example, the <strong>federal</strong> test procedurefor passenger cars and light trucks is aprocedure that specifies, second bysecond, the speed of the test vehicle,with simultaneous loading on theengine equivalent to loading whichoccurs on the road. Since the emissionsof a particular type of equipment aredependent upon the way the equipmentis operated, the duty-cycle used foremission testing directly affects the kindof design changes required to meet thestandards. In this notice, the Agency isproposing a series of steady-state testmodes, with the duty-cycles being usedto weight the different test modes,resulting in an average emission rate forthe duty-cycles. A brief overview of theduty-cycles EPA proposes to use forcertification and compliance will bepresented here, rather than in the testprocedures section.The Agency used a variety ofavailable information to arrive at theproposed duty-cycles for locomotivetesting, including several duty-cycleshistorically used by railroads andlocomotive manufacturers to assess fueland equipment usage. These duty-cycleswere evaluated by EPA in light of actualin-use data on recent locomotiveoperations. Based on this analysis, EPAdeveloped separate duty-cycles for linehaul,passenger and switch locomotivesthat account for the fundamentallydifferent types of service these threecategories of locomotives experience inuse. These duty-cycles are presented inTable V–1. Since these duty-cyclesmerely represent the percent of timelocomotives typically spend in eachthrottle notch and are not used duringactual emissions testing, they are termedthrottle notch weighting factors for thepurposes of this proposal. A completediscussion of the historical cycles, inusedata, EPA’s analysis of the relevantinformation, and development of theseweighting factors is contained in theRSD.TABLE V–1.—PROPOSED THROTTLENOTCH WEIGHTING FACTORS FORLOCOMOTIVES AND LOCOMOTIVE EN-GINESThrottle notch[Percent weighting per notch]LinehaulPassengerSwitchIdle ............... 38.0 47.4 59.8DynamicBrake ....... 12.5 6.2 0.01 .................. 6.5 7.0 12.42 .................. 6.5 5.1 12.33 .................. 5.2 5.7 5.84 .................. 4.4 4.7 3.65 .................. 3.8 4.0 3.66 .................. 3.9 2.9 1.57 .................. 3.0 1.4 0.28 .................. 16.2 15.6 0.8B.2. Emission StandardsTables V–2 through V–6 contain theemissions standards EPA is proposing toadopt for locomotives and locomotiveengines. Standards are proposed forthree categories of locomotives based ondate of original manufacture (i.e., theTier 0, Tier I and Tier II standards). Thedate of original manufacture is anappropriate factor to use in categorizinglocomotives for emissions controlpurposes because it affects the emissionreduction technologies that can eitherbe retrofitted (for remanufacturing ofexisting locomotives) or are projected tobe available in 2000 or 2005 for freshlymanufactured locomotives.EPA requests comments on theappropriateness of the levels of thestandards, including the Tier IIstandards for NO X and PM. Theproposed Tier II standards wouldrequire more than a 60 percentreduction in NO X and a 50 percentreduction on PM from uncontrolledlevels. However, given the fact thatlocomotives contribute a substantialportion of the national NO X inventorywhile their contribution to the PMinventory is much less substantial, EPArequests comment on whether it shouldset Tier II emissions standards that aremore stringent for NO X than the levelsnoted above and less stringent for PM.For example, EPA requests comment onTier II standards which would achievea 70 to 75 percent reduction in NO X butsmaller (e.g., 30 percent, rather than the50 percent reduction of the proposedTier II PM standards) or even noreductions in PM compared touncontrolled levels. EPA believes that,given the inherent tradeoff betweenNO X and PM emissions control in dieselengines, such a tradeoff of NO X and PMreductions in this option compared tothe proposed Tier II standards may notchange costs substantially compared to
Page 2 and 3:
IIFederal Register / Vol. 62, No. 2
Page 4 and 5:
IVFederal Register / Vol. 62, No. 2
Page 6 and 7:
VIFederal Register / Vol. 62, No. 2
Page 8 and 9:
6099Rules and RegulationsFederal Re
Page 12 and 13:
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 28
Page 14 and 15:
Page 16 and 17:
Page 18 and 19:
Page 20 and 21:
Page 22 and 23:
Page 24 and 25:
Page 26 and 27:
Page 28 and 29:
Page 30 and 31:
Page 32 and 33:
Page 34 and 35:
Page 36 and 37:
Page 38 and 39:
Page 40 and 41:
Page 42 and 43:
Page 44 and 45:
Page 46 and 47:
Page 48 and 49:
Page 50 and 51:
Page 52 and 53:
Page 54 and 55:
Page 56 and 57:
Page 58 and 59:
Page 60 and 61:
Page 62 and 63:
Page 64 and 65:
Page 66 and 67:
Page 68 and 69:
Page 70 and 71:
Page 72 and 73:
Page 74 and 75:
Page 76 and 77:
Page 78 and 79:
Page 80 and 81:
Page 82 and 83:
Page 84 and 85:
Page 86 and 87:
Page 88 and 89:
Page 90 and 91:
Page 92 and 93:
Page 94 and 95:
Page 96 and 97:
Page 98 and 99:
Page 100 and 101:
Page 102 and 103:
Page 104 and 105:
Page 106 and 107:
Page 108 and 109:
Page 110 and 111:
Page 112 and 113:
Page 114 and 115:
Page 116 and 117:
Page 118 and 119:
Page 120 and 121:
Page 122 and 123:
Page 124 and 125:
Page 126 and 127:
Page 128 and 129:
Page 130 and 131:
Page 132 and 133:
Page 134 and 135:
Page 136 and 137:
Page 138 and 139:
Page 140 and 141:
Page 142 and 143:
Page 144 and 145:
Page 146 and 147:
Page 148 and 149:
Page 150 and 151:
Page 152 and 153:
Page 154 and 155:
Page 156 and 157:
Page 158 and 159:
Page 160 and 161:
Page 162 and 163:
Page 164 and 165:
Page 166 and 167:
Page 168 and 169:
Page 170 and 171:
Page 172 and 173:
Page 174 and 175:
Page 176 and 177:
Page 178 and 179:
Page 180 and 181:
Page 182 and 183:
Page 184 and 185:
Page 186 and 187:
Page 188 and 189:
Page 190 and 191:
Page 192 and 193:
Page 194 and 195:
Page 196 and 197:
Page 198 and 199:
Page 200 and 201:
Page 202 and 203:
Page 204 and 205:
Page 206 and 207:
Page 208 and 209:
Page 210 and 211:
Page 212 and 213:
Page 214 and 215:
Page 216 and 217:
6308 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No
Page 218 and 219:
Page 220 and 221:
Page 222 and 223:
Page 224 and 225:
Page 226 and 227:
Page 228 and 229: 6320 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No
Page 272 and 273: federal registerTuesdayFebruary 11,
Page 274 and 275: Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 28
Page 328 and 329:
Page 330 and 331:
Page 332 and 333:
Page 334 and 335:
Page 336 and 337:
Page 338 and 339:
Page 340 and 341:
Page 342 and 343:
Page 344 and 345:
Page 346 and 347:
Page 348 and 349:
Page 350 and 351:
iiFederal Register / Vol. 62, No. 2
Page 352:
ivFederal Register / Vol. 62, No. 2
show all

federal register - U.S. Government Printing Office

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?