federal register - U.S. Government Printing Office

6374 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 28 / Tuesday, February 11, 1997 / Proposed Rulescycle) are low, while notch seven iscalibrated for low fuel consumption(and possibly high emissions, due to theinherent tradeoffs between performance,fuel economy and emissions control)but at a power level near the notch eightpower level. A locomotive operatorcould then use notch seven where notcheight would normally be employed,resulting in a savings in fuel consumed,and minimal impact in train schedules,at the expense of emissionsperformance. Notch caps on the higherpower notches would be useful inpreventing such situations. However,the manufacturers have indicated toEPA their concern that any notch capswould constrain their flexibility inmeeting the emissions standards,especially at low power notches whereemissions are more difficult to controlthan at the high power notches. EPAagrees that low power notch caps couldbe an unreasonable burden onmanufacturers under this option,especially given the ability of the switchcycle to control those emissions. Thus,under this option, EPA is proposingnotch caps only for notches fourthrough eight. EPA requests commenton the need for notch caps under thisoption. The Agency recognizes that thecompliance burden associated withsuch notch caps could be greater forremanufacturers of existing locomotives,and therefore requests comment onwhether notch caps should be limited toTier I and Tier II locomotives.EPA believes that the dual cycleapproach proposed in this noticeprovides the same emission reductionsas the three duty-cycle approachpreviously discussed, but with amaximum of flexibility. Under the dualcycle approach, the line-haul duty-cyclestandards will ensure control ofemissions at high power notches, whichaccount for the vast majority of inserviceoperations, while the switchduty-cycle standards will ensure controlof emissions at the idle and low powernotches characteristic of switchlocomotive operations. Thus, theAgency is proposing to require all newlocomotives and new engines used inlocomotives to meet both the switch andline-haul duty-cycle standards. EPA isalso proposing to require newlocomotives equipped with hotel powerto comply with both the switch andline-haul duty-cycle standards in bothtractive power only and tractive plushotel power mode in order to accountfor passenger locomotive emissions.EPA requests comment on whether itshould require such locomotives tocomply only with the line-haul dutycyclestandards when operating intractive plus hotel power mode, ratherthan requiring compliance with both theswitch and line-haul duty-cyclestandards in this mode.Single Cycle OptionThe Agency considered a secondapproach suggested by themanufacturers under which a singleduty-cycle would apply to all categoriesof locomotives, regardless of use. EPA isconcerned about the ability of a singleduty-cycle to effectively controlemissions of all locomotives because ofthe emission effects of the differinguses. Switch locomotives tend to havevery high percentages of idle time. Linehauland passenger locomotives tend tospend less time at idle than switchlocomotives, but more time in the highpower notches. Using a single dutycyclefor all three classes would likelyresult in higher emissions in caseswhere the locomotive’s operation doesnot resemble the duty cycle throttlenotch weightings used for emissionstesting. For this reason, the single cycleapproach would not achieve emissionsreductions equivalent to the proposedapproach unless accompanied by verystringent individual notch caps, with noprovisions for some small exceedance ofthe notch caps. EPA requests commenton the appropriateness of such a singleduty-cycle and set of standards thatwould be based on the line-haul dutycycle,but with stringent caps on idleand low power notch emissions in orderto assure that switch locomotivescertified to these standards achieve thesame levels of emission reductions asswitch locomotives certified to theswitch locomotive standards describedearlier.EPA also requests comment on theproposed dual-cycle approach toapplying the proposed standards, aswell as the alternative options describedin this notice, and other duty-cyclestandard approaches. The Agencybelieves that all three options describedcould provide similar emissionreductions. EPA requests comment onwhether more than one option shouldbe adopted, with the manufacturer givena choice of which option to complywith. In such a scenario, should amanufacturer be allowed to certify someengine families to the single or dualcycle and others to the class-specificcycle, or should a manufacturer berequired to certify all of its productionin compliance with only one of theoptions? The Agency also requestscomment on how passenger locomotivehotel power should be handled underany of these approaches.High Baseline LocomotivesEPA believes the proposed standardsto be appropriate under section 213 ofthe Act. The proposed standards wouldachieve the greatest degree of reductionin emissions achievable through the useof technology that will be available, inlight of cost, leadtime and other factors.However, in the course of thisproposal’s development the locomotivemanufacturers expressed some concernabout the ability of all 1973–1999locomotives to meet the Tier 0standards. This concern relates to someengine families produced during thisperiod which, due to their design, havehigher emissions than other locomotivesproduced during the same period, andfor which the cost-effective technologieswhich are projected to be used tocomply with the Tier 0 standards willnot reduce emissions from theselocomotives to the levels of theproposed Tier 0 standards.Additionally, the manufacturers believethat it would be difficult to certify theseengines under the proposed averagingbanking and trading program (ABT,discussed later in this notice), due toconcerns about the availability ofcredits. They are concerned thatindependent remanufacturers wouldcertify systems for those Tier 0locomotive engine families that are easyto bring into compliance withoutputting in the extra effort that wouldallow them to generate emissions creditsfrom those engine families. Theseremanufacturers may not developemission control systems for thoseengine families that are more difficult tobring into compliance. This would leavethe manufacturers to develop them,without the benefit of being able to usecredits that could be generated from theengine families that are easy to bringinto compliance. Thus, assuring that allTier 0 engine families are certifiedunder the ABT program would requiremuch cooperation and coordinationamong railroads and the various entitiescertifying remanufactured locomotives.Because of the reasons just discussed,the Agency is proposing, and requestingcomment on, a provision by whichmanufacturers and remanufacturers canpetition EPA to allow certification ofTier 0 locomotives based on ademonstration of a 33 percent NO Xreduction from pre-control levels forthat specific engine family, rather thanmeeting the proposed Tier 0 NO Xstandards. Under this option the Tier 0standards for all pollutants other thanNO X would still apply. A 33 percentreduction for NO X was chosen becausethis is the approximate averagereduction the Tier 0 NO X standards