federal register - U.S. Government Printing Office

Recommendations

Info

Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 28 / Tuesday, February 11, 1997 / Proposed Rules6375would achieve from fleet averagebaseline levels (when factoring in theexpected NO X compliance margin of 5percent). Such a petition would begranted based on the certifier’sdemonstration of infeasibility orexcessive cost, as determined by theAdministrator. The numerical NO Xemissions standard applicable to a givenengine family certified under this optionwould be established by emissionstesting five well-maintainedlocomotives in the engine family. Theaverage of the results of these five testswould then be used as the baselineemissions level and the applicable NO Xstandard would be set at a level 33percent below baseline. Once theapplicable NO X standard is determinedthrough this procedure, the certificationprocess would be the same as for otherTier 0 locomotives, as discussed later inthis notice. The Agency requestscomment on the appropriateness of andneed for this option, and whether Tier0 locomotives and locomotive enginesshould be excluded from the ABTprogram if this certification option isadopted. EPA specifically requestscomment on the need for this option inthe event that the railroad-based Tier 0certification provisions discussed in theengine family certification section ofthis notice are finalized. EPA believesthat a railroad-based certificationprogram would eliminate or reduce theconcerns expressed about the ability ofthe ABT program to allow theselocomotives to be certified because arailroad would have control over thelocomotives it operated and could betterplan for their remanufacture in a givenyear whereas a remanufacturer wouldhave to estimate the engine family mixthat it would remanufacture in a givenyear in order to plan its ABT strategy forthat year. EPA requests comment onother alternative plans for addressingthe issue of Tier 0 locomotives whichhave trouble meeting the Tier 0standards (either for reasons ofexcessive cost or infeasibility),including such options as allowing Tier0 locomotives under 2000 hp to certifyto the switch duty-cycle standards (andapplicable caps) only, and not requiringsuch locomotives to comply with theline-haul duty-cycle standards.Other Nonroad EnginesA second issue raised by themanufacturers is the replacement of anexisting tractive power locomotiveengine (i.e., repowering) with an enginegenerally used in equipment other thanlocomotives. Such engines are subject toEPA’s standards for nonroad enginesover 37 kW, and only a small percentageof the total production of such engineswould be used in locomotives. Thesmallest of these engines (under 1000hp) are likely to be used in locomotiveswhich are in captive use movingmaterials and equipment withinindustrial sites, rather than being usedby railroads. Thus, their use is morelikely to resemble that of industrialequipment than locomotives. Therefore,EPA is proposing that such vehicles notbe defined as locomotives, and thereforewould not be subject to today’sproposed regulations. Engines in suchvehicles must be certified as meeting theover 37 kW regulations.Slightly larger engines (between 1000and 2000 hp) used for repowering aremore typically sold for use inlocomotives for railroad switchingoperations. EPA is concerned that itmight be overly burdensome to requiresuch engines to be certified to twodifferent sets of <strong>federal</strong> standards (i.e.,the over 37 kW nonroad enginestandards and the locomotivestandards), especially given the smallnumber used in locomotives. Further,the over 37 kW nonroad engineregulations provide emission reductionsthat are roughly comparable to theproposed Tier I standards forlocomotives. Thus, the Agency isproposing to allow manufacturers to sella limited number of these nonroadengines a year for use in locomotiveswithout specifically certifying to thelocomotive standards. Such enginesmust be certified as meeting the over 37kW regulations.In determining what an appropriatenumber of engines the Agency shouldallow to be sold for use in locomotivesunder this provision the Agencyconsidered an exemption that isincluded in the aircraft regulations. 12Aircraft, like locomotives, have anextremely low annual sales volumecompared to other mobile sourcecategories. In the aircraft regulations anexemption from the emissions standardsis provided for engine families of 20 orfewer annual sales, in a market withtotal annual sales of approximately1400. Using a similar ratio, the Agencyconsidered a range for this locomotiveprovision from 10 per year (whencompared to annual sales of freshlymanufactured locomotives) to 40 peryear (when compared to annualremanufactures). The Agency is thusproposing the midpoint of this range, or25 a year, to be the number of engines(between 1000 and 2000 hp) certified tothe over 37 kW regulations that can besold for use in locomotives.While EPA believes that the over 37kW regulations provide similar12 See 40 CFR 87.7(b)(1).environmental benefits as do theproposed Tier I locomotive regulations,based on the percent emissionsreductions from uncontrolled baselines,the Agency is nonetheless concernedabout the differences between the testprocedures proposed for locomotivesand those that currently apply to othernonroad engines (resulting fromdifferent duty-cycles) and the potentialenvironmental impacts of thosedifferences. Since the over 37 kWregulations do not apply to engines inthe 1000 to 2000 hp range until 2000,EPA currently has no way of evaluatingthose impacts because there are noengines meeting the over 37 kWregulations which can be used tocompare the results over the two testprocedures. Thus, as a condition ofbeing allowed to sell such engines foruse in locomotives, the Agency wouldretain the authority to require thattesting done for certification to the over37 kW standards also include testingdone at the locomotive power notchpoints. EPA will use this data todetermine the validity of this provision(i.e., allowing engines certified to theover 37 kW standards to be used inlocomotives) from an environmentalperspective, and may choose throughfuture rulemaking action to eliminate,limit or expand the availability of thisprovision on the basis of the data.The Agency believes that theprovisions for allowing some enginescertified to the over 37 kW standards tobe used in locomotives, as justdescribed, are reasonable for severalreasons. First, such engines are expectedto have emissions levels similar to TierI locomotive engines, but would mostlikely replace older locomotive engineswhich would otherwise remainuncontrolled (i.e., those in pre-1973locomotives) or be remanufactured tothe Tier 0 standards (i.e., 1973–1999locomotives). Thus, an emissionsbenefit is expected from these enginesrelative to the engines they replace.Second, this provision is limited toengines under 2000 hp which, due totheir lower power, tend to have lowermass emissions than higher poweredline-haul locomotives (which make upthe vast majority of both locomotives inservice and locomotive emissions).Finally, these engines are not expectedto have useful lives as long as otherlocomotive engines, nor are theyexpected to be remanufactured as manytimes throughout their service lives.These last two points would serve tominimize any unanticipated adverseeffects of this provision.The Agency requests comment onseveral aspects of this proposedprovision for repowering. Should the
6376 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 28 / Tuesday, February 11, 1997 / Proposed RulesAgency require, rather than just havethe option of requiring, that theseengines be tested at locomotive powernotches, in addition to the testingrequired for the over 37 kW nonroadengine certification for all enginescovered by these provisions? Howshould such engines be treated withrespect to preemption? Should thisallowance be limited to engines of lessthan 2000 hp, as proposed, or shouldthere be separate restrictions for higherhorsepower, or no restrictions at all onhorsepower? Is 25 an appropriatenumber of engines to allow under thisprovision, or would a higher or lowernumber be more appropriate?Commenters on the proposedhorsepower and sales restrictions arerequested to provide economic andenvironmental data in support of theircomments. Should this option beeliminated when the Tier II standardstake effect, given that the current over37 kW standards are not as stringent asthe Tier II standards for locomotives?Commenters on this last point arerequested to take into account the factthat EPA is currently in the process ofdeveloping a phase II regulation fornonroad engines over 37 kW. TheAgency requests comment on whether itshould consider a separate provision forengines used in repowers which are notcertified according to the over 37 kWregulations which would allowmanufacturers to pre-select fromproduction those engines which will beused for in-use testing. Such a provisionwould make it easier for those enginemanufacturers to keep track of theirengines for the in-use test program.Finally, EPA developed this repowerprovision based on the current state ofthe locomotive market, wheremanufacturers of engines that are usedin locomotives do not sell them tolocomotive manufacturers to be used inlocomotives with freshly manufacturedchassis. EPA requests comment onwhether it should extend this provision,or a similar one, to enginemanufacturers for engines to be used inlocomotives with freshly manufacturedchassis.As discussed later in the enginefamily certification section, EPA isproposing that certificates of conformitybe issued for locomotives, notlocomotive engines. However, EPA isproposing that engines used forrepowering of existing locomotives thatare not eligible to use the provisions justdiscussed, because they exceed eitherthe sales or horsepower limits, becertified as locomotive engines, notlocomotives. This is because suchengines go into existing locomotives,which the engine manufacturer cannotcontrol (in terms of their operatingparameters such as percent of enginepower in notches, engine coolinghardware, etc.). However, due to thelogistical problems associated withpulling a locomotive engine from alocomotive to test it during in-usetesting (discussed later), EPA isproposing that in-use testing for theseengines be done on locomotives. Theengine manufacturer could choose, inthe event of a failure of locomotivescontaining its engines during the in-usetesting program, to either accept theresults of the locomotive tests, or to testthe actual engines.TABLE V–2.—TIER 0 EXHAUST EMISSION STANDARDS—LOCOMOTIVES AND LOCOMOTIVE ENGINES MANUFACTUREDFROM 1973 THROUGH 1999Duty-cycle or notchGaseous and particulate emissions (g/bhp-hr)THC 1 NMHC 2 CO NO X PMLine-haul and passenger duty-cycle ....................................................... 1.0 1.0 5.0 9.5 0.60Switch duty-cycle .................................................................................... 2.1 2.1 8.0 14.0 0.72Low and normal idle ............................................................................... .................... .................... .................... 140.0 13.7Hotel idle and notch 1 ............................................................................ .................... .................... .................... 20.5 1.7Notches 2 and 3 ..................................................................................... .................... .................... .................... 12.0 1.1Notches 4 through 8 ............................................................................... .................... .................... .................... 11.9 0.75Dynamic brake ........................................................................................ .................... .................... .................... 57.0 13.71 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 2000AND LATERDuty-cycle or notchGaseous and particulate emissions (g/bhp-hr)THC 1 NMHC 2 THCE 3 Aldhyd 3 CO NO X PMLine-haul and Passenger Duty-cycle .................................. 0.55 0.55 0.55 0.035 2.2 7.4 0.45Switch duty-cycle ................................................................ 1.2 1.2 1.2 0.076 2.5 11.0 0.54Low and normal idle ............................................................ .................. .................. .................. .................. ............ 50.0 6.8Hotel idle and notch 1 ......................................................... .................. .................. .................. .................. ............ 10.8 0.75Notches 2 and 3 .................................................................. .................. .................. .................. .................. ............ 9.7 0.5Notches 4 through 8 ........................................................... .................. .................. .................. .................. ............ 9.3 0.57Dynamic brake .................................................................... .................. .................. .................. .................. ............ 31.4 6.81 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 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:
Page 230 and 231:
Page 232 and 233: 6324 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No
Page 272 and 273: federal registerTuesdayFebruary 11,
Page 274 and 275: Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 28
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?