federal register - U.S. Government Printing Office

6378 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 28 / Tuesday, February 11, 1997 / Proposed RulesB.3. LeadtimeThe Agency is proposing an effectivedate of January 1, 2000 for the Tier 0emission standards for existinglocomotives (i.e., locomotivesmanufactured from 1973 through 1999)upon remanufacture, and for the Tier Istandards for freshly manufacturedlocomotives. The Tier II standards forfreshly manufactured locomotives areproposed to take effect January 1, 2005.See Tables V–2 through V–4. EPAbelieves that these implementationdates allow sufficient leadtime for thedevelopment and application of theneeded emission control technology. Inthe case of the Tier 0 and Tier Istandards, discussions with thelocomotive manufacturers have led theAgency to believe that the technologyrequired is well understood as it isessentially technology currently used(or being developed for application inthe 1998 model year) for on-highwaydiesel engines, and that the applicationof this technology is feasible in thetimeframe proposed. EPA does notbelieve that it is feasible to begin theapplicability of the Tier 0 and Tier Istandards sooner than 2000 since thisrulemaking is not expected to becompleted until late 1997. While thetechnology required to meet thesestandards is currently well understood,EPA believes that the manufacturerswill need two years leadtime to developand finalize production plans for modelyear 2000 production. The 2005implementation date proposed for theTier II standards allows severaladditional years for the developmentand application of the technologyneeded in addition to that used tocomply with the Tier I standards. TheAgency believes that seven years totalleadtime is appropriate for the Tier IIstandards since the locomotive industryis currently unregulated, and EPAbelieves that the industry needs someexperience under the less stringent Tier0 and Tier I standards before assumingliability for emissions performanceunder the more stringent Tier IIstandards. Finally, industry has knownfor some time the approximate levelsthat the Agency is proposing, and hasalready begun working towardcompliance. The levels of the standardsthe Agency is proposing have beendiscussed in numerous meetings withthe manufacturers, and were includedin the development of a federalimplementation plan (FIP) for ozonenonattainment areas in California. 1313 The California FIP, signed by the Administrator2/14/95, is located in EPA Air Docket A–94–09,item number V-A–1. The FIP was vacated by an actof Congress before it became effective.The Agency requests comment onwhether the leadtime proposed isappropriate to allow compliance withthe standards. Any commentssuggesting that either more or lessleadtime is required should includetechnical justification of the need aswell as an estimate of the appropriateleadtime. Also, the Agency requests thatcomments favoring more leadtimeaddress the impacts that a delay of theproposed implementation schedulewould have on the ability of severe andextreme ozone nonattainment areas toattain the national ambient air qualitystandard for ozone by the applicabledate (2005 or 2007 for severe areas, and2010 for the South Coast nonattainmentarea in California, currently the onlyextreme ozone nonattainment area), andon the ability of attainment areas tomaintain that status. Finally, EPArequests that comments favoring moreleadtime address the possibility of otherapproaches to resolving the issue, suchas a phase-in of the Tier 0 and/or TierI standards, or less stringent standardsfor Tier I.B.4. Useful LifeEPA proposes that a locomotive orlocomotive engine covered by today’sstandards be required to comply withthe standards throughout its useful life.The useful life would be defined usingthe typical period that a locomotiveengine is expected to be properlyfunctioning. A locomotive engine’semissions-critical components shouldbe built to be at least as durable as therest of the engine. That is to say, for thetime period that the engine is expectedto be functioning properly, with respectto reliability and power output, it mustcomply with the proposed emissionstandards. This time period is one thatEPA sets based on general practice, notan engine by engine time period thatends if the locomotive engine is poorlymanufactured and stops functioningproperly earlier than expected. It shouldbe noted that greatest practicalsignificance of the useful life period isthat it defines where in-use compliancetesting will be conducted (i.e., in-usetesting is conducted at 75 percent ofuseful life), as is discussed later in thisnotice.Given the above description, theAgency has decided to base itsnumerical definition of a locomotiveengine family’s useful life on theaverage period between remanufactures(or from remanufacture to scrappage) forthat family. EPA believes that thisperiod is most closely linked to theperiod during which a locomotive isdesigned to be properly functioning.However, because the average periodbetween remanufactures varies fromrailroad to railroad for any givenlocomotive model, EPA has decided topropose minimum (or default) usefullife numbers for each Tier of standards.EPA believes that the best indicator ofthe interval between remanufactures iswork done (expressed as MW-hr), whichis dependent on the horsepower (hp) ofa locomotive. Thus, the proposeddefinition of useful life is based on MWhr.However, mileage betweenremanufactures is also meaningful, andmany existing locomotives are notequipped with MW-hr meters.Therefore, the proposed definition forminimum locomotive useful life for Tier0 locomotives is expressed both as milesand MW-hr, with the MW-hr levelsbeing a function of the rated power ofa locomotive. Tier 0 locomotive usefullife is proposed to be defined as mileagefor locomotives not equipped with aMW-hr meter, and mileage or MW-hr,whichever occurs first, for Tier 0locomotives equipped with MW-hrmeters. The proposed values are shownin Table V–8. The Agency is notproposing that mileage values beincluded in the minimum useful lifedefinitions for Tier I and Tier IIlocomotives, but is presenting them forcomment in Table V–8. Similarly, EPAis not proposing that the number ofyears be included in the minimumuseful life definitions, but has includedyear values in Table V–8 for comment.If EPA were to adopt more than onecriteria for useful life in its definition(e.g., miles and MW-hr), the end of alocomotive’s useful life would occur atthe point when the first of thosemultiple criteria is met (e.g., useful lifeis defined as miles or MW-hr,whichever occurs first).The Agency expects that locomotivemanufacturers will continue work ondeveloping locomotives which willoperate longer between remanufacturesthan current locomotives. For thisreason, EPA is proposing thatlocomotive and locomotive enginemanufacturers be required to specify alonger useful life than the minimum ifa longer period between remanufacturesis intended for the locomotive than theminimum useful life interval. EPAwould determine if a longer useful lifeis needed based on information such asa manufacturer’s recommended time toremanufacture, or on in-use datashowing that a locomotive engine familyis consistently operating properly wellpast its useful life period. The Agencywill also allow manufacturers topetition for shorter useful lives inunusual circumstances where an