federal register - U.S. Government Printing Office

Recommendations

Info

Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 28 / Tuesday, February 11, 1997 / Proposed Rules6381to require that all Tier 0 locomotives beequipped with MW-hr meters, thusresulting in a single useful lifedefinition (MW-hrs) for Tier 0locomotives, and a single category ofcredits for Tier 0 locomotives.The leadtime the Agency is proposingfor compliance with today’s emissionsstandards is intended to allow all enginefamilies to be able to comply. EPArecognizes that some engine familiesmay be able to comply prior to theeffective date of the proposed standards.However, EPA expects that theseproposed regulations will be finalized inDecember of 1997, by which time themanufacturers are expected to havefinalized their 1998 and 1999production plans. Thus, the Agencydoes not believe it would be practical torequire a phase-in of the proposedstandards prior to 2000 across the entireindustry, but would like to encouragethe early introduction of cleanerlocomotives. Thus, EPA is proposing toallow manufacturers andremanufacturers to begin bankingcredits for locomotives and locomotiveengines as early as one year prior to theeffective date of the standard, (i.e., the1999 model year). EPA is proposingthat, for early banking, manufacturersand remanufacturers could receive NO Xand/or PM emission credits for enginescertified to FELs below the NO X and/orPM standards which take effect in 2000.The NO X and PM credits would becalculated based on the differencebetween the FEL and the correspondingemission standard for the appropriateduty-cycle. The Agency requestscomment on whether it should furtherencourage the early introduction ofcleaner locomotives and locomotiveengines by giving credits for earlycertification in excess of what would begenerated relative to the applicablestandards. For example, should alocomotive which is certified as meetingthe Tier I standards in 1999 be givencredit relative to the Tier 0 standards,given that it would otherwise not haveto meet any standards initially, and onlythe Tier 0 standards at remanufacture?EPA recognizes that credits generatedearly could be used in later years andthat there may be little net benefit in thelong term from such an approach, butnonetheless sees a benefit inencouraging earlier emissionsreductions.Consistent with the current ABTprogram for nonroad engines over 37kW, credits are proposed to have a threeyear lifetime with no annualdiscounting. The Agency requestscomment on the proposed three yearcredit life, as well as an infinite creditlife. The Agency also requests commenton the proposal that credits not bediscounted with time, as well as annualdiscounting rates of up to 20 percent.Participation in the proposedlocomotive ABT program would bevoluntary. For those manufacturers andremanufacturers who choose to utilizethe program, compliance forparticipating engine families would beevaluated in two ways. First,compliance of individual enginefamilies with their FELs would bedetermined and enforced in the samemanner as compliance with theemission standards in the absence of anaveraging, banking and trading program.Each engine family must certify to theFEL (or FELs, as applicable), and theFEL would be treated as the emissionlimit for certification, production-lineand in-use testing for each engine in thefamily. Second, the final number ofcredits available to the manufacturer orremanufacturer at the end of a modelyear after considering themanufacturer’s or remanufacturer’s useof credits from averaging, banking andtrading must be greater than or equal tozero.When credits are generated andtraded in the same model year, EPAproposes to make both buyers andsellers of credits potentially liable forany credit shortfalls, except in caseswhere fraud is involved. This provisionis consistent with other mobile sourceABT programs. The certificates of bothparties issued for locomotives andlocomotive engines involved in theviolating trading transaction could bevoided ab initio (i.e., back to date ofissue) if the engine family or familiesexceed emission standards as a result ofa credit shortfall.The integrity of the proposedlocomotive averaging, banking andtrading program depends on accuraterecordkeeping and reporting bymanufacturers and remanufacturers, andeffective tracking and auditing by EPA.Failure of a manufacturer orremanufacturer to maintain the requiredrecords would result in the certificatesfor the affected engine family or familiesbeing voided retroactively. Violations ofreporting requirements could result in amanufacturer or remanufacturer beingsubject to civil penalties as authorizedby sections 213 and 205 of the Clean AirAct.EPA requests comment on all aspectsof the proposed averaging, banking andtrading program. Specific comment isrequested as to whether the programshould be limited to just NO X and PM,as proposed, or whether the otherregulated pollutants should be included.Also, the Agency requests comment onthe various restrictions (averaging sets,etc.) proposed for this program.C. Compliance AssuranceSection 213(d) of the Clean Air Act,which applies to EPA’s proposedemissions standards for locomotives,provides that such standards ‘‘shall beenforced in the same manner asstandards prescribed under section(202)’’ of the Act (applicable to newmotor vehicles and new motor vehicleengines). This provision also grants EPAdiscretion to revise the regulationsimplementing certification, in-usetesting and recall if appropriate forlocomotives and other nonroad vehiclesand engines. EPA uses severalmechanisms to enforce its motor vehicleemissions standards, includingcertification, production line testing, inusetesting and recall. This sectioncovers the various aspects of theseproposed compliance programs forlocomotives. A discussion of theproposed definition of locomotiveengine family is presented first,followed by discussions of the threemain compliance programs(certification, production line testingand in-use testing).C.1. Engine Family DefinitionEPA defines engine family for allother mobile sources as a group ofengines expected to have similaremissions characteristics throughouttheir useful lives. The engine familyconcept facilitates more efficientcertification of engines or vehicles byallowing those with similar emissionscharacteristics to be grouped together,thus reducing testing costs. In definingengine family for locomotives andlocomotive engines, the Agency soughtto balance the economic advantage of abroad definition that would minimizetesting and certification costs, and theenvironmental advantage of a narrowdefinition that would better assure thatthe testing of an engine family wouldaccurately represent all engines in thatfamily. The Agency is proposing todefine engine family for locomotivesusing many of the same parameterswhich are currently used to define onhighwayand nonroad engine families.These parameters include aspects ofboth the physical design of the engine(e.g., combustion chamberconfiguration, cylinder bore and stroke)as well as operating characteristics (e.g.,fuel injection pressure and rate,turbocharger and inlet air coolingcharacteristics). A complete list of theparameters is included in section 92.010of the proposed regulations.While the proposed locomotiveengine family definition uses many of
6382 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 28 / Tuesday, February 11, 1997 / Proposed Rulesthe same parameters as engine familydefinitions adopted by EPA for otherclasses of mobile sources, the enginefamily definition proposed here forlocomotives is somewhat more narrowlydefined, especially for Tier I and Tier II.Characteristics such as fuel injectionpressures and turbocharger andaftercooler performance are included inthis definition.EPA does not believe that the aboveoutlined approach to defining enginefamily will result in an excessivenumber of engine families. For Tier Iand Tier II the Agency expects that amanufacturer may only have a singleengine family in a given model year.However, the Agency is requestingcomment on whether it should allow forthe combining of small Tier 0 enginefamilies into a single engine family inorder to reduce the testing burdenimposed by the Tier 0 standards.Comments should address the size ofthe engine families which canparticipate, as well as the justificationfor allowing them to be classified as asingle engine family and recommendedcriteria for separating families.C.2. Engine Family CertificationCertification is the process whereby amanufacturer or remanufacturer obtainsa certificate of conformity for aparticular engine family of locomotives.A certificate of conformity must beobtained before a manufacturer orremanufacturer may lawfully offer forsale or otherwise introduce (orreintroduce) into commerce newlocomotives and new locomotiveengines. The CAA establishes an annualcertification requirement for newvehicles and engines, including newlocomotives and new locomotiveengines. 14 Under the proposedregulations, a separate certificate mustbe obtained for each engine family.Applications must be submitted everyyear, even when the engine family doesnot change from the previous certificate,although representative test data couldbe reused in the succeeding year’sapplication in order to minimize thetesting burden.As discussed in the followingparagraphs, EPA is proposing thatlocomotives (rather than engines) betested for demonstration of compliancewith the applicable emissionsstandards. EPA is also proposing anexception to this requirement whichwould allow test data from a14 Section 206 of the Clean Air Act requirescertification on a yearly basis. This has beeninterpreted to mean certification for each modelyear, as defined in section 202(b)(3)(A)(i) of theCAA. Section 206 applies to locomotives, pursuantto section 213(d) of the Act.development engine to be used forcertification, rather than requiringtesting of a pre-production prototypelocomotive. Nevertheless, it is the actuallocomotive, not the engine, for which acertificate of conformity would beissued, and the Agency is proposing thatlocomotives, not engines, be testedduring production line and in-usetesting programs. These programs arediscussed later in this notice. The onlyexception to the proposed requirementthat a certificate of conformity be issuedfor locomotives, rather than engines, isin the case of engines which are sold forpurposes of repowering existinglocomotives, as previously discussed.This exception is not proposed to beextended to locomotive engines whichare sold to locomotive manufacturers foruse in freshly manufactured chassis.The Agency is also proposing toprohibit defeat devices which senseoperation outside of the normalcertification test conditions and reducethe ability of the engine to controlemissions under non-test conditions.Finally, EPA is proposing thatmanufacturers and remanufacturers oflocomotives be required to specify arange for adjustable parameters whichcan affect emissions such that thelocomotives will comply with theapplicable standards with theparameters set anywhere within theirspecified range. These provisions arediscussed in the following paragraphs.Under EPA’s current motor vehicleprogram, the certification processincludes an up-front showing ofemissions durability. This is donethrough an emissions durability vehiclewhich is operated more or lesscontinually to accumulate mileagerepresentative of in-use operation. Thus,a motor vehicle’s ability to meet theemission standards throughout itsuseful life is demonstrated as part of theinitial certification process, althoughunder somewhat artificial conditions.With locomotives, which are built tooperate continually and have very longuseful lives, this type of acceleratedusage is not feasible. Such ademonstration would take several yearsto complete, compared to severalmonths for on-highway passenger cars,and could require more than $1 millionin fuel. Thus, including a durabilityshowing in the initial certificationprocess is not appropriate in light of thecost and time involved in making sucha showing. The Agency is, therefore,proposing no durability demonstrationbe required for certification. However, amanufacturer or remanufacturer muststill estimate in-use emissionsdeterioration as part of the certificationprocess (through engineering evaluationor other means), but need not do so byoperating a locomotive for its entireuseful life. Compliance over the fulluseful life will be ensured by theproduction line and in-use testingprograms (discussed in the followingsections), which EPA considersextremely important aspects of theproposed program to control emissionsfrom locomotives. The Agency isconsidering, and requests comment on,whether it should develop optionalassigned deterioration factors based onthe initial results of the in-use testingprogram (discussed later).EPA believes that, in order toaccurately measure locomotiveemissions, the locomotive, not just theengine, should be tested. However, EPArecognizes that the locomotivemanufacturing industry is unusual inthe way it develops new products.Typically, a manufacturer will have asingle engine mounted on adynamometer which may remain therefor years. This development engineserves as a test bed for changes in theengine’s design. Given the relativelysmall volume of locomotives andlocomotive engines manufactured,combined with their very high per-unitcost, the Agency is proposing that as anoption to certification testing of acomplete locomotive, test data from thisdevelopment engine be allowed to besubmitted for certification. This is incontrast to other EPA mobile sourceprograms where a pre-productionprototype engine or vehicle is used togenerate emissions data. As a conditionof certifying a locomotive using datafrom a locomotive engine rather than acomplete locomotive, a manufacturer orremanufacturer must accept liability fora certificate suspension and/or recallaction based on production line or inusetesting of locomotives. Additionally,for engine families which are certifiedusing development engine data, one ofthe first five locomotives manufacturedwill be tested as part of the productionline testing program, which is discussedlater.This development engine would berequired to be tested at power pointswhich correspond to the actual notchesof the locomotive the engine will beused in. In general, the certificationtesting is the only time that EPAproposes that the engine, rather than thelocomotive, could be tested. Forproduction line and in-use testing(discussed next), EPA proposes that theactual locomotives be tested in order toassure that the locomotive engine isbeing operated at conditions thatrepresent those in a locomotive (e.g.,intake air and coolant temperatures,
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:
Page 234 and 235:
Page 236 and 237:
Page 238 and 239: 6330 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No
Page 272 and 273: federal registerTuesdayFebruary 11,
Page 274 and 275: Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 28
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

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?