federal register - U.S. Government Printing Office

6384 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 28 / Tuesday, February 11, 1997 / Proposed Rulespreviously certified by otherremanufacturers. Would there be anybenefit to such emission testing, and ifnot, would it therefore be unreasonableto require it? EPA is concerned,however, that if it were to allow suchcertification, that it would be unfair tothe original certificate holder that wouldhave been required to perform theemission testing. One way to addressthis concern would involve not allowingsuch certification until several yearsafter the original certificate holder hadobtained the certificate; thereby givingthe original certificate holder time torecover its investment. This also raisesan issue of whether EPA would haveauthority under section 206(a) of the Actto refuse to issue a certificate based onthis reason. EPA therefore requestscomment on whether certification ofequivalent kits without testing shouldonly be allowed for kits that wereoriginally certified at least five yearsprevious.As described above, the process ofremanufacturing an existing locomotiveor engine to result in a new locomotiveor engine is unique to the locomotiveindustry, and is not common practicefor other mobile sources. Pursuant tosection 213(d), EPA has discretion tomodify its regulations implementingsections 206 and 207 of the CAA as theAgency determines is appropriate forlocomotives. EPA has analyzed thecurrent industry practice ofremanufacturing existing locomotivesand engines, as well as the technicalaspects of remanufacturing, and isconsidering an approach to certificationof remanufactured locomotives andengines under which the entity thatowns the locomotive or engine beingremanufactured (generally a railroadcompany) would be primarilyresponsible for meeting the obligationsof the manufacturer of such locomotiveor engine to meet the Tier 0 standards.As stated above, a railroad companythat hires another entity to install aremanufacturing kit according to therailroad’s specifications can beconsidered to be engaged in themanufacturing or assembling of theresulting new locomotive or engine, ascan the entity hired to install the kit. Insuch a case, both the railroad and theinstaller would be subject to theobligations and prohibitions that applyto manufacturers of new vehicles andengines. To simplify the certificationand enforcement process, EPA isconsidering specifying by regulationthat the owner of the locomotive orengine being remanufactured shall beconsidered the primary manufacturer ofthe remanufactured locomotive orengine, and, as such, shall be the entitythat EPA will look to for compliancewith certification and enforcementrequirements relating to itsremanufactured locomotives andengines. EPA believes that it isappropriate to specify the owner of theremanufactured locomotive or engine asthe primary manufacturer, rather thanthe installer of the kit, because theformer entity has the greatest degree ofcontrol over the manner in which theexisting locomotive or engine isremanufactured; the railroad providesthe specifications that theremanufactured engine must meet andmaintains ownership of the locomotive,or physical control in the case of aleased locomotive. The installer simplyfollows the directions provided by theowner; while installation of theremanufacturing kit renders the installera manufacturer of a new locomotive orengine under the CAA definition, EPAwould not expect to seek recourseagainst the installer as the manufacturerof the remanufactured locomotive orengine (nor against any other entitiesthat meet the definition of amanufacturer) unless the owner of suchengine failed to meet its obligations asa manufacturer. However, if the primarymanufacturer failed to meet certainrequirements, such as failing to obtain acertificate prior to introducing theremanufactured engine into commerce,then all parties who meet the definitionof manufacturer, with regard to suchengines would be considered to be inviolation of section 203(a)(1) of the Act,not just the primary manufacturer.EPA believes that such an approachcould potentially have much less impacton the existing markets for parts andremanufacturing for these locomotives.EPA also believes that such an approachwould ensure compliance with theproposed emission standards equivalentto that of the proposed remanufacturerbased certification process previouslydiscussed. EPA is concerned, however,that there could be unforeseen problemsassociated with attempting to establisha program that is fundamentallydifferent from all other mobile sourceprograms. The Agency does not believethat there is the same potential fornegative market impacts for theremanufacture of locomotives originallybuilt after the effective date of this ruledue to the fact that those locomotiveswould slowly be introduced into thefleet, and thus the remanufacturingmarket for them would develop slowlyas they aged. Nonetheless, EPA alsorequests comments on whether arailroad-based certification programshould be established for theremanufacture of Tier I and Tier IIlocomotives.Under the railroad-based certificationprogram being considered, thecertification requirements would belargely the same as those that are beingproposed under the remanufacturerbased certification approach.Locomotives and locomotive engineswould still be grouped together inengine families, certification test datawould still be required from arepresentative worst-case configuration,and small numbers of locomotiveswould still be audited on the productionline and tested in-use. The maindifference would be that the railroadswould be primarily responsible forsubmitting an application forcertification and conducting all of theproduction line auditing and in-usetesting, and would be liable for theemissions performance.Under this approach, railroads wouldbe allowed to purchase kits frommanufacturers, or any other suppliers,that could be applied to engines duringremanufacture to achieve the necessaryemissions reductions. Railroads wouldalso be allowed to use emissions testdata collected by a kit supplier forcertification. Moreover, the railroadscould even make commercialarrangements to hold the kit supplierliable for in-use emission problems.Thus, the railroads could choose tocertify in a manner that would bepractically very similar to the manner inwhich it would be handled under theremanufacturer-based approach that isbeing proposed. Also, the smallestrailroads would still be able to beexempted from the proposedcompliance requirements, as discussedlater in the railroad requirementssection.EPA is also proposing to reduce thereporting burden associated with theapplication for certification. EPAbelieves that it is appropriate to requiremanufacturers and remanufacturers tocollect and maintain certificationapplication information, but that itshould not be necessary for them tosubmit this information in all casesunless specifically requested. Theauthority, as proposed, to modify whatinformation must actually be submittedversus maintained will allow EPA toexercise some flexibility in designingand implementing the certificationprocess for locomotives and locomotiveengines. When the Agency exercises itsauthority to modify the informationsubmission requirements, it willprovide manufacturers andremanufacturers with a guidancedocument, similar to the manufacturerguidance issued under the on-highway