federal register - U.S. Government Printing Office

6386 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 28 / Tuesday, February 11, 1997 / Proposed RulesEPA believes that a PLT program isnecessary to verify that new locomotivesand new locomotive engines complywith applicable regulations. Thisprogram is especially important giventhat EPA is proposing to allowcertification of freshly manufacturedlocomotives and locomotive enginesbased on data from a developmentengine, rather than a pre-productionprototype locomotive. The Agency isconcerned that testing conditions duringengine testing (percent power atnotches, air and coolant temperatures,etc.) may not accurately reflect actualoperation in a locomotive, resulting inemissions which may not accuratelyreflect actual locomotive emissions. It isfor this reason that EPA is proposingthat one of the first five freshlymanufactured locomotives produced betested as part of the PLT program ifdevelopment engine test data is used forcertification. EPA is proposing differentPLT programs for freshly manufacturedand remanufactured locomotives andlocomotive engines. As discussed in thefollowing paragraphs, the Agency isproposing that the PLT program forfreshly manufactured units be based onactual testing, while the PLT programfor remanufactured units would bebased on an audit of the remanufacture(e.g., assuring that the correct parts areused and they are installed properly),with EPA having the ability to requiretesting if in-use data indicates a possibleproblem with production.Manufacturers of freshlymanufactured locomotives would berequired to demonstrate thatlocomotives randomly selected by themmeet applicable emissions standardsand requirements. All PLT emissionresults and quarterly production figureswould be required to be reportedelectronically to EPA each quarter. EPAwould review PLT data and theprocedures used in acquiring the data toassess the validity andrepresentativeness of eachmanufacturer’s PLT program.The proposed program for freshlymanufactured locomotives assures thatlocomotives from each engine familywill be tested periodically and that theircompliance will be continuouslymonitored. The frequency of testingwould depend on an engine family’sproduction volume, with greatlyreduced testing for small volume enginefamilies, and a cap on the total numberof tests in a given year for larger enginefamilies. In general, testing will beperformed on locomotives. However,manufacturers who only manufacturelocomotive engines can perform PLTtesting on engines provided thoseengines are only used to repowerexisting locomotives. If any enginesproduced by an engine manufacturer areused for locomotives with freshlymanufactured chassis, the Agency canrequire that some PLT testing be doneon a locomotive, rather than allowing allPLT testing to be done on engines.EPA recognizes the need to develop aPLT scheme that does not impose anunreasonable burden on themanufacturers and remanufacturers.While EPA believes that it hasdeveloped a PLT program which takesinto account the circumstances of thisindustry, it also understands thatalternative plans may be developed thatbetter account for the individual needsof a manufacturer or remanufacturer.Thus, provisions are proposed to allowa manufacturer or remanufacturer tosubmit an alternative plan for a PLTprogram, subject to approval of theAdministrator. A manufacturer’spetition to use an alternative planshould address the need for thealternative, and should includejustifications for the number andrepresentativeness of locomotivestested, as well as having specificprovisions regarding what constitutes aPLT failure for an engine family.Under the proposed PLT program,manufacturers would select locomotivesfrom each engine family at a one percentsampling rate for emissions testing. EPAhas the right to reject any locomotivesselected by the manufacturers if itdetermines that such locomotives arenot representative of actual production.Manufacturers and remanufacturerswould be required to conduct testing inaccordance with the applicable federaltesting procedures for locomotives.Tests must be distributed evenlythroughout the model year, to the extentpossible.The required sample size for anengine family would be the lesser of fivetests per year or one percent of projectedannual production. For engine familieswith production of less than 100, aminimum of one test per year per enginefamily would be required. Thesenumbers were chosen to minimize thetesting burden on the manufacturers butstill allow an adequate testing sample todetermine conformity with theapplicable requirements. Manufacturerscould elect to test additionallocomotives. Manufacturers would berequired to submit quarterly reports toEPA summarizing locomotive testresults, test procedures, and events suchas the date, time, and location of eachtest. Quarterly reporting will allow EPAto continually monitor the PLT data,and is consistent with current reportingrequirements in the PLT program of themarine engine regulations and on thevoluntary assembly line test program foron-highway vehicles and engines. If notesting is performed during a quarter, noreport would be required.Under this testing scheme, if alocomotive fails a production line test,the manufacturer would test twoadditional locomotives out of the nextfifteen produced in that engine family inaccordance with the applicable federaltesting procedures for locomotives.When the average of the three testresults, for any pollutant, are greaterthan the applicable duty-cycle, FEL, ornotch standard for any pollutant, themanufacturer fails the PLT for thatengine family. In all cases, individuallocomotives which failed a test in thePLT program would be required to bebrought into compliance.This program is different than theapproach that EPA has traditionallyused for mobile sources, such as onhighwaymotor vehicles and nonroadmarine engines. The more traditionalapproach used for assuring that theengines are produced as designed forother mobile sources is called SelectiveEnforcement Auditing (SEA). In the SEAprogram, EPA audits the emissions ofnew production engines by requiringmanufacturers to test engines pulled offthe production line on short notice. Thisspot checking approach relies largely onthe deterrent effect: The premise is thatmanufacturers would design theirengines and production processes andtake other steps necessary to make suretheir engines are produced as designedand thereby avoid the penaltiesassociated with failing SEA tests, shouldEPA unexpectedly conduct an SEA.In the marine engine SEA program,EPA employs a statistical procedureknown as the Cumulative Sum(CumSum) Procedure that enablesmanufacturers to select engines atappropriate sampling rates for emissiontesting and will determine whetherproduction line engines are complyingon average with emission standards. Foran engine family to experience a failureunder this approach, the CumSumstatistic, which is based on previousemissions test results, must reach anappropriate action limit. Under theproposed PLT program, for a locomotiveengine family to experience a failure,the average of any pollutant for threeconsecutive tests must be greater thanthe applicable standard or FEL. Theprocedure used for marine engines isappropriate for the marine industrywhich has a much higher total annualproduction than the locomotiveindustry. This procedure could provevery burdensome for the locomotiveindustry, so EPA feels it is appropriateto design a production line testing