federal register - U.S. Government Printing Office

Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 28 / Tuesday, February 11, 1997 / Proposed Rules6389A manufacturer or remanufacturercould test more locomotives than theminimum above or could concede thatthe engine family failed to comply withapplicable standards before reachinglocomotive number 10. EPA wouldconsider failure rates, average emissionlevels, and the existence of any defectsin tested locomotives, among otherthings in determining whether to pursueremedial action. EPA may order a recallbefore testing reaches the maximumnumber of locomotives.In EPA’s motor vehicle complianceprogram, EPA determines the schedulefor testing engine families and conductsthe testing itself. EPA recognizes that itwould reduce the burden of testing toafford maximum flexibility indetermining the test schedules for inusetesting programs to locomotivemanufacturers and remanufacturers sothat such programs could becoordinated with the schedules of therailroads whose locomotives are to betested (e.g., schedules for maintenanceand safety inspections). For this reason,EPA is proposing to allowmanufacturers and remanufacturers toset their own schedule for in-use testing.However, EPA could require that in-usetests be distributed throughout the yearin order to prevent all testing for theyear from being performed at timeswhen the weather is most favorable forlow emissions results.The Agency recognizes thatlocomotive manufacturers andremanufacturers may have difficultyprocuring locomotives for in-use testingdue to the fact that they are in revenuegeneratingservice. Therefore, EPA isproposing to allow manufacturers andremanufacturers twelve months after thereceipt of testing notification tocomplete the testing of an engine family.(Testing by the Agency of an enginefamily in the motor vehicle program isusually completed within a three-monthperiod.) The Agency believes thatproviding manufacturers andremanufacturers with twelve months tocomplete this testing provides themsignificant flexibility in conductingtheir test programs and adequatelyaddresses any difficulties which wouldarise during the locomotiveprocurement and testing, and requestscomment on this provision.Furthermore, the Agency is willing toconsider extensions to this requirementwhen the manufacturers orremanufacturers present circumstanceswhich warrant such extensions.Test locomotives would be required tobe randomly selected and to have amaintenance and use historyrepresentative of a properly maintainedand operated locomotive. To complywith this requirement a manufacturer orremanufacturer would question the enduser regarding the accumulated usage,maintenance and operating conditionsof the test locomotive. Manufacturers orremanufacturers could, with EPAapproval, delete locomotives from theirtest sample and replace them withothers if they could document abuse ormalmaintenance that might significantlyaffect emissions durability. Themanufacturer or remanufacturer woulddocument reasons for deletion in its testreport to EPA. The manufacturer orremanufacturer may perform minimalmaintenance on a test locomotive. Onevalid emission test conducted under thefederal test procedure established forlocomotives would be required for eachselected locomotive.EPA is proposing to requirelocomotive manufacturers andremanufacturers to submit to theAdministrator, within three months ofcompletion of testing, all emissiontesting results generated from the in-usetesting program. EPA envisions thatmanufacturers and remanufacturers willsimply provide quarterly statements ofall emission results obtained during theprevious quarter, including a summarytable of any engine family that hascompleted testing during that quarter.At the Administrator’s request, amanufacturer or remanufacturer wouldbe required to provide documents usedin the locomotive procurement process,including criteria used in theprocurement screening process andinformation from the end user(s) relatedto use and maintenance of the selectedlocomotives, and information aboutlocomotives, if any, that were deletedfrom the program.If an in-use nonconformity is found tooccur in an engine family, EPA willwork with the manufacturer orremanufacturer to implement a remedialaction on a voluntary basis. If themanufacturer or remanufacturer doesnot implement a remedial action, theAdministrator may order one pursuantto section 207(c) of the Act. Under thissection, as applied to locomotivesaccording to section 213(d), theAdministrator has authority to requiremanufacturers or remanufacturers tosubmit a plan to remedy applicablelocomotives or locomotive engines ifEPA determines that a substantialnumber of a class or category ofproperly maintained and usedlocomotives or locomotive engines donot conform with the requirementsprescribed under section 213 of the Act.Other requirements applicable in theevent of a determination under section207(c) of the Act include submittal ofthe manufacturer’s remedial plan forEPA approval, procedures fornotification of locomotive owners,submittal of quarterly reports on theprogress of the recall campaign, andprocedures to be followed in the eventthat the manufacturer requests a publichearing to contest the Administrator’sfinding of nonconformity. If adetermination of nonconformity withthe requirements of section 207(c) of theAct is made, the manufacturer orremanufacturer would not have theoption of an alternate remedial action,and an actual recall would be required.EPA requests comment regarding thecircumstances under which alternativesto conventional recall should beconsidered as a voluntary action, priorto EPA making the formal determinationof nonconformity. EPA contemplatesthat recall of locomotives will be theprimary method for addressing in-usenonconformities. However, the Agencyrecognizes that in some cases, the actualrecall and repair of locomotives couldimpose severe financial hardship on amanufacturer or remanufacturer if thenecessary repair was extremely complexand expensive, and could also impactrailroads when locomotives are requiredto be taken out of service for thoserepairs. In such cases, and assumingthat the Administrator had not yetrendered a determination ofnonconformity, alternatives totraditional recall would be stronglyconsidered. These alternatives would berequired to have the same or greaterenvironmental benefit as conventionalrecall and to provide equivalentincentives to manufacturers andremanufacturers to produce locomotiveswhich durably and reliably controlemissions. EPA requests comment onhow manufacturers or remanufacturerswho have repeated nonconformitiesshould be handled as compared to thosewho have only occasionalnonconformities. The Agency invitescomment on the factors the Agencyshould consider in evaluating proposedalternatives.EPA recognizes the need to develop atesting program to provide assurancethat in-use locomotives are meetingemissions standards while taking intoaccount the burden of in-use testing onrailroads and locomotive manufacturersand remanufacturers. EPA requestscomments on its proposed in-use testingprogram as well as specific proposals forin-use locomotive test schemes that willaddress the concerns described above,and possible alternative designs for inusetesting programs (such asindependent third party testing paid forby manufacturers and/orremanufacturers) or other effectiveenforcement mechanisms. However, any