federal register - U.S. Government Printing Office

6390 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 28 / Tuesday, February 11, 1997 / Proposed Rulesalternatives must produce a compliancescheme that provides EPA with anenforceable program which providessubstantial incentive to manufacturersand remanufacturers to produce clean,durable locomotives.EPA envisions the second majorcomponent of the proposed in-usecompliance program, the railroad in-usetest program, as a screening programwhereby relatively large numbers oflocomotives would be tested. Section114 of the Act provides EPA authorityto collect information, require records tobe kept, and inspect and monitoremissions. Pursuant to its authorityunder this provision, EPA proposes anin-use testing program that applies tocertain owners and operators oflocomotives covered by the proposedemissions standards. Section 114 states,in relevant part, that, for the purposesof ‘‘carrying out any provisions of (theAct),’’ EPA may require any person whoowns or operates any emission source toestablish and maintain records, sampleemissions (according to specificationsprescribed by the Administrator), and toprovide ‘‘such other information as theAdministrator may reasonablyrequire.’’ 16The proposed in-use testing programis necessary to ensure that locomotiveswill remain in reasonable compliancewith emissions standards during theperiod of preemption beyond theiruseful lives in order to ensure that theiremissions do not significantly increaseduring such period of preemption, whencertain state standards would beprohibited. Railroad operators areclearly owners or operators of anemissions source, and therefore,pursuant to section 114, EPA hasauthority to require railroad operators tosample the emissions from theirlocomotives, to report the results ofsuch testing to EPA, and to provideother information that can be reasonablyrequired. In addition to providingauthority to require such in-use testing,section 114 explicitly authorizes EPA torequire that such testing be performedaccording to ‘‘such procedures ormethods, at such locations, at suchinterval, during such periods and insuch manner as the Administrator shallprescribe.’’ EPA solicits public commenton its authority to require railroadoperators to conduct in-use testingaccording to the requirements specifiedbelow.16 An exemption from Section 114 authority isprovided for carrying out provisions of Title II ofthe CAA with respect to manufacturers of newmotor vehicles and new motor vehicles engines.The proposed in-use testing program would notimpose any testing requirements on suchmanufacturers.This railroad operator in-use testingprogram would be intended to evaluatethe emissions performance oflocomotives which have reached orexceeded their useful lives, as definedby federal regulations. The proposedrailroad in-use testing program wouldapply at the end of useful life, where themanufacturer/remanufacturer in-usetesting program leaves off. The data willserve to indirectly evaluate emissionsperformance at the end of useful life aswell as provide information aboutemissions during the time period forwhich many state standards orrequirements would be preemptedbecause of their expected effect on howmanufacturers and remanufacturersdesign new locomotives and newlocomotive engines. The tests would becarried out on 10 percent of Class Irailroad locomotives which havereached the end of their full useful liveseach year. The number of tests a givenrailroad would have to perform for agiven year would be determined basedon the number of locomotives thatrailroad has that have reached the endof their useful lives at the beginning ofthat year. However, the actuallocomotives tested would be randomlyselected throughout the year from anythat have reached the end of their usefullives, not necessarily only from thosethat were counted at the beginning ofthe year to determine the number oftests required (i.e., they could includelocomotives which reached the end oftheir useful lives during that year). EPAproposes that it have the authority tolower the number of tests required if thetesting costs are substantially higherthan EPA estimates or if the testingshows that in-use locomotives haveconsistently good emissionsperformance beyond their useful lives.Testing is proposed to be limited toClass I railroads because they operatemost of the locomotives, and the coststo smaller railroads of conducting in-usetests would be very high and wouldlikely provide information that merelyduplicates that received from Class Irailroads.The locomotives tested would berandomly selected by the railroads, andthe tests could be performed inconjunction with a Federal RailroadAdministration inspection in order tominimize downtime. Testing of anylocomotive will not take place until ithas reached the end of its useful life.This is because the manufacturer andremanufacturer in-use testing programwould provide for testing in-uselocomotives up to the end of useful life.The testing, to be performed at allnotches, would be done using fieldquality measurement equipment. NO X,CO, CO 2 and HC concentrations areproposed to be measured, as well assmoke opacity. These concentrationswill be compared to the concentrationsmeasured during certification testing.EPA recognizes that effective HCmeasurement of diesel engine exhaustrequires a heated flame ionizationdetector (HFID) as opposed to astandard, or unheated FID. Such unitsare more expensive and more difficult tomaintain than unheated FIDs, makingthem less suitable for use as fieldquality equipment. The Agency isrequesting comment on whether therequirement to use an HFID isproblematic, and whether therequirement for HC measurementshould therefore be dropped. If so,would this compromise theeffectiveness of the in-use short test?The Agency proposes that therailroads be required to submit quarterlyreports summarizing all emissionstesting performed. If a particular enginefamily had consistent problems in allthe railroads’ fleets then it would likelybe considered a problem with the designor manufacture of the locomotives.Since the engines tested under thisproposed program would be past theiruseful lives, no direct enforcementaction could be taken against themanufacturer or remanufacturer in theevent of a failure. However, EPA coulduse this information to target enginefamilies to be tested in themanufacturer/remanufacturer in-usetesting program. If the failures werelimited to one railroad’s fleet then itwould suggest the possibility oftampering or malmaintenance, whichcould be enforceable under thetampering prohibition, discussed laterin this notice.The Agency is considering, as anoption, an alternative in-use testprogram proposed by the railroads.Under this option, the railroads wouldperform testing using the full FTP (withthe exception of PM measurement)instead of the test procedure describedabove. However, tests would beperformed at a much lower samplingrate (e.g., one percent) than the tenpercent the Agency is proposing. EPArequests comment on this alternative inusetesting scheme. EPA also requestscomment on a second alternativewhereby a smoke test would be usedwith the number of locomotives testedbeing much greater than the ten percentin the proposed railroad in-use testingprogram. EPA specifically requestscomment on a program in which theAgency would require that everylocomotive covered by today’s proposedstandards be tested annually by its