federal register - U.S. Government Printing Office

Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 28 / Tuesday, February 11, 1997 / Proposed Rules6393entering the cylinder be the same as ina locomotive in use (within a reasonabletolerance limit).D.3. Short Test for LocomotivesThe Agency is also proposing a shorttest to be used by the railroads for inusetesting. This test procedure wouldbe similar to the FTP test, but would notrequire measurement of the fuel flowrate and engine power output (whichrequire mechanical work on thelocomotive), or particulate emissions(which requires a fairly expensivesampling system). Also, less preciseanalytical equipment would be allowed.These allowances are all included tominimize testing time and cost. This testwould not allow direct calculation ofthe mass emission rates, but rather,would be limited to measurement ofconcentrations which would becompared to concentrationmeasurements made during certificationtesting. If the fuel flow rate and poweroutput of the engine are both assumedto be the same as measured atcertification, however, approximatemass emission rates could bedetermined.E. Railroad RequirementsHistorically, EPA has not adoptedspecific federal requirements for endusers of regulated mobile source enginesand vehicles. However, there are somefactors unique to the railroad industryand to the proposed regulation oflocomotives that require the railroads totake a more active role in assuringcompliance with today’s proposedstandards. These characteristics includethe proposed broad preemption of stateregulation, the industry practice ofperiodically remanufacturinglocomotives and the proposed definitionof such locomotives as new, and theunique relationship between thelocomotive manufacturers and therailroads.As discussed in the section oncompliance, EPA is proposing two inusetesting programs for locomotives:one conducted by manufacturers andremanufacturers, and another conductedby railroads. For the first program,manufacturers and remanufacturerswould need to obtain test locomotivesfrom the railroads. EPA expects that therailroads will cooperate with themanufacturers in order to providelocomotives for this testing. The Agencyrecognizes that the railroads have astrong financial interest in keeping theirlocomotives in revenue service andminimizing scheduling disruptions, andthat this could make it difficult formanufacturers to procure locomotivesfor in-use testing. Thus, as wasmentioned in the in-use testing programdiscussion, EPA is proposing arelatively long period of time in whichthe in-use testing can be done, as wellas a fairly small number of locomotivesrequired to be tested, in order tominimize such disruptions. EPA expectsthe railroads to provide reasonableassistance to the manufacturers andremanufacturers in support of the in-usetesting program. However, if amanufacturer or remanufacturer isunable to obtain a sufficient number oflocomotives for testing, the Agency mayrequire that the railroads do the testingthemselves, under the authority ofsection 114 of the Act. In the secondprogram, the railroads will be requiredto conduct their own in-use testing, asdiscussed above in the section on in-usetesting programs.EPA is proposing additionalprovisions to avoid unnecessaryburdens on smaller railroads. First, thein-use testing requirement would applyonly to Class I railroads. The potentialbenefits of obtaining extensive in-usetest data from non-Class I railroads donot justify the costs that would beincurred if each railroad was required tomaintain an emissions testing facility,especially in light of the fact that theinformation provided by the non-Class Irailroads would be duplicative of thatprovided by the Class I railroads. EPAis also proposing to exempt the smallestrailroads (as defined later in theparagraph) from compliance with theTier 0 standards for locomotives thathave never been brought intocompliance. More specifically, theserailroads would be allowed to rebuildtheir existing locomotives andlocomotives that they purchased afterthe effective date of the Tier 0 standardsaccording to their current practice,provided such locomotives were notoriginally manufactured or previouslyremanufactured to comply with federalemission standards. This exemptionwould allow these railroads to avoid thecosts of converting a pre-existing,noncomplying locomotive into onewhich complies with the Tier 0standards. All locomotives alreadycertified to the Tier 0 standards, eitherby that railroad or a previous owner,would be required to remain incompliance with EPA regulations eachsubsequent time that they areremanufactured, since this would bemuch less expensive than converting anoncomplying locomotive into onewhich complies with the Tier 0standards. As is discussed in the RSD,the cost of remanufacturing alocomotive so that it complies with theTier 0 standards is much greater the firsttime it is brought into compliance ascompared to subsequent remanufacturesdue to the one-time costs associatedwith the installation of such things ascharge air cooling systems. The Agencybelieves that such an exemption isappropriate since the emissions impactof such an exemption would beminimal. As discussed in the RSD, suchan exemption would likely amount toless than one percent of emissionsinitially, and would decrease andeventually disappear as the fleet turnsover to Tier I and Tier II locomotives.EPA is proposing that this exemptionwould be limited to railroads that have500 or fewer employees and are notowned by companies that the SmallBusiness Administration would notclassify as small businesses, andrequests comments as to whether thiscriteria is appropriate, and whethersome other criterion, such as annualrevenue, should be used. The Agencyrequests comment on how it shouldtreat holding companies which ownsmall railroads with respect to thisexemption. All railroads takingadvantage of this exemption would alsobe exempted from the reportingrequirements listed above. The Agencyrequests comment on how suchexempted locomotives should be treatedwith respect to the preemption ofcertain state standards or requirements,as discussed later in the preemptionsection.EPA is proposing that any locomotiveoperator that knowingly fails to properlymaintain (as defined by EPA at the timeof certification) a locomotive subject tothis regulation would be subject to civilpenalties for tampering. EPA isproposing that locomotive operatorsshould be required to perform aminimum amount of maintenancespecified by manufacturers andremanufacturers for components thatcritically affect emissions performance.EPA is proposing to limit the frequencyand type of maintenance that could berequired by manufacturers andremanufacturers, and to make suchrequirements subject to theAdministrator’s approval. Examples ofthe type of maintenance that could berequired are replacement of fuelinjectors and air filters, and cleaning ofturbochargers. The Agency believes thatthis requirement is appropriate giventhe high standards of maintenance andrepair observed in the railroad industry,the reasonable expectation bylocomotive manufacturers andremanufacturers that this maintenancewill be done, and the importance ofsuch maintenance for ensuring properemissions performance.