federal register - U.S. Government Printing Office

6396 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 28 / Tuesday, February 11, 1997 / Proposed RulesA copy of this list is in the docket forthis rulemaking.F.7. Locomotives From Canada andMexicoThis proposal applies to newlocomotives and locomotive engineswhich are sold or introduced intocommerce in the United States. TheAgency is concerned about thepossibility of nonconforminglocomotives from Canada and/or Mexicooperating extensively within the U.S.,under the ownership of either a U.S. orforeign railroad. EPA requests commenton EPA’s legal authority to limit suchactivity. Comments should addresswhether EPA should limit exportexemptions of nonconforminglocomotives, since locomotives used inCanada and Mexico are often producedin the U.S, and whether the Agencywould have the authority to do so. EPAis also seeking to address this issue withthe North American AutomotiveStandards Council by exploring thepotential for Canada and Mexico toadopt the same emissions standards forlocomotives that EPA ultimately adopts.The Agency believes that the mosteffective solution to this potentialproblem would be for the Canadian andMexican governments to adoptcomparable (or identical) standards andother requirements for locomotives.F.8. Aftermarket PartsAs is the case for on-highway vehiclesand engines, there is currently anaftermarket parts market for locomotiveparts. For on-highway vehicles andengines, the Agency currently has a twofoldapproach to assuring thataftermarket parts do not degrade theemissions performance of a certifiedvehicle or engine configuration. First,there is a voluntary aftermarket partscertification procedure contained in 40CFR part 85, subpart V, which allowsaftermarket parts manufacturers tocertify the emissions performance oftheir parts. Second, for those partswhich are not certified under thisvoluntary program the Agency appliesthe principles of EPA Mobile SourceEnforcement Memorandum No. 1A,which outlines the Agency’s position ontampering with respect to the use ofreplacement components on certifiedvehicles and engines. 23 EPA isproposing that this approach toaftermarket parts be extended tolocomotive parts as well, and requestscomment on whether this approach issufficient to assure the proper emissions23 June 25, 1974. Available in the public docketfor this rulemaking. 24 40 CFR 86.094–17performance of locomotives whichutilize aftermarket parts.The Agency is also requestingcomments on whether it shouldestablish provisions that would allowsuppliers of aftermarket parts and partsremanufacturers to sell some emissionrelatedparts for locomotiveremanufacturing without being part of acertified remanufacture kit. Suchprovisions could create an exemptionwhich would allow Class II and Class IIIrailroads to have their locomotivesremanufactured without a certificate ofcompliance, provided that theremanufacture resulted in thelocomotive being returned to apreviously certified configuration. IfEPA were to establish such anallowance, should it limit it based onthe size of the railroad, the size of thesupplier or remanufacturer, or thenumber of such remanufacturesperformed annually? What, if any,reporting and recordkeepingrequirements would be necessary toensure compliance with the provisions?Finally, what would be the economicand environmental impacts of suchprovisions? EPA also requests commenton a streamlined certification programfor modified kits. Such a program wouldallow an entity to apply for a modifiedcertificate which would allow the use ofparts other than those included in acertified kit. Such a certificate wouldonly be granted with the permission ofthe original certificate holder, and theholder of the modified certificate wouldthen assume all liability for locomotivesremanufactured under the modifiedcertificate. EPA requests comment onthis and any other options for thestreamlined certification ofremanufactured locomotives.F.9. Onboard DiagnosticsEPA has recently establishedregulations 24 that require light-dutyvehicles to be equipped with onboarddiagnostic (OBD) systems that indicateto the operator any occurrence ofspecific emission control failures. WhileEPA has not included any suchprovisions in the regulations beingproposed today, it is requestingcomment on the potential and need forsuch diagnostics for locomotives. EPAbelieves that it would be inappropriateto require that such systems beretrofitted to existing locomotives due tothe cost, but that it may be appropriateto require them on freshly manufacturedlocomotives (Tier I and Tier II), whichare expected to have advanced onboardcomputer displays for other purposes.Commenters are encourage to addressthe following issues, as well as anyother relevant issues: (1) The extent towhich easily measured parameters suchas engine exhaust temperature orpressure drop across an air filtercorrelate with emissions performance;(2) the feasibility of monitoring injectiontiming; (3) how such OBD systemsshould be considered with respect torequired maintenance; and (4) the extentto which advanced OBD systems affectthe appropriate frequency of in-usetesting.G. PreemptionEPA is proposing to define throughregulation those state or local standardsor requirements that are preemptedpursuant to section 209(e)(1)(B) of theClean Air Act. Section 209(e) directsEPA to promulgate regulations toimplement that subsection. Toimplement section 209(e), andspecifically section 209(e)(1)(B), it isappropriate for EPA to interpret theseprovisions in light of other provisions inthe statute as well as relevant case lawand circumstances specific tolocomotives. EPA believes thatestablishing regulations to define thescope of preemption under section209(e)(1)(B) and providing EPA’sinterpretation of the statute andimplementing regulation would provideclear guidelines to states, 25 and certaintyto industry. EPA believes that becauseof the interstate nature of locomotivetravel and the fact that regulation oflocomotives is generally national inscope, it is especially important toprovide clarity and certainty to theindustry and states regardingpreemption of state and local emissioncontrol regulation of locomotives.Under the regulations proposed today,states would be preempted fromadopting and enforcing standards orother requirements relating to thecontrol of emissions from newlocomotives and new engines used inlocomotives. The proposed regulationdefines the period of time following themanufacture or remanufacture of alocomotive or engine during whichcertain state controls would beexplicitly preempted under this criteria.This preemption period would bedefined as the useful life plus 25percent. EPA’s rationale for choosingthis preemption period is describedlater in this section.EPA believes that section 209(e)(1)(B)and the regulations proposed todaywould preempt states from adopting inuseregulations relating to the control ofemissions that would be expected to25 The term ‘‘states’’ when used in this sectionincludes both state and local governments.