federal register - U.S. Government Printing Office

Recommendations

Info

Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 28 / Tuesday, February 11, 1997 / Proposed Rules6399Given the unique circumstances of thisindustry, especially the extent to whichrailroads can influence locomotivedesign, EPA expects that manufacturersof new locomotives would be compelledby their customers to design andproduce their locomotives to complywith any state in-use emissionsstandards, amounting to a control onemissions from new locomotives. Inmaking this determination, the Agencyconsidered potential state in-use testingprograms in three groups: (1) Thosewhich would hold locomotives tostandards other than the federalstandards; (2) those which would holdlocomotives to the same numericalstandards, but used different testprocedures; and (3) those which wouldreplicate the federal in-use testingprogram.Under the proposed approach, stateswould be preempted from adopting anyemissions standards for in-uselocomotives. Since there is little that alocomotive operator can do to reduceemissions from in-use locomotiveengines, the action needed to complywith an in-use emission standard wouldin effect need to be taken by themanufacturer or remanufacturer of theengine. Any meaningful attempt by astate to achieve emission reductionsthrough in-use emission standardswould be expected to require someactions to comply. As described above,this would necessarily affect themanufacturers and/or remanufacturers.This would apply to all state testprograms designed to enforce anynonfederal standards, and would alsohold true for state test programs usingnonfederal test procedures, since bothwould have the practical effect ofimpacting locomotive design.However, EPA is not sure whetherstates are preempted from adopting anin-use test program to enforce thefederal standards. A duplicative stateprogram would increase the totalnumber of in-use locomotive emissiontests conducted each year; the greaterthe number of states that adopt such aprogram, the greater the number of inusetests. Given the relatively smallnumber of new engines produced eachyear, and the small total number of inuselocomotives, the proliferation ofsuch duplicative programs couldeffectively require manufacturers toinclude larger compliance margins inthe design of their engines to deal withthis unknown risk. This is becausemanufacturers recognize that, givenmanufacturing, facility, product and testvariability, measured emissions willvary from locomotive to locomotive andthere will always be a nonzeroprobability of in-use failure. However,the more testing that is conducted, thegreater likelihood that at least onefailure would be identified. In responseto this probability and the customers’desire that no failures occur in use,manufacturers might feel compelled todesign their locomotives such that theaverage emissions rate is far enoughbelow the level of the standard that therisk of their locomotives failing an inusetest program approaches zero. Thiscould affect the original locomotiveengine design because achieving loweraverage levels means that loweremission targets are necessary.Nevertheless, EPA is not sure that thesearguments justify a categoricalpreemption of state testing oflocomotives in-use using the federal testprocedure. EPA requests comment onthis position.Based on the limited ability ofoperators to reduce emissions, therelationship between operators and newlocomotive manufacturers orremanufacturers, the expectation thatstates would only adopt in-use emissionstandards that would require additionalreductions, and the potential impact ofin-use testing on interstate commerce,EPA believes that nonfederal state inusetesting programs should bepreempted as they would amount toemission standards for the manufactureror remanufacturer of new locomotiveengines. This combination of factorsappears unique to this industry, andEPA would not expect the samepreemption result to apply under othercircumstances. The Agency continues tobelieve that state in-use testingprograms for motor vehicles and othernonroad engines, including inspectionand maintenance (I/M) programs, arenot preempted under the Act.This discussion of state controls thatwould be preempted under theregulation proposed today is notintended to be exclusive. Any statecontrol that would affect how amanufacturer designs or produces new(including remanufactured) locomotivesor locomotive engines would bepreempted. EPA believes that section209(e)(1)(B) and the regulationsproposed today should be interpretedbroadly in this context, in recognition ofthe unique circumstances affecting thisindustry as described above, includingthe impact on interstate commerce ofstate emissions controls on locomotives.EPA believes this is consistent with thetext of section 209(e)(1)(B), thelegislative history, and the applicablecase law. The Agency believes that anystate control within the specificcategories described above would act asan emission standard or requirement fornew locomotives or engines and shouldbe preempted. EPA invites comment onthis view, including whether regulatoryprovisions should be included to allowstates to show that a specific controldoes not affect how a manufacturer orremanufacturer designs a newlocomotive or engine, and wouldtherefore not be preempted.It is important to note that certaincategories of potential staterequirements would also be prohibitedunder the proposed regulations becausethey would require operators to makeadjustments to a locomotive that wouldconstitute tampering under the Act andthe proposed regulations. Under section203(a)(3) of the Act, tampering includesactions that can reasonably be expectedto contribute to an increase in emissionsof a regulated pollutant. For example, astate requirement to alter the fuelinjection system or air intake system ofa locomotive to achieve NO X reductionsis likely to cause increased PM andsmoke emissions. Therefore, it is highlylikely that a railroad operator could notcomply with the state requirementwithout making an adjustment to itslocomotive that can reasonably beexpected to result in an increase inemissions of a regulated pollutant, andwould therefore be violating the federalprohibition against tampering. In suchcases where it would be impossible tocomply with the state requirementwithout violating a federal prohibition,the federal law would preempt the statelaw. For this reason, such staterequirements would be prohibitedunder the proposed national rule.VI. Emission Reduction TechnologyThis rulemaking will be the first timelocomotives and locomotive engineshave been subject to EPA regulation forthe pollutants of HC, CO, NO X, PM andsmoke. Much of this discussion of theemission reduction technologies isbased on EPA’s experience regulatingsimilar but smaller diesel engines usedin highway trucks since the 1970’s.While many of the emission controltechnologies for highway trucks areapplicable to locomotives andlocomotive engines, the design andoperation of locomotives andlocomotive engines may preclude theeffective use of some of thesetechnologies. The following paragraphsdiscuss the emission control strategiesthat EPA believes are likely to beavailable to comply with today’sproposed standards. These emissioncontrol strategies are consideredseparately for the three levels ofproposed standards (i.e., Tier 0, Tier Iand Tier II standards).Technologies EPA believes could beused to comply with the proposed
6400 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 28 / Tuesday, February 11, 1997 / Proposed Rulesemission standards are listed in TableVI–1. As is discussed below, EPA hasestimated which of these technologiesare most likely to be employed bymanufacturers and remanufacturers tomeet today’s proposed standards. Theseestimates are for purposes of calculatingcost-effectiveness and appropriate levelsof control only; they are not mandatedcontrol strategies. EPA developed theseestimates based on its past experiencewith on-highway diesel engines, as wellas numerous discussions withmanufacturers and railroads. Anextended discussion of thesetechnologies and their potential toreduce emissions from locomotives isincluded in the RSD.TABLE VI 1.—EMISSION REDUCTION TECHNOLOGIESNO X Reduction StrategiesAir Handling ..............................................................................................Fuel Delivery Systems ..............................................................................Electronic Control Systems ......................................................................Combustion chamber design ....................................................................Aftertreatment ...........................................................................................Turbocharging.Air to liquid charge air cooling.Air to air charge air cooling.Turbo compounding.Exhaust Gas Recirculation (EGR).Compression Ratio, Closed crankcase.Injection pressure and Nozzle Design.Reoptimized injection timing.Increased injection rate.Injection rate shaping.Electronic controls.Geometry, swirl.Reduction catalyst.Chemical Addition.Combustion chamber design ....................................................................Fuel delivery Systems ..............................................................................Aftertreatment ...........................................................................................Smoke Control ..........................................................................................Lubricants .................................................................................................PM and Smoke Reduction Strategies 1Increased swirl.Reduced crevice volume.Ceramic materials.Increased injection pressure.Limit sac volume.Trap or catalytic oxidizer.Limiter on rate of increase of fueling.Synthetic oils.Reduction in engine oil consumption.1 Most technologies that reduce particulate emissions will also reduce HC, CO and smoke to some extent.A. Tier 0 StandardsEPA expects that locomotivescurrently equipped with turbochargedengines will most likely employimproved fuel injection, enhancedcharge air cooling, and to some extentretarding of injection timing to reduceNO X emissions to below the level of theproposed standards. (Note: the proposedTier 0 standards would not requireemission reductions in HC, CO, or PMcompared to current, uncontrolledlevels. The Tier 0 standards for HC, COand PM are essentially caps to preventlarge increases in those emissionscompared to current levels.) Wherepractical and cost-effective, some of thepre-2000 locomotives may be equippedwith electronic controls as a means ofavoiding a loss in fuel efficiencyresulting from injection timing retard.Improved fuel injection is expected toinclude injection rate changes,modifications to the spray patterns, anda reduction in injector sac volume.There may also be some smallmodifications to the piston design.Additionally, some models may requireenhanced smoke controls to limit smokeduring increases in engine power. In thecase of naturally aspirated engines,modified/improved fuel injection andsome retarding of injection timing areexpected to be the control strategies ofchoice. The addition of electroniccontrols may also be employed.B. Tier I StandardsThe proposed Tier I emissionstandards will require an approximately48 percent reduction in NO X emissionsfrom current levels, and may requiresome small reductions in HC, CO, andPM emissions (actual reductions willdepend upon the size of the compliancemargins that manufacturers choose toinclude in their designs). Theselocomotives can be expected toincorporate the technologies as outlinedabove for the Tier 0 standards, inconjunction with or superseded by thefollowing additional technologies.Engine combustion temperatures willneed to be reduced further; additionalimprovements in charge air cooling cantherefore be expected. This couldrequire a charge air cooling systemusing a separate coolant as the coolingmedium. To achieve additionalreductions, engine manufacturers areexpected to employ a comprehensiveemission management system consistingof optimized engine fuel injectionstrategies through electronic controls.Changes in the configuration of thecombustion chamber and piston ringlocation may begin to appear in enginescomplying with the Tier I standards.C. Tier II StandardsThe proposed Tier II emissionstandards will require more than a 60percent reduction in NO X emissions and50 percent reduction in PM and HCemissions from current levels, withsmaller, but significant, reductions inCO emissions. EPA’s current estimate ofthe technologies that will be used tocomply with these emission standardsincludes continued improvement incharge air cooling, fuel management(including the introduction of ‘‘rateshaping’’), and combustion chamberconfiguration, in conjunction with anoptimized electronic control system. Itis uncertain, at this time, whether someform of exhaust gas recirculation (EGR)or reduced oil consumption will also benecessary.EPA requests comment on itsviewpoints and expectations expressedin this section. Commenters areencouraged to direct their commentstoward a description of the technologiesthey believe would be necessary to meetthe standards discussed above.Commenters should address issues offeasibility, durability and costs of thetechnologies they believe will berequired.
Page 2 and 3:
IIFederal Register / Vol. 62, No. 2
Page 4 and 5:
IVFederal Register / Vol. 62, No. 2
Page 6 and 7:
VIFederal Register / Vol. 62, No. 2
Page 8 and 9:
6099Rules and RegulationsFederal Re
Page 12 and 13:
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 28
Page 14 and 15:
Page 16 and 17:
Page 18 and 19:
Page 20 and 21:
Page 22 and 23:
Page 24 and 25:
Page 26 and 27:
Page 28 and 29:
Page 30 and 31:
Page 32 and 33:
Page 34 and 35:
Page 36 and 37:
Page 38 and 39:
Page 40 and 41:
Page 42 and 43:
Page 44 and 45:
Page 46 and 47:
Page 48 and 49:
Page 50 and 51:
Page 52 and 53:
Page 54 and 55:
Page 56 and 57:
Page 58 and 59:
Page 60 and 61:
Page 62 and 63:
Page 64 and 65:
Page 66 and 67:
Page 68 and 69:
Page 70 and 71:
Page 72 and 73:
Page 74 and 75:
Page 76 and 77:
Page 78 and 79:
Page 80 and 81:
Page 82 and 83:
Page 84 and 85:
Page 86 and 87:
Page 88 and 89:
Page 90 and 91:
Page 92 and 93:
Page 94 and 95:
Page 96 and 97:
Page 98 and 99:
Page 100 and 101:
Page 102 and 103:
Page 104 and 105:
Page 106 and 107:
Page 108 and 109:
Page 110 and 111:
Page 112 and 113:
Page 114 and 115:
Page 116 and 117:
Page 118 and 119:
Page 120 and 121:
Page 122 and 123:
Page 124 and 125:
Page 126 and 127:
Page 128 and 129:
Page 130 and 131:
Page 132 and 133:
Page 134 and 135:
Page 136 and 137:
Page 138 and 139:
Page 140 and 141:
Page 142 and 143:
Page 144 and 145:
Page 146 and 147:
Page 148 and 149:
Page 150 and 151:
Page 152 and 153:
Page 154 and 155:
Page 156 and 157:
Page 158 and 159:
Page 160 and 161:
Page 162 and 163:
Page 164 and 165:
Page 166 and 167:
Page 168 and 169:
Page 170 and 171:
Page 172 and 173:
Page 174 and 175:
Page 176 and 177:
Page 178 and 179:
Page 180 and 181:
Page 182 and 183:
Page 184 and 185:
Page 186 and 187:
Page 188 and 189:
Page 190 and 191:
Page 192 and 193:
Page 194 and 195:
Page 196 and 197:
Page 198 and 199:
Page 200 and 201:
Page 202 and 203:
Page 204 and 205:
Page 206 and 207:
Page 208 and 209:
Page 210 and 211:
Page 212 and 213:
Page 214 and 215:
Page 216 and 217:
6308 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No
Page 218 and 219:
Page 220 and 221:
Page 222 and 223:
Page 224 and 225:
Page 226 and 227:
Page 228 and 229:
Page 230 and 231:
Page 232 and 233:
Page 234 and 235:
Page 236 and 237:
Page 238 and 239:
Page 240 and 241:
Page 242 and 243:
Page 244 and 245:
Page 246 and 247:
Page 248 and 249:
Page 250 and 251:
Page 252 and 253:
Page 254 and 255:
Page 256 and 257: 6348 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No
Page 272 and 273: federal registerTuesdayFebruary 11,
Page 274 and 275: Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 28
Page 350 and 351: iiFederal Register / Vol. 62, No. 2
Page 352: ivFederal Register / Vol. 62, No. 2
show all

federal register - U.S. Government Printing Office

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?