*Office of the Executive Officer\
909-396-2100*

August 27, 2004

U.S. EPA Docket Center (Air Docket)

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.

Mail Code: 6102T

Washington, DC 20460

Via fax to (202) 260-4400

Via e-mail to locomarine@EPA.gov

Attention: Docket #OAR 2003-0190

> Re: Comments of South Coast Air Quality Management District regarding
> *Advanced Notice of Proposed Rulemaking: Control of Emissions of Air
> Pollution from New Locomotive Engines and New Marine
> Compression-Ignition Engines Less Than 30 Liters per Cylinder*

The South Coast Air Quality Management District ("SCAQMD") staff
appreciates the opportunity to submit comments regarding the *Advanced
Notice of Proposed Rulemaking: Control of Emissions of Air Pollution
from New Locomotive Engines and New Marine Compression-Ignition Engines
Less Than 30 Liters per Cylinder* published in the Federal Register (69
FR 39276, June 29, 2004).

Under the Advanced Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (ANPRM), U.S. EPA is
soliciting comments regarding proposed emission standards and other
related provisions for locomotives and compression-ignition marine
engines less than 30 liters per cylinder. U.S. EPA is considering
standards modeled after the 2007/2010 on-highway and Tier 4 nonroad
diesel engine emission standards which achieve large reductions in NOx,
particulate matter (PM) and air toxics through the use of advanced
emission control technologies. Also, requirements for the use of low
sulfur diesel fuel (i.e., 15 ppm) would facilitate the application of
diesel PM control technologies (e.g., particulate traps) that can reduce
diesel particulates by as much as 90 percent.

We cannot over-state the need for stringent federal emission limits for
locomotives and marine vessels. Local air districts in California, along
with CARB and U.S. EPA, have substantially reduced air pollution from
virtually all other mobile and stationary sources. Despite these
efforts, many regions of California still suffer from unhealthful levels
of air pollution. As demonstrated in SCAQMD's 2003 Air Quality
Management Plan, significant additional emission reductions will be
needed from all sources in order for the South Coast Air Basin (Basin)
to attain the federal 1-hour ozone and PM10 standards, as well as the
recently adopted 8-hour ozone and PM2.5 standards. In order to attain
the one-hour ozone standard, the 2003 AQMP projects that reductions of
approximately 340 tons per day of VOC and 220 tons per day of NOx will
be required by 2010. Further reductions beyond those required for the
1-hour ozone standard will be needed to attain the 8-hour ozone and
PM2.5 standards.

Locomotives represent a significant portion of the emissions inventory
in the South Coast Air Basin, adversely affecting regional air quality
and exposing large segments of the population to high levels of toxic
diesel exhaust. In 2003, locomotives accounted for approximately 37 tons
per day of NOx and one ton per day of PM10. The existing federal
emission standards (Tiers 0, 1, and 2) are expected to decrease NOx
emissions by approximately 40% nationwide through 2010. In addition, a
Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between Class 1 Railroads and the
California Air Resources Board (CARB) was signed in 1998 with the
objective of achieving further emission reductions by routing Tier
2-type locomotives into the South Coast Basin. The SCAQMD, however, has
serious concerns about the effectiveness of the MOU, and is pursuing
additional approaches to ensure that the railroads contribute to their
fair share of emission reductions (e.g., California Senate Bill 1397,
which would authorize establishment of a locomotive emission mitigation
fee).

Marine vessels present an even larger and less controlled problem. In
2003, harbor vessels, which consist of Category 1 and 2 engines (a
subject of the ANPRM), accounted for emissions of approximately 11 tpd
of NOx and 0.2 tpd PM~10~. However, recent emission inventories by the
Ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach indicate that emissions from these
vessels may be twice as much as previously estimated. Ocean-going
vessels contribute approximately 39 tpd and 3 tpd of NOx and PM10,
respectively. While harbor vessel emissions will remain relatively
constant between now and 2010, emissions from ocean-going vessels are
expected to grow to approximately 45 tpd and 4 tpd of NOx and PM10,
respectively, according to growth forecasts in the 2003 AQMP. More
recent cargo projections indicate that the growth forecasts in the 2003
AQMP may be understated.

With implementation of controls on emission sources regulated by state
and local agencies, federally-regulated sources such as locomotives and
marine vessels will represent a progressively larger portion of the
overall emissions inventory in the South Coast Air Basin (i.e., 33% of
NOx and 14% of PM10 in 2010) unless U.S. EPA adopts stringent emission
control programs for these sources.

In view of the significant and growing adverse impact of locomotives and
marine engines, U.S. EPA should take aggressive actions to address these
under-regulated sources. We urge U.S. EPA to adopt the following
recommendations for its upcoming rulemaking, which are explained in more
detail in the Attachment to this letter.

**[Locomotives]{.underline}**

1.  ***Future Tier 3 Emission Standards for New Locomotives*** - To
    ensure that continued progress is made in reducing emissions from
    locomotives, U.S. EPA should adopt Tier 3 emission standards for new
    locomotives based on the application of advanced emission control
    technologies and/or the use of alternative fuels which are available
    or expected to be available in the near future. Although the
    emission benefits from these standards will be more fully realized
    on a long-term basis because of the slow turn-over rate of
    locomotives, such standards would help the South Coast Air Basin
    attain the 8-hour ozone standard by the attainment deadline of 2021.
    Advancements made in aftertreatment technologies and alternative
    fuels offer a tremendous opportunity for establishing aggressive
    Tier 3 emission standards for locomotives. Aftertreatment
    technologies that should be considered include selective catalytic
    reduction (SCR) and diesel particulate filters (DPFs). The use of
    liquefied natural gas (LNG) locomotives should also be considered
    since this technology has been demonstrated and is commercially
    available for specific engine types (e.g., switchers).

2.  ***More Stringent Emission Standards for Existing Remanufactured
    Locomotives -*** Because of the potential for locomotives to remain
    in service for 40+ years or more, U.S. EPA should adopt more
    stringent emission standards for remanufactured locomotives (i.e.,
    Pre-Tier 0, Tier 0, Tier 1) to address the emissions from existing
    locomotives. Many of the same technologies developed to meet the
    Tier 2 emission standards can now be applied to the earlier model
    year engines and result in significant additional emission
    reductions from in-use locomotives. In addition to Tier 0 and Tier 1
    locomotives, U.S. EPA should adopt requirements for pre-1973
    locomotives which are currently unregulated under U.S. EPA's
    locomotive regulation.

3.  ***Idling Controls -*** Locomotives spend a considerable amount of
    time idling. This practice not only adversely impacts regional air
    quality, but also exposes the local residents living along the rail
    tracks and in close proximity to rail yards to high levels of toxic
    diesel emissions. Highly cost-effective idling control technologies
    are available and should be required for all new and existing
    locomotives. In addition, mandatory idling restrictions should be
    imposed to protect communities adjacent to rail yards and sidings
    where most idling occurs.

4.  ***Passenger Locomotives --*** Although passenger locomotives are
    required to meet U.S. EPA's existing standards, emissions from
    head-end power units used in passenger locomotives to provide
    heating, lighting, and air conditioning have not been addressed.
    U.S. EPA should develop specific requirements to control emissions
    from new and existing head-end power units on passenger locomotives.
    Such emission standards should be consistent with U.S. EPA's
    non-road Tier 3 and Tier 4 standards because these units are
    primarily, by design, similar to other non-road engines regulated
    under 40 CFR Part 89.

5.  ***Low Sulfur Fuel* *for Locomotives*-** Low sulfur diesel fuel (15
    ppm sulfur) will be widely available within the timeframes of both
    the California and national on- and off-road rules requiring
    low-sulfur diesel fuel (2006 -- 2010). Therefore, U.S. EPA should
    accelerate its current 2012 deadline for 15 ppm fuel sulfur content
    to 2007. Alternatively, at the very least, U.S. EPA should revise
    its 2012 deadline for 15 ppm sulfur limit to 2010, consistent with
    the recently adopted national off-road 15 ppm sulfur content limit
    for off-road engines. Earlier introduction of low-sulfur fuel would
    accelerate and facilitate the introduction of other control
    technologies (e.g., PM traps).

6.  ***Short Line Railroads -*** Short-line railroads which transport
    cargo over short distances on local rail lines (not part of a rail
    network), do not remanufacture their locomotives in the same manner
    as the Class 1 Railroads. As a result, the short-line railroads
    consider their remanufacturing process to be exempt from the U.S.
    EPA's remanufacturing emission standards (Tier 0). We urge U.S. EPA
    to clarify this issue in its rulemaking so that the Tier 0 emission
    standards would clearly apply to the remanufacture of locomotives
    operated by short-line railroads.

7.  ***Redirect Cleanest Locomotives to Ozone Non-Attainment Areas-***
    U.S. EPA should require railroads to redirect their cleanest
    locomotives meeting Tier 3 emission standards to areas with air
    quality problems.

**[Marine Vessels]{.underline}**

1.  ***Future Tier 3 Emission Standards for New Marine Engines*** -- In
    1999, U.S. EPA set Tier 1 and Tier 2 emission standards for Category
    1 and 2 marine engines. Tier 1 standards were based on IMO emission
    limits for NOx. For Tier 2, U.S. EPA set a lower NOx standard than
    the IMO standards and added emission standards for PM, HC, and CO
    which became effective between 2004 and 2007, depending on engine
    size. At the time of rule adoption, engine manufacturers were
    already voluntarily complying with the Tier 1 IMO standards so no
    additional emission benefits were realized. Tier 2 emission
    standards, which were only slightly more stringent than the IMO
    standards resulted in only small emission benefits. However, because
    of recent and anticipated development of emission control
    technologies, we urge U.S. EPA to adopt more stringent standards for
    new Category 1 and 2 engines (Tier 3) based on use of aftertreatment
    technologies (e.g., PM traps) and advanced combustion modifications.
    These technologies are already used in on- and off-road applications
    as well as in Europe for marine applications.

2.  ***More Stringent Emission Standards for Category 3 Engines -***
    Although U.S. EPA is not soliciting comments on Category 3 marine
    engines as part of this ANPRM, we believe it would be appropriate to
    provide early input into U.S. EPA's future rulemaking for these
    engines. Technologies used for Category 1 and 2 marine engines such
    as selective catalytic reduction (SCR), diesel particulate filters
    (DPFs), diesel oxidation catalysts (DOC), exhaust gas recirculation
    (EGR), and water injection can also be used on Category 3 marine
    engines to significantly reduce PM, NOx and hydrocarbon emissions.
    We urge U.S. EPA to establish more stringent emission standards for
    Category 3 engines for all U.S. and foreign flag ocean-going vessels
    visiting U.S. ports, particularly those making frequent visits to
    our local ports. In addition, U.S. EPA should also aggressively
    pursue such standards through the International Maritime
    Organization (IMO) process since the bulk of emissions from Category
    3 engines are caused by foreign flag vessels.

3.  ***Stringent Emission Standards for Existing Marine Engines -***
    Since standards for new vessels would have a relatively small
    emission benefit in the near term due to these vessels' long useful
    lives, we urge U.S. EPA to address emissions from in-use marine
    engines by establishing aggressive standards for remanufactured
    engines, similar to the locomotive remanufacture emission standards.

4.  ***Auxiliary Engines -*** In 2010, auxiliary diesel engines on board
    ocean-going vessels account for about 15 tpd of NOx, representing
    over 33% of the emissions from ocean-going vessels. The majority of
    these emissions occur at port during hotelling operations. Because
    these engines are smaller in size and rating (e.g., 500 to up to
    2000 hp) and are very similar to other off-road engines (regulated
    under 40 CFR Part 89), they should not represent technical
    challenges in terms of emission controls. Many technologies already
    available and demonstrated for other off-road engines can be used
    for marine auxiliary engines. Therefore, U.S. EPA should
    aggressively pursue control strategies for existing auxiliary
    engines used on both U.S. and foreign flag vessels. Such strategies
    could include engine retrofits, aftertreatment technologies, and
    cold ironing. In addition, U.S. EPA should require auxiliary engines
    to use low sulfur fuel (Marine Gas Oil) while at dockside and in
    U.S. and California coastal waters.

5.  ***Low Sulfur Fuel for Marine Vessels -*** As with locomotives, it
    is anticipated that low sulfur diesel fuel will be widely available
    within the timeframes of both the California and national on- and
    off-road rules requiring low-sulfur diesel fuel (i.e., 2006 --
    2010). Therefore, we urge that U.S. EPA accelerate the 2012 deadline
    for 15 ppm sulfur content to 2007. Alternately, at the very least,
    U.S. EPA should revise the 2012, 15 ppm sulfur limit deadline to
    2010 in order to match the recently adopted national off-road 15 ppm
    sulfur content limit for off-road engines. This would enable
    technologies that require low sulfur fuel (e.g., PM traps) to be
    used at an earlier date and provide substantial benefits of PM and
    NOx reductions even without the use of aftertreatments.

6.  ***Incentive Programs for Marine Engines -*** Engines used by large
    ocean-going vessels and most harbor vessels have extremely long
    equipment lives and can undergo continuous maintenance (Category 3)
    and rebuilding (Category 1, 2) throughout their useful lives.
    Because of the extended lives of these engines, in addition to
    developing standards for existing in-use marine engines (i.e.,
    remanufacturing), it is important that U.S. EPA address slow fleet
    turnover through other mechanisms. One such mechanism is for U.S.
    EPA to develop market incentives for manufacturers to produce marine
    engines that meet the new emission standards earlier than required.
    EPA should also establish incentives or requirements to route the
    lowest emitting vessels to areas with air quality problems.

7.  ***In-Use Compliance Test Program for Marine Engines -*** The SCAQMD
    also urges that an in-use compliance testing program be developed
    for marine engines. It is important to periodically test the
    performance characteristics of engines or aftertreatment devices to
    determine if the emission reductions that are expected to be
    achieved are real.

8.  ***Moving Away from RPM based Emission Standards -*** In general,
    emission standards for marine vessels should not be based on
    revolutions per minute (rpm) as is the case in Tier 1 and Category 3
    Blue Sky Series engines because marine vessels traveling close to
    the coastline typically use lower rpm, and the allowable emission
    standards are higher at lower rpm in terms of g/bhp-hr.

**[Scope of Preemption for Locomotives]{.underline}**

A final issue we wish to comment upon is the scope of preemption of
state and local control requirements for locomotives. Section
209(e)(1)(B) of the Clean Air Act preempts state and local governments
from adopting standards relating to the control of emissions from "new"
locomotives. EPA has adopted regulations that broadly define the scope
of preemption under this section as applying to remanufactured as well
as new locomotives. 40 CFR §§ 85.1603, 92.2. The regulations also
preempt certain state and local regulation applicable during a period of
time equal to 133% of the useful life of a locomotive. These regulations
effectively extend the preemptive effect of Section 209(e) to
locomotives that cannot under any reasonable interpretation be
considered "new." Given the importance for air quality in California of
controlling emissions from locomotives, we urge EPA to amend these
regulations to comport to Congress' clear intent that state and local
governments be allowed to regulate locomotives which are no longer
"new."

**[Conclusion]{.underline}**

Section 213 of the Clean Air Act requires EPA to promulgate regulations
for non-road engines that achieve the "greatest degree of emission
reduction achievable through the application of technology which the
administrator determines will be available," giving consideration to
cost and other factors. Based on the information summarized in this
letter, cost-effective control technologies are clearly available that
will achieve substantial emission reductions from vessels and
locomotives. Establishment of federal

emission limitations to achieve such reductions is thus required. We
urge U.S. EPA to seriously consider our recommendations in fulfilling
its obligations under the Clean Air Act. It is imperative that U.S. EPA
take a leadership role in establishing effective national standards for
sources under its jurisdiction---and in advocating meaningful
international standards---so that all sources contribute their fair
share to cleaning our air. We look forward to working with U.S. EPA to
achieve these important goals.

Sincerely,

![](media/image1.png)

Barry R. Wallerstein, D.Env.

Executive Officer, SCAQMD

Attachment

cc:

**Attachment**

SCAQMD Comments on U.S. EPA's Advanced Notice of Proposed Rulemaking:\
*Control of Emissions of Air Pollution from New Locomotive Engines and
New Marine Compression-Ignition Engines Less Than 30 Liters per
Cylinder*

**[Locomotives]{.underline}**

1.  ***Future Tier 3 Emission Standards for New Locomotives -*** Tier 3
    emission standards for line-haul locomotives of 1 g/bhp-hr NOx and
    0.05 g/bhp-hr PM are achievable with Selective Catalytic Reduction
    (SCR) and Diesel Particulate Filters (DPFs). This technology has
    been used for stationary engines and off- and on-road vehicles. Such
    emission controls will require the use of either conventional Tier
    II locomotives with special exhaust emission tenders or longer and
    possibly articulated locomotives which incorporate the new emission
    control systems. Low-sulfur diesel fuel would also be required,
    especially with the use of DPFs. LNG locomotives using diesel-pilot
    injection (LaCHIP) are capable of achieving 3 g/bhp-hr NOx and 0.1
    g/bhp-hr PM without aftertreatment. These would also require the use
    of an LNG fuel tender or redesigned locomotive to store a full
    complement of LNG fuel. DPFs are also feasible as demonstrated on
    European locomotives and off-road mining and industrial equipment.
    Hybrid technologies also represent an advanced technology that is
    capable of reducing NOx and PM emissions from switcher and passenger
    locomotives. These technologies are discussed in detail below.

*Selective Catalytic Reduction (SCR)*

> While lean NOx traps are still under development for controlling NOx
> emissions from on-road diesel engines, SCR technology is currently
> available and the most effective method of reducing NOx emissions
> (70-95%). SCR is used on engines and turbines up to 20 MW (freight
> locomotives require about 4 MW of power while switchers require about
> 1.5 MW). Smaller versions of this same technology have been developed
> and are being used on heavy-duty on-road trucks (300 kW) to meet
> future NOx emission standards, especially in Europe.
>
> SCR technology can be installed in a special emissions tender which
> includes the storage system for the ammonia or urea. Flexible exhaust
> ducts could direct the locomotive exhaust to the emission controls.
> The tender itself would need to have a passenger-car type suspension
> to insulate the ceramic or silicon carbide SCR substrate from normal
> railroad shock and vibration, or possibly to have the SCR system
> "ruggedized." Optimally, such emission controls could be incorporated
> into a new locomotive; should the current chassis prove to be too
> small, a longer articulated locomotive design could be used which
> would better accommodate rail curves. The rough size of an SCR unit
> for a 4 MW locomotive would be approximately a 7-foot cube without the
> reductant storage tank.
>
> If a Tier 2 locomotive (5.5 g/bhp-hr NOx) was coupled with an
> off-the-shelf SCR system, emissions between 0.8 and 1.65 g/bhp-hr NOx
> could be expected. By tuning of the SCR system to match the locomotive
> exhaust composition and duty cycle, and to account for deterioration,
> NOx emissions of about 1.0 g/bhp-hr would be achievable.
>
> The current cost for specially designed SCR units in the 4 MW range
> are about \$400,000, but with multiple identical units, this cost is
> expected to be reduced to \$250-\$300,000. SCR systems appear to be
> most cost effective control technology for line-haul locomotives which
> generate the highest amounts of NOx compared to switcher locomotives.
> In addition to SCR, lean NOx catalysts, as demonstrated on heavy-duty
> trucks by Cleaire, could be feasible for switchers which could reduce
> NOx by about 25% without a full SCR system with the ammonia/ urea
> reductant.

*Diesel Particulate Filters (DPF)*

> DPFs have been highly successful in off- and on-road heavy-duty diesel
> vehicles, reducing PM by about 85%. In Europe, HUG Engineering has
> installed DPFs directly on 200 locomotives in the 1,200 kW (1,600 HP)
> range (lighter duty switcher-type locomotives). These installations
> cost \$115,000 each. Depending upon the locomotive duty cycle, DPFs
> may require active regeneration because of the low exhaust
> temperatures. This problem can be resolved by using the excess
> electrical power commonly available on a locomotive to power an
> electrical heating element (i.e., active regeneration).
>
> DPFs could be installed in an emissions tender along with an SCR
> system, or could be installed directly on the locomotive itself,
> depending upon available space and needed vertical clearance. A new
> articulated locomotive could also include a DPF system, as well as
> SCR. DPFs also can be designed to replace the exhaust mufflers.
>
> PM Emission reductions of 85% are possible for locomotives using DPFs,
> making a Tier-2 freight locomotive capable of meeting 0.05 g/bhp-hr PM
> (with deterioration). The cost effectiveness for this technology is
> about \$25,000 per ton of PM.

*Liquefied Natural Gas (LNG) Locomotives*

> LNG freight locomotive engines are ready for commercialization. Such
> technology was developed by Energy Conversions Incorporated (ECI) of
> Tacoma, Washington, for the Burlington Northern Railway (BN). It was
> demonstrated in two BN locomotives for 6 years in the 1990s pulling
> coal trains across the Midwest. These pilot-injection diesel engines
> utilize EMD engines and can be calibrated well below Tier 2 standards,
> potentially as low as 3 g/bhp-hr NOx. Current on-the-shelf designs for
> the EMD 645 engine are between 4.0 and 4.5 g/bhp-hr NOx, but this
> technology is adaptable to other locomotive engines. The cost
> effectiveness of such an LNG locomotive strategy is about \$5,000 per
> ton of NOx.
>
> At the same time that the BN LNG coal trains were demonstrated,
> Southwest Research Institute (SwRI) conducted a cooperative research
> program called GasRail USA. It was aimed at demonstrating the
> environmental and economic benefits of using natural gas as a
> locomotive fuel in California and other parts of the United States.
> The overall objective of the program was to develop and demonstrate a
> natural gas powered commuter locomotive with a 75 percent reduction in
> NOx compared to baseline diesel engine operation. To that end, six
> natural gas combustion technologies were designed, tested, and
> evaluated on an EMD single-cylinder 710 engine. The most promising
> technology for demonstration was the Late Cycle High Injection
> Pressure (LaCHIP) technology. The LaCHIP combustion process utilizes
> very small quantities of diesel fuel (\<5% of total energy) to
> initiate combustion and relies on high-pressure natural gas, injected
> late in the cycle, to provide the remainder of the combustion.
>
> Through careful design, analysis, and testing, the LaCHIP technology
> was able to demonstrate a 75 percent reduction in NOx at full diesel
> power with no significant increase in carbon monoxide or total
> hydrocarbon emissions. Additionally, the technology allows 100 percent
> diesel backup in the event of liquefied natural gas (LNG) supply
> interruption. (The LaCHIP technology is similar to the ECI technology
> used in the BN coal trains). The test results of LaCHIP combustion
> technology on an EMD 16-710 engine were very encouraging, and the 75
> percent NOx reduction target was met at each throttle notch position
> tested (estimated 3 g/bhp-hr NOx under the line-haul emission test
> cycle). The cost effectiveness for this LNG locomotive strategy is
> about \$7,000 per ton of NOx. However, due to licensing issues, EMD
> informed SwRI they no longer would participate in the project and the
> GasRail project was halted.
>
> LNG switching locomotives have been commercialized by Motive Power
> (MP) Inc of Boise, Idaho. Two LNG switchers have been operating for
> almost 10 years with the East Los Angeles area and are currently
> operated by LA Junction Railroad (BNSF). These "rich-burn" LNG engines
> use spark-ignited natural gas and have NOx levels of approximately 2.0
> g/bhp-hr in notch 8. They are also 6-12 decibels (dB) quieter than
> equivalent diesel engines. UPRR also operated two of these same LNG
> switchers in the City of Commerce for 3 years. NOx cost effectiveness
> for these applications is estimated to be less than \$5,000 per ton.

*Hybrid Locomotives*

> Hybrid locomotive technology has been developed that is applicable to
> switching and passenger locomotive service. Hybrid locomotives use a
> series of battery packs to power traction motors while an onboard
> generator produces electricity to recharge the batteries. Emission
> benefits are possible due to the difference between the emissions from
> the on-board generator and the standard 900 to 3,500 hp locomotive
> engine, as well as from the fuel savings. A recent hybrid locomotive
> replacement project was funded under the Carl Moyer Program where two
> diesel switchers will be replaced with hybrid locomotives (e.g.,
> "Green Goat & Green Kid") with projected emission reductions of 75%
> and 60% for NOx and PM, respectively.

2.  ***More Stringent Emission Standards for Existing Remanufactured
    Locomotives --*** Because of the potential for locomotives to remain
    in service for 40+ years or more, additional requirements are needed
    to address the emissions from existing locomotives (i.e., Pre-Tier
    0, Tier 0, 1). Many of the same technologies developed to meet the
    Tier 2 emission standards can be applied to the earlier model year
    engines and result in additional emission reductions from in-use
    locomotives.

*NOx Emission Standards*

> Recent developments have shown that the current Tier 0 rebuild
> standards for freight and passenger locomotives can be tightened.
> Technologies have been demonstrated to indicate that Tier 2 NOx
> standards and very low PM emissions are achievable with only minor
> increases in fuel consumption.
>
> One locomotive manufacturer has developed a rebuild kit for the EMD
> 645E engine which involves new pistons, fuel injectors, camshaft, and
> altered blower pressure. This rebuild modification achieves Tier 2 NOx
> and equivalent fuel consumption while meeting Tier 0 standards for the
> other pollutants. The cost for this rebuild has a premium of about
> \$50,000 over the cost of a Tier 0 rebuild. Its cost effectiveness is
> approximately \$5,000 per ton of NOx emissions over 5 years.
>
> Another developer has demonstrated a similar rebuild kit for the EMD
> 645E engine which uses new pistons, fuel injectors, piston ring set
> and alters the blower pressure. This rebuild modification also
> achieves near Tier 2 NOx, a slight fuel penalty and Tier 0 emissions
> for the other pollutants. The cost for this rebuild has a premium of
> about \$60,000 over the cost of a standard Tier 0 rebuild for this
> engine. The cost effectiveness for this proposed measure is also about
> \$5,000 per ton NOx over 5 years.

*PM Standards*

> DPFs have been highly successful in off- and on-highway heavy-duty
> diesel vehicles reducing PM by about 85%. In addition, in Europe HUG
> Engineering has retrofitted DPFs on 200 locomotives in the 1,200 kW
> (1,600 HP) range (lighter duty switcher-type locomotives). These
> installations cost \$115,000 each. Depending upon the duty cycle, the
> DPFs may require active regeneration, and if an electrical heating
> element is needed for such regeneration, diesel-electric locomotives
> have excess electrical power. DPFs could be retrofitted on passenger
> and freight locomotives, depending upon available space and needed
> vertical and other clearances. DPFs also can be designed to replace
> the exhaust muffler.
>
> With DPFs, PM emissions from locomotives could be reduced by at least
> 85% making a Tier 0 locomotive capable of meeting 0.05 g/bhp-hr PM
> with deterioration. The cost effectiveness for this technology is
> about \$25,000 per ton of PM.
>
> New Tier 0 NOx and PM standards of 8.1 and 0.05 g/bhp-hr,
> respectively, on the switch duty cycle, and 5.5 and 0.05 g/bhp-hr,
> respectively, on the line haul duty cycle are technologically feasible
> and cost effective. These new standards are applicable both for
> freight, passenger and switcher locomotives.

3.  ***Idling Controls -*** Locomotives almost never shut off their
    propulsion engines. Depending upon application, they spend from
    40-80% of their lives idling. They are kept running for operational
    and technical reasons including to reduce the delay of starting the
    engine, to maintain water jacket temperature, battery voltage and
    brake system air pressure, and to reducing wear on the starting
    system and battery pack. However, each locomotive uses 8,000-25,000
    gallons of fuel per year idling with the associated emissions,
    noise, engine wear and neighbor complaints.

> There are a number of retrofit idle control systems available costing
> from \$14,000-\$18,000 per locomotive. These systems shut off the
> propulsion engines after certain time/use parameters are exceeded, and
> then restart the engine whenever engine/operational parameters drop
> below their minimums. New locomotives come with such automatic
> start/stop idle controls. Because of the fuel saved, these idle
> controls can pay for themselves in 1-3 years. The cost effectiveness
> for this control is about \$2,000 per ton NOx and free for PM.

4.  ***Passenger Locomotives -*** In addition to the main traction
    engine (3,000 kW), passenger locomotives are usually equipped with a
    diesel generator set (400 kW) called head-end power (HEP). HEPs
    provide hotel power for passenger locomotives air conditioning,
    lighting, heating and ventilation. These HEP units usually operate
    independently of the main traction engine. It is unclear whether the
    head-end power units are regulated under the non-road regulation (40
    CFR Part 89 and Part 1039) or should fall under the locomotive
    regulation (40 CFR Part 92). If head-end power units do not fall
    under the non-road regulation, then U.S. EPA should include emission
    standards for these engines under the locomotive regulations.

> It has been reported that, because of their high-power continuous
> operation, HEPs contribute about 40% of a passenger locomotive's total
> emissions, substantially more than indicated by their relatively small
> size. Some newer passenger locomotives use alternating current (AC)
> traction electric motors and can have electricity tapped off for the
> passenger compartments and eliminate the HEP, but at the higher
> emission rate of the main traction engine. Because of their steady
> operating modes, HEPs are ideal candidates for further emission
> control. And because of their size, they are compatible with current
> and future truck engine aftertreatment technology such selective
> catalytic reduction (SCR), lean NOx catalysts, diesel particulate
> filters (DPFs), and diesel oxidation catalysts (DOCs). New HEPs should
> have tighter emission standards, and the older HEPs should be
> retrofitted with aftertreatment technologies to reduce their
> substantial emissions.

*Selective Catalytic Reduction (SCR)*

> While lean NOx traps are under development for treating NOx for
> on-road diesel engines, SCR technology is currently available and is
> the most effective method of reducing NOx emissions (70-95%). SCR has
> been developed for heavy-duty on-road trucks (300+ kW) to meet future
> NOx emission standards. This technology has been demonstrated on
> thousands of trucks in Europe using urea as the reductant.
>
> The SCR system for a 400 kW HEP would cost about \$75,000 (first unit
> adapted for a locomotive, then lower for commercialized units). At
> minimum 70% NOx reduction for the overall operation would be expected
> which amounts to about 8 tons per year. The cost effectiveness over 5
> years would be about \$2500 per ton NOx including the cost of urea
> reductant. This would decrease if these adapted SCR units are
> commercialized.

Lean NOx Catalysts

> Cleaire has had their Longview system verified by CARB. This system is
> a combination of lean-NOx catalyst and diesel particulate filter
> (DPF). The lean NOx catalyst is capable of reducing NOx emissions by
> 35% on a HEP, while the DPF reduces PM by 85%. This system is packaged
> for trucks and buses and would be able to be installed on the HEP unit
> and replace the muffler. This system does not require a reductant, but
> it uses about 5% extra diesel fuel for its operation.
>
> For a standard 400 kW HEP, the Longview system would cost about
> \$20,000 installed, reduce NOx by about 4 tons per year, and have a
> cost-effectiveness of about \$4,100 per ton NOx. In addition, PM,
> unburned hydrocarbons (HC) and carbon monoxide (CO) would be reduced
> by 85%, 95% and 90%, respectively.

Diesel Particulate Filters (DPF)

> DPFs have been highly successful in off- and on-road heavy-duty diesel
> vehicles reducing PM by about 85%. These same CARB-verified units
> could be used with HEPs. They would cost about \$7,000 installed and
> reduce PM by about 0.3 tons per year. The cost effectiveness for this
> technology is about \$25,000 per ton of PM. Such units usually require
> the use of diesel fuel with sulfur less than 15 ppm due to the
> catalyzed filter.

Diesel Oxidation Catalysts (DOC)

> Diesel oxidation catalysts (DOCs) are the most common currently used
> form of diesel aftertreatment technology and have been used for
> compliance with the PM standards for some on-highway engines since the
> early 1990s. DOCs are generally referred to as "catalytic converters."
> DOC effectiveness in reducing PM emissions is normally limited to
> about 30% of the diesel PM. Additionally, DOCs increase sulfate PM
> emissions by oxidizing the sulfur in fuel and lubricating oil,
> reducing the overall effectiveness of the catalyst. Limiting fuel
> sulfur levels to 15 ppm allows DOCs to be designed for maximum
> effectiveness. DOCs also reduce emissions of HC and CO by about 75%
> and 45%, respectively. DOCs cost about \$5000 with a
> cost-effectiveness of about \$10,000 per ton PM over 5 years.

5.  ***Low Sulfur Fuel for Locomotives -*** Currently, locomotives are
    allowed to use high-sulfur diesel fuel (5,000 ppm maximum) until
    2007 when the maximum limit goes down to 500 ppm. As part of the
    recently adopted Tier 4 regulations for non-road engines, U.S. EPA
    set a future sulfur limit for locomotives of 15 ppm, effective 2012.
    While locomotives are allowed to use high sulfur diesel fuel, most
    of the diesel fuel purchased by the railroads in California is
    either U.S. EPA on-highway grade diesel fuel, with an average sulfur
    content of 330 ppm, or California grade diesel fuel with an average
    sulfur content of 140 ppm. The California Air Resources in currently
    considering a proposal to limit the sulfur content of diesel fuel
    used by intrastate locomotives (locomotives captive to California)
    to the future on- and off-road diesel fuel standards of 15 ppm.

> The low sulfur diesel fuel is expected to be widely available within
> the timeframes of both the California and national on- and off-road
> rules requiring low-sulfur diesel fuel. Therefore, U.S. EPA should
> accelerate the 2012 deadline for 15 ppm sulfur content to 2007.
> Alternatively, at the very least, U.S. EPA should revise the 2012, 15
> ppm sulfur limit deadline to 2010 in order to match the recently
> adopted national off-road 15 ppm sulfur content limit for off-road
> engines. This would enable technologies that require low sulfur fuel
> (e.g., PM traps) to be used at an earlier date.

6.  ***Short Line Railroads -*** Short-line railroads which transport
    cargo over a short distance on local rail lines not part of a rail
    network do not remanufacture their locomotives in the same manner as
    the Class 1 Railroads. Because of this, the short-line railroads
    consider the emission standards applicable at the time of
    remanufacture to be inapplicable to their locomotives. We would urge
    U.S. EPA to address this issue in the next rulemaking so that the
    Tier 0 emission standards clearly apply to the remanufacture
    locomotives operated by short-line railroads.

7.  ***Scope of Preemption for Locomotives.*** While EPA has not
    indicated that it will in this rulemaking re-examine the scope of
    preemption of state and local air pollution laws, since EPA's
    locomotive rules are being considered for amendment SCAQMD believes
    it is appropriate to revisit this issue at this time. Section
    209(e)(1)(B) of the Clean Air Act preempts state and local
    governments from adopting standards relating to the control of
    emissions from "new" locomotives. EPA has adopted regulations that
    broadly define the scope of preemption under this section as
    applying to remanufactured as well as new locomotives. 40 CFR §§
    85.1603, 92.2. The regulations also preempt certain state and local
    regulations applicable during a period of time equal to 133% of the
    useful life of a locomotive. These regulations effectively extend
    the preemptive effect of Section 209(e) to locomotives that cannot
    under any reasonable interpretation be considered "new." Given the
    importance for air quality in California of controlling emissions
    from locomotives, we urge EPA to amend these regulations to comport
    to Congress' clear intent that state and local governments be
    allowed to regulate locomotives which are no longer "new."

**[Marine Vessels]{.underline}**

1.  ***Future Tier 3 Emission Standards for New Marine Engines* -**
    Based on normal duty cycles of Category 1 and 2 marine vessel
    engines, the Tier 2 emission standards are only slightly more
    stringent than that of Tier 1 standards. Tier 2 standards are
    essentially based on fuel and air management systems. However, the
    proposed Tier 3 standards should be based on aftertreatment emission
    controls and the use of cleaner fuels. The following technologies
    can be employed to achieve stringent Tier 3 emission standards for
    Category 1 and 2 engines.

*Selective Catalytic Reduction*

> Selective catalytic reduction (SCR) technology can be used to reduce
> NOx emissions by over 90% for Tier 3 standards for Category 1 and 2
> engines. For this application, the use of currently available CARB
> diesel (approximately 140 ppmw sulfur) should be adequate. SCRs used
> in conjunction with diesel oxidation catalysts can also reduce
> significant amounts of PM and hydrocarbon emissions.
>
> The use of SCRs can reduce NOx emissions from marine diesel engines to
> below 1 g/bhp-hr. SCRs on marine vessels are currently being used in
> Europe and on USS-POSCO ships that travel the route between South
> Korea and Pittsburg, California.

*Particulate Matter Traps*

> PM traps have been developed for various on-road and off-road
> applications, and many of these traps are CARB verified. These traps
> can reduce PM emissions by greater than 85%. However, most PM traps
> that are effective in PM reduction are catalyzed, and such traps can
> only be used in conjunction with ultra low sulfur diesel (ULSD) fuel.
>
> ULSD should be extensively available by the Tier 3 implementation date
> of 2012. At the present, ULSD is being used in many on-road and
> off-road projects in the South Coast Air Basin (SCAB), especially in
> projects that employ particulate matter (PM) traps.

*Diesel Oxidation Catalysts*

> Diesel oxidation catalysts (DOC) have been developed for various
> on-road and off-road applications, and some DOCs are CARB verified.
> DOCs used in conjunction with crankcase vapor recovery and wet exhaust
> systems are cost effective in reducing PM, NOx, hydrocarbon, and SOx
> emissions. DOCs used with Marine Exhaust Systems' Eco-Silencer can
> reduce NOx, PM and SOx by approximately 20%, 80% and 90%,
> respectively.

*Exhaust Gas Recirculation*

> Exhaust gas recirculation (EGR) technology has been extensively
> developed for on-road and off-road applications for NOx emission
> reduction, and this technology will be used to comply with the
> stringent on-road 2007 engine standards. EGRs can be used on Category
> 1 and 2 marine diesel engines to reduce NOx, PM, and hydrocarbon
> emissions by approximately 50%, 70%, and 25%, respectively. CARB
> diesel with approximately 150 ppmw sulfur should be adequate for EGR
> systems in these applications. CARB is currently considering requiring
> the use of CARB diesel fuel for harbor craft.

*Water Injection and Fuel Emulsification*

> Water injection in compression ignited (CI) diesel engines and the use
> of on-board diesel fuel water emulsification can reduce NOx emissions
> by 25-50%. These technologies are currently available and are cost
> effective in reducing NOx emissions, and can concurrently also reduce
> PM emissions.

2.  ***More Stringent Emission Standards for Category 3 Engines -***
    Emission standards for marine engines greater than 30 liters per
    cylinder (Category 3) were adopted by U.S. EPA in 2003. The adopted
    emission standards for Category 3 marine engines mirror the IMO
    emission standards and offer little or no emission benefit from
    these sources since the majority of engine manufacturers already
    comply with the IMO standards. Technologies used for Category 1 and
    2 marine engines such as SCR, DPFs, DOC, EGR, and water injection
    discussed earlier can also be used on Category 3 marine engines to
    significantly reduce PM, NOx and hydrocarbon emissions.

3.  ***Stringent Emission Standards for Existing Marine Engines -***
    Since national and international emission standards for marine
    engines would have a relatively small impact in emission reductions
    by 2010 due to slow turnover rate, U.S. EPA should address the
    emissions from existing marine engines through emission standards
    applicable at the time of remanufacture, similar to the locomotive
    remanufacture standards.

> Category 1 and 2 marine engines in particular can be remanufactured to
> significantly reduce NOx and PM emissions, and at the same time
> increase fuel efficiency. Remanufacturing engines can be defined as
> replacing fuel injectors, turbochargers, blowers, fueling lines,
> engine liners, pistons, bearings, camshafts, shell dampers, fuel pump,
> oil and fuel filters with new OEM parts. The only engine part that is
> not replaced is the engine block. SCAQMD's Pilot Credit Generation
> Program for Marine Vessels, Rule 1631, was amended in October 2002 to
> include engine remanufacturing. SCAQMD has used this approach under
> the RECLAIM and CARB's State NOx and PM programs to reduce NOx
> emissions by as much as 65% in a very cost effective manner. The
> engines that were remanufactured were about 20 years old, and the
> remanufactured NOx emission levels meet Tier 1 and 2 standards.
>
> The engines are required to be emission tested in-situ on a periodic
> basis to ensure that the remanufactured engines maintain the low
> emission levels achieved during remanufacturing. In the marine
> industry, engines are used for many years and engine turnover rate is
> quite low, and consequently the emission benefit achieved from new
> engine standards will not be significant for many years to come.
> Achieving emission reductions from existing engines should thus be
> strongly emphasized.

4.  ***Auxiliary engines*** -- Control strategies applicable to existing
    auxiliary engines include engine retrofits, aftertreatment, and cold
    ironing. Retrofit and aftertreatment technologies used for Category
    1 and 2 marine engines such as SCR, DPFs, DOC, EGR, water injection,
    and emulsified fuels can also be used on auxiliary marine engines to
    significantly reduce PM, NOx and hydrocarbon emissions.

> Shore power or cold ironing can be used to supply electrical power to
> marine vessels during hotelling and reduce/eliminate the use of
> auxiliary engines. The use of cold ironing can reduce these emissions
> to almost zero levels. At the present, cold ironing is being used at
> the Port of Los Angeles; Juneau, Alaska; and at Pittsburg, California
> by the USS-POSCO ships. Such requirements would be more cost-effective
> for ships visiting ports on a frequent basis.

5.  ***Low Sulfur Fuel --*** For Category 2 and 3 marine engines, there
    are no current limits for the sulfur content of diesel fuel for
    marine vessels, except that diesel-fueled ferries in California
    waters must use California on-road diesel fuel starting in 2003.
    Under U.S. EPA's Tier 4 non-road regulations, marine vessels using
    distillate fuels must use only fuels with a maximum sulfur content
    of 500 ppm, starting in 2007. This limit decreases to 15 ppm
    beginning in 2012. However, CARB is currently working on a proposal
    to require that all harbor vessels in California waters use diesel
    fuel with a maximum limit of 15 ppm by 2007.

> As with locomotives, low sulfur diesel fuel should be widely available
> within the timeframes of both the California and national on- and
> off-road rules requiring low-sulfur diesel fuel. Therefore, we urge
> that U.S. EPA accelerate the 2012 deadline for 15 ppm sulfur content
> to 2007. Alternatively, at the very least, U.S. EPA should revise the
> 2012, 15 ppm sulfur limit deadline to 2010 in order to match the
> recently adopted national off-road 15 ppm sulfur content limit for
> off-road engines. This would enable technologies that require low
> sulfur fuel (e.g., PM traps) to be used at an earlier date and provide
> substantial benefits of PM and NOx reductions even without the use of
> aftertreatment.
>
> To address the fuel sulfur content of main engines used by ocean-going
> vessels, U.S. EPA should at minimum pursue the establishment of a SOx
> Emission Control Area (SECA) within the framework of the IMO in order
> to reduce the sulfur content of diesel fuel used by Category 3 marine
> engines especially those foreign flagged vessels fueled
> internationally.

6.  ***Incentive Programs for Marine Engines -*** Engines used by large
    ocean-going vessels and most harbor vessels have extremely long
    equipment lives and can undergo continuous maintenance (Category 3)
    and rebuilding (Category 1, 2) numerous times throughout their life.
    Because of the extended lives of marine diesel engines, it is
    important that U.S. EPA address the slow turnover of the existing
    fleet. One mechanism to accomplish this is for U.S. EPA to develop
    market incentives for manufacturers to produce marine engines that
    meet the new emission standards earlier than required. EPA should
    also establish incentives or requirements to route the lowest
    emitting vessels to areas with air quality problems.

7.  ***In-Use Compliance Test Program for Marine Engines -*** It is
    important to periodically test the performance characteristics of
    engines or after-treatment devices to determine if the emission
    reductions that are being achieved are real. In-use testing can be
    conducted using standard U.S. EPA test methods and portable
    analyzers. Continuous emission monitoring systems should also be
    used to determine the level of compliance and to ensure emission
    reductions on an on-going basis. For Category 1 and 2 engines,
    continuous process parameter monitoring can be used to determine
    emissions. For Category 3 engines, which are much larger and pollute
    more on a mass emission rate basis, continuous emission monitoring
    systems can be used. These monitoring systems can be required by
    regulation to be turned on when the marine vessel comes within a
    certain predetermined distance from the coast or be used only on
    certain groups of vessels such as "frequent-fliers."

8.  ***Moving Away from RPM based Emission Standards -*** In general,
    emission standards for marine vessels should not be based on
    revolutions per minute (rpm) as is the case in Tier 1 and Category 3
    Blue Sky Series engines because marine vessels traveling close to
    the coastline typically use lower rpms, and the allowable emission
    standards are higher at lower rpms in terms of g/bhp-hr. The
    emission standards should be based on a composite weighted standard
    such as in 40 CFR Part 94, Subpart B. Also, some port areas
    currently have speed reduction requirements and probably the use of
    speed reduction will be more prevalent in the future.

9.  ***Foreign-flagged Category III Vessels.*** In its rulemaking,
    *Control of Emissions From New Marine Compression-Ignition Engines
    at or Above 30 Liters Per Cylinder,"* published in the Federal
    Register at 68 Fed. Reg. 9745 (February 28, 2003), EPA adopted
    standards for Category 3 marine vessels and deferred adoption of
    tier 2 standards to a later date. EPA also deferred making a
    determination of whether it has authority to regulate
    foreign-flagged vessels. As discussed below, EPA has the authority
    to regulate foreign-flagged vessels, and SCAQMD believes that
    controls should be imposed, pursuant to CAA §213, as soon as
    possible.

> Section 213(a)(2) requires EPA to study the emissions from nonroad
> engines to determine whether these emissions "cause or significantly
> contribute to air pollution...". Once EPA makes the requisite findings
> concerning the impact of nonroad engines, section 213 requires EPA to
> set emissions standards for all classes of new nonroad engines that
> contribute to air pollution. 42 U.S.C. §7547(a)(3).
>
> Section 213 makes no distinction between foreign or domestic engines,
> and therefore requires regulation of any engines that contribute to
> air pollution. A statute regulating marine vessels that does not
> distinguish between U.S.- and foreign-flagged vessels applies to both.
> In *Stevens v. Premier Cruises, Inc.,* 215 F.3d 1237 (11th Cir. 2000),
> the court held that the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), which
> prohibits discrimination in places of public accommodation, applied to
> foreign-flagged vessels operating in U.S. waters even though the
> statute did not explicitly state that it applies to such vessels. The
> court considered whether there exists any presumption regarding the
> application to foreign-flagged vessels of statutes that apply
> generally to ships but make no distinction between foreign- and
> U.S.-flagged vessels. The *Stevens* court found that the accommodation
> of "a disabled, fare-paying, American passenger" was an interest of
> the United States. 215 F.3d at 1242. Because Congress had clearly
> intended to address harm from cruise ships, and such ships tended to
> be predominantly foreign-flagged ships, *id*. at 1242-43 (noting U.S.
> agency statement that "'\[v\]irtually all cruise ships serving U.S.
> ports are foreign flag vessels'''), the court noted that it would be
> "strange" to conclude that Congress intended the statute to apply only
> to domestic vessels. Id. at 1243.
>
> Congress' mandate to establish pollution-prevention standards for
> U.S.- and foreign-flagged vessels operating in U.S. waters is
> consistent with the law of nations. It has long been "settled in the
> United States and recognized elsewhere, that the territory subject to
> \[U.S.\] jurisdiction includes the land areas under its dominion and
> control, the ports, harbors, bays and other enclosed arms of the sea
> along its coast and a marginal belt of the sea extending from the
> coast line outward a marine league, or three geographic miles."
> *Cunard S.S. Co. v. Mellon*, 262 U.S. 100, 122 (1923). *See also,
> Convention on the Territorial Sea and the Contiguous Zone,* Apr. 29,
> 1958, art. 1, 15 U.S.T. 1606, 516 U.N.T.S. 205*; United Nations
> Convention on the Law of the Sea* (UNCLOS), Dec. 10, 1982, art. 2(1),
> UN Doc. A/Conf.62/122,reprinted in 21 I.L.M. 1261 (1982) (entered into
> force 1994); *Restatement (Third) of the Foreign Relations Law of the
> United States* (Restatement) §512 (1987) ("\[T\]he coastal state has
> the same sovereignty over its territorial sea...as it has in respect
> of its land territory.") The U.S. territorial sea-which in 1988 the
> United States extended to a width of 12 miles from the coast in
> accordance with "the limits permitted by international law,"
> Presidential Proclamation No. 5928, 54 Fed. Reg. 777 (1988)-is a zone
> "over which the United States exercises sovereignty and jurisdiction."
> Id.
>
> Pursuant to this jurisdiction, the United States has complete
> authority to regulate foreign vessels in its ports and other internal
> waters in any manner, even to the extent of excluding such vessels
> completely. See, e.g., *Benz v. Compania Naviera Hidalgo*, 353 U.S.
> 138, 142 (1957) ("It is beyond question that a ship voluntarily
> entering the territorial limits of another country subjects itself to
> the laws and jurisdiction of that country."); *Cunard*, 262 U.S. at
> 124 ("The merchant ship of one country voluntarily entering the
> territorial limits of another subjects herself to the jurisdiction of
> the latter. The jurisdiction attaches in virtue of her presence, just
> as with other objects within those limits. During her stay she is
> entitled to the protection of the laws of that place and correlatively
> is bound to yield obedience to them."); *Patterson v. Bark Eudora*,
> 190 U.S. 169, 178 (1903) ("\[T\]he implied consent to permit \[foreign
> merchant ships\] to enter our harbors may be withdrawn, and if this
> implied consent may be wholly withdrawn, it may be extended upon such
> terms and conditions as the government sees fit to impose.")
>
> The right to regulate in ports and other internal waters includes the
> right to prevent pollution. The United Nations Convention on the Law
> of the Sea (UNCLOS), the relevant provisions of which the United
> States has accepted as a binding expression of international law, see
> Presidential Proclamation No. 5928, 54 Fed. Reg. 777 (Dec. 27, 1988)
> (UNCLOS reflects international law concerning territorial sea,
> including that "coastal nations may exercise sovereignty and
> jurisdiction over their territorial seas"); Presidential Proclamation
> No. 7219, 64 Fed. Reg. 48701 (Aug. 2, 1999) (UNCLOS reflects
> international law), explicitly permits each nation to establish
> "particular requirements for the prevention, reduction and control of
> pollution of the marine environment as a condition for the entry of
> foreign vessels into their ports or internal waters," subject only to
> the condition that they publicize those requirements internationally.
> UNCLOS, art. 211(3).
>
> The authority to regulate to prevent pollution thus extends to the
> entire territorial sea. In the territorial sea, UNCLOS permits nations
> to "adopt laws and regulations for the prevention, reduction and
> control of marine pollution from foreign vessels," including vessels
> that are only passing through U.S. territorial waters. See *id*., art.
> 211(4). Moreover, the rules delineating the right of innocent passage
> through the territorial sea explicitly permit such passage to be
> regulated for "the preservation of the environment of the coastal
> State and the prevention, reduction and control of pollution thereof,"
> again subject to the condition that such regulations be published.
> *Id*. art. 21(1)(f), (3).
>
> In fact, U.S. statutes regularly require the regulation of foreign
> vessels to prevent harm to U.S. interests in U.S. territory,
> supporting the conclusion that Congress intended to require emissions
> standards for all ships operating in U.S. waters. For example, the Oil
> Pollution Act of 1990 (OPA) requires vessels carrying oil to "be
> equipped with a double hull...when operating on the waters subject to
> the jurisdiction of the United States, including the Exclusive
> Economic Zone." 46 U.S.C. §3703a(a). Other regulations implemented
> pursuant to the OPA requires ships operating in U.S. waters to have
> segregated ballast tanks, crude oil washing systems, dedicated ballast
> tanks, fixed pumping systems, and oil residue tanks. *See generally*
> 33 C.F.R. Part 157. In the Deepwater Port Act of 1974, the United
> States prohibits foreign vessels from using U.S. deepwater ports if
> the flag nation has objected to the application of U.S. jurisdiction
> to all vessels in such ports. 33 U.S.C. §1518(c)(2). The statute
> further requires the promulgation of regulations governing the use of
> such ports. *Id.* § 1509. Such regulations include requirements about
> the design and construction of ships using the ports, and the
> equipment with which they must be fitted. See, e.g., 33 C.F.R. §149.
>
> In the Ports and Waterways Safety Act of 1972, the United States
> prohibits any vessels that fail to comply with U.S. ship regulations
> from operating in the U.S. territorial sea or internal waters. 33
> U.S.C. §1228(a). Such regulations include requirements that ships have
> fixed containers or enclosed deck areas to contain oil and hazardous
> material cargo discharges. 33 C.F.R. §155.310.