***Clean Air Task Force***

### *American Lung Association of Metropolitan Chicago*

***Citizens for Pennsylvania\'s Future***

***Environment Northeast***

***Ohio Environmental Council***

***Public Citizen Texas***

# ***Southern Alliance for Clean Energy***

August 30, 2004

##### VIA E-DOCKET 

##### With hard copy to follow by US Mail 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

Air Docket

Mailcode 6102T

1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW

Washington, DC 20460

Attention: Docket No. OAR-2003-0190

Re: Comments on Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking for Control of
Emissions of Air Pollution From New Locomotive Engines and New Marine
Compression-Ignition Engines Less that 30 Liters per Cylinder, 69 Fed.
Reg. 39276.

Dear Administrator Leavitt:

The Clean Air Task Force ("CATF"), on behalf of the undersigned
citizens' groups and on its own behalf, appreciates the opportunity to
comment on EPA's Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking entitled "Control
of Emissions of Air Pollution From New Locomotive Engines and New Marine
Compression-Ignition Engines Less that 30 Liters per Cylinder,"
published in the Federal Register on June 29, 2004 at 69 Fed. Reg. 39276
(the "Locomotive/Marine ANPR"). The undersigned environmental and public
health organizations are actively engaged in national, regional and
local efforts to reduce harmful air pollution from new and in-use diesel
engines.

EPA indicates in its Locomotive/Marine ANPR that it is considering
rulemaking in 2005-06 that would require substantial reductions in
emissions of particulate matter ("PM"), nitrogen oxides ("NOx") and
hydrocarbons ("HC") from locomotive and most commercial marine diesel
engines beginning in about 2011. We urge EPA to proceed expeditiously
with this rulemaking. Substantial reductions of emissions from
locomotive and marine engines similar to those required by EPA's recent
Nonroad Rule[^1] and EPA's 2007 Highway Heavy-duty Engine Rule (the
"Highway Rule"), [^2] are absolutely necessary to protect public health
and the environment, and to give many areas around the country that will
be in violation of the ozone and PM~2.5~ NAAQS needed assistance in
attaining those standards.

###### **Overview**

We applaud EPA's action in the Nonroad Rule to reduce sulfur in diesel
fuel used by locomotives and marine diesels to 15 ppm beginning in
2012.[^3] The widespread availability of ultra-low sulfur diesel
("ULSD") fuel for nonroad engines in the 2010-12 time frame makes
possible the application of highly effective and efficient
aftertreatment emissions control technology that can reduce PM and NOx
to levels commensurate with those required by EPA in the Highway Rule
and the Nonroad Rule. We commend EPA's system approach in regulating
both nonroad diesel fuel and diesel engines. We also commend EPA for
recognizing that very effective emissions control technology is now
available, or will be available in the near future, that is capable of
dramatically reducing both NOx and PM emissions from locomotive and
marine diesel engines.

Aggressive emissions reduction strategies for locomotives and marine
diesel engines are necessary in view of:

-   the increasingly strong evidence of the enormous human health impact
    of diesel exhaust and many of the compounds that are contained
    within it;

-   recent evidence that several of the constituents of diesel exhaust,
    such as black carbon and nitrogen oxides, are substantial
    contributors to global climate change;

-   the importance of such emission reductions for many areas in
    achieving compliance with National Ambient Air Quality Standards;

-   the importance of such emission reductions in ensuring that the fuel
    efficiency benefits of the diesel engine continue to accrue across
    the U.S. marketplace; and

-   the substantial progress achieved over the last few years in diesel
    engine and emission control technology, progress that makes such
    emission reductions technologically achievable and dramatically
    cost-effective.

In developing a proposal to regulate NOx and PM emissions from
locomotives and marine diesels, we urge EPA to follow some of the same
basic principles that informed the Highway and Nonroad Rules. In
particular, we urge EPA to:

-   achieve maximum feasible reductions in NOx and PM emissions as soon
    as possible;

    -   regulate locomotive and marine diesel engines and fuels as a
        system; and

    -   ensure real world compliance with the standards (including
        not-to-exceed standards) through in-use testing and on-board
        diagnostic ("OBD") requirements.

We also urge EPA to regulate remanufactured locomotives and marine
diesels as new engines to reduce emissions by the greatest degree
achievable.

# **Locomotive and Marine Diesel Emissions Endanger Public Health and Welfare and Must be Substantially Reduced** 

[Public Health Impacts]{.underline}

Diesel exhaust contains a plethora of harmful particulate and gaseous
substances. Moreover, diesel emissions sources tend to be concentrated
where people live and work and are emitted at ground level. Among some
of the most toxic substances emitted from diesels are hundreds of
carbon-core particulate and gas phase organic carbon compounds such as
formaldehyde and polyaromatic hydrocarbons, many of which are
carcinogens. The relationship between diesel exhaust and cancer has been
well established in over 30 epidemiological studies. In EPA's recent
review of the health impacts of diesel exhaust, EPA found that diesel
exhaust was associated with cancer risk in 8 out of 10 cohort studies
and 10 of 12 case-controlled studies.[^4] Moreover, the U.S. Department
of Health and Human Services has concluded that diesel exhaust is
"reasonably anticipated to be carcinogenic,"[^5] and the National
Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, the International Agency
for Research on Cancer, the World Health Organization and the California
EPA have reached similar conclusions.[^6]

In addition, diesel combustion remains a major source of primary fine
particulate matter (PM ~2.5~), carbon monoxide, NO~X~ and (to a lesser
extent) sulfur dioxide, all of which are regulated under the Clean Air
Act as criteria pollutants. These criteria pollutants react in the
atmosphere to form other unhealthful secondary pollutants such as
ground-level ozone and fine particulate matter such as sulfate and
nitrate. EPA recently estimated that nationally nonroad diesel engines
(land-based, locomotive and marine diesels) emit about:

-   25% of all NOx

-   40% of all mobile source fine particulate matter (PM~2.5~).[^7]

EPA estimates that by 2030, without further regulation, locomotives and
marine diesel engines alone will contribute about 45% of all diesel
PM~2.5~ emissions and about 27% of all mobile source NOx emissions
nationwide**.**[^8]

In the Highway Rule and the Nonroad Rule, as well as the associated
regulatory impact analyses, EPA discussed the health and environmental
damage caused by ozone and particulate matter associated with diesel
exhaust.[^9] In brief, short-term exposure to ozone smog can cause a
myriad of harmful human upper and lower respiratory system effects,
including chest pain, coughing, shortness of breath, reduced lung
function, inflammation and other changes of lung tissue, increased
hospital admissions and emergency room visits, impaired immune systems,
and exacerbation of asthma-related symptoms.[^10] Effects of longer term
ozone exposure described by EPA include transient pulmonary function
responses, transient respiratory symptoms, effects on exercise
performance, increased airway responsiveness, increased susceptibility
to respiratory infection, increased hospital and emergency room visits
and transient pulmonary respiratory inflammation.[^11] Recent studies
also suggest that ozone is associated with stunted lung development in
children.[^12] And some studies have suggested that ozone may be
associated with premature mortality in adults.[^13] EPA is currently
reviewing key new health information suggesting the association between
elevated ozone levels and the development of newly diagnosed asthma,
increased hospital admissions for young children, increased school
absences and premature mortality.[^14]

The health impacts of fine particulate matter are, if anything, even
more serious. Over 3000 new studies assembled for the current EPA review
of Air Quality Criteria for Particulate Matter link particulate matter
with numerous adverse health effects.[^15] As summarized by EPA in the
Highway Rule, these effects include "premature mortality, aggravation of
respiratory and cardiovascular disease (as indicated by increased
hospital admissions and emergency room visits, school absences, work
loss days, and restricted activity days), aggravated asthma, acute
respiratory symptoms, including aggravated coughing and difficult or
painful breathing, chronic bronchitis, and decreased lung function that
can be experienced as shortness of breath."[^16] Particulate matter has
also been associated with cardiac arrhythmia and increased incidence of
cardiovascular disease.[^17] A study by Abt Associates estimated that
about 15,400 premature deaths per year are associated with diesel
particulate matter alone.[^18] Three major cohort studies including new
studies sponsored by the Health Effects Institute---an EPA-industry
jointly funded group---have consistently associated fine particulate
matter with premature death throughout the United States.[^19] EPA also
summarizes these particulate health effects in its Nonroad Rule.[^20]
EPA notes that the "particulate characteristics in the zone around
nonroad diesel engines is likely to be substantially the same as
published air quality measurements made along busy roadways," and that
several studies have found increased cardiopulmonary mortality,
decreased lung function, asthma, and other respiratory problems in
people living near busy roadways.[^21]

Diesel exhaust also contains a variety of highly toxic compounds such
benzene, formaldehyde, acetaldehyde, 1,3-butadiene, acrolein and
polyaromatic hydrocarbons. EPA estimates that diesel engines are
responsible for about 20% of these toxic emissions nationally, and,
assuming no additional regulation, that by 2007 the non-road sector will
account for about 75% of diesel's share.[^22] These compounds are known
or suspected human or animal carcinogens, or have serious non-cancer
health effects. Every one of these compounds has been listed by EPA both
as an Urban Hazardous Air Pollutant ("HAP") for the Integrated Urban Air
Toxics Strategy under Section 112(b) of the Clean Air Act,[^23] and as a
Mobile Source Air Toxic ("MSAT") under Section 202(l)(2) of the
Act.[^24] These toxic diesel emissions are thus part of a group of
compounds that pose the greatest danger to human health, especially in
urban areas. EPA summarizes some of these dangers in its Highway and
Nonroad Rules.[^25]

In view of all of the harmful substances contained within diesel
exhaust, it is not surprising that diesel exhaust itself increasingly
has become recognized as one of the most serious health and
environmental hazards in the United States today. In 1998, the
California Air Resources Board listed particulate matter from diesel
engines as a toxic air contaminant under California law.[^26] In 2001,
EPA listed diesel particulate matter and diesel exhaust organic gases as
mobile source air toxics.[^27] Both California and EPA have found that
diesel exhaust is likely to be carcinogenic to humans by inhalation at
occupational and environmental exposure levels---that is, it is likely
to cause lung cancer.[^28] Studies conducted by California as well as
the South Coast Air Quality Management District have estimated that the
average cancer risk from diesel particulate matter is about *70%* of the
cancer risk from *all air toxics.*[^29] EPA recently concluded in its
2002 National Air Toxic Assessment ("NATA") that "diesel exhaust ranks
with other substances that the national-scale assessment suggests pose
the greatest relative risk."[^30] Long-term exposure to diesel exhaust
is also likely to produce noncancer health effects. For example, such
exposure is likely to cause chronic respiratory hazards to humans, with
effects similar to those from fine particles mentioned above---including
early mortality, increased hospitalizations and cardiovascular disease.
Finally, short-term exposure to diesel exhaust can lead to temporary
health impacts, such as irritation of the eyes, throat and bronchial
tubes, lightheadedness, nausea and respiratory symptoms including
coughing.[^31]

### [Public Welfare---Including Climate---Impacts]{.underline}

Diesel emissions also contribute to numerous adverse welfare and
environmental effects. These include acid deposition, watershed
eutrophication and nitrification, aquatic deposition of toxic polycyclic
organic matter and visibility impairment and regional haze. EPA has
described these effects in its Highway and Nonroad Rulemakings.[^32]

However, EPA's discussion did not include an assessment of the climate
impacts associated with diesel emissions---impacts that are now becoming
better understood and recognized as important. Non-road diesel engines
are significant emitters of at least two pollutants associated with
climate change. These pollutants are black carbon and ozone-forming NOx.
Their climate linkages are briefly described below. We emphasize here
that EPA should not fail to consider the benefits of reducing climate
impacts in the anticipated locomotive and marine diesel rulemaking,
along with other environmental and public health benefits commonly
cited.

# *Climate Impacts of Black Carbon*. 

# Light-absorbing carbonaceous particles (often termed black carbon) affect global and regional climate by absorbing sunlight and thus heating the atmosphere. These particles typically represent a significant portion of diesel particulate emissions. Estimates of positive climate forcing from black carbon range from +0.25 W/m^-2^ to +0.7 W/m^-2^ , which is about half the positive forcing of CO~2~ and about the same as methane. [^33] Although the amount of forcing from black carbon remains uncertain, black carbon emissions are unquestionably warming global climate. 

The largest known source category of domestic black carbon emissions is
the diesel engine.[^34] Inventories have been based in part on actual
measurements and to a much larger extent on applying emissions factors
to different on- and off-road types of engines.

# *Climate Impacts of NOx and Tropospheric Ozone.*

While NOx is unstable in the atmosphere and has little impact on climate
directly, it commonly reacts to form tropospheric ozone, which is a
significant contributor to global warming. Diesel engine NOx emissions
are significant contributors to ozone formation. Estimates of positive
forcing from tropospheric ozone range from 0.3-0.4 W/m^-2^ to 0.72-0.80
W/m^-2^.[^35] As with black carbon, ozone is a significant contributor
to warming.

> **[Stringent Locomotive and Marine Diesel Emission Controls are
> Technically Feasible and Must be Required]{.underline}**

Section 213(a)(3) of the Clean Air Act directs EPA to establish emission
standards for nonroad engines (including marine engines) that provide
the "greatest degree of emission reduction achievable through the
application of technology which the Administrator determines will be
available for the engines or vehicles to which such standards apply,
giving appropriate consideration to the cost of applying such technology
within the period of time available to manufacturers and to noise,
energy, and safety factors associated with the application of such
technology." Section 213(a)(5) requires EPA to establish emission
standards for locomotives using an identical approach, *i.e*., one that
will achieve the "greatest degree of emission reduction...."
Furthermore, Section 213(b) of the Clean Air Act requires that nonroad
and locomotive standards "shall take effect at the earliest possible
date considering the lead time necessary to permit the development and
application of the requisite technology...."

We emphasize that Section 213 mandates a technology-forcing standard. In
a recent decision upholding EPA's promulgation of other nonroad emission
standards, the US Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit adopted and
reaffirmed language from an opinion dating back to 1981:[^36] \"Congress
intended the agency to project future advances in pollution control
capability. It was \'expected to press for development and application
of improved technology rather than be limited by that which exists
today.\' \" *Husqvarna AB, et al. v. EPA*, 254 F.3d 195, 201 (D.C. Cir.
2001). *See also*, *National Petrochemical & Refiners Ass'n. v. EPA*,
287 F.3d 1130 (D.C. Cir. 2002) (upholding EPA's Highway Rule).

> [Existing Commercial Marine and Locomotive Diesel Emission Standards
> are Much Too Lax]{.underline}

EPA should tighten substantially existing standards for engines not
addressed in the Nonroad Rule, e.g., locomotives and marine diesel
engines (both new and "remanufactured"). Existing locomotive and
commercial marine standards are less stringent than the Tier 3 nonroad
engine standards---and *dramatically* less stringent than the Highway
Rule standards and the Tier 4 Nonroad Rule standards. As indicated in
Table 1, commercial marine standards are one to three times the
numerical level of the Tier 3 nonroad standards, while locomotive
standards are even less stringent, from one to five times the numerical
level of the Tier 3 standards. The difference between the marine and
locomotive standards and the Tier 4 nonroad standards is greater by a
full order of magnitude; thus, as shown in Table 2, commercial marine
standards are 18 to 27 times the numerical level of the Tier 4 nonroad
standards, while locomotive standards are even less stringent, from 19
to 54 times the numerical level of the Tier 4 standards.

+-----------------+-------------+-----------+-----+--------+----------+
| > **Table 1.    |             |           |     |        |          |
| > Nonroad Tier  |             |           |     |        |          |
| > 3 Versus      |             |           |     |        |          |
| > Locomotive    |             |           |     |        |          |
| > and           |             |           |     |        |          |
| > Commercial    |             |           |     |        |          |
| > Marine Engine |             |           |     |        |          |
| > Emission      |             |           |     |        |          |
| > Standards**   |             |           |     |        |          |
+-----------------+-------------+-----------+-----+--------+----------+
| Engines Covered | Effective\  | Emission  |     | Ratio  |          |
|                 | Year        | Standards |     | to     |          |
|                 |             |           |     | Tier   |          |
|                 |             |           |     | 3\     |          |
|                 |             |           |     | N      |          |
|                 |             |           |     | onroad |          |
|                 |             |           |     | Sta    |          |
|                 |             |           |     | ndards |          |
+-----------------+-------------+-----------+-----+--------+----------+
|                 |             | NMHC +\   | PM\ | NMHC   | PM       |
|                 |             | NO~x~\    | (   | +\     |          |
|                 |             | (         | g/b | NO~x~  |          |
|                 |             | g/bhp‑hr) | hp‑ |        |          |
|                 |             |           | hr) |        |          |
+-----------------+-------------+-----------+-----+--------+----------+
| Nonroad         |             |           |     |        |          |
| Land-Based      |             |           |     |        |          |
| Heavy Duty      |             |           |     |        |          |
| Diesel Tier 3   |             |           |     |        |          |
| Engines         |             |           |     |        |          |
+-----------------+-------------+-----------+-----+--------+----------+
| 175-750         | 2006        | 3.0       | 0   | 1.0    | 1.0      |
| horsepower      |             |           | .15 |        |          |
+-----------------+-------------+-----------+-----+--------+----------+
| Line‑Haul       |             |           |     |        |          |
| Locomotive      |             |           |     |        |          |
| Engines         |             |           |     |        |          |
+-----------------+-------------+-----------+-----+--------+----------+
| 1973‑2002       | 2000        | 10.50     | 0   | 3.5    | 4.0      |
| models          |             |           | .60 |        |          |
+-----------------+-------------+-----------+-----+--------+----------+
| 2002‑2004       | 2000        | 7.95      | 0   | 2.7    | 3.0      |
| models          |             |           | .45 |        |          |
+-----------------+-------------+-----------+-----+--------+----------+
| 2005+ models    | 2000        | 5.80      | 0   | 1.9    | 1.3      |
|                 |             |           | .20 |        |          |
+-----------------+-------------+-----------+-----+--------+----------+
| Yard Locomotive |             |           |     |        |          |
| Engines         |             |           |     |        |          |
+-----------------+-------------+-----------+-----+--------+----------+
| 1973‑2002       | 2000        | 16.10     | 0   | 5.4    | 4.8      |
| models          |             |           | .72 |        |          |
+-----------------+-------------+-----------+-----+--------+----------+
| 2002‑2004       | 2000        | 12.20     | 0   | 4.1    | 3.6      |
| models          |             |           | .54 |        |          |
+-----------------+-------------+-----------+-----+--------+----------+
| 2005+ models    | 2000        | 8.70      | 0   | 2.9    | 1.6      |
|                 |             |           | .24 |        |          |
+-----------------+-------------+-----------+-----+--------+----------+
| Commercial      |             |           |     |        |          |
| Marine          |             |           |     |        |          |
| Engines^a^      |             |           |     |        |          |
+-----------------+-------------+-----------+-----+--------+----------+
| 0.0‑0.8         | 2005        | 5.6       | 0   | 1.9    | 2.0      |
| liters/cylinder |             |           | .30 |        |          |
+-----------------+-------------+-----------+-----+--------+----------+
| 0.9‑1.1         | 2004        | 5.4       | 0   | 1.8    | 1.5      |
| liters/cylinder |             |           | .22 |        |          |
+-----------------+-------------+-----------+-----+--------+----------+
| 1.2‑2.4         | 2004        | 5.4       | 0   | 1.8    | 1.0      |
| liters/cylinder |             |           | .15 |        |          |
+-----------------+-------------+-----------+-----+--------+----------+
| 2.5‑4.9         | 2007        | 5.4       | 0   | 1.8    | 1.0      |
| liters/cylinder |             |           | .15 |        |          |
+-----------------+-------------+-----------+-----+--------+----------+
| 5.0‑14.9        | 2007        | 5.8       | 0   | 1.9    | 1.3      |
| liters/cylinder |             |           | .20 |        |          |
+-----------------+-------------+-----------+-----+--------+----------+
| 15.0‑19.9       | 2007        | 6.5       | 0   | 2.2    | 2.5      |
| l               |             |           | .37 |        |          |
| iters/cylinder, |             |           |     |        |          |
| \<4425 hp       |             |           |     |        |          |
+-----------------+-------------+-----------+-----+--------+----------+
| 15.0‑19.9       | 2007        | 7.3       | 0   | 2.4    | 2.5      |
| l               |             |           | .37 |        |          |
| iters/cylinder, |             |           |     |        |          |
| ≥4425 hp        |             |           |     |        |          |
+-----------------+-------------+-----------+-----+--------+----------+
| 20.0‑24.9       | 2007        | 7.3       | 0   | 2.4    | 2.5      |
| liters/cylinder |             |           | .37 |        |          |
+-----------------+-------------+-----------+-----+--------+----------+
| 25.0‑29.9       | 2007        | 8.2       | 0   | 2.7    | 2.5      |
| liters/cylinder |             |           | .37 |        |          |
+-----------------+-------------+-----------+-----+--------+----------+

> ^a^ Commercial engine standards are THC + NO~x~ (as opposed to NMHC +
> NO~x~). However, since HC emissions are low compared to NO~x~, it is
> not expected that this difference is significant for purposes of this
> comparison.

+-----------------+-------------+-----------+-----+--------+----------+
| > **Table 2.    |             |           |     |        |          |
| > Nonroad Tier  |             |           |     |        |          |
| > 4 Versus      |             |           |     |        |          |
| > Locomotive    |             |           |     |        |          |
| > and           |             |           |     |        |          |
| > Commercial    |             |           |     |        |          |
| > Marine Engine |             |           |     |        |          |
| > Emission      |             |           |     |        |          |
| > Standards**   |             |           |     |        |          |
+-----------------+-------------+-----------+-----+--------+----------+
| Engines Covered | Effective\  | Emission  |     | Ratio  |          |
|                 | Year        | Standards |     | to     |          |
|                 |             |           |     | Tier   |          |
|                 |             |           |     | 4\     |          |
|                 |             |           |     | N      |          |
|                 |             |           |     | onroad |          |
|                 |             |           |     | Sta    |          |
|                 |             |           |     | ndards |          |
+-----------------+-------------+-----------+-----+--------+----------+
|                 |             | NMHC +\   | PM\ | NMHC   | PM       |
|                 |             | NO~x~\    | (   | +\     |          |
|                 |             | (         | g/b | NO     |          |
|                 |             | g/bhp‑hr) | hp‑ | ~x~^b^ |          |
|                 |             |           | hr) |        |          |
+-----------------+-------------+-----------+-----+--------+----------+
| Nonroad         |             |           |     |        |          |
| Land-based      |             |           |     |        |          |
| Heavy Duty      |             |           |     |        |          |
| Diesel Tier 4   |             |           |     |        |          |
| Engines         |             |           |     |        |          |
+-----------------+-------------+-----------+-----+--------+----------+
| 75-750          | 2011-2014   | 0.30[^37] | 0   | 1.0    | 1.0      |
| horsepower      |             |           | .01 |        |          |
+-----------------+-------------+-----------+-----+--------+----------+
| Line‑Haul       |             |           |     |        |          |
| Locomotive      |             |           |     |        |          |
| Engines         |             |           |     |        |          |
+-----------------+-------------+-----------+-----+--------+----------+
| 1973‑2002       | 2000        | 10.50     | 0   | 35     | 60       |
| models          |             |           | .60 |        |          |
+-----------------+-------------+-----------+-----+--------+----------+
| 2002‑2004       | 2000        | 7.95      | 0   | 27     | 45       |
| models          |             |           | .45 |        |          |
+-----------------+-------------+-----------+-----+--------+----------+
| 2005+ models    | 2000        | 5.80      | 0   | 19     | 20       |
|                 |             |           | .20 |        |          |
+-----------------+-------------+-----------+-----+--------+----------+
| Yard Locomotive |             |           |     |        |          |
| Engines         |             |           |     |        |          |
+-----------------+-------------+-----------+-----+--------+----------+
| 1973‑2002       | 2000        | 16.10     | 0   | 54     | 72       |
| models          |             |           | .72 |        |          |
+-----------------+-------------+-----------+-----+--------+----------+
| 2002‑2004       | 2000        | 12.20     | 0   | 41     | 54       |
| models          |             |           | .54 |        |          |
+-----------------+-------------+-----------+-----+--------+----------+
| 2005+ models    | 2000        | 8.70      | 0   | 29     | 24       |
|                 |             |           | .24 |        |          |
+-----------------+-------------+-----------+-----+--------+----------+
| Commercial      |             |           |     |        |          |
| Marine          |             |           |     |        |          |
| Engines^a^      |             |           |     |        |          |
+-----------------+-------------+-----------+-----+--------+----------+
| 0.0‑0.8         | 2005        | 5.6       | 0   | 19     | 30       |
| liters/cylinder |             |           | .30 |        |          |
+-----------------+-------------+-----------+-----+--------+----------+
| 0.9‑1.1         | 2004        | 5.4       | 0   | 18     | 22       |
| liters/cylinder |             |           | .22 |        |          |
+-----------------+-------------+-----------+-----+--------+----------+
| 1.2‑2.4         | 2004        | 5.4       | 0   | 18     | 15       |
| liters/cylinder |             |           | .15 |        |          |
+-----------------+-------------+-----------+-----+--------+----------+
| 2.5‑4.9         | 2007        | 5.4       | 0   | 18     | 15       |
| liters/cylinder |             |           | .15 |        |          |
+-----------------+-------------+-----------+-----+--------+----------+
| 5.0‑14.9        | 2007        | 5.8       | 0   | 19     | 20       |
| liters/cylinder |             |           | .20 |        |          |
+-----------------+-------------+-----------+-----+--------+----------+
| 15.0‑19.9       | 2007        | 6.5       | 0   | 22     | 37       |
| l               |             |           | .37 |        |          |
| iters/cylinder, |             |           |     |        |          |
| \<4425 hp       |             |           |     |        |          |
+-----------------+-------------+-----------+-----+--------+----------+
| 15.0‑19.9       | 2007        | 7.3       | 0   | 24     | 37       |
| l               |             |           | .37 |        |          |
| iters/cylinder, |             |           |     |        |          |
| ≥4425 hp        |             |           |     |        |          |
+-----------------+-------------+-----------+-----+--------+----------+
| 20.0‑24.9       | 2007        | 7.3       | 0   | 24     | 37       |
| liters/cylinder |             |           | .37 |        |          |
+-----------------+-------------+-----------+-----+--------+----------+
| 25.0‑29.9       | 2007        | 8.2       | 0   | 27     | 37       |
| liters/cylinder |             |           | .37 |        |          |
+-----------------+-------------+-----------+-----+--------+----------+

We recognize that differences among locomotives and marine engines and
those subject to the land-based nonroad standards must be considered.
Nevertheless, we also believe that the same technical advances that have
occurred for land-based highway and nonroad engines over the last few
years apply to a great extent to locomotive and marine engines.

The current locomotive and commercial marine standards were adopted in
the same general timeframe as the Tier 2/3 nonroad standards.[^38] These
standards are not currently consistent with the Clean Air Act mandate of
setting standards to provide the greatest practicable degree of
emissions control. For example, several years ago, Energy and
Environmental Analysis, Inc ("EEA") prepared for EPA a database of
marine diesel emissions.[^39] The computed average NOx emissions for the
entire sample in the EEA database[^40] is about 10 g/kWh, very similar
to the 1979 heavy-duty diesel truck emissions "baseline" of 9.4 g/kWh.
The sample of marine engines ranged in vintage from 1969 to 1987. This
comparison suggests that there are no apparent fundamental combustion
differences between Category 1 and 2 marine diesels and on-road diesel
engines. It also suggests that "pre-control" NOx levels for commercial
marine engines are no different than those for on-highway heavy-duty
diesel engines. Thus, "pre-control" engines in use over the past 20-30
years had NOx levels within 2-3 g/kWh of the Tier 2 standards adopted by
EPA in 1999 for Category 1 and 2 commercial marine engines and effective
between 2004 and 2007[^41] (after adjusting for the NOx+THC form of the
Tier 2 standard).[^42] A significant fraction of those pre-control
engines were already in compliance with Tier 2 levels.

Furthermore, as EPA has recognized in the Nonroad Rule, aftertreatment
control technologies that are being developed for compliance with the
Highway Rule should be able to be applied to nonroad diesels as well.
Catalyzed diesel particulate filters, or diesel particulate traps, are
capable of reducing emissions of PM in modern diesel engines burning
ultra-low sulfur fuel by over 90%.[^43] With respect to NOx emissions,
NOx adsorber catalysts are capable of reducing diesel emissions of NOx
by about 90---95%.[^44] We are aware of EPA's concern that application
of these and other technologies to nonroad diesel engines over 750 hp
may be somewhat more challenging than for smaller engines,[^45] but
given the rapid recent improvement in diesel control technologies, we
believe that these challenges can be overcome during the course of the
next decade.

For the above reasons, we urge EPA to require both locomotive and marine
diesel engines to meet stringent standards similar to the Tier 4 nonroad
standards as soon as possible. The Clean Air Act requires as much.

# Additional Areas of Comment.

EPA requested comment in a variety of areas relating both to potential
locomotive and marine diesel standards. We offer our comments in some of
these areas below.

*Locomotives*

1.  General Observations.

Locomotives are typically used in three distinct classes of service.
*Yard and switching* locomotives are used to move railcars and make up
trains within a switchyard. While many of these locomotives are designed
for switching duty, others are old line-haul locomotives relegated to
switching operations near the end of their useful life. These
locomotives experience a very light load duty cycle and spend most of
their time idling.

*Local service* locomotives are similar to switching locomotives and are
used to pick up railcars from shippers and deliver them to switchyards
where trains are assembled. Most locomotives in this type of service are
also older line haul locomotives, and their duty cycle is similar to
those of switching locomotives with somewhat lower proportion of time at
idle. *Line haul* locomotives are used to pull large trains over long
distances and experience much higher loads than switching or local
service locomotives. However, even these locomotives spend considerable
time at idle. These line haul locomotives are usually the newer and more
powerful models.

There is a glut of older switching and local service locomotives in the
market because railroads have streamlined operations, and this makes
purchases of new models for these operations less likely in the short
term. As a result, restrictions on idling time and tighter
remanufacturing standards for these older engines will be critical to
reducing emissions from this sector.

2.  Significance of space constraints on use of after-treatment
    technology.

We understand that several types of after-treatment are being considered
for locomotives. With respect to PM emissions, diesel particulate traps
are likely to be the control technology of choice. These traps are
relatively small and should not produce space or packaging concerns. The
NOx situation is a bit more complex. While NOx adsorbers may be
employed, urea-SCR systems are also under active consideration.[^46]
Relative to engine size, urea-SCR systems can be substantial. As a
result, packaging of SCR controls may be a meaningful issue in
locomotives, given that other components of these controls such as urea
tanks are also likely to be large. Thus, the packaging issue should be
more thoroughly investigated for NOx after-treatment. As described
below, this would suggest that the imposition of PM and NOx standards
need not follow the same timeline.

3.  Form of future standards.

Given some uncertainty in the ease of packaging NOx controls to meet a
high reduction efficiency target, and the greater health risk associated
with PM, de-coupling the effective dates for the two standards appears
to be a prudent approach. Particulate trap technology is being rapidly
commercialized in Europe and it may be feasible to integrate PM traps
into locomotives by 2009, or as soon as ULSD fuel is available,
providing adequate lead time to manufacturers. Packaging issues for the
urea-SCR systems may mean that stringent NOx standards based on that
technology may not fully feasible until 2011 or so.

A multi-year phase-in approach for emission standards is not likely to
be of benefit for locomotives. As noted by EPA, there are only three
engine manufacturers in this market, each offering one or two engine
families. Hence, a phase-in of standards would not meaningfully change
the compliance burden.

4.  Appropriateness of Idling Controls.

As mentioned earlier, locomotives, particularly the older models used in
switching and yard operations, spend a great portion of their
operational time idling. We therefore urge EPA to adopt some form of
mandatory idling controls.

EPA has noted that systems to prevent extended idle are commercially
available. Systems that can be retrofitted at a cost of \$30,000 to
\$50,000 are being offered by several vendors. Pay back analyses suggest
that these are very cost effective with breakeven achieved in 20 to 30
months. At current high fuel prices, the returns are probably more
attractive. Thus, it seems unnecessary and unreasonable to provide any
more financial incentives to railroads to encourage actions that are in
their own financial interest.

While it is clear that many railroads are adopting this technology
voluntarily, there are cases where idle reduction technology is unlikely
to be adopted. The market segment least likely to adopt this technology
is one consisting of older switching locomotives that are lightly
utilized. In many cases, these locomotives are powered by older
medium-speed diesel engines that are difficult to start, especially in
cold weather, and their remaining useful life may not justify additional
investments of \$50,000 or more. In these cases, it is more appropriate
for EPA to consider policies that will lead to accelerated scrappage of
these locomotives with attendant benefits on total, not only idle,
emissions. These policies could be directed towards engines that will be
rebuilt the third time (typically 20 to 25 years old) so that they are
scrapped at about this point. Policies could include financial
incentives or stricter rebuild standards as discussed below.

5.  Standards for Remanufactured Engines.

The Tier 0 rebuild standard has been set with the limitations of
performance of older medium speed engines marketed by EMD and GE
accounted for. The experience with the Tier 1 standard has shown that
most engine designs in production immediately prior to 2000 were able to
meet standards with no additional hardware; rather, the standards were
met primarily with improved combustion systems and more carefully
tailored injection system calibration. Thus, pre-2005 engines should be
remanufactured to Tier 1 standards, at a minimum.

Furthermore, GM-EMD has updated its existing 710 engine to a new
specification to meet Tier 2 standards in 2005 "without adding any new
technologies or equipment" according to its press release. On the other
hand, GE has introduced a newly designed engine to meet Tier 2
standards. Hence, it is not entirely clear whether all engines could
easily meet rebuild standards set at Tier 2 levels; certainly, many
older engines should be able to meet Tier 2 standards at rebuild. Given
the limited number of participants in this market, it may be possible
for EPA to set model by model standards and address equity issues
between manufacturers through the use of financial incentives or
non-compliance penalties. Finally, the PM after-treatment systems
developed for 2009 for Tier 3 will likely be suitable for retrofit on
Tier 2 compliant engines. Thus, Tier 2 engines should be required to
meet Tier 3 standards on rebuild after 2009.

> 6\. In-use testing, certification and compliance.

It is difficult to comment on the EPA compliance program since there
have been no reports of non-compliance for either new or rebuilt engines
and no reports of private testing of locomotives by State regulatory
agencies or research facilities. However, we would encourage an EPA
funded program to randomly sample and test a number of new and rebuilt
engines every year at an independent laboratory to confirm industry
compliance. We would also encourage EPA to implement an in-use testing
program for both locomotives and marine diesels along the lines of the
in-use testing program for heavy-duty highway vehicles anticipated to
begin late this year. EPA should require onboard diagnostics ("OBD") as
part of this program.

*Marine Diesel Engines*

Most of the issues discussed above for locomotives are also relevant to
marine engine emission standards that are being set to functionally
similar levels. Special issues may need to be considered for some unique
aspects of marine engine exhaust.

EPA has noted that many marine engines discharge exhaust underwater, but
it is not clear what percent of exhaust (especially PM) is retained in
water. It is also not clear whether the air inventories are adjusted for
this discharge, or whether specific water pollution problems caused by
this discharge have been addressed by EPA in setting marine emission
standards.

EPA has recognized that some marine vessels employ water cooled exhausts
which reduces exhaust temperature. In this case, the performance of
urea-SCR systems for NOx reduction can be reduced, and PM trap
regeneration may be impacted. The NOx reduction effects are potentially
more serious and integration of the urea-SCR system in vessels employing
water cooled exhaust needs further attention. One obvious approach to
this issue would be for all manufacturers to utilize an insulated
exhaust system, which avoids the problem.

Marine engines may also need two separate duty cycles and standards like
those utilized for switching and line-haul locomotives to address the
issue of vessels that operate at extended idle or light loads. The light
load cycle can be derived from cycles that best represent tug-boat
operation or vessel operations at a port location. This dual cycle
approach would be preferable to addressing light load emissions through
a NTE based regulation as it would be directly testing at the most
representative conditions.

#### [Conclusion.]{.underline}

In conclusion, we urge EPA to adopt aftertreatment-based emission
standards for locomotives and marine diesels similar in stringency to
the Tier 4 standards in the Nonroad Rule as soon as possible. EPA must
take advantage of the major opportunity offered by recent progress in
diesel clean engine and emission control technologies to reduce the
enormous health and welfare damage from these nonroad diesel emissions.

> Respectfully submitted,
>
> David Marshall, Senior Counsel
>
> Clean Air Task Force
>
> PO Box 950
>
> 10 Bridge Street
>
> Henniker, NH 03242
>
> dmarshall@catf.us
>
> As attorney for:

American Lung Association of Metropolitan Chicago

Brian Urbaszewski

1440 West Washington Boulevard

Chicago, IL 60607

Citizens for Pennsylvania\'s Future (PennFuture)

John Hanger

610 N. Third Street

Harrisburg, PA 17101

Environment Northeast

Michael Stoddard

28 Grand Street

Hartford, CT 06106

Ohio Environmental Council

Kurt Waltzer

Staci R. Putney

1207 Grandview Avenue, Suite 201

Columbus, OH 43212

Public Citizen Texas

Tom "Smitty" Smith

1002 West Avenue

Austin, Texas 78701

Southern Alliance for Clean Energy

Anne Gilliam

Ulla-Britt Reeves

427 Moreland Ave., Suite 100\
Atlanta, GA  30307

[^1]: The Nonroad Rule, entitled "Control of Emissions of Air Pollution
    From Nonroad Diesel Engines and Fuel; Final Rule," was published in
    the Federal Register on June 29, 2004 at 69 Fed. Reg. 38958.

[^2]: The Highway Rule, entitled "Control of Air Pollution from New
    Motor Vehicles: Heavy-Duty Engine and Vehicle Standards and Highway
    Diesel Sulfur Control Requirements," was published in the Federal
    Register on January 18, 2001 at 66 Fed. Reg. 5002.

[^3]: See, e.g, 69 Fed. Reg. 38958 at 38969.

[^4]: 68 Fed. Reg. at 28341*;* US EPA (2002), *Health Assessment
    Document for Diesel Engine Exhaust*, EPA/600/8-90/057F Office of
    Research and Development, Washington, DC, available online at
    <http://cfpub.epa.gov/ncea/cfm/recordisplay.cfm?deid=29060>
    (hereinafter "EPA Diesel HAD").

[^5]: *9^th^ Report on Carcinogens* (2000), U.S. Department of Health
    and Human Services, Research Triangle Park, NC.

[^6]: 68 Fed. Reg. at 28341.

[^7]: EPA, May 2004. Final Regulatory Analysis: Control of Emissions
    from Nonroad Diesel Engines, EPA420-R-04-07, at pp. ES-1 and -2
    (hereinafter "Nonroad RIA").

[^8]: See, e.g., 69 Fed. Reg. 39276 at 39286, Tables IVA-1 and IVA-2.

[^9]: *See generally, e.g,,* Nonroad RIA, Chapter 2.

[^10]: See 66 Fed. Reg. at 5012-13; 68 Fed. Reg. at 28346-347; 69 Fed.
    Reg. 38958 at 38967.

[^11]: See 66 Fed. Reg. at 5017.

[^12]: Plopper, C.G., Fanucci, M.V., Evans, M.J., Larson, S.P.,
    Schelegle, E.S., Joad, J.P., Pinkerton, K.E., VanWinkle, L.S.,
    Gershwin, L.J., Miller, L.A., Wu, R., Buckpitt, A.R., and Hyde, D.M.
    2001. *Air pollution effects in a primate model of asthma*. Abstract
    and presentation, HEI Annual Conference, Washington DC; Program and
    Abstracts; Health Effects Institute, Cambridge MA, 02139

[^13]: Thurston, G.D. and Ito, K. (2000) *Epidemiological Studies of
    ozone exposure effects,* in Air Pollution and Health, S.T. Holgate
    Ed. Academic Press.

[^14]: 69 Fed. Reg. at 38967.

[^15]: U.S. EPA (2003). Air Quality Criteria for Particulate Matter,
    Vol. I and II (Fourth External Review Draft).

[^16]: See 66 Fed. Reg. at 5018.

[^17]: Liao, D., Creason, J, Shy, C., Williams, R, Watts, R. and
    Szweidinger, R (1999). *Daily variation of particulate air pollution
    and poor cardiac autonomic control in the elderly*, Environmental
    Health Perspectives, v. 107, no. 7, p. 521-525.

    Schwartz, J. (1999); *Air pollution and hospital admissions for
    heart disease in eight U.S. counties*. Epidemiology, v. 10, no. 1.
    p. 17-22.

    Gold, D., Litonjua, A., Schwartz, J. Lovett, E., Larson, A. Nearing,
    B., Allen, G., Verrier, M., Cherry R., Verrier, R. (2000), *Ambient
    pollution and heart rate variability,* Circulation, v. 101, no. 11.
    p. 1267-1273.

    Paters, A., Liu, E., Verrier, R., Schwartz, J., Gold, D., Mittleman,
    M., Baliff, J., Oh, A., Monahan, K., Dockery, D. (2000), *Air
    pollution and incidence of cardiac arrhythmia*, Epidemiology, v. 11,
    no. 1 p. 11-17.

[^18]: Abt Associates (2000), *The Particulate Related Health Benefits
    of Reducing Power Plant Emissions*, Bethesda MD.

[^19]: See, e.g.,

    Pope, C.A., Thun, M.J., Namboordiri, M.M. and Dockery, D.W., et al.;
    *Particulate Air Pollution as a Predictor of Mortality in a
    Prospective Study of U.S. Adults.* 151 American Journal of
    Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine (1995). Available online at
    <http://ajrccm.atsjournals.org/search.shtml>.

    Krewski, D., Burnett, R.T., Goldberg, M.S., Hoover, K., Siemiatycki,
    J., Jerrett, M., Abrahamowicz, A. and White, W.H., *Reanalysis of
    the Harvard Six Cities Study and the American Cancer Society Study
    of Particulate Matter and Mortality;* Special Report to the Health
    Effects Institute, Cambridge, MA (July 2000).

    Samet, J.M., Dominici, F., Zeger, S.L., Schwartz, J. and Dockery,
    D.W.; *National Morbidity, Mortality and Air Pollution Study, Part
    II: Morbidity, Mortality and Air Pollution in the United States;*
    Health Effects Institute Research Report No. 94, Cambridge MA (June
    2000).

    Dockery, D.W., Pope, C.A., Xu, S. and Spengler, J.D., et al; *An
    Association Between Air Pollution and Mortality in Six U.S. Cities;*
    329 New England J. Medicine 1753-59 (1993). Available online at
    <http://nejm.org/content/1993/0329/0024/1753.asp>.

[^20]: *See, e.g.,* 69 Fed. Reg. at 38965-67.

[^21]: 68 Fed. Reg. at 28339-340.

[^22]: U.S. EPA, data inventories developed to support the rulemaking
    for Control of Emissions of Hazardous Air Pollutants from Mobile
    Sources: Final Rule, signed December 20, 2000;

    Unpublished data analysis projecting acrolein emissions; U.S. EPA,
    1996 National Toxics Inventory.

[^23]: See 64 Fed. Reg. 38706, July 19, 1999.

[^24]: See 66 Fed. Reg. 17230, March 29, 2001.

[^25]: See 66 Fed. Reg. 5024-25; 68 Fed. Reg. at 28342-46; 69 Fed. Reg.
    at 38965-67.

[^26]: California Air Resources Board Resolution 98-35, August 27, 1998.

[^27]: See 66 Fed. Reg. 17230, March 29, 2001.

[^28]: EPA Diesel HAD.

[^29]: See California Air Resources Board, *Risk Reduction Plan to
    Reduce Particulate Matter Emissions from Diesel-Fueled Engines and
    Vehicles*, October 2000.

[^30]: 68 Fed. Reg. at 28342; US EPA (2002), National Air Toxics
    Assessment, available online at <http://www.epa.gov/ttn/atw/nata/>.

[^31]: See, e.g., EPA Diesel HAD; 68 Fed. Reg. at 28343;

    Cohen, A.J. and Nikula K., *The Health Effects of Diesel Exhaust*,
    in Air Pollution and Health*,* 1999, Holgate, S., Samet J., Koren,
    H. and Maynard, R., eds.

[^32]: See 66 Fed. Reg. at 5025-27; 68 Fed. Reg. at 28348-353; 69 Fed.
    Reg. at 38967.

[^33]: *Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, 2001.
    The Scientific Basis*. Contribution of the Working Group I to the
    Third Assessment Report.

    Hansen, J., and Sato, M., Trends in major climate forcing agents,
    Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci., in review, 2001^.^

[^34]: Bond, Tami C., Streets, David G. and Nelson, Sibyl M., 2001. *A
    global emission inventory of black carbon and organic carbon from
    fossil fuel and biofuel burning,* poster presented at the American
    Geophysical Union conference, San Francisco, CA, December 2001.

[^35]: *Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, 2001.
    The Scientific Basis*. Contribution of the Working Group I to the
    Third Assessment Report.

    Mickley, Loretta and Jacobs, D., 2001. *Uncertainty in preindustrial
    abundance of tropospheric ozone: Implications for radiative forcing
    calculations*. Journal of Geophysical Research, 106(D4) 3389-3399

[^36]: *NRDC v. EPA*, 655 Fed.2d 318, 328 (D.C.Cir. 1981) (quoting S.
    Rep. No. 91-1196, at 24 (1970)).

[^37]:
    > ^b^Tier 4 land-based standard is NOx only (as opposed to NMHC +
    > NO~x~). However, since diesel HC emissions are low compared to
    > NO~x~, it is not expected that this difference is significant for
    > purposes of this comparison. For instance, EPA assumes that the
    > proposed nonroad standard for 25-75 hp engines, 3.5g/bhp-hr
    > NOx+NMHC, is equivalent to 3.3g/bhp-hr NOx. Nonroad RIA at 12-5.

[^38]: See 63 Fed. Reg. 18978 (April 16, 1998) for locomotives; 64 Fed.
    Reg. 73300 (December 29, 1999) for marine engines.

[^39]: Energy & Environmental Analysis, *Analysis of Commercial Marine
    Vessel Emissions and Fuel Consumption Data,* Report to EPA under
    Work Assignment 1-10, Contract No. 68-C7-0051, November 1999.

[^40]: The database was complied from several reports, but a report from
    Lloyds provided the bulk of the data. There were 65 engines in the
    database, although not all emissions were measured from all engines.

[^41]: "Control of Emissions of Air Pollution from New Marine
    Compression-Ignition Engines at or Above 37 kw," 64 Fed. Reg. 73300
    (December 29,1999) ("1999 CI Marine Rule"), 64 Fed. Reg. at 73307.

[^42]: EPA found in the CI Marine Rule that "HC generally makes up less
    than five percent of the combined HC+NOx from diesel engines." 64
    Fed. Reg. at 73307.

[^43]: *See, e.g.,* Clean Air Task Force, *Diesel Engines: Emissions
    Controls and Retrofits,* at p.2 (2003), available online at
    <http://www.catf.us/publications/fact_sheets/diesel/Diesel_Controls_and_Retrofits.pdf>.

[^44]: *See, e.g.*, 66 Fed. Reg. at 5049-52.

[^45]: *See, e.g.*, 69 Fed. Reg. at 38985, 38988-91.

[^46]: Because urea-based SCR systems need a continuous supply of urea
    to operate effectively, EPA must ensure that a reliable mechanism is
    developed to ensure that urea is actually replenished by operators
    as necessary