1
ENVIRONMENTAL
PROTECTION
AGENCY
40
CFR
Parts
9
and
94
[
AMS­
FRL­
]

OAR­
2003­
0190;
FRL­
XXXX­
X
RIN
2060­
AM06
Control
of
Emissions
of
Air
Pollution
From
New
Locomotive
Engines
and
New
Marine
Compression­
Ignition
Engines
Less
Than
30
Liters
per
Cylinder
AGENCY:
Environmental
Protection
Agency
(
EPA).

ACTION:
Advance
Notice
of
Proposed
Rulemaking.

SUMMARY:
EPA
is
issuing
this
Advance
Notice
of
Proposed
Rulemaking
(
ANPRM)
to
invite
comment
from
all
interested
parties
on
our
plan
to
propose
new
emission
standards
and
other
related
provisions
for
new
compression­
ignition
marine
engines
with
per
cylinder
displacement
less
than
30
liters
and
locomotive
engines.
We
are
considering
standards
modeled
after
our
2007/
2010
highway
and
Tier
4
nonroad
diesel
engine
programs,
with
an
emphasis
on
achieving
large
reductions
in
emissions
of
particulate
matter
(
PM)
and
air
toxics
as
early
as
possible
through
the
use
of
advanced
emission
control
technology
starting
as
early
as
2011.
This
technology,

based
on
high­
efficiency
catalytic
aftertreatment,
is
enabled
by
the
availability
of
clean
diesel
fuel
2
with
sulfur
content
capped
at
15
parts
per
million.
This
fuel
is
already
being
produced
in
some
U.
S.
markets,
and
its
availability
is
expected
to
become
widespread
in
coming
years
in
response
to
EPA
regulations
that
require
it
for
an
increasingly
larger
portion
of
the
overall
diesel
fuel
pool,

starting
with
highway
fuel
in
2006.
We
are
well
aware
that
migrating
advanced
control
technologies
to
locomotives
and
marine
diesel
engines
would
bring
with
it
a
unique
set
of
challenges,
but
we
are
hopeful
that
these
can
be
resolved
in
a
collaborative
manner
as
was
done
in
our
highway
and
nonroad
diesel
rulemakings.

A
program
like
the
one
under
consideration
could
result
in
substantial
benefits
to
public
health
and
welfare
through
significant
reductions
in
emissions
of
oxides
of
nitrogen
(
NOx)
and
particulate
matter
(
PM),
as
well
as
hydrocarbons
(
HC)
and
air
toxics.
These
pollutants
contribute
to
health
problems
that
include
premature
mortality,
aggravation
of
respiratory
and
cardiovascular
disease,
aggravation
of
existing
asthma,
acute
respiratory
symptoms,
chronic
bronchitis,
and
decreased
lung
function.
We
believe
that
diesel
exhaust
is
likely
to
be
carcinogenic
to
humans
by
inhalation.
Locomotive
and
marine
diesel
emissions
reductions
would
particularly
benefit
those
who
live,
work
or
recreate
in
and
along
our
nation's
coastal
areas,

rivers,
ports,
and
rail
lines.
Such
reductions
would
also
have
beneficial
impacts
on
visibility
impairment
and
regional
haze.
We
received
a
substantial
number
of
comments
from
state
and
local
governments
following
our
proposal
last
year
to
set
new
controls
for
nonroad
diesel
emissions,
pressing
the
Agency
to
adopt
similar
controls
for
locomotive
and
marine
diesel
engines
as
quickly
as
possible.
3
DATES:
Send
written
comments
on
this
advance
notice
of
proposed
rulemaking
by
[
INSERT
DATE
60
DAYS
FROM
DATE
OF
PUBLICATION].
See
ADDRESSES,
below,
for
more
information
about
written
comments.
There
will
also
be
opportunity
for
oral
and
written
comment
when
we
publish
our
Notice
of
Proposed
Rulemaking
for
this
action.

We
expect
to
publish
a
Notice
of
Proposed
Rulemaking
for
this
rule
by
mid­
2005
and
a
Final
Rule
by
mid­
2006.

ADDRESSES:
Submit
your
comments,
identified
by
Docket
ID
No.
OAR­
2003­
1910,
by
one
of
the
following
methods:

°
Federal
Rulemaking
Portal:
http://
www.
regulations.
gov.
Follow
the
on­
line
instructions
for
submitting
comments.

°
Agency
Website:
http://
www.
epa.
gov/
edocket.
EDOCKET,
EPA's
electronic
public
docket
and
comment
system,
is
EPA's
preferred
method
for
receiving
comments.
Follow
the
on­
line
instructions
for
submitting
comments.

°
E­
mail:
locomarine@
epa.
gov.
Specify
docket
number
OAR­
2003­
0190
in
the
body
of
the
message
°
Fax:
(
202)
260­
4400
°
Mail:
Environmental
Protection
Agency,
Air
Docket,
Mailcode
6102T,
1200
Pennsylvania
Ave.,
NW,
Washington,
DC,
20460.
Please
include
a
total
of
2
two
copies.
4
°
Hand
Delivery:
Environmental
Protection
Agency,
Air
Docket,
Mailcode
6102T,

1200
Pennsylvania
Ave.,
NW,
Washington,
DC,
20460.
Such
deliveries
are
only
accepted
during
the
Docket's
normal
hours
of
operation,
and
special
arrangements
should
be
made
for
deliveries
of
boxed
information.

Instructions:
Direct
your
comments
to
Docket
ID
No.
OAR­
2003­
0190.
EPA's
policy
is
that
all
comments
received
will
be
included
in
the
public
docket
without
change
and
may
be
made
available
online
at
http://
www.
epa.
gov/
edocket,
including
any
personal
information
provided,

unless
the
comment
includes
information
claimed
to
be
Confidential
Business
Information
(
CBI)

or
other
information
whose
disclosure
is
restricted
by
statute.
Do
not
submit
information
that
you
consider
to
be
CBI
or
otherwise
protected
through
EDOCKET,
regulations.
gov,
or
e­
mail.
The
EPA
EDOCKET
and
the
federal
regulations.
gov
websites
are
"
anonymous
access"
systems,

which
means
EPA
will
not
know
your
identity
or
contact
information
unless
you
provide
it
in
the
body
of
your
comment.
If
you
send
an
e­
mail
comment
directly
to
EPA
without
going
through
EDOCKET
or
regulations.
gov,
your
e­
mail
address
will
be
automatically
captured
and
included
as
part
of
the
comment
that
is
placed
in
the
public
docket
and
made
available
on
the
Internet.
If
you
submit
an
electronic
comment,
EPA
recommends
that
you
include
your
name
and
other
contact
information
in
the
body
of
your
comment
and
with
any
disk
or
CD­
ROM
you
submit.
If
EPA
cannot
read
your
comment
due
to
technical
difficulties
and
cannot
contact
you
for
clarification,

EPA
may
not
be
able
to
consider
your
comment.
Electronic
files
should
avoid
the
use
of
special
characters,
any
form
of
encryption,
and
be
free
of
any
defects
or
viruses.
For
additional
information
about
EPA's
public
docket
visit
EDOCKET
on­
line
or
see
the
Federal
Register
of
5
May
31,
2002
(
67
FR
38102).
For
additional
instructions
on
submitting
comments,
go
to
the
SUPPLEMENTARY
INFORMATION
section
of
this
document.

Docket:
All
documents
in
the
docket
are
listed
in
the
EDOCKET
index
at
http://
www.
epa.
gov/
edocket.
Although
listed
in
the
index,
some
information
is
not
publicly
available,
i.
e.,
CBI
or
other
information
whose
disclosure
is
restricted
by
statute.
Certain
other
material,
such
as
copyrighted
material,
is
not
placed
on
the
Internet
and
will
be
publicly
available
only
in
hard
copy
form.
Publicly
available
docket
materials
are
available
either
electronically
in
EDOCKET
or
in
hard
copy
at
the
EPA
Air
Docket,
EPA/
DC,
EPA
West,
Room
B102,
1301
Constitution
Ave.,
NW,
Washington,
DC.
The
Public
Reading
Room
is
open
from
8:
30
a.
m.
to
4:
30
p.
m.,
Monday
through
Friday,
excluding
legal
holidays.
The
telephone
number
for
the
Public
Reading
Room
is
(
202)
566­
1744,
and
the
telephone
number
for
the
Air
Docket
is
(
202)

566­
1742.

FOR
FURTHER
INFORMATION
CONTACT:
Carol
Connell,
AANC,
U.
S.
EPA,
National
Vehicle
and
Fuels
Emission
Laboratory,
2565
Plymouth
Road,
Ann
Arbor,
MI
48105,
(
734)
214­

4349,
Fax:
(
734)
214­
4816,
connell.
carol@
epa.
gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY
INFORMATION:

I.
General
Information
6
A.
Does
this
Action
Apply
to
Me?

Locomotive
Entities
potentially
regulated
by
this
action
are
those
which
manufacture,
remanufacture
and/
or
import
locomotives
and/
or
locomotive
engines;
and
those
which
own
and
operate
locomotives.
Regulated
categories
and
entities
include:

Category
NAICS
Codea
Examples
of
potentially
affected
entities
Industry
333618,
336510
Manufacturers,
remanufacturers
and
importers
of
locomotives
and
locomotive
engines
Industry
482110,
482111,
482112
Railroad
owners
and
operators
Industry
488210
Engine
repair
and
maintenance
aNorth
American
Industry
Classification
System
(
NAICS)

This
table
is
not
intended
to
be
exhaustive,
but
rather
provides
a
guide
for
readers
regarding
entities
likely
to
be
regulated
by
this
action.
This
table
lists
the
types
of
entities
that
EPA
is
now
aware
could
potentially
be
regulated
by
this
action.
Other
types
of
entities
not
listed
in
the
table
could
also
be
regulated.
To
determine
whether
your
company
is
regulated
by
this
action,
you
should
carefully
examine
the
applicability
criteria
in
40
CFR
sections
92.1,
92.801,

92.901
and
92.1001,
as
well
as
40
CFR
85.1601
and
89.1.
If
you
have
questions
regarding
the
applicability
of
this
regulation
to
a
particular
entity,
consult
the
person
listed
in
the
preceding
FOR
FURTHER
INFORMATION
CONTACT
section.
7
Marine
This
proposed
action
would
affect
companies
and
persons
that
manufacture,
sell,
or
import
into
the
United
States
new
marine
compression­
ignition
engines;
companies
and
persons
that
make
vessels
that
use
such
engines;
and
the
owners/
operators
of
such
vessels.
Further
requirements
apply
to
companies
and
persons
that
rebuild
or
maintain
these
engines.
Affected
categories
and
entities
include:

Category
NAICS
Codea
Examples
of
potentially
affected
entities
Industry
333618
Manufacturers
of
new
marine
diesel
engines
Industry
33661
and
346611
Ship
and
boat
building;
ship
building
and
repairing
Industry
811310
Engine
repair
and
maintenance
Industry
483
Water
transportation,
freight
and
passenger
Industry
336612
Boat
building
(
watercraft
not
built
in
shipyards
and
typically
of
the
type
suitable
or
intended
for
personal
use)

aNorth
American
Industry
Classification
System
(
NAICS)

This
table
is
not
intended
to
be
exhaustive,
but
rather
provides
a
guide
for
readers
regarding
entities
likely
to
be
regulated
by
this
action.
This
table
lists
the
types
of
entities
that
EPA
is
now
aware
could
potentially
be
regulated
by
this
action.
Other
types
of
entities
not
listed
in
the
table
could
also
be
regulated.
To
determine
whether
your
company
is
regulated
by
this
8
action,
you
should
carefully
examine
the
applicability
criteria
in
40
CFR
94.1,
as
well
as
the
future
proposed
regulations.
Note
that
in
addition
to
the
marine
diesel
engines
currently
regulated
under
40
CFR
94,
this
rule
also
applies
to
marine
diesel
engines
below
37
kW.
If
you
have
questions
regarding
the
applicability
of
this
regulation
to
a
particular
entity,
consult
the
person
listed
in
the
preceding
FOR
FURTHER
INFORMATION
CONTACT
section.

B.
What
Should
I
Consider
as
I
Prepare
My
Comments
For
EPA?

1.
Submitting
CBI.
Do
not
submit
this
information
to
EPA
through
EDOCKET,

regulations.
gov
or
e­
mail.
Clearly
mark
the
part
or
all
of
the
information
that
you
claim
to
be
CBI.
For
CBI
information
in
a
disk
or
CD
ROM
that
you
mail
to
EPA,
mark
the
outside
of
the
disk
or
CD
ROM
as
CBI
and
then
identify
electronically
within
the
disk
or
CD
ROM
the
specific
information
that
is
claimed
as
CBI.
In
addition
to
one
complete
version
of
the
comment
that
includes
information
claimed
as
CBI,
a
copy
of
the
comment
that
does
not
contain
the
information
claimed
as
CBI
must
be
submitted
for
inclusion
in
the
public
docket.
Information
so
marked
will
not
be
disclosed
except
in
accordance
with
procedures
set
forth
in
40
CFR
part
2.

2.
Tips
for
Preparing
Your
Comments.
When
submitting
comments,
remember
to:

I.
Identify
the
rulemaking
by
docket
number
and
other
identifying
information
(
subject
heading,
Federal
Register
date
and
page
number).
9
ii.
Follow
directions
­
The
agency
may
ask
you
to
respond
to
specific
questions
or
organize
comments
by
referencing
a
Code
of
Federal
Regulations
(
CFR)
part
or
section
number.

iii.
Explain
why
you
agree
or
disagree;
suggest
alternatives
and
substitute
language
for
your
requested
changes.

iv.
Describe
any
assumptions
and
provide
any
technical
information
and/
or
data
that
you
used.

v.
If
you
estimate
potential
costs
or
burdens,
explain
how
you
arrived
at
your
estimate
in
sufficient
detail
to
allow
for
it
to
be
reproduced.

vi.
Provide
specific
examples
to
illustrate
your
concerns,
and
suggest
alternatives.

vii.
Explain
your
views
as
clearly
as
possible,
avoiding
the
use
of
profanity
or
personal
threats.

viii.
Make
sure
to
submit
your
comments
by
the
comment
period
deadline
identified.

II.
Additional
Information
about
this
Rulemaking
Locomotive.
The
current
emission
standards
for
new
locomotive
engines
were
adopted
by
EPA
in
1998
(
see
63
FR
18978,
April
16,
1998).
This
advance
notice
of
proposed
rulemaking
relies
in
part
on
information
that
was
obtained
for
that
rule,
which
can
be
found
in
Public
Docket
A­
94­
31.
That
docket
is
incorporated
by
reference
into
the
docket
for
this
action,
OAR­
2003­

0190.
1Control
of
air
pollution
from
new
motor
vehicles:
Heavy­
duty
engine
and
vehicle
standards
and
highway
diesel
fuel
sulfur
control
requirements,
66
FR
5001
(
January
18,
2001);
Control
of
Emissions
of
Air
Pollution
from
Nonroad
Diesel
Engines
and
Fuel,
(
INSERT
CITE
FROM
TODAY'S
FEDERAL
REGISTER
FOR
NONROAD
FINAL
RULE,
2004).

10
Marine.
The
current
emission
standards
for
new
marine
diesel
engines
were
adopted
in
1999
and
2003
(
see
64
FR
73300,
December
29,
1999
and
66
FR
9746,
February
28,
2003).
This
advance
notice
of
proposed
rulemaking
relies
in
part
on
information
that
was
obtained
for
those
rules,
which
can
be
found
in
Public
Dockets
A­
97­
50.
and
A­
2000
 
01.
Those
dockets
are
incorporated
by
reference
into
the
docket
for
this
action,
OAR­
2003­
0190.

Other
Dockets:
This
advance
notice
of
proposed
rulemaking
relies
in
part
on
information
that
was
obtained
for
our
recent
highway
diesel
and
nonroad
diesel
rulemakings,
which
can
be
found
in
Public
Dockets
A­
99­
06
and
A­
2001­
28
(
see
also
OAR
2003­
0012).
1
Those
dockets
are
incorporated
by
reference
into
the
docket
for
this
action,
OAR­
2003­
0190.

Table
of
Contents
I.
Overview
A.
What
New
Controls
is
EPA
Considering?

B.
Why
Is
EPA
Considering
New
Controls?

C.
Basis
for
Action
Under
the
Clean
Air
Act
II.
Controlling
Locomotive
Emissions
A.
Background
B.
Scope
11
C.
Tier
3
Standards
and
Effective
Dates
D.
Testing
E.
Certification
and
compliance
III.
Controlling
Marine
Diesel
Engine
Emissions
A.
Background
B.
Scope
C.
Tier
3
Standards
and
Effective
Dates
D.
Testing
E.
Certification
and
compliance
IV.
Potential
Environmental
Impacts
and
Costs
A.
Estimated
Inventory
Contribution
B.
Potential
Costs
V.
Small
Business
Concerns/
Regulatory
Flexibility
VI.
Public
Participation
A.
How
Do
I
Submit
Comments?

B.
Will
There
Be
a
Public
Hearing?

VII.
Statutory
and
Executive
Order
Reviews
A.
Administrative
Designation
and
Regulatory
Analysis
(
Executive
Order
12866)

B.
Regulatory
Flexibility
Act
C.
Paperwork
Reduction
Act
D.
Intergovernmental
Relations
E.
National
Technology
Transfer
and
Advancement
Act
2
As
used
in
this
ANPRM,
"
nonroad
diesel
engines"
refers
to
the
off­
highway
engines
regulated
under
40
CFR
Part
89
(
Tier
1,
2,
and
3
standards)
and
Part
1039
(
Tier
4).
This
generally
covers
a
wide
variety
of
land­
based
engines,
including
those
used
in
farm,
construction,
industrial,
and
mining
applications.

3See
66
FR
5001
(
January
18,
2001),
and
[
INSERT
DATE
FROM
TODAY'S
FEDERAL
REGISTER
FOR
NONROAD
FINAL
RULE]
for
the
final
rules
regarding
highway
diesel,
and
nonroad
diesel
programs,
respectively.

12
F.
Protection
of
Children
(
Executive
Order
13045)

G.
Federalism
(
Executive
Order
13132)

H.
Energy
Effects
(
Executive
Order
13211)

I.
Plain
Language
I.
Overview
In
recent
years,
EPA
has
adopted
major
new
programs
designed
to
reduce
emissions
from
diesel
engines.
When
fully
phased
in,
these
new
programs
for
highway
and
nonroad
diesel
engines
will
lead
to
the
elimination
of
over
90%
of
harmful
pollutants
from
these
sources.
2
The
public
health
and
welfare
benefits
of
these
actions
are
very
significant,
projected
at
over
$
70
billion
and
$
83
billion
for
our
highway
and
nonroad
diesel
programs,
respectively,
in
2030.
In
contrast,
the
corresponding
annual
cost
of
these
programs
will
be
a
small
fraction
of
this
amount.
We
have
estimated
the
annual
cost
at
$
4.2
billion
and
$
2
billion,
respectively
in
2030.
These
programs
are
being
implemented
over
the
next
decade.
3
4As
used
in
this
ANPRM,
"
marine
diesel
engine"
refers
to
compression­
ignition
marine
engines
below
30
liters
per
cylinder
displacement
unless
otherwise
indicated.

5This
rule
will
address
emissions
from
all
marine
diesel
engines
below
30
liters
used
for
commercial,
recreational,
or
auxiliary
applications.
Marine
diesel
engines
at
or
above
30
liters
per
cylinder
are
not
part
of
this
rulemaking.
These
large
engines,
which
are
used
for
propulsion
on
ocean­
going
vessels,
are
the
largest
mobile
source
diesel
engines
regulated
by
EPA.
They
will
be
addressed
in
a
rule
to
be
finalized
by
April
27,
2007.
See
68
FR
9746
(
February
28,
2003)
for
more
information
about
that
future
rule.

6
See
the
"
Additional
Information
about
this
Rulemaking"
section
above
for
the
specific
cites.

13
Marine
diesel
engines
less
than
30
liters
per
cylinder
(
marine
diesel
engines)
and
locomotives
are
significant
contributors
to
our
national
mobile
source
emissions
inventory.
4,5
Even
with
recent
emission
standards
for
these
sectors,
the
contribution
of
these
engines
is
expected
to
grow.
Without
new
controls,
we
estimate
that
their
respective
contributions
to
mobile
source
NO
x
and
fine
diesel
particulate
matter
(
PM
2.5)
emissions
will
increase
to
27
percent
and
45
percent
by
2030.
Reducing
emissions
from
these
two
engine
categories
can
lead
to
significant
public
health
benefits
such
as
reduced
premature
mortalities
and
decreased
incidences
of
heart
attacks
and
asthma
exacerbations.
It
will
help
states
and
localities
attain
and
maintain
PM
and
ozone
national
ambient
air
quality
standards
(
NAAQS).

Locomotive
and
marine
diesel
engines
are
currently
subject
to
emission
standards
that
rely
on
engine­
based
technologies
to
reduce
emissions.
6
The
opportunity
to
gain
large
additional
public
health
benefits,
as
well
as
the
similarities
between
these
engines
and
highway
and
general
nonroad
engines,
lead
us
to
consider
additional
emission
controls
based
on
the
same
advanced
emission
control
technologies
on
which
our
2007/
2010
highway
and
Tier
4
nonroad
diesel
engine
14
programs
are
based.
The
use
of
these
technologies
on
locomotive
and
marine
diesel
engines
will
be
enabled
by
the
ultra
low
sulfur
diesel
(
ULSD)
requirements
established
in
our
recently
adopted
nonroad
diesel
rule,
which
sets
a
15
parts
per
million
(
ppm)
sulfur
limit
for
locomotive
and
marine
diesel
fuel
beginning
in
2012.

In
this
Advance
Notice
of
Proposed
Rulemaking
(
ANPRM),
we
describe
the
emission
controls
we
are
considering
for
locomotive
and
marine
diesel
engines.
The
remainder
of
this
Introduction
provides
a
summary
of
the
controls
we
are
considering
and
a
brief
description
of
the
impacts
of
these
emissions
on
human
health
and
welfare.
Sections
II
and
III
describe
the
emission
controls
we
are
considering
for
our
locomotive
and
marine
diesel
engine
programs,
respectively.

In
Section
IV,
we
describe
the
contribution
of
these
engines
to
mobile
source
NOx
and
diesel
PM
2.5
inventories
and
our
plans
for
our
future
cost
analysis.
Section
V
contains
our
plan
to
solicit
the
input
from
small
businesses
in
these
sectors.
Finally,
sections
VI
and
VII
contain
information
about
public
participation
and
statutory
and
executive
order
review.
We
are
interested
in
comments
covering
all
aspects
of
this
ANPRM.

We
are
planning
to
issue
a
Notice
of
Proposed
Rulemaking
addressing
engine
standards
for
locomotive
and
marine
diesel
engines
by
mid­
2005,
with
a
final
rule
targeted
for
mid­
2006.

A.
What
New
Controls
is
EPA
Considering?
15
EPA
currently
has
emission
standards
for
locomotives
and
marine
diesel
engines.
The
standards
for
new
locomotives,
adopted
in
1998,
phase
in
from
2000
through
2005.
That
program
includes
emission
limits
(
that
apply
upon
remanufacturing)
for
existing
locomotives
that
were
originally
manufactured
after
1973.
The
standards
for
marine
diesel
engines
were
adopted
in
1999
for
commercial
marine
engines
and
in
2002
for
recreational
marine
engines.
They
phase
in
from
2004
through
2009,
depending
on
engine
size
and
application.
These
locomotive
and
marine
diesel
engine
standards
are
similar
in
stringency
to
our
nonroad
Tier
2
standards
that
were
set
in
1998
and
began
phasing
in
starting
in
2001.
The
technologies
needed
to
meet
our
nonroad
diesel
Tier
2
standards
in
turn
are
derived
from
highway
diesel
engine
technologies
that
have
been
in
widespread
use
since
the
early
1990'
s,
which
achieve
emissions
reductions
through
judicious
incylinder
control
of
ignition
timing
and
fuel
injection
pressure.
The
significant
lag
in
leadtime
between
application
of
this
technology
to
land­
based
and
marine
nonroad
engines
compared
to
highway
engines
is
more
reflective
of
the
challenges
involved
in
regulating
markets
just
starting
to
focus
on
emissions
control
programs
(
including
development
of
testing
lab
capability
and
production
line
quality
assurance
measures,
and
the
like),
than
of
the
challenges
involved
in
adapting
the
technology
itself
to
the
differing
engine
applications.

Emission
control
technologies
for
diesel
engines
have
advanced
substantially
since
these
rules
were
issued,
especially
with
regard
to
high­
efficiency
catalytic
exhaust
emission
control
systems.
Our
2007
highway
and
Tier
4
nonroad
diesel
engine
emission
standards
are
predicated
on
these
new
technologies
enabling
NOx,
HC
and
PM
emission
reductions
of
90
percent
or
more.

These
new
standards
apply
to
engines
ranging
up
to
several
thousand
horsepower.
PM
and
HC
7
See
EPA
docket
items
OAR­
2003­
0190­
0002,
0003,
0004,
and
0005.

16
emissions
can
be
controlled
to
these
levels
through
the
use
of
catalyzed
diesel
particulate
filters
(
CDPFs).
CDPFs
are
a
well
proven
technology
and
have
been
used
in
numerous
retrofit
applications
including
retrofits
of
locomotive
switcher
engines.
NOx
emissions
can
be
controlled
through
the
use
of
NOx
adsorbers
or
selective
catalytic
reduction
(
SCR),
both
of
which
are
capable
of
large
NOx
reductions.
SCR
technology
has
already
been
implemented
on
a
number
of
marine
engines.
7
To
operate
reliably
and
at
high
efficiencies,
these
technologies
require
very
low
sulfur
levels
in
diesel
fuel.
We
have
already
put
programs
in
place
that
will
reduce
sulfur
to
15
ppm
for
highway
and
nonroad
diesel
fuel.
Our
nonroad
diesel
fuel
program
applies
the
15
ppm
fuel
sulfur
cap
to
refiners
and
importers
of
locomotive
and
marine
diesel
fuel
beginning
in
2012.

However,
the
widespread
availability
of
15
ppm
sulfur
diesel
fuel
throughout
the
country
even
before
this
date
makes
it
viable
to
consider
locomotive
and
marine
engine
programs
as
early
as
2011
that
are
based
at
least
in
some
part
on
the
use
of
this
fuel.

In
ways
relevant
to
the
use
of
advanced
emissions
control
technologies,
marine
diesel
engines
and
locomotives
are
similar
to
highway
and
nonroad
diesel
engines.
In
fact,
many
marine
diesel
engines
are
derivatives
of
land­
based
nonroad
engines,
and
both
marine
and
locomotive
engines
share
important
design
features
with
highway
and
nonroad
diesel
engines.
The
nonroad
diesel
standards
cover
engines
of
all
sizes,
including
small
engines
similar
in
size
to
the
smallest
auxiliary
marine
engines
and
large
engines
on
the
scale
of
locomotive
and
large
marine
propulsion
engines.
The
new
catalyst
based
emission
control
technologies,
which
are
expected
to
be
applied
for
highway
and
nonroad
diesel
engines,
can
be
similarly
effective
at
controlling
emissions
from
17
locomotive
and
marine
engines.
Therefore,
we
believe
it
is
appropriate
to
consider
applying
advanced
aftertreatment
standards
to
locomotives
and
marine
engines
as
well.
Despite
the
fundamental
similarities
involved,
we
recognize
that
there
are
also
some
differences
between
the
highway/
nonroad
engines
for
which
the
technologies
were
initially
designed
and
the
locomotive/
marine
engines
to
which
we
are
considering
applying
this
technology,
and
this
may
present
some
special
challenges.
We
discuss
these
in
this
section
I.
A
below.
However,
we
do
not
believe
that
these
challenges
are
so
significant
as
to
pose
a
barrier
to
setting
standards
based
on
implementing
these
technologies
in
the
future.
We
do
recognize
that
in
order
to
address
potential
issues,
we
may
need
to
consider
flexibility
in
how
the
standards
are
implemented,
and
we
request
comment
on
the
technology
issues
listed
here
and
on
any
other
technology
issues
that
we
should
consider
in
setting
new
standards.

Potential
issues
unique
to
locomotives
include
available
space
for
the
technology
and
scaling
up
of
aftertreatment
systems
to
large
horsepower
sizes.
When
scaled
to
locomotive­
sized
engines,
the
kinds
of
aftertreatment
systems
being
developed
for
highway
diesel
engines
would
logically
be
larger,
though
not
necessarily
much
larger
than
systems
that
will
be
applied
to
large
nonroad
diesels.
Total
locomotive
size
is
constrained
by
the
existing
infrastructure.
Height
and
width
are
constrained
by
tunnel
and
bridge
clearances,
and
length
is
constrained
by
the
curvature
of
the
rails.
On
the
other
hand,
we
believe
the
use
of
aftertreatment
may
make
it
possible
to
reduce
the
need
for
the
additional
radiator
space
that
is
currently
being
applied
to
locomotives
to
increase
aftercooling
capacity.
We
request
comment
on
the
significance
of
any
space
constraints
18
regarding
the
use
of
aftertreatment
on
locomotives,
as
well
as
potential
ways
of
dealing
with
such
constraints.

Exhaust
temperature
may
also
be
a
key
factor
in
the
proper
design
of
emission
control
technologies
for
locomotive
and
marine
applications.
For
most
catalytic
emission
control
technologies
there
is
a
minimum
temperature
below
which
the
rate
of
chemical
reactions
necessary
for
emissions
control
falls
off.
In
general,
exhaust
temperature
increases
with
engine
power
and
can
vary
dramatically
as
engine
power
demands
vary.
Prolonged
low­
power
operation
can
hamper
the
overall
effectiveness
of
catalyst­
based
aftertreatment
devices,
unless
steps
are
taken
in
designing
them
to
compensate.
An
example
of
an
application
with
a
lot
of
low­
power
operation
would
be
a
tug
boat
that
primarily
idles
or
operates
at
low
light
loads
moving
around
the
harbor
and
only
at
high
loads
for
a
short
time
when
pushing
ships.
We
believe
it
may
be
necessary
for
advanced
exhaust
emission
controls
in
at
least
some
locomotive
and
marine
applications
to
use
active
regeneration
mechanisms,
such
as
the
post­
injection
of
diesel
fuel
into
the
exhaust
stream
to
initiate
thermal
transients.
This
would
be
similar
to
the
design
measures
we
are
projecting
for
robust
operation
of
nonroad
diesel
engines
in
our
Tier
4
program.
We
request
comment
on
exhaust
temperature
profiles
for
locomotive
and
marine
diesel
engines
and
their
impact
on
aftertreatment
design
strategies.

One
special
consideration
for
marine
engines
derives
from
the
fact
that
their
exhaust
systems
are
typically
designed
to
operate
with
surface
temperatures
below
100

C.
This
is
intended
to
minimize
the
risk
of
fires
in
response
to
Coast
Guard
safety
requirements.
For
most
19
commercial
marine
engines,
the
exhaust
piping
is
insulated
and
the
exhaust
is
routed
either
through
a
muffler
or
under
water.
Typically,
for
larger
vessels,
the
exhaust
exits
above
the
top
of
the
vessel.
However,
in
many
recreational
and
light­
duty
commercial
applications,
the
exhaust
is
water­
jacketed
and
leaves
the
vessel
below
the
water
surface.
In
some
cases,
the
jacketing­
water
and
exhaust
are
mixed
in
the
exhaust
system
before
exiting
the
vessel.
This
is
especially
common
in
sterndrive
applications
where
the
jacket­
water
mixes
with
exhaust
within
feet
of
the
cylinder
exhaust
port
and
exits
through
the
lower
drive
unit.

Exhaust
systems
that
rely
on
insulation
to
control
surface
temperature
are
likely
to
prove
to
be
very
well
matched
to
the
new
emission
control
technologies
which
can
benefit
from
such
a
thermal
management
technique.
However,
the
use
of
water­
jacketing
may
raise
additional
issues
to
be
addressed.
The
first
issue
is
the
effect
of
the
water
jacketing
on
the
exhaust
gas
temperature.
Where
an
insulated
exhaust
helps
keep
the
heat
in
the
exhaust,
water­
jacketing
removes
heat
thus
lowering
average
exhaust
temperatures
and
potentially
reducing
catalyst
system
effectiveness.
We
believe
that
there
are
a
number
of
solutions
to
this
issue
including
closecoupling
of
the
catalyst
system
and
the
use
of
an
insulating
gap
between
the
exhaust
flow
and
the
water
jacket
similar
to
the
approach
used
to
insulate
the
exhaust
system.
For
sterndrive
applications
or
other
applications
where
the
exhaust
is
mixed
with
the
water,
we
believe
it
may
be
necessary
to
redesign
the
exhaust
system
to
ensure
there
is
enough
room
in
the
dry
part
of
the
exhaust
system
to
package
the
aftertreatment
system.
We
request
comment
on
packaging
constraints
for
marine
diesel
engine
applications
that
would
affect
the
feasibility
of
applying
8
For
a
full
discussion
of
the
human
health
and
environmental
problems
that
diesel
engine
emissions
contribute
to,
see
Chapter
2
of
the
Regulatory
Impact
Analysis
for
our
nonroad
diesel
rule,
available
on
our
website:
http://
www.
epa.
gov/
otaq.

20
exhaust
aftertreatment
or
other
emission
control
strategies.
We
also
request
comments
describing
methods
to
address
potential
issues
related
to
system
packaging.

We
believe
that,
given
adequate
development
lead
time
and
appropriate
structuring
of
phase­
in
provisions,
locomotive
and
marine
diesel
engines
could
be
designed
to
successfully
employ
the
same
high­
efficiency
exhaust
emission
control
technologies
now
being
developed
for
highway
and
nonroad
engine
use.

B.
Why
Is
EPA
Considering
New
Controls?

Marine
diesel
engines
and
locomotives
contribute
to
a
number
of
serious
air
pollution
problems
and
will
continue
to
do
so
in
the
future
absent
further
emission
reduction
measures.

Their
emissions
lead
to
adverse
health
and
welfare
effects
associated
with
ozone,
PM,
NOx,
and
volatile
organic
compounds,
including
toxic
compounds.
In
addition,
diesel
exhaust
is
of
specific
concern
because
it
is
likely
carcinogenic
for
humans
as
well
as
posing
a
hazard
from
noncancer
respiratory
effects.
Ozone,
NO
X,
and
PM
also
cause
significant
public
welfare
harm
such
as
damage
to
crops,
eutrophication,
regional
haze,
and
soiling
of
building
materials.
8
Millions
of
Americans
continue
to
live
in
areas
with
unhealthy
air
quality
that
may
endanger
public
health
and
welfare.
Part
or
all
of
474
counties
nationwide
are
in
nonattainment
9Air
Docket
OAR
2003­
0012,
Comment
OAR­
2003­
0012­
0781.

10Air
Docket
OAR
2003­
0012,
Comment
OAR­
2003­
0012­
0644.

21
for
either
failing
to
meet
the
8­
hour
ozone
standard
or
for
contributing
to
poor
air
quality
in
a
nearby
area.
There
are
approximately
159
million
people
living
in
these
non­
attainment
areas.
In
addition,
approximately
65
million
people
live
in
counties
where
air
quality
measurements
violate
the
PM
2.5
National
Ambient
Air
Quality
Standards
(
NAAQS).
These
numbers
do
not
include
the
tens
of
millions
of
people
living
in
areas
where
there
is
a
significant
future
risk
of
failing
to
maintain
or
achieve
the
ozone
or
PM
2.5
NAAQS.
Federal,
state,
and
local
governments
are
working
to
bring
ozone
and
PM
levels
into
compliance
with
the
NAAQS
attainment
and
maintenance
plans
and
the
reductions
we
are
considering
in
this
ANPRM
will
play
a
critical
part
in
these
actions.
In
the
comments
submitted
on
our
recent
nonroad
diesel
rule,
several
states
requested
EPA
take
action
to
control
these
emissions.
For
example,
Illinois
Lieutenant
Governor
Pat
Quinn
commented
that
"
in
Illinois
locomotives
are
quite
prevalent
especially
in
the
urban
area
in
and
around
Chicago.
It
is
in
urban
areas
that
the
risk
of
cancer
and
asthma
is
highest.

Incorporating
marine
vessels
and
locomotives
into
the
regulations
will
create
an
incentive
to
aggressively
advance
technology."
9
Marianne
L.
Horinko,
Acting
Administrator,
California
Air
Resources
Board,
commented
that
"
in
2000,
locomotives
and
commercial
marine
engines
were
responsible
for
15
percent
of
the
PM
emissions
inventory
for
diesel
mobile
sources
in
California...

ARB
strongly
recommends
that
U.
S.
EPA
proceed
as
rapidly
as
possible
...
to
establish
aftertreatement­
based
emissions
standards
for
locomotive
and
marine
engines."
10
Dr.
Pamela
M.

Berger,
Director
of
Environmental
Policy,
Office
of
the
Mayor,
City
of
Houston
commented
that
"
given
that
municipalities
and
states
are
not
empowered
to
regulate
locomotives
and
that
these
11Air
Docket
OAR
2003­
0012,
Comment
OAR­
2003­
0012­
0630.

22
vehicles
are
a
growing
source
of
emissions,
we
would
encourage
EPA
to
regulate
them."
11
Many
other
commenters
encouraged
the
Agency
to
adopt
further
emission
controls
for
these
engines
as
quickly
as
possible.
See
section
8.3.3
of
the
Summary
and
Analysis
of
Comments
document
for
the
nonroad
diesel
final
rule,
available
in
EPA
docket
A­
2001­
28.

Even
with
the
control
measures
already
in
place
for
locomotives
and
marine
diesel
engines,
the
combination
of
expected
future
growth
and
the
dramatic
emission
reductions
expected
from
our
recently
established
highway
and
nonroad
diesel
engine
control
programs
will
make
the
relative
emission
contribution
from
locomotives
and
marine
diesel
engines
grow
quite
large
over
time.
We
estimate
that
they
will
contribute
about
27
percent
and
45
percent
of
national
mobile
source
NOx
and
diesel
PM
2.5
emissions,
respectively,
by
2030.
Additionally,
the
contribution
of
these
engines
can
be
significantly
higher
in
ports,
in
rail
centers,
and
along
coasts
and
railways.
Many
of
these
areas
are
highly
populated
and
suffer
from
poor
air
quality.
Because
locomotives
and
marine
diesel
engines
contribute
greatly
to
these
air
quality
problems,
further
controls
in
this
source
category
will
likely
be
needed
to
resolve
them.
Commenters
are
encouraged
to
provide
any
information
they
may
have
that
would
help
us
to
further
assess
the
contributions
of
locomotive
and
marine
engines
to
the
nation's
air
quality
problems,
especially
in
regard
to
future
growth
in
these
markets.

We
expect
that
our
proposal
for
new
control
measures
will
focus
on
PM
and
air
toxics
reductions
as
early
as
feasible,
consistent
with
our
2007/
2010
highway
and
Tier
4
nonroad
rules.
23
However,
we
recognize
that
these
engine
are
also
significant
contributors
of
NOx
emissions
and
that
high­
efficiency
NOx
controls
may
well
be
feasible
for
these
engines
in
the
timeframes
under
consideration.
We
request
comment,
therefore,
on
all
aspects
of
potential
emissions
control
measures
that
might
be
taken
to
improve
air
quality.

C.
Basis
for
Action
Under
the
Clean
Air
Act
Section
213
of
the
Clean
Air
Act
(
the
Act)
gives
us
the
authority
to
establish
emissions
standards
for
nonroad
engines
and
vehicles.
Section
213(
a)(
3)
authorizes
the
Administrator
to
set
(
and
from
time
to
time
revise)
standards
for
NOx,
VOCs,
or
carbon
monoxide
emissions
from
nonroad
engines,
to
reduce
ambient
levels
of
ozone
and
carbon
monoxide.
That
section
specifies
that
the
"
standards
shall
achieve
the
greatest
degree
of
emission
reduction
achievable
through
the
application
of
technology
which
the
Administrator
determines
will
be
available
for
the
engines
or
vehicles."
As
part
of
this
determination,
the
Administrator
must
give
appropriate
consideration
to
cost,
lead
time,
noise,
energy,
and
safety
factors
associated
with
the
application
of
such
technology.
Section
213(
a)(
4)
authorizes
the
Administrator
to
establish
standards
to
control
emissions
of
pollutants,
such
as
PM,
which
"
may
reasonably
be
anticipated
to
endanger
public
health
and
welfare."
In
setting
appropriate
standards,
EPA
is
instructed
to
take
into
account
costs,
noise,
safety,
and
energy
factors.
Section
213(
a)(
5)
contains
similar
provisions
that
authorize
the
Administrator
to
set
standards
for
new
locomotive
engines.
12In
the
United
States,
freight
railroads
are
subdivided
into
three
classes
by
the
Federal
Surface
Transportation
Board
(
STB),
based
on
annual
revenue.
In
1994
a
railroad
was
classified
as
a
Class
I
railroad
if
annual
revenue
was
$
250
million
or
greater
($
1991),
as
a
Class
II
railroad
24
As
part
of
the
development
of
our
Notice
of
Proposed
Rulemaking,
we
will
analyze
whether
the
emission
control
program
under
consideration
for
locomotive
and
marine
diesel
engines
is
technologically
feasible
and
reflects
the
greatest
degree
of
emission
reduction
achievable
in
the
model
years
to
which
it
would
apply,
giving
appropriate
consideration
to
costs
and
the
other
factors
listed
in
the
statute.
We
will
also
perform
an
analysis
of
the
impacts
of
locomotive
and
marine
diesel
emissions
on
human
health
and
welfare
and
the
anticipated
benefits
of
the
standards.

II.
Controlling
Locomotive
Emissions
A.
Background
1.
What
is
the
Nature
of
the
Locomotive
Market?

There
are
currently
three
manufacturers
of
locomotive
engines
for
the
U.
S.
market:

General
Electric
(
GE),
the
Electromotive
Division
of
General
Motors
(
EMD),
and
Caterpillar.

Total
sales
of
freshly
manufactured
locomotives
in
the
U.
S.
can
vary
dramatically
from
year
to
year.
Since
1997
sales
have
been
between
600
and
900
units
per
year.
All
freshly
manufactured
locomotives
are
essentially
built
to
order
for
the
major
Class
I
railroads.
Class
II
and
III
railroads
typically
purchase
used
locomotives
rather
than
purchasing
new.
12
with
annual
revenue
of
at
least
$
20
million
but
less
than
$
250
million
($
1991),
and
as
a
Class
III
railroad
with
revenues
below
$
20
million
(
1991).
Surface
Transportation
Board
1996/
1997
Annual
Report,
accessed
at
http://
www.
stb.
dot.
gov/
stb/
docs/
ActivityReport1996­
1997.
pdf
on
April
6,
2004.

13
63
FR
18977
(
April
16,
1998).

25
Locomotives
are
typically
remanufactured
to
"
as
new"
condition
every
five
to
seven
years
throughout
their
services
lives,
and
they
typically
remain
in
service
for
30
to
40
years
or
more
before
being
scrapped.
Under
our
current
regulations,
these
remanufactured
engines
are
considered
"
new"
for
the
purposes
of
applying
emissions
standards.
As
might
be
expected,
there
is
a
thriving
market
in
both
aftermarket
parts
and
remanufacturing
services.
While
some
railroads
remanufacture
their
own
locomotives,
other
railroads
contract
to
have
this
work
performed
for
them.
The
two
largest
locomotive
manufacturers
(
GE
and
EMD)
both
have
unit
exchange
programs
where
a
railroad
can
trade
in
a
locomotive
engine
in
need
of
remanufacture
for
one
that
has
just
been
remanufactured.
There
are
also
a
number
of
independent
companies
that
offer
engine
remanufacturing
services.

2.
What
Are
the
Existing
Standards
for
Locomotives?

Three
separate
sets
of
emission
standards
have
been
adopted,
with
applicability
of
the
standards
dependent
on
the
date
a
locomotive
is
freshly
manufactured.
13
26
°
Tier
0
standards
apply
to
locomotives
and
locomotive
engines
that
were
freshly
manufactured
from
1973
through
2001;
the
standards
apply
any
time
the
engines
are
manufactured
or
remanufactured.

°
Tier
1
standards
apply
to
locomotives
and
locomotive
engines
that
are
freshly
manufactured
from
2002
through
2004.
These
locomotives
and
locomotive
engines
will
be
required
to
meet
the
Tier
1
standards
at
the
time
of
original
manufacture
and
at
each
subsequent
remanufacture.

°
Tier
2
standards
apply
to
locomotives
and
locomotive
engines
that
are
freshly
manufactured
in
2005
and
later.
These
locomotives
and
locomotive
engines
will
be
required
to
meet
the
applicable
Tier
2
standards
at
the
time
of
original
manufacture
and
at
each
subsequent
remanufacture.

We
also
have
opacity
standards
for
these
locomotives
and
locomotive
engines.
Electric
locomotives,
historic
steam­
powered
locomotives,
and
locomotives
freshly
manufactured
before
1973
are
not
currently
covered
by
emission
regulations.

When
fully
phased
in,
these
emission
standards
will
reduce
NOx
emissions
from
locomotives
by
nearly
two­
thirds,
and
HC
and
PM
emissions
by
half.
Nevertheless,
even
with
these
standards
in
place,
serious
concerns
about
emissions
from
locomotives
remain,
as
discussed
in
section
I.
B.
27
B.
Scope
Because
of
the
potential
for
locomotives
to
remain
in
service
for
40
years
or
more
as
discussed
in
section
II.
A.
1,
we
are
considering
additional
requirements
for
all
1973
and
later
locomotives.
We
are
considering
an
approach
similar
to
our
existing
program,
in
which
we
would
set
new
standards
for
in­
use
and
new
engines,
grouped
into
three
categories:

°
Locomotives
freshly
manufactured
after
the
effective
date
of
new
Tier
3
standards
°
Locomotives
currently
subject
to
the
Tier
2
standards
°
Locomotives
currently
subject
to
the
Tier
0
and
Tier
1
standards
For
the
first
group
of
engines,
those
that
would
be
freshly
manufactured
after
the
new
standards
begin
to
take
effect
(
as
early
as
2011),
we
are
considering
standards
that
reflect
the
use
of
advanced
emission
controls
and
aftertreatement
devices.
These
potential
standards
are
discussed
in
Section
II.
C.
Regarding
the
second
group
of
engines,
we
note
that
manufacturers
have
already
finished
the
primary
design
process
for
their
Tier
2
locomotives
and
are
currently
testing
these
designs
to
ensure
that
they
will
be
ready
for
production
by
2005,
and
this
will
be
taken
into
account
in
evaluating
ideas
for
further
control
measures
for
these
engines.

We
are
also
considering
new
requirements
for
locomotives
freshly
manufactured
in
model
years
1973
through
2004,
currently
subject
to
Tier
0
or
Tier
1
standards.
In
addition
to
potential
new
standards
for
some
or
all
of
these
engines
upon
remanufacture,
we
are
interested
in
ideas
for
28
voluntary
provisions
and
initiatives
that
could
encourage
cleaner
engines,
and
in
how
these
might
be
coordinated
with
new
standards
for
new
and
remanufactured
engines
through
emissions
trading,
fleetwide
average
standards,
or
similar
approaches.
Also,
we
request
comment
on
the
applicability
of
technologies
being
developed
for
Tier
2
locomotives
to
these
earlier
engines
upon
remanufacture.

C.
Tier
3
Standards
and
Effective
Dates
1.
Tier
3
Standards
for
New
Engines
We
are
considering
emission
standards
for
new
locomotives
built
as
early
as
2011,
based
on
the
application
of
advanced
emission
control
technologies.
These
technologies
are
currently
being
developed
for
use
in
highway
and
nonroad
applications
and
will
begin
to
see
widespread
use
in
these
applications
starting
in
2007.
In
those
programs,
we
estimated
that
NOx
and
PM
emissions
could
be
reduced
by
90
percent
or
more
from
emission
levels
in
the
exhaust
leaving
the
engine
through
the
use
of
NOx
aftertreatment
and
PM
filter
technologies.
We
would
expect
that
similar
levels
of
NOx
and
PM
reductions
could
be
achieved
by
applying
these
technologies
to
locomotives
as
well.

Although
for
the
most
part
these
highway
and
nonroad
engines
are
smaller
than
locomotive
engines,
much
of
the
fundamental
diesel
engine
and
emission
control
technology
involved
is
the
same,
such
as
PM
filtering
matrix
designs,
catalyst
formulations
to
optimize
29
exhaust
stream
chemical
reactions,
and
mechanisms
for
active
regeneration
of
filter
and
adsorber
beds.
Furthermore,
some
nonroad
diesel
engines
subject
to
our
nonroad
Tier
4
regulations
starting
in
2011
are
of
similar
size
to
locomotive
engines,
1000
to
3000
horsepower
or
more.

Although
they
are
not
typically
made
by
the
same
manufacturers,
locomotive
engines
have
substantial
design
and
operating
similarities
to
large
mobile
generator
set
engines
that
will
allow
the
locomotive
engines
to
benefit
from
emission
control
technology
being
developed
for
(
and
in
limited
applications
already
applied
to)
these
generator
sets.
We
note
too
that
the
largest
generator
sets,
those
over
1200
hp,
are
subject
to
the
earliest
stringent
NOx
control
requirements
of
any
engines
in
the
Tier
4
program,
0.50
g/
bhp­
hr
in
2011,
and
to
stringent
PM
standards
in
that
year
as
well.

Given
that
other
technologies,
such
as
exhaust
gas
recirculation
(
EGR)
and
optimized
fuel
injection,
could
also
be
applied
in
tandem
with
exhaust
aftertreatment,
we
expect
that
similar
final
emission
levels
to
those
achievable
from
highway
and
nonroad
engines
may
be
feasible.
The
availability
of
EGR
and
other
engine­
based
means
of
achieving
some
degree
of
emissions
control
also
introduces
the
potential
for
Tier
3
control
in
multiple
phases,
as
we
do
not
expect
locomotive
manufacturers
will
need
to
use
EGR
to
meet
the
Tier
2
standards
in
2005.
As
a
result,
we
request
comment
on
the
different
forms
these
future
standards
could
take,
including
the
following:

°
Should
we
adopt
the
approach
taken
in
the
heavy­
duty
highway
and
nonroad
diesel
programs
involving
a
PM
control
requirement
on
100%
of
the
engines
concurrent
30
with
a
NOx
requirement
that
is
phased
in
over
three
years,
starting
as
early
as
2011?

°
Would
it
be
more
appropriate
for
locomotive
manufacturers
to
focus
their
technology
development
efforts
on
a
single,
final
tier
of
standards
with
the
possibility
of
getting
to
aftertreatment­
based
emission
levels
sooner
than
would
likely
be
the
case
under
the
two­
phase
approach?

°
Are
there
phase­
in
options
that
we
could
adopt
to
encourage
the
early
introduction
of
aftertreatment
technology?

°
How
should
aftertreatment­
based
particulate
matter
controls
be
coordinated
with
those
for
NOx?

2.
Idling
Emissions
Control
Locomotives
typically
spend
significant
amounts
of
time
idling.
This
is
especially
the
case
in
switchyards,
which
tend
to
be
located
in
urban
areas.
Our
current
test
procedure
reflects
this
reality,
with
idling
operation
representing
38
percent
of
the
line­
haul
duty
cycle
and
almost
60
percent
of
the
switch
duty
cycle.
Although
the
fact
that
idling
emissions
per
unit
time
may
be
relatively
low
considering
that
they
occur
at
low
power
and
fuel
consumption
levels,
the
high
percentage
of
total
time
locomotives
spend
idling
in
urban
areas,
some
of
which
are
hot­
spot
air
quality
problem
areas,
may
warrant
our
addressing
these
emissions,
and
we
request
comment
on
our
doing
so.
31
We
note
that
locomotive
operators
already
recognize
that
there
is
some
public
demand
to
reduce
the
idling
of
locomotives.
For
this
reason
some
railroads
are
beginning
to
employ
idle
shutdown
technology
on
locomotives.
This
technology
simply
shuts
down
a
locomotive
after
a
certain
length
of
time
at
idle
conditions.
Clearly
this
technology
is
feasible
and
available
for
use,

and
we
are
considering
what
steps
we
might
take
to
encourage
or
require
its
widespread
use.

Thus,
we
request
comment
on
whether
we
should
consider
the
mandatory
use
of
idle
shutdown
technology
or
whether
a
voluntary
program
would
be
more
appropriate,
both
for
new
and
in­
use
locomotives.
In
the
case
of
a
voluntary
program,
we
request
comment
on
any
incentives
we
might
offer
to
encourage
participation
in
such
a
program.

D.
Testing
In
use,
locomotive
engines
are
operated
at
a
series
of
discrete
load
and
speed
points,

called
notches.
Our
current
test
procedure
involves
running
a
locomotive
or
locomotive
engine
through
all
of
its
different
power
notches,
as
well
as
its
idle
settings.
Emissions
are
measured
at
each
of
these
steady
state
points,
and
compliance
with
the
applicable
emission
standards
is
determined
by
weighting
the
emissions
at
each
point
according
to
the
applicable
weighting
factors
to
arrive
at
a
composite
emissions
level.
These
weighting
factors
were
derived
through
the
analysis
of
in­
use
operating
data
from
a
number
of
locomotives,
and
we
believe
they
accurately
represent
in­
use
locomotive
operations.
32
Because
of
this,
we
do
not
expect
it
will
be
necessary
to
adopt
comprehensive
"
not­

toexceed
standards
provisions
for
locomotives
as
we
have
in
our
highway
and
nonroad
diesel
engine
programs.
However,
the
possible
inclusion
of
exhaust
aftertreatment
technology
on
future
locomotives
leads
us
to
request
comment
on
whether
the
simple
approach
of
weighting
the
steady
state
modes
according
to
the
duty
cycle
would
still
accurately
represent
in­
use
operation.
Exhaust
temperatures
tend
to
be
lower
at
the
lower
power
notches
and
idle
modes,
raising
questions
regarding
the
effectiveness
of
aftertreatment
technology
in
those
modes
of
the
test
procedure
versus
those
modes
in
actual
operation,
given
that
the
test
procedure
requires
operating
parameters
to
stabilize
in
each
mode
before
emissions
sampling
begins.

The
test
duty
cycle
weightings
are
based
on
the
average
amount
of
time
that
a
locomotive
spends
in
each
power
notch
over
a
period
of
time.
However,
it
does
not
address
whether
the
time
spent
in
lower
power
notches
happens
in
fewer,
longer
segments
or
many
shorter
ones.
If
the
actual
in­
use
operation
in
low
power
notches
happens
in
fewer,
longer
segments,
the
test
cycle
would
be
more
representative
of
actual
in­
use
operation
from
an
exhaust
temperature
perspective
than
if
the
low
power
notch
operation
occurred
in
a
higher
number
of
shorter
segments,
with
operation
at
higher
power
notches
mixed
in.
In
this
latter
case,
the
higher
power
notch
operation
may
serve
to
keep
exhaust
temperatures
higher
in
the
low
power
notches
than
might
be
the
case
if
the
low
power
notch
operation
took
place
in
fewer,
longer
segments.
We
request
comment
on
whether
this
is
a
concern
and,
if
so,
what
modifications
could
be
made
to
the
test
procedures
without
impacting
its
viability
or
representativeness,
or
the
stringency
of
the
standards.
33
E.
Certification
and
compliance
Our
current
locomotive
compliance
program
contains
provisions
for
engine
family
certification,
production
line
testing
and
in­
use
testing
of
both
freshly
manufactured
and
remanufactured
locomotives.
The
in­
use
testing
program
contains
requirements
for
locomotive
manufacturers
and
remanufacturers,
as
well
as
for
locomotive
operators.
We
are
requesting
comment
on
whether
we
should
consider
any
changes
or
additions
to
our
current
certification
and
compliance
programs.
In
addition
to
possible
modifications
to
our
current
programs,
we
are
asking
for
comment
on
whether
an
onboard
diagnostic
(
OBD)
program
would
be
needed
for
locomotives,
especially
for
locomotives
equipped
with
advanced
exhaust
aftertreatment
devices.

We
currently
have
OBD
requirements
in
place
or
under
development
for
a
number
of
mobile
source
programs,
including
light­
duty
highway,
heavy­
duty
highway,
and
nonroad
diesel
engines.
We
request
comment
on
the
appropriateness
and
need
for
a
locomotive
diagnostic
program
in
light
of
our
current
in­
use
testing
programs,
and
specifically
request
comment
on
what
types
of
parameters
would
be
monitored
under
such
a
diagnostic
program.
We
are
particularly
interested
in
comments
on
how
our
existing
OBD
programs
for
other
source
categories
could
be
adapted
for
use
on
locomotives.

III.
Controlling
Marine
Diesel
Engine
Emissions
14This
approach
was
used
because
per­
cylinder
displacement
is
an
engine
characteristic
that
is
not
easily
changed
and
is
constant
for
a
given
engine
model
or
series
of
engine
models.
It
therefore
avoids
the
problem
that
can
arise
when
a
higher
power
engine
is
made
by
joining
together
more
cylinders:
the
larger
version
of
the
engine
could
be
subject
to
a
different
numerical
standard
than
an
engine
formed
from
a
smaller
number
of
cylinders.

15See
68
FR
9746
(
February
28,
2003)
for
more
information
about
the
future
rule
for
Category
3
marine
diesel
engines.

16
The
final
rule
setting
limits
on
the
sulfur
content
of
marine
diesel
fuel
does
not
apply
to
distillate
fuel
with
a
T90
greater
than
700

F
that
is
used
only
in
Category
2
or
Category
3
marine
diesel
engines.
This
would
include
marine
DMB
and
DMC
fuels
used
in
these
engines.

34
A.
Background
1.
What
is
the
Nature
of
the
Marine
Diesel
Engine
Market?

Our
current
marine
diesel
engine
emission
control
program
distinguishes
between
five
kinds
of
marine
diesel
engines,
defined
in
terms
of
displacement
per
cylinder.
14
These
five
types
are
set
out
in
Table
III­
1.
In
this
rulemaking
we
will
consider
new
standards
for
all
of
these
marine
diesel
engines
except
Category
3
engines.
Category
3
marine
diesel
engines,
which
are
used
for
propulsion
on
ocean­
going
vessels,
will
be
covered
in
a
separate
rule
to
be
issued
by
April
27,
2007.15
All
of
the
marine
diesel
engines
that
are
included
in
this
rule
operate
on
distillate
diesel
fuel.
Some
Category
2
marine
diesel
engines,
however,
may
operate
on
a
blend
of
distillate
and
residual
fuel
or
even
on
residual
fuel
(
for
example,
fuels
commonly
known
as
DMB,
DMC,
RMA,

and
RMB).
16
Operation
on
these
higher
sulfur
fuels
may
require
engine
modifications.
We
35
request
comment
on
the
extent
to
which
Category
2
marine
diesel
engines
on
vessels
in
the
U.
S.

fleet
use
residual
fuel
or
residual
fuel
blends
and
how
we
should
take
this
into
account
as
we
design
the
emission
control
program
for
those
engines.

Table
III­
1:
Marine
Diesel
Engine
Categories
Category
Rated
Power
Displacement
per
Cylinder
Final
Rule
Publication
Small
<
37
kW
any
1998
Commercial
C1
>
37
kW
<
5
liters
1999
Commercial
C2
>
37
kW

5
liters
and
<
30
liters
Commercial
C3
>
37
kW

30
liters
2003
Recreational
>
37
kW
<
5
liters
2002
The
same
engine
manufacturers
that
dominate
the
land­
based
nonroad
engine
market
are
also
active
in
the
marine
diesel
engine
market.
These
manufacturers
often
make
recreational
as
well
as
commercial
marine
diesel
engines.
Annual
sales
are
different
for
each
of
the
categories
addressed
in
this
rule
but
are
smaller
than
for
their
land­
based
counterparts.
According
to
analysis
performed
for
our
1999
rule,
there
are
about
5,000
commercial
C1
engines
produced
annually,

about
100
commercial
C2
engines,
and
about
10,000
recreational
diesel
engines.
In
addition,

there
are
about
6,000
marine
diesel
engines
less
than
37
kW
produced
annually.
Like
locomotives,
certain
marine
diesel
engines
can
have
long
service
periods,
with
some
of
the
engines
remaining
in
service
for
as
long
as
20
or
even
30
years.
17The
MARPOL
Annex
VI
NOx
limits
are
the
engine
standards
adopted
by
the
International
Maritime
Organization
in
Annex
VI
to
the
International
Convention
on
the
Prevention
of
Pollution
from
Ships,
1973,
as
Amended
by
the
1978
Protocol
Relating
Thereto.
These
international
consensus
standards
will
go
into
effect
when
the
Annex
has
been
ratified
by
15
countries
representing
no
less
than
50
percent
of
the
world's
merchant
shipping
tonnage.
To
date,
the
Annex
has
been
ratified
by
13
countries
representing
about
54.5
percent.
For
more
information
on
MARPOL
Annex
VI,
see
our
2003
rule.

1867
FR
68242
(
November
8,
2002).

36
2.
What
Are
the
Existing
Standards
for
Marine
Diesel
Engines?

Our
1999
rule
for
commercial
marine
diesel
engines
set
two
tiers
of
emission
limits
for
Category
1
and
Category
2
marine
diesel
engines
(
see
40
CFR
94.9).
The
Tier
1
standards
were
initially
adopted
as
voluntary
standards
and
are
equivalent
to
the
MARPOL
Annex
VI
NOx
limits.
17
These
standards
were
made
mandatory
for
engines
above
2.5
liters
per
cylinder
in
our
2003
rule,
beginning
in
2004.
The
Tier
2
commercial
marine
diesel
engine
standards
we
adopted
in
1999
address
NOx,
PM,
HC,
and
carbon
monoxide
emissions,
and
go
into
effect
from
2004
through
2007,
depending
on
engine
size.
At
the
time,
we
estimated
that
these
standards
would
yield
a
27
percent
reduction
in
NOx
emissions
from
the
MARPOL
Annex
VI
NOx
limits
and
a
26
percent
reduction
in
PM
emissions
in
2020.

Recreational
marine
diesel
engines
were
included
in
our
2002
recreational
vehicle
rule
(
see
40
CFR
94.9).
These
engines
are
subject
to
standards
that
are
equivalent
to
our
commercial
marine
diesel
engine
standards,
but
two
years
later.
18
We
estimated
that
these
standards
would
yield
a
21
percent
reduction
in
NOx
emissions
and
an18
percent
reduction
in
PM
emissions
in
2020.
1963
FR
56967
(
October
23,
1998).

37
Marine
diesel
engines
below
37
kW
were
included
in
our
1998
nonroad
diesel
rule
and
are
subject
to
the
same
Tier
1
and
Tier
2
standards
as
their
land­
based
counterparts
(
see
40
CFR
89.112).
19
They
were
not
included
in
our
most
recent
diesel
nonroad
rule,
however,
and
are
therefore
not
subject
to
the
subsequent
tier
of
standards
that
will
apply
to
their
land­
based
counterparts.
Instead,
additional
controls
for
small
marine
diesel
engines
were
deferred
to
this
rulemaking.

B.
Scope
The
emission
control
program
contemplated
by
today's
action
is
intended
to
cover
all
new
marine
diesel
engines
up
to
30
liters
per
cylinder,
including
those
used
in
commercial,
recreational,

and
auxiliary
applications.

EPA's
existing
standards
for
new
marine
diesel
engines
do
not
apply
to
engines
that
were
built
prior
to
the
effective
date
of
those
standards.
In
our
1998
proposal,
we
requested
comment
on
whether
we
should
apply
the
standards
to
engines
when
they
are
remanufactured,
using
the
locomotive
approach,
given
the
long
useful
lives
of
marine
diesel
engines.
Under
the
locomotive
approach,
an
engine
built
in
1973
or
later
but
prior
to
entry
into
force
of
the
Tier
1
standards
is
considered
to
be
"
new"
when
each
of
its
power
assemblies
is
replaced
or
is
inspected
and
qualified.
This
approach
was
used
to
address
the
long
periods
of
service
commonly
found
for
locomotives
(
30
to
40
years).
Certain
commercial
marine
diesel
engines
also
have
long
periods
of
38
service
(
20
to
30
years)
that
retard
the
turnover
to
the
new
standards.
However,
several
characteristics
of
the
marine
industry
make
a
direct
application
of
this
approach
to
marine
diesel
engines
more
difficult.
Unlike
the
railroad
industry,
there
are
many
companies
that
operate
marine
diesel
engines,
and
these
companies
do
not
rely
on
a
small
number
of
engine
remanufacturers
to
work
on
their
engines.
In
fact,
many
of
these
operators
employ
their
own
mechanics
to
do
all
maintenance
and
remanufacturing
work.
There
is
accordingly
little
uniformity
in
remanufacturing
practices
across
the
industry.
In
addition,
setting
emission
limits
for
remanufactured
in­
use
marine
diesel
engines
may
be
disruptive
to
a
large
number
of
small
businesses
that
own
and
operate
these
vessels.

We
are
interested
in
exploring
this
issue,
especially
with
regard
to
other
mechanisms
that
could
be
used
to
achieve
additional
reductions
from
in­
use
engines.
In
particular,
we
request
comment
on
how
we
could
design
such
a
program
in
the
context
of
the
remanufacturers'
specific
market
characteristics
to
provide
incentives
that
encourage
retrofits
or
that
accelerate
turnover.

We
request
comment
on
the
feasibility
and
potential
costs
and
benefits
of
both
voluntary
and
mandatory
remanufacturing
provisions
for
in­
use
marine
diesel
engines.

C.
Tier
3
Standards
and
Effective
Dates
20
"
Highway
Diesel
Progress
Review,"
U.
S.
EPA,
June
2002.
EPA420­
R­
02­
016.
(
www.
epa.
gov/
air/
caaac/
dieselreview.
pdf)
and
"
Highway
Diesel
Progress
Review
Report
2,"
U.
S.
EPA,
March
2004,
EPA
420­
R­
04­
004
(
http://
www.
epa.
gov/
otaq/
regs/
hd2007/
420r04004.
pdf)

21
"
Meeting
Technology
Challenges
For
the
2007
Heavy­
Duty
Highway
Diesel
Rule",
Final
Report
of
the
Clean
Diesel
Independent
Review
Subcommittee,
Clean
Air
Act
Advisory
Committee,
October
30,
2002.
(
www.
epa.
gov/
air/
caaac/
diesel/
finalcdirpreport103002.
pdf).

22"
Regulatory
Impact
Analysis:
Heavy­
Duty
Engine
and
Vehicle
Standards
and
Highway
Diesel
Fuel
Sulfur
Control
Requirements,"
U.
S.
Environmental
Protection
Agency,
EPA420­
R­
00­
026,
December
2000.
This
document
is
available
on
our
website
at
http://
www.
epa.
gov/
otaq/
diesel.
htm.

23"
Regulatory
Impact
Analysis:
Control
of
Emissions
from
Nonroad
Diesel
Engines,"
U.
S.
Environmental
Protection
Agency,
EPA
420­
R­
04­
007,
May
2004.
This
document
is
available
on
our
website,
www.
epa.
gov/
otaq.

39
Substantial
progress
has
been
made
in
recent
years
in
controlling
diesel
exhaust
emissions
through
the
use
of
robust,
high­
efficiency
catalytic
devices
placed
in
the
exhaust
system.
20,
21
Similar
to
the
discussion
above
regarding
technologies
for
PM,
HC,
and
NOx
control
for
locomotives,
we
believe
PM
filters
and
NOx
adsorbers
can
be
applied
to
marine
diesel
engines
for
emission
reductions
of
90%
or
more.
For
more
specific
information
on
these
technologies,
the
regulatory
impact
analyses
for
our
2007
highway
diesel
program
and
most
recent
nonroad
rule
contains
extensive
discussions
of
how
these
devices
work,
how
effective
they
are
at
reducing
emissions,
and
what
their
limitations
are,
particularly
their
dependence
on
very­
low
sulfur
diesel
fuel
to
function
properly.
22,23
Although
there
are
important
differences
between
land­
based
and
marine
diesel
engines,

they
are
fundamentally
similar.
The
majority
of
marine
diesel
engine
designs
are
derived
from
highway
and
nonroad
engine
platforms.
In
addition,
engines
in
some
nonroad
diesel
applications,
40
such
as
underground
mining,
have
water­
cooled
exhaust
systems
similar
to
those
used
in
many
marine
applications.
Manufacturers
of
underground
mining
equipment
have
pioneered
the
use
of
advanced
aftertreatment
technologies
for
many
years.
We
request
comment
on
the
similarities
and
differences
between
land­
based
and
marine
diesel
engines
with
respect
to
emission
control.

We
also
request
comment
on
whether
marine
diesel
engines
can
be
designed
to
successfully
employ
the
same
high­
efficiency
exhaust
emission
control
technologies
now
being
developed
for
highway
and
nonroad
use.
Commenters
should
consider
the
anticipated
availability
of
diesel
fuel
meeting
the
15
ppm
maximum
sulfur
requirement
and
the
required
amount
of
development
lead
time.

We
request
comment
on
emission
standards
for
marine
diesel
engines
that
would
be
based
on
the
transfer
of
exhaust
emission
control
technology
from
land­
based
diesel
engines.
This
approach
would
be
consistent
with
the
current
marine
Tier
2
emission
standards
which
were
based
on
technology
transfer
from
land­
based
Tier
2
engines.
We
are
considering
applying
such
emission
standards
to
new
marine
diesel
engines
built
as
early
as
2011.
Similar
to
the
locomotive
standards
described
in
Section
II
above,
we
request
comment
on
the
following:

°
Whether
we
should
adopt
the
approach
taken
in
the
heavy­
duty
highway
and
nonroad
diesel
programs
involving
a
PM
control
requirement
on
100%
of
the
engines
concurrent
with
a
NOx
requirement
that
is
phased
in
over
three
years;
41
°
Whether
it
would
be
more
appropriate
for
marine
engine
manufacturers
to
focus
their
technology
development
efforts
on
a
single,
final
tier
of
standards
with
the
possibility
of
getting
to
aftertreatment­
based
emission
levels
sooner;

°
Whether
there
are
phase­
in
options
that
we
could
adopt
to
encourage
the
early
introduction
of
aftertreatment
technology;
and
°
How
aftertreatment­
based
particulate
matter
controls
should
be
coordinated
with
those
for
NOx.

The
technologies
used
to
meet
the
Tier
2
standards
are
primarily
in­
cylinder
engine
controls
such
as
fuel
and
air
management
improvements,
consistent
with
the
approach
taken
for
heavy­
duty
highway
diesel
engines
in
the
1990'
s
and
subsequently
for
the
nonroad
diesel
engine
Tier
2
standards.
Due
to
differences
in
engine
design
and
application,
the
marine
Tier
2
standards
for
HC+
NOx
are
slightly
higher
than
those
in
the
nonroad
Tier
2
standards.
We
request
comment
of
whether
these
differences
in
design
and
application
could
have
an
effect
on
the
levels
of
aftertreatment­
based
standards.

We
recognize
that
marine
diesel
engines
generally
have
a
much
wider
band
of
power
ratings
for
a
given
per­
cylinder
displacement,
however,
we
request
comment
on
whether
or
not
we
should
continue
to
catagorize
the
engines
based
on
specific
displacement
rather
than
by
rated
power.
The
new
nonroad
Tier
4
standards
established
key
aftertreatment­
based
emission
control
standard
divisions
at
19
kW
and
56
kW
engine
power
ratings.
We
request
comment
on
whether
42
these
(
or
equivalent
per­
cylinder
displacement
categories)
would
be
appropriate
for
marine
engines
as
well.

D.
Testing
1.
NTE
zone
The
emission
standards
for
marine
diesel
engines
include
not­
to­
exceed
requirements
in
which
engines
must
meet
specified
emission
limits
within
a
zone
of
engine
operation.
This
NTE
zone
is
supplementary
to
primary
emission
standards
which
are
based
on
the
weighted
average
of
emissions
measured
over
a
modal
duty
cycle.
The
purpose
of
the
NTE
requirements
is
to
provide
robust
control
of
emissions
over
a
broad
range
of
in­
use
speed
and
load
combinations
(
and
ambient
conditions)
that
a
marine
engine
may
experience
in­
use.

One
issue
that
has
been
raised
with
the
use
of
aftertreatment
is
its
effectiveness
at
light
loads
where
exhaust
temperatures
are
low.
The
modal
duty
cycle
for
commercial
marine
engines
stresses
high
load
operation,
while
the
duty
cycle
for
recreational
marine
engines
is
weighted
more
towards
lighter
loads.
However,
even
for
commercial
marine
engines,
a
large
portion
of
the
engine
operation
for
vessels
operating
in
harbors
or
near
ports
may
be
at
light
load.
This
operation
is
important
because
it
is
in
harbors
and
ports
that
the
emissions
from
marine
engines
may
affect
the
most
people.
Therefore,
an
emission
control
strategy
that
works
well
at
high
loads,
43
but
poorly
at
light
loads,
may
appear
effective
over
the
current
test
procedures
without
providing
significant
in­
use
emission
benefits.

We
request
comment
on
whether
and
how
the
marine
diesel
engine
emissions
standards
and
test
procedures
should
be
modified
to
better
consider
light
load
conditions.
For
instance,
we
request
comment
on
whether
the
modal
duty
cycles
should
be
modified
or
if
the
NTE
zone
would
need
to
be
expanded
to
capture
more
light
load
operation.
If
the
NTE
zone
were
adjusted,
we
request
comment
on
how
the
emission
caps
would
need
to
be
adjusted
to
better
reflect
the
capabilities
of
aftertreatment
technology.
We
also
solicit
comment
on
alternative
approaches
that
would
help
ensure
the
effectiveness
of
emission
control
technology
over
the
wide
range
of
operation
and
ambient
conditions
that
a
marine
engine
may
experience
in­
use.

2.
In­
use
compliance
To
sustain
the
emission
benefits
over
the
broadest
range
of
in­
use
operating
conditions,

marine
diesel
engines
must
meet
the
applicable
emission
standards
throughout
their
useful
lives.

One
program
that
would
help
achieve
this
goal
is
manufacturer­
run
in­
use
testing.
EPA
requests
comment
on
the
concepts
discussed
below.

The
Agency
plans
to
promulgate
the
in­
use
testing
requirements
for
heavy­
duty
highway
vehicles
in
the
December
2004
time
frame
and
plans
to
propose
a
manufacturer­
run
in­
use
testing
program
for
nonroad
land­
based
diesel
engines
by
2005
or
earlier.
The
nonroad
diesel
engine
44
program
is
expected
to
be
patterned
after
the
heavy­
duty
highway
program.
The
Agency
expects
to
pattern
the
in­
use
testing
requirements
for
nonroad
diesel
engines
after
a
program
that
is
being
developed
for
heavy­
duty
diesel
highway
vehicles.
The
highway
diesel
vehicle
program
will
be
funded
and
conducted
by
the
manufacturer's
of
heavy­
duty
diesel
highway
engines
with
our
oversight.
We
expect
it
will
incorporate
a
two­
year
pilot
program.
The
pilot
program
will
allow
the
Agency
and
manufacturers
to
gain
the
necessary
experience
with
the
in­
use
testing
protocols
and
generation
of
in­
use
test
data
using
portable
emission
measurement
devices
prior
to
fully
implementing
program.

The
goal
of
an
in­
use
testing
program
would
be
to
ensure
that
emissions
standards
are
met
throughout
the
useful
life
of
the
engines,
under
conditions
normally
experienced
in­
use.
We
request
comment
on
implementing
an
in­
use
testing
program
for
marine
diesel
engines.
In
addition,
we
request
comment
on
creating
a
similar
pilot
program
as
is
anticipated
for
highway
vehicles
and
nonroad
land­
based
engines.
We
also
request
comment
on
any
unique
issues
related
to
marine
engines
that
may
require
modifications
to
this
approach.
It
should
be
noted
that
such
an
in­
use
testing
program
would
be
in
addition
to
our
normal
compliance
and
enforcement
provisions.

E.
Certification
and
compliance
Our
current
marine
compliance
program
contains
provisions
for
engine
family
certification,
production­
line
testing
and
in­
use
testing.
We
request
comment
on
whether
we
45
should
consider
any
changes
or
additions
to
our
current
certification
and
compliance
programs.

In
addition
to
possible
modifications
to
our
current
programs,
we
are
asking
for
comment
on
whether
an
engine­
diagnostic
requirement
would
be
beneficial
for
marine
diesel
engines.
We
currently
have
diagnostic
programs
in
place
for
some
other
mobile
sources.
We
request
comment
on
the
value
of
diagnostic
requirements
for
marine
diesel
engines
in
light
of
our
current
in­
use
testing
programs,
and
specifically
request
comment
on
what
types
of
engine
characteristics
and
components
should
be
monitored
under
such
a
program.
For
example,
should
we
consider
actual
onboard
emissions
measurement,
which
would
require
new
hardware,
or
should
we
simply
require
that
the
existing
sensors
be
utilized
to
better
monitor
for
potential
problems
related
to
emission
controls?

IV.
Potential
Environmental
Impacts
and
Costs
A.
Estimated
Inventory
Contribution
Locomotives
and
marine
diesel
engines
contribute
to
the
formation
of
ground
level
ozone
and
fine
particles.
Based
on
our
current
inventory
analysis,
we
estimate
that
these
engines
contributed
12
percent
and
10
percent
of
mobile
source
NO
x
and
diesel
PM
2.5
emissions
in
1996.

We
estimate
that
their
contribution
will
increase
to
27
and
45
percent
of
mobile
source
NO
x
and
diesel
PM
2.5
emission
by
2030,
after
phase­
in
of
our
existing
locomotive
and
marine
diesel
engine
emission
control
programs.
Our
current
estimates
for
NO
x
and
diesel
PM
2.5
inventories
are
set
out
in
Tables
IV.
A­
1
and
IV.
A­
2.
The
inventory
projections
include
the
newly
adopted
nonroad
46
diesel
engine
standards
and
sulfur
reductions
for
marine
and
locomotive
diesel
fuel.
Also,
diesel
PM
2.5
and
SO
2
emissions
for
locomotives
and
marine
diesel
engines
were
adjusted
downward
to
account
for
the
recent
fuel
sulfur
limits
on
diesel
marine
and
locomotive
fuel.
While
we
do
not
provide
estimates
for
other
pollutants
in
this
ANPRM,
it
should
be
noted
that
these
engines
also
contribute
to
national
HC,
carbon
monoxide,
and
air
toxics
inventories.
We
will
estimate
those
inventories
as
part
of
the
development
of
our
NPRM.

Our
current
inventories
for
marine
diesel
engines
are
based
on
inventory
work
done
in
connection
with
our
1999
and
2003
marine
diesel
engine
rules.
The
inventory
for
Category
1
marine
diesel
engines,
which
includes
recreational,
commercial,
and
auxiliary
applications,
is
estimated
using
a
methodology
based
on
engine
population,
hours
of
use,
average
engine
loads,

and
in­
use
emission
factors.
The
inventory
for
Category
2
marine
diesel
engines
is
based
on
a
combination
of
two
approaches,
one
using
ship
registry
data,
engine
rated
power,
operation,
fuel
consumption,
and
fuel
specific
emission
factors,
and
the
other
using
a
cargo
movement
approach.

Our
inventory
estimates
assume
that
all
these
emissions
occur
within
the
U.
S.
airshed.
Finally,
the
emissions
for
marine
diesel
engines
less
than
37
kW
are
estimated
using
the
draft
NONROAD2004
model.

As
part
of
the
development
of
our
NPRM,
we
will
be
re­
evaluating
our
marine
diesel
inventory
with
respect
to
Category
1
and
Category
2
marine
diesel
engines
and
locomotives.
We
will
also
be
investigating
the
localized
effects
of
these
emissions
in
and
around
ports
and
rail
47
yards.
We
will
be
posting
a
note
on
our
locomotive
and
marine
websites
that
describes
our
plans
and
solicits
input
on
several
aspects
of
our
inventory
research.
48
Table
IV.
A­
1:
Annual
NOx
Baseline
Emission
Levels
for
Mobile
and
Other
Source
Categories
a
Category
1996
2030
NO
x
short
tons
%
of
mobile
source
%
of
total
NO
x
short
tons
%
of
mobile
source
%
of
total
Marine
Diesel
except
C3b
673,309
5.2%
2.8%
655,052
15.6%
4.5%

Locomotives
934,070
7.2%
3.8%
481,077
11.5%
3.3%

Subtotal
of
Affected
Categories
1,607,379
12.4%
6.6%
1,136,128
27.1%
7.8%

Land­
based
Nonroad
Diesel
1,564,904
12.1%
6.4%
458,649
11.0%
3.2%

Recreational
Marine
SI
33,304
0.2%
0.1%
67,893
1.6%
0.5%

Nonroad
SI

25
hp
63,120
0.5%
0.3%
114,447
2.7%
0.8%

Nonroad
SI
>
25hp
273,082
2.1%
1.1%
43,527
1.0%
0.3%

Recreational
SI
4,297
0.0%
0.0%
19,389
0.5%
0.1%

Commercial
Marine
Diesel
C3
184,275
1.4%
0.8%
514,881
12.3%
3.5%

Commercial
Marine
Otherc
5,979
0.0%
0.0%
4,020
0.1%
0.0%

Aircraft
165,018
1.3%
0.7%
258,102
6.2%
1.8%

Total
Nonroad
3,901,357
30%
16%
2,617,036
62.5%
18%

Total
Highway
9,060,923
70%
37%
1,566,902
37.5%
11%

Total
Mobile
Sources
12,962,279
100%
53%
4,183,938
100%
29%

Stationary
Point
and
Area
Sourcesd
11,449,752
47%
10,320,361
71%

Total
Man­
Made
Sources
24,412,031
14,504,300
Mobile
Source
Percent
of
Total
53%
29%

Notes:

a
These
are
48­
state
inventories.
They
do
not
include
Alaska
and
Hawaii.

bMarine
diesel
includes
commercial
C1,
commercial
C2,
recreational
up
to
30
liters
per
cylinder
displacement;
it
also
includes
marine
diesel
engines
<
37
kW
that
were
included
in
the
Tier
1
and
Tier
2
standards
for
land­
based
nonroad
49
Table
IV.
A­
2:
Annual
Diesel
PM2.5
Baseline
Emission
Levels
for
Mobile
and
Other
Source
Categories
a,
b
Category
1996
2030
short
tons
%
of
mobile
source
%
of
total
short
tons
%
of
mobile
source
%
of
total
Diesel
Marinec
18,705
4.7%
4.6%
17,526
27.0%
25.4%

Locomotives
22,266
5.6%
5.5%
11,599
17.9%
16.8%

Subtotal
of
Affected
Categories
40,971
10.3%
10.1%
29,125
44.9%
42.2%

Land­
Based
Nonroad
Diesel
186,507
47.2%
45.8%
21,698
33.5%
31.4%

Total
Nonroad
Diesel
227,478
58%
56%
50,823
78%
74%

Total
Highway
Diesel
167,384
42%
41%
13,948
22%
20%

Total
Mobile
Source
Diesel
394,862
100%
97%
64,771
100%
94%

Stationary
Point
and
Area
Source
Diesel
e
12,199
 
3%
4,231
 
6%

Total
Man­
Made
Diesel
Sources
407,061
 
69,002
 
Mobile
Source
Percent
of
Total
97%
 
94%
 
Notes:

a
These
are
48­
state
inventories.
They
do
not
include
Alaska
and
Hawaii.

b
Excludes
natural
and
miscellaneous
sources.

cMarine
diesel
includes
commercial
C1,
commercial
C2,
recreational
up
to
30
liters
per
cylinder
displacement;
it
also
includes
marine
diesel
engines
<
37
kW
that
were
included
in
the
Tier
1
and
Tier
2
standards
for
land­
based
nonroad
engines.
It
does
not
include
commercial
C3
vessels
using
residual
fuel..

d
When
total
PM
2.5
is
considered,
marine
diesel
engines
and
locomotives
contributed
7.2%
of
mobile
source
PM
2.5
in
1996.
The
contribution
of
these
sources
expected
to
be
10.4%
of
mobile
source
PM
2.5
in
2030.

e
This
category
includes
point
sources
burning
either
diesel,
distillate
oil
(
diesel),
or
diesel/
kerosene
fuel.
50
B.
Potential
Costs
The
emission­
control
technologies
we
are
considering
for
marine
diesel
engines
and
locomotives
are
already
under
development
or
in
commercial
use
for
highway
and
nonroad
diesel
engines.
To
estimate
the
costs
of
this
prospective
emission
control
program,
we
expect
to
start
with
the
cost
estimates
we
have
established
in
previous
rulemakings
for
highway
and
nonroad
diesel
engines.
We
will
modify
those
estimates
as
needed
to
take
into
account
the
unique
aspects
of
locomotive
and
marine
applications.
These
include
different
usage
characteristics,
engine
lifetimes
and
rebuild
schedules,
and
sales
volumes.
Additional
adjustment
will
be
made
to
account
for
the
physical
and
operating
characteristics
of
locomotive
engines
and
marine
diesel
engines,

such
as
size,
packaging,
maintenance,
duty
cycle,
and
idling
patterns.
We
encourage
commenters
to
review
the
extensive
information
covering
all
aspects
of
engine
costs
contained
in
the
highway
and
nonroad
diesel
engine
program
regulatory
impact
analyses,
and
to
provide
comments
on
costrelated
issues
that
differentiate
locomotives
and
marine
engines
from
highway
and
land­
based
nonroad
diesel
engines.
In
addition,
we
are
interested
in
cost
information
associated
with
potential
retrofitting
concepts,
and
in
information
about
any
unique
costs
associated
with
equipment
redesign
for
the
marine
market.
51
V.
Small
Business
Concerns/
Regulatory
Flexibility
Pursuant
to
the
Regulatory
Flexibility
Act
(
RFA,
as
amended
by
the
Small
Business
Regulatory
Enforcement
Fairness
Act
(
SBREFA)
of
1996
5
USC
601
et.
seq),
we
will
perform
an
assessment
of
the
impacts
of
the
emission
control
program
we
are
considering
on
small
entities
and
will
convene
a
Small
Business
Advocacy
Review
(
SBAR)
panel
if
the
assessment
indicates
this
is
appropriate.

We
are
also
planning
outreach
efforts
independent
of
the
SBAR
panel
to
obtain
advice
and
recommendations
from
representatives
of
the
small
entities
that
would
likely
be
directly
affected
by
a
proposed
rule.
We
anticipate
beginning
this
outreach
effort
in
Summer
2004.
We
may
contact
some
stakeholders
prior
to
that
time
to
gain
as
much
information
as
possible
about
these
entities
to
assist
us
in
creating
useful
provisions
for
small
businesses
to
utilize.

We
intend
to
offer
similar
regulatory
flexibility
provisions
for
small
entities
that
were
offered
in
previous
locomotive,
marine,
and
other
nonroad
rules
to
help
decrease
the
burden
on
small
entities
while
still
meeting
the
environmental
goals
of
the
Agency.
We
also
invite
recommendations
on
additions
and/
or
modifications
of
prior
flexibility
provisions
for
this
rule.

The
following
is
a
list
of
the
entities
that
we
believe
will
be
regulated
by
this
rule,
and
their
corresponding
size
standards,
as
set
out
by
the
Small
Business
Administration
(
SBA):
52
Category/
Industry
Size
Standards
(#
of
employees)
NAICSa
Code
Engine
manufacturers
(
including
engine
marinizers,

rebuilders,
and
remanufacturers)
1,000
333618b
Locomotive
manufacturers
and
rebuilders
1,000
336510c
Ship
builders
and
repairers
1,000
336611
Boat
builders
500
336612
a
NAICS
is
the
North
American
Industry
Classification
System
b
Diesel
engine
manufacturers,
specifically
locomotive
engines,
are
classified
in
the
NAICS
system
as
"
Other
Equipment
Manufacturing"

c
Locomotive
manufacturers
and
rebuilders
are
classified
in
the
NAICS
system
as
"
Railroad
Rolling
Stock
Manufacturers"

VI.
Public
Participation
We
are
committed
to
a
full
and
open
regulatory
process
with
input
from
a
wide
range
of
interested
parties
and
request
comment
on
all
aspects
of
this
Advance
Notice
of
proposal.

Opportunities
for
input
include
a
public
comment
period
on
this
ANPRM.
This
section
describes
how
you
can
participate
in
this
process.

A.
How
Do
I
Submit
Comments?

With
today's
action,
we
open
a
comment
period
for
this
advance
notice.
We
will
accept
comments
until
by
[
INSERT
DATE
60
DAYS
FROM
DATE
OF
PUBLICATION].
We
encourage
comment
on
all
issues
raised
here,
and
on
any
other
issues
you
consider
relevant.
The
53
most
useful
comments
are
those
supported
by
appropriate
and
detailed
rationales,
data,
and
analyses.
All
comments,
with
the
exception
of
proprietary
information,
should
be
directed
to
the
docket
(
see
"
ADDRESSES").

If
you
wish
to
submit
proprietary
information
for
consideration,
you
should
clearly
separate
such
information
from
other
comments
by
(
1)
labeling
proprietary
information
"
Confidential
Business
Information"
and
(
2)
sending
proprietary
information
directly
to
the
contact
person
listed
(
see
"
FOR
FURTHER
INFORMATION
CONTACT")
and
not
to
the
public
docket.
This
will
help
ensure
that
proprietary
information
is
not
inadvertently
placed
in
the
docket.
If
you
want
us
to
use
a
submission
of
confidential
information
as
part
of
the
basis
for
a
proposal,
then
a
nonconfidential
version
of
the
document
that
summarizes
the
key
data
or
information
should
be
sent
to
the
docket.
We
will
disclose
information
covered
by
a
claim
of
confidentiality
only
to
the
extent
allowed
and
in
accordance
with
the
procedures
set
forth
in
40
CFR
Part
2.
If
you
don't
identify
information
as
confidential
when
we
receive
it,
we
may
make
it
available
to
the
public
without
notifying
you.

B.
Will
There
Be
a
Public
Hearing?

We
will
not
hold
a
public
hearing
for
the
issues
raised
in
this
Advance
Notice
of
proposal.

However,
we
will
hold
a
hearing
for
the
issues
raised
in
our
future
Notice
of
Proposed
Rulemaking,
and
will
provide
information
about
that
hearing
when
we
publish
the
NPRM.
54
VII.
Statutory
and
Executive
Order
Reviews
A.
Administrative
Designation
and
Regulatory
Analysis
(
Executive
Order
12866)

Under
Executive
Order
12866
(
58
FR
51735,
October
4,
1993),
the
Agency
must
determine
whether
the
regulatory
action
is
"
significant"
and
therefore
subject
to
review
by
the
Office
of
Management
and
Budget
(
OMB)
and
the
requirements
of
this
Executive
Order.
The
Executive
Order
defines
a
"
significant
regulatory
action"
as
any
regulatory
action
that
is
likely
to
result
in
a
rule
that
may:


Have
an
annual
effect
on
the
economy
of
$
100
million
or
more
or
adversely
affect
in
a
material
way
the
economy,
a
sector
of
the
economy,
productivity,
competition,
jobs,
the
environment,
public
health
or
safety,
or
State,
Local,
or
Tribal
governments
or
communities;


Create
a
serious
inconsistency
or
otherwise
interfere
with
an
action
taken
or
planned
by
another
agency;


Materially
alter
the
budgetary
impact
of
entitlements,
grants,
user
fees,
or
loan
programs,

or
the
rights
and
obligations
of
recipients
thereof;
or

Raise
novel
legal
or
policy
issues
arising
out
of
legal
mandates,
the
President's
priorities,

or
the
principles
set
forth
in
the
Executive
Order.
55
This
Advance
Notice
was
submitted
to
OMB
for
review.
Any
written
comments
from
OMB
and
any
EPA
response
to
OMB
comments
are
in
the
public
docket
for
this
Notice.

B.
Regulatory
Flexibility
Act
Section
605
of
the
Regulatory
Flexibility
Act
(
RFA),
5
U.
S.
C.
601
et
seq.
requires
the
Administrator
to
assess
the
economic
impact
of
proposed
rules
on
small
entities.
The
Small
Business
Regulatory
Enforcement
Fairness
Act
(
SBREFA)
of
1996,
Public
Law
104­
121,

amended
the
RFA
to
strengthen
its
analytical
and
procedural
requirements
and
to
ensure
that
small
entities
are
adequately
considered
during
rule
development.
The
Agency
accordingly
requests
comment
on
the
potential
impacts
on
a
small
business
of
the
program
described
in
this
notice.
These
comments
will
help
the
Agency
meet
its
obligations
under
SBREFA
and
will
suggest
how
EPA
can
minimize
the
impacts
of
this
rule
for
small
companies
that
may
be
adversely
affected.

Depending
on
the
number
of
small
entities
identified
prior
to
the
proposal
and
the
level
of
any
contemplated
regulatory
action,
we
may
convene
a
Small
Business
Advocacy
Review
Panel
under
section
609(
b)
of
the
Regulatory
Flexibility
Act
as
amended
by
SBREFA.
The
purpose
of
the
Panel
(
or
multiple
Panels,
as
necessary)
would
be
to
collect
the
advice
and
recommendations
of
representatives
of
small
entities
that
could
be
affected
by
the
eventual
rule.
If
we
determine
that
a
panel
is
not
warranted,
we
would
intend
to
work
on
a
less
formal
basis
with
those
small
entities
identified.
56
We
request
information
on
small
entities
potentially
affected
by
this
rulemaking.

Information
on
company
size,
number
of
employees,
annual
revenues
and
product
lines
would
be
especially
useful.
Confidential
business
information
may
be
submitted
as
described
in
Section
VI.

C.
Paperwork
Reduction
Act
We
will
prepare
information
collection
requirements
as
part
of
our
proposed
rule
and
submit
them
for
approval
to
the
Office
of
Management
and
Budget
(
OMB)
under
the
Paperwork
Reduction
Act,
44
U.
S.
C.
3501
et
seq.

D.
Intergovernmental
Relations
1.
Unfunded
Mandates
Reform
Act
Title
II
of
the
Unfunded
Mandates
Reform
Act
of
1995
(
UMRA),
P.
L.
104­
4,
establishes
requirements
for
federal
agencies
to
assess
the
effects
of
their
regulatory
actions
on
state,
local,

and
tribal
governments
and
the
private
sector.
Under
section
202
of
the
UMRA,
EPA
generally
must
prepare
a
written
statement,
including
a
cost­
benefit
analysis,
for
proposed
and
final
rules
with
"
federal
mandates"
that
may
result
in
expenditures
to
state,
local,
and
tribal
governments,
in
the
aggregate,
or
to
the
private
sector,
of
$
100
million
or
more
in
any
one
year.
Before
promulgating
an
EPA
rule
for
which
a
written
statement
is
needed,
section
205
of
the
UMRA
57
generally
requires
EPA
to
identify
and
consider
a
reasonable
number
of
regulatory
alternatives
and
adopt
the
least
costly,
most
cost­
effective,
or
least
burdensome
alternative
that
achieves
the
objectives
of
the
rule.
The
provisions
of
section
205
do
not
apply
when
they
are
inconsistent
with
applicable
law.
Moreover,
section
205
allows
EPA
to
adopt
an
alternative
other
than
the
least
costly,
most
cost­
effective,
or
least
burdensome
alternative
if
the
Administrator
publishes
with
the
final
rule
an
explanation
of
why
that
alternative
was
not
adopted.

Before
EPA
establishes
any
regulatory
requirements
that
may
significantly
or
uniquely
affect
small
governments,
including
tribal
governments,
it
must
have
developed
under
section
203
of
the
UMRA
a
small
government
agency
plan.
The
plan
must
provide
for
notifying
potentially
affected
small
governments,
enabling
officials
of
affected
small
governments
to
have
meaningful
and
timely
input
in
the
development
of
EPA
regulatory
proposals
with
significant
federal
intergovernmental
mandates,
and
informing,
educating,
and
advising
small
governments
on
compliance
with
the
regulatory
requirements.

As
part
of
the
development
of
our
Notice
of
Proposed
Rulemaking,
we
will
examine
the
impacts
of
our
proposal
with
respect
to
expected
expenditures
by
state,
local,
and
tribal
governments,
in
the
aggregate,
or
by
the
private
sector,
of
$
100
million
or
more
in
any
one
year.

2.
Executive
Order
13175
(
Consultation
and
Coordination
with
Indian
Tribal
Governments)
58
Executive
Order
13175,
entitled
"
Consultation
and
Coordination
with
Indian
Tribal
Governments"
(
65
FR
67249,
November
6,
2000),
requires
EPA
to
develop
an
accountable
process
to
ensure
"
meaningful
and
timely
input
by
tribal
officials
in
the
development
of
regulatory
policies
that
have
tribal
implications."
"
Policies
that
have
tribal
implications"
is
defined
in
the
Executive
Order
to
include
regulations
that
have
"
substantial
direct
effects
on
one
or
more
Indian
tribes,
on
the
relationship
between
the
Federal
government
and
the
Indian
tribes,
or
on
the
distribution
of
power
and
responsibilities
between
the
Federal
government
and
Indian
tribes."

As
part
of
the
development
of
our
Notice
of
Proposed
Rulemaking,
we
will
examine
the
impacts
of
our
proposal
with
respect
to
tribal
implications.

E.
National
Technology
Transfer
and
Advancement
Act
Section
12(
d)
of
the
National
Technology
Transfer
and
Advancement
Act
of
1995
("
NTTAA"),
Public
Law
104­
113,
§
12(
d)
(
15
U.
S.
C.
272
note)
directs
EPA
to
use
voluntary
consensus
standards
in
its
regulatory
activities
unless
doing
so
would
be
inconsistent
with
applicable
law
or
otherwise
impractical.
Voluntary
consensus
standards
are
technical
standards
(
e.
g.,
materials
specifications,
test
methods,
sampling
procedures,
and
business
practices)
that
are
developed
or
adopted
by
voluntary
consensus
standards
bodies.
NTTAA
directs
EPA
to
provide
Congress,
through
OMB,
explanations
when
the
Agency
decides
not
to
use
available
and
applicable
voluntary
consensus
standards.
59
As
part
of
the
development
of
our
Notice
of
Proposed
Rulemaking,
we
will
examine
the
availability
and
use
of
voluntary
consensus
standards.

F.
Protection
of
Children
(
Executive
Order
13045)

Executive
Order
13045,
"
Protection
of
Children
from
Environmental
Health
Risks
and
Safety
Risks"
(
62
F.
R.
19885,
April
23,
1997)
applies
to
any
rule
that
(
1)
is
determined
to
be
"
economically
significant"
as
defined
under
Executive
Order
12866,
and
(
2)
concerns
an
environmental
health
or
safety
risk
that
EPA
has
reason
to
believe
may
have
a
disproportionate
effect
on
children.
If
the
regulatory
action
meets
both
criteria,
Section
5­
501
of
the
Order
directs
the
Agency
to
evaluate
the
environmental
health
or
safety
effects
of
the
planned
rule
on
children,

and
explain
why
the
planned
regulation
is
preferable
to
other
potentially
effective
and
reasonably
feasible
alternatives
considered
by
the
Agency.

As
part
of
the
development
of
our
Notice
of
Proposed
Rulemaking,
we
will
examine
the
impacts
of
our
proposal
with
respect
to
whether
it
concerns
an
environmental
health
or
safety
risk
that
we
have
reason
to
believe
may
have
a
disproportionate
effect
on
children.

G.
Federalism
(
Executive
Order
13132)

Executive
Order
13132,
entitled
"
Federalism"
(
64
FR
43255,
August
10,
1999),
requires
EPA
to
develop
an
accountable
process
to
ensure
"
meaningful
and
timely
input
by
State
and
local
60
officials
in
the
development
of
regulatory
policies
that
have
federalism
implications."
"
Policies
that
have
federalism
implications"
is
defined
in
the
Executive
Order
to
include
regulations
that
have
"
substantial
direct
effects
on
the
States,
on
the
relationship
between
the
national
government
and
the
States,
or
on
the
distribution
of
power
and
responsibilities
among
the
various
levels
of
government."

Under
Section
6
of
Executive
Order
13132,
EPA
may
not
issue
a
regulation
that
has
federalism
implications,
that
imposes
substantial
direct
compliance
costs,
and
that
is
not
required
by
statute,
unless
the
Federal
government
provides
the
funds
necessary
to
pay
the
direct
compliance
costs
incurred
by
State
and
local
governments,
or
EPA
consults
with
State
and
local
officials
early
in
the
process
of
developing
the
proposed
regulation.
EPA
also
may
not
issue
a
regulation
that
has
federalism
implications
and
that
preempts
State
law,
unless
the
Agency
consults
with
State
and
local
officials
early
in
the
process
of
developing
the
proposed
regulation.

Section
4
of
the
Executive
Order
contains
additional
requirements
for
rules
that
preempt
State
or
local
law,
even
if
those
rules
do
not
have
federalism
implications
(
i.
e.,
the
rules
will
not
have
substantial
direct
effects
on
the
States,
on
the
relationship
between
the
national
government
and
the
states,
or
on
the
distribution
of
power
and
responsibilities
among
the
various
levels
of
government).
Those
requirements
include
providing
all
affected
State
and
local
officials
notice
and
an
opportunity
for
appropriate
participation
in
the
development
of
the
regulation.
If
the
preemption
is
not
based
on
express
or
implied
statutory
authority,
EPA
also
must
consult,
to
the
61
extent
practicable,
with
appropriate
State
and
local
officials
regarding
the
conflict
between
State
law
and
Federally
protected
interests
within
the
agency's
area
of
regulatory
responsibility.

As
part
of
the
development
of
our
Notice
of
Proposed
Rulemaking,
we
will
examine
the
impacts
of
our
proposal
with
respect
to
the
relationship
between
the
national
government
and
the
States,
or
on
the
distribution
of
power
and
responsibilities
among
the
various
levels
of
government,
as
specified
in
Executive
Order
13132.

In
the
spirit
of
Executive
Order
13132,
and
consistent
with
EPA
policy
to
promote
communications
between
EPA
and
State
and
local
governments,
EPA
specifically
solicits
comment
on
this
proposed
rule
from
State
and
local
officials.

H.
Energy
Effects
(
Executive
Order
13211)

We
anticipate
that
our
proposal
will
not
be
a
"
significant
energy
action"
as
defined
in
Executive
Order
13211,
"
Actions
Concerning
Regulations
That
Significantly
Affect
Energy
Supply,
Distribution,
or
Use"
(
66
Fed.
Reg.
28355
(
May
22,
2001))
because
it
is
not
likely
to
have
a
significant
adverse
effect
on
the
supply,
distribution
or
use
of
energy.
The
proposed
standards
will
have
for
their
aim
the
reduction
of
emission
from
certain
nonroad
engines,
and
have
no
effect
on
fuel
formulation,
distribution,
or
use.
62
I.
Plain
Language
This
document
follows
established
EPA
practices
regarding
the
use
of
plain
language
in
government
writing.
To
read
the
text
of
the
regulations,
it
is
also
important
to
understand
the
organization
of
the
Code
of
Federal
Regulations
(
CFR).
The
CFR
uses
the
following
organizational
names
and
conventions."

Title
40
 
Protection
of
the
Environment
Chapter
I
 
Environmental
Protection
Agency
Subchapter
C
 
Air
Programs.
This
contains
parts
50
to
99,
where
the
Office
of
Air
and
Radiation
has
usually
placed
emission
standards
for
motor
vehicle
and
nonroad
engines.

Subchapter
U
 
Air
Programs
Supplement.
This
contains
parts
1000
to
1299,
where
we
intend
to
place
regulations
for
air
programs
in
future
rulemakings.

Part
1045
 
Control
of
Emissions
from
Marine
Spark­
ignition
Engines
and
Vessels
Part
1068
 
General
Compliance
Provisions
for
Engine
Programs.
Provisions
of
this
part
apply
to
everyone.

Each
part
in
the
CFR
has
several
subparts,
sections,
and
paragraphs.
The
following
illustration
shows
how
these
fit
together.

Part
1045
Subpart
A
Section
1045.1
63
(
a)

(
b)

(
1)

(
2)

(
I)

(
ii)

(
A)

(
B)

A
cross
reference
to
§
1045.1(
b)
in
this
illustration
would
refer
to
the
parent
paragraph
(
b)

and
all
its
subordinate
paragraphs.
A
reference
to
"
§
1045.1(
b)
introductory
text"
would
refer
only
to
the
single,
parent
paragraph
(
b).

List
of
Subjects
40
CFR
Part
92
Environmental
protection,
Administrative
practice
and
procedure,
Air
pollution
control,

Confidential
business
information,
Imports,
Incorporation
by
reference,
Labeling,
Penalties,

Railroads,
Reporting
and
recordkeeping
requirements,
Warranties.

40
CFR
Part
94
64
Environmental
protection,
Administrative
practice
and
procedure,
Air
pollution
control,

Confidential
business
information,
Imports,
Incorporation
by
reference,
Labeling,
Penalties,

Vessels,
Reporting
and
recordkeeping
requirements,
Warranties.

Dated:
___________________________

___________________________

Michael
O.
Leavitt,
Administrator
