Control of Emissions From New Marine Compression-Ignition Engines at or Above 30 Liters per Cylinder

Federal RegisterApr 30, 2010

Ask Donna

What actually matters in this document.

Text

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Parts 80, 85, 86, 94, 1027, 1033, 1039, 1042, 1043, 1045, 1048, 1051, 1054, 1060, 1065, and 1068

[EPA-HQ-OAR-2007-0121; FRL-9097-4]

RIN 2060-AO38

Control of Emissions From New Marine Compression-Ignition Engines at or Above 30 Liters per Cylinder

AGENCY:

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION:

Final rule.

SUMMARY:

EPA is finalizing emission standards for new marine diesel engines with per-cylinder displacement at or above 30 liters (called Category 3 marine diesel engines) installed on U.S. vessels. These emission standards are equivalent to those adopted in the amendments to Annex VI to the International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships (MARPOL Annex VI). The emission standards apply in two stages—near-term standards for newly built engines will apply beginning in 2011; long-term standards requiring an 80 percent reduction in NO

emissions will begin in 2016. We are also finalizing a change to our diesel fuel program that will allow for the production and sale of 1,000 ppm sulfur fuel for use in Category 3 marine vessels. In addition, the new fuel requirements will generally forbid the production and sale of other fuels above 1,000 ppm sulfur for use in most U.S. waters, unless alternative devices, procedures, or compliance methods are used to achieve equivalent emissions reductions. We are adopting further provisions under the Act to Prevent Pollution from Ships, especially to apply the emission standards to engines covered by MARPOL Annex VI that are not covered by the Clean Air Act, and to require that these additional engines use the specified fuels (or equivalents).

The final regulations also include technical amendments to our motor vehicle and nonroad engine regulations; many of these changes involve minor adjustments or corrections to our recently finalized rule for new nonroad spark-ignition engines, or adjustment to other regulatory provisions to align with this recent final rule.

DATES:

This final rule is effective on June 29, 2010. The incorporation by reference of certain publications listed in this regulation is approved by the Director of the Federal Register as of June 29, 2010.

ADDRESSES:

EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2007-0121. All documents in the docket are listed on the

http://www.regulations.gov

Web site. Although listed in the index, some information is not publicly available,

e.g.,

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

http://www.regulations.gov

or in hard copy at the EPA-HQ-OAR-2007-0121 Docket, EPA/DC, EPA West, Room 3334, 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 EPA-HQ-OAR-2007-0121 is (202) 566-1742.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Amy Kopin, U.S. EPA, Office of Transportation and Air Quality, Assessment and Standards Division (ASD), Environmental Protection Agency, 2000 Traverwood Drive, Ann Arbor, MI 48105; telephone number: (734) 214-4417; fax number: (734) 214-4050; e-mail address:

Kopin.Amy@epa.gov

, or Assessment and Standards Division Hotline; telephone number: (734) 214-4636.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

General Information

Does This Action Apply to Me?

This action affects companies that manufacture, sell, or import into the United States new marine compression-ignition engines with per cylinder displacement at or above 30 liters for use on vessels flagged or registered in the United States; companies and persons that make vessels that will be flagged or registered in the United States and that use such engines; and the owners or operators of such U.S. vessels. Additionally, this action may affect companies and persons that rebuild or maintain these engines. Finally, this action may also affect those that manufacture, import, distribute, sell, and dispense fuel for use by Category 3 marine vessels. Affected categories and entities include the following:

Category

NAICS Code

Examples of potentially affected entities

Industry

333618

Manufacturers of new marine diesel engines.

Industry

336611

Manufacturers of marine vessels.

Industry

811310

Engine repair and maintenance.

Industry

483

Water transportation, freight and passenger.

Industry

324110

Petroleum Refineries.

Industry

424710, 424720

Petroleum Bulk Stations and Terminals; Petroleum and Petroleum Products Wholesalers.

Industry

483113

Coastal and Great Lakes Freight Transportation

Industry

483114

Coastal and Great Lakes Passenger Transportation

Note:

North 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 will be regulated by this action. Other types of entities not listed in the table may also be regulated. To determine whether your company is regulated by this action, you should carefully examine the applicability criteria in 40 CFR 80.501, 94.1, 1042.1, and 1065.1, and the final regulations. If you have questions, consult the person listed in the preceding

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT

section.

Table of Contents

I. Overview

A. What Are the Elements of EPA's Coordinated Strategy for Ships?

B. Why Is EPA Making This Rule?

C. Statutory Basis for Action

II. Air Quality, Health and Welfare Impacts

A. Public Health Impacts

B. Environmental Impacts

C. Air Quality Modeling Results

D. Emissions From Ships With Category 3 Engines

III. Engine Standards

A. What Category 3 Marine Engines Are Covered?

B. What Standards Are We Finalizing for Newly Manufactured Engines?

C. Are the Standards Feasible?

IV. Fuel Standards

A. Background

B. Diesel Fuel Standards Prior to This Final Rule

C. Applicability

D. Fuel Sulfur Standards

E. Technical Amendments to the Current Diesel Fuel Sulfur Program Regulations

V. Emission Control Areas for U.S. Coasts

A. What Is an ECA?

B. U.S. Emission Control Area Designation

C. Technological Approaches To Comply With Fuel Standards

D. ECA Designation and Foreign-Flagged Vessels

VI. Certification and Compliance Program

A. Compliance Provisions for Category 3 Engines

B. Compliance Provisions To Implement Annex VI NO

Regulation and the NO

Technical Code

C. Changes to the Requirements Specific to Engines Below 30 Liters per Cylinder

D. Other Regulatory Issues

E. U.S. Vessels Enrolled in the Maritime Security Program

VII. Costs and Economic Impacts

A. Estimated Fuel Costs

B. Estimated Engine Costs

C. Cost Effectiveness

D. Economic Impact Analysis

VIII. Benefits

A. Overview

B. Quantified Human Health Impacts

C. Monetized Benefits

D. What Are the Limitations of the Benefits Analysis?

E. Comparison of Costs and Benefits

IX. Public Participation

X. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review

B. Paperwork Reduction Act

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism

F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With Indian Tribal Governments

G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From Environmental Health and Safety Risks

H. Executive Order 13211: Actions That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use

I. National Technology Transfer Advancement Act

J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions To Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations

K. Congressional Review Act

XI. Statutory Provisions and Legal Authority

I. Overview

This final rule is part of a coordinated strategy to address emissions from ocean-going vessels and is an important step in EPA's ongoing National Clean Diesel Campaign. In recent years, we have adopted major new programs designed to reduce emissions from new diesel engines, including those used in highway (66 FR 5001, January 18, 2001), nonroad (69 FR 38957, June 29, 2004), locomotive, and marine applications (73 FR 25098, May 6, 2008). When fully phased in, these programs will significantly reduce emissions of harmful pollutants from these categories of engines and vehicles. This final rule sets out the next step in this ambitious effort by addressing emissions from the largest marine diesel engines, called Category 3 marine diesel engines. These are engines with per-cylinder displacement at or above 30 liters per cylinder, which are used primarily for propulsion power on ocean-going vessels (OGV).

This final rule generally applies to vessels with the largest marine diesel engines, which are called Category 3 engines in our regulations. In this preamble, we often refer to vessels using these engines as Category 3 vessels. We also refer to them as ocean-going vessels although this intended to be only a descriptive term. While the large majority of these vessels operate in the oceans, some operate solely in our internal waters such as in the Great Lakes. Therefore, we do not use the term ocean-going vessels to exclude the few vessels with Category 3 engines that operate only in fresh-water lakes or rivers or to exclude ocean-going vessels with Category 2 or Category 1 engines, but rather to reflect the way the vessels being regulated are more commonly known to the general public. Note also that, pursuant to 40 CFR 1043 which implements APPS, the fuel requirements described in this rule, unless otherwise specified, generally apply also to fuel used in gas turbines and steam boilers on marine vessels.

Emissions from Category 3 engines remain at high levels. These engines use emission control technology that is comparable to that used by nonroad engines in the early 1990s, and use fuel that can have a sulfur content of 30,000 ppm or more. As a result, these engines emit high levels of pollutants that contribute to unhealthy air in many areas of the U.S. Nationally, in 2009, emissions from Category 3 engines account for about 10 percent of mobile source emissions of nitrogen oxides (NO

), about 24 percent of mobile source diesel PM

2.5

emissions (with PM

2.5

referring to particles with a nominal mean aerodynamic diameter less than or equal to 2.5 μm), and about 80 percent of mobile source emissions of sulfur oxides (SO

). As we look into the future, however, emissions from Category 3 engines are expected to become an even more dominant inventory source. This will be due to both emission reductions from other mobile sources as new emission controls go into effect and to the anticipated activity growth for ocean transportation. Without new controls, we anticipate the contribution of Category 3 engines to national emission inventories to increase to about 24 percent, 34 percent, and 93 percent of mobile source NO

, PM

2.5

, and SO

emissions, respectively in 2020, growing to 40 percent, 48 percent, and 95 percent respectively in 2030. The coordinated emission control strategy will lead to significant reductions in these emissions and important benefits to public health.

The evolution of EPA's strategy to control mobile source diesel emissions has followed a technology progression, beginning with the application of high-efficiency advanced aftertreatment approaches and lower sulfur fuel requirements first to highway vehicles, then to nonroad engines and equipment, followed by locomotives and smaller marine diesel engines. The benefits of this approach include maximizing air quality benefits by focusing on the largest populations of sources with the shortest service lives, allowing engine manufacturers to spread initial research and development costs over a larger population of engines, and allowing manufacturers to address the challenges of applying advanced emission controls on smaller engines first.

This approach also allowed us and the shipping community sufficient lead time to resolve technical issues with the use of advanced emission control technology and lower-sulfur fuel on the largest of these engines on vessels engaged in international trade. To that end, EPA has been working with engine manufacturers and other industry stakeholders for many years to identify and resolve challenges associated with applying advanced diesel engine technology to Category 3 engines to achieve significant NO

emission reductions and using lower-sulfur fuels to achieve significant PM and SO

emission reductions. This work was fundamental in developing the emission limits for Category 3 engines that we are finalizing in this action and informed the position advocated by the United States in the international negotiations for more stringent tiers of international engine emission limits.

Our coordinated strategy to control emissions from ocean-going vessels consists of actions at both the national and international levels. It includes: (1) The engine and fuel controls we are finalizing in this action under our Clean Air Act authority; (2) the proposal

submitted by the U.S. Government to the International Maritime Organization (IMO) to amend Annex VI of the

International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships (MARPOL Annex VI) to designate U.S. coasts as an Emission Control Area (ECA)

in which all vessels, regardless of flag, would be required to meet the most stringent engine and marine fuel sulfur requirements in Annex VI; and (3) the new engine emission and fuel sulfur limits contained in the amendments to Annex VI that are applicable to all vessels regardless of flag through the Act to Prevent Pollution from Ships (APPS), as well as clarification on implementation of those standards, application to domestic and foreign-flagged vessels in internal waters, and application to nonparty foreign-flagged vessels.

Proposal to Designate an Emission Control Area for Nitrogen Oxides, Sulphur Oxides and Particulate Matter,

Submitted by the United States and Canada. IMO Document MEPC59/6/5, 27 March, 2009. A copy of this document can be found at

http://www.epa.gov/otaq/regs/nonroad/marine/ci/mepc-59-eca-proposal.pdf.

For the purpose of this final rule, the term “ECA” refers to both the ECA and internal U.S. waters. Refer to Section VI.B. for a discussion of the application of the fuel sulfur and engine emission limits to U.S. internal waters through APPS.

The amendments to APPS to incorporate Annex VI require compliance with MARPOL Annex VI by U.S. and foreign vessels that enter U.S. ports or operate in U.S. waters. In light of this, we are deciding not to revisit our existing approach with respect to foreign vessels in this rule. However, the MARPOL Annex VI Tier III NO

and stringent fuel sulfur limits are geographically based and would not become effective absent designation of U.S. coasts as an ECA. As noted above, the United States forwarded a proposal to IMO to amend Annex VI to designate U.S. coasts as an ECA. This proposal to amend Annex VI was approved in principle and circulated for adoption. We expect the proposed ECA amendment will be adopted at MEPC 60, in March 2010. If this amendment is not adopted in a timely manner by IMO, we intend to take supplemental action to control emissions from vessels that affect U.S. air quality.

Our coordinated strategy for ocean-going vessels will significantly reduce emissions from foreign and domestic vessels that affect U.S. air quality, and the impacts on human health and welfare will be substantial. We project that by 2030 this program will reduce annual emissions of NO

, SO

, and particulate matter (PM) by 1.2 million, 1.3 million, and 143,000 tons, respectively, and the magnitude of these reductions would continue to grow well beyond 2030.

These reductions are estimated to annually prevent between 12,000 and 30,000 PM-related premature deaths, between 210 and 920 ozone-related premature deaths, 1,400,000 work days lost, and 9,600,000 minor restricted-activity days. The estimated annual monetized health benefits of this coordinated strategy in 2030 would be between $110 and $270 billion, assuming a 3-percent discount rate (or between $99 and $240 billion assuming a 7-percent discount rate). The annual cost of the overall program in 2030 would be significantly less, at approximately $3.1 billion.

These emission inventory reductions include reductions from ships operating within the 24 nautical mile regulatory zone off the California Coastline, beginning with the effective date of the Coordinated Strategy program elements. The California regulation contains a provision that would sunset the requirements of the rule if the Federal program achieves equivalent emission reductions.

See http://www.arb.ca.gov/regact/2008/fuelogv08/fro13.pdf

at 13 CCR 2299.2(j)(1).

A. What Are the Elements of EPA's Coordinated Strategy for Ships?

Our coordinated strategy for ocean-going vessels, including the emission standards finalized in this action under the Clean Air Act, continues EPA's program to progressively apply advanced aftertreatment emission control standards to diesel engines and reflects the evolution of this technology from the largest inventory source (highway engines), to land-based nonroad engines, to locomotives and marine diesel engines up to 30 liters per cylinder. The results of these forerunner programs are dramatic reductions in NO

and PM

2.5

emissions on the order of 80 to 90 percent, which will lead to significant improvements in national air quality.

The combination of controls in the coordinated strategy for ocean-going vessels will provide significant reductions in PM

2.5

, NO

, SO

, and toxic compounds, both in the near term (as early as 2011) and in the long term. These reductions will be achieved in a manner that: (1) Is very cost effective compared to additional controls on portside vehicles and equipment and other land-based mobile sources that are already subject to stringent technology-forcing emission standards; (2) leverages the international program adopted by IMO to ensure that all ships that operate in areas that affect U.S. air quality are required to use stringent emission control technology; and (3) provides the lead time needed to deal with the engineering design workload that is involved in applying advanced high-efficiency aftertreatment technology to these very large engines. Overall, the coordinated strategy constitutes a comprehensive program that addresses the problems caused by ocean-going vessel emissions from both a near-term and long-term perspective. It does this while providing for an orderly and cost-effective implementation schedule for the vessel owners and manufacturers, and in a way that is consistent with the international requirements for these vessels.

The human health and welfare impacts of emissions from Category 3 vessels, along with estimates of their contribution to national emission inventories, are described in Section II. The new tiers of engine emission standards under the Clean Air Act for addressing these emissions, and our justifications for them, are discussed in Section III. Section IV contains changes to our existing marine diesel fuel program. In Section V, we describe a key component of the coordinated strategy: The recently-submitted proposal to amend MARPOL Annex VI to designate U.S. coasts as an ECA, as well as the IMO amendment process.

In addition to the new emission limits, we are finalizing several revisions to our Clean Air Act testing, certification, and compliance provisions to better ensure emission control in use. We are also finalizing regulations for the purpose of implementing MARPOL Annex VI pursuant to the Act to Prevent Pollution from Ships (33 U.S.C. 1901

et seq.

). These revisions are described in Section VI. Sections VII and VIII present the estimated costs and benefits of our coordinated program to address OGV emissions.

(1) What CAA Standards Is EPA Finalizing?

We are finalizing new tiers of Category 3 marine diesel engine standards under our Clean Air Act authority, as well as certain revisions to our marine fuel program.

Category 3 Engine Standards.

Previous standards for Category 3 engines were adopted in 2003. These Tier 1 standards are equivalent to the first tier of MARPOL Annex VI NO

limits and require the use of control technology comparable to that used by nonroad engines in the early 1990s. We did not adopt PM standards at that time because the vast majority of PM emissions from Category 3 engines are the result of the sulfur content of the residual fuel they use and because of measurement issues.

The combination of the engine and fuel standards we are finalizing and the U.S. Government proposal for ECA designation will

require all vessels that operate in coastal areas that affect U.S. air quality to control emissions of NO

, SO

, and PM.

As explained in the proposed rule leading to the 2003 final rule, there were concerns about measuring PM from Category 3 marine engines (67 FR 37569, May 29, 2002). Specifically, established PM test methods showed unacceptable variability when sulfur levels exceed 0.8 weight percent. However, as described in Section VI, we now believe these measurement issues have been resolved.

We are revising our engine requirements under the Clean Air Act to include two additional tiers of NO

standards for new Category 3 marine diesel engines installed on vessels flagged or registered in the United States. The near-term Tier 2 standards will apply beginning in 2011 and will require more efficient use of engine technologies being used today, including engine timing, engine cooling, and advanced computer controls. The long-term Tier 3 standards will apply beginning in 2016 and will require the use of more advanced technology such as selective catalytic reduction.

Because much of the operation of U.S. vessels occurs in areas that will have little, if any, impact on U.S. air quality, our Clean Air Act program will allow the use of alternative emission control devices (AECDs) that will permit a ship to meet less stringent requirements on the open sea. The use of these devices will be subject to certain restrictions, including a requirement that the AECD not disable emission controls while operating in areas where emissions can reasonably be expected to adversely affect U.S. air quality, and that the engine is equipped with a NO

emission monitoring device. In addition, the engine will be required to meet the Tier 2 NO

limits when the AECD is implemented, and an AECD will not be allowed on any Tier 2 or earlier engine.

In addition to the NO

emission limits, we are finalizing standards for emissions of hydrocarbons (HC) and carbon monoxide (CO) from new Category 3 engines. As explained in Section III.B.1, below, we are not setting a standard for PM emissions for Category 3 engines. However, significant PM emissions control will be achieved through the ECA fuel sulfur requirements that will apply through APPS to ships that operate in areas that affect U.S. air quality. We are also requiring engine manufacturers to measure and report PM emissions pursuant to our authority in section 208 of the Clean Air Act.

Fuel Sulfur Limits.

We are finalizing fuel sulfur limits under section 211(c) of the Clean Air Act that match the limits that apply under Annex VI in ECAs. First, we are revising our existing diesel fuel program to allow for the production and sale of 1,000 ppm sulfur fuel for use in Category 3 marine vessels. This will allow production and distribution of fuel consistent with the new sulfur limits that will become applicable, under Annex VI, in ECAs beginning in 2015. Our current diesel fuel program sets a sulfur limit of 15 ppm that will be fully phased-in by December 1, 2014 for land-based nonroad, locomotive, and marine (NRLM) diesel fuel produced for distribution, sale and use in the United States. Without this change to our existing diesel fuel regulations, fuel with a sulfur content of up to 1,000 ppm could be used in Category 3 marine vessels, but it could not be legally produced in the U.S. after June 1, 2014. Second, we are generally forbidding the production and sale of fuel oil with a sulfur content above 1,000 ppm for use in the waters within the proposed ECA (

see

Note 3,

supra

). The exception to this is if the vessel uses alternative devices, procedures, or compliance methods that achieve equivalent emission control as operating on 1,000 ppm sulfur fuel.

(2) What Is the U.S. Government Proposal for Designation of an Emission Control Area?

MARPOL Annex VI contains international standards for air emissions from ships, including NO

, SO

, and PM emissions. The Annex VI NO

and SO

/PM limits are set out in Table I-1. Annex VI was adopted by the Parties in 1997 but did not go into force until 2005, after it was ratified by fifteen countries representing at least 50 percent of the world's merchant shipping tonnage. These Annex VI NO

standards currently apply to all engines above 130 kW installed on a ship constructed on or after January 1, 2000 and reduce NO

emissions by about 30 percent from uncontrolled levels. As originally adopted, Annex VI included two fuel sulfur limits: A global limit of 45,000 ppm and a more stringent 15,000 ppm limit for SO

Emission Control Areas (SECAs). This approach ensures that the cleanest fuel is used in areas that demonstrate a need for additional SO

reductions, while retaining the ability of ships to use higher-sulfur residual fuel on the open ocean.

Annex VI was amended in October 2008, adding two tiers of NO

limits (Tier II and Tier III) and two sets of fuel sulfur standards.

These amendments will enter into force on July 1, 2010. The most stringent NO

and fuel sulfur limits are regionally based and will apply only in designated ECAs.

Note that the MARPOL Annex VI standards are referred to as Tiers I, II, and III; EPA's Category 3 emission standards are referred to as Tiers 1, 2, and 3.

Table I-1—Annex VI NO

Emission Standards and Fuel Sulfur Limits

Less than 130

RPM

130-2,000

RPM

Over 2,000

RPM

g/kW-hr

Tier I

2004

17.0

45.0·n

(−0.20)

9.8

Tier II

2011

14.4

44.0·n

(−0.23

)

7.7

Tier III

2016

3.4

9.0·n

(−

0.23

)

2.0

Global

ECA

Fuel Sulfur

2004

45,000 ppm

2005

15,000 ppm

2012

35,000 ppm

2010

10,000 ppm

2020

c d

5,000 ppm

2015

1,000 ppm

Notes:

Applicable standards are calculated from n (maximum in-use engine speed in revolutions per minute (rpm)), rounded to one decimal place.

Tier 1 NO

standards apply for engines originally manufactured after 2004, and proposed also to certain earlier engines.

Annex VI standards are in terms of percent sulfur. Global sulfur limits are 4.5%; 3.5%; 0.5%. ECA sulfur limits are 1.5%; 1.0%; 0.1%.

Subject to a feasibility review in 2018; may be delayed to 2025.

To realize the benefits from the MARPOL Annex VI Tier III NO

and most stringent fuel sulfur controls, areas must be designated as Emission Control Areas. On July 17, 2009, the IMO approved in principle a U.S.-Canada proposal to amend MARPOL Annex VI to designate North American coastal waters as an ECA (referred to as the

“U.S./Canada ECA” or the “North American ECA”).

In addition, France has joined the ECA proposal on behalf of the Saint Pierre and Miquelon archipelago. A description of this proposal and the IMO ECA designation process is set out in Section V. ECA designation would ensure that ships that affect U.S. air quality meet stringent NO

and fuel sulfur requirements while operating within 200 nautical miles of U.S. coasts. We expect the North American proposal will be adopted by the Parties to MARPOL Annex VI in March 2010, entering into force as early as 2012. If, however, the proposed amendment is not adopted in a timely manner, we intend to take supplemental action to control harmful emissions from vessels that affect U.S. air quality.

Proposal to Designate an Emission Control Area for Nitrogen Oxides, Sulphur Oxides and Particulate Matter, Submitted by the United States and Canada.

IMO Document MEPC59/6/5, 27 March 2009. A copy of this document can be found at

http://www.epa.gov/otaq/regs/nonroad/marine/ci/mepc-59-eca-proposal.pdf.

(3) Regulations To Implement Annex VI

The United States became a party to MARPOL Annex VI by depositing its instrument of ratification with IMO on October 8, 2008. This was preceded by the President signing into law the Maritime Pollution Prevention Act of 2008 (Pub. L. 110-280) on July 21, 2008, that contains amendments to the Act to Prevent Pollution from Ships (33 U.S.C. 1901

et seq.

). These APPS amendments require compliance with Annex VI by all persons subject to the engine and vessel requirements of Annex VI. The amendments also authorize the U.S. Coast Guard and EPA to enforce the provisions of Annex VI against domestic and foreign vessels and to develop implementing regulations, as necessary. In addition, APPS gives EPA sole authority to certify engines installed on U.S. vessels to the Annex VI requirements. This final rule contains regulations codifying the Annex VI requirements and regulations to implement several aspects of the Annex VI engine and fuel regulations, which we are finalizing under that APPS authority. Our cost and benefit analyses for the coordinated strategy include the costs for U.S. vessels to implement the requirements of this MARPOL Annex VI program, including requirements that will apply upon entry into force of the North American ECA.

(4) Technical Amendments

The finalized regulations also include technical amendments to our motor vehicle and nonroad engine regulations. Many of these changes involve minor adjustments or corrections to our recently finalized rule for new nonroad spark-ignition engines, or adjustment to other regulatory provisions to align with this recent final rule.

(5) Summary

The emission control requirements in our coordinated strategy are the MARPOL Annex VI global Tier II NO

standards included in the amendments to Annex VI and the ECA Tier III NO

limits and fuel sulfur limits that will apply when the U.S. coasts are designated as an ECA through an additional amendment to Annex VI. The Annex VI requirements, including the future ECA requirements, will be enforceable for U.S. and foreign vessels operating in U.S. waters through the Act to Prevent Pollution from Ships.

We are also adopting the NO

emission standards for Category 3 engines on U.S. vessels under section 213 of the Clean Air Act.

Finally, we are adopting additional requirements that are not part of the Annex VI program or the ECA. These are (1) limits on hydrocarbon and carbon monoxide emissions for Category 3 engines; (2) a PM measurement requirement to obtain data on PM emissions from engines operating on distillate fuel; and (3) changes to our diesel fuel program under the Clean Air Act to allow production and sale of ECA-compliant fuel. We are also changing our emission control program for smaller marine diesel engines to harmonize with the Annex VI NO

requirements for U.S. vessels that operate internationally.

B. Why Is EPA Making This Rule?

(1) Category 3 Engines Contribute to Serious Air Quality Problems

Category 3 engines generate significant emissions of PM

2.5

, SO

, and NO

that contribute to nonattainment of the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) for PM

2.5

and ground-level ozone (smog). NO

and SO

are both precursors to secondary PM

2.5

formation. Both PM

2.5

and NO

adversely affect human health. NO

is a key precursor to ozone as well. NO

, SO

and PM

2.5

emissions from ocean-going vessels also cause harm to public welfare, including contributing to deposition of nitrogen and sulfur, visibility impairment and other harmful environmental impacts across the U.S.

The health and environmental effects associated with these emissions are a classic example of a negative externality (an activity that imposes uncompensated costs on others). With a negative externality, an activity's social cost (the costs borne to society imposed as a result of the activity taking place) is not taken into account in the total cost of producing goods and services. In this case, as described in this section below and in Section II, emissions from ocean-going vessels impose public health and environmental costs on society, and these added costs to society are not reflected in the costs of providing the transportation services. The market system itself cannot correct this externality because firms in the market are rewarded for minimizing their production costs, including the costs of pollution control. In addition, firms that may take steps to use equipment that reduces air pollution may find themselves at a competitive disadvantage compared to firms that do not. To correct this market failure and reduce the negative externality from these emissions, we are setting a cap on the rate of emission production from these sources. EPA's coordinated strategy for ocean-going vessels will accomplish this since both domestic and foreign ocean-going vessels will be required to reduce their emissions to a technologically feasible limit.

Emissions from ocean-going vessels account for substantial portions of the country's ambient PM

2.5

, SO

and NO

levels. We estimate that in 2009 these engines account for about 80 percent of mobile source sulfur dioxide (SO

) emissions, 10 percent of mobile source NO

emissions and about 24 percent of mobile source diesel PM

2.5

emissions. Emissions from ocean-going vessels are expected to dominate the mobile source inventory in the future, due to both the expected emission reductions from other mobile sources as a result of more stringent emission controls and due to growth in the demand for ocean transportation services. By 2030, the coordinated strategy will reduce annual SO

emissions from these diesel engines by 1.3 million tons, annual NO

emissions by 1.2 million tons, and PM

2.5

emissions by 143,000 tons, and those reductions will continue to grow beyond 2030 as fleet turnover to the clean engines continues. While a share of these emissions occur at sea, our air quality modeling results described in Section II show they have a significant impact on ambient air quality far inland.

Both ozone and PM

2.5

are associated with serious public health problems, including premature mortality, aggravation of respiratory and cardiovascular disease (as indicated by increased hospital admissions and emergency room visits, school absences, lost work days, and restricted activity days), changes in lung function and increased respiratory symptoms, altered

respiratory defense mechanisms, and chronic bronchitis. Diesel exhaust is of special public health concern, and since 2002 EPA has classified it as likely to be carcinogenic to humans by inhalation at environmental exposures. Recent studies are showing that populations living near large diesel emission sources such as major roadways, rail yards, and marine ports are likely to experience greater diesel exhaust exposure levels than the overall U.S. population, putting them at greater health risks.

8 9 10

U. S. EPA (2004).

Final Regulatory Impact Analysis: Control of Emissions from Nonroad Diesel Engines, Chapter 3.

Report No. EPA420-R-04-007.

http://www.epa.gov/nonroad-diesel/2004fr.htm#ria.

State of California Air Resources Board. (2004).

Roseville Rail Yard Study.

Sacramento, CA: California EPA, California Air Resources Board (CARB). Stationary Source Division. This document is available electronically at:

http://www.arb.ca.gov/diesel/documents/rrstudy.htm.

Di, P., Servin, A., Rosenkranz, K., Schwehr, B., Tran, H., (2006).

Diesel Particulate Matter Exposure Assessment Study for the Ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach.

Sacramento, CA: California EPA, California Air Resources Board (CARB). Retrieved March 19, 2009 from

http://www.arb.ca.gov/regact/marine2005/portstudy0406.pdf.

EPA recently updated its initial screening-level analysis

of selected marine port areas to better understand the populations that are exposed to diesel particulate matter emissions from these facilities.

12 13 14 15

This screening-level analysis focused on a representative selection of national marine ports.

Of the 45 marine ports selected, the results indicate that at least 18 million people, including a disproportionate number of low-income households, African-Americans, and Hispanics, live in the vicinity of these facilities and are being exposed to ambient diesel PM levels that are 2.0 µg/m

and 0.2 µg/m

above levels found in areas further from these facilities. Considering only ocean-going marine engine diesel PM emissions, the results indicate that 6.5 million people are exposed to ambient diesel particulate matter (DPM) levels that are 2.0 µg/m

and 0.2 µg/m

above levels found in areas further from these facilities. Because those populations exposed to diesel PM emissions from marine ports are more likely to be low-income and minority residents, these populations would benefit from the controls being proposed in this action. The detailed findings of this study are available in the public docket for this rulemaking.

This type of screening-level analysis is an inexact tool and not appropriate for regulatory decision-making; it is useful in beginning to understand potential impacts and for illustrative purposes. Additionally, the emissions inventories used as inputs for the analyses are not official estimates and likely underestimate overall emissions because they are not inclusive of all emission sources at the individual ports in the sample.

ICF International. September 28, 2007. Estimation of diesel particulate matter concentration isopleths for marine harbor areas and rail yards. Memorandum to EPA under Work Assignment Number 0-3, Contract Number EP-C-06-094. This memo is available in Docket EPA-HQ-OAR-2007-0121.

ICF International. September 28, 2007. Estimation of diesel particulate matter population exposure near selected harbor areas and rail yards. Memorandum to EPA under Work Assignment Number 0-3, Contract Number EP-C-06-094. This memo is available in Docket EPA-HQ-OAR-2007-0121.

ICF International, December 10, 2008. Estimation of diesel particulate matter population exposure near selected harbor areas with revised harbor emissions. Memorandum to EPA under Work Assignment Number 2-9. Contract Number EP-C-06-094. This memo is available in Docket EPA-HQ-OAR-2007-0121.

ICF International. December 1, 2008. Estimation of diesel particulate matter concentration isopleths near selected harbor areas with revised emissions. Memorandum to EPA under Work Assignment Number 1-9. Contract Number EP-C-06-094. This memo is available in Docket EPA-HQ-OAR-2007-0121.

The Agency selected a representative sample from the top 150 U.S. ports including coastal and Great Lake ports.

Even outside port areas, millions of Americans continue to live in areas that do not meet existing air quality standards today. With regard to PM

2.5

nonattainment, in 2005 EPA designated 39 nonattainment areas for the 1997 PM

2.5

NAAQS (70 FR 943, January 5, 2005). These areas are composed of 208 full or partial counties with a total population exceeding 88 million. The 1997 PM

2.5

NAAQS was recently revised and the 2006 PM

2.5

NAAQS became effective on December 18, 2006. As of December 22, 2008, there are 58 2006 PM

2.5

nonattainment areas composed of 211 full or partial counties. These numbers do not include individuals living in areas that may fail to maintain or achieve the PM

2.5

NAAQS in the future. Currently, ozone concentrations exceeding the 8-hour ozone NAAQS occur over wide geographic areas, including most of the nation's major population centers. As of December 2008, there are approximately 132 million people living in 57 areas (293 full or partial counties) designated as not in attainment with the 8-hour ozone NAAQS. These numbers do not include people living in areas where there is a potential that the area may fail to maintain or achieve the 8-hour ozone NAAQS.

In addition to public health impacts, there are serious public welfare and environmental impacts associated with PM

2.5

and ozone emissions. Specifically, NO

and SO

emissions from diesel engines contribute to the acidification, nitrification, and eutrophication of water bodies. NO

, SO

and direct emissions of PM

2.5

can contribute to the substantial impairment of visibility in many parts of the U.S. where people live, work, and recreate, including national parks, wilderness areas, and mandatory class I Federal areas.

The deposition of airborne particles can also reduce the aesthetic appeal of buildings and culturally important articles through soiling, and can contribute directly (or in conjunction with other pollutants) to structural damage by means of corrosion or erosion. Finally, ozone causes damage to vegetation which leads to crop and forestry economic losses, as well as harm to national parks, wilderness areas, and other natural systems.

These areas are defined in section 162 of the Act as those national parks exceeding 6,000 acres, wilderness areas and memorial parks exceeding 5,000 acres, and all international parks which were in existence on August 7, 1977. Section 169 of the Clean Air Act provides additional authority to address existing visibility impairment and prevent future visibility impairment in the 156 national parks, forests and wilderness areas categorized as mandatory class I Federal areas.

EPA has already adopted many emission control programs that are expected to reduce ambient PM

2.5

and ozone levels, including the Nonroad Spark Ignition Engine rule (73 FR 59034, Oct 8, 2008), the Locomotive and Marine Diesel Engine Rule (73 FR 25098, May 6, 2008), the Clean Air Interstate Rule (CAIR) (70 FR 25162, May 12, 2005), the Clean Air Nonroad Diesel Rule (69 FR 38957, June 29, 2004), the Heavy Duty Engine and Vehicle Standards and Highway Diesel Fuel Sulfur Control Requirements (66 FR 5002, Jan. 18, 2001), and the Tier 2 Vehicle and Gasoline Sulfur Program (65 FR 6698, Feb. 10, 2000). The additional PM

2.5

, SO

, and NO

emission reductions resulting from the coordinated approach described in this action will assist States in attaining and maintaining the PM

2.5

and ozone NAAQS near term and in the decades to come.

Our air quality modeling projects that in 2020 at least 13 counties with about 30 million people may violate the 1997 standards for PM

2.5

and 50 counties with about 50 million people may violate the 2008 standards for ozone. These numbers likely underestimate the impacted population since they do not include the people who live in areas which do not meet the 2006 PM

2.5

NAAQS. In addition, these numbers do not include the additional 13 million people in 12 counties who live in areas that have air quality measurements within 10 percent of the 1997 PM

2.5

NAAQS and the additional 80 million people in 135 counties who live in areas

that have air quality measurements within 10% of the 2008 ozone NAAQS. The emission reductions resulting from this coordinated strategy will assist these and other States to both attain and maintain the PM

2.5

and ozone NAAQS.

State and local governments are working to protect the health of their citizens and comply with requirements of the Clean Air Act. As part of this effort, they recognize the need to secure additional major reductions in diesel PM

2.5

, SO

and NO

emissions by undertaking numerous State level actions, while also seeking Agency action, including the Category 3 engine standards being finalized in this final rule and the U.S. proposal to IMO to amend Annex VI to designate U.S. coastal areas as an ECA, and related certification and fuel provisions under the Clean Air Act to complement that ECA proposal. EPA's coordinated strategy to reduce OGV emissions through engine emission controls and fuel sulfur limits will play a critical part in State efforts to attain and maintain the NAAQS through the next two decades.

In addition to regulatory programs, the Agency has a number of innovative programs that partner government, industry, and local communities together to help address challenging air quality problems. Under the National Clean Diesel Campaign, EPA promotes a variety of emission reduction strategies such as retrofitting, repairing, replacing and repowering engines, reducing idling and switching to cleaner fuels.

In 2008, Congress appropriated funding for the Diesel Emission Reduction Program under the Energy Policy Act of 2005 (EPAct 2005) to reduce emissions from heavy-duty diesel engines in the existing fleet. The EPAct 2005 directs EPA to break the funding into two different components: a National competition and a State allocation program. The National Program, with 70 percent of the funding, consists of three separate competitions: (1) The National Clean Diesel Funding Assistance Program; (2) the National Clean Diesel Emerging Technologies Program; and (3) the SmartWay Clean Diesel Finance Program. The State Clean Diesel Grant and Loan Program utilizes the remaining 30 percent of the funding. In the first year of the program, EPA awarded 119 grants totaling $49.2 million for diesel emission reduction projects and programs across the country for cleaner fuels, verified technologies, and certified engine configurations.

Through $300 million in funding provided to the Diesel Emission Reduction Program under the American Reinvestment and Recovery Act of 2009, EPA will promote and preserve jobs while improving public health and achieving significant reductions in diesel emissions.

Furthermore, EPA's National Clean Diesel Campaign, through its Clean Ports USA program, is working with port authorities, terminal operators, shipping, truck, and rail companies to promote cleaner diesel technologies and strategies through education, incentives, and financial assistance for diesel emission reductions at ports. Part of these efforts involves clean diesel programs that can further reduce emissions from the existing fleet of diesel engines. Finally, many of the companies operating in States and communities suffering from poor air quality have voluntarily entered into Memoranda of Understanding (MOUs) designed to ensure that the cleanest technologies are used first in regions with the most challenging air quality issues.

Taken together, these voluntary approaches can augment the coordinated strategy and help States and communities achieve larger reductions sooner in the areas of our country that need them the most. The Agency remains committed to furthering these programs and others so that all of our citizens can breathe clean healthy air.

(2) Advanced Emission Technology Solutions Are Available

Air pollution from marine diesel exhaust is a challenging problem. However, we believe manufacturers can apply a combination of existing and new technologies to meet the emission standards we are adopting in this final rule. Optimizing air intake fuel injection systems can substantially reduce engine-out emissions. Further NO

control can be achieved with advanced technology such as aftertreatment devices with high-efficiency catalysts. As discussed in greater detail in Section III.C, the development of these aftertreatment technologies for highway and nonroad diesel applications has advanced rapidly in recent years, so that very large emission reductions in NO

emissions can be achieved. Manufacturers might also deploy other advanced technologies such as water-based in-cylinder controls to reduce NO

emissions.

While aftertreatment technologies can be sensitive to sulfur, their use will be required only in ECAs designated under MARPOL Annex VI, and they are expected to be able to operate on ECA fuel meeting a 1,000 ppm fuel sulfur. With the lead time available and the assurance of 1,000 ppm fuel for ocean-going vessels in 2015, as would be required through ECA designation for U.S. coasts, we are confident the application of advanced NO

technology to Category 3 marine engines will proceed at a reasonable rate of progress and will result in systems capable of achieving the finalized standards on schedule. Use of this lower sulfur fuel will also result in substantial PM emission reductions, since PM emissions from Category 3 engines come mostly from the use of high sulfur residual fuel. Note that vessels may be equipped with alternative devices, procedures, or compliance methods provided they achieve equivalent emissions reductions.

C. Statutory Basis for Action

Authority for the actions proposed in this documents is granted to the Environmental Protections Agency by sections 114, 203, 205, 206, 207, 208, 211, 213, 216, and 301(a) of the Clean Air Act as amended in 1990 (42 U.S.C. 7414, 7522, 7524, 7525, 7541, 7542, 7545, 7547, 7550 and 7601(a)), and by sections 1901-1915 of the Act to Prevent Pollution from Ships (33 U.S.C. 1909

et seq.

(1) Clean Air Act Basis for Action

EPA is proposing the fuel requirements pursuant to its authority in section 211(c) of the Clean Air Act, which allows EPA to regulate fuels that contribute to air pollution that endangers public health or welfare (42 U.S.C. 7545(c)). As discussed previously in EPA's Clean Air Nonroad Diesel rule (69 FR 38958) and in Section II, the combustion of high sulfur diesel fuel by nonroad, locomotive, and marine diesel engines contributes to air quality problems that endanger public health and welfare. Section II also discusses the significant contribution to these air quality problems by Category 3 marine vessels. Additional support for the procedural and enforcement-related aspects of the fuel controls in the final rule, including the recordkeeping requirements, comes from Clean Air Act sections 114(a) and 301(a) (42 U.S.C. sections 7414(a) and 7601(a)).

EPA is finalizing emission standards for new Category 3 marine diesel engines pursuant to its authority under section 213(a)(3) of the Clean Air Act, which directs the Administrator to set standards regulating emissions of NO

, volatile organic compounds (VOCs), or CO for classes or categories of engines, such as marine diesel engines, that contribute to ozone or carbon monoxide concentrations in more than one nonattainment area. These “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, giving appropriate consideration to cost, lead time, noise, energy, and safety factors associated with the application of such technology.”

EPA is finalizing a PM measurement requirement for new Category 3 marine diesel engines pursuant to its authority under section 208, which requires manufacturers and other persons subject to Title II requirements to “provide information the Administrator may reasonably require * * * to otherwise carry out the provisions of this part * * *”

EPA is also acting under its authority to implement and enforce the Category 3 marine diesel emission standards. Section 213(d) provides that the standards EPA adopts for marine diesel engines “shall be subject to Sections 206, 207, 208, and 209” of the Clean Air Act, with such modifications that the Administrator deems appropriate to the regulations implementing these sections.” In addition, the marine standards “shall be enforced in the same manner as [motor vehicle] standards prescribed under section 202” of the Act. Section 213(d) also grants EPA authority to promulgate or revise regulations as necessary to determine compliance with and enforce standards adopted under section 213.

As required under section 213(a)(3), we believe the evidence provided in Section III.C and in Chapter 4 of Final Regulatory Impact Analysis (RIA) indicates that the stringent NO

emission standards finalized in this final rule for newly built Category 3 marine diesel engines are feasible and reflect the greatest degree of emission reduction achievable through the use of technology that will be available in the model years to which they apply. We have given appropriate consideration to costs in finalizing these standards. Our review of the costs and cost-effectiveness of these standards indicate that they are reasonable and comparable to the cost-effectiveness of other mobile source emission reduction strategies that have been required. We have also reviewed and given appropriate consideration to the energy factors of this rule in terms of fuel efficiency as well as any safety and noise factors associated with these standards.

The information in Section II and Chapter 2 of the Final Regulatory Impact Analysis regarding air quality and public health impacts provides strong evidence that emissions from Category 3 marine diesel engines significantly and adversely impact public health or welfare. EPA has already found in previous rules that emissions from new marine diesel engines contribute to ozone and CO concentrations in more than one area which has failed to attain the ozone and carbon monoxide NAAQS (64 FR 73300, December 29, 1999).

The NO

and PM emission reductions achieved through the coordinated strategy will be important to States' efforts to attain and maintain the Ozone and the PM

2.5

NAAQS in the near term and in the decades to come, and will significantly reduce the risk of adverse effects to human health and welfare.

(2) APPS Basis for Action

EPA is finalizing regulations to implement MARPOL Annex VI pursuant to its authority in section 1903 of the Act to Prevent Pollution from Ships (APPS). Section 1903 gives the Administrator the authority to prescribe any necessary or desired regulations to carry out the provisions of Regulations 12 through 19 of Annex VI.

The Act to Prevent Pollution from Ships implements Annex VI and makes those requirements enforceable domestically. However, certain clarifications are necessary for implementing Regulation 13 and the requirements of the NO

Technical Code with respect to issuance of Engine International Air Pollution Prevention (EIAPP) certificates and approval of alternative compliance methods. Clarification is also needed with respect to the application of the Annex VI requirements to certain U.S. and foreign vessels that operate in U.S. waters.

II. Air Quality, Health and Welfare Impacts

The coordinated strategy will significantly reduce emissions of NO

, PM, and SO

from ocean-going vessels. Emissions of these compounds contribute to PM and ozone nonattainment and environmental effects including deposition, visibility impairment and harm to ecosystems from ozone. In addition diesel particulate matter is associated with a host of adverse health effects, including cancer.

This section summarizes the general health and welfare effects of these emissions and the modeled projections of changes in air quality due to the coordinated strategy. Interested readers are encouraged to refer to the RIA for more in-depth discussions.

A. Public Health Impacts

(1) Particulate Matter

Particulate matter is a generic term for a broad class of chemically and physically diverse substances. It can be principally characterized as discrete particles that exist in the condensed (liquid or solid) phase spanning several orders of magnitude in size. Since 1987, EPA has delineated that subset of inhalable particles small enough to penetrate to the thoracic region (including the tracheobronchial and alveolar regions) of the respiratory tract (referred to as thoracic particles). Current NAAQS use PM

2.5

as the indicator for fine particles (with PM

2.5

referring to particles with a nominal mean aerodynamic diameter less than or equal to 2.5 μm), and use PM

as the indicator for purposes of regulating the coarse fraction of PM

(referred to as thoracic coarse particles or coarse-fraction particles; generally including particles with a nominal mean aerodynamic diameter greater than 2.5 μm and less than or equal to 10 μm, or PM

10-2.5

). Ultrafine particles are a subset of fine particles, generally less than 100 nanometers (0.1 μm) in aerodynamic diameter.

Fine particles are produced primarily by combustion processes and by transformations of gaseous emissions (

e.g.,

, NO

and VOC) in the atmosphere. The chemical and physical properties of PM

2.5

may vary greatly with time, region, meteorology, and source category. Thus, PM

2.5

may include a complex mixture of different pollutants including sulfates, nitrates, organic compounds, elemental carbon and metal compounds. These particles can remain in the atmosphere for days to weeks and travel hundreds to thousands of kilometers.

(a) Health Effects of PM

Scientific studies show ambient PM is associated with a series of adverse health effects. These health effects are discussed in detail in EPA's 2004 Particulate Matter Air Quality Criteria Document (PM AQCD) and the 2005 PM Staff Paper.

18 19 20

Further discussion of

health effects associated with PM can also be found in the RIA for this rule.

U.S. EPA (2004).

Air Quality Criteria for Particulate Matter.

Volume I EPA600/P-99/002aF and Volume II EPA600/P-99/002bF. Retrieved on March 19, 2009 from Docket EPA-HQ-OAR-2003-0190 at

http://www.regulations.gov/.

U.S. EPA (2005).

Review of the National Ambient Air Quality Standard for Particulate Matter: Policy Assessment of Scientific and Technical Information, OAQPS Staff Paper.

EPA-452/R-05-005a. Retrieved March 19, 2009 from

http://www.epa.gov/ttn/naaqs/standards/pm/data/pmstaffpaper_20051221.pdf.

The PM NAAQS is currently under review and the EPA is considering all available science on PM health effects, including information which has been published since 2004, in the development of the upcoming PM Integrated Science Assessment Document (ISA). A second draft of the PM ISA was completed in July 2009 and was submitted for

review by the Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee (CASAC) of EPA's Science Advisory Board. Comments from the general public have also been requested. For more information,

see http://cfpub.epa.gov/ncea/cfm/recordisplay.cfm?deid=210586.

Health effects associated with short-term exposures (hours to days) to ambient PM include premature mortality, aggravation of cardiovascular and lung disease (as indicated by increased hospital admissions and emergency department visits), increased respiratory symptoms including cough and difficulty breathing, decrements in lung function, altered heart rate rhythm, and other more subtle changes in blood markers related to cardiovascular health.

Long-term exposure to PM

2.5

and sulfates has also been associated with mortality from cardiopulmonary disease and lung cancer, and effects on the respiratory system such as reduced lung function growth or development of respiratory disease. A new analysis shows an association between long-term PM

2.5

exposure and a subclinical measure of atherosclerosis.

22 23

U.S. EPA (2006).

National Ambient Air Quality Standards for Particulate Matter.

71 FR 61144, October 17, 2006.

Künzli, N., Jerrett, M., Mack, W.J.,

et al.

(2004). Ambient air pollution and atherosclerosis in Los Angeles

. Environ Health Perspect.,113,

201-206

This study is included in the 2006 Provisional Assessment of Recent Studies on Health Effects of Particulate Matter Exposure. The provisional assessment did not and could not (given a very short timeframe) undergo the extensive critical review by CASAC and the public, as did the PM AQCD. The provisional assessment found that the “new” studies expand the scientific information and provide important insights on the relationship between PM exposure and health effects of PM. The provisional assessment also found that “new” studies generally strengthen the evidence that acute and chronic exposure to fine particles and acute exposure to thoracic coarse particles are associated with health effects. Further, the provisional science assessment found that the results reported in the studies did not dramatically diverge from previous findings, and taken in context with the findings of the AQCD, the new information and findings did not materially change any of the broad scientific conclusions regarding the health effects of PM exposure made in the AQCD. However, it is important to note that this assessment was limited to screening, surveying, and preparing a provisional assessment of these studies. For reasons outlined in Section I.C of the preamble for the final PM NAAQS rulemaking in 2006 (

see

71 FR 61148-49, October 17, 2006), EPA based its NAAQS decision on the science presented in the 2004 AQCD.

Studies examining populations exposed over the long term (one or more years) to different levels of air pollution, including the Harvard Six Cities Study and the American Cancer Society Study, show associations between long-term exposure to ambient PM

2.5

and both all cause and cardiopulmonary premature mortality.

24 25 26

In addition, an extension of the American Cancer Society Study shows an association between PM

2.5

and sulfate concentrations and lung cancer mortality.

Dockery, D.W., Pope, C.A. III, Xu, X,

et al.

(1993). An association between air pollution and mortality in six U.S. cities.

N Engl J Med, 329,

1753-1759. Retrieved on March 19, 2009 from

http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/full/329/24/1753.

Pope, C.A., III, Thun, M.J., Namboodiri, M.M., Dockery, D.W., Evans, J.S., Speizer, F.E., and Heath, C.W., Jr. (1995). Particulate air pollution as a predictor of mortality in a prospective study of U.S. adults.

Am. J. Respir. Crit. Care Med, 151,

669-674.

Krewski, D., Burnett, R.T., Goldberg, M.S.,

et al.

(2000).

Reanalysis of the Harvard Six Cities study and the American Cancer Society study of particulate air pollution and mortality.

A special report of the Institute's Particle Epidemiology Reanalysis Project. Cambridge, MA: Health Effects Institute. Retrieved on March 19, 2009 from

http://es.epa.gov/ncer/science/pm/hei/Rean-ExecSumm.pdf.

Pope, C. A., III, Burnett, R.T., Thun, M.J., Calle, E.E., Krewski, D., Ito, K., Thurston, G.D., (2002). Lung cancer, cardiopulmonary mortality, and long-term exposure to fine particulate air pollution.

J. Am. Med. Assoc., 287,

1132-1141.

(b) Health Effects of Diesel Particulate Matter

Marine diesel engines emit diesel exhaust (DE), a complex mixture composed of carbon dioxide, oxygen, nitrogen, water vapor, carbon monoxide, nitrogen compounds, sulfur compounds and numerous low-molecular-weight hydrocarbons. A number of these gaseous hydrocarbon components are individually known to be toxic, including aldehydes, benzene and 1,3-butadiene. The diesel particulate matter (DPM) present in DE consists of fine particles (< 2.5 μm), including a subgroup with a large number of ultrafine particles (< 0.1 μm). These particles have a large surface area which makes them an excellent medium for adsorbing organics and their small size makes them highly respirable. Many of the organic compounds present in the gases and on the particles, such as polycyclic organic matter (POM), are individually known to have mutagenic and carcinogenic properties. Diesel exhaust varies significantly in chemical composition and particle sizes between different engine types (heavy-duty, light-duty), engine operating conditions (idle, accelerate, decelerate), and fuel formulations (high/low sulfur fuel). Also, there are emissions differences between on-road and nonroad engines because the nonroad engines are generally of older technology. This is especially true for marine diesel engines.

U.S. EPA (2002).

Health Assessment Document for Diesel Engine Exhaust.

EPA/600/8-90/057F Office of Research and Development, Washington DC. Retrieved on March 17, 2009 from

http://cfpub.epa.gov/ncea/cfm/recordisplay.cfm?deid=29060.

pp. 1-1 1-2.

After being emitted in the engine exhaust, diesel exhaust undergoes dilution as well as chemical and physical changes in the atmosphere. The lifetime for some of the compounds present in diesel exhaust ranges from hours to days.

U.S. EPA (2002).

Health Assessment Document for Diesel Engine Exhaust.

EPA/600/8-90/057F Office of Research and Development, Washington, DC. Retrieved on March 17, 2009 from

http://cfpub.epa.gov/ncea/cfm/recordisplay.cfm?deid=29060.

(i) Diesel Exhaust: Potential Cancer Effects

In EPA's 2002 Diesel Health Assessment Document (Diesel HAD),

exposure to diesel exhaust was classified as likely to be carcinogenic to humans by inhalation from environmental exposures, in accordance with the revised draft 1996/1999 EPA cancer guidelines. A number of other agencies (National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, the International Agency for Research on Cancer, the World Health Organization, California EPA, and the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services) have made similar classifications. However, EPA also concluded in the Diesel HAD that it is not possible currently to calculate a cancer unit risk for diesel exhaust due to a variety of factors that limit the current studies, such as limited quantitative exposure histories in occupational groups investigated for lung cancer.

U.S. EPA (2002).

Health Assessment Document for Diesel Engine Exhaust.

EPA/600/8-90/057F Office of Research and Development, Washington DC. Retrieved on March 17, 2009 from

http://cfpub.epa.gov/ncea/cfm/recordisplay.cfm?deid=29060.

pp. 1-1 1-2.

For the Diesel HAD, EPA reviewed 22 epidemiologic studies on the subject of the carcinogenicity of workers exposed to diesel exhaust in various occupations, finding increased lung cancer risk, although not always statistically significant, in 8 out of 10 cohort studies and 10 out of 12 case-control studies within several industries. Relative risk for lung cancer associated with exposure ranged from 1.2 to 1.5, although a few studies show relative risks as high as 2.6. Additionally, the Diesel HAD also relied on two independent meta-analyses, which examined 23 and 30 occupational studies respectively, which found statistically significant increases in smoking-adjusted relative lung cancer risk associated with exposure to diesel exhaust of 1.33 to 1.47. These meta-analyses demonstrate the effect of pooling many studies and in this case show the positive relationship between

diesel exhaust exposure and lung cancer across a variety of diesel exhaust-exposed occupations.

31 32

Bhatia, R., Lopipero, P., Smith, A. (1998). Diesel exposure and lung cancer.

Epidemiology, 9(1),

84-91.

Lipsett, M. Campleman, S. (1999). Occupational exposure to diesel exhaust and lung cancer: a meta-analysis

. Am J Public Health, 80(7),

1009-1017.

In the absence of a cancer unit risk, the Diesel HAD sought to provide additional insight into the significance of the diesel exhaust-cancer hazard by estimating possible ranges of risk that might be present in the population. An exploratory analysis was used to characterize a possible risk range by comparing a typical environmental exposure level for highway diesel sources to a selected range of occupational exposure levels. The occupationally observed risks were then proportionally scaled according to the exposure ratios to obtain an estimate of the possible environmental risk. A number of calculations are needed to accomplish this, and these can be seen in the EPA Diesel HAD. The outcome was that environmental risks from diesel exhaust exposure could range from a low of 10

−4

to 10

−5

to as high as 10

−3

, reflecting the range of occupational exposures that could be associated with the relative and absolute risk levels observed in the occupational studies. Because of uncertainties, the analysis acknowledged that the risks could be lower than 10

−4

or 10

−5

, and a zero risk from diesel exhaust exposure was not ruled out.

(ii) Diesel Exhaust: Other Health Effects

Noncancer health effects of acute and chronic exposure to diesel exhaust emissions are also of concern to the EPA. EPA derived a diesel exhaust reference concentration (RfC) from consideration of four well-conducted chronic rat inhalation studies showing adverse pulmonary effects.

33 34 35 36

The RfC is 5 μg/m

for diesel exhaust as measured by DPM. This RfC does not consider allergenic effects such as those associated with asthma or immunologic effects. There is growing evidence, discussed in the Diesel HAD, that exposure to diesel exhaust can exacerbate these effects, but the exposure-response data are presently lacking to derive an RfC. The EPA Diesel HAD states, “With DPM [diesel particulate matter] being a ubiquitous component of ambient PM, there is an uncertainty about the adequacy of the existing DE [diesel exhaust] noncancer database to identify all of the pertinent DE-caused noncancer health hazards.” (p. 9-19). The Diesel HAD concludes “that acute exposure to DE [diesel exhaust] has been associated with irritation of the eye, nose, and throat, respiratory symptoms (cough and phlegm), and neurophysiological symptoms such as headache, lightheadedness, nausea, vomiting, and numbness or tingling of the extremities.”

Ishinishi, N. Kuwabara, N. Takaki, Y.,

et al.

(1988). Long-term inhalation experiments on diesel exhaust. In:

Diesel exhaust and health risks.

Results of the HERP studies. Ibaraki, Japan: Research Committee for HERP Studies; pp.11-84.

Heinrich, U., Fuhst, R., Rittinghausen, S.,

et al.

(1995). Chronic inhalation exposure of Wistar rats and two different strains of mice to diesel engine exhaust, carbon black, and titanium dioxide.

Inhal Toxicol, 7,

553-556.

Mauderly, J.L., Jones, R.K., Griffith, W.C.,

et al.

(1987). Diesel exhaust is a pulmonary carcinogen in rats exposed chronically by inhalation.

Fundam. Appl. Toxicol., 9,

208-221.

Nikula, K.J., Snipes, M.B., Barr, E.B.,

et al.

(1995). Comparative pulmonary toxicities and carcinogenicities of chronically inhaled diesel exhaust and carbon black in F344 rats.

Fundam. Appl. Toxicol, 25,

80-94.

U.S. EPA (2002).

Health Assessment Document for Diesel Engine Exhaust.

EPA/600/8-90/057F Office of Research and Development, Washington, DC. Retrieved on March 17, 2009 from

http://cfpub.epa.gov/ncea/cfm/recordisplay.cfm?deid=29060.

p. 9-9.

(iii) Ambient PM

2.5

Levels and Exposure to Diesel Exhaust PM

The Diesel HAD also briefly summarizes health effects associated with ambient PM and discusses the EPA's annual PM

2.5

NAAQS of 15 μg/m

. There is a much more extensive body of human data showing a wide spectrum of adverse health effects associated with exposure to ambient PM, of which diesel exhaust is an important component. The PM

2.5

NAAQS is designed to provide protection from the noncancer and premature mortality effects of PM

2.5

as a whole.

(iv) Diesel Exhaust PM Exposures

Exposure of people to diesel exhaust depends on their various activities, the time spent in those activities, the locations where these activities occur, and the levels of diesel exhaust pollutants in those locations. The major difference between ambient levels of diesel particulate and exposure levels for diesel particulate is that exposure accounts for a person moving from location to location, proximity to the emission source, and whether the exposure occurs in an enclosed environment.

Occupational Exposures

Occupational exposures to diesel exhaust from mobile sources, including marine diesel engines, can be several orders of magnitude greater than typical exposures in the non-occupationally exposed population.

Over the years, diesel particulate exposures have been measured for a number of occupational groups. A wide range of exposures have been reported, from 2 μg/m

to 1,280 μg/m

, for a variety of occupations. As discussed in the Diesel HAD, the National Institute of Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) has estimated a total of 1,400,000 workers are occupationally exposed to diesel exhaust from on-road and nonroad vehicles including marine diesel engines.

Elevated Concentrations and Ambient Exposures in Mobile Source-Impacted Areas

Regions immediately downwind of marine ports may experience elevated ambient concentrations of directly-emitted PM

2.5

from diesel engines. Due to the unique nature of marine ports, emissions from a large number of diesel engines are concentrated in a small area.

A 2006 study from the California Air Resources Board (CARB) evaluated air quality impacts of diesel engine emissions within the Ports of Long Beach and Los Angeles in California, one of the largest ports in the U.S.

The port study employed the ISCST3 dispersion model. With local meteorological data used in the modeling, annual average concentrations were substantially elevated over an area exceeding 200,000 acres. Because the ports are located near heavily-populated areas, the modeling indicated that over 700,000 people lived in areas with at least 0.3 μg/m

of port-related diesel PM in ambient air, about 360,000 people lived in areas with at least 0.6 μg/m

of diesel PM, and about 50,000 people lived in areas with at least 1.5 μg/m

of ambient diesel PM directly from the port. This study highlights the substantial contribution ports can make to elevated ambient concentrations in populated areas.

Di, P., Servin, A., Rosenkranz, K., Schwehr, B., Tran, H., (2006).

Diesel Particulate Matter Exposure Assessment Study for the Ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach.

Sacramento, CA: California EPA, California Air Resources Board (CARB). Retrieved March 19, 2009 from

http://www.arb.ca.gov/regact/marine2005/portstudy0406.pdf.

EPA recently updated its initial screening-level analysis of a representative selection of national marine port areas to better understand the populations that are exposed to DPM emissions from these facilities.

39 40 41 42

As part of this study,

a computer geographic information system (GIS) was used to identify the locations and property boundaries of 45 marine ports.

Census information was used to estimate the size and demographic characteristics of the population living in the vicinity of the ports. The results indicate that at least 18 million people, including a disproportionate number of low-income households, African-Americans, and Hispanics, live in the vicinity of these facilities and are being exposed to annual average ambient DPM levels that are 2.0 μg/m

and 0.2 μg/m

above levels found in areas further from these facilities. These populations will benefit from the coordinated strategy. This study is discussed in greater detail in Chapter 2 of the RIA and detailed findings of this study are available in the public docket for this rulemaking.

ICF International. September 28, 2007. Estimation of diesel particulate matter concentration isopleths for marine harbor areas and

rail yards. Memorandum to EPA under Work Assignment Number 0-3, Contract Number EP-C-06-094. This memo is available in Docket EPA-HQ-OAR-2007-0121.

The Agency selected a representative sample from the top 150 U.S. ports including coastal, inland, and Great Lake ports.

(2) Ozone

Ground-level ozone pollution is typically formed by the reaction of VOC and NO

in the lower atmosphere in the presence of heat and sunlight. These pollutants, often referred to as ozone precursors, are emitted by many types of pollution sources, such as highway and nonroad motor vehicles and engines, power plants, chemical plants, refineries, makers of consumer and commercial products, industrial facilities, and smaller area sources.

The science of ozone formation, transport, and accumulation is complex.

Ground-level ozone is produced and destroyed in a cyclical set of chemical reactions, many of which are sensitive to temperature and sunlight. When ambient temperatures and sunlight levels remain high for several days and the air is relatively stagnant, ozone and its precursors can build up and result in more ozone than typically occurs on a single high-temperature day. Ozone can be transported hundreds of miles downwind from precursor emissions, resulting in elevated ozone levels even in areas with low local VOC or NO

emissions.

U.S. EPA (2006). Air Quality Criteria for Ozone and Related Photochemical Oxidants (Final). EPA/600/R-05/004aF-cF. Washington, DC: U.S. EPA. Retrieved on March 19, 2009 from Docket EPA-HQ-OAR-2003-0190 at

http://www.regulations.gov/.

(a) Health Effects of Ozone

The health and welfare effects of ozone are well documented and are assessed in EPA's 2006 Air Quality Criteria Document (ozone AQCD) and 2007 Staff Paper.

45 46

Ozone can irritate the respiratory system, causing coughing, throat irritation, and/or uncomfortable sensation in the chest. Ozone can reduce lung function and make it more difficult to breathe deeply; breathing may also become more rapid and shallow than normal, thereby limiting a person's activity. Ozone can also aggravate asthma, leading to more asthma attacks that require medical attention and/or the use of additional medication. In addition, there is suggestive evidence of a contribution of ozone to cardiovascular-related morbidity and highly suggestive evidence that short-term ozone exposure directly or indirectly contributes to non-accidental and cardiopulmonary-related mortality, but additional research is needed to clarify the underlying mechanisms causing these effects. In a recent report on the estimation of ozone-related premature mortality published by the National Research Council (NRC), a panel of experts and reviewers concluded that short-term exposure to ambient ozone is likely to contribute to premature deaths and that ozone-related mortality should be included in estimates of the health benefits of reducing ozone exposure.

Animal toxicological evidence indicates that with repeated exposure, ozone can inflame and damage the lining of the lungs, which may lead to permanent changes in lung tissue and irreversible reductions in lung function. People who are more susceptible to effects associated with exposure to ozone can include children, the elderly, and individuals with respiratory disease such as asthma. Those with greater exposures to ozone, for instance due to time spent outdoors (

e.g.,

children and outdoor workers), are of particular concern.

http://www.regulations.gov/.

U.S. EPA (2007). Review of the National Ambient Air Quality Standards for Ozone: Policy Assessment of Scientific and Technical Information, OAQPS Staff Paper. EPA-452/R-07-003. Washington, DC, U.S. EPA. Retrieved on March 19, 2009 from Docket EPA-HQ-OAR-2003-0190 at

http://www.regulations.gov/.

National Research Council (NRC), 2008.

Estimating Mortality Risk Reduction and Economic Benefits from Controlling Ozone Air Pollution.

The National Academies Press: Washington, DC.

The 2006 ozone AQCD also examined relevant new scientific information that has emerged in the past decade, including the impact of ozone exposure on such health effects as changes in lung structure and biochemistry, inflammation of the lungs, exacerbation and causation of asthma, respiratory illness-related school absence, hospital admissions and premature mortality. Animal toxicological studies have suggested potential interactions between ozone and PM with increased responses observed to mixtures of the two pollutants compared to either ozone or PM alone. The respiratory morbidity observed in animal studies along with the evidence from epidemiologic studies supports a causal relationship between acute ambient ozone exposures and increased respiratory-related emergency room visits and hospitalizations in the warm season. In addition, there is suggestive evidence of a contribution of ozone to cardiovascular-related morbidity and non-accidental and cardiopulmonary mortality.

(3) NO

and SO

Nitrogen dioxide (NO

) is a member of the NO

family of gases. Most NO

is formed in the air through the oxidation of nitric oxide (NO) emitted when fuel is burned at a high temperature. SO

, a member of the sulfur oxide (SO

) family of gases, is formed from burning fuels containing sulfur (

e.g.,

coal or oil derived), extracting gasoline from oil, or extracting metals from ore.

and NO

can dissolve in water vapor and further oxidize to form sulfuric and nitric acid which react with ammonia to form sulfates and nitrates, both of which are important components of ambient PM. The health effects of ambient PM are discussed in Section II.A.1 of this preamble. NO

along with non-methane hydrocarbon (NMHC) are the two major precursors of ozone. The health effects of ozone are covered in Section II.A.2.

(a) Health Effects of NO

Information on the health effects of NO

can be found in the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

Integrated Science Assessment (ISA) for Nitrogen Oxides.

The U.S. EPA has concluded that the findings of epidemiologic, controlled human exposure, and animal toxicological studies provide evidence that is sufficient to infer a likely causal relationship between respiratory effects and short-term NO

exposure. The ISA concludes that the strongest evidence for such a relationship comes from epidemiologic studies of respiratory effects including symptoms, emergency department visits, and hospital admissions. The ISA also draws two broad conclusions regarding airway responsiveness following NO

exposure. First, the ISA concludes that NO

exposure may enhance the sensitivity to allergen-induced decrements in lung function and increase the allergen-induced airway inflammatory response at exposures as low as 0.26 ppm NO

for 30 minutes. Second, exposure to NO

has been found to enhance the inherent responsiveness of the airway to subsequent nonspecific challenges in controlled human exposure studies of asthmatic subjects. Enhanced airway responsiveness could have important clinical implications for asthmatics since transient increases in airway responsiveness following NO

exposure have the potential to increase symptoms and worsen asthma control. Together, the epidemiologic and experimental data sets form a plausible, consistent, and coherent description of a relationship between NO

exposures and an array of adverse health effects that range from the onset of respiratory symptoms to hospital admission.

U.S. EPA (2008).

Integrated Science Assessment for Oxides of Nitrogen—Health Criteria (Final Report).

EPA/600/R-08/071. Washington, DC: U.S. EPA. Retrieved on March 19, 2009 from

http://cfpub.epa.gov/ncea/cfm/recordisplay.cfm?deid=194645.

Although the weight of evidence supporting a causal relationship is somewhat less certain than that associated with respiratory morbidity, NO

has also been linked to other health endpoints. These include all-cause (nonaccidental) mortality, hospital admissions or emergency department visits for cardiovascular disease, and decrements in lung function growth associated with chronic exposure.

(b) Health Effects of SO

Information on the health effects of SO

can be found in the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Integrated Science Assessment for Sulfur Oxides.

has long been known to cause adverse respiratory health effects, particularly among individuals with asthma. Other potentially sensitive groups include children and the elderly. During periods of elevated ventilation, asthmatics may experience symptomatic bronchoconstriction within minutes of exposure. Following an extensive evaluation of health evidence from epidemiologic and laboratory studies, the EPA has concluded that there is a causal relationship between respiratory health effects and short-term exposure to SO

. Separately, based on an evaluation of the epidemiologic evidence of associations between short-term exposure to SO

and mortality, the EPA has concluded that the overall evidence is suggestive of a causal relationship between short-term exposure to SO

and mortality.

U.S. EPA (2008).

Integrated Science Assessment (ISA) for Sulfur Oxides—Health Criteria (Final Report).

EPA/600/R-08/047F. Washington, DC: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Retrieved on March 18, 2009 from

http://cfpub.epa.gov/ncea/cfm/recordisplay.cfm?deid=198843.

B. Environmental Impacts

(1) Deposition of Nitrogen and Sulfur

Emissions of NO

and SO

from ships contribute to atmospheric deposition of nitrogen and sulfur in the U.S. Atmospheric deposition of nitrogen and sulfur contributes to acidification, altering biogeochemistry and affecting animal and plant life in terrestrial and aquatic ecosystems across the U.S. The sensitivity of terrestrial and aquatic ecosystems to acidification from nitrogen and sulfur deposition is predominantly governed by geology. Prolonged exposure to excess nitrogen and sulfur deposition in sensitive areas acidifies lakes, rivers and soils. Increased acidity in surface waters creates inhospitable conditions for biota and affects the abundance and nutritional value of preferred prey species, threatening biodiversity and ecosystem function. Over time, acidifying deposition also removes essential nutrients from forest soils, depleting the capacity of soils to neutralize future acid loadings and negatively affecting forest sustainability. Major effects include a decline in sensitive forest tree species, such as red spruce (

Picea rubens

) and sugar maple (

Acer saccharum

), and a loss of biodiversity of fishes, zooplankton, and macro invertebrates.

In addition to the role nitrogen deposition plays in acidification, nitrogen deposition also causes ecosystem nutrient enrichment leading to eutrophication that alters biogeochemical cycles. Excess nitrogen also leads to the loss of nitrogen sensitive lichen species as they are outcompeted by invasive grasses as well as altering the biodiversity of terrestrial ecosystems, such as grasslands and meadows. Nitrogen deposition contributes to eutrophication of estuaries and the associated effects including toxic algal blooms and fish kills. For a broader explanation of the topics treated here, refer to the description in Section 2.3.1 of the RIA.

There are a number of important quantified relationships between nitrogen deposition levels and ecological effects. Certain lichen species are the most sensitive terrestrial taxa to nitrogen with species losses occurring at just 3 kg N/ha/yr in the Pacific Northwest, southern California and Alaska. A United States Forest Service study conducted in areas within the Tongass Forest in Southeast Alaska found evidence of sulfur emissions impacting lichen communities.

The authors concluded that the main source of nitrogen and sulfur found in lichens from Mt. Roberts (directly north of the City of Juneau in southeastern Alaska) is likely the burning of fossil fuels by cruise ships and other vehicles and equipment in Juneau. According to the Alaska DEC, damage to lichen populations has widespread effects in Alaskan ecosystems.

Dillman, K., Geiser, L., & Brenner, G. (2007).

Air Quality Bio-Monitoring with Lichens.

The Togass National Forest. USDA Forest Service. Retrieved March 18, 2009 from

http://gis.nacse.org/lichenair/?page=reports.

Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation, “Statement in Support of EPA Considering Alaska as Part of a Marine Emission Control Area,” October 1, 2008.

Across the U.S., there are many terrestrial and aquatic ecosystems that have been identified as particularly sensitive to nitrogen deposition. The most extreme effects resulting from nitrogen deposition on aquatic ecosystems are due to nitrogen enrichment which contributes to “hypoxic” zones devoid of life. Three hypoxia zones of special concern in the U.S. are the zones located in the Gulf of Mexico, the Chesapeake Bay in the mid-Atlantic region, and Long Island Sound in the northeast U.S.

U.S. EPA (2008).

Nitrogen Dioxide/Sulfur Dioxide Secondary NAAQS Review: Integrated Science Assessment (ISA).

Washington, DC: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Retrieved on March 18, 2009 from

http://cfpub.epa.gov/ncea/cfm/recordisplay.cfm?deid=180903.

(2) Deposition of Particulate Matter and Air Toxics

The coordinated strategy will reduce NO

, SO

, and PM

2.5

emissions from ships. Ship emissions of PM

2.5

contain small amounts of metals: Nickel,

vanadium, cadmium, iron, lead, copper, zinc, and aluminum.

53 54 55

Investigations of trace metals near roadways and industrial facilities indicate that a substantial burden of heavy metals can accumulate on vegetative surfaces. Copper, zinc, and nickel are directly toxic to vegetation under field conditions.

While metals typically exhibit low solubility, limiting their bioavailability and direct toxicity, chemical transformations of metal compounds occur in the environment, particularly in the presence of acidic or other oxidizing species. These chemical changes influence the mobility and toxicity of metals in the environment. Once taken up into plant tissue, a metal compound can undergo chemical changes, accumulate and be passed along to herbivores, or can re-enter the soil and further cycle in the environment.

Agrawal H., Malloy Q.G.J., Welch W.A., Wayne Miller J., Cocker III D.R. (2008) In-use gaseous and particulate matter emissions from a modern ocean going container vessel.

Atmospheric Environment, 42(21),

5504-5510.

Miller, W.,

et al.

(2008 June 10).

Measuring Emissions from Ocean Going Vessels.

Presentation presented at the Fuel, Engines, and Control Devices Workshop, San Pedro, California.

Isakson J., Persson T.A., E. Selin Lindgren E. (2001) Identification and assessment of ship emissions and their effects in the harbour of Gteborg, Sweeden.

Atmospheric Environment, 35(21),

3659-3666.

U.S. EPA (2004).

Air Quality Criteria for Particulate Matter (AQCD).

Washington, DC: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Retrieved on March 18, 2009 from

http://cfpub.epa.gov/ncea/cfm/recordisplay.cfm?deid=87903.

Although there has been no direct evidence of a physiological association between tree injury and heavy metal exposures, heavy metals have been implicated because of similarities between metal deposition patterns and forest decline.

57 58

This correlation was further explored in high elevation forests in the northeast U.S. and the data strongly imply that metal stress causes tree injury and contributes to forest decline in the Northeast.

Contamination of plant leaves by heavy metals can lead to elevated soil levels. Trace metals absorbed into the plant frequently bind to the leaf tissue, and then are lost when the leaf drops. As the fallen leaves decompose, the heavy metals are transferred into the soil.

60 61

U.S. EPA (2004).

Air Quality Criteria for Particulate Matter (AQCD).

Washington, DC: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Retrieved on March 18, 2009 from

http://cfpub.epa.gov/ncea/cfm/recordisplay.cfm?deid=87903.

Gawel, J.E.; Ahner, B.A.; Friedland, A.J.; Morel, F.M.M. (1996) Role for heavy metals in forest decline indicated by phytochelatin measurements.

Nature (London), 381,

64-65.

U.S. EPA (2004).

Air Quality Criteria for Particulate Matter (AQCD).

Washington, DC: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Retrieved on March 18, 2009 from

http://cfpub.epa.gov/ncea/cfm/recordisplay.cfm?deid=87903.

Cotrufo M.F., De Santo A.V., Alfani A., Bartoli G., De Cristofaro A. (1995) Effects of urban heavy metal pollution on organic matter decomposition in Quercus ilex L. Woods.

Environmental Pollution, 89(1),

81-87.

Niklinska M., Laskowski R., Maryanski M. (1998). Effect of heavy metals and storage time on two types of forest litter: Basal respiration rate and exchangeable metals.

Ecotoxicological Environmental Safety, 41,

8-18.

Ships also emit air toxics, including polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs), a class of polycyclic organic matter (POM) that contains compounds which are known or suspected carcinogens. Since the majority of PAHs are adsorbed onto particles less than 1.0 μm in diameter, long range transport is possible. Particles of this size can remain airborne for days or even months and travel distances up to 10,000 km before being deposited on terrestrial or aquatic surfaces.

Atmospheric deposition of particles is believed to be the major source of PAHs to the sediments of Lake Michigan, Chesapeake Bay, Tampa Bay and other coastal areas of the U.S.

63 64 65 66 67

PAHs tend to accumulate in sediments and reach high enough concentrations in some coastal environments to pose an environmental health threat that includes cancer in fish populations, toxicity to organisms living in the sediment, and risks to those (

e.g.,

migratory birds) that consume these organisms.

68 69

PAHs tend to accumulate in sediments and bioaccumulate in fresh water, flora and fauna.

U.S. EPA (2004).

Air Quality Criteria for Particulate Matter (AQCD).

Washington, DC: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Retrieved on March 18, 2009 from

http://cfpub.epa.gov/ncea/cfm/recordisplay.cfm?deid=87903.

Dickhut R.M., Canuel E.A., Gustafson K.E., Liu K., Arzayus K.M., Walker S.E., Edgecombe G., Gaylor M.O., MacDonald E.H. (2000). Automotive Sources of Carcinogenic Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons Associated with Particulate Matter in the Chesapeake Bay Region.

Environmental Science & Technology, 34(21),

4635-4640.

Simcik M.F., Eisenreich, S.J., Golden K.A.,

et al.

(1996). Atmospheric Loading of Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons to Lake Michigan as Recorded in the Sediments.

Environmental Science and Technology, 30,

3039-3046.

Simcik M.F., Eisenreich S.J., Lioy P.J. (1999). Source apportionment and source/sink relationship of PAHs in the coastal atmosphere of Chicago and Lake Michigan.

Atmospheric Environment, 33,

5071-5079.

Poor N., Tremblay R., Kay H.,

et al.

(2002). Atmospheric concentrations and dry deposition rates of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) for Tampa Bay, Florida, USA.

Atmospheric Environment, 38,

6005-6015.

Arzavus K.M., Dickhut R.M., Canuel E.A. (2001). Fate of Atmospherically Deposited Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons (PAHs) in Chesapeake Bay.

Environmental Science & Technology, 35,

2178-2183.

Simcik M.F., Eisenreich, S.J., Golden K.A.,

et al.

(1996). Atmospheric Loading of Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons to Lake Michigan as Recorded in the Sediments.

Environmental Science and Technology, 30,

3039-3046.

Simcik M.F., Eisenreich S.J., Lioy P.J. (1999). Source apportionment and source/sink relationship of PAHs in the coastal atmosphere of Chicago and Lake Michigan.

Atmospheric Environment, 33,

5071-5079.

Atmospheric deposition of pollutants can reduce the aesthetic appeal of buildings and culturally important articles through soiling, and can contribute directly (or in conjunction with other pollutants) to structural damage by means of corrosion or erosion.

Atmospheric deposition may affect materials principally by promoting and accelerating the corrosion of metals, by degrading paints, and by deteriorating building materials such as concrete and limestone. Particles contribute to these effects because of their electrolytic, hygroscopic, and acidic properties, and their ability to adsorb corrosive gases (principally sulfur dioxide). The rate of metal corrosion depends on a number of factors, including the deposition rate and nature of the pollutant; the influence of the metal protective corrosion film; the amount of moisture present; variability in the electrochemical reactions; the presence and concentration of other surface electrolytes; and the orientation of the metal surface.

U.S. EPA (2005). Review of the National Ambient Air Quality Standards for Particulate Matter: Policy Assessment of Scientific and Technical Information, OAQPS Staff Paper. Retrieved on April 9, 2009 from

http://www.epa.gov/ttn/naaqs/standards/pm/data/pmstaffpaper_20051221.pdf.

(3) Impacts on Visibility

Emissions from ships contribute to poor visibility in the U.S. through their primary PM

2.5

emissions, as well as their NO

and SO

emissions which contribute to the formation of secondary PM

2.5

Visibility can be defined as the degree to which the atmosphere is transparent to visible light. Airborne particles degrade visibility by scattering and absorbing light. Visibility is important because it has direct significance to people's enjoyment of daily activities in all parts of the country. Individuals value good visibility for the well-being it provides them directly, where they live and work and in places where they enjoy recreational opportunities. Visibility is also highly valued in significant natural areas such as national parks and

wilderness areas, and special emphasis is given to protecting visibility in these areas. For more information on visibility,

see

the final 2004 PM AQCD as well as the 2005 PM Staff Paper.

72 73

U.S. EPA (2004).

Air Quality Criteria for Particulate Matter (AQCD).

Volume I Document No. EPA600/P-99/002aF and Volume II Document No. EPA600/P-99/002bF. Washington, DC: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Retrieved on March 18, 2009 from

http://cfpub.epa.gov/ncea/cfm/recordisplay.cfm?deid=87903.

U.S. EPA (2004).

Air Quality Criteria for Particulate Matter (AQCD).

Volume I Document No. EPA600/P-99/002aF and Volume II Document No. EPA600/P-99/002bF. Washington, DC: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Retrieved on March 18, 2009 from

http://cfpub.epa.gov/ncea/cfm/recordisplay.cfm?deid=87903.

U.S. EPA (2005).

Review of the National Ambient Air Quality Standard for Particulate Matter: Policy Assessment of Scientific and Technical Information, OAQPS Staff Paper.

EPA-452/R-05-005. Washington, DC: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.

EPA is pursuing a two-part strategy to address visibility. First, EPA has set secondary PM

2.5

standards which act in conjunction with the establishment of a regional haze program. In setting the secondary PM

2.5

standard, EPA has concluded that PM

2.5

causes adverse effects on visibility in various locations, depending on PM concentrations and factors such as chemical composition and average relative humidity. Second, section 169 of the Clean Air Act provides additional authority to address existing visibility impairment and prevent future visibility impairment in the 156 national parks, forests and wilderness areas categorized as mandatory class I Federal areas (62 FR 38680-81, July 18, 1997).

In July 1999, the regional haze rule (64 FR 35714) was put in place to protect the visibility in mandatory class I Federal areas. Visibility can be said to be impaired in both PM

2.5

nonattainment areas and mandatory class I Federal areas.

(4) Plant and Ecosystem Effects of Ozone

Elevated ozone levels contribute to environmental effects, with impacts to plants and ecosystems being of most concern. Ozone can produce both acute and chronic injury in sensitive species depending on the concentration level and the duration of the exposure. Ozone effects also tend to accumulate over the growing season of the plant, so that even low concentrations experienced for a longer duration have the potential to create chronic stress on vegetation. Ozone damage to plants includes visible injury to leaves and impaired photosynthesis, both of which can lead to reduced plant growth and reproduction, resulting in reduced crop yields, forestry production, and use of sensitive ornamentals in landscaping. In addition, the impairment of photosynthesis, the process by which the plant makes carbohydrates (its source of energy and food), can lead to a subsequent reduction in root growth and carbohydrate storage below ground, resulting in other, more subtle plant and ecosystems impacts.

These latter impacts include increased susceptibility of plants to insect attack, disease, harsh weather, interspecies competition and overall decreased plant vigor. The adverse effects of ozone on forest and other natural vegetation can potentially lead to species shifts and loss from the affected ecosystems, resulting in a loss or reduction in associated ecosystem goods and services. Lastly, visible ozone injury to leaves can result in a loss of aesthetic value in areas of special scenic significance like national parks and wilderness areas. The final 2006 ozone AQCD presents more detailed information on ozone effects on vegetation and ecosystems.

C. Air Quality Modeling Results

Air quality modeling was performed to assess the impact of the coordinated strategy. We looked at impacts on future ambient PM

2.5

and ozone levels, as well as nitrogen and sulfur deposition levels and visibility impairment. In this section, we present information on current levels of pollution as well as model projected levels of pollution for 2020 and 2030.

As discussed in Section 3.7 of the RIA, the inventories used for the air quality modeling in 2020 and 2030 differ slightly from each other. The difference between 2020 and 2030 is small and was due to an error in calculating the 200 nautical miles distance. In addition, as discussed in Section 3.7 of the RIA, the 2020 air quality control case does not include global controls for areas that are beyond 200 nautical miles but within the air quality modeling domain. The impact of this latter difference is expected to be minimal.

The air quality modeling uses EPA's Community Multiscale Air Quality (CMAQ) model. The CMAQ modeling domain is rectangular in shape and encompasses all of the lower 48 States, portions of Canada and Mexico, and areas extending into the ocean up to 1,000 nautical miles (nm), depending on the coast. The smallest area of ocean coverage is over the northeast U.S. In places like Maine and Cape Cod, the easternmost points of the contiguous U.S., the distance to the edge of the CMAQ modeling domain is approximately 150 nm. The rest of the U.S. shoreline has at least 200 nm between the shoreline and boundary of the air quality modeling. The CMAQ modeling domain is described in more detail in Section 2.4.5.2 of the RIA. The performance of the CMAQ modeling was evaluated using a 2002 base case simulation. More detail about the performance evaluation is contained within the Section 2.4.5.4 of the RIA. The model was able to reproduce historical concentrations of ozone and PM

2.5

at land-based monitors with low amounts of bias and error. While we are not able to evaluate the model's performance over the ocean due to the absence of surface monitors, there is no evidence to suggest that model performance is unsatisfactory over the ocean.

The emission control scenarios used in the air quality modeling are slightly different than the final coordinated strategy emission control scenarios. For example, the 2020 air quality impacts are based on inventory estimates that were modeled using incorrect ECA boundary information off of the western coast of the U.S. A calculation error placed the western 200 nautical mile (nm) ECA boundary approximately 50 nm closer to shore. Additionally, the 2020 air quality control case does not reflect emission reductions related to global controls for areas that are beyond 200 nm but within the CMAQ air quality modeling domain. Finally, the emission control scenarios do not consider the exemption of Great Lakes steamships from the final fuel sulfur standards. The impact of these differences is expected to be minimal.

(1) Particulate Matter

The coordinated strategy described in this final rule will significantly reduce ambient PM concentrations through reductions in emissions of direct PM, as well as NO

and SO

which contribute to secondary PM.

(a) Current Levels

2.5

concentrations exceeding the level of the PM

2.5

NAAQS occur in many parts of the country. In 2005, EPA designated 39 nonattainment areas for the 1997 PM

2.5

NAAQS (70 FR 943, January 5, 2005). These areas are composed of 208 full or partial counties with a total population exceeding 88 million. The 1997 PM

2.5

NAAQS was recently revised and the 2006 24-hour PM

2.5

NAAQS became effective on December 18, 2006. On October 8, 2009, the EPA issued final nonattainment area designations for the 24-hour PM

2.5

NAAQS (74 FR 58688, November 13, 2009). These designations include 31 areas composed of 120 full or partial counties.

(b) Projected Levels

A number of State governments have told EPA that they need the reductions the coordinated strategy will provide in order to meet and maintain the PM

2.5

NAAQS.

Most areas designated as not attaining the 1997 PM

2.5

NAAQS will need to attain the 1997 standards in the 2010 to 2015 time frame, and then maintain them thereafter. The 2006 24-hour PM

2.5

nonattainment areas will be required to attain in the 2014 to 2019 time frame and then maintain thereafter. The fuel sulfur emission standards will become effective in 2010 and 2015, and the NO

engine emission standards will become effective in 2016. Therefore, the coordinated strategy emission reductions will be useful to States in attaining or maintaining the PM

2.5

NAAQS.

See

the Advanced Notice of Proposed Rule Making at Docket Number: EPA-HQ-OAR-2007-0121.

EPA has already adopted many emission control programs that are expected to reduce ambient PM

2.5

levels and which will assist in reducing the number of areas that fail to achieve the PM

2.5

NAAQS. Even so, our air quality modeling for this rule projects that in 2020, with all current controls but excluding the reductions expected to occur as a result of the coordinated strategy, at least 13 counties with a population of almost 30 million may not attain the 1997 annual PM

2.5

standard of 15 μg/m

and 47 counties with a population of over 53 million may not attain the 2006 24-hour PM

2.5

standard of 35 μg/m

. These numbers do not account for those areas that are close to (

e.g.,

within 10 percent of) the PM

2.5

standards. These areas, although not violating the standards, will also benefit from the additional reductions from this rule ensuring long term maintenance of the PM

2.5

NAAQS.

Air quality modeling of the expected impacts of the coordinated strategy shows that in 2020 and 2030 all of the modeled counties will experience decreases in their annual and 24-hour PM

2.5

design values. For areas with current annual PM

2.5

design values greater than 15μg/m

, the modeled future-year, population-weighted annual PM

2.5

design values are expected to decrease on average by 0.8 μg/m

in 2020 and by 1.7 μg/m

in 2030. For areas with current 24-hour PM

2.5

design values greater than 35μg/m

, the modeled future-year, population-weighted annual PM

2.5

design values are expected to decrease on average by 1.3 μg/m

in 2020 and by 3.4 μg/m

in 2030. In 2030, the maximum projected decrease for an annual PM

2.5

design value is 6.0 μg/m

in Miami, FL, and the maximum projected decrease for a 24-hour PM

2.5

design value is 11.7 μg/m

in Los Angeles, CA. The air quality modeling methodology and the projected reductions are discussed in more detail in Chapter 2 of the RIA.

(2) Ozone

(a) Current Levels

In 2008, the U.S. EPA amended the ozone NAAQS (73 FR 16436, March 27, 2008). The final 2008 ozone NAAQS rule set forth revisions to the previous 1997 NAAQS for ozone to provide increased protection of public health and welfare. As of July 31, 2009 there are 54 areas designated as nonattainment for the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS, comprising 282 full or partial counties with a total population of almost 127 million people. These numbers do not include the people living in areas where there is a future risk of failing to maintain or attain the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS. The numbers above likely underestimate the number of counties that are not meeting the ozone NAAQS because the nonattainment areas associated with the more stringent 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS have not yet been designated.

Table II-1 provides an estimate, based on 2005-07 air quality data, of the counties with design values greater than the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS of 0.075 ppm.

On September 16, 2009, the Administrator announced that the EPA is reconsidering the 2008 ozone standards to determine whether they adequately protect public health and the environment. She also announced that the Agency will propose to temporarily stay the 2008 standards for the purpose of attainment and nonattainment area designations. Under the stay, all activities to designate areas for the 2008 ozone standards would be suspended for the duration of the reconsideration period. EPA intends to complete the reconsideration by August 31, 2010. If, as a result of the reconsideration, EPA determines that the 2008 ozone standards are not supported by the scientific record and promulgates different ozone standards, the new 2010 ozone standards would replace the 2008 ozone standards and the requirement to designate areas for the 2008 standards would no longer apply. If EPA promulgates new ozone standards in 2010, EPA intends to accelerate the designations process to that the designations would be effective in August 2011.

Table II-1—Counties With Design Values Greater Than the 2008 Ozone NAAQS Based on 2005-2007 Air Quality Data

Number of

counties

Population

1997 Ozone Standard: counties within the 54 areas currently designated as nonattainment (as of 7/31/09)

282

126,831,848

2008 Ozone Standard: additional counties that would not meet the 2008 NAAQS

227

41,285,262

Total

509

168,117,110

Notes:

Population numbers are from 2000 census data.

Attainment designations for the 2008 ozone NAAQS have not yet been made. Nonattainment for the 2008 Ozone NAAQS will be based on three years of air quality data from later years. Also, the county numbers in this row include only the counties with monitors violating the 2008 Ozone NAAQS. The numbers in this table may be an underestimate of the number of counties and populations that will eventually be included in areas with multiple counties designated nonattainment.

(b) Projected Levels

States with 8-Hour ozone nonattainment areas are required to take action to bring those areas into compliance in the future. Based on the final rule designating and classifying 8-hour ozone nonattainment areas for the 1997 standard (69 FR 23951, April 30, 2004), most 8-hour ozone nonattainment areas will be required to attain the 1997 ozone NAAQS in the 2007 to 2013 time frame and then maintain the NAAQS thereafter. In addition, there will be attainment dates associated with the designation of nonattainment areas as a result of the reconsideration of the 2008 ozone NAAQS. Many of these nonattainment areas will need to adopt additional emission reduction programs, and the NO

reductions that will result from the coordinated strategy will be particularly important for these States.

EPA has already adopted many emission control programs that are expected to reduce ambient ozone levels and assist in reducing the number of areas that fail to achieve the ozone NAAQS. Even so, our air quality modeling projects that in 2020, with all

current controls but excluding the reductions achieved through the coordinated strategy, up to 50 counties with a population of almost 50 million may not attain the 2008 ozone standard of 0.075 ppm. These numbers do not account for those areas that are close to (

e.g.,

within 10 percent of) the 2008 ozone standard. These areas, although not violating the standards, will also benefit from the additional reductions from this rule ensuring long-term maintenance of the ozone NAAQS.

These air quality modeling results suggest that emission reductions achieved through the coordinated strategy will improve both the average and population-weighted average ozone design value concentrations for the U.S. in 2020 and 2030. In addition, the air quality modeling shows that on average the coordinated program described in this action will help bring counties closer to ozone attainment as well as assist counties whose ozone concentrations are within 10 percent below the standard. For example, in projected nonattainment counties, on a population-weighted basis, the 8-hour ozone design value will on average decrease by 0.5 ppb in 2020 and 1.6 ppb in 2030. The air quality modeling methodology and the projected reductions are discussed in more detail in Chapter 2 of the RIA.

It should be noted that even though our air quality modeling predicts important reductions in nationwide ozone levels, three counties (of 661 that were part of the analysis) are expected to experience an increase in their ozone design values in 2030. There are two counties in Washington, Clallam County and Clark County, and Orange County, CA, which will experience 8-hour ozone design value increases due to the NO

disbenefits which occur in these VOC-limited ozone nonattainment areas. Briefly, NO

reductions at certain times and in some areas can lead to increased ozone levels. The air quality modeling methodology (Section 2.4.5), the projected reductions (Section 2.4), and the limited NO

disbenefits (Section 2.4.2.2.2), are discussed in more detail in Chapter 2 of the RIA.

The section below attempts to estimate the impacts of the coordinated strategy on forests through a case study.

Assessing the impact of ground-level ozone on forests in the United States involves understanding the risk/effect of tree species to ozone ambient concentrations and accounting for the prevalence of those species within the forest. As a way to quantify the risk/effect of particular plants to ground-level ozone, scientists have developed ozone-exposure/tree-response functions by exposing tree seedlings to different ozone levels and measuring reductions in growth as “biomass loss.”

Chappelka, AH, Samuelson, LJ. (1998). Ambient ozone effects on forest trees of the Eastern United States: a review.

New Phytologist, 139,

91-108.

With knowledge of the distribution of sensitive species and the level of ozone at particular locations, it is possible to estimate a “biomass loss” for each species across their range. EPA performed an analysis for 2020 in which we examined biomass loss with and without ship emissions to determine the benefit of reducing these emissions on sensitive tree species in the U.S.

The biomass loss attributable to shipping appears to range from 0 to 6.5% depending on the particular species. The species most sensitive to ozone related biomass loss in the U.S. is black cherry (

Prunus serotina

); the area of its range with more than 10% total biomass loss in 2020 decreased by 8.5% in the case in which emissions from ships were removed. Likewise, yellow-poplar (

Liriodendron tulipifera

), eastern white pine (

Pinus strobus

), aspen (

Populus spp.

), and ponderosa pine (

Pinus ponderosa

) saw areas with more then 2% biomass loss reduced by 2.1% to 3.8% in 2020. This 2% level of biomass loss is important, because a consensus workshop on ozone effects reported that a 2% annual biomass loss causes harm due to the potential for compounding effects over multiple years as short-term negative effects on seedlings affect long-term forest health.

80 81

Note that while the coordinated strategy does not eliminate ship emissions, it will be directionally helpful in reducing ship emissions.

Prasad A.M, Iverson L.R. (2003). Little's range and FIA importance value database for 135 eastern U.S. tree species. Northeastern Research Station, USDA Forest Service, Delaware, Ohio. [online] Retrieved on March 19, 2009, from

http://www.fs.fed.us/ne/delaware/4153/global/littlefia/index.html.

Heck W.W., Cowling E.B. (1997) The need for a Long Term Cumulative Secondary Ozone Standard—an Ecological Perspective.

Air and Waste Management Association, EM,

23-33.

(3) Nitrogen and Sulfur Deposition

(a) Current Levels

Over the past two decades, the EPA has undertaken numerous efforts to reduce nitrogen and sulfur deposition across the U.S. Analyses of long-term monitoring data for the U.S. show that deposition of both nitrogen and sulfur compounds has decreased over the last 17 years although many areas continue to be negatively impacted by deposition. Deposition of inorganic nitrogen and sulfur species routinely measured in the U.S. between 2004 and 2006 were as high as 9.6 kg N/ha/yr and 21.3 kg S/ha/yr. The data shows that reductions were more substantial for sulfur compounds than for nitrogen compounds. These numbers are generated by the U.S. national monitoring network and they likely underestimate nitrogen deposition because NH

is not measured. In the eastern U.S., where data are most abundant, total sulfur deposition decreased by about 36% between 1990 and 2005 while total nitrogen deposition decreased by 19% over the same time frame.

U.S. EPA. U.S. EPA's 2008 Report on the Environment (Final Report). U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC, EPA/600/R-07/045F (NTIS PB2008-112484).

(b) Projected Levels

The emissions reductions that result from the coordinated strategy will significantly reduce the annual total sulfur and nitrogen deposition occurring in sensitive U.S. ecosystems including forests, wetlands, lakes, streams, and estuaries. For sulfur deposition, adopting the coordinated strategy will result in reductions ranging from 5% to 20% in 2020 along the entire Atlantic and Gulf coasts with higher levels of reduction, exceeding 25%, occurring in the near-land coastal waters of the U.S. In a few land areas on the Atlantic and Gulf coasts, such as the southern parts of the States of Louisiana, Texas, and Florida, 2020 sulfur deposition reductions will be much higher,

i.e.,

over 30%. Along the Pacific Coast, sulfur deposition reductions will exceed 25% in the entire Southern California area, and the Pacific Northwest. For a map of 2020 sulfur reductions and additional information on these impacts

see

Section 2.4.3 of the RIA.

Overall, nitrogen deposition reductions in 2020 resulting from the coordinated strategy described in this action are less than sulfur deposition reductions. Nitrogen deposition reductions will range from 3% to 7% along the entire Atlantic, Pacific and Gulf Coasts. As with sulfur deposition reductions, a few areas such as the southern parts of the States of Louisiana, Texas, and Florida will experience larger reductions of nitrogen up to 9%. The Pacific coastal waters will see higher nitrogen reductions, exceeding 20% in some instances.

See

Section 2.4.3 of the RIA for a map and additional information on nitrogen deposition impacts.

(4) Visibility

(a) Current Levels

As mentioned in Section II.C.1, millions of people live in nonattainment areas for the PM

2.5

NAAQS. These populations, as well as large numbers of individuals who travel to these areas, are likely to experience visibility impairment. In addition, while visibility trends have improved in mandatory class I Federal areas, the most recent data show that these areas continue to suffer from visibility impairment. In summary, visibility impairment is experienced throughout the U.S., in multi-State regions, urban areas, and remote mandatory class I Federal areas.

(b) Projected Levels

The air quality modeling conducted for the coordinated strategy was also used to project visibility conditions in 133 mandatory class I Federal areas across the U.S. in 2020 and 2030. The results indicate that improvements in visibility due to OGV emissions reductions will occur in all 133 mandatory class I Federal areas in the future, although all areas will continue to have annual average deciview levels above background in 2020 and 2030.

The average visibility on the 20 percent worst days at these scenic locales is projected to improve by 0.22 deciviews, or 1.4 percent in 2020 and by 0.43 deciviews or 2.7% in 2030.

The level of visibility impairment in an area is based on the light-extinction coefficient and a unit less visibility index, called a “deciview”, which is used in the valuation of visibility. The deciview metric provides a scale for perceived visual changes over the entire range of conditions, from clear to hazy. Under many scenic conditions, the average person can generally perceive a change of one deciview. The higher the deciview value, the worse the visibility. Thus, an improvement in visibility is a decrease in deciview value.

The greatest improvements in visibilities will occur in coastal areas. For instance, the Agua Tibia Wilderness area (near Los Angeles) will see a 9% improvement (2.17 DV) in 2020 and a 17% improvement (4.6 DV) in 2030 as a result of the emission reductions from the coordinated strategy. National parks and national wilderness areas in other parts of the country will also see improvements. For example, in 2030 the Swanquarter National Wildlife Refuge (North Carolina) will have a 5% improvement in visibility (1.11 DV) and Acadia National Park (Maine) will have a 6% improvement (1.27 DV) with the coordinated strategy. Even inland mandatory class I Federal areas are projected to see improvements as a result of the controls from the coordinated strategy. For example in 2030, the Grand Canyon National Park, located in the State of Arizona, will see a 54% improvement in visibility (0.42 DV) with the coordinated strategy. For the table which contains the full visibility results over the 133 analyzed areas

see

Section 2.2.4.2 of the RIA.

D. Emissions From Ships With Category 3 Engines

(1) Overview

This section describes the contribution of Category 3 vessels to national emission inventories of NO

, PM

2.5

, and SO

. A Category 3 vessel has a Category 3 propulsion engine. Emissions from a Category 3 vessel include the emissions from both the propulsion and auxiliary engines on that vessel. Propulsion and auxiliary engine emissions were estimated separately to account for differences in emission factors, engine size and load, and activity.

We estimate that in 2009, Category 3 vessels will contribute almost 913,000 tons (10 percent) to the national mobile source NO

inventory, about 71,000 tons (24 percent) to the mobile source diesel PM

2.5

inventory, and nearly 597,000 tons (80 percent) to the mobile source SO

inventory. Expressed as a percentage of all anthropogenic emissions, Category 3 vessels contribute 6 percent to the national NO

inventory, 3 percent to the national PM

2.5

inventory, and 11 percent to the total SO

inventory in 2009. In 2030, absent the strategy discussed in this rule, these vessels will contribute about 2.1 million tons (40 percent) to the mobile source NO

inventory, 168,000 tons (75 percent) to the mobile source diesel PM

2.5

inventory, and about 1.4 million tons (95 percent) to the mobile source SO

inventory. Expressed as a percentage of all anthropogenic emissions, Category 3 vessels will contribute 19 percent to the national NO

inventory, 5 percent to the national PM

2.5

inventory, and 15 percent to the total SO

inventory in 2030. Under this strategy, by 2030, annual NO

emissions from these vessels will be reduced by 1.2 million tons, PM

2.5

emissions by 143,000 tons, and SO

emissions by 1.3 million tons.

See http://www.arb.ca.gov/regact/2008/fuelogv08/fro13.pdf

at 13 CCR 2299.2(j)(1).

Each sub-section below discusses one of the three affected pollutants, including expected emission reductions that will result from the combination of the proposed CAA NO

standards along with the ECA designation through amendment to MARPOL Annex VI and related fuel standards. Table II-2 summarizes the impacts of these reductions for 2020 and 2030 on a national basis. Chapter 3 of the RIA also presents regional emissions inventories, such as those for the Great Lakes. Table II-3 provides the estimated 2030 NO

emission reductions (and PM reductions) for the coordinated strategy compared to the Locomotive and Marine rule, Clean Air Nonroad Diesel (CAND) program, and the Heavy-Duty Highway rule. Further details on our inventory estimates are available in Chapter 3 of the RIA. Note that the inventories presented here do not consider the exemption of Great Lakes steamships from the final fuel sulfur standards. This change to the program is not expected to have a significant impact on national inventory estimates. We intend to follow up with a more detailed study of the impacts of the emission control program on Great Lakes carriers which may provide information that will help us refine our Great Lakes emission inventories.

As described in Chapter 3 of the RIA, the Category 3 vessel emission inventories presented in this section are estimated by combining two sets of emissions inventories, one for U.S. port areas and one for operation on the open ocean. With regard to operation on the open ocean, it was necessary to specify an outer boundary of the modeling domain; otherwise, emissions from ships operating as far away as Asia or Europe would be included in the U.S. emission inventory. For simplicity, we set the outer boundary for inventory modeling roughly equivalent to the U.S. Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ). It consists of the area that extends 200 nautical miles (nm) from the official U.S. baseline, which is recognized as the low-water line along the coast as marked on the official U.S. nautical charts in accordance with the articles of the Law of the Sea. The U.S. region was then clipped to the boundaries of the U.S. EEZ. While this area will exclude emissions that occur outside the 200 nm boundary but that are transported to the U.S. landmass, it has the advantage of corresponding to an area in which the United States has a clear environmental interest. This area also corresponds well to the CMAQ modeling domain for most coasts.

Table II-2—Estimated National (50 State) Reductions in Emissions From Category 3 Commercial Marine Vessels

Pollutant [short tons]

2020

2030

Emissions without Coordinated Strategy

1,361,000

2,059,000

Emissions with Coordinated Strategy

952,000

878,000

Reductions Resulting from Coordinated Strategy

409,000

1,181,000

Direct PM

2.5

Emissions without Coordinated Strategy

110,000

168,000

2.5

Emissions with Coordinated Strategy

16,000

25,000

2.5

Reductions Resulting from Coordinated Strategy

94,000

143,000

Emissions without Coordinated Strategy

928,000

1,410,000

Emissions with Coordinated Strategy

51,000

78,000

Reductions Resulting from Coordinated Strategy

877,000

1,332,000

Notes:

Emissions are included within 200 nautical miles of the U.S. coastline.

Table II-3—Projected 2030 Emissions Reductions From Recent Mobile Source Rules

[Short Tons]

Rule

2.5

Category 3 Marine

1,181,000

143,000

Locomotive and Marine

795,000

27,000

Clean Air Nonroad Diesel

738,000

129,000

Heavy-Duty Highway

2,600,000

109,000

Notes:

Locomotive and Marine Rule (73 FR 25098, May 6, 2008) Clean Air Nonroad Diesel Rule (69 FR 38957, June 29, 2004) Heavy-Duty Highway Rule (66 FR 5001, January 18, 2001).

(2) NO

Emission Reductions

In 2009, annual emissions from Category 3 marine vessels will total about 913,000 tons. Earlier Tier 1 NO

engine standards became effective in 2000, but the reductions due to the Tier 1 standards are offset by the growth in this sector, resulting in increased NO

emissions of 1.4 million tons and 2.1 million tons in 2020 and 2030, respectively.

As shown in Table II-2, the coordinated strategy will reduce annual NO

emissions from the current national inventory baseline by 409,000 tons in 2020 and 1,181,000 tons in 2030.

As shown in Table II-3, the 2030 NO

reductions for the coordinated strategy will exceed those for the other two nonroad rules.

(3) PM

2.5

Emissions Reductions

In 2009, annual emissions from Category 3 marine vessels will total about 71,000 tons. By 2030, these engines, absent the coordinated strategy, would contribute about 168,000 tons.

As shown in Table II-2, the coordinated strategy will reduce annual PM

2.5

emissions by 94,000 tons in 2020 and 143,000 tons in 2030. As seen in Table II-3, the 2030 PM

2.5

emission reduction will be larger than any of the reductions achieved with other recent rules.

(4) SO

Emissions Reductions

In 2009, annual emissions from Category 3 marine vessels will total about 597,000 tons. By 2030, these engines, absent the coordinated strategy, will contribute about 1.4 million tons.

As shown in Table II-2 the coordinated strategy will reduce annual SO

emissions by 877,000 tons in 2020 and 1.3 million tons in 2030.

III. Engine Standards

This section details the emission standards, implementation dates, and other major requirements being finalized under the Clean Air Act. A discussion of the technological feasibility of the finalized NO

standards follows the description of the proposed program.

Other elements of our coordinated strategy to control emissions from ships are discussed in subsequent sections. Provisions related to our Clean Air Act fuel controls are described in Section IV. Section V summarizes the U.S. and Canada's recent proposal to amend MARPOL Annex VI to designate much of the U.S. and Canadian coasts as an Emission Control Area.

Finally, provisions revising our Clean Air Act test procedures and related certification requirements, provisions to implement MARPOL Annex VI through APPS, and various changes we are making to our Category 1 and 2 (marine diesel engines with per cylinder displacement less than 30 liters per cylinder) marine diesel engine program are described in Section VI.

The ECA proposal and associated Technical Support Document can be found at

http://www.epa.gov/otaq/oceanvessels.htm.

France has since joined the ECA proposal on behalf of the Saint Pierre and Miquelon archipelago.

A. What Category 3 Marine Engines Are Covered?

Consistent with our existing marine diesel emission control program, the engine emission standards being finalized will apply to any new marine diesel engine with per-cylinder displacement at or above 30 liters installed on a vessel flagged or registered in the United States.

With regard to marine diesel engines on foreign vessels that enter U.S. ports, we are retaining our current approach and not applying this Clean Air Act program to those engines. This is appropriate because engines on foreign vessels are subject to the same NO

limits through MARPOL Annex VI, and the United States can enforce compliance pursuant to Annex VI and the recent amendments to the Act to Prevent Pollution from Ships (33 U.S.C. 1901

et seq.

). At the same time, however, the effectiveness of this approach is contingent on the designation of U.S. coasts as an ECA

pursuant to MARPOL Annex VI, since the Annex VI Tier III NO

limits are geographic in scope and apply only if an ECA has been adopted. We anticipate that MARPOL Annex VI will be amended to include the North American ECA proposal. However, if the proposed amendment is not adopted in a timely manner by IMO, we will reconsider whether additional action is necessary to control harmful emissions from all vessels affecting U.S. air quality. Section V contains a description of the ECA designation process.

The combination of this Clean Air Act program, MARPOL Annex VI, and APPS will apply comparable emission standards to the vast majority of vessels entering U.S. ports or operating in U.S. waters.

Most significantly, these vessels will be required to meet the NO

limits described below. As described later in this Section III and in Section VI, there will be some minor differences between the finalized Clean Air Act program and the requirements that apply under MARPOL Annex VI. Nevertheless, with respect to U.S. air quality, these differences will have a negligible effect on emissions from foreign vessels.

Certain public vessels such as military vessels and foreign vessels in innocent passage may be exempt.

B. What Standards Are We Finalizing for Newly Manufactured Engines?

This subsection details the emission standards (and implementation dates) we are finalizing for freshly manufactured (

i.e.,

new) Category 3 engines on U.S. vessels. As described in Section III.C, we believe the standards will be challenging to manufacturers, yet ultimately feasible and cost-effective within the finalized lead time. These standards, along with other parts of our program, are the outcome of our work with stakeholders to resolve the challenges associated with applying advanced diesel engine technology to Category 3 engines to achieve significant NO

reductions.

(1) NO

Standards

We are finalizing new Tier 2 and Tier 3 NO

emission standards for Category 3 marine diesel engines. Our existing Tier 1 NO

standards for Category 3 engines were dependent on the rated speed of the engine for speeds between 130 revolutions per minute (rpm) and 2,000 rpm. Fixed standards applied for lower and higher speeds. Thus, the standards were expressed as an equation that applies for speeds between 130 rpm and 2,000 rpm, along with fixed values that were calculated from the equation for 130 rpm and 2,000 rpm that apply for lower and higher speeds. This was done to account for the fact that brake-specific NO

emissions are inherently higher for lower speed engines (and lower for higher speed engines). Note that this same approach is used by the IMO for the same technical reasons. We are continuing this approach for Tier 2 and Tier 3, as shown in Table III-1.

Table III-1—NO

Emission Standards for Category 3 Engines

[g/kW-hr]

Less than 130 RPM

130-2,000

RPM

Over 2,000 RPM

Tier 1

2004

17.0

45.0·n

(−

0.20

)

9.8

Tier 2

2011

14.4

44.0·n

(−

0.23

)

7.7

Tier 3

2016

3.4

9.0·n

(−

0.20

)

2.0

Notes:

Applicable standards are calculated from n (maximum in-use engine speed in RPM), rounded to one decimal place.

Tier 1 NO

standards applied for engines originally manufactured after 2004, and also to certain earlier engines.

Our analysis, which is described in the RIA, shows that these standards will give the greatest degree of emission control achievable considering compliance costs, lead time, and other relevant factors. The technological bases are also discussed briefly below.

Note that other important provisions related to compliance with these standards are described in Section VI. This includes provisions to ensure effective control of NO

emissions over a broad range of operating conditions.

(a) Tier 2 NO

Limits

We are finalizing the proposed Tier 2 NO

emission standards for Category 3 marine diesel engines. In-cylinder emission control technology for Category 3 marine engines has progressed substantially in recent years. Significant reductions can be achieved in the near term with little or no impact on overall vessel performance. These technologies include traditional engine-out controls such as electronically-controlled high-pressure common-rail fuel systems, turbocharger optimization, compression-ratio changes, and electronically-controlled exhaust valves. We are setting a near-term NO

emission standard requiring a reduction of approximately 20 percent below the current Tier 1 standard beginning 2011.

(b) Tier 3 NO

Limits

While the Tier 2 standards will achieve modest reductions quickly, the finalized Tier 3 standards are intended to achieve much greater emission reductions through the use of more advanced emission control technology. These standards will achieve reductions of about 80 percent from the current Tier 1 standards. As explained in the RIA, we evaluated the possibility of requiring the Tier 3 limits on an earlier schedule than 2016. However, we found that a schedule requiring Tier 3 limits prior to 2016 had significant feasibility issues, and are therefore finalizing the 2016 implementation date for Tier 3 standards. Under the finalized approach, manufacturers of Category 3 engines will have about the same amount of lead time allowed manufacturers for smaller diesel marine engines and for locomotives.

(2) PM and SO

Standards

We are not establishing new engine standards for PM or SO

emissions. We intend to rely instead on the use of cleaner fuels as described in Section IV and V. SO

emissions and the majority of the direct PM emissions from Category 3 marine engines operated on residual fuels are a direct result of fuel quality, most notably the sulfur in the fuel, and engine-based PM controls are not currently feasible for engines using these higher sulfur fuels. Other components of residual fuel, such as ash and heavy metals, also contribute directly to PM.

Using cleaner distillate fuel is the most effective means to achieve significant PM and SO

reductions for

Category 3 engines. We are finalizing requirements to substantially reduce the sulfur content of fuel purchased in the U.S. for use in an ECA. This complements Annex VI which requires that fuels used in ECAs around the world have sulfur levels no higher than 1,000 ppm. This sulfur limit is expected to necessitate the use of distillate fuel which will result not only in reductions in sulfate PM emissions, but also reductions in organic PM and metallic ash particles in the exhaust.

Even though the sulfur limit is much lower than current levels, it is not clear if this fuel sulfur level would be low enough to allow Category 3 engines to be equipped with the catalytic PM filters similar to those being used by trucks today. If we were to require technology that needs lower sulfur fuel, such as 15 ppm, ship operators would need to have access to this fuel around the world and at this time, it is not clear if 15 ppm sulfur fuel could be made available globally. Operating on higher sulfur fuel, such as for outside of our waters, could otherwise result in damage to the PM control equipment. In any case, the 1,000 ppm sulfur fuel requirement alone will eliminate 85 percent of PM emissions from ships operating in ECAs.

To further our understanding of PM emissions from ships, we are requiring engine manufacturers to measure and report PM emissions even though we are not finalizing a PM standard. The information gathered will help support our efforts as we continue to evaluate the feasibility of achieving further PM reductions. It will also help us to better characterize the PM emission rates associated with operating Category 3 engines on distillate fuel. If we determine that further PM reductions are feasible or that a specific PM limit is necessary to ensure anticipated reductions in PM emissions from ships, we may propose PM standards for Category 3 engines in the future.

(3) HC and CO Standards

We are finalizing HC and CO standards of 2.0 g/kW-hr and 5.0 g/kW-hr, respectively. Emission control technologies for Category 3 marine engines have been concentrated on reducing NO

and PM emissions, but these emission standards will prevent increases in emissions of HC and CO that might otherwise occur as a result of use of certain technologies for controlling NO

, such as those that significantly degrade combustion efficiency.

(4) CO

Standards

We are not adopting CO

standards for marine diesel engines at this time. Marine diesel engines are included in other ongoing Agency actions, including our Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (ANPRM) for mobile sources (73 FR 44353, July 30, 2008) and our Greenhouse Gas Reporting Rule (74 FR 16448, April 10, 2009). In addition, EPA is participating in the U.S. Government delegation to IMO, which is currently engaged in negotiations for an international program to address greenhouse emissions from ships.

C. Are the Standards Feasible?

We have analyzed a variety of technologies available for NO

reduction in the Category 3 marine sector. As described in more detail in our RIA, we are projecting that marine diesel engine manufacturers will choose to use in-cylinder, or engine design-based emission control technologies to achieve the NO

reductions required to meet the final Tier 2 standard.

The in-cylinder, or engine-out, NO

emissions of a diesel engine can be controlled by utilizing engine design and calibration parameters (

e.g.,

fuel delivery and valve timing) to limit the formation of NO

. NO

formation rate has a strong exponential relationship to combustion temperature. Therefore, high temperatures result in high NO

formation rates.

87 88

Any changes to engine design and calibration which can reduce the peak temperature realized during combustion will also reduce NO

emissions. Many of the approaches and technologies for reducing in-cylinder NO

emissions are discussed in our RIA.

Flynn, P.,

et al.,

“Minimum Engine Flame Temperature Impacts on Diesel and Spark-Ignition Engine NO

Production”, SAE 2000-01-1177, 2000.

Heywood, John B., “Internal Combustion Engine Fundamentals”, McGraw-Hill, 1988.

To achieve the 80 percent NO

reductions required to meet the final Tier 3 standard, we believe many manufacturers will choose selective catalytic reduction (SCR) exhaust aftertreatment technology. SCR is a commonly-used technology for meeting stricter NO

emissions standards in diesel applications worldwide. Stationary power plants fueled with coal, diesel and natural gas have used SCR for three decades as a means of controlling NO

emissions, and European heavy-duty truck manufacturers are currently using this technology to meet Euro 5 emissions limits. To a lesser extent, SCR has been introduced on diesel engines in the U.S. market, but the applications have been limited to marine ferryboat and stationary electrical power generation demonstration projects in California and several of the Northeast States. SCR systems are currently being designed and developed for use on ocean-going vessels worldwide, and we project that SCR will continue to be a viable technology for control of Category 3 NO

emissions.

When operating in the ECA, SCR units would be active, meaning that urea would be injected into the exhaust to facilitate catalytic reduction of NO

emissions. When outside of the ECA, the unit would likely be inactive, meaning that urea would not be injected into the exhaust. When the SCR unit is inactive, the exhaust flow could either continue to pass through the SCR unit or be diverted around the catalyst. Under the MARPOL NO

Technical Code, a means for monitoring the use of urea must be provided which must include “sufficient information to allow a ready means of demonstrating that the consumption of such additional substances is consistent with achieving compliance with the applicable NO

limit.” In addition, where a NO

reducing device, such as SCR, is used, one of the options for providing verification of compliance with the NO

standard is through direct measurement and monitoring of NO

emissions. A more detailed discussion of SCR technology can be found in our RIA.

SCR is not the only approach under consideration for meeting the Tier 3 standards. Manufacturers may choose a combination of other in-cylinder technologies, such fuel-water emulsification, direct water injection, intake air humidification, or exhaust gas recirculation (EGR) to reduce NO

emissions and meet the final standards. These “in-cylinder” approaches could be calibrated and applied in one manner to achieve Tier 3 NO

levels when operating with an ECA, and then adjusted, or re-calibrated, in another manner to achieve Tier 2 NO

levels when operating outside an ECA. This is discussed in more detail in the RIA.

Another technology, which is currently under investigation, is the use of an exhaust gas cleaning unit (EGCS) to reduce NO

emissions. One significant technological issue that must be addressed is the prevention of nitrates from being introduced into the water. In a typical diesel exhaust gas mixture, NO

is composed of roughly 5-10% NO

, with the majority of the remainder in the form of NO. NO

is soluble in water, and therefore may be removed by the water in the scrubber. It is possible to treat the exhaust upstream of the scrubber to convert

more of the NO

to NO

, thereby facilitating the use of a scrubber to remove NO

. However, we are concerned that this would add to nitrogen loading of the water in which the ship is operating. As discussed in Section II.B.1, nitrogen loading can lead to serious water quality impacts. This issue is addressed in the IMO EGCS guidelines by limiting the amount of nitrates that may be removed by the scrubber, and washed overboard. However, a scrubber design may be acceptable if it removes nitrates from the wash water, which in turn are disposed of properly, or prevents nitrates from forming in the wash water. One manufacturer has stated that their unique EGCS design converts NO

to nitrogen (N

), rather than nitrates. This is discussed in more detail in the RIA.

IV. Fuel Standards

A. Background

EPA is finalizing standards for fuel manufactured or distributed in the U.S. that are consistent with those recently adopted as amendments to MARPOL Annex VI. As amended, Annex VI includes revised fuel sulfur standards for use in engines onboard ships, and it also set more stringent fuel sulfur limits for “any fuel oil used onboard ships * * * operating within an Emission Control Area” (Annex VI, Regulation 14).

Under the Annex, the process by which an Emission Control Area (ECA) is to be designated is through amendment of the Annex. The U.S. and Canadian governments have submitted a proposal to amend MARPOL Annex VI to designate an ECA to include waters off much of the U.S. and Canada. Specifically, the proposed ECA includes the waters off of the contiguous 48 States, Southeastern Alaska, and the Main Hawaiian Islands, extending to a distance of 200 nautical miles from the coastline. This amendment was considered at the July 2009 Marine Environment Protection Committee (MEPC 59), and we expect that the amendment will be adopted in March 2010, at MEPC 60. If this amendment is not adopted in a timely manner by IMO, we intend to take supplemental action to control emissions from vessels that affect U.S. air quality.

EPA is in this notice finalizing fuel sulfur limits under section 211(c) of the Clean Air Act that match the limits that apply under Annex VI in ECAs. The adoption of such standards will: (1) Allow for the production and sale of up to 1,000 ppm sulfur fuel for use in Category 3 marine vessels; and (2) forbid the production and sale of fuel oil above 1,000 ppm sulfur for use in the waters within an ECA and ECA associated areas (per 40 CFR 1043.20) except as allowed under 40 CFR Part 1043, as described below.

89 90

Per 40 CFR 1043.20, “ECA associated areas” are U.S. internal waters that are navigable from the ECA. This term does not include internal waters that are shoreward of ocean waters that are not part of an emission control area. Though the outer limits of the sulfur limitation are the same as for the proposed ECA, the sulfur limitation in this final rule is not dependent on adoption of the ECA.

For the purpose of the discussion in this section with regard to the CAA fuel standards in 40 CFR 80, “Category 3 vessel” refers to a commercial vessel with a Category 3 propulsion engine; “Category 2 vessel” refers to a commercial or recreational vessel with a Category 2 propulsion engine; and “Category 1 vessel” refers to a commercial or recreational vessel with only Category 1 or smaller engines. The fuel provisions being finalized today apply to all of the engines on a given vessel.

There are a few exceptions that will allow for the use of fuel greater than 1,000 ppm sulfur in an ECA. First, as an alternative to using lower sulfur fuel, Annex VI allows for the use of approaches, such as exhaust gas scrubbers, that can achieve equivalent emission reductions even when the fuel is operating on high sulfur residual fuel. In the event that a vessel is using an alternative device, procedure, or compliance method, provided they achieve equivalent emissions reductions, fuel oil above 1,000 ppm sulfur may be purchased in the U.S. for use in an ECA and ECA associated areas. This is discussed in more detail in Section V of this preamble. As discussed further in Section VI.B.5, existing steamships operating exclusively on the Great Lakes are not subject to the 1,000 ppm sulfur requirement, and vessels that have been granted temporary relief on the basis of serious economic hardship are also not subject to the standard. These three exceptions are all set out in the regulations at 40 CFR Part 1043.

The majority of vessels with a Category 3 propulsion engine operate on high-sulfur, heavy fuel oil (HFO) (also known as residual, or bunker, fuel). Due to their use of heavy fuel, these marine diesel engines have very high PM and SO

emissions. Sulfur in the fuel is emitted from engines primarily as SO

; however a small fraction is emitted as sulfur trioxide (SO

) which immediately forms sulfate and is emitted as PM by the engine. In addition, much of the SO

emitted from the engine reacts in the atmosphere to form secondary PM. Reductions in residual fuel sulfur levels will lead to significant sulfate PM and SO

emission reductions which will provide dramatic environmental and public health benefits. However, in most cases, fuels that meet the long-term fuel sulfur standards will likely be distillate fuels, rather than HFO. In addition to reductions in sulfate PM, switching from HFO to distillate fuel may reduce black carbon emissions, fine particle counts, organic carbon, and metallic ash particles. Further information on these impacts as well as a discussion of the technological feasibility of fuel switching, or using alternative approaches, is discussed in Section V.

HFO sold for use by these vessels is currently not subject to any EPA sulfur limits (as it is not regulated by our current sulfur program) and generally has very high levels of sulfur. The finalized modifications to our existing diesel fuel program prohibit the production and sale of this fuel for use in an ECA associated area, and fuel sold for use in such areas will not be allowed to exceed a sulfur content of 1,000 ppm, except as allowed under 40 CFR Part 1043. In a complementary fashion, the amendment to MARPOL Annex VI designating the North American ECA will ensure that fuel used in an ECA, including fuel purchased in another country but used within the North American ECA, also either meets a 1,000 ppm sulfur limit or meets required emissions limits through the use of alternative devices, procedures, or compliance methods, provided they achieve equivalent emissions reductions (equivalents). Under our finalized regulations, fuel sold for use by Category 3 vessels without equivalents in an ECA and ECA associated areas will be allowed to have a sulfur content as high as this 1,000 ppm sulfur limit (except as otherwise allowed under 40 CFR Part 1043), while fuel sold for use in Category 1 (marine diesel engines up to 7 liters per cylinder displacement) and Category 2 (marine diesel engines from 7 to 30 liters per cylinder) vessels will continue to be subject to the nonroad, locomotive, and marine

(NRLM) diesel fuel sulfur requirements. In the event that the North American ECA is not approved in a timely manner, we will revisit the standards being finalized here in that context.

For the purposes of this final rule (and the final 40 CFR Part 80 regulations), the term “marine” as it is used here refers to Category 1 and 2 marine diesel engines unless otherwise stated.

B. Diesel Fuel Standards Prior to This Final Rule

The Nonroad Diesel program (finalized on June 29, 2004 (69 FR 38958)) reduces the sulfur content of NRLM diesel fuel from uncontrolled levels down to a maximum sulfur level of 15 ppm. Refiners and importers are

required to produce or import all NRLM diesel fuel at a sulfur level of 15 ppm or less by June 1, 2014. The main compliance mechanism of the diesel sulfur program is the Designate and Track (D&T) provisions, which allows NRLM diesel fuel to be distinguished from similar products (

e.g.,

heating oil) and yet provides a means for diesel fuel to be fungibly transported through the fuel production and distribution system. Under D&T, refiners and importers are required to designate the type and sulfur level of each batch of fuel produced or imported. As this fuel is transferred through the distribution system, product transfer documents (PTDs) must be exchanged each time the batch changes custody. Along with PTDs, other required elements of D&T include quarterly and annual reporting, fuel pump labeling, and recordkeeping.

The Nonroad Diesel program also contains certain provisions to ease refiners' transition to the lower sulfur standards and to enable the efficient distribution of all diesel fuels. These provisions, as discussed more below in Section IV.B.2, include special provisions for qualified small refiners, transmix processors, and entities in the fuel distribution system.

(1) Scope of the Nonroad Diesel Fuel Program

The sulfur standards finalized by the Nonroad Diesel rule apply to all the diesel fuel that is produced and sold for use in NRLM diesel applications (all fuel used in NRLM diesel engines, except for fuels heavier than a No. 2 distillate used in Category 2 and 3 marine engines

and any fuel that is exempted for national security or other reasons). While the Nonroad Diesel rule did not set sulfur standards for other distillate fuels (such as jet fuel, heating oil, kerosene, and No. 4 fuel oil), it did implement provisions to prevent the inappropriate use of heating oil and other higher sulfur distillate fuels in NRLM and locomotive and marine (LM) diesel applications. Sale of distillate fuels for use in nonroad, locomotive, or marine diesel engines will generally be prohibited unless the fuel meets the diesel fuel sulfur standards of 40 CFR Part 80.

The regulated fuels under our diesel fuel sulfur program include those fuels listed in the regulations at 40 CFR 80.2(qqq).

Category 3 marine engines frequently are designed to use

This text is long and has been trimmed here. Open the source document for the complete record.

This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.