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

Federal RegisterAug 28, 2009

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-8926-5]

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:

Proposed Rule.

SUMMARY:

EPA is proposing 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, under section 213 of the Clean Air Act (CAA or “the Act”). The proposed engine standards are equivalent to the nitrogen oxides (NO

) limits recently adopted in the amendments to Annex VI to the International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships (MARPOL Annex VI) and are based on the position advanced by the United States Government as part of those international negotiations. The near-term standards for newly-built engines would apply beginning in 2011. Long-term standards would begin in 2016 and are based on the application of high-efficiency aftertreatment technology. We are also proposing a change to our diesel fuel program that would forbid the production and sale of marine fuel oil above 1,000 ppm sulfur for use in the waters within the proposed U.S. ECA and internal U.S. waters and allow for the production and sale of 1,000 ppm sulfur fuel for use in Category 3 marine vessels.

This proposal is part of a coordinated strategy to ensure that all ships that affect U.S. air quality meet stringent NO

and fuel sulfur requirements. In addition, on March 27, 2009, the U.S. Government forwarded a proposal to the International Maritime Organization (IMO) to amend MARPOL Annex VI to designate an Emission Control Area (ECA) off U.S. coasts. If this proposed amendment is not timely adopted by IMO, we intend to take supplemental action to control emissions from vessels affecting U.S. air quality.

We project that in 2030 this coordinated strategy would reduce annual emissions of NO

and particulate matter (PM) from ocean-going vessels by 1.2 million and 143,000 tons, respectively. These reductions are estimated to annually prevent between 13,000 and 32,000 PM-related premature deaths, between 220 and 980 ozone-related premature deaths, 1,500,000 work days lost, and 10,000,000 minor restricted-activity days. The estimated annual monetized health benefits of this coordinated strategy in 2030 would be between $110 and $280 billion, assuming a 3 percent discount rate (or between $100 and $260 billion assuming a 7 percent discount rate). The annual costs would be significantly less, at approximately $3.1 billion.

The proposed 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:

Comments must be received September 28, 2009. Under the Paperwork Reduction Act, comments on the information collection provisions are best assured of having full effect if the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) receives a copy of your comments on or before September 28, 2009, thirty days after date of publication in the

Federal Register

ADDRESSES:

Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2007-0121, by one of the following methods:

•

http://www.regulations.gov:

Follow the on-line instructions for submitting comments.

• E-mail:

a-and-r-docket@epa.gov.

•

Fax:

(202) 566-9744.

•

Mail:

Air Docket, Environmental Protection Agency, Mailcode: 6102T, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460. In addition, please mail a copy of your comments on the information collection provisions to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget (OMB), Attn: Desk Officer for EPA, 725 17th St., NW., Washington, DC 20503.

•

Hand Delivery:

EPA Docket Center, (Air Docket), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, EPA West Building, 1301 Constitution Ave., NW., Room: 3334, Mail Code: 2822T, Washington DC. Such deliveries are only accepted during the Docket's normal hours of operation, and special arrangements should be made for deliveries of boxed information.

Instructions:

Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2007-0121. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included in the public docket without change and may be made available online at

http://www.regulations.gov,

including any personal information provided, unless the comment includes information claimed to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Do not submit information that you consider to be CBI or otherwise protected through

http://www.regulations.gov

or e-mail. The

http://www.regulations.gov

Web site is an “anonymous access” system, which means EPA will not know your identity or contact information unless you provide it in the body of your comment. If you send an e-mail comment directly to EPA without going through

http://www.regulations.gov

your e-mail address will be automatically captured and included as part of the comment that is placed in the public docket and made available on the Internet. If you submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends that you include your name and other contact information in the body of your comment and with any disk or CD-ROM you submit. If EPA cannot read your comment due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, EPA may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic files should avoid the use of special characters, any form of encryption, and be free of any defects or viruses. For additional information about EPA's public docket visit the EPA Docket Center homepage at

http://www.epa.gov/epahome/dockets.htm.

For additional instructions on submitting comments, go to Section I.A of the

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION

section of this document, and also go to Section X.A of the Public Participation section of this document.

Docket:

All documents in the docket are listed in the

http://www.regulations.gov

index. 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, will be publicly available only in hard copy. 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:

I. General Information

A. Does This Action Apply to Me?

This action will affect 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.

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

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT

section.

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

1. Submitting CBI.

Do not submit this information to EPA through

http://www.regulations.gov

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

Tips for Preparing Your Comments.

When submitting comments, remember to:

• Identify the rulemaking by docket number and other identifying information (subject heading,

Federal Register

date and page number).

• Follow directions—The agency may ask you to respond to specific questions or organize comments by referencing a Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) part or section number.

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

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

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

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

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

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

II. Additional Information About This Rulemaking

The current emission standards for new compression-ignition marine engines with per cylinder displacement at or above 30 liters per cylinder were adopted in 2003 (see 68 FR 9746, February 28, 2003). This notice of proposed rulemaking relies in part on information that was obtained for that rule, which can be found in Public Docket EPA-HQ-OAR-2003-0045. This docket is incorporated into the docket for this action, EPA-HQ-OAR-2007-0121.

Table of Contents

I. Overview

A. What Are the Elements of EPA's Coordinated Strategy for Ocean-Going Vessels?

B. Why is EPA Making this Proposal?

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 Proposing for Freshly Manufactured Engines?

C. Are the Standards Feasible?

IV. Fuel Standards

A. Background

B. Current Diesel Fuel Standards

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 ECA 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 Proposed Regulatory Issues

E. Coast Guard's Marine Vessel Certification 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. Alternative Program Options

A. Mandatory Cold Ironing Requirement

B. Earlier Adoption of CAA Tier 3 standards

C. Standards for Existing Engines

X. Public Participation

A. How Do I Submit Comments?

B. How Should I Submit CBI to the Agency?

C. Will There Be a Public Hearing?

D. Comment Period

E. What Should I Consider as I Prepare My Comments for EPA?

XI. 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

XII. Statutory Provisions and Legal Authority

I. Overview

This proposal 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 (NCDC). 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 regulated pollutants from these categories of engines and vehicles. This Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) sets out the next step in this ambitious effort by addressing emissions from the largest marine diesel engines, called Category 3 (C3) 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).

Emissions from OGV remain at high levels. The Category 3 engines on these vessels 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 nitrogen oxides (NO

) emissions, 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 sulfur oxides (SO

) emissions. As we look into the future, however, emissions from ocean-going vessels are expected to become a 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 ocean-going vessels 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 low 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.

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. This work was fundamental in developing the emission limits for Category 3 engines that we are proposing 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 proposing in this action under our Clean Air Act authority; (2) the proposal

submitted by the United States Government (USG) 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 and that are implemented in the U.S. through the Act to Prevent Pollution from Ships (APPS).

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 proposal, 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 provide the authority to ensure 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. 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 would significantly reduce emissions from foreign and domestic

vessels that affect U.S. air quality, and the impacts on human health and welfare would be substantial. We project that by 2030 this program would reduce annual emissions of NO

and particulate matter (PM) by 1.2 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 13,000 and 32,000 PM-related premature deaths, between 220 and 980 ozone-related premature deaths, 1,500,000 work days lost, and 10,000,000 minor restricted-activity days. The estimated annual monetized health benefits of this coordinated strategy in 2030 would be between $110 and $280 billion, assuming a 3 percent discount rate (or between $100 and $260 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 Ocean-Going Vessels?

Our coordinated strategy for ocean-going vessels, including the CAA emission standard proposed in this action, 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 is expected to 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 would 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 ocean-going vessels, along with estimates of their contribution to national emission inventories, are described in Section II. The proposed new tiers of Clean Air Act engine emission standards to address these emissions, and our justifications for them, are discussed in Section III. Section IV contains proposed 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 approval process.

In addition to the new emission limits, we are proposing several revisions to our Clean Air Act testing, certification, and compliance provisions to better ensure emissions control in use. We are also proposing several regulations for the purpose of implementing MARPOL Annex VI pursuant to the Act to Prevent Pollution From Ships (33 USC 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, and Section IX presents the analysis of programmatic alternatives and a discussion of a potential Voluntary Marine Verification Program.

(1) What CAA Standards Is EPA Proposing?

We are proposing 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.

Our current 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 proposing in this NPRM and the USG proposal for ECA designation will require all vessels that operate in coastal areas that affect U.S. air quality to meet advanced engine standards and fuel controls.

As explained in the NPRM, there were no acceptable procedures for measuring PM from Category 3 marine engines. Specifically, established PM test methods showed unacceptable variability when sulfur levels exceed 0.8 weight percent, which was common at that time for both residual and distillate marine fuels for Category 3 engines, and no PM test method or calculation methodology had been developed to correct that variability for these engines. See 67 FR 37569, May 29, 2002.

We are proposing to revise our CAA engine program to include two additional tiers of NO

standards for new marine diesel engines with per cylinder displacement at or above 30 liters (Category 3 engines) installed on vessels flagged or registered in the United States. The proposed near-term Tier 2 standards would apply beginning in 2011 and would require more efficient use of engine technologies being used today, including engine timing, engine cooling, and advanced computer controls. The proposed long-term Tier 3 standards would apply beginning in 2016 and would require the use of high-efficiency aftertreatment technology such as selective catalytic reduction.

Because much of the operation of U.S. vessels occurs in areas that would have little, if any, impact on U.S. air quality, we are proposing that our Clean Air Act program allow the use of alternative emission control devices (AECDs) that would permit a ship to meet less stringent requirements on the open sea. The use of these devices would be subject to certain restrictions, including a requirement that the AECD not disable emission controls while operating in areas where emissions could 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 would be required to meet the Tier 2 NO

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

In addition to the NO

emission limits, we are proposing standards for emissions of hydrocarbons (HC) and carbon monoxides (CO) from new Category 3 engines. As explained in

Section III.B.1, below, we are not proposing to set a standard for PM emissions for Category 3 engines. However, significant PM emissions benefits will be achieved through the ECA fuel sulfur requirements that will apply to ships that operate in areas that affect U.S. air quality. We are also proposing to require engine manufacturers to measure and report PM emissions pursuant to our authority in section 208 of the Act.

Fuel Sulfur Limits.

EPA is in this notice proposing 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 proposing to forbid the production and sale of fuel oil with a sulfur content above 1,000 ppm for use in the waters within the proposed ECA (as well as internal U.S. waters). Second, we are proposing a revision to 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 would 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 nonroad, locomotive, and marine (NRLM) diesel fuel produced for distribution/sale and use in the U.S. Without this proposed change to our existing diesel fuel regulations, fuel with a sulfur content of up to 1,000 ppm could be used in C3 marine vessels, but it could not be legally produced in the U.S. after June 1, 2014.

(2) What is the United States Government Proposal for Designation of an Emission Control Area?

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

and SO

/PM emissions. The Annex VI NO

and SO

/PM limits are set out in Table I-1. Annex VI was originally 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. The initial program consisted of engine NO

emission standards and fuel sulfur limits. The NO

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

emissions by about 30 percent from uncontrolled. There were two fuel sulfur limits: A global limit of 45,000 ppm and a more stringent 15,000 ppm limit that applies in SO

Emission Control Areas (SECAs). This approach ensured that the cleanest fuel was used in areas that demonstrated 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 unless an objection is raised before January 1, 2010 by at least one-third of the parties to the Annex or by parties that represent at least 50 percent of the world's gross merchant tonnage. 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

130-2000 RPM

Over 2000 RPM

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

(−0.20)

2.0

Global

ECA

Fuel Sulfur

2004

45,000 ppm

2005

15,000 ppm

2012

35,000 ppm

2010

10,000 ppm

2020

5,000 ppm

c d

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 to 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 fuel sulfur controls, areas must be designated as Emission Control Areas. On March 27, 2009, the U.S. and Canadian governments submitted a 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”).

A description of this submittal and the IMO approval 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 U.S./Canadian proposal will be adopted by the Parties to MARPOL Annex VI in March 2010. 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 United States 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 NPRM contains proposed regulations to implement several aspects of the Annex VI engine and fuel regulations, which we are proposing under that APPS authority. Our cost and benefit analyses for the coordinated strategy includes the costs for U.S. vessels of implementing those provisions of the MARPOL Annex VI program that are in addition to the ECA requirements.

(4) Technical Amendments

(5) Summary

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

standards included in the amendments to Annex VI and the ECA Tier 3 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 the United States waters through the Act to Prevent Pollution from Ships.

We are also adopting the engine controls for Category 3 engines on U.S. vessels under our Clean Air Act program, as required by Section 213 of the Act.

Finally, we are proposing additional requirements that are not part of the Annex VI program or the ECA. These are: Limits on hydrocarbon and carbon monoxide emissions for Category 3 engines; PM measurement requirement, to obtain data on PM emissions from engines operating on distillate fuel; and changes to our Clean Air Act diesel fuel program to allow production and sale of ECA-compliant fuel. We are also considering changes to 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 Proposal?

(1) OGV Contribute to Serious Air Quality Problems

Ocean-going vessels subject to this proposal 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 propose to set 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 would 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 would 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.

7 8 9

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.

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.

11 12 13 14

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 μ g/m

and 0.2 μ g/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 μ g/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.

While 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) and 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 would assist states in attaining and maintaining the PM

2.5

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

Air quality modeling conducted by EPA 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 would 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 setting of the CAA Category 3 engine standards being proposed in this NPRM and the U.S. proposal to IMO to amend Annex VI to designate U.S. coastal areas as an ECA, and related CAA certification and fuel provisions to complement that ECA proposal. EPA's coordinated strategy to reduce OGV emissions through engine emission controls and fuel sulfur limits would 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 Emissions

Reduction Program (DERA) 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 emissions reduction projects and programs across the country for cleaner fuels, verified technologies and certified engine configurations.

Through $300 million in funding provided to the DERA 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 today through education, incentives, and financial assistance for diesel emissions 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.

In addition to the above innovative programs, we are seeking comment on a Voluntary Marine Verification Program to address emissions from existing Category 3 engines. This voluntary program would extend our existing diesel retrofit verification program to these largest marine vessels. The concept is described in Section IX.C.3 below.

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 it can be addressed effectively through the use of existing technology to reduce engine-out emissions combined with high-efficiency catalytic aftertreatment technologies. 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.

Control of NO

emissions from Category 3 engines can be achieved with high-efficiency exhaust emission control technologies. Such technologies have already been applied to meet our light-duty passenger car standards and are expected to be used to meet the stringent NO

standards included in EPA's heavy-duty highway diesel, nonroad Tier 4, and locomotive and marine diesel engine programs. They have been in production for heavy duty trucks in Europe since 2005, as well as in many stationary source applications throughout the world. These technologies are discussed further in Section III.C. While these 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 proposed 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 proposed standards on the proposed schedule. Use of this lower sulfur fuel will also result in substantial PM emission reductions, since most of the PM emissions from Category 3 engines is due to the use of high sulfur residual fuel.

C. Statutory Basis for Action

Authority for the actions proposed in this documents is granted to the Environmental Protection 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 allow EPA to regulate fuels that contribute to air pollution which 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 below in Section II of this preamble, 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 proposed rule, including the record keeping requirements, comes from sections 114(a) and 301(a) of the CAA (42 U.S.C. Sections 7414 (a) and 7601 (a)).

EPA is proposing emissions 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, like 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 proposing 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 of this Preamble and in Chapter 4 of draft Regulatory Impact Analysis (RIA) indicates that the stringent NO

emission standards proposed in this NPRM 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 proposing these standards. Our review of the costs and cost-effectiveness of these standards indicate that they will be 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 proposed standards.

The information in Section II of this preamble and Chapter 2 of the draft RIA 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 expected to be achieved through the coordinated strategy would 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 would significantly reduce the risk of adverse effects to human health and welfare.

(2) APPS Basis for Action

EPA is proposing 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 and makes Annex VI requirements enforceable domestically. However, certain clarifications are necessary with respect to implementing Regulation 13 and the requirements of the NO

Technical Code with respect to issuance of Engine International Air Pollution Prevention (EIAPP) certificates, 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 proposed NO

limits combined with the ECA designation for U.S. coasts and related proposed fuel standards are expected to significantly reduce emissions of NO

, PM, and SO

from ocean-going vessels. Emissions of these compounds contribute to nonattainment of the NAAQS for PM and ozone. In addition to contributing to PM nonattainment, these engines are emitting diesel particulate matter, which is associated with a host of adverse health effects, including cancer. In addition to their health effects, emissions from these engines also contribute to welfare and environmental effects including deposition, visibility impairment and harm to ecosystems from ozone.

This section summarizes the general health and welfare effects of these emissions. Interested readers are encouraged to refer to the draft RIA for more in-depth discussions.

A. Public Health Impacts

(1) Particulate Matter

(a) Background

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.

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.

(b) 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.

Further discussion

of health effects associated

with PM can also be found in the draft 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 first draft of the PM ISA was completed in December 2008 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=201805.

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 measure of atherosclerosis development.

22, 23

U.S. EPA. (2006).

National Ambient Air Quality Standards for Particulate Matter; Proposed Rule.

71 FR 2620, January 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 total and cardiopulmonary premature mortality.

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.

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.

Henrich, 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 exposted 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 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 combination of the proposed CAA standards along with ECA designations through MARPOL Annex VI. This study is discussed in greater detail in Chapter 2 of the draft RIA and detailed findings of this study are available in the public docket for this rulemaking.

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

(a) Background

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/.

(b) 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.

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/.

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. Washsington, 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

(a) Background

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.

(b)

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.

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 draft 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.

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.

Lichen are an important food source for caribou. This is causing concern about the potential role damage to lichens may be having on the Southern Alaska Peninsula Caribou Herd, which is an important food source to local subsistence-based cultures. This herd has been decreasing in size, exhibiting both poor calf survival and low pregnancy rates, which are signs of dietary stress. Currently, there is a complete caribou hunting ban, including a ban on subsistence hunting.

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 combination of the proposed CAA NO

standards along with ECA designation through amendment to MARPOL Annex VI would 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, aluminum.

52 53 54

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.

56 57

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.

59 60

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.

62 63 64 65 66

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.

67 68

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.

The deposition of airborne particles 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.

Particles 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 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.

71, 72

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: US Environmental Protection Agency.

EPA is pursuing a two-part strategy to address visibility. First, to address the welfare effects of PM on visibility, EPA has set secondary PM

2.5

standards which act in conjunction with the establishment of a regional haze program. In setting this secondary 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 a reduction in food production through impaired photosynthesis, both of which can lead to reduced crop yields, forestry production, and use of sensitive ornamentals in landscaping. In addition, the reduced food production in plants and subsequent reduced root growth and storage below ground, can result in other, more subtle plant and ecosystems impacts. These 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 combination of the proposed CAA NO

standards along with ECA designation through Amendment to MARPOL Annex VI. 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 draft 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 draft 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 draft RIA. The performance of the CMAQ modeling was evaluated over a 2002 base case. More detail about the performance evaluation is contained within the Section 2.4.5.4 of the draft RIA. The model was able to reproduce historical concentrations of ozone and PM

2.5

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

(1) Particulate Matter

The vast majority of PM emissions from Category 3 engines are the result of the sulfur content of the residual fuel they use (67 FR 37569, May 29, 2002).

Although this proposed rule would not set PM standards, ECA designation would require the use of fuel meeting the most stringent MARPOL Annex VI fuel sulfur limits, yielding significant PM and SO

reductions.

(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. Area designations for the 2006 24-hour PM

2.5

NAAQS are expected to be promulgated in 2009 and become effective 90 days after publication in the

Federal Register

(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 the 2006 24-hour PM

2.5

NAAQS in the 2014 to 2019 time frame and then be required to maintain the 2006 24-hour PM

2.5

NAAQS

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 proposal projects that in 2020, with all current controls but excluding the reductions expected to occur as a result of the coordinated strategy, that 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

These numbers do not account for additional areas that have air quality measurements above the 2006 24-hour standard of 35 µg/m

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

e.g.,

within 10 percent of) the 1997 or 2006 PM

2.5

standard. 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.

See Section 2.4.1.2.2 of the draft RIA, specifically Table 2-9, for more detail.

Air quality analysis modeling the expected impacts of the coordinated strategy shows that in 2020 and 2030 all of the modeled counties would experience decreases in their annual PM

2.5

design values. For areas with current annual PM

2.5

design values greater than 15 µg/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.

The maximum decrease for annual PM

2.5

design values are projected to be in Miami, FL, with a 3.1 µg/m

decrease for 2020 and a 6.0 µg/m

decrease for 2030. The air quality modeling methodology and the projected reductions are discussed in more detail in Chapter 2 of the draft RIA.

Note that the 2030 projections are based on a 100 nm ECA so are an underestimate of likely changes to PM

2.5

design values. Additional detail on the air quality modeling is included in Chapter 2 of the draft RIA.

(2) Ozone

(a) Current Levels

The U.S. EPA has recently amended the ozone NAAQS (73 FR 16436, March 27, 2008). That 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 March 4, 2009, there are 57 areas designated as nonattainment for the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS, comprising 293 full or partial counties with a total population of approximately 132 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.

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 57 areas currently designated as nonattainment (as of 4/3/09)

293

131,977,890

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

227

41,285,262

Total

520

173,263,152

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 (Including Ozone Welfare)

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 ozone NAAQS in the 2007 to 2013 time frame and then maintain the NAAQS thereafter. Many of these nonattainment areas will need to adopt additional emission reduction programs, and the NO

and VOC reductions that would result from the combination of the proposed CAA NO

standards along with ECA designation through amendment to MARPOL Annex VI would be particularly important for these states. In addition, EPA's revision of the ozone NAAQS was completed with the final rule published on March 27, 2008. The ozone NAAQS revision in 2008 started the process for nonattainment areas to be designated under that standard. While EPA is not relying on the 2008 standard for purposes of justifying this rule, the emission reductions from this rulemaking will also be helpful to states for the more stringent ozone NAAQS.

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 the proposed emission reductions would improve both the average and population-weighted average ozone 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 would 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 draft RIA.

Note that the 2030 projections are based on a 100 nm ECA so are an underestimate of likely changes to ozone design values. Additional detail on the air quality modeling is included in Chapter 2 of the draft RIA.

It should be noted that even though our air quality modeling predicts important reductions in nationwide ozone levels, four counties (of 661 that have monitored data) are expected to experience an increase in their ozone design values in 2030. There are two counties in southern California, Orange County and San Bernardino County, and two counties in Washington, Clallam County and Clark County, which would 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 draft RIA.

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

Assessing the impact of ground-level ozone on forests in the eastern 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 eastern half of the U.S.

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

82, 83

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 US 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

Modeling conducted by the EPA for the coordinated strategy shows that in 2020 ships would add significant amounts to sulfur deposition in sensitive ecological areas across the U.S., ranging from 10% to more than 25% of total sulfur deposition along the entire Atlantic, Gulf of Mexico, and Pacific coastal areas of the U.S. This same level of impact would extend inland for hundreds of kilometers, affecting thousands of sensitive ecological areas. This deposition would contribute to the serious problem acidification causes in terrestrial and aquatic ecosystems.

Nitrogen deposition contributes to both acidification and nutrient enrichment. In 2020, ships would contribute a significant percentage of the annual U.S. total nitrogen deposition to many terrestrial and aquatic areas within the U.S. that are potentially sensitive to excess nitrogen. The contribution from ships would range from about 9% to more than 25% along the entire U.S. Atlantic, Pacific and Gulf of Mexico coastal regions. See the draft RIA for more information and detailed maps on sulfur and nitrogen deposition.

(b) Projected Levels

The emissions reductions that would result from the combination of the proposed CAA NO

standards along with ECA designation through amendment to MARPOL Annex VI and related proposed fuel standards would 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 would result in reductions ranging from 5% to 20% 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 would be much higher,

i.e.,

over 30%. Along the Pacific Coast, sulfur deposition reductions would 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 draft 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 would 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 would experience larger reductions of nitrogen up to 9%. The Pacific coastal waters would see higher nitrogen reductions, exceeding 20% in some instances. See Section 2.4.3 of the draft RIA for a map and additional information on nitrogen deposition impacts.

(4) Visibility

(a) Current Levels

As of March 12, 2008, over 88 million people live in nonattainment areas for the 1997 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 also was 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 would occur in all 133 class I Federal areas in the future, although all areas would 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 0.21 deciviews, or 1.2 percent.

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 would occur in coastal areas. For instance, the Agua Tibia Wilderness area (near Los Angeles) would see a 9% improvement (2.17 DV) in 2020 as a result of the emission reductions from the coordinated strategy. National parks and national wilderness areas in other parts of the country would also see improvements. For example, the Cape Romain National Wildlife Refuge (South Carolina) would have a 5% improvement in visibility (1.16 DV) and Acadia National Park (Maine) would have a 4% improvement (0.76 DV) with a 200 nm ECA. Other areas would experience important benefits as well due to the contribution of OGVs to visibility impairment. For example, in 2002, about 3% of visibility impairment in southern Florida's Everglades National Park was due to international shipping (0.61 DV), and this will double to 6% (1.35 DV) by 2020. Even in inland class I Federal areas, international shipping activity is contributing to visibility degradation. In 2020, about 2.5% (0.28 DV) of visibility degradation in the Grand Canyon National Park located in the state of Arizona will be from international shipping, while almost 6% (0.81 DV) of visibility degradation in the State of Washington's North Cascades National Park would be from international shipping emissions. For the table which contains the full visibility results over the 133 analyzed areas see Section 2.2.4.2 of the draft 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 proposal, 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 would be reduced by 1.2 million tons, PM

2.5

emissions by 143,000 tons, and SO

emissions by 1.3 million tons.

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 would result from the combination of the proposed CAA NO

standards along with the ECA designation through amendment to MARPOL Annex VI and related proposed fuel standards. Table II-2 summarizes the impacts of these reductions for 2020 and 2030. 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 draft RIA.

As described in Chapter 3 of the draft RIA, the ocean-going 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 Proposal

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 commercial

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.

These engines are included within EPA's commercial marine category to differentiate them from recreational marine engines.

As shown in Table II-2, the coordinated strategy would 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 would exceed those for the other two nonroad rules.

(3) PM

2.5

Emissions Reductions

In 2009, annual emissions from Category 3 commercial 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 would 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 would be larger than any of the reductions achieved with other recent rules.

(4) SO

Emissions Reductions

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

As shown in Table II-2 the coordinated strategy would 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 proposed under the Clean Air Act. A detailed discussion of the technological feasibility of the proposed NO

standards follows the description of the proposed program.

Other elements of our coordinated strategy to control emissions from OGV 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 considering to our Categories 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

A. What Category 3 Marine Engines are Covered?

Consistent with our existing marine diesel emission control program, the proposed engine emission standards would 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 proposing to retain our current approach and not apply 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 USC

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 in designated ECAs. We anticipate that MARPOL Annex VI will be amended to include the U.S. and Canadian government proposal. If, however, the proposed amendment is not adopted in a timely manner by IMO, we intend to take supplemental action to control harmful emissions from all vessels affecting U.S. air quality. Section V contains a description of the ECA designation process and further discussion of the application of the Act to engines on foreign vessels if ECA designation is delayed or not approved.

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

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

Although we are not proposing standards for existing engines on vessels already in the U.S. fleet, we are seeking comment on a programmatic alternative that would help reduce emissions from those engines. This Voluntary Marine Verification Program is described in Section IX.

B. What Standards are we Proposing for Freshly Manufactured Engines?

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

i.e.,

new) Category 3 engines on U.S. vessels. As described in Section III.C, we believe the proposed standards will be challenging to manufacturers, yet ultimately feasible and cost-effective within the proposed 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 proposing new NO

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

standards for Category 3 engines are dependent on the rated speed of the engine for speeds between 130 revolutions per minute (rpm) and 2000 rpm. Fixed standards apply for lower and higher speeds. Thus, the standards are expressed as an equation that applies for speeds between 130 rpm and 2000 rpm, along with fixed values that are calculated from the equation for 130 rpm and 2000 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 proposing to continue this approach for Tier 2 and Tier 3, as shown in Table III-1.

Table III-1—Proposed NO

Emission Standards for Category 3 Engines (g/kW-hr)

Less than 130 RPM

130-2000 RPM

Over 2000 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 apply for engines originally manufactured after 2004, and proposed to also to certain earlier engines.

Our analysis, which is described in the draft 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 proposing new 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 proposed Tier 3 standards are intended to achieve much greater emission reductions through the use of advanced aftertreatment such as selective catalytic reduction (SCR). These standards would achieve reductions of about 80 percent from the current Tier 1 standards. As explained in Section IX.B below regarding regulatory alternatives, 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 proposing the 2016 implementation date for Tier 3 standards. Under the proposed approach, manufacturers of Category 3 engines will have about the same amount of lead time allowed manufacturers for smaller marine engines and locomotives.

(2) PM and SO

Standards

We are not proposing 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 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 proposing substantial reductions in 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 below 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. Operating on higher sulfur fuel, such as for outside of our waters, could otherwise result in damage to the PM control equipment. At this time, it is not clear if 15 ppm sulfur fuel could be made available around the world. 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 proposing to require engine manufacturers to measure and report PM emissions even though we are not proposing a PM standard. The information gathered will help support our efforts as we continue to evaluate the feasibility of achieving further PM reductions through engine-based controls. 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 proposing HC and CO standards of 2.0 g/kW-hr and 5.0 g/kW-hr, respectively. Emission control technologies for C3 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 proposing to adopt 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 draft 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 15 to 20 percent NO

reductions required to meet the proposed Tier 2 standard. To achieve the 80 percent NO

reductions required to meet the proposed Tier 3 standard, we believe many manufacturers will choose SCR exhaust aftertreatment technology. In addition, 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 proposed 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.

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.

89 90

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 draft 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.

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

IV. Fuel Standards

A. Background

EPA is proposing emissions standards for Category 3 (C3) engines 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 much of the U.S. and Canadian coastlines. Specifically, the proposed ECA would

include the entire coastline for the contiguous 48 states, Southeastern Alaska, and the Main Hawaiian Islands, extending to a distance of 200 nautical miles from the coastline. We anticipate that this amendment will be considered at the next Marine Environment Protection Committee (MEPC 59) which is scheduled for July 2009. We expect that the amendment will be adopted in March 2010, at MEPC 60. This approval date is roughly three months after the intended date for promulgation of the final rule.

EPA is in this notice proposing 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 would: (1) Forbid the production and sale of fuel oil above 1,000 ppm sulfur for use in the waters within the proposed ECA (as well as internal U.S. waters);

and (2) allow for the production and sale of up to 1,000 ppm sulfur fuel for use in C3 marine vessels.

For the purposes of this proposal, the term “ECA” as it is used in this Section IV refers to both the area of the proposed ECA and internal U.S. waters. Though the outer limits of the proposed sulfur limitation are the same as for the proposed ECA, the sulfur limitation in this proposal is not dependent on MEPC approval of the ECA.

For the purpose of the discussion in this section, “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 proposed fuel provisions here apply to all of the engines on a given vessel.

The majority of vessels with a C3 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 would lead to significant sulfate PM and SO

emission reductions which would 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.

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 proposed modifications to our existing diesel fuel program will prohibit the production and sale of this fuel for use in an ECA. Instead, fuel sold for use in an ECA would not be allowed to exceed a sulfur content of 1,000 ppm. In a complementary fashion, the amendment to MARPOL Annex VI designating the U.S. ECA will ensure that fuel used in an ECA, including fuel purchased in another country but used within the U.S. ECA, also meets a 1,000 ppm sulfur limit. Under our proposed regulations, fuel sold for use by C3 vessels in the U.S. ECA will be allowed to have a sulfur content as high as this 1,000 ppm sulfur limit, while fuel sold for use in Category 1 (C1; marine diesel engines up to 7 liters per cylinder displacement) and Category 2 (C2; marine diesel engines from 7 to 30 liters per cylinder) vessels would continue to be subject to the nonroad, locomotive, and marine

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

For the purposes of this proposal (and the proposed 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. Current Diesel Fuel Standards

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 o

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.