## Staff Report:

Initial Statement of Reasons for the Proposed

Rulemaking

Regulations to Reduce Emissions from Diesel Auxilia ry Engines on Ocean-Going Vessels While At-Berth at a

California Port

Stationary Source Division Project Assessment Branch

October 2007State of California

AIR RESOURCES BOARD

STAFF REPORT:

INITIAL STATEMENT OF REASONS

FOR THE PROPOSED RULEMAKING

Public Hearing to Consider

ADOPTION OF PROPOSED REGULATIONS TO REDUCE EMISSION S FROM

DIESEL AUXILIARY ENGINES ON OCEAN-GOING VESSELS WHI LE

AT-BERTH AT A CALIFORNIA PORT

To be considered by the Air Resources Board on Dece mber 6 and 7, 2007, at:

Air Resources Board

Auditorium

9530 Telstar Avenue El Monte, California 91731

Stationary Source Division Robert Fletcher, Chief Robert Barham, Ph.D., Assistant Chief Project Assessment Branch Michael Tollstrup, Chief Health and Exposure Assessment Branch (RD)

Linda Smith, Ph.D., Chief Technical Analysis Section Peggy Taricco, Manager Health and Ecosystems Assessment Section (RD)

Hien Tran, Ph.D., Manager Project Assessment Section Michael Waugh, Manager Regulatory Support Section (PTSD) Todd Sax, D. Env., Manager

This report has been prepared by the staff of the A ir Resources Board. Publication does not signify that the contents refl ect the views and policies of the Air Resources Board, nor does mention of trade name s or commercial products

constitute endorsement or recommendation for use.State of California

AIR RESOURCES BOARD

REGULATIONS TO REDUCE EMISSIONS FROM DIESEL AUXILIA RY

ENGINES ON OCEAN-GOING VESSELS WHILE AT-BERTH AT A

CALIFORNIA PORT

Contributing Authors

Andrew Alexis Alvaro Alvarado, Ph.D. Raymond Asregadoo, P.E.

Joe Calavita

Grant Chin Pingkuan Di, Ph.D., P.E. Reza Mahdavi, Ph.D. Lori Miyasato, Ph.D.

Brad Penick

Marcelle Surovik Kelly Weatherford

Legal Counsel

Floyd Vergara, P.E., Office of Legal Affairs

Supporting Divisions

Planning and Technical Support Division (PTSD)

Research Division (RD)

Acknowledgements

This report was prepared with the assistance and su pport from the other

divisions and offices of the Air Resources Board. In addition, we would like to acknowledge the assistance and cooperation that we have received from many individuals and organizations.

## T ABLE OF 

## C ONTENTS

Contents Page

Executive Summary..................................

................................................... ..............ES-1

1. Introduction ....................................

................................................... ....................1

2. Determination of Affected Ocean-Going Vessel Cat egories..................................4

3. Emissions Inventory .............................

................................................... ..............6

4. Health Risk.....................................

................................................... ....................8

5. Summary of the Proposed Regulation ............

................................................... .10

6. Emission Reductions.............................

................................................... ...........14

7. Risk Reduction..................................

................................................... ...............16

8. Environmental Impact ............................

................................................... ..........19

9. Impact on Global Warming........................

................................................... .......19

10. Economic Impacts..........................

................................................... ..................20

11. Cost to Local Agencies .........................

................................................... ...........22

12. Cost-Effectiveness .............................

................................................... ..............23

13. Feasibility of Proposed Regulation.............

................................................... ......24

14. Alternatives Considered ........................

................................................... ...........26

15. Outreach .......................................

................................................... ...................27

16. Environmental Justice ..........................

................................................... ............28

17. Implementation and Enforcement .................

................................................... ...28

18. Recommendation.................................

................................................... ............28

Appendix A - Proposed RegulationsList of Tables

Contents Page

Table 1: Estimated 2006 Hotelling Emissions by Sh ip Category ................................. 6

Table 2: Estimated 2006 Hotelling Emissions by Po rt (Tons per Day).......................... 7

Table 3: Projected 2014 and 2020 Emissions from C ontainer Ships, Passenger

Ships, and Reefer Ships ............................

................................................... . 8

Table 4: Emission Benefits from Implementation of the Proposed Regulation ........... 16

Table 5: Summary of Cost-Effectiveness for Shore- Power......................................... 24

List of Figures

Contents Page

Figure 1: Projected Diesel PM Emissions With and W ithout the Proposed

Regulation.........................................

................................................... ......... 15

Figure 2: Projected NOx Emissions With and Without the Proposed Regulation......... 15

Figure 3: Projected Residential Areas Impacted by Hotelling Emissions at

POLA/POLB by 2014.................................. .................................................. 1 7

Figure 4: Projected Numbers of Population Affected by Hotelling Emissions at

POLA/POLB by 2014.................................. .................................................. 1 7

Figure 5: Projected Residential Areas Impacted by Hotelling Emissions at

POLA/POLB by 2020.................................. .................................................. 1 8

Figure 6: Projected Numbers of Population Affected by Hotelling Emissions at

POLA/POLB by 2020.................................. .................................................. 1 8ES-1

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The California Air Resources Board (ARB or Board) s taff is proposing two essentially identical regulations to reduce diesel particulate matter (PM) and oxides of nitrogen (NOx) from diesel-fueled auxilia ry engines used aboard ocean-going ships while docked or at-berth, at a Ca lifornia port. For the remainder of this report, the regulations will coll ectively be referred to as “the regulation.” The proposed Regulations to Reduce Em issions from Diesel Auxiliary Engines on Ocean-Going Vessels While At B erth at a California Port (regulation) is part of ARB’s ongoing effort to red uce PM and NOx emissions from diesel-fueled engines and vehicles and improve air quality associated with goods movement. A copy of the proposed regulation is provided in Appendix A of this report.

Auxiliary engines are run to power lighting, ventil ation, pumps, communication, and other onboard equipment while a ship is docked at a berth, or “hotelled.” The proposed regulation would require operators of vessels meeting specified criteria to turn off their auxiliary engines for mo st of their stay in port. We anticipate that such vessels would then receive the ir electrical power from the shore, or use an alternative, but equally effective , means of emission reductions. The process of shutting off engines and connecting to power on shore is sometimes referred to as “shore power” or “cold-iro ning.” The term “cold-ironing” is derived from the metal aboard the ships “going c old” when combustion equipment is shut down.

There are six major categories of ocean-going vesse ls that visit California ports: container ships, passenger ships, refrigerated carg o ships (reefers), bulk ships, tankers, and vehicle carriers. Over 2000 of these ocean-going vessels call at California ports each year. In 2006, about 1.8 ton s per day (TPD) of diesel PM

and 21.1 TPD of NOx were emitted from diesel-fueled auxiliary engines on ocean-going vessels while at-berth in California po rts.

Staff is proposing to reduce hotelling emissions fr om three out of the six major vessel categories noted above; through a separate r ulemaking, staff will address the hotelling emissions from the other three catego ries at a later date. This bifurcation of regulated vessel categories was base d on information presented in an earlier ARB report, Evaluation of Cold-ironing Ocean-Going Vessels at

California Ports

(Evaluation Report), which was released as a draft in March 2006. The purpose of the Evaluation Report was to present an analysis of the feasibility and cost-effectiveness of requiring shi ps to shut off auxiliary engines, while in port and connect to power provided at the berth, as a potential emission control measure. The Evaluation Report was intende d as a prelude to this rulemaking and was therefore never published as a f inal report. Nevertheless, the Evaluation Report provided a useful foundation on which this Staff Report

was based.ES-2

From the Evaluation Report, staff found the most at tractive ship candidates for shore power to be those ships that make frequent vi sits to a California port, spend a sufficient number of hours at berth, and ha ve an ample power demand while hotelled. Accordingly, the proposal specific ally targets hotelling emissions from ship categories that meet these criteria—conta iner ships, passenger ships, and reefer ships—and the California ports where the se ships frequently visit—the Ports of Los Angeles, Long Beach, Oakland, San Dieg o, San Francisco, and

Hueneme.

As noted, staff will be proposing a separate rulema king to reduce emissions from the other ship categories that were not considered as good candidates for shore power at this time—i.e., bulk ships, tankers, and v ehicle carriers. Staff anticipates presenting to the Board a proposal cove ring those other ship categories in late 2008. We expect that at-berth e missions from tugboats operating at California ports will also be addresse d at that time.

Diesel PM was identified as a toxic air contaminant in 1998. Long-term exposures to diesel PM increase the risk of develop ing lung cancer. Non-cancer health effects, including premature deaths and resp iratory disease, are associated with exposure to directly emitted diesel PM and secondary diesel PM formed when NOx emissions from diesel engines react in the atmosphere to form nitrates. A recent ARB exposure study at the ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach shows that over two million people live in ar eas around the ports with predicted cancer risks of greater than 10 in a mill ion due to hotelling emissions from ocean-going vessels. From that study and info rmation developed for this rulemaking, staff estimates that about 61 premature deaths per year are attributable to current exposure to direct and seco ndary diesel PM from hotelling

emissions.

The proposed regulation allows for two main options to reduce hotelling emissions. First, ship operators can shut down the ir auxiliary engines while in port, except for three or five permissible hours of total operation per visit (“limited engine use” option). Alternatively, operators can implement a fleet-based option to reduce the emissions from the auxiliary engines in the fleet by specified percentages while docked (“emissions reduction opti on”).

The “limited engine use” option requires that the o perators of container ships, passenger ships, and reefers that visit California ports shut down their auxiliary engines for most of their stay while hotelling. Au xiliary engines would be allowed to run for three or five hours per visit. Specific ally, these auxiliary engines must be shut down for at least 50 percent of a fleet’s t otal visits to a California port in 2014 and at least 80 percent of the fleet’s total v isits to a port in 2020. While auxiliary engines are shut down, the ship’s onboard electrical needs must be satisfied by some other source of power, presumably the region’s electrical grid.ES-3

An alternative compliance option is the “emissions reduction option,” in which ship operators would be required to reduce their fl eet’s auxiliary engine emissions at a port by specific percentages and by specific dates. The specified percent reductions apply to the fleet’s engines, ra ther than to individual engines. The compliance dates for this option vary based on the emission reduction technique applied to the fleets.

The emission reduction techniques that could be app lied to a fleet include: 1) using selected vessels for grid-supplied power b ased on potential auxiliary engine emission reductions rather than fleet visit percentages; 2) using distributed generation equipment to provide power t o a vessel; 3) using

alternative emission controls onboard a vessel or l ocated adjacent to the vessel; and 4) using a combination of these techniques.

Vessel owners or operators, terminals, and ports wo uld also be subject to recordkeeping and reporting requirements.

Staff projects that the proposed regulation would r educe hotelling diesel PM and NOx emissions from container ships, passenger ships , and refrigerated cargo ships by nearly 50 percent relative to levels other wise expected to be emitted in 2014, and 75 percent relative to levels otherwise e xpected to be emitted in 2020.

These emission reductions will occur in areas at an d near ports where community impacts are of most concern. These emiss ion reductions would play an essential role in assisting the South Coast Air Basin with meeting its 2014 fine particulate matter (PM 2.5 ) deadline in its State Implementation Plan as well as its

future ozone deadlines.

In addition, hotelling CO 2 emissions are expected to be reduced by 122,000 to 242,000 metric tons in 2020, which will assist the State with meeting the Assembly Bill (AB) 32 targets for greenhouse gas re ductions.

The emission reductions from the proposed regulatio n would result in lower ambient PM levels and reduced exposure to diesel PM . Staff estimates that approximately 280 premature deaths statewide would be avoided by year 2020 from implementation of the proposed regulation. Th e estimated cost benefit of the avoided premature deaths and other health benef its due to the emission reductions are estimated to range from $1.3 to $1.9 billion.

The reduction in potential cancer risk was assessed based on the overall projected reduction in hotelling emissions from the proposed regulation. It was estimated that the population exposed to a risk of 10 in a million would be reduced by about 70 percent by 2020 due to these em ission reductions. More importantly, all higher risk levels of greater than 100 in a million are eliminated due to implementation of the proposed regulation.ES-4

Staff estimates the statewide total regulatory cost s for affected businesses and port authorities to comply with the proposed regula tion to be approximately $1.8 billion, in 2006 dollars. This includes costs to comply with the regulation, which are primarily those incurred by vessel operat ors when they shut down their auxiliary engines at dock, as well as costs that ar e not strictly required to comply with the regulation but are nonetheless anticipated by ARB (e.g., installation of electrical infrastructure or distributed generation by shoreside entities).

Annually, the costs are expected to vary from $30 m illion to $137 million. The low end of the range represents a year when the onl y major capital expenditures are for retrofitting container ships due to reposit ioning, and the high end of the range represents a year when capital expenditures a re being made for shoreside infrastructure and for retrofitting a considerable number of ships to meet the 2020 milestone. The total statewide annual costs to pri vate business include recovery of capital expenditures, both aboard the ships and at the ports, and operating costs, which are labor costs and net energy costs. The Proposition 1B Bond program (Goods Movement Emission Reduction Program) potentially could provide funding for shore power projects. ARB is c urrently holding workshops for determining minimum requirements of shore power pro jects and other Prop 1B Bond projects.

The governmental agencies affected by the proposed regulation are the port authorities, which are branches of the local city g overnments. The ports affected by the proposed regulation are the Ports of Hueneme , Long Beach, Los Angeles, Oakland, San Diego, and San Francisco. Additionally, the cruise terminal at the Port of Long Beach is owned by the City of Long Beach. The costs to be expended by the port authorities to add shore-power equipment to their facilities ranges from $4 million to $86 mill ion.

The overall cost-effectiveness of the regulation ba sed on the regulatory costs and projected emission reductions is estimated to b e $690,000 per ton if the total annualized cost is attributed solely to the PM redu ction. Staff estimates the overall cost-effectiveness of the proposed regulati on, in terms of dollars per ton of NOx emission reduction, to be about $12,800 per ton. This would be the

cost-effectiveness if the total cost were attribute d solely to the NOx emission

reductions.

The cost-effectiveness for this regulation is consi stent with those of other recent rulemakings, such as the Bus Fleet Rule, which was estimated to have a costeffectiveness of nearly $68,000 per ton of NOx redu ced, based on attributing all

of the costs toward NOx emissions reductions. Beca use the proposed regulation reduces significant amounts of both NOx and PM, sta ff also evaluated cost-effectiveness by attributing half the total an nualized cost to the PM emission

reductions and half to the NOx emission reductions. The resulting cost-effectiveness values using that method are $6, 400 per ton of NOx reduced and $345,000 per ton of PM reduced.ES-5

As noted, the proposal will reduce CO 2 emissions by 122,000 to 242,000 metric tons in 2020. The proposed regulation achieves the se reductions automatically

as a co-benefit of the diesel PM and NOx emission r eductions. Because the proposed regulation is primarily a diesel PM and NO x control measure, and it will not mandate any additional requirements in order to reduce CO 2 emissions, there will be effectively zero costs involved in achievin g these CO 2 emission reductions. Therefore, the cost-effectiveness for reducing CO 2 as a co-benefit of achieving the primary reductions in diesel PM and N Ox emissions is essentially zero dollars per pound of CO 2 reduced.1

INTRODUCTION

This Initial Statement of Reasons (Staff Report) pr esents an evaluation of the need to reduce emission from ocean-going vessels wh ile at-berth. The evaluation looks at the corresponding health effect s from such emissions, a summary of the proposed regulation (two essentially identical regulations collectively referred to hereinafter in the singula r), and the projected emissions reductions along with the associated reduction in h ealth risk. The Staff Report presents estimated costs for regulation compliance, for both industry and local governments, along with the alternative proposals c onsidered. A copy of the proposed regulation is provided in Appendix A. The Technical Support Document, an addendum to the Staff Report, provides more detailed analyses of these subjects and supporting documentation for the proposal. The Technical Support Document is provided under separate cover.

Staff is proposing a regulation to reduce emissions of diesel particulate matter (PM) and nitrogen oxides (NOx) from diesel-fueled a uxiliary engines used aboard ocean-going ships while docked at a California port . The proposal reduces emissions in a relatively straightforward way—by li miting the operation of auxiliary engines while the vessels are docked.

Auxiliary engines are run to power lighting, ventil ation, pumps, communication, and other onboard equipment while a ship is docked at a berth, or “hotelled.” The proposed regulation would require operators of vessels meeting specified criteria to turn off their auxiliary engines for mo st of their stay in port. We anticipate that such vessels would then receive the ir electrical power from shore, or would use an alternative, but equally effective, means of emissions reductions. This process of shutting off engines and connecting to power on shore is sometimes referred to as “shore power” or “cold-iro ning.” The term “cold-ironing” is derived from the metal aboard the ships “going c old” when combustion equipment is shut down.

The California Air Resources Board’s (ARB or Board) mission is to protect public health, welfare, and ecological resources through t he effective and efficient reduction of air pollutants, while recognizing and considering the effects on the economy of the State. The ARB’s vision is that all individuals in California, especially children and the elderly, can live, work , and play in a healthful environment – free from harmful exposure to air pol lution. To help achieve this, ARB has adopted numerous regulations to control emi ssions from many different sources, including diesel engines. Diesel engine e xhaust is a significant health concern because it is a source of unhealthful air p ollutants, including gaseous and particulate-phase toxic air contaminants (TAC), particulate matter (PM), oxides of nitrogen (NOx), carbon monoxide, and hydr ocarbons.2

In 1998, the Board identified diesel PM as a TAC wi th no Board-specified threshold exposure level, pursuant to Health and Sa fety Code (HSC) sections 39650 through 39675. A needs assessment for diesel PM was conducted between 1998 and 2000 pursuant to HSC sections 3965 8, 39665, and 39666. This resulted in ARB staff developing and the Board approving the Risk

Reduction Plan to Reduce Particulate Matter Emissio ns from Diesel-Fueled Engines and Vehicles

(Diesel RRP) in 2000. The Diesel RRP presented information on the available options for reducing d iesel PM and recommended regulations to achieve these reductions. The Diese l RRP’s scope was broad, addressing all categories of mobile and stationary engines. It included control measures for all off-road diesel sources, such as t hose covered by the proposed regulation. The ultimate goal of the Diesel RRP is to reduce, by 2020,

California’s diesel PM emissions and associated can cer risks by 85 percent from the 2000 levels. The proposed regulation would redu ce diesel PM emissions and the local health impacts from ships docked in Calif ornia’s ports and would assist the Board with meeting the 2020 Diesel RRP goal.

In April 2006, the Board approved the Emission Reduction Plan for the Ports and

Goods Movement in California (GMERP). The GMERP identifies strategies for reducing emissions created from the movement of goo ds through California ports and into other regions of the State. The GMERP is part of the broader Goods Movement Action Plan (GMAP) being jointly carried o ut by the California Environmental Protection Agency and the Business, T ransportation, and Housing Agency. Phase I of the GMAP was released in Septem ber 2005 and highlighted the air pollution impacts of goods movement and the urgent need to mitigate

localized health risk in affected communities. The final GMAP was released in January 2007 and includes a framework that identifi es the key contributors to goods movement-related emissions.

The GMERP identifies numerous strategies for reduci ng emissions from all significant emission sources involved in goods move ment, including ocean-going vessels, harbor craft, cargo handling equipment, lo comotives, and trucks. The GMERP identifies several strategies for reducing em issions from ocean-going vessels. Specific to hotelling emissions, the GMER P establishes a goal of utilizing shore power for 20 percent of the ship vi sits to California ports by 2010, 60 percent of visits by 2015, and 80 percent of vis its by 2020. The proposed regulation would represent a significant first step toward satisfying the GMERP goals by requiring specific vessel types to shut do wn their engines while docked. Shutting an engine down is a necessary condition fo r using shore power; the proposed regulation makes it possible for 50 percen t of a fleet’s visits to a port to be electrified by 2014, which rises to 80 percent o f visits by 2020. Furthermore, emission reductions would begin in 2010 for vessel owners or operators choosing an alternative emission control technology to reduce their hotelling

emissions.3

The federal Clean Air Act (CAA) requires the United States Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA) to establish National Ambient Air Quality Standards (national standards) for pollutants consi dered harmful to public health, including fine particulate matter (PM 2.5 ) and ozone. Set to protect public health, the national standards are adopted based on a revie w of health studies by experts and a public process. The South Coast Air Basin (Air Basin), which is home to the two largest ports in California, the Po rts of Los Angeles and Long Beach, exceeds the national standards for both ozon e and PM 2.5 . Consequently, a State Implementation Plan (SIP) is required for t he Air Basin that outlines how and when the region will attain the national standa rds. The U.S. EPA requires

the Air Basin to meet the PM 2.5 standards by 2015, but the emission reductions must be in place by 2014.

Significant reductions of NOx are crucial to meet t he federal standards. For example, at this time, the strategy to achieve atta inment of the PM 2.5 standards in

the South Coast Air Basin includes staff estimates that a 55 percent reduction in NOx emissions (secondary PM) from 2006 levels (i.e. , a total reduction of hundreds of tons per day) and a 15 percent reductio n in direct PM 2.5 emissions from 2006 baseline levels will be necessary for att ainment of the PM 2.5 standards in the South Coast Air Basin. The proposed regulat ion would reduce hotelling NOx emissions from container ships, passenger ships , and refrigerated cargo ships by 50 percent relative to levels expected to be emitted in 2014 and nearly 75 percent relative to levels expected to be emitte d in 2020. Consequently, the emission reductions from the proposed regulation wo uld play an essential role in assisting the South Coast Air Basin with meeting it s 2014 PM 2.5 deadline as well

as its future ozone deadlines.

The federal Clean Air Act permits states to adopt m ore stringent air quality standards, and California has set standards for par ticulate matter and ozone that are more protective of public health than respectiv e federal standards. The Bay Area, South Coast, and San Diego areas are nonattai nment for the State

standards for ozone and PM 2.5 . Health and Safety Code (HSC) section 40911 requires the local air districts to submit plans to the Board for attaining the State ambient air quality standards, and HSC section 4092 4 requires triennial updates of those plans. The NOx and PM 2.5 emission reductions from the proposed regulation would also assist the local air district s in achieving attainment of the State ambient air quality standards.

In June 2005, Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger signed Executive Order S-3-05, which established targets for reducing greenhouse g as (GHG) emissions in

California: roll back GHG emissions to 2000 levels by 2010, to 1990 levels by 2020, and finally to 80 percent below 1990 levels b y 2050. In 2006, the Governor signed Assembly Bill 32 (AB 32) (Stats. 20 06, ch. 488), which established the 2020 GHG emission reduction goal in State law (HSC § 38500 et4

seq.) and made the ARB responsible for monitoring a nd reducing GHG

emissions.

AB 32 requires the Board, by January 1, 2009, to de sign and adopt an overall plan to reduce GHG emissions to 1990 levels by 2020 . The Board has until January 1, 2011, to adopt the necessary regulations to implement that plan. Implementation begins no later than January 1, 2012 , and the emission reduction target must be fully achieved by January 1, 2020. AB 32 also required the Board to identify a list of discrete early action GHG red uction measures by June 30, 2007. AB 32 defines discrete early action measures as regulations that are to be adopted by the Board and be enforceable by January 1, 2010.

In April 2007, ARB staff released a report identify ing 37 proposed early action items the Board could undertake to mitigate GHG emi ssions in California. Port

electrification was identified as a GHG emission re duction measure in this report. In September 2007, ARB staff recommended reclassify ing port electrification (now called Green Ports) from an early action measu re to a discrete early action

measure. Staff’s recommended reclassifications wil l be considered by the Board at its October 2007 hearing.

The proposed regulation, while primarily aimed at r educing diesel PM and NOx emissions, will also reduce CO 2 emissions as a co-benefit of requiring cleaner electrical generation for ocean-going vessels that “plug in” while docked. These

CO 2 emission reductions will help California meet its 2020 greenhouse gas emission reduction goal.

2. DETERMINATION OF AFFECTED OCEAN-GOING VESSEL

CATEGORIES

Staff is proposing to initially regulate hotelling emissions from three out of the six categories of ocean-going vessels that visit Califo rnia ports and to address the hotelling emissions from the other three categories at a later date. This bifurcation was based on information presented in a n earlier ARB report, Evaluation of Cold-ironing Ocean-Going Vessels at C alifornia Ports (Evaluation Report), which was released as a draft in March 200 6. The purpose of the Evaluation Report was to present an analysis of the feasibility and cost-effectiveness of requiring ships to shut off a uxiliary engines while in port and connect to power provided at the berth as a potenti al emission control measure. While not finalized, the results of the Evaluation Report nevertheless formed a good basis for ARB’s further development of the pro posed regulation.

In the Evaluation Report, ARB staff calculated, forscreening purposes, the costeffectiveness of shore power as an emission reducti on strategy using three major sets of variables: ship categories, ship power load s, and pollutants reduced. ARB staff divided the ocean-going vessels visiting California ports in 2004 into5

six categories: container ships, passenger ships, r efrigerated cargo ships, tankers, bulk/cargo ships, and vehicle carriers. C ost-effectiveness values were calculated for each ship category. The cost-effect iveness values were based on the total cost of implementing cold-ironing— shore- side and ship-side— and the emission reductions expected from cold-ironing the ships.

For the screening analysis, staff analyzed three sc enarios; 1) all ships being cold-ironed at all California ports; 2) cold-ironin g ships that made at least three visits per year to a California port; 3) and cold-i roning ships that made at least six visits per year to a California port. ARB staff al so calculated the costeffectiveness values using three approaches for air pollutants reduced: (1) “all pollutants” emissions reductions (NOx, PM, volatile organic compounds [VOC], and oxides of sulfur [SOx]); (2) NOx emissions redu ctions only; and (3) PM emissions reductions only.

Based on the screening analysis noted above, the Ev aluation Report concluded

that the most attractive vessel candidates for cold -ironing are container ships, refrigerated cargo (reefer) ships, and passenger sh ips, and the most likely locations for cold-ironing in California are the Po rts of Los Angeles, Long Beach, Oakland, San Diego, San Francisco, and Hueneme. Th e most attractive ship candidates were found to be those ships that make f requent visits to a California port, spend a sufficient number of hours at berth, and have an ample power demand while hotelled. These findings formed the f oundation on which the proposed rulemaking was based.

Of the three remaining types of vessels that visit California, the Evaluation Report

showed that it was not as cost-effective at this ti me to cold-iron bulk and general cargo ships and vehicle carriers, relative to conta iner ships, passenger ships and reefers, because the former categories generally ha ve a low number of repeat visits to any single port and lower power loads. F urther, crude-oil tankers were found to have higher average cost-effectiveness val ues because there are only a

handful of diesel-electric tankers that visit Calif ornia, and only two are expected to visit frequently. Indeed, most crude-oil tanker s use steam turbines to drive their cargo pumps. These cargo pumps represent the majority of the power needed by tankers when they are berthed. The rest of the ship’s power needs are modest. Finally, product tankers make few visi ts to California ports, and their berthing times are short, making them a much less a ttractive candidate for coldironing.

The proposed regulation specifically addresses hote lling emission reduction requirements for categories of ships that were foun d at this time to be attractive candidates for shore power in the Evaluation Report —container ships, passenger ships, reefer ships— and the California ports where these ships frequently visit. As noted earlier, staff is proposing to develop sep arate requirements for other ship categories that were not considered to be good candidates at this time for6

shore power -- bulk ships, tankers, and vehicle car riers—at a later date. Staff anticipates presenting proposed hotelling emission reduction requirements for these other ships to the Board in late 2008. We ex pect that at-berth emissions from tugboats operating at California ports will al so be addressed at that time.

3. EMISSIONS INVENTORY

Hotelling emissions are associated with the use of diesel-fueled auxiliary engines on ocean-going ships to power the vessels’ electric al systems while the ships are

docked. These emissions are a function of how ofte n the ship visits a California port, how long the ship is at berth, the emissions rate of the engines, and the typical operating load of the auxiliary engines whi le the ship is at berth.

ARB staff estimates that in 2006, the statewide hot elling emissions from approximately 2000 ocean-going vessels was 1.8 tons per day (TPD) of diesel PM emissions, and 21.1 TPD of NOx emissions. Table I presents hotelling emissions for the six major categories of ocean-goi ng vessels that visit California ports—container ships, passenger ships, reefer ship s, vessel carriers, bulk ships, and tankers. As can be seen in this table, hotelli ng emissions from the three affected ship categories, container ships, passenge r ships, and reefer ships, represent over 80 percent of total statewide hotell ing emissions.

Table 1: Estimated 2006 Hotelling Emissions by Shi p Category

2006 Emissions, Tons/Day Ship Category NOx PM

Container 13.8 1.1

Passenger 2.8 0.2

Reefers 0.9 0.1

Tanker 2.0 0.2

Bulk/General 1.0 0.1

Vehicle Carriers 0.6 0.1

Totals 21.1 1.8

The proposed regulation would affect ships visiting the Ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach (which, for the proposed regulation, wou ld be considered one port), Oakland, San Diego, Hueneme, and San Francisco. T o provide a perspective of7

the shipping activities at these ports compared to all other ports in California, staff presents total hotelling emission by Californ ia port in Table 2.

Table 2: Estimated 2006 Hotelling Emissions by Port (Tons per Day)

Port NOx PM
Los Angeles/Long Beach 14.3 1.2

Oakland 2.6 0.2
San Diego 1.1 0.1

Hueneme 0.7 0.1

San Francisco 0.5 0.1

Other Ports 1.2 0.2

Total 21.1 1.8

As can be seen in this table, most of the shipping activities and hotelling emissions occur at the largest ports in California: Los Angeles and Long Beach followed by Oakland. The six ports affected by the proposed regulation account for over 90 percent of total hotelling emissions at California ports.

Staff developed growth factors for each ship catego ry to project future hotelling emissions. In general, the growth in vessel hotell ing emissions is directly proportional to the growth in vessel visits, ship s ize, berthing times, and, in the case of container ships, the number of refrigerated containers aboard.

Hotelling emissions from ocean-going ships are pred icted to increase from 2006. Container ship and passenger ship emissions are exp ected to double by 2020. Reefer ship emissions are expected to decline at th e Ports of Long Beach and Los Angeles, slightly increase at the Port of Huene me, and triple at the Port of San Diego by 2020.

Table 3 presents projected 2014 and 2020 emission e stimates for container ships, passenger ships, and reefer ships. In Decemb er 2005, the Board adopted an auxiliary engine fuel regulation that would limi t the sulfur content of fuel used with auxiliary engines starting in 2007. At the ti me this staff report was published, the regulation had been challenged in fe deral district court and is undergoing appeal at the Ninth Circuit Court of App eals. The future emission projections were based on the assumption that the a uxiliary engine regulation would ultimately be upheld and the auxiliary engine s would be operating on

low-sulfur fuel.8

Table 3: Projected 2014 and 2020 Emissions from Co ntainer Ships,

Passenger Ships, and Reefer Ships

Ship Category Projected 2014

Emissions Tons per Day Projected 2020

Emissions Tons per Day

NOx PM NOx PM

Container 21.4 0.38 30.8 0.55

Passenger 3.6 0.07 5.2 0.09

Reefer 1.0 0.02 1.3 0.02

Totals 26 0.47 37.3 0.67

4. HEALTH RISK

A. Cancer Risk

To provide a perspective on the potential cancer ri sk from exposure to hotelling emissions, staff used an existing analysis from 200 4 of diesel PM emissions from port related activities (including hotelling emissi ons) at the Port of Los Angles and the Port of Long Beach. Staff then adjusted the re sults of that study to reflect 2006 estimated hotelling emissions. Based on the adjusted results, we estimate that over two million people live in the area aroun d the ports that has predicted cancer risks of greater than 10 in a million due to hotelling emissions from oceangoing vessels.

Estimates of potential cancer risks from hotelling emissions at these two ports would represent the upper range of cancer risks, gi ven the magnitude of hotelling emissions in the San Pedro Bay area and the proximi ty of the emissions to highly urbanized areas. Semi-quantitative estimates of th e relative impact of hotelling

emissions for other areas can be made based on a co mparison of the relative magnitude of emissions and the proximity of the emi ssions to urbanized areas. For example, one would expect that the potential ca ncer risk estimate for the Port of Oakland would be about 20 percent of the estimat e for the Ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach, while the cancer risk e stimates for the Port of San Diego would be about 90 percent lower.

ARB staff is currently conducting a diesel PM expos ure assessment study for the West Oakland community which includes the Port of O akland that will be similar in scope as the study completed for the Ports of Lo s Angeles and Long Beach

. Staff expects a draft report on the West Oakland st udy to be released in late

November.9 B. Non-Cancer Risk

Staff estimates that current exposure to direct and secondary diesel PM emissions from at-berth ocean-going vessel auxiliar y engines can be associated with about 61 premature deaths per year. Due to th e location of the ocean-going vessels’ operations, their emissions were assumed t o affect the population only within the county in which the vessels are docked.

Using the 2006 statewide estimate of directly emitt ed diesel PM hotelling emissions and the relationship of diesel PM to PM-m ortality derived from Pope et al. (2002), we estimate approximately 39 premature deaths (11 to 68, 95 percent confidence interval (95% CI)) per year statewide du e to uncontrolled, directly emitted diesel PM from at-berth ocean-going vessel auxiliary engines.

Staff actually developed basin-specific factors for the health impacts assessment of emissions from the operation of auxiliary engine s on at-berth ocean-going vessels. These basin-specific factors were develop ed using basin-specific diesel PM concentrations and emissions for the year 2000. The basin-specific factors were applied to the county where each port is locat ed to estimate health impacts.

Using these basin-specific factors and after adjust ing for population changes between 2000 and 2006, staff estimates that 580 ton s of emissions from the operation of auxiliary engines on at-berth ocean-go ing vessels for the year 2006 are associated with approximately 39 annual deaths (11 – 68, 95% CI). Estimates of other health impacts, such as hospital izations and asthma symptoms, were calculated using basin-specific fact ors developed from other health studies. Details on the methodology used to calculate these estimates can be found in Appendix A of the Emission Reductio n Plan for Ports and Goods Movement in California (ARB, 2006).

In addition to directly emitted PM, diesel exhaust contains NOx, which is a precursor to nitrates, a secondary diesel-related P M formed in the atmosphere. Lloyd and Cackette (2001) estimated that secondary diesel PM 2.5 exposures from NOx emissions can lead to additional health impacts beyond those associated with directly emitted diesel PM 2.5 (Lloyd and Cackette, 2001). To quantify such impacts, staff developed population-weighted nitrat e concentrations for each air basin, as described in the Technical Support Docume nt, Chapter V.

Using the 2006 statewide estimate of NOx hotelling emissions and the relationship of NOx/nitrate to PM-mortality, we est imated approximately 22 (6 – 36, 95% CI) premature deaths per year statewid e due to uncontrolled, secondary diesel PM from at-berth ocean-going vesse l diesel auxiliary engines.10

In addition to PM-mortality, we estimate that the 2 006 estimated emissions (directly emitted and secondary sources) from at-be rth ocean-going vessel auxiliary engines will result in the following non- cancer health impacts:

• 13 hospital admissions due to respiratory causes ( 8 – 18, 95% CI)

• 24 hospital admissions due to cardiovascular cause s (15 – 37, 95% CI)

• 1,800 cases of asthma-related and other lower resp iratory symptoms (700 – 2,800, 95% CI)

• 150 cases of acute bronchitis (0 – 320, 95% CI)

• 11,000 work loss days (9,000 – 12,000, 95% CI)

• 61,000 minor restricted activity days (50,000 – 72 ,000, 95% CI)

5. SUMMARY OF THE PROPOSED REGULATION

Staff is proposing that the Board approve adoption of a regulation, pursuant to its authority under HSC sections 38500 et seq., 43013 a nd 43018, which would apply to the emissions from diesel auxiliary engine s on oceangoing vessels docked at California ports. As a companion to that regulation, staff is proposing that the Board also approve adoption of identical p rovisions as an airborne toxic control measure (ATCM), pursuant to its authority u nder HSC section 39666, which would complement the regulation and provide m aximum notice to the regulated community of the regulatory requirements on ocean-going vessels. The regulation and ATCM are hereinafter collectivel y referred to in the singular. The following sections provide more details about t he proposed regulation.

Applicability

The regulation would apply to any person who owns, operates, charters, rents, or leases any container ship, passenger ship, or refri gerated cargo ship (also known as “reefer”) that visits a California port. The re gulation would also apply to any person who owns or operates a port or terminal loca ted at a port where container, passenger, or refrigerated cargo (reefer ) ships visit. These ports include Los Angeles, Long Beach, Oakland, San Diego , San Francisco, and Hueneme. For purposes of complying with the propos ed regulation, the ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach are considered as one po rt.

The regulation applies to both U.S.-flagged vessels and foreign-flagged vessels. Foreign-flagged vessels are vessels registered unde r the flag of a country other

than the United States.

Exemptions

The proposed regulations contain general and specif ic exemptions. Under the general exemptions, vessels in “innocent passage;” vessels owned or operated by local, state, federal or foreign governments in government non-commercial11

service; steamships; and auxiliary engines using na tural gas are exempt from the regulations in their entirety. A steamship is an o cean-going vessel whose primary propulsion and electrical power are provide d by steam boilers. In addition, there are particular exemptions from spec ified portions of the regulations for emergency events and delays caused by federal agency inspections.

Options to Reduce Emissions

Limited Engine Use Option

The proposed regulation allows for two options to r educe hotelling emissions: (1) ship operators can either shut down their auxil iary engines while in port (except for three or five permissible hours of oper ation per visit), or (2) they can reduce the at-berth emissions from those auxiliary engines by specified percentages while docked.

The “limited engine use” option in the proposed reg ulation requires that the operators of container ships, passenger ships, and reefers that visit California ports shut down their auxiliary engines for most of their stay while hotelling. Specifically, these auxiliary engines must be shut down for 50 percent of a fleet’s total visits to a California port in 2014 and 80 pe rcent of the fleet’s total visits to a port in 2020. While auxiliary engines are shut dow n, the ship’s onboard electrical needs must be satisfied by some other source of pow er. The source of electrical power used instead of the auxiliary engines must be provided either by the grid or by another power source that meets specified emi ssion standards.

Fleets that do not make a minimum number of annual visits to a California port are exempt from the auxiliary engine limitations fo r that port. The specified threshold for applying the engine shutdown requirem ent is less than 25 total annual visits by a container vessel fleet or reefer vessel fleet to a port. For passenger vessel fleets, this threshold is less tha n five visits. However, these minimum thresholds notwithstanding, the regulation requires a vessel to use shore power if it is equipped to do so, and it visi ts a berth equipped to provide compatible shore power.

As noted, to provide for sufficient time to connect and disconnect electrical lines for shore power, the proposed regulation allows the auxiliary engines to operate for up to three hours during a visit, or five hours during a visit for vessels that lose power during the process of switching power from th e vessel’s auxiliary engines to shore power. This time period may be extended d ue to circumstances beyond the control of the vessel operators, such as emerge ncy events or delays resulting from obligations imposed by federal agencies (for e xample, the U.S. Coast Guard or some other branch of the Department of Hom eland Security).12 Emission Reduction Option

An alternative to the “limited engine use” approach is the “emissions reduction option.” Operators choosing this option are requir ed to reduce their auxiliary engine emissions at a port by specific percentages and by specific dates. The compliance dates vary based on the types of emissio n reduction techniques applied to the fleets.

The emission reduction techniques that could be app lied to a fleet include: 1) using selected vessels for grid-supplied power b ased on potential auxiliary engine emission reductions rather than fleet visit percentages; 2) using distributed generation equipment to provide power t o a vessel; 3) using

alternative emission controls onboard a vessel or l ocated adjacent to the vessel; and 4) using a combination of these techniques.

For option 1, the emission reduction targets are al igned with the limited engine use approach: the NOx and PM emissions from the fle et’s auxiliary engines at a port must be reduced by 50 percent from the baselin e fleet emissions by 2014 and by 80 percent by 2020. For options 2 and 3, in which alternative control technologies are implemented, the NOx and PM emissi ons from the fleet’s auxiliary engines at a port must be reduced by 20 p ercent from the baseline fleet emissions by 2010, 40 percent by 2012, 60 percent b y 2014, and 80 percent by 2016. For option 4, in which a combination of appr oaches is implemented, NOx and PM emissions must be reduced by 20 percent from the baseline fleet emissions by 2012, 50 percent by 2014, and 80 perce nt by 2020.

Staff is proposing earlier compliance dates (2010 a nd 2012) for vessel operators choosing alternative emission controls to reduce th eir fleet’s hotelling emissions rather than using grid supplied shore power, becaus e of the significant lead time required to design and install a grid-based shore p ower application, which can be up to several years. If alternative controls or al ternative shore power are available much earlier than 2014 and a vessel opera tor chooses the emission reductions option, then staff expects to begin achi eving emission reductions from these options soon after the regulation is effectiv e in late 2008.

The proposal provides default values for making the emission reduction calculation, including default values for emission factors and power requirements, in lieu of more specific values. In addition, the proposal provides procedures for determining control factors and applicable emission testing procedures.

Sources of electrical power, other than the grid, t hat are used to comply with the emission reduction option would be required to sati sfy additional requirements. Before January 1, 2014, distributed generation equi pment must satisfy the emission standards applicable to a newly manufactur ed spark-ignited off-road engine. As of January 1, 2014, all distributed gen eration would be subject to a13

more stringent emission standard that is equivalent to a spark-ignited engine using Best Available Control Technology (BACT). Fi nally, the source of electrical power must emit no more CO 2 (a greenhouse gas) emissions than a combinedcycle gas turbine—the emissions level that the Cali fornia Public Utilities Commission recommended for unspecified sources of p ower.

Recordkeeping and Reporting Requirements

The proposed regulation has reporting and recordkee ping requirements affecting the vessel owners and operators, terminals, and por ts.

The reporting and recordkeeping requirements for ve ssel owners or operators depend upon the compliance option selected by the v essel owner or operator and terminal. The proposed regulation requires a v essel fleet plan to be

submitted to the Executive Officer of the ARB in th e years prior to the fleet’s regulatory compliance dates.

In addition to the vessel fleet plans, the proposal requires an annual statement of compliance to be submitted to the Executive Officer of the ARB certifying compliance with the regulatory requirements for the previous calendar year. As with the vessel fleet plans, the dates for the init ial submittals depend upon the compliance option selected by the vessel owner or o perator.

The recordkeeping and reporting requirements are si mpler for the limited engine use option because the vessel owner or operator cho osing that option must track only those vessels that will comply with the 2014 a nd 2020 shore power requirements. The recordkeeping and reporting requ irements for the emission reduction option are more significant because the v essel owner or operator choosing that option must track the emissions of ea ch vessel in the fleet.

A terminal that receives more than 50 vessel visits in 2008 is required to submit a plan to the Executive Officer of the Air Resources Board by July 1, 2009. This plan is required to identify how the terminal will be upgraded to allow vessels to satisfy either the limited engine use option or the emissions reduction option. The terminal is also required to submit plan update s at a frequency that depends on the control strategy selected by the vessel flee t owner or operator and the

terminal.

The port is required to submit wharfinger data annu ally to ARB’s Executive Officer. The port’s written submittal must documen t when each vessel visits the port, the berth that the vessel visited, and the da tes and times that the vessel was initially tied to the berth and subsequently re leased from the berth. In addition, the terminal operator is required to keep records of electricity usage for shore power and equipment breakdowns that affect a vessel’s ability to comply with the limited engine use option or the emission reduction option.14

Violations and Severability

The proposal includes a violations provision that p rovides, among other things, that any violation of any part of the regulation wo uld constitute a single, separate

violation for each hour that the violation occurs. The exception to this would be for violations of the recordkeeping and reporting r equirements; a violation of those provisions would constitute a single, separat e violation for each day that

the violation occurs.

The proposed regulation states that if any part of the regulation is held to be invalid, the remainder of the regulation shall cont inue to be effective.

6. EMISSION REDUCTIONS

As mentioned earlier, staff assumes that the challe nge to the auxiliary engine fuel regulation will ultimately be upheld and that the f uel regulation will provide significant emission reductions from auxiliary engi nes on ocean-going vessels. The proposed at-berth ocean-going vessel regulation is expected to provide additional significant emission reduction benefits. Staff projects that the proposed regulation would reduce hotelling diesel P M and NOx emissions from container ships, passenger ships, and refrigerated cargo ships by 50 percent and 75 percent relative to levels expected to be emitte d in 2014 and 2020, respectively. These emission reductions will occur in areas at and near ports where environmental justice concerns are especially prevalent.

In addition, hotelling CO 2 emissions are expected to be reduced by 122,000 to 242,000 metric tons in 2020. These estimated CO 2 reductions take into account

the CO 2 emissions associated with the generation of electr icity for shore power.

The CO 2 benefits from this regulation—which will assist th e State with meeting the AB 32 targets for greenhouse gas reductions—are discussed in more detail later in this staff report.

Figures 1 and 2 show the projected diesel PM and NO x hotelling emissions for container ships, passenger ships, and reefer ships, with and without implementation of the proposed regulation.15 Figure 1: Projected Diesel PM Emissions with and w ithout the Proposed
Regulation

0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4 1.6

2006 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 202 0

YearEmissions (Tons/Day)

Uncontrolled PM

Controlled PM

Figure 2: Projected NOx Emissions with and without the Proposed
Regulation

0.0 5.0 10.0 15.0 20.0 25.0 30.0 35.0 40.0

2006 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 202 0

YearEmissions (Tons/Day)

Uncontrolled NOx

Controlled NOx

As summarized in Table 4 below, staff estimates tha t approximately 1,100 tons of diesel PM and 61,700 tons of NO

x will be removed from California's air between 2006 and 2020 due to the implementation of the prop osed regulation.16

Table 4: Emission Benefits from Implementa tion of the Proposed

Regulation

PM NO
x

Total Emission Reductions 2006 to 2020 (Tons) 1,100* 61,700*

Annual Average Reductions (Tons per Year) 85 4,700

*For the container-ship category, the regulatory pe riod is 2009 – 2030 to account for ship turnover. Total emissions reducti ons to 2030 are 2,600 tons of diesel PM and 140,000 tons of NOx.

7. RISK REDUCTION

A. Cancer Risk

The emission reductions obtained from the proposed regulation would result in lower ambient PM levels and reductions in exposure to diesel PM. These reductions would result in a corresponding reductio n in potential cancer risk. Because ARB’s auxiliary engine fuel regulation woul d significantly reduce diesel PM hotelling emissions from auxiliary engines 1 , the potential cancer risks from exposures to the projected 2014 and 2020 emissions levels after implementation of the proposed regulation were estimated and compa red to those of 2014 and 2020 emission levels from implementation of the aux iliary engine fuel regulation to determine how the potential risks will change.

As shown in Figures 3 through 6, we expect a signif icant decline in the number of people exposed to elevated risk levels from hotelli ng emissions and the acres impacted as the auxiliary engine fuel regulation is implemented. In addition to this reduction, the proposed At-Berth Ocean-Going Vessel regulation will reduce the number of residential acres and population exposed to diesel PM concentrations greater than 10 per million by an additional 50 per cent by 2014 and 70 percent by 2020. More importantly, all higher risk levels of greater than 100 in a million are eliminated due to implementation of the propose d regulation

.

1 See title 13 CCR § 2299.1 and title 17 CCR § 93118 . At the time this ISOR was published, those regulations had been challenged in federal di strict court and undergoing appeal at the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. Pacific Merchant Shippin g Ass'n v. Cackette , (E.D.Cal. Oct 05, 2007) 2007 WL 2914961 (No. Civ. S-06-2791-WBS-KJM). The analysis presented in this portion of the ISOR assumes those auxiliary engine regulations wil l ultimately be upheld on appeal.17

Figure 3: Projected Residential Areas Impacted by Hotelling Emissions

at POLA/POLB by 2014

Figure 4: Projected Numbers of Population Affecte d by Hotelling

Emissions at POLA/POLB by 2014

0 500,000 1,000,000 1,500,000 2,000,000 2,500,000Number of Persons 2014 without Control

2014 with Auxi Reg

2014 with Auxi + Cold

2014 without Control 1,977,764 631,799 206,577 17,917

2014 with Auxi Reg 1,339,600 20,800 0 0

2014 with Auxi + Cold 736,000 0 0 0 Risk > 10 Risk > 100 Risk > 200 Risk > 500 0 20,000 40,000 60,000 80,000 100,000 120,000 140,000 160,000 180,000Residential Area (Acres) 2014 without Control

2014 with Auxi Reg

2014 with Auxi + Cold

2014 without Control 163,435 48,146 11,653 761

2014 with Auxi Reg 113,016 939 0 0

2014 with Auxi + Cold 57,269 0 0 0 Risk > 10 Risk > 100 Risk > 200 Risk > 50018

Figure 5: Projected Residential Areas Impacted by Hotelling Emissions at POLA/POLB by 2020

Figure 6: Projected Numbers of Population Affecte d by Hotelling

Emissions at POLA/POLB by 2020

0 500,000 1,000,000 1,500,000 2,000,000 2,500,000Number of Persons 2020 without Control

2020 with Auxi Reg

2020 with Auxi + Cold

2020 without Control 1,977,765 1,009,250 381,870 57,600

2020 with Auxi Reg 1,644,856 65,856 6,180 0

2020 with Auxi + Cold 485,000 0 0 0 Risk > 10 Risk > 100 Risk > 200 Risk > 500 0 20,000 40,000 60,000 80,000 100,000 120,000 140,000 160,000 180,000Residential Area (Acres) 2020 without Control

2020 with Auxi Reg

2020 with Auxi + Cold

2020 without Control 163,435 80,457 23,979 2,540

2020 with Auxi Reg 134,820 2,955 119 0

2020 with Auxi + Cold 33,517 0 0 0 Risk > 10 Risk > 100 Risk > 200 Risk > 50019 B. Non-Cancer Risk

The emission reductions obtained from this regulati on will result in lower ambient PM levels and reduced exposure to diesel PM. Staff estimates that approximately 280 premature deaths (78 – 480, 95 pe rcent confidence interval (95% CI)) statewide will be avoided by the year 202 0 from the implementation of the proposed regulation. Estimates of other health effects avoided statewide

include:

• 60 hospital admissions due to respiratory causes ( 38 – 83, 95% CI)

• 110 hospital admissions due to cardiovascular caus es (70 – 170, 95% CI)

• 8,200 cases of asthma-related and other lower resp iratory symptoms (3,200 – 13,000, 95% CI)

• 680 cases of acute bronchitis (0 – 1,400, 95% CI)

• 49,000 work loss days (42,000 – 57,000, 95% CI)

• 280,000 minor restricted activity days (230,000 – 330,000, 95% CI)

8. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT

No significant adverse environmental impacts are ex pected to occur from adoption of, and compliance with, the proposed requ irements for ocean-going vessels at berth. Implementation of the proposal w ould reduce directly emitted and secondarily formed PM levels, provide both near source and regional risk reduction, and contribute to the overall effort of reducing PM mortality, hospital admissions, and lost work days.

9. IMPACT ON GLOBAL WARMING

As noted, the Board will consider, at its October 2 007 meeting, reclassifying shore power (now referred to as Green Ports) from a n early action measure to a discrete early action measure pursuant to AB 32. Th e proposed regulation for ocean-going vessels at-berth would result in signif icant CO 2 reductions and its adoption would fulfill the Board’s commitment to pu rsue shore power as an early action measure, assuming the Board accepts the staf f’s recommendation in October to include the measure as an early action i tem.

The proposal’s primary emission reduction strategy is to allow a ship to utilize grid-based shore power instead of onboard electrica l generation from dieselfueled auxiliary engines. The CO 2 emissions from California’s utility grid are much cleaner than diesel-fueled auxiliary engines o n ships. In addition, new state mandates (SB 1368 2 and AB 32) will result in CO 2 emissions from the grid declining between now and 2020. Consequently, CO 2 emissions from

2 SB 1368 (Stats. 2006, ch. 598).20

ocean-going vessels at-berth are expected to be red uced by 122,000 to 242,000 metric tons in 2020.

The proposed regulation will allow the use of alter native technologies to achieve required emission reductions. These alternatives m ay include ship-side technologies, such as post-combustion devices, alte rnative fuels, or cleaner engines, or shore-side technologies, including dist ributed generation or emissioncapture-and-treatment devices (so-called “bonnet” s ystems). These technologies—although attractive for early deployme nt for NOx and diesel PM reductions—will most likely be less effective in re ducing GHG emissions when compared to grid-based shore power, but they are pe rmitted as specified in the proposal.

For sources of electricity other than the grid for providing shore power to the ships, the proposed regulation limits the CO 2 emissions to 500 grams per kilowatt-hour (1,100 lbs CO 2 /MW-hr). This emission standard will prohibit the use of electrical generation technologies that emit muc h higher levels of CO 2 , such as diesel engines and less efficient spark-ignited eng ines.

The post-combustion technologies—selective catalyti c reduction (SCR), diesel particulate filters (DPFs), and diesel oxidation ca talysts (DOCs)—tend to

increase CO 2 emissions due to increased fuel use. However, the DPFs and DOCs remove black carbon, a component of diesel PM and a likely contributor to global warming.

For the emission-capture-and-treatment devices (e.g ., Advanced Cleanup Technologies’ “bonnet” system), there would be a mu ch larger CO 2 penalty because there is an auxiliary burner on the treatme nt unit for reheating the stack gases so that the SCR operates effectively. In add ition, a vessel would use a bonnet system to allow the continued operation of t he onboard auxiliary engines. Thus, the auxiliary engines aboard the ships would still be operating, along with the treatment unit’s burner. On the other hand, th is alternative technology would capture and treat the NOx and PM emissions from the boilers on the ships— something that shore power would not do—so the incr ease in CO 2 emissions would need to be balanced against the additional NO x and PM emission

reductions.

Most of these technologies are at the proof-of-conc ept stage, and ARB staff cannot at this time predict with certainty the exte nt of their deployment in the future. Therefore, we are unable to project the im pact of such alternatives on

overall CO 2 emission reductions under this program.

10. ECONOMIC IMPACTS

Staff assumes that the most widely deployed techniq ue for meeting the requirements of the proposed regulation will be gri d-based shore power. This approach satisfies the “limited engine use” option and will probably be the21

technique of choice for the emissions reduction opt ion. Consequently, staff’s economic analysis addressed the use of grid-based s hore power only.

Staff estimates the total statewide costs for affec ted businesses and port authorities to comply with the proposed regulation to be approximately $1.8 billion, in 2006 dollars. This includes costs directly resulting from compliance with the proposed regulation (e.g., shut ting down engines, recordkeeping, reporting), as well as those costs t hat are not directly required by the regulation, but are expected, as terminals and ports prepare to accommodate vessels that shut down their engines at berth (e.g. , installation of shore power capabilities). Annually, the costs are expected to vary from $30 million to $137 million. The low end of the range represents a year when the only major capital expenditures are for retrofitting container ships due to repositioning, and the high end of the range represents a year when ca pital expenditures are being

made for shoreside infrastructure and for retrofitt ing a considerable number of ships to meet the 2020 milestone. The total statew ide annual costs to private business include recovery of capital expenditures, both aboard the ships and at the ports, and operating costs, which are labor cos ts and net energy costs.

Since 25 of the 35 vessel fleets affected by the pr oposed regulation are container-ship fleets, for the purposes of this pro posed regulation, the typical ship company refers to a company operating container shi ps. The total costs to a typical ship company complying with the proposed re gulation, including capital and ongoing costs are estimated to be about $34 mil lion. This cost would be distributed over the years 2009 to 2020 for passeng er ship companies and reefer ship companies and to 2030 for container ship compa nies. About 40 percent of the cost is associated with modifying additional sh ips to replace ships that have been re-deployed away from California ports. Annua l costs would vary between $600,000 and $3 million per year, with the average cost of $1.5 million per year over this time period. The low end of the range re presents a year when no major capital expenditures are made, and the high end of the range represents a year where capital expenditures are made for both new sh ips as well as replacement ships that are rerouted.

For the other passenger ship and reefer categories, the total costs for a typical ship company to comply with the proposed regulation , including capital and ongoing costs, are estimated to be about $3.2 milli on. This cost would be distributed over a 12-year period, from 2009 to 202 0. Annual costs would vary between $150,000 and $500,000 per year, with the av erage cost of $260,000 per year over this time period.

Similarly, the total costs to a typical terminal op erator complying with the proposed regulation, including capital and ongoing costs, are estimated to be about $11 million. About 20 percent of the cost is attributed to labor costs and the other 80 percent for capital costs. This cost would be distributed over a22

12-year period, from 2009 to 2020. Annual costs wo uld vary between $500,000 and $1.1 million per year, with the average cost of $1 million per year over this time period. The low end of the range represents a year where no major capital expenditures are made, and the high end of the rang e represents a year where capital expenditures are made for shore-side improv ements. With 31 terminals and 35 vessel fleets affected by the proposed regul ation, the cost to a typical business would be $26 million.

Vessel owners or operators, terminals, and ports wo uld have additional recurring costs associated with recordkeeping and reporting. Reporting requirements begin July 1, 2009, and recordkeeping requirements begin January 1, 2010. For the vessel owner or operator, the costs associated with reporting and recordkeeping will vary between $600 and $12,000 an nually. The higher end of this range applies when the ship company chooses to comply with the emission reduction option of the proposed regulation, and th e lower end of the range represents the costs for ship companies that comply with the limited engine use requirement. For the terminal operators and ports, the costs associated with reporting and recordkeeping are about $800 annually

.

Staff does not anticipate any small businesses bein g affected by the proposed regulation due to the large capital and operating c osts associated with oceangoing vessel operations.

The proposed regulation achieves these reductions a utomatically as a co-benefit

of the diesel PM and NOx emission reductions. Beca use the proposed regulation is primarily a diesel PM and NOx control measure, and it will not mandate any additional requirements in order to red uce CO 2 emissions, there will be effectively zero costs involved in achieving the se CO 2 emission reductions. Therefore, the cost-effectiveness for reducing CO 2 as a co-benefit of achieving the primary reductions in diesel PM and NOx emissio ns is essentially zero dollars per pound of CO 2 reduced.

11. COST TO LOCAL AGENCIES

The governmental agencies affected by the proposed regulation are the port authorities, which are branches of the local city g overnments. The ports affected by the proposed regulation are the Ports of Hueneme , Long Beach, Los Angeles, Oakland, San Diego, and San Francisco. Additionally, the cruise terminal at the Port of Long Beach is owned by the City of Long Beach

The costs to be expended by the port authorities to add shore-power equipment to their facilities ranges from $4 million to $86 m illion. Staff does not expect ports to have a fiscal impact—defined as the costs incurr ed to the local agencies in the three fiscal years starting with the 2007/2008 fisc al year—until the second year. At this time, staff anticipates that the port autho rities would begin to make23

payments during fiscal years 2008/2009 and 2009/201 0 for the necessary shore-power equipment to satisfy the 2014 milestone . The estimated fiscal costs for the ports range from $600,000 to $7.4 million f or the fiscal years 2007/2008

and 2009/2010.

Staff assumes that the landlord ports will work wit h their tenants, the terminal lessees, to provide the shoreside infrastructure ne cessary to meet the requirements of the proposed regulation. Furthermo re, staff assumes that the landlord ports will eventually recover their capita l costs through modifications to terminal leases, while the non-landlord ports will recover their capital costs through fees collected from the carriers.

12. COST-EFFECTIVENESS

Cost-effectiveness is expressed in terms of regulat ory compliance costs (dollars) per unit of air pollutant reduced (ton). Except fo r container ships, the costeffectiveness for the proposed regulation was deter mined by dividing the total cost of the proposed regulation by the total tons o f air pollutants reduced from 2009 to 2020. For container ships, the emission re ductions out to 2030 were

included in the calculation to account for that cat egory’s ship turnover rate.

Staff estimates the overall cost-effectiveness of t he proposed regulation, in terms of dollars per ton of NOx emission reduction, to be about $12,800 per ton, if the total cost is attributed solely to the NOx emission reductions. Staff estimates the overall cost-effectiveness of the proposed regulati on, in terms of dollars per ton of PM emission reduction, to be is about $690,000 p er ton if the total annualized cost is attributed solely to the PM reduction. Bec ause the proposed regulation reduces significant amounts of both NOx and PM, sta ff also evaluated costeffectiveness by attributing half the total annuali zed cost to the PM emission

reductions and half to the NOx emission reductions. The resulting cost-effectiveness values using that method are $6, 400 per ton of NOx reduced and $345,000 per ton of PM reduced.

For perspective, the cost-effectiveness values of t he proposed regulation are compared to that for other regulations recently ado pted by the Board. For example, the Heavy Duty Urban Bus Engines and Fleet Rule for Tra nsit Agencies , approved by the Board in September 2005, estimate d a costeffectiveness of nearly $68,000 per ton of NOx redu ced, assuming all of the

costs are attributed to NOx emissions reductions. T he average cost-effectiveness of the proposed regulation is below the urban bus r egulation’s value, as are the calculations for the individual terminals, with the exception of one terminal at Oakland, which is slightly above this cost-effectiv eness level.

The highest cost-effective values for regulations a dopted by the Board to reduce PM emissions was about $320,000 per ton of PM reduc ed for the Diesel24

Particulate Control Measure for On-Road Heavy-Duty Diesel-Fueled Vehicles Owned or Operated by Public Agencies and Utilities . If the total costs of the proposed regulation are split between NOx emissions reductions and diesel PM reductions, then about half of the terminals are be low this cost-effectiveness threshold. Again, the auxiliary engine fuel regula tion already has reduced hotelling diesel PM emissions by 70 percent.

The cost-effectiveness was calculated for each affe cted ship terminal in

California. Table 5 shows the cost-effectiveness e stimate for the proposed regulation expressed in three ways for each type of affected ship category. All costs are in equivalent 2006 expenditure dollars.

Table 5: Summary of Cost-Effectiveness for Shore-P ower

All Costs for

NOx Only All Costs for

PM Only Half Costs for

NOx Half Costs for

PM (Dollars per Ton of Pollutant Reduced)

Container Ships—

POLA/POLB $11,000 to

$32,000 $400,000 to

$1.1 million $5,500 to

$16,000 $200,000 to

$550,000

Container Ships--

Oakland $11,500 to

$71,000 $400,000 to

$2.5 million $5,800 to

$36,000 $200,000 to

$1.2 million

Passenger Ships $13,000 to

$47,000 $440,000 to

$1.6 million $6,400 to

$23,000 $220,000 to

$810,000

Reefer Ships $16,000 to

$30,000 $600,000 to

$1 million $7,900 to

$15,000 $300,000 to

$510,000

13. FEASIBILITY OF PROPOSED REGULATION

The proposed regulation allows for two options to r educe hotelling emissions: 1) ship operators can either shut down their auxili ary engines while in port (except for three or five permissible hours of oper ation per visit), or 2) they can reduce the at-berth emissions from those auxiliary engines by specified percentages while docked.

Staff expects most ship operators to comply with th e limited engine use option and to use shore power provided by the grid. Howev er, some ship operators may decide to reduce their fleet hotelling emission s by applying a number of other techniques to their fleet, including using al ternative sources of power at the berth (e.g. distributed generation equipment), and using onboard or shore-based engine emission control technologies.25 A. Grid Supplied Shore Power

Grid-supplied shore power has been proven and is te chnologically feasible. Shore power is already being used or will soon be u sed for passenger ships, container ships, bulk ships and oil tankers at Cali fornia ports. POLA and POLB have committed to adding shore power to their passe nger ship terminals and to several of their container ship terminals. Ships w ill soon be utilizing shore power

at two additional container terminals at POLA and a t a tanker terminal at POLB. Several passenger ships that visit California ports have been retrofitted to connect to shore power, and some container-ship own ers have committed to adding shore power equipment to their new-builds an d retrofitting some of their existing fleet with shore-power capabilities.

Although this is a proven technology, there are cha llenges to implementing shore power as an emission reduction measure. Modificat ions would be needed to both terminals and ships to utilize grid-based shor e power as a method for reducing hotelling emissions. The modifications tha t would be necessary to install and utilize shore power are discussed in more detai l in Chapter VII of the Technical Support Document.

B. Alternative Emission Reduction Measures

An alternative to the limited engine use compliance approach is the “emissions reduction option,” in which the fleets reduce their auxiliary engine emissions at a port by specified percentages and dates. The emiss ion reduction techniques that could be applied to a fleet include: 1) using selec t vessels for grid-supplied power based on potential auxiliary engine emission reduct ions rather than fleet visit percentages; 2) using alternative sources of power (distributed generation equipment) to provide power to a vessel; 3) using a lternative emission controls onboard a vessel or located adjacent to the vessel; and 4) using a combination of these techniques.

Alternative emission control technologies for auxil iary engines could include alternative fuels and post-combustion control measu res. Emission control equipment for auxiliary engines could be placed at the berth or onboard the ships. While many control technologies have been p roven to reduce emissions of PM and NOx from land-based diesel-fueled engines , there is limited experience in applying these technologies to marine vessel engines. In addition, there are currently no emission control strategies verified by the ARB for marine applications. Some of these technologies have been applied to harbor craft engines, but those applications were on much smalle r engines than the auxiliary engines on ocean-going vessels.

A few demonstration projects have been conducted on auxiliary ocean-going vessel engines. These involved the use of portable distributed generation, a26

seawater scrubber, biodiesel fuel, an on-demand wat er/fuel emulsion system, and selective catalytic reduction. However, becaus e these technology demonstrations are still at an early stage, ARB sta ff cannot predict at this time the future deployment or feasibility of these alter native technologies as effective emission control measures for auxiliary engines on ships at berth.

14. ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED

Staff considered two regulatory alternatives: 1) ta rgeting the highest-emitting ships to obtain the necessary reductions, or 2) usi ng best available control technology (BACT) on auxiliary engines while the sh ip is hotelling.

Alternative 1 would target the ships that make the most visits to specific ports and make them use shore power or an equivalent cont rol technology to reduce hotelling emissions. For example, a requirement un der this regulatory alternative might state “container ships making more than four visits to a California port in 2014 must turn off their engines or use an alternat ive control technology.”

Staff estimated that this regulatory alternative wo uld be as effective as the proposed regulation; however, staff did not pursue this alternative because of the complexity and difficulty of tracking the ships tha t were required to reduce emissions. Many of these ships would be reposition ed elsewhere, while other ships would replace them in California service, cre ating excessive recordkeeping requirements and practical enforcement challenges.

Alternative 2 requires vessel operators to install BACT on their auxiliary engines. Currently, few emission-control technologies that h ave been used successfully on land-based engine applications have been demonst rated on marine engines. Nevertheless, for the purpose of determining a pote ntial cost-effectiveness of this alternative, staff selected selective catalytic red uction (SCR) for NOx emissions reductions and diesel oxidation catalyst (DOC) for diesel PM emissions

reductions.

Installing this equipment on the same ships affecte d by the proposed regulation would cost less than the overall cost of the propos ed regulation. However, the reduction of PM emissions would be considerably les s with this BACT alternative because DOCs achieve only about 25 percent PM emiss ion reductions. Furthermore, the varying load of the auxiliary engi nes during transiting, maneuvering, and hotelling would compromise the per formance of the SCR, achieving less than 80 percent emissions reduction.

Considering the unproven application of these techn ologies for marine engines, fewer total emissions reductions, and much higher c ost-effective values for diesel PM emissions reductions, staff did not pursue this alternative regulatory

alternative.27

15. OUTREACH

ARB’s outreach efforts for the proposed regulation began during the development of its draft cold-ironing feasibility r eport (Evaluation Report). ARB staff first discussed a plan for analyzing the cost -effectiveness of cold-ironing ocean-going vessels at a public consultation meetin g on November 9, 2004.

During the Evaluation Report’s development, staff v isited four ports in California: Los Angeles, Long Beach, Oakland, and San Diego. S taff also visited three cold-ironing applications in the State. Staff also held conference calls or met with shipping companies, utility companies, environmenta l groups, and other organizations interested in cold-ironing applicatio ns.

ARB staff solicited public input on the Evaluation Report when it was released in

March 2006 and considered the comments received whe n they began developing draft concepts for a shore power regulat ion.

Staff also coordinated with the Ports of Los Angele s and Long Beach in the development of the San Pedro Bay Ports Clean Air Ac tion Plan (CAAP), which

was released in November 2006. The CAAP identifies shore power as a measure to control hotelling emissions and identifi es specific terminals and berths that will be equipped with shore power capab ility and the expected completion dates for these projects. ARB staff con sidered the CAAP’s shore power requirements as we began our development of t he proposed regulation with a goal of developing a proposed measure that w ould be consistent with the CAAP and complementary to the ports’ ongoing emissi ons reduction efforts.

ARB staff and interested parties formed a workgroup in early 2007 to assist staff with developing a shore power regulation. Many of the stakeholders that assisted ARB staff with developing the Evaluation R eport were also members of the workgroup.

Five shore power workgroup meetings were held betwe en January and August 2007. At the end of that process, ARB staff decid ed that it was appropriate to transition from the workgroup process to a more for mal rulemaking process. Subsequently, staff held four public workshops in S eptember 2007 to discuss the draft proposed regulation. Two of these workshops were evening meetings held in community centers near ports, where staff could seek input from those communities most impacted by hotelling emissions.

ARB staff created a shore power electronic list ser ve and webpage to notify interested parties of the workgroups and to post dr afts of the regulation before they were discussed at the meetings. Over 2000 ind ividuals and companies have subscribed to the shore power list serve.28

In addition to the workgroup and workshop meetings, staff’s outreach efforts also included hundreds of personal contacts via telephon e and electronic mail; numerous individual meetings with interested partie s, including port representatives, environmental groups, utility repr esentatives, and shipping representatives; and informational visits to ports. Staff visited the Port of Hueneme in early 2007, where staff had the opportun ity to observe refrigerated cargo ships carrying break-bulk products and discus s regulation development with port staff. ARB staff also toured a container ized refrigerated cargo ship at the Port of San Diego. At the Port of Oakland, ARB staff toured a container ship that was equipped with shore power capability and o bserved a demonstration of a portable distributed generation power source for powering container ships while in port.

16. ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE

A public process that involves all parties affected by the proposed regulation is an important component of ARB rulemaking activities . The proposal is consistent with the ARB’s environmental justice policy to redu ce health risks from toxic air contaminants in all communities, including low-inco me and minority communities. The proposed regulation would reduce diesel PM and other emissions from ocean-going vessels at berth in communities surroun ding the six major ports of California. The majority of these reductions will occur at the Los Angeles-Long Beach and Bay Area ports, which are surrounded by d ensely populated areas, including some in low-income and minority communiti es. Therefore, the proposal will help address environmental justice concerns by reducing emissions and health risks in the areas where hotelling emissions have the greatest impacts.

17. IMPLEMENTATION AND ENFORCEMENT

We believe that ARB staff needs to take the followi ng actions to efficiently and effectively implement the proposed regulation:

• develop an outreach program to inform the 35 ship companies, 31 terminals and six ports affected by the proposed regulation of the regulation’s requirements, as well as provide infor mation about incentive programs such as the existing Carl Moyer program an d the upcoming Proposition 1B air quality mitigation funds;

• develop recordkeeping and reporting guidance; and,

• provide implementation guidance and assistance as needed.

18. RECOMMENDATION

We recommend the Board approve the proposed regulat ion for ocean-going vessels at berth presented in Appendix A of the Sta ff Report. The proposal would provide substantial benefits by requiring die sel-fueled auxiliary engines on29

ocean-going vessels to be shut down while in port, or reducing an equivalent amount of emissions by using alternative control me thods. These benefits include reducing diesel PM, NOx, and other air poll utant emissions from these engines which, in turn, would reduce human exposure to such pollutants and the concomitant health risk across California, particul arly in communities adjacent to the ports. ARB staff believes the proposed regulat ion and its recordkeeping and reporting requirements are technologically feasible , cost-effective, and necessary to carry out the Board’s responsibilities under Sta te law and implement provisions of the Emission Reduction Plan for Ports and Goods Movement approved by the Board in April 2006.30

REFERENCES:

California Air Resources Board. Evaluation of Cold-Ironing Ocean-Going

Vessels at California Ports ; March 2006. http://www.arb.ca.gov/ports/shorepower/report.pdf

California Air Resources Board. Expanded List of Early Action Measures to

Reduce Greenhouse Gas Emissions in California Recom mended for Board

Consideration , October 2007.

California Air Resources Board. Proposed Amendments to the Exhaust Emission Standards for 2007-2009 Model-Year Heavy D uty Urban Bus Engines and the Fleet Rule for Transit Agencies ; September 2005. (ARB, 2005c)

California Air Resources Board. Proposed Diesel Particulate Matter Control Measure for On-Road Heavy-Duty Diesel-Fueled Vehicl es Owned or Operated by Public Agencies and Utilities ; October 2005. (ARB, 2005b)

California Air Resources Board. Proposed Early Actions to Mitigate Climate Change in California , April 2007.

California Air Resources Board. Risk Reduction Plan to Reduce Particulate Matter Emissions from Diesel-Fueled Engines and Veh icles ; October 2000. http://www.arb.ca.gov/diesel/documents/rrpapp.htm

Port of Los Angeles and Port of Long Beach. San Pedro Bay Ports Clean Air

Action Plan ; November 2006. http://www.portoflosangeles.org/DOC/CAAP_Tech_Repor t_Final.pdf and/or http://www.polb.com/civica/filebank/blobdload.asp?B lobID=3451

Schwarzenegger, Arnold, “Executive Order S-3-05.” J une 1, 2005.

### Appendix

Proposed Regulations for At-Berth Ocean-Going Vesse lsA-1 PROPOSED REGULATION ORDER

OPERATIONAL HOUR LIMITS AND OTHER REQUIREMENTS FOR

AUXILIARY DIESEL ENGINES OPERATED ON

OCEAN-GOING VESSELS AT-BERTH IN A CALIFORNIA PORT

Adopt new section 2299.3, title 13, chapter 5.1, Ca lifornia Code of Regulations (CCR), to read as follows:

(Note: The entire text of section 2299.3 is new la nguage.):

Section 2299.3. Operational Hour Limits and Other Requirements for Auxiliary Diesel Engines Operated on Ocean-Going Ve ssels At-Berth in a

California Port.

(a) Purpose

.

The purpose of this section is to reduce oxides of nitrogen (NOx) and diesel particulate matter (PM) emissions from the operatio n of auxiliary engines on container ships, passenger ships, and refrigerated cargo ships while these vessels are docked at berth at a California port. This section reduces emissions by limiting the time during which auxiliary diesel engines are operated on the regulated vessels while such vessels are docked at- berth in a California port, as well as by applying other requirements. This secti on implements provisions of the Goods Movement Emission Reduction Plan, adopted by the Air Resources Board (ARB) in April 2006, to reduce emissions and health risk from ports and the movement of goods in California. This section also helps achieve the goals specified in the California Global Warming Solution s Act of 2006, established under California law by Assembly Bill 32 (Stats. 20 06, ch. 488) and set forth in Health and Safety Code § 38500 et seq.

(b) Applicability and General Exemptions.

(1) Except as provided in this subsection (b), this section applies to any person who owns, operates, charters, rents, or leas es any U.S. or foreign-flagged container ship, passenger ship, or refrigerated cargo ship that visits a California port. In addition, t his section also applies to any person who owns or operates a port or terminal located at a port where container, passenger, or refrigerated cargo v essels visit.

(2) Nothing in this section shall be construed to a mend, repeal, modify, or change in any way any applicable U.S. Coast Guard r equirements. Any person subject to this section shall be respons ible for ensuring compliance with both U.S. Coast Guard regulations a nd theA-2 requirements of this section, including but not lim ited to, obtaining any necessary approvals, exemptions, or orders from the U.S. Coast

Guard.

(3) The requirements of this section do not apply to:

(A) Ocean-going vessel voyages that are comprised of continuous

and expeditious navigation through any of the Regul ated California Waters for the purpose of traversing suc h bodies of water without entering California internal or estua rine waters or calling at a port, roadstead, or terminal facility. “Continuous and expeditious navigation” includes stopping and ancho ring only to the extent such stopping and anchoring are required by the U.S. Coast Guard; rendered necessary by force majeure or distress; or made for the purpose of rendering assistance to per sons, ships, or aircraft in danger or distress. This exemption does not apply to the passage of an ocean-going vessel that engages i n any of the prejudicial activities specified in United Nations Convention on the Law of the Seas (UNCLOS) 1982, Article 19, subpart 2. Further, notwithstanding any Coast Guard mandated stops or s tops due to force majeure or the rendering of assistance, this exemption does not apply to a vessel that was otherwise scheduled or intended to

enter California internal or estuarine waters or ca ll at a port, roadstead or terminal facility.

(B) Auxiliary engines on-board ocean-going vessel s owned or

operated by any branch of local, state, federal gov ernment, or by a foreign government, when such vessels are operate d on government non-commercial service. However, such v essels are encouraged to act in a manner consistent, so far as is reasonable and practicable, with this section.

(C) Steamships while berthed at a California port

.

(D) Auxiliary engines while such engines are ope rating primarily on

liquefied natural gas or compressed natural gas.

(c) Definitions.

For purposes of this section, the definitions in He alth and Safety Code sections 39010 through 39060 shall apply except as otherwise specified in this section:

(1) “Alternative Control Technologies” means techno logies, techniques, or

measures that reduce the emissions of NOx and PM fr om an auxiliary diesel engine other than shutting down the engine.A-3

(2) “Auxiliary Engine” means an engine on an ocean- going vessel designed primarily to provide power for uses other than propulsion, except that all diesel-electric engines shall be co nsidered “auxiliary diesel engines” for purposes of this section.

(3) “Baseline Fleet Emissions” means the total emis sions from all vessels in a fleet during all berthing times in a calendar year or other specified time period. For purposes of calculating the basel ine fleet emissions, the auxiliary engines on the vessels in the fleet s hall be assumed to

use marine diesel fuel while at berth.

(4) “Berthing Time” means the time period that begi ns when the vessel is

first tied to the berth and ends when the vessel is untied from the berth.

(5) “California Ports” means:

(A) The Port of Hueneme, the Port of Los Angeles (P OLA) and Port of Long Beach (POLB), the Port of Oakland, the Port of San Diego, and the Port of San Francisco;

(B) For purposes of this section, POLA and POLB are treated as one
port.

(6) “Container Vessel” means a self-propelled ocean -going vessel constructed or adapted primarily to carry uniform-s ized ocean freight

containers.

(7) “Diesel Engine” means an internal combustion, c ompression-ignition (CI) engine with operating characteristics signific antly similar to the theoretical diesel combustion cycle. The regulatio n of power by controlling fuel supply in lieu of a throttle is in dicative of a compression ignition engine.

(8) “Diesel-Electric Engine” means a diesel engine connected to a generator that is used as a source of electricity f or propulsion or other

uses.

(9) “Diesel Particulate Matter” means the particles found in the exhaust of diesel engines, which may agglomerate and adsorb ot her species to form structures of complex physical and chemical pr operties.

(10) “Distributed Generation” shall have the same m eaning as that term is defined in title 17, CCR, section 94202.

(11) “Docked at the Berth” means the state of being tied to a berth.A-4

(12) “Emergency Event” means the period of time dur ing which any of the following events occurs; the emergency event begins when such an event begins and ends when the event is over:

(A) Any situation arising from a sudden and reasona bly unforeseen event beyond the control of the master that threate ns the safety of the vessel;

(B) The utility serving the port states that electr ical power will be temporarily unavailable as a result of equipment fa ilure; or

(C) The electrical system at the terminal cannot pr ovide electrical power as a result of equipment failure; or

(13) “Executive Officer” means the executive office r of the Air Resources Board (ARB), or his or her designee.

(14) “Fleet” means all container, passenger, and re frigerated cargo (reefer) vessels, visiting a specific California port, which are owned or operated under the direct control of the same person. Direc t control includes, but is not limited to, vessels that are operated un der a contract, lease, or other arrangement with a third-party for the thi rd-party to operate the vessel. For the purposes of this section, a person shall be deemed to have separate fleets for each California port visit ed. For example, if a person owns or operates vessels that visit both the Port of Los Angeles and Port of Oakland, that person is deemed to have two fleets, one a

“POLA-based fleet” and the other a “Port of Oakland -based fleet.”

(15) “IMO” means the International Maritime Organiz ation.

(16) “Landlord Port” means a California port that l eases the port’s real property to a person(s).

(17) “Master” means the person who operates an ocea n-going vessel or is otherwise in charge of the vessel’s operations.

(18) “Ocean-Going Vessel” means a commercial, gover nment, or military vessel meeting any one of the following criteria:

(A) A vessel greater than or equal to 400 feet in l ength overall (LOA) as defined in 50 CFR § 679.2, as adopted June 19, 1 996;A-5 (B) A vessel greater than or equal to 10,000 gross tons (GT ITC) pursuant to the convention measurement (internation al system) as defined in 46 CFR § 69.51-.61, as adopted Septem ber 12,
1989; or

(C) A vessel propelled by a marine compression igni tion engine with a per-cylinder displacement of greater than or equal to 30 liters.

For the purposes of this section, “ocean-going vess el” will be used interchangeably with the term “vessel.”

(19) “Operate” means steering or otherwise running the vessel or its functions while the vessel is underway, moored, anc hored, or at berth.

(20) “Operate an Auxiliary Diesel Engine” means run ning or idling an auxiliary diesel engine such that it is producing m echanical work or electricity or is otherwise consuming fuel.

(21) “Own” means having all the incidents of owners hip, including the legal title, of a vessel whether or not that person leads , rents, or pledges the vessel; having or being entitled to the possession of a vessel as the purchaser under a conditional sale contract; or bei ng the mortgagor of

a vessel.

(22) “Oxides of Nitrogen” means compounds of nitric oxide (NO), nitrogen dioxide (NO 2 ), and other oxides of nitrogen, which are typicall y created during combustion processes and are major contribut ors to smog formation and acid deposition.

(23) “Particulate Matter” means any airborne finely divided material, except uncombined water, which exists as a liquid or solid at standard conditions (e.g., dust, smoke, mist, fumes, or smog ).

(24) “Passenger Vessel” means a self-propelled vess el constructed or adapted primarily to carry people.

(25) “Person” includes all of the following:

(A) Any person, firm, association, organization, pa rtnership, business trust, corporation, limited liability company, or c ompany;

(B) Any state or local governmental agency or publi c district, or any officer or employee thereof;A-6 (C) The United States or its agencies, to the exten t authorized by

federal law.

(26) “Post-Baseline Fleet Emissions” means the tota l emissions from all vessels in a fleet after the application of alterna tive control technologies during all berthing times in a calenda r year or other specified time period. For purposes of calculating the baseline fleet emissions, the auxiliary engines on the vessels in the fleet shall be

assumed to use marine diesel fuel while at berth.

(27) “Refrigerated Cargo (or Reefer) Vessel” means a self-propelled vessel constructed or adapted primarily to carry refrigera ted cargo. Reefer vessels include vessels where the cargo may be stor ed in large refrigerated rooms within the vessel or vessels tha t carry exclusively refrigerated cargo containers.

(28) “Responsible Official” means the individual(s) with the authority to certify that all vessels in a fleet comply with app licable requirements of this regulation.

(29) “Shore power” refers to electrical power being provided by either the local utility or by distributed generation.

(30) “Steamship” means a self-propelled vessel in w hich the primary propulsion and electrical power are provided by ste am boilers.

(31) “Synchronous Power Transfer” means the synchro nized switchover in vessel-based power to shore-based power without a l oss in power during such transfer.

(32) “Terminal” means a facility consisting of whar ves, piers, docks and other berthing locations and adjacent storage, whic h are used primarily for loading and unloading of cargo or material from vessels or the temporary storage of this cargo or material on-site

.

(33) “Terminal Operator” means a person that leases terminal property from a port for the purpose of loading and unloading of cargo or material from vessels or the temporary storage of this cargo or material on-site.

(34) “Utility” shall have the same meaning and be u sed interchangeably with the term “Electric Utility” as defined in Publ ic Resources Code

section 28105.

(35) “Verified Emission Control Strategy” means an emission control strategy that has been verified pursuant to the “Ve rification ProcedureA-7 for In-Use Strategies to Control Emissions from Die sel Engines” in title 13, California Code of Regulations, commencing with section 2700, which is incorporated herein by reference.

(36) “Visit” means the time period that begins when an ocean-going vessel initially ties to a berth (the beginning of the vis it) and ends when it casts off the lines (the end of the visit) at a ber th in a California port. Separate and sequential visits shall collectively b e deemed a single

visit when a vessel ties to two or more berths at t he same California port and the time interval between leaving one bert h and tying to another berth in the same port is less than two hou rs.

(d) Vessel In-Use Operational Requirements.

(1) Limits on Hours and Other Aspects of Operation for Auxiliary Diesel Engines on Container, Passenger, and Refrigerated C argo (Reefer)

Vessels

.

(A) Except as provided in subsection (d)(2), beginn ing January 1, 2014, no less than 50 percent of a fleet’s visits t o a California port in a calendar quarter, rounded to the nearest whole visit, shall meet the following limits on the number of hours au xiliary diesel engines on such vessels may be operated at berth:

1. Three hours total per visit, provided the visiti ng vessel uses a synchronous power transfer process to change from v esselbased power to shore-based power; or

2. Five hours total per visit, provided the visitin g vessel does not use a synchronous power transfer process to change from vessel-based power to shore-based power.

For example, if a person’s fleet makes 10 visits to a California port in a calendar quarter, the auxiliary diesel engines on vessels in at least 5 of those visits shall be operated no more t han a combined 3 or 5 hours total, depending on whether a synchron ous power transfer is used. The 3- and 5-hour limit applies to the combined operating time for all auxiliary diesel engines use d in a vessel visit, rather than on a per-engine basis.

(B) Except as provided in subsection (d)(2), beginn ing January 1, 2020, no less than 80 percent of a fleet’s visits t o a California port in a calendar quarter, rounded to the nearest whole visit, shall meet the following limits on the number of hours au xiliary diesel engines on such vessels may be operated at berth:A-8 1. Three hours total per visit, provided the visiti ng vessel uses a synchronous power transfer process to change from v esselbased power to shore-based power; or

2. Five hours total per visit, provided the visitin g vessel does not use a synchronous power transfer process to change from vessel-based power to shore-based power.

For example, if a person’s fleet makes 10 visits to a California port in a calendar quarter, the auxiliary diesel engines on vessels in at least 5 of those visits shall be operated no more t han a combined 3 or 5 hours total, depending on whether a synchron ous power transfer is used. The 3- and 5-hour limit applies to the combined operating time for all auxiliary diesel engines use d in a vessel visit, rather than on a per-engine basis.

(C) Compliance with the requirements in subsection (d)(1)(A) and (d)(1)(B) shall be determined quarterly for the per iods specified as

follows:

1. January 1 through March 31, inclusive;

2. April 1 through June 30, inclusive;

3. July 1 through September 30, inclusive; and

4. October 1 through December 31, inclusive.

(D) Except as otherwise specified in subsection (d) (1)(F), the requirements of subsection (d)(1)(A) and (d)(1)(B) do not apply to:

1. A fleet comprised solely of container or reefer vessels that visits a California port fewer than 25 times total in a calendar year; and

2. A fleet comprised solely of passenger vessels th at visits a California port fewer than 5 times total in a calen dar year.

(E) No person shall sell, supply, offer to supply, or purchase electrical power for use on a vessel during a visit in lieu of using the onboard auxiliary diesel engines, unless such electri cal power is either supplied by the local utility or is otherwis e generated by equipment that meet the following emission standard s:A-9 1. NOx emissions no greater than 0.03 gram per kilo watt-hour (g/kW-hr);

2. PM emissions equivalent to the combustion of nat ural gas with a fuel sulfur content of no more than one grain per 100 standard cubic foot;

3. CO 2 emissions shall be no greater than 500 g/kW-hr; an d

4. Ammonia emissions no greater than five parts per million on a dry volume basis (ppmdv), if selective catalytic re duction is

used.

(F) Notwithstanding the requirements specified in s ubsection (d)(1)(A) and (d)(1)(B), any ocean-going vessel equ ipped to receive shore power that visits a berth equipped to provide compatible shore power shall utilize the shore powe r during every visit to that berth. This requirement shall not ap ply under the following circumstances:

1. The master of the vessel reasonably and actually determines that an emergency event, as defined in subsection ( c)(12)(A), is in effect and the use of shore power during the emergency event would endanger the vessel’s safety. Shore po wer shall

be used for the remainder of the visit once the mas ter determines that the emergency event no longer exist s;

2. An emergency event, as defined in subsection (c) (12)(B) or (c)(12)(C), is in effect. Shore power shall be use d for the remainder of the visit once the emergency event is no longer in effect; or

3. The California Independent System Operator (CAIS O) has declared a Stage 3 emergency and the utility provid ing electrical power to the port is requesting the term inal where the vessel is located to reduce the use of grid-bas ed electrical power. Shore power shall be used for the remainder of the visit once CAISO declares the Stage 3 emergency is over.

(2) Emissions Reduction Option.

The purpose of this provision is to allow any perso n the option of complying with the requirements of this subsection (d)(2) in lieu of meeting the requirements of subsection (d)(1).A-10 Requirements.

(A) For fleets visiting terminals that are providin g electrical power from the utility’s electrical grid, the owner or op erator of the fleets shall comply with the following schedule:

1. For the quarter beginning on January 1, 2014, an d each subsequent quarter through December 31, 2019, inclu sive, the

NOx and PM emissions at berth from the fleet’s auxi liary engines must be reduced by 50 percent from the base line fleet

emissions.

2. For the quarter beginning on January 1, 2020, an d each subsequent quarter thereafter, the NOx and PM emiss ions at berth from the fleet’s auxiliary engines must be re duced by 80 percent from the baseline fleet emissions.

(B) For fleets visiting terminals that are providin g electrical power from sources that are not part of an utility’s elec trical grid, or alternative control technologies are used to reduce the emissions of the fleet, the owner or operator of the fleet sh all comply with the following schedule:

1. For the quarter beginning on January 1, 2010, an d each subsequent quarter through December 31, 2011, inclu sive, the

NOx and PM emissions at berth from the fleet’s auxi liary engines must be reduced by 20 percent from the base line fleet

emissions.

2. For the quarter beginning on January 1, 2012, an d each subsequent quarter through December 31, 2013, inclu sive, the

NOx and PM emissions at berth from the fleet’s auxi liary engines must be reduced by 40 percent from the base line fleet

emissions.

3. For the quarter beginning on January 1, 2014, an d each subsequent quarter through December 31, 2015, inclu sive, the

NOx and PM emissions at berth from the fleet’s auxi liary engines must be reduced by 60 percent from the base line fleet

emissions.

4. For the quarter beginning on January 1, 2016, an d each subsequent quarter thereafter, the NOx and PM emiss ions from the fleet’s auxiliary engines must be reduced by 80 percent from the baseline fleet emissions.A-11 (C) For fleets visiting terminals that are using a combination of electrical power from the utility grid and electric al power from sources that are not part of an utility’s electrica l grid, or alternative control technologies, the following schedule applie s:

1. For the quarter beginning on January 1, 2012, an d each subsequent quarter through December 31, 2013, inclu sive, the

NOx and PM emissions at berth from the fleet’s auxi liary engines must be reduced by 20 percent from the base line fleet

emissions.

2. For the quarter beginning on January 1, 2014, an d each subsequent quarter through December 31, 2019, inclu sive, the NOx and PM emissions from the fleet’s auxiliary eng ines must be reduced by 50 percent from the baseline fleet em issions.

3. For the quarter beginning on January 1, 2020, an d each subsequent quarter thereafter, the NOx and PM emiss ions from the fleet’s auxiliary engines must be reduced by 80 percent from the baseline fleet emissions.

(D) Compliance with the requirements of subsection (d)(2)(A), (d)(2)(B), and (d)(2)(C) shall be determined quarte rly for the periods specified as follows:

1. January 1 through March 31, inclusive;

2. April 1 through June 30, inclusive;

3. July 1 through September 30, inclusive; and

4. October 1 through December 31, inclusive.

(E) No person shall sell, supply, offer to supply, or purchase electrical power for use on a vessel during a visit in lieu of using the onboard auxiliary diesel engines, unless such electri cal power is either be supplied by the local utility or is other wise generated by equipment that meet the following emission:

1. NOx Emissions.

a. Up to and including December 31, 2013, the NOx emissions shall be no greater than 2 g/kW-hr at any time;

andA-12 b. Beginning January 1, 2014, the NOx emissions sha ll be no greater than 0.2 g/kW-hr at any time;

2. PM emissions shall be no greater than the PM emi ssions from combustion of natural gas with a fuel sulfur conten t of no more than one grain per 100 standard cubic foot;

3. CO 2 emissions shall be no greater than 500 g/kW-hr; an d

4. Ammonia emissions shall be no greater than five ppmdv if selective catalytic reduction is used.

(e) Exemptions to the Three-Hour or Five-Hour Limit ed Auxiliary Engine Operation Requirement in Subsection (d)(1)(A)(1), ( d)(1)(A)(2), (d)(1)(B)(1) and (d)(1)(B)(2).

(1) Emergency Event.

All of the following requirements apply to claimed exemptions based on emergency events:

(A) If the master of the vessel reasonably and actu ally determines that an emergency event, as defined subsection (c)( 12), occurs during the vessel’s visit to a California port, the master of the vessel may operate the vessel’s auxiliary engines d uring the emergency event;

(B) The master shall not operate the vessel’s auxil iary engines for more than one hour beyond the time when the master receives notification that the emergency event is over, dete rmines that the emergency event is over, or should have known the e mergency event is over; and

(C) The provisions of paragraph (B) above notwithst anding, the master may continue to operate the auxiliary engine s for no more

than five hours if the master receives notification that the emergency event is over, determines that the emerge ncy event is over, or should have known the emergency event is o ver and the vessel is scheduled to leave port within five hours

.

(2) Delays Caused By U.S. Coast Guard or Department of Homeland Security Inspections.A-13 The Executive Officer may extend the three-hour/fiv e-hour operational requirement in subsection (d)(1)(A) and (d)(1)(B) i f the following criteria

are met:

(A) The initial inspection and clearance of the ves sel by the Department of Homeland Security exceeds one hour. The time extension granted shall be commensurate with the ex cess time necessary for inspection and clearance; or

(B) After the auxiliary engines have been put back into service pending departure from the berth, the scheduled dep arture of the vessel has been delayed by the United States (U.S.) Coast Guard or the Department of Homeland Security.

(f) Calculations for Emissions Reduction Option in Subs ection (d)(2).

(1) For the purposes of subsection (d)(2)(A), (d)(2 )(B), and (d)(2)(C), the percent emission reduction shall be calculated as f ollows:

Percent Reduction = (BFE – PBFE) / BFE

Where,

The baseline fleet and post-baseline fleet emission s are calculated as

follows:

(A) Baseline Fleet Emissions (BFE).

The baseline fleet emissions of NOx and PM shall be calculated using the following formula:

Baseline Fleet Emissions = 

### ∑ (emission rate x average berthing time x power requirement x visits)

Where:

“Emission rate” for each auxiliary engine is determ ined pursuant to subsection (f)(2);

“Average berthing time” for each vessel is determin ed for the applicable period specified in subsection (d)(2)(D) ;

“Power requirements” means the electrical power req uirement for each vessel as determined pursuant to subsection (f )(3);A-14 “Visits” means the total number of visits by the ve ssel during the applicable period specified in subsection (d)(2)(D) ; and

“ ∑ ” means the summation over the entire fleet subject to the emission reduction option.

(B) Post-Baseline Fleet Emissions (PBFE).

The post-baseline fleet emissions of NOx and PM sha ll be calculated using the following formula:

Post-Baseline Fleet Emissions = 

### ∑ (emission rate x average berthing time x power requirement x visits x contro l factor)

Where:

“Emission rate” for each auxiliary engine is determ ined pursuant to subsection (f)(2);

“Average berthing time” for each vessel is determin ed for the applicable period specified in subsection (d)(2)(D) ;

“Power requirements” means the electrical power req uirement for each vessel as determined pursuant to subsection (f )(3);

“Visits” means the total number of visits by the ve ssel during the applicable period specified in subsection (d)(2)(D) ;

“Control factor” means the applicable control facto r specified in subsection (f)(4); and

“ ∑ ” means the summation over the entire fleet subject to the emission reduction option.

(2) A person complying with the requirements of sub section (d)(2) may choose any of the following emissions rates for use in the calculations specified in subsection (f)(1)(A) and (f)(1)(B):

(A) Results from emission measurements for similar auxiliary diesel engines that are used to satisfy a marine engine st andard, including U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA ) emission standards for marine engines (40 CFR Part 94), and the

International Convention for the Prevention of Poll ution fromA-15 Ships, 1973, as modified by the Protocol of 1978 (M ARPOL 73/78), both of which are incorporated herein by re ference;

(B) Emission measurements approved by the Executive Officer and using the test methods specified in subsection (f)( 4)(B)(3); or

(C) In lieu of test data measured pursuant to parag raph (A) or (B) above, the following emission rates may be used as default

values:

1. 13.9 g/kW-hr for NOx.

2. 0.38 g/kW-hr for PM if 0.11 to 0.5 percent sulfu r marine gas oil

is used as a fuel.

3. 0.25 g/kW-hr for PM if 0.10 or less sulfur conte nt marine gas

oil is used as a fuel.

(3) Power Requirements.

(A) The following values in Table 1 may be used as default values for power requirements:

Table 1.

TEU = twenty-foot equivalent unit.

kW = kilowatt Ship Category Ship Size / Type Default Power Requirement (kW) Container Vessel <1000 TEU 1,000
1,000-1,999 TEU 1,300
2,000-2,999 TEU 1,600
3,000-3,999 TEU 1,900
4,000-4,999 TEU 2,200
5,000-5,999 TEU 2,300
6,000-6,999 TEU 2,500
7,000-7,999 TEU 2,900
8,000-9,999 TEU 3,300
10,000-12,000 TEU 3,700

Passenger Vessel No Default Value –

Use Actual Load
Reefer Break Bulk 1,300 Fully Containerized 3,300A-16 (B) In lieu of the default values above, the fleet operator may, with adequate supporting documentation, use the followin g:

1. The actual shore power usage, on a monthly basis , rounded to the nearest whole kW-hrs, of the vessels in the fle et utilizing shore power, or

2. The actual on-board power usage, on a monthly ba sis, rounded to the nearest whole kW-hrs, of the vessels in the fleet utilizing alternative control technologies.

(4) Control Factors.

(A) The emissions from vessels using grid power in lieu of the vessel’s auxiliary engines when the vessels are at berth are presumed to be reduced by 90 percent.

(B) No control efficiencies for alternative control technologies shall be used to comply with the requirements of this provis ion unless the

control efficiencies are calculated or measured as follows:

1. The control efficiencies shall be based on an em ission test protocol that is approved by the Executive Officer prior to conducting the emission measurements;

2. The results of the emission measurements conduct ed pursuant to paragraph 1 above are approved by the E xecutive Officer; and

3. Emission measurements are conducted using the fo llowing

test methods:

a. NOx and CO 2 shall be measured using California Air Resources Board (CARB) Test Method 100, dated July 1997, which is incorporated herein by reference, or equivalent district-approved test method;

b. Diesel PM shall be measured using ISO 8178 Test Procedures: ISO 8178-1: 1996(E) (“ISO 8178 Part 1”) ; ISO 8178-2:1996(E) (“ISO 8178 Part 2”); and ISO 8178-4: 1996(E) (“ISO 8178 Part 4”), all of which are incor porated herein by reference; and

c. Ammonia slip shall be measured using the Bay Are a Air Quality Management District Source Test ProcedureA-17 ST-1B, Ammonia Integrated Sampling, dated January 1982, which is incorporated herein by refer ence, or other equivalent district approved test method.

d. The sulfur content of fuels shall be determined pursuant to International Standard ISO 8754 (as adopted in 2003 ), which is incorporated herein by reference.

(C) Results from emission measurements from a verif ied emission control strategy may be used in conjunction with en gine emission

information.

(D) The Executive Officer may request periodic emis sion testing or other types of monitoring to verify the proper oper ation of alternative control technologies or to verify the e mission rate of an auxiliary engine.

1. At a minimum, emission control technologies shal l be tested as follows and the results of such testing provided to the Executive Officer within 30 days of the testing:

a. Shore-based systems shall be tested annually to demonstrate the overall percentage of emission redu ction being achieved.

b. Catalyst based air pollution control systems ins talled on vessels shall be tested after every 1,000 hours of operation to determine the overall percentage of emission red uction being achieved.

c. If Selective Catalytic Reduction (SCR) is used a s a control technology, the emissions of ammonia shall also be

measured at the same time the NOx emissions are bei ng measured.

2. The Executive Officer may modify the testing fre quency as he/she deems appropriate.

(g) Terminal Plan Requirements.

(1) A terminal that receives more than 50 vessel vi sits in 2008 shall submit a plan for the Executive Officer’s approval that di scusses how the

terminal will accommodate the vessels that will vis it the terminal who are subject to subsection (d)(1) and (d)(2). The t erminal shall submit the plan and subsequent updates to the plan accordi ng to the schedule below (Table 2). The plan updates shall address an y contingenciesA-18 that may be necessary for the vessels to meet the r equirements of subsection (d)(1)and (d)(2) by the applicable dates

.

Table 2.

Vessel Compliance Option Initial Terminal

Plan Due Date Subsequent Terminal Plan Updates

Grid-Based Shore Power: (d)(1) and (d)(2)(A) July 1, 2009 July 1, 2013 July 1, 2019

Alternative Control Technologies to Grid-Based Shore Power: (d)(2)(B) July 1, 2009 July 1, 2011 July 1, 2013 July 1, 2015

Combination of Grid-Based

Shore Power and Alternative Control Technologies: (d)(2)(C) July 1, 2009 July 1, 2011 July 1, 2013 July 1, 2015 July 1, 2019

(2) Plan Requirements for Grid-Based Shore Power.

(A) Specify the schedule for implementing infrastru cture modifications, including the following:

1. Utility infrastructure improvements, if any, out side the port boundary;

2. Improvements to port infrastructure; and

3. Major infrastructure improvements to terminal.

(B) Identification of existing berths to be modifie d or new berths to be constructed that will satisfy the requirements of s ubsection (d)(1).

(3) Plan Requirements for Alternative Control Techn ologies.

(A) Description of the approach that will be used t o reduce in-berth vessel emissions, including whether the approach is a vesselbased approach or shore-based approach;

(B) Identification and description of equipment;

(C) Berth(s) where the equipment will be used;A-19 (D) Specific vessels affected by the technology; an d

(E) Estimate of the expected reductions in NOx and PM emissions from vessels using the technology, including docume ntation supporting the anticipated reductions.

(4) Plan Requirements for a Combination of Grid-Bas ed Shore Power and Alternative Control Technologies.

(A) Identification of which berths will implement g rid-based shore power and which berths will implement alternative c ontrol technologies

(B) For berths implementing shore-based grid power, the plan must contain the information specified in subsection (g) (2).

(C) For berths implementing alternative control tec hnologies, the plan shall contain the information specified in subsecti on (g)(3).

(5) A port may submit terminal plans required under subsection (g)(1) on behalf of the terminals located at that port.

(h) Reporting and Recordkeeping Requirements

.

(1) Reporting and Recordkeeping Requirements for Pe rsons that Comply with Subsection (d)(1).

(A) The Responsible Official shall provide the foll owing reports to the

Executive Officer:

1. A vessel fleet plan, due to the Executive Office r by July 1, 2013, and an updated plan by July 1, 2019, which includes a listing of the vessels that would be aff ected by the requirements specified in subsection (d)(1) and the description of the ability of each vessel to use shore power.

The vessel fleet plan shall list the vessels that a re able to shut down the vessel’s auxiliary engines and use shore p ower, along with the related information as follows:

a. Name of the vessel, Lloyd’s number for the vesse l, and vessel category (container, passenger, or reefer); and

b. The port(s) each vessel(s) is expected to visit.A-20 2. An annual statement of compliance pursuant to su bsection (d)(1) and (d)(2).

a. The initial annual statement of compliance is du e to the Executive Officer by March 1, 2015. This statement is for the 2014 calendar year. Thereafter, the annual sta tement is due to the Executive Officer by March 1 of each year, certifying compliance with the requirements for the previous calendar year.

b. The annual statement of compliance shall include the following:

i. A statement signed by the Responsible Official t hat the requirements specified in subsection (d)(1) or (d)( 2)

have been met.

ii. Visit-related information for all vessels withi n a fleet that visited a California port. The list shall include the following information for each vessel:

I. Current name of the vessel; II. Lloyd’s number for the vessel; III. Vessel type (cargo, passenger, reefer); and IV. Visits, by port and terminal, where the auxilia ry engines were shut down;

iii. The information submitted pursuant to paragrap h 2.b.ii above shall be reported for the following periods:

I. January 1 through March 31, inclusive; II. April 1 through June 30, inclusive; III. July 1 through September 30, inclusive; and IV. October 1 through December 31, inclusive.

(B) Recordkeeping.

1. The following records shall be kept at a central location by the vessel operator. This information shall be supplie d to the Executive Officer within 30 days of a request from ARB inspectors or staff.

a. A logbook that records, for each visit, the date s, times, and other information as specified below:A-21 i. When the vessel initially tied to the berth and when the vessel cast-off the tie lines;

ii. When the Department of Homeland Security releas ed the vessel;

iii. When the auxiliary engines were initially shut down and subsequently restarted;

iv. Whether departure from the berth was delayed by the U.S. Coast Guard or other federal agency and identification of the agency that caused the delay;

v. If an emergency event occurred, a description of that emergency event;

vi. If the vessel could not use shore power as a re sult of the CAISO declaring a stage 3 emergency, and

vii. If a vessel could not use shore power as a res ult of equipment failure aboard the vessel

b. Copies of all current U.S. Department of Homelan d Security Bureau of Customs and Border Protection “V essel Entrance or Clearance Statement” documents (CBP For m 1300, version 02/02), which is incorporated herein by reference, if the vessel operator or owner is claim ing an exemption pursuant to subsection (e)(2)(A) or (e)(2 )(B).

2. All records required pursuant to this provision shall be retained for a minimum of five years.

(2) Reporting and Recordkeeping Requirements for Pe rsons Opting to Comply with the Emissions Reduction Option in Subse ction (d)(2).

(A) The Responsible Official shall provide the foll owing reports to the

Executive Officer:

1. A vessel fleet plan, due to the Executive Office r by the dates

shown in Table 3 below:A-22 Table 3.

Compliance Option Initial Vessel

Fleet Plan Subsequent Submittal

Due Dates

Grid-Based Shore Power: (d)(2)(A) July 1, 2013 July 1, 2019

Alternative Control Technologies to Grid-Based Shore Power: (d)(2)(B) July 1, 2009 July 1, 2011 July 1, 2013 July 1, 2015

Combination of Grid-Based

Shore Power and Alternative Control Technologies: (d)(2)(C) July 1, 2011 July 1, 2013 July 1, 2019

The vessel fleet plan shall include the following i tems:

a. List of the vessels included in the company’s fl eet; Lloyd’s number for each vessel, vessel category (cargo, passenger, reefer), average number of reefer contai ners carried by the vessel over the calendar year (conta iner vessels only), and power requirement for each vesse l (passenger and reefer vessels); and

b. Identify the potential alternative control techn iques that may be used to achieve the requirements specified i n subsection (d)(2). For each control technique, spe cify the following:

i. The vessels that would be affected by the techni que;

ii. The status of implementation of the alternative control technique; and

iii. The basis used in determining the expected emi ssion reduction, including submittal of any emission test ing or

other documentation.

2. An annual statement of compliance.

a. The initial annual statement of compliance is du e to the Executive Officer by the dates in Table 4 below:A-23 Table 4.

Thereafter, the annual compliance statement is due to the Executive Officer by March 1 of each year, certifyi ng compliance with the requirements for the previous y ear.

b. The following items, applicable to the calendar year in question, should be included with the statement of compliance:

i. A statement signed by the Responsible Official indicating that the NOx and PM emission reductions specified by (d)(2) have been achieved;

ii. The calculated NOx and PM baseline and post-bas eline emissions for each fleet, on a quarterly basis, as specified in (d)(2)(D). Include each vessel’s contribution to the fleet’s baseline and post-basel ine emissions; and

iii. Description of the technique(s) used, includin g alternative controls technology (or technologies), achievable emission reductions, and supporting documentation (e.g., source test results or verific ation documentation). For subsequent statements of compliance, the supporting documents can be

referenced.

(B) Recordkeeping.

1. The following records shall be kept at a central location by the master and the fleet vessel operator. This informa tion shall be Compliance Option Initial Submittal of Annual Statement of Compliance

Grid-Based Shore Power: (d)(2)(A) March 1, 2015

Alternative Control Technologies

to Grid-Based Shore Power: (d)(2)(B) March 1, 2011

Combination of Grid-Based Shore

Power and Alternative Control technologies: (d)(2)(C) March 1, 2013A-24 supplied to the Executive Officer within 30 days of a request
from ARB staff.

For each calendar year of vessel activity, a quarte rly summary of emissions that demonstrates compliance with the applicable emission reduction (2010, 2012, 2014, or 2016), whi ch includes the following:

a. The fleet’s baseline and post-baseline levels fo r NOx and
PM emissions; and

b. Each vessel’s contribution to fleet’s baseline a nd postbaseline NOx and PM emissions, including the follow ing

information:

i. Name of each vessel;

ii. Lloyd’s number for each vessel;

iii. Fuel type and average sulfur content of fuel f or each vessel;

iv. NOx and PM emissions for each vessel;

v. Average hotelling time for each vessel;

vi. Power requirements for each vessel while at ber th;

vii. For container vessels, the number of reefer containers imported and exported for each container vessel;

viii. Total visits to each California port made by the vessel;

ix. Technology used to reduce emissions and associa ted control factor used; and

x. Any equipment failure aboard a vessel that preve nted the vessel from using the emissions reduction technology

2. Records made pursuant to paragraph (2)(B) above shall be kept for a minimum of five years.A-25

(3) Reporting and Recordkeeping Requirements for Po rts and Terminals.

(A) Affected ports shall provide wharfinger informa tion to the Executive Officer annually, beginning with the whar finger information for calendar year 2010.

1. This information shall be provided to the Execut ive Officer no later than April 1 of the following year.

2. At a minimum, the wharfinger information shall i nclude for each vessel visiting the port:

a. Name of the vessel;

b. Vessel type;

c. Company operating the vessel;

d. Lloyd’s number for each vessel;

e. Berth used by the vessel; and

f. Date(s) and time the vessel was initially tied t o the berth and subsequently released from the berth.

(B) The terminal operator shall keep the following records. These records shall be supplied to the Executive Officer within 30 days of a request from ARB staff:

1. Electricity usage for shore power:

a. Monthly utility billing statements that separate ly identify electricity supplied for shore power;

b. Episodes of electrical service interruption by l ocal utility company, as confirmed and documented by local utili ty company; and

c. For distributed generation, monthly records that contain the following:

i. Names of vessels serviced; ii. Location of vessels serviced, by berth; iii. Date and time of use; and iv. Power, in megawatts, supplied to the vessels.A-26 2. Date, time, and description of equipment failure that affected the ability of vessels to turn off their auxiliary engines or use alternative control technologies to reduce emission s pursuant to (d)(2).

3. Record of each vessel that did not operate its a uxiliary engines while the vessel was docked at the terminal :

a. Name of vessel; and

b. Date and time each vessel was initially tied to the terminal.

4. Records made pursuant to paragraph (3)(B) above shall be kept for five years.

(4) Electronic submittals of records and other info rmation required under this section may be approved by the Executive Offic er upon request, provided such electronic submittals use digital sig natures that meet the requirements specified in Government Code section 1 6.5. Notwithstanding the approved submittal of electroni c records, the Executive Officer may request the submittal of a ha rd copy of any

electronic submittal.

(i) Violations.

(1) Except as otherwise specified in this subsectio n, any person who is subject to this section and commits a violation of any provision, prohibition, limit, standard, criteria, or requirem ent in this section is subject to the penalties, injunctive relief, and ot her remedies specified in Health and Safety Code section 42400 et seq., ot her applicable sections in the Health and Safety Code; and other a pplicable provisions as provided under California law for eac h violation. Nothing

in this section shall be construed to limit or othe rwise affect any applicable penalties or other remedies available un der federal law.

(2) Except as otherwise specified in this subsectio n, any failure to meet any provision, prohibition, limit, standard, criter ia, or requirement in this section, including but not limited to the applicabl e emission limits for supplied shore power and hours of engine operation limits, shall constitute a single, separate violation of this sec tion for each hour that a person operates the auxiliary diesel engine until such provision, prohibition, limit, standard, criteria, or requirem ent has been met.

(3) A violation of the recordkeeping and reporting requirements in this section shall constitute a single, separate violati on of this section forA-27

each day that the applicable recordkeeping or repo rting requirement

has not been met.

(j) Severability.

If any subsection, paragraph, subparagraph, senten ce, clause, phrase, or portion of this regulation is, for any reason, held invalid, unconstitutional, or unenforceable by any court of competent jurisdictio n, such portion shall be deemed as a separate, distinct, and independent pro vision, and such holding shall not affect the validity of the remain ing portions of the regulation.

NOTE: Authority cited: Sections 38560, 38560.5, 39600, 39 601, 41511, 43013, and 43018, Health and Safety Code. Reference: Sect ions 38560, 38560.5,
39000, 39001, 39515, 39516, 41510, 41511, 43013, an d 43018, Health and Safety Code; and Western Oil and Gas Ass’n v. Orange Country Air Pol lution

Control District

, (1975) 14 Cal.3d 411, 121 Cal.Rptr. 249.A-28 PROPOSED REGULATION ORDER

AIRBORNE TOXIC CONTROL MEASURE FOR

AUXILIARY DIESEL ENGINES OPERATED ON

OCEAN-GOING VESSELS AT-BERTH IN A CALIFORNIA PORT

Adopt new section 93118.3, title 17, chapter 1, sub chapter 7.5, California Code of Regulations (CCR), to read as follows:

(Note: The entire text of section 93118.3 is new l anguage.):

Section 93118.3. Airborne Toxic Control Measure fo r Auxiliary Diesel Engines Operated on Ocean-Going Vessels At-Berth in a California Port.

(a) Purpose

.

The purpose of this section is to reduce oxides of nitrogen (NOx) and diesel particulate matter (PM) emissions from the operatio n of auxiliary engines on container ships, passenger ships, and refrigerated cargo ships while these vessels are docked at berth at a California port. This section reduces emissions by limiting the time during which auxiliary diesel engines are operated on the regulated vessels while such vessels are docked at- berth in a California port, as well as by applying other requirements. This secti on implements provisions of the Goods Movement Emission Reduction Plan, adopted by the Air Resources Board (ARB) in April 2006, to reduce emissions and health risk from ports and the movement of goods in California. This section also helps achieve the goals specified in the California Global Warming Solution s Act of 2006, established under California law by Assembly Bill 32 (Stats. 20 06, ch. 488) and set forth in Health and Safety Code § 38500 et seq.

(b) Applicability and General Exemptions.

(1) Except as provided in this subsection (b), this section applies to any person who owns, operates, charters, rents, or leas es any U.S. or foreign-flagged container ship, passenger ship, or refrigerated cargo ship that visits a California port. In addition, t his section also applies to any person who owns or operates a port or terminal located at a port where container, passenger, or refrigerated cargo v essels visit.

(2) Nothing in this section shall be construed to a mend, repeal, modify, or change in any way any applicable U.S. Coast Guard r equirements. Any person subject to this section shall be respons ible for ensuring compliance with both U.S. Coast Guard regulations a nd theA-29

requirements of this section, including but not li mited to, obtaining any necessary approvals, exemptions, or orders from the U.S. Coast

Guard.

(3) The requirements of this section do not apply to:

(A) Ocean-going vessel voyages that are comprised of continuous

and expeditious navigation through any of the Regul ated California Waters for the purpose of traversing suc h bodies of water without entering California internal or estua rine waters or calling at a port, roadstead, or terminal facility. “Continuous and expeditious navigation” includes stopping and ancho ring only to the extent such stopping and anchoring are required by the U.S. Coast Guard; rendered necessary by force majeure or distress; or made for the purpose of rendering assistance to per sons, ships, or aircraft in danger or distress. This exemption does not apply to the passage of an ocean-going vessel that engages i n any of the prejudicial activities specified in United Nations Convention on the Law of the Seas (UNCLOS) 1982, Article 19, subpart 2. Further, notwithstanding any Coast Guard mandated stops or s tops due to force majeure or the rendering of assistance, this exemption does not apply to a vessel that was otherwise scheduled or intended to

enter California internal or estuarine waters or ca ll at a port, roadstead or terminal facility.

(B) Auxiliary engines on-board ocean-going vessel s owned or

operated by any branch of local, state, federal gov ernment, or by a foreign government, when such vessels are operate d on government non-commercial service. However, such v essels are encouraged to act in a manner consistent, so far as is reasonable and practicable, with this section.

(C) Steamships while berthed at a California port

.

(D) Auxiliary engines while such engines are ope rating primarily on

liquefied natural gas or compressed natural gas.

(c) Definitions.

For purposes of this section, the definitions in He alth and Safety Code sections 39010 through 39060 shall apply except as otherwise specified in this section:

(1) “Alternative Control Technologies” means techno logies, techniques, or

measures that reduce the emissions of NOx and PM fr om an auxiliary diesel engine other than shutting down the engine.A-30

(2) “Auxiliary Engine” means an engine on an ocean- going vessel designed primarily to provide power for uses other than propulsion, except that all diesel-electric engines shall be co nsidered “auxiliary diesel engines” for purposes of this section.

(3) “Baseline Fleet Emissions” means the total emis sions from all vessels in a fleet during all berthing times in a calendar year or other specified time period. For purposes of calculating the basel ine fleet emissions, the auxiliary engines on the vessels in the fleet s hall be assumed to

use marine diesel fuel while at berth.

(4) “Berthing Time” means the time period that begi ns when the vessel is

first tied to the berth and ends when the vessel is untied from the berth.

(5) “California Ports” means:

(A) The Port of Hueneme, the Port of Los Angeles (P OLA) and Port of Long Beach (POLB), the Port of Oakland, the Port of San Diego, and the Port of San Francisco;

(B) For purposes of this section, POLA and POLB are treated as one
port.

(6) “Container Vessel” means a self-propelled ocean -going vessel constructed or adapted primarily to carry uniform-s ized ocean freight

containers.

(7) “Diesel Engine” means an internal combustion, c ompression-ignition (CI) engine with operating characteristics signific antly similar to the theoretical diesel combustion cycle. The regulatio n of power by controlling fuel supply in lieu of a throttle is in dicative of a compression ignition engine.

(8) “Diesel-Electric Engine” means a diesel engine connected to a generator that is used as a source of electricity f or propulsion or other

uses.

(9) “Diesel Particulate Matter” means the particles found in the exhaust of diesel engines, which may agglomerate and adsorb ot her species to form structures of complex physical and chemical pr operties.

(10) “Distributed Generation” shall have the same m eaning as that term is defined in title 17, CCR, section 94202.A-31

(11) “Docked at the Berth” means the state of being tied to a berth.

(12) “Emergency Event” means the period of time dur ing which any of the following events occurs; the emergency event begins when such an event begins and ends when the event is over:

(A) Any situation arising from a sudden and reasona bly unforeseen event beyond the control of the master that threate ns the safety of the vessel;

(B) The utility serving the port states that electr ical power will be temporarily unavailable as a result of equipment fa ilure; or

(C) The electrical system at the terminal cannot pr ovide electrical power as a result of equipment failure; or

(13) “Executive Officer” means the executive office r of the Air Resources Board (ARB), or his or her designee.

(14) “Fleet” means all container, passenger, and re frigerated cargo (reefer) vessels, visiting a specific California port, which are owned or operated under the direct control of the same person. Direc t control includes, but is not limited to, vessels that are operated un der a contract, lease, or other arrangement with a third-party for the thi rd-party to operate the vessel. For the purposes of this section, a person shall be deemed to have separate fleets for each California port visit ed. For example, if a person owns or operates vessels that visit both the Port of Los Angeles and Port of Oakland, that person is deemed to have two fleets, one a

“POLA-based fleet” and the other a “Port of Oakland -based fleet.”

(15) “IMO” means the International Maritime Organiz ation.

(16) “Landlord Port” means a California port that l eases the port’s real property to a person(s).

(17) “Master” means the person who operates an ocea n-going vessel or is otherwise in charge of the vessel’s operations.

(18) “Ocean-Going Vessel” means a commercial, gover nment, or military vessel meeting any one of the following criteria:

(A) A vessel greater than or equal to 400 feet in l ength overall (LOA) as defined in 50 CFR § 679.2, as adopted June 19, 1 996;A-32 (B) A vessel greater than or equal to 10,000 gross tons (GT ITC) pursuant to the convention measurement (internation al system) as defined in 46 CFR § 69.51-.61, as adopted Septem ber 12,
1989; or (C) A vessel propelled by a marine compression igni tion engine with a per-cylinder displacement of greater than or equa l to 30 liters.

For the purposes of this section, “ocean-going vess el” will be used interchangeably with the term “vessel.”

(19) “Operate” means steering or otherwise running the vessel or its functions while the vessel is underway, moored, anc hored, or at berth.

(20) “Operate an Auxiliary Diesel Engine” means run ning or idling an auxiliary diesel engine such that it is producing m echanical work or electricity or is otherwise consuming fuel.

(21) “Own” means having all the incidents of owners hip, including the legal title, of a vessel whether or not that person leads , rents, or pledges the vessel; having or being entitled to the possession of a vessel as the purchaser under a conditional sale contract; or bei ng the mortgagor of

a vessel.

(22) “Oxides of Nitrogen” means compounds of nitric oxide (NO), nitrogen dioxide (NO 2 ), and other oxides of nitrogen, which are typicall y created during combustion processes and are major contribut ors to smog formation and acid deposition.

(23) “Particulate Matter” means any airborne finely divided material, except uncombined water, which exists as a liquid or solid at standard conditions (e.g., dust, smoke, mist, fumes, or smog ).

(24) “Passenger Vessel” means a self-propelled vess el constructed or adapted primarily to carry people.

(25) “Person” includes all of the following:

(A) Any person, firm, association, organization, pa rtnership, business trust, corporation, limited liability company, or c ompany;

(B) Any state or local governmental agency or publi c district, or any officer or employee thereof;A-33 (C) The United States or its agencies, to the exten t authorized by

federal law.

(26) “Post-Baseline Fleet Emissions” means the tota l emissions from all vessels in a fleet after the application of alterna tive control technologies during all berthing times in a calenda r year or other specified time period. For purposes of calculating the baseline fleet emissions, the auxiliary engines on the vessels in the fleet shall be

assumed to use marine diesel fuel while at berth.

(27) “Refrigerated Cargo (or Reefer) Vessel” means a self-propelled vessel constructed or adapted primarily to carry refrigera ted cargo. Reefer vessels include vessels where the cargo may be stor ed in large refrigerated rooms within the vessel or vessels tha t carry exclusively refrigerated cargo containers.

(28) “Responsible Official” means the individual(s) with the authority to certify that all vessels in a fleet comply with app licable requirements of this regulation.

(29) “Shore power” refers to electrical power being provided by either the local utility or by distributed generation.

(30) “Steamship” means a self-propelled vessel in w hich the primary propulsion and electrical power are provided by ste am boilers.

(31) “Synchronous Power Transfer” means the synchro nized switchover in vessel-based power to shore-based power without a l oss in power during such transfer.

(32) “Terminal” means a facility consisting of whar ves, piers, docks and other berthing locations and adjacent storage, whic h are used primarily for loading and unloading of cargo or material from vessels or the temporary storage of this cargo or material on-site

.

(33) “Terminal Operator” means a person that leases terminal property from a port for the purpose of loading and unloading of cargo or material from vessels or the temporary storage of this cargo or material on-site.

(34) “Utility” shall have the same meaning and be u sed interchangeably with the term “Electric Utility” as defined in Publ ic Resources Code

section 28105.

(35) “Verified Emission Control Strategy” means an emission control strategy that has been verified pursuant to the “Ve rification ProcedureA-34 for In-Use Strategies to Control Emissions from Die sel Engines” in title 13, California Code of Regulations, commencing with section 2700, which is incorporated herein by reference.

(36) “Visit” means the time period that begins when an ocean-going vessel initially ties to a berth (the beginning of the vis it) and ends when it casts off the lines (the end of the visit) at a ber th in a California port. Separate and sequential visits shall collectively b e deemed a single

visit when a vessel ties to two or more berths at t he same California port and the time interval between leaving one bert h and tying to another berth in the same port is less than two hou rs.

(d) Vessel In-Use Operational Requirements.

(1) Limits on Hours and Other Aspects of Operation for Auxiliary Diesel Engines on Container, Passenger, and Refrigerated C argo (Reefer)

Vessels

.

(A) Except as provided in subsection (d)(2), beginn ing January 1, 2014, no less than 50 percent of a fleet’s visits t o a California port in a calendar quarter, rounded to the nearest whole visit, shall meet the following limits on the number of hours au xiliary diesel engines on such vessels may be operated at berth:

1. Three hours total per visit, provided the visiti ng vessel uses a synchronous power transfer process to change from vessel-based power to shore-based power; or

2. Five hours total per visit, provided the visitin g vessel does not use a synchronous power transfer process to cha nge from vessel-based power to shore-based power.

For example, if a person’s fleet makes 10 visits to a California port in a calendar quarter, the auxiliary diesel engines on vessels in at least 5 of those visits shall be operated no more t han a combined 3 or 5 hours total, depending on whether a synchron ous power transfer is used. The 3- and 5-hour limit applies to the combined operating time for all auxiliary diesel engines use d in a vessel visit, rather than on a per-engine basis.

(B) Except as provided in subsection (d)(2), beginn ing January 1, 2020, no less than 80 percent of a fleet’s visits t o a California port in a calendar quarter, rounded to the nearest whole visit, shall meet the following limits on the number of hours au xiliary diesel engines on such vessels may be operated at berth:A-35 1. Three hours total per visit, provided the visiti ng vessel uses a synchronous power transfer process to change from vessel-based power to shore-based power; or

2. Five hours total per visit, provided the visitin g vessel does not use a synchronous power transfer process to cha nge from vessel-based power to shore-based power.

For example, if a person’s fleet makes 10 visits to a California port in a calendar quarter, the auxiliary diesel engines on vessels in at least 5 of those visits shall be operated no more t han a combined 3 or 5 hours total, depending on whether a synchron ous power transfer is used. The 3- and 5-hour limit applies to the combined operating time for all auxiliary diesel engines use d in a vessel visit, rather than on a per-engine basis.

(C) Compliance with the requirements in subsection (d)(1)(A) and (d)(1)(B) shall be determined quarterly for the per iods specified as

follows:

1. January 1 through March 31, inclusive;

2. April 1 through June 30, inclusive;

3. July 1 through September 30, inclusive; and

4. October 1 through December 31, inclusive.

(D) Except as otherwise specified in subsection (d) (1)(F), the requirements of subsection (d)(1)(A) and (d)(1)(B) do not apply to:

1. A fleet comprised solely of container or reefer vesselsthat visits a California port fewer than 25 times total in a calendar year; and

2. A fleet comprised solely of passenger vessels th at visits a California port fewer than 5 times total in a calen dar year.

(E) No person shall sell, supply, offer to supply, or purchase electrical power for use on a vessel during a visit in lieu of using the onboard auxiliary diesel engines, unless such electri cal power is either supplied by the local utility or is otherwis e generated by equipment that meet the following emission standard s:A-36 1. NOx emissions no greater than 0.03 gram per kilo watt-hour (g/kW-hr);

2. PM emissions equivalent to the combustion of nat ural gas with a fuel sulfur content of no more than one grai n per 100 standard cubic foot;

3. CO 2 emissions shall be no greater than 500 g/kW-hr; an d

4. Ammonia emissions no greater than five parts per million on a dry volume basis (ppmdv), if selective catalytic reduction is

used.

(F) Notwithstanding the requirements specified in s ubsection (d)(1)(A) and (d)(1)(B), any ocean-going vessel equ ipped to receive shore power that visits a berth equipped to provide compatible shore power shall utilize the shore powe r during every visit to that berth. This requirement shall not ap ply under the following circumstances:

1. The master of the vessel reasonably and actually determines that an emergency event, as defined in subsection (c)(12)(A), is in effect and the use of shore power during the emergency event would endanger the vessel’s safety. Shore power shall be used for the remainder of the visit once the master determines that the emergency event no l onger exists;

2. An emergency event, as defined in subsection (c) (12)(B) or (c)(12)(C), is in effect. Shore power shall be use d for the remainder of the visit once the emergency event is no longer in effect; or

3. The California Independent System Operator (CAIS O) has declared a Stage 3 emergency and the utility provid ing electrical power to the port is requesting the term inal where the vessel is located to reduce the use of grid-bas ed electrical power. Shore power shall be used for th e remainder of the visit once CAISO declares the Stag e 3 emergency is over.

(2) Emissions Reduction Option.

The purpose of this provision is to allow any perso n the option of complying with the requirements of this subsection (d)(2) in lieu of meeting the requirements of subsection (d)(1).A-37 Requirements.

(A) For fleets visiting terminals that are providin g electrical power from the utility’s electrical grid, the owner or op erator of the fleets shall comply with the following schedule:

1. For the quarter beginning on January 1, 2014, an d each subsequent quarter through December 31, 2019, inclu sive,

the NOx and PM emissions at berth from the fleet’s auxiliary engines must be reduced by 50 percent from the base line

fleet emissions.

2. For the quarter beginning on January 1, 2020, an d each subsequent quarter thereafter, the NOx and PM emiss ions at berth from the fleet’s auxiliary engines must be re duced by 80 percent from the baseline fleet emissions.

(B) For fleets visiting terminals that are providin g electrical power from sources that are not part of an utility’s elec trical grid, or alternative control technologies are used to reduce the emissions of the fleet, the owner or operator of the fleet sh all comply with the following schedule:

1. For the quarter beginning on January 1, 2010, an d each subsequent quarter through December 31, 2011, inclu sive,

the NOx and PM emissions at berth from the fleet’s auxiliary engines must be reduced by 20 percent from the base line

fleet emissions.

2. For the quarter beginning on January 1, 2012, an d each subsequent quarter through December 31, 2013, inclu sive,

the NOx and PM emissions at berth from the fleet’s auxiliary engines must be reduced by 40 percent from the base line

fleet emissions.

3. For the quarter beginning on January 1, 2014, an d each subsequent quarter through December 31, 2015, inclu sive,

the NOx and PM emissions at berth from the fleet’s auxiliary engines must be reduced by 60 percent from the base line

fleet emissions.

4. For the quarter beginning on January 1, 2016, an d each subsequent quarter thereafter, the NOx and PM emiss ions from the fleet’s auxiliary engines must be reduced by 80 percent from the baseline fleet emissions.A-38 (C) For fleets visiting terminals that are using a combination of electrical power from the utility grid and electric al power from sources that are not part of an utility’s electrica l grid, or alternative control technologies, the following schedule applie s:

1. For the quarter beginning on January 1, 2012, an d each subsequent quarter through December 31, 2013, inclu sive,

the NOx and PM emissions at berth from the fleet’s auxiliary engines must be reduced by 20 percent from the base line

fleet emissions.

2. For the quarter beginning on January 1, 2014, an d each subsequent quarter through December 31, 2019, inclu sive, the NOx and PM emissions from the fleet’s auxiliary engines must be reduced by 50 percent from the baseline fle et

emissions.

3. For the quarter beginning on January 1, 2020, an d each subsequent quarter thereafter, the NOx and PM emiss ions from the fleet’s auxiliary engines must be reduced by 80 percent from the baseline fleet emissions.

(D) Compliance with the requirements of subsection (d)(2)(A), (d)(2)(B), and (d)(2)(C) shall be determined quarte rly for the periods specified as follows:

1. January 1 through March 31, inclusive;

2. April 1 through June 30, inclusive;

3. July 1 through September 30, inclusive; and

4. October 1 through December 31, inclusive.

(E) No person shall sell, supply, offer to supply, or purchase electrical power for use on a vessel during a visit in lieu of using the onboard auxiliary diesel engines, unless such electri cal power is either be supplied by the local utility or is other wise generated by equipment that meet the following emission:

1. NOx Emissions.

a. Up to and including December 31, 2013, the NOx emissions shall be no greater than 2 g/kW-hr at any
time; andA-39 b. Beginning January 1, 2014, the NOx emissions shall be no greater than 0.2 g/kW-hr at any time;

2. PM emissions shall be no greater than the PM emi ssions from combustion of natural gas with a fuel sulfur c ontent of no more than one grain per 100 standard cubic foot;

3. CO 2 emissions shall be no greater than 500 g/kW-hr; an d

4. Ammonia emissions shall be no greater than five ppmdv if selective catalytic reduction is used.

(e) Exemptions to the Three-Hour or Five-Hour Limit ed Auxiliary Engine Operation Requirement in Subsection (d)(1)(A)(1), ( d)(1)(A)(2), (d)(1)(B)(1) and (d)(1)(B)(2).

(1) Emergency Event.

All of the following requirements apply to claimed exemptions based on emergency events:

(A) If the master of the vessel reasonably and actu ally determines that an emergency event, as defined subsection (c)( 12), occurs during the vessel’s visit to a California port, the master of the vessel may operate the vessel’s auxiliary engines d uring the emergency event;

(B) The master shall not operate the vessel’s auxil iary engines for more than one hour beyond the time when the master receives notification that the emergency event is over, dete rmines that the emergency event is over, or should have known the e mergency event is over; and

(C) The provisions of paragraph (B) above notwithst anding, the master may continue to operate the auxiliary engine s for no more

than five hours if the master receives notification that the emergency event is over, determines that the emerge ncy event is over, or should have known the emergency event is o ver and the vessel is scheduled to leave port within five hours

.

(2) Delays Caused By U.S. Coast Guard or Department of Homeland Security Inspections.A-40 The Executive Officer may extend the three-hour/fiv e-hour operational requirement in subsection (d)(1)(A) and (d)(1)(B) i f the following criteria

are met:

(A) The initial inspection and clearance of the ves sel by the Department of Homeland Security exceeds one hour. The time extension granted shall be commensurate with the ex cess time necessary for inspection and clearance; or

(B) After the auxiliary engines have been put back into service pending departure from the berth, the scheduled dep arture of the vessel has been delayed by the United States (U.S.) Coast Guard or the Department of Homeland Security.

(f) Calculations for Emissions Reduction Option in Subsection (d)(2).

(1) For the purposes of subsection (d)(2)(A), (d)(2 )(B), and (d)(2)(C), the percent emission reduction shall be calculated as f ollows:

Percent Reduction = (BFE – PBFE) / BFE

Where,

The baseline fleet and post-baseline fleet emission s are calculated as

follows:

(A) Baseline Fleet Emissions (BFE).

The baseline fleet emissions of NOx and PM shall be calculated using the following formula:

Baseline Fleet Emissions = 

### ∑ (emission rate x average berthing time x power requirement x visits)

Where:

“Emission rate” for each auxiliary engine is determ ined pursuant to subsection (f)(2); “Average berthing time” for each vessel is determin ed for the applicable period specified in subsection (d)(2)(D) ;

“Power requirements” means the electrical power req uirement for each vessel as determined pursuant to subsection (f )(3);A-41 “Visits” means the total number of visits by the ve ssel during the applicable period specified in subsection (d)(2)(D) ; and

“ ∑ ” means the summation over the entire fleet subject to the emission reduction option.

(B) Post-Baseline Fleet Emissions (PBFE).

The post-baseline fleet emissions of NOx and PM sha ll be calculated using the following formula:

Post-Baseline Fleet Emissions = 

### ∑ (emission rate x average berthing time x power requirement x visits x contro l factor)

Where:

“Emission rate” for each auxiliary engine is determ ined pursuant to subsection (f)(2);

“Average berthing time” for each vessel is determin ed for the applicable period specified in subsection (d)(2)(D) ;

“Power requirements” means the electrical power req uirement for each vessel as determined pursuant to subsection (f )(3);

“Visits” means the total number of visits by the ve ssel during the applicable period specified in subsection (d)(2)(D) ;

“Control factor” means the applicable control facto r specified in subsection (f)(4); and

“ ∑ ” means the summation over the entire fleet subject to the emission reduction option.

(2) A person complying with the requirements of sub section (d)(2) may choose any of the following emissions rates for use in the calculations specified in subsection (f)(1)(A) and (f)(1)(B):

(A) Results from emission measurements for similar auxiliary diesel engines that are used to satisfy a marine engine st andard, including U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA ) emission standards for marine engines (40 CFR Part 94), and the

International Convention for the Prevention of Poll ution fromA-42 Ships, 1973, as modified by the Protocol of 1978 (M ARPOL 73/78), both of which are incorporated herein by re ference;

(B) Emission measurements approved by the Executive Officer and using the test methods specified in subsection (f)( 4)(B)(3); or

(C) In lieu of test data measured pursuant to parag raph (A) or (B) above, the following emission rates may be used as default

values:

1. 13.9 g/kW-hr for NOx.

2. 0.38 g/kW-hr for PM if 0.11 to 0.5 percent sulfu r marine gas

oil is used as a fuel.

3. 0.25 g/kW-hr for PM if 0.10 or less sulfur conte nt marine gas

oil is used as a fuel.

(3) Power Requirements.

(A) The following values in Table 1 may be used as default values for power requirements:

Table 1.

TEU = twenty-foot equivalent unit.

kW = kilowatt Ship Category Ship Size / Type Default Power Requirement (kW) Container Vessel <1000 TEU 1,000
1,000-1,999 TEU 1,300
2,000-2,999 TEU 1,600
3,000-3,999 TEU 1,900
4,000-4,999 TEU 2,200
5,000-5,999 TEU 2,300
6,000-6,999 TEU 2,500
7,000-7,999 TEU 2,900
8,000-9,999 TEU 3,300
10,000-12,000 TEU 3,700

Passenger Vessel No Default Value –

Use Actual Load
Reefer Break Bulk 1,300 Fully Containerized 3,300A-43 (B) In lieu of the default values above, the fleet operator may, with adequate supporting documentation, use the followin g:

1. The actual shore power usage, on a monthly basis , rounded to the nearest whole kW-hrs, of the vessels in the fleet utilizing shore power, or

2. The actual on-board power usage, on a monthly ba sis, rounded to the nearest whole kW-hrs, of the vessels in the fleet utilizing alternative control technologies.

(4) Control Factors.

(A) The emissions from vessels using grid power in lieu of the vessel’s auxiliary engines when the vessels are at berth are presumed to be reduced by 90 percent.

(B) No control efficiencies for alternative control technologies shall be used to comply with the requirements of this provis ion unless the

control efficiencies are calculated or measured as follows:

1. The control efficiencies shall be based on an em ission test protocol that is approved by the Executive Officer prior to conducting the emission measurements;

2. The results of the emission measurements conduct ed pursuant to paragraph 1 above are approved by the Executive Officer; and

3. Emission measurements are conducted using the fo llowing

test methods:

a. NOx and CO 2 shall be measured using California Air Resources Board (CARB) Test Method 100, dated July 1997, which is incorporated herein by reference, or equivalent district-approved test method;

b. Diesel PM shall be measured using ISO 8178 Test Procedures: ISO 8178-1: 1996(E) (“ISO 8178 Part 1”) ; ISO 8178-2:1996(E) (“ISO 8178 Part 2”); and ISO 8178-4: 1996(E) (“ISO 8178 Part 4”), all of which a re incorporated herein by reference; and

c. Ammonia slip shall be measured using the Bay Are a Air Quality Management District Source Test Procedure ST-1B, Ammonia Integrated Sampling, datedA-44 January 1982, which is incorporated herein by reference, or other equivalent district approved te st

method.

d. The sulfur content of fuels shall be determined pursuant to International Standard ISO 8754 (as adopted in 2003), which is incorporated herein by reference.

(C) Results from emission measurements from a verif ied emission control strategy may be used in conjunction with en gine emission

information.

(D) The Executive Officer may request periodic emis sion testing or other types of monitoring to verify the proper oper ation of alternative control technologies or to verify the e mission rate of an auxiliary engine.

1. At a minimum, emission control technologies shal l be tested as follows and the results of such testing provided to the Executive Officer within 30 days of the testing:

a. Shore-based systems shall be tested annually to demonstrate the overall percentage of emission reduction being achieved.

b. Catalyst based air pollution control systems ins talled on vessels shall be tested after every 1,000 hours of operation to determine the overall percentage of emission reduction being achieved.

c. If Selective Catalytic Reduction (SCR) is used a s a control technology, the emissions of ammonia shall also

be measured at the same time the NOx emissions are being measured.

2. The Executive Officer may modify the testing fre quency as he/she deems appropriate.

(g) Terminal Plan Requirements.

(1) A terminal that receives more than 50 vessel vi sits in 2008 shall submit a plan for the Executive Officer’s approval that di scusses how the

terminal will accommodate the vessels that will vis it the terminal who are subject to subsection (d)(1) and (d)(2). The t erminal shall submit the plan and subsequent updates to the plan accordi ng to the schedule below (Table 2). The plan updates shall address an y contingenciesA-45 that may be necessary for the vessels to meet the r equirements of subsection (d)(1)and (d)(2) by the applicable dates

.

Table 2.

Vessel Compliance Option Initial Terminal

Plan Due Date Subsequent Terminal Plan Updates

Grid-Based Shore Power: (d)(1) and (d)(2)(A) July 1, 2009 July 1, 2013 July 1, 2019

Alternative Control Technologies to Grid-Based Shore Power: (d)(2)(B) July 1, 2009 July 1, 2011 July 1, 2013 July 1, 2015

Combination of Grid-Based

Shore Power and Alternative Control Technologies: (d)(2)(C) July 1, 2009 July 1, 2011 July 1, 2013 July 1, 2015 July 1, 2019

(2) Plan Requirements for Grid-Based Shore Power.

(A) Specify the schedule for implementing infrastru cture modifications, including the following:

1. Utility infrastructure improvements, if any, out side the port boundary;

2. Improvements to port infrastructure; and

3. Major infrastructure improvements to terminal.

(B) Identification of existing berths to be modifie d or new berths to be constructed that will satisfy the requirements of s ubsection (d)(1).

(3) Plan Requirements for Alternative Control Techn ologies.

(A) Description of the approach that will be used t o reduce in-berth vessel emissions, including whether the approach is a vesselbased approach or shore-based approach;

(B) Identification and description of equipment;

(C) Berth(s) where the equipment will be used;A-46 (D) Specific vessels affected by the technology; an d

(E) Estimate of the expected reductions in NOx and PM emissions from vessels using the technology, including docume ntation supporting the anticipated reductions.

(4) Plan Requirements for a Combination of Grid-Bas ed Shore Power and Alternative Control Technologies.

(A) Identification of which berths will implement g rid-based shore power and which berths will implement alternative c ontrol technologies

(B) For berths implementing shore-based grid power, the plan must contain the information specified in subsection (g) (2).

(C) For berths implementing alternative control tec hnologies, the plan shall contain the information specified in subsecti on (g)(3).

(5) A port may submit terminal plans required under subsection (g)(1) on behalf of the terminals located at that port.

(h) Reporting and Recordkeeping Requirements

.

(1) Reporting and Recordkeeping Requirements for Pe rsons that Comply with Subsection (d)(1).

(A) The Responsible Official shall provide the foll owing reports to the

Executive Officer:

1. A vessel fleet plan, due to the Executive Office r by July 1, 2013, and an updated plan by July 1, 2019, which includes a listing of the vessels that would be aff ected by the requirements specified in subsection (d)(1) and the description of the ability of each vessel to use sh ore power.

The vessel fleet plan shall list the vessels that a re able to shut down the vessel’s auxiliary engines and use sh ore power, along with the related information as follow s:

a. Name of the vessel, Lloyd’s number for the vesse l, and vessel category (container, passenger, or reefer); and

b. The port(s) each vessel(s) is expected to visit.A-47 2. An annual statement of compliance pursuant to su bsection (d)(1) and (d)(2).

a. The initial annual statement of compliance is du e to the Executive Officer by March 1, 2015. This statement is for the 2014 calendar year. Thereafter, the annual statement is due to the Executive Officer by March 1 of each year, certifying compliance with the requireme nts for the previous calendar year.

b. The annual statement of compliance shall include the following:

i. A statement signed by the Responsible Official that the requirements specified in subsection (d)(1) or (d)(2) have been met.

ii. Visit-related information for all vessels withi n a fleet that visited a California port. The list sha ll include the following information for each vessel:

I. Current name of the vessel; II. Lloyd’s number for the vessel; III. Vessel type (cargo, passenger, reefer); and IV. Visits, by port and terminal, where the auxilia ry engines were shut down;

iii. The information submitted pursuant to paragrap h 2.b.ii above shall be reported for the following periods:

I. January 1 through March 31, inclusive; II. April 1 through June 30, inclusive; III. July 1 through September 30, inclusive; and IV. October 1 through December 31, inclusive.

(B) Recordkeeping.

1. The following records shall be kept at a central location by the vessel operator. This information shall be sup plied to the Executive Officer within 30 days of a request from ARB inspectors or staff.

a. A logbook that records, for each visit, the date s, times, and other information as specified below:A-48 i. When the vessel initially tied to the berth and when the vessel cast-off the tie lines;

ii. When the Department of Homeland Security
released the vessel;

iii. When the auxiliary engines were initially shut down and subsequently restarted;

iv. Whether departure from the berth was delayed by the U.S. Coast Guard or other federal agency and identification of the agency that caused the delay;

v. If an emergency event occurred, a description of that emergency event;

vi. If the vessel could not use shore power as a re sult of the CAISO declaring a stage 3 emergency, and

vii. If a vessel could not use shore power as a res ult of equipment failure aboard the vessel.

b. Copies of all current U.S. Department of Homelan d Security Bureau of Customs and Border Protection

“Vessel Entrance or Clearance Statement” documents (CBP Form 1300, version 02/02), which is incorporat ed herein by reference, if the vessel operator or owne r is claiming an exemption pursuant to subsection (e)(2) (A) or (e)(2)(B).

2. All records required pursuant to this provision shall be retained for a minimum of five years.

(2) Reporting and Recordkeeping Requirements for Pe rsons Opting to Comply with the Emissions Reduction Option in Subse ction (d)(2).

(A) The Responsible Official shall provide the foll owing reports to the

Executive Officer:

1. A vessel fleet plan, due to the Executive Office r by the dates

shown in Table 3 below:A-49 Table 3.

Compliance Option Initial Vessel

Fleet Plan Subsequent Submittal

Due Dates

Grid-Based Shore Power: (d)(2)(A) July 1, 2013 July 1, 2019

Alternative Control Technologies to Grid-Based Shore Power: (d)(2)(B) July 1, 2009 July 1, 2011 July 1, 2013 July 1, 2015

Combination of Grid-Based

Shore Power and Alternative Control Technologies: (d)(2)(C) July 1, 2011 July 1, 2013 July 1, 2019

The vessel fleet plan shall include the following i tems:

a. List of the vessels included in the company’s fl eet; Lloyd’s number for each vessel, vessel category (ca rgo, passenger, reefer), average number of reefer containers carried by the vessel over the calendar year (container vessels only), and power requirement for each vessel (passenger and reefer vessels); and

b. Identify the potential alternative control techn iques that may be used to achieve the requirements specified i n subsection (d)(2). For each control technique, spe cify the following:

i. The vessels that would be affected by the technique;

ii. The status of implementation of the alternative control technique; and

iii. The basis used in determining the expected emission reduction, including submittal of any emission testing or other documentation.

2. An annual statement of compliance.

a. The initial annual statement of compliance is du e to the Executive Officer by the dates in Table 4 below:A-50 Table 4.

Thereafter, the annual compliance statement is due to the Executive Officer by March 1 of each year, certifying compliance with the requirements for the previous year.

b. The following items, applicable to the calendar year in question, should be included with the statement of compliance:

i. A statement signed by the Responsible Official indicating that the NOx and PM emission reductions specified by (d)(2) have been achieved;

ii. The calculated NOx and PM baseline and postbaseline emissions for each fleet, on a quarterly basis, as specified in (d)(2)(D). Include each

vessel’s contribution to the fleet’s baseline and post-baseline emissions; and

iii. Description of the technique(s) used, includin g alternative controls technology (or technologies), achievable emission reductions, and supporting documentation (e.g., source test results or verification documentation). For subsequent statements of compliance, the supporting

documents can be referenced.

(B) Recordkeeping.

1. The following records shall be kept at a central location by the master and the fleet vessel operator. This inf ormation Compliance Option Initial Submittal of Annual Statement of Compliance

Grid-Based Shore Power: (d)(2)(A) March 1, 2015

Alternative Control Technologies

to Grid-Based Shore Power: (d)(2)(B) March 1, 2011

Combination of Grid-Based Shore

Power and Alternative Control technologies: (d)(2)(C) March 1, 2013A-51 shall be supplied to the Executive Officer within 3 0 days of a request from ARB staff.

For each calendar year of vessel activity, a quarte rly summary of emissions that demonstrates compliance w ith the applicable emission reduction (2010, 2012, 2014 , or 2016), which includes the following:

a. The fleet’s baseline and post-baseline levels fo r NOx
and PM emissions; and

b. Each vessel’s contribution to fleet’s baseline a nd postbaseline NOx and PM emissions, including the following information:

i. Name of each vessel;

ii. Lloyd’s number for each vessel;

iii. Fuel type and average sulfur content of fuel f or each vessel;

iv. NOx and PM emissions for each vessel;

v. Average hotelling time for each vessel;

vi. Power requirements for each vessel while at ber th;

vii. For container vessels, the number of reefer containers imported and exported for each container vessel;

viii. Total visits to each California port made by the vessel;

ix. Technology used to reduce emissions and associated control factor used, and

x. Any equipment failure aboard a vessel that prevented the vessel from using the emissions reduction technology

2. Records made pursuant to paragraph (2)(B) above shall be kept for a minimum of five years.A-52

(3) Reporting and Recordkeeping Requirements for Po rts and Terminals.

(A) Affected ports shall provide wharfinger informa tion to the Executive Officer annually, beginning with the whar finger information for calendar year 2010.

1. This information shall be provided to the Execut ive Officer no later than April 1 of the following year.

2. At a minimum, the wharfinger information shall i nclude for each vessel visiting the port:

a. Name of the vessel;

b. Vessel type;

c. Company operating the vessel;

d. Lloyd’s number for each vessel;

e. Berth used by the vessel; and

f. Date(s) and time the vessel was initially tied t o the berth and subsequently released from the berth.

(B) The terminal operator shall keep the following records. These records shall be supplied to the Executive Officer within 30 days of a request from ARB staff:

1. Electricity usage for shore power:

a. Monthly utility billing statements that separate ly identify electricity supplied for shore power;

b. Episodes of electrical service interruption by l ocal utility company, as confirmed and documented by local utili ty company; and

c. For distributed generation, monthly records that contain the following:

i. Names of vessels serviced; ii. Location of vessels serviced, by berth; iii. Date and time of use; and iv. Power, in megawatts, supplied to the vessels.A-53 2. Date, time, and description of equipment failure that affected the ability of vessels to turn off their auxiliary engines or use alternative control technologies to reduce emission s pursuant to (d)(2).;

3. Record of each vessel that did not operate its a uxiliary engines while the vessel was docked at the terminal :

a. Name of vessel; and

b. Date and time each vessel was initially tied to the

terminal.

4. Records made pursuant to paragraph (3)(B) above shall be kept for five years.

(4) Electronic submittals of records and other info rmation required under this section may be approved by the Executive Offic er upon request, provided such electronic submittals use digital sig natures that meet the requirements specified in Government Code section 1 6.5. Notwithstanding the approved submittal of electroni c records, the Executive Officer may request the submittal of a ha rd copy of any

electronic submittal.

(i) Violations.

(1) Except as otherwise specified in this subsectio n, any person who is subject to this section and commits a violation of any provision, prohibition, limit, standard, criteria, or requirem ent in this section is subject to the penalties, injunctive relief, and ot her remedies specified in Health and Safety Code section 42400 et seq., ot her applicable sections in the Health and Safety Code; and other a pplicable provisions as provided under California law for eac h violation. Nothing

in this section shall be construed to limit or othe rwise affect any applicable penalties or other remedies available un der federal law.

(2) Except as otherwise specified in this subsectio n, any failure to meet any provision, prohibition, limit, standard, criter ia, or requirement in this section, including but not limited to the applicabl e emission limits for supplied shore power and hours of engine operation limits, shall constitute a single, separate violation of this sec tion for each hour that a person operates the auxiliary diesel engine until such provision, prohibition, limit, standard, criteria, or requirem ent has been met.

(3) A violation of the recordkeeping and reporting requirements in this section shall constitute a single, separate violati on of this section forA-54 each day that the applicable recordkeeping or repor ting requirement

has not been met.

(j) Severability.

If any subsection, paragraph, subparagraph, senten ce, clause, phrase, or portion of this regulation is, for any reason, held invalid, unconstitutional, or unenforceable by any court of competent jurisdictio n, such portion shall be deemed as a separate, distinct, and independent pro vision, and such holding shall not affect the validity of the remain ing portions of the regulation.

NOTE: Authority cited: Sections 39600, 39601, 39650, 3965 8, 39659, 39666 and 41511, Health and Safety Code. Reference: Sections 39650, 39658, 39659, 39666, 41510, and 41511, Health and Safety Code.