A. California Environmental Protection Agency 

AIR RESOURCES BOARD 

STAFF REPORT: INITIAL STATEMENT OF REASONS 

FOR THE PROPOSED RULEMAKING 

AMENDMENTS TO THE REGULATIONS TO REDUCE 

EMISSIONS FROM DIESEL ENGINES ON COMMERCIAL 

HARBOR CRAFT OPERATED WITHIN CALIFORNIA WATERS 

AND 24 NAUTICAL MILES OF THE CALIFORNIA BASELINE 

Stationary Source Division 

Emissions Assessment Branch 

May 2010 

i 

STAFF REPORT: 

INITIAL STATEMENT OF REASONS 

FOR THE PROPOSED RULEMAKING 

Public Hearing to Consider 

AMENDMENTS TO THE REGULATIONS TO REDUCE EMISSIONS 

FROM DIESEL ENGINES ON 

COMMERCIAL HARBOR CRAFT OPERATED WITHIN CALIFORNIA WATERS 

AND 24 NAUTICAL MILES OF THE CALIFORNIA BASELINE 

To be considered by the Air Resources Board on June 24, 2010 at: 

California Environmental Protection Agency 

Headquarters Building 

Byron Sher Auditorium 

1001 I Street 

Sacramento, California 

This report has been prepared by the staff of the Air Resources Board. Publication 

does not signify that the contents reflect the views and policies of the Air Resources 

Board, nor does mention of trade names or commercial products constitute 

endorsement or recommendation for use. 
ii 

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Contents Page

Executive Summary .................................................................................................. ES-1 

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

 A. Overview ......................................................................................................... 1 

 B. Need for the Regulation .................................................................................. 1 

 C. Regulatory Authority ....................................................................................... 3 

 

2. Emissions Inventory ............................................................................................. 4 

 A. Updating the Crew and Supply Vessel and Engine Data ................................ 5 

 B. Updated Emissions from Crew and Supply Vessel Engines ........................... 7 

 C. Barge and Dredge Vessel Data ...................................................................... 8 

 D. Emissions from Barge and Dredge Vessel Engines...................................... 10 

E. Total Combined Emissions from Crew and Supply Vessels and Barge 

 and Dredge Vessels ..................................................................................... 10 

3. Health Risk ......................................................................................................... 11 

 A. Potential Cancer Risk.................................................................................... 11 

 B. Non-Cancer Risk........................................................................................... 11 

 

4. Summary of the Proposed Amendments............................................................ 12 

 A. Background Information on Emission Standards for Marine Engines ........... 12 

 B. Background Information on Emission Standards for Off-Road Engines........ 13 

 C. In-Use Requirements for Crew and Supply Vessels, Barge, and Dredge 

 Vessels.......................................................................................................... 14 

 D. Other Proposed Amendments....................................................................... 17 

5. Environmental and Health Impacts of Proposed Amendments .......................... 22 

 A. Emissions Reductions Statewide .................................................................. 22 

 B. Santa Barbara County APCD and Ventura County APCD Crew and Supply 

 Vessel Engine Emission Reductions ............................................................ 27

 C. Health Impacts.............................................................................................. 29 

 D. Environmental Impact ................................................................................... 29 

 E. Impact on Global Warming............................................................................ 29 

6. Economic Impacts .............................................................................................. 31 

 A. Regulatory and New Equipment Costs ......................................................... 31 

 B. Return on Owner’s Equity ............................................................................. 31 

 C. Cost to Local, State, and Federal Agencies.................................................. 32 

 D. Cost-Effectiveness ........................................................................................ 33 

 E. Alternatives Considered ................................................................................ 34 
iii 

TABLE OF CONTENTS (CONT.) 

Contents Page

7. Public Outreach and Comments......................................................................... 40 

 A. Public Outreach............................................................................................. 40 

 B. Environmental Justice ................................................................................... 40 

 C. Public Comments.......................................................................................... 40 

8. Recommendation ............................................................................................... 43 

References.................................................................................................................... 44 
iv 

TABLE OF CONTENTS (CONT.) 

List of Tables Page

Table 1: Overview of Surveys, Reports, and Inventories.............................................. 4

Table 2: Commercial Harbor Craft Vessels and Engines (2008).................................. 5

Table 3: Crew and Supply Vessels and Engines Inventories ....................................... 5 

Table 4: Annual Engine Hours of Operation for Crew and Supply Vessels.................. 6 

Table 5: Hours of Operation by Distance From Shore.................................................. 6 

Table 6: 2008 Emissions from Crew and Supply Vessels ............................................ 7 

Table 7: Proportion of Emissions from Crew and Supply Vessel Engines 

 by District ....................................................................................................... 8 

Table 8: Barge and Dredge Vessels and Engines 2008 Inventory Overview ............... 9 

Table 9: Annual Engine Hours of Operation for Barge and Dredge Vessels................ 9 

Table 10: Percent of Barge and Dredge Vessel Engine Operations by Distance 

from Shore (2009 Survey)............................................................................ 10

Table 11: Barge and Dredge Vessel Engine Emissions............................................... 10 

Table 12: Combined Total Emissions from Crew and Supply Vessels and Barge and 

Dredge Vessels – 2008 Inventory ............................................................... 10 

Table 13: U.S. EPA Marine Engine Categories Used in Commercial Harbor Craft ...... 12 

Table 14: U.S. EPA Marine Engine Standards Effective Dates and Emissions 

 Limits for Category 1 and Category 2 Engines Used in Commercial 

 Harbor Craft................................................................................................. 13 

Table 15: ARB and U.S. EPA Diesel PM and NOx Emission Standards for New 

 Off-Road Engines (300 – 600 hp)................................................................ 14 

Table 16: Compliance Dates for Crew and Supply Vessel Engines Statewide ............ 16 

Table 17: Compliance Dates for Barge and Dredge Vessel Engines Statewide .......... 16 

Table 18: Estimated Population of In-Use Crew and Supply and Barge and Dredge 

Vessel Engines Subject to Amendments to CHC Regulation Emission 

Limits ........................................................................................................... 17 

Table 19: ARB and U.S. EPA Diesel Fuel Standards................................................... 19

Table 20: Total Statewide Diesel PM and NOx Emission Reductions Associated 

 with the Proposed Regulatory Amendments................................................ 27 

Table 21: Affected Businesses with Change in ROE ................................................... 32

Table 22: Summary of Cost-Effectiveness of the Proposed Amendments for the 

Period 2011-2022 (2009 dollars) ................................................................. 34 

Table 23: Diesel PM Cost-Effectiveness of the Proposal and Other 

Regulations/Measures (All Costs Attributed to Diesel PM Reduction)......... 34 

Table 24: Alternative 1: Alternative Compliance Table to Accelerate Barge 

 and Dredge Vessel Engine Compliance ...................................................... 35 

Table 25: Alternative 1: Statewide Annual In-Use Engine Replacements.................36 

Table 26: Alternative 2: Alternative Compliance Tables to Decelerate Compliance 

for Crew and Supply Vessels and Barge and Dredge Vessels .................... 38 

Table 27: Alternative 2: Statewide Annual In-Use Engine Replacements..................39 

Table 28: Summary of Average Cost-Effectiveness of the Proposed Amendmnets and 

Both Alternatives for the Period 2011-2022 ................................................. 39 
v 

TABLE OF CONTENTS (CONT.) 

List of Figures Page

Figure 1: Distribution of Crew and Supply Vessels by District........................................ 7 

Figure 2: Projected Statewide Diesel PM Emissions for Crew and Supply Vessel 

Diesel-Fueled Engines .................................................................................. 23 

Figure 3: Projected Statewide NOx Emissions for Crew and Supply Vessel DieselFueled Engines ............................................................................................. 24 

Figure 4: Projected Statewide Diesel PM Emissions for Barge and Dredge Vessel 

Diesel-Fueled Engines .................................................................................. 25 

Figure 5: Projected Statewide NOx Emissions for Barge and Dredge Vessel DieselFueled Engines ............................................................................................. 26 

Figure 6: Projected Santa Barbara County and Ventura County APCD Diesel PM 

Emissions for Crew and Supply Vessel Diesel-Fueled Engines.................... 28 

Figure 7: Projected Santa Barbara County and Ventura County APCD NOx 

Emissions for Crew and Supply Vessel Diesel-Fueled Engines.................... 28 

Figure 8: Estimated Numbers of Commercial Harbor Craft Engines Replaced 

 Annually Due to Implementation of the Current Commercial Harbor Craft 

Regulation and the Proposed Amended Regulation ..................................... 41 

Appendices Page

 

Appendix A: Proposed Regulation Orders (section 2299.5 and section 93118.5).......A-1 

Appendix B: Summary of Survey Results....................................................................B-1 

Appendix C: Emission Inventory Methodology ........................................................... C-1 

Appendix D: Methodology of Estimating Economic Impacts ...................................... D-1 
(this page left intentionally blank) 
ES - 1 

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 

Summary of Proposed Action 

The California Air Resources Board (ARB or Board) staff is proposing amendments to 

the regulations affecting commercial harbor craft.1

 These proposed amendments 

primarily affect the Commercial Harbor Craft Regulation (CHC regulation) that the Board 

adopted on November 17, 2007. This regulation became effective on January 1, 2009. 

In addition, the staff is proposing minor conforming amendments to a complimentary 

regulation, the Low Sulfur Fuel Requirement for Commercial Harbor Craft, to align 

numbering changes due to the proposed amendments to the CHC regulation. A copy of 

the proposed amendments to both regulations is provided in Appendix A of this report. 

(ARB, 2007a) (ARB, 2007b) (ARB, 2007c) 

The primary purpose of the proposed amendments is to subject diesel-fueled engines 

on crew and supply, barge, and dredge vessels to in-use engine requirements of the 

CHC regulation. The staff is proposing to add crew and supply vessels because 

updated information shows that these vessels have similar or greater emissions than 

vessel categories currently controlled by the CHC regulation. The addition of barge and 

dredge vessels will amend a situation where this class of vessels are subject to two 

different statewide regulations. Approximately 175 crew and supply, barge, and dredge 

vessels operate in California, and are equipped with about 640 diesel-fueled engines. 

These engines emit about 66 tons per year of diesel particulate matter (PM) and 

1,430 tons per year oxides of nitrogen (NOx). Other amendments are being proposed to 

clarify requirements and to address issues that have arisen during the implementation 

of the 2007 CHC regulation. 

In developing the proposed amendments, ARB staff worked closely with stakeholders 

including vessel owner/operators, marine engine industry representatives, and staff 

from air pollution control and air quality management air districts (districts). The early 

turnover of in-use, pre-Tier 1 and Tier 1 diesel-engines on crew and supply, barge, and 

dredge vessels to lower emitting Tier 2 and Tier 3 marine or off-road engines would 

reduce diesel PM, NOx, and other air pollutant emissions. These emission reductions 

will reduce exposures and health risks across California, particularly along the shoreline 

and near ports. The proposed amendments are technologically feasible, cost-effective, 

and necessary to carry out the Board’s responsibilities and goals, including; 1) the goal 

of the Diesel Risk Reduction Plan to reduce diesel PM emissions from all sources by 

85 percent by 2020; and 2) the Emissions Reduction Plan for Ports and Goods 

Movement that the Board approved in April 2006. Finally, the emission reductions from 

 

1

Title 17, CCR section 93118.5 is known as the Commercial Harbor Craft Regulation (CHC regulation) 

and establishes emission standards, reporting, recordkeeping, fuel, and monitoring requirements for 

certain categories of marine vessels. Title 13, CCR section 2299.5 is the corresponding Low Sulfur Fuel 

Regulation for Commercial Harbor Craft. 
ES - 2 

the proposed amendments are necessary to help attain and maintain ambient air quality 

standards for fine particulate matter (PM2.5) and ozone. 

Proposed Amendments 

The proposed amendments to the CHC regulation would: 

• Establish in-use emission limits and compliance schedules for auxiliary 

and propulsion diesel-fueled engines on crew and supply, barge, and 

dredge vessels that operate in Regulated California Waters. The 

compliance schedules are based on engine model years and annual hours 

of operation, and are designed to remove the oldest, dirtiest engines first. 

• Eliminate the current exemption for vessel engines registered in PERP or 

that were permitted by districts before January 1, 2009. 

• Allow the use of certified off-road or nonroad engines as auxiliary engines. 

• Allow CHC vessels that cannot obtain CARB diesel fuel outside of 

California to use United States Environmental Protection Agency 

(U.S. EPA) on-road or nonroad diesel when travelling from their nonCalifornia home port. 

• Add a definition of “swing engine” and require these engines to meet 

applicable in-use emission limits and recordkeeping provisions. 

• Delete the definition of “multipurpose harbor craft” and “low use 

exemption”, and reword the in-use engine section to clarify that vessels in 

categories with in-use emissions limits do not have to comply with those 

limits for engines if they operate less than 300 hours in any single 

regulated vessel category or combination of categories (or 80 hours for 

barge and dredge vessels). 

• Add a deadline of February 28 for submitting the annual Alternative 

Control of Emission plans. 

• Clarify that the initial reporting and compliance plan reporting 

requirements also apply to out-of-state vessels that operate in California. 

• Allow owners/operators of vessels with multiple engines to apply for an 

exemption from the new engine requirements if one engine has a 

catastrophic failure. 

• Reword the new ferry vessels Best Available Control Technology section 

for clarity. 

• Allow the use of an available engine to replace an older engine subject to 

in-use requirements until the original scheduled compliance date of the 

older engine. 

• Make other changes to definitions and edits to regulatory language to 

improve clarity.

Staff is also proposing minor amendments to the Low Sulfur Fuel Regulation (section 

2299.5, title 13, CCR) to align numbering with the amendments to the CHC regulation. 
ES - 3 

Background

Commercial Harbor Craft

Commercial harbor craft (CHC) include ferries, excursion vessels, tugboats, towboats, 

crew and supply vessels, work boats, commercial and charter fishing boats, and barge 

and dredge vessels. Staff estimates there are approximately 4,300 commercial harbor 

craft vessels with 8,700 diesel-fueled engines operating in California coastal waters. 

2007 Commercial Harbor Craft Regulation

In 2007, ARB adopted the CHC regulation, which requires engines on all new vessels to 

meet applicable U.S. EPA marine engine emission standards at the time the vessel is 

acquired. The marine emission standards are divided into four increasingly stringent 

levels (Tiers); the allowed emission level and effective dates vary with horsepower. 

Replacement engines installed on any in-use harbor craft are required to meet the 

Tier 2 or Tier 3 standards in effect at the time of purchase of the engine. Existing or inuse engines on ferries, excursion vessels, tugboats, towboats, and pushboats must 

meet U.S. EPA Tier 2 or Tier 3 standards based on phased-in compliance schedule. 

Authority 

ARB has authority under California law to adopt the proposed regulation. California 

Health and Safety Code (HSC) sections 43000, 43000.5, 43013(b) and 43018 provide 

broad authority for ARB to adopt emission standards and other regulations to reduce 

emissions from new and in-use vehicular and other mobile sources. Under 

HSC sections 43013(b) and 43018, ARB is authorized to adopt emission standards for 

off-road vehicular sources, as expeditiously as possible, to meet State ambient air 

quality standards. ARB is further mandated by HSC section 39666 to adopt airborne 

toxic control measures (ATCM) for new and in-use vehicular sources, including 

Commercial Harbor Craft, for identified toxic air contaminants, such as diesel PM. 

Public Outreach 

Staff has made a concerted effort to provide opportunities for public participation in this 

rulemaking action. Staff’s public outreach efforts included three public workshops at 

which draft regulatory concepts, language, and cost estimates were provided. In 

addition, the Commercial Harbor Craft website was updated with all workshop materials. 

Staff also held meetings with owner/operators of crew and supply, barge, and dredge 

vessels, districts, and other interested parties. 

Basis for the Proposed Amendments 

Crew and Supply Vessels

Crew and supply vessels are primarily used to transport equipment and personnel to 

and from offshore oil rigs and other offshore vessels. About 60 percent of the 

companies that own crew and supply vessels are considered small businesses, having 

less than 100 employees. When ARB adopted the CHC regulation in 2007, crew and 

supply vessels were subject to the new engine provisions, but existing vessels were not 

required to meet in-use engine emission limits, because information at that time showed 
ES - 4 

these vessels had limited hours of operation and emissions. We are now proposing to 

require existing crew and supply vessels to meet in-use engine emission standards 

because updated information shows their emissions are similar in magnitude to the 

emissions from other vessels that are currently subject to the CHC regulation’s in-use 

requirements. Approximately 70 crew and supply vessels with about 240 engines 

operate in California Regulated Waters. In 2008, these vessels emitted approximately 

33 tons of diesel PM and 670 tons of NOx. 

Barge and Dredge Vessels

Barges are marine vessels, usually moved by tugboats or towboats, are used to 

transport fuel or equipment via water. Dredges are marine vessels used to remove 

bottom sediment from waterways. Approximately half of the businesses operating 

barges and dredges are considered small business. Historically, most barge and 

dredge vessel engines were either regulated under the Portable Engine ATCM by being 

registered in the Portable Equipment Registration Program (PERP) or subject to district 

permits. Registration in PERP allows a piece of equipment to operate anywhere in the 

State, but subject to district authorization. The 2007 CHC regulation was designed to 

allow barge and dredge vessels that had been registered in PERP or subject to a district 

permit prior to January 1, 2009, to continue to be subject to the requirements of the 

Portable Engine ATCM or the district permit. Barge and dredge vessels that were not in 

PERP or permitted by a district by that date were subject to the requirements of the 

CHC regulation. However, in-use emission limits were not established for these vessel 

engines. (ARB, 2007d) (ARB, 2009) 

During 2009, it became clear that having some barge and dredges subject to the 

Portable Engine ATCM and others subject to the CHC regulation was creating 

compliance and enforcement issues and was confusing to the regulated industry. To 

address this issue, ARB staff proposed modifying the PERP and the CHC regulation to 

allow permanently installed auxiliary engines on barges and dredges to register in 

PERP, and to make these engines subject to the CHC regulation instead of the Portable 

Engine ATCM. In January 2010, the PERP regulation was amended to allow certified 

marine engines to register in PERP. These amendments will align the two regulations 

and allow auxiliary engines on harbor craft vessels to be registered in PERP, but 

subject only to the requirements of a single statewide regulation - the CHC regulation. 

Approximately 100 barge and dredge vessels with about 400 engines operate in 

California Regulated Waters. In 2008, these vessels emitted approximately 33 tons of 

diesel PM and 760 tons of NOx. 

 

Two separate compliance schedules are being proposed. One compliance schedule is 

for crew and supply vessels and one compliance schedule is for barge and dredge 

vessels. Separate compliance schedules were developed in consideration of the profile 

of the engine fleets and to provide a transition period for barge and dredge operators 

from planned compliance with the Portable Engine ATCM to the CHC regulation. 
ES - 5 

Impacts of the Proposed Amendments 

Anticipated Actions to Comply

ARB staff anticipates that, in most cases, engine replacement will be the option used by 

most vessel owner/operators to meet the proposed emission standards for vessel 

engines. However, other options such as retrofitting and rebuilding can be used to 

comply. 

Emission Reductions

The proposed amendments would reduce diesel PM and NOx emissions in coastal 

areas of the State. The proposed amendments affect about 60 percent of the diesel 

engines in the crew and supply vessel fleet and 30 percent of the engines in the barge 

and dredge fleet. Many engines in these vessel fleets are either already at Tier 2 or 

Tier 3, or exempt due to engine size, or annual hours of operation. Staff estimates 

about a 55 percent reduction in diesel PM emissions and a 25 percent reduction in NOx

emissions from crew and supply, barge, and dredge vessels due to the proposed 

amendments in 2025. Staff estimates that the proposed in-use requirements will 

provide reductions of about 275 tons of diesel PM and 3,475 tons NOx emissions 

between 2011 and 2025. 

The current impacts of the economy are not expected to significantly affect the 

estimated emission reductions because crew and supply vessels primarily service oil 

platforms which have continued production despite the economic downturn. Many 

barge vessels are used to transport petroleum products which also have not seen 

significant changes despite the economic downturn. Additionally, dredge operations 

related to the maintenance of waterways are essential in nature. A slight reduction in 

GHG emissions should occur due to the replacement of older engines with more fuel 

efficient new engines. 

Public Health Benefits

The proposed amendments will reduce public health risk from exposure to emissions of 

diesel PM and NOx. ARB listed Diesel PM as a toxic air contaminant in 1998. In 

addition, NOx is a precursor to the formation of ozone and contributes to secondarily 

formed PM in the lower atmosphere. 

Cost to Industry

Staff estimates that the regulatory costs for complying with the proposed amendments 

would be approximately $15 million (2009 dollars), or about $1.3 million annually over 

the 2011 through 2022 compliance time period. These regulatory costs are the 

incremental costs of compliance, and include those costs associated with the early 

replacement of engines (the residual value of the engine being replaced), the residual 

value of the most recent engine rebuild work, and the time value of money associated 

with the early engine replacement. Staff also estimated the new equipment 

or out-of-pocket cost to industry at approximately $46 million (2009 dollars) over the 

2011 through 2022 time period. The new equipment costs are ones that the vessel 
ES - 6 

owner would eventually pay, but the proposed amendments require this service to be 

performed earlier than normal. 

Economic Impact to Industry 

Staff estimated the economic impact of complying with the in-use engine requirements 

on the crew and supply, barge, and dredge vessel businesses by evaluating the impact 

of the regulatory cost on typical businesses’ “return on owner’s equity” (ROE), and 

found that the overall change in ROE is a 0.95 percent decline for the average regulated 

business. A decrease in ROE within this range is not considered to represent a 

significant impact on profitability. These values are based on the regulatory cost of 

compliance. 

Cost to Public Agencies

Staff has determined that a few public agencies would be impacted by the proposed 

amendments. One state agency, the California Department of Parks and Recreation, 

owns two crew and supply vessels that are used to service Angel Island in the 

San Francisco Bay and would be impacted by the in-use engine requirements. 

Regulatory cost to this state agency would be about $60,000 over the life of the 

regulation. Barge and dredge vessels are owned and operated by two local agencies in 

Santa Cruz and Monterey and by the federal agency, the United States Army Corps of 

Engineers. The estimated regulatory costs range from approximately $1,900 to $46,000 

over the life of the regulation for these agencies that operate barge and dredge vessels. 

ARB staff will implement and enforce the proposed amendments. An additional 

enforcement staff person may be needed to enforce the proposed amendments. 

Cost-Effectiveness 

The cost-effectiveness of the proposed amendments is estimated, based on the 

regulatory costs, to be about $35 per pound (2009 dollars) of diesel PM reduced if all 

the cost is attributed to diesel PM reductions. The cost-effectiveness for this regulation 

is consistent with those of other diesel PM regulations adopted by the Board. 

Incentive Funding

Carl Moyer Program funding is a potential funding source for companies that comply 

early or achieve emission reductions beyond the amendments. However, Carl Moyer 

funds are only available to self-propelled marine vessels and most barge and dredge 

vessels would not be eligible. Proposition 1B funds should also be available to specific 

commercial harbor craft operators. At the Board meeting held on March 25, 2010, the 

Proposed Update to the Proposition 1B Program Guidelines were approved, which 

included project options for the harbor craft category. The total amount of funding 

available will depend upon bond sales. 
ES - 7 

Environmental Justice 

The proposed amendments are consistent with ARB environmental justice policies. The 

proposed amendments will reduce diesel PM and NOx emissions in coastal areas and 

near ports where crew and supply, barge, and dredge vessels operate. 

Public Comments 

Comments have been made by barge and dredge owners regarding the implementation 

of the proposed amendments in relation to the PERP program. Pursuant to the PERP 

regulation, districts can establish additional requirements beyond the statewide 

regulation for auxiliary engines on marine vessels that operate within three nautical 

miles of shore. The authority for districts to establish additional requirements is 

provided by the PERP regulation in order to allow the districts to mitigate any potential 

local emissions impacts. Barge and dredge vessel owner/operators have stated that 

the districts requirements can be burdensome and vary greatly by district. Staff has 

begun discussions with some of the affected districts to identify ways to achieve greater 

consistency and develop an effective solution. Staff is committed to continue to meet 

with affected stakeholders to discuss options. 

Recommendation 

ARB staff recommends the Board approve the proposed amendments to the regulations 

as presented in Appendix A of the Staff Report. 
(this page left intentionally blank) 
1

1. INTRODUCTION

 A. Overview 

This Staff Report: Initial Statement of Reasons (Staff Report) provides the basis for the 

Air Resources Board (ARB or Board) staff’s proposal to amend the regulations affecting 

commercial harbor craft.2

 The primary purpose of the proposed amendments is to 

require the diesel-fueled engines on crew and supply, barge, and dredge vessels to be 

subject to in-use engine requirements of the Commercial Harbor Craft (CHC) regulation. 

Several other clarifying and/or editorial amendments are also proposed to the CHC 

regulation. Staff is also proposing minor amendments to the Low Sulfur Fuel Regulation 

to align numbering with the CHC regulation. The proposed amendments would reduce 

diesel particulate matter (PM) and oxides of nitrogen (NOx) emissions from CHC in 

California. The proposed amendments are provided in Appendix A of this Staff Report. 

The staff is proposing to add crew and supply vessels because updated information 

shows that these vessels have similar or greater emissions than vessel categories 

currently controlled by the CHC regulation. The addition of barge and dredge vessels 

will amend a situation where this class of vessels are subject to two different statewide 

regulations. Approximately 175 crew and supply, barge, and dredge vessels operate in 

California, and are equipped with about 640 diesel-fueled engines. These engines emit 

about 66 tons per year of diesel PM and 1,430 tons per year NOx. 

This report discusses California’s estimated population of crew and supply, barge, and 

dredge vessels and associated emissions, the regulatory proposal to require these 

vessel categories to be subject to in-use engine requirements of the original CHC 

regulation, other proposed amendments, regulatory alternatives considered, and 

potential environmental and economic impacts. The basis of the original CHC 

regulation and background information can be found in the Staff Report: Initial 

Statement of Reasons for Regulations to Reduce Emissions from Diesel Engines on 

Commercial Harbor Craft Operated Within California Waters and 24 Nautical Miles of 

the California Baseline, September 2007, and the accompanying Technical Support 

Document. For the remainder of this report, the 2007 report will be referred to as the 

September 2007 Staff Report. 

 B. Need for the Regulation 

The ARB’s mission is to protect public health, welfare, and ecological resources through 

the 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 potential harmful exposure to air pollution. To help achieve 

 

2

Title 17, CCR section 93118.5. is known as the Commercial Harbor Craft Regulation (CHC regulation) 

and establishes emission standards, reporting, record keeping, fuel, and monitoring requirements for 

certain categories of marine vessels. Title 13, CCR section 2299.5 is the corresponding Low Sulfur Fuel 

Regulation for Commercial Harbor Craft. 
2

this, ARB has adopted numerous regulations to control emissions from many different 

sources, including diesel-fueled engines. Diesel-fueled engine exhaust is a significant 

health concern because it is a source of unhealthful air pollutants including particulate 

matter, gaseous and particulate-phase toxic air contaminants (TACs), NOx, carbon 

monoxide, and hydrocarbons. 

In 1998, the Board identified diesel PM as a TAC with no specified threshold exposure 

level to which adverse health impacts would be expected, pursuant to Health and Safety 

Code (HSC) sections 39650 through 39675. A needs assessment for diesel PM was 

conducted between 1998 and 2000 pursuant to HSC sections 39658, 39665, and 

39666. This resulted in ARB staff developing, and the Board approving, the Risk 

Reduction Plan to Reduce Particulate Matter Emissions from Diesel-Fueled Engines 

and Vehicles (Diesel RRP) in 2000. The Diesel RRP presented information on the 

available options for reducing diesel PM and recommended regulations to achieve 

these reductions. The Diesel RRP’s scope was broad, addressing all categories of 

mobile and stationary diesel engines. It included control measures for off-road diesel 

PM sources, such as those covered by the proposed amendments to the CHC 

regulation. The ultimate goal of the Diesel RRP is to reduce, by 2020, California’s 

diesel PM emissions and associated potential cancer risks by 85 percent from the 2000 

levels. 

In January 2005, the Goods Movement Cabinet Workgroup – created by Governor 

Schwarzenegger and led by the California Environmental Protection Agency and the 

Business, Transportation and Housing Agency – established a policy for goods 

movement and ports to improve and expand California’s goods movement industry and 

infrastructure while improving air quality and protecting public health. The workgroup 

worked collaboratively with the logistics industry, local and regional governments, 

neighboring communities, business, labor, environmental groups, and other interested 

stakeholders to create a two-phased Goods Movement Action Plan (Action Plan), which 

outlines a comprehensive strategy to address the economic and environmental issues 

associated with moving goods via the State’s highways, railways, and ports. In 

April 2006, the Board approved the Emissions Reduction Plan for Ports and Goods 

Movement in California as part of the Action Plan. The final phase of the Action Plan 

was completed in January 2007 and includes a framework that identifies the key 

contributors to goods movement-related emissions. The Action Plan emission reduction 

goals for existing harbor craft engines are 25 percent reductions for both diesel PM and 

NOx compared to baseline 2001 levels by 2010, 30 percent reductions compared to 

2001 baseline levels by 2015, and 40 percent reduction by 2020. (ARB, 2006) 

The federal Clean Air Act (CAA) requires the United States Environmental Protection 

Agency (U.S. EPA) to establish National Ambient Air Quality Standards (standards) for 

pollutants considered harmful to public health, including fine particulate matter (PM2.5) 

and ozone. The South Coast and San Joaquin Valley Air Basins are the two areas in 

the State that exceed the annual PM2.5 standards. These air basins are required by 

federal law to develop State Implementation Plans (SIPs) describing how they will attain 

the standards by 2015. The U.S. EPA further requires that all necessary emission 
3

reductions be achieved one calendar year sooner – by 2014 – in recognition of the 

annual average form of the standard. Reductions of NOx emissions are needed 

because NOx contributes to the formation in the atmosphere of both ozone and PM2.5; 

diesel PM emission reductions are needed because diesel PM contributes to ambient 

concentrations of PM2.5. The South Coast and San Joaquin Valley air basins are also 

in non-attainment for the federal ozone standard. However, they have until 2023 to 

attain the federal ozone standard, by invoking the “bump-up” provision in the CAA. 

While all sources of PM and NOx emissions are important, marine vessels play an 

especially significant role in California’s efforts to reach attainment. About one third of 

the 2008 inventory of diesel PM and NOx emissions from crew and supply, barge and 

dredge vessels are estimated to be in the South Coast Air Basin. Emissions from 

marine vessels, which include CHC engines, collectively represent one of several key 

contributors to ambient PM2.5 levels. Successfully controlling these sources is 

essential in determining whether California is able to meet the 2014 deadline for PM2.5 

attainment in the South Coast Air Basin. 

C. Regulatory Authority 

ARB has authority under California law to adopt the proposed regulation. California 

Health and Safety Code (HSC) sections 43013(b) and 43018 provide broad authority for 

ARB to adopt emission standards and other regulations to reduce emissions from new 

and in-use nonvehicular sources. Under HSC sections 43013(b) and 43018, ARB is 

directly authorized to adopt emission standards for marine vessels as expeditiously as 

possible to meet State ambient air quality standards and to the extent permitted by 

federal law. The ARB is further mandated by California law under HSC section 39666 

to adopt airborne toxic control measures (ATCM) for new and in-use nonvehicular 

sources, including commercial harbor craft, for identified toxic air contaminants such as 

diesel PM. 

Under federal and California law, ARB is the primary agency in California responsible 

for ensuring that all regions of the State attain and maintain state and federal ambient 

air quality standards (HSC section 39606; CAA section 110). To achieve this, California 

must adopt all feasible measures to obtain the necessary emission reductions, including 

measures for mobile sources. (HSC sections 39602.5 and 43013(h)). The federal 

Clean Air Act section 209(e)(1) conclusively preempts states, including California, from 

adopting requirements for locomotive engines and new off-road engines less than 

175 horsepower that are used in farm or construction equipment. However, the 

proposed regulation addresses off-road engines used in marine vessels, rather than 

those used in locomotives or farm or construction equipment. 

Under CAA section 209(e)(2), California may adopt and enforce emission standards 

and other requirements for off-road engines and equipment not conclusively preempted 

by section 209(e)(1), if California applies for and receives authorization from the 

Administrator of U.S. EPA. 
4

2. EMISSIONS INVENTORY 

ARB staff used several sources to gather the most accurate information regarding CHC 

vessels. Staff conducted a 2008 survey that was used to evaluate the need for the 

proposed amendments for crew and supply vessels. Staff also developed the 

emissions inventories presented in this section with the most current information 

obtained from the 2009 “Initial Reports” (required by the 2007 CHC regulation), the 

PERP database, a survey of barge and dredge vessels, and information from districts. 

Table 1 below presents an overview of the various surveys and reports used by staff to 

develop the corresponding emission inventories. 

Table 1: Overview of Surveys, Reports, and Inventories 

Year Data 

Submitted

Data Source: Surveys 

and Reports 

Inventory 

Year Inventories Developed 

2004 ARB CHC Survey 2004 CHC Emissions Inventory* 

2008 ARB Crew and Supply 

Vessel Survey 2007 Interim Crew and Supply Inventory Used in Evaluating Need for Proposed Amendments 

2009 CHC Initial Reports 2008 Crew and Supply Vessels Emissions 

Inventory 

2009 

ARB Barge and 

Dredge Survey, 

PERP Database, and 

CHC Initial Reports 

2008 Barge and Dredge Vessel Emissions 

Inventory 

 *As presented in the 2007 Staff Report 

Approximately 8,700 marine engines currently operate on about 4,300 CHC in 

California. These vessels are mostly located along the California coastline, with some 

on inland waterways. A summary of the estimated number of vessels and engines in 

each category are provided in Table 2 below. 
5

Table 2: Commercial Harbor Craft Vessels and Engines (2008)* 

Vessel Category Number of Vessels Number of Engines 

Commercial Fishing 2,727 4,308 

Charter Fishing 563 1,419 

Ferries/Excursion 416 1,348 

Tug 128 450 

Tow 35 115 

Barge 88 318 

Crew and Supply 70 236 

Workboats 89 158 

Dredge 18 83 

Pilot 27 50 

Other 136 214 

Total 4,297 8,699 

 *Estimates are updated for crew and supply boats and barge and dredge vessels from the 2004 CHC Survey. 

Detailed information on the updated emissions inventory and methodology used to 

estimate emissions is included in Appendix C. 

A. Updating the Crew and Supply Vessel and Engine Data

The September 2007 Staff Report inventory for crew and supply vessels and engines 

was based on the 2004 Statewide Commercial Harbor Craft Survey (2004 Survey). The 

following overview compares the 2004 inventory from the September 2007 Staff Report 

and an updated inventory of the crew and supply vessels which is derived primarily from 

the 2009 Initial Reports. 

Table 3 shows that the total number of engines did not change significantly, but engine 

average horsepower (hp) was larger for both propulsion and auxiliary engines than 

previously estimated. 

Table 3: Crew and Supply Vessels and Engines Inventories 

2004 

Inventory

2008 

Updated Inventory

Total Number of Vessels 64 70 

Total Number of Engines 230 236 

Number of Propulsion Engines 160 163 

Average Horsepower of 

Propulsion Engines 440 500 

Number of Auxiliary Engines 70 73 

Average Horsepower of Auxiliary 

Engines 90 110 
6

While the total number of crew and supply vessel engines did not change dramatically 

from the estimates used in the September 2007 Staff Report, the total average annual 

hours of operation did significantly change for the propulsion engines, the most 

significant engines in this class of vessels. Table 4 presents the updated average 

annual hours of operation. 

Table 4: Annual Engine Hours of Operation for 

Crew and Supply Vessels 

 

2004 

Inventory

2008 

Updated Inventory

Propulsion Engine 

Average Annual Hours 800 1,800 

Auxiliary Engine 

Average Annual Hours 3,000 2,300 

The distance that crew and supply vessels operate from shore is also important to 

consider. These vessels typically operate in harbors and generally close to shore. 

Therefore, most of the related emissions impact communities near ports. Information 

on the total hours of operation by distance from shore was gathered through the 2008 

survey and Initial Reports. Table 5 shows the percentage of time that crew and supply 

vessels operate by distance from shore. 

Table 5: Hours of Operation by Distance from Shore

% Total Annual Hours (Distance from Shore)

Vessel Type

0-3 nm 3-24 nm >24 nm

Crew 86% 5% 9% 

Supply 33% 65% 2% 

All of these vessels primarily operate within five APCD’s: South Coast Air Quality 

Management District (AQMD), Ventura County APCD, Santa Barbara County APCD, 

San Diego County APCD, and Bay Area AQMD. Figure 1 shows the distribution of crew 

and supply vessels by district. 
7

Figure 1. Distribution of Crew and Supply Vessels by District 

Bay Area 

AQMD

23%

Santa 

Barbara/Ventura 

County APCD

22%

South Coast 

AQMD

46%

San Diego 

County APCD

9%

B. Updated Emissions from Crew and Supply Vessel Engines 

The emissions from crew and supply vessel engines were derived from several sources 

and show an increase in emissions compared to the emission estimates reported in the 

September 2007 Staff Report. The updated crew and supply vessel emissions 

inventory was compiled from the “Initial Reports” and input from Santa Barbara County 

and Ventura County districts. Using this data, we estimate that the diesel PM emissions 

from crew and supply vessel engines are approximately 75 percent higher than 

estimated in the September 2007 Staff Report, and NOx emissions are about 60 percent 

higher. In the September 2007 Staff Report, crew and supply vessel emissions were 

based on the average emission factors for all CHC. Diesel PM emissions from crew 

and supply vessels are now estimated to be 33 tons per year (tpy) and NOx emissions 

are estimated to be 670 tpy as shown in Table 6 below. 

Table 6: 2008 Emissions from Crew and Supply Vessels 

Original 

2008 

Inventory*

Updated 

2008 

Inventory**

 PM Emissions (tpy) 19 33 

 NOx Emissions (tpy) 420 670 

* 2008 emissions estimates based on 2004 CHC Emissions Inventory 

** Inventory based on 2009 Initial Reports and data from Santa Barbara 

 and Ventura County districts 

As shown in Figure 1, over 22 percent of crew and supply vessels operate in the 

districts Santa Barbara County and Ventura County. In these two districts, crew and 

supply vessels make up a much higher portion of the total emissions from CHC. This 
8

distribution and proportional emissions impact from crew and supply boats in Santa 

Barbara County and Ventura County districts in comparison to the other districts that 

have crew and supply vessels is shown in Table 7. ARB estimates that about 

20 percent of the CHC emissions in the Santa Barbara County and Ventura County 

districts are from diesel-fueled engines on crew and supply vessels. Currently, 

permitted crew and supply vessels operating in Santa Barbara County APCD are 

required to use turbo charging, enhanced inter-cooling, and 4 degrees of timing retard 

on their engines to reduce the NOx emissions. The impact of these changes on 

emissions has been accounted for in the emissions inventory. 

 

Table 7: Proportion of Emissions from Crew and Supply 

Vessel Engines by District 

NOx (tpy) Diesel PM (tpy)

District Crew & 

Supply 

Vessels

Total 

Harbor 

Craft

% 

Harbor 

Craft

Crew & 

Supply 

Vessels

Total 

Harbor 

Craft

% 

Harbor 

Craft

Santa 

Barbara / 

Ventura 

280 1,650 17% 17 75 22% 

South 

Coast 340 6,350 5% 14 270 6% 

Bay Area 40 8,950 < 1% 1.0 380 < 1% 

San Diego 10 3,100 < 1% < 1 130 < 1% 

Statewide 

Total* 670* 20,000 3% 33 855 4% 

 * Rounded using conventional rounding practices. 

C. Barge and Dredge Vessel Data 

Barge and dredge vessels were included in the September 2007 Staff Report as “Other 

CHC Vessels.” The following section provides a detailed look at the population of barge 

and dredge vessels and associated engines operating in Regulated California Waters. 

ARB staff compiled the information by using data from PERP, a barge and dredge 

survey conducted by ARB staff in August 2009, district permits, and information from 

the “Initial Reports” required by the 2007 CHC regulation. Staff combined these 

sources of information to develop a statewide inventory of barge and dredge vessels, 

engines, and emissions. 

Approximately 400 engines currently operate on barge and dredge vessels in California. 

Auxiliary engines on barges and dredges are mainly off-road (nonroad) engines. These 

vessels are located mostly along the California coastline, with some on inland 

waterways. Fuel barges are the most common barge used in California. The engines 

on fuel barges power pumps and generators. Construction barges are also common 

and the engines on these vessels typically power winches, generators, and hoists. 
9

Dredge vessels are used to excavate underwater material for cleaning waterways, 

construction projects, restoration projects, and various other excavation activities. 

Table 8 provides an overview of the numbers of barge and dredge vessels and engines 

and the average horsepower of those engines. 

Table 8: Barge and Dredge Vessels and 

Engines 2008 Inventory Overview 

Barge Dredge 

Total Number of Vessels 88 18 

Total Number of Engines 318 83 

Number of Auxiliary Engines 314 77 

Average Horsepower of Auxiliary Engines 346 812 

Number of Propulsion Engines 4 6 

Average Horsepower of Propulsion Engines 251 2,708 

As shown in Table 8, only a few barge and dredge vessels have propulsion engines. 

Most of these vessels are towed or pushed by other vessels. The total average annual 

hours of operation for barges and dredges is shown in Table 9. Propulsion engines 

have much higher annual hours of operation compared to auxiliary engines. Auxiliary 

engines have lower average annual hours, but have a larger population. Because of 

the large population, auxiliary engines make up the majority of barge and dredge 

emissions. 

Table 9: Annual Engine Hours of Operation for 

Barge and Dredge Vessels 

 

2008 

Inventory

Propulsion Engine 

Average Annual Hours 1,510* 

Auxiliary Engine 

Average Annual Hours 550 

 * Average annual hours for propulsion engines is from the 2009 barge and dredge survey based on 

very few data points, given small number of engines. 

Table 10 shows the percentage of time that barge and dredge vessels operate by 

distance from shore. Like crew and supply vessels, the distance that barge and dredge 

vessels operate from shore is important to consider. These vessels typically operate in 

harbor and generally close to shore. Therefore, most of the related emissions impact 

those communities near the ports. 
10

Table 10: Percent of Barge and Dredge Vessel Engine Operations by Distance 

from Shore (2009 Survey) 

% Total Annual Hours (Distance from Shore)

Vessel Type

0-3 nm 3-24 nm >24 nm

Barge 83% 2% 15% 

Dredge 100% 0% 0% 

 D. Emissions from Barge and Dredge Vessel Engines 

Emissions from barge and dredge vessel engines are estimated to be 33 tpy of diesel 

PM and 760 tpy of NOx as shown in Table 11 below. 

Table 11: Barge and Dredge Vessel Engine Emissions

 

2008 

Inventory 

PM Emissions (tpy) 33 

NOx Emissions (tpy) 760 

E. Total Combined Emissions from Crew and Supply Vessels and Barge 

and Dredge Vessels 

Table 12 presents the total 2008 baseline emissions inventory for crew and supply, 

barge, and dredge vessels. Total combined emissions from both vessel categories are 

66 tpy of diesel PM and 1,430 tpy of NOx. 

Table 12: Combined Total Emissions from Crew and Supply Vessels 

 and Barge and Dredge Vessels – 2008 Inventory 

 

Crew and 

Supply

Barges and 

Dredges 

Total Combined 

Emissions 

PM Emissions (tpy) 33 33 66 

NOx Emissions (tpy) 670 760 1,430 
11

3. HEALTH RISK 

The Board listed Diesel PM as a toxic air contaminant in 1998 based on its potential to 

cause cancer, premature death, and other health effects. NOx is a precursor to the 

formation of ozone and contributes to secondarily formed PM in the lower atmosphere. 

Therefore, the reductions in diesel PM emissions and NOx emissions will benefit public 

health by reducing exposure to diesel PM and helping to attain ambient air quality 

standards. The estimated potential cancer and non-cancer risks from CHC that were 

presented in the September 2007 Staff Report are not expected to change significantly 

as a result of the proposed amendments. Crew and supply, barge, and dredge vessel 

emissions are a small percentage of the total overall CHC emissions statewide. In the 

September 2007 Staff Report, crew and supply vessels accounted for about 2 percent 

of the total statewide 2004 CHC diesel PM emissions. However, using the updated 

emission estimates for crew and supply, barge, and dredge vessels, the overall 

increase contribution to the total 2004 CHC statewide inventory less than 10 percent. 

This increase in the total statewide CHC inventory is not expected to significantly affect 

the results of the health risk analysis done for the September 2007 Staff Report. A 

summary of the risks reported in the September 2007 Staff Report are provided below.

A. Potential Cancer Risk 

In the September 2007 Staff Report, ARB staff estimated potential cancer risks from 

CHC using the results from a risk assessment for the Ports of Los Angeles and Long 

Beach (POLA/LB). The POLA/LB health risk assessment estimated that CHC are 

responsible for the third highest impact on cancer risk from port activities. That analysis 

showed that approximately 1.7 million people are exposed to a 10 in a million risk from 

all CHC emissions. 

Estimates of potential cancer risks from harbor craft activity at these two ports would 

represent the upper range of cancer risks, given the magnitude of CHC emissions in the 

area and the proximity of the emissions to highly urbanized areas. Qualitative estimates 

of the relative impact of CHC emissions for other areas can be made based on a 

comparison of the relative magnitude of emissions and the proximity of the emissions to 

urbanized areas. 

 

 B. Non-Cancer Risk 

In the September 2007 Staff Report, staff estimated that exposures to direct and 

secondary diesel PM emissions from all harbor craft can be associated with about 

90 premature deaths per year. Approximately half of these premature deaths are due to 

direct diesel PM and half from secondary diesel PM. A complete discussion of the 

methodology used to develop this estimate is found in the Technical Support Document

of the September 2007 Staff Report. ARB staff is currently updating the methodology to 

estimate non-cancer health risks from diesel PM. The new methodology is anticipated 

to project somewhat fewer premature deaths than those reported in the September 

2007 Staff Report and in this report. 
12

4. SUMMARY OF THE PROPOSED AMENDMENTS 

Staff is proposing to amend the CHC Regulation3 to require the vessel categories of 

crew and supply, barge, and dredge vessels to be subject to in-use engine 

requirements. Staff anticipates that in most cases, engine replacement will be the 

option used by vessel owner/operators to meet the proposed emission standards for 

vessel engines. The accelerated phase-in of newer engines will result in emission 

reductions of diesel PM and NOx. Additional clarifying amendments are also proposed. 

The following sections provide background information on marine and nonroad engine 

standards and more details regarding the proposed amendments. 

A. Background Information on Emission Standards for Marine Engines 

Under the staff’s proposal, the emission limits for PM and NOx from a regulated 

diesel-fueled marine engine would be identical to those specified by the U.S. EPA 

marine engine standards for new engines in effect at the time compliance is required. 

The U.S. EPA marine engine emission standards have phased effective dates and 

emission levels dependent on the engine size. 

The U.S. EPA classifies marine engines as either Category 1, 2, or 3, depending on 

engine size or cylinder displacement, with the engine size increasing with the higher 

category number. All of the marine engines used in California’s CHC are Category 1 or 

2 engines, with about 90 percent of the engines being Category 1 engines. The engine 

size and approximate maximum horsepower (hp) rating for Category 1 and 2 engines 

are provided in Table 13. Category 1 engines are rated at less than 5.0 liters per 

cylinder and can range as high as 2,500 hp. Category 2 engines range in size from 

5.0 liters per cylinder to 30 liters per cylinder and from about 750 to 5,000 hp. 

Table 13: U.S. EPA Marine Engine Categories Used in Commercial Harbor Craft 

Category Liters per Engine 

Cylinder Approximate Horsepower 

Category 1 < 5.0A 50B to <~2500 hp 

Category 2 5.0 to <30A >750 to <5000 hp 

A

 U.S. EPA Tier 3 and Tier 4 marine standards established Category 1 to < 7.0 L/cyl. and 

Category 2 to 7.0 to 30 L/cyl. 

B

 Category 1 Tier 3 standards include engines rated less than 50 hp. 

The emission limits for Category 1 and 2 engines used in CHC are summarized in 

Table 14. 

 

3

 Title 17, California Code of Regulations (CCR) section 93118.5, and title 13, CCR section 2299.5. 
13

Table 14: U.S. EPA Marine Engine Standards Effective Dates and Emissions 

Limits for Category 1 and Category 2 Engines Used in Commercial Harbor Craft 

Category Tier Level Adoption Date Effective 

Date 

PM 

(g/bhp-hr) 

NOx 

(g/bhp-hr) 

1 IMO 1997 

U.S EPA 2003 

2000 

2004 N/A 7.3 – 12.7 B

2 U.S. EPA 1999 2004-2007 0.15-0.3 5.4-5.6C

3 U.S. EPA 2007 2009-2014 0.08-0.3 3.5-5.6C

1 

4

A

 U.S. EPA 2007 2017 0.03 1.3 

1 IMO 1997 

U.S EPA 2003 

2000 

2004 N/A 7.3 – 12.7 B

2 U.S. EPA 1999 2007 0.2 5.8C

3 U.S. EPA 2007 2013 0.1 4.6C

2 

4

A

 U.S. EPA 2007 2016-2017 0.03 1.3 

(40 CFR Part 94) (40 CFR Part 1042) 

A

 Applies only to engines with maximum horsepower rating of 800 hp (600 kW) or more. 

B

 Standard is a function of engine speed, revolutions per minute (rpm). Standard=12.7 for engines with 

engine speed ≥ 2000 rpm. Standard=7.3 for engines with engine speed ≤130 rpm. For engines 

between 130 and 2000 rpm, standard = 33.57 X rpm-0.2

. 

C

 NOx is NOx + total HC. 

B. Background Information on Emission Standards for Off-Road 

Engines 

Generally, barge and dredge vessels utilize off-road engines to power pumps, winches, 

and cranes. Since the mid-1980’s, new engine standards adopted by U.S. EPA and 

ARB have required new off-road engines to become progressively cleaner. In 

developing the new engine standards, ARB staff worked closely with U.S. EPA to 

develop a harmonized federal and State program to more effectively control emissions 

from off-road equipment. The emission standards are divided into four increasingly 

stringent levels (Tiers); the allowed emission level and effective dates vary with 

horsepower. Until the mid-1990’s, off-road diesel engines were not subject to any 

emission standards (commonly referred to as Tier 0 or “uncontrolled engines”). In 1996 

through 2000, the Tier 1 standards took effect. By 2006, all engine sizes were subject 

to Tier 2 standards. Between 2006 and 2008, Tier 3 standards took effect for some 

horsepower groups. Tier 4 standards are divided into two stages: interim Tier 4, which 

begins between 2008 and 2012 for most engines, and final Tier 4, which is effective for 

all off-road engines by 2015. The final Tier 4 standards will require the use of advanced 

exhaust after-treatment technologies to control both PM and NOx, and will result in 

diesel engines that will be over 90 percent cleaner than Tier 0 engines. Table 15 

illustrates how these standards change over time for one horsepower group, 300 to 
14

600 horsepower engines. The numerical standards vary by horsepower group, but the 

downward trend in emissions is the same for all horsepower groups. 

Table 15: ARB and U.S. EPA Diesel PM and NOx Emission Standards for 

New Off-Road Engines (300 – 600 hp) 

Off-Road Engines (600 hp) Marine Engines 

(Category 1 600 hp)

Engine 

Tier 

PM 

Standard* 

NOx+HC 

Standard* 

Effective 

Date PM Standard* NOx+HC Standard* 

Effective 

Date 

Tier 0 NA NA NA NA 

Tier 1 0.40 7.90 1996 NA 7.3 2004 

Tier 2 0.15 4.80 2004 0.15 5.4 2007 

Tier 3 0.15 3.00 2006 0.08 4.2 2013 

Tier 4 

interim 0.01 1.64 2011 NA NA NA 

Tier 4 final 0.01 0.44 2014 0.03 1.3 2016-2017 

*Emission rates expressed in grams per brake horsepower-hour (g/bhp-hr) 

C. In-Use Requirements for Crew and Supply Vessels, Barge, and 

Dredge Vessels 

The proposed amendments would primarily establish in-use emission limits for 

diesel-fueled engines on crew and supply, barge, and dredge vessels that are 

consistent with the U.S. EPA marine or off-road engine standards, similar to that already 

required for excursion vessels, ferries, tugboats, and towboats. Two compliance 

schedules are being proposed; one for crew and supply vessel engines and another for 

barge and dredge vessel engines. Separate compliance schedules were developed in 

consideration of the profile of the engine fleets and to provide a transition period for 

barge and dredge operators from planned compliance with the Portable Engine ATCM 

to the CHC regulation. 

1. Crew and Supply, Barge, and Dredge Vessel Engine

Compliance Options 

Staff is proposing that in-use Tier 0 (pre-Tier 1) and Tier 1 engines on crew and supply, 

barge, dredge vessel engines meet emission limits equal to or cleaner than current 

U.S. EPA marine engine standards. In auxiliary applications, staff is proposing that 

in-use Tier 0 (pre-Tier 1) and Tier 1 engines meet emission limits equal to or cleaner 

than engines meeting Tier 2 or Tier 3 marine or off-road engine standards. Engine 

compliance options vary depending upon the proposed compliance schedule, 

horsepower, and liters/cylinder. The proposed amendments do not require compliance 

with Tier 4 (after-treatment based) U.S. EPA standards for in-use engines due to issues 

with the additional engine weight and space requirements associated with applying 

after-treatment technologies to existing vessels. 
15

While the primary method for compliance with the proposed in-use engine requirements 

will likely be the replacement of in-use engines with new certified engines, the proposed 

amendments include other options for compliance. These options include: 

• demonstrating that the existing engine meets the applicable U.S. EPA marine or 

off-road engine standards; 

• demonstrating that the existing crew and supply vessel engine has not and will 

not operate 300 hours or more per calendar year; or

• demonstrating that the existing barge and dredge vessel engine has not and will 

not operate 80 hours or more per calendar year. 

 

If the propulsion engine is replaced with a Tier 2 or 3 marine standard engine, or if an 

auxiliary engine is replaced with a Tier 2 or 3 off-road auxiliary engine, or can be shown 

to meet the applicable standards, all compliance requirements for that engine will have 

been met. 

 

2. Crew and Supply Vessel and Barge and Dredge Engine 

Compliance Schedules 

The proposed compliance schedules are shown in Table 16 and Table 17 for crew and 

supply and barge and dredge engines, respectively. Compliance dates are based on the 

model year of the engine and the annual hours of operation. Table 18 shows the 

distribution of engines by compliance year that would need to comply with the proposed 

amendments. 

The engine model year would be determined by one of three methods. In most cases, 

the engine’s actual model year of manufacture would be used to determine the required 

compliance date. However, the regulation provides two additional options using an 

“effective model year” different from the actual engine model year. The first of those 

options is to implement an emission control strategy that achieves at least a 25 percent 

reduction in either PM or NOx; this would extend the engine model year by five years. 

This is referred to as the “Engine’s Model Year + 5” method. The date by which the 

engine must meet the U.S. EPA marine engine standards would be based on the actual 

engine model year plus five years. The second option is to demonstrate that the engine 

has been rebuilt to Tier 1 standards or cleaner prior to January 1, 2008; this would allow 

the date of rebuild to be used as the engine’s model year for determining when the 

engine must meet the U.S. EPA marine engine standards. This is referred to as the 

“Engine’s Tier 1 Rebuild Model Year.” 
16

Table 16: Compliance Dates for Crew and Supply Vessel Engines Statewide 

Engine Model Year Total Annual Hours of 

Operation 

Compliance 

Date 

1985 and earlier >1500 12/31/2011 

1985 and earlier > 300 – 1500 12/31/2012 

1986 - 1995 >1500 12/31/2013 

1986 - 1995 > 300 – 1500 12/31/2014 

1996 - 2000 >1500 12/31/2015 

1996 - 2000 > 300 – 1500 12/31/2016 

2001 - 2002 >300 12/31/2017 

2003 >300 12/31/2018 

2004 >300 12/31/2019 

2005 >300 12/31/2020 

2006 >300 12/31/2021 

2007 >300 12/31/2022 

Table 17: Compliance Dates for Barge and Dredge Vessel Engines Statewide 

Engine Model Year Total Annual Hours of 

Operation 

Compliance 

Date 

1975 and earlier >80 12/31/2011 

1976 - 1980 >80 12/31/2012 

1981 - 1985 >80 12/31/2013 

1986 - 1990 >80 12/31/2014 

1991 - 1995 >80 12/31/2015 

1996 - 1999 >80 12/31/2016 

2000 - 2001 >80 12/31/2017 

2002 >80 12/31/2018 

2003 >80 12/31/2019 

2004 >80 12/31/2020 

2005 >80 12/31/2021 

2006 >80 12/31/2022 
17

Table 18: Estimated Population of In-Use Crew and 

Supply and Barge and Dredge Vessel Engines 

Subject to Amendments to CHC Regulation Emission Limits 

 

Year 

Crew and 

Supply 

Engines 

Barge and 

Dredge 

Engines Total 

2011 33 5 38 

2012 6 3 9 

2013 3 7 10 

2014 3 6 9 

2015 10 5 15 

2016 3 43 46 

2017 14 45 59 

2018 12 6 18 

2019 14 4 18 

2020 19 3 22 

2021 8 1 9 

2022 25 2 27 

Total 150 130 280 

 

D. Other Proposed Amendments 

Additional clarifying amendments are also being proposed. The most substantive 

proposals are listed below that clarify requirements and to address issues that have 

arisen during the implementation of the 2007 regulation including additional definitions. 

All amendments are included in the proposed language shown in Appendix A. 

1. Deleting Exemption for Vessels in PERP or Under District 

Permit Prior to January 1, 2009 

Staff is proposing to remove the exemption (17 CCR section 93118.5 (c)(7)(C)) that 

excluded vessels registered in PERP or permitted by the districts before 

January 1, 2009 from the CHC regulation. This amendment will provide consistency to 

CHC vessels. Marine vessel auxiliary engines that were registered in PERP were 

subject to the Portable Engine ATCM. During 2009, it became clear that having some 

barge and dredges subject to the Portable Engine ATCM and others subject to the CHC 

regulation was creating compliance and enforcement issues. In January 2010, PERP 

was amended to make engines used on marine vessels that were registered in that 

program subject to the requirements of the CHC regulation.4

 The goal of the 

amendments to PERP and the proposed amendments to the CHC regulation is to allow 

harbor craft vessels to be subject to a single regulation, regardless if they are registered 

in PERP or not. 

 

4

 Final PERP amendments pending completion of rulemaking process. 
18

ARB staff also became aware that some districts did not permit barge and dredge 

vessels, leaving some in-use engines on these vessels uncontrolled. Since the current 

CHC regulation has no in-use requirements for barge and dredge vessel engines, staff 

proposes to amend this regulation for consistency, and to require all barge and dredge 

vessel engines, including those currently registered in PERP or under district permits, to 

be subject to the CHC regulation. 

2. Allowing Certified Off-Road or Nonroad Engines to be Used as 

Auxiliary Engines 

The current CHC regulation requires vessel owner/operators’ in-use engines to meet 

Tier 2 and Tier 3 marine engine standards. The proposed amendments will allow 

vessel owner/operators more flexibility to comply with the current CHC regulation by 

allowing them to use currently available Tier 2 or higher certified off-road engines to 

meet the in-use requirements for auxiliary engines. Owner/operators can install a Tier 2 

or Tier 3 (marine or off-road) engine on a vessel as a replacement auxiliary engine even 

after Tier 4 marine, or interim Tier 4 and final Tier 4 off-road standards are in effect. 

Tier 4 standards will require integration of exhaust aftertreatment into the engine design. 

Generally, these design changes make these engines larger and heavier. These larger 

and heavier Tier 4 engines may not be practical for some CHC engine replacements 

due to space limitations in the engine compartments of those vessels. In addition, there 

may be situations where the harsh marine environment may have adverse affects on 

off-road engines. Vessel owner/operators must assess these factors when deciding to 

use an off-road engine. 

3. Adding a Definition of “Swing Engine” and Requirements for 

Their Inclusion in Recordkeeping 

Swing engines are defined and requirements for their inclusion in reporting and 

recordkeeping are included in the proposed amendments. One standard maintenance 

practice of CHC fleet owner/operators includes the use of swing engines. These 

engines match the engines currently on a vessel or fleet of vessels. The engines are 

standing by, ready to be installed on a vessel when the existing engine is not 

functioning properly, or during the normal maintenance cycle, thereby preventing 

excessive vessel downtime. All swing engines used on a regulated vessel categories 

would be considered in-use engines and must meet the applicable in-use engine 

compliance requirements. 

4. Delete Multipurpose Harbor Craft Definition and Low Use 

Exemption 

Staff is proposing to delete the “multipurpose harbor craft” term and the low use 

exemption in title 17, CCR section 93118.5(c)(12) from the CHC regulation which was 

often confusing and overly burdensome to some vessel owners. This change will allow 

vessel owner/operators more flexibility to operate vessel engines for up to 300 hours 
19

per year in any one of the regulated vessel categories without having to comply with the 

in-use engine requirements. This allows vessel owner/operators to be exempt from the 

in-use engine compliance requirements as long as the total engine hours of operation 

stays below 300 hours when operating as a regulated in-use vessel type. For example, 

an owner of a fishing vessel engines may operate unlimited annual hours 

because fishing vessels are an unregulated in-use vessel type. The fishing vessel 

could also offer whale watching excursions on his vessel which is a regulated in-use 

vessel type. The fishing vessel engines would not be required to comply with the in-use 

compliance schedule unless the vessel engines are used for whale watching excursions 

for more than 300 hours per year. 

Barge and dredge vessels are limited to operating less than 80 hours to be exempt from 

the in-use engine compliance requirements. This 80 hour limitation is necessary for 

barge and dredge vessels to remain consistent with Portable Engine ATCM 

requirements that many have been subject to by their registration in PERP. 

5. Special Circumstances to Use Non-CARB Diesel Fuel 

The current CHC regulation requires the use of CARB diesel fuel or specific alternative 

diesel fuel. The proposed amendments will allow vessel engines to operate using 

U.S. EPA on-road fuel or U.S. EPA nonroad diesel fuel, in the event a vessel operator 

cannot obtain CARB diesel fuel prior to operating in Regulated California Waters. 

Table 19 compares ARB and U.S. EPA on-road and nonroad diesel fuel standards. 

Table 19: ARB and U.S. EPA Diesel Fuel Standards 

Fuel Type Implementation 

Date 

Maximum 

Sulfur Level 

(ppmv) 

Aromatics 

Maximum 

(% by volume) 

Cetane Index 

(Minimum) 

CARB 2006 15 10 40 

U.S. EPA On-road 2006 15 35 40 

U.S. EPA Nonroad 2010 15 35 40 

6. Deadline for Alternative Control of Emission Plans 

The current CHC regulation does not state a date by which a vessel owner/operator that 

utilizes an Alternative Control of Emission (ACE) Plan must submit that plan. The 

proposed amendments would require the ACE plan to be submitted prior to or before 

February 28 of the year the vessel engine compliance is required. 

7. In-Use Out-of-State Vessels Operating in California 

The current CHC regulation requires all harbor craft, including those from out-of state, to 

be subject to the in-use engine requirements and to provide an initial report and a 

compliance plan when operating in Regulated California Waters. There has been some 

confusion among out-of-state CHC vessels operators about the need to comply with the 
20

reporting requirements. The proposed amendments would clarify that out-of-state CHC 

vessels are required to complete an initial report within 30 days of a vessel being 

brought into California to operate in Regulated California Waters and to submit a 

Compliance Plan within 90 days of being subject to an in-use engine requirement. 

8. Replacement Engine Exemption 

The current CHC regulation requires that if an engine is replaced, the replacement 

engine must meet the current U.S. EPA model year marine engine standards. There 

may be compliance situations when a vessel’s engines are already complying with the 

CHC regulation with Tier 2 engines. A situation may arise when a vessel with multiple 

propulsion or auxiliary engines experiences a catastrophic failure of one of the engines. 

If Tier 3 engines are currently available, a Tier 3 engine may not be compatible with the 

other existing Tier 2 engines. The proposed amendment provides vessel 

owner/operators an exemption in specific cases allowing a non-compliant engine to be 

installed on a vessel if there are no suitable engine replacements available, or if the new 

engine does not synchronize with the existing engines. The proposed amendments 

include specific requirements that must be met in order to use a noncompliant engine. 

The proposed amendments allow replacement of an engine not meeting current 

standards if the vessel owner/operator can demonstrate that a compliant engine, or one 

meeting required physical or performance characteristics, is not available. To 

demonstrate this, the vessel owner/operator must evaluate the current engine tier and 

each previous engine tier. Approval must be obtained from the ARB Executive Officer. 

9. Allowing the Use of an Available Engine to Replace an Older 

Engine Subject to In-use Requirements 

The proposed regulation would, in certain situations, allow an engine that does not meet 

the Tier 2 or Tier 3 requirements to be used on a temporary basis. The engine must be 

within the same fleet, and the original compliance date of the older, replaced engine 

must be kept. 

 10. Clarification of Requirements Applicable to Newly Acquired 

 Vessels and Ferry Vessels 

The proposed amendments have been reworded to clarify existing requirements that 

owners/operators of new ferries having the capacity to transport 75 or more passengers 

are required to equip diesel propulsion engines that meet either Tier 2 or Tier 3 marine 

standards with Best Available Control Technology (BACT). BACT is not required for 

diesel propulsion engines that are certified to Tier 4 marine standards. 

 11. Compliance Extensions

The proposed amendments would expand the availability of the current compliance 

extension of title 17, CCR section (e)(6)(E)4 to allow an owner to also request a 

compliance extension in situations where that owner has multiple vessels that are 
21

subject to compliance dates of 2011 or 2012 for crew and supply, barge, and dredge 

vessels, similar to the current compliance extension allowed for ferries, excursion 

vessels, tugboats, towboats, and push boats. 

12. Definitions Added 

The proposed amendments revise section (d) of the existing regulation by adding 

several definitions and deleting one to clarify the proposed amended language. 

Definitions that were added include, “certified nonroad engine”, “dredge”, “family 

emission limit”, “permanently affixed to a harbor craft”, “regulated in-use vessel”, “swing 

engine”, ”tier 2 off-road or nonroad emission standards”, ”tier 3 off-road or nonroad 

emission standards”, ”tier 4 final off-road or nonroad emission standards”, ”tier 4 interim 

off-road or nonroad emission standards”, deleting the definition of “multipurpose harbor 

craft”, clarifying “temporary emergency rescue/recovery vessel” definition. 

13. Update Low Sulfur Fuel Regulation 

Staff is also proposing minor amendments to the Low Sulfur Fuel Regulation (section 

2299.5, title 13, CCR) to align definition numbers with section 93118.5, title 17, CCR. 
22

5. ENVIRONMENTAL AND HEALTH IMPACTS OF PROPOSED AMENDMENTS 

A. Emissions Reductions Statewide 

ARB staff has estimated the emissions reductions of the proposed amendments for 

crew and supply, barge, and dredge vessel engines. As stated earlier, statewide 

emissions from these specific vessel categories are a small portion of the total harbor 

craft emissions. However, these emission reductions are important in achieving the 

Board’s goals in the Diesel Risk Reduction Plan and Emission Reduction Plan for Ports 

and Goods, as well as attaining and maintaining ambient air quality standards. 

Additionally, these emissions represent a significant portion of the total CHC emissions 

in Santa Barbara County and Ventura County districts. The emissions reductions for 

these two districts are presented in Section B of this chapter. 

1. Crew and Supply Boat Emission Reductions Statewide 

The projected statewide annual emissions for crew and supply vessels are presented in 

Figure 2. Statewide, the baseline uncontrolled diesel PM emissions from crew and 

supply vessels are estimated to be about 33 tpy in 2008, dropping to about 22 tpy in 

2025. The reduction in uncontrolled emission over this period is due to the anticipated 

or planned replacement of older engines. With the proposed amendments in place 

accelerating engine turnover, diesel PM emissions would be reduced in 2025 from 22 

tpy to less than 10 tpy. The proposed amendments affect about 150 of the 236 crew 

and supply vessel engines, as some engines are exempt due to size or annual hours of 

operation or are already at Tier 2 or Tier 3. The total estimated diesel PM emission 

reductions from crew and supply vessels from 2011 to 2015 would be about 187 tons. 
23

Figure 2: Projected Statewide Diesel PM Emissions for Crew and Supply Vessel 

Diesel-Fueled Engines 

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

2008

2009

2010

2011

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2021

2022

2023

2024

2025

Year

Tons/year

2008 Crew & Supply Baseline

2008 Crew & Supply Controlled
24

Figure 3 shows that the projected statewide NOx emissions from and supply vessels are 

estimated to be about 670 tpy in 2008, dropping to about 466 tpy in 2025 without the 

proposed amendments. With the proposed amendments in place, the NOx emissions 

would be further reduced from 466 tpy to about 350 tpy in 2025. The total estimated 

NOx emission reductions from crew and supply vessels from 2011 to 2025 would be 

about 2,000 tons. 

Figure 3: Projected Statewide NOx Emissions for Crew and Supply Vessel 

Diesel-Fueled Engines 

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

20082009

20102011

20122013

2014

2015

20162017

20182019

2020

2021

20222023

20242025

Year

Tons/year

2008 Crew & Supply Baseline

2008 Crew & Supply Controlled
25

 

2. Barge and Dredge Vessel Emission Reductions Statewide 

Figure 4 illustrates the statewide barge and dredge vessel engine diesel PM emissions 

with and without the proposed amendments. Statewide, the baseline uncontrolled 

diesel PM emissions from barges and dredges are estimated to be about 33 tpy in 

2008, dropping to about 12 tpy in 2025. The reduction in uncontrolled emissions over 

this period is due to the anticipated or planned replacement of older engines. With the 

proposed amendments in place accelerating engine turnover, diesel PM emissions 

would be reduced in 2025 from 12 tpy to less than 7 tpy. The proposed amendments 

affect 129 of the 400 barge and dredge vessel engines statewide, as some engines are 

exempt due to size or annual hours of operation or are already at Tier 2 or Tier 3. The 

total estimated diesel PM emission reductions from barges and dredges from 2011 to 

2025 would be about 90 tons. 

Figure 4: Projected Statewide Diesel PM Emissions for Barge and Dredge Vessel 

Diesel-Fueled Engines 

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

2008

2009

2010

2011

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2021

2022

2023

2024

2025

Year

Tons/year

2008 Barge and Dredge Baseline

2008 Barge and Dredge Controlled
26

Figure 5 shows that the projected statewide NOx emissions from barge and dredge 

vessels are estimated to be about 760 tpy in 2008, dropping to about 340 tpy in 2025 

without the proposed amendments. With the proposed amendments in place, the NOx

emissions would be further reduced from 340 tpy to about 255 tpy in 2025. The total 

estimated NOx emission reductions from barges and dredges from 2011 to 2025 would 

be about 1,475 tons. 

Figure 5: Projected Statewide NOx Emissions for Barge and Dredge Vessel 

Diesel-Fueled Engines 

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

20082009

2010

2011

201220132014

20152016

20172018

20192020

2021

20222023

2024

2025

Year

Tons/year

2008 Barge and Dredge Baseline

2008 Barge and Dredge Controlled
27

Total Statewide Combined Emission Reductions for Diesel PM and NOx from 

Crew and Supply Vessels and Barge and Dredge Vessels 

Table 20 below shows the total statewide diesel PM and NOx emission reductions from 

crew and supply vessels and barge and dredge vessels associated with the proposed 

CHC regulatory amendments. These reductions are the cumulative reductions from 

2011 to 2025. The total statewide emissions reductions of diesel PM from crew and 

supply vessels and barge and dredge vessels would be 277 tons. The total statewide 

emission reductions of NOx from crew and supply vessels and barges and dredge

vessels would be 3,475 tons. 

 

Table 20: Total Statewide Diesel PM and NOx Emission Reductions Associated 

with the Proposed Regulatory Amendments 

 Diesel PM Reductions 

(2011 – 2025) 

(tons) 

NOx Reductions 

(2011 – 2025) 

(tons) 

Crew and Supply 

Vessels 187 2,000 

Barge and 

Dredge Vessels 90 1,475 

Statewide Total 277 3,475 

B. Santa Barbara County APCD and Ventura County APCD Crew and 

Supply Vessel Engine Emission Reductions 

Crew and supply vessels are a small segment (less then 2 percent) of the California 

CHC fleets, but their engines contribute a significant portion of the CHC emissions in 

Santa Barbara County and Ventura County districts. Figures 6 and 7 present estimated 

annual diesel PM and NOx emissions from crew and supply vessels in Santa Barbara 

County and Ventura County districts. In 2025, after full implementation of the proposed 

amendments to the regulation, diesel PM emissions from crew and supply vessels in 

the Santa Barbara County and Ventura County district would be reduced from the 2008 

baseline of 17 tpy to about 5 tpy and NOx emissions would be reduced from about 280 

tpy to about 170 tpy. 

Over the period 2011 through 2025, 95 tons of diesel PM and 600 tons of NOx would be 

reduced as a result of the proposed amendments. These reductions are in addition to 

the reductions obtained from the 2007 CHC regulation and are of greater significance to 

Santa Barbara County and Ventura County districts. In Santa Barbara and Ventura 

County districts crew and supply vessel emissions make up about 20 percent of all CHC 

emissions. The proposed amended regulation will also reduce emissions from barge 

and dredge vessel engines in these districts, even though barge and dredge engine 

emissions do not make up a significant portion of the CHC emissions in the Santa 

Barbara and Ventura area. 
28

Many of the owner/operators of crew and supply vessel engines servicing oil platforms 

were required by the Santa Barbara County APCD to utilize NOx emission reduction 

engine modifications, including turbo charging, enhanced inter-cooling, and retarding 

the engine timing by 4 degrees. These engine modifications result in NOx emission 

reductions, but may result in an increase in diesel PM emissions. The proposed 

amended regulation will require the vessel engines to meet performance standards for 

both PM and NOx emissions. 

Figure 6: Projected Santa Barbara County and Ventura County APCD 

Diesel PM Emissions for Crew and Supply Vessel Diesel-Fueled Engines 

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

200820092010

2011

20122013

2014

20152016

20172018

2019

202020212022

202320242025

Year

Tons per Year

2008 Crew & Supply Baseline

2008 Crew & Supply Controlled

Figure 7: Projected Santa Barbara County and Ventura County APCD 

NOx Emissions for Crew and Supply Vessel Diesel-Fueled Engines 

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

2008

2009

2010

2011

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2021

2022

2023

2024

2025

Year

Tons per Year

2008 Crew & Supply Baseline

2008 Crew & Supply Controlled
29

C. Health Impacts 

 

The emission reductions associated with the proposed amendments would result in 

lower ambient PM levels and reductions in exposure to diesel PM and NOx. These 

reductions would result in a corresponding reduction in potential cancer risk and 

premature deaths. 

Estimating the impact of the diesel PM reductions on potential cancer risk are highly 

dependent on the specific location of the emission reduction. The diesel PM emission 

reductions due to the proposed amendments, about 275 tons between 2011 and 2025, 

are about 10 percent of the 2,400 tons diesel PM reductions estimated under the 2007 

rule. While it is not possible to identify the impact of this 10 percent reduction on the 

number of persons exposed to various risk levels as staff did in the September 2007 

Staff Report without extensive computer modeling, it is reasonable to assume that there 

will be a small – up to 10 percent – reduction in risk levels due to the proposed 

amendments. A similar reduction in premature deaths would also be expected. 

D. Environmental Impact 

The ARB staff anticipates that, in most cases, engine replacement will be the option 

chosen by vessel owner/operators to meet the proposed emission standards for vessel 

engines and that the accelerated phase-in of these newer engines will provide diesel 

PM and NOx emissions reductions. In addition, the newer engines are typically more 

energy efficient and have emission reduction technologies, thereby reducing criteria, 

toxic, and greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. No significant adverse environmental 

impacts are expected to occur from the adoption of, and compliance with, the proposed 

amendments for crew and supply, barge, and dredge vessel engines. 

E. Impact on Global Warming 

The accelerated replacement of older technology engines required by the proposed 

amendments should reduce GHG emissions. However, some actions required by the 

proposed amendments could result in slightly increased carbon dioxide (CO2) for some 

applications. For example, an increase in CO2 could occur if crew and supply vessel or 

barge and dredge vessel owner/operators choose to comply with the regulation by using 

exhaust treatment technologies that use vessel power (e.g., scrubbers, selective 

catalytic reduction), increase the weight of the vessel, or require a larger engine to be 

installed on the vessel. While this potentially could occur, staff does not believe many 

crew and supply, barge, or dredge vessel operators are likely to select these as 

compliance options and will elect instead to install new engines. Newer marine engines 

are expected to have slightly improved fuel economy compared to unregulated engines, 

thereby reducing some GHG emissions. 
30

The proposed amendments would reduce emissions of PM and NOx. The following 

section provides an overview of the current understanding of the potential climate 

impacts of these pollutants. 

Particulate Matter (PM): PM from marine diesel engine exhaust is composed of 

combustion particles consisting of elemental and organic carbon and sulfate, all of 

which can form aerosols. Atmospheric aerosols play an important role in the climate 

system through modifications of the global energy budget: directly, by the scattering and 

absorption of radiation; indirectly, by the modification of cloud properties. Black carbon 

typically emitted as a fraction of PM from combustion processes, is the main 

light-absorbing component of aerosols and thereby causes global warming. In recent 

years, there has been increased attention to black carbon for its global warming 

potential through direct and semi-direct effects. Due to the relatively short atmospheric 

residence time of black carbon, reductions in black carbon emissions represent a 

potential near term opportunity to postpone the effects of rising GHG levels on the 

global climate. The heightened interest in black carbon also builds on the long-known 

association of these emissions with localized air pollution and associated negative 

health impacts. Therefore, reducing black carbon emissions promises significant cobenefits by improving the health of local people while contributing to the global climate 

change effort. 

Overall, the climate impact assessment of PM emitted by shipping is rather complex: 

radiative forcing of black carbon is positive (climate warming impact), while radiative 

forcing of sulfate particles is negative (cooling impact). The particles emitted from 

marine diesel engines represent a variety of compositions and sizes. The magnitude of 

the overall direct climate impact of black carbon emitted from marine engines and 

information on emissions of ship-exhaust particles, such as detailed characterization of 

chemical composition, microphysical characteristics and the fate of the particles in the 

marine environment are not well known. (ARB, 2008). A better characterization of 

marine diesel engine emissions are needed to improve the understanding of the climate 

change benefits from emission reduction strategies 

Nitrogen oxides (NOx): Through the production of tropospheric ozone, emissions of 

NOx have a climate warming impact. However, by affecting the concentration of 

hydroxyl radical (OH) they reduce the levels of methane, providing a cooling effect. The 

net climate impact of changes in NOx emissions will depend on whether ozone or 

methane production dominates. At this time, there is no consensus on which action is 

likely to dominate or on the overall magnitude of the impact due to changes in NOx

emissions resulting from the regulation. (ARB, 2008) 

In summary, efforts to reduce marine diesel emissions will reduce both positive and 

negative climate forcing substances. Thus, staff expects the proposed regulation 

amendments to have an overall negligible effect on global warming, with some slight 

GHG reductions due to newer, more fuel efficient engines. 
31

6. ECONOMIC IMPACTS 

This chapter discusses the estimated costs and economic impacts associated with 

implementation of the proposed amendments to the CHC regulation. The expected 

capital and recurring costs for potential compliance options, the cost and associated 

economic impacts on businesses, as well as an analysis of the cost-effectiveness of 

proposed amendments to the regulation are presented. Estimates in this section are 

based on the costs incurred and emissions reduced during the compliance years of 

2011 to 2022. However, the proposed amendments will continue to have additional 

emission reductions after 2022, and the emission reductions through 2025 are 

examined in the previous section of this report. Generally, costs contained in this 

section are presented in 2009 dollars. The costs, adjusted for net present value (NPV), 

are included with an explanation of the methodology used in Appendix D. 

A. Regulatory and New Equipment Costs 

In assessing the costs associated with the proposed amendments to the CHC 

regulation, ARB staff developed two different estimates, one for regulatory costs and 

another for new equipment costs. Regulatory costs are the estimated costs resulting 

from the proposed amendments taking into consideration the residual value of the 

in-use engine being replaced, the residual value of the most recent engine rebuild work, 

recordkeeping and reporting costs, and the time value of money associated with the 

early engine replacement. Staff estimates the lifetime regulatory cost for compliance 

with the proposed amendments to the regulation to be approximately $15 million (2009 

dollars or $10 million adjusted to NPV) from 2011 through 2022. 

New equipment costs are the estimated total out-of-pocket costs for purchasing and 

installing a new engine (engine replacement cost) in crew and supply, barge, and 

dredge vessels. New equipment costs are estimated to be approximately $46 million 

(2009 dollars) over the compliance years of the proposed amendments (2011 to 2022). 

New equipment costs are the total costs of complying with the regulation, not taking into 

consideration the remaining useful life of the engine being replaced. The cost of 

purchasing and installing a new engine are costs that the vessel owner/operator would 

eventually incur, but the proposed amendments to the CHC regulation requires this 

expenditure earlier than normal. 

 B. Return on Owner’s Equity 

Staff evaluated the economic impacts of the proposed amended regulation by 

estimating the effect of the regulatory cost on typical businesses’ “return on owner’s 

equity” (ROE). The ROE is a measure of a businesses’ profitability and is expressed as 

a percentage. As shown in Table 21, the average ROE of the businesses in the 

categories listed declined by about 0.95 percent. The decline in profitability was 

1.44 percent for crew and supply vessels, and 0.45 percent for barge and dredge 

vessels. Generally, ARB considers a 10 percent change in ROE to be the threshold at 

which businesses experience a significant adverse impact. 
32

Table 21: Affected Businesses with Change in ROE 

Category ROE % 

Change 

Crew and Supply -1.44% 

Barge and Dredge -0.45% 

Average -0.95% 

These businesses, however, are unlikely to have to absorb the entire cost of the 

proposed amended regulation. To the extent that they are able to pass on the cost of 

the proposed amended regulation, the impact on their profitability should be less than 

estimated here. Thus, ARB staff expects most affected businesses to be able to absorb 

the cost of the proposed amended regulation with no significant adverse impact on their 

profitability. About 55 percent of the total number of businesses impacted are 

considered small businesses; with about 60 percent of the crew and supply vessel 

businesses and about 50 percent of the barge and dredge businesses being considered 

small businesses. 

These businesses may be able to reduce the impact of the proposed amended 

regulation on their businesses by taking advantage of available incentive or grant 

funding. The cost impacts presented here do not take into consideration the impact of 

incentive or grant funding. Carl Moyer Program funding is a potential funding source for 

companies that comply early or achieve emission reductions beyond the amendments. 

California has one of the largest clean air incentive programs in the nation – the Carl 

Moyer Program – with up to $140 million available each year through State and local 

funds. In 2009, almost $3 million went to repowering marine vessels. Proposition 1B 

funds will also be available to eligible commercial harbor craft operators for repowering 

engines, retrofitting vessels with hybrid systems, and replacing vessels with cleaner 

models. At the Board meeting held on March 25, 2010, the Proposed Update to the 

Proposition 1B Program Guidelines were approved, which included project options that

would fund up to 80% of the cost for non-regulated vessels and up to 50% for the early 

compliance of regulated vessels. The Board will award the next Proposition 1B funding 

allocations to local agencies in June 2010 with additional funding to be made available 

as bond monies are received by ARB. (ARB, 2008a) 

 

C. Cost to Local, State, and Federal Agencies 

One state agency would be impacted by the proposed amendments to the regulation. 

The California Department of Parks and Recreation operates two crew and supply 

vessels used to service Angel Island in the San Francisco Bay Area and would be 

impacted by the in-use engine requirements. The regulatory cost to this state agency is 

estimated to be about $60,000. Barge and dredge vessels are owned and operated by 

two local agencies in Santa Cruz and Monterey and by the federal agency, the United 

States Army Corps of Engineers. The estimated regulatory costs range from $1,900 to 
33

$46,000 over the life of the regulation for these agencies that operate barge and dredge 

vessels. 

The proposed amendments to the regulation should not add significant costs above 

those already required to implement and enforce the proposed amended regulation. 

One additional ARB enforcement staff may be needed, at a cost of $175,000 and 

$12,000 for yearly travel. The ARB’s administrative costs for outreach, educational 

efforts, and technical assistance would be absorbed within existing budgets and 

resources. 

D. Cost-Effectiveness 

Cost-effectiveness is expressed in terms of costs in dollars per unit of emissions 

reduced (pounds or tons). The cost-effectiveness for the proposed amendments is 

determined by dividing the regulatory costs (cost specifically due to compliance with the 

proposed amended regulation) by the total pounds of diesel PM and tons of NOx

reduced during the years 2011 to 2022. The cost-effectiveness of the proposed 

amendments is estimated, based on the regulatory costs, to be about $35 per pound of 

diesel PM reduced if all the cost is attributed to diesel PM reductions (2009 dollars or 

$23 per pound adjusted to NPV). If the costs are split evenly between diesel PM and 

NOx, the cost effectiveness is estimated at about $17 per pound for diesel PM and 

$2,700 per ton of NOx. If the costs are attributed to the combined total of diesel PM and 

NOx reductions, cost- effectiveness would be about $2.50 per pound. The net present 

value (NPV) estimates “today’s dollars” of future net cash are presented in Appendix D. 

Table 22 shows the cost-effectiveness estimate for the proposed amended regulation 

expressed three ways. First, all costs assigned to PM, second, cost divided equally 

between PM and NOx, and third, PM and NOx emissions are combined. 
34

Table 22: Summary of Cost-Effectiveness of the Proposed Amendments for the 

Period 2011-2022 (2009 dollars) 

Emissions 

Total Regulatory 

Cost 

2011 – 2022 

Total Emissions 

Reduced 

2011 – 2022 

Total CostEffectiveness

All Costs Assigned to PM 

PM $15,000,000 435,000 lbs $35/lb 

Divide Costs Equally Between PM and NOx 

PM $7,500,000 435,000 lbs $17/lb 

NOx $7,500,000 2,800 tons $2,700/ton 

Combine PM and NOx Emissions 

PM + NOx $15,000,000 6,000,000 lbs $2.50/lb 

All values rounded 

The cost-effectiveness values of the amended CHC regulation are within the range of 

cost-effectiveness for other diesel-fueled engine regulations adopted by the Board, as 

shown in Table 23. 

Table 23: Diesel PM Cost-Effectiveness of the Proposal and Other 

Regulations/Measures (All Costs Attributed to Diesel PM Reduction) 

Regulation or 

Airborne Toxic Control Measure Diesel PM Cost-Effectiveness 

Dollars/ Pound PM 

Stationary Diesel Engine ATCM $4 - $26 

Transport Refrigeration Unit ATCM $10 - $20 

Solid Waste Collection Vehicle Rule $28 

Commercial Harbor Craft (2007) $29 

Commercial Harbor Craft 

(2010 amendments) $35 

Cargo Handling Equipment $41 

E. Alternatives Considered 

The ARB staff considered two alternatives to the proposed amended CHC regulation. 

Alternative 1 accelerates the barge and dredge vessel engine compliance timeline and 

retains the proposed crew and supply compliance timeline. Alternative 2 slows down 

both the crew and supply vessel engine compliance timeline and the barge and dredge 

vessel compliance timeline and allows more time to replace the older, dirtier engines. 
35

Alternative 1: Accelerate the Statewide Barge and Dredge Vessel Engine 

Compliance Timeline

For Alternative 1, barges and dredge vessels throughout the State would be subject to a 

2011 to 2020 compliance schedule as shown in Table 24. This alternative would speed 

up the engine replacements in the first five years and keep barge and dredge vessels 

more in sync with the Portable Engine ATCM 2020 fleet average. Crew and supply 

vessels would still be subject to the 2011 to 2022 compliance schedule. Table 25 

presents the engine distribution by compliance year. More engines would be required 

to comply with the regulation under this Alternative due to the age and useful life of the 

engines in the fleets. The regulatory cost would be $19 million or about $4 million more 

than the proposed amendments. The estimated new equipment cost of this alternative 

would be $52 million which is about $6 million higher than the proposed amendments’ 

new equipment compliance cost. The total PM emissions reduced with this alternative 

would be higher than with the proposed schedule by about 40 tons of diesel PM and 

600 tons of NOx during the compliance schedule from 2011 to 2022. The resulting costeffectiveness for this alternative would be slightly higher than the proposed amended 

regulation, $38 per pound of diesel PM reduced, as opposed to the $35 per pound of 

diesel PM for the proposed amendments. The resulting cost-effectiveness, dividing the 

cost equally between diesel PM and NOx, would be $19 per pound of diesel PM 

reduced and $2,850 per ton of NOx reduced. 

Table 24: Alternative 1: Alternative Compliance Table to Accelerate Barge and 

Dredge Vessel Engine Compliance 

Barge and Dredge

Engine Model 

Year

Total Annual 

Hours of 

Operation

Compliance Date

1995 and earlier >80 12/31/2011

1996 – 1997 >80 12/31/2012

1998 – 1999 >80 12/31/2013

2000 >80 12/31/2014

2001 >80 12/31/2015

2002 >80 12/31/2016

2003 >80 12/31/2017

2004 >80 12/31/2018

2005 >80 12/31/2019

2006 >80 12/31/2020
36

Table 25: Alternative 1: Statewide Annual In-Use 

Engine Replacements 

Year Engines 

2011 69 

2012 15 

2013 65 

2014 15 

2015 45 

2016 9 

2017 19 

2018 14 

2019 15 

2020 21 

2021 8 

2022 25 

Total 320 

Alternative 1 was not chosen because it is less cost-effective than the proposed 

emissions reduction strategy. Accelerating the compliance dates for barge and dredge 

vessels would keep their compliance timeframe more in sync with the 2020 fleet 

average requirements of the Portable Engine ATCM. However, implementing such a 

strategy would put barge and dredge vessel owner/operators at an unfair economic 

disadvantage when compared with other CHC vessel categories. Owners and 

operators of barge and dredge vessels need time to switch between the Portable 

Engine ATCM and the CHC regulation. In addition, some incentive funding 

opportunities, such as Carl Moyer funding, are not allowed if the marine vessel is not 

self-propelled. 

Alternative 2: Decelerate the Statewide Compliance Timeline for Crew and Supply 

Vessels and Barge and Dredge Vessels

For Alternative 2, compliance requirements for both the crew and supply vessel engines 

and the barge and dredge vessel engines would be decelerated. This would result in 

many engines being replaced later than the proposed amended regulation, but would 

allow more time for businesses to obtain funding and transition between the Portable 

Engine ATCM and the CHC regulation. For Alternative 2, crew and supply vessels and 

barge and dredge vessels throughout the State would still be subject to a 2011 to 2022 

compliance schedule as shown in Table 26. Table 27 presents the engine distribution 

by compliance year. Fewer engines would be required to comply with the regulation 

under this Alternative due to the age and useful life of the engines in the fleets. 

However, this alternative would slow down the engine replacements for the older, dirtier 
37

engines. The regulatory cost would be $14 million, or about $1 million less than the 

proposed amendments. The estimated new equipment cost of this alternative would be 

$44 million which is about $2 million lower than the proposed amendments’ new 

equipment compliance cost. The total diesel PM emissions reduced with this alternative 

would be 53 tons less than with the proposed schedule. As a result, the 

cost-effectiveness for this alternative would be higher than the proposed amended 

regulation at $43 per pound of diesel PM reduced. The total NOx reduction for this 

same time period would be 2,100 tons, which is about 670 tons less than the proposed 

amendments. The resulting cost-effectiveness, dividing the cost equally between diesel 

PM and NOx, would be about $21 per pound of diesel PM reduced and $3,320 per ton 

of NOx reduced. 
38

Table 26: Alternative 2: Alternative Compliance Tables to Decelerate Compliance 

for Crew and Supply Vessels and Barge and Dredge Vessels 

Crew and Supply Vessels

Engine Model 

Year

Total Annual 

Hours of 

Operation

Compliance Date

1975 and earlier >1500 12/31/2011

1975 and earlier >300 -- <1500 12/31/2012

1976 - 1985 >1500 12/31/2013

1976 - 1985 >300 -- <1500 12/31/2014

1986 - 1995 >1500 12/31/2015

1986 - 1995 >300 -- <1500 12/31/2016

1996 - 1999 >1500 12/31/2017

1996 - 1999 >300 -- <1500 12/31/2018

2000 - 2001 >300 12/31/2019

2002 - 2003 >300 12/31/2020

2004 - 2005 >300 12/31/2021

2006 - 2007 >300 12/31/2022

Barge and Dredge

Engine Model 

Year

Total Annual 

Hours of 

Operation

Compliance Date

1975 and earlier >1500 12/31/2011

1975 and earlier >80 -- <1500 12/31/2012

1976 - 1985 >1500 12/31/2013

1976 - 1985 >80 -- <1500 12/31/2014

1986 - 1995 >1500 12/31/2015

1986 - 1995 >80 -- <1500 12/31/2016

1996 - 1999 >1500 12/31/2017

1996 - 1999 >80 -- <1500 12/31/2018

2000 - 2001 >80 12/31/2019

2002 - 2003 >80 12/31/2020

2004 - 2005 >80 12/31/2021

2006 >80 12/31/2022
39

Table 27: Alternative 2: Statewide Annual In-Use 

Engine Replacements 

Year Engines 

2011 12 

2012 7 

2013 18 

2014 9 

2015 3 

2016 9 

2017 10 

2018 37 

2019 47 

2020 32 

2021 36 

2022 35 

Total 255 

The primary reason that Alternative 2 was not chosen was because it is less 

cost-effective than the emissions reduction strategy in the proposed amendments and 

would delay the health benefits associated with the reduction of emissions of diesel PM 

and NOx from crew and supply, barge, and dredge vessels. Staff has determined that 

the reduced cost-effectiveness and the delay in achieving emissions reductions 

associated with this alternative outweigh the reduced fiscal impacts on companies that 

own/operate crew and supply, barge, and dredge vessels. 

Presented below in Table 28 is a comparison of the cost effectiveness of the proposed 

amendments with Alternatives 1 and 2 (2009 dollars). 

Table 28: Summary of Average Cost-Effectiveness of Proposed Amendments and 

Both Alternatives for the Period 2011- 2022 

Emissions Proposed Amendment 

(2009 dollars) Alternative 1 Alternative 2 

All costs assigned to PM 

PM ($/lb) $35 + 9% + 23% 

Divide Costs Equally Between PM and NOx 

PM ($/lb) $17 + 12% + 24% 

NOx ($/ton) $2,690 + 6% + 23% 

Combined PM and NOx Emissions 

PM + NOx ($/lb) $2.50 No Change + 20% 
40

7. PUBLIC OUTREACH AND COMMENTS 

A. Public Outreach 

Staff has provided opportunities for participation in the rulemaking process. Staff’s 

public outreach efforts included three public workshops at which draft regulatory 

concepts, language and cost estimates were provided. Staff’s public outreach efforts 

included meetings and teleconferences with stakeholders, owner/operators of crew and 

supply vessels, districts, and other interested parties. Staff also created a website and 

maintained an email address list to automatically update interested parties about 

rulemaking developments. The website can be accessed at 

http://www.arb.ca.gov/ports/marinevess/harborcraft.htm. 

B. Environmental Justice 

The proposed amendments will reduce diesel PM and NOx emissions in all coastal 

areas and near ports where crew and supply, barge and dredge vessels operate. 

Communities near ports are often more heavily impacted by the goods movement 

emission sources operating at these locations. On December 13, 2001, the Board 

approved “Policies and Actions for Environmental Justice,” which formally established a 

framework for integration of environmental justice into ARB’s programs, consistent with 

the directive of California state law. These policies apply to all communities in 

California; however, environmental justice issues have been raised specifically in the 

context of low-income areas and ethnically diverse communities. The proposed 

amendments are consistent with our environmental justice policy to reduce health risk in 

all communities, including those with low-income and ethnically diverse populations. 

C. Public Comments 

1. Engine Repower Capacity 

The ARB staff believes that engine replacement would be the primary compliance 

option chosen to meet the proposed in-use engine requirements. During the 

development of the 2007 CHC regulation, the capacity of the State’s boat yard/repair 

facilities to handle the number of engine replacements was raised as a concern. Staff 

has determined that the number of engine replacements that likely would occur due to 

the proposed amendments’ compliance schedule would be achievable with the State’s 

current capacity for engine replacements, but may place some strain on this capacity. 

Staff estimates that, under the proposed compliance schedule, an average of about 23 

crew and supply, barge, and dredge engine replacements of both auxiliary and 

propulsion engines per year will occur over the compliance period. Because auxiliary 

engine replacements are less involved and do not necessarily require a dry dock facility, 

staff assume dry docking for the propulsion engine replacements would be the limiting 

factor for the State’s capacity. 
41

Staff conducted a phone survey in 2007 contacting owner/operators of boat yards, boat 

building facilities, and boat repair facilities in California to determine the annual 

statewide capacity for CHC engine replacements. Based on the survey, staff estimates 

that there is sufficient capacity even at the maximum repower rate to still allow current 

facilities to conduct other repowering and non-repowering activities. Additional facilities 

and capacity that may be built in response to this proposed amended regulation would 

further ensure that the State will have sufficient capacity to conduct the expected 

number of repowers, though some years may be strained. Figure 8 illustrates the 

repowers assumed per year and the additional crew and supply, barge, and dredge 

vessel engine repowers that will be needed to comply with the proposed amended 

regulation. ARB staff believes that California’s boat yards, boat builders, and boat 

repairers currently have the capacity to absorb the numbers of engine replacements 

that would result from the implementation of the proposed amended regulation. 

Figure 8: Estimated Numbers of Commercial Harbor Craft 

Engines Replaced Annually Due to 

 Implementation of the Current 

Commercial Harbor Craft Regulation and 

the Proposed Amended Regulation 

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022

Compliance Year

Number of Repowerd Engines

Crew, Supply, Barge, and Dredge Engines

Currently Regulated Harbor Craft Engines

 2. District Authority to Require Additional Reductions 

Comments have been made by barge and dredge owners regarding the implementation 

of the proposed amendments in relation to the PERP program. Pursuant to the PERP 

regulation, districts can establish additional requirements beyond the statewide 

regulation for auxiliary engines on marine vessels that operate within three nautical 
42

miles of shore. The authority for districts to establish additional requirements is 

provided by the PERP regulation in order to allow the districts to mitigate any potential 

local emissions impacts. Barge and dredge vessel owner/operators have stated they 

the districts requirements are overly burdensome and can vary greatly by district. Staff 

has begun discussions with some of the affected districts to identify ways to achieve 

greater consistency and develop an effective solution. Staff is committed to continue to 

meet with affected stakeholders to discuss options. 
43

8. RECOMMENDATION

In developing the proposed amendments, ARB staff worked closely with stakeholders 

including vessel owner/operators, marine engine industry representatives, and districts. 

ARB staff recommends the Board approve the proposed amendments to the 

regulations, as presented in Appendix A, for the following reasons: 

• the early turnover of in-use, pre-Tier 1 and Tier-1 diesel-fueled engines on crew 

and supply, barge, and dredge vessels to lower emitting Tier 2 and Tier 3 

engines would reduce diesel PM, NOx, and other air pollutant emissions, 

exposure, and potential health risk across California, particularly along the 

shoreline and California ports; 

• the proposed amendments are technologically feasible, cost-effective, and 

necessary to carry out the Board’s responsibilities; 

• the proposed amendments will help the ARB achieve the goal of the Diesel Risk 

Reduction Plan to reduce diesel PM emissions from all sources by 85 percent by 

2020; 

• the proposed amendments will help achieve the emission reduction goals of the 

Emissions Reduction Plan for Ports and Goods Movement approved by the 

Board in April 2006; and 

• the emission reductions from the proposed amendments are necessary to help 

attain and maintain ambient air quality standards for fine particulate matter 

(PM2.5) and ozone. 
44

REFERENCES: 

(ARB, 2006) California Air Resources Board, Emission Reduction Plan for Ports and 

Goods Movement in California; March 2006. 

(ARB, 2007a) Air Resources Board, Staff Report: Initial Statement of Reasons for 

Regulations to Reduce Emissions from Diesel Engines on Commercial Harbor Craft 

Operated Within California Waters and 24 Nautical Miles of the California Baseline. 

September 2007. 

(ARB, 2007b) Air Resources Board, Technical Support Document: Initial Statement of 

Reasons for Regulations to Reduce Emissions from Diesel Engines on Commercial 

Harbor Craft Operated Within California Waters and 24 Nautical Miles of the California 

Baseline. September 2007. 

(ARB, 2007c) Title 17, California Code of Regulations section 93118.5, Airborne Toxic 

Control Measure for Diesel Engines on Commercial Harbor Craft Operated Within 

California Waters and 24 Nautical Miles of the California Baseline. 2007. 

(ARB, 2007d) Title 17, California Code of Regulations, section 93116.1-93116.3, 

Airborne Toxic Control Measure for Diesel Engine Particulate Matter from Portable 

Engines Rated at 50 horsepower and Greater. 2007. 

(ARB, 2008) Air Resources Board, Initial Statement of Reasons for Proposed 

Rulemaking: Fuel Sulfur and Other Operational Requirements for Ocean-Going 

Vessels Within California Waters and 24 Nautical Miles of the California Baseline. 

June 2008. 

(ARB, 2008a) Air Resources Board, The Carl Moyer Program Guidelines, April 22, 

2008. 

(ARB, 2009) Air Resources Board, Staff Report: Initial Statement of Reasons for the

Proposed Amendments to the Regulations Applicable to Portable Diesel Engines and 

Diesel Engines Used in Off-Road and On-Road Vehicles. December 10, 2009.

(40 CFR Part 94) U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Control of Emissions from 

Marine Compression – Ignition Engines. 

(40 CFR Part 1042) U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Control of Emissions from 

from New and In-Use Marine Compression Ignition Engines and Vessels 
Appendix A 

Proposed Regulation Orders 

Title 13, CCR section 2299.5 

and 

Title 17, CCR section 93118.5
(this page left intentionally blank) 
A – 1 

APPENDIX A 

PROPOSED REGULATION ORDER 

 THE EMISSION LIMITS AND REQUIREMENTS FOR DIESEL ENGINES ON 

COMMERCIAL HARBOR CRAFT OPERATED WITHIN CALIFORNIA WATERS AND 

24 NAUTICAL MILES OF THE CALIFORNIA BASELINE 

Amend section 2299.5, title 13, chapter 5.1, California Code of Regulations (CCR). 

Proposed amendments are shown in underline to indicate additions and strikeout to 

indicate deletions. 

Section 2299.5. Low Sulfur Fuel Requirement, Emission Limits and Other 

Requirements for Commercial Harbor Craft. 

Any person who sells, supplies, offers for sale, purchases, owns, operates, leases, 

charters, or rents any new or in-use diesel fueled Harbor Craft, as defined in section 

93118.5(d)(369), title 17, California Code of Regulations (CCR), must comply with the 

low sulfur fuel use requirement in section 93118.5(e)(1) and other requirements in 

section 93118.5, title 17, CCR when operating the craft within Regulated California 

Waters, as defined in section 93118.5(d)(658), title 17, CCR, except as in sections

93118.5(b), and (c), and (e)(1)(F), title 17, CCR. Notwithstanding the definition of 

Harborcraft in section 2299(b)(4), title 13, CCR, and in section 93117(b)(4), title 17, 

CCR, the low sulfur fuel requirement in section 93118.5(e)(1), title 17, CCR applies to 

an ocean-going tugboat or towboat that has a “registry” (foreign trade) endorsement on 

its United States Coast Guard certificate of documentation or that is registered under 

the flag of a country other than the United States, except when on voyages comprised 

of “continuous and expeditious navigation” through Regulated California Waters, as 

provided in section 93118.5(c)(1), title 17, CCR. This section shall not be construed as 

expanding or limiting either the application or requirements of section 93118.5, title 17, 

CCR, but is intended to alert affected persons of the Harbor Craft fuel use requirement 

and other provisions in that section. 

NOTE: Authority cited: Sections 39600, 39601, 41511, 43013, and 43018, Health and 

Safety Code. Reference: Sections 39000, 39001, 39515, 39516, 41510, 41511, 43013, 

43016, and 43018, Health and Safety Code; and Western Oil and Gas Ass’n v. Orange

County Air Pollution Control District, 14 Cal.3rd 411, 121 Cal.Rptr. 249 (1975). 
A – 2 

(this page left intentionally blank) 
A – 3 

PROPOSED REGULATION ORDER 

 AIRBORNE TOXIC CONTROL MEASURE 

FOR DIESEL ENGINES ON COMMERCIAL HARBOR CRAFT OPERATED WITHIN 

CALIFORNIA WATERS AND 24 NAUTICAL MILES OF THE CALIFORNIA BASELINE

Amend section 93118.5, title 17, chapter 1, subchapter 7.5, California Code of 

Regulations (CCR). Proposed amendments are shown in underline to indicate 

additions and strikeout to indicate deletions. 

Section 93118.5. Airborne Toxic Control Measure for Commercial Harbor Craft. 

(a) Purpose. 

The purpose of this section is to reduce diesel particulate matter (PM), oxides of sulfur 

(SOx), and oxides of nitrogen (NOx) from diesel propulsion and auxiliary engines on 

harbor craft that operate in any of the waters subject to this section (“Regulated 

California Waters”). This section implements provisions of the Goods Movement 

Emission Reduction Plan, adopted by the California Air Resources Board (ARB or 

CARB) in April 2006, to reduce emissions and health risk from ports and the movement 

of goods in California. 

(b) Applicability. 

(1) Except as provided in subsections (b) and (c), this section applies to any person 

who sells, supplies, offers for sale, purchases, owns, operates, leases, charters, 

or rents any new or in-use diesel fueled harbor craft that is operated in any of the 

Regulated California Waters. 

(2) Engine Subject to Multiple ARB Regulations. The requirements of this section

shall control iIn the event an engine that is permanently affixed to on a harbor 

craft is subject to the requirements of this section, and either: 

(A) of this section, and either

(A)(B) the regulation for portable compression ignition (CI) engines and 

equipment (sections 93116-93116.5, title 17, California Code of Regulations 

(CCR)), or 

(BC) the regulation for in-use off-road CI diesel vehicles engines and equipment

(sections 2420-2427, title 13, CCR),.

the requirements of this section shall supersede the requirements of either of the 

regulations cited in 93118.5(b)(2)(A) or 93118.5(b)(2)(B) above.This provision 

shall apply only to each engine on the vessel that meets the above requirements 

and is permanently affixed to the vessel (i.e., the engine, its fueling system, or its 

exhaust system is welded or otherwise physically connected to the vessel or 
A – 4 

other vessel system in such a way that the engine cannot be easily removed for 

use in a land-based application without modifications). 

(3) This section applies to towboats and tugboats engaged in or intending to engage 

in the service of pulling, pushing, or hauling alongside tank vessels or tank 

barges. 

 

(4) Notwithstanding the provisions of title 13, CCR, section 2299.1 and title 17, CCR, 

section 93118, this section shall apply to any ocean-going tugboats and towboats 

and shall supersede the requirements of 13 CCR 2299.1 and 17 CCR 93118 in 

their entirety for ocean-going tugboats and towboats. For purposes of this 

paragraph, “ocean-going tugboats and towboats” shall mean tugboats and 

towboats with a “registry” (foreign trade) endorsement on its United States (U.S.) 

Coast Guard certificate of documentation, or tugboats and towboats that are 

registered under the flag of a country other than the United States. 

(5) Nothing in this section shall be construed to amend, repeal, modify, or change in 

any way any other applicable State, U.S. Coast Guard, or other federal 

requirements. Any person subject to this section shall be responsible for 

ensuring compliance with both U.S. Coast Guard regulations and the 

requirements of this section and any other applicable State and federal 

requirements, including but not limited to, obtaining any necessary approvals, 

exemptions, or orders from the U.S. Coast Guard. 

(6) This section shall not apply to any engine and equipment that fall within the 

scope of the preemption of Section 209(e)(1)(A) of the Federal Clean Air Act 

(42 United States Code (U.S.C.) 7543(e)(1)(A)) and as defined by regulation of 

the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA). 

(c) Exemptions. 

All or portions of this section do not apply to the following, as provided below, but 

vessels that are partly or wholly exempt from this section may be subject to other State 

or federal regulations and requirements. A person subject to such other State or federal 

regulations and requirements is solely responsible for ensuring the vessel complies with 

those regulations and requirements. All other portions of this section shall apply unless 

otherwise specified: 

(1) The requirements of this section do not apply to harbor craft voyages that are 

comprised of continuous and expeditious navigation through any of the 

Regulated California Waters for the purpose of traversing such bodies of water 

without entering California internal or estuarine waters or calling at a port, 

roadstead, or terminal facility. “Continuous and expeditious navigation” includes 

stopping and anchoring 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 persons, ships, or 

aircraft in danger or distress. This exemption does not apply to the passage of a 
A – 5 

harbor craft that engages in 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 U.S. Coast Guard mandated stops or 

stops 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 call at a port, roadstead or terminal facility; 

(2) Except as provided in Paragraph (3) below, a temporary replacement vessel is 

exempt only from the requirements set forth in subsection (e)(6) and only upon 

written approval by the ARB’s Executive Officer (E.O.). All other provisions in 

this section shall apply to a temporary replacement vessel subject to this 

paragraph. An owner or operator, who has or will have a vessel taken out of 

service, may apply in writing to the E.O. to operate a temporary replacement 

vessel pursuant to the following: 

(A) The E.O. shall approve or disapprove such a request within 15 days of 

receipt. The E.O. shall not unreasonably withhold approval of the request to 

operate the temporary replacement vessel; 

(B) If the approval is granted, the temporary replacement vessel’s operating 

time will be specified in the approval by the E.O., along with any other 

terms, conditions, or requirements the E.O. deems necessary, but in no 

case shall the approved operating time in Regulated California Waters for a 

specific temporary replacement vessel exceed one year total for any single 

vessel that is temporarily replaced; and 

(C) No temporary replacement vessel exemptions shall be approved for a 

vessel that is taken out of service more than 12 months in any 24-month 

period or if the E.O. cannot determine the length of time a vessel has been 

taken out of service within any 24-month period; 

(3) A temporary replacement vessel used to replace a vessel that has its homeport 

in the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) is exempt only 

from the compliance dates set forth in Table 8 of subsection (e)(6) and only upon 

written approval from the E.O. All other provisions in this section, including but 

not limited to, the compliance dates specified in Table 7, Table 9, and Table 10 of 

subsection (e)(6), shall apply to a temporary replacement vessel subject to this 

paragraph. An owner or operator, who has or will have a vessel taken out of 

service, may apply in writing to the E.O. to operate a temporary replacement 

vessel pursuant to the following: 

(A) The E.O. shall approve or disapprove such a request within 15 days of 

receipt. The E.O. shall not unreasonably withhold approval of the request to 

operate the temporary replacement vessel; 

(B) If the approval is granted, the temporary replacement vessel’s operating 

time will be specified in the approval by the E.O., along with any other 

terms, conditions, or requirements the E.O. deems necessary, but in no 

case shall the approved operating time in Regulated California Waters for a 
A – 6 

specific temporary replacement vessel exceed one year total for any single 

vessel that is temporarily replaced; and 

(C) No temporary replacement vessel exemptions shall be approved for a 

vessel that is taken out of service more than 12 months in any 24-month 

period or if the E.O. cannot determine the length of time a vessel has been 

taken out of service within any 24-month period; 

 

(4) A temporary emergency rescue/recovery vessel is exempt from this section in its 

entirety; 

(5) A recreational vessel is exempt from this section in its entirety; 

(6) An ocean-going vessel, except for ocean-going tugboats and towboats as 

provided in subsection (b)(4), is exempt from this section in its entirety; 

(7) The following engines are exempt from this section in its entirety:

(A) Notwithstanding section (b)(2), a vessel engine, including an engine on a

barge, which is registered with ARB’s Portable Engine Equipment 

Registration Program (PERP) (sections 2450 through 2465, title 13, CCR) 

before January 1, 2009 ; 

(B) A vessel engine that is registered with PERP on or after January 1, 2009.

and is not permanently affixed to the vessel (i.e., the engine, its fueling 

system, and its exhaust system are not welded or otherwise physically 

connected to the vessel or other vessel system, which permits the engine to 

be easily removed for use in a land-based application without 

modifications); and

(C) A vessel engine that is registered and permitted under local air district 

regulations before January 1, 2009;

 

(87) A registered historic vessel is exempt only from subsection (e)(6); 

(98) A U.S. Coast Guard vessel is exempt from this section in its entirety; 

(109) A military tactical support vessel is exempt from this section in its entirety; 

(1110) An engine rated less than 50 horsepower (hp) is exempt only from subsection 

(e)(6); 

(12) An engine or vessel that is operated less than 300 hours per calendar year is 

exempt only from the requirements of subsection (e)(6); and

(131) Near-Retirement Vessels. A harbor craft is exempt from the requirements of

 subsection (e)(6)(C) and (e)(6)(D) if all of the following criteria have been met: 
A – 7 

(A) the vessel is scheduled to be taken out of service and retired permanently; 

(B) the vessel is actually taken out of service and retired on or before the 

 retirement date scheduled under (A) above; and 

(C) the vessel has an engine with a compliance date, as set forth in 

subsection (e)(6)(D), that is within one year of the vessel’s scheduled 

retirement date under (A) above. 

Operation of a vessel subject to this provision after the scheduled retirement date 

or the engine’s compliance date, whichever occurs later, is a separate violation of 

this section for each and every engine and each and every day of operation 

during which an engine on the vessel does not meet the requirements of 

subsection (e)(6)(C) or other parts of this section. 

(d) Definitions.

For purposes of this section, the definitions of Health and Safety Code (H&S) sections 

39010 through 39060 shall apply except as otherwise specified in this section: 

(1) “Air District” means one of the local air pollution control districts (APCDs) or air 

quality management districts (AQMDs) established under H&S section 40000 et 

seq. 

(2) “Alternative Diesel Fuel” means any fuel used in a diesel engine that is not 

commonly or commercially known, sold, or represented by the supplier as diesel 

fuel No. 1-D or No. 2-D, pursuant to the specifications in American Society for 

Testing and Materials (ASTM) D975-81, “Standard Specification for Diesel Fuel 

Oils,” as modified in May 1982, which is incorporated herein by reference, and 

does not require engine or fuel system modifications for the engine to operate, 

although minor modifications (e.g., recalibration of the engine fuel control) may 

enhance performance. Examples of alternative diesel fuels include, but are not 

limited to, biodiesel and biodiesel blends not meeting the definition of CARB

diesel fuel; Fischer-Tropsch fuels; emulsions of water in diesel fuel; and fuels 

with a fuel additive, unless: 

(A) the additive is supplied to the engine fuel by an on-board dosing 

mechanism, or 

(B) the additive is directly mixed into the base fuel inside the fuel tank of the 

engine, or 

(C) the additive and base fuel are not mixed until engine fueling commences, 

and no more additive plus base fuel combination is mixed than required for 

a single fueling of a single engine. 

(3) “Alternative Fuel” means natural gas, propane, ethanol, methanol, gasoline, 

hydrogen, electricity, or other technologies that do not meet the definition of 

CARB diesel or alternative diesel fuel. "Alternative fuel" also means any mixture 

that only contains these fuels. 
A – 8 

(4) “Annual Hours of Operation” means the total number of hours, rounded to the 

nearest whole hour, a vessel engine is used for all commercial purposes in 

Regulated California Waters in the calendar year (January 1 to December 31) 

immediately prior to the engine’s applicable compliance date set forth in 

subsection (e)(6)(D). For example, if a vessel is used for commercial fishing and 

commercial non-fishing purposes, the total number of hours combined for both 

uses shall be the total annual hours of operation for that vessel. 

(5) “Auxiliary Engine” means an engine designed primarily to provide power for uses 

other than propulsion. 

(6) “Averaging” means an exchange of excess reduced regulated emissions among 

engines on vessels in the same owner’s or operator’s fleet. 

(7) “Baseline” means the emissions level of a diesel engine using CARB diesel fuel 

as configured upon initial marine installation. 

(8) “Barge” means a vessel having a flat-bottomed rectangular hull with sloping ends 

and built with or without a propulsion engine. 

 

(9) “California Air Resources Board (CARB) Diesel Fuel” means any diesel fuel that 

meets the specifications of vehicular diesel fuel, as defined in title 13 CCR, 

sections 2281, 2282, 2284, 2299, and title 17 CCR section 93116. 

(10) “California Baseline” means the mean lower low water line along the California 

coast, as shown on the following National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration (NOAA) Nautical Charts as authored by the NOAA Office of Coast 

Survey, which are incorporated herein by reference:

(A) Chart 18600, Trinidad Head to Cape Blanco (January 2002); 

(B) Chart 18620, Point Arena to Trinidad Head (June 2002); 

(C) Chart 18640, San Francisco to Point Arena (August 2005); 

(D) Chart 18680, Point Sur to San Francisco (June 2005); 

(E) Chart 18700, Point Conception to Point Sur (July 2003); 

(F) Chart 18720, Point Dume to Purisima Point (January 2005); and 

(G) Chart 18740, San Diego to Santa Rosa Island (April 2005March 2007). 

(11) “CARB” means the California Air Resources Board. CARB may also be referred 

to as “ARB.” 

(12) “Carbon Monoxide (CO)” is a colorless, odorless gas resulting from the 

incomplete combustion of hydrocarbon fuels. 
A – 9 

(13) “Category 1 engine” means any marine engine with a displacement of less than 

5.0 liters per cylinder and with a maximum horsepower (hp) rating of 50 hp or 

greater. 

(14) “Category 2 engine” means any marine engine with a displacement of 5.0 to less 

than 30 liters per cylinder. 

(15) “Category 3 engine” means any marine engine with a displacement of greater 

than 30 liters per cylinder. 

(16) “Certified marine engine” means an engine that is certified by U.S. EPA as 

meeting the requirements of title 40, Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), 

Part 94 or Part 1042. 

(17) “Certified nonroad engine” means an engine that is certified by U.S. EPA as 

meeting the requirements of title 40, Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), 

Part 89.

(178) “Coast Guard Vessel” means any vessel or boat owned or operated by the U.S. 

Coast Guard, including, but not limited to, U.S. Coast Guard cutters and patrol 

boats that are used for law enforcement, defense operations, marine science, 

search and rescue missions, training missions, coastal surveillance, servicing 

aids to navigation, and marine environmental response. 

(189) “Compliance Date” means the date by which time a vessel engine must meet the 

requirements set forth in subsection (e)(6)(C). The “compliance date” for a 

vessel engine is set forth in either Table 7or ,Table 8, Table 9, or Table 10 in 

subsection (e)(6)(D), whichever is applicable. 

(1920) “Crew and Supply Vessel” means a self-propelled vessel used for carrying 

personnel and/or supplies to and from off-shore and in-harbor locations 

(including, but not limited to, off-shore work platforms, construction sites, and 

other vessels). 

(201) “Date of Acquisition” means, for a vessel or engine subject to this regulation, the 

date of purchase as defined by the date shown on the front of the cashed check, 

the date of the financial transaction, or the date on the vessel or engine 

purchasing agreement, whichever is earliest of the three dates. 

(212) “Diesel Engine” means an internal combustion, compression-ignition (CI) engine, 

or pilot ignition engine with operating characteristics significantly similar to the 

theoretical diesel combustion cycle. The regulation of power by controlling fuel 

supply in lieu of a throttle is indicative of a compression ignition engine. 

(223) “Diesel Fuel” means any fuel that is commonly or commercially known, sold, or 

represented by the supplier as diesel fuel, including any mixture of primarily liquid 
A – 10 

hydrocarbons (HC) - organic compounds consisting exclusively of the elements 

carbon and hydrogen - that is sold or represented by the supplier as suitable for 

use in an internal combustion, compression-ignition engine. 

(234)“Diesel-Fueled” means a diesel engine fueled in whole or part by diesel fuel. 

(245) “Diesel Oxidation Catalyst (DOC)” means an emission control technology that 

employs a catalyst to promote oxidation processes in diesel exhaust gases, 

usually designed to reduce emissions of the organic fraction of diesel 

particulates, gas-phase HC, and CO. 

(256) “Diesel Particulate Filter (DPF)” means an emission control technology that 

reduces diesel PM emissions in engine exhaust gases by trapping the particles in 

a flow filter substrate and periodically removes the collected particles by either 

physical action or by oxidizing (burning off) the particles in a process called 

regeneration. 

(267) “Diesel Particulate Matter (Diesel PM)” means the particles found in the exhaust 

of diesel engines, which may agglomerate and adsorb other species to form 

structures of complex physical and chemical properties. 

(278) “Direct Control” means owning, operating, having a contract, lease, or other 

arrangement to operate a harbor craft. 

(29) “Dredge” means a vessel designed to remove earth from the bottom of 

waterways, by means of including, but not limited to, a scoop, a series of 

buckets, or a suction pipe. Dredges include, but are not limited to, hopper 

dredges, clamshell dredges, or pipeline dredges. 

(2830) “Emission Control Strategy” means any device, system, or strategy employed to 

reduce emissions from an engine, including, but not limited to, diesel oxidation 

catalysts, selective catalytic reduction systems, diesel particulate filters, 

alternative diesel fuels, water emulsified fuels, and any combination of the above. 

(2931) “Estuarine Waters” means an arm of the sea or ocean that extends inland to 

meet the mouth of a river. 

(302) “Excursion Vessel” means a self-propelled vessel that transports passengers for 

purposes including, but not limited to, dinner cruises; harbor, lake, or river tours; 

scuba diving expeditions; and whale watching tours. “Excursion Vessel” does 

not include crew and supply vessels, ferries, and recreational vessels. 

 

(313) “Executive Officer” means the Executive Officer (E.O.) of the California Air 

Resources Board or his/her designee. 
A – 11 

(34) “Family Emission Limit (FEL)" means an emission level that is declared by the 

manufacturer to serve in lieu of an emission standard for certification purposes 

and for the averaging, banking, and trading program, as defined in title 13, 

California Code of Regulations, section 2423 or 40 CFR Part 89.112(d), or 40 

CFR Part 1039.101, as they existed on April 27, 2010. 

(325) “Ferry” means a harbor craft having provisions only for deck passengers or 

vehicles, operating on a short run, on a frequent schedule between two points 

over the most direct water route, and offering a public service of a type normally 

attributed to a bridge or tunnel. 

(336) “Fishing Vessel” means a self-propelled vessel that is either: 

(A) a commercial vessel dedicated to the search for, and collection of, fish for 

the purpose of sale at market or directly to a purchaser(s), or 

(B) a charter vessel used for hire by the general public and dedicated to the 

search for and collection of, fish for the purpose of general consumption. 

(347) “Fleet” means the total number of harbor craft owned, rented, or leased by an 

owner or operator in an air district or distinct locale within Regulated California 

Waters or the statewide population of a specific vessel type. 

(358) “Fuel Additive” means any substance designed to be added to fuel or fuel 

systems or other engine-related engine systems such that it is present in-cylinder 

during combustion. 

(369) “Harbor Craft” (also called “Commercial Harbor Craft”) means any private, 

commercial, government, or military marine vessel including, but not limited to, 

passenger ferries, excursion vessels, tugboats, ocean-going tugboats, towboats, 

push-boats, crew and supply vessels, work boats, pilot vessels, supply boats, 

fishing vessels, research vessels, U.S. Coast Guard vessels, hovercraft, 

emergency response harbor craft, and barge vessels that do not otherwise meet 

the definition of ocean-going vessels or recreational vessels. 

(3740) “Homeport” means the port in which a vessel is registered or permanently based. 

(3841) “In-Use Harbor Craft” means a harbor craft that is not a new harbor craft. 

(3942) “In-Use Marine Engine” means a marine engine that is not a new marine engine. 

(403) “Lease” means a contract by which the owner (lessor) of a property, such as a 

vessel or engine, grants the right to use or occupy the property to another person 

(lessee) for a specified term and for a specified rent. 

(414) “Level” means, unless the context requires otherwise, one of three categories of 

ARB-verified diesel emission control strategies as set forth in title 13, CCR, 
A – 12 

section 2700 et seq.: Level 1 means the strategy reduces engine diesel PM 

emissions by between 25 and 49 percent; Level 2 means the strategy reduces 

engine diesel PM emissions by between 50 and 84 percent; and Level 3 means 

the strategy reduces engine diesel PM emissions by 85 percent or greater, or 

reduces engine diesel PM emissions to less than or equal to 0.01 grams per 

brake horsepower-hour (g/bhp-hr). 

(425) “Low-Use” means the operation of any compression-ignition engine associated 

with a harbor craft vessel for less than 300the total annual hours of operation in 

Regulated California Waters, based on the immediately preceding calendar 

year, that deems it subject to the in-use engine requirements. 

(436) “Military Tactical Support” means a vessel that meets military specifications, is 

owned by the U.S. Department of Defense, the U.S. Coast Guard, the U.S. 

Military services or its allies, and is used in combat, combat support, combat 

services support, tactical or relief operations or training for such operations. 

(447) “Model Year” means the diesel engine manufacturer’s annual production period, 

which includes January 1st of a calendar year, or if the manufacturer has no 

annual production period, the calendar year. 

(45) “Multipurpose Harbor Craft” means a harbor craft that serves as a ferry, 

excursion vessel, tugboat, or towboat but is also used as a work, crew and 

supply, pilot, fishing, supply, or other vessel.

(468) “New Harbor Craft” means a harbor craft for which both of the following criteria 

are true:

(A) it is built, or its keel is laid, on or after January 1, 2009, and

(B) the equitable or legal title to the harbor craft has never been transferred to 

an ultimate purchaser. 

Where the equitable or legal title to the harbor craft is not transferred to an 

ultimate purchaser prior to the harbor craft being placed into service, the harbor 

craft ceases to be new when it is placed into service. A harbor craft is placed 

into service when it is used for its functional purposes. 

(479) “New Marine Engine” means a marine engine for which both of the following 

criteria are true: 

(A) it is manufactured or imported on or after January 1, 2009, and 

(B) the equitable or legal title to the engine has never been transferred to an 

ultimate purchaser. 

Where the equitable or legal title to the engine is not transferred to an ultimate 

purchaser prior to the engine being placed into service, the engine ceases to be 
A – 13 

new when it is placed into service. An engine is placed into service when it is 

used for its functional purposes. 

(4850) “Nitrogen Oxides or Oxides of Nitrogen (NOx)” means compounds of nitric oxide 

(NO), nitrogen dioxide (NO2), and other oxides of nitrogen, which are typically 

created during combustion processes and are major contributors to smog 

formation and acid deposition. 

(4951) “Non-Methane Hydrocarbons (NMHC)” means the sum of all hydrocarbon (HC) 

air pollutants except methane. 

(502) “Ocean-going Vessel” means a commercial, government, or military vessel 

meeting any one of the following criteria: 

(A) a vessel greater than or equal to 400 feet in length overall (LOA) as defined 

in 50 CFR § 679.2, as adopted June 19, 1996;

(B) a vessel greater than or equal to 10,000 gross tons (GT ITC) per the 

convention measurement (international system) as defined in 46 CFR 

69.51-.61, as adopted September 12, 1989; or 

(C) a vessel propelled by a marine compression-ignition engine with a percylinder displacement of greater than or equal to 30 liters. 

(513) “Operate” means steering or otherwise running the vessel or its functions while 

 the vessel is underway, moored, anchored, or at dock. 

(524) “Own” means having all the incidents of ownership, including the legal title, 

 whether or not that person lends, rents, or pledges the vessel; having or being 

 entitled to the possession of a vessel as the purchaser under a conditional sale 

 contract; or being the mortgagor of a vessel. 

(535) “Particulate Matter (PM)” 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). 

(56) “Permanently affixed to a harbor craft” means the engine, its fueling system, or 

its exhaust system is welded or otherwise physically connected to the vessel or 

other vessel system in such a way that the engine cannot be easily removed for 

use in a land-based application without modifications. 

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

(A) any person, firm, association, organization, partnership, business trust, 

corporation, limited liability company, or company; 

(B) any state or local governmental agency or public district, or any officer or 

employee thereof; and 
A – 14 

(C) the United States or its agencies, to the extent permitted by federal law. 

(58) “Pilot Vessel” means a vessel designed for, but not limited to, the transfer and 

 transport of maritime pilots to and from ocean-going vessels while such vessels 

 are underway. 

(569) “Port” means any facility used for water-borne commerce. “Port” includes, but is 

 not limited to, facilities also known as “marine terminals” and “roadsteads.” 

(5760) “Portable CI Engine” means a compression-ignition (CI) engine designed and 

 capable of being carried or moved from one location to another. Indicators of 

 portability include, but are not limited to, wheels, skids, carrying handles, dolly, 

 trailer, or platform. Portable engines are not self-propelled. 

(5861) “Portable Engine Equipment Registration Program (PERP)” means the statewide 

program designed to promote the use of clean portable engines in California, as 

provided for in title 13, CCR, sections 2450 through 2465. Once registered in the 

program, engines and equipment units can operate throughout the State without 

being required to obtain individual permits from each air pollution control or air 

quality management district in which they operate. 

(5962) “Pre-Tier 1 Engine” means an engine that was built before the effective date of 

U.S. EPA’s Tier 1 marine engine emission standards (Tier 1 marine standards), 

as set forth in 40 CFR 94. 

(603) “Propulsion Engine” means an engine that provides power to move a vessel 

 through the water or directs the movement of a vessel. 

(614) “Purchase Date” means the date shown on the front of the cashed check; the 

 date of the financial transaction; or the date on the engine or harbor craft 

 purchase, rental, or lease agreement, whichever is earliest. 

(625) “Push Boat” means any self-propelled vessel engaged in or intending to engage 

 in the service of pulling, pushing, or hauling along side barges or other vessels, 

 or any combination of pulling, pushing, or hauling along side barges or other 

 vessels. “Push boats” is interchangeable with “towboats.” 

(636) “Recreational Vessel” means a vessel that is intended by the vessel 

manufacturer to be operated primarily for pleasure or leased, rented, or chartered 

to another for the latter’s pleasure, excluding the following vessels: (1) vessels of 

less than 100 gross tons that carry more than 6 passengers, (2) vessels of 

100 gross tons or more that carry one or more passengers, and (3) vessels used 

solely for competition. 
A – 15 

(647) “Registered Historic Vessel” means a vessel listed in the National Register of 

 Historic Places pursuant to the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 

 (16 U.S.C. 470). 

(658) “Regulated California Waters” means all of the following: 

(A) all California internal waters; 

(B) all California estuarine waters; 

(C) all California ports, roadsteads, and terminal facilities (collectively “ports”); 

(D) all waters within 3 nautical miles of the California baseline, starting at the 

California-Oregon border and ending at the California-Mexico border at the 

Pacific Ocean, inclusive; 

(E) all waters within 12 nautical miles of the California baseline, starting at the 

California-Oregon border and ending at the California-Mexico border at the 

Pacific Ocean, inclusive; 

(F) all waters within 24 nautical miles of the California baseline, starting at the 

California-Oregon border to 34.43 degrees North, 121.12 degrees West; 

inclusive; and 

(G) all waters within the area, not including any islands, between the California 

baseline and a line starting at 34.43 degrees North, 121.12 degrees West; 

thence to 33.50 degrees North, 118.58 degrees West; thence to 32.65 

degrees North, 117.81 degrees West; and ending at the California-Mexico 

border at the Pacific Ocean, inclusive. 

(69) “Regulated In-Use Vessel” means a vessel that operates as one of the vessel 

categories subject to in-use engine standards in subsection (e)(6).

(6670) “Rent” means payment for the use of harbor craft or diesel engine for a specified 

term. 

(6771) “Retirement” means the act of taking an engine or harbor craft out of service (i.e., 

 to “retire”) so that it subsequently never again operates in any of the Regulated 

 California Waters. “Retirement” does not include an engine or harbor craft that is 

 sold for use outside California then subsequently operated in any of the 

 Regulated California Waters. 

(6872) “SCAQMD” means the South Coast Air Quality Management District, as defined 

 in Health and Safety Code section 40410 et seq. and described in section 60104, 

 title 17, California Code of Regulations, and shall include all waters subject to the 

 jurisdiction of the SCAQMD. 

(6973) “Supply Vessel” means a self-propelled vessel used for carrying supplies to and 

 from off-shore and in-harbor locations including, but not limited to, off-shore work 

 platforms, construction sites, and other vessels. 
A – 16 

(74) “Swing Engine” means an engine maintained at a dockside location for use in a 

vessel or fleet of vessels which can be installed as a replacement for an engine 

that has been removed from a vessel for repair or routine maintenance. The 

removed engine may then become the swing engine once repair or maintenance 

has been completed. 

(705) “Take Out of Service” means the act of dry-docking, mooring, anchoring, or 

 otherwise tying up a harbor craft at dock to conduct maintenance, repairs, 

 replacements, or upgrades such that the vessel cannot be operated in Regulated 

 California Waters while such acts are conducted on the vessel. 

(716) “Tank Barge” means a non-self-propelled vessel constructed or adapted primarily 

 to carry, or that carries, oil or hazardous material in bulk as cargo or cargo 

 residue. 

(727) “Tank Vessel” or “Tanker” means a self-propelled vessel constructed or adapted 

 primarily to carry, or that carries, oil or hazardous material in bulk as cargo or 

 cargo residue. 

(738) “Temporary emergency rescue/recovery vessel” means a self-propelled vessel 

that performs duties including, but not limited to, policing harbor areas, fire 

fighting, rescue operations, oil spill prevention, and on-water oil removal whose 

homeport is not within California and is brought into California for the immediate 

use of emergency rescue or recovery and returns to its homeport outside of 

California at the conclusion of its emergency rescue/recovery mission. 

(749) “Temporary replacement vessel” means a self-propelled vessel that is brought 

into service to temporarily replace a California vessel that has been temporarily 

taken out of service. For purposes of this section, “temporary replacement 

vessel” includes only the following: 

(A) vessels that are used in the SCAQMD but have a homeport in California 

outside of the SCAQMD; and 

(B) vessels that are used anywhere in California, including the SCAQMD, but 

have a homeport outside of California. 

(7580) “Tier 1 Marine Engine Emission Standards (Tier 1 marine standards)” means the 

U.S. EPA marine engine Tier 1 emission standards, as promulgated by U.S. EPA 

and set forth in “Control of Emissions of Air Pollution from New Marine 

Compression-Ignition Engines at or Above 37 kW” (64 Federal Register (FR) 

73299-73373, December 29, 1999)(40 CFR Part 94), both of which are 

incorporated herein by reference. The standards from 40 CFR Part 94 are 

summarized in Table 1. In the event of a conflict between a Tier 1 marine 

standard in this section and its corresponding standard in 40 CFR Part 94, the 

standard in 40 CFR Part 94 controls. 
A – 17 

Table 1: U.S. EPA Tier 1 Marine Engine Emission Standards 

Category 

Power (kilowatt 

(kW)) & 

Displacement 

(liters/cylinder 

(l/cyl)) 

Engine Speed 

(Revolutions per 

minute (rpm)) 

Tier 1 

Model 

Year 

PM 

(g/bhphr) 

NOx+HC

(g/bhp-hr)* 

CO 

(g/bhphr) 

rpm ≥ 2000 2004 - 7.3 - 

130 ≤ rpm <2000 2004 - 33.57 x rpm -0.2 - 

1, 2, 3, 

including 

Recreational

≥ 37 kW & ≥ 2.5 

l/cyl rpm <130 2004 - 12.7 - 

(40 CFR Part 94) 

*converted emission standards from 40 CFR 94, which are expressed in grams per kilowatt–hour 

(g/kW-hr) to g/hp-hr by the following: g/kW-hr * (0.746) = g/hp-hr. 

(7681) “Tier 2 Marine Engine Emission Standards (Tier 2 marine standards)” means the 

U.S. EPA marine engine Tier 2 emission standards, as promulgated by U.S. EPA 

and set forth in “Control of Emissions of Air Pollution from New Marine 

Compression-Ignition Engines at or Above 37 kW” (64 FR 73299-73373, 

December 29, 1999)(40 CFR Part 94), both of which are incorporated herein by 

reference. In the event of a conflict between a Tier 2 marine standard in this 

section and its corresponding standard in 40 CFR Part 94, the standard in 40 

CFR Part 94 controls. 

Table 2: U.S. EPA Tier 2 Marine Engine Emission Standards for 

NOx + HC, PM, and CO 

Category Displacement (Disp.) 

(liters/cylinder) Date NOx+HC (g/bhp-hr)* 

PM 

(g/bhp-hr)* 

CO 

(g/bhp-hr)* 

Disp.< 0.9 and power ≥50 hp* 2005 5.6 0.30 3.7 

0.9 ≤ Disp. < 1.2 2004 5.4 0.22 3.7 

1.2 ≤ Disp. < 2.5 2004 5.4 0.15 3.7 1 

2.5 ≤ Disp. < 5.0 2007 5.4 0.15 3.7 

5.0 ≤ Disp. < 15 2007 5.8 0.20 3.7 

15 ≤ Disp. < 20 

(power < 4424 hp*) 2007 6.5 0.37 3.7 

15 ≤ Disp. < 20 

(power ≥ 4424 hp*) 2007 7.3 0.37 3.7 

20 ≤ Disp. < 25 2007 7.3 0.37 3.7 

2 

25 ≤ Disp. < 30 2007 8.2 0.37 3.7 

(40 CFR Part 94) 

*converted emission standards and maximum power rating from 40 CFR 94, which are expressed 

in g/kW-hr and kW to g/hp-hr and hp, respectively, by the following: g/kW-hr (0.746) = g/hp-hr or 

kW (1.34) = hp 

(7782) “Tier 3 Marine Engine Emission Standards (Tier 3 marine standards)” means the 

U.S. EPA marine engine Tier 3 emission standards, as promulgated by U.S. EPA 

and set forth in “Final Rule: Control of Emissions of Air Pollution from Locomotive 

and Marine Compression-Ignition Engines Less Than 30 Liters Per Cylinder” (73 

FR 25245 et seq., May 6, 2008) (40 CFR Part 1042), both of which are 

incorporated herein by reference. The standards from 40 CFR Part 1042 are 

summarized in Table 3, Table 4, and Table 5. In the event of a conflict between 
A – 18 

a Tier 3 marine standard in this section and its corresponding standard in 40 

CFR Part 1042, the standard in 40 CFR Part 1042 controls. [Note: No Tier 3 

marine standards apply for commercial Category 1 engines at or above 3700 kW. 

See “Tier 4 Marine Engine Emission Standards” for the standards that apply to 

these engines.] 

Table 3: U.S. EPA Tier 3 Marine Standards for Marine Diesel 

Category 1 Commercial Standard Power Density Engines below 3700 kW 

Rated kW L/Cylinder PM 

g/bhp-hre

NOx + HCd

g/bhp- hre Model Year 

0.22 5.6 2009 19 to < 75 kW <0.9a

0.22 b

 3.5 b 2014 

<0.9 0.10 4.0 2012 

0.9 - <1.2 0.09 4.0 2013 

1.2 - <2.5 0.08 c 4.2 2014 

2.5 - <3.5 0.08 c 4.2 2013 

75 to <3700 kW 

3.5 - <7.0 0.08 c 4.3 2012 

(a) <75 kW engines at or above 0.9 L/cylinder are subject to the corresponding 

75-3700 kW standards. 

(b) Option: 0.15 g/bhp-hr PM / 4.3 g/bhp-hr NOx+HC in 2014. 

(c) This standard level drops to 0.07 g/bhp-hr in 2018 for <600 kW engines.

(d) Tier 3 NOx+HC standards do not apply to 2000-3700 kW engines. 

(e) Converted emission standards from 40 CFR part 1042, which are expressed in g/kW-hr to 

g/hp-hr by the following: g/kW-hr (0.746) = g/hp-hr. 

Table 4: U.S. EPA Tier 3 Marine Standards for Marine Diesel 

Category 1 Recreational and Commercial High Power Density 

Engines below 3700 kW 

Rated kW L/Cylinder PM 

g/bhp- hrc

NOx + HC 

g/bhp- hrc Model Year 

0.22 5.6 2009 19 to <75 kW <0.9 a

0.22 b 3.5 b 2014 

<0.9 0.11 4.3 2012 

0.9 - <1.2 0.10 4.3 2013 

1.2 - <2.5 0.09 4.3 2014 

2.5 - <3.5 0.09 4.3 2013 

75 to <3700 kW 

3.5 - <7.0 0.08 4.3 2012 

(a) <75 kW engines at or above 0.9 L/cylinder are subject to the corresponding 

 75-3700 kW standards. 

(b) Option: 0.15 g/bhp-hr PM / 4.3 g/bhp-hr NOx+HC in 2014.

(c) Converted emission standards from 40 CFR part 1042, which are expressed in g/kW-hr to

g/bhp-hr by the following: g/kW-hr (0.746) = g/bhp-hr. 

Table 5: U.S. EPA Tier 3 Marine Standards for 
A – 19 

Marine Diesel Category 2 Engines below 3700 kWa,b

L/Cylinder Rated kW PM 

g/bhp- hrc

NOx+HC 

g/bhp- hrc

Model 

Year 

<2000 0.10 4.6 2013 7 - <15 ≥2000 0.10 5.8 2013 

15 - <20a <2000 0.25 5.2 2014 

20 - <25a <2000 0.20 7.3 2014 

25 - <30a <2000 0.20 8.2 2014 

(a) No Tier 3 marine standards apply for Category 2 engines with per-cylinder displacement 

above 15.0 liters if maximum engine power is at or above 2000 kW. See “Tier 4 Marine 

Engine Emission Standards” for the standards that apply for these engines. 

(b) For Category 2 engines at or above 1400 kW, optional Tier 3 and Tier 4 standards are 

available with some manufacturer restrictions, PM / NOx+HC at 0.10 / 5.8 g/bhp-hr in 2012, 

with Tier 4 standards in 2015. 

(c) Converted emission standards from 40 CFR part 1042, which are expressed in g/kW-hr to 

g/bhp-hr by the following: g/kW-hr * (0.746) = g/bhp-hr. 

(7883) “Tier 4 Marine Engine Emission Standards (Tier 4 marine standards)” means the 

U.S. EPA marine engine Tier 4 emission standards, as promulgated by U.S. EPA 

and set forth in “Final Rule: Control of Emissions of Air Pollution from Locomotive 

and Marine Compression-Ignition Engines Less Than 30 Liters Per Cylinder” 

(73 FR 25245 et seq., May 6, 2008) (40 CFR Part 1042), both of which are 

incorporated herein by reference. Table 6 summarizes the Tier 4 

marine standards from 40 CFR Part 1042. In the event of a conflict between a 

Tier 4 marine standard in this section and its corresponding standard in 40 CFR 

Part 1042, the marine standard in 40 CFR Part 1042 controls. 
A – 20 

Table 6: U.S. EPA Tier 4 Marine Standards for Marine Diesel 

Category 1 and Category 2 Engines above 600 kW 

(a) Converted emission standards from 40 CFR part 1042, which are expressed in g/kW-hr to 

g/bhp-hr by the following: g/KW-hr (0.746) = g/bhp-hr 

(b) Optional compliance start dates may be used within these model years; see 40 CFR part 

1042. 

(c) For Category 2 engines at or above 1400 kW, optional Tier 3 and Tier 4 marine standards are 

available with some manufacturer restrictions, PM / NOx+HC at 0.10 / 5.8 g/bhp-hr in 2012, 

with Tier 4 marine standards in 2015. 

(d) The Tier 3 PM standards continue to apply for Category 1 and Category 2 engines with percylinder displacements below 15.0 liters in model years 2014 and 2015 only. For Category 2 

engines with per-cylinder displacement at or above 15.0 liters, the PM standard is 0.25 g/bhphr for engines at or above 2000 kW and below 3300 kW, and 0.20 g/bhp-hr for engines at or 

above 3300 kW and below 3700 kW, in model years 2014 and 2015 only. 

(84) “Tier 2 Off-Road or Nonroad Emission Standards (Tier 2 off-road standards)”

means an engine subject to the Tier 2 new engine emission standards in title 13,

CCR, Section 2423(b)(1)(A) or Title 40, CFR, Part 89.112(a) as they existed on 

April 27, 2010, both of which are incorporated herein by reference. This also 

includes engines certified under the averaging, banking, and trading program 

with respect to the Tier 2 FEL listed in Title 13, CCR, 2423(b)(2)(A) or Title 40, 

CFR, Part 89.112(d), as they existed on April 27, 2010, both of which are 

incorporated herein by reference.

(85) “Tier 3 Off-Road or Nonroad Emission Standards (Tier 3 off-road standards)”

means an engine subject to the Tier 3 new engine emission standards in title 13, 

CCR, Section 2423(b)(1)(A) or Title 40, CFR, Part 89.112(a), as they existed on 

April 27, 2010, both of which are incorporated herein by reference. This also 

includes engines certified under the averaging, banking, and trading program 

with respect to the Tier 3 FEL listed in Title 13, CCR, 2423(b)(2)(A) or Title 40, 

CFR, Part 89.112(d), as they existed on April 27, 2010, both of which are 

incorporated herein by reference.

Rated kW L/Cylinder PM 

g/bhp- hra

NOx 

g/bhp- hra

HC 

g/bhp- hra Model Year

<15.0 0.09 1.3 0.14 2014 b

15.0 to 

<30.0 0.19 1.3 0.14 2014 b

At or above 3700 kW

all 0.04 1.3 0.14 2016 b

2000 to <3700 kW all 0.03 d 1.3 0.14 20164

 b,c,d

1400 to <2000 kW all 0.03 1.3 0.14 2016 b,c

600 to <1400 kW all 0.03 1.3 0.14 2017 
A – 21 

(86) “Tier 4 Off-Road or Nonroad Emission Standards (final Tier 4 off-road 

standards)” means an engine subject to the final after-treatment-based Tier 4 

emission standards in title 13, CCR, Section 2423(b)(1)(B) or Title 40, CFR, Part 

1039.101, as they existed on April 27, 2010, both of which are incorporated 

herein by reference. This also includes engines certified under the averaging, 

banking, and trading program with respect to the Tier 4 FEL listed in Title 13, 

CCR, 2423(b)(2)(B) or Title 40, CFR, Part 1039.101, as they existed on April 27, 

2010, both of which are incorporated herein by reference.

(87) “Tier 4 Off-Road or Nonroad Emission Standards (interim Tier 4 off-road 

standards)” means an engine subject to the interim Tier 4 emission standards 

(also known as transitional) in title 13, CCR, Section 2423(b)(1)(B) and/or Title 

40, CFR, Part 1039.101, as they existed on April 27, 2010, both of which are 

incorporated herein by reference. This also includes engines certified under the 

averaging, banking, and trading program with respect to the Tier 4 FEL listed in 

Title 13, CCR, 2423(b)(2)(B) or Title 40, CFR, Part 1039.101, as they existed on 

April 27, 2010, both of which are incorporated herein by reference.

(7988) “Total Hydrocarbons (THC)” or “Hydrocarbons (HC)” means the total mass of 

 open chain and cyclic hydrocarbon molecules. 

(809) “Towboat” means any self-propelled vessel engaged in or intending to engage in 

 the service of pulling, pushing, or hauling along side barges or other vessels, or 

 any combination of pulling, pushing, or hauling along side barges or other 

 vessels. 

(8190) “Tugboat” means any self-propelled vessel engaged in, or intending to engage in, 

 the service of pulling, pushing, maneuvering, berthing, or hauling along side 

 other vessels, or any combination of pulling, pushing, maneuvering, berthing or 

 hauling along side such vessels in harbors, over the open seas, or through rivers 

 and canals. Tugboats generally can be divided into three groups: harbor or 

 short-haul tugboats, ocean-going or long-haul tugboats, and barge tugboats. 

 “Tugboat” is interchangeable with “towboat” and “push boat” when the vessel is 

 used in conjunction with barges. 

(8291) “Verification Procedure, Warranty and In-Use Compliance Requirements for 

 In-Use Strategies to Control Emissions from Diesel Engines (Verification 

 Procedure)” means the ARB regulatory procedure codified in title 13, CCR, 

 commencing with section 2700, which is incorporated herein by reference, that 

 engine manufacturers, sellers, owners, or operators may use to verify the 

 reductions of diesel PM or NOx from in-use diesel engines through the use of a 

 particular diesel emission control strategy. 

(8392) “Verified Diesel Emission Control Strategy (VDECS)” means an emission control 

 strategy, designed primarily for the reduction of diesel PM emissions, which has 

 been verified pursuant to the “Verification Procedure for In-Use Strategies to 
A – 22 

 Control Emissions from Diesel Engines” in title 13, CCR, commencing with 

 section 2700. VDECS can be verified to achieve Level 1 diesel PM reductions 

 (25-49 percent), Level 2 diesel PM reductions (50-84 percent), or Level 3 diesel 

 PM reductions (85 percent or greater). VDECS may also be verified to achieve 

 NOx reductions. 

(8493) “Vessel” or “Marine Vessel” means any tugboat, tanker, freighter, passenger 

 ship, barge, or other boat, ship, or watercraft, except those used primarily for 

 recreation. 

(8594)”Work Boat” means a self-propelled vessel that is used to perform duties such as 

 fire/rescue, law enforcement, hydrographic surveys, spill/response, research, 

 training, and construction (including drilling). 

e) Fuel Use and Engine Emission Requirements. 

 [Note: The plain English narrative in this overview is intended as a convenient 

guide for the reader and in no way adds, deletes, modifies, or otherwise affects 

the legal requirements and substantive provisions specified in subsection (e) or 

any other part of this section. Subsection (e) sets forth the various fuel and 

emission requirements for harbor craft subject to this regulation, and can be 

broken down as follows: 

• Subsection (e)(1) specifies low sulfur fuel use requirements that apply to 

all harbor craft, new and in-use. 

• Subsection (e)(2) specifies the requirement for installing hour-meters on 

all harbor craft, new and in-use. 

• Subsection (e)(3) establishes requirements that apply to transactions 

involving new engines to be installed on in-use vessels, including a limited 

6-month “sell-through” provision for non-complying engines, and engine 

replacement in cases where a compliant engine meeting the required 

physical or performance characteristics is not available. 

• Subsection (e)(4) sets forth requirements that apply to newly acquired new 

harbor craft, including ferries. 

• Subsection (e)(5) sets forth requirements that apply only to newly acquired 

new ferries, above and beyond those established in subsection (e)(4). 

These provisions include requirements for applying Best Available Control 

Technology (BACT) to new ferries and their engines.

• Subsection (e)(6) is the key provision of this regulation, as it achieves 

emission reductions by requiring the eventual replacement or cleanup of 

engines in the fleet of in-use ferries, excursion vessels, tugboats, 

towboats, push boats, crew and supply vessels, and multipurpose harbor 

craft , barge and dredge vessels. This subsection requires that owners 

and operators eventually replace or otherwise bring into compliance with 

the specified engine standards all of their pre-Tier 1 and Tier 1-certified 

engines in their in-use vessels by the dates shown in the specified 
A – 23 

compliance schedules. The compliance dates are designed to clean up 

the fleet’s oldest and dirtiest engines first, while giving more time for 

relatively newer, Tier 1 engines to be upgraded or replaced. Vessels 

(ferries, excursion vessels, tugboats, and towboats) with their homeport in 

the SCAQMD have an accelerated compliance schedule to reflect that 

district’s greater need for expedited emission reductions. The compliance 

schedules are grouped by vessel type, location of the vessel’s homeport, 

the engine’s model year, and the engine’s annual hours of operation. 

• Subsection (e)(6)(E) provides for a limited set of circumstances under 

which the E.O. may grant short extensions to the compliance dates if 

warranted.] 

(1) All Harbor Craft – Low Sulfur Fuel Use Requirement.

Beginning January 1, 2009, a person subject to this section may only fuel a 

diesel engine on a harbor craft with one of the following: 

(A) CARB diesel fuel; or 

(B) an alternative diesel fuel as defined in subsection (d)(2); or 

(C) any alternative diesel fuel that does not meet subsection (e)(1)(B) above but 

is certified by CARB as meeting the requirements of the Verification 

Procedure; or 

(D) CARB diesel fuel used with fuel additives that meet the requirements of the 

Verification Procedure; or 

(E) any combination of subsection (e)(1)(A) through (D) above.; or

(F) if a harbor craft subject to this section is traveling from a port located 

outside of California, and that port does not have any fuels listed in subsections 

(e)(1)(A) through (E), that vessel’s diesel engines can be fueled with either: U.S. 

EPA on-road diesel fuel meeting the specifications contained in 40 CFR §§

80.500 et seq. or U.S. EPA nonroad diesel fuel (commencing June 1, 2010) 

meeting the specifications contained in 40 CFR 80.29 and 66 FR 5002 (January 

18, 2001). The vessel owner or operator must retain records documenting the 

fuel purchase, the location and the name of the non-California port, and its lack 

of availability of fuels listed in subsections (e)(1)(A) through (E) on-board the 

vessel for a minimum of one year after the purchase of the fuel, and must make 

such records available upon the request of the Executive Officer.

(2) All Harbor Craft – Installation and Use of Non-Resettable Hour Meters. 

Beginning January 1, 2009, a person subject to this section may not operate a 

harbor craft without an installed and properly operating, non-resettable hour 

meter, which accurately measures the number of hours an engine operates. The 

hour meter must be installed on each diesel engine on the vessel in a manner 

that allows reasonable personnel access to the hour meter without impediment. 
A – 24 

(3) All In-Use Harbor Craft – Requirements for Newly Acquired Engines.

Beginning January 1, 2009, a person subject to this section may not sell, 

purchase, offer for sale, lease, rent, import, or otherwise acquire a new or in-use 

diesel engine for an in-use harbor craft, which is intended to operate or actually 

operates in any of the Regulated California Waters, unless that engine on the 

date of acquisition: 

(A) is certified to meet the Tier 2 or Tier 3 marine standards in effect on that 

date for a new engine of the same power rating and displacement. The 

newly acquired engine is not required to meet the Tier 4 marine standards 

unless it is replacing an engine on the in-use vessel that was certified as 

meeting Tier 4 marine standards. Engines certified to meet the Tier 2, Tier 

3, or interim Tier 4 off-road standards in effect on the date of acquisition for 

a new engine of the same power rating and displacement may only be 

acquired for use as an auxiliary engine on harbor craft if the engine or 

vessel manufacturer has complied with 40 CFR § 1042.605 (Marinized 

land-based engines already certified to other standards for nonroad or 

heavy-duty highway engines for marine use), as it existed on April 27, 2010; 

or

(B) is newly acquired within the allowable 6 month “sell-through” period, as set 

forth in this paragraph. For purposes of this paragraph only, the allowable 

sell-through period runs through 6 months after the date the Tier 2, Tier 3, or 

Tier 4 marine standards or Tier 3, interim Tier 4, or final Tier 4 off-road 

standards have come into effect for a new engine of the same power rating 

and displacement as the engine being replaced on the in-use vessel. 

Engines that are subsequently sold, supplied, offered for sale, or otherwise 

newly acquired after the 6 month sell-through period are subject to the 

requirements specified in paragraph (A) of this subsection, even if the 

engine was previously newly acquired within the 6 month sell-through 

period.; or

(C) is replacing an engine that is non-functioning due to equipment failure, and 

the E.O. has determined, pursuant to the provisions of 40 CFR § 1042.615 

engine replacement exemption, as it existed on April 27, 2010, that no 

engine certified to the current standards is produced by any manufacturer 

with the appropriate physical or performance characteristics to repower the 

vessel. In such event, an alternate engine may be acquired for the 

replacement. Pursuant to 40 CFR § 1042.615, a separate determination,

addressing each tier of emission standards that is more stringent than the 

emission standards for the engine being replaced must be made. For 

example, if the engine being replaced was built before the Tier 2 standards 

applied, and engines of that size are currently subject to Tier 3 standards, a 

person must consider whether any Tier 2 or Tier 3 engines have the 

appropriate physical and performance characteristics for replacing the old 
A – 25 

engine. If a Tier 2 engine is determined to have the appropriate physical and 

performance characteristics, it may be selected as the replacement engine. 

Documentation of these determinations must be supplied to the E.O. and 

the E.O.’s determination must be obtained before an engine replacement is 

made pursuant to this provision. 

(4) All New Harbor Craft (Including All New Ferries) – Requirements for Newly 

Acquired Vessels. 

Beginning January 1, 2009, a person subject to this section may not sell, purchase, 

offer for sale, lease, rent, import, or otherwise acquire a new harbor craft for use in any 

of the Regulated California Waters unless each of the diesel propulsion engines on the 

vessel meets the applicable Tier 2, Tier 3, or Tier 4 marine standards in effect on the 

date of vessel acquisition. Auxiliary engines meeting the applicable Tier 2, Tier 3, 

interim Tier 4, or Final Tier 4 off-road standards in effect on the date of vessel 

acquisition may be sold, purchased, offered for sale, leased, rented, imported, or 

otherwise acquired for use if the engine or vessel manufacturer has complied with 40 

CFR 1042.605 (Marinized land-based engines already certified to other standards for 

nonroad or heavy-duty highway engines for marine use), as it existed on April 27, 2010. 

Diesel propulsion engines in new ferries with a capacity to transport more than 75 

passengers in Regulated California Waters must also meet the requirements specified 

in subsection (e)(5) below. The person must also meet the additional requirements set 

forth in subsection (e)(5) below for diesel propulsion engines in newly acquired new 

ferries. 

 (5) Selected New Ferries Only – Additional Requirements for All Newly Acquired 

Propulsion Engines. 

 

(A) Beginning January 1, 2009, any person subject to this section may not sell, 

purchase, offer for sale, import, or otherwise acquire a new ferry with the 

capacity to transport 75 or more passengers for use in any of the Regulated 

California Waters unless each propulsion diesel engine on the vessel: who 

owns or operates a new ferry with the capacity to transport 75 or more 

passengers and that is used in any of the Regulated California Waters must 

demonstrate that each diesel propulsion engine that is certified to either the 

Tier 2 or Tier 3 marine standards will be operated in conjunction with the 

use of Best Available Control Technology (BACT) as determined and preapproved by the E.O. pursuant to this provision. 

1. meets either the Tier 2 or Tier 3 standards that are in effect on the date 

of vessel acquisition; and

2. will be operated only in conjunction with the use of Best Available 

Control Technology (BACT), as determined and pre-approved by the 

E.O. pursuant to this provision.
A – 26 

(B) In lieu of installing or using BACT pursuant to paragraph (A)2 above, the 

person may comply with paragraph (A)2 by installing on the new ferry a 

propulsion engine(s) that is certified to the Tier 4 standards if a Tier 4-

certified engine is available at the time that the new ferry is delivered. If no 

Tier 4-certified engines are available at the time of ferry delivery, the person 

must meet the provisions of paragraphs (A)1 and (A)2.

(C)(B)For purposes of this section, “BACT” is the diesel emission control strategy 

(DECS), whether verified or unverified pursuant to 13 CCR section 2700 et 

seq., that is determined by the E.O. as meeting all of the following criteria:

1. it provides or is expected to continuously provide the greatest reduction 

feasible of NOx or diesel PM when used with the ferry’s propulsion 

diesel engine; 

2. the use of BACT does not result in an increase of 10 percent or more of 

any air pollutant, including NOx and diesel PM, relative to the engine’s 

emissions of that air pollutant without the use of BACT; and

3. either the DECS manufacturer or an authorized dealer of the DECS 

determines or otherwise agrees with the E.O. that use of the DECS on or 

with the new ferry’s propulsion engine(s) would not invalidate or 

otherwise adversely affect the propulsion engine’s original warranty.

For purposes of this section, DECS may include, but is not be limited to, 

exhaust treatment controls and the use of alternative fuels or fuel additives. 

(D) (C) The E.O. shall determine the appropriate level of BACT and specify such 

BACT in an Executive Order granting such approval. Applications to comply 

with the requirements of paragraph (A)2 by using BACT must follow the 

application and review procedure set forth below:

1. Application Process. 

 For all new ferries for which the keel is laid on or after January 1, 2009, 

the application for BACT approval must be submitted in writing to the 

E.O. for evaluation before the keel is laid. The BACT application must 

contain, at a minimum, the following information: 

a. the applicant company’s name, address, and contact information; 

b. information specific to the harbor craft and engine(s) on which BACT 

will be used, including the vessel name and identification number(s); 

engine make, model, and serial numbers; and all other information 

that uniquely identify the engine; 
A – 27 

c. certification documentation, engineering calculations, emissions test 

data, or other information that establishes the diesel PM and NOx

emissions of the engine in combination with the proposed BACT. 

Emissions and emission reduction estimates must include both diesel 

PM and NOx emissions and be expressed in grams per brake 

horsepower-hour (g/bhp-hr) unless otherwise specified by the E.O. 

Information submitted pursuant to this provision will be used as 

follows: 

i. The E.O. shall use the information to compare the emissions 

resulting from the proposed use of BACT with the emissions 

quantified in BACT determinations previously approved by the 

E.O.; 

ii. If there are no previous BACT determinations available for 

comparison, the E.O. shall use ARB staff’s best engineering 

judgment to determine if the proposed BACT provides the 

greatest feasible reduction of diesel PM or NOx; and 

iii. The E.O. may require the applicant to submit additional emissions 

data for other air pollutants if the E.O. believes that the proposed 

use of BACT may increase any air pollutant by 10 percent or 

more relative to the engine emissions without the proposed 

BACT; and 

d. the proposed recordkeeping, reporting, monitoring, and testing 

procedures that the applicant plans to use to demonstrate continued 

effectiveness of the BACT.

2. E.O. Review and Final Decision-Making Process. 

 

 a. Within 15 days after receiving a BACT application, the E.O. shall 

notify the applicant whether the application is deemed sufficiently 

complete to proceed with further evaluation. If the application is 

deemed incomplete, the notification must identify the application’s 

deficiencies. The E.O. shall have an additional 15-day period for 

reviewing each set of documents or information submitted in 

response to an incomplete determination. Nothing in this subsection 

prohibits the E.O. from requesting additional information from the 

applicant, during any part of the BACT application process, which the 

E.O. determines is necessary to evaluate the application. 

 b. Within 30 days of deeming an application complete, the E.O. shall 

take final action to either approve or deny a BACT application, and 

the E.O. shall notify the applicant accordingly. If the application is 

denied or modified, the E.O. shall state the reasons for the denial or 

modification in the notification. The E.O. shall specify all terms, 

conditions, and requirements the E.O. believes are necessary for the 
A – 28 

ferry engine and BACT to operate properly and reduce emissions of 

air pollutants consistent with this section. The reporting and 

recordkeeping requirements specific to the use of BACT must 

include, at a minimum: 

i. hours of operation for the engine and BACT and fuel usage; 

 ii. usage of any alternative fuels, additives, agents, flow rates, and 

emission test results; 

 iii. maintenance procedures for the engine(s) and its BACT; and 

 iv. any other measurements or recordings specified by the E.O. 

 The E.O. shall make the approval/disapproval notification to the 

applicant and identification of the approved/disapproved BACT 

available to the public on ARB’s internet site. 

3. Post-Approval Vessel, Engine, and BACT Operation. 

A person subject to this provision who owns or operates a new ferry with 

the capacity to transport 75 or more passengers and that is used in 

Regulated California Waters must maintain operating records and other 

information in the manner and form specified by the E.O. in the BACT 

approval. The person and must submit to ARB upon request all records 

and reports created pursuant to this provision, which must be maintained 

and retained for ARB inspection a minimum of three years after the 

records or reports were created. 

(6) In-Use Engines and Vessels – Schedules for Meeting Tier 2 or Tier 3 Standards. 

(A) For Pre-Tier 1 and Tier-1 Certified Engines on Ferries, Excursion Vessels, 

Tugboats, Towboats, Push Boats, and Multipurpose Harbor Craft Crew and 

Supply Vessels, Barge and Dredge Vessels Only.

1. Applicability. 

This subsection (e)(6) applies to any person who owns, operates, sells, 

purchases, offers for sale, leases, rents, imports, or otherwise acquires 

an in-use ferry, excursion vessel, tugboat, towboat, push boat, or

multipurpose harbor craftcrew and supply vessel, or barge and dredge 

vessel (in-use regulated category vessel) with a pre-Tier 1 or Tier-1 

certified marine or off-road engine for use operating in any one of the 

above regulated in-use vessel categories for:

a. a total of 300 hours per calendar year or more if operating in either 

ferry, excursion vessel, tugboat, towboat, pushboat, or crew and 

supply vessel categories, or 

b. a total of 80 hours per calendar year if operating in either barge or 

dredge vessel categories 
A – 29 

in any of the Regulated California Waters. This subsection applies to 

all such engines on all such vessels. 

2. General Requirement. 

a. After January 1, 2009, a person subject to this provision who owns, 

operates, sells, purchases, offers for sale, leases, rents, imports, or 

otherwise acquires an in-use ferry, excursion vessel, tugboat, towboat, 

or push boat with a pre-Tier 1 or Tier-1 certified engine and that operates 

in any of the above regulated in-use vessel categories may not own, 

operate, sell, purchase, offer for sale, lease, rent, import, or otherwise 

acquire an in-use engine, or a vessel with an in-use engine, unless that 

engine complies with at least one of the compliance methods set forth in 

subsection (e)(6)(C) by the applicable compliance date. The compliance 

methods set forth in subsection (e)(6)(C) involve either replacement of 

the in-use engine with a cleaner engine or demonstrating that the in-use 

engine already meets specified standards, as set forth below. 

b. After July 1, 2011, a person who owns, operates, sells, purchases, 

offers for sale, leases, rents, imports, or otherwise acquires an in-use 

crew and supply vessel, or barge and dredge vessel with a pre-Tier 1 or 

Tier-1 certified engine and that operates in any of the above regulated 

in-use vessel categories may not own, operate, sell, purchase, offer for 

sale, lease, rent, import, or otherwise acquire an in-use engine, or a 

vessel with an in-use engine, unless that engine complies with at least 

one of the compliance methods set forth in subsection (e)(6)(C) by the 

applicable compliance date. The compliance methods set forth in 

subsection (e)(6)(C) involve either replacement of the in-use engine with 

a cleaner engine or demonstrating that the in-use engine already meets 

specified standards, as set forth below. 

For purposes of this subsection, “applicable compliance date” is either 

the compliance date, as set forth in subsection (e)(6)(D) for the in-use 

engine, or the compliance date from subsection (e)(6)(D) for the in-use 

engine, as extended pursuant to subsection (e)(6)(E), whichever applies 

and occurs later. 

(B) [Reserved for Future Use] 
A – 30 

(C) Compliance Methods. 

1. Method C1 – Replacement of the in-use engine with a U.S. EPA certified 

Tier 2 engine or one with a higher certification level (e.g., Tier 3-

certified). 

A person may comply under this method by replacing the in-use engine 

with an engine certified to Tier 2- or Tier 3-certified marine engine 

standards as set forth in this paragraph. The replacement engine must 

meet the U.S. EPA Tier 2 or Tier 3 marine standards that would apply to 

a new engine, of the same size and configuration as the in-use engine, 

at the time of the applicable compliance date set forth in subsection 

(e)(6)(D). If the in-use engine is an auxiliary engine, the replacement 

engine must meet the provisions of sections 93118.5(e)(3) and (e)(4). 

[Note: For example, if the applicable compliance date is January 1, 

2010, and the Tier 2 marine standards would be in effect at that time for 

a new engine of the same size and configuration as the in-use engine, 

the replacement would need to meet Tier 2 marine standards. However, 

if the applicable compliance date is instead January 1, 2013, and the 

Tier 3 marine standards would be in effect for a new engine of the same 

size and configuration as the in-use engine, the replacement engine 

would need to meet Tier 3 marine standards.] 

Once the in-use engine has been replaced with an engine that is U.S. 

EPA-certified to meet Tier 2 or Tier 3 marine or off-road standards, as 

set forth above, the engine is deemed to be in compliance with this 

subsection (e)(6) and no further replacements of this engine are required 

under this subsection. Tier 3-certified marine or off-road engines may be 

used as the replacement engine to comply with this paragraph, even if 

Tier 4-certified marine or off-road emission engines become available by 

the applicable compliance date; 

 

2. Method C2 – Demonstrate to the E.O.’s written satisfaction that the inuse engine already meets the Tier 2 marine standards or Tier 2 off-road 

standards for auxiliary engines greater than 50 hp or less than 75 hp, or 

greater than 750 hp that apply or would apply to new engines on the 

date the Tier 2 marine or off-road standards became effective. 

a. A person may comply under this method by demonstrating to the 

E.O.’s written satisfaction that:

i. the in-use engine already meets the Tier 2 marine standards or 

Tier 2 off-road standards on greater than 50 hp or less than 

75 hp, or greater than 750 hp auxiliary engines, 
A – 31 

ii. which apply to new engines of the same power rating and 

displacement as the in-use engine. 

b. This compliance method is available only if the person makes the 

required demonstration before the date Tier 3 marine standards 

become effective for new engines of the same size and configuration 

as the in-use engine. The person may rebuild the in-use engine to a 

cleaner standard or implement a diesel emission control strategy to 

aid in meeting these standards. [Note: For example, if the Tier 3 

marine standards would have become effective on January 1, 2015 

for a new engine of the same size and configuration as the in-use 

engine, the person would need to provide the Tier 2-compliance 

demonstration to the E.O.’s written satisfaction by January 1, 2015.] 

c. For purposes of the demonstration, the person may, upon approval 

by the E.O., rely on any source of reliable and credible information, 

including but not limited to, any of the following:

i. the results from using the test method specified in section (j) or an 

alternative method approved by the E.O.; 

ii. the in-use engine manufacturer’s certification test data or other 

emissions test data for that in-use engine; 

iii. emissions test data derived from another in-use engine that is 

configured and used in a substantially similar way to the in-use 

engine; 

iv. emissions test data used to meet the regulatory requirements of 

ARB’s Verification Procedure for the non-verified emission control 

strategy implemented; or 

v. emissions test data used to meet the requirements for U.S. EPA 

certification for systems providing remanufacture to a cleaner 

standard. 

The E.O. may, in his/her sole discretion and based on good 

engineering judgment, exclude any information he/she determines is 

not reliable or credible. 

3. Method C3 – Demonstrate to the E.O.’s written satisfaction that the inuse engine already meets the Tier 2 or Tier 3 marine standards or Tier 2 

or Tier 3 off-road standards for auxiliary engines in effect or would be in 

effect for new engines at the time of the applicable compliance date. 

a. A person may comply under this method by demonstrating to the 

E.O.’s written satisfaction that:
A – 32 

i. the in-use engine already meets the Tier 2 or Tier 3 marine

standards or Tier 2 or Tier 3 off-road standards on auxiliary 

engines, 

ii. which apply to new engines of the same power rating and 

displacement as the in-use engine, 

iii. at the time of the applicable compliance date for the in-use 

engine. 

b. To comply with this method, the person may demonstrate that the inuse engine meets the Tier 3 marine or off-road standards, even if 

Tier 4 marine or off-road standards come into effect by the applicable 

compliance date. The person may rebuild the in-use engine to a 

cleaner standard or implement a diesel emission control strategy to 

aid in meeting these standards. 

c. For purposes of the demonstration, the person may, upon E.O. 

approval, rely on any source of reliable and credible information, 

including but not limited to, any of the following:

i. the results from using the test method specified in section (j) or an 

alternative method approved by the E.O.; 

ii. the in-use engine manufacturer’s certification test data or other 

emissions test data for that in-use engine; 

iii. emissions test data derived from another in-use engine that is 

configured and used in a substantially similar way to the in-use 

engine; 

iv. emissions test data used to meet the regulatory requirements of 

ARB’s Verification Procedure for the non-verified emission control 

strategy implemented; or 

v. emissions test data used to meet the requirements for U.S. EPA 

certification for systems providing remanufacture to a cleaner 

standard. 

The E.O. may, in his/her sole discretion and based on good 

engineering judgment, exclude any information he/she determines is 

not reliable or credible. 

4. Method C4 – Demonstrate to the E.O’s written satisfaction that the inuse engine has not and will not operate 300 or more hours per calendar 

year in any of the regulated in-use vessel categories or 80 or more hours 

per calendar year in the barge or dredge vessel categories.

A person may comply under this method by demonstrating to the E.O.’s 

written satisfaction that the engine is a low-use engine. This compliance 

method requires the person to provide records to the E.O. of the 

engine’s total annual hours of operation while operating in any of the 
A – 33 

regulated in-use vessel categories for the calendar year immediately 

preceding the demonstration. The person must also provide 

documentation sufficient for the E.O. to project future annual hours of 

operation for the engine. The person will be deemed in compliance with 

this method only if such records and documentation demonstrate to the 

E.O.’s written satisfaction that the in-use engine has not and will not 

operate 300 or more hours per calendar year operating in any of the 

regulated in-use vessel categories with the exception of the dredge or 

barge categories, or 80 or more hours per calendar year in either the 

dredge or barge categories. 

(D) Compliance Dates.

Table 7, and Table 8, Table 9, and Table 10 below set forth the compliance 

dates by which a person must meet the requirements of subsection 

(e)(6)(A). Table 7 applies only to vessels engines on ferries, excursion 

vessels, tugboats, towboats, and push boats with a homeport outside of the 

SCAQMD; Table 8 applies only to vessels engines on ferries, excursion 

vessels, tugboats, towboats, and push boats with a homeport within the 

SCAQMD.; Table 9 applies only to engines on crew and supply vessels, and 

Table 10 applies to engines on barge and dredge vessels. The compliance 

dates are set forth by engine model year and total annual hours of operation 

(for all uses in any regulated in-use vessel category) of the vessel in 

Regulated California Waters. For Table 7, Table 9, and Table 10, Method 

D1, D2, or D3 below may be used for determining the actual or effective 

engine model year. For Table 8, only Method D1 or D3 may be used for 

determining the actual or effective engine model year. 

1. Method D1 – the engine’s actual model year of manufacture. 

A person may determine an engine’s compliance date under this method 

by using the engine’s actual model year of manufacture, as documented 

by the sales contract, invoice, purchase order, or other legitimate proof 

of purchase for the engine. The actual model year of manufacture may 

also be shown on a label permanently affixed to the engine by the 

manufacturer. In the event of a conflict between the proof of purchase 

and the permanent label, the date of manufacture shown on the 

permanent label controls. 

2. Method D2 – the engine’s effective model year based on the “Engine’s 

Model Year + 5” method. 

A person may determine an engine’s compliance date under this method 

by calculating the engine’s effective model year as the actual model 

year, using Method D1 above, and adding to that number 5 more years. 
A – 34 

To use this method, the person must use a diesel emissions control 

strategy (DECS) with the engine, as set forth below: 

a. Relative to the emissions without the use of the DECS, the engine 

with the DECS must be demonstrated to the E.O.’s written 

satisfaction as emitting at least 25 percent less diesel PM or NOx, 

and neither of those pollutants are increased by more than 10 

percent. This requirement is met automatically if the DECS is a 

verified DECS (VDECS); 

b. If the DECS is not a VDECS, the person must demonstrate 

compliance with this paragraph by submitting to the E.O. emissions 

data that demonstrate the non-verified emission control technology 

achieves a diesel PM or NOx emission reduction of 25 percent or 

better, using the test methods specified in subsection (j). Upon 

approval of the E.O., the person may submit data derived from the 

use of other test methods to demonstrate to the E.O.’s written 

satisfaction the required 25 percent minimum emission reductions, 

such as: 

i. marine engine certification test data for the harbor craft propulsion 

or auxiliary engine, or engine manufacturer emissions test data; 

ii. emissions test data derived from another engine that is configured 

and used in a substantially similar way to the in-use engine on 

which the emission control strategy is to be used; or 

iii. emissions test data used to meet the regulatory requirements of 

the ARB Verification Procedure for the non-verified emission 

control strategy implemented. 

The E.O. may, in his/her sole discretion and based on good 

engineering judgment, exclude any data derived from the test 

methods under paragraph b above that he/she determines are not 

reliable or credible. 

A person’s use of a DECS or VDECS, which meets the requirements 

of this provision, extends the engine’s compliance date to the 

compliance date for a similar engine that is five model years newer 

(i.e., the actual model year for the engine with the emissions control 

strategy + 5). 

[Note: For example, the owner of a 1995 model year engine on a 

tugboat, which has a homeport outside of SCAQMD and operates in 

Regulated California Waters for 750 hours in 2013, would normally 

be required to meet a December 31, 2014 compliance date, as set 

forth in Table 7. However, if a DECS that meets the requirements of 

this provision is implemented with this engine prior to the 2014 
A – 35 

nominal compliance date, the engine’s actual compliance date would 

be extended to the compliance date for a 2000 model year engine 

(i.e., the effective model year = the 1995 model year + 5). 

Accordingly, in that scenario, the engine’s effective model year would 

extend the compliance date to December 31, 2016]; 

3. Method D3 – the engine’s effective model year based on the “Engine’s 

Tier 1 Rebuild Model Year” method.

A person may determine an engine’s compliance date by demonstrating, 

to the E.O.’s written satisfaction, that the engine is an existing pre-2004 

model year engine that was rebuilt to conform with U.S. EPA Tier 1 

marine standards prior to January 1, 2008. If the E.O. is thus satisfied, 

the effective model year of the Tier 1 rebuilt engine, for purposes of 

determining the compliance date in Table 7 or, Table 8, Table 9, or 

Table 10, is the actual year in which the Tier 1 rebuild occurred. 
A – 36 

Table 7: Compliance Dates for Engines on Ferries, Excursion Vessels, Tugboats, 

Towboats, and Push Boats Vessels with Homeports Outside SCAQMD 

[Note: For example, if a 1982-model year diesel engine on a tugboat operating in Regulated California 

 Waters is used for 750 hours in 2011, the owner or operator must bring the engine into compliance with 

 the requirements of subsection (e)(6)(C) by December 31, 2012.]. 

Engine Model Year Total Annual Hours of 

Operation 

Compliance 

Date 

1975 and earlier ≥ 1500 12/31/2009 

1975 and earlier ≥300 and < 1500 12/31/2010 

1976 - 1985 ≥1500 12/31/2011 

1976 - 1985 ≥ 300 and < 1500 12/31/2012 

1986 - 1995 ≥ 1500 12/31/2013 

1986 - 1995 ≥ 300 and < 1500 12/31/2014 

Ferries Only 

1996 - 1999 ≥ 300 12/31/2014 

Vessels Other Than 

Ferries 

1996 - 1999 

≥ 1500 12/31/2015 

Vessels Other Than 

Ferries 

1996 - 1999 

≥ 300 and < 1500 12/31/2016 

2000 ≥ 1500 12/31/2015 

2000 ≥ 300 and < 1500 12/31/2016 

2001 - 2002 ≥ 300 12/31/2017 

2003 ≥ 300 12/31/2018 

2004 ≥ 300 12/31/2019 

2005 ≥ 300 12/31/2020 

2006 ≥ 300 12/31/2021 

2007 ≥ 300 12/31/2022 
A – 37 

Table 8: Compliance Dates for Engines on Ferries, Excursion Vessels, Tugboats, 

Towboats, and Push Boats Vessels with Homeports in SCAQMD 

[Note: For example, if a 1982-model year diesel engine on a tugboat operating in Regulated California 

Waters is used for 300 or more hours in 2009, the owner or operator must bring the engine into 

compliance with the requirements of subsection (e)(6)(C) by December 31, 2010.]. 

Table 9: Compliance Dates for Engines on Crew and Supply Vessels Statewide 

Engine Model Year Total Annual Hours of 

Operation Compliance Date 

1979 and earlier > 300 12/31/2009 

1980 – 1985 > 300 12/31/2010 

1986 – 1990 > 300 12/31/2011 

1991 – 1995 > 300 12/31/2012 

1996 – 2000 > 300 12/31/2013 

2001 > 300 1312/31/2014 

2002 > 300 12/31/2015 

2003 > 300 12/31/2016 

2004 > 300 12/31/2017 

2005 > 300 12/31/2018 

2006 > 300 12/31/2019 

2007 > 300 12/31/2020 

Engine Model Year Total Annual Hours of 

Operation Compliance Date

1985 and earlier > 1500 12/31/2011

1985 and earlier > 300 and < 1500 12/31/2012

1986 – 1995 > 1500 12/31/2013

1986 – 1995 > 300 and < 1500 12/31/2014

1996 – 2000 > 1500 12/31/2015

1996 – 2000 > 300 and < 1500 12/31/2016

2001 – 2002 > 300 12/31/2017

2003 > 300 12/31/2018

2004 > 300 12/31/2019

2005 > 300 12/31/2020

2006 > 300 12/31/2021

2007 > 300 12/31/2022
A – 38 

Table 10: Compliance Dates for pre-Tier 1 and Tier 1 Engines on 

Dredge and Barge Vessels Statewide 

Engine Model Year

Total Annual 

Hours of 

Operation

Compliance 

Date

1975 and earlier >80 12/31/2011

1976 -1980 >80 12/31/2012

1981 - 1985 >80 12/31/2013

1986-1990 >80 12/31/2014

1991-1995 >80 12/31/2015

1996-1999 >80 12/31/2016

2000 -2001 >80 12/31/2017

2002 >80 12/31/2018

2003 >80 12/31/2019

2004 >80 12/31/2020

2005 >80 12/31/2021

2006 >80 12/312022

(E) Compliance Extensions. 

 Pursuant to this subsection (e)(6)(E), a person subject to the requirements of 

subsection (e)(6)(C) may request in writing to the E.O. an extension to a 

compliance date set forth in subsection (e)(6)(D) (i.e., extension to the “nominal” 

compliance date). The E.O. may grant the person an extension to the nominal 

compliance date for any one of the reasons set forth below. A person granted 

such an extension is deemed to be in compliance with the requirements of 

subsection (e)(6)(C) during the extension period, but only upon written 

authorization from the E.O. made pursuant to this provision and only until the end 

of the extension period. During the extension, the person must meet all other 

requirements of this section. Immediately upon the end of the extension period, 

the person must meet all the applicable requirements of this section, including 

but not limited to, subsection (e)(6)(C). 

 Except as provided in paragraph (e)(6)(E)3 below, the E.O. may not combine 

compliance extensions granted pursuant to this provision with any other 

compliance date extensions, including those set forth in this provision and in 

subsection (e)(6)(D)2 and (D)3. And except as provided in paragraphs (e)(6)(E)2 

and (e)(6)(E)3 below, under no circumstances may the E.O. grant more than one 

compliance extension for any individual engine, set of engines, or harbor craft. 

1. Change in Annual Hours of Operation. 

The E.O. may grant a one-time, maximum one year extension to the 

nominal compliance date set forth in subsection (e)(6)(D), provided the 
A – 39 

person demonstrates to the E.O.’s written satisfaction that the all of the 

following have occurred: 

a. The person reasonably determined the vessel engine’s nominal 

compliance date based on the engine’s hours of operation two years 

before the nominal compliance date; and 

b. In the year immediately prior to the nominal compliance date, the 

engine’s annual hours of operation increased significantly from the 

prior year such that the engine’s nominal compliance date would 

have been accelerated from one compliance date to an earlier 

compliance date. 

[Note: For example, suppose an operator has a 1982-model year 

engine on a tugboat, which has a homeport outside of SCAQMD and 

operates for 750 hours in Regulated California Waters in 2010. If it is 

reasonable for the operator to assume the annual hours of operation in 

2011 will be similar to 2010, the operator would project from Table 7 that 

the engine’s compliance date is December 31, 2012, and would plan his 

operations accordingly. However, if the vessel engine’s operation 

increased substantially to 1600 hours in 2011, the engine normally would 

then have its compliance date accelerated to December 31, 2011, 

according to Table 7. The one-year extension would, therefore, extend 

the engine’s actual compliance date back to what it would have been 

without the change in hours of operation (i.e., back to December 31, 

2012).]. 

2. No Suitable Engine Replacement for Harbor Craft. 

The E.O. may grant to a person a one year extension, which can be 

renewed annually, only if the person demonstrates to the E.O.’s written 

satisfaction that there is no suitable Tier 2-certified or 

Tier 3-marine certified replacement engine available anywhere that can 

be used in the person’s specific vessel, and the person cannot otherwise 

meet the requirements of subsection (e)(6)(C). 

The E.O., in his/her sole discretion, may use any information available to 

the E.O. to rebut the person’s demonstration. For purposes of this 

paragraph, the E.O. may deem an engine as suitable to replace an 

existing engine if the replacement engine is similar in horsepower to the 

existing engine, the replacement engine can fit within the vessel’s engine 

compartment, and installation of the replacement engine would not 

cause the vessel to violate U.S. Coast Guard or other applicable safety 

regulations. The E.O. may not consider the cost of the replacement 

engine, by itself or including installation and downtime costs, in 

determining its suitability as a replacement. 
A – 40 

The application for and issuance of an initial extension and subsequent 

extensions pursuant to this paragraph are subject to the following 

requirements:

a. For an initial extension and all subsequent annual extensions to be 

granted pursuant to this paragraph, the E.O. shall follow the same 

procedures for applying, determining completeness, allowing public 

review and considering public comments, taking final action, and 

publishing E.O. decisions that are set forth in subsection (f) for 

Alternative Control of Emissions (ACE) applications; 

b. The E.O. shall consider all information submitted by the public, 

including but not limited to, information related to the availability of 

replacement engines suitable for the person’s vessel; 

c. Except for the engine(s) for which the extension is sought, the person 

must demonstrate that all other engines subject to the person’s direct 

control meet the requirements of subsection (e)(6);

d. The person must submit the application for an extension so that it is 

received by the E.O. no later than 6 months before the nominal 

compliance date of the engine for which the extension is requested; 

e. The person must identify in the application each engine for which the 

extension is requested; 

f. For each engine identified in paragraph 2 above, the person must 

provide in the application a detailed description of the reasons and 

factors that serve as the basis for the claim that no suitable 

replacement engine is available. This description must include, at a 

minimum, detailed engineering diagrams, calculations, and citations 

to applicable U.S. Coast Guard regulations that support the person’s 

claim that there are no suitable replacement engines available. 

g. After the initial extension, the E.O. may grant additional one year 

extensions, provided the following requirements are met: 

i. All procedures specified in paragraph (e)(6)(E)2.a and 

(e)(6)(E)2.b above are followed; 

ii. The application for an additional extension demonstrates the 

engines identified in paragraph (e)(6)(E)2.c remain in compliance 

with this section; 

iii. The application is received by the E.O. no sooner than 6 months 

but no later than 2 months before the expiration of the previous 

extension; 
A – 41 

iv. The application identifies the engine(s) for which the additional 

extension is requested; 

v. For each engine identified in paragraph (e)(6)(E)2.g.iv above, the 

person must provide in the application a detailed description of 

the reasons and factors that serve as the basis for the claim that 

suitable replacement engines remain unavailable. This 

description must include, at a minimum, detailed engineering 

diagrams, calculations, and citations to applicable U.S. Coast 

Guard regulations that support the person’s claim that there are 

still no suitable replacement engines available. 

3. Equipment Manufacturer Delays or Installation Difficulties. 

Upon written request, the E.O. may grant to a person a 6-month 

extension to the nominal compliance date set forth in subsection 

(e)(6)(D), provided all the following criteria are met: 

a. the person ordered the new replacement engine or other 

equipment necessary to comply with the requirements of 

subsection (e)(6)(C) prior to the nominal compliance date set forth 

in subsection (e)(6)(D); 

b. the purchase order identified in paragraph a above was placed 

with the manufacturer no later than 6 months before the engine’s 

nominal compliance date; 

c. the new engine or equipment has not been received or installed 

since it was ordered due to manufacturing delays or excessive 

difficulties encountered by the engine or equipment installer; and 

d. the applicant for the extension provides documentation to the 

E.O.’s satisfaction that demonstrates the criteria in subparts a. 

through c. above have been met. The E.O. may, in his/her sole 

discretion, use any information available to rebut any of the 

documentation submitted pursuant to subparts a through c above. 

4. Multiple Engines on Multiple Vessels Within Same Fleet and With 

Same Compliance Dates. 

This provision applies only to fleets of 2 or more vessels that are 

owned by the same person. Upon written request, the E.O. may 

grant to the person an extension to the nominal compliance date(s) 

for engines on vessels within such fleets, as set forth below; 

a. For each set of engines on two or more vessels or for each single 

engine in three or more vessels with compliance dates of 2009 or 
A – 42 

2010 for ferries, excursion vessels, tugboats, towboats, and push 

boats and 2011 or 2012 for crew and supply vessels and barge 

and dredge vessels (a “set” means 2 or more engines), the E.O. 

may grant a one-time extension of the compliance date to 

December 31, 2013 for ferries, excursion vessels, tugboats, 

towboats, and push boats and to December 31, 2015 for crew 

and supply boats and barge and dredge vessels, provided the 

E.O. receives and approves a compliance schedule from the 

person that meets the requirements set forth below:

i. The compliance schedule is received by the E.O. no later than 

December 31, 2009 for ferries, excursion vessels, tugboats, 

towboats, and push boats and prior to December 31, 2011 for 

crew, supply, barge, and dredge vessels; 

ii. For each year, up to and including 2013 for ferries, excursion 

vessels, tugboats, towboats, and push boats and 2015 for 

crew and supply vessels and barge and dredge vessels, that 

the extension will be in effect, the compliance schedule must 

identify, at a minimum, the engines on specified vessels in the 

fleet that will meet the requirements of subsection (e)(6)(C) 

within any given year; 

iii. The compliance schedule must show that all engines with 

compliance dates of 2009 or 2010 for ferries, excursion 

vessels, tugboats, towboats, and push boats and 2011 or 

2012 for crew and supply vessels and barge and dredge 

vessels on the specified vessels in the fleet will be in 

compliance with subsection (e)(6)(C) by December 31, 2013 

for ferries, excursion vessels, tugboats, towboats, and push 

boats and December 31, 2015 for crew and supply vessels 

and barge and dredge vessels. [Note: For example, an 

approvable plan may show that 25% of these engines on the 

specified vessels in a fleet will be in compliance in 2010, 50% 

in 2011, 75% in 2012, and 100% by December 31, 2013.]; and 

iv. The compliance schedule must include all other information 

the E.O. deems necessary and appropriate for implementing 

this provision. 

b. For each set of engines on two or more vessels or each single 

engine on three or more vessels with a compliance date of 2011 

or later for ferries, excursion vessels, tugboats, towboats, and 

push boats and 2013 or later for crew and supply vessels and 

barge and dredge vessels (a “set” means 2 or more engines), the 

E.O. may grant to a person a one-time, maximum one-year 
A – 43 

extension of the nominal compliance date. To receive an 

extension under this provision, the person must submit a written 

request to the E.O. that meets the following requirements: 

i. The request must be received by the E.O. no later than 

December 31st of the year immediately preceding the nominal 

compliance date for the set of engines; and 

ii. The request identifies the engines in each set of engines and 

the vessels in the person’s fleet that are subject to the 

requested extension. 

For all engines within a person’s fleet that have not been granted 

an extension pursuant to paragraphs a or b above, the 

compliance dates for such engines remain as set forth in 

subsection (e)(6)(D). 

(F) Special Provisions Applicable to the Use of a Diesel Emission Control 

Strategy (DECS), including Verified Diesel Emission Control Strategies 

(VDECS). 

The following requirements apply to any person’s use of a DECS pursuant 

to subsections (e)(5) or (e)(6) and are in addition to any other applicable 

requirements: 

1. Once the DECS is installed or otherwise employed on a person’s vessel, 

the person must continue to operate and maintain the DECS, in 

accordance with the manufacturer’s directions, to achieve the original 

level of emission reductions that the DECS was designed and intended 

to achieve; 

2. In the event a DECS fails, breaks down, or is otherwise damaged 

(collectively referred to hereinafter as “fail” or “failure”), the vessel owner 

or operator must, within 90 days of the DECS failure, do at least one of 

the following: 

 

a. repair the DECS to good working order; 

b. replace the failed DECS with another working DECS, if it cannot be 

repaired; or 

c. employ another method that meets the requirements of subsection 

(e)(6)(C) and other applicable provisions of this section, if the DECS 

cannot be repaired. 

 
A – 44 

3. The determination in subpart 2.b and 2.c above of whether a DECS 

cannot be repaired may only be made by either the DECS manufacturer 

or an authorized dealer. 

4. For each replacement DECS installed under subpart 2.b above, the 

person must provide to the E.O. the same documentation for the 

replacement DECS that was required for the DECS that failed, and the 

person must obtain the same E.O. approvals that were required with the 

failed DECS. 

(f) Alternative Control of Emissions (ACE). 

(1) Requirements.

(A) The purpose of this subsection is to allow a person (“person” or “applicant”) 

the option of complying with the requirements of this subsection in lieu of 

the requirements of subsection (e). As set forth in this subsection, a person 

may be deemed in compliance with subsection (e) by implementing an 

alternative emission control strategy(ies) (AECS) approved by the E.O. In 

no case may the E.O. approve an AECS that results in or has the potential 

to result in any increase of diesel PM and NOx emissions or any increase in 

emissions greater than 10 percent for any other pollutant, relative to the 

emissions of diesel PM, NOx, and other pollutants that would have occurred 

under compliance with subsection (e). 

(B) An applicant wishing to participate in an ACE may include one or more 

harbor craft in the ACE, but the applicant may only include harbor craft that 

the person owns or operates under the person’s direct control. 

(C) No harbor craft may be included in more than one ACE plan. 

(D) Harbor craft included in an ACE must continue to be included in and 

operated pursuant to the approved ACE for the duration of the ACE. 

(E) AECS may include, but are not limited to, any combination of the following: 

1. engine modifications; 

2. exhaust treatment control; 

3. engine repower; 

4. use of alternative fuels or fuel additives; 

5. shore-side power; 

6. fleet averaging; and 

7. any other measures that sufficiently reduce emissions. 
A – 45 

(F) A person complying under this provision must obtain E.O. approval of an 

ACE application that demonstrates compliance with this subsection and 

contains, at a minimum, the following information: 

1. the company name, address, and contact information; 

2. the harbor craft and engine(s) subject to the ACE, including the vessel 

name and identification number(s), engine make, model, and serial 

numbers, and other information that uniquely identify the engine; 

3. documentation, calculations, emissions test data, or other information 

that establishes the diesel PM and NOx reductions, expressed in 

pounds, are equal to or greater than the emission reductions that would 

have been achieved upon compliance with subsection (e), including but 

not limited to the requirements specified in subsection (e)(6)(C) and 

(e)(6)(D); and 

4. the proposed recordkeeping, reporting, monitoring, and testing 

procedures that the applicant will use to demonstrate continued 

compliance with the ACE. 

(G) For each ACE, the emission reduction calculations demonstrating 

equivalence with the requirements of subsection (e) may include only those 

diesel PM and NOx emissions from harbor craft with its homeport within a 

single specified California air district, or another defined geographic area 

approved by the E.O. 

(H) A person subject to an approved ACE must maintain operating records in 

the manner and form as specified by the E.O as an element of any 

approved ACE. Required records must include, at a minimum: 

1. all the reporting and recordkeeping requirements specified in 

subsections (g) and (h); 

2. maintenance procedures; and 

3. emissions test results. 

A person subject to an approved ACE must retain records and reports on 

each vessel or at an office at the vessel’s homeport for the lifetime of each 

engine and must submit these records and reports to the E.O. in the manner 

specified in the approved ACE or upon request by the E.O. 

(I) Emission reductions included in an ACE may not include reductions that are 

otherwise required by any local, State, or federal rule, regulation, or statute, 

or that are achieved or estimated from equipment not located in the region 

to which the ACE applies. 

(J) A person subject to an approved ACE may not operate any harbor craft 

under the ACE unless the person has first been notified in writing by the 

E.O. of the ACE’s approval. Prior to such approval, the applicant must 
A – 46 

comply with the provisions of this section, including the requirements in 

subsection (e)(6)(C) and (e)(6)(D). 

(2) Application Process. 

(A) Applications for an ACE must be submitted in writing to the Executive 

Officer for evaluation by February 28 of the first year that vessel engine 

compliance is required. 

(B) The E.O. shall establish an internet site (“ACE internet site”) in which all 

documents pertaining to an ACE application shall be made available for 

public review. The E.O. shall also provide a copy of all such documents to 

each person who has requested copies of the documents; these persons 

shall be treated as interested parties. The E.O. shall provide two separate 

public comment periods during the ACE application process, as specified in 

subsection (f)(2)(D) and (f)(2)(E). 

 

(C) Completeness Determination. 

Within 15 days after receiving an ACE application, the E.O. shall notify an 

applicant whether the application is deemed sufficiently complete to proceed 

with further evaluation. If the application is deemed incomplete, the 

notification shall identify the application’s deficiencies. The E.O. shall have 

an additional 15-day period for reviewing each set of documents or 

information submitted in response to an incomplete determination. Nothing 

in this subsection prohibits the E.O. from requesting additional information 

from the applicant, during any part of the ACE application process, which 

the E.O. determines is necessary to evaluate the application. 

(D) Notice of Completeness and 30-Day First Public Comment Period. 

After an ACE application has been deemed complete, the E.O. shall provide 

a 30-day public comment period to receive comments on any element of the 

ACE application and whether the E.O. should approve or disapprove the 

ACE application based on the contents and merits of the application. The 

E.O. shall notify all interested parties of the following: 

1. the applicant(s); 

2. the start and end dates for the 30-day first comment period; and 

3. the address of the ACE internet site where the application is posted. 

The E.O. shall also make this notification available for public review on the 

ACE internet site. 
A – 47 

(E) Proposed Action and 15-Day Second Public Comment Period. 

 Within 30 days after the first public comment period ends, the E.O. shall 

notify the applicant and all interested parties of ARB’s proposed approval or 

disapproval. This notification shall propose to approve the application as 

submitted, disapprove the application, or approve the ACE application with 

modifications as deemed necessary by the E.O. The notification shall 

identify the start and end dates for the 15-day second public comment 

period. 

 During the second public comment period, any person may comment on the 

E.O.’s proposed approval or disapproval of the ACE application and any 

element of the application. The E.O. shall also make this notification 

available for public review on the ACE internet site. 

 (F) Final Action. 

Within 15 days after the second public comment period ends, the E.O. shall 

take final action to either approve or deny an ACE application and shall 

notify the applicant accordingly. If the application is denied or modified, the 

E.O. shall state the reasons for the denial or modification in the notification. 

The notification to the applicant and approved ACE plan, if applicable, shall 

be made available to the public on the ACE internet site. In addition, the 

E.O. shall consider and address all comments received during the first and 

second public comment periods, and provide responses to each comment 

on the ACE internet site. 

(G) Renewal of an Approved ACE. 

An applicant may apply for renewal of an approved ACE by forwarding the 

E.O. updated information for all elements of the approved ACE for review 

and re-approval. The applicant must submit the renewal application so that 

the E.O. receives the application no later than 30 days prior to the end of 

the ACE compliance period. 

(H) Notification to the E.O. of Changes to an Approved ACE. 

 A person with an approved ACE must notify the E.O. in writing within 

30 days upon learning of any information that would alter the emissions 

estimates submitted during any part of the ACE application process. If the 

E.O. has reason to believe that an approved ACE has been granted to a 

person that no longer meets the criteria for an ACE, the E.O. may, pursuant 

to subsection (f)(3) below, modify or revoke the ACE as necessary to assure 

that the applicant and subject vessel(s) meet the emission reduction 

requirements in this section. 
A – 48 

(3) Revocation or Modification of Approved ACEs. 

 With 30 days of notice of violation to the ACE holder, the E.O. may revoke or 

modify, as needed, an approved ACE if any of the following apply: 

(A) there have been multiple violations of the ACE provisions or the 

requirements of the approved ACE plan; 

(B) the E.O. has reason to believe that an approved ACE has been granted that 

no longer meets the criteria or requirements for an ACE; or 

(C) the person can no longer comply with the requirements of the approved 

ACE in its current form. 

Public notification of a revocation or modification of an approved ACE shall be 

made available on the ACE internet site. 

(g) Recordkeeping Requirements. 

Beginning January 1, 2009, the owner or operator of a harbor craft must maintain the 

records specified in this subsection on the vessel or at the vessel’s homeport for the life 

of each engine subject to this section, including fleet swing engines and marinized landbased engines. The owner or operator must provide such records for inspection to an 

agent or employee of ARB upon request for all harbor craft subject to this section. 

Records may be provided as a hard copy, electronic, or any alternative reporting 

strategy approved by the E.O. Records provided by the person under this provision 

must include, at a minimum, the following: 

(1) Owner or Operator Contact Information: 

(A) Company name; 

(B) Contact name, phone and fax number, address, e-mail address; 

(C) Address where vessel is registered; and

(D) Reporting year.

(2) Vessel information: 

(A) Harbor craft name; 

(B) Specify vessel use(s) (ferry, excursion vessel, tugboat, ocean-going 

tugboat, towboat, push boat, work boat, commercial fishing vessel, charter 

fishing vessel, crew and supply vessel, pilot vessel, or other if none of the 

preceding apply); 

(C) Vessel homeport; 

(D) Vessel build year; 

(E) U.S. Coast Guard documentation number; 

(F) California Fish and Game license number; 

(G) International Maritime Organization (IMO) number; 

(H) Call Sign number; and 
A – 49 

(I) Maritime Mobile Service identity number. 

(3) Engine Information (for each diesel engine on the vessel, including swing 

engines): 

(A) Current hour meter reading; 

(B) Make of engine; 

(C) Model of engine; 

(D) Engine family (if applicable); 

(E) Engine serial number; 

(F) Year of manufacture of engine (if unable to determine, provide its 

 approximate age); 

(G) Rated brake horsepower; 

(H) Total engine displacement; and 

(I) Number of cylinders. 

(4) Operational Information: 

(A) Describe the general use of engine (propulsion or auxiliary engine); 

(B) Total annual hours of operation, based upon readings of the non-resettable 

hour meters for previous calendar year per engine (for engines without an 

hour meter before 2009, provide an estimate); 

(C) Total hours of operation per calendar year in each of the regulated in-use 

vessel categories, based upon readings of the non-resettable hour meters 

for previous calendar year per engine;

 (CD)Estimated annual fuel usage per engine; and 

 (DE)Estimated percent operating time as a function of distance from shore at 

 the distances below: 

1. 0-3 nautical miles; and 

2. >3-24 nautical miles; and 

3. >24 nautical miles from shore. 

(5) Control Equipment (if applicable): 

(A) Type of diesel emission control strategy; 

(B) Manufacturer of installed diesel emission control strategy; 

(C) Model of installed diesel emission control strategy; 

(D) Level of control – air pollutants controlled and percent reductions; 

(E) Emission control serial number; and 

(F) Date control equipment installed. 

(6) Maintenance records for each installed engine and diesel emission control 

strategy: 

(A) Hour meter reading at last top end rebuild (i.e., less than full rebuild); 

(B) Hour meter reading at last full engine rebuild; and 

(C) Number of times full engine rebuild completed. 

(7) The retirement date for each near-retirement vessel for which an owner or 

operator is claiming an exemption pursuant to subsection (c)(13). 
A – 50 

(8) For each engine for which the model year is determined using the “Engine’s 

Model Year + 5” method pursuant to subsection (e)(6)(D)2: 

(A) the name and contact information (representative, address, and phone 

number) for the manufacturer of the emission control strategy; 

(B) the name and type of emission control strategy; 

(C) the installation date of the emission control strategy; and, 

(D) if a VDECS is not being used for this purpose, the test plan, and the data 

demonstrating the emission reductions achieved due to the emission control 

strategy. 

(9) For each engine for which an owner or operator is claiming an extension 

pursuant to subsection (e)(6)(E)3, the purchase order or signed contract between 

the owner or operator and seller of the new engine or equipment that has been 

purchased to comply with subsection (e)(6)(C) and (e)(6)(D). 

(10) For each engine an owner or operator claims to have replaced, for purposes of 

compliance with the requirements of (e)6, written documentation that the engine 

has been: dismantled, or destroyed, or sold out of state. Alternately, the engine 

may be used to replace an older engine if:

(A) The older engine is subject to the in-use engine requirements, and

(B) the original compliance date of the older engine is retained for the newer 

engine. 

(11) Records for each engine must be retained by the owner or operator for the entire 

engine life. 

(12) All records specific to an E.O. approved ACE plan. 

(13) All records specific to a BACT approved by the E.O. pursuant to subsection 

(e)(5). 

(h) Initial and Compliance Plan Reporting Requirements.

(1) Initial Reporting of California Harbor Craft Fleet. By February 28, 2009, a person 

subject to this section must submit the information specified in subsections (g)(1) 

through (g)(6) for all harbor craft vessels in his/her California fleet. For purposes 

of this paragraph, “California fleet” means the total population of harbor craft 

under the person’s direct control as of January 1, 2009. 

(2) Compliance Plan. By February 28 of the year vessel engine compliance is 

required, a person subject to the requirements of subsection (e)(6)(C) and 

(e)(6)(D) must submit a Compliance Plan to the E.O. that describes in detail the 

engine replacements, rebuilds, upgrades, use of DECS, and any other measures 

the person plans to use to meet the requirements of subsection (e)(6)(C) and 
A – 51 

(e)(6)(D) for each of the person’s engines and harbor craft. The person may 

revise the Compliance Plan, as needed, but the person must notify the E.O. 

within 10 business days of any changes to the Compliance Plan after the initial 

Compliance Plan is submitted. The Compliance Plan is for the E.O.’s 

informational and planning use only, and the substantive contents of the plan are 

not binding on either the E.O. or the person who submitted the Compliance Plan. 

The E.O.’s receipt and acceptance of a submitted Compliance Plan shall not 

constitute or be interpreted as evidence of compliance with the requirements of 

subsection (e)(6)(C) or (e)(6)(D). 

(3) Demonstration of Compliance. By no later than the applicable compliance date 

specified in subsection (e)(6)(D), a person subject to the requirements of 

subsection (e) must provide the following information to the E.O.: 

(A) All information specified in subsections (g)(1) through (g)(6), and 

(B) The implementation date and the emission control strategy implemented for 

each engine in accordance with the requirements of subsection (e)(6)(D) 

and (e)(6)(C), respectively, for purposes of demonstrating compliance.

(4) Reporting for Change of Annual Hours of Operation, Vessel Category/Use, 

Transfers of Vessels, or a Change of Ownership of Vessel or Engine, or Vessel 

Operation in Regulated California Waters. 

(A) A person subject to this section must submit to the E.O. the information 

specified in subsection (g)(1) through (g)(6) within 30 days of a significant 

change of annual hours of operation (i.e., enough to change the engine’s 

compliance date), vessel category/use, purchase, lease, rental, or change 

of ownership of the vessel or engine. In the case of a purchase, lease, 

rental, or change in ownership, the party in control or possession of the 

engine or vessel after the transaction is responsible for meeting the 

requirements of this paragraph; 

(B) A person subject to this section must submit to the E.O. the information 

specified in subsection (g)(1) through (g)(6) within 30 days of the initial 

operation of a vessel brought into Regulated California Waters;

(BC)Within 90 days of a significant change of annual hours of operation, vessel 

category/use, purchase, lease, rental, or change of ownership, or initial 

operation of a vessel brought Regulated California Waters, or by the earliest 

applicable compliance date specified in subsection (e)(6)(D), whichever is 

later, a person subject to subsection (e)(6) shall submit a new Compliance 

Plan with the updated information pursuant to the Compliance Plan 

requirements specified in paragraph 2 above. 
A – 52 

(i) Violations.

(1) A person who is subject to this section and commits a violation of any 

provision, standard, criteria, or requirement in this section is subject to the 

penalties, injunctive relief, and other remedies specified in H&S section 42400 et 

seq.; H&S section 42402 et seq.; other applicable sections in the Health and 

Safety Code; and other applicable provisions as provided under California law for 

each violation. Nothing in this section shall be construed to limit or otherwise 

affect any applicable penalties or other remedies available under federal law. 

(2) Any failure to meet any provision, standard, criteria, or requirement in this 

section, including but not limited to the applicable emission limits; 

recordkeeping requirements; and ACE provision, including the requirements of 

any approved ACE plans, shall constitute a single, separate violation of this 

section for each hour that a person operates a vessel within the Regulated 

California Waters until such provision, standard, criteria, or requirement has been 

met. 

(3) A person who is subject to this section is liable for meeting the requirements 

of this section, notwithstanding any contractual arrangement that person may 

have with any third-parties. 

(j) Methods to Demonstrate Compliance with Engine and Fuel Standards.

(1) Diesel PM, NOx, NO, CO, HC, NMHC, and CO2 testing must be done in 

accordance with the applicable method specified in the following procedures: 

International Organization for Standardization (ISO) 8178-2: 1996(E) (“ISO 8178 

Part 2”); (2) ISO 8178-4: 1996(E) (“ISO 8178 Part 4”); and applicable methods 

and procedures specified in 40 CFR Part 94 (as amended in 2007), all of which 

are incorporated herein by reference, or 40 CFR Part 1042 for marine engines or 

in 40 CFR Part 89 or 40 CFR Part 1039 for nonroad (off-road) engines, as those 

Parts existed on April 27, 2010. Each of the procedures specified in this 

subsection is incorporated by reference herein.

(2) The E.O. may approve in writing any alternative test methods not specified in 

paragraph (1) above that the method’s proponent has demonstrated to the E.O.’s 

satisfaction provides equivalent or better results to the methods in paragraph (1). 

(k) Right of Entry. 

 An agent or employee of the ARB has the right of entry to board any harbor craft 

for the purpose of inspecting propulsion and auxiliary engines, emission control 

strategies, fuel systems, and fuel storage; collecting fuel sample(s) not to exceed 

one liter per fuel tank; and acquiring and inspecting records required pursuant to 

this section.
A – 53 

(l) Severability. 

 If any subsection, paragraph, subparagraph, sentence, clause, phrase, or portion 

of this regulation is, for any reason, held invalid, unconstitutional, or 

unenforceable by any court of competent jurisdiction, such portion shall be 

deemed as a separate, distinct, and independent provision, and such holding 

shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of the regulation. 

(m) Submittal of Documents. 

(1) All documents required under this regulation must be submitted to the Executive 

Officer as follows: 

 California Air Resources Board 

 Stationary Source Division 

 Emissions Assessment Branch 

 Control Strategies Section, Harbor Craft 

 P.O. Box 2815 

 Sacramento, California 95812-2815 

(2) Electronic submittals of information associated with compliance with this section 

may be approved by the E.O. upon request, provided such electronic submittals 

use digital signatures that meet the requirements specified in Government Code 

section 16.5. The E.O. may request the submittal of a hard copy of any 

electronic submittal. 

NOTE: Authority cited: Sections 39600, 39601, 39650, 39658, 39659, 39666, and

41511, 43013, and 43018, Health and Safety Code. Reference: Sections 39650, 39658, 

39659, 39666, 41510, and 41511, 43013, and 43018, Health and Safety Code. 
(this page left intentionally blank) 
Appendix B 

Summary of Survey Results 
(this page left intentionally blank) 
B – 1 

Appendix B 

Statewide Barge and Dredge Vessel Survey Summary 

I. Introduction and Background 

In November 2007, the Air Resources Board (ARB or Board) approved the commercial 

harbor craft regulation (CHC regulation) to significantly reduce diesel PM (PM) and 

oxides of nitrogen (NOx) from diesel-fueled engines on commercial harbor craft (CHC) 

vessels. The regulation is significantly reducing PM and NOx emissions from CHC 

engines. 

One of the basic requirements of the adopted CHC regulation is that in-use engines on 

ferries, tugboats, and towboats operating in regulated California waters must meet the 

most current U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA) marine engine 

emissions standards through a compliance schedule based on the age and annual use 

of the engine. 

Barge and dredge vessel engines were not included in the in-use engine requirements 

of the CHC regulation because information at the time indicated that barge and dredge 

vessel engines were regulated under the Portable Engine Airborne Toxic Control 

Measure (Portable Engine ATCM) by being registered in the Portable Equipment 

Registration Program (PERP) or by local air district permitting. The adopted CHC 

regulation requires those engines registered in PERP or permitted by a local district 

prior to January 1, 2009 to be exempt from the CHC regulation. In order to simplify 

regulatory obligations and provide consistency for barge and dredge vessel 

owner/operators to be subject to a single statewide regulation, the ARB staff began 

evaluating the barge and dredge vessel category and conducted a survey of those 

engines in 2009. 

In January 2010, the PERP registration program was amended to make CHC registered 

in that program subject to the requirements of the CHC regulation. Since the CHC 

regulation currently has no in-use requirements for barges and dredge vessels, it is 

necessary to amend this regulation and to require all barge and dredge vessel engines, 

including those registered in PERP or under local district permits, to be subject to the 

CHC regulation. The primary reason for taking this action is to provide consistency for 

barge and dredge vessel owner/operators and bring these in-use engines under the 

requirements of a single regulation. 
B – 2 

The barge and dredge vessel survey was conducted on a statewide basis and 

requested the submittal of the following vessel and engine information for (see attached 

survey): 

• Company Name 

• Vessel Name 

• U.S. Coast Guard Documentation Number 

• Vessel Use/Type 

• Annual Fuel Usage 

• Percent of Hours Operated Various Distances Off California Coast 

• Auxiliary or Propulsion Engine 

• Engine Make (manufacturer) 

• Engine Model 

• Model Year 

• Engine Horsepower (Maximum Rated) 

• Total Engine Displacement 

• Number of Cylinders 

• Annual Hours of Operation 

• Home Port 

• IMO (international Maritime Organization) Identification Number 

• MSSI (Maritime Mobile Service Identities) Number 

• Year Vessel Built 

• Vessel Length 

• Vessel Width 

• Owner, or Operator, or Owner/Operator and Contact Information 

• Barge or Dredge Type 

• Engine Position 

• PERP Registration Number 

• Barge/Dredge Activity (increase, decrease, no change) 

• Operation in port or county and percent operation time 

• Engine Type (off-road or marine) 

• Engine Use (generator, pump, etc.) 

• Engine Family 

The survey was distributed to every potential owner/operator the ARB could identify 

using internal and public sources. The majority of the contacts were located in 

California with a small percentage being out-of-state. Some information about potential 

barge and dredge owner/operators was obtained from the PERP records and on-line 

searches. 

The barge and dredge vessel survey provided data for approximately 100 barge and 

dredge vessels and approximately 400 engines. In the following sections, the results for 

the survey is presented including the types of vessels in use, engine specifications (i.e., 

make, model, horsepower) and annual activity by vessel type. 
B – 3 

II. Vessel Information Survey Results 

The survey respondents were requested to provide information on the vessels that they 

owned or operated including the home port of each vessel, the primary use for the 

vessel, the annual fuel usage, locations their vessels operated, and the percent of time 

the vessel is operated at various distances off California's coast. An example the 

survey is located at the end of this Appendix. 

Table 1 provides a summary of the vessels home ports reported in the survey. The 

home port is defined on the survey as the principal place normally used for the 

overnight berthing of the vessel and aggregated by local air pollution control district 

(district). 

Information for approximately 100 vessels was collected in the barge and dredge vessel 

survey. Not all surveys had data for every data field. Blank data fields were not 

included in average or population numbers in the survey summaries. 

In this section the vessel information described is summarized. 

Table 1: Vessel Quantity and Associated Air District Home Port 

Barge and Dredge Operating 

Locations* Number of Vessels Reported** 

Bay Area AQMD 37 

South Coast AQMD 10 

Other 6 

San Diego County APCD 4 

North Coast Unified AQMD 2 

Imperial County APCD 1 

Sacramento Metropolitan AQMD 1 

San Joaquin Valley Unified APCD 1 

Ventura County APCD 1 

Yolo/Solano AQMD 1 

Total 64 

* - Includes overlap between districts of individual barge and dredge vessels operations during 

the year. 

** - Information about the location of all barge and dredge vessel operations was not provided 

 in the survey submittal 
B – 4 

A. Vessel Use 

The survey requested information on the primary use for each vessel. The following 

vessel types were specified on the survey: 

Barge: A vessel having a flat-bottomed rectangular hull with sloping ends and built with 

or without a propulsion engine. 

 

Dredge: A vessel designed to remove earth from the bottom of waterways, by means of 

including, but not limited to, a scoop, a series of buckets, or a suction pipe. Dredges 

include, but are not limited to, hopper dredges, clamshell dredges, or pipeline dredges 

B. Annual Fuel Use 

The barge and dredge vessel survey requested vessel owner/operators to report annual 

fuel use for 2008. Table 2 lists the annual fuel used (in gallons). 

Table 2: Annual Fuel Usage (gallons/year) 

Vessel Type Auxiliary 

Engines 

Propulsion 

Engines 

Barges (2008) 2,021,788 No info 

Dredges (2008) 505,629 No info 

Total 2,527,417 

C. Percent of Hours Operated at Various Distances off the California 

Coast 

The survey requested vessel owner/operators provide the percent of hours operated at 

various distances off the California coast. The options were 0-3 miles, 3-24 miles, and 

greater than 24 miles. The survey results are presented in Figure 1. Overall, most 

barge and dredge vessels operate within 3 miles of the California coast. 
B – 5 

Figure 1: Percent of Barge and Dredge Engine Hours Operated at Varying 

Distances from Shore 

III. Auxiliary/Propulsion Engine Survey Results 

For each vessel, the survey requested information on the number, type, and annual 

activity of auxiliary and propulsion engines. Data for 350 auxiliary engines and 

6 propulsion engines was submitted. This section summarizes the information received 

about vessel engines. 

A. Auxiliary Engines 

Auxiliary engines on barges and dredges are used to power a variety of on-board 

equipment such as pumps, and electrical lights. As shown in Table 3, the horsepower 

range for auxiliary engines ranged from 5 to 2,934 horsepower with an overall average 

of about 346 horsepower. 20 percent of barges and dredges have one auxiliary engine, 

20 percent have two auxiliary engines, 20 percent have three auxiliary engines, and 40 

percent have four or more auxiliary engines. Data provided on auxiliary engines include 

make and model, model year, horsepower data, annual hours of operation and annual 

fuel usage. 

0 .0

10 .0

20 .0

30 .0

40 .0

50 .0

60 .0

70 .0

80 .0

90 .0

B ar g e an d D re dg e 

V es se l Typ e a nd D ista nc e F rom S ho re

% Time from Shore

0 to 3

3 to 24

> 24
B – 6 

Table 3: Quantity of Auxiliary Engines and Average Horsepower 

Horsepower Vessel Category # Auxiliary Engines Range Average 

Barge 304 5 – 2,934 346 

Dredge 81 99 – 2,600 800 

B. Propulsion Engines 

 

Few barge and dredge vessels have propulsion engines. Table 4 lists the reported 

propulsion engines horsepower ranges and averages. 

Table 4: Quantity of Propulsion Engines and Average Horsepower 

Horsepower Vessel Category # Propulsion Engines Range Average 

Barge 2 NA NA 

Dredge 4 1,125 – 4,640 2,880 
B – 7 

C. Horsepower and Model Year

Table 6 shows the barge and dredge vessel survey response population with model 

year and horsepower ranges for auxiliary engines. The barge and dredge vessel survey 

data shows that about 3 percent of the auxiliary engines were 1969 and older model 

year, 97 percent were model years 1970 and newer, and about 60 percent of the 

engines were 2000 or newer models. 

Table 6: Barge and Dredge Vessel Auxiliary and Propulsion Model Years and 

Horsepower Ranges5

Auxiliary Engines

Horsepower Range 

Model Year No HP Data < 50 51 - 75 76 - 100 101 - 175 176 - 250 251 - 500 501 - 750 > 751 Total

No Age Data 1 4 5 9 11 30 

1905 - 1939 

1940 - 1949 1 1 

1950 - 1959 2 2 

1960 - 1969 1 1 4 1 1 8 

1970 – 1979 1 6 8 11 4 30 

1980 – 1989 1 7 15 4 3 30 

1990 – 1999 2 2 3 3 8 15 12 5 6 56 

2000 – 2007 2 6 11 10 17 22 88 16 20 192 

Total 4 12 18 24 43 70 122 26 30 349 

Propulsion Engines

Horsepower Range 

Model Year No HP Data < 50 51 - 75 76 - 100 101 - 175 176 - 250 251 - 500 501 - 750 > 751 Total

No Age Data 

1905 – 1939 

1940 – 1949 

1950 – 1959 

1960 – 1969 

1970 – 1979 2 2 

1980 – 1989 

1990 – 1999 

2000 – 2008 2 2 

Total 4 4 

 

5

The totals in this table do not match the total number of engines reported in the survey since there were 

engines that did not have the age or horsepower reported. 
B – 8 

D. Hours of Operation 

Figure 2 provides information on the average number of hours of operation per year for 

auxiliary and propulsion engines by vessel type. Barge and dredge vessels averaged 

550 and 1,510 hours, respectively, annually. 

Figure 2: Average Engine Hours of Operation Per Year

 

Figure 3 provides information on the total number of hours of operation per year for 

auxiliary and propulsion engines by vessel type. Barge and dredge vessels totaled 

139,130 and 12,100 hours, respectively, annually. 

Figure 3: Total Engine Hours of Operation Per Year 

Auxiliary

Propulsion

0

50,000

100,000

150,000

200,000

250,000

Crew and Supply Vessels

Vessel Types

Hours

Auxiliary

Propulsion

0

200

400

600

800

1,000

1,200

1,400

1,600

Barge and Dredge Vessels

Vessel Type

Hours 
B – 9 

Attachment I 

Barge and Dredge Vessel Survey 

Sample Forms 
B – 10 

SURVEY INSTRUCTIONS 

Before filling out the survey form, please read the following instructions carefully. A sample form 

is included for your assistance. 

 

Explanations for each survey data field are provided below. If you operate more than one 

vessel, please complete one survey form for each vessel you operate. 

Survey Data Fields

CONTACT / OWNER / OPERATOR INFORMATION 

 

Contact, Owner, and Operator Information: Complete box(es) with appropriate information. 

Contact Name (and Title): Enter the name and title of the person to be contacted by the ARB 

in case we have questions about the information provided.

 

Operator Information: If the vessel operator is different from the contact , please enter the 

name, title, and company information of the person or company which currently operates the 

vessel. 

 

Owner Information: If the vessel owner is different from the operator, enter the name, title, and 

company information of the person or company having all the incidents of ownership, including 

the legal title, or is the mortgagor of the vessel. 

 

Company Name: Enter the name of the company that corresponds with the contact, operator, 

or owner. 

 

Mailing Address/City/State/ZIP Code: Mailing address, City, State, and ZIP code of the 

contact person, owner, or operator. 

 

Date: Enter the date the survey form was completed.

 

Email: Enter the email address of the contact person.

 

Phone: Enter the phone number of the contact, operator, or owner.

 

Fax: Enter the fax number of the contact, operator, or owner.

 

 VESSEL INFORMATION 

 

Vessel Name: Enter the name of the vessel being reported (one vessel per sheet).

 

Year Build: Enter the year the vessel was built.
B – 11 

 

Length and Width: Enter the length and width of the vessel.

 

Home Port: Enter the vessel’s home port. A vessel’s home port is the principal place for 

embarkation or debarkation, or the loading or unloading of supplies, and is normally used for the 

overnight berthing of the vessel. 

 

U.S. Coast Guard Number: Please enter the U.S. Coast Guard documentation number 

assigned to the vessel. If the vessel is not documented with the U.S. Coast Guard, please 

provide the International Maritime Organization Identification (IMO ID) and/or the Maritime 

Mobile Service Identities (MSSI) number (preferably the latter).

 

 VESSEL INFORMATION (continued) 

 

Vessel Type: Please check the box(s) best describing the vessel, either dredge, barge, or 

other. If other, please describe other on the line below. If the vessel is used for more than one 

type of operation, check all boxes that apply. 

 

Type of Dredge or Barge: Provide a descriptive name for the dredge or barge which describes 

the primary function. i.e. hopper dredge, derrick barge, construction barge, tank barge, etc. 

 

Dredge / Barge Activity Level: Please estimate the rate of increase or decrease in this 

vessel's activity in percent per year. This helps us estimate growth rates of this industry for our 

emission inventory model. 

2008 OPERATING AREA INFORMATION 

 

Port or County: Please list the areas where this vessel operated in 2008, either the California 

county or port and the percent of time spent in each area. 

 

PERP ENGINE INFORMATION 

 

Portable Engine Registration Program (PERP) Engines: Engines in your fleet we have been 

able to identify as registered in PERP are listed on the sheet with the tab labeled "PERP". The 

engine information available from the registration data is included. If this information is current, 

you may cut and paste this block of engine information to the vessel engine information sheet 

for the appropriate vessel. 

 

VESSEL ENGINE INFORMATION 

 

Propulsion/Auxiliary Engines: Please enter the following information about your vessel’s 

propulsion and auxiliary engines in the appropriate space provided (one line per engine). If 

information is not applicable, please mark "N/A". If the information is not available, please make 

your best estimate.
B – 12 

 

Propulsion Engine

Engine Position: Enter the position of the propulsion engine on the vessel (i.e. port, starboard, 

bow thruster etc.) 

Engine Type: Enter the engine type either marine, off-road (nonroad) or on-road engine. 

 

Auxiliary Engine

PERP Registered: Please enter the PERP (Portable Engine Registration Program) registration 

number if the engine is currently registered with PERP.

 

Engine Type: Enter the engine type either marine, off-road (nonroad) or on-road engine. 

Engine Use Description: Please describe what function the engine provides power for on the 

vessel, such as electric generator, deck winch, suction pump, etc. 

Manufacturer: Enter the name of the manufacturer of each engine.

 

Engine Family: Enter the engine family of each engine on the vessel, or enter NA if there is no 

applicable family. 

 

Model: Please provide the model number of each engine. 

 

Model Year: Please provide the model year of each engine. 

 

Number of Cylinders: Please provide the number of cylinders for each engine. 

 

Total Engine Displacement: Please provide the total displacement of each engine in liters. 

 

Maximum Rated Horsepower: Please provide the maximum rated horsepower of each 

engine.

 

Annual Fuel Consumed: Please provide your best estimate of the annual fuel use for each 

engine for 2008. If you are unable to allocate the fuel use by engine, please provide total fuel 

consumption per vessel at the bottom. ARB will then use an alternative method to estimate the 

“per engine” fuel use. 

 

2008 Annual Operating Hours: Please enter the total annual operating hours for each engine 

and an estimate of the approximate distribution of where these hours were spent: 

 

 (1) within 3 miles of shore (including in-port activities); 

 (2) beyond 3 miles out to 24 miles from shore; 

 (3) beyond 24 miles from shore. 

 
B – 13 
B – 14 
Appendix C 

Emission Inventory Methodology 
(this page left intentionally blank) 
C – 1 

Appendix C 

Updates on the Emissions Inventory for Commercial Harbor Craft 

Operating in California 

1. INTRODUCTION 

This section provides background on ARB’s commercial harbor craft (CHC) emissions 

inventory, the purposes and goals in updating the emissions inventory, and a general 

overview of the updates made to the emissions inventory. 

In 2007, ARB staff developed an updated CHC emissions inventory (2007 emissions 

inventory) using a consistent statewide methodology. This emissions inventory was 

used to support the regulatory analysis of the Regulations to Reduce Emissions from 

Diesel Engines on Commercial Harbor Craft Operated Within California Waters and 24 

Nautical Miles of the California Baseline (harbor craft regulation), which was adopted on 

November 15, 2007 by the Air Resources Board. CHC are grouped into nine vessel 

types, including ferry and excursion vessels, tow boats, tug boats, pilot vessels, work 

boats, crew and supply vessels, commercial fishing vessels, charter fishing vessels, and 

other types of vessels that do not fit into the above eight categories. 

The 2007 emissions inventory was based on the best information and best methodology 

available to ARB staff at the time the inventory was developed. Since there was no 

single data set that covered all CHC operating in California, vessel population data were 

collected from various sources, including the U.S. Coast Guard documentation data, the 

California Department of Fish and Game registration data, the ARB Harbor Craft 

Survey, and information from recent emission inventory estimates generated for the 

Port of Los Angeles. Staff estimated that there were about 4,200 CHC vessels operating 

in California in year 2004. Vessel and engine profiles, including vessel and engine type, 

age, size, annual hours of operation, annual fuel use etc., were developed based on 

ARB’s survey that collected information for about 850 vessels, about 20 percent of the 

statewide CHC population. Future year emissions were forecasted based on estimated 

vessel/engine activity growth and estimated future engine age profiles. Emissions 

factors accounted for fuel sulfur content and increasing emission rates with engine age 

and use. 

The proposed amendments to ARB’s CHC regulation focus on crew and supply vessels; 

and barge and dredge vessels operating in California. To support the regulatory 

analysis of the amendments, staff updated the crew and supply vessel emissions 

inventory using 2009 initial reporting data and developed the barge and dredge vessel 

emissions inventory using 2009 survey information. 
C – 2 

Vessel and engine data were reported to ARB in 2009 in compliance with ARB’s 2007 

CHC regulation. Many more engines and much more information were included in the 

reporting database than the information collected in the 2004 ARB survey. The reporting 

database virtually covers all crew and supply vessels operated in California. This offers 

ARB staff an opportunity to update crew and supply vessel emissions inventory with 

better and more complete data. The updated inventory has been used to support the 

regulatory analysis of the amendments to the ARB’s CHC regulation. While the 

fundamental emissions estimation methodology is largely unchanged from the 

methodology used for the 2007 emissions inventory, the reporting data were used to 

update vessel and engine population, activity, engine useful life, and engine load. 

Currently, barge and dredge vessels are not regulated under the ARB’s CHC regulation. 

In 2009, ARB staff conducted a survey to collect information on barges and dredges 

operated in California. A preliminary emissions inventory was developed to support the 

inclusion of barge and dredge vessels in the CHC regulation. 

2. METHODOLGY 

The fundamental methodology remains unchanged from the methodology used for the 

2007 emissions inventory except for the changes described in this section. The 

methodology documentation for the 2007 emissions inventory can be downloaded at: 

http://www.arb.ca.gov/regact/2007/chc07/appb.pdf. 

 

The basic equation for the estimating PM and NOx emissions from a commercial harbor 

craft engine is: 

HP LF Hr

UL

A

E = EF0 × F × 1( + D × )× × × 

 

Where: 

 

E is the amount of emissions of a pollutant (PM and NOx) emitted during one period; 

EF0 is the model year, horsepower and engine use (propulsion or auxiliary) specific zero 

hour emission factor (when engine is new); 

F is the fuel correction factor which accounts for emission reduction benefits from 

burning cleaner fuel; 

D is the horsepower and pollutant specific engine deterioration factor, which is the 

percentage increase of emission factors at the end of the useful life of the engine; 

A is the age of the engine when the emissions are estimated; 

UL is the vessel type and engine use specific engine useful life; 

HP is rated horsepower of the engine; 

LF is the vessel type and engine use specific engine load factor; 

Hr is the number of annual operating hours of the engine. 

Total emissions from the California statewide commercial harbor craft fleet can be 

estimated by summing up the emissions from individual engines or by multiplying the 

emissions rates, average emissions per engine per year, with the engine population. 
C – 3 

DATA SOURCE OVERVIEW 

Statewide, about 21 vessel owner/operators reported information for about 70 crew and 

supply vessels with 163 propulsion engines and 73 auxiliary engines. Staff believes 

nearly 100 percent of crew and supply vessels operating in California waters are 

included in the reporting data set. Reporting data were generally consistent with 

estimates derived from the 2004 survey. 

ARB’s reporting data set includes vessel and engine information like vessel name, 

vessel owner, operator, home port, vessel use, engine model year, engine use, engine 

model, engine horsepower, engine annual fuel use, engine annual hours of operation. 

The information is complete for most vessels and engines. Staff believes that ARB’s 

CHC reporting data set is the best currently available single data source for estimating 

emissions from crew and supply vessels operating in California. Staff decided to use 

the reporting data set to update ARB’s crew and supply vessel emissions inventory. 

ARB staff made follow-up phone calls to clarify information not in the reporting data. 

Staff also obtained additional information on where vessels operate. 

Staff also conducted a survey in 2009 to collect information on barge and dredge 

vessels operating in California waters. Information for about 400 auxiliary engines, and 

less than 10 propulsion engines was collected, representing nearly 100 percent of the 

statewide population of the equipment. Most barge and dredge vessels are not 

self-propelled and most of the engines are off-road engines for auxiliary purposes such 

as generating electricity, powering pumps, winches, cranes, etc. Information collected 

in the barge and dredge vessel survey is similar to the crew and supply vessel 

information reported to ARB, such as vessel name, vessel use, engine model year, 

engine horse power, engine annual hours of operation, and engine annual fuel use, etc. 

Staff developed a statewide barge and dredge vessel emissions inventory based on the 

information collected from the survey. 

CREW AND SUPPLY VESSEL EMISSIONS ESTIMATION 

Crew and Supply Vessel Population 

There are about 70 crew and supply vessels with 163 propulsion engines and 73 

auxiliary engines in the reporting data set with valid data. Based on the information ARB 

staff had, it was assumed 100 percent of crew and supply vessels operated in California 

in 2008 reported to ARB in compliance with the ARB’s CHC regulation. 

Because the reporting data are complete, staff was able to estimate emissions for each 

individual engine and each individual vessel operating in California and to aggregate the 

emissions to generate a statewide emissions inventory. 
C – 4 

Crew and Supply Vessel Engine Hours of Operation and Engine Load 

Analysis of the reporting data indicates that crew and supply vessel engines operate at 

a lower load with longer hours for propulsion engine than previously estimated. Table 1 

and Table 2 compare average hours of operation and engine load for the ARB 2004 

survey and 2009 reporting data set. 

Table1: Crew and Supply Vessel Engine Hours of Operation 

2004 Survey Data 2009 Reporting 

Data % Changed 

Propulsion 

Engine 752 1,796 139% 

Auxiliary 

Engine 3,321 2,265 -32% 

Table 2: Crew and Supply Vessel Engine Load 

2004 Survey Data 2009 Reporting 

Data % Changed 

Propulsion 

Engine 0.45 0.38 -15% 

Auxiliary Engine 0.43 0.32 -27% 

The 2009 reporting data load factors are estimated as the average engine load 

weighted by engine horsepower and annual hours of operation. Large engines 

operating longer hours have more weight on the load factor. The new load factors are 

about15 percent and 27 percent lower than the load factors derived from the 2004 

survey data for propulsion and auxiliary engines, respectively. 

Crew and Supply Vessel Useful Life 

Staff defines engine useful life as the age when 50 percent of engines retire from the 

fleet and 100 percent of engines are assumed to retire at the age of two useful lives. 

Based on comments from vessel owner/operators that marine engines are maintained 

very well because of the high capital costs, ARB staff assumed a 28 year of useful life 

for crew and supply vessel engines. Extending useful life from 22 as previously 

assumed to 28 years has a minor impact on emissions estimates. 

Adjusting Crew and Supply Vessel Emission Rates Using Source Testing Data 

The Santa Barbara County Air Pollution Control District (APCD) maintains a permitting 

program to reduce emissions from crew and supply vessels visiting offshore oil 

platforms in Santa Barbara County. Based on the requirements in the sample permits 

provided by the Santa Barbara County APCD, crew and supply vessels serving the oil 

platforms are required to achieve a NOx emissions rate of 8.4 g/bhp-hr for main engines 

using a combination of turbo-charging, enhanced inter-cooling, and 4 degrees timing 

retard and to achieve 5.99 g/bhp-hr for other vessels with newer engines. Most vessels 
C – 5 

serving oil platforms in Santa Barbara County, including those vessels transiting in 

Ventura County APCD, have some degree of NOx control for main engines to achieve 

the target emission rates required by the permits. 

Under the permits, at least one crew and one supply vessel must be tested per year per 

platform. The tests are performed at cruise load. Most of the crew and supply vessels 

that operate in Santa Barbara County waters have been tested at some time. Emission 

source testing data were used by the districts to estimate emissions from crew and 

supply vessels. 

Staff obtained source test data from Santa Barbara County APCD. The average NOx 

emission rates of the 287 valid engine testing records is about 239 lb/1000 gallon fuel or 

about 6.3 grams/hp-hr. Staff used this number to adjust emission rates of engines that 

have emission control technology information in ARB’s reporting data set and the 

emission rates of engines operating in Santa Barbara County APCD. 

PM is not tested in the source tests. Therefore, based on engineering judgement, staff 

estimated a 10 percent PM emissions disbenefit due to NOx reduction strategies. 

Crew and Supply Vessel Emissions Spatial Allocation

Based on phone conversations with vessel owner/operators, staff understands most 

vessels operate close to where their home ports are while several vessels operate in 

areas away from their home ports. For example, some vessels home-ported in 

Huntington Beach operate most of their time in Santa Barbara County or Ventura 

County. Supply vessels serving oil platforms in Santa Barbara County are too big to be 

home-ported in Santa Barbara County and these vessels have to transit from Port 

Hueneme in Ventura County to oil platforms in Santa Barbara County. Staff developed 

spatial allocation factors for each engine based on vessel home port and the 

percentage of time spent in each air district. 

BARGE AND DREDGE EMISSIONS ESTIMATION 

ARB staff collected information for about 400 auxiliary engines and less than ten 

propulsion engines used on barge and dredge vessels operating in California waters. 

Information collected in the barge and dredge vessel survey includes vessel name, 

vessel use, engine model year, engine horse power, engine annual hours of operation, 

and engine annual fuel use, etc. In cases when data fields in the survey are missing, 

staff filled missing information using average of available information by engine use. 

Since most barges and dredges are non-self-propelled and most of the engines are offroad engines for auxiliary purposes such as generating electricity, powering pumps, 

winches, cranes, etc, staff used emission factors from OFFROAD model as the zerohour emission factors and used OFFROAD fuel consumption rate to estimate barge and 

dredge fuel use. The OFFROAD is a model used to generate emissions inventory data 

for off-road mobile sources. The major categories of engines and vehicles included in 
C – 6 

OFFROAD2007 are agricultural, construction, lawn and garden and off-road recreation, 

and equipment from hedge trimmers to cranes. More information about the OFFORAD 

model can be found at http://www.arb.ca.gov/msei/offroad/offroad.htm. 

Staff estimated barge and dredge vessel engine load factors using engine horsepower, 

engine annual fuel use and annual hours of operation for each engine use category. 

Staff defined engine useful life as half of the age of the oldest engine by engine use. 

When the information is not available or there are too few data points to perform a valid 

analysis for certain engine use categories, staff used engine load or useful life of the 

same engine use in the OFFROAD model. Table 3 shows barge and dredge vessel 

engine load, useful life and data sources for this inventory. 

Table 3: Barge and Dredge Vessel Engine Load, Useful Life 

Engine Use Engine Load Data Source 

Engine Useful 

Life Data Source

Compressor 0.54 Survey 19.5 Survey 

Crane 0.42 Survey 9.0 OFFROAD 

Deck door 

engine 0.89 Survey 16.0 OFFROAD 

Dredger 0.51 OFFROAD 16.0 OFFROAD 

Generator 0.75 Survey 22.5 Survey 

Hoist swing 

winch 0.31 Survey 27.0 Survey 

Other 0.80 Survey 16.0 OFFROAD 

Pump 0.71 Survey 21.0 Survey 

propulsion 0.45 Survey 17.0 Survey 

EMISSION FORECASTING 

Based on discussions with vessel owner/operators, staff believes that both crew and 

supply vessel activity; and barge and dredge vessel activity will remain relatively 

constant in the future. As a result, staff assumed no growth for crew and supply vessel 

or barge and dredge vessel activity through 2025. 

ESTIMATION OF BENEFITS OF THE PROPOSED AMENDMENTS 

The proposed amendments of ARB’s harbor craft regulation require existing engines 

onboard crew and supply vessels; and barges and dredges to be repowered with the 

current model year engines if the engines meet the model year and hours of operation 

criteria prescribed in Table 16 and Table 17 of the Staff report of the amendments. 

Staff assumed that new engines used to replace the existing engines have the same 

horsepower and the same operation pattern, i.e. hours of operation and location, as the 

existing engines. The new engines are cleaner than the old engines being replaced 

because of the more stringent emissions standards and less engine deterioration which 

increases as engines age. 
C – 7 

Staff estimated emissions from these new engines using the same methodology 

described above. Staff estimated the emissions reduction benefits by subtracting the 

new model year emissions from the engines being replaced. Staff noticed there are 

more emission reductions in some years than others. The amount of emission reduction 

at a given calendar year is a function of the age distribution, horsepower, hours of 

operation of the fleet, and the compliance schedule. 

2. EMISSION ESTIMATES 

This section summarizes the updated crew and supply vessel emission estimates, 

barge and dredge vessel emissions estimates. This section also provides a summary of 

the comparison with previous crew and supply vessel emissions inventory and the 

comparison with independent emissions estimates by the Santa Barbara County APCD, 

the Ventura County APCD, and the Port of Los Angeles and the Port of Long Beach. 

CREW AND SUPPLY VESSEL EMISSIONS 

Crew and Supply Vessel Emission Estimates and Comparison with Previous 

Emissions Inventory 

Figure 1 and Figure 2 compare the updated crew and supply vessel NOx and PM 

emissions estimates for years 2008 through 2025 using ARB’s reporting data and the 

previous 2007 emissions inventory based on ARB’s 2004 survey. The comparison 

shows that the 2010 crew and supply vessel emissions inventory (2008 as base year) 

are significantly higher than the 2007 emissions inventory (2004 as base year). 

Figure 1: NOx Emissions from Crew and Supply Vessels in California 

NOx Emissions from Crew & Supply Vessels in California

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

2008

20092010

2011

2012

20132014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

20212022

20232024

2025

Tons per year

2010 Emissions Inventory

2007 Emissions Inventory
C – 8 

Figure 2: Diesel PM Emissions from Crew and Supply Vessels in California 

PM Emissions from Crew & Supply Vessels in California

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

200820092010201120122013

20142015

20162017

201820192020202120222023

2024

2025

Tons per year

2010 Emissions Inventory

2007 Emissions Inventory

Crew and Supply Vessel Emission Estimates by the Districts 

Table 4 summarizes crew and supply vessels emissions estimates by the districts. 

More than 90 percent of statewide crew and supply vessel emissions occurred in the 

South Coast AQMD, Santa Barbara County, and Ventura County districts in 2008 where 

most of the oil platforms are. Vessels in Santa Barbara County account for a larger 

percentage of PM emissions than NOx emissions because NOx emission control 

required by the permits. 

Table 4: Crew and Supply Vessel Emission Estimates by Air Districts for Year 

2008 (tons/year) 

Air District NOx Percent of Total PM 

Percent of 

Total 

BA 42.0 6% 1.4 4% 

SB 138.2 21% 10.2 31% 

SC 336.9 50% 14.4 44% 

SD 11.3 2% 0.4 1% 

VEN 140.8 21% 6.5 20% 

Total 669.3 100% 33.0 100% 

Crew and Supply Vessel Emission Reduction 

The projected statewide annual emission reduction for crew and supply vessels is 

presented in Figures 3 and 4. Figure 3 shows that the projected statewide NOx 

emissions from and supply vessels are estimated to be about 670 tpy in 2008, dropping 

to about 466 tpy in 2025 without the proposed amendments. The reduction in 

uncontrolled emissions over this period is due to the anticipated or planned replacement 
C – 9 

of older engines. With the proposed amendments in place, the NOx emissions would 

be further reduced from 466 tpy to about 350 tpy in 2025. 

Figure 3: Projected Crew and Supply Vessel NOx Emission Reduction 

Projected Crew and Supply Vessel NOx Emission Reduction

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

200820092010201120122013201420152016201720182019202020212022202320242025

Calendar Year

Tons/year of NOx

Baseline

Controlled

Statewide, the baseline uncontrolled diesel PM emissions from crew and supply vessels 

are estimated to be about 33 tpy in 2008, dropping to about 22 tpy in 2025. With the 

proposed amendments in place accelerating engine turnover, would reduce diesel PM 

emissions in 2025 from 22 tpy to less than 10 tpy. 

Figure 4: Projected Crew and Cupply Vessel PM Emission Reduction 

Projected Crew and Supply Vessel PM Emission Reduction

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

2008

2009

2010201120122013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

20202021

20222023

20242025

Calendar Year

Tons/year of PM

Baseline

Controlled
C – 10 

BARGE AND DREDGE VESSEL EMISSIONS 

Figure 5 shows that the projected statewide NOx emissions from barge and dredge 

vessels in California are estimated to be about 760 tpy in 2008, dropping to about 340 

tpy in 2025 without the proposed amendments. The reduction in uncontrolled emissions 

over this period is due to the anticipated or planned replacement of older engines. With 

the proposed amendments in place, the NOx emissions would be further reduced from 

340 tpy to about 255 tpy in 2025. 

Figure 5: Projected Barges and Dredges NOx emission reduction 

Projected Barge and Dredge NOx Emission Reduction

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

200820092010201120122013201420152016201720182019202020212022202320242025

Calendar Year

Tons/year of NOx

Baseline

Controlled
C – 11 

Figure 6 illustrates the statewide barge and dredge vessel engine diesel PM emissions 

with and without the proposed amendments. Statewide, the baseline uncontrolled 

diesel PM emissions from barges and dredges are estimated to be about 33 tpy in 

2008, dropping to about 12 tpy in 2025. With the proposed amendments in place 

accelerating engine turnover, diesel PM emissions would be reduced in 2025 from 12 

tpy to less than 7 tpy. 

Figure 6: Projected Barges and Dredges PM emission reduction 

Projected Barge and Dredge PM Emission Reduction

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

2008

200920102011201220132014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020202120222023

20242025

Calendar Year

Tons/year of PM

Baseline

Controlled

Table 5 shows emissions from barge and dredge vessels by air district. The Bay Area 

AQMD and the San Diego County APCD account for more than 50 percent of the 

statewide emissions from barge and dredge vessels. 

Table 5: Barge and Dredge Emission Estimates by Air Districts for Year 2008 

(tons/year)

Air District NOx % of Total PM % of Total 

BA 206.5 27% 9.2 27% 

IMP 6.8 1% 0.3 1% 

MBU 28.8 4% 1.3 4% 

NCU 62.9 8% 2.8 8% 

SAC 10.3 1% 0.5 1% 

SB 10.3 1% 0.5 1% 

SC 129.9 17% 5.8 17% 

SD 180.2 24% 8.0 24% 

SJU 23.2 3% 1.0 3% 

VEN 92.9 12% 4.1 12% 

YS 7.7 1% 0.3 1% 

Total 759.6 100% 33.4 100% 
(this page left intentionally blank) 
Appendix D 

Methodology of Estimating Economic Impacts 
(this page left intentionally blank) 
D – 1 

Appendix D 

ECONOMIC IMPACTS METHODOLOGY 

This chapter discusses the estimated costs and economic impacts associated with 

implementation of the proposed amendments to the Commercial Harbor Craft 

Regulation (CHC Regulation). The expected capital and recurring costs for potential 

compliance options, the cost and associated economic impacts on businesses, as well 

as an analysis of the cost-effectiveness of proposed CHC amendments to the regulation 

are presented. ARB staff calculated the economic impacts associated with the 

proposed amended CHC regulation using the same methodology as was done for the 

2007 CHC regulation. Generally, costs discussed in this section are presented in 2009 

dollars, but the tables also contain the values adjusted for net present value (NPV) to 

estimate “today’s dollars” of future net cash. The equations and calculation method can 

be found in the Air Resources Board, Technical Support Document: Proposed 

Regulation for Commercial Harbor Craft, September 2007. 

A. Summary of the Economic Impacts

In assessing the costs associated with the proposed amendments to the CHC 

Regulation, ARB staff developed two different estimates, one for “regulatory costs” and 

another for “new equipment costs.” Regulatory costs are the estimated costs resulting 

from the proposed amendments taking into consideration the residual value of the 

in-use engine being replaced, the residual value of the most recent engine rebuild work, 

recordkeeping and reporting costs, and the time value of money associated with the 

early engine replacement. New equipment costs are the estimated total out-of-pocket 

costs for purchasing and installing a new engine (engine replacement cost) in crew and 

supply, barge, and dredge vessels. The new equipment costs for purchasing and 

installing a new engine are costs that the vessel owner would eventually pay, but the 

proposed amendments to the CHC regulation requires this service to be performed 

earlier than normal. 

Staff estimates the lifetime regulatory cost for compliance with the proposed 

amendments to the regulation to be approximately $15 million (2009 dollars or adjusted 

to $9.9 million NPV) from 2011 through 2022. New equipment costs are estimated at 

approximately $46 million dollars (2009 dollars or adjusted to $31 million NPV) over the 

lifetime of the proposed amendments (2011 to 2022). 

Staff evaluated the economic impacts the proposed amendments had on crew and 

supply, barge and dredge businesses by estimating the effect of the regulatory cost on 

typical business’s “return on owner’s equity” (ROE). The ROE approach, found that the 

overall change in ROE would range from a negligible decline of about 0.45 percent for a 

typical barge and dredge company, to a decline of 1.44 percent for a crew and supply 

company. Overall, most affected businesses will be able to absorb the costs of the 

proposed amendments to the CHC regulation with no significant adverse impacts on 
D – 2 

their profitability. Generally, the ARB considers a 10 percent change in ROE to be the 

threshold at which businesses experience a significant adverse impact. 

A few federal, State, and local agencies will be impacted by the proposed amendments 

to the CHC regulation. One federal agency, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, one state 

agency, State of California – the Department of Parks and Recreation, and two local 

agencies (Monterey Regional Water Pollution Control Agency (RWPCA) and Santa 

Cruz Port District) would be impacted by the in-use engine requirements. Estimated 

regulatory costs to all of these agencies range from $1,900 to $60,000. Additional 

details are presented in Table D-13. 

Cost-effectiveness is expressed in terms of costs in dollars per unit of emissions 

reduced (pounds or tons). Low cost-effectiveness results from efficient regulation 

reductions. The cost-effectiveness for the proposed amendments to the CHC regulation 

is determined by dividing the regulatory costs by the total pounds of diesel PM reduced 

during the years 2011 to 2022. Costs are presented in 2009 equivalent expenditure 

dollars and also shown adjusted for net present value. Table D-1 shows the 

cost-effectiveness estimate for the proposed amendments expressed three ways. First, 

all costs assigned to PM, second, cost divided equally between PM and NOx, and third, 

PM and NOx emissions are combined. The cost-effectiveness values are within the 

range of cost effectiveness for other diesel engine regulations adopted by the ARB. 

See Table D-19 for other ARB regulation cost-effectiveness totals. 

Table D-1: Summary of Average Amended Proposed Regulation 

Cost-Effectiveness for the Period 2011-2022 

Total Regulatory Cost 

Total 

Emissions 

Total Cost 

Effectiveness 

Emissions 

2009 Dollars 

($ millions) 

NPV 

($ millions) 

Total 

Emissions 

Reduced 

2009 

Dollars NPV 

All costs assigned to PM 

PM $15 $9.9 435,000 lbs $35/lb $23/lb 

Divide Costs Equally Between PM and NOx 

PM $7.5 $5.0 435,000 lbs $17/lb $11/lb 

NOx $7.5 $5.0 2,800 tons $2,690/ton $1,780/ton 

Combine PM and NOx Emissions 

PM + NOx $15 $9.9 6,030,000 lbs $2.50/lb $1.65/lb 

 All values rounded 
D – 3 

B. Legal Requirements 

In this section we explain the legal requirements that must be satisfied in analyzing the 

economic impacts of the proposed amendments to the CHC regulation. 

Section 11346.3 of the Government Code requires State agencies assess the potential 

for adverse economic impacts on California business enterprises and individuals when 

proposing to adopt or amend any administrative regulation. The assessment shall 

include a consideration of the impact of the proposed amended regulation on California 

jobs, business expansion, elimination or creation, and the ability of California business 

to compete with businesses in other states. Also, California state agencies are required 

to estimate the cost or savings to any State or local agency in accordance with 

instructions adopted by the Department of Finance (DOF). The estimate shall include 

any non-discretionary cost or savings to local agencies and the cost or savings in 

federal funding to the State. 

In addition, Health and Safety Code section 57005 requires the ARB to perform an 

economic impact analysis of submitted alternatives to a proposed regulation before 

adopting any major regulation. A major regulation is defined as a regulation that will 

have a potential cost to California business enterprises in an amount exceeding ten 

million dollars in any single year. Because the estimated cost of the amendments to the 

CHC Regulation does not exceed 10 million dollars in any single year, the proposed 

amendments to the CHC Regulation do not constitute a major regulation. However, two 

alternatives were considered. 

The following is a description of the methodology used to estimate costs as well as ARB 

staff’s analysis of the economic impacts on California businesses, as well as, federal, 

State, and local agencies. 

C. Methodology for Estimating Costs Associated with Proposed Regulation 

In this section, the estimated costs associated with the proposed amendments are 

discussed. 

Briefly, the methodology entailed: 

• Two different estimates of costs were developed, regulatory costs and new 

equipment costs. 

- The regulatory costs are the estimated costs resulting from the proposed 

amendments taking into consideration the residual value of the in-use 

engine being replaced, the residual value of the most recent engine 

rebuild work, recordkeeping and reporting costs, and the time value of 

money associated with the early engine replacement. 

- New equipment costs are the estimated total out-of-pocket costs for 

purchasing and installing a new engine (engine replacement cost), and 

recordkeeping and reporting costs. The portion of new equipment 

out-of-pocket costs for purchasing and installing a new engine are costs 
D – 4 

that the vessel owner would eventually pay, but the proposed 

amendments require this service to be performed earlier than normal. 

• Engine replacement (repowering) was the assumed in-use engine compliance 

option. 

• Operating and maintenance costs for replacement engines were assumed to be 

the same as for an existing engine. 

• No new reporting costs are involved. No additional reporting costs included 

pertaining to the amended proposed CHC regulation. The owners of the effected 

vessel engines are currently required to report to the CHC regulation, the PERP, 

or districts. 

• Costs were estimated in 2009 dollars and also adjusted to NPV using a 5 percent 

discount rate. 

1. Costs 

a. Engine Replacement (Repower) Costs: 

The estimated costs for purchasing and installing a new diesel-fueled engine in an inuse vessel were determined using actual cost data from the Port of Los Angeles 

Community Advisory Committee China Shipping Settlement Funding submittals and 

cost information provided by industry and vessel owners. Staff’s estimate of the 

average costs per engine horsepower for purchase and installation of a new main and 

auxiliary diesel-fueled engine are shown in Table D-2. The marine auxiliary engines are 

typically smaller horsepower than the propulsion engines, but the prices of some marine 

auxiliary engines are more expensive on a per horsepower comparison. In addition, 

repowering auxiliary engines in crew and supply vessels may be more difficult, requiring 

more installation time and costs compared to most barge and dredge vessels. Thus, 

the average cost for crew and supply auxiliary engine is higher than propulsion engines 

and barge and dredge auxiliary engines. 

Table D-2: Estimated Vessel Engine Replacement Costs 

Average Cost ($/hp)A

Engine Category 

Crew and Supply Barge and Dredge 

Propulsion Engine $ 214 $ 270 

Auxiliary Engine $ 508 $285 

A

Includes engine, labor, and ancillary equipment costs. 
D – 5 

b. Early Replacement Costs 

(i) Residual Value of Engine 

Staff anticipates that most operators of crew and supply, barge, and dredge vessels will 

comply with the proposed amendments by replacing existing engines with new engines. 

There will be situations where engines have to be replaced before the end of the 

engine’s useful service life. In these situations, the costs associated with the loss of the 

residual or remaining value of the engine being replaced is assigned to this regulatory 

action. In situations where the engine is being replaced after the end of the useful 

service life, costs associated with the engine replacement are not assigned to the 

regulation. (The equations and calculation method can be found in the Air Resources 

Board, Technical Support Document: Proposed Regulation for Commercial Harbor 

Craft, September 2007.) 

Table D-3 presents ARB estimates of the useful service life and total life for main and 

auxiliary engine on crew and supply, barge, and dredge vessels. (See Appendix C) 

Table D-3: Estimated Useful Service and 

Total Life of Selected Vessel Engines 

Vessel Engine Type Useful Service Life Total Life 

Crew and Supply Main 28 56 

Crew and Supply Auxiliary 28 56 

Barge and Dredge Main 17 34 

Barge and Dredge Auxiliary Varies depends on the type Varies 

(ii) Residual Value of Engine Rebuild Work 

As with the previous section and discussion of the residual value of the engine, there is 

also a residual value to the most recent engine rebuilds or overhauls. The engine 

overhauls are categorized as either a “major” or “top end” overhaul. The frequency of 

these overhauls can depend on the engine application and the amount of annual use. 

Engines used under high loads and long hours may need to be overhauled more often. 

(See Air Resources Board, Technical Support Document: Proposed Regulation for 

Commercial Harbor Craft, September 2007 as reference for more details.) 

 c. Operation and Maintenance Costs – Replacement Engines

Based on discussion with engine manufacturers, we do not anticipate that there will be 

any change in the operating and maintenance costs for new engines compared to the 

engines that are being replaced. 
D – 6 

 d. Monitoring, Recordkeeping, and Reporting Costs

The proposed amendments to the CHC regulation require no additional monitoring, 

reporting, and recordkeeping costs. Monitoring and reporting costs for crew and supply 

vessels were included in the 2007 CHC Regulation. Barge and dredge vessel 

owner/operators previously reported and kept records as a requirement of the 2007 

CHC regulation, the PERP, or local air district permit requirements. Additional annual 

reporting is not required, however there are occasions specified in the proposed 

amendments when reporting would be required. These occasions include the purchase 

of a new engine or vessel, a change in engine or vessel ownership, a change in engine 

operating hours, submitting a compliance plan for engines subject to replacing the 

engine, and compliance demonstration. 

2. Future Year Equipment Populations Subject to the Proposed Amendments 

Staff estimated the engine inventory for future years to determine the number of in-use 

engines required to come into compliance in each year. Staff used the vessel and 

engine inventory and emissions model to calculate equipment growth, annual use, age 

distribution, and attrition for the vessel categories. Future year equipment populations 

for each compliance year were evaluated by the inventory model to determine the 

number of engines to be replaced for each compliance year. 

Table D-4 presents the expected number of in-use crew and supply vessel engines per 

year required to comply with the requirements of the amendments. The total estimated 

number of crew and supply vessel engines replaced is expected to be 150 over the 

compliance years 2011 to 2022. 

Table D-4: Estimated Population of In-Use Crew and Supply Vessel Engines 

Subject to Amendments to CHC Regulation Emission Limits 

 

Year Main Auxiliary Total 

2011 21 12 33 

2012 5 1 6 

2013 3 0 3 

2014 3 0 3 

2015 6 4 10 

2016 2 1 3 

2017 14 0 14 

2018 8 4 12 

2019 9 5 14 

2020 8 11 19 

2021 3 5 8 

2022 22 3 25 

Total 104 46 150 

 
D – 7 

Table D-5 presents the expected number of in-use barge and dredge vessel engines 

per year required to comply with the requirements of the amendments. The estimated 

number of engines replaced is expected to be 129 over the compliance years 2011 to 

2022. 

Table D-5: Estimated Population on In-Use Barge and Dredge Vessel Engines 

Subject to Amendments to CHC Regulation 

Year Main Auxiliary Total 

2011 0 5 5 

2012 0 3 3 

2013 0 7 7 

2014 0 6 6 

2015 0 5 5 

2016 0 43 43 

2017 1 44 45 

2018 0 6 6 

2019 0 4 4 

2020 0 3 3 

2021 0 1 1 

2022 0 2 2 

Total 1 128 129 

D. Total Regulatory and New Equipment Costs 

Table D-6 and Table D-7 provide the regulatory costs attributed to the in-use engine 

requirements of the proposed amendments. The in-use engine regulatory costs are 

derived from the residual value of the replaced engine, the residual value of the most 

recent overhaul, the time value of money for the earlier than anticipated repower cost, 

and the reporting cost. Reporting costs include the cost of updating the initial 

information as engines are replaced. The in-use crew and supply vessel total regulatory 

costs for the amendments over the years 2011 to 2022 are estimated to be about 

$9.5 million (2009 dollars). The in-use barge and dredge vessel total regulatory costs 

are estimated to be about $5.6 million (2009 dollars). Values adjusted to NPV are also 

shown in the Tables. 
D – 8 

Table D-6: Estimated Regulatory Costs for Crew and Supply Vessel In-Use 

Engine Replacement 

Regulatory Cost 

Year 

Main 

(2009 $) 

Main 

(NPV) 

Auxiliary 

(2009 $) 

Auxiliary 

(NPV) 

Total 

(2009 $) 

Total 

(NPV) 

2011 $671,000 $611,000 $179,000 $164,000 $850,000 $775,000 

2012 $102,000 $89,000 $6,000 $6,000 $108,000 $95,000 

2013 $246,000 $200,000 $0 $0 $246,000 $200,000 

2014 $83,000 $65,000 $0 $0 $83,000 $65,000 

2015 $922,000 $682,000 $159,000 $118,000 $1,081,000 $800,000 

2016 $129,000 $91,000 $99,000 $69,000 $228,000 $160,000 

2017 $858,000 $576,000 $0 $0 $858,000 $576,000 

2018 $676,000 $432,000 $85,000 $55,000 $761,000 $487,000 

2019 $1,258,000 $764,000 $238,000 $145,000 $1,496,000 $909,000 

2020 $695,000 $403,000 $386,000 $224,000 $1,081,000 $627,000 

2021 $278,000 $153,000 $194,000 $108,000 $472,000 $261,000 

2022 $2,126,000 $1,117,000 $63,000 $33,000 $2,189,000 $1,150,000 

Total $8,044,000 $5,183,000 $1,409,000 $922,000 $9,453,000 $6,105,000 

 All values rounded 

Table D-7: Estimated Regulatory Costs for Barge and Dredge Vessel In-Use 

Engine Replacement 

Regulatory Cost 

Year Main 

(2009 $) 

Main 

(NPV) 

Auxiliary 

(2009 $) 

Auxiliary 

(NPV) 

Total 

(2009 $) 

Total 

(NPV) 

2011 $0 $0 $82,000 $75,000 $82,000 $75,000 

2012 $6,000 $6,000 $64,000 $55,000 $70,000 $61,000 

2013 $0 $0 $137,000 $113,000 $137,000 $113,000 

2014 $0 $0 $344,000 $269,000 $344,000 $269,000 

2015 $0 $0 $150,000 $112,000 $150,000 $112,000 

2016 $0 $0 $1,958,000 $1,382,000 $1,958,000 $1,382,000 

2017 $0 $0 $1,825,000 $1,224,000 $1,825,000 $1,224,000 

2018 $0 $0 $173,000 $111,000 $173,000 $111,000 

2019 $0 $0 $26,000 $16,000 $26,000 $16,000 

2020 $0 $0 $304,000 $176,000 $304,000 $176,000 

2021 $0 $0 $252,000 $138,000 $252,000 $138,000 

2022 $0 $0 $283,000 $148,000 $283,000 $148,000 

Total $6,000 $6,000 $5,598,000 $3,819,000 $5,604,000 $3,825,000 

 All values rounded 
D – 9 

Table D-8 and Table D-9 provide summaries of the new equipment compliance costs for 

the replacement of in-use engines with new engines. The in-use engine new equipment 

costs are derived from the capital and installation repowers costs and the reporting cost. 

The new equipment costs for repowering an in-use engine are costs that the vessel 

owner would eventually pay, but the proposed amendments requires this service to be 

performed earlier than normal. The initial reporting costs were not included in this 

analysis because those requirements are already in the CHC Regulation and not part of 

the proposed amendments. Subsequent year reporting costs include the cost of 

updating the initial information as engines are replaced. The total in-use engine 

replacement new equipment costs associated with the amendments over the years 

2011 to 2022 are estimated to be about $20 million for crew and supply vessel engines 

and $27 million for barge and dredge vessel engines. 

Table D-8: Estimated New Equipment Costs for In-Use Crew and Supply Vessel 

Engine Replacement 

New Equipment Costs 

Year 

Main 

(2009 $) 

Main 

(NPV) 

Auxiliary 

(2009 $) 

Auxiliary 

(NPV) 

Total 

(2009 $) 

Total 

(NPV) 

2011 $2,486,000 $2,213,000 $754,000 $671,000 $3,240,000 $2,884,000 

2012 $367,000 $311,000 $61,000 $52,000 $428,000 $363,000 

2013 $856,000 $691,000 $0 $0 $856,000 $691,000 

2014 $201,000 $155,000 $0 $0 $201,000 $155,000 

2015 $1,656,000 $1,212,000 $353,000 $259,000 $2,009,000 $1,471,000 

2016 $202,000 $141,000 $393,000 $274,000 $595,000 $415,000 

2017 $1,407,000 $935,000 $0 $0 $1,407,000 $935,000 

2018 $1,218,000 $770,000 $83,000 $53,000 $1,301,000 $823,000 

2019 $2,483,000 $1,496,000 $424,000 $256,000 $2,907,000 $1,752,000 

2020 $1,281,000 $735,000 $614,000 $353,000 $1,895,000 $1,088,000 

2021 $535,000 $292,000 $314,000 $172,000 $849,000 $464,000 

2022 $4,051,000 $2,108,000 $64,000 $34,000 $4,115,000 $2,142,000 

Total $16,743,000 $11,059,000 $3,060,000 $2,124,000 $19,803,000 $13,183,000 
D – 10 

Table D-9: Estimated New Equipment Costs for In-Use Barge and Dredge Vessel 

Engine Replacement 

New Equipment Costs 

Year 

Main 

(2009 $) 

Main 

(NPV) 

Auxiliary 

(2009 $) 

Auxiliary 

(NPV) 

Total 

(2009 $) 

Total 

(NPV) 

2011 $0 $0 $418,000 $372,000 $418,000 $372,000 

2012 $41,000 $35,000 $266,000 $226,000 $307,000 $261,000 

2013 $0 $0 $926,000 $748,000 $926,000 $748,000 

2014 $0 $0 $1,181,000 $908,000 $1,181,000 $908,000 

2015 $0 $0 $603,000 $442,000 $603,000 $442,000 

2016 $0 $0 $10,881,000 $7,586,000 $10,881,000 $7,586,000 

2017 $55,000 $37,000 $7,892,000 $5,241,000 $7,947,000 $5,278,000 

2018 $0 $0 $452,000 $286,000 $452,000 $286,000 

2019 $0 $0 $104,000 $63,000 $104,000 $63,000 

2020 $0 $0 $1,419,000 $813,000 $1,419,000 $813,000 

2021 $0 $0 $999,000 $546,000 $999,000 $546,000 

2022 $0 $0 $1,395,000 $726,000 $1,395,000 $726,000 

Total $96,000 $72,000 $26,536,000 $17,957,000 $26,632,000 $18,029,000 

E. Estimated Costs to Businesses 

The costs and economic impacts on businesses are presented in this section. The 

overall impact on business competitiveness, employment, and other impacts on 

business are also presented. 

1. Potential Business Impacts Based on Change to Return on Owners' Equity 

(ROE) 

In this section, we analyze the estimated cost and potential impacts created by the 

proposed amendments to CHC Regulation on businesses in California. This analysis is 

based on a comparison of the ROE for affected businesses before and after the 

inclusion of the regulatory costs. The analysis used publicly available information to 

assess the impacts on competitiveness, jobs, and business expansion, elimination, or 

creation. From the limited financial data staff obtained on crew and supply, barge, and 

dredge owner/operators, approximately 56 percent of these companies would be 

considered a small business. 

Based on 2009 CHC Regulation initial reporting data, staff estimates that there are 

about 20 crew and supply vessel businesses. Based on the 2007 CHC regulation initial 

reporting, air district permits, the PERP database, and the 2009 barge and dredge 

vessel survey about 25 barge and dredge vessel businesses that will be affected by the 

amendments. 
D – 11 

The ROE approach used in evaluating the potential economic impact of the proposed 

amendments on California businesses is as follows: 

(1) Affected businesses were identified from responses to the 2007 CHC Regulation 

initial reporting requirements, air district permits, the PERP database, and 2009 

barge and dredge vessel survey. 

(2) The cost for compliance was estimated and averaged over the years a particular 

company was affected. 

(3) The total annual cost for each business was adjusted for both federal and state 

taxes. 

(4) These adjusted costs were subtracted from net profit data, either actual net profit 

from Dun and Bradstreet or industry averages applied to the number of 

employees, and the results used to calculate the Return on Owners' Equity 

(ROE). The resulting ROE was then compared with the ROE before the 

subtraction of the adjusted costs to determine the impact on the profitability of the 

businesses. 

Using Dun and Bradstreet financial data when data were available, staff calculated the 

ROEs, both before and after the subtraction of the adjusted annual costs, for the typical 

businesses from each industry category. These calculations were based on the 

following assumptions. 

• All affected businesses are subject to federal and state tax rates of 35 percent and 

9.3 percent, respectively. 

• Affected businesses are neither able to increase the prices of their services nor 

lower their costs of doing business through cost-cutting measures. 

These assumptions, though reasonable, might not be applicable to all affected 

businesses. 

As shown in Table D-10, the average ROE of the businesses in the categories listed 

changed by about 0.95 percent. The decline in profitability was 1.44 percent for crew 

and supply vessels, and 0.45 percent for barge and dredge vessels. Generally, the 

ARB considers a 10 percent change in ROE to be the threshold at which businesses 

experience a significant adverse impact. These businesses, however, are unlikely to 

have to absorb the entire cost of this proposed amended regulation. To the extent that 

they are able to pass on the cost of the regulation, the impact on their profitability would 

be less than estimated here. Thus, staff expects most affected businesses to be able to 

absorb the cost of the regulation with no significant impact on their profitability. 
D – 12 

Table D-10: Affected Businesses with Change in ROE

Category ROE % Change 

Crew and Supply -1.44% 

Barge and Dredge -0.45% 

Average -0.95% 

These businesses may be able to reduce the impact of the proposed amendments on 

their businesses by taking advantage of available public funding. The costs impacts 

presented here do not take into consideration the impact of incentive or grant funding. 

The Carl Moyer Program funding is a potential funding source for companies that 

comply early or achieve emission reductions beyond the amendments. However, most 

barges and dredges are not self-propelled and would not be eligible for Moyer funding. 

2. Potential Impact on Employment, Business Creation, Elimination or 

Expansion 

 a. Potential Impact on Employment 

The proposed amendments are not expected to cause a measurable change in 

California employment and payroll. The staff’s profitability analysis shows that the 

impact on business profitability is minor. The proposed amendments, however, are 

likely to result in a small increase in employment in businesses that make, sell, install, 

maintain, and retrofit marine engines. Staff believes jobs will not be eliminated as a 

result of the amendments, but it may lead to the augmentation or alteration of job duties, 

leading to a net expansion of boat building, repair, and yard businesses, resulting in an 

increase in the number of jobs. 

b. Potential Impact on Business Creation, Elimination or Expansion 

The proposed amendments would have no measurable impact on the status of 

California businesses. This is because the regulation costs are not expected to impose 

a significant impact on the profitability of businesses in California. However, some small 

businesses with little or no margin of profitability may lack the financial resources to 

comply in a timely manner. These businesses may be able to take advantage of 

available public funding such as the Carl Moyer program or Proposition 1B funds to 

lessen the economic impact of the proposed amendments. 

While some individual businesses may be affected adversely, the proposed 

amendments may provide some business opportunities for existing California 

businesses or result in the creation of new businesses or expansion of current 

businesses. California businesses that make, install, retrofit, and maintain marine 

engines may benefit from increased crew and supply, barge, and dredge businesses 

spending on compliance. 
D – 13 

c. Potential Impact on Business Competitiveness 

The proposed amendments would have no significant impact on the ability of California 

businesses to compete with businesses in other states. Non-California vessels 

operating in California will be required to meet the same regulatory requirements as 

California-based vessels. 

3. Estimated Regulatory Cost for Small and Typical Business 

About 60 percent of the companies that own crew and supply vessels are considered 

small businesses, having less than 100 employees. Approximately 50 percent of the 

companies operating barge and dredge vessels are considered to be typical 

businesses, having more than 100 employees. The estimated regulatory cost for small 

and typical business is presented in Table D-11 and Table D-12. The estimated 

regulatory cost for a small business ranges from $18,000 to $629,000 for crew and 

supply business and from $14,000 to $84,000 for barge and dredge business. The 

estimated regulatory cost for a typical business ranges from $5,000 to $537,000 for 

crew and supply business and from $27,000 to $584,000 for barge and dredge 

business. 

Table D- 11: Estimated Regulatory Cost for Crew and Supply Small and Typical 

Business (adjusted to 2009 NPV) 

All values rounded

Cost to Small Business Cost to Typical Business 

 

Year Total Cost No. of Small 

Business 

Average 

Cost Total Cost No. of Typical Business Average Cost

2011 $629,000 1 $629,000 $142,000 3 $47,000

2012 $84,000 2 $42,000 $10,000 2 $5,000

2013 $40,000 1 $40,000 $160,000 1 $160,000

2014 $18,000 1 $18,000 $0 0 $0

2015 $30,000 1 $30,000 $768,000 2 $384,000

2016 $91,000 1 $91,000 $69,000 1 $69,000

2017 $338,000 3 $113,000 $236,000 1 $236,000

2018 $485,000 2 $243,000 $0 0 $0

2019 $370,000 4 $93,000 $537,000 1 $537,000

2020 $625,000 3 $208,000 $0 0 $0

2021 $260,000 3 $87,000 $0 0 $0

2022 $1,136,000 4 $284,000 $11,000 1 $11,000
D – 14 

Table D-12: Estimated Regulatory Cost for Barge and Dredge Small and Typical 

Business (adjusted to 2009 NPV) 

Cost to Small Business Cost to Typical Business 

 

Year Total Cost No. of Small 

Business 

Average 

Cost Total Cost No. of Typical Business Average Cost

2011 $15,000 1 $15,000 $59,000 1 $59,000

2012 $0 0 $0 $55,000 2 $28,000

2013 $0 0 $0 $108,000 4 $27,000

2014 $169,000 2 $84,000 $100,000 2 $50,000

2015 $0 0 $0 $112,000 4 $28,000

2016 $269,000 10 $27,000 $1,049,000 8 $131,000

2017 $42,000 3 $14,000 $1,167,000 2 $584,000

2018 $70,000 1 $70,000 $40,000 1 $40,000

2019 $16,000 1 $16,000 $0 0 $0

2020 $0 0 $0 $176,000 1 $176,000

2021 $0 0 $0 $138,000 1 $138,000

2022 $0 0 $0 $148,000 1 $148,000

All values rounded

F. Potential Costs to Local, State, and Federal Agencies 

The proposed amendments directly affect a few local, State and Federal agencies. 

Those public agencies will have an insignificant cost impact to comply with the 

proposed amendments. The calculated costs are shown in Table D-13. The estimated 

regulatory costs range from $1,900 to $60,000 (2009 dollars). The estimated new 

equipment costs range from $24,700 to $393,000 (2009 dollars). These costs will be 

incurred between 2014 and 2016, because the owners and operators of these engines 

would not have to comply in the first compliance years because of the original engine 

model year. Staff estimated the amendments would have no significant impact on these 

public agencies. 

Table D-13: Costs to Local, State, and Federal Agencies 

Area Agency 

Compliance 

Year 

Regulatory 

Costs 

Regulatory 

Costs 

(2009 NPV)

New 

Equipment 

Costs 

New 

Equipment 

Costs 

(2009 NPV) 

Monterey RWPCA 2016 $1,900 $1,300 $24,700 $17,000

Local Santa Cruz Port District 2016 $44,800 $31,600 $393,000 $274,000

Total $46,700 $32,900 $417,700 $291,000

Federal U.S. Army Corps of 

Engineers 2012 & 2013 $9,100 $7,800 $302,000 $246,000 

State State of California - Parks 2014 $60,000 $47,000 $143,000 $110,000 

 All values rounded 
D – 15 

G. Cost-Effectiveness 

In this section, the cost-effectiveness of the proposed amendments to the CHC 

regulation is estimated. Cost-effectiveness is expressed in terms of control costs 

(dollars) per unit of air emissions reduced (tons or pounds). As described below, for 

example, the cost-effectiveness for the proposed amendments is determined by dividing 

the total cost of the proposed amendments by the total pounds of diesel PM emissions 

reduced during the years 2011 to 2022. All costs are in 2009 equivalent expenditure 

dollars. The net present value estimates “today’s dollars” of future net cash are also 

presented. 

 1. Expected Emission Reductions

Staff estimated the projected total emission reductions under the proposed 

amendments using the statewide harbor craft inventory. The following Table D-14 and 

Table D-15 provide a summary of the annual statewide diesel PM and NOx reductions 

that will result from the amendments. The amendments are expected to reduce almost 

293,000 pounds of diesel PM and 1,622 tons of NOx by 2022 for crew and supply 

vessels, 142,000 pounds of diesel PM and 1,175 tons of NOx for barge and dredge 

vessels. 

Table D-14: Statewide Diesel PM and NOx Annual Emission Reductions from 

2011 to 2022 for Crew and Supply Vessels 

PM Reduction (pounds/year) NOx Reduction (tons/year) 

Year Main Aux Total Main Aux Total 

2011 15,999 1,471 17,470 119 13 132 

2012 15,370 1,381 16,751 114 12 126 

2013 18,657 1,284 19,941 115 11 126 

2014 17,433 1,198 18,631 106 11 117 

2015 23,207 1,485 24,692 122 13 135 

2016 22,247 1,515 23,762 113 13 126 

2017 22,852 1,426 24,278 114 12 126 

2018 24,010 1,369 25,379 119 12 131 

2019 28,502 1,395 29,897 143 11 154 

2020 29,036 1,440 30,476 141 11 152 

2021 29,161 1,455 30,616 137 10 147 

2022 29,429 1,388 30,817 140 10 150 

Total 275,903 16,807 292,710 1,483 139 1,622 

 Values are rounded. 
D – 16 

Table D-15: Statewide Diesel PM and NOx Annual Emission Reductions from 

2011 to 2022 for Barge and Dredge Vessels 

PM Reduction (pounds/year) NOx Reduction (tons/year) 

Year Main Aux Total Main Aux Total 

2011 0 336 336 0 3 3 

2012 132 430 562 1 4 5 

2013 0 2,753 2,753 0 23 23 

2014 0 1,771 1,771 0 15 15 

2015 0 2,454 2,454 0 21 21 

2016 0 18,217 18,217 0 149 149 

2017 85 22,246 22,331 1 184 185 

2018 47 20,760 20,807 0 171 171 

2019 39 19,573 19,612 0 160 160 

2020 34 20,865 20,899 0 169 169 

2021 31 17,123 17,154 0 141 141 

2022 29 15,437 15,466 0 133 133 

Total 397 141,965 142,362 2 1,173 1,175 

 Values are rounded. 

 2. Cost-Effectiveness

To determine the cost-effectiveness of the amendments, we divided the sum of the 

annual regulatory costs (2011 to 2022) for the amendments by the diesel PM emission 

reductions over the same time period attributable to the amendments. The regulatory 

costs include the remaining value of the engine being replaced (engine, supporting 

equipment, and installation labor), the residual value of the most recent maintenance, 

and recordkeeping and reporting costs. The estimated overall cost-effectiveness (total 

PM reduced divided by total regulatory costs) is $32 per pound of diesel PM reduced for 

crew and supply vessels and $39 per pound of diesel PM reduced for barge and dredge 

vessels, if all the costs of compliance are allocated to diesel PM reduction, or $35 per 

pound of diesel PM reduced for both vessel categories. 

Since the amendments will also result in reductions in oxides of nitrogen (NOx) 

emissions, staff conducted a second cost-effectiveness analysis in which half of the cost 

of compliance was allocated to PM benefits and half the cost was allocated to NOx 

benefits. This results in cost-effectiveness values of $16/lb for diesel PM and 

$2,915/ton for NOx for crew and supply vessels, $20/lb for diesel PM and $2,384/ton for 

NOx for barges and dredges, or $17.30 for diesel PM and $2,600/ton for NOx both 

vessel categories 

A third method to express cost effectiveness is to use the sum of the combined PM and 

NOx reductions (approximately 3.5 million pounds for crew and supply vessels, 2.5 

million pounds for barge and dredge vessels). Using this approach, the resulting cost 

effectiveness for the proposed amendments is about $2.70 per pound of PM and NOx 

reduced for crew and supply vessels, $2.25 per pound of PM and NOx reduced for 
D – 17 

barge and dredge vessels, or $2.50 per pound of PM and NOx for both vessel 

categories (2009 dollars). These cost-effectiveness values are presented in 2009 

expenditure dollars and adjusted for NPV in Table D-16, Table D-17, and Table D-18 

below. 

Table D-16: Summary of Average Cost Effectiveness for Crew and Supply 

Vessels for the period 2011 to 2022 

Emissions

Total 

Emissions 

Reduced 

2011-2022 

Total 

Regulatory 

Cost 2011-2022 

Total CostEffectiveness

Total 

Regulatory 

Cost 2011-2022 

(2009 NPV) 

Total CostEffectiveness 

(2009 NPV) 

All costs assigned to PM 

PM 293,000 lbs $9,453,000 $32/lb $6,105,000 $21/lb 

Divide Costs Equally Between PM and NOx 

PM 293,000 lbs $4,726,000 $16/lb $3,053,000 $10/lb 

NOx 1,600 tons $4,726,000 $2,915/ton $3,053,000 $1,882/ton 

Combine PM and NOx Emissions 

PM + NOx 3,536,000 lbs $9,453,000 $2.70/lb $6,105,000 $1.70/lb 

All values rounded 

Table D-17: Summary of the Average Cost Effectiveness for Barge and Dredge 

Vessels for the Period 2011 – 2022 

Emissions 

Total 

Emissions 

Reduced 

2011-2022 

Total 

Regulatory 

Cost 2011-2022 

Total CostEffectiveness

Total 

Regulatory 

Cost 2011-2022 

(2009 NPV) 

Total CostEffectiveness 

(2009 NPV) 

All costs assigned to PM 

PM 142,000 lbs $5,604,000 $39/lb $3,825,000 $27/lb 

Divide Costs Equally Between PM and NOx 

PM 142,000 lbs $2,802,000 $20/lb $1,913,000 $13/lb 

NOx 1,200 tons $2,802,000 $2,384/ton $1,913,000 $1,628/ton 

Combine PM and NOx Emissions 

PM + NOx 2,493,000 lbs $5,604,000 $2.25/lb $3,825,000 $1.50/lb 

 All values rounded 
D – 18 

Table D-18: Summary of Average Amended Proposed Regulation 

Cost-Effectiveness for the Period 2011-2022 

Total Regulatory Cost 

Total 

Emissions 

Total Cost 

Effectiveness 

Emissions 

2009 Dollars 

($ millions) 

NPV 

($ millions) 

Total 

Emissions 

Reduced 

2009 

Dollars NPV 

All costs assigned to PM 

PM $15 $9.9 435,000 lbs $35/lb $23/lb 

Divide Costs Equally Between PM and NOx 

PM $7.5 $5.0 435,000 lbs $17/lb $11/lb 

NOx $7.5 $5.0 2,800 tons $2,690/ton $1,780/ton 

Combine PM and NOx Emissions 

PM + NOx $15 $9.9 6,030,000 lbs $2.50/lb $1.65/lb 

 All values rounded 

As shown Table D-19, the cost-effectiveness of the proposed amendments is in the 

range of other regulations recently adopted by the ARB. For example, the diesel PM 

cost-effectiveness of the solid waste collection vehicle rule was estimated at $28 per 

pound, excluding the benefits of NOx and hydrocarbon reductions (ARB, 2003a). The 

cost-effectiveness of the stationary diesel engine airborne toxic control measure 

(ATCM) was estimated to range from $4 to $26 per pound of diesel PM reduced 

(ARB,2003b). Finally, the transport refrigeration unit ATCM was estimated to have a 

cost-effectiveness of $10 to $20 per pound of diesel PM reduced (ARB, 2003c). 

Table D-19: Diesel PM Cost Effectiveness of the Proposal and Other 

Regulations/Measures (Attributes All Costs to Each Pollutant Individually) 

Regulation or Diesel PM Cost- Effectiveness 

Airborne Toxic Control Measure Dollars/ Pound PM 

Commercial Harbor Craft (2007) $29 

Commercial Harbor Craft (2010 amendments) $35* 

In-Use Off-Road Diesel Vehicles $40 

Cargo Handling Equipment Proposal $41 

Solid Waste Collection Vehicle Rule $28 

Stationary Diesel Engine ATCM $4 - $26 

Transport Refrigeration Unit ATCM $10 - $20 

 *$23 for Net Present Value 
D – 19 

H. Availability of Incentive Funding 

Incentive programs have the ability to achieve emissions reductions early or beyond 

those required by regulations. California has one of the largest clean air incentive 

programs in the nation – the Carl Moyer Program – with up to $140 million available 

each year through State and local funds. This level of funding is far from sufficient to 

pay for all the reductions needed to provide clean air. Incentive programs, such as the 

Carl Moyer Program, fund the incremental cost of cleaner-than-required engines, 

equipment, and other sources of pollution providing early or extra emission reductions. 

Carl Moyer Program emission reductions are credited in California’s State 

Implementation Plan and must be real, surplus to regulatory requirements, quantifiable, 

and enforceable. To be eligible for Carl Moyer funds, marine vessels must be selfpropelled. Most barges and dredges would not be eligible because few have propulsion 

engines. 

The Carl Moyer Program is implemented as a partnership between ARB and the 

districts. ARB provides program oversight and minimum program requirements and the 

districts select and fund projects. Statewide, the Carl Moyer Program has been 

oversubscribed every year, and this continues to be the case today. Eligible marine 

vessel projects compete with on-road, off-road, agricultural pump, locomotive, and other 

projects for funding. 

In November 2006, California voters approved $1 billion in incentive funding to reduce 

emissions from goods movement activities. Proposition 1B funds will also be available 

to eligible commercial harbor craft operators for repowering engines, retrofitting vessels 

with hybrid systems, and replacing vessels with cleaner models. At the Board meeting 

held on March 25, 2010, the Proposed Update to the Proposition 1B Program 

Guidelines were approved, which included project options that would fund up to 80% of 

the cost for non-regulated vessels and up to 50% for the early compliance of regulated 

vessels. The Board will award the next Proposition 1B funding allocations to local 

agencies in June 2010 with additional funding to be made available as bond monies are 

received by ARB. 

I. Analysis of Alternatives 

In this section, the cost-effectiveness of the proposed amendments is compared to two 

alternative control options. The first alternative would accelerate the barge and dredge 

compliance schedule but the crew and supply vessels would follow the proposed 

compliance schedule. The other alternative is to slow down the compliance timeline for 

both crew and supply vessels and barge dredge vessels. The first alternative would 

achieve greater emission reductions, but with higher regulatory cost. The second 

alternative analyzed results in lower regulatory cost, but emissions are reduced less. 

Alternative 1: Accelerate Barge and Dredge Vessels Compliance Schedule and 

Require the Crew and Supply Vessels to Follow the Proposed Compliance Schedule
D – 20 

For Alternative 1, barge and dredge vessels throughout the State would be subject to a 

2011 to 2020 accelerated compliance schedule. Crew and supply vessels would still be 

subject to the 2011 to 2022 regular compliance schedule. This alternative would speed 

up the engine replacements in the first five years. The engine replacement comparison 

for both alternatives is shown in Table 20. The estimated new equipment cost of this 

alternative is $52 million which is about $6 million higher than the proposed 

amendments new equipment compliance cost, as shown in Table D-21, and the 

regulatory cost is $19 million which is about $4 million higher than the proposed 

amendments regulatory cost, shown in Table D-22. The total diesel PM emissions 

reduced with this alternative would be greater than with the proposed schedule, 82,000 

pounds during the 12 years from 2011 to 2022 as shown in Table D-23. The total NOx 

reduction of this same time period would be 3,400 tons which is about 600 tons greater 

than the proposed schedule. The resulting cost-effectiveness for this alternative is 

higher than the proposed schedule, $37 per pound of diesel PM reduced. The resulting 

cost effectiveness, dividing the cost equally between diesel PM and NOx, would be $19 

per pound of diesel PM reduced and $2,850 per ton of NOx reduced. The cost 

effectiveness comparison is shown in Table D-24. This alternative has greater emission 

reductions benefits but with higher regulatory cost. 

This alternative further increases the number of vessels complying early and restricts 

the amount of time and money from funding sources. Also, the additional early 

expenses for businesses reduce their ability to spread the compliance cost over the 

proposed time. Based on these reasons, staff does not recommend this alternative. 

Table D-20: Statewide Annual In-Use Engine Replacements 

Number of Propulsion Engines Number of Auxiliary Engines 

Year Reg Alt 1 Alt 2 Reg Alt 1 Alt 2 

2011 21 22 10 17 47 2 

2012 5 5 2 4 10 5 

2013 3 3 10 7 62 8 

2014 3 4 2 6 11 7 

2015 6 6 2 8 39 1 

2016 2 2 2 44 7 7 

2017 15 14 7 44 5 3 

2018 8 8 0 10 6 37 

2019 9 9 4 10 6 43 

2020 8 8 20 13 13 12 

2021 3 3 17 6 5 19 

2022 22 22 25 4 3 10 

Total 105 106 101 173 214 154 
D – 21 

Table D-21: Statewide Annual New Equipment Compliance Costs for 

Crew and Supply Vessels and Barge and Dredge Vessels 

New Equipment Compliance Costs 

New Equipment Compliance Costs 

(2009 NPV) 

Year Reg Alt 1 Alt 2 Reg Alt 1 Alt 2 

2011 $3,657,000 $7,427,000 $1,152,000 $3,256,000 $6,612,000 $1,026,000 

2012 $735,000 $951,000 $611,000 $624,000 $807,000 $518,000 

2013 $1,782,000 $15,909,000 $2,229,000 $1,439,000 $12,839,000 $1,801,000 

2014 $1,382,000 $2,989,000 $1,046,000 $1,063,000 $2,298,000 $804,000 

2015 $2,612,000 $7,501,000 $929,000 $1,913,000 $5,492,000 $680,000 

2016 $11,476,000 $1,058,000 $1,392,000 $8,001,000 $738,000 $971,000 

2017 $9,354,000 $1,521,000 $2,409,000 $6,213,000 $1,011,000 $1,600,000 

2018 $1,753,000 $2,721,000 $10,064,000 $1,109,000 $1,720,000 $6,364,000 

2019 $3,011,000 $3,908,000 $7,792,000 $1,815,000 $2,355,000 $4,694,000 

2020 $3,314,000 $3,291,000 $3,062,000 $1,901,000 $1,888,000 $1,758,000 

2021 $1,848,000 $849,000 $7,250,000 $1,010,000 $464,000 $3,962,000 

2022 $5,510,000 $4,115,000 $6,362,000 $2,868,000 $2,142,000 $3,312,000 

Total $46,437,000 $52,240,000 $44,298,000 $31,212,000 $38,366,000 $27,490,000 

Values are rounded 

Table D-22: Statewide Annual Regulatory Costs for 

Crew and Supply Vessels and Barge and Dredge Vessels 

Regulatory Cost Regulatory Cost (2009 NPV) 

Year Reg Alt 1 Alt 2 Reg Alt 1 Alt 2 

2011 $932,000 $1,852,000 $410,000 $850,000 $1,684,000 $373,000 

2012 $178,000 $466,000 $65,000 $156,000 $403,000 $56,000 

2013 $383,000 $4,621,000 $446,000 $313,000 $3,776,000 $368,000 

2014 $427,000 $1,331,000 $210,000 $334,000 $1,031,000 $166,000 

2015 $1,231,000 $2,790,000 $236,000 $912,000 $2,066,000 $174,000 

2016 $2,186,000 $388,000 $262,000 $1,542,000 $273,000 $188,000 

2017 $2,683,000 $964,000 $648,000 $1,800,000 $648,000 $432,000 

2018 $934,000 $1,136,000 $2,132,000 $598,000 $726,000 $1,369,000 

2019 $1,521,000 $1,749,000 $2,113,000 $925,000 $1,063,000 $1,291,000 

2020 $1,385,000 $1,441,000 $1,330,000 $803,000 $835,000 $772,000 

2021 $725,000 $473,000 $3,316,000 $399,000 $261,000 $1,833,000 

2022 $2,472,000 $2,189,000 $2,973,000 $1,298,000 $1,150,000 $1,561,000 

Total $15,057,000 $19,400,000 $14,141,000 $9,930,000 $13,916,000 $8,583,000 

Values are rounded 
D – 22 

Table D-23: Statewide Annual Diesel PM and NOx Emission Reductions 

PM Reductions (pounds) NOx Reductions (tons) 

Year Reg Alt 1 Alt 2 Reg Alt 1 Alt 2 

2011 17,806 25,552 7,517 135 202 56 

2012 17,314 23,051 7,689 132 182 58 

2013 22,694 46,574 17,238 149 337 130 

2014 20,401 43,420 16,734 131 309 126 

2015 27,145 51,578 19,771 156 348 126 

2016 41,978 46,068 19,242 275 302 123 

2017 46,609 44,695 25,831 311 285 144 

2018 46,186 46,781 38,354 301 297 242 

2019 49,509 50,293 40,934 314 315 264 

2020 51,375 49,714 42,544 321 309 267 

2021 47,771 45,730 48,103 288 269 297 

2022 46,282 43,544 47,957 282 252 295 

Total 435,071 516,999 331,913 2,796 3,409 2,128 

Table D-24: Summary of Average Cost-Effectiveness for the Period 2011- 2022 

Proposed Regulation Regulation Alternative 1 Regulation Alternative 2 

Emissions 

Cost in 2009 

Dollars 

Cost in 

NPV 

Cost in 2009 

Dollars 

Cost in 

NPV 

Cost in 2009 

Dollars 

Cost in 

NPV 

All costs assigned to PM 

PM ($/lb) 35 23 38 27 43 26 

Divide Costs Equally Between PM and NOx 

PM ($/lb) 17 11 19 14 21 13 

NOx ($/ton) 2,690 1,780 2,850 2,040 3,320 2,020 

Combine PM and NOx Emissions 

PM + NOx ($/lb) 2.50 1.65 2.65 1.90 3.00 1.90 

Values are rounded 

Alternative 2: Decelerate the compliance schedule for both crew and supply vessels 

and barge and dredge vessels 

For Alternative 2, the compliance schedule for both crew supply vessels and barge 

dredge vessels would be decelerated. This would result in many engines being 

replaced later than the proposed amendments compliance schedule. Both the 

estimated new equipment cost and regulatory cost of this alternative are lower than the 

proposed amendments. As shown in Table D-21, the estimated new equipment 

compliance cost for this alternative is $44 million which is about $2 million lower than 

the proposed amendments compliance schedule. As shown in Table D-22, the 

estimated regulatory cost for this alternative is $14 million which is about $1 million 

lower than the proposed amendments compliance schedule. The diesel PM and NOx 

reductions associated with this alternative, as shown in Table D-23, would be about 

332,000 pounds PM and 2,128 tons of NOx. This alternative has significantly less 
D – 23 

emission reductions benefit with a slightly less regulatory cost compared to the 

proposed amendments compliance schedule. The cost-effectiveness for this alternative 

is a significantly higher than the proposed amendments at $43 per pound of diesel PM 

reduced, as shown above in Table D-24. 

This alternative would slow down engine replacements resulting in higher diesel PM and 

NOx emissions. The engine replacement comparison for both alternatives is shown in 

Table D-20. This alternative was not selected as it is not as cost-effective nor 

beneficial for air quality and public health as the proposed amendments. 
D – 24 

REFERENCES:

(ARB, 2003a) Air Resources Board, Staff Report: Initial Statement of Reasons for 

Proposed Rulemaking, Proposed Diesel Particulate Matter Control Measure for OnRoad Heavy-Duty Residential and Commercial Solid Waste Collection Vehicles, June, 

2003. 

(ARB, 2003b) Air Resources Board, Staff Report: Initial Statement of Reasons for 

Proposed Rulemaking, Airborne Toxic Control Measure for Stationary CompressionIgnition Engines, September, 2003. 

(ARB, 2003c) Air Resources Board, Staff Report: Initial Statement of Reasons for 

Proposed Rulemaking, Airborne Toxic Control Measure for In-Use Diesel-Fueled 

Transport Refrigeration Units (TRU) and TRU Generator Sets, and Facilities Where 

TRUs Operate, October, 2003.