Summary and Analysis of Comments: 

Control of Emissions from New Marine 

Compression-Ignition Engines at or 

Above 30 Liters per Cylinder
EPA-420-R-09-015

December 2009

Assessment and Standards Division

Office of Transportation and Air Quality

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

Summary and Analysis of Comments: 

Control of Emissions from New Marine 

Compression-Ignition Engines at or 

Above 30 Liters per Cylinder
ii

Table of Contents 

Introduction

List of Acronyms

CHAPTER 1: NEED FOR EMISSION CONTROLS; FORM OF CONTROLS

1.1 Public Health Need for a Domestic Emission Control Program for Category 3 Marine 

Diesel Engines

1.1.1 Emissions from Category 3 marine diesel engines pose a serious health threat.

1.1.2 Diesel Exhaust Emissions pose a serious health threat

1.1.3 Cancer Risk Associated with Diesel Exhaust Emissions

1.1.4 Health Effects and Need for Reduction of Emissions Locally

1.1.5 Environmental Justice

1.1.6 Benefits Associated with Reducing Nickel

1.2 Form of Emission Controls

1.3 Issues Related to Rulemaking Process

1.4 Other General Comments

CHAPTER 2: SCOPE AND APPLICABILITY

2.1 Applicability to Foreign Flag Vessels

2.2 Emission Control Area

2.2.1 Support the North American ECA

2.2.2 Inclusion of Alaska and Hawaii

2.2.3 Other Areas

2.3 Greenhouse Gases

CHAPTER 3: ENGINE STANDARDS

3.1 Tier 2 Duty-Cycle NOX Standards

3.2 Tier 3 Duty-Cycle NOX Standard

3.2.1 Feasibility and Lead Time of the Tier 3 NOX Standard

3.2.2 Alternative NOX Controls

3.3 Other Standards

3.3.1 HC and CO Standards

3.3.2 Mode Caps
3.3.3 Particulate Matter (PM) Standard

CHAPTER 4: FUEL STANDARD AND SO2 CONTROLS

4.1 Amendments to the Diesel Fuel Sulfur Program

4.1.1 1,000 ppm Fuel Sulfur Standard

4.1.2 Compliance and Implementation

4.2 Proposed Alternative Options

4.3 Other

4.3.1 Category 1 and 2 Engines on C3 Vessels

4.3.2 Fuel Quality

4.3.3 Further Reductions in Fuel Sulfur

4.4 Technical Feasibility of Fuel Switching

4.5 Fuel Availability

4.6 Fuel Equivalency Standard

4.6.1 Exhaust Gas Cleaning Systems

4.6.2 Other Approaches to Equivalency

4.7 Technical Feasibility of SOX Exhaust Gas Cleaning Systems

4.7.1 SOX Emission Reduction Capability

4.7.2 Washwater

4.8 Impact of Fuel/Equivalency Standards on PM

4.9 Lead Time for Fuel Use Requirements

CHAPTER 5: CERTIFICATION AND COMPLIANCE

5.1 General Comments

5.1.1 Comments on Harmonization with IMO Compliance Requirements

5.1.2 Clarity of the Regulations

5.2 On-Off NOX Controls

5.3 NOX Monitoring and Diagnostics

5.4 Authority Issues Related to APPS

5.4.1 The APPS Does Not Give EPA Legal Authority to Implement ECAs or to Regulate 

Fuel Use in Internal Waters

5.5 Compliance Issues Related to Implementation of APPS

5.5.1 EIAPP Certification

5.5.2 Applicability of International Emission Standards to Nonparty Vessels

5.5.3 In which U.S. waters are Annex VI and its ECA requirements being implemented 

through APPS?

2
5.5.4 EPA’s extension of an ECA to the Great Lakes violates bilateral treaties between 

the U.S. and Canada

5.6 Comments on Testing Requirements

5.6.1 1065 Test Procedures

5.6.2 Certification Fuel

5.6.3 Production-Line Testing

5.6.4 PM Measurement

5.7 Exclusions and Exemptions

5.8 Provisions for Category 1 and 2 Engines

5.9 Applicability to Gas Turbine Engines

5.10 Applicability to Boilers

5.11 Coordination with Coast Guard

5.12 Other Marine Certification and Compliance Issues

5.13 Miscellaneous modifications to the proposed regulatory language

CHAPTER 6: ESTIMATED COSTS

6.1 Cost of Engine Technology

6.2 Cost of Lower Sulfur Fuel

CHAPTER 7: EXPECTED ECONOMIC IMPACTS

7.1 General Economic Impacts of Coordinated Strategy

7.2 Economic Impacts on Cruise Industry

7.3 Other Economic Impacts in Alaska

CHAPTER 8: ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS

8.1 Emissions Inventory

8.1.1 Category 3 Vessel Inventory Contributions

8.1.2 Contribution of U.S. vs. Foreign-Flag Ships

8.1.3 Growth Rates

8.1.4 Modeling Scenarios

8.1.5 Fleet Size and Turnover

8.2 Air Quality Modeling

8.2.1 Emissions Impacts by Distance from Shore

8.2.2 Air Quality in Alaska and Hawaii

8.2.3 Pollution Transport in the Air Quality Modeling

8.3 Other Environmental Impacts

8.3.1 Ecosystem Impacts in Alaska

3
8.3.2 Reduction of Ozone and PM Pollution or Protection of Public Health and NAAQS 

Attainment

8.1.3 Air Quality Impacts from Ocean-going Vessels also Occur Away from Ports

8.1.4 Environmental Impacts Associated with Emissions from Ocean-going Vessels

8.4 Benefits Analysis

8.4.1 Citation of Existing Health Impacts Literature and Data

8.4.2 Related Estimates of Health Impacts

8.4.3 PM-related Premature Mortality

8.4.4 Value of a Statistical Life

CHAPTER 9: ALTERNATIVE PROGRAM OPTIONS

9.1 Land-Side Controls

9.2 Program for Existing Engines

9.2.1 Voluntary Program

9.2.2 Regulatory Program

CHAPTER 10: APPLICATION OF ECA REQUIREMENTS IN THE GREAT LAKES

10.1 General Comments Supporting or Opposing Application of ECA requirements within 

the Great Lakes

10.1.1 General Support for Application of ECA to the Great Lakes

10.1.2 General Opposition of Application of ECA to the Great Lakes

10.2 EPA does not have legal authority to extend the ECA requirements within the Great 

Lakes

10.3 EPA has not justified extending the ECA requirements within the Great Lakes

10.3.1 Extending the ECA requirements within the Great Lakes is not supported by 

EPA’s analysis

10.3.2 Specific comments on inventory inputs and assumptions for the Great Lakes

10.3.3 Specific comments on the inventory contributions of Great Lakes vessels

10.3.4 Specific comments on air quality modeling inputs and assumptions for the Great 

Lakes

10.3.5 Specific comments on benefits for the Great Lakes

10.4 The economic impacts of applying the ECA requirements on the Lakes will be severe

10.4.1 The Great Lakes are an efficient transportation mode

10.4.2 The economic impacts of applying the ECA requirements within the Great Lakes 

will be substantial

10.4.3 Our Response

10.5 Comments on EPA’s Economic Impact Analysis regarding the Great Lakes

4
10.6 Comments Requesting Extended Comment Period, Separate Rule

10.6.1 EPA Should Extend the Comment Period for this Rule

10.6.2 EPA Should Establish a Separate Action for the Great Lakes

10.7 Other Comments on EPA’s Analysis for the Great Lakes Region

10.7.1 EPA must consider National Security impacts and energy impacts

10.7.2 EPA must consider the Impacts on the Canadian Economy

10.7.3 EPA must consider the impacts on small businesses that operate on the Great 

Lakes

10.7.4 EPA Must Consider Alternative Approaches for the Great Lakes

10.7.5 Vessels that Operate on the Great Lakes Already Participate in a Program to 

Reduce Emissions.

10.7.6 Low-Speed 2-stroke engines are designed to operate on heavy fuel

CHAPTER 11: TECHNICAL AMENDMENTS

11.1 General Compliance Provisions (40 Part 1068) and Other Broadly Applicable 

Comments

11.2 Land-based Nonroad Spark-ignition Engines above 19 kW (40 Part 1048)

11.3 Locomotives (40 Parts 92 and 1033)

11.4 Land-based Nonroad Diesel Engines (40 Parts 89 and 1039)

11.5 Evaporative Emission Standards for Nonroad Spark-ignition Engines and Equipment 

(40 Part 1060)

11.6 Heavy-Duty Highway Engines

11.7 Marine Spark-ignition Engines (40 Part 1045)

5
Introduction 

On December 7, 2007, EPA released an Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking 

(ANPRM) to encourage full participation in the development process of a rulemaking for new 

marine compression-ignition engines with per cylinder displacement at or above 30 liters (called 

Category 3 marine diesel engines). The comment period officially remained open through 

March 6, 2008. Many comments were received during that period, and others were received 

beyond that, through stakeholder outreach. 

On June 26, 2009, the Administrator signed a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) 

for proposed emission standards for new Category 3 marine diesel engines installed on U.S. 

vessels, under section 213 of the Clean Air Act (CAA or “the Act”). In that notice, we also 

proposed a change to our diesel fuel program. On July 1, 2009, this NPRM and supporting 

documentation was posted on EPA’s web site. On that day a message was sent to interested 

stakeholders notifying them of the availability of this material for review and comment. On 

August 28, 2009, the NPRM was published in the Federal Register. This rule is part of a 

coordinated strategy to ensure that all ships that affect U.S. air quality meet stringent NOX and 

fuel sulfur requirements. 

We held two public hearings on the NPRM; one in New York, New York on August 4, 

2009 and one in Long Beach, California on August 6, 2009. At those hearings, oral comments 

on the NPRM were received and recorded. A written comment period remained open until 

September 28, 2009. A complete list of organizations and individuals that provided comments 

on the NPRM is contained in the following table. Abbreviations for the organization names are 

also included. 

This Summary and Analysis of Comments contains a detailed summary of all comments 

we received on the NPRM as well as our analysis of each comment and our response. The 

reader should also refer to the final rulemaking notice in the Federal Register as well as the Final 

Regulatory Impact Analysis.

6
List of Commenters 

Commenter Abbreviation Docket ID Number

Agri-Fine OAR-2007-0121-0315 

American Association of Port Authorities AAPA OAR-2007-0121-0232 

American Great Lakes Ports Association OAR-2007-0121-0262 

American Iron and Steel Institute OAR-2007-0121-0295 

American Lung Association with 

Environmental Defense Fund ALA/EDF OAR-2007-0121-0366 and 

-0227 

American Maritime Officer Services OAR-2007-0121-0364 

American Maritime Officers of the Great Lakes OAR-2007-0121-0318 

American Thoracic Society OAR-2007-0121-0227 

American Petroleum Institute API OAR-2007-0121-0354 

American Waterways Operators AWO OAR-2007-0121-0272 

ArcelorMittel USA OAR-2007-0121-0280 

Association of American Railroads AAR OAR-2007-0121-0358 

AutoCar OAR-2007-0121-0254 

Begich, Mark, United States Senator (AK) OAR-2007-0121-0322 

Belco OAR-2007-0121-0362 

Calumet Area Industrial Commission OAR-2007-0121-0332 

Canadian Shipowners’ Association OAR-2007-0121-0227, 

0245 and 0297 (dup) 

Canadian Steel Producers Association OAR-2007-0121-0359 

Carbon War Room OAR-2007-0121-0267 

Central Marine Logistics, Capt. Tom Wiater CML OAR-2007-0121-0276 and 

0304 (dup) 

Central Marine Logistics, Employees of CMLEmp 

OAR-2007-0121-0234, 

0236, 0237, 0238, 0239, 

0240, 0260, 0293, and 0371 

Chamber of Marine Commerce CMC OAR-2007-0121-0353 

Chamber of Shipping of America CSA OAR-2007-0121-0256 and 

-0227 

City of Juneau, AK OAR-2007-0121-0298 and 

0372 (dup) 

City of Ketchikan, AK OAR-2007-0121-0294 and 

0375 (dup) 

City of New York, NY OAR-2007-0121-0227 

City of Sarnia, ON, CAN OAR-2007-0121-0306 

City of Superior, WI OAR-2007-0121-0352 

Clean Air Task Force CATF OAR-2007-0121-0264, 

0227 and 0335 (dup) 

Cleveland Port Authority OAR-2007-0121-0310 

7
Cliffs Natural Resources Inc., ArcelorMittel 

USA, US Steel Corp. OAR-2007-0121-0376 

Coalition for a Safe Environment OAR-2007-0121-0232 

Coalition for Clean Air CCA OAR-2007-0121-0220 and 

-0232 

Communities for Clean Ports OAR-2007-0121-0232 

Council of Great Lakes Industries OAR-2007-0121-0296, 

0312 (dup) and 0363 (dup) 

Cruise Lines International Association CLIA OAR-2007-0121-0278 

CSX Transportation OAR-2007-0121-0300 

Cummins OAR-2007-0121-0277 

Daimler Trucks OAR-2007-0121-0284, 

0286 (dup) and 0303 (dup) 

Detroit Regional Chamber OAR-2007-0121-0248 and 

0274 (dup) 

The Development Association OAR-2007-0121-0279 and 

0290 (dup) 

DTE Energy OAR-2007-0121-0328 

Duluth Chamber of Commerce OAR-2007-0121-0282 

Duluth Propeller Club OAR-2007-0121-0292, 

0313 (dup) and 0399 (dup) 

Duluth Seaway Port Authority OAR-2007-0121-0283 

Egan, Dennis, State Senator (AK) OAR-2007-0121-0323 

Electro-Motive Diesel, Inc OAR-2007-0121-0250 and 

0378 (dup) 

Engine Manufacturers’ Association EMA OAR-2007-0121-0265 and 

0377 

Euromot OAR-2007-0121-0243 

Exhaust Gas Cleaning Systems Association EGCSA OAR-2007-0121-0305 

Friends of the Earth, Center for Biological 

Diversity, and Earth Justice FOE OAR-2007-0121-0320 

Gas Turbine Association OAR-2007-0121-0253 

General Electric Transportation GE OAR-2007-0121-0271 

Great Lakes Maritime Task Force GLMTF OAR-2007-0121-0269 and 

-0329 

Great Lakes Metro Chambers Coalition OAR-2007-0121-0258 

Greater Cleveland Partnership OAR-2007-0121-0330 

IMPCO Technologies OAR-2007-0121-0379 

Independent Fuel Terminal Operators 

Association OAR-2007-0121-0333 

Industrial Truck Association OAR-2007-0121-0228 and 

0337 (dup) 

8
Interlake Steamship OAR-2007-0121-0268 and 

-0357 (dup) 

International Association of Drilling 

Contractors OAR-2007-0121-0247 

International Council on Clean Transportation ICCT OAR-2007-0121-0227 

Johnson Matthey OAR-2007-0121-0227 

Kanjorski, FN, Congressman (PA) OAR-2007-0121-0327 

Keystone Shipping Company OAR-2007-0121-0273, 

0311 (dup), and 0349 

Kinder Morgan OAR-2007-0121-0326 

Kindra Lake Towing OAR-2007-0121-0291 

Krystallon, Ltd. OAR-2007-0121-0229 

Lafarge North America OAR-2007-0121-0383 

Lake Carriers’ Association LCA OAR-2007-0121-0233 and 

0345 

Liberty Maritime Corporation OAR-2007-0121-0347 

Long Beach Alliance for Children with Asthma LBACA OAR-2007-0121-0232 (8 

speakers) 

Lower Lakes Towing OAR-2007-0121-0230 

Maersk OAR-2007-0121-0227 and 

0261 

Manufacturers of Emission Control Association MECA OAR-2007-0121-0227 and 

0319 

Marine Engineers Beneficial Association OAR-2007-0121-0259 

Maritime AFL-CIO OAR-2007-0121-0321 

Matson Navigation OAR-2007-0121-0281 and 

0346 (dup) 

Midwest Energy Resources Co. OAR-2007-0121-0342 

Minnesota Chamber of Commerce OAR-2007-0121-0350 

Munoz, Cathy, Representative, AK House of 

Rep. 

OAR-2007-0121-0317, 

0331 (dup), 0373 (dup) 

Murkowski, Lisa, United States Senator (AK) OAR-2007-0121-0384 

Murphy Oil OAR-2007-0121-0301 

National Association of Clean Air Agencies NACAA OAR-2007-0121-0227 and 

-0246 

National Marine Manufacturers Association NMMA OAR-2007-0121-0242 

Natural Resources Defense Council NRDC OAR-2007-0121-0227 and 

0232 

Navistar OAR-2007-0121-0263 and 

-0308 (dup) 

Northeast States for Coordinated Air Use 

Management NESCAUM OAR-2007-0121-0227 and 

-0356 

9
Ohio Environmental Council, Earth Day 

Coalition, Marsh Area Regional Council, Ohio 

League of Conservation Voters 

Ohio 

Environmental 

Council et al 

OAR-2007-0121-0314 

Outdoor Power Equipment Institute OPEI OAR-2007-0121-0235 

Ozinga Materials OAR-2007-0121-0343 

Ozone Transport Commission OTC OAR-2007-0121-0227 

Pacific Merchant Shipping Association PMSA OAR-2007-0121-0232 and 

0275 

Parnell, Sean, Governor, State of Alaska OAR-2007-0121-0287, 

0316 (dup) and 0374 (dup) 

Port of Anchorage OAR-2007-0121-0299 and 

0360 (dup) 

Port of Long Beach OAR-2007-0121-0232 and 

0365 

Port of Los Angeles and American Association 

of Port Authorities OAR-2007-0121-0232 

Raffin Construction Co. OAR-2007-0121-0344 

Resource Development Council OAR-2007-0121-0288 

River Adventures OAR-2007-0121-0244 

Robertson, Paul, Economic Minister, 

Government of Canada OAR-2007-0121-0252 

Santa Barbara Air Pollution Control District SBAPCD OAR-2007-0121-0231 

Seaworthy Systems OAR-2007-0121-0266 

Shipping Federation of Canada OAR-2007-0121-0270 

Sitka Chamber of Commerce OAR-2007-0121-0307 

Solar Turbines OAR-2007-0121-0249 

Soo Marine Supply Inc. OAR-2007-0121-0351 

South Coast Air Quality Management District SCAQMD OAR-2007-0121-0309 and 

-0232 

Southwest Research Institute SwRI OAR-2007-0121-0255 and 

0285 (dup) 

Stupak, Bart, Representative, US Congress (MI) OAR-2007-0121-0338 

Texas Commission on Environmental Quality TCEQ OAR-2007-0121-0334, 

0340 (dup) and 0341 (dup) 

Texas Legislative Air Quality Caucus OAR-2007-0121-0367 

Totem Ocean Trailer Express TOTE OAR-2007-0121-0289 and 

0361 (dup) 

Transportation Institute OAR-2007-0121-0302 and 

0355 (dup) 

Two Harbors Area Chamber of Commerce OAR-2007-0121-0324 

United States Navy OAR-2007-0121-0241 

10
Volvo / Mack OAR-2007-0121-0336 and 

0348 (dup) 

Warner Petroleum Corporation OAR-2007-0121-0251 

Wisconsin Commercial Ports Association OAR-2007-0121-0368 

Worksafe, Inc. OAR-2007-0121-0369 

World Shipping Council WSC OAR-2007-0121-0227 and 

0325 

Young, Don, Representative, United States 

Congress (AK) OAR-2007-0121-0382 

General comments from unaffiliated individuals 

OAR-2007-0121-0224, 

0226, 0227, 0232, 0257, 

0370 (dup of 0257), 0339, 

0380, and 0381 

We also received comments after the close of the comment period. These comments are 

also included in the docket and discussed in this document. 

List of Late Commenters 

Commenter Date Subject Docket ID Number

Samuel (no surname) October 17, 2009 Fuel standards OAR-2007-0121-0397 

Ryan (no surname) October 23, 2009 Coordinated 

strategy 

OAR-2007-0121-0396 

K. Bernhard-Ihde October 26, 2009 Great Lakes OAR-2007-0121-0398 

Senator Murkowski on 

behalf of Totem Ocean 

Trailer Express 

November 10, 2009 Coordinated 

strategy 

Governor of Hawaii November 25, 2009 Coordinated 

strategy 

OAR-2007-0121-0400 

Canadian Shipowners’ 

Association 

November 30, 2009 Addendum to 

earlier comments 

Robynn Andracsek on 

behalf of the SS. Jeremiah 

O’Brien 

December 11, 2009 

11
List of Acronyms

μm Micrometers 

bext Light-Extinction Coefficient 

μg Microgram 

μg/m3 Microgram per Cubic Meter 

ABT Average Banking and Trading 

ACS American Cancer Society 

AE Alaska Southeast Region 

AE Auxiliary Engine 

AEO Annual Energy Outlook (an EIA publication) 

AESS Automatic Engine Stop/Start System 

AFC Average Daily Fuel Consumption 

AIM Aerosol Inorganics Model 

AIRS Aerometric Information Retrieval System 

AMVER Automated Mutual-Assistance Vessel Rescue 

APHEA Air Pollution and Health: A European Approach 

APU Auxiliary Power Unit 

AQ Air Quality 

AQCD Air Quality Criteria Document 

AQMTSD Air Quality Modeling Technical Support Document 

ARB Air Resources Board (California) 

ASPEN Assessment System for Population Exposure Nationwide 

ATAC Average Total Cost 

avg Average 

AW Alaska West Region 

BAF Bunker Adjustment Factor; a surcharge reflecting the fluctuation in fuel cost 

BenMAP Benefits Mapping and Analysis Program 

bhp Brake Horsepower 

BNSF Burlington Northern Santa Fe 

BSFC Brake Specific Fuel Consumption 

BTS Bureau of Transportation 

C Celsius 

C1 Category 1 (marine diesel engines with capacity of 7 liters per cylinder or less; used to power 

vessels such as tugboats, fishing vessels, and other commercial vessels in and around U.S. ports, 

or as stand-alone generators for auxiliary electrical power on many types of vessels) 

C2 Category 2 (marine diesel engines with an engine capacity over 7 liters per cylinder but less than 

30 liters per cylinder; used to power vessels such as tugboats, fishing vessels, and other 

commercial vessels in and around U.S. ports, or as stand-alone generators for auxiliary electrical 

power on many types of vessels) 

C3 Category 3 (marine diesel engines with per-cylinder displacement at or above 30 liters; very large 

marine diesel engines used on ships such as container ships, oil tankers, and cruise ships); also 

called “ocean-going vessels” 

CA California 

CAA Clean Air Act 

CAIR Clean Air Interstate Rule (CAIR) (70 FR 25162, May 12, 2005) 

CAMR Clean Air Mercury Rule 

CAND Clean Air Nonroad Diesel rule (69 FR 38957, June 29, 2004) 

CARB California Air Resources Board 

CASAC Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee 

CAVR Clean Air Visibility Rule 

CB Chronic Bronchitis 

CCV Closed Crankcase Ventilation 

CDC Centers for Disease Control 

CDPF Catalyzed Diesel Particulate Filter 

CEA Cost Effective Analysis 

12
CES Constant Elasticity of Substitution 

CFR Code of Federal Regulations 

CI Compression Ignition (i.e., diesel engines) 

CI Confidence Interval 

CIMT Carotid Intima-Media Thickness 

CITT Chemical Industry Institute of Toxicology 

CMAQ Community Multiscale Air Quality 

CMB Chemical Mass Balance 

CMV Commercial Marine Vessel 

CO Carbon Monoxide 

CO2 Carbon Dioxide 

COI Cost of Illness 

COPD Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease 

CPI-U Consumer Price Index - All Urban Consumers 

C-R Concentration Response 

CSS Coastal Sage Scrub 

CUA Cost Utility Analysis 

cyl Cylinder 

D Demand 

DE Diesel Exhaust 

DEM Domestic Engine Manufacturer 

DDHS Diesel Driven Heating System 

diff Difference 

disp Displacement 

DM Distillate Marine Grade 

DOC Diesel Oxidation Catalyst 

DOE Department of Energy 

DOT Department of Transportation 

DPF Diesel Particulate Filter 

DPM Diesel Particulate Matter 

DR Discount Rate 

DRIA Draft Regulatory Impact Analysis 

DSP Deep Sea Port 

DV Design Values 

DWT Dead Weight Tonnage 

EAC Early Action Component 

EC East Coast Region 

EC Elemental Carbon 

ECA Emission Control Area 

EDHS Electric Driven Heating System 

EEZ Exclusive Economic Zone 

EF Emission Factor 

EGR Exhaust Gas Recirculation 

EIA Energy Information Administration (part of the U.S. Department of Energy) 

EIA Economic Impact Analysis 

EIM Economic Impact Model 

EMD Electromotive Diesel 

EMS-HAP Emissions Modeling System for Hazardous Air Pollution 

EO Executive Order 

EPA Environmental Protection Agency 

EPAct Energy Policy Act of 2005 

ESPN EPA speciation network 

F Fahrenheit 

FEM Foreign Engine Manufacturer 

FEV Functional Expiratory Volume 

FR Federal Register 

FRM Final Rulemaking 

FRP Fiberglass-Reinforced Plastic 

13
g Gram 

g/bhp-hr Grams per Brake Horsepower Hour 

g/kW-hr Grams per Kilowatt Hour 

gal Gallon 

GAO Government Accountability Office 

GC Gulf Coast Region 

GDP Gross Domestic Product 

GEOS Goddard Earth Observing System 

GETS General Electric Transportation Systems 

GI Global Insight 

GIS Geographic Information System 

GL Great Lakes Region 

GRT Gross Registered Tonnage 

GT Gas Turbine 

H2 Hydrogen Gas 

HAD Diesel Health Assessment Document 

HAP Hazardous Air Pollutant 

HC Hydrocarbon 

HD Heavy-Duty 

HE Hawaii East Region 

HEI Health Effects Institute 

HEP Head End Power 

HES Health Effects Subcommittee 

HFO Heavy Fuel Oil 

hp Horsepower 

hp-hrs Horsepower Hours 

hrs Hours 

HW Hawaii West Region 

IACS International Association of Classification Societies 

IARC International Agency for Research on Cancer 

ICD International Classification of Diseases 

ICOADS International Comprehensive Ocean-Atmospheric Data Set 

IFO Intermediate Fuel Oil 

IMO International Maritime Organization 

IMPROVE Interagency Monitoring of Protected Visual Environments 

IRIS Integrated Risk Information System 

ISCST3 Industrial Source Complex Short Term Model 

ISO International Standardization Organization 

ISORROPIA Inorganic Aerosol Thermodynamic Model 

ITB Integrated Tug Barge 

JAMA Journal of the American Medical Association 

K Kelvin 

k Thousand 

km Kilometer 

kts Knots 

kW Kilowatt 

kWH Kilowatt Hour 

L Liter 

L/cyl Liters Per Cylinder 

lb Pound 

LCO Light Cycle Oil 

LF Load Factor 

LGC Large Gas Carrier 

LNG Liquefied Natural Gas 

LPG Liquefied Petroleum Gas 

LRS Lower Respiratory Symptoms 

LSD Low Sulfur Diesel fuel 

m3 Cubic Meters 

14
MARAD U.S. Maritime Administration 

MARPOL The International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution of Ships 

MC Marginal Cost 

MCIP Meteorology-Chemistry Interface Processor 

MDO Marine Diesel Oil 

ME Main Engine 

MECA Manufacturers of Emission Controls Association 

mg Milligram 

MGO Marine Gas Oil 

MDO Marine Diesel Oil 

MI Myocardial Infarction 

MILY Morbidity Inclusive Life Years 

min Minute 

MM Million 

MM-1 Inverse Megameter 

MOBILE6 Vehicle Emission Modeling Software 

MRAD Minor Restricted Activity Days 

MSAT Mobile Source Air Toxic 

MSAT1 2001 Mobile Source Air Toxics Rule 

MSB Major Shipbuilding Base 

MSD Medium Speed Diesel 

MSDS Material Safety Data Sheet 

MVUS Merchant Vessels of the U. S. 

MW Megawatt 

MW-hrs Megawatt Hours 

N Nitrogen 

N2 Nitrogen Molecule 

NA Not Applicable 

NAAQS National Ambient Air Quality Standards 

NAICS North American Industry Classification System 

NAS National Academy of Sciences 

NASA National Aeronautics and Space Administration 

NASSCO National Steel and Shipbuilding Company 

NATA National Air Toxic Assessment 

NBER National Bureau of Economic Research 

NCAR National Center for Atmospheric Research 

NCDC National Clean Diesel Campaign 

NCI National Cancer Institute 

NCLAN National Crop Loss Assessment Network 

NEI National Emissions Inventory 

NESCAUM Northeast States for Coordinated Air Use Management 

NESHAP National Emissions Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants 

NH3 Ammonia 

NIOSH National Institute of Occupational Safety and Health 

NLEV National Low Emission Vehicle 

NM Nautical Mile 

NMHC Nonmethane Hydrocarbons 

NMIM National Mobile Inventory Model (EPA software tool) 

NMIM2005 National Mobile Inventory Model Released in 2005 

NMMA National Marine Manufacturers Association 

NMMAPS National Morbidity, Mortality, and Air Pollution Study 

NO Nitrogen Oxide 

NO2 Nitrogen Dioxide 

NOAA National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 

NONROAD EPA’s Non-road Engine Emission Model 

NONROAD2005 EPA’s Non-road Engine Emission Model Released in 2005 

NOx Oxides of Nitrogen 

NP North Pacific Region 

15
NPRM Notice of Proposed Rulemaking 

NPV Net Present Value 

NRC National Research Council 

NRLM Nonroad, Locomotive and Marine diesel fuel 

NRT Net Registered Tonnage 

NRT4 Nonroad Tier 4 Rule 

NSTC National Science and Technology Council 

NTE Not To Exceed 

NWN National Waterway Network 

O&M Operating and maintenance 

O3 Ozone 

OAQPS Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards 

OC Organic Carbon 

oCA Degree Crank Angle 

OEHHA Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment 

OEM Original Equipment Manufacturer 

OGV Ocean-Going Vessel 

OMB Office of Management and Budget 

OTAQ Office of Transportation and Air Quality 

P Price 

PAH Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons 

PCB Polychlorinated Biphenyls 

PGM Platinum Metals Group 

PM Particulate Matter 

PM AQCD EPA Particulate Matter Air Quality Criteria Document 

PM/NMHC Particulate Matter to Non-Methane Hydrocarbon Ratio 

PM10 Coarse Particulate Matter (diameter of 10 μm or less) 

PM2.5 Fine Particulate Matter (diameter of 2.5 μm or less) 

PMM Post-Manufacturer Marinizer 

PMNAAQS Particulate Matter National Ambient Air Quality Standards 

POM Polycyclic Organic Matter 

POLA/LB Ports of Los Angeles, Long Beach 

ppb Parts per Billion 

PPI Producer Price Index 

ppm Parts per Million 

psi Pounds per Square Inch 

PSR Power Systems Research 

Q Quantity 

QALY Quality Adjusted Life Years 

R&D Research and Development 

RfC Reference Concentration 

RFA Regulatory Flexibility Analysis 

RFS Renewable Fuels Standard 

RIA Regulatory Impact Analysis 

RM Residual Marine 

rpm Revolutions per Minute 

RPO Regional Planning Organization 

RRF Relative Reduction Factors 

RSZ Reduced Speed Zone 

RV Revision 

RVP Reid Vapor Pressure 

S Sulfur 

S Supply 

SAB Science Advisory Board 

SAB-HES Science Advisory Board - Health Effects Subcommittee 

SAE Society of Automotive Engineers 

SAPS Sulfated-Ash, Phosphorus, and Sulfur Content 

SBA Small Business Administration 

16
17

SBREFA Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act 

SCC Source Classification Code 

SCR Selective Catalyst Reduction 

SFC Specific Fuel Consumption 

SI Spark Ignition 

SIC Standard Industrial Classification 

SiC Silicon Carbide 

SMAT Speciated Modeled Attainment Test 

SO2 Sulfur Dioxide 

SOx Oxides of Sulfur 

SOA Secondary Organic Carbon Aerosols 

SOF Soluble Organic Fraction 

SP South Pacific Region 

SSD Slow Speed Diesel 

ST Steam Turbine 

STB Surface Transportation Board 

STEEM Waterway Network Ship Traffic, Energy and Environment Model 

SVOC Semi-Volatile Organic Compound 

SwRI Southwest Research Institute 

TBN Total Base Number 

TCC Total Compliance Cost 

TCM Total Carbon Mass 

TDC Top Dead Center 

TEU Twenty-foot Equivalent Unit; basic container measurement used in the shipping industry 

THC Total Hydrocarbon 

TSD Technical Support Document 

TVCC Total Variable Compliance Cost 

ULCC Ultra Large Crude Carrier 

ULSD Ultra Low Sulfur Diesel fuel 

URS Upper Respiratory Symptoms 

USACE United States Army Corps of Engineers 

USDA United States Department of Agriculture 

UV Ultraviolet 

UV-b Ultraviolet-b 

VLCC Very Large Crude Carrier 

VLGC Very Large Gas Carrier 

VOC Volatile Organic Compound 

VOF Volatile Organic Fraction 

VOS Voluntary Observing Ships 

VSL Value of Statistical Life 

WLD Work Loss Days 

WTP Willingness-to-Pay 

$2006 U.S. Dollars in calendar year 2006 
This Page Intentionally Left Blank 

2 
CHAPTER 1: Need for Emission Controls; Form of Controls 

What We Proposed:

The comments in this section generally correspond to Sections I, II and VIII of the 

preamble to the proposed rule, where we describe the need for controls from ships, the various 

legal authorities under which we are taking action, and the air quality and health impacts of the 

proposed rule. Some comments discussed below also correspond to Sections X and XI of the 

preamble, where we describe administrative aspects of this rulemaking process. The Regulatory 

Impact Analysis (RIA) describes the health and air quality benefits in Chapters 2 and 6. 

1.1 Public Health Need for a Domestic Emission Control Program for 

Category 3 Marine Diesel Engines 

1.1.1 Emissions from Category 3 marine diesel engines pose a serious health threat. 

What Commenters Said:

NACAA commented that emissions from C3 marine engines lead to adverse health 

impacts and that an array of studies confirms that exposure to these pollutants can increase 

mortality, cancer risk and respiratory illnesses, and substantially raise healthcare costs. 

ALA/EDF commented that the pollutants addressed in this rule are associated with 

significant health problems, including premature mortality, aggravation of respiratory and 

cardiovascular disease, changes in lung function and increased respiratory symptoms, chronic 

bronchitis, altered respiratory defense mechanisms, altered lung development, adverse 

reproductive outcomes, and altered fetal development. 

ALA commented at the hearing that “the emissions from these pollutants cause coughing 

and wheezing, triggering asthma attacks, heart attacks and strokes, cause cancer and can kill. 

Breathing these pollutants increases the likelihood that someone will have to rush to the 

emergency room or enter the hospital. Children who grow up breathing these pollutants may face 

an increased life-long risk of lung disease because of the impact on the growth of their lung 

function. People who breathe these pollutants may also face higher risk of lung infections, 

including influenza. People that are most at risk include children and teens, older adults, and 

people with chronic lung disease such as asthma and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, also 

called COPD, people with cardiovascular disease and diabetes. In addition, people who work or 

exercise outdoors also face higher risk.” In addition ALA testified that “Pollution from these 

vessels can trigger heart attacks and strokes and can even shorten life. As a thirty year volunteer 

with the lung association, I have seen firsthand the impact of air pollution on people with lung 

disease. I know that pollution can make healthy people cough and wheeze, and send people with 

asthma or chronic pulmonary obstructive disease to the hospital.” ALA also commented that 

“...nitrogen dioxide is dangerous. Science tells us that this noxious gas makes people cough and 

wheeze and inflames the lung tissue. Nitrogen dioxide triggers asthma attacks and increases the 

likelihood that asthma suffers will have to rush to the emergency department or be admitted to 

1 
the hospital. I highlighted that millions of people face higher risk of health problems from having 

to breathe dangerous levels of nitrogen dioxide.” 

FOE commented that “NOX is a precursor in the photochemical reaction that causes 

ground-level ozone or smog. Smog causes harmful respiratory effects including chest pain, 

coughing, shortness of breath, exacerbation of asthma, decreased lung function, inflammation of 

the lung tissue, permanent lung damage, aggravation of existing respiratory diseases, and may 

impair the body’s immune system defenses. 68 Fed. Reg. at 9751. Exposure to smog leads to 

increased hospital admissions and emergency room visits and increases the use of medications. 

Id. Children, outdoor workers, and people with compromised respiratory systems are most 

severely impacted by these health effects. Id. Recent studies have also linked ozone exposure to 

increased cardiopulmonary mortality, especially when combined with exposure to PM. 72 Fed. 

Reg. at 69532.” 

FOE also commented that secondary and directly-emitted PM from marine diesel engines 

are of particular concern to public health. “Recent studies have shown that exposure to fine 

particles, such as those emitted by Category 3 marine diesel engines, have been associated with 

mortality from cardiopulmonary diseases and lung cancer, and with effects on the respiratory 

system, such as decreased lung function and the development of chronic respiratory disease. 71 

Fed. Reg. 61144, 61152-54 (October 17, 2006) (EPA’s recent revision to the national ambient air 

quality standards for PM). Exposure to fine PM can also lead to increased asthma, coughing, 

wheezing, and difficulty breathing, increased allergenicity, and premature death. 68 Fed. Reg. at 

9752.”

Stephen Crane of the American Thoracic Society commented that exposure to NOX is bad 

for your health and that studies have linked NOX exposure with worsening asthma, reduced lung 

function and increased ER visits. He commented that PM also has been associated with a broad 

range of health effects, both respiratory and cardiovascular, and that research has linked 

exposure to PM with premature mortality. In addition, he provided two recent editorials that 

summarize key findings on health effects of NOX and PM pollution. 

SCAQMD commented that marine vessels significantly contribute to health impacts. 

The City of New York commented that even modest reductions in PM2.5 levels would 

have substantial public health benefits for New York City. 

CATF commented that diesel emissions endanger public health and must be substantially 

reduced. 

Ryan Wiggins of the Communities for Clean Ports commented that numerous studies 

have confirmed the significant negative effects of diesel PM on public health. 

Ricardo Pulido with the Coalition for a Safe Environment submitted an appendix listing 

references to 158 studies about health impacts, PM and traffic. 

Many commenters (listed below) said that they themselves, their families and people in 

their communities are suffering from serious health problems caused or exacerbated by air 

pollution coming from ships.

2 
 Commenters: 

Alyssa Trujillo (0232) 

Elena Rodriguez with Alliance for Citizens of Long Beach (0232) 

Yolanda Chavez (0232) 

Maria Lopez (0232) 

Teresa Trujillo (0232) 

Concepcion Garcia with Long Beach Alliance for Children with Asthma (0232) 

Maria Alcazar (0232) 

Sandra Johnson with Long Beach Alliance for Children’s Asthma (0232) 

Martha Cota (0232) 

Juan Garibay with Coalition for a Safe Environment (0232) 

Sofia Carillo with Coalition for a Safe Environment (0232) 

Jesse Marquez with Coalition for a Safe Environment (0232) 

Our Response: 

We agree with the commenters that emissions from marine vessels generate significant 

emissions of fine particulate matter (PM2.5), sulfur oxides (SOX) and oxides of nitrogen (NOX). 

NOX is a key precursor to ozone and secondary PM formation. Ozone and PM2.5 are associated 

with serious public health problems including premature mortality, aggravation of respiratory 

and cardiovascular disease, aggravation of existing asthma, acute respiratory symptoms, chronic 

bronchitis, and decreased lung function. In addition, these emissions contribute to nonattainment 

of the National Ambient Air Quality Standards for PM2.5 and ozone and to deposition of 

nitrogen, sulfur and PM, visibility degradation and impacts on vegetation due to ozone. 

1.1.2 Diesel Exhaust Emissions pose a serious health threat 

What Commenters Said:

The Ohio Environmental Council commented that diesel emissions endanger public 

health and must be substantially reduced. They go on to note that diesel emissions contain over 

40 different toxics and these compounds are known or suspected human or animal carcinogens, 

or have serious non-cancer effects. 

Friends of the Earth commented that diesel exhaust is toxic and carcinogenic and that 

exposure to diesel exhaust can cause increased risk of lung cancer, adverse pulmonary effects, 

and allergenic effects such as those associated with asthma or immunologic effects. They also 

commented that marine diesel engines produce other air toxics, such as benzene, 1,3-butadiene, 

formaldehyde, acetaldehyde, acrolein, polycyclic organic matter, and naphthalene, exposure to 

which can cause or contribute to cancer and non-cancer health effects. 

ALA/EDF commented that because diesel air pollution is a complex mixture of 

chemicals, exposure to diesel air pollution is associated with a wide range of non-cancer health 

effects, including pulmonary disease, cardiovascular effects, neurotoxicity, low birth weight in 

infants, premature births, congenital abnormalities, and elevated infant mortality rates. They also 

commented that diesel exhaust contains more than 40 toxic chemicals and that since diesel 

exhaust is a highly complex and variable mixture containing numerous carcinogenic compounds, 

it is difficult to quantify the cumulative health effects. Therefore it is very likely that significant 

3 
health benefits will accrue with reduced diesel emissions beyond what is measurable in any 

current regulatory efforts. 

CATF commented that diesel exhaust is highly toxic. “Dozens of toxic air contaminants 

are found in diesel exhaust, including a variety of highly toxic carbon-core particulate and gas 

phase organic carbon compounds such as benzene, formaldehyde, acetaldehyde, 1,3-butadiene, 

acrolein and polyaromatic hydrocarbons. These compounds are known or suspected human or 

animal carcinogens, or have serious non-cancer health effects. Of particular concern in diesel 

exhaust are a broad array of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAH) which are emitted as gases 

and also are adsorbed onto the surface of diesel exhaust particles where they may be carried deep 

into the lung and bloodstream. Medical studies suggest PAH compounds are genotoxic and form 

DNA adducts that have been associated with increased risk of a variety of cancers, including 

lung, prostate, and breast. 

 Commenters: 

ALA/EDF 

CATF 

Friends of the Earth 

Ohio Environmental Council et al 

Our Response: 

We agree that diesel exhaust from diesel engines is a serious public health concern and 

that there are public health benefits from the final rule as described in Chapter 2 of the RIA. The 

final rule will reduce harmful emissions and protect sensitive groups such as outdoor workers, 

children, asthmatics and those with existing heart and lung disease, as well as those in close 

proximity to marine ports. 

1.1.3 Cancer Risk Associated with Diesel Exhaust Emissions 

What Commenters Said:

David Marshall, of the Clean Air Task Force, commented upon the fact that a number of 

domestic and international organizations, including The National Institute for Occupational 

Safety and Health, International Agency for Research on Cancer, Health Effects Institute, World 

Health Organization, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services National Toxicology 

Program, and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, have all determined that diesel exhaust 

is a probable or likely human carcinogen—that is, it is likely to cause lung cancer. The 

commenter also noted that studies conducted by California as well as the South Coast Air 

Quality Management District have estimated that the average cancer risk from diesel particulate 

matter is about 70% of the cancer risk from all air toxics. According to the commenter, in New 

York County, 96% of the air cancer risk is due to mobile sources. Specifically, diesel emissions 

are the hazardous air pollutant with the highest contribution to cancer risk—by more than an 

order of magnitude. 

CATF and FOE mention in their comments that California has done work looking at 

impacts on people living near large diesel emission sources like ports. They refer to a CARB 

4 
study that indicates that port emissions result in elevated cancer risk within the entire 20 mile by 

20 mile study area. 

The SCAQMD commented that average cancer risks due to air pollution exceed 1,200 in 

a million, with higher risks near transportation facilities like ports. 

The ALA and EDF commented that diesel air pollution adds to cancer risk all around the 

country. Specifically, in Seattle diesel soot accounts for between 70 and 85% of the total cancer 

risk from air toxics, and in the south coast air basin diesel exhaust contributes about 84% of the 

cancer risk from air toxics. ALA/EDF also commented that “The Agency’s failure to quantify a 

unit cancer risk for diesel exhaust is inconsistent with the extensive body of science in fact 

demonstrating such a risk. EPA must promptly move forward and quantify the number of cancer 

cases associated with the exposure to diesel exhaust, as this is imperative to better assess the full 

health effects of diesel emissions, as well as the benefits of reducing these emissions. This 

analysis should account for the advances in diesel engines and the impact of these advanced 

technologies in reducing or altering cncer risk. Finally, the fact there is uncertainty involved in 

quantifying the dose response relationship does not in any way mean that a rigorous and 

quantified cancer risk analyses cannot be produced while accounting appropriately for 

uncertainties”. 

NRDC commented that Long Beach is in the “diesel death zone” and cited the AQMD 

MATES III report which includes information on cancer risk from air toxics. 

 Commenters: 

American Lung Association 

Clean Air Task Force 

Environmental Defense Fund 

Natural Resources Defense Council 

Ohio Environmental Council and others 

South Coast Air Quality Management District 

Our Response: 

We agree that exposure to diesel exhaust has been classified by EPA as being likely 

carcinogenic to humans, and our Assessment Document for Diesel Engine Exhaust (Diesel 

HAD) provides substantial evidence to support this claim.1

 We have reviewed the documents 

cited that provide a numerical estimate of cancer risk attributable to exposure to diesel exhaust. 

The Agency does not believe that at this time the data support a confident determination of a unit 

risk for diesel exhaust and therefore the cancer-related mortality or morbidity associated with 

diesel exhaust exposure cannot be determined quantitatively. However, the Agency has 

determined that the carcinogenic risk from diesel exhaust may be as high as 10-3 to 10-5 but a 

zero risk cannot be ruled out. The basis for these determinations is provided in Chapters 8 and 9 

of the Diesel HAD. 

 

1

 U.S. EPA. Health Assessment Document for Diesel Engine Exhaust. EPA/600/8-90/057F. 

http://www.epa.gov/ncea. 

5 
We also agree that diesel exhaust from diesel engines is a serious public health concern 

and that there are public health benefits from the final rule as described in Chapter 2 of the RIA. 

The final rule will reduce harmful emissions and protect sensitive groups such as outdoor 

workers, children, asthmatics and those with existing heart and lung disease, as well as those in 

close proximity to marine ports. 

1.1.4 Health Effects and Need for Reduction of Emissions Locally 

What Commenters Said:

ALA commented that “Houston has some of the dirtiest air in the country. People living 

there face that fact day after day. They have heard for years about the enormous health 

consequences of the ozone smog from notorious traffic, the petrochemical industry and the 

vessels in the ship channel.” 

ALA also commented that “Cruise ships, container ships, tankers and other oceangoing 

vessels release tons of diesel exhaust pollution into the atmosphere, the air we breathe. These 

ships dock at over one hundred ports along our coastline and along navigable waterways far 

inland. Here in New York we have shipping traffic that goes to the ports in Brooklyn and Staten 

Island, as well to Manhattan, as well as to the Port of Newark/Elizabeth-Port Authority Marine 

Terminal in New Jersey.” 

ALA also commented that “The EPA's own proposal noted that 36 million people live 

near highways, railroads or ports where they breathe air that is consistently more polluted than in 

other parts of the country.” 

Many citizens (see list below as well as other comments summarized in this section) 

commented at the hearings that their communities are being negatively impacted by the Ports of 

Long Beach and Los Angeles. These citizens described their experiences with health impacts 

including asthma, nose bleeds, heart disease, lung cancer and others. The citizens implored EPA 

to finalize this rule and help reduce harmful emissions from ships. Several of the citizens urged 

EPA to make the rule even more stringent. See Section 3.2 of the S&A for more information on 

the stringency of the standard. 

Juan Garibay of the Coalition for a Safe Environment supports the rule and commented 

that air pollution in environmental justice harbor communities has been increasing for 30 years 

and the communities are facing a public health crisis due to international shipping and trade. 

Ricardo Pulido with the Coalition for a Safe Environment submitted an appendix with 

references to 158 studies about health impacts, PM and traffic. 

David Pettit from NRDC commented that although the hearing was held in a nice hotel 

room, when you walk outside in Long Beach you enter the “diesel death zone”. 

 Commenters: 

Alyssa Trujillo (0232) 

Elena Rodriguez with Alliance for Citizens of Long Beach (0232) 

Ms. Chavez (0232) 

6 
Maria Lopez (0232) 

Teresa Trujillo (0232) 

Concepcion Garcia with Long Beach Alliance for Children with Asthma (0232) 

Maria Alcazar (0232) 

Sandra Johnson with Long Beach Alliance for Children’s Asthma (0232) 

Martha Cota (0232) 

Juan Garibay with Coalition for a Safe Environment (0232) 

Sofia Carillo with Coalition for a Safe Environment (0232) 

Ricardo Pulido with Coalition for a Safe Environment (0232) 

Jesse Marquez with Coalition for a Safe Environment (0232) 

Ryan Wiggins with Communities for Clean Ports (0232) 

Christopher Patton with Port of Los Angeles (0232) 

Martin Schlageter with the Coalition for Clean Air (0232) 

NRDC (0232) 

Our Response: 

We agree with the commenters that the emissions from C3 marine vessels can cause 

serious health effects. The requirements in this rule will result in substantial benefits to public 

health and welfare through significant reductions in NOX, SOX and diesel PM. Diesel exhaust is 

of specific concern because it has been judged to likely pose a lung cancer hazard for humans as 

well as a hazard from noncancer respiratory effects. A discussion of the health effects associated 

with pollutants being reduced in this final rule can be found in Chapter 2 of the RIA or Section II 

of the preamble. 

1.1.5 Environmental Justice 

What Commenters Said:

FOE commented that “While the impacts from marine diesel emissions can affect all 

people, those facing the challenges of poverty, poor access to medical care, very low rates of 

insurance coverage, and virtual exclusion from public policy decisions that most impact them, 

are most likely to live and work near pollution sources such as ports, transportation corridors, 

freeways, and industrial centers. Environmental justice communities often suffer from 

disproportionately high cancer, disease, and death rates as they are exposed to the highest levels 

of carcinogenic, toxic, and hazardous chemicals. Without a drastic and immediate reduction in 

the emissions coming from Category 3 marine engines, millions of people will continue to be 

exposed to ever-increasing amounts of deadly air pollution and many thousands will continue to 

die.” 

ALA/EDF commented that “Communities adjacent to ports, identified in the American 

Association of Port Authorities map of U.S. Ports, copied below, are likely to be severely 

impacted by OGV air emissions. As EPA explains in the NPRM, recent studies show that 

populations living near large diesel emission sources such as major roadways, rail yards, and 

marine ports are likely to experience greater diesel exhaust exposure levels than the overall U.S. 

population, putting them at greater health risks. But toxic diesel emissions from OGV not only 

impact local air quality; the emissions also impact air quality along coastlines adjacent to 

shipping lanes”. 

7 
NACAA commented that in many neighborhoods adjacent to marine ports, which are 

environmental justice communities, the health risks from exposure to diesel exhaust greatly 

exceed levels considered acceptable. 

The CATF commented that toxic diesel emissions pose a great danger to human health, 

especially in urban areas where diesel engines and emissions are concentrated in populated 

neighborhoods. 

Mr. R. Kassel, of the National Resources Defense Council, testified at the New York 

hearing that it's hard to find a better deal in the public health world than $30 worth of benefits for 

every dollar spent [referring to the benefit-cost comparison associated with implementing the 

coordinated strategy]. He continued by stating that with the nation engaging in critical debate on 

rising health care costs and concerns about an aging population, achieving these health impacts 

at such minimal cost is a critically urgent need. He viewed this proposal not just as important for 

the nation but also for low income communities of color that typically border many port 

communities. He urged EPA representatives to walk around the residential neighborhoods close 

to the port terminals of Newark, Elizabeth and Staten Island where you can clearly see that 

communities in those areas bear the brunt of port emissions. 

Alyssa Trujillo, testifying at the Long Beach hearing, stated that Wilmington, Long 

Beach and parts of San Pedro had been suffering from what she defined as an environmental 

inequality, or, in her words, “environmental racism.” She believed that if these communities 

8 
were affluent and well-to-do, they wouldn't have had a problem bringing this issue to the 

forefront. 

Our Response: 

EPA agrees that environmental justice is an important issue. EPA determined that this 

rule does not have a disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental impact 

on minority or low-income populations. Information on how EPA has appropriately addressed 

these items can be found in Section XII of the Preamble. 

EPA recently updated a screening analysis of selected marine port areas to begin to 

understand the populations living near marine ports. Of the 45 marine ports studied, the results 

indicate that at least 18 million people, including a disproportionate number of low-income 

households, African-Americans, and Hispanics, live in the vicinity of these facilities and are 

being exposed to annual average ambient DPM levels that are 2.0 μg/m3

 and 0.2 μg/m3 above 

levels found in areas further from these facilities. Considering only ocean-going marine engine 

DPM emissions, the results indicate that 6.5 million people are exposed to annual average 

ambient DPM levels that are 2.0 μg/m3

 and 0.2 μg/m3 above levels found in areas further from 

these facilities. Because those populations exposed to DPM emissions from marine ports are 

more likely to be low-income and minority residents, these populations will benefit from the 

coordinated strategy. 

With regard to children, this analysis shows that at least four million children live in the 

vicinity of the marine ports studied and are also exposed to annual average ambient DPM levels 

that are 2.0 μg/m3

 and 0.2 μg/m3 above levels found in areas further from these facilities. Of the 

6.5 million people exposed to DPM emissions from ocean-going vessel emissions, 1.7 million 

are children. The age composition of the total affected population in the screening analysis 

matches closely with the age composition of the overall U.S. population. However, for some 

individual facilities, the young (0-4 years) appear to be over-represented in the affected 

population compared to the overall U.S. population. See section VIII of the preamble to the final 

rule and Chapters 2 and 5 of the RIA for a discussion on the air quality and monetized health 

benefits of this rule, including the benefits to children’s health. 

The emission reductions from the coordinated strategy will have large beneficial effects 

on communities in proximity to port, harbor, and waterway locations, including children, lowincome, and minority communities. 

1.1.6 Benefits Associated with Reducing Nickel 

What Commenters Said:

Carter Strickland, Jr. commented on behalf of the City of New York that the proposed 

rule understated the adverse public health effects from the use of residual fuel in ships since 

residual oil contains more heavy metals then other fuels when adjusted for energy content. He 

noted that the application of low sulfur fuel should have the significant added benefit of reducing 

nickel and other heavy metals and EPA should continue to monitor fuel content and ambient air 

to ensure that heavy metals are reduced with sulfur and to undertake additional rulemakings if 

necessary. 

9 
Our Response: 

We agree that the coordinated strategy will have additional health benefits beyond those 

that can currently be quantified and that heavy metals are important. As noted in Section 2.3.2 of 

the RIA, shipping emissions of PM2.5 do contain small amounts of metals including nickel. The 

summary of the health effects evidence related to PM2.5 exposures presented in the proposed rule 

is based on the 2004 PM Air Quality Criteria Document (AQCD, EPA document number: 

EPA/600/P-99/002aF). We are currently working to update the assessment and integrative 

synthesis of the scientific evidence for PM. EPA’s National Center for Environmental 

Assessment (NCEA) issued a second external review of the Integrated Science Assessment for 

Particulate Matter in July 2009 for review by the Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee 

(CASAC) and public comment (ISA, EPA document number: EPA/600/R-08/139B). This 

document includes consideration of the Bell et al. 2009 article titled “Hospital Admissions and 

Chemical Composition of Fine Particle Air Pollution” that Mr. Carter cites. The second draft 

PM ISA states that “Overall, the results indicated that many constituents of PM can be linked 

with differing health effects and the evidence is not yet sufficient to allow differentiation of those 

constituents or sources that are more closely related to specific health outcomes. These findings 

are consistent with the conclusions of the 2004 PM AQCD, that a number of source types, 

including motor vehicle emissions, coal combustion, oil burning, and vegetative burning, are 

associated with health effects” (ISA, section 2.4.4). The Integrated Science Assessment for 

Particulate Matter will be finalized in December 2009. 

The measurement of ambient air pollution in the U.S. is provided through a number of 

ambient air monitoring networks operated almost exclusively by State, local, and Tribal air 

monitoring programs. This includes measurement of PM2.5 components, including nickel and 

other metals at Chemical Speciation Network sites. In addition, the Agency is monitoring for 

nickel through the National Air Toxics Trends Stations and the Urban Air Toxics Monitoring 

Program. Data collected from this monitoring is assessed to detect trends and has been used in 

health studies.

For information on fuel quality please see Section 4.3.2 of this Summary and Analysis of 

Comments document. 

1.2 Form of Emission Controls 

What Commenters Said:

The American Lung Association, LBACA, NACAA, and CATF expressed support for 

EPA to adopt emission standards for Category 3 marine diesel engines even in the absence of 

international standards. 

PMSA, the World Shipping Council, and Matson Navigation suggested that EPA should 

adopt the Annex VI regulator provisions with as little modification as possible, both to minimize 

the potential for disrupting global maritime activities and to acknowledge that EPA was part of 

the process for adopting the Annex VI standards originally. 

The Chamber of Shipping of America emphasized that marine vessel regulation should 

be entirely governed by the International Maritime Organization. They expressed hope that 

finalization of this rule will ensure that its requirements are applied consistently throughout the 

10 
United States and represent the sole strong national program so badly needed to avoid multiple 

and potentially conflicting air emissions control programs that apply uniquely at the state or 

regional level. 

EMA supported the proposed adoption of the Annex VI standards as an important step to 

control emissions in the context of an internationally harmonized requirement. EMA added 

several specific concerns, which we address elsewhere in this document. 

Euromot supported adoption of the Annex VI requirements, but urged us to avoid making 

any substantial modifications, either in the technical content or the administrative proceedings. 

Santa Barbara had positive response to EPA's proposed coordinated strategy for oceangoing vessels. While we generally support EPA's proposed standards, we believe that EPA is 

required under Section 213 of the Clean Air Act to consider both stricter standards and shorter 

implementation timelines. In addition, we recommend several principles that should be 

considered as part of this regulatory action. 

NACAA commended EPA for the proposal and reiterated their strong support of decisive 

U.S. regulatory action. NACAA expressed strong support for both the U.S. rules and final 

implementation of an ECA for North America under the IMO process to comprehensively 

control both U.S. and foreign-flag vessels with C3 marine engines. 

Ryan Boles objected to the proposed rule on the basis that it is ridiculous to threaten the 

American people with higher taxes and energy costs, driving up costs, and threatening jobs and 

the economy. In contrast, Samuel Chan expressed a desire to see the U.S. EPA lead the world in 

setting tough environmental protection rules by following what Hong Kong already requires 

regarding sulfur content of marine fuels. 

Several additional commenters expressed a general support for EPA to adopt the Annex 

VI standards, many of which pointed to various aspects of our supporting rationale for pursuing 

these standards. The general expressions of support focused largely on the expected 

environmental benefit or the pursuit of harmonized international standards, or both. 

Our Response: 

EPA was pleased to participate in the MARPOL process that led to the adoption of new 

long-term emission standards for marine diesel engines. These standards are generally consistent 

with the requirements we have already adopted for Category 1 and Category 2 marine diesel 

engines, and with our interest in adopting standards for Category 3 marine diesel engines under 

the Clean Air Act. Our proposal took the approach of codifying the Annex VI standards and 

associated test procedures and certification protocol, with a number of adjustments that were 

needed to comply with various legal and procedural imperatives and constraints that apply in the 

United States. The Annex VI standards resulted from a process in which the International 

Maritime Organization responded favorably to the U.S. white paper proposing stringent and 

appropriate emission standards for the international community. We believe that these standards 

will give the greatest degree of emission control achievable considering compliance costs, lead 

time, and other relevant factors. 

11 
1.3 Issues Related to Rulemaking Process 

What Commenters Said:

Several commenters objected to limiting the public comment period to 30 days and 

requested that we extend the comment period to at least 90 days. Some wanted EPA to extend 

the comment period so EPA will have a complete record it can consider before finalizing the 

standards. Some commenters in Alaska and the Great Lakes region expressed concern that they 

only very recently became aware that the proposed fuel standards would extend to their 

geographic region, and that this action was taken without meaningful consultation with affected 

parties. 

The Lake Carriers Association 

Canadian Shipowners’ Association 

Great Lakes Maritime Task Force 

Bruce Botelho, Mayor, Juneau, AK (0298) 

Mark Begich, U.S. Senator (AK) (0322) 

State Senator Egan (0323) 

Our Response: 

EPA disagrees that additional time is needed for us to have a complete record for this 

rulemaking. First, although the proposed rule was not published in the Federal Register until 

August 2009, commenters in fact had three months to prepare comments on the proposal. The 

proposal became available electronically on July 1, 2009, at which time we also provided direct 

notification to interested parties to ensure that there was a broad awareness that the proposed rule 

was complete and that we would be taking comment on the proposed provisions. Taking this 

pre-publication period into account, prospective commenters had three full months to review the 

proposed rule before the end of the comment period, consistent with the commenters’ request. 

Second, EPA does not believe the scope of the proposal should have been a surprise to 

commenters. The proposed rule was first preceded by an Advance Notice of Proposed 

Rulemaking (ANPRM) announcing EPA’s intent to adopt more stringent emission standards 

consistent with the U.S. position advocating more stringent global and geographic standards for 

these vessels under MARPOL Annex VI. 

 

Given that the standards we are adopting under the Clean Air Act are largely consistent 

with the Annex VI requirements and our ANPRM, and given the opportunity for interested 

persons to view the proposal well before it was published, we believe commenters have had 

sufficient time to review the substance of the proposal and prepare their written comments. This 

is supported by the large number of comments we received on the proposal and the ANPRM 

from a wide range of interested parties. 

To see other comments about application of the standards to Alaskan waters, please see 

section 2.2.2 of this document. To see other comments about application of the standards to the 

Great Lakes, please see Chapter 10 of this document. 

12 
1.4 Other General Comments 

(A) Why isn’t EPA Regulating Auxiliary Boilers to Control Emissions 

During Cargo Loading/unloading? 

What Commenters Said:

 The Coalition for Clean Air (CCA) commented that boilers used to power cranes and 

pumps to unload cargo such as crude oil and containers also emit air pollutants including volatile 

organic compounds and air toxics. CCA suggested that emissions from these boilers could be 

controlled using after-treatment technology, and evaporative emissions of volatile cargo could be 

captured with vapor recovery systems. (written copy of hearing testimony) 

Our Response: 

 Today’s rule primarily addresses the largest (Category 3) propulsion engines on marine 

vessels. The fuel used by most auxiliary boilers (those over 130 kw, the power equivalent of a 

small car engine) on large ships is subject to international air pollution standards, including 

globally-applicable fuel sulfur standards as well as the more stringent fuel sulfur standards 

applicable in Emission Control Areas under MARPOL Annex VI. MARPOL Annex VI also has 

a regulation specifically applicable to controlling volatile organic compounds when oil tankers 

load and unload their cargo. Further, auxiliary compression-ignition engines on ships may be 

classified by EPA as Category 1 or 2 marine diesel engines, which are covered by regulations 

under the Clean Air Act at 40 CFR part 1042 and/or part 94. States and port authorities also may 

have plans in place to reduce emissions from ships while engaged in loading and unloading 

cargo at port. 

(B) Regulation of Marine Engines as Nonroad Engines 

What Commenters Said: 

Richard Hovan argued that Category 3 marine engines should be treated as stationary 

sources and required to meet all New Source Performance Standards monitoring rules. 

Our Response: 

 Internal combustion engines on Category 3 marine vessels clearly fall within the 

definition of nonroad engine in §1068.30 since they are used on self-propelled vehicles. Nonroad 

internal combustion engines are excluded from the New Source Performance Standards (NSPS) 

for Stationary Compression-Ignition Internal Combustion Engines because the definition of 

stationary internal combustion at 40 CFR 60.4219, excludes nonroad engines, as defined in 40 

CFR 1068.30, from that category of stationary sources. It is not clear on what basis the 

commenter believes that marine engines should meet monitoring rules. However, we believe the 

requirements we are establishing to certify engines, install diagnostic tools, require emission 

measurements following parameter adjustments, and require continuous monitoring related to 

on-off controls provides adequate assurance that in-use engines will control emissions in line 

with the original design and certification. 

13 
(C) Time and Location of Hearing 

What Commenters Said: 

 Ricardo Pulido of the Coalition for a Safe Environment commented that the public 

hearing was held at a time and place that was very inconvenient for working people to attend, 

including logistics and cost of parking. 

Our Response: 

EPA is pleased that four members of the Coalition for a Safe Environment were able to 

attend the August 6 public hearing. We do understand that many others who care deeply about 

their air quality were unable to attend personally. In choosing to hold our hearing during normal 

business hours, we targeted attendees affiliated with organizations that could speak on behalf of 

the numerous affected individuals. Our attendee lists from both hearings do include several 

unaffiliated individuals, including a number of speakers who took time out of their work 

schedules to attend. With respect to the location of future hearings, we are open to suggestions 

for suitable venues that are accessible to public transit as well as regional airports. 

We also note that anyone who was unable to attend the public hearings had an 

opportunity to submit written comments on the proposal. We have in fact received a great 

number of written comments, both from organizations and from individuals who have no 

apparent organizational affiliation. 

14 
CHAPTER 2: Scope and Applicability 

What We Proposed:

The comments in this section generally correspond to Section V of the preamble to the 

proposed rule, where we describe the North American Emission Control Area as well as the 

applicability of our program to foreign flag vessels. The comments also correspond to Section 

III.B of the preamble where we describe how this program addresses emissions of greenhouse 

gases. See Chapter 5 of this document for a discussion of applicability of standards to other 

types of propulsion engines, and for a discussion of the geographic scope and applicability of 

MARPOL Annex VI through APPS. 

2.1 Applicability to Foreign Flag Vessels 

What Commenters Said:

 (A) EPA Should Regulate Foreign-flagged Vessels under the Clean Air Act 

At EPA’s public hearing on this rule in Los Angeles, California, Concepcion Garcia of 

the Long Beach Alliance for Children with Asthma spoke and expressed her support for EPA’s 

rule, “under the Clean Air Act to protect the public from the polluted air emitted by low-quality 

fuel used by ships arriving in our area.” 

South Coast Air Quality Management District, by incorporating by reference their 

previous arguments, reiterates their position that EPA has the legal authority to regulate foreignflagged vessels under the Clean Air Act. 

NESCAUM urges EPA to take action under the Clean Air Act to reduce pollution from 

all ships, regardless of flag, if the ECA designation is substantially delayed or not approved. 

Natural Resources Defense Council points out that companies, including U.S. companies, 

have intentionally created off-shore companies in order to flag in other countries and circumvent 

application of U.S. emission standards to their ships, thus urges EPA to increase the scope of our 

rule to cover foreign-flagged as well as U.S. vessels. 

The Texas Legislative Air Quality Caucus urges EPA to act quickly under domestic 

authority to limit OGV emissions if the ECA is not adopted in March 2010. 

American Lung Association with Environmental Defense Fund commented EPA must 

regulate foreign-flagged vessels under the Clean Air Act and apply the same standards to those 

ships as it applies to domestic-flagged vessels. These commenters cite previous comments 

submitted by the Harvard Law School’s Environmental Law and Policy clinic that read section 

213 of the Clean Air Act to require the regulation of foreign-flagged vessels. They point to the 

pollution contribution from foreign-flagged vessels, which according to the U.S. Department of 

Transportation Maritime Administration (MARAD) account for 88% of ship emissions at U.S. 

ports, as impinging upon the ability of EPA to attain this rule’s health benefits without a 

coordinated strategy to tackle foreign-flagged vessel emissions. Further, they call for the 

15 
Agency to be prepared to conduct an additional rulemaking to extend application of this rule to 

foreign-flagged vessels in the event that the amendments to Annex VI are not entered into force 

by July 1, 2010 or an ECA designation is not adopted by the parties to MARPOL Annex VI in 

March 2010. 

Friends of the Earth, Center for Biological Diversity, and Earthjustice comment that 

EPA’s proposed rule would be strengthened if its Tier 2 and 3 standards and low sulfur fuel 

requirements applied to foreign-flagged vessels as well as domestically-flagged vessels. These 

commenters note that EPA has not taken a position on whether section 213 of the Clean Air Act 

grants EPA authority to regulate foreign-flagged vessels in U.S. waters and recognizes EPA’s 

commitment to revisit the issue if an ECA designation is not timely approved. However, these 

commenters find flaw in this approach, asserting that “uncertainty and additional delays inherent 

in this approach can and should be avoided,” and that, “EPA must delineate the specific 

supplemental measures that will come into effect if the EA is not approved in March 2010 at 

IMO’s MEPC 60.” These commenters reassert their previous position as to EPA’s section 213 

authority to regulate foreign-flagged vessels by pointing to the large pollution contribution of 

these vessels, the text of section 213, case law regarding other U.S. regulation of foreign-flagged 

vessels, international law principles, and the United Nations Convention of the Laws of the Sea 

(“UNCLOS”). Because of their position on section 213 and the uncertainty they find with EPA’s 

reliance on coordination with the IMO, these commenters urge EPA to apply Tier 2 and 3 

standards to foreign-flagged vessels as part of this current rulemaking. 

The Marine Engineers’ Beneficial Association, Masters, Mates, and Pilots, American 

Maritime Congress, and the Maritime Institute for Research and Industrial Development (jointly 

as “Maritime Labor”) submitted comments to generally support EPA’s rule but express concerns 

stemming from unequal application of the rule to foreign- and domestically-flagged ships. 

Maritime Labor believes that “[i]n order to comply with congressional intent and effectuate the 

policies espoused in the Clean Air Act (CAA and APPS, the EPA must tie implementation of the 

regulations of the U.S. Flag Fleet to regulation of the foreign flag fleet docking in U.S. Ports.” 

Maritime Labor further points to a U.S. Code section that expresses congressional intent for the 

United States to have a strong and independent merchant marine to argue that the Clean Air Act 

and APPS should be interpreted and implemented to further that intent. Maritime Labor 

specifically calls for EPA to “explicitly tie regulation of the U.S. flagged vessels to regulation of 

the foreign flag fleet, in time and substance.” In order to attain uniform treatment of foreign- and 

domestically-flagged ships, Maritime Labor further believes that enforcement of EPA’s current 

regulations should be delayed until the Annex VI standards become enforceable. 

Ohio Environmental Council, along with Marsh Area Regional Council, Earth Day 

Coalition, and the Ohio League of Conservation Voters, call for equal application of marine 

engine standards to all ships operating on U.S. waters. With regard to EPA’s Clean Air Act 

authority to regulate foreign-flagged vessels, these commenters continue to believe that EPA can 

interpret “‘new nonroad engines’ as including ‘imported non-road engines’ and to include 

foreign-flagged ships operating in U.S. waters as ‘imported’ for Clean Air Act purposes.” 

Santa Barbara County Air Pollution Control District (“Santa Barbara”) expressed its 

“fundamental objection to EPA’s approach on foreign flagged marine vessels,” and reiterated its 

position that EPA has a “nondiscretionary duty” to include these vessels in it regulations issued 

pursuant to section 213 of the Clean Air Act. Based upon that legal position, Santa Barbara 

urges EPA to initiate a parallel rulemaking to subject vessels of all flags to the proposed 

16 
Category 3 emission standards, to fulfill its Clean Air Act duty and as a “backstop” to potential 

delays stemming from the IMO. 

Clean Air Task Force, together with American Lung Association of New England, 

American Lung Association of New York, Citizen Action (Illinois), Clean Air Carolina, Clean 

Water Action, Clean Water Action (of Connecticut, Florida, Maryland, Massachusetts, 

Michigan, Minnesota, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Virginia, and Cleveland), Earth 

Day Coalition (Cleveland), East Michigan Environmental Action Council, Environment Illinois, 

Georgia Conservancy, Group Against Smog and Pollution, Marsh Area Regional Council (Lake 

County, Ohio), Michigan Environmental Council, Michigan League of Conservation Voters, 

Mothers and Others for Clean Air, New York Public Interest Research Group, Ohio 

Environmental Council, Ohio League of Conservation Voters, Progress Michigan, Public Citizen 

(Texas), Respiratory Health Association of Metropolitan Chicago, Save the River/Upper St. 

Lawrence Riverkeeper, Sierra Club (Great Lakes Program), Southern Alliance for Clean Energy, 

and Southern Environmental Law Center, expressed general support for EPA’s rule but points 

out that it is “crucial” that EPA apply the standards to all ships visiting U.S. ports and operating 

in U.S. waters in order to attain the rule’s public health and environmental benefits. 

Furthermore, Clean Air Task Force believes that EPA’s approach with regard to foreign-flagged 

vessels is a “mistake” because IMO’s adoption of the U.S. ECA is not guaranteed, and that 

without the ECA adoption EPA cannot apply IMO standards to foreign-flagged vessels through 

APPS. For these reasons, Clean Air Task Force incorporates by reference its previously stated 

position that there is no legal impediment to EPA’s regulation of foreign-flagged vessels under 

the Clean Air Act as “imported non-road engines.” Clean Air Task Force additionally points to 

the comments received in response to our ANPR from the Environmental Law & Policy Clinic at 

Harvard Law School and South Coast Air Quality Management District, which asserted that 

foreign-flagged vessels could also be included in EPA’s regulation of oceangoing vessels as 

“new non-road engines.” 

 (B) Standards for U.S. and Foreign-flagged Vessels Should Be the Same 

American Petroleum Institute, among others, expressed its support for EPA’s approach, 

to coordinate its Clean Air Act regulation with international emission standards. API believes 

that this coordination will result in uniform standards that will apply to all ships trading in U.S. 

waters. 

Ricardo Pulido of Coalition for Safe Environment echoed this opinion: “I also ask that all 

foreign flag ships that enter U.S. ports be required to meet the same standards.” (Ricardo Pulido 

of Coalition for Safe Environment, 0227). 

Our Response: 

We appreciate the comments we received and are committed to revisiting the issue if the 

U.S. ECA proposal is not timely adopted. However, we continue to believe we need not revisit 

this issue at this time given that foreign-flagged vessels will be subject to standards under APPS 

that are comparable to those for U.S.-flagged vessels under section 213 of the CAA. The issue 

of whether EPA is compelled to cover foreign-flagged vessels under section 213 of the CAA was 

raised in Bluewater v. EPA, 372 F.3d 404 (D.C.Cir. 2004), a challenge to EPA’s decision in 2003 

not to revisit the issue of whether foreign-flagged vessels may and should be covered by nonroad 

emissions standards issued under section 213 of the CAA. In finding Bluewater’s claim to be 

17 
premature, the Bluewater court referred back to its determination in Engine Mfrs. Ass’n v. EPA

that “new nonroad engine” as used in 213(a)(3) is ambiguous and reiterated EPA’s undisputed 

finding that there would be no significant loss of emission reductions by not revisiting the issue. 

We do not believe circumstances have changed to call into question the court’s finding as 

applied to today’s setting. In fact, the only changed circumstances further support EPA’s 

decision not to revisit the issue. Since issuance of the 2003 final rule and the court’s decision in 

Bluewater, Annex VI has entered into force, and the United States has become a Party to Annex 

VI and has successfully negotiated significant new emission and fuel standards. In addition, 

Congress has adopted amendments to the Act to Prevent Pollution from Ships to implement both 

the original and amended Annex VI requirements. Thus, given that foreign-flagged vessels are 

subject to the original and new Annex VI NOX and fuel requirements under the operation of 

APPS, we do not believe it is necessary to address whether EPA may or should cover foreignflagged vessels under section 213 of the CAA. See South Coast v. EPA, 554 F.3d 1076, 1081 

(D.C.Cir. 2009)(“Deferring resolution of the issue until it will have an effect remains reasonable 

and the petitioners' objection therefore remains premature.”). 

However, as noted above, we are committed to revisiting this issue if the proposed ECA, 

within which the most stringent NOX and fuel requirements are applicable, is not timely adopted. 

Meetings to discuss adoption of the U.S.-proposed ECA are scheduled shortly after this rule is 

finalized, and thus, taking into consideration the lead times adopted, little time is lost in not 

revisiting this issue in this rulemaking. We also note that ships that are flagged in nations that 

are not a Party to Annex VI are subject to Annex VI requirements in U.S. waters under the Act to 

Prevent Pollution from Ships. Our regulations to implement the requirements of Annex VI with 

respect to such vessels make clear the applicability of those provisions to such vessels. 

2.2 Emission Control Area 

2.2.1 Support the North American ECA 

What Commenters Said:

In March 2009, Canada was party to the joint submission with the U.S. to IMO to 

designate coastal waters of North America as an ECA. The Government of Canada expressed its 

commitment to improving the health, well-being, and safety of our shared ecosystem and its 

residents. As a next step, Canada is currently working towards ratifying MARPOL Annex VI 

and plans to make the appropriate changes to domestic regulations to implement the North 

American ECA. 

A number of commenters expressed support of the proposed North American ECA. 

NRDC specifically encouraged EPA to continue to defend the proposed ECA to prevent it from 

being weakened or delayed at IMO. EDF and ALA expressed strong support of the in-depth and 

well-presented application EPA made to the IMO for a joint U.S./Canada Emission Control 

Area. They expressed the belief that the establishment of such an ECA is incredibly important to 

protect public health in the U.S. from international shipping emissions. In addition, they support 

EPA’s coordinated strategy to reduce Category 3 emissions in the U.S., stating that it is 

important for EPA to establish timely federal emission and fuel standards that mirror the rigorous 

ECA application. Together, the coordinated strategy is capable of bringing necessary emissions 

18 
reductions and important public health and environmental benefits to the U.S. Maersk noted 

that, earlier in 2009, it publicly supported the U.S. EPA’s Emissions Control Area (“ECA”) 

proposal to the UN’s International Maritime Organization “IMO.” 

 Over the past two years, NACAA has directly participated in the International Maritime 

Organization’s (IMO’s) activities establishing international marine fuel and engine standards and 

providing for Emission Control Areas (ECAs). NACAA expressed wholehearted support of the 

outcomes of these efforts. NAACA stated that they are further encouraged by the progress made 

at the July 2009 meeting of the IMO Marine Environmental Protection Committee, at which the 

Committee gave its initial approval to a proposal by the U.S. and Canada for the creation of an 

ECA along the U.S. and Canadian coastlines. They look forward to the Committee’s final 

adoption of the ECA in March 2010. Under a U.S./Canadian ECA, not only domestic vessels, but 

also foreign flagged vessels – which account for 90 percent of ships that call on U.S. ports – 

must comply with the IMO engine and fuel standards when they are within 200 miles of the 

coast. NACAA supports implementation of a comprehensive ECA for all eligible waters in the 

U.S. and Canada at the earliest possible date, which would ensure important benefits throughout 

both nations. Therefore, U.S. must to stay the course with the IMO and see the U.S./Canadian 

ECA through to approval. NAACA also expressed the importance of EPA working concurrently 

to finalize a regulation that will ensure that the U.S. has a plan in place and ready for 

implementation should action by the IMO not progress as hoped. 

Canada (0252) 

Maersk (0261) 

Texas Legislative Air Quality Caucus (0367) 

NRDC (0232) 

Communities for Clean Ports (0232) 

Coalition for a Safe Environment (0232) 

AAPA (0232) 

ALA+EDF (0366) 

NAACA (0246) 

Our Response: 

We appreciate this show of support and will continue with our efforts as part of the U.S. 

Government’s delegation to IMO to promote the adoption, and ultimately entry into force, of the 

North American ECA. 

2.2.2 Inclusion of Alaska and Hawaii 

What Commenters Said:

We received comment from a number of entities that waters of the coast of southeast 

Alaska should not be included as part of the North American ECA. These entities included the 

cruise line industry, other shipping interests in Alaska, cruise destination ports and several 

elected officials in Alaska. In addition, CLIA commented that Hawaii should also not be 

included in the North American ECA. These comments are described in more detail below. 

CLIA commented that Alaska and Hawaii should be excluded from the petition until such 

time as EPA has adequately and scientifically evaluated the need for inclusion of Alaska and 

19 
Hawaii. EPA’s proposal contains insufficient justification for including southeastern Alaska and 

eastern Hawaii regions in the proposed ECA while excluding western Hawaii and western 

Alaska regions. No dispersion modeling results are presented to justify these decisions and there 

is no information on the relative benefits of including (and disbenefits of excluding) these 

regions from the ECA. 

CLIA, Governor Parnell, and others commented that neither Hawaii nor Alaska has air 

quality exceeding EPA’s ambient air quality standards for ozone or PM2.5. Measurements of 

ambient PM2.5, NO2 and SO2 at three locations in Juneau, Alaska during 2000 and 2001 

conducted by the Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation showed concentrations of 

all three pollutants were “appreciably below the State and national air quality standards” in both 

years. 

TOTE commented that the proposed rule as it is written will require its vessels to use 

distillate fuel during the entire 1300 mile voyage from Tacoma to Anchorage. TOTE’s vessels 

are never offshore more than 200 miles. TOTE stated that while the 200 mile limit may be 

appropriate in some geographic areas it is wholly inappropriate in the area they operate in 

because of the low population densities in western Canada and Alaska and because there are no 

nonattainment areas in this area, outside of Puget Sound. As such, the proposed rule should 

exclude the majority of this area. River Adventures commented that they are a small business in 

Southeast Alaska and work with all the major cruise lines. If this application were to be granted 

they would be hurt by a “double hit.” Worksafe commented that it is a highly competitive, 

Alaska-based business that must make every penny count. To increase costs of doing business to 

address a non issue is nothing short of economic suicide. Several commenters argued that 

Alaska should not be included in the proposed ECA because no modeling was conducted in 

Alaska, the ECA boundaries only designate part of Alaska, and no economic analysis was 

conducted for the impact on Alaska. 

 Governor Parnell (AK) commented that EPA needs to collect additional information and 

conduct further analyses to support sound conclusions regarding an ECA proposal for Alaska 

and requested that EPA evaluate the basis for applying the new standards in Alaska as well as the 

economic impacts, especially on the cruise industry. Governor Parnell noted that the proposal 

states that EPA has not yet determined the extent to which Category 3 engines affect air quality 

in areas of Alaska west of Kodiak, and as a result, these areas are not included in the proposed 

ECA. He suggests that the extent to which Category 3 engines affect air quality in any area of 

Alaska has not been determined. In the absence of any air quality modeling for Alaska, he 

recommends that the proposed regulations and the ECA proposal be modified to exclude areas 

off Alaska. Similar comments were received from Congressman Young, Senator Murkowski, 

Senator Munroz, Ketchikan, Port of Anchorage, and Sitka. Some commenters stated that the 

IMO requires all ECA applications to consider the cost to implement the new standards and the 

economic impact. Senator Murkowski commented that while cruise ships do not travel to 

Southwest Alaska, freight and cargo vessels certainly do; therefore it seems inconsistent for EPA 

to treat southern/western Alaska waters differently since the state’s coastal climate will provide 

for disbursal of pollutants in similar ways. 

 After the comment period, Governor Lingle (HI) sent a letter to Administrator Jackson 

expressing concern with the proposed rule. Governor Lingle expressed support for reductions in 

fuel emissions, but would like Hawaii’s inclusion in the proposed ECA to be based on 

20 
quantitative air quality and economic impact data. Therefore, the Governor requested that we 

delay implementation of the proposed rule in the Southeastern Hawaiian Islands. 

CLIA (0278) 

TOTE (0289) 

River Adventures (0244) 

Governor Parnell (0287) 

Congressman Young (0382) 

Mayor of Ketchikan (0294) 

Port of Anchorage (0299) 

Sitka (0307) 

Representative Munoz (0317) 

Senator Begich (0322) 

Senator Murkowski (0384) 

RDC (0288) 

Julies Fine Jewelry (0339) 

WorkSafe (0369) 

Governor Lingle 

FOE and others commented that the ECA should include all of Alaska. They noted that 

the proposed rule relies on the IMO’s approval of the U.S. ECA application as the sole 

mechanism for addressing emissions from foreign-flagged ships in U.S. waters. However, the 

ECA proposal does not include the Alaskan Arctic. The Aleutian chain and all Alaskan coastline 

north thereof has been excluded from the ECA proposal, despite the fact that the Alaska 

Department of Environmental Conservation (ADEC) encouraged EPA to consider including the 

State’s Northwest, and that Western Alaska has consistently higher emissions of “criteria 

pollutants” such as NOX, PM10, PM2.5, HC, CO and SO2 than other parts of the state. Because 

only U.S.-flagged vessels will be required to meet the heightened emissions standards in the 

Alaskan Arctic, the proposed ECA and CAA rulemaking leave critical portions of the U.S. 

coastline less protected than the rest of the country. This lack of nation-wide uniformity in the 

applicable emissions standards for Category 3 vessels runs counter to the goals of the Clean Air 

Act. Title II of the Clean Air Act directs the federal government to assume primary responsibility 

for regulating emissions from mobile pollution sources. The proposed rule would leave large, 

environmentally sensitive parts of Alaska less protected than the rest of the country. This lack of 

uniformity runs counter the aims of the statute. Moreover, the application of Tier 3 NOX

standards for U.S.-flagged ships, but not foreign-flagged ships in Arctic Alaskan waters may 

place U.S. shippers at a competitive disadvantage, especially as the number of foreign-flagged 

vessels in the Alaskan Arctic increases dramatically with the opening of the Northwest passage 

to summertime commercial shipping. These issues should be remedied by including Arctic 

Alaskan waters within the ECA proposal, or by making the proposed emissions standards 

applicable to all Category 3 ships in U.S. waters, including Alaskan waters. (FOEI, 0320.1, pp. 

10-11) 

Our Response: 

 The above comments are specifically focused on the scope of North American ECA 

proposal that the U.S. and Canadian governments submitted to the International Maritime 

Organization (IMO) on March 27, 2009. While the NPRM discusses the North American ECA 

21 
and presents it as part of an overall coordinated strategy, this ECA was not proposed as part of 

this national rulemaking. As such, it is not within the scope of this final rulemaking to amend 

the North American ECA proposal. 

 Although the ECA proposal was not developed as a Clean Air Act rulemaking, it was 

developed by the U.S. Government through the processes associated with amending an 

international agreement. EPA worked with the U.S. Coast Guard, State Department, the 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and other agencies to develop the analysis 

supporting ECA designation for U.S. coasts contained in the U.S. and Canadian submittal to 

IMO. In addition, we collaborated with Environment Canada and the California Air Resources 

Board. In developing the ECA proposal, EPA consulted with stakeholders including 

representatives from the shipping industry, ports, master mariners, environmental interests and 

representatives from state and local governments. 

 It should be noted that the North American ECA proposal was specifically reviewed by a 

technical group of the MEPC and found to fully satisfy the criteria in MARPOL Annex VI, 

Appendix III.2

 Among other things, the criteria include an assessment that emissions from ships 

are contributing to ambient concentrations of air pollution or to adverse environmental impacts, 

analysis of relative costs of reducing emissions from ships, and evaluation of the economic 

impacts on shipping engaged in international trade. The U.S. Government’s proposal to IMO 

included a complete analysis of how each portion of the North American ECA addressed these 

criteria. As a result, the proposal was approved at MEPC 59, and circulated for adoption. The 

earliest possible adoption date is at MEPC 60, which will take place in March 2010. 

 It should be noted that EPA reached out to the Alaska Department of Environmental 

Conservation and the Hawaii Department of Health when developing the ECA proposal. In 

October 2008, Alaska DEC submitted a letter to EPA, providing information on the adverse 

impacts of shipping in Alaska and requesting ECA designation for all of the waters along 

Alaskan coasts.3

 In January 2009, the Hawaii DOH submitted a similar letter requesting ECA 

designation for the entire Hawaiian Island chain.4

 Commenters raised a number of issues regarding the modeling and analyses supporting 

the need for ECA standards in Alaska and Hawaii. The comments on costs and economic 

impacts are discussed in more detail in Chapter 6 and 7 of this document, respectively. 

Comments on air quality in Alaska and other environmental impacts of an ECA are addressed in 

Chapter 8 of this document. 

 At this time, the U.S. Government has not included northwestern Alaska or western 

Hawaii in the proposed ECA. While these areas also experience the environmental impacts of 

ship emissions, further information must be gathered to properly assess these areas and 

 

2

 International Maritime Organization, “Report of the Marine Environment Protection Committee on its Fifty-Ninth 

Session,” MEPC 59/24, July 27, 2009. 

3

 Letter from Clint Farr, Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation, to Mike Samulski, U.S. EPA, OTAQ, 

“Statement in Support of EPA Considering Alaska as Part of a Marine Emission Control Area,” October 10, 2008. 

4

 Letter from Wilfred Nagamine, Hawaii Department of Health to Kerry Drake, U.S. EPA, Region 9, “Emission 

Control Area Background Information for Hawaii,” January 12, 2009. 

22 
determine how ECA controls will help. We will continue to gather information on these areas, 

as well as other U.S. territories not included in the ECA proposal, and take action as appropriate. 

2.2.3 Other Areas 

What Commenters Said:

Several commenters expressed support of Mexico joining the ECA. NAACA encouraged 

EPA to continue negotiations with Mexico to join the U.S. and Canada in petitioning for an ECA 

that would cover the coasts of all three countries. TOTE commented that the wellbeing of West 

Coast ports in general is at stake. With Mexico not signing on to the agreement it will give their 

ports a significant economic advantage. The new Panama Canal will further allow vessels to 

bypass U.S. West Coast ports. CLIA commented that if Mexico, Bahamas and the Caribbean 

nations do not join the ECA, the impact in these regions can be expected to be less dramatic than 

for the U.S. 

NAACA (0246) 

AAPA (0232) 

CLIA (0278) 

TOTE (0289) 

Our Response: 

At MEPC 59, Mexico indicated its interest in joining the North American ECA. We will 

continue to work with Mexico, and other neighboring countries to provide support as 

appropriate. We are currently performing analyses to support ECA designation, if appropriate, 

for Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands and will be engaging stakeholders. That outreach 

will include neighboring countries, shipping companies, environmental organizations, and other 

stakeholders. 

2.3 Greenhouse Gases 

What Commenters Said: 

The Clean Air Task Force and associated commenters encouraged EPA to take steps to 

reduce emissions of NOX and black carbon from marine diesel engines to reduce the impact of 

these engines on global climate change. 

The Carbon War Room insisted that EPA include substantial measures in this rulemaking 

to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. They pointed out that EPA has an obligation to set such 

standards under Clean Air Act section 213. 

CLIA commented that viewing and analyzing air emissions from a holistic view 

(including factors for greenhouse gases) will be important. Thus far, all regulatory restrictions on 

pollutants have been done without consideration that reduction of one pollutant increases the 

production of another. The U.S. needs to join with the industry in developing solutions in a 

comprehensive rather than piecemeal approach. (CLIA, 0278) 

23 
Friends of the Earth, Center for Biological Diversity, and Earth Justice commented that 

EPA should exercise its authority under Clean Air Act section 213 to set emission standards to 

address climate change. They argued further that EPA should prohibit the use of residual fuel in 

marine vessels under Clean Air Act section 211. (Friends of the Earth and associated 

commenters, 0320) 

South Coast AQMD urged EPA to consider whether fuel efficiency and other actions 

U.S. EPA is considering to control greenhouse gas emissions from vessels could produce 

nitrogen oxide emissions co-benefits earlier than IMO standards. (South Coast AQMD, 0309) 

 The American Lung Association urged EPA to look more closely at the additional 

benefits of reduced global warming effects by considering a direct PM emission standard. 

Our Response: 

EPA recognizes the contribution of all mobile sources, including marine vessels, to 

national greenhouse gas inventories. In our recently-published NPRM for light-duty vehicles, 

we note that we are currently evaluating controls for motor vehicles other than those covered by 

that proposal and are reviewing seven petitions submitted by various States and organizations 

requesting that we use our CAA authority to take action to reduce greenhouse gas emissions 

from ocean-going vessels (74 FR 49507, Septmber 28, 2009; see also 

http://www.epa.gov/otaq/climate/regulations.htm). 

Our recently completed final rule will require engine manufacturers to report their 

emission levels of certain greenhouse gases (74 FR 56260, October 30, 2009). We are also 

working with ports, engine manufacturers and other stakeholders to encourage voluntary 

measures that would reduce emissions of GHG and criteria pollutants. 

EPA is also a member of the U.S. delegation to the International Maritime Organization 

and is participating in discussions with respect to international standards for greenhouse gas 

emissions. 

24 
CHAPTER 3: Engine Standards 

What We Proposed:

The comments in this section generally correspond to Section III of the preamble to the 

proposed rule, where we describe the engine standards for nitrogen oxides (NOX), hydrocarbons 

(HC) and carbon monoxide (CO), as well as our approach to address particulate matter (PM) 

emissions. Note that some of the comments in this section also correspond to Section VI.A of the 

preamble, where we describe the PM testing requirements. The applicable regulatory provisions 

for these requirements are in 40 CFR part 1042. 

The RIA describes the technical feasibility of engine standards in Chapter 4. Although 

issues related to feasibility are discussed here, that RIA chapter includes a much more thorough 

discussion of our basis for concluding the standards being finalized are appropriate under the 

Clean Air Act. 

See Chapter 4 of this document for a discussion of comments related to the fuel 

standards. See Chapter 2 of this document for responses to comments on pollutants not directly 

regulated in this action. 

3.1 Tier 2 Duty-Cycle NOX Standards 

What Commenters Said:

 

We received a number of comments on the feasibility of Tier 2 NOX standards. These 

comments were focused on the technological aspects of our analysis and/or the whether the 

amount of lead time provided was appropriate. These comments are addressed together since the 

technological feasibility and lead time are so closely related. 

Several commenters expressed general support for the Tier 2 NOX standards. (ALA, 

ATS, CATF, CCP, NESCAUM). However, the Coalition for a Safe Environment asserted that 

the Tier 2 standard does not appear to go beyond current practice. They also stated that EPA 

should explain how the claimed reductions will be achieved and all the available technologies to 

achieve them. One commenter urged EPA to adopt earlier compliance deadlines for new 

engines, phase the standards in early for areas with the worst pollution. 

Our Response:

As described in the RIA, we believe that the Tier 2 NOX standards will give the greatest 

degree of emission control achievable considering compliance costs, lead time, and other 

relevant factors. We project that these standards will require manufacturers to incorporate incylinder emission control technologies such as electronically-controlled high-pressure commonrail fuel systems, turbocharger optimization, compression-ratio changes, and electronicallycontrolled exhaust valves. While these technologies are in use for many land-based engines and 

some marine engines, applying them to all new Category 3 engines cannot be required before 

2011. It is important to emphasize that the Tier 2 NOX requirements are a transitional aspect of 

25 
this program. Manufacturers will also be working to develop technologies to meet the longer 

term Tier 3 standards at the same time as they will be working towards the Tier 2 standards. 

Finalizing more stringent Tier 2 standards or applying them earlier would likely hinder efforts to 

meet the Tier 3 standards. 

Given the very low sales volumes, an earlier phase-in of standards for Category 3 engines 

by sales fraction would not be practical. Similarly, the standards cannot be phased-in 

geographically because ships are generally not inherently limited to specific areas. In addition a 

phase-in would likely have disparate impacts on the manufacturers. 

3.2 Tier 3 Duty-Cycle NOX Standard 

3.2.1 Feasibility and Lead Time of the Tier 3 NOX Standard 

What Commenters Said:

MECA provided extensive comments supporting the feasibility of the Tier 3 NOX

standard. Several other commenters supported the proposed Tier 3 standards as feasible without 

additional information. To support its belief that EPA should adopt more stringent Tier 3 

standards, NESCAUM noted that SCR have been used on marine vessels for years. They also 

noted that in one case SCR was able to reduce NOX emissions by 95 percent in cruise mode. 

Manufacturers and operators generally supported the 2016 compliance date for the Tier 3 

standards as challenging but feasible. They did not believe the standards could be met earlier. 

Others supported the proposal to some extent, but suggested EPA consider implementing the 

standards sooner. SCAQMD urged EPA to also consider phasing in the standards early for areas 

with the worst pollution. 

The Ohio Environmental Council reminded us of the statutory provisions describing how 

EPA standards, with respect to both stringency and lead time, should be technology-forcing and 

not technology-following. 

Our Response:

While the Tier 2 standards will achieve modest reductions quickly, the Tier 3 standards 

are projected to achieve reductions of about 80 percent from the current Tier 1 standards. As 

explained in our discussions of regulatory alternatives, we evaluated the possibility of requiring 

the Tier 3 limits on an earlier schedule than 2016. However, we found that a schedule requiring 

Tier 3 limits prior to 2016 had significant feasibility issues. Under the schedule being finalized, 

manufacturers of Category 3 engines will have about the same amount of lead time allowed 

manufacturers for smaller marine engines and locomotives. Commenters arguing for a more 

stringent NOX standard did not address important issues related to in-use compliance throughout 

the useful life across the duty cycle. To comply with the Tier 3 standards manufacturers will 

need to design the SCR system to achieve greater than 80 percent reductions at higher power 

modes to offset lower efficiency at the 25 percent power mode. The will also need to include a 

compliance margin to address in-use deterioration and production variability. The final 

standards are consistent with the statutory direction to set standards requiring the greatest degree 

of emission reduction that is achievable in the given time frame. 

26 
As noted earlier, phasing in standards for Category 3 engines by sales fraction would not 

be practical. Similarly, the standards cannot be phased-in geographically because ships are 

generally not inherently limited to specific areas. In addition a phase-in would likely have 

disparate impacts on the manufacturers. 

3.2.2 Alternative NOX Controls 

What Commenters Said:

Several commenters stated that the Tier 3 emission standards can be met with 

technologies other than SCR and that EPA should allow that. Seaworthy stated that they can be 

met using exhaust scrubbers and exhaust gas recirculation systems. EGCSA suggested that they 

could also be met using a combination of internal and external measures such as fuel emulsions 

and exhaust gas re-circulation and/or NOX scrubbing. API emphasized that Regulation 4 would 

not force the allowance of any scrubber technology that does not provide an equal or better result 

than Annex VI demands; only those technologies that are at least as effective in terms of 

emissions reductions as that required by this Annex. 

Our Response:

The NOX program is a performance requirement. This is also true for our Clean Air Act 

program. Thus manufacturers are not precluded by our regulations from using these 

technologies. 

3.3 Other Standards 

3.3.1 HC and CO Standards 

What Commenters Said:

(A) HC and CO Standards Are Achievable. 

EMA stated that the proposed HC and CO standards should generally be achievable in 

combination with the ECA-based NOX standards. However, they also expressed a preference for 

full alignment with MARPOL Annex VI requirements. 

The Clean Air Task Force supported the proposed HC and CO standards as a way of 

preventing increased emissions in the future. They also anticipated an additional benefit of 

limiting CO2 and PM emissions. 

(B) HC and CO Standards Are Inconsistent with Annex VI. 

The American Maritime Congress and associated organizations objected to adoption of 

HC and CO standards for engines on U.S.-flag vessels only, arguing that this represented an 

unfair burden that would not be applied to foreign-flag vessels. EMA and EGCSA also 

expressed a preference for full alignment with MARPOL Annex VI requirements. They stated 

that “in the absence of data to quantify typical current emissions and to quantify the likely 

benefits of the proposed targets it is likely that this requirement will drive away shipbuilding 

27 
from the USA (with the exception of vessels built to the Jones Act).” EGCSA also 

recommended that EPA work with EGCSA and its members to undertake trials to quantify 

typical emissions of CO & HC, their environmental and human health impacts, and the options 

for technological solutions to treat and remove these gases. 

(C) HC Standard Should be Replaced by VOC Standards for LNG Engines. 

EMA and Euromot expressed concern with respect to the metric for measuring and 

controlling HC emissions from gas-fueled (e.g., LNG -fueled) marine engines. They stated that 

EPA should designate volatile organic compounds ("VOC"), with the additional exclusion of 

formaldehyde from the measurement of VOC, as the relevant HC control parameter. EMA 

argued that using VOC would “properly exclude methane and ethane emissions from gas-fueled 

engines” based on their low photochemical reactivity. It would also be fully consistent with 

EPA's recently promulgated new source performance standards ("NSPS") for stationary SI 

engines. (See 40 CFR 60, Subpart JJJJ.) 

Our Response:

We continue to believe that the HC and CO standards being adopted (2.0 g/kW-hr and 

5.0 g/kW-hr, respectively) are appropriate under the Clean Air Act. Not finalizing these 

standards in order to achieve alignment with MARPOL Annex VI requirements would not be 

consistent with the requirements of the Act. Emission control technologies for C3 marine 

engines have been concentrated on reducing NOX and PM emissions. These emission standards 

will prevent increases in emissions of HC and CO that might otherwise occur as a result of use of 

certain technologies for controlling NOX, such as those that significantly degrade combustion 

efficiency. We believe the levels of the emission standards involve some burden to measure and 

report emissions, but these standards are not expected to involve engineering or development 

resources to redesign engines for improving control of HC and CO emissions. As such, we 

believe there should be no concern that the burden associated with complying with the HC and 

CO standards will pose a competitive disadvantage for U.S.-flag vessels. Also, given the level of 

these standards, we do not believe that extensive additional study of these emissions by EPA is 

necessary. Nevertheless, we would welcome such information if EGCSA members wish to share 

it. 

We are applying emission standards to natural gas engines and we are adopting the HC 

and CO standards as proposed. We already regulate Category 3 marine engines fueled by natural 

gas under the Tier 1 standards (see 40 CFR part 94). While natural gas engines have relatively 

high emission rates of methane, methane has a very low reactivity with respect to ozone 

formation. For this reason, the final approach continues the practice of applying a nonmethane 

hydrocarbon standard to control HC emissions from natural gas-fueled engines. We do not agree 

that we should adopt special VOC standards for Category 3 engines that would allow 

manufacturers to also exclude ethane. (Note that since formaldehyde is not detected by our 

hydrocarbon measurement procedure, both NMHC and VOC standards effectively exclude it.) 

While we agree that ethane has a lower reactivity than most other hydrocarbon species, we do 

not believe it is present in large enough concentrations to justify the additional measurement 

complexity. Since the HC standard is in place largely to prevent emission increases, we believe 

manufacturers will be able to comply with the standard, including measurement of ethane, 

without the need for emission controls beyond that which is described in the Regulatory Impact 

Analysis. The only reason we can see that there would be a significant difference between 

28 
NMHC and VOC measurements would be for testing using fuel with high ethane content. 

However, §1065.715 specifies that natural gas test fuels may not contain more than 5.5 percent 

ethane. Levels below this limit should not cause problems for manufacturers. 

We note for completeness that the HC and CO standards are not expected to reduce CO2

or PM emissions. Manufacturers are not expected to incorporate engine controls to control HC 

or CO emissions in a way that would improve the engine’s efficiency (for reducing CO2

emissions) or substantially change the combustion characteristics (to reduce PM formation). 

Nevertheless, the HC and CO standards may prevent manufacturers from relying on certain NOX

emission controls that may have resulted in increased CO2 or PM emissions. 

3.3.2 Mode Caps 

What Commenters Said:

Euromot requested the EPA clarify that the mode caps apply only for Tier 3. 

Our Response:

Euromot is correct that the mode caps only apply for NOX emissions. 

3.3.3 Particulate Matter (PM) Standard 

(A) EPA Must Promulgate a PM Standard 

What Commenters Said:

Several commenters expressed support for the fuel sulfur standards and acknowledged 

that in addition to SOX reductions, the use of lower sulfur fuel would result in PM reductions as 

well. However, commenters also noted that we did not propose PM emission standards for 

Category 3 marine engines. We received several comments requesting that we establish PM 

standards that go beyond those associated with switching to low sulfur fuel, either in this final 

rule or in a follow-up action. 

 While the proposed rule is expected to reduce 85 percent of PM emissions, NESCAUM 

and NAACA commented that the remaining 15 percent will represent a substantial amount of 

PM which is of significant concern to states and local areas. NESCAUM commented that, even 

with the fuel standards in place, the remaining PM emissions from ships will exacerbate health 

issues associated with PM, such as cardiovascular morbidity and mortality and an increased 

number and severity of asthma attacks. ALA and EDF commented that Category 3 engines are 

responsible for a significant amount of diesel PM emissions. The Port of Long Beach 

commented that vessels are the greatest driver to local health risks from port sources, and PM 

emissions from main engines are a significant contributor. The Port of Los Angeles commented 

that additional control of particulate matter is necessary to continue to reduce adverse health 

effects from this source. NRDC commented that technology forcing PM standards, beyond what 

would be gained from a 0.1 percent fuel sulfur standard, would be hugely beneficial for human 

health and would be a major step towards helping Southern California attain EPA’s national air 

quality standards. SCAQMD commented that while significant particulate emission reductions 

29 
will result from IMO fuel sulfur limits, they will not be sufficient to implement the SIP which 

assumes 30 percent control in 2014 and 50 percent in 2023. Moreover, particulate emissions 

from ocean-going vessels are expected to be a significant contributor to local cancer risks near 

ports in coming years. Even with 1,000 ppm sulfur fuel, emissions from ocean-going vessels are 

expected to be the largest remaining contributor to local cancer risks near Southern California 

ports by 2020, and, given expected cargo growth, a key hurdle in achieving state and local 

polices to reduce cancer risks from DPM by 85% by that year. CATF commented that additional 

PM control is critically important in view of the increasingly strong evidence of the enormous 

human health, environmental and climate impact of emissions from these engines. Such 

emission reductions will also be critical in ensuring compliance with National Ambient Air 

Quality Standards in U.S. coastal areas and ports. 

Several environmental organizations commented that while they support EPA’s proposal 

of initial standards for SOX emissions from Category 3 ships effective in 2015 as a good first 

step, the Agency must establish specific PM standards and tighter SOX standards in the future. 

Specifically, they urged EPA to commit now to conducting an additional rulemaking within the 

next two years that would establish emissions standards for directly emitted PM2.5 (including 

black carbon), as well “Tier 2” sulfur in fuel standards, that approach in stringency the levels set 

by EPA in its recent highway heavy-duty engine rule and its non-road diesel rule, for effect in 

the 2015—2020 time frame. They commented that while they support EPA’s proposal to require 

measurement of PM emissions from ships, they do not believe that such a requirement should 

delay the promulgation of PM emissions standards. 

MECA urged EPA to take a leadership position of setting a timetable for further 

reductions in the fuel sulfur level. MECA also expressed support for the Agency’s plans to 

evaluate the impacts of its proposed rulemaking on PM emissions, and to assess the feasibility of 

further PM reductions from ocean-going vessels and propose a PM standard if appropriate. 

NESCAUM commented that the Agency should strengthen its commitment by setting a 

date certain by which it will complete its evaluation of the need for further PM reductions. ALA 

and EDF commented that EPA should expeditiously examine and address direct PM emissions 

from Category 3 ships to protect human health and the environment and take action addressing 

direct PM emissions in this final rule or in an immediate rulemaking that follows this action. 

NAACA commented that the agency should pursue future efforts to ameliorate the remaining 

PM emissions. 

The ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach commented that EPA should take further 

action by working with IMO to establish PM standards for category 3 engines or to otherwise 

develop strategies to control PM beyond lower sulfur fuel. The Port of Long Beach noted that 

while it important to include PM limits in this rule-making, the national rule will only apply to 

U.S. flagged vessels. 

 CATF and SCAQMD commented that technology forcing PM emissions reduction 

requirements for large new marine diesel engines are legally required under Section 213 of the 

CAA. SCAQMD commented that while achieving additional PM reductions beyond the benefits 

of low sulfur fuel may pose technical challenges, the courts have held that section 213 is a 

"technology-forcing" statute. Congress intended EPA to press for development and application 

of improved technology rather than be limited by what exists today. The proposed rule and IMO 

30 
standards, however, make no attempt to push PM control technology beyond the benefits of fuel 

sulfur limits . EPA has long justified its earlier failure to require any reductions of Category 3 

engines by the promise, respected by the courts, that EPA would in the present rulemaking adopt 

requirements that fully satisfy the Clean Air Act's mandate. Unfortunately, the proposed rules do 

not achieve the "greatest degree of reduction achievable through the application of technology 

which the Administrator determines will be available . . ." as specified in section 213. Nor do the 

rules require such reductions "at the earliest possible date," as also required by Section 213. 

NESCAUM (0356) 

ALA+EDF (0366, 0227) 

NAACA (0246) 

NRDC (0227) 

SCAQMD (0309) 

CATF (0264) 

Ohio Environmental Council et. al. (0314) 

Port of Los Angeles (0232) 

Port of Long Beach (0232) 

MECA (0319) 

(B) Technological Feasibility of Further PM Reductions 

MECA commented that there are technologies to reduce PM emissions from new and inuse marine diesel engines, such as diesel particulate filters (DPFs) and diesel oxidation catalysts 

(DOCs), are commercially available today. These catalyst-based emission control technologies 

have already been installed on millions of new light-duty and heavy-duty vehicles and equipment 

and as retrofit technology on hundreds of thousands of existing on-road and off-road diesel 

engines worldwide to provide significant reductions in PM emissions, as well as reductions in 

hydrocarbon (including toxic HCs, like poly-aromatic HCs) and carbon monoxide (CO) 

emissions. 

MECA commented that the successful application of these catalyst-based PM reduction 

technologies is dependent on the use of low or ultra-low sulfur diesel fuel since sulfur levels in 

the fuel can both deteriorate catalyst performance and contribute to PM emissions through the 

formation of sulfate emissions across the catalyst. This is why EPA’s recent final rulemakings 

covering new highway, off-road, locomotive, and smaller marine diesel engines include or take 

advantage of the mandated use of ultra-low sulfur diesel fuel (15 ppm S max.) to facilitate the 

use of sulfur-sensitive, catalyst-based emission control technologies like DPFs and DOCs, as 

well as NOX adsorber catalysts. Similarly, for large ocean-going vessels, the application of 

catalyst-based DPFs and DOCs for PM reductions would not be practical until fuel sulfur levels 

are reduced to 500 ppm S, or in some cases even 50 ppm S, or lower. In this NPRM, EPA has 

only proposed reducing fuel sulfur levels to a minimum of 1,000 ppm for these large marine 

diesel engines. MECA supports this 1,000 ppm sulfur requirement, but urges EPA to take a 

leadership position of setting a timetable for further reductions in fuel sulfur to the ULSD level. 

This would extend catalyst durability (including SCR catalyst durability) and enable the use of 

DOC and DPF technologies for the reduction of PM. 

CATF commented that the reduction of the sulfur content of diesel fuel is critical to 

utilization of exhaust control technology that will produce more substantial PM reductions. 

CATF commented that U.S. production and sale of ultra-low sulfur diesel fuel is presently or 

31 
will by 2012 be required for all land-based motor vehicles, as well as locomotives and inland and 

coastal marine diesel engines. Because USLD will be widely available in the U.S. within that 

time frame, we also expect that advanced technologies that require the use of such fuel will then 

be feasible for marine engines and thus will then represent the greatest degree of achievable 

emission reduction under Section 213(a) of the Act. 

 CATF also commented that available data on PM emissions from ships suggests emission 

rates of 0.25 to 0.3 g/kWh as an average, using low sulfur fuel, but significantly higher rates 

using residual fuel, primarily due to sulfate particulate. Current on-highway heavy-duty diesel 

engines have reduced PM levels to 0.01 g/kwh (combined with low NOX levels), and nonroad 

engines will reduce PM levels to between 0.01 to 0.03 g/kwh by 2010. EPA’s recent regulations 

for Category 1 and 2 marine engines would require PM emissions to be reduced to 0.03 to 0.19 

g/bhp-hr. We believe that similar levels are feasible for Category 3 marine diesel engines, 

although special requirements may be appropriate for slow speed Category 3 diesels. We note 

that such standards would likely require the use of diesel particulate filters that would 

substantially reduce emissions of non-sulfate constituents of PM, such as black carbon, which as 

noted earlier, is not only harmful to human health and the environment, but is a potent climate 

forcing agent as well. 

 CATF noted that particulate filter controls for land-based diesels have typically required 

the use of a catalyst due to the low exhaust temperature in some applications; in order to achieve 

effective operation of these catalytic filters, ultra low sulfur diesel fuel is required. However, 

Category 3 marine engines typically operate at higher temperatures than land-based diesels, and 

thus particulate filters may be effective for use on such engines without the need of a catalyst. As 

a result, ULSD may not be required for effective particulate control, and particulate filter 

technology can be developed for large marine diesels operating on low sulfur distillate fuel. 

 The World Shipping Council commented that the use of 15 ppm sulfur fuel in large bore 

marine engines would exacerbate lubricity and other technical issues with operation of these 

engines. TOTE stated that the use of ultra-low sulfur fuel would require rebuilding its engines 

which is currently not recommended. 

 EGCSA stated that it does not agree with the claim that PM controls are not feasible for 

engines using residual fuels. EGCSA also contested the claim that “cleaner distillate” is the most 

effective means to achieve significant PM and NOX reduction for all marine diesel engines, not 

just Category 3 engines. Test work indicates that in fact exhaust gas after treatment is capable of 

PM levels lower than can be achieved by an ultra low sulfur diesel fuel. 

MECA (0319) 

CATF, et.al., (0264) 

EGCSA (0305) 

WSC (0325) 

TOTE (0289) 

(C) Prevent Trade-offs Between NOX and PM 

Several commeters expressed concern that there is the potential for carbonaceous PM to 

increase due to a NOX/PM tradeoff. NESCAUM commented that, because of the potential for 

32 
carbonaceous PM to increase due to a NOX/PM tradeoff, and because of the lack of certainty that 

anticipated reductions in organic PM will actually occur, the Agency should strengthen its 

commitment by setting a date certain by which it will complete its evaluation. 

NESCAUM (0356) 

NAACA (0246) 

NRDC (0227) 

CATF (0264) 

(D) Other PM comments 

The Clean Air Task Force urged EPA to amend its requirement to measure PM emissions 

to also require speciation of the PM to determine the emission rate of black carbon and other 

constituents. 

Our Response:

Even though the sulfur limit is much lower than current levels, it is not clear if this fuel 

sulfur level would be low enough to allow Category 3 engines to be equipped with the catalytic 

PM filters similar to those being used by trucks today. If we were to require technology that 

needs lower sulfur fuel, such as 15 ppm, ship operators would need to have access to this fuel 

around the world and at this time, it is not clear if 15 ppm sulfur fuel could be made available 

globally. Operating on higher sulfur fuel, such as for outside of our waters, could otherwise 

result in damage to the PM control equipment. Also, further evaluation is necessary to determine 

if any issues would arise from operating Category 3 marine engines on ultra-low sulfur fuel. In 

any case, the 1,000 ppm sulfur fuel requirement alone will eliminate 85 percent of PM emissions 

from ships operating in ECAs. The final standards are consistent with the statutory direction to 

set standards requiring the greatest degree of emission reduction that is achievable in the given 

time frame. 

To further our understanding of PM emissions from ships, we are requiring engine 

manufacturers to measure and report PM emissions even though we are not finalizing a PM 

standard. The information gathered will help support our efforts as we continue to evaluate the 

feasibility of achieving further PM reductions. It will also help us to better characterize the PM 

emission rates associated with operating Category 3 engines on distillate fuel and will also allow 

further evaluation of the PM reduction potential of exhaust gas scrubbers. If we determine that 

further PM reductions are feasible or that a specific PM limit is necessary to ensure anticipated 

reductions in PM emissions from ships, we may propose PM standards for Category 3 engines in 

the future. 

We are not establishing new engine standards for PM or SOX emissions. We intend to 

rely instead on the use of cleaner fuels, or equivalent approaches. SOX emissions and the 

majority of the direct PM emissions from Category 3 marine engines operated on residual fuels 

are a direct result of fuel quality, most notably the sulfur in the fuel. Other components of 

residual fuel, such as ash and heavy metals, also contribute directly to PM. 

Using cleaner distillate fuel is an effective means to achieve significant PM and SOX

reductions for Category 3 engines. We are finalizing requirements to substantially reduce the 

33 
sulfur content of fuel purchased in the U.S. for use in an ECA. This complements Annex VI 

which requires that fuels used in ECAs around the world have sulfur levels no higher than 1,000 

ppm. This sulfur limit is expected to necessitate the use of distillate fuel which will result not 

only in reductions in sulfate PM emissions, but also reductions in organic PM and metallic ash 

particles in the exhaust. In contrast, any potential increase in carbonaceous PM due to NOX

emission control technology is relatively small. 

 We are not setting a date by which we will complete an evaluation of PM emissions. We 

cannot accurately predict the rate at which we will gather information from our requirement to 

measure and report PM emissions. Sales of Category 3 engines for U.S.-flagged vessels are 

unpredictable, but always very low. Moreover, since PM emissions will be reported by family 

and we allow manufacturers to recertify using carryover data, the number of PM test results we 

receive each year will be often be less than the total number of Category 3 engines sold in that 

year. To the extent we revisit the issue of further PM emissions control, we will consider the 

impact of potential NOX/PM tradeoffs in addition to other issues raised by commenters. 

While we recognize that speciated measurements of PM emissions would be valuable, we 

are not finalizing such a requirement at this time. Requiring full speciation of PM emissions 

would add significantly to cost and complexity of the measurement. Moreover, EPA does not 

require speciated PM measurements for any other nonroad engine category. 

34 
CHAPTER 4: Fuel Standard and SO2 Controls 

What We Proposed:

The comments in this section generally correspond to Section IV of the preamble to the 

proposed rule, where we describe the changes to our diesel fuel program, and Section V.C where 

we discuss equivalent approaches to meeting the fuel sulfur limits. They also correspond to 

Sections III.B and VI.A, where we describe how our program addresses Particulate Matter (PM) 

emissions. The technical feasibility of our fuel program is described in Chapter 4 of the 

Regulatory Impact Analysis. 

Please see Chapters 2 and 10 of this Summary and Analysis of Comments document for a 

discussion of fuel issues related to the North American Emission Control Area and the Great 

Lakes, respectively.

4.1 Amendments to the Diesel Fuel Sulfur Program 

4.1.1 1,000 ppm Fuel Sulfur Standard 

4.1.1.1 General 

What Commenters Said:

Support

A number of commenters, in both written comments and hearing testimony, expressed 

support for our proposal to allow for the production, distribution, and sale of 1,000 ppm sulfur 

fuel for use in ECAs. Commenters stated that they generally supported the use of lower sulfur 

fuels in Category 3 (C3) engines, harmonization with MARPOL Annex VI, and/or the allowance 

for U.S. refiners to produce 1,000 ppm sulfur fuel. 

The National Association of Clean Air Agencies (NACAA) and American Thoracic 

Society commented that they support the proposal to include the ECA fuel standard of 1,000 

ppm fuel by 2016 for C3 vessels. 

The Marsh Area Regional Council, Earth Day Coalition, Ohio Environmental Council, 

the Ohio League of Conservation Voters, Johnson Matthey, and the Manufacturers of Emission 

Controls Association (MECA) commented that they support the proposed 1,000 ppm sulfur 

standard; however, they also suggested several conditions to this support, including fuel quality 

and further reductions, as noted in section 4.3 below. 

The World Shipping Council (WSC)and the Pacific Merchant Shipping Association 

(PMSA) commented that they fully support the proposal to codify and adopt the Annex VI sulfur 

standards, and expressed support for maintaining consistency with the requirements of Annex 

VI. The commenters further stated that they support the revision of the 40 CFR Part 80 fuel 

regulations to allow for the sale and use of 1,000 ppm fuels, as the commenters believe that 

failure to provide these fuels would effectively force the use of 15 ppm fuel in ocean-going 

vessels—potentially leading to technical issues (e.g., lubricity, viscosity, etc.) with operation of 

these engines with ultra-low sulfur limits. 

35 
The American Lung Association (ALA) and the Environmental Defense Fund (EDF) 

commented that they strongly support EPA’s proposal to mirror the fuel standards required in 

ECAs, and noted that without this rulemaking, refiners would not be able to produce fuel with a 

sulfur level of 1,000 ppm. 

The Engine Manufacturers Association (EMA) commented that it fully supports the 

strategy of pursuing harmonized international emission limits for C3 engines, and noted that 

otherwise, a distinct EPA program for C3 marine engines would result in ensuring that no C3 

engines/vessels would be certified or registered under U.S. regulations which would 

disadvantage domestic engine manufacturers and shipbuilders. The commenter further stated 

that it supports the proposal requiring the use of fuel with a maximum sulfur content of 1,000 

ppm or an IMO-certified scrubber system. 

The Independent Fuel Terminal Operators Association (IFTOA) commented that it 

commends EPA for the proposal to amend the diesel program to allow for 1,000 ppm sulfur fuel 

and supports its adoption. 

The Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ) commented that it supports 

the 1,000 ppm standard. 

Matson Navigation Company commented that it supports the revision of the diesel fuel 

program to allow for the sale and use of 1,000 ppm sulfur fuels in ocean-going vessels (OGVs). 

The Pacific Merchant Shipping Association (PMSA) commented that it strongly supports 

the revision of the diesel fuel program to require the use of 1,000 ppm sulfur fuels for OGVs. 

Clean Air Task Force (CATF), et al commented that they support the proposal to 

establish enforceable limits on the sulfur content of fuel burned by C3 engines in OGVs. 

Maersk Inc. commented that it supports the proposal to ensure availability of fuels 

required for use inside the ECA. 

Oppose

The Canadian Shipowners Association expressed the concern that no blended fuels 

currently meet a 1,000 ppm sulfur limit. The commenter also raised concerns about pricing of 

1,000 ppm fuel. Murphy Oil USA commented that there is no cost-effective technology that 

would enable the commenter to produce a #6 fuel oil at 1,000 ppm sulfur after 2014. The 

commenter noted that at that time, it would need to supply vessels with straight diesel fuel, 

which would be a significant increase in costs for its customers. 

Our Response:

As discussed in Section IV of the preamble to the proposed rule, we believe that because 

of the Annex VI limits on the sulfur content of fuel used in ECAs, the existing diesel fuel sulfur 

program should be revised to allow for the production, distribution, purchase, and use of 1,000 

ppm sulfur fuel oil for use in C3 marine vessels. Therefore, we are finalizing the new 1,000 ppm 

sulfur category for fuel produced and purchased for use in C3 marine vessels (called “ECA 

marine fuel”) to harmonize EPA’s diesel sulfur program with the requirements of Annex VI. 

36 
Since the requirements for 1,000 ppm sulfur fuel will apply to any ECA established 

around the world, this fuel will likely be produced by refiners in other countries. Under our 

diesel fuel program prior to this final rule, fuel meeting a 1,000 ppm sulfur level would likely be 

distillate fuel, and thus subject to the 15 ppm NRLM sulfur limit in 2014 and later. If EPA were 

to require that fuel produced, distributed, and sold for use for Category 3 vessels in the U.S. meet 

the 15 ppm sulfur standard after 2014, we believe that Category 3 vessel owners would simply 

purchase 1,000 ppm sulfur fuel elsewhere to be used here in the North American ECA. This 

could be an extremely inefficient process for ship owners, and would mean a loss of sales for 

U.S. refiners of fuel that these Category 3 vessel owners purchase. These impacts would add to 

the costs and burdens of the program with no corresponding environmental benefit. Therefore, 

we believe that it is important to harmonize our standards with Annex VI by allowing U.S. 

refiners and importers to produce 1,000 ppm sulfur fuel for use by Category 3 vessels. 

As discussed in the RIA and in section IV.C of the preamble to this final rule, we agree 

that the fuel sulfur limit of 1,000 will likely lead to the use of distillate fuel. The cost of 

switching from residual to distillate fuel is discussed in Chapter 6 of this document. While there 

may not currently be blended fuels available at the 1,000 ppm sulfur level, we do believe that 

this sulfur limit is achievable (whether by blending or refining). Please see Chapter 4 of the RIA 

for a detailed discussion on feasibility. 

4.1.1.2 Proposed Prohibition on Use of Fuel Greater than 1,000 ppm 

What Commenters Said:

Several commenters expressed concern that the proposed prohibition on U.S. production 

and sale of fuel greater than 1,000 ppm sulfur for use in ECAs would conflict with the flexibility 

offered under the ECA standards to use abatement technology in lieu of lower sulfur distillate 

fuels. These comments are discussed below in section 4.6 of this Summary and Analysis of 

Comments document. However, a few commenters did state that they support the proposal to 

prohibit the production and sale of marine fuel oil above 1,000 ppm sulfur for use in any marine 

diesel vessel operating within U.S. waters. 

The Exhaust Gas Cleaning Systems Association (EGCSA) commented that the 

prohibition of the import, manufacture, and sale of marine fuels with sulfur content greater than 

1,000 ppm will have a deleterious impact on a significant area of marine commerce in the U.S. 

The commenter stated that it believes that a prohibition on the sale of these fuels will result in the 

majority of internationally trading vessels purchasing bunkers outside the U.S. EGCSA further 

commented that such a prohibition will not provide any significant support to the enforcement of 

the ECA requirements. The commenter recommended that EPA fully align with MARPOL 

Annex VI and allow the import, manufacture, and sale of all types of marine diesel and residual 

fuels. 

CLIA and Chamber of Shipping of America stated that they believe higher sulfur fuel 

should also be permitted for sale in the U.S. for use outside the ECA. 

PMSA commented that it believes there needs to be some flexibility in the rule, and 

raised concern about the prohibition of production and sale of higher sulfur fuels. The 

commenter stated that we need to ensure that appropriate fuels remain available for steam 

propulsion vessels and boilers that are not capable of using distillate fuels. PMSA further 

37 
commented that the rigid fuel requirements could have the unintended consequence of forcing 

these vessels out of service or to use unsafe fuels if they cannot obtain the HFOs they require. 

The Great Lakes Maritime Task Force (GLMTF) commented at length that the NPRM 

does not contain material, data, or findings necessary under Clean Air Act (CAA) section 211(c) 

to ban the use of residual fuels on vessels operating on the Great Lakes. The commenter also 

commented that EPA did not adequately explain the health basis or economic effects for 

choosing to ban fuels above 1,000 ppm sulfur. 

The International Association of Drilling Contractors (IADC) commented that, with the 

proposed elimination of fuel above 1,000 ppm sulfur, all U.S. fuel for marine vessels in domestic 

service would then met or exceed the requirements established under MARPOL Annex VI. The 

commenter suggested that, with the timely approval of the [North American] ECA and changes 

to the diesel fuel program, EPA should prepare a notice for submission to IMO stating that the 

requirements of regulation 18 (relating to the bunker delivery note and representative fuel 

sample) will not be imposed on vessels in domestic service as the U.S. diesel fuel program 

ensures that fuel supplied to such vessels meets or exceeds the Annex VI requirements. (The 

commenter also noted that corresponding changes to 40 CFR 1043.60 and other affected sections 

would be required.) 

Our Response:

This rulemaking does not affect the sale of high sulfur residual fuel for use outside of 

ECAs (or by a vessel using an equivalent approach, as discussed below in section 4.6). In 

addition, higher sulfur residual fuel may be sold for use in any steamships not subject to the fuel 

sulfur limits (see Chapter 10 of this Summary and Analysis of Comments document). Such fuel 

must be clearly designated on PTDs, and the use of this fuel in an ECA associated areas (on a 

vessel not equipped with a scrubber, or other equivalent technology) could result in an 

enforcement action. 

With regard to the comment about EPA submitting a notice to IMO regarding bunker 

delivery notes and sampling, we note that vessels that operate only domestically (as specified in 

§1043.10(a)(2)) and comply fully with the fuel requirements of 40 CFR part 80 are deemed to 

comply fully with the requirements of the Annex (the operating and recordkeeping requirements 

of §§1043.60 and 1043.70). 

EPA confirms that it is finalizing the revisions to the fuel sulfur program under 

211(c)(1)(A). As explained in the proposed rule, EPA has previously examined the how 

emissions products of sulfur in nonroad, locomotive, and marine diesel fuel used in these engines 

contribute to PM and SOX pollution. See 69 FR 38958. The proposed rule also provided 

detailed information demonstrating that emissions of these pollutants cause or contribute to 

ambient levels of air pollution that endanger public health and welfare. Control of sulfur to 

1,000 ppm for fuel used in C3 vessels in the ECA and ECA associated areas will lead to 

significant, cost-effective reductions in emissions of these pollutants, with the benefits to public 

health and welfare significantly outweighing the costs. 

EPA also considered "other technologically or economically feasible means of achieving 

emission standards under section [202 of the Act]" as required by 211(c)(2)(A). This provision 

has been interpreted as requiring consideration of establishing emission standards under section 

38 
202 prior to establishing controls or prohibitions on fuels or fuel additives under section 

211(c)(1)(A). See Ethyl Corp. v. EPA, 541 F.2d. 1, 31-32 (D.C. Cir. 1976). In Ethyl, the court 

stated that section 211(c)(2)(A) calls for good faith consideration of the evidence and options, 

not for mandatory deference to regulation under section 202 compared to fuel controls. Id. at 32, 

n.66. As discussed in Chapter 3 of this document, we are not setting PM standards at this time 

and anticipate that the majority of direct PM emissions from C3 marine vessels can be reduced 

through lower fuel sulfur standards. Further, as discussed below, we also note that the rule 

provides for the sale of higher sulfur fuel if a vessel employs technology that achieves equivalent 

reductions in PM. 

EPA disagrees with GLMTF’s comment that it has not satisfied these requirements of the 

CAA. GLMTF argues that EPA’s analysis fails to consider that Great Lakes’ vessel account for 

a relatively small percentage of total emissions from C3 vessels. Section 211(c)(1)(A) of the 

CAA requires that before regulating a fuel or fuel additive the Administrator must determine 

that, “any emission product of such fuel or fuel additive causes, or contributes, to air pollution 

which may reasonably be anticipated to endanger public health or welfare.” The focus of EPA’s 

required analysis under 211(c) is the emission product of a fuel or fuel additive. Accordingly, as 

noted above, in this rule EPA provided information on the health effects resulting from emission 

products (PM and SOX) from marine diesel fuel. EPA’s analysis clearly shows that emissions of 

PM and SOX cause or contribute to air pollution that endangers public health and welfare. 

Importantly, EPA’s finding is based on the nationwide effects of emissions because the rule 

applies to C3 vessels nationwide. EPA’s analysis is not limited to the Great Lakes because 

EPA’s rule is not limited to the Great Lakes. 

GLMTF does not dispute this finding but instead argues that EPA had to make a finding 

that vessels in the Great Lakes cause or contribute to the endangerment of public health. 

However, the CAA does not require that EPA parse its analysis to this level- that is, EPA is not 

required to make separate findings for every subsection of an industry or every specific region of 

the country. Instead, the CAA requires that EPA find the emission product of a “fuel or fuel 

additive causes, or contributes,” to air pollution that may endanger public health or welfare. The 

focus in 211(c)(1)(A) is on the fuel or fuel additive, rather than on a particular industry that uses 

the fuel or fuel additive. EPA’s obligation is to make a finding based on the scope of its rule 

rather than on a subset of the rule. Therefore, EPA has made the required finding under 

211(c)(1)(A) based on its analysis of PM and SOX emissions resulting from use of marine diesel 

fuel nationwide. 

GLMTF also argues that significant “mode shifting” (i.e., transport of goods via modes of 

transportation other than rail) will actually result in an increase in emissions. EPA has provided 

a detailed response to this issue in Chapter 10 of this Summary and Analysis of Comments 

document. In sum, while our cost analysis shows that operating costs will increase for all 

vessels, including Great Lakes vessels, this increase will not be so high as to cause the removal 

of vessels from the U.S. Great Lakes fleet or the shift of significant amounts of cargo from ships 

to land-based transportation in the Great Lakes area. 

Finally, GLMTF argues that EPA’s regulation is not adequately tailored, pointing 

specifically in several places to steamships in the Great Lakes. As noted above, the CAA does 

not require EPA to determine that particular industries, or subsections of industry, emit 

pollutants in levels that cause or contribute to the endangerment of public health or welfare. 

39 
That said, EPA also notes that the final rule exempts steamships that operate in the Great Lakes 

from the fuel sulfur requirements. See 40 CFR 1043.95. 

4.1.2 Compliance and Implementation 

4.1.2.1 Elimination of 500 ppm Sulfur Fuel Standard After 2014 

What Commenters Said:

Euromot commented that, due to environmental reasons, it does not see any need for 

actively phasing out the 500 ppm locomotive and marine (LM) diesel fuel standard. The 

commenter stated that C3 engines can operate on 500 ppm fuel as well as on 1,000 ppm fuel. 

IFTOA commented that it strongly endorses the primary proposal to eliminate the 500 

ppm LM diesel fuel category, as it is the easiest way to harmonize the C3 rule and the existing 

diesel program, and would help to simplify the diesel program’s designate and track (D&T) 

provisions. The commenter stated that it believes that the elimination of the 500 ppm LM 

standard provides a much simpler solution for the regulatory regime. 

Our Response:

As discussed in the preamble to the final rule, we are eliminating the 500 ppm LM diesel 

fuel standard once the 1,000 ppm standard becomes effective to simplify the diesel sulfur 

program. Under the diesel sulfur program prior to this final rule, 500 ppm LM diesel fuel could 

be produced by transmix processors indefinitely, and could be used by locomotives and marine 

vessels that do not require 15 ppm. The original intent of allowing for this fuel was to serve as 

an outlet for interface and downgraded diesel fuel post-2014 that would otherwise not meet the 

15 ppm sulfur standard. However, we believe that the 1,000 ppm sulfur ECA marine fuel can 

now serve as this outlet. We believe that transmix generated near the coasts would have ready 

access to marine applications, and transmix generated in the mid-continent could be shipped via 

rail or fuel barge to markets on the coasts. 

Elimination of the 500 ppm LM diesel fuel standard will simplify the diesel sulfur 

program such that sulfur can serve as the distinguishing factor for fuels available for use after 

2014 (the designated products under the diesel fuel program will thus be: 15 ppm motor vehicle, 

nonroad, locomotive, and marine (MVNRLM) diesel fuel; heating oil; and 1,000 ppm ECA 

marine fuel). Further, this will help to streamline the D&T program as there will no longer be a 

need for a fuel marker to distinguish 500 ppm LM diesel fuel from heating oil and there will not 

be a need for the Northeast/Mid-Atlantic (NE/MA) area. 

Regarding the comment from Euromot that the 500 ppm LM diesel fuel standard should 

remain for environmental reasons because C3 engines could operate on this fuel, we note that 

under the diesel sulfur program prior to this rule, the 500 ppm LM diesel fuel sulfur standard was 

for locomotives and Category 1 and 2 vessels and could be used indefinitely. Category 3 vessels 

could use distillate or residual fuel with much greater sulfur levels, as the diesel program did not 

regulate these heavier fuels (see discussion in section IV.B.1). Under today’s program, with the 

elimination of the 500 ppm LM diesel fuel standard, locomotives and Category 1 and 2 vessels 

will now be required to use 15 ppm MVNRLM diesel fuel and Category 3 vessels will now use 

fuel with a controlled sulfur level of 1,000 ppm. 

40 
4.1.2.2 Labeling 

What Commenters Said:

EGCSA commented that fuel pump labeling is unlikely to apply to the bunkering of 

merchant ships. The commenter noted that in such cases, the pump may be situated in a pump 

room below deck and any labeling would not be visible. 

Our Response:

We appreciate the commenter’s comments on labeling. As we understand that traditional 

pump labeling may not be feasible in many situations for 1,000 ppm sulfur ECA fuel, we are 

committed to working with industry to develop workable solutions to help encourage proper fuel 

usage and discourage misfueling. 

4.2 Proposed Alternative Options 

What Commenters Said:

While it supports the primary proposal to eliminate the 500 ppm LM category after 2014, 

IFTOA commented that if it is determined that some railroads require the 500 ppm sulfur fuel in 

the mid-continent and the elimination would be significantly detrimental, then the commenter 

would support the expanded Northeast/Mid-Atlantic (NE/MA) area. 

Our Response:

 We appreciate the comments on the proposed alternative options. We did not receive 

any comments stating that the elimination of the 500 ppm LM diesel fuel category would be 

detrimental to locomotives (or Category 1 and 2 vessels) that would have used this fuel; further, 

we believe that simplification of the designate and track program will greatly benefit the fuel 

production and distribution industry. Therefore, as noted above, we are finalizing the primary 

proposal to eliminate the 500 ppm LM diesel fuel standard when the 1,000 ppm sulfur ECA fuel 

standard takes effect in 2014. 

4.3 Other 

4.3.1 Category 1 and 2 Engines on C3 Vessels 

What Commenters Said:

Euromot commented that it seeks clarification on fuel use in Category 1 and Category 2 

engines onboard Category 3 Vessels. Specifically the commenter asked if: a) C1 and C2 engines 

be subject to the 15 ppm sulfur standard; b) it is envisioned that C2 engines and aftertreatment 

systems need to be compatible with 1,000 ppm fuel; c) C1 and C2 engines operating on 1,000 

ppm fuel need to comply with C3 emission limits; and d) C1 and C2 engines operating outside 

U.S. waters on potentially unspecified fuel with sulfur limits much greater than 15 ppm be able 

to comply with the proposed exemption (i.e., EPA’s Tier 3 marine standard). 

41 
NACAA and CATF commented that they are opposed to any relaxation of the 15 ppm 

fuel sulfur standard for C1 and/or C2 engines. CATF further stated that it believes that the 

higher sulfur would not only increase emissions from such engines, but would also compromise 

the effectiveness of controls for limiting directly emitted PM from those engines. 

ALA and EDF commented that they do not support the use of 1,000 ppm fuel in C2 

engines. The commenters further stated that they do not believe there is any reason to relax the 

fuel sulfur standards for C2 engines in this rulemaking. 

EMA commented that it supports the use of 1,000 ppm fuel in C2 engines installed on 

C3-powered vessels (instead of 15 ppm sulfur fuel) when operating in ECAs. The commenter 

noted that these vessels could otherwise have to accommodate three separate fuel systems (1,000 

ppm ECA marine fuel, bunker fuel for use outside ECAs, and 15 ppm diesel fuel for C2 

engines), which it believes is unworkable and cost-prohibitive. 

Our Response:

In general, we are not relaxing the sulfur standards for Category 1 and 2 engines. We are 

allowing the use of 1,000 ppm sulfur ECA marine fuel in certain Category 1 and 2 auxiliary 

engines installed on Category 3 vessels only. (See Chapter 5 of this Summary and Analysis 

document for additional discussion of this issue.) Category 1 and 2 vessels will still be required 

to use NRLM diesel fuel, consistent with the concerns expresses by CATF. Allowing the use of 

1,000 ppm sulfur fuel in auxiliary engines on Category 3 vessels will still result in emissions 

benefits as most existing Category 3 vessels use residual fuel for their Category 2 auxiliary 

engines, and high sulfur distillate fuels for their Category 1 engines. Note also that this 

allowance also does not preclude the use of 15 ppm NRLM diesel fuel in these engines. 

4.3.2 Fuel Quality 

What Commenters Said:

The Marsh Area Regional Council, Earth Day Coalition, Ohio Environmental Council, 

and the Ohio League of Conservation Voters commented that they believe EPA should adopt a 

fuel quality standard specifying the sale of distillate fuel for marine use in U.S. waters. The 

commenters urged EPA to adopt minimum fuel quality requirements for all marine diesel fuel 

sold in the U.S. based on the characteristics of marine distillate fuel (MGO or DMA). 

The City of New York commented that EPA should continue to monitor fuel content and 

ambient air to ensure that heavy metals are reduced with sulfur and to undertake additional 

rulemakings if necessary. 

Our Response:

We appreciate the commenters’ concerns. The regulations at 40 CFR Part 80 Subpart I 

currently control sulfur content, and cetane or aromatics. EPA’s proposed action only proposed 

amendments to the fuel sulfur requirements, and we believe that this is appropriate given the 

environmental focus of and justification for this rulemaking. Expanding to other fuel properties 

would require a separate justification and action, as it is therefore beyond the scope of what EPA 

proposed. EPA notes that fuel quality standards, as recommended by the commenters, are 

42 
generally regulated by the American Society of Testing and Materials (ASTM, the recognized 

standard-setting body for fuels and additives in the United States) and the National Institute of 

Standards and Technology (NIST, the federal agency that develops and promotes measurement, 

standards, and technology). Fuel quality is often handled at the state level by State Weights and 

Measures departments. 

Please see section 1.1.6 of this document for a discussion of the City of New York’s 

comments on heavy metals. 

4.3.3 Further Reductions in Fuel Sulfur 

What Commenters Said:

The South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) commented that it urges 

EPA to take additional actions that expedite and strengthen emission reductions; specifically, 

that EPA adopt technology-forcing particulate emission limits, and consider lower sulfur fuel 

than 1,000 ppm. 

The Marsh Area Regional Council, Earth Day Coalition, Ohio Environmental Council, 

and the Ohio League of Conservation Voters commented that they believe additional control 

“tiers” containing more stringent sulfur limits in the future as lower sulfur fuel becomes more 

widely available, allowing land-based PM control technologies to be applied to large marine 

diesel engines. 

CATF et. al. commented that they believe the proposal should have been expanded to set 

tighter sulfur standards over the next few years. 

MECA and Johnson Matthey commented that they urge EPA to take a global leadership 

position of setting a timetable for further reductions in fuel sulfur to ULSD level, as they believe 

that this would extend catalyst durability and enable use of diesel oxidation catalyst (DOC) and 

diesel particulate filter (DPF) technologies for the reduction of PM. 

Our Response:

We note that the lower fuel sulfur standards for C3 marine engines are intended to make 

fuel available in the U.S. that is harmonized with the international ECA fuel sulfur standards. If 

EPA were to take action to further reduce the sulfur of ECA marine fuel sold in the U.S., we 

believe that Category 3 vessel owners would simply purchase 1,000 ppm sulfur fuel elsewhere to 

be used here in the North American ECA. This could be an extremely inefficient process for 

ship owners and would not result in any environmental benefit. Further, it could put U.S. entities 

that are regulated by this rule at a competitive disadvantage because the U.S. regulations would 

then not be harmonized with the standards of the rest of the worldwide maritime industry. Please 

see Section 3.3.3 of this document for further discussion on the relationship between further 

reductions in fuel sulfur and PM emissions. 

43 
4.4 Technical Feasibility of Fuel Switching 

What Commenters Said:

The Canadian Shipowners Association (CSA) raised a number of technical concerns 

associated with switching from high sulfur residual fuel to lower sulfur distillate fuel. CSA 

commented that vessel owners also have significant challenges with assuring the necessary 

modifications are made to vessels engaged in international trade which would call in the U.S. 

ECA. In this operating scenario, vessels would have to retrofit fuel storage and supply systems 

to enable the carriage and safe switch-over from a non-ECA to an ECA compliant fuel. In 

conjunction with this physical retrofit, new procedures and training protocols will need to be 

established to assure safe fuel switching occurs prior to the vessel’s entry into the ECA. CSA 

also commented that there is a substantial loss in speed and therefore of vessel productivity and a 

significant increase in daily fuel consumption due to the loss of calorific values in conversion 

from residual to distillate fuels. 

Chamber of Shipping of America commented that safety issues have arisen due to fuel 

switching. As an example, recently the San Francisco Harbor Safety Committee received input 

from U.S. Coast Guard and San Francisco Bar Pilots concerning propulsion problems while 

vessels are using low sulfur fuel as required by the California Air Resources Board (CARB). To 

date, at least seven propulsion losses have been documented in Los Angeles/Long Beach and San 

Francisco Bay and a number of other instances of reduced maneuverability relating to vessels’ 

inabilities to go to dead slow ahead or astern at reduced RPMs/low speeds have also been 

documented. These issues must be fully identified and solutions found which will eliminate 

these situations which have the potential to negatively the impact in a far more adverse way than 

the air emissions they seek to reduce. Prior to imposing any new low sulfur fuel requirements at 

the federal level, EPA is urged to work closely with the USCG in assuring adequate and 

environmentally protective resolution of these issues. 

Maersk commented that they have significant experience switching from residual to 

distillate fuel on their vessels, noting that they have been an industry leader in environmental 

improvements, in both vessel design and operations. Maersk stated that this is particularly 

evident in their ongoing environmental commitment on the U.S. west coast. Since March 2006, 

Maersk’s ships have voluntarily switched to average 0.1 percent sulfur distillate fuel in both 

main and auxiliary engines, and operated auxiliary engines in “low-NOX mode” on vessels so 

equipped when near or in California ports, and while at dock in other west coast ports. 

Reductions achieved have been 95 percent of SOX, 86 percent of PM and at least 12 percent of 

NOX. Maersk has now made over 1200 vessel calls with this lower sulfur fuel, reducing air 

emissions by over 2,400 tons, at a fuel differential cost of over $20 million. Maersk has openly 

shared its experiences with the agencies, the public and the industry, and continues to believe 

that fuel switching is the fastest and most cost effective way to reduce vessel emissions. 

Chamber of Shipping of America (0256) 

Maersk (0261) 

Our Response:

In order to continuously operate on a distillate fuel, some vessels – such as the ships that 

operate almost exclusively on residual or intermediate fuel blends currently – will have to make 

44 
some modifications to their fuel distribution systems. Since distillate fuel is less viscous than 

residual or intermediate fuel oil, fuel system heaters are not required for operating on distillate 

fuel. With residual fuel, these heaters are needed to ensure that the fuel is injected into the 

engine at the proper temperature and viscosity. Additionally, since the distillate fuel does not 

contain the heavy metals or large hydrocarbon compounds typically found in the residual or 

intermediate fuels, the vessel will no longer require the extensive filtering / settling tanks within 

the fuel distribution lines for the distillate fuel system. In addition, some of these vessels may 

require an upgraded fuel injection system as the existing fuel nozzles may not be optimal for 

continual use of the lower viscosity fuel. 

However, removal of the settling tanks / extensive filtering systems will allow more room 

on the vessel for fuel storage tanks or additional cargo, if the vessel owner chooses to modify the 

vessel to only operate on distillate fuel. As the majority of vessels today carry some form of 

distillate fuel for use in emergencies or for routine engine shut-down / start-up for before and 

after engine maintenance, almost all engine manufacturers publish standard operating procedures 

for ensuring safe fuel switching between residual or intermediate fuel oil and a distillate fuel. 

Provided these recommended operating procedures are followed correctly, onboard the vessel 

‘incidents’ due to operation on or switching to a distillate fuel should be avoided, and as this 

procedure could be utilized in a shipboard emergency, all crew members should be properly 

trained in these procedures. 

The marine distillate fuel has a lower energy content on a per volume basis when 

compared to the residual fuel; however, per ton, the distillate fuel’s energy density is larger than 

the residual fuel. This means that when switching from residual fuel to distillate fuel, if the 

vessel’s tanks are volumetrically limited (i.e., the tanks can only hold a set quantity of fuel 

gallons), the distance and possibly speed a vessel can travel on the distillate fuel may be slightly 

shorter and slower than the distance and speed the vessel could travel on the residual fuel due to 

the lower volumetric energy content of distillate fuel, which could require compensation. This 

distance reduction would be approximately 5%, and the vessel could increase the throttle slightly 

if the speed or if maneuverability / operation at the lower speeds was an issue. However, if the 

vessel is limited by weight, the higher energy content per ton of fuel would provide an 

operational advantage for the vessel. 

Due to emission requirements for the state of California Air Resources Board and 

voluntary environmental measures, Maersk Lines have extensive experience with operating 

vessels on – and switching vessels to – distillate fuel. In their experience, Maersk operators have 

been able to successfully switch between residual fuel oil and distillate fuel oil without incident, 

such as propulsion losses, due to crew training and following proper switching procedures. As 

Maersk has been openly reporting their results and procedures with the public, industry, and 

federal agencies, their experiences are available to inform other vessel operators with potential 

fuel switching concerns. 

The maritime industry has analyzed the differences between residual and distillate fuel 

compositions to address any potential issues that could arise from switching operation of a 

Category 3 engine from residual fuel to distillate fuel, such as propulsion losses. The results 

from this research has evolved into routine operational switching procedures that ensure a safe 

and efficient way for the Category 3 engines to switch operation between the residual and 

distillate fuels. Engine manufacturers, fuel suppliers, the American Bureau of Shipping, and the 

45 
U.S. Coast Guard have provided guidance on fuel switching procedures.5,6,7,8,9

 More detail on

these fuel switching procedures and technical considerations is provided in the RIA. 

4.5 Fuel Availability 

What Commenters Said:

Several commenters raised concerns regarding fuel availability. CLIA stated that the 

proposed ECA will increase the demand for distillate fuel, particularly in the North American 

market. The recent Secretary General’s expert group report estimates that the Baltic and North 

Sea SECA’s (although very small in size) represent 8 percent of the global fuel demand. The 

EPA estimates that the North American ECA (despite its size) will place only a 4% demand for 

additional distillate in the world. Potentially other local regulations will increase demand at the 

same time. Additionally the European rules for operation in port while alongside requiring 0.1 

percent sulfur content fuel will take effect in 2010. Conservatively, these requirements will 

require an additional 15 percent production of distillate fuels. These additional demands for 

distillate fuel call into question whether enough distillate fuel will be available in 2015 to meet 

the requirements identified. 

CLIA also commented that the U.S. and Northern Europe are today net exporters of 

distillate fuels with excess refining capacity. Current economic conditions in the world have 

depressed the demand for fuels both refined and residual. It is not clear whether shipping will 

recover from the worldwide recession by 2015. If it does, how much additional demand for 

distillate will this create? Additionally, it is unclear as to whether low sulfur fuels will be readily 

available in select U.S. ports when the ECA comes into force. For example, low sulfur fuels are 

currently not available in Seattle or Vancouver where cruise ships bunker fuel for the Alaska 

cruise season. Those U.S. refineries that have not been required to comply with emission 

controls in the past will have to install new and updated emission controls for all existing and 

new capacity; a significant financial and logistical disincentive to increase output of distillate 

fuels domestically. This requirement calls into question whether U.S. and possibly Canadian 

refineries would be able or willing to invest in additional capacity for the marginally increased 

market expected as a result of this rule. If there is an under supply of distillate fuel in the North 

American market as a result, the required distillate fuels will have to be produced elsewhere and 

shipped to the U.S. Likewise, residual fuel will be produced here and shipped to other markets 

where it is still authorized for use. This increase in the transportation of fuels will result in an 

increase in greenhouse gas production. 

CLIA raised the concern that if additional refining is conducted in developing nations 

where the retrofitting with additional and more modern emission control equipment and systems 

 

5

 MAN B&W Diesel, “Operation on Low-Sulphur Fuels; Two-Stroke Engines,” 2004. 

6

 Wartsila, “Low Sulphur Guidelines,” January 9, 2006. 

7

 American Petroleum Institute, “Technical Considerations of Fuel Switching Practices,” API Technical Issues 

Workgroup, June 3, 2009. 

8

 American Bureau of Shipping, “ABS Notes: Use of Low-Sulphur Marine Fuel for Main and Auxiliary Diesel 

Engines,” Fuel Oil Piping, EWZ-001-02-P04-W007, Attachment G – Revision 1. 

9

 United States Coast Guard, “Avoiding Propulsion Loss from Fuel Switching: American Petroleum Institute, 

Technical Considerations,” Marine Safety Alert 03-09, June 16, 2009. 

46 
are not required, more CO2, SOX, NOX and particulate matter will be emitted in the production 

and transportation of the lower sulfur fuels. 

CLIA commented that this requirement for distillate fuels in the marine industry will 

indeed have an impact on other industry segments. While the availability of crude stock may 

rise or fall with the world market, there is a limit to the amount of distillate that can be produced 

from a given barrel of oil – even with enhanced refining processes. With the marine industry 

now competing for this product, there undoubtedly will be significant upward pressure on the 

pricing structure for all industries (as well as the consumer) sharing the demand for distillate 

fuels. In this regard, we do not believe that the indirect economic impact of this regulation on 

other industries or communities has been adequately addressed. For example, there has been no 

evaluation of how the increased demand for distillate fuels resulting from the U.S. ECA will 

affect home heating oil prices in different regions of the country or other indirect impacts on 

others such as the Department of Defense and Department of Homeland Security. 

Chamber of Shipping of America commented that, at current demand rates (low sulfur in 

certain regions including existing SECAs in the Baltic and North Seas), there have already been 

documented cases of short or non-existent supplies of low sulfur fuels. Adding demand as will 

be the case with the North American ECA adds great uncertainty to the supply and demand 

equation, most significantly on the supply side, a situation which will be further exacerbated 

should ECA’s proliferate worldwide. While less of a concern for U.S. flag vessels that are 

engaged solely in domestic trade due to the expected availability from U.S. refineries, vessels of 

all flags trading internationally, must be able to procure the low sulfur fuels in other nations for 

voyages to the United States. Capacity within the U.S. refining complex does not equate to 

global availability for vessels inbound to U.S. ports. 

Seaworthy commented that international marine shipping purchases a variety of fuels 

from all around the world. In fact, the United States supplies only a small percentage of the 

world’s marine fuels. SFC commented that they appreciate that the EPA has included 

requirements for fuel production and sales in the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, which will 

help ensure that the compliance burden is shared equally between shipowners/operators and 

refineries. However, SFC questioned the assumptions related to fuel availability for international 

vessels. Although the Proposed Rule will ensure that domestic vessels are able to find compliant 

fuel in the ports they call, it does not guarantee that such fuel will be available at all the ports a 

vessel may transit while en route to U.S. waters. In view of this, SFC recommended that clear 

mechanisms (based on Regulation 18 of Annex VI) be developed to cover situations in which a 

ship has unsuccessfully tried to obtain compliant fuel. 

 One commenter raised concerns that lower sulfur fuel may not be available in Alaska by 

2010. Specifically, the commenter noted that EPA has acknowledged the difficulty for Alaska 

in-state refineries to convert to low sulfur and ultra low sulfur fuel by providing Alaska refineries 

have received a waiver to 2010 to meet ultra low-sulfur diesel. In addition, a December 2008 

fire at Petrostar Valdez refinery means it is unlikely that the refinery can physically produce ultra 

low-sulfur in the volumes needed by the marine industry by March 2010. Petrostar has 

traditionally provided about 90 percent of the marine fuel supplies to coastal ports in Alaska. If 

that refinery can’t meet sufficient production, it will require ultra-low sulfur diesel fuel (ULSD) 

to be shipped either to the state from West Coast facilities or to be shipped to coastal facilities 

from either Tesoro’s Nikiski or Flint Hill’s North Pole refineries – the only other fuel suppliers 

47 
in Alaska and only one of the two is producing ULSD. In either case, higher transportation costs 

for ULSD fuel deliveries were not included in the EPA modeling of transportation costs. 

CLIA (0278) 

Senator Murkowski (0384) 

Seaworthy (0226) 

Chamber of Shipping of America (0256) 

Shipping Federation of Canada (0270) 

Our Response:

The above comments primarily focus on the impact of the proposed North American 

ECA on marine fuel availability. As discussed in Chapter 2 of this document, the ECA proposal 

is not within the scope of this rulemaking. However, this rulemaking does apply ECA standards 

to U.S. internal waters. In addition, this rulemaking is making it possible for 0.1 percent sulfur, 

ECA-compliant distillate fuel to be sold in the U.S. Without these new provisions, marine 

distillate fuel sold in the U.S. would generally need to comply with a 15 ppm (0.0015 percent) 

fuel sulfur limit. Distillate fuel meeting the 15 ppm fuel sulfur limit is known as ULSD. 

Contrary to the comments regarding Alaskan refining, this rulemaking will not require ULSD to 

be used in ships in March 2010. 

With respect to the MARPOL Annex VI requirements, Regulation 18 provides relief in 

the event that compliant fuel cannot be reasonably obtained by the ship operator. The ship 

operator would need to provide evidence that it attempted to purchase compliant fuel oil in 

accordance with its voyage plan and, if it was not made available where planned, that attempts 

were made to locate alternative sources for such fuel oil and that despite best efforts to obtain 

compliant fuel oil, no such fuel oil was made available for purchase. We would then take into 

account all relevant circumstances and the evidence presented to determine the appropriate 

action to take, including not taking control measures. As a party to Annex VI, we would provide 

this fuel availability relief provision, even for U.S. internal waters. 

CLIA commented that EPA estimated that the North American ECA would represent 4 

percent demand on world distillate fuel. It should be clarified that we estimate that the fuel 

consumed in the proposed ECA would represent less than 4 percent of marine bunker fuel 

demand, which is less than 1 percent of global distillate demand. In the modeling performed in 

support of the Secretary General experts’ group study, a multiple ECA scenario was evaluated. 

In this scenario, it was considered that multiple ECAs encompassing Europe, Mediterranean Sea, 

Black Sea, North America, Tokyo Bay, and Singapore would total about 15 percent of global 

marine bunker fuel demand (not global distillate demand). Based on these, and other analyses, 

the recent amendments to Annex VI where approved which include the new ECA fuel sulfur 

standards and application criteria. One commenter argued that increased refinery operations and 

fuel distribution will result in increased emissions from the modeling. This factor was 

considered in the refinery modeling performed for the Secretary General experts’ group study. 

In response to the comment that that refining is conducted in developing nations where modern 

emission control equipment and systems may not be required, these air pollution issues cannot be 

addressed through this rulemaking. Because the coordinated strategy is expected to have only 

minor impact on global distillate demand, any additional distillate demand coming from these 

refineries would be expected to have minor impact on emissions compared to the underlying 

48 
problem, and any emission increase would be expected to be far less than the emission 

reductions achieved from shipping. 

In the U.S., Canada, and other parts of the world, distillate fuel is already available which 

would meet the long term 0.1 percent fuel sulfur limit that applies in ECAs beginning in 2015. 

Although the proposed ECA could result in additional demand for distillate fuel, we expect the 

amount of distillate used in the proposed ECA would be a small fraction of the global distillate 

usage. Global distillate fuel demand is projected to grow significantly over the timeframe of the 

long term ECA standards. The U.S. Energy Information Administration projects an annual 

growth in global demand for refined products of about 1.5 percent per year over the next five 

years.10 In comparison to this growth in distillate supply and demand, any effect on demand 

from the North American ECA would be small as increased ECA distillate demand is estimated 

to be less than 1 percent of global distillate production. Further, as noted in the comments of 

CLIA, the recent economic downturn has allowed refining capacity to catch up and actually 

exceed current demand for distillate fuel. 

Sophisticated refinery modeling was performed to evaluate the impact of the proposed 

ECA on global fuel production and costs. This work was done using the WORLD model, which 

is the same model that was used for the Secretary General’s Expert Study. This modeling 

concluded that the additional distillate fuel for the proposed ECA could be produced through 

minor expansions in global coking and hydrotreating processes. This expansion would have a 

side benefit of generating additional gasoline, naptha, and liquid petroleum gas, thereby easing 

supply on those products. The refinery modeling considers not only refinery upgrades, but the 

location of these upgrades and product distribution costs. It is an economic model and considers 

that fuel used in the ECA may be produced outside the U.S. where that is the most economical 

solution. In addition, the model considers the impact of additional distillate demand for the 

marine sector on distillate prices in all sectors. As discussed in Chapter 6 of this document, the 

cost estimates from this modeling compare favorably with real-world bunker prices. Extensive 

detail on this modeling is included in the ECA proposal, the RIA, and the docket for this rule. 

We think it is important, at this point, to provide the market with as much certainty as 

possible. The best thing we can do to ensure that the infrastructure exists for lower sulfur fuel 

production and supply is to establish a clear standard as early as possible so that companies can 

move forward on their business decisions. The sooner the proposed ECA is adopted under 

Annex VI, the sooner refiners can make clear plans to respond to the January 1, 2015 fuel sulfur 

requirements. 

 

10 Energy Information Administration, 2008b. “International Energy Outlook 2008” (DOE/EIA-0484(2008)); 

Washington, DC. (Available at: http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/ieo/) 

49 
4.6 Fuel Equivalency Standard 

4.6.1 Exhaust Gas Cleaning Systems 

What Commenters Said:

A number of commenters expressed concern that the proposed fuel sulfur limit did not 

specifically include a provision allowing for the sale of high sulfur fuel, for use in an ECA, when 

an equivalent SOX and PM control approach is used. API stated that the proposed rulemaking 

has completely thwarted the use of abatement technology through its simultaneously proposed 

fuel standards. Specifically, the EPA has proposed a prohibition on the sale of fuel above 1,000 

ppm sulfur for use in all marine vessels operating in the U.S. ECA and U.S. internal waters. Such 

a prohibition functionally eliminates the possibility that vessels might choose to satisfy the 

MARPOL Annex VI emissions standard through the installation of abatement technology rather 

than through the burning of low-sulfur distillate. 

We received several comments stating that not allowing for equivalent approaches would 

be inconsistent with MARPOL Annex VI. Specifically, commenters referenced Regulation 4 of 

MARPOL Annex VI which states: “The Administration of a Party may allow any fitting, 

material, appliance or apparatus to be fitted in a ship or other procedures, alternative fuel oils, or 

compliance methods used as an alternative to that required by this Annex if such fitting, material, 

appliance or apparatus or other procedures, alternative fuel oils, or compliance methods are at 

least as effective in terms of emissions reductions as that required by this Annex, including any 

of the standards set forth in regulations 13 and 14.” Regulations 13 and 14 refer to the NOX and 

SOX/PM standards respectively. 

Commenters noted that the United States has historically been supportive of performance 

based standards. EGCSA commented that the U.S. delegation at IMO MEPC 59 assured the 

meeting that the USA was committed to complete alignment with MARPOL Annex VI and its 

Regulations. The current EPA proposals are in direct contradiction to both Regulation 14 and 

Regulation 4. The American Petroleum Institutes specifically noted that the United States has 

already stated its intent to the international community that it will allow scrubber technology. In 

its application for an Emissions Control Area (“ECA”), the United States noted that “[a]s an 

alternative, an exhaust gas cleaning system (EGCS) may be used.” API also noted that the 

proposal acknowledges that Annex VI allows for alternative compliance strategies in including 

the use of exhaust gas cleaning systems and goes on to describe the technological feasibility of 

scrubbers and how scrubbers may be used to achieve equivalent emission reductions as fuel 

switching. 

Several other commenters promoted exhaust gas cleaning systems (e.g. SOX scrubbers) as 

an equivalent alternative to switching to operation on lower sulfur fuel in an ECA. Several 

EGCS manufacturers recommended that EPA maintain the inclusion of a technology-based SOX

solution that would complement the low sulfur distillate solution and offer the international ship 

owner a business choice to be evaluated on a ship-by-ship basis. They argued that such an 

approach fully supports EPA’s primary goals of reducing NOX, SOX and PM in engine exhaust 

emissions. Commenters stated that EPA should not eliminate of the production and sale of 

higher sulfur, residual fuels because these fuels have powered the world’s commercial ships for 

many decades. Belco commented that having the option to either purchase the more expensive 

50 
low sulfur fuel or use a scrubbing system with the lower cost high sulfur fuel will provide great 

benefit not only to the shipping industry but also to the many air pollution controls companies in 

the United States and throughout the world. By applying the proven technologies of exhaust 

scrubbers and exhaust gas recirculation systems (used in many industries) to commercial ships, 

several commenters stated that SOX, NOX, and particulate matter can be brought into compliance 

with the proposed limits. 

 EGCSA commented that not only will limiting the sale of higher sulfur fuel prevent the 

United States from benefiting from the reduced emissions that can be achieved with exhaust gas 

cleaning technologies but it will almost certainly impact the wider adoption of the technology on 

a global basis. CLIA commented that further development of exhaust gas scrubbers or other 

similar technology and the use of such technology should be encouraged and the manufacture, 

offer for sale and sale of residual fuels should not be prohibited for use with such proven 

technology. CLIA went on to say that if technological solutions can only be utilized on engines 

that are required to utilize ECA fuel, then there is no benefit or incentive to either develop or 

utilize this promising technology. 

Commenters recommended that we explicitly include the intent of Regulation 4 of 

MARPOL Annex VI enabling the use and operation of exhaust gas cleaning technologies on 

board vessels operating in or visiting the United States. More specifically, commenters stated 

that the final rule should make it clear that the sale of residual fuels is allowed in the United 

States for use in vessels equipped with appropriate exhaust gas cleaning systems as well as for 

use outside the ECA. CSA argued that the focus on fuels and alternative compliance 

technologies should be on use and not on whether the fuel is manufactured and distributed. 

EGCSA stated that the use of exhaust gas cleaning systems is entirely consistent with the U.S. 

Clean Air Act and its implementation in U.S. power utilities where such cleaning systems are 

frequently used for reducing PM and SOX emissions. 

Seaworthy (0226) 

DuPont Belco (0362) 

EGCSA (0305) 

Canada (0252) 

Chamber of Shipping of America (0256) 

WSC (0325) 

CLIA (0278) 

API, (0354) 

Shipping Federation of Canada (0270) 

Euromot (0243) 

Canadian Shipowners Association (0245) 

EMA (0265) 

Maersk (0261) 

Lower Lakes (0230) 

Our Response:

As a Party to Annex VI, we intend to implement the Emission Control Area in a way that 

is consistent with Annex VI. Under Annex VI, Regulation 4 provides for alternatives to the 

standards, including the NOX and fuel sulfur limits in regulations 13 and 14, provided that these 

51 
alternatives “are at least as effective in terms of emission reductions.” One of the prominent 

technologies that has been discussed as an equivalency for low sulfur fuel is the use of exhaust 

gas cleaning units (EGCS), also known as “scrubbers.” We have had an active role in tracking 

the progress of this technology and in the development of ECGS guidelines through IMO. We 

recognize scrubbers as a promising technology for reducing exhaust emissions of SOX from 

ships operating on high sulfur residual fuel. In fact, the proposed rulemaking includes a detailed 

discussion of SOX scrubbers as a potential technical approach to comply with the ECA standards. 

As proposed, ship operators would have been able to use SOX scrubbers in the ECA, 

provided that an equivalency was granted under Regulation 4. In addition, these vessels would 

have been able to use high sulfur fuel in conjunction with the SOX scrubber. However, the 

proposed rule did not include an allowance for the higher sulfur fuel to be purchased in the U.S., 

for use with equivalent technology. As this is inconsistent with Annex VI, we are correcting this 

oversight in the final rule. U.S. refiners will be able to sell fuel that does not meet the ECA fuel 

sulfur limit, for use in an ECA, in the event that the vessel uses a SOX scrubber, or other 

equivalency, that achieves ECA compliance while operating on high sulfur fuel. 

4.6.2 Other Approaches to Equivalency 

What Commenters Said:

 As discussed in 4.5.1 above, many commenters expressed support of equivalency 

approaches, as allowed under MARPOL Annex VI, regulation 4. While EGCS were discussed 

extensively, commenters raised a number of other approaches. Given the variety of trades, ships, 

fuels and ecosystems involved, industry stated that they should have access to a range of options, 

and the shipowner should have the final word on how air emission limits will be met. 

 Maersk encouraged EPA to keep standards focused on the environmental improvements 

while minimizing constraints which reduce operational flexibility or inadvertently inhibit 

innovation. For example, the rule should allow the use of a variety of fuels in conjunction with 

other exhaust gas cleaning technologies as long equivalent or better air quality is achieved and 

other environmental impacts can be appropriately addressed. Many new technologies are now in 

development, and this should be not be discouraged by regulatory impediments. 

 CLIA commented that EPA to broadly interpret the “equivalent” regulation to consider a 

wide number of strategies. These strategies are listed below. In addition, CLIA asked the EPA 

to support the development of these alternative compliance mechanisms through the use of pilot 

projects, and research and development efforts. 

a. Acceptance of approved EGS technology; 

b. Emission averaging based on the use of shore power while a ship is in port; 

c. Fleet emission averaging if and when one or more of a company’s ships utilize 

alternative technology such as gas turbine engines or alternative fuels which result in 

emissions that are much lower than that required for ECA compliance; 

d. Allowing a ship that voluntarily utilizes lower sulfur fuels or technology outside of the 

designated ECA to average its own emissions; 

e. Allowing credits/banking for early implementation of compliance measures; 

52 
f. Allowing ships to utilize markets available for purchase of SOX and NOX credits to 

offset emissions; 

g. The use of fleet averaging, banking and trading (ABT) as an alternative compliance 

method has previously been accepted by EPA and we would encourage EPA to seek the 

cooperation of IMO, Canada, and other flag states in implementing ABT within the North 

American ECA. CLIA recognizes that tracking of fleet averaging and an acceptable 

method to prove equivalency will have to be developed and we would encourage EPA to 

support such developments in partnership with the maritime industry. 

 CSA commented that the final rule must provide the critical details of equivalency and 

alternative reduction strategies and create a system that provides the maximum flexibility for 

vessel owners to choose among a number of alternative equivalent reduction strategies. These 

alternative compliance programs should be fully detailed to promote the maximum in 

compliance flexibility and incentivize the development of even more efficient emissions 

reductions technologies which address multiple pollutants in a holistic manner. Examples of 

possible alternative programs include fleet averaging and the generation of emissions credits 

across a given fleet for cold ironing.

Maersk (0261) 

Shipping Federation of Canada (0270) 

CLIA (0278) 

Chamber of Shipping of America (0256) 

Our Response:

As discussed above, we are finalizing regulations that will allow for high sulfur fuel to be 

sold in the U.S. for use in vessels that have received an equivalency under Regulation 4 of 

Annex VI, provided that the equivalency allows for ECA compliance with high sulfur fuel. We 

do not believe that it is appropriate to determine the details of equivalency and alternative 

reduction strategies as part of this rulemaking. We would instead evaluate different technologies 

and approaches on a case-by-case basis under the provisions of Regulation 4. We agree with the 

comment that many new technologies are now in development, and should be not be discouraged 

by regulatory impediments. 

4.7 Technical Feasibility of SOX Exhaust Gas Cleaning Systems

4.7.1 SOX Emission Reduction Capability 

What Commenters Said:

 Several commenters stated that exhaust gas cleaning systems may be used to achieve 

substantial reductions in SOX emissions from ships. EGCSA stated that at least three exhaust gas 

cleaning systems are in operation on board merchant vessels and a further 4 to 6 projects are 

underway for installation on board vessels later this year or into 2010. EGCSA reported that all 

the exhaust gas cleaning systems currently in operation have achieved at least 98 percent 

reduction in SOX emissions. Seaworthy commented that the use of exhaust gas scrubbers will 

result in compliance with the proposed low SOX discharge limits irrespective of the original fuel 

type and its sulfur level. Such scrubbers offer a certified, proven technology solution which will 

53 
allow vessels to operate in ECAs using a wide range of marine fuels. Belco commented that 

scrubbing systems on ships are now well proven and some have even been certified by the 

various agencies. SFC commented that recent tests have shown that exhaust gas cleaning 

systems can attain SOX reductions well above 90 percent. 

Krystallon presented test data showing that its sea water scrubbing systems achieve more 

than a 98 percent SOX removal efficiency. Krystallon stated that, for the target water flow rate of 

45t/MW-hr of engine power, the performance is only slightly affected when operated in brackish 

waters such as the inner passage off the Pacific North West coast. They claimed to have only 

limited experience of operation of the scrubbing system in fresh water environments. However, 

chemical equilibrium models have indicated that the major issue is not removal of SOX from the 

exhaust flow but in rebalancing the pH of the scrubber effluent before discharge. Under such 

circumstances Krystallon stated it would expect the addition on an alkaline buffer at the point of 

discharge would achieve a satisfactory discharge pH. 

 TOTE commented that SOX scrubber technology is far from proven and is too large to be 

installed on its existing vessels. TOTE claimed that Holland America cruise line has tried one 

such system on one engine on one vessel with very poor results. 

EGCSA (0305) 

Seaworthy (0226) 

DuPont Belco (0362) 

Shipping Federation of Canada (0270) 

Krystallon (0229) 

TOTE (0289) 

Our Response:

 As discussed in RIA, there are a number of exhaust gas cleaning systems under 

development and prototype systems installed on marine vessels. We appreciate the additional 

data provided by commenters and encourage further development of EGCS technology as an 

equivalent approach to complying with ECA fuel sulfur standards. 

4.7.2 Washwater 

What Commenters Said:

CLIA offered the following comments on SCR by-product and EGCS waste water 

effluent (wash water) quality standards: With both the open loop and the closed loop EGCS and 

SCR, it will be imperative that EPA quickly develop national standards and capability for the 

shoreside discharge of waste and for open loop systems, the overboard discharge of 

cleaning/cooling water. EGCS is a promising technological solution that is proven to be able to 

significantly reduce both SOX and PM. Holland America Line (a CLIA member cruise ship 

operator), with the participation of various government agencies in both the United States and 

Canada, has been involved in developing cruise ship application of the EGS. We also note that 

the Wärtsilä SOX scrubber has been granted the Sulfur Emission Control Area (SECA) 

Compliance Certificate by the classification societies Det Norske Veritas and Germanisher 

Lloyd, thus advancing the technology from testing of proof of concept to commercial 

54 
availability. Others including Krystallon, Aalborg and ECOSPEC are in development. However, 

irrespective of how well these systems may perform, their use will be discouraged and in fact, be 

prevented if every state and local jurisdiction undertakes and publishes their own local 

requirements for EGS/SCR by-products. It is critical to this rulemaking that a national scheme 

be quickly developed and put into place so that adequate commercial opportunity is created for 

the significant investment required to develop these systems. In this regard, EPA should adopt 

or take account the standards for scrubber waste water recently adopted at IMO MEPC 59 in July 

of 2009. 

TOTE commented that the use of SOX scrubbers results in discharge in the water that that 

is believed to be problematic by the State of Alaska. CSA commented that for some of the 

technology based strategies which will be required to meet these requirements, it is essential to 

recognize that new waste streams will be created and thus shore reception facilities must be in 

place to receive these residual by-products. CSA stated that while IMO deliberations are 

addressing the nature of these new waste streams and their impact on the environment, it is 

critical that shore reception facilities be developed that can manage these wastes in an 

environmentally sound manner. CSA also noted that that even with the lengthy history of other 

MARPOL annexes, there still exist reception facility adequacy issues around the world, 

including here in the United States. 

CLIA (0278) 

TOTE (0289) 

Chamber of Shipping of America (0256) 

Our Response:

The IMO guidelines for the use of exhaust gas cleaning devices such as SOX scrubbers 

include recommended monitoring and water discharge practices. The washwater should be 

continuously monitored for pH, PAHs and turbidity. Further, the IMO guidance include 

specifications for these same items, as well as nitrate content when washwater is discharged in 

ports, harbors or estuaries. Finally, the IMO guidance recommends that washwater residue 

(sludge) be delivered ashore to adequate reception facilities and not discharged to the sea or 

burned on board. 

As the commenters recognize, any discharges directly into waters of the United States 

may be subject to Clean Water Act or other U.S. regulation. The Clean Water Act (CWA) 

requires that all point source discharges (which includes certain vessel discharges) must meet 

technology-based effluent limitations representing the applicable levels of technology-based 

control. Water quality-based effluent limitations (WQBELs) are required as necessary where the 

technology-based limitations are not sufficient to meet applicable water quality standards. To 

the extent that the air pollution control technology results in a wastewater discharge, such 

discharge is prohibited unless authorized by a Clean Water Act National Pollutant Discharge 

Elimination System (NPDES) permit. The 2008 NPDES Vessel General Permit (VGP) 

authorizes the discharge of Exhaust Gas Scrubber Washwater, and the discharge must, among 

other things, meet conditions found in Part 2.2.26 of that permit. Although the Agency notes that 

it is actively seeking to gather additional data on exhaust gas scrubber discharges for future 

permit issuances, including the metal concentrations and other constituents which may be found 

55 
in the discharge, issues pertaining to the development of CWA discharge standards are outside 

the scope of today’s rulemaking. 

4.8 Impact of Fuel/Equivalency Standards on PM

What Commenters Said:

 EGCSA stated that test work indicates that exhaust gas after treatment is capable of PM 

levels lower than can be achieved by an ultra low sulfur diesel fuel. In two separate laboratory 

tests of exhaust gas cleaning systems currently in service, the reductions in PM that were 

recorded, indicate a removal efficiency that achieves an equivalent or a lower PM emission than 

could be expected if the test engine was using a 0.1% sulfur marine fuel. 

 Seaworthy commented that scrubbers greatly reduce exhaust particulate matter (80%) while 

reducing SOX levels to the equivalent achieved by 0.1% sulfur fuel. Seaworthy went on to claim 

that using low sulfur distillates may achieve SOX compliance but only reduces particulate matter 

by a nominal amount. In fact, the cleaner, low sulfur fuels may produce a greater amount of the 

smaller and more harmful particulates PM2.5 in the exhaust gas 

Krystallon commented that the design of its scrubbing systems is primarily for removal 

of SOX and stated that this has been the principal target of the IMO regulations. Simple mixing 

of water and gas is unlikely to produce an efficient removal of particulate matter. This is 

especially true for smaller (PM2.5) particles that are not easily wetted. Krystallon are however 

aware of the public and legislative interest in reduction of other particulate species and have 

undertaken work on both to improve removal efficiency and quantify the efficiency of our 

current design. Test data show PM reductions using Krystallon scrubbing system. Environment 

Canada is quoted as measuring approximately 70 percent reduction in exhaust particulates cross 

the scrubber when operated at full load with two of three stages of the scrubber in operation. 

The engine was operated on residual fuel of approximately 1.5 percent sulfur level. Mitsui 

Engineering and Shipbuilding indicated a maximum particulate reduction (dust) of 55-60 percent 

when operated on a 1.6 percent sulfur fuel. In addition, Krystallon has also investigated 

operation of sea water scrubber designs on distillate fuelled engines. Specific particulate 

measurements have not been taken at this point; however analysis of the wash water indicated 

around 0.1g/kW-hr of particulates were removed from the wash water stream, mainly as carbon. 

While not a specific analysis, this would indicate an overall removal efficiency on distillate 

fuelled engines of around 50 percent of the total particulate loading in the exhaust stream. It is 

Krystallon’s belief, backed by test data, that operation of a scrubbing system designed for 

efficient removal of particulates will produce the same or better results than a simple switch from 

residual to distillate fuels. 

EGCSA (0305) 

Seaworthy (0226) 

Krystallon (0229) 

Our Response:

 As discussed in the RIA, scrubbers are effective at reducing SO2 emissions and sulfate 

PM emissions from the exhaust. However, we recognize that the effectiveness of the scrubber at 

56 
removing PM emissions other than sulfates is dependent on the scrubber design. In addition to 

sulfate PM reductions, switching from residual fuel to distillate fuel results in reductions in 

organic PM and metallic ash particles in the exhaust. As such, consideration should be given to 

non-sulfate PM when making the determination that using a given ECGS design is “at least as 

effective” as operating on lower sulfur fuel to control PM emissions. 

 We dispute Seaworthy’s claim that low sulfur fuels may produce a greater amount of the 

smaller and more harmful particulates PM2.5 in the exhaust gas. In addition to high sulfur levels, 

residual fuel contains relatively high concentrations of low volatility, high molecular weight 

organic compounds and metals. Organic compounds that contribute to PM can be present either 

as a nucleation aerosol or as a material adsorbed on the surfaces of agglomerated elemental 

carbon soot particles and metallic ash particles. The sulfuric acid aerosol in the exhaust provides 

a nucleus for agglomeration of organic compounds. Operation on higher volatility distillate fuel 

reduces both nucleation and adsorption of organic compounds into particulate matter. Therefore, 

in addition to direct sulfate PM reductions, switching from residual fuel to distillate fuel reduces 

organic PM and metallic ash particles in the exhaust. 

4.9 Lead Time for Fuel Use Requirements

What Commenters Said:

A number of commenters representing shipping interests on the Great Lakes, stated that 

longer lead time is necessary for the fuel sulfur standards noting that this would give the ship 

fueling industry to develop an efficient supply chain. Some commenters stated that a longer lead 

time would be consistent with previous EPA rules for land-based engines.

GLMTF commented that the coordinated strategy will require major changes in fuel and 

emissions on the Great Lakes in less than three years. When the agency has addressed other 

sources of emissions, the impacted industries or modes of transportation were given much more 

time to comply with the new requirements. For example, when EPA launched its National Clean 

Diesel Campaign, the final rule for Tier 2 Light Duty vehicle engines was published in 1999, but 

not fully phased in until this year. Similarly, the new rules for Heavy Duty Highway were 

published in 2000, but full compliance will not be achieved until next year. The final rule for 

nonroad diesel engines was published in 2004, but the requirements will not be fully phased in 

until 2015. The control of emissions of air pollution from locomotive engines and marine 

compression-ignition engines less than 30 liters per cylinder rulemaking dated May 6, 2008 will 

not be fully effective until 2015. 

GLMTF also claimed that, in the past, affected industries have been helped with the costs 

of switching to new technologies with grants and other incentives. The U.S.-Flag Great Lakes 

fleet has been left to face a bill of $286 million (the estimated cost to repower the 13 steamers) 

on its own. 

GLMTF (0269) 

Canadian Shipowners Association (0245) 

Keystone Shipping (0349) 

Midwest Energy Resources (0342) 

57 
Our Response:

 The lead time requirements associated with the coordinated strategy are appropriate and 

consistent with past rulemakings. As discussed in Chapter 3, the exhaust emission standards are 

consistent with the statutory direction to set standards requiring the greatest degree of emission 

reduction that is achievable in the given time frame. 

 We also believe that the implementation dates for the fuel use requirements provide 

adequate lead time. Commenters appeared to be most concerned with modifications that would 

need to be made to existing steamships on the Great Lakes to burn lower sulfur fuel. In any case, 

as discussed in Chapter 10, these ships are excluded from the final rule. In addition, we believe 

most if not all marine diesel engines can operate on lower sulfur distillate fuel with only minor 

modifications, if any, to the fuel systems. As discussed in Chapter 10, the near term standards 

can be achieved with residual fuel, and we are finalizing provisions that ensure Great Lakes 

vessels will continue to be able to purchase residual fuel on the Great Lakes. The longer term 

fuel sulfur standards, which would likely require the use of distillate fuel, do not begin until 

2015, providing five years of lead time. 

 GLMTF misrepresented the lead time of a number of EPA rules. For instance, the Tier 2 

Light Duty final rule was published in 2000 and was phased-in from 2004 through 2007, giving 

4 years of lead time. The Heavy-Duty Highway final rule was published in 2001, and the 

exhaust emission standards phased-in from 2007 through 2010. The final rule for nonroad diesel 

engines was published in 2004 and began phasing-in in 2008. The locomotive and marine rule 

was finalized in 2008 and set near term standards beginning in 2009 and long term standards 

beginning in 2014. It should be noted that, these past rules were for the application of advanced 

aftertreatment on engines and vehicles, not for fuel sulfur limits. The Heavy-Duty highway rule 

included standards for ultra-low sulfur (15 ppm) fuel that began in 2006, providing five years of 

lead time, which is consistent with the lead time between this final rule and 1,000 ppm sulfur 

fuel ECA requirements. 

 It is not clear what grants and incentives that GLMTF is referring to for switching to new 

technologies. To the extent that these opportunities exist, they were not included in the standards 

setting rulemakings. In any case, the 13 steamships referenced in the GLMTF comments are not 

included in this rulemaking. 

58 
CHAPTER 5: Certification and Compliance 

What We Proposed:

The comments in this section generally correspond to Section VI of the preamble to the 

proposed rule, where we describe the provisions related to certification and compliance of 

Category 3 marine diesel engines with applicable standards, including and MARPOL Annex VI 

standards through the Act to Prevent Pollution from Ships (APPS). The applicable regulatory 

provisions for these proposed requirements are primarily in 40 CFR parts 1042 and 1043. 

See Chapter 11 of this document for a discussion of certification and compliance issues 

that are related to the technical amendments to regulations applicable to other types of diesel 

engines. See Chapter 10 of this document for a discussion of comments received relating 

specifically to implementation of the international standards for vessels operating on the Great 

Lakes. 

5.1 General Comments 

5.1.1 Comments on Harmonization with IMO Compliance Requirements 

What Commenters Said:

Several commenters stated that EPA’s requirements should not go beyond what is 

required for compliance with Annex VI. Those that offer specific reasons for this position for 

certain issues are summarized in other sections. The Transportation Institute expressed this same 

general comment with respect to EPA's emission standards and controls for U.S.-flag vessel 

operators exceeding Annex VI of MARPOL. Based on their assertion that EPA should not go 

beyond what Annex VI requires, they stated that if the proposed ECA is not established, these 

requirements should be suspended or withdrawn until such time the requirements would apply 

equally to all vessel operators, whether foreign or domestic, transiting our coastal waterways. 

Our Response:

As a general matter, the specific issues raised by commenters are addressed below. 

However, we note that where feasible and appropriate under the Clean Air Act, we provide 

flexible approaches for meeting both the Clean Air Act and Annex VI requirements. 

We fully expect the ECA to be established, which would make the Transportation 

Institute’s comment moot. 

5.1.2 Clarity of the Regulations 

What Commenters Said:

Several commenters stated that EPA’s regulations were generally unclear. Those that 

mentioned specific regulations are addressed in other sections. 

59 
Our Response:

Our intent is to codify our regulations to be as clear as possible for the regulated 

community. We have revised our proposed regulatory in several areas to improve clarity. Where 

we determine in the future that we can further clarify our regulations we would expect to do so 

through technical amendment. 

5.2 On-Off NOX Controls 

What Commenters Said:

EMA asserted that EPA assumes that Tier 3 engines will utilize SCR to comply with the 

Tier 3 NOX standards when operating the ECA, and that those systems will not be active when 

the vessels are operating outside of the ECA. EMA also raised several issues relating to fuelswitching procedures and "on-off" or aftertreatment by-pass strategies. They argued that further 

study is need to determine whether exhaust flows should be diverted around the SCR catalyst to 

avoid sulfur build-up and contamination of the system when the SCR system is inactive and 

higher sulfur fuel is being used. 

They also argued that the proposed requirements in §§1042.110(d) and 1042.115(g) for 

the design and monitoring of "on-off" systems are overly burdensome, costly, go well beyond 

what is required under MARPOL Annex VI and will impose inequitable burdens on 

manufacturers seeking to certify C3 marine engines in the United States. They stated that EPA 

has not demonstrated that NOX sensors and other continuous NOX emissions monitoring systems 

are robust or durable enough to be feasibly and cost-effectively utilized in conjunction with very 

large C3 engines or in the extreme conditions under which C3 vessels operate. (As part of their 

argument they assert that the objective of this rule is to ensure “harmonization with the 

MARPOL Annex VI requirements for the certification of C3 marine engines.” Finally, they 

suggest an alternative approach that would require measurement of exhaust temperatures and 

urea flow, stating that such indirect measurement and monitoring would be more practical and 

cost-effective. 

Euromot suggested that EPA allow comparable systems in which the aftertreatment 

remained operational outside of ECAs, while the engine operates at a higher NOX calibration, 

provided the emissions met the Tier 2 standard. As noted in the next section, they also supported 

following the IMO regulations for demonstrating NOX compliance, instead of requiring NOX

monitoring. 

Maersk expressed concern that the “on/off” requirements are written to include vessels 

that have the capability of fuel switching 

Our Response: 

We agree with EMA that manufacturers will need to do some development work to 

determine how to design engines and aftertreatment for fuel-switching and on-off emission 

controls. However, we believe that any build-up of sulfur on the SCR components will not 

permanently affect the performance of the SCR components, and that any deterioration in SCR 

performance is reversible (i.e. once a sufficiently high exhaust gas temperature is achieved, 

sulfur is removed from the SCR). In addition, we believe that any excessive build-up of sulfates 

60 
and/or sulfated compounds on the SCR components due to high fuel sulfur levels can be 

removed using existing technologies, such as dust blowers or sonic horns.11 Finally, it is 

important to note that most of this work will be necessary to meet the newly adopted MARPOL 

Annex VI NOX requirements. 

We are revising our regulations in response to Euromot’s suggestion to not limit this 

option to disabling aftertreatment. The final regulations will also allow manufacturers to run the 

engine with a different calibration. While we do not dispute that our requirement for NOX

monitoring requirement may go beyond the bare minimum necessary to meet MARPOL Annex 

VI requirements, the final rule requirements will allow manufacturers to show compliance with 

the CAA and Annex VI allowances for on-off controls using methods allowed by us and 

MARPOL Annex VI. This will address our stated goal of allowing manufacturers to “continue 

to use a single harmonized compliance strategy to certify under both systems.” This statement 

was intended to communicate that we want manufacturers to be able to use a single design that 

complies with both the CAA requirements and MARPOL requirements, and be able to use much 

of their testing and analysis for both. The regulations being finalized will allow manufacturers 

and operators to meet our requirements for on-off controls using methods also allowed by 

MARPOL. 

We are revising the regulations to clarify that the on-off requirements apply for NOX. 

5.3 NOX Monitoring and Diagnostics 

What Commenters Said:

Maersk commented that routine and normal maintenance and operational adjustments to 

engine parameters should not require retesting. They commented on the proposed requirement 

that engine manufacturers to exercise good engineering judgment in using measured NOX

concentrations to monitor the emission performance of the engine. They argued that emissions 

measurements on a new engine in a controlled setting predict relative performance, but should 

not be expected to define maximum values in a full range of actual uses. They noted that, since 

some variation is also to be expected with age regardless of preventive maintenance, it would not 

be reasonable to cap emissions at a particular level determined when an engine is new. 

Euromot supported following the IMO regulations for demonstrating NOX compliance, 

instead of requiring NOX monitoring. They argued that the costs of the proposed monitoring 

requirements are not justified by the information that would be gained. 

The World Shipping Council objected to the requirement to perform emission tests 

following parameter adjustments. They noted that this is impractical because Category 3 engines 

are subject to continual adjustment; operators would have no useful reference point for deciding 

when a test would be necessary. They also pointed out that anyone making an improper 

parameter adjustment would likely not record this adjustment or follow it with an emission test, 

which limits the effectiveness of the requirement. 

 

11 Holmström, Per, “Selective Catalytic Reduction,” presentation by Munters at Clean Ships: Advanced Technology 

for Clean Air, February 7-9, 2007, Docket ID EPA-HQ-OAR-2007-0121-0013. 

61 
Matson Navigation, CSA, and the World Shipping Council asked that EPA clarify how 

EPA or the Coast Guard will treat emission spikes and other “exceedences” that would be 

reflected through use of a CEMS. CSA stated further that monitoring systems are not well 

developed. 

EGCSA recommended that EPA consider supporting and encouraging the mandatory 

adoption of continuous emissions monitoring and reporting as a more effective and economic 

method of assuring protection of the environment and human health. 

Our Response:

We are not requiring monitors or testing for routine and normal engine adjustments or 

repairs. The requirements apply only for engines equipped with on-off controls and when those 

controls are used. The allowance to turn emission controls off is unprecedented in EPA’s 

nonroad engine program. We have generally not allowed such features partly because of 

concerns that the controls might not function properly when turned back on. Since we have this 

same concern for Category 3 marine engines, we are finalizing the requirement that engines 

equipped with on-off controls incorporate NOX monitors. We note in response to Euromot’s 

comment that we are not requiring monitoring for informational purposes, but rather as a means 

to ensure proper function of the aftertreatment. 

We disagree that onboard monitoring technology is not sufficiently developed to meet the 

propose requirement. We discuss this further in the RIA for this rule. Moreover, since we will 

not allow on-off technology until the Tier 3 time frame, manufacturers will have several more 

years before they are required to install onboard monitors. 

We believe the requirements being finalized will address EGCSA’s recommendation that 

“EPA consider supporting and encouraging the mandatory adoption of continuous emissions 

monitoring and reporting”. 

We fundamentally disagree with the implication that engines should not be expected to 

meet the standards during actual use. It is not clear whether this was what Maersk was 

suggesting, or whether they mistakenly believed that we proposed that engines should be held to 

their certification or sea-trial levels in use. Rather, the requirement being adopted specifies that 

manufacturers should use good engineering judgment to determine concentrations and/or 

emission rates for operating modes that would indicate that a malfunction that would likely cause 

the engine to fail the standard if it was tested according to the official test procedure. Such 

malfunction or “exceedances” would be treated like all other malfunctions. The operator would 

be required to repair the malfunction as soon as practical. 

5.4 Authority Issues Related to APPS 

Several commenters supported EPA’s proposal to apply emission limits to ships 

operating within the internal waters of the United States including the Great Lakes. They argued 

that this is necessary due to the impact that such emissions can have on the people and 

environment of U.S. coastal and even inland areas. (CATF, 0264 and Ohio Environmental 

Council et al. 0314) 

62 
We also received detailed comments challenging our authority under APPS. In 

particular, the Great Lakes Maritime Task Force provided the most extensive comments in this 

respect. This section 5.4 is structured to be consistent with the structure of their comments. Our 

subsections are generally identified by the section headings they used in their comments, which 

in most cases serve to summarize the comments. The reader should not infer any agreement by 

EPA with their rationale for this structure. 

5.4.1 The APPS Does Not Give EPA Legal Authority to Implement ECAs or to 

Regulate Fuel Use in Internal Waters 

What Commenters Said:

The Great Maritime Lakes Task Force made the general comment that that the NPRM 

was vague, confusing and unclear as to EPA’s legal authority to designate the Great Lakes as an 

ECA and the omission of a meaningful discussion makes commenting very difficult. In addition, 

GLMTF comments that APPS does not give EPA the explicit authority to implement low-sulfur 

fuel ECAs in internal waters, and without explicit authority the rulemaking is contrary to law. 

GLMTF also states that EPA has no authority to create an ECA for internal waters and that 

APPS does not provide such authority. 

Our Response:

The introduction and overview statement in the NPRM provides that “[t]he amendments 

to APPS to incorporate Annex VI provide the authority to ensure compliance with MARPOL 

Annex VI by U.S. and foreign vessels that enter U.S. ports or operate in U.S. waters.” (74 FR 

44444). The authority section of the NPRM provides that section 1903 of APPS “gives the 

Administrator the authority to prescribe any necessary or desired regulations to carry out the 

provisions of Regulations 12 through 19 of Annex VI”. 74 Fed.Reg. at 44446-7. The 

substantive section on this issue reiterates that APPS applies Annex VI to all vessels in U.S. 

navigable waters, including internal waters, and further explains that because the U.S.-Canadian 

ECA does not expressly include reference to the internal boundaries of the U.S. or Canada, that 

clarification on what it means for APPS to apply Annex VI requirements to U.S. internal waters 

was both “necessary” and “desired”. 74 Fed. Reg. at 44481. Clarification is necessary and 

desired to avoid both an under- and over-application of the ECA requirements. The underapplication would involve an inexplicable turn-off of emission controls or diversion to higher 

sulfur fuels when entering internal waters from an ECA. The over-application could include 

compliance with ECA provisions in areas that are not shoreward of the ECA, such as those in 

northwestern Alaska. 74 Fed. Reg. at 44481. Neither approach is intended by Congress’ 

direction that Annex VI requirements apply to all vessels in U.S. waters. 

In sum, APPS applies Annex VI requirements to domestic vessels wherever located, 

including U.S. internal waters, and to foreign-flagged vessels in U.S. navigable waters (and 

beyond in some cases), defined by APPS to include U.S. internal waters. Contrary to GLMTF’s 

comment, this is an explicit, comprehensive application by Congress of Annex VI requirements 

to all vessels in U.S. internal waters. Our regulation does not create “new” ECAs, but seeks to 

clarify how to apply the Annex VI ECA requirements, given the description of the ECA is by the 

outer-boundaries, to U.S. waters within those outer-boundaries. We are avoiding an underapplication of this congressional direction for ECA purposes by specifying what we think is the 

obvious – that Congress intends all vessels covered by Annex VI to meet the most stringent of 

63 
the requirements of Annex VI even when within U.S. internal waters. A contrary reading of 

these provisions of APPS leads illogically to congressional allowances for domestic and foreign 

flagged vessels to emit greater quantities of dangerous pollutants closer to population centers 

than would be required of vessels out to sea. We are also avoiding an over-application of the 

most stringent requirements to U.S. internal waters that are not shoreward of an ECA. Although 

these waters are within the internal waters of the U.S., unless and until an ECA is established for 

the waters outside those internal water areas, we think it reasonable not to require vessels to meet 

the ECA requirements in those areas. 

5.4.1.1 APPS Does Not Implement the 2008 Amendments to MARPOL Annex VI 

What Commenters Said:

APPS does not implement the low-sulfur fuel requirements in the 2008 Amendments and 

nothing in APPS gives EPA the authority to create a low-sulfur fuel ECA in U.S. internal waters. 

Our Response:

The 2008 amendments to Annex VI include two tiers of global NOX and fuel sulfur 

standards. It also includes two tiers of ECA NOX and fuel sulfur standards. APPS is clearly 

intended to require compliance with Annex VI and these 2008 amendments to Annex VI. 

Specifically, APPS provides: “It is unlawful to act in violation of the MARPOL Protocol ...” 

(Sec. 1907(a)). APPS defines the MARPOL Protocol to include the Convention, which in turn is 

defined as “ the International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships, 1973, 

including * * * [Annex] VI thereto, including any modifications or amendments to the 

Convention, Protocols or Annexes which have entered into force for the United States.” The 

2008 amendments are just such amendments to Annex VI and were contemplated at the time 

Congress considered amendments to APPS to implement Annex VI. 

The comment regarding creation of an ECA for internal waters is addressed above. 

5.4.1.1.1 The Senate Has Not Acceded to the 2008 Amendments to Annex VI 

What Commenters Said:

The Senate acceded to the MARPOL Annex VI in April 2006. Since MARPOL is not a 

self-executing treaty, implementing legislation was required. Congress therefore enacted 

legislation implementing Annex VI in 2008 by amending APPS. Later that year, the IMO 

adopted certain amendments to Annex VI, after the Senate acceded to Annex VI and after 

Congress enacted legislation implementing Annex VI. Since the Senate has not acceded to the 

2008 Amendments to Annex VI, those amendments, including the low-sulfur fuel requirements, 

are not law in the U.S. GLMTF refers to a recent U.S. Court of Appeals case in the District of 

Columbia they argue that concludes that a treaty cannot authorize future changes that would 

become binding on the U.S. 

GLMTF also argues that because the U.S. was not permitted to vote on the 2008 

Amendments to Annex VI, no branch of the federal government has formally accepted the treaty 

obligations which EPA now seeks to impose. 

64 
Our Response:

The Senate has given its advice and consent both to MARPOL itself and to Annex VI. 

Article 16 of MARPOL sets out a simplified amendment process, which was followed for the 

2008 Amendments. 

This kind of amendment procedure is a feature of many treaties to which the United 

States is a party and to which the Senate has provided its advice and consent. Indeed, the Senate 

Foreign Relations Committee has specifically noted and accepted the simplified amendment 

process. See, for example, the Committee’s March 30, 2006 Report, document 109-13. The 

Senate and the Executive Branch have a longstanding, successful practice of working together in 

adopting and implementing amendment procedures such as this. 

The D.C. Circuit case GLMTF cites addressed the impact of "decision" language agreed 

to under the Montreal Protocol following ratification of that treaty. The court termed such 

decisions "post-ratification side agreements." No party to that case claimed that the decisions 

were amendments to the treaty. Nor did the court reach a holding on any constitutional issue. 

Rather, the court held that the decisions in question were international political commitments. 

In reaching this holding, the court looked to the language of the treaty and the Parties' postratification actions. The court noted: "Nowhere does the Protocol suggest that the Parties' postratification consensus agreements about how to implement [the exemption at issue] are binding 

in domestic courts." 464 F.3d 1, 9. The court further noted: "The Parties' post-ratification 

actions suggest their common understanding that the decisions are international political 

commitments rather than judicially enforceable domestic law." Id. at 10. Thus, the court was 

not presented with a situation in which the Senate had ratified a procedure for reaching 

agreements intended to be binding in domestic courts. Here, the Senate has given its advice and 

consent to MARPOL and the Annex, which includes an amendment process. Thus, NRDC v. 

EPA is inapplicable. In enacting and amending APPS, Congress has made clear that Annex VI, 

including amendments that are binding on the United States, applies to ships as specified in 

APPS, and that EPA and Coast Guard have authority to issue any necessary or desirable 

implementing regulations. 

Although the U.S. had no formal vote in the adoption of the 2008 Annex VI amendments, 

the U.S. took an active role in the negotiation of the amendments, which are very similar to a 

proposal submitted to IMO by the United States. Moreover, under MARPOL, any Party, 

including the U.S., has the opportunity to object to these amendments, in which case they would 

not apply to the objecting Party. The Senate gave its advice and consent on the procedures, and 

Congress approved the legislation authorizing this approach. 

5.4.1.1.2 Setting aside Article 16(2), APPS itself is explicit that future amendments to Annex 

VI are subject to Senate advice and consent. 

What Commenters Said:

Setting aside Article 16(2), APPS itself is explicit that future amendments to Annex VI 

are subject to Senate advice and consent: 

65 
A proposed amendment to the MARPOL Protocol ... may be accepted on behalf of the 

United States by the President following the advice and consent of the Senate, except as 

provided for in subsection (b) of this section. 

 The term “MARPOL Protocol” is defined to include “the Convention” which in turn is 

defined to include Annex VI. Therefore, any amendment to Annex VI is subject to Senate 

advice and consent. The reference to “subsection (b) of this section” denotes a procedure 

whereby the Secretary of State can lodge an objection to the proposed amendment following 

consultation with the Secretary of Homeland Security or the EPA Administrator. Subsection (b) 

does not address U.S. acceptance of an amendment to an Annex, and therefore does not displace 

the requirement for Senate consent before amendments can be accepted by the President. Article 

16(2) does not trump the plain language of APPS, which requires Senate consent before 

amendment to Annex VI can be accepted by the U.S. 

Our Response:

Contrary to the commenter’s contention, APPS itself fully anticipates the prospect of 

simplified amendments that do not require Senate advice and consent. As an alternative to 

receiving the advice and consent of the Senate, Section 1909(b) explicitly provides that a 

proposed amendment to Annex VI, “may be the subject of appropriate action on behalf of the 

United States by the Secretary of State” (emphasis added) following consultation with EPA or 

the Secretary of Homeland Security. As provided for in Section 1909(c), the Secretary of State 

may also make a declaration of nonacceptance of an amendment, following consultations with 

the Secretary of Homeland Security. By contrast, Section 1909(a) states that amendments to the 

Protocol/Convention itself are subject to Senate advice and consent. 

5.4.1.1.3 APPS Expressly Excludes the 2008 Amendments to Annex VI 

What Commenters Said:

GLMTF stated: 

For purposes of APPS, Congress defined the MARPOL Convention in such a way 

to exclude future amendments. APPS defines the MARPOL Convention as follows: 

“Convention” means the International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from 

Ships, 1973, including Protocols I and II and Annexes I, II, V, and VI thereto, including 

any modification or amendments to the Convention, Protocols, or Annexes which have 

entered into force for the United States. 

By contrast, a neighboring provision of APPS defines another treaty in a 

materially different manner: “Antarctic Protocol” means the Protocol on Environmental 

Protection to the Antarctic Treaty, signed October 4, 1991, in Madrid, and all annexes 

thereto, and includes any future amendments thereto which have entered into force. 

Our Response:

Contrary to the commenters’ claim, APPS does not exclude from its scope future 

amendments to the Convention, Protocols, or Annexes, either expressly or by implication. 

Indeed, APPS expressly includes within the scope of its definition of the MARPOL Convention 

66 
“any modification or amendments to the Convention, Protocols, or Annexes which have entered 

into force for the United States.” 33 U.S.C. § 1901(a)(5). The United States did not ratify 

MARPOL until after enactment of APPS, so at the time that APPS was enacted, there could have 

been no amendments binding on the United States. Thus, Congress could only have had 

prospective amendments in mind. The same is true regarding Annex VI; Congress was aware 

that the U.S. was not yet a party to the Annex, and so could not be bound by any amendments at 

the time Congress acted. Finally, the existence of APPS Section 1909, which sets forth a process 

for future APPS amendments, demonstrates that Congress intended APPS to implement 

MARPOL with such amendments as may enter into force for the United States over time. 

5.4.1.1.4 This Rulemaking, at Least as to the Great Lakes, Is Premature 

What Commenters Said:

The EPA has based its rulemaking authority on the 2008 Amendments to Annex VI, but 

those amendments are not scheduled to enter into force until January 2010 and the U.S. could opt 

out at any time before then. Thus, even assuming the 2008 Amendments could enter into force 

for the U.S. in the future, the 2008 Amendments are not yet in force and EPA presently lacks any 

legal authority to promulgate regulations implementing those amendments. Accordingly, EPA’s 

rulemaking is premature. 

Our Response:

Section 1907 of APPS requires compliance with the Convention, which includes Annex 

VI and any amendments to it which have entered into force for the United States. The 

amendments in question will enter into force for the United States on July 1, 2010, unless the 

United States or the requisite number of Parties objects.12 None of the Annex VI requirements 

that are specific to this final rule will be applicable to the regulated community prior to that time 

of entry into force for the United States. This final rule codifies those requirements so that the 

regulatory text will identify, for the ease of the regulated community, the Annex VI requirements 

subject to section 1907 enforcement. This final rule also addresses a number of other issues so 

the regulated community may ensure it is meeting the requirements of Annex VI and its 

amendments before the new global and the ECA standards go into effect. For example, the 

regulatory text identifies how and when an engine may be certified to NOX standards, identifies 

how foreign nonparty vessels may demonstrate compliance with Annex VI NOX requirements, 

and identifies specific exemptions and exclusions. 

The final rule also specifies that the standards applicable in the North American ECA are 

intended to apply within U.S. internal waters once the ECA standards enter into force for the 

United States. The earliest date for entry into force of the U.S.-Canada proposed ECA would be 

August 2011, given MARPOL’s entry into force provisions. In addition, because of the “grace 

period” provided in Reg. 14.7 of Annex VI, the ECA fuel standards for sulfur could not enter 

into force until August 2012. We are aware of no authority preventing EPA from anticipating 

the entry into force of the standards. Indeed, any interpretation suggesting otherwise—i.e., that 

 

12 In that case, EPA would need to take appropriate action to make clear that the regulatory requirements associated 

with those amendments would not become effective. 

67 
authority to promulgate regulations begins only at the point when the international legal 

obligations have taken effect—would effectively require some period of time in which the 

United States would be unable to comply with its international legal obligations. 

5.4.1.1.5 The Grant of Authority to EPA under APPS Violates the Nondelegation Doctrine 

What Commenters Said:

GLMTF commented that the grant of authority to EPA under APPS is to promulgate 

regulations “necessary or desired” to carry out Annex VI. The standard “desired” lacks an 

intelligible principle to which EPA is directed to conform, and thus violates the nondelgation 

doctrine. APPS’s instructions that EPA promulgate “desired” regulations fall short of any 

objective criteria by which the agency’s action can be measured. Who but the agency can 

determine what it subjectively ‘desires”? Moreover, the EPA cannot “cure an 

unconstitutionally standardless delegation of power by declining to exercise some of that 

power.” EPA can thus not fall back on its authority to promulgate regulations it deems 

“necessary” to carry out Anne VI because the overall delegation is unconstitutionally broad. 

Our Response:

The APPS language raised by GLMTF is the standard language used in APPS to 

authorize issuance of regulations, by Coast Guard and by EPA, to implement MARPOL and its 

Annexes as well as other treaty requirements. EPA presumes that the law is constitutional. 

Moreover, EPA believes that the regulations are necessary and desirable for the effective 

implementation and enforcement of Annex VI, insofar as they (inter alia): (1) implement the 

mandate in APPS to regulate foreign vessels; (2) clarify the geographic scope of application of 

ECA standards; (3) explain how Annex VI equivalence provisions will be implemented; (4) 

explain the process for issuance of EIAPPs, and (5) provide variances from the ECA fuel 

requirements for steamships on the Great Lakes and for certain vessels experiencing difficulties, 

as later discussed in Chapter 10. 

5.4.1.2 APPS Does Not Authorize EPA to Regulate Use of Fuel in Internal Waters 

What Commenters Said:

GLMTF state that even if the 2008 Annex VI amendments are binding on the U.S. and 

incorporated by APPS, nothing in APPS gives EPA the authority to declare that certain U.S. 

internal waters will henceforth be ECAs in which low-sulfur fuel must be used. APPS gives 

EPA the authority to prescribe regulations to carry out the provisions of Regulations 13 and 14; 

those Regulations define an ECA as an area “designated by the Organization;” and the Great 

Lakes are not referenced in the U.S.- Canada proposed ECA. 

Our Response: 

As explained above, APPS requires compliance with Annex VI requirements by domestic 

and foreign-flagged vessels in U.S. internal waters. As further explained above, the Annex VI 

ECA requirements, once adopted and in force, are Annex VI requirements and compliance with 

these amendments are compelled by Congress. Finally, we explain that his rule is intended to 

68 
clarify what we believe Congress intended in applying these ECA Annex VI requirements, to 

domestics vessels “wherever located,” including in U.S. internal waters, and foreign-flagged 

vessels in U.S. internal waters. 

However even if GLMTF’s reading of APPS were correct, provisions such as 

§1902(a)(5)(B)(iii) clearly envision regulation of emissions from foreign-flagged vessels in areas 

outside of ECAs (which are addressed separately in §1902(a)(5)(B)(ii)) as “areas from which 

emissions from ships are of concern.” Had Congress not intended to require foreign vessels to 

meet Annex VI ECA requirements in U.S. internal waters by virtue of the plain language 

applying Annex VI requirements to foreign-flagged vessels in U.S. internal waters, this provision 

provides alternative authority for requiring foreign-flagged vessels in U.S. internal waters to 

meet the same requirements as vessels operating in coastal areas of the United States. However, 

this authority would not apply to domestic vessels, since they are subject to the requirements of 

APPS “wherever located.” We do not think Congress intended the incongruent result where 

foreign, but not domestic, vessels would be subject to ECA requirements in U.S. internal waters. 

5.4.1.2.1 The U.S.-Canada Proposed ECA Excludes Internal Waters 

What Commenters Said:

GLMTF stated that the U.S. and Canada jointly submitted an ECA for IMO consideration 

that “expressly excludes their internal waters,” and that EPA’s extension of the ECA boundaries 

into internal waters “contravenes the very source of authority it invokes for its regulations.” 

They stated further that “even if Annex VI applies to U.S. internal waters through APPS, it 

would be the pre-2008 fuel standards of Annex VI that are applicable, not the more stringent 

standards implemented by the 2008 Amendments which are not effective with respect to the U.S. 

Finally, they argued that EPA ignored a “glaring omission of internal waters from the U.S.-

Canada ECA,” and that EPA’s statement that “[v]essel emissions in these [internal] waters affect 

U.S. air quality to an equal, if not greater extent than emissions taking place in coastal waters” 

was conclusory. They also seemed to imply that EPA had no basis for describing the ECA as 

being sought to “protect air quality in U.S. ports and internal areas.” 

Our Response:

The proposed ECA does not “expressly exclude” internal waters. U.S. internal waters 

were not specified in ECA application boundaries because of the sensibility that it is not 

appropriate for an international organization to be designating control areas in U.S. internal 

waters. There was no counter-intuitive suggestion that marine emissions in such waters are any 

less harmful to U.S. air quality than emissions occurring from the baseline seaward to 200 

nautical miles. Rather, EPA and other federal agencies believed that Congress’ direction to 

apply APPS requirements to U.S. internal waters confers the authority – if not requires – 

application of the ECA standards to emissions in those waters, given that such emissions are 

even closer to U.S. population centers than are emissions from most parts of the designated ECA. 

The commenter is incorrect when it suggested that EPA ignored the extent to which the 

ECA proposed to IMO included internal waters. Their suggestion is refuted by EPA’s explicit 

statement that the regulatory text applying ECA requirements to internal areas was proposed 

under the authority of APPS (74 FR 44481). 

69 
While we continue to believe the statements GLMTF objects to are self-evident, we note 

the following in response to their concerns. First, if emissions in internal waters affect U.S. air 

quality to a lesser extent than emissions taking place in coastal waters (as suggested by GLMTF), 

it would necessarily mean that emissions become more harmful the further out to sea they occur. 

The logical extension of this would be that emissions in the port would be more harmful than 

emissions from land based service equipment and should be controlled more stringently than the 

land based equipment. GLMTF provided no basis for the illogical implication that emissions 

should be more aggressively controlled out at sea and on land than in internal waters. With 

respect to the second statement, we note that analysis of the impacts of ship emissions on internal 

areas was included as part of the supporting information for the ECA proposal. 

5.5 Compliance Issues Related to Implementation of APPS 

5.5.1 EIAPP Certification 

What Commenters Said:

 The World Shipping Council and Matson Navigation Co. stated that manufacturers 

should be able to submit a single application for both EIAPP and EPA certificates. They argued 

that this would be simpler for the regulated community as well as the EPA and Coast Guard. 

 EMA and Euromot argued that EPA should not require a manufacturer to obtain the 

EIAPP certificate before an engine is introduced into U.S. commerce. EMA also expressed 

confusion regarding how §1043.10(a)(2) and §1043.30(a) are related for vessels that operate only 

domestically. 

Our Response:

While we do not think it would be practical to structure our certification program to 

enable a manufacturer to submit a single application for both EIAPP and EPA certificates, we 

plan to harmonize the two processes to the maximum extent possible. Coast Guard should not be 

affected by this certification process, since the same information will be provided in either case. 

It is not clear how the requirement to have an EIAPP certificate would be enforced if we 

followed EMA’s suggestion, since they did not suggest any other point at which the requirement 

would apply. Without a specific point by which the engine must have an EIAPP, engine and 

vessel manufacturers and operators of uncertified engines could always claim that they had 

merely not obtained the certificate yet. 

We agree with EMA that §1043.10(a)(2) and §1043.30(a) of the proposed regulations are 

confusing. We have revised the regulations to clarify that vessels that operate only domestically 

do not need to obtain EIAPPs. However, to make this allowance fit better into our enforcement 

program, we are requiring that engines without EIAPPs that are intended for domestic use (or for 

use on public vessels) include a statement on the label to indicate that. 

70 
5.5.2 Applicability of International Emission Standards to Nonparty Vessels 

What Commenters Said:

 The Chamber of Shipping of America and WSC support the proposal to require vessels 

flying the flag of a State not party to MARPOL Annex VI to demonstrate equivalent compliance 

with the substantive standards found in Annex VI. They stated that demonstration of compliance 

by a non-party vessel should not be limited to documentation only, but should be subject to the 

same methods of verification, including physical inspection and testing, as used by U.S. 

enforcement personnel when inspecting a vessel flying the flag of a State party to MARPOL 

Annex VI. 

Our Response:

As described in part 1043 of the regulations, we will treat non-Party vessels essentially 

the same as Party vessels, except for the requirement to have actual EIAPP certificates for the 

engines. More specifically, the final regulations state that non-Party vessels must comply with 

“operating requirements and restrictions specified in 2008 Annex VI (incorporated by reference 

in §1043.100) related to Regulations 13, 14, and 18” (in §1043.60) and “must keep all records 

required by Regulations 13, 14, and 18 of Annex VI and the NOX Technical Code” (§1043.70). 

5.5.3 In which U.S. waters are Annex VI and its ECA requirements being 

implemented through APPS? 

WSC commented on the description in the NPRM preamble of how the ECA 

requirements apply to internal waters. Specifically they asked about use of the term “generally” 

and the phrase “internal waters that can be accessed by ocean-going vessels”. WSC also asked 

that EPA clarify that the extension of the ECA requirements to internal waters would apply to 

both U.S. and foreign-flagged vessels operating in the internal waters of the United States. The 

Chamber of Shipping of America and Maersk ask EPA to clarify the term “U.S. waters” 

Our Response:

We believe that most of WSC’s confusion is related only the preamble language and the 

regulations use different wording that is clear. Since the preamble language is intended to be 

more readable for the general public, its wording is sometimes less precise. 

We are finalizing regulations that specify that the requirements apply for any waters that 

fall within the scope of the navigable waters of the U.S. or the U.S. EEZ. We are also adding a 

definition of “ECA associated area” which means U.S. internal waters that are navigable from 

the ECA. We also clarify that this term does not include internal waters that are shoreward of 

ocean waters that are not part of an emission control area. It also does not include any waters not 

accessible to ocean vessels, such as land-locked internal lakes. The regulations specify that the 

requirements that apply under Annex VI to vessels in ECAs will apply in ECA associated areas. 

In most respects, the regulations of 1043 apply equally to U.S.-flagged and foreignflagged vessels of Party states. The only differences are that the following special provisions 

apply only for U.S.-flagged vessels: 

71 
1) As provided in APPS and Annex VI, section 1043.10 specifies that U.S.-flagged vessels 

must comply with AnnexVI in any waters, not just U.S. waters. 

2) Section 1043.10 excludes U.S.-flagged domestic vessels from Regulation 13. 

3) Section 1043.40 and 1043.41 specify how manufacturers obtain EIAPP certificates for 

U.S.-flagged vessels. 

 We believe that similar provisions will be applied to foreign-flagged vessels by their 

respective flag states – whether by statute, regulation, or other policy. Thus the ECA 

requirements in U.S. internal waters will apply equally to U.S.-flagged and foreign-flagged 

vessels. 

 In most respects, non-Party vessels will be treated the same under part 1043 as other 

foreign-flagged vessels. See section 5.5.2 for a discussion of the differences. 

5.5.4 EPA’s extension of an ECA to the Great Lakes violates bilateral treaties 

between the U.S. and Canada 

What Commenters Said:

The Great Lakes Maritime Task Force (GLMTF) (0269) stated that the U.S. and Canada 

have a long tradition of cooperation on matters relating to the environment. Through treaties 

such as the Boundary Waters Act of 1909, the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement of 1978, 

the Memorandum of Intent Concerning Transboundary Air Pollution of 1980, the ECE 

Convention on Long-Range Transboundary Air Pollution of 1979 and, most relevant here, the 

Agreement Between the Government of Canada and the Government of the United States of 

America on Air Quality (“Air Quality Agreement”), the U.S. and Canada have agreed to act as 

partners in protecting the environment and reducing transboundary air pollution. 

GLMTF commented that a hallmark of these bilateral treaties between the U.S. and 

Canada, and in particular the Air Quality Agreement, is notice and consultation. Numerous 

provisions of the Air Quality Agreement require one country to notify and consult with the other 

when taking action to regulate air pollution. For example, Article V(6) requires one party to 

“notify and consult the other Party” where it “becomes aware of an air pollution problem that is 

of joint concern and requires an immediate response.” Article V(3) requires each party to consult 

with the other upon request “concerning changes to its laws, regulation or policies that, if carried 

out, would be likely to affect significantly transboundary air pollution.” Such consultations must 

also include “consideration of appropriate mitigation measures.” Article V(1) requires each party 

to “assess those proposed actions” that “would be likely to cause significant transboundary air 

pollution, including consideration of appropriate mitigation measures.” 

GLMTF argued that EPA’s unilateral decision to extend the boundaries of the ECA to 

include the Great Lakes repudiates the cooperative manner in which the U.S. and Canada have 

historically approached regulation of air pollution, and violates the spirit, if not the express 

requirements, of the Air Quality Agreement and related bilaterals. The lack of coordination is 

particularly ironic in light of the joint coastal ECA submission by the U.S. and Canada (and the 

highly cooperative manner in which the coastal ECA was developed) and the sweeping impact of 

this rulemaking on Canadian shipping and industry. The failure to consider these effects and 

72 
consult with our northern neighbor is not only disrespectful to one of our closest allies but a 

violation of U.S. treaty obligations. 

Our Response:

EPA cooperates closely with the Canadian Government on a broad range of 

environmental matters. As the commenter notes, the U.S. and Canada jointly submitted the ECA 

proposal to the IMO. EPA has also consulted informally with the Canadian government with 

respect to this rulemaking. We do not agree that this rulemaking is governed by Article V of the 

U.S. – Canada Air Quality Agreement. To the contrary, Article V is intended to address 

potential increases in air pollution, not regulatory efforts to reduce it. For example, Article V.5 

provides: “Each Party shall, as appropriate, take measures to avoid or mitigate the potential risk 

posed by actions, activities or projects that would be likely to cause or may be causing 

significant transboundary air pollution.” Moreover, the “mitigation measures” cited by the 

commenter refer to measures to reduce transboundary air pollution, not measures to mitigate the 

economic impact of regulation. 

Finally, we note that the Final Rule provides some relief for Canadian ships operating 

solely in the Great Lakes. This is discussed further in the preamble and Chapter 10 of this 

document. 

5.6 Comments on Testing Requirements 

5.6.1 1065 Test Procedures 

What Commenters Said:

Manufacturers objected to the provisions specifying the use of the test procedures in 40 

CFR part 1065. EMA objected because of the cost of modifying laboratories to test according to 

1065. Euromot argued that 1065 procedures could not be readily applied to large volume 2- and 

4-stroke engines. They also requested clarification of the liability for testing performed 

according to 1065. 

Our Response:

We believe these two test methods provide similar emission results. However, we 

specified the test procedures in 1065 as the official test procedures for Category 3 engines 

because they are more up to date with current technology and result in more repeatable 

measurements. This is largely because the 1065 regulations are frequently updated to 

incorporate new measurement technologies and knowledge gained from testing. 

While we do not agree with Euromot’s comment that Category 3 engines cannot be tested 

according to 1065, we recognize EMA’s concern that it could be expensive to upgrade a 

laboratory to test according to 1065. That is why we proposed §1042.501(g) which states: 

(g) For Category 3 engines, you may submit test data for NOX, HC, and CO emissions that 

were collected as specified in the Annex VI Technical Code instead of test data collected 

as specified in 40 CFR part 1065. We may require you to include a brief engineering 

73 
analysis showing how these data demonstrate that your engines would meet the applicable 

emission standards if you had used the test procedures specified in 40 CFR part 1065. 

However, this provision addresses both issues of cost and feasibility. Manufacturers that 

are already testing according to the Annex VI Technical Code could continue to do so. Under 

§1042.501(g), such data would be fully acceptable for certification. Nevertheless, we would 

expect such manufacturers to be familiar with the 1065 procedures. 

While we believe the Annex VI Technical Code and 1065 procedures will provide very 

similar emission results, we recognize that it is theoretically possible for there to be a meaningful 

difference in some unusual set of circumstances. It would be inappropriate to allow a 

manufacturer to take advantage of any such differences. That is why we retain the right under 

§1042.501(g) to require manufacturers to perform a brief engineering analysis showing how that 

data collected according to the Technical Code are adequate to demonstrate that the engines 

would meet the applicable emission standards if they had had been tested according to the test 

procedures specified in 40 CFR part 1065. 

5.6.2 Certification Fuel 

What Commenters Said:

Euromot questioned the need for limits on sulfur in test fuels. They stated that such 

limits do not apply for IMO testing and would increase testing costs. EMA also opposed the 

revision to the test fuel requirements for C3 marine engines should not be finalized because it 

could require engine manufacturers to maintain a separate fuel supply at their testing facilities. 

Our Response:

 As we indicated in 5.6.1, we would accept test data collected according to the Technical 

Code, which does not include specifications for fuel sulfur. 

5.6.3 Production-Line Testing 

What Commenters Said:

Several commenters oppose the requirement to perform an emission test for each 

Category 3 engine after it is installed in the vessel. Their objections were based primarily on 

cost considerations. Euromot stated that such testing would extend the sea trial by at least one 

day. They estimated that extending the sea trial would cost $300,000 per day. EMA also argued 

that portable measurement systems have not been proven. 

Our Response:

Sections 206 and 207 of the Clean Air Act direct EPA to establish test programs to ensure 

that engines are manufactured to conform to the applicable regulations in actual use. Thus, we 

do not believe that the Clean Air Act would allow us to have no program to verify emissions 

after certification. 

74 
We have used a variety of programs to fulfill this obligation for other engine sectors. We 

generally include some combination of regular testing of randomly selected engines as they are 

being produced (production-line testing), unscheduled testing audits by EPA of engines as they 

are being produced (selective enforcement audits), and testing of randomly selected engines inuse engines. 

Under the existing regulations for Category 3 Tier 1 standards, this obligation was met by 

regulations specifying that we could require manufacturers to perform a selective enforcement 

audit. However, given the very small sales volumes for Category 3 engines, it is not appropriate 

for a long-term program to rely on any method based on testing only a subset of the engines 

produced. This is especially true for engines of this size, where a single engine can emit 

hundreds of times more pollution than smaller nonroad engines. The reliance on theoretical 

selective enforcement audits was only appropriate as a transition program implementing an 

initial tier of standards. 

In addition, since Category 3 engines are generally not fully assembled in a testable 

configuration before being installed in the vessel, a program relying on onboard testing is the 

most workable approach. If the engine must be tested after installation in the vessel, we believe 

that testing during the sea trial will be the least burdensome approach. 

We disagree with EMA’s assertion that portable measurement systems have not been 

proven. They have been used extensively for a wide variety of application. Moreover, EPA 

recently completed a project to demonstrate the use of such systems onboard a marine vessel. 

While we continue to believe this requirement to be essential for the long-term program, 

we accept that some manufacturers may need additional lead time to integrate the testing 

requirement into their sea trials. Therefore, we will not require such testing until the engines are 

subject to the Tier 3 standards. 

5.6.4 PM Measurement 

What Commenters Said:

Several manufacturers opposed the requirement to measure particulate emissions during 

certification testing of Category 3 engines. They generally argued that PM emissions from 

Category 3 engines cannot be accurately measured under 40 CFR part 1065 or that it would be 

prohibitively expensive. Commenters noted problems with measurement variability, fuel sulfur 

levels, and the exhaust flow rates/size of the exhaust stacks. Finally they questioned what 

benefits would be achieved with this requirement. 

Our Response:

The PM measurement provisions in 40 CFR Part 1065 are more than adequate to 

accurately and repeatably measure PM from C3 marine engines. While there have problems 

75 
with measurement variability in past testing, these issues can be avoided by following the latest 

part 1065 requirements as discussed below. 

One commenter appears to be basing the concern in part on data for PM measurement 

variability that was discussed by Hellen et al., which advocates the use of ISO 9096 over ISO 

8178-1, with a fuel sulfur upper limit of 0.8% for application of ISO 8178-1 and a CIMAC 

recommended upper limit (CIMAC Recommendation 23/2005) of 0.05%. 13,14,15 These 

recommendations were based on work by Bastenhof as published by CIMAC in 1995, where the 

precision in measurement of PM from an engine fueled by residual fuel with 3.66% sulfur was 

±25 %.16 It is important to note that the temperature and relative humidity of the filter 

conditioning room were not held to a tight tolerance during this testing: temperatures ranged 

from 22 to 26 °C and relative humidity from 36 to 58 %. This variability can greatly affect the 

amount of water bound to sulfuric acid trapped on the filter as discussed below. While this was 

not the only source of variability in this work, the lack of precision appears to be associated with 

increasing fuel sulfur level. The error in measurment of the particle phase sulfate can be directly 

attributed to the filter conditioning. 

To minimize variability, consistent control of the sample zone temperature is also very 

important, especially for engines emitting high amounts of semi-volatile hydrocarbons, as the 

temperature controls the deposition of semi-volatile hydrocarbons onto the filter. Additional 

improvements to ISO 8178-1 and 40 CFR Part 1065 since the publication of the Bastenhof paper, 

with respect to sample zone temperature control (47 ±5 °C) and filter conditioning/weighing 

room environment (22 ±1 °C ambient temperature and 9.5 ±1 °C dewpoint) have worked to 

further lower the variability of these measurment methods, thus making them appropriate for 

measurement of PM from C3 marine engines. This has been further supported by work by 

Agrawal and Murphy, et al. which has shown very repeatable measurements using ISO-8178-1 

to measure PM on-board ships.17,18 

Further, with respect to measurement of C3 emissions as a whole, 40 CFR Part 1065 is 

very robust and more than adequate for measurement of emissions from C3 marine engines. Part 

1065 is an improvement over existing test procedures with respect to accuracy and repeatability 

and its use would benefit C3 marine emission measurement. 

 

13 “Particulate Emissions of Residual Fuel Operated Diesel Engines – Background, Particulate Size Distributions, 

Measurement Methods, and Potential Abatement Measures”, Hellen, G., et al., International Council on Combustion 

Engines, Paper No. 56 (2007). 

14 ISO 9096, “Stationary Source Emissions – Manual Determination of Mass Concentration of Particulate Matter. 15 CIMAC Recommendation Number 23/2005: Standards and Methods for Sampling and Analysing Emission 

Components in Non-automotive Diesel and Gas Engine Exhaust Gasses – Marine and Land Based Power Plant 

Sources. 

16 “Exhaust Gas Emission Measurements – A Contribution to a Realistic Approach”, Bastenhof, D., International 

Council on Combustion Engines, 1995. 

17 “Emission Measurements from a Crude Oil Tanker at Sea”, Agrawal, H., et al., Environ. Sci. Technol. 2008, 42, 

7098–7103. 

18 “Comprehensive Simultaneous Shipboard and Airborne Characterization of Exhaust from a Modern Container 

Ship at Sea”, Murphy, S., et al., Environ. Sci. Technol., 2009, 43 (13), pp 4626–4640. 

76 
With respect to test fuel, C3 marine engine manufacturers typically certify their engines 

on distillate fuel even if engines operate on HFO. By requiring a test fuel with a sulfur level of 

800 to 2,500 ppm, we will be matching the in-use fuel S concentration for an engine complying 

with the Tier III fuel sulfur requirements and we expect this fuel sulfur concentration to be 

similar to that currently used by engine manufacturers for engine certification. 

5.7 Exclusions and Exemptions 

What Commenters Said:

Several commenters stated there EPA should continue to allow an exemption for 

replacement Category 3 engines. EMA emphasized that all of the exemptions provided in 

MARPOL Annex VI and under the APPS should be included in EPA's C3 Marine Engine Rule. 

In particular, they wanted additional exemptions for emergency and military engines and vessels, 

the Annex VI exemption for sea-bed mineral exploration and associated activities (see MARPOL 

Regulation 3.1). 

The World Shipping Council stated that replacement of a failing Category 3 engine 

would be “extraordinarily rare,” given the size and placement of these engines on a vessel. They 

stated further that it may be completely impractical to upgrade an engine from Tier II to Tier III 

if a larger physical infrastructure is required to install the new engine. They asked that EPA 

explain why there is no allowance for a replacement engine exemption for Category 3 engines. 

AWO commented in support of the proposed exemption for vessels that operate only 

domestically. 

Our Response: 

We proposed to not allow a replacement engine exemption for Category 3 engines 

because we cannot envision a scenario in which it would be necessary to replace an engine with 

an uncertified engine or one certified to earlier standards. We still do not believe that such 

circumstances will occur. Nevertheless, we accept that we cannot imagine all possible 

circumstances. Therefore, the final regulations will allow a manufacturer to request a 

replacement engine, but only for very unusual circumstances. 

With respect to the other exemptions, we are finalizing the APPS regulations to include 

the same exemptions and exclusions included under Annex VI. However, we are not applying 

them to our Clean Air Act regulations. Instead, we are continuing the same exemption 

provisions that already apply for marine engines. This includes national security and emergency 

exemptions, but does not include any exemption for engines used for sea-bed mineral exploration 

5.8 Provisions for Category 1 and 2 Engines 

What Commenters Said:

EMA also supports the Agency's proposal to adopt compliance flexibility for C1 and C2 

vessels that operate primarily in foreign ports. Under that proposal, and beginning in 2016, 

vessel owners would be allowed the choice, with respect to C1 and C2 engines, between 

complying with EPA's Tier 4 NOX and PM standards or the MARPOL Annex VI standards for 

77 
all CI engines over 130 kW installed on the vessel. EMA encourages the Agency to include 

such compliance flexibility in any final C3 rulemaking, and to amend the C1/C2 rule to delete 

the compliance requirements for 2016 and later model year engines installed on U.S. vessels 

traveling overseas. 

EMA also endorses the additional compliance flexibility that the Agency has proposed 

with respect to the temporary exemption program for C1 and C2 vessels that may operate 

overseas under contract for extended periods in an area where 15 ppm sulfur fuel may not be 

available. That proposed auxiliary emission-control device (AECD) flexibility, however, should 

not be limited solely to auxiliary engines. In addition, it should be an option in addition to the 

current exemption program, and not a wholesale replacement of it. Including both flexibility 

options will provide better assurance of compliance for vessels that are properly engaged in 

international commerce. 

 Note that other Chapter 4 addresses other comments opposing allowing Category 1 or 

Category 2 engines to use higher sulfur fuel. 

Our Response: 

We are revising §1042.650 to add exemption provisions for Category 1 and Category 2 

auxiliary engines on vessels with Category 3 propulsion engines. Previously, some such engines 

could have qualified for the migratory exemption we adopted in 2008 for vessels for Tier 4 

standards. This exemption was intended primarily to address potential problems obtaining 15 

ppm fuel overseas. We are finalizing a parallel exemption for auxiliary engines that would differ 

from the existing exemption by including engines on Category 3 vessels that operate 

domestically and apply for Tier 3 and earlier standards. 

Under this option, manufacturers of Category 1 and Category 2 engines intended for use 

on Category 3 vessels that will not be limited to domestic waters may choose to certify only to 

Annex VI NOX standards. We will not require CAA certification for such auxiliary engines if 

the conditions for this flexibility are met. As is specified in 1043, we will not require an EIAPP 

for engines certified under part 1042 if they will be limited to domestic waters. Thus , Category 

1 and Category 2 engines intended for use on vessels that operate solely in domestic waters may 

be certified to either the CAA or the MARPOL Annex VI standard applicable to the model year 

engine. 

We are including a provision to address potential an environmental disbenefit during the 

transition to the catalyst-based standards. In order to receive the flexibility described above for 

engines on vessels not limited to use in domestic waters, engines that would have been subject to 

the Tier 4 standards of part 1042 will be required to meet the Tier III NOX requirements, 

irrespective of whether they would be required to comply under Annex VI. For example, this 

would affect 2015 Category 2 engines with a maximum engine power of 3000 kW installed on a 

2015 vessel using this option. Since such an engines would have been be subject to the Tier 4 

standards under §1042.101, they will be required as a condition of the exemption to meet the 

Tier III standards under Annex VI. 

Given the MARPOL Annex VI and CAA NOX requirements are comparable, with 

slightly different phase-in dates and cut-offs, we believe this approach will be a less burdensome 

implementation approach over transitioning years, and will not have a meaningful impact on 

78 
emission reductions. In the absence of this exemption, manufacturers would have been required 

to certify special auxiliary engines that met both Annex VI and 1042 requirements for a U.S. 

market that could be as small as one engine per year. By allowing manufacturers to meet only 

the Annex VI requirements, they would be able to produce a single international engine and 

spread the administrative costs over many more engines. It is important to note that we are not 

extending this exemption to vessels with Category 1 or Category 2 propulsion engines because 

these factors cannot be presumed for such vessels. 

5.9 Applicability to Gas Turbine Engines 

What Commenters Said:

Several commenters objected to EPA’s proposal to require marine gas turbine engines to 

meet the emission standards that currently apply for Category 1 and Category 2 diesel engines. 

Some of these commenters stated that turbines should not be included in the definition of 

“compression ignition” engines and that regulation of turbines does not fit within the scope of 

the rule. They argued that the goal of the proposed rule was “to align with MARPOL.” They 

also asserted that the proposed requirements would not pass a cost/benefit analysis and that 

turbines cannot be tested under the procedures of 40 CFR part 1065. However, they did not 

provide any information about costs, benefits, or test procedures. Finally, the commenters stated 

that EPA was incorrect when we claimed that gas turbines operate at lower air/fuel ratios and 

have lower exhaust volumes. 

Our Response: 

We agree that it would be incorrect to define turbine engines as reciprocating or 

compression ignition. However, we did not propose to do so. The commenters are misreading 

§1042.1(f), which states: 

(f) The marine engines listed in this paragraph (f) are subject to all the requirements of this 

part even if they do not meet the definition of “compression-ignition” in §1042.901. The 

following engines are deemed to be compression-ignition engines for the purposes of this 

subchapter: 

(1) Marine engines powered by natural gas or other gaseous fuels with maximum engine 

power at or above 250 kW. Note that gaseous-fueled engines with maximum engine power 

below 250 kW may or may not meet the definition of “compression-ignition” in §1042.901. 

(2) Marine gas turbine engines. 

(3) Other marine internal combustion engines that do not meet the definition of “sparkignition” in §1042.901. 

This provision does subject marine gas turbine engines to the requirements of part 1042, 

but it explicitly recognizes that they do not meet the definition of “compression-ignition” in 

§1042.901. The confusion seems to arise from the statement that these engines “are deemed to 

be compression-ignition engines for the purposes of this subchapter.” This statement is merely a 

regulatory convention that means the part applies to turbines as if they did meet the definition. 

79 
The commenters do not dispute the feasibility of these standards. They assert - without 

providing supporting information- that regulation of turbines will not be cost-effective. We 

recognize that the number of turbines that will be subject to these standards will likely be small. 

(Note that if there are no gas turbine engines manufactured, there would be no costs at all.) 

However, the main benefit of this requirement will likely be to prevent vessel manufacturers 

from circumventing our regulations by installing turbine engines rather than diesel engines. 

Nevertheless, our analysis shows that these requirements will be very cost effective, without 

regard to the number of turbines that are ultimately installed in marine vessels. The commenters 

questioning the cost-effectiveness of the requirements did not provide any cost or emission data 

to show otherwise, even though they likely had access to detailed cost and emission information. 

It is important to note that EPA requested such information years ago as part of its proposal to 

adopt new emission standards for Category 1 and Category 2 marine engines (72 FR 16004, 

April 3, 2007). 

It is difficult to respond to the commenters’ assertion that major revisions would be 

required to test turbines under 40 CFR part 1065 since they did not identify any specific 

problems. We continue to believe that only minor modifications would be needed and that they 

fall within the scope of special test procedures already allowed under §1065.10(c)(2). 

Manufacturers planning to certify gas turbine engines that believe they cannot test their engines 

according to part 1065, should contact EPA to request permission to use such special test 

procedures. 

We do agree that it was incorrect to state that gas turbines operate at lower air/fuel ratios 

and have lower exhaust volumes. After further review, we recognize that this is not necessarily 

true. Both diesel engines and gas turbines can operate over wide ranges of air/fuel ratios, making 

categorical comparisons difficult. Nevertheless, we do not dispute the commenters’ statement 

that modern gas turbine engines will have higher air/fuel ratios and exhaust flow rates than 

marine diesel engines. 

Finally, irrespective of the actual cost for turbines to meet the standards, this requirement 

could be considered to be feasible based solely on the fact that vessel manufacturers do not need 

to use turbine engines. As we stated in the preamble for the proposal, 

(T)he only circumstance in which a vessel would actually need a gas turbine engine would be 

for military purposes where our national security exemption provisions would apply. For all 

other vessels, it is entirely feasible for the vessel to be powered by a diesel engine. In fact, 

that is what is being done today. 

The commenters did not dispute this. 

5.10 Applicability to Boilers 

What Commenters Said:

Several operators on the Great Lakes expressed concern over forced retirement of 

steamships as a result of the proposed fuel sulfur requirements. They stated that the existing 

steamships on the Great Lakes cannot operate on distillate fuel for economic and safety reasons. 

These comments are discussed in more detail in Chapter 10. 

80 
 In a letter to Senator Murkowski that was later forwarded to EPA, TOTE stated that they 

operate two steam propulsion vessels in domestic and international service off the Pacific coast. 

It is widely accepted that burning low sulfur fuel in the boilers of old steam vessels is not 

advised, and unsafe. Extensive and complex modifications would be required on these vessels to 

enable them to burn low sulfur fuels, and major modifications would not be economically 

justifiable as the life expectancy of vessels is 10 years or less. There is precedent for legislative 

relief in this bill already from congressional leaders from the states bordering on the Great Lakes. 

TOTE proposed that steam powered vessels in the U.S. fleet be exempted from the proposed 

regulations. 

 One commenter noted that the SS. Jeremiah O’Brien is the last working WWII Liberty 

ship and is designated as a National Historic Landmark. Obviously, the ship could not be 

modified to burn a low sulfur fuel without destroying its historically integrity. This vessel is 

equipped with a reciprocating steam engine and is not equipped to operate on distillate fuel. The 

commenter requested that we consider including an exemption for historic vessels in any new 

regulations applicable to existing ships. 

 Coalition for a Save Environment commented that boilers are used in tanker ships to 

pump out crude oil, fuels, and gas and to operate cranes in container ships. These boilers release 

tons of criteria pollutants and VOCs. Boilers can use high-efficiency aftertreatment technology 

to reduce emissions. They raised concern that no regulations are being proposed for these nonengine ship toxic emission sources. 

Our Response:

A number of commenters raised issues regarding operating Great Lakes steamships on 

distillate fuel. As discussed in Chapter 10 of this document, existing Great Lakes steamships are 

excluded from this final rule. 

Similar concerns were raised for the small number of steamships operating along the U.S. 

coasts. As these vessels do not operate exclusively within U.S. internal waters, they fall under 

the U.S. Government's (primarily EPA and Coast Guard's) implementation of the ECA 

provisions of the IMO MARPOL Annex VI treaty. The requirements of the MARPOL Annex 

VI ECA fuel sulfur limits apply to all vessels and have no exemptions for steamships. It is not 

within the scope of this rulemaking to amend the requirements of the MARPOL Annex VI treaty. 

However, through the comments and follow-up conversations with ship owners, we agree that 

special challenges exist for the use of lower sulfur fuel in steamships. Therefore, we will 

continue to work on this issue with the United States Coast Guard and other members of the U.S. 

Delegation to IMO as well as other interested stakeholders including the affected steamship 

operators. We are committed to resolving this issue before the end of 2011, well in advance of 

January 2015 when the 0.1 percent fuel sulfur standard will enter into force. 

We have added a provision that would allow us to exempt historic steamships from the 

lower sulfur fuel requirements for operation in U.S. internal waters. The designated party for the 

historic steamship would need to request this exemption from EPA. We would make this 

decision on a case-by-case basis. 

81 
5.11 Coordination with Coast Guard 

What Commenters Said:

CSA stated that the regulations should not be finalized and implemented without 

continuing the extensive consultation between Coast Guard and EPA to assure that any 

requirements related to emissions reductions from marine vessels do not run afoul of existing 

regulations which ensure operational safety and environmental protection. 

We also received a request that EPA more clearly identify how both the proposed U.S. 

C3 regulations and IMO regulations will be enforced and what respective roles EPA and the 

Coast Guard will have in ensuring compliance with all of the fuel and emission control 

requirements. 

Our Response:

We have consulted with Coast Guard throughout this rulemaking process and will 

continue to coordinate with Coast Guard as we move forward. The Act to Prevent Pollution 

from Ships authorizes the U.S. Coast Guard and EPA to enforce the provisions of Annex VI 

against domestic and foreign vessels and to develop implementing regulations, as necessary. In 

addition, APPS gives EPA sole authority to certify engines installed on U.S. vessels to the Annex 

VI requirements. This final rule contains regulations codifying the Annex VI requirements and 

regulations to implement several aspects of the Annex VI engine and fuel regulations, which we 

are finalizing under that APPS authority. We are currently working with the U.S. Coast Guard to 

better define the respective roles of the EPA and Coast Guard. 

5.12 Other Marine Certification and Compliance Issues 

(A) Defect Reporting. 

What Commenters Said:

EMA objected to the proposal to apply the defect reporting requirements of §1068.501 to 

Category 3 engines, and reducing the threshold for filing a defect report to two claims. They 

argued that the proposed defect reporting threshold is too low and that engine manufacturers 

have no meaningful opportunity to monitor, investigate and report on emissions-related defect 

claims in a timely manner. They stated that manufacturers would generally be late in their 

submissions of defect reports to EPA if the Agency finalized a reporting threshold of two claims, 

and suggested that the actual air quality impacts from such a defect reporting requirement would 

be negligible. They recommended that the Agency apply the reporting thresholds already 

adopted in §1068.501(f)(2). 

Our Response:

The threshold specified in §1068.501(f)(2) would be 10 defects. This is not appropriate 

for Category 3 engines because of their extremely low sales volumes. Under that approach a 

manufacturer that produced five Category 3 engines in a year, would never be required to file a 

defect report, even if all of the engines were found to be defective. We also do not accept the 

claim that defect reports will inevitably be late, since the regulations only require the 

82 
manufacturer to submit a report within 21 days once it becomes aware of the occurrence of the 

same defect in two or more engines within a family. 

(B) How will standards be enforced? 

What Commenters Said:

 The Coalition for Safe Environment (LB hearing testimony 0232, p56) asked how the 

requirements will be enforced, and what the sanctions are for failure to meet these new 

standards. Maersk ask that the final rule be very clear as to which sections apply only to U.S.- 

flagged vessels vs. all vessels. 

Our Response:

The CAA standards being adopted would be enforced as specified in 40 CFR part 1068, 

especially §§1068.101 and 1068.125. We believe the regulations are fairly clear that part 1043 

applies for all vessels, while part 1042 applies only for U.S.-flagged vessels. 

(C) Small Volume Manufacturers. 

What Commenters Said:

EMA objected to the revised definition of “small-volume engine manufacturer,” pointing 

out that it would apply a different threshold for companies making Category 2 engines if they 

happened to also make Category 3 engines. 

Our Response:

We acknowledge that the definition as proposed would treat companies differently 

depending on whether or not they make Category 3 engines. However, we believe this 

highlights the need to revisit this definition more fundamentally. We continue to believe, as 

described in the proposed rule, that any manufacturer with the design and production capabilities 

to produce Category 3 engines does not warrant special treatment as a small business, regardless 

of the production volumes. Such an engine manufacturer would need very substantial capital 

and developmental resources and should not be treated differently than other manufacturers that 

do not qualify as “small.” 

Consideration of this comment made clear that, by establishing a threshold of 1000 

engines, the definition is appropriate only for Category 1 engines, which are generally produced 

in relatively high volumes. Many manufacturers producing only Category 2 engines will never 

exceed production volumes 1000 engines per year. Much like Category 3 engines, these very 

expensive engines are produced by capital-intensive companies. We did not propose to change 

the definition for these companies, so we are not finalizing any further changes in this rule. 

However, we intend to change this definition in the future to more appropriately tailor 

rulemaking provisions for small manufacturers to those companies that have limited ability to do 

testing and meet other certification requirements. 

83 
(D) Re-flagging. 

What Commenters Said:

Liberty Maritime expressed concern that the proposal would set a significant hurdle to 

the reflagging of vessels from foreign flag (built to MARPOL Annex VI standards) to U.S. flag. 

They argued that application of the EPA Standards would require ship owners to persuade the 

engine manufacturer to carry out extensive, U.S. EPA-unique, testing procedures to seek 

certification. Alternatively, the ship-owner would be required to change out or modify the 

engines. Maersk stated that since U.S. fleets often grow by acquiring vessels from outside the 

U.S., all requirements for “re-flagging” vessels into U.S. registration need to be clear, and the 

process must be timely and responsive to support U.S. companies in dealing with business 

changes. The Word Shipping Council requested that we clarify what certification and 

verification requirements apply for ship that becomes a U.S.-flag vessel after being placed into 

service under a different flag. 

Our Response:

We recognize that reflagging vessels may be common in the coming years as the U.S. 

Department of Transportation Maritime Administration (MARAD) implements the Maritime 

Security Program (MSP). The requirements of the MSP may have created confusion for owners 

of non-U.S.-flagged vessels regarding their obligation to also comply with EPA’s domestic 

marine diesel engine emission standards at the time they re-flag for inclusion in the MSF. We 

are revising the regulations to clarify these requirements and, as noted earlier, to provide 

exemptions for auxiliary engines on Category 3. First, we are revising §1042.1 to clarify that our 

regulations apply for all U.S.-flagged vessels. In conjunction with this, we are revising the 

definitions of “model year” and “new marine engine” to clarify that our marine engine program 

applies to all U.S.-flagged vessels regardless of where that vessels is built or operated, and how 

the regulations apply for vessels that are re-flagged to be U.S. vessels. 

We are clarifying that engines on foreign vessels that vessels become “new marine 

engines” under part 1042 at the point at which they are reflagged. As new marine engines, we 

would expect them to be covered by valid certificates and/or exemptions prior to being placed 

into service. If engines on U.S.-flagged vessels are not covered by valid certificates and/or 

exemptions when they first enter U.S. waters, they would be subject to all of the prohibitions of 

part 1068.101. The operator would be in violation of the prohibition against introduction of an 

uncertified new engine into U.S. commerce. 

Some of the revisions being finalized are intended to simplify the transition from part 94 

to part 1042. Under the revised regulations, part 1042 becomes the default regulatory part for 

compression-ignition marine engines. Section 1043.1 specifies that such marine engines are 

subject to part 1042 unless they are certified under part 94. In addition, §1042.1(c) specifies that 

the definition of “new marine engine” in §1042.901 applies for engines certified under part 94. 

This is important because our standards and prohibitions apply for engines meeting the definition 

of “new marine engine”. Thus, to determine whether an uncertified marine engine is subject to 

our standards and prohibitions, you must determine whether it meets any of the criteria of the 

definition of “new marine engine” in §1042.901. 

84 
Each “new marine engine”, is subject to standards based on its model year. The revised 

definition of “model year” specifies that engines on re-flagged vessels would generally be 

subject to the standards that would have applied in the year they were originally manufactured. 

If the engine has a model year before the years the part 94 standards first applied, it would not be 

subject to any standards. If the engine has a later model year but one that is before the years the 

part 1042 standards apply, it would be subject to the standards of part 94. According to 

§1042.1(c), if the engine is certified to these part 94 standards, it is not required to comply with 

the requirements of part 1042. 

To further smooth this transition, we are finalizing a new interim provision in 

§1042.145(i). This provision is intended to apply for vessel operators that were not aware that 

their vessels were required to comply with our regulations. Once this amendment takes effect, it 

will allow them to operate in U.S. waters until July 1, 2010 without certificates or exemptions for 

their engines. After that, it will be a violation of 40 CFR 1068.101 to operate in U.S. waters with 

uncertified engines if those engines are subject to our standards. Operation of such vessels in 

U.S. waters on or after July 1, 2010 is deemed to be introduction into U.S. commerce of a new 

marine engine. 

(E) Penalties for noncompliant operation. 

What Commenters Said:

The World Shipping Council objected to the regulatory provision identifying each twohour period of operation in a noncompliant condition as a separate violation. This could lead to 

very high penalties in cases where the operator knows that an engine is in a noncompliant 

condition, but they are unable to correct the noncompliance until they arrive at a port where they 

can arrange for specialized service. It may be more appropriate to identify a violation as starting 

at the earliest practicable point of intervention, consistent with the problem and the required 

remediation. They also requested that we describe the role for manufacturers of aftertreatment 

systems in the certification process and clarify whether these companies are liable for in-use 

performance for their installed products. 

Maersk also questioned the definition of two hours as a violation, and asked how this 

compares to international enforcement requirements for vessels and other mobile sources. They 

suggested an alternative of allowing a vessel which experiences such a malfunction at sea to 

make a reasonable attempt to solve the problem, and if not successful, document the attempts 

made and correct the equipment problem at the next port call where appropriate facilities, 

resources and expertise are available. This should not be considered as multiple violations. 

Our Response:

We have added the following to §1042.660 in the regulations to address concerns about 

malfunctions that occur at sea: 

Note that where a repair (or other maintenance) cannot be completed while at sea, it is 

not a violation to continue operating the engine to reach your destination. 

With respect to the role for aftertreatment manufacturers in the certification process and 

their liability for in-use performance, we note that our regulations apply for all persons meeting 

85 
the definition of “manufacturer” in the regulations. Nevertheless, we generally assign primary 

responsibility for in-use performance to the manufacturer that obtains the certificate of 

conformity for the engine (including the aftertreatment system). 

5.13 Miscellaneous modifications to the proposed regulatory language 

What Commenters Said:

One commenter expressed concern that it is confusing that the acronym PEMS is used in 

part 1065 for “portable emission measurement system” and in part 60 for “predictive emissions 

monitoring system”. 

Our Response:

We do not believe that the different uses of this acronym are a problem that needs to be 

corrected. It is not uncommon for this situation to occur where a simple acronym has different 

meanings in different contexts. This acronym was established several years ago in part 1065. 

Within the regulated community of engine manufacturers it is widely understood to mean 

portable emission measurement system in the context of part 1065. We believe it would be more 

confusing to change this acronym or the acronym in part 60. 

86 
CHAPTER 6: Estimated Costs 

What We Proposed:

The comments in this section generally correspond to Section VII of the preamble to the 

proposed rule, where we describe the expected costs of EPA’s coordinated strategy for 

addressing ships’ emissions. The Regulatory Impact Analysis describes costs in Chapter 5. 

See Chapter 7 of this document for a discussion of comments on the economic impacts of 

this strategy. See Chapter 10 of this document for a discussion of costs and impacts specific to 

the Great Lakes region. 

6.1 Cost of Engine Technology 

What Commenters Said:

EMA commented that it has not been established whether or not diesel fuel with a sulfur 

content above 1,000 ppm will cause damage to Selective Catalytic Reduction (SCR)-based 

aftertreatment systems, even when the system is inactive. Regardless, to account for this 

possibility, the commenter stated that EPA should investigate the potential costs of a by-pass to 

the SCR system. 

The U.S. Navy commented that their testing indicates that cost of catalyst-based 

aftertreatment systems for gas turbine engines would be expected to be considerably higher than 

those used on diesel engine exhaust systems, rather than lower. Others commented that applying 

these standards to marine turbine engines would not pass a cost/benefit ratio analysis. 

EGCSA commented that EPA’s cost estimates for retrofitting existing vessels with 

equipment to accommodate the use of lower sulfur fuel were too low. The commenter noted that 

recent discussions with a major tanker owner indicated that fuel line changes alone amounted to 

£100,000 per ship. The commenter also noted that many ships, including new builds, do not 

have sufficient tank capacity or segregated fuel tanks that hold both residual and distillate fuel; 

therefore, the options to divide residual fuel tanks or install new separate distillate fuel tanks will 

vary from ship to ship. Further, the commenter stated that ‘distance from vessel hull regulations’ 

may also limit options for new tanks. The commenter stated that the minimum cost of 

installation of new fuel tanks is unlikely to be less than $100,000 when accounting for all costs 

including opportunity cost, and could be in excess of $400,000 for some retrofit applications. 

EMA (0265) 

USN-DoD (0241) 

Solar Turbines (0249) 

GTA (0253) 

87 
Our Response:

Through our background work for this rulemaking and for the ECA application, we 

sought input from the regulated community regarding the expected future costs of applying the 

emission control technologies associated with the coordinated strategy. EPA contracted with 

ICF to research the fixed and variable costs associated with the technologies expected to be used 

to meet engine and fuel sulfur requirements, as applied to different engine types and sizes. After 

ICF developed their initial cost estimates, they provided surveys to several engine and emission 

control technology manufacturers, including at least one member from both EGCSA and EMA to 

determine the reasonableness of their approach and cost estimates. Input received from those 

surveyed was incorporated into the final cost estimates used in this analysis. 

The costs of bypass systems associated with the use of SCR were investigated for a series 

of both slow-speed and medium-speed engine configurations and ranged from $4,700 -$7,500. 

Chapter 5 of the RIA presents this information in the discussion on variable costs associated with 

the use of SCR as a Tier III compliance strategy. These variable costs include: the urea tank, the 

reactor, dosage pump, urea injectors, piping, bypass valve, an acoustic horn, a cleaning probe 

and the control unit and wiring. The cost of applying SCR technology to gas turbine engines has 

been addressed in Section 5.8 of this document. 

The cost estimates developed for the installation of equipment to accommodate the use of 

lower sulfur fuel on both new and existing vessels were developed separately. These estimates 

were based on the installation of distillate fuel tanks large enough to hold fuel sufficient for 250 

hours of both main and auxiliary engine operation; however, the size of the tank actually 

installed on a particular vessel is dependent on the frequency with which the individual ship 

owner prefers to fill the lower sulfur fuel tank. The estimated costs were developed for new and 

existing vessels with engine configurations ranging from 4,500 kW medium speed engines to 

48,000 kW slow speed engines. The estimated costs for new vessel installations ranged from 

nearly $34,000 to $73,000. Retrofitting a vessel is expected to require more effort than making 

upgrades during new vessel construction, to address this, additional labor costs were allocated 

for installing equipment to accommodate the use of lower sulfur fuel on existing ships resulting 

in cost estimates from $44,000 to $99,000. 

The costs include additional distillate fuel storage tanks, a lower sulfur fuel oil separator, 

a residual/lower sulfur fuel oil blending unit, a 3-way valve, a lower sulfur fuel oil cooler, filters, 

a viscosity meter, and various pumps and piping. This cost analysis does not reflect opportunity 

costs, such as that of displaced cargo as there are other design options such as partitioning of a 

residual fuel tank to allow for lower sulfur fuel capacity which would reduce the amount of 

additional space required, nor does this analysis reflect the possibility that some ships may have 

already been designed to carry some amount of distillate fuel in separate tanks for purposes other 

than continuous propulsion. In fact, of the existing fleet of vessels, less than one-third would 

require modifications to carry enough distillate fuel to enable the vessel to travel 1,140 nm, and 

of these nearly 75 percent already carry some distillate fuel. 

88 
6.2 Cost of Lower Sulfur Fuel 

What Commenters Said:

We received a number of comments on the economic modeling that was conducted to 

predict the difference in pricing between traditional residual marine fuel oils and distillate marine 

fuel oils as well as its expected impact on the various segments of the marine industry. The 

majority of these comments were that, based on historical experience, that the price premium for 

distillate is much higher than projected by EPA. 

CLIA commented that the use of the global market fuel price differential is immaterial 

when the analysis concerns shipping that will trade almost exclusively within the ECA. Instead, 

the analysis should be conducted utilizing historical spot market bunker pricing within the 

various geographic areas of the ECA. CLIA’s analysis, for example, indicates a historical 10 

year average price differential between distillate and residual fuel in the U.S. Northwest of 

approximately $230 per ton. Note that the U.S. Pacific Northwest is the Alaska cruise market 

which operates exclusively within the ECA and thus, ECA compliant fuel must be used 

essentially 100% of the time. Thus, the expected fuel cost premium would be closer to $12-$16 

per day instead of $7 per day adding approximately $86 to $112 to the price of a typical seven 

day cruise itinerary in this region, if historical averages hold true. CLIA also commented that 

there is a United States flag cruise ship operating in the State of Hawaii. Analysis provided by 

that operator indicates that the economic impact on Hawaii is consistent with that on Alaska. 

That is, an increase of almost $10 per person per day – a rise of 64%. This equates to an increase 

of $70 per person on a 7 day cruise or $280 for a family of four. 

Both CLIA and Chamber of Shipping of America referenced a Final Report of ATEMIA 

– University of Antwerp (September 2009) which states: “The price difference between IFO 380 

and MGO (0.1% sulphur) fluctuates strongly in time (30% to 250% price difference) with a long 

term average of 93% (period 1990-2008). The price difference between LS 380 and MDO 

fluctuates between 40% and 190%, with a long term average of 87%. In other words, the 

specified MDO is historically on average 87% more expensive than LS 380. Overall the cost of 

marine distillate fuels is about twice what residual fuels costs due to increasing demand and the 

cost of the desulphurization process. These are long-term averages. Overall, the effect of the new 

Annex VI agreement may be quite costly for the participants in the shipping industry. Based on 

historical price differences, the use of MGO (0.1%) could well imply a cost increase per ton of 

bunker fuel of on average 80 to 100% (long-term) compared to IFO 380 and 70 to 90% 

compared to LS 380 grades (1.5%). This conclusion is in line with previous studies.” 

Chamber of Shipping of America believes that the increases in low sulfur fuel costs are 

significantly underestimated in EPA’s cost/benefit analysis. EPA’s fuel cost estimates found in 

Table VII-2 at page 44489 utilize the estimates found in the Martin Tallett/Ensys study which 

was one basis for the work of the IMO expert group which addressed this issue. The spread 

noted in this study between distillate and HFO was cited at 1.45. While this spread may be 

closer to reality in the current economic downturn which has resulted in the use of less volumes 

of heavy crude oils as well as excess refining capacity, historically we have seen the 

distillate/HFO spread closer to 2.0. Based on the expectation that economic downturns occur 

less than 25 percent of the time, a more appropriate spread would reflect “normal” economic 

89 
conditions as well as fully taking into account that distillate demand is expected to increase 

significantly with a corresponding decrease in demand for HFO. 

 Seaworthy commented that its decades of experience with marine fuels would indicate 

that a 70-80% price premium for 0.1 percent sulfur distillate. TOTE commented that the 

additional distillate fuel consumption from vessels forced to use this fuel will immediately 

increase the cost of all distillate fuel in the Puget Sound area. Small changes in consumption 

patterns in an already tight Puget Sound fuel market will have a disproportionate effect in this 

area. 

 SFC commented that by 2015, most (if not all) of the fuel production meeting the EPA’s 

1,000 ppm sulfur standard will have to be marine diesel. This means that refineries will have to 

make significant investments in conversion technologies, and that shipowners and operators will 

likely face increased fuel prices. A report undertaken for the IMO by the Informal Cross 

Government/Industry Scientific Group of Experts (published in December 2007 ) notes that the 

price difference between heavy fuel oil and distillate fuel has varied from 50 percent to 72 

percent between 2000 and 2007 (a qualified estimate was impossible to provide). The report goes 

on to note that although forecasts of fuel prices are based on many variables, one certainty is that 

any increase in fuel costs will be incorporated into the ship’s freight rates, which may result in 

competition between the marine mode and other transportation modes. 

 Governor Lingle of Hawaii commented that the EPA’s analysis of estimated fuel costs, 

per footnote 130 in the proposed rule, “considers only the lower 48 contiguous states and 

southeastern Alaska.” 

 

CLIA (0278) 

Chamber of Shipping of America (0256) 

Seaworthy (0226) 

TOTE (0289) 

Shipping Federation of Canada (0270) 

Governor Lingle (0400) 

Our Response:

Studies were performed on the impact of a North American ECA on global fuel 

production and costs, to inform the application for such ECA.19 These studies were performed 

prior to the ECA being defined; thus, we picked a maximum distance boundary to ensure the fuel 

volumes used for the cost analysis would be larger than required by the program. Specifically, 

we used the total fuel consumption in the U.S. and Canada exclusive economic zones.20 The 

studies are relevant to this regulation as well, because they estimate the cost of 1,000 ppm sulfur 

fuel for Category 3 vessels operating in U.S. waterways. 

 

19 Research Triangle Institute, 2009. “Global Trade and Fuels Assessment— Future Trends and Effects of 

Designating Requiring Clean Fuels in the Marine Sector”. Prepared for U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 

Research Triangle Park, NC. 

20 In this analysis, the U.S. included the lower 48 contiguous states and southeastern Alaska. 

90 
To assess the effect on the refining industry of the imposition of a 1,000 ppm sulfur limit 

on fuels, we needed to first understand and characterize the fuels market. Research Triangle 

Institute (RTI) was contracted to conduct a fuels study using an activity-based economic 

approach. The study established baseline bunker fuel demand, projected a growth rate for 

bunker fuel demand, and established future bunker fuel demand volumes.21 These volumes then 

became the input to the World Oil Refining Logistics and Demand (WORLD) model to evaluate 

the effect of the coordinated strategy on fuel cost. 

The WORLD model was run by Ensys Energy & Systems, the owner and developer of 

the refinery model. The WORLD model is the only such model currently developed for this 

purpose and was developed by a team of international petroleum consultants. It has been widely 

used by industries, government agencies, and Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries 

(OPEC) over the past 13 years, including the Cross Government/Industry Scientific Group of 

Experts, established to evaluate the effects of the different fuel options proposed under the 

revision of MARPOL Annex VI. The model incorporates crude sources, global regions, refinery 

operations, and world economics. The results of the WORLD model have been comparable to 

other independent predictions of global fuel, air pollutant emissions and economic predictions. 

The WORLD refinery model was used to evaluate the refinery cost impacts as well as the 

prices of supplying distillate and residual fuels in the Base (Business as usual case without an 

ECA) and ECA cases. In determining the prices for distillate and residual fuels, the WORLD 

model uses economic factors including refinery expansion projects, refinery operating costs, 

crude prices, return on assets, distribution costs, supply and demand of fuels, historical pricing 

patterns for fuels in world regions, etc. For the ECA cases, the WORLD model adds refinery 

residual coking capacity which converts residual stocks into distillates, increasing the supply of 

distillates while decreasing the supply of residual stocks. Additionally, the model incrementally 

increases crude throughput, which also increases the production of distillate stocks relative to the 

production of residual stocks. 

The WORLD model was run for 2020, in which the control case included a fuel sulfur 

level of 1,000 ppm in the U.S. The baseline case was modeled as “business as usual” in which 

ships continue to use the same fuel as today. Because of the recent increases and fluctuations in 

oil prices, we had additional WORLD model runs conducted. For these runs, we used new 

reference case and high oil price estimates that were recently released by the U.S. Energy 

Information Administration (EIA). In addition to increased oil price estimates, the updated 

model accounts for increases in natural gas costs, capital costs for refinery upgrades, and product 

distribution costs. 

There are two main components to projected increased marine fuel cost associated with 

the ECA. The first component results from shifting from operation on residual fuel to operation 

on higher cost distillate fuel. This is the dominant cost component. However, there is also a 

small cost associated with desulfurizing the distillate to meet the 1,000 ppm sulfur standard. 

Based on the WORLD modeling, the average increase in costs associated with switching from 

 

21 Research Triangle Institute, 2009. “Global Trade and Fuels Assessment— Future Trends and Effects of 

Designating Requiring Clean Fuels in the Marine Sector”. Prepared for U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 

Research Triangle Park, NC. 

91 
marine residual to distillate will be $145 per metric ton of fuel consumed. This represents a 45 

percent increase per metric ton of fuel. Due to the differences in energy density between the two 

fuels, this translates to a cost increase of $123 for each metric ton of residual fuel replaced by 

distillate fuel.22 This is the cost increase that will be borne by the shipping companies 

purchasing the fuel. Of this amount, $6 per metric ton is the increase in costs associated with 

distillate desulfurization. 

A number of commenters stated that the results of the refinery modeling are inconsistent 

with the historical price differential between marine distillate oil and residual fuel oil. One 

commenter discussed the Secretary General’s expert group report that presented average fuel oil 

prices, for Singapore and Fujairah, for the years 2000 through 2007. Over this time period the 

percent price premium on marine distillate fuel compared to marine residual fuel ranged from 39 

to 98 percent. The cost premium based on the refinery modeling was in this range, at 45 percent. 

The price differential over these years, based on the study, ranged from $57/metric ton to 

$306/metric ton. The cost difference predicted by the refinery model was $145/metric ton which 

is near the center of this range. Note that the refinery model focuses on fuel cost impacts, where 

the historic fuel prices can be affected by external market impacts. An example of external 

market impacts that can drive pricing was during the tight distillate market of 2008. During this 

time period, diesel prices in the U.S. were higher than gasoline prices, even though further 

refining (more expensive processing) is necessary to produce gasoline than diesel fuel. This 

occurred because of high distillate demand in India and China outstripping existing distillate 

refining capacity. 

For both the Base and ECA cases, the WORLD model grows the supply of all fuels until 

the demand of fuels are met, by adding refinery expansion projects. As a result of this, the 

WORLD model projects for the Base case and the ECA cases, that the pricing gap between 

distillate fuel and residual fuels will be lower than recent pricing patterns suggest. The prices 

projected for residual and distillate stocks in the Base Case and ECA cases are narrower than 

they were in recent years because the supply of distillate and residuals stocks are projected to be 

in balance with demand due to the WORLD model adding refinery expansion projects. In 

contrast, the price of distillate stocks in comparison to residual stocks was elevated much higher 

than historical norms from years 2003 until the start of the current financial crisis. The pricing 

abnormality during this time interval was due to overall shortages of refinery capacity needed to 

produce the volume of distillate stocks required to fulfill growth in demand for distillate stocks 

throughout the world. In response to this elevated pricing, which started in 2003, refineries 

around the world recently made substantial investments to add refinery capacity, with the 

projects coming on stream now and in the immediate future. Due to these expansions and the 

current economic crisis, the current pricing ratios for distillate and residual stocks have retuned 

to differentials that are similar to ECA projections, a time period when refining supply of 

distillates and other fuels were in balance with demand. 

 

22 Note that distillate fuel has a higher energy content, on a per ton basis, than residual fuel. As such, there is an 

offsetting cost savings, on a per metric ton basis, for switching to distillate fuel. Based on a 5 percent higher energy 

content for distillate, the net equivalent cost increase is estimated as $123 for each metric ton of residual fuel that is 

being replaced by distillate fuel. 

92 
Much of the inconsistency in individual estimates of the price differential between marine 

distillate and residual fuel is driven by the differences in the assumption of what the price of oil 

will be in the future. As oil prices increase, fuel prices increase correspondingly. In 2008, West 

Texas Intermediate (WTI) oil prices hit a maximum of nearly $150 per barrel and a minimum 

close to $40 per barrel. As such, marine bunker prices varied widely in that timeframe. In fact, 

these variations in price were greater than the average price difference between marine distillate 

and residual fuel. As discussed above, we used estimates from the EIA for oil prices in 2020. 

The reference case WTI oil price was projected to be $57/barrel and the high price estimate was 

$92/barrel (in 2006 dollars). 

The estimate of $145/metric ton was based on the reference case oil price projection for 

2020. As a check, we compared the projected price differential with actual spot prices on May 4, 

2009. This date is interesting because WTI oil price was $54/barrel, making it close to the 

projected WTI oil price used in our refinery modeling. On that day, according to the same 

source referenced in the Secretary General experts’ report, the differential between marine 

distillate oil and heavy fuel oil was $143 in Singapore and $146 in Houston. On a percentage 

basis, the distillate fuel was 46% more per metric ton than residual fuel in Singapore, and 48% 

more in Houston. These prices compare well with the results of our refinery modeling which 

was a price differential of $145, representing a 45% differential per metric ton. 

The total fuel cost estimates included the impacts of an ECA surrounding the 

Southeastern Hawaiian Islands. Footnote 130 in the NPRM is simply referring to the initial 

analysis of fuel volumes used as an input to the refinery modeling. The original estimate 

actually resulted in a total affected fuel volume estimate for the proposed ECA which was higher 

than later estimated for the proposed ECA. When calculating total fuel costs, the per tonne 

increases were applied to fuel consumption in the entire ECA including the lower 48 states, 

Southeastern Alaska, and Southeastern Hawaii. 

93 
CHAPTER 7: Expected Economic Impacts 

What We Proposed:

The comments in this section generally correspond to Section VII of the preamble to the 

proposed rule, where we describe the expected economic impacts of this action and our overall 

coordinated strategy. The Regulatory Impact Analysis describes our economic impact analyses 

in Chapter 7. 

See Chapter 6 of this document for a discussion of comments on the program’s estimated 

costs. See Chapter 10 of this document for a discussion of economic impacts specific to the 

Great Lakes region.

7.1 General Economic Impacts of Coordinated Strategy 

What Commenters Said:

New York City commented that EPA has made the policy decision to focus on high 

production volume sectors ahead of large ships because R&D can be spread over larger number 

of engines. This commenter noted that this policy decision overlooks the fact that large 

oceangoing vessels are able to spread capital and operating costs over a great number of 

containers for cargo and thus over a wide customer base. Commenters noted that the impact of 

the proposed standards would have a minimal impact on price of goods, such as sneakers. 

[NY Testimony Comment 0227] 

Our Response:

The cost and economic impact analyses presented in the RIA considers both operational 

and capital (including R&D) costs and the impact of these costs on the price of goods transported 

by ship. 

7.2 Economic Impacts on Cruise Industry 

What Commenters Said:

 Several commenters stated that the cruise industry is vitally important to the economy of 

Southeast Alaska. Senator Begich stated that over a million visitors came to Alaska via cruise 

ship last summer, and nearly 14 percent of all employment in Alaska is directly tied to the 

tourism industry. Given this year’s tourism season has demonstrated the price sensitivity of 

American and foreign consumers in the midst of the economic downturn, it is estimated Alaska 

will have approximately 140,000 less cruise ship passengers in 2010. Several commenters 

expressed concern that if the rule is finalized without consideration of economic impacts in 

Alaska, it may have the unintended consequence of a severe negative impact on the cruise 

industry and make Alaska less competitive as a cruise destination. 

94 
 Senator Murkowski commented that in 2009, preliminary estimates are that cruise ship 

occupancy has fallen on Alaska cruises to 958,041, a drop of nearly 60,000 passengers from 

2007 totals and a drop of about 50,000 passengers from 2008 totals. Senator Murkowski 

commented that, according to research by the McDowell Group Consultants in Juneau, 84 

percent of tourists coming to Southeast Alaska traditionally arrive on cruise ships. That totaled 

more than 1 million tourists in 2007. Cruise ship passengers in that year spent $390 million 

while crew member spending totaled $15 million and cruise line spending on commodities and 

fuel reached $77 million. With related indirect spending, the cruise industry added $636 million 

to the Alaska economy. 

CLIA commented that EPA has not adequately predicted the economic costs associated 

with this rulemaking. While the EPA’s economic impact analysis evaluated the additional cost 

in fuel as well as equipment retrofits for ships to achieve compliance within the ECA, the 

analysis did not assume any loss in business to North American ports resulting from the 

additional costs associated with the ECA. This is particularly relevant to smaller ports of call for 

cruise ships as operators consider cost –saving options thus possibly jeopardizing the economic 

benefit of a full season of port calls. A more complete economic analysis would also consider 

these additional costs. 

Representatives of the cruise industry commented that, unlike the other transportation 

services affected by the coordinated strategy, the demand for cruises is not nearly perfectly 

inelastic. These commenters noted that cruises are a recreational activity and consumers are 

more sensitive to price changes than consumers of transportations services for containers or bulk 

goods. They contend that if the price of a cruise increases, consumers will choose to spend their 

recreational budgets on other activities. 

As an example, CLIA emphasized that the state of Alaska has enjoyed significant growth 

in the cruise tourism industry over the past decade or more. An in-depth analysis for 2008 shows 

for this state alone that: 

• Alaska benefits from the cruise industry as the premiere cruise destination market in 

the United States. In 2008, Alaska accounted for $1.2 billion in direct cruise industry 

spending. The state ranks third in the nation in cruise industry expenditures. 

• The cruise industry’s spending generated 25,697 full- and part-time jobs and wages 

totaling $1 billion in income for Alaska workers in 2008. 

• During peak season, the cruise lines directly employed more than 6,000 workers in 

Alaska. 

• During 2008, Alaska ports received 3.9 million cruise passenger visits, 70 percent of 

all port-of-call passenger visits at U.S. ports. 

• While primarily handling port-of-call visits, Alaska has homeporting operations as 

well, generating 184,500 passenger embarkations on turnaround cruises between 

Alaska and Vancouver. 

• Major businesses in Alaska most impacted by the spending of the cruise industry 

generally include tourism-related industries such as airlines, hotels and tour operators. 

95 
The state of Alaska recently passed a $50 per person tax on all cruise guests visiting 

Alaska. CLIA argued that this tax has had a significant impact on the deployment of ships to 

Alaska. This surcharge in this economic environment has resulted in passenger’s choosing 

alternative, less expensive vacation options. Indeed, several cruise industry operators have 

announced redeployment of vessels from the Alaska market in 2010 resulting in approximately 

15 percent fewer cruise ship visitors anticipated in 2010. The consequential economic impact of 

a 15 percent decrease would represent approximately: 

a. 585,000 fewer visitors to Alaskan ports; 

b. A decrease of approximately $150 million in income for Alaska workers; and, 

c. A decline of approximately $180 million in direct spending. 

 Based on these comments, CLIA expanded that while it is unclear as to the exact impact 

of the proposed rule on fuel cost increases, it likely will equate to two to three times the 

amount of this recently assessed head tax. As such, CLIA reasoned that there is clear evidence 

from the Alaska head tax that passing on a cost increase of this magnitude to prospective guests 

is not possible. It is unreasonable to expect that the market will bear such cost increases without 

there being significant impacts on cruise pricing and profitability of affected itineraries. The 

overall impact is expected to be significantly negative. The same holds true with regards to the 

U.S. flag cruise ship operations in Hawaii. If U.S. based cruise ship itineraries become 

uneconomical, decisions to redeploy ships out of the North America market may be required. 

 Commenters noted that Alaska cruises are different than other cruises because they 

remain within the ECA boundaries during their entire trip. In fact, the Alaska Cruise Association 

estimates that two thirds of all cruise costs within North America will be attributable to Alaska 

cruises. It is very uncertain whether the consumer would be willing to shoulder the burden of 

these additional costs, thereby seriously affecting the competitiveness of Alaska as a premier 

tourism destination. Commenters noted that EPA’s cost analysis concluded that large passenger 

vessels would incur an additional $7 per passenger/day cost to pay for the new standards. Based 

on higher fuel cost estimates, CLIA estimated the expected fuel cost premium would be closer to 

$12-$16 per day adding approximately $86 to $112 to the price of a typical seven day cruise 

itinerary in this region, if historical averages hold true. Alaska Cruise Association analysis put 

the additional costs higher at $15 to $18 per passenger day. A $15 per passenger/day increase 

would add $100 million to the cost of operating in Alaska for ACA member lines. 

 Governor Lingle commented that, with limited refining capacity and capability in the 

State of Hawaii and great distances between the State of Hawaii and continental U.S. and foreign 

markets, the economic impact of the proposed fuel limits on Hawaii’s shipping and cruise 

industry has not been quantified and is critical to a fair assessment of the proposed rule’s impact 

on Hawaii’s marine highway system and sea-based tourism. 

(CLIA, 0278) 

(Gov Parnell, 0287) 

(Mayor of Juneau, 0298) 

(Munoz, 0317) 

(Egan, 0323) 

(Sen. Begich, 0322) 

96 
(CLIA, 0278) 

(Port of Anchorage, 0299) 

(Mayor of Ketchican, 0294) 

(Sitka, 0307) 

(Murkowski, 0384) 

(RDC, 0288) 

(Governor Lingle, 0400) 

Our Response:

 Commenters noted that the cruise industry generates significant revenue for the Alaskan 

economy, due to both direct and indirect spending. As such they commented that any reduction 

in cruise passengers visiting Alaska, due to higher fuel prices, would have a negative impact on 

the economy in Alaska. Commenters said similar impacts may be seen for Hawaii, which is 

another cruise destination in the proposed ECA. The economic analysis performed for this rule 

holds all other aspects of the market constant except for the elements of the coordinated strategy. 

It does not attempt to predict future market equilibrium conditions, such as if the cruise market 

will recover from the current economic downturn. While the cruise sector may be in difficulty 

due to current economic conditions, independent of implementation of MARPOL Annex VI or 

the coordinated strategy, it is not possible to predict what the conditions will be when the 

coordinated strategy goes into effect in 2016 for Tier 3 engines and 2020 for 1,000 ppm sulfur 

fuel or whether the impact of the program will be more serious for these operators. This 

approach is appropriate because the goal of an economic impact analysis is to explore the 

impacts of a specific program; allowing changes in other market conditions would confuse the 

impacts due to the regulatory program. 

We received comment that suggested that demand in the cruise industry should not be 

treated as nearly perfectly inelastic. In other words, demand may decrease due to higher fuel 

costs. Section 7.4.2 of the RIA provides a discussion of the impact of changing the assumption 

of nearly perfectly demand elasticity for marine transportation services in general, and for the 

cruise industry specifically. Relaxing this assumption is not expected to change the estimated 

total social costs of the program, which are limited by the engineering compliance costs. 

However, it would change the way those costs are shared among stakeholders. 

We acknowledge that, as a recreational service, demand for cruises is expected to be 

more elastic than demand for other transportation services. However, an elastic demand for 

cruises means that the compliance costs associated with the coordinated strategy will be shared 

among the cruise providers and their customers, rather than being passed on completely to the 

passengers through higher prices. While this distribution of the compliance burden may offset at 

least partially a decline in demand for cruises through smaller price increases, it also means that 

cruise ship companies will bear at least part of the compliance costs of the program. 

Nevertheless, these compliance costs are still expected to be small compared to the daily costs of 

a cruise. As such, we would not expect the economic impacts on Alaska or Hawaii, associated 

with the coordinated strategy, to be significant. While the cruise sector may be in difficulty due 

to current economic conditions, it is not possible to predict what the conditions will be when the 

coordinated strategy goes into effecting 2016 for Tier 3 engines and 2020 for 1,000 ppm sulfur 

fuel. 

97 
 Commenters did not provide information linking the $50 per passenger tax in Alaska to 

the decrease in cruise demand. This tax occurred simultaneously with an economic downturn 

that could also explain the decrease in demand. In addition, the State of Alaska, while noting 

that “the cruise ship industry and the 1 million passengers who come to Alaska every summer 

contribute significantly to Alaska’s economy,” has stated that it “will vigorously defend the state 

in this lawsuit,” referring to the lawsuit brought by the Alaska Cruise Association which 

challenges the tax.23 This suggests that the State of Alaska does not consider the tax to have a 

substantial negative impact on Alaska’s economy. 

 

 Based on our analysis, the per passenger price of a seven-day Alaska cruise on a vessel 

operating entirely within waterways covered by the coordinated strategy is expected to increase 

about $7 per day, assuming that the total increase in operating costs is passed on to the 

passengers of the vessel. The price of a 7-day Alaska cruise varies from $100 to $400 per night 

or more. In that case, a price increase of about $7 per night would be a 1.5 percent to about 6 

percent increase. Ships that spend less time in covered areas, such as a ships operating between 

Hawaii and a destination outside the proposed ECA, would experience relatively smaller 

increases in their operating costs. We would not expect the ECA to have a significant impact on 

Hawaii’s marine highway system due to the relatively small increase in operating costs 

associated with the coordinated strategy, compared to the next cheapest mode of transportation 

between the islands. Commenters indicated that the price could be higher, due primarily to 

higher projected fuel prices in the future. As future fuel prices are uncertain, and as discussed in 

Chapter 4, we believe our fuel price estimates are appropriate for this analysis. 

7.3 Other Economic Impacts in Alaska 

What Commenters Said:

 A number of commenters expressed concern that the proposed ECA will a have a 

negative economic impact on the State of Alaska. RDC stated that in addition to requiring 

scientific studies to justify an ECA, the IMO requires an economic analysis be done to consider 

the cost of implementing new standards, and the subsequent economic impacts to local 

communities. The Alaskan communities served by ocean-going ships, as well as the remainder 

of the state’s residents, would certainly feel the effect of immense cost increases to vessel 

operations. This must be a factor that is taken into consideration before including Alaska in an 

ECA designation. RDC members across all resource sectors stand to be adversely affected: 

transportation companies that bring goods in and ship cargo out of the state will face significant 

cost increases in continued operations. Exportation of commodities, particularly Alaska’s natural 

resources like oil and gas, minerals, and timber, will become increasingly more expensive if 

ships carrying them have to incur higher operating costs. TOTE commented that the cost of 

switching fuels will have a disproportionate economic impact on the residents of Alaska for no 

appreciable improvement in their lives, health or visual air quality. Switching to distillate fuel 

will immediately double the cost of fuel based freight charges for goods moving to Alaska by 

 

23 State of Alaska, Department of Law, “Press Release: Attorney General Will Vigorously Defend Alaska in Cruise 

Industry Lawsuit Against the State,” September 18, 2009. 

98 
ocean going vessels. Their ability to pay this doubling of costs will affect the viability of TOTE 

going forward. 

CLIA commented that although the EPA study addressed the added cost of producing 

distillate fuels and has indicated the expected additional cost per ton due to the manufacturing 

process, the analysis does not appear to take account of significant secondary impacts or “knockon” effects in the distribution of these fuels such as: 

a. The impact to the oil storage and distribution infrastructure in ports to account for 

these dramatic changes. 

b. Whether or not suppliers will be able to remain in business as a result. 

c. Access to credit facilities to fund the required changes in this tight credit 

market may be difficult. 

d. Impact of product quality on the shipping and supply markets – for example, ships 

that are certified to transport heavy grade bunker oils may not be fit for the service of 

transporting distillate fuel. If this is not the case, expensive retrofits may need to be 

undertaken in the tanker industry. 

e. Ship and shipyard capacity may not be available to undertake these ship alterations in 

a timely manner. 

f. There may be a need for new ships and/or barges. If so, and credit, and construction 

capacity to support such an undertaking in a timely manner may be in short supply. 

g. There may not be sufficient U.S. flag tonnage to haul U.S. produced products to U.S. 

markets. 

 The Port of Anchorage commented that ECA designation could adversely impact the 

critical function of maritime commerce and transportation in Alaska. As a non-contiguous state, 

Alaska is dependent on maritime transportation for the economic and efficient movement of 

freight and people. Additional regulations and strict environmental standards will only drive the 

cost of freight and transportation upwards, in a state where the cost of living already exceeds the 

national average. Without and independent study of these costs and an in-depth look at maritime 

transportation in Alaska, the economic impact on Alaskans is unknown. 

 Commenters noted that the proposed ECA boundaries will include the Port of Anchorage, 

which is of vital significance to most of the population of Alaska. According to the Port of 

Anchorage, it serves 85 percent of the state population as the entry point for 90 percent of the 

commodities entering Alaska. Consumer industrial goods, and petroleum products that move 

through this port, are dispersed to 237 communities lying north, south, east, and west of 

Anchorage. In a recently completed analysis of the Port of Anchorage, the port was found to 

contribute over $1.4 billion annually to the state and local economies. This port is a direct and 

indirect employment source for thousands of jobs in the maritime shipping, stevedoring, 

trucking, and rail communities. Commenters argued that implementing the proposed ECA 

would substantially drive up Alaska’s already high cost of living and have a negative impact on 

employment. 

 Governor Parnell expressed concern that the proposals currently being considered by 

EPA could result in significant additional costs to operate the Alaska Marine Highway System. 

The Transportation Institute commented that while there may be nearly inelastic demand for 

ocean marine transportation services, this is not the case for domestic container freight to Alaska 

99 
which could also be shipped by truck over the Alaska-Canada (Al-Can) highway. Governor 

Parnell commented that Alaska is currently in the process of evaluating potential methods for 

dealing with these regulations on State-owned ferries and request that these impacts be 

considered in EPA’s analysis of the proposed regulations. 

(TOTE, 0289) 

(RDC, 0288) 

(CLIA, 0278) 

(Port of Anchorage, 0299) 

(Munoz, 0317) 

(Mayor of Ketchican, 0294) 

(Gov Parnell, 0287) 

(Transportation Institute) 

Our Response:

 We recognize that an increase in fuel price would result in increases in shipping costs on 

goods and commodities to and from Alaska. This increase in fuel costs is included in the 

economic modeling for the coordinated strategy, including shipping in the ECA off of Alaska. 

However, we continue to believe that shipping in Alaska, even where the entire trip would be in 

the ECA, would be relatively inelastic. This assumption is reasonable because there are no 

reasonable alternatives to transportation by ship for most goods. Several commenters noted that 

marine vessels are much more efficient than trucks at moving cargo. GLMTF stated that for 

each gallon of fuel a ship moves more than 10 times as much cargo as a truck. The anticipated 

increase in fuel cost associated with the fuel sulfur standards is very small in comparison. 

Therefore, it is not expected that this increase in operation costs would be sufficient to make 

trucking more economically attractive than shipping. More discussion on mode shift is included 

in Chapter 10. In addition, many communities in Alaska are not connected to the Al-Can 

highway. For instance, Juneau is land-locked and can only receive goods by ship or by air. Air 

transport is significantly more expensive than even trucking. Therefore, we do not expect the 

coordinated strategy to have significant adverse economic impacts on ports in Alaska that import 

or export these goods. 

 In addition, as discussed in Chapter 7 of the RIA, virtually all of the compliance costs 

will be borne by the users of marine transportation services in the form of higher prices. The 

price increase on goods would be expected to be small as the transportation costs are only a 

small fraction of the final purchase price of the goods. As a result, it is not likely that the 

coordinated strategy would have a significant impact on the demand for goods to, or 

commodities from, Alaska. 

CLIA raised a number of considerations that it believed should have been included in the 

economic impact analysis. Here, they are addressed one-by-one. The refinery modeling was 

based on an economic model that not only included refinery upgrade cost estimates, but the cost 

of fuel distribution as well. It was not considered which fuel suppliers would remain in business, 

only the costs of supplying the fuel. We recognize that any new standard can result in a shock to 

the market, but also recognize that, given proper lead time and incentive, the market will respond 

to the demand. Our analysis includes the cost of vessel modifications associated with switching 

from operation on residual fuel to distillate fuel. This is described in Chapter 5 of the RIA. We 

100 
believe that enough lead time is available to provide for these modifications, as necessary. In 

many cases, the ships are already capable of operating on lower sulfur fuel. As such, it is not 

clear why CLIA asserts that there will be a need for new ship and barge construction or why this 

rule would affect U.S. cargo carrying capacity. If the issue is that more barges are needed to 

transport the ECA compliant fuel, it should be noted that fuel transportation costs are included in 

the WORLD refinery model used to help develop our cost analyses. 

101 
CHAPTER 8: Environmental Impacts 

What We Proposed:

The comments in this section generally correspond to Section II of the preamble to the 

proposed rule, where we describe the air quality, health and welfare effects, as well as the 

contribution of Category 3 vessels to national emission inventories. The Regulatory Impact 

Analysis describes the air quality, health and welfare effects in Chapter 2 and the emission 

inventory development in Chapter 3. Comments pertaining specifically to the Great Lakes are 

addressed separately in Chapter 10 of this document. 

8.1 Emissions Inventory 

8.1.1 Category 3 Vessel Inventory Contributions 

What Commenters Said:

A number of commenters cited port inventory analyses that indicate that oceangoing 

vessels produce more pollutants than other elements of port operations and are a significant 

emissions source. 

ALA stated that shipping is one of the major sources of nitrogen dioxide, and one that is 

expected to grow unless we take action. Based on EPA estimates, unless we require this 

cleanup, nitrogen dioxide emissions from ships would more than double by 2030, growing to 2.1 

million tons per year. (hearing testimony ALA 0227) 

NACCA commented that, unlike most other significant mobile sources of diesel air 

pollution, emissions from C3 marine vessels are virtually uncontrolled. Moreover, based on EPA 

estimates, if left uncontrolled the contribution of NOX emissions from C3 vessels will grow from 

10 percent of the mobile source inventory to 40 percent in 2030, PM2.5 emissions from 24 

percent to 48 percent and SOX emissions from 80 percent to 95 percent. This will make C3 

engines a dominant source of mobile source emissions unless controlled effectively. (NACAA, 

0246) 

A recent analysis by the New York Port Authority shows that oceangoing vessels 

produce far greater emissions of criteria pollutants than tugs and other harbor vessels, cargo 

handling equipment, drayage trucks, or other elements of port operations – including 65% of 

PM10 and 63% of PM2.5. The City of New York also mentioned that more residual oil is used by 

the shipping sector than any other industry in the United States. (City of New York testimony, 

0227) 

NRDC commented that the Northeast region is home to many ports and emissions from 

category 3 engines are a significant source of NOX, fine particulate, and SO2. In 2000, 

approximately 230 tons of PM2.5 was emitted by ocean going vessels in that year in the Port of 

New York and New Jersey – more than a third of all PM2.5 emissions from port-related activity – 

excluding emissions associated with drayage. (NESCAUM, 0356) Ocean-going vessels in the 

102 
region emit 47 percent of the NOX related to port activities in the region and 62 percent of the 

fine particulate matter related to the port activities in the region. (NRDC testimony, 0227) 

In 2005, large ocean-going vessels produced over forty percent of all the oxide of 

nitrogen emissions in Santa Barbara County. SBAPCD stated that, due to increasing cargo 

volumes through the Santa Barbara Channel, these emissions are projected to make up close to 

three quarters of the County’s NOX emissions by 2020. (Santa Barbara County Air Pollution 

Control District, 0231) 

Friends of the Earth and others stated that a recent industry report to the IMO on global 

emissions from ocean going vessels (“IMO Expert Report”) estimates that for the year 2007, 

marine engines were responsible for 25.8 million metric tons of NOX, 16.2 million metric tons of 

SOX, 1.8 million metric tons of PM, and 1.12 billion metric tons of CO2—more than is emitted 

by all of the world’s oil refineries. (Earthjustice, Friends of the Earth, and Center for Biological 

Diversity joint submittal, 0320) 

ALA and EDF commented that, based on current emission inventory analysis, EPA 

estimates that Category 3 engines contributed nearly 6 percent of mobile source NOX, over 10 

percent of mobile source PM2.5, and about 40 percent of mobile source SO2 in 2002. EPA has 

projected that emissions from these engines will increase significantly through 2030 as a result of 

an increase in the use of Category 3 marine engines used for international trade. EPA also 

projects that without further controls on these engines, their absolute magnitude will roughly 

triple and their relative contribution will increase to about 40 percent of mobile source NOX, 48 

percent of mobile source PM2.5, and 95 percent of mobile source SO2 by 2030. Much of the 

projected increase in baseline emissions is due to the projected growth in fuel use by Category 3 

engines. As seen in Tables 3-57 and 3-91 from EPA’s Draft RIA, EPA estimates that, without 

controls, total fuel use will increase from 8.5 million short tons in 2002 to more than 26 million 

short tons in 2030 – a 300% increase. (American Lung Association and Environmental Defense 

Fund, 0366) 

ICCT commented that ship emissions are projected to grow dramatically in relation to 

other sources. They note that OGV contributed about 6% of transportation-related nitrogen 

oxide, 10% of PM and roughly 40% of SOX in the U.S and without further controls pollution will 

increase to about 34% of NOX, 45% of PM, and 94% of SOX emissions by 2030. 

Our Response:

We agree that emissions from Category 3 vessels are an important emissions source. On 

a nationwide basis, Category 3 vessels currently contribute 10 percent of mobile source NOX

emissions, 24 percent of mobile source diesel PM2.5 emissions, and 80 percent of mobile source 

SO2 emissions. In 2030, absent the controls in this rule, these vessels would become a larger 

portion of the total mobile source emissions inventory constituting 40 percent of mobile source 

NOX emissions, 75 percent of mobile source diesel PM2.5 emissions, and 95 percent of mobile 

source SO2 emissions. See Chapter 3 of the RIA for more detail on our estimates of Category 3 

vessel inventory contributions. 

103 
8.1.2 Contribution of U.S. vs. Foreign-Flag Ships 

What Commenters Said: 

SBCAPCD commented that ninety percent of the annual entrances to U.S. ports in 1999 

were made by foreign flagged vessels and over 92 percent of the NOX emissions from transits 

through the Santa Barbara channel in 2005 were made by foreign flagged vessels. (Santa Barbara 

County Air Pollution Control District, 0231) 

According to ALA and EDF, the U.S. Department of Transportation Maritime 

Administration (MARAD) estimates that in 2007, foreign-flagged vessels made up 88% of 

Category 3 ship calls on U.S. ports. As a result, about 88% of ocean-going ship emissions at 

U.S. ports come from foreign ships. (American Lung Association and Environmental Defense 

Fund, 0366) 

Liberty Maritime Corp. commented that MARAD indicates that only 89 U.S.-flag vessels 

were engaged in international registry trade for year end-2007. At that time MARAD reported 

189 vessels in the U.S. ocean-going fleet (vessels over 10,000 DWT) of which 100 were engaged 

in the Jones Act trade and 89 in the foreign trade. Of the 89 foreign trade vessels, 59 vessels 

were enrolled in the Maritime Security Program (MSP) fleet as of April 2009. In terms of 

overall vessel calls, MARAD reports that, in 2007, U.S.-flag ocean-going vessels accounted for 

only 12 percent of U.S. port calls. Jones Act vessels accounted for 78 percent of U.S.-flag calls 

and 9 percent of overall calls. MSP vessels accounted for 2 percent of overall calls. “Other 

U.S.-flag” ocean going vessels represented 0.4% of U.S. port calls in 2007. (Liberty Maritime 

Corp, 0347) 

Our Response:

We agree that the vast majority of port calls to the U.S. are made by foreign-flagged 

vessels and include these vessels in the inventory estimates presented in Chapter 2 of the RIA. 

The control reductions resulting from this rule are applied to both U.S. and foreign-flagged 

vessels, since the coordinated strategy targets both foreign and domestic ships operating off the 

U.S. coasts and within internal waterways. 

8.1.3 Growth Rates 

What Commenters Said:

TOTE commented that Ocean Going Vessel calls in all U.S. ports have declined by 

approximately 30 percent in the last year rendering the EPA calculations and future projections 

of this source of emissions completely inaccurate. (TOTE, 0289) 

PMSA commented that graphics and tables from the Port of Los Angeles demonstrate 

that the previous cargo forecasts were overly optimistic. The bottom line is the throughput for 

2009 is expected to be between 30 to 40 percent lower than 2008 and that equates to a 

throughput level roughly comparable to that of 2003. The graphic also shows that the peak 

levels seen in 2006 are not expected to be reached again until 2014 and that the rate of growth 

going forward is expected to be significantly slower than the previous forecast. (Pacific 

Merchant Shipping Association testimony, 0275) 

104 
PMSA also commented that there has been the perception that the rate of cargo growth is 

directly correlated with the increase in emissions. The 2007 emission inventories done by the 

Ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach clearly refute that assumption. Not only are 2007 ship 

emission below the 2006 emission for all pollutants, only hydrocarbon emissions show any 

increase above 2001 levels. These emission improvements occurred while container throughput 

increased 61 percent from the 2001 levels. (Pacific Merchant Shipping Association testimony, 

0275) 

SCAQMD stated that recent lower cargo projections for the Ports of Los Angeles and 

Long Beach do not justify adoption of delayed or relaxed controls. Cargo projections have been 

incorrect in the past (did not foresee extent of growth to 2006; then over-projected from 2007 

through 2023). The Ports are still projecting enormous growth and the same ultimate level of 

cargo throughput, about 43 million containers, or TEUs, compared to 14 million in 2005 (the 

baseline year for the SIP). The growth will simply be delayed. The ports are expecting 25 

million TEUs in 2023 (current ozone attainment year), 35 million TEUs in 2030 (potential 

attainment deadline for new ozone standard), and 43 million TEUs in 2035 (prior projection 

reached this level in 2023). (South Coast Air Quality Management District, 0309) 

Graphs of cargo container volume in the Port of Los Angeles and Long Beach were 

provided by the Coalition for Clean Air. The commenter points out that the decline in the recent 

term still represents a significant increase of volume over the long term. (Coalition for Clean Air, 

supplemental comment following hearing testimony, 0220) 

Just in their region, the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey expects container 

volumes to triple by 2020 from 2006 levels. (NRDC testimony, 0227) 

Friends of the Earth and others commented that a recent industry report to the IMO on 

global emissions from ocean going vessels (“IMO Expert Report”) predicts that these emissions 

will increase by as much as 40 percent by 2020 and that fuel consumption, the majority of which 

is residual fuel consumption, will grow by more than 30 percent. Already, the United States’ 

emission inventory for Category 3 marine engines has far surpassed what EPA had previously 

predicted for the year 2030. See 72 Fed. Reg. at 69526; 68 Fed. Reg. at 9755. (Earthjustice, 

Friends of the Earth, and Center for Biological Diversity joint submittal, 0320) 

Our Response:

Growth factors were developed for five geographic regions within the U.S. These factors 

are based on the expected demand for marine bunker fuels that is associated with shipping goods 

into and out of the U.S. This demand is driven by the demand for commodities that are produced 

in one location and consumed within another. The forecast for demand for shipping services and 

bunker fuel was determined for each area using information on commodity flows from Global 

Insight’s (GI) World Trade Service. The flow of commodities is then matched with typical 

vessels for trade routes (characterized according to cargo capacity, engine horsepower, age, 

specific fuel consumption, and engine load factors). Typical voyage parameters are then 

assigned to the trade routes that include average ship speed, round trip mileage, tons of cargo 

shipped, and days in ports. Growth thus depends on commodity projections, ship characteristics, 

and voyage characteristics. The analysis also attempted to account for improvements in vessel 

fuel efficiency over time. The analysis does not simply extrapolate from past estimates of cargo 

tonnage and/or vessel calls. 

105 
Although vessel calls may have declined over the past year, it would not be prudent to 

project long-term growth based on these short-term changes. Ports are still projecting significant 

growth in the long-term. 

As a means of comparison, the IMO Secretary General’s Informal Cross 

Government/Industry Scientific Group of Experts presented a global growth rate that ranged 

from 3.3% to 3.7%. Our estimate of overall U.S. growth is 3.4%, which is consistent with that 

range. 

8.1.4 Modeling Scenarios 

What Commenters Said:

While the projected health and social benefits appear to be favorable in so far as the 

climatological modeling and health benefits models are correct, CLIA believes that a more 

accurate representation, at least for the long term model from 2020 to 2050, should be based on 

comparison to the expected 0.5% bunker oil sulfur content global cap expected effective in 2020. 

With this in mind, an analysis should be undertaken and the appropriate breadth of the ECA 

should be based on the correct analysis. (0278) 

CLIA commented that EPA’s analysis of the benefits of establishing an ECA is based on 

a comparison of air quality and health and environmental impacts under a 2020 base case (no 

ECA) scenario with a corresponding scenario assuming an ECA is in place. EPA’s base case 

scenario included the assumption that residual oil fuel sulfur (S) levels in 2020 remained at 

current average levels (2.5% in the west and 2.7% elsewhere) whereas revisions to MARPOL 

Annex VI approved in October 2008 include a worldwide marine fuel sulfur level limit of 0.5% 

in 2020. Our analysis shows modifying EPA’s 2020 base case to reflect the required use of 0.5% 

sulfur fuel reduces the benefits calculated by EPA by approximately 85%. Thus, 85% of the 

health benefit attributed by EPA to the ECA will be achieved by Annex VI global sulfur limit. 

This in turn leads to an 85% reduction in the monetary benefits calculated by EPA. (0278) 

CLIA also argued that EPA’s 2020 base case does not include the additional IMO Annex 

VI global NOX control requirements which were approved in October 2008 and which go into 

effect prior to 2020 (retrofit of existing uncontrolled engines to meet Tier I control levels and 

Tier II NOX control for new engines) whereas the 2020 ECA scenario includes both of these 

global controls. As a result, NOX emissions are overstated in the 2020 base case and benefits 

from NOX reductions (which include PM2.5 and ozone reductions) ascribed to implementation of 

the ECA are overstated. (0278) 

According to CLIA, EPA’s 2020 base case overstates emissions from ships traveling in 

California coastal waters and cruise ship hotelling in California ports because EPA’s emission 

inventory does not take into account recent California Air Resources Board regulations limiting 

fuel sulfur content to 0.1% by 2012 and requiring most ships visiting California ports to turn off 

their engines and plug into shore power while hotelling. Similarly, EPA’s base case scenario 

overlooks the fact that numerous vessels in other ports are voluntarily plugging into shore power 

thereby substantially reducing their emissions in and around U.S. coastal cities. As more ships 

are equipped to do so, and ports are outfitted to provide this service, the effort will expand to 

other locations. (0278) 

106 
Chamber of Shipping of America stated that the appropriate points for the health benefits 

calculation are with the 0.5% global average required by 2020 compared to the 1.0 and 0.1% 

ECA requirements as contained in Annex VI. (0256) 

Our Response:

In the rulemaking, our intent was to present the full costs and benefits of our entire 

coordinated strategy, both in the domestic and international arenas. This approach was 

consistent with the recommendations of the Office of Management and Budget. 

If we were to model the reduction of fuel sulfur from 0.5% to 0.1%, as several 

commenters suggested and CLIA provided in Annex I of its comments, EPA agrees the scaling 

approach is generally sound as a “rough estimate” of benefits. The Agency believes the best 

approach would be to model the base case with the global controls and conduct the 

CMAQ/BENMap modeling with the actual emissions. However, as a first approximation, it 

seems reasonable to assume that the transition from 2.5% to 0.5% fuels would not result in large 

spatial differences in impacts, nor would we expect large non-linearities in the response of PM2.5

levels to changes in direct PM or SO2 emissions. While the scaling approach itself may not be 

inherently flawed, we believe the conclusion drawn by CLIA that this would lead to a similar 

reduction in monetary benefits is flawed. We would not only have lower benefits (15% of SOX

benefit of lowering from 2.7% sulfur fuel content), but much lower costs ($6 versus $145 or 4% 

of fuel cost) as well. As such, it would not be expected to change our decision with regard to the 

scope of the proposed ECA. 

For the ECA application, the modelling focused on the effect of shipping emissions and 

ECA controls in 2020. This year was chosen for a number of reasons. First, air quality 

modelling is complex and time consuming, and, as a result, is typically only performed for 

selected years. In addition to running spatial allocation, air quality, and benefit models, a 

detailed emission inventory must be developed to perform this air quality modelling. This 

detailed emission inventory is not only needed for ship emissions, but for all other sources that 

contribute to ambient air pollution in the U.S. and Canada. By choosing 2020, we were able to 

make use of information and tools that had already been developed for wider scale air pollution 

modelling efforts. 

With regard to the NOX impacts of the ECA program, while 2020 will include five years 

of turnover to the Tier III standards, the long service lives of engines on ocean-going vessels 

mean that the fleet will not be fully turned over, with about one-third of the total fleet expected 

to be compliant with Tier III standards. Therefore the estimate benefits of the program would 

not be significantly different than if we had performed the analysis for 2016 when the Tier III 

NOX standards begin. We did not include the global fuel sulfur standard in the 2020 ECA 

analysis to provide a better estimate of benefits in the early (pre-2020) years of the program. 

8.1.5 Fleet Size and Turnover 

What Commenters Said:

SCAQMD commented that the economy has resulted in idling of vessels thus creating 

uncertainty about whether the EPA projections based on historical new vessel construction and 

107 
routing to our ports will hold for the future. Lower new-vessel penetration rates are a distinct 

possibility. (0309) 

Maersk testified that U.S. fleets often grow by acquiring vessels rather than building new 

vessels, and the acquired vessels are often purchased outside the U.S. (Maersk testimony, 0227) 

Coalition for a Safe Environment asked, regarding the proposed near-term Tier 2 

standards, how many new ships are being proposed to be built in the near term that would 

provide a significant near-term public and environmental benefit vs. more stringent standards, 

efficient engine designs and emission control add-ons? The commenter requested that EPA 

provide the ship builder information, engine manufacturer data and build schedule. (Coalition for 

a Safe Environment testimony, 0232) 

Our Response:

Age distributions were developed based on vessel characteristic data associated with calls 

to U.S. ports. Age distributions for Great Lakes vessels were calculated separately, since vessels 

in the Great Lakes tend to last longer. While lower new vessel penetration rates are possible, 

these could not be estimated accurately. Issues related to re-flagging are discussed in section 

5.12 (D). 

8.2 Air Quality Modeling 

8.2.1 Emissions Impacts by Distance from Shore 

What Commenters Said:

Cruise Lines International Association commented that EPA’s proposal considers only 

the establishment of an ECA within 200 nm of shore, irrespective of location along the coast, 

despite the fact that emission reductions at 200 nm can be expected to have less of a benefit on 

shore than emission reductions occurring much closer to the shore or within harbors. An 

ENVIRON photochemical grid modeling study of ocean going vessel (OGV) emission impacts 

on PM2.5 and ozone air quality similar to that performed by EPA revealed that impacts drop off 

significantly as the distance from shore increases: 66% to 86% of the PM2.5 impacts on Gulf and 

east coast cities (except for Miami) and 56 to 80% of the PM2.5 impacts on west coast cities is 

accounted for by shipping activity within 39 nm of the coast. Calculations included in the 

ENVIRON study show that the cost effectiveness (expressed as OGV contributions to on-shore 

PM divided by OGV fuel consumption in tons) of emission controls within 39 nm of shore are 

over 1,000 times greater than controls applied beyond 39 nm out to 200 nm. 

The Chamber of Shipping of America supported comments submitted by the American 

Petroleum Institute and their accompanying ENVIRON study which noted decreasing ozone and 

PM impacts as the distance offshore increases. The commenter stated that EPA’s modeling 

indicates that more than 80% of the marine ozone and PM contributions are from vessels less 

than 100 nm offshore while the ENVIRON study shows the most cost effective control region is 

out to 19 nautical miles. The commenter strongly urged EPA to review the results of this study 

and rationalize the differences in the two very different conclusions. 

108 
In their comments, the American Petroleum Institute requested that EPA take the 

analyses commissioned by commenter into consideration when implementing MARPOL Annex 

VI and the North American ECA. In particular, the commenter suggests that the proposed 200 

mile boundary on the East Coast may not be cost-effective, citing their finding that the most cost 

effective control region would be within 0-19 nautical miles offshore. 

TOTE state that its vessels are never offshore more than 200 miles. While the 200 mile 

limit may be appropriate in some geographic areas it is wholly inappropriate in the area they 

operate in. This (pacific northwest/Alaska) area could be addressed by limiting the use of 

noncompliant fuels to the more reasonable 40 miles offshore ECA adopted by California. 

Our Response:

The above comments primarily focus on the geographic boundaries of the proposed North 

American ECA. As discussed in Chapter 2 of this document, the ECA proposal is not within the 

scope of this rulemaking and the ECA proposal fully satisfied the criteria in MARPOL Annex 

VI, Appendix III. 

With that said, there is a high level of shipping activity along each of the coasts included 

in the proposed ECA, out to 200 nm and beyond, as well as in and out of ports. As such, 

pollution from ships is emitted in all waters contained in the proposed ECA. This air pollution, 

even when emitted at 200 nm from shore reaches not only the coast, but well into the interior of 

the U.S. and Canada due to local meteorological conditions and the long atmospheric residence 

time of SOX, PM, and NOX emissions. Reductions in these ship emissions would lead to lower 

particulate matter concentrations and reductions in ground-level ozone. Reducing air pollution 

also reduces SOX and NOX deposition on land and in the water. 

Conventional wisdom suggests that prevailing winds, over the U.S. and Canada, travel 

from west to east. On average, this is true, especially for the north Atlantic and the Pacific 

coasts. In the Gulf of Mexico, prevailing winds typically come from the southeast. While the 

frequency of maritime influences can vary by location, it is not uncommon for locations all 

across the United States to be affected by emissions that originate offshore. An EPA analysis of 

air parcel back trajectories over the 12-year period from 1995-2006 concluded that highlypopulated coastal cities in the northeastern U.S. were impacted by marine air masses between 10-

20 percent of the time. The intent of the EPA analyses was to demonstrate this impact of marine 

pollution on inland populations and ecosystems. As such, air pollution off the east coast, even 

200 nm from shore, affects the air we breathe. Additional information on the impact of 

emissions off the east coast of the U.S. is included in Section 8.2.3 of this document. 

Some of the most compelling evidence supporting the need for the proposed 200nm ECA 

designation is reflected in the U.S. and Canadian air quality and deposition maps shown in the 

North American ECA proposal, the technical support document for the ECA proposal, and the 

RIA. These maps are based on complex air quality modeling that considers a number of factors 

including where ship exhaust is emitted, weather and wind patterns, and atmospheric chemistry. 

This modeling shows that air pollution from ships travels great distances, over water and inland, 

on all coasts. 

109 
The Environ modeling uses a different air quality model than EPA. However, Environ 

states that “despite using different inventories and air quality models, results from both studies 

are generally consistent.” This statement refers to emission concentrations in the U.S. due to 

pollution from ships and to the estimated impact of the proposed ECA on U.S. air quality. 

Environ discusses an approach where fuel consumption and emission impacts are presented for 

modeled ECAs that extend different distances from shore. Based on the Environ report, a 19nm 

ECA would impact about 40-70% of the Category 3 contribution whereas a 200nm ECA affects 

90-95% percent of the emissions that eventually impact AQ concentrations over land. This is not 

inconsistent with our modeling. However, what the Environ report does not consider is the 

valuation of emission reductions by distance compared to costs. Although emissions 200 nm 

from shore generally have lower impacts on air quality over land than emissions nearer the coast, 

those emissions impacts are still significant compared to the cost of emission control. 

The commenter noted that “the cost-effectiveness of applying fuel sulfur controls within 

39 nm of shore are over 1,000 times greater than controls applied beyond 39 nm out to 200 nm.” 

The cost-effectiveness numbers cited by CLIA were based on calculations done by Environ in 

their report titled Modeling the Impacts of Marine Vessel Emissions to Ozone, Particulate Matter 

and Haze in the Eastern US. EPA has not been able to identify any numbers in the Environ 

report that would correspond with controls being 1,000 times more cost-effective within 39 nm 

of shore. Using data contained in table 3-8 in the Environ report, controls are approximately 10 

times more “cost effective” in the first 39 nm as compared to between 39 and 200 nm from 

shore. Note that this “cost effectiveness” metric uses fuel consumption as a surrogate for cost 

and does not quantify the cost. Also note that this analysis ignores capital costs which would be 

incurred regardless of the ECA boundary distance. In addition, air pollution concentrations are 

used as a surrogate for benefits and only receptors where marine vessel contributions exceeded 1 

ug/m3days were included. It is not clear why receptors where marine vessels contribute less than 

1 ug/m3 were excluded. Since scientists have not determined a “safe” PM exposure level, the 

best practice is to estimate benefits in all areas of the country (both in areas with poor air quality 

and those with acceptable air quality) to more accurately reflect the benefits of regulations for all 

of the areas within the U.S. While the most cost-effective emission controls are clearly closest to 

shore, at distances 200 nm from shore the benefits to controlling OGV emissions still 

substantially outweigh the costs. 

It is important to note that the ECA scenario assumes ships meet ECA limits the entire 

time they are within the ECA, according to the empirically determined vessel traffic and routing 

in the base year. That is, analyses of benefits or costs throughout this application do not assume 

ships reroute in a manner perpendicular to the ECA boundary; they assume ships maintain 

existing routing. We believe this is a reasonable assumption because it is unlikely that ships 

currently operating near the coast would reroute beyond 200 nm from the coast, due to the time 

and expense associated with the additional distances that would need to be travelled. A smaller 

ECA could provide an incentive for ships to change their routing in such a way as to disrupt 

other operations. An example of this would be the Navy’s Point Mugu Sea Range off the 

southern coast of California. By including this missile test range in the proposed ECA, there is 

no incentive for ships to divert, from other routes, through this range, to avoid the ECA fuel 

sulfur requirements. 

110 
8.2.2 Air Quality in Alaska and Hawaii 

What Commenters Said:

A number of commenters expressed concern that EPA did not conduct any air quality 

modeling for Alaska and that due to the lack of air quality modeling, EPA did not meet the 

requirements to include Alaska in the proposed ECA. A number of commenters added that EPA 

should not proceed with adoption of the ECA until Alaska specific air quality, health, or 

environmental impact studies are performed. The commenters wrote that EPA needs to 

scientifically evaluate the need for the inclusion of Alaska and Hawaii and provide scientific 

evidence that Alaska’s coastal communities have an ambient air problem as a result of marine 

vessels. 

A number of commenters stated that neither Alaska nor Hawaii has air quality exceeding 

EPA’s ambient air quality standards for ozone or PM2.5. Many of these commenters go on to say 

that measurements of ambient PM2.5, NO2 and SO2 at three locations in Juneau, Alaska during 

2000 and 2001 conducted by the Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation (ADEC) 

showed concentrations of all three pollutants were “appreciably below the State and national air 

quality standards” in both years and that EPA should not ignore the ADEC’s air quality 

measurements. 

CLIA commented that EPA’s proposal contains insufficient justification for including 

southeastern Alaska and eastern Hawaii regions in the proposed ECA while excluding western 

Hawaii and western Alaska regions. They add that no dispersion modeling results are presented 

to justify these decisions and that there is no information on the relative benefits of including 

(and disbenefits of excluding) these regions from the ECA. 

Senator Murkowski of Alaska commented that “unlike in Los Angeles where cruise ship 

traffic occurs year-round, vessel traffic in Alaska waters is seasonal for only five months of the 

year, with the peak of traffic occurring during only a 14-week season from early June through 

the first week of September. That period also coincides, especially in later summer, with 

increased winds in coastal Alaska that serve to reduce the frequency of air inversions and 

disperse emissions. In Juneau, the town that has the most cruise ship visits in Alaska waters – 

about 99 percent of all of the 43 vessels coming to Alaska in 2009 docking in Juneau (Juneau 

having 581 port calls this year) – winds average 7 miles an hour year-round, but rise as the 

summer advances. Given the unique geographic and climatic conditions in Southeast and 

Southcentral Alaska, a single nationwide pollutant model is unlikely to accurately forecast air 

quality impacts in the State.” 

Governor Lingle of Hawaii commented, after the close of the comment period, that EPA 

does not have air quality data beyond the 48 contiguous states supporting ECA designation in 

Hawaii and the Hawaii Department of Health has not provided EPA with quantitative air quality 

data supporting Hawaii’s inclusion in accordance with ECA criteria. 

Senator Murkowski (0384) 

Representative Munoz (0317) 

RDC (0288) 

River Adventures (0244) 

111 
CLIA (0278) 

Mayor Williams – Ketchikan (0294) 

Finkenbinder – Sitka (0307) 

TOTE (0289) 

Governor Parnell (0287) 

Congressman Young (0382) 

Our Response:

The above comments primarily focus on the geographic boundaries of the proposed North 

American ECA. As discussed in Chapter 2 of this document, the ECA proposal is not within the 

scope of this rulemaking and the ECA proposal fully satisfied the criteria in MARPOL Annex 

VI, Appendix III. 

EPA performed detailed emission inventory modeling of pollution from ships operating 

off U.S. coasts, including the coasts of Alaska and Hawaii. This modeling not only quantified 

emissions from ships, but estimated where the emissions would occur off the coasts. Within the 

proposed ECA for Alaska, ships are expected to emit 32,000 tons of NOX, 21,000 tons of SOX, 

and 3,000 tons of PM2.5 in 2020. Within the proposed ECA for Hawaii, ships are expected to 

emit 53,000 tons of NOX, 34,000 tons of SOX, and 4,000 tons of PM2.5 in 2020. 

Air pollution from ships impacts communities not just in ports and near coastlines, but 

also hundreds of miles inland. When people breathe this polluted air, their health is adversely 

affected, leading to lost productivity due to increased illnesses, hospitalizations, and even 

premature deaths. In our analysis, we assessed whether emissions from ships would reach 

populated areas in Alaska or Hawaii based on meteorological data. This analysis concludes that 

ships are contributing to ambient air concentrations of ozone and PM2.5 in Southeastern and 

Southcentral Alaska, where most of the population resides. In setting the ECA boundary, EPA 

balanced considerations of protecting human health with impacts on the regulated community. 

Two of Alaska’s three major population centers (Juneau and Anchorage) are on the coast in 

Southeastern Alaska and were included in the proposed ECA. The third major population center, 

Fairbanks, is inland of the proposed ECA. The Hawaiian Islands included in the proposed ECA 

are where the vast majority of the state’s population resides. 

Based on ambient air quality monitoring in Alaska, much of the state enjoys air quality 

that is generally cleaner than our National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS). However, 

Alaska does have some areas that have measured levels of ambient particulate matter near or 

above current NAAQS, particularly near Anchorage, Fairbanks and Juneau. On October 8, 2009, 

EPA issued final area designations for the 24-hour national air quality standards for fine 

particulate matter (PM2.5). Portions of Fairbanks North Star County in Alaska were designated 

nonattainment for this new 24-hr PM2.5 standard. The correspondence between EPA and ADEC 

in the years prior to this designation provided EPA with valuable information with which to 

assess the need for emission controls from ships. 

Furthermore, scientists have not identified any ambient threshold for particulate matter 

below which no damage to health is observed. Thus, air pollution below the levels of the 

NAAQS for particulate matter is still harmful and the health of over a quarter million residents of 

Alaska can be enhanced by improving air quality further. It is highly beneficial, from a public 

112 
health perspective, to control PM because even short-term exposures (hours to days) to ambient 

PM can cause coughing, difficulty breathing, changes in lung and heart function and premature 

death. 

It is also highly beneficial, from a public health perspective, to control ozone because 

exposure to ozone can cause throat irritation and make it more difficult to breathe deeply. Ozone 

can also aggravate asthma, leading to more asthma attacks. There are adverse human health 

effects caused by direct inhalation of SOX or NOX alone. However, due to the imprecise science 

of discerning those effects that are due solely to SOX versus its PM derivatives (i.e. sulfate 

particles) or to NOX versus its derivatives, ozone and PM, EPA’s monetized benefits from the 

ECA do not separately quantify the human health impacts from exposure to direct SOX and NOX. 

 As stated is Chapter 2 of this document, at this time, the U.S. Government has not 

included northwestern Alaska or western Hawaii in the proposed ECA. While these areas also 

experience the environmental impacts of ship emissions, further information must be gathered to 

properly assess these areas and determine how ECA controls will help. We will continue to 

gather information on these areas, as well as other U.S. territories not included in the ECA 

proposal, and take action as appropriate. 

 We agree that cruise ship traffic in Alaska is seasonal and that seasonal fluctuations in 

wind speed can impact the dispersion of emissions. However daily meteorological conditions 

can vary from climatological averages so that there can still be days with slower winds and 

potential for inversions. In addition, increased wind speed can cause emissions to be transported 

further distances and impact additional areas. 

 The air quality modeling analyses focused on the 48-State contiguous portion of the 

United States, but the same meteorological conditions that result in potential impacts of ship 

emissions on air pollution over land in that region (e.g., prevailing winds, atmospheric stability, 

and precipitation patterns) can also result in potential impacts over Alaska and Hawaii. In fact, 

the oceanic influence is likely greater over the Hawaiian Islands and the coastal environs of 

Alaska (typically more populated than the interior portions of that State). 

Because of its great expanse, the climatology of Alaska can differ widely depending upon 

latitude, altitude, and proximity to the ocean. Generally, the state's meteorology is classified in 

three zones: maritime, continental, and arctic. The weather in the maritime locations is strongly 

influenced by the relatively steady-state Pacific Ocean and as a result there are relatively small 

variations in prevailing winds, humidity levels and temperatures by season and location.24

Without the stabilizing influence of the ocean waters, the continental and arctic regions can 

experience large seasonal extremes in temperature, humidity, precipitation, and wind direction. 

The local meteorology in these two zones is driven by the topography of the surrounding areas, 

the altitude, and the fraction of sea ice in the Arctic Ocean. 

The proximity of the maritime regions to the shipping lanes lead to the conclusion that 

populations in these areas would be most likely to be adversely impacted by air pollution 

originating from ships. While wind directions at measuring sites in Alaska can be strongly 

 

24 Alaska Climate Research Center, 2009. Alaska Climatology,http://climate.gi.alaska.edu/Climate/index.html.

113 
influenced by topography, the winds typically have an easterly component in populated locations 

like Anchorage, Juneau, Sitka, and Kenai.

25 The steering winds indicate the potential for the 

transport of shipping emissions in the North Pacific (shipping routes from Asia to North 

America). These winds are driven by common synoptic features that govern weather in this 

region, specifically the Aleutian low pressure cyclone in the winter and a northeastern Pacific 

anticyclone in the summer. 

Not surprisingly, Hawaiian meteorology is also subject to strong maritime influences. 

Global circulations such as the Hadley cell establish east-northeasterly trade winds as the 

predominant flow pattern in Hawaii, especially in the warm season. These trade winds can 

comprise 50-90 per cent of the hourly wind directions over the region. Typically, the average 

height of the surface layer ranges from 1500-3000 m above ground level in all seasons in 

Hawaii. Any emissions input to this layer will remain in this layer unless ventilated by 

convection or removed by deposition. Ultimately, as there are shipping lanes on all sides of the 

main Hawaiian Islands; regardless of which way the wind blows, there is a high potential for 

ship emissions to affect air pollution over land. 

8.2.3 Pollution Transport in the Air Quality Modeling 

What Commenters Said: 

The Canadian Shipowners Association commented on the air quality modeling which 

they say “suggests that marine pollution is carried uniformly inland from the east coasts”. They 

reference a 2009 study of global marine emissions as evidence that emissions on the east coast 

are carried out to sea by prevailing winds. 

The Chamber of Shipping of America commented that the basis for much of EPA’s 

modeling data is questionable, including assumptions that weather and wind conditions are 

similar at all U.S. coastlines. 

CLIA commented that with prevailing winds blowing from west to east over much of the 

country, the benefit of emission reductions in the outer waters can be expected to be significantly 

less along eastern shorelines. 

ALA commented that “I am keenly aware of the impact that air pollution from these 

ships has on the health of millions of people across the nation. The pollution from these vessels 

jeopardizes the health and the lives of those who live and work along the nation's coastline, 

including the Great Lakes. But it does not stop there. The smog and soot forming exhaust from 

these ships travels hundreds of miles inland, threatening millions more who have no idea they 

breathe pollution that began in the boiler rooms in the harbors in far off Newark, Houston, LA 

and Chicago.” 

 

25 Western Regional Climate Center, Alaska prevailing wind directions, 

http://www.wrcc.dri.edu/htmlfiles/westwinddir.html. 

114 
Our Response: 

Conventional wisdom suggests that prevailing winds, over the U.S. and Canada, travel 

from west to east. On average, this is true, especially for the north Atlantic and the Pacific 

coasts. In the Gulf of Mexico, prevailing winds typically come from the southeast. However, 

winds fluctuate in speed and direction, and are less consistent on the north Atlantic coast than 

other coasts. As such, air pollution off the east coast, even 200 nm from shore, affects the air we 

breathe. 

We agree that emissions on the northeast coast can be carried out to sea by prevailing 

winds. As seen in Figure 2-38 of the RIA, the largest predicted improvements in sulfur 

deposition from the proposed reduction in emissions along the eastern coasts of the U.S. and 

Canada occur over the Atlantic Ocean. It is reasonable to assume that if the EPA modeling 

domain extended further east, the simulation would have shown large improvements far out to 

sea. However, prevailing wind patterns can vary by season and by location; and daily 

meteorological conditions can certainly vary from climatological averages. While the frequency 

of maritime influences can vary by location, it is not uncommon for locations all across the 

United States to be affected by emissions that originate offshore. An EPA analysis of air parcel 

back trajectories over the 12-year period from 1995-2006 concluded that highly-populated 

coastal cities in the northeastern U.S. were impacted by marine airmasses between 10-20 percent 

of the time. The intent of the EPA analyses was to demonstrate this impact of marine pollution 

on inland populations and ecosystems. 

One advantage of the annual (2002) MM5 meteorological modeling that was used to 

drive the air quality modeling simulations performed for the EPA analysis, is that it employed a 

fine horizontal grid resolution of 12 km. Unlike the coarse-resolution global modeling 

mentioned in the comment (where the grid resolution was 1.8 x 1.8 degrees latitude/longitude), 

the EPA MM5 modeling was able to capture important smaller scale phenomena like the sea 

breeze. These local circulations are well-known to result in the onshore transport of any air 

pollution trapped near the surface over large water bodies. In addition, EPA’s evaluation of the 

meteorological modeling inputs closely matched observations for 2002. Therefore it was an 

appropriate dataset for assessing the frequency and magnitude of shipping emissions on inland 

locations. 

8.3 Other Environmental Impacts 

8.3.1 Ecosystem Impacts in Alaska 

What Commenters Said:

Governor Parnell and Senator Murkowski noted that the proposal references a U.S. Forest 

Service study that attributes a reduction in lichen growth on Mt. Robers above downtown Juneau 

as potentially the result of sulfur and nitrogen emissions emitted by cruise ships. The proposal 

also notes that lichen is a food source for caribou, such as the Southern Alaska Peninsula 

Caribou herd. These commenters stated that while caribou do rely on lichen as a food source, no 

caribou live in the area of Southeast Alaska where the U.S. Forest Service study was conducted. 

In addition, the Southern Alaska Peninsula Caribou herd is located outside the emission control 

115 
area, on the other side of the Gulf of Alaska. This is given as an example that better Alaskaspecific analysis is needed. 

(Gov. Parnell, 0287) 

(Sen Murkowski, 0384) 

Our Response: 

There are a number of important quantified relationships between nitrogen deposition 

levels and ecological effects. Certain lichen species are the most sensitive terrestrial taxa to 

nitrogen with species losses occurring at just 3 kg N/ha/yr in the Pacific Northwest, southern 

California and Alaska. A United States Forest Service study conducted in areas within the 

Tongass Forest in Southeast Alaska found evidence of sulfur emissions impacting lichen 

communities.26 The authors concluded that the main source of nitrogen and sulfur found in 

lichens from Mt. Roberts (directly north of the City of Juneau in southeastern Alaska) is likely 

the burning of fossil fuels by cruise ships and other vehicles and equipment in Juneau. 

According to the Alaska DEC, damage to lichen populations has widespread effects in Alaskan 

ecosystems.27 

We recognize that the discussion of the importance to lichen to caribou may have been 

misleading. The discussion of impacts on the Southern Alaska Peninsula caribou herd was based 

on information supplied by the Alaska DEC in promoting an ECA for all of Alaska. As such, it 

is not specifically relevant to the proposed rule. However, although caribou do not live in 

Juneau, there are caribou herds living inland of the proposed ECA for southeastern Alaska. 

8.3.2 Reduction of Ozone and PM Pollution or Protection of Public Health and 

NAAQS Attainment 

What Commenters Said: 

NACAA commented that “C3 marine engines emit very large quantities of oxides of 

nitrogen (NOX), sulfur oxides (SOX) and fine particulate matter (PM2.5), and myriad toxic air 

contaminants – all of which lead to degraded air quality and associated adverse 

health impacts. In many instances these engines contribute to nonattainment of the health-based 

National Ambient Air Quality Standards. In particular, these pollutants pose serious adverse air 

quality impacts on port cities across the nation, as well as areas downwind of these ports. Air 

pollution from ships is a significant component of the air quality problem in these communities.” 

The SCAQMD commented that “Deadlines to attain national ambient air quality 

standards in the South Coast Air Basin cannot be met unless emissions from ocean-going vessels 

are substantially and timely controlled. Nevertheless, the proposed rule and IMO standards will 

 

26 Dillman, K., Geiser, L., & Brenner, G. (2007). Air Quality Bio-Monitoring with Lichens. The Togass National 

Forest. USDA Forest Service. Retrieved March 18, 2009 from http://gis.nacse.org/lichenair/?page=reports. 27 Alaska Department of Conservation, “Statement in Support of EPA Considering Alaska as Part of a Marine 

Emission Control Area,” October 1, 2008. 

116 
likely fall significantly short of achieving the emission reductions needed in the South Coast Air 

Basin by federal attainment deadlines”. 

ALA/EDF commented that as of December 2008 there were 211 counties that either do 

not meet the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS or contribute to violations in other counties and there were 293 

counties in violation of the 2008 eight-hour ozone standard. ALA/EDF also commented that 

climate change will exacerbate ozone and PM air pollution in the future, challenging compliance 

and public health protection. 

The Ohio Environmental Council commented that reductions in NOX and SO2 are critical 

to ensure compliance with the NAAQS. They went on to detail that Ohio has four counties that 

are failing the particle pollution standard and in addition there will likely be counties that will 

fail the 2008 ozone standard. 

The Santa Barbara County Air Pollution Control District commented that failing to 

reduce emissions from marine shipping may cause districts such as Santa Barbara to fall back 

into nonattainment for the federal ozone standard. 

The Texas Commission of Environmental Quality commented that the adoption of the 

proposed emissions standards would contribute to the air quality goals of Texas and the U.S. 

Chris Salmi on behalf of the Ozone Transport Commission (OTC) commented that many 

areas in the OTC region either currently do not meet the standards for ozone and PM2.5 or are 

expected to be designated nonattainment and that attaining and maintaining these standards poses 

a significant challenge to the states. 

Carter Strickland, on behalf of the City of New York, commented that the city is already 

nonattainment for PM2.5 and ozone and that they will need help from this rule to meet their air 

quality goals. 

Christopher Patton, an officer at the Port of Los Angeles, commented that federal 

partnership on engine and fuel control strategies for oceangoing vessels is essential to the 

regional attainment of NAAQS. 

Texas Commission of Environmental Quality (0340) 

NACAA (0246) 

Port of LA (0232) 

SCAQMD (0309) 

ALA/EDF (0366) 

Ohio Environmental Council et. al. (0314) 

Santa Barbara County Air Pollution Control District (0231) 

City of New York (0227) 

Ozone Transport Commission (0227) 

Our Response: 

We appreciate the comments that these commenters provided. We agree with the 

commenters that emissions from ocean going vessels contribute to ozone and particulate 

pollution and that this rule is a crucial component of the effort to meet health based air quality 

117 
standards, such as the NAAQS. For the final rule we project that reductions of PM2.5, NOX, and 

SOX emissions from marine diesel engines will produce nationwide air quality improvements. 

For instance, there are three counties whose projected design values go from being above the 

annual standard in the base case to being lower than the annual PM2.5 standard with the 

coordinated strategy controls. Descriptions of the changes in design values for counties 

projected to be nonattainment in the future are provided below. 

According to air quality modeling performed in conjunction with this rule, for the 

coordinated strategy, on a population-weighted basis, in 2030 the average modeled future-year 

annual PM2.5 design values will decrease by 0.98 μg/m3 and the average modeled future-year 24-

hour PM2.5 design values will decrease by 1.29 μg/m3. Those counties that are projected to be 

above the PM2.5 standard in 2030 will have even larger decreases from the emission controls 

associated with the coordinated strategy. On a population-weighted basis, the average modeled 

future-year annual PM2.5 design values for counties whose design values were greater than 15 

μg/m3 will decrease by 2.03 μg/m3 in 2030. In addition, on a population-weighted basis, the 

average modeled future-year 24-hour PM2.5 design values for counties whose design values were 

greater than 35 μg/m3

 will decrease by 1.12 μg/m3 in 2030. 

The coordinated strategy will also result in nationwide ozone benefits. On a populationweighted basis, the average modeled future-year 8-hour ozone design values will decrease by 

0.97 ppb in 2030. . In addition, those counties that are projected to be above the 2008 ozone 

standard in 2030 will have even larger decreases from the coordinated strategy. On a populationweighted basis, the average modeled future-year 8-hour ozone design values for counties whose 

design values were greater than 75 ppb will decrease by 1.60 ppb in 2030. 

8.1.3 Air Quality Impacts from Ocean-going Vessels also Occur Away from 

Ports 

ALA/EDF commented that emissions from OGV can have a tremendous negative impact 

on air quality outside of ports. They went on to cite studies that have looked at emissions from 

OGV and find that most shipping emissions occur away from port and conclude that the 

proximity of shipping lanes to coastlines has resulted in the movement of pollutants into coastal 

areas. They also note that the movement of ships through inland waterways can be expected to 

impact air quality in the communities they pass by. ALA/EDF also mention several studies that 

have looked at the impact of OGV emissions and find that emissions can impact well inland from 

the coastline. 

The State of Texas commented that “These engines emit significant amounts of air 

pollution that contribute to ozone and particulate pollution in both coastal and inland areas in 

Texas and nationwide”. 

ICCT commented that pollution from ships not only impacts coastal regions but is also 

carried hundreds of kilometers inland. 

ALA stated that beyond the pollution that is emitted here in the New York metropolitan 

area, the EPA estimates that pollution from these ships extends hundreds of miles inland, all the 

way to the Midwest. (ALA, 0227) 

118 
ALA stated that Texans, such as the commenter, are all too familiar with the blowing 

wind and with the air pollution that travels miles from its source, threatening people living and 

breathing down wind. The commenter was surprised to learn how far inland the pollution blows 

from these huge ships. EPA's analysis shows that the pollution from oceangoing vessels travels 

hundreds of miles inland. My neighbors and I certainly had no idea that these ships in Houston, 

over 160 miles away from Austin, are probably polluting the air that we breathe in our own 

backyard. (ALA, 0227) 

Our Response: 

We agree that the emissions from ocean-going vessels contribute to air pollution impacts 

far from the source. The maps presented in Chapter 2 of the RIA highlight the impact of the 

coordinated strategy inland as well as near the coasts. See Section 8.2 of this S&A for additional 

information on the meteorology used in the air quality modeling analysis and transport of 

pollutants. 

8.1.4 Environmental Impacts Associated with Emissions from Ocean-going Vessels 

What Commenters Said: 

FOE and others commented that, in addition to health concerns, emissions from large 

marine diesel engines also harm the environment and public welfare by degrading visibility, 

contributing to haze, acid rain, eutrophication and nitrophication of watersheds, and reducing 

crop yields and productivity of forest ecosystems. Id at 69534-36. Particulate matter also causes 

soiling and erosion damage to materials, including culturally important objects, and promotes 

and accelerates the corrosion of metals, degrades paints, and deteriorates building materials. Id. 

at 69536. (Friends of the Earth, 0320) 

Commenters stated that pollution from ocean-going vessels not only fouls our air, but 

impacts our water ways. The nitrogen oxides that are emitted are stripped from the air during 

precipitation events and washed into our waterways contributing to algal blooms and deadening 

of the waterway. It also causes acid deposition, watershed eutrophication and nitrification, 

adverse impacts on vegetation and ecosystems, materials damage and soiling and regional haze. 

EPA described these effects in its proposal. (Ohio Environmental Council et. al., 0314) 

 Diesel air pollution impairs visibility. The same fine particles that have adverse health 

effects cause the haze that pollutes scenic vistas in national parks and wilderness areas, 

and creates brown clouds in our urban centers. 

 Diesel air pollution threatens ecosystems across the country. The constituents of diesel 

exhaust contribute to the acid rain and nitrogen deposition that continues to harm 

sensitive ecosystems in the Adirondack Mountains, southern Appalachians and high 

elevation ecosystems in the western United States. 

EDF and ALA support EPA’s application to IMO for a U.S. Emission Control Area and 

EPA’s Coordinated Strategy to reduce C3 emissions: “The emissions reductions from the 

coordinated strategy are also predicted to significantly reduce the annual total sulfur and nitrogen 

deposition occurring in sensitive U.S. ecosystems including forests, wetlands, lakes, streams, and 

estuaries. For sulfur deposition, adopting the coordinated strategy would result in reductions 

119 
ranging from 5% to 30% by 2020. Nitrogen deposition reductions would range from 3% to over 

20%. 74 Fed Reg at 44,458.” (0366) 

CATF commented that diesel emissions also contribute to numerous adverse welfare and 

environmental effects. These include acid deposition, watershed eutrophication and nitrification, 

adverse impacts on vegetation and ecosystems, materials damage and soiling and regional haze. 

EPA described these effects in its proposal. (Clean Air Task Force, 0264) 

ICCT stated that marine shipping is one of the major sources of NOX, SOX, and PM. 

Nitrogen oxides (NOX), including nitrogen monoxide (NO) and nitrogen dioxide (NO2) 

emissions are major contributors to acid rain, leading to the over-fertilization of lakes as well as 

the formation of smog. The working temperature and pressure of the engines have a very 

significant influence on the emission of NOX. Sulfur oxides (SOX), including sulfur dioxides 

(SO2) and sulfur trioxide (SO3), lead to acid rain and have detrimental effects on vegetation and 

human health. SOX emissions are proportional to the sulfur content of the fuel and the total fuel 

consumption. Particulate matter is a generic term for a broad class of chemically and physically 

diverse substances. Of the precursor gases emitted by ships, SOX and NOX can directly lead to 

the formation of secondary PM. (The International Council on Clean Transportation, 0227) 

Friends of the Earth (0320) 

Ohio Environmental Council et. al. (0314) 

American Lung Association and Environmental Defense Fund (0366) 

Clean Air Task Force and many sign-ons (0264) 

The International Council on Clean Transportation (0227) 

Our Response: 

We agree that emissions from C3 engines contribute to environmental effects. In the 

preamble EPA states “Emissions of NOX and SOX from ships contribute to atmospheric 

deposition of nitrogen and sulfur in the U.S. Atmospheric deposition of nitrogen and sulfur 

contributes to acidification, altering biogeochemistry and affecting animal and plant life in 

terrestrial and aquatic ecosystems across the U.S.” The emissions reductions being finalized in 

this rule will help to reduce environmental effects associated with the emissions from C3 diesel 

engines. Air Quality modeling done for the coordinated strategy shows that adopting the 

coordinated strategy will result in sulfur deposition reductions ranging from 5% to 20% in 2020 

along the entire Atlantic and Gulf coasts with higher levels of reduction, exceeding 25%, 

occurring in the near-land coastal waters of the U.S. Nitrogen deposition reductions will range 

from 3% to 7% along the entire Atlantic, Pacific and Gulf Coasts. 

We also agree that C3 engines impact visibility. Air Quality modeling done for the 

coordinated strategy shows that improvements in visibility due to OGV emissions reductions will 

occur in all 133 mandatory class I federal areas in the future with the average visibility on the 20 

percent worst days at these scenic locales is projected to improve by 0.22 deciviews, or 1.4 

percent in 2020 and by 0.43 deciviews or 2.7% in 2030. 

120 
8.4 Benefits Analysis 

8.4.1 Citation of Existing Health Impacts Literature and Data 

What Commenters Said: 

Alyssa Trujillo, testifying at the Long Beach hearing, stated that in a past letter to EPA, 

she implored the Agency to intervene in this matter because people were so sick and dying. She 

wondered how many people in the last 20 years might have died because of the environmental 

pollution that we experienced, either as a direct cause or as a secondary cause. She suggested 

that to find out, the Agency could utilize existing data such as regional claims for Social Security 

disability and SSI, while stating that she didn’t think the correlation between the pollution that 

we are experiencing and health problems has really been made strong enough. She felt that the 

existing studies have not been done the way they should have, and that the Agency does not 

realize there is information out there that can be accessed. 

Our Response: 

While the Agency does not have an estimate of total premature deaths due to air pollution 

over the last 20 years, EPA agrees that ship emissions contribute to large numbers of adverse 

health impacts within the U.S. and internationally. For example, we estimated that in 2020, ships 

emitting at their current performance would be responsible for approximately 4,300 – 9,800 

cases of premature mortality in adults in the U.S. (range based on the health impact function used 

– Pope et al., 2002 and Laden et al., 2006, respectively).28 

We also estimated that ships are responsible for a large number of PM2.5-related 

morbidity impacts. For example, we estimate that in the U.S. in 2020, ships emitting at their 

current performance would be responsible for approximately 4,300 cases of chronic bronchitis, 

8,900 non-fatal heart attacks, 5,600 hospital admissions and emergency room visits, 580,000 

days of work lost, and 3,400,000 days of restricted physical activity. 

Similarly, ship emissions contribute to adverse health impacts associated with ozone 

exposure. For example, we estimate that in the U.S. in 2020, ships emitting at their current 

performance would be responsible for approximately 370 – 1,700 cases of premature mortality, 

depending on the health impact function, 6,600 hospital admissions and emergency room visits, 

810,000 days of school absence, and 2,300,000 day of restricted physical activity. 

There are several types of data that can support the determination of types and magnitude 

of health effects associated with air pollution exposures. These sources of data include 

toxicological studies (including animal and cellular studies), human clinical trials, and 

observational epidemiology studies. All of these data sources provide important contributions to 

the weight of evidence surrounding a particular health impact, however, only epidemiology 

 

28 Refer to EPA’s application for an Emission Control Area designation to the International Maritime Organization: 

http://www.epa.gov/otaq/regs/nonroad/marine/ci/mepc-59-eca-proposal.pdf Accessed Thursday, November 19, 

2009. 

121 
studies provide direct concentration-response relationships that can be used to evaluate 

population-level impacts of reductions in ambient pollution levels. 

For the data-derived estimates, EPA relies on the published scientific literature to 

ascertain the relationship between PM and ozone and adverse human health effects. We evaluate 

epidemiological studies using selection criteria that includes consideration of whether the study 

was peer-reviewed, the match between the pollutant studied and the pollutant of interest, the 

study design and location, and characteristics of the study population, among other 

considerations. The selection of concentration-response functions for the benefits analysis is 

guided by the goal of achieving a balance between comprehensiveness and scientific 

defensibility. 

8.4.2 Related Estimates of Health Impacts 

What Commenters Said: 

In separate comments, the Clean Air Task Force, the International Council on Clean 

Transportation, a group of four Ohio-based organizations, and a joint submission by the Friends 

of the Earth, Earthjustice, and the Center for Biological Diversity, all referenced a study 

published in the December 15, 2007 issue of the American Chemical Society journal 

Environmental Science & Technology (hereinafter the “Corbett and Winebrake Study”). The 

study examined the link between international shipping emissions and human health impacts, 

including premature mortality, and demonstrated that these emissions have significant global 

impacts on human health. 

As reported by the commenters, the Corbett and Winebrake Study estimated that the 

global cardiopulmonary and lung cancer mortality in 2002 from PM air pollution emitted by 

oceangoing ships would grow by 40% by 2012 along with a continued large increase in global trade 

and shipping traffic. Adverse morbidity and environmental impacts were also estimated to grow, 

though they were not quantified.

The Clean Air Task Force also stated that despite the considerable regional variability in 

the constituents of particulate matter, the epidemiological evidence that ambient exposures to 

particulate matter are associated with numerous adverse health effects is remarkably clear and 

consistent. The commenter noted that the consistency of the data makes it feasible to quantify the 

benefits for a suite of health indicators, including: premature mortality, bronchitis, hospital 

admissions for both respiratory and cardiovascular events, emergency room visits for asthma, 

nonfatal heart attacks, lower and upper respiratory illness, minor restricted-activity days, work 

loss days, asthma exacerbations, respiratory symptoms (asthmatic population), and infant 

mortality. The commenter also cited a study conducted by Abt Associates on behalf of the Clean 

Air Task Force that associated excess diesel exhaust particle exposure in the U.S. with an 

estimated 21,000 annual premature deaths, 27,000 heart attacks and 2.4 million work loss days, 

12,000 cases of chronic bronchitis, 15,000 emergency room visits for asthma and 600,000 cases 

of respiratory symptoms. 

A group of four Ohio-based organizations submitted a sign-on letter that also commented 

on the Abt study, noting that the health impact from diesel pollution in four PM nonattainment 

counties located within Ohio is measurable. For example, the study estimated 183 annual early 

deaths, 231 heart attacks and 17,450 work loss days in this four county region. 

122 
The South Coast Air Quality Management District commented that they had made 

significant progress in controlling emissions from sources within its regulatory authority, but that 

their region still has the worst air quality in the country with serious health impacts. They cited a 

number of statistics: 6,200 people die prematurely every year in this region due to fine 

particulate pollution; average cancer risks due to air pollution exceed 1,200 in a million with 

higher risks transportation near facilities like ports; and 52% of population-weighted exposure of 

all Americans to fine particulates is in the South Coast District. 

Commenters from the Friends of the Earth, Earthjustice, and the Center for Biological 

Diversity noted that the public health impacts to citizens in California cities and towns from 

Category 3 marine vessel pollution are acute. The commenters cited a CARB report which 

indicated that mortality attributed to ocean going vessels will more than double from 210 (in 

2005) to 540 by 2020, while most other inventory sources’ contributions to mortality will 

decrease or increase only slightly.

Martin Schlageter, from the Coalition for Clear Air, testified at the Long Beach hearing 

that some 3,700 people die prematurely every year in California due to port and freight 

transportation pollution. He stated that they had established standards and set some targets. He 

also stated that should federal and international standards be set, the leadership of businesses and 

ports and regulatory agencies and the State of California will not be at a disadvantage; rather you 

will have the opportunity to level that playing field for business that is operating here in 

California and attempting to address the air pollution crisis. 

The American Lung Association commented that air pollution is a threat to families, 

children, teenagers, elders and people who have chronic lung disease, heart disease and diabetes. 

The commenter also noted that air pollution sends people with lung disease to the hospital, 

shapes how children's lungs develop, causes heart attacks and can even kill. The commenter cited 

EPA's analysis estimates that the coordinated strategy will prevent between 13,000 and 33,000 

premature deaths each year by 2030. The International Council on Clean Technology also 

referenced EPA’s benefits analysis, citing the quantified and monetized health impacts and 

noting that the benefits of the coordinated strategy far outweigh the costs. 

Our Response: 

We agree with commenters that there are significant health concerns associated with PMand ozone-related emissions. Scientific studies show ambient PM and ozone is associated with a 

series of adverse health effects. PM health effects are discussed in detail in the 2004 EPA 

Particulate Matter Air Quality Criteria Document (PM AQCD), and the 2005 PM Staff Paper.29,30

Further discussion of health effects associated with PM can also be found in the RIA for this 

 

29 U.S. EPA (2004) Air Quality Criteria for Particulate Matter (Oct 2004), Volume I Document No. EPA600/P99/002aF and Volume II Document No. EPA600/P-99/002bF. This document is available in Docket EPA-HQOAR-2003-0190. 

30U.S. EPA (2005) Review of the National Ambient Air Quality Standard for Particulate Matter: Policy Assessment 

of Scientific and Technical Information, OAQPS Staff Paper. EPA-452/R-05-005. This document is available in 

Docket EPA-HQ-OAR-2003-0190. 

123 
rule. The health and welfare effects of ozone are well documented and are assessed in EPA’s 

2006 Air Quality Criteria Document (ozone AQCD) and 2007 Staff Paper.31 

In the proposed RIA, we estimated that the coordinated strategy will result in between 

5,300 and 14,000 cases of avoided PM2.5-related premature deaths annually in 2020 and between 

13,000 and 33,000 avoided premature deaths annually in 2030. For ozone-related premature 

mortality, we estimated a range of 61 to 280 fewer premature mortalities as a result of the 

coordinated strategy in 2020 and a range of 210 to 920 fewer premature mortalities in 2030. The 

increase in annual benefits from 2020 to 2030 reflects additional emission reductions from 

coordinated strategy, as well as increases in total population and the average age (and thus 

baseline mortality risk) of the population. The RIA presents a number of additional morbidityrelated health impacts avoided as a result of the coordinated strategy and talks about those health 

and environmental impacts that we were unable to quantify, but will be reduced as a result of the 

coordinated strategy. 

8.4.3 PM-related Premature Mortality 

What Commenters Said: 

The Chamber of Shipping of America noted that in its proposal, EPA estimated 

premature mortalities associated with a coordinated strategy to control shipping emissions of 

5,300 in 2020 rising to13,000 in 2030. The commenter also stated that CSA members do not 

have expertise in toxicology, but that they knew from an examination of the record on the PM 

NAAQS and referenced material from CASAC that there is considerable discussion and 

disagreement over the methodologies for the estimation of premature mortality. The commenter 

noted specifically: 

 The validity of the single concentration response function for PM based on the 

ACS and Six-Cities studies when there are other seemingly more appropriate 

studies available (e.g. Enstrom and Beelen), 

 The apparent variability in health impact from the various forms of PM – e.g. 

scientific literature indicating soluble forms of PM such as nitrate, sulfate and 

ammonium PM exhibit lower toxicity potential than carbonaceous PM, 

 The lack of inclusion of the effects of other confounders, e.g. smoking, and 

 The use of a linear no threshold approach for sulfate PM when there are 

indications that a threshold may exist near the current NAAQS limit, which would 

 

31 U.S. EPA. (2006). Air Quality Criteria for Ozone and Related Photochemical Oxidants (Final). EPA/600/R05/004aF-cF. Washington, DC: U.S. EPA. Retrieved on March 19, 2009 from Docket EPA-HQ-OAR-2003-0190 at 

http://www.regulations.gov/., U.S. EPA. (2007). Review of the National Ambient Air Quality Standards for Ozone: 

Policy Assessment of Scientific and Technical Information, OAQPS Staff Paper. EPA-452/R-07-003. Washington, 

DC, U.S. EPA. Retrieved on March 19, 2009 from Docket EPA-HQ-OAR-2003-0190 at 

http://www.regulations.gov/. 

124 
imply overestimation of premature mortality in areas with total concentrations 

below the NAAQS, i.e. in PM attainment zones – most of the U.S. coast line. 

The commenter concluded by stating that as a small industry without experience in 

toxicology, the marine community relies on EPA to follow well-balanced scientific evidence. 

They noted that commentary from the broader U.S. industry on the PM NAAQS tends to indicate 

an overstatement of the health impacts from shipping emissions and that the EPA’s Integrated 

Science Assessment for PM confirms that this is a complicated topic that should not be treated 

with the certainty implied in this rulemaking. 

Our Response: 

EPA relies on the published scientific literature to ascertain the relationship between PM 

and adverse human health effects. We evaluate the epidemiological studies using a wellestablished set of selection criteria. These criteria include consideration of whether the study 

was peer-reviewed, the match between the pollutant studies and the pollutant of interest, the 

study design and location, and characteristics of the study population, among other 

considerations. The selection of concentration-response functions for all of EPA’s benefits 

analyses is guided by the goal of achieving comprehensiveness and scientific defensibility. 

In addition to the above selection criteria, EPA relies on the guidance provided by 

internal and external review panels, comprised of distinguished scientists, engineers, and 

economists who are recognized, non-governmental experts in their respective fields. EPA 

consults with the Science Advisory Board’s Health Effects Subcommittee (SAB-HES) and Clean 

Air Science Advisory Committee (CASAC) in the development and improvement of methods we 

use to estimate and value the potential reductions in health effects associated with air quality 

improvements. All of EPA’s regulatory analyses also are reviewed extensively by the Office of 

Management and Budget (OMB). EPA also looks to recommendations provided by panels such 

as those convened by the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) to specifically address facets of 

our cost and benefits analyses. 

EPA currently draws its effect coefficients from epidemiology studies examining two 

large population cohorts: the American Cancer Society cohort (Pope et al., 2002) and the 

Harvard Six Cities cohort (Laden et al., 2006). These are logical choices for anchor points in our 

analysis because, while both studies are well designed and peer reviewed, there are strengths and 

weaknesses inherent in each, which we believe argues for using both studies to generate benefits 

estimates. Previously, EPA had calculated benefits based on these two empirical studies, but 

derived the range of benefits, including the minimum and maximum results, from an expert 

elicitation of the relationship between exposure to PM2.5 and premature mortality (Roman et al., 

2008).32 In the RIA that accompanied the proposal, we included the benefits estimates derived 

from the concentration-response function provided by each of the twelve experts to better 

characterize the uncertainty in the concentration-response function for mortality and the degree 

of variability in the expert responses. Because the experts used the two cohort studies mentioned 

above to inform their concentration-response functions, benefits estimates using these functions 

 

32 Please see the Section 5.2 of the Portland Cement RIA in Appendix 5A for more information regarding the change 

in the presentation of benefits estimates. 

125 
generally fall between results using these epidemiology studies. In general, the expert elicitation 

results support the conclusion that the benefits of PM2.5 control are very likely to be substantial. 

EPA strives to use the best available science to support our benefits analyses, and we 

recognize that interpretation of the science regarding air pollution and health is dynamic and 

evolving. Based on our review of the body of scientific literature, EPA applied the no-threshold 

model in its analysis of the coordinated strategy. EPA's draft Integrated Science Assessment,33,34

which was recently reviewed by EPA’s Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee,35,36 concluded 

that the scientific literature consistently finds that a no-threshold log-linear model most 

adequately portrays the PM-mortality concentration-response relationship while recognizing 

potential uncertainty about the exact shape of the concentration-response function.37 Although 

this document does not represent final agency policy that has undergone the full agency scientific 

review process, it provides a basis for reconsidering the application of thresholds in PM2.5

concentration-response functions used in EPA’s RIAs.38 It is important to note that while 

CASAC provides advice regarding the science associated with setting the National Ambient Air 

Quality Standards, typically other scientific advisory bodies provide specific advice regarding 

benefits analysis.39 This approach reflects EPA’s most current interpretation of the scientific 

 

33 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA). Integrated Science Assessment for Particulate Matter 

(External Review Draft). National Center for Environmental Assessment, Research Triangle Park, NC. 

EPA/600/R-08/139. December. Available on the Internet at 

<http://cfpub.epa.gov/ncea/cfm/recordisplay.cfm?deid=201805>. 34 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA). Integrated Science Assessment for Particulate Matter 

(Second External Review Draft). National Center for Environmental Assessment, Research Triangle Park, NC. 

EPA/600/R-08/139B. July. Available on the Internet at 

<http://cfint.rtpnc.epa.gov/ncea/prod/recordisplay.cfm?deid=210586>. 

35 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency - Science Advisory Board (U.S. EPA-SAB). Review of EPA’s Integrated 

Science Assessment for Particulate Matter (First External Review Draft, December 2008). EPA-COUNCIL-09-008. 

May. Available on the Internet at 

<http://yosemite.epa.gov/sab/SABPRODUCT.NSF/81e39f4c09954fcb85256ead006be86e/73ACCA834AB44A1085

2575BD0064346B/$File/EPA-CASAC-09-008-unsigned.pdf>. 

36 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency - Science Advisory Board (U.S. EPA-SAB). Consultation on EPA’s 

Particulate Matter National Ambient Air Quality Standards: Scope and Methods Plan for Health Risk and Exposure 

Assessment. EPA-COUNCIL-09-009. May. Available on the Internet at 

<http://yosemite.epa.gov/sab/SABPRODUCT.NSF/81e39f4c09954fcb85256ead006be86e/723FE644C5D758DF852

575BD00763A32/$File/EPA-CASAC-09-009-unsigned.pdf>. 

37 It is important to note that uncertainty regarding the shape of the concentration-response function is conceptually 

distinct from an assumed threshold. An assumed threshold (below which there are no health effects) is a 

discontinuity, which is a specific example of non-linearity. 

38 The final PM ISA, which will have undergone the full agency scientific review process, is scheduled to be 

completed in late December 2009. 

39 In the proposed Portland Cement RIA, EPA solicited comment on the use of the no-threshold model for benefits 

analysis within the preamble of that proposed rule. The comment period for the Portland Cement proposed 

NESHAP closed on September 4, 2009 (Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2002–0051 available at 

http://www.regulations.gov). EPA is currently reviewing those comments. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 

(2009). Regulatory Impact Analysis: National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants from the Portland 

Cement Manufacturing Industry. Office of Air and Radiation. Retrieved on May 4, 2009, from 

http://www.epa.gov/ttn/ecas/regdata/RIAs/portlandcementria_4-20-09.pdf 

126 
literature on PM2.5 and mortality. Please refer to the proposed Portland Cement MACT RIA for a 

description of the history of the treatment of thresholds in our analyses.40

In regard to the comment that these studies lack the inclusion of effects of other 

confounders such as smoking, we respond that there is abundant evidence of significant 

associations between various measures of long-term exposure to PM and elevated rates of annual 

mortality. Most of the published studies have found positive (but not always statistically 

significant) associations with available PM indices such as total suspended particles (TSP). 

However, exploration of alternative model specifications sometimes raised questions about 

causal relationships. These early “ecological cross-sectional” studies were criticized for a 

number of methodological limitations, particularly for inadequate control at the individual level 

for variables that are potentially important in causing mortality, such as wealth, smoking, and 

diet. Over the last 15 years, several studies using “prospective cohort” designs have been 

published that appear to be consistent with the earlier body of literature. These new “prospective 

cohort” studies reflect a significant improvement over the earlier work because they include 

individual-level information with respect to health status and residence. The most extensive 

analyses have been based on data from two prospective cohort groups, often referred to as the 

Harvard “Six-Cities Study” (Dockery et al., 1993; Laden et al, 2006) and the “American Cancer 

Society or ACS study” (Pope et al., 1995; Pope et al, 2002; Pope et al, 2004); these studies have 

found consistent relationships between fine particle indicators and premature mortality across 

multiple locations in the United States. Please refer to the second draft PM ISA for a complete 

discussion of the available PM-related mortality literature. 

The Agency also responds that current evidence is not sufficient to estimate benefits by 

PM component. The 2009 second draft PM ISA states: “[M]any constituents of PM can be 

linked with differing health effects and the evidence is not yet sufficient to allow differentiation 

of those constituents or sources that are more closely related to specific health outcomes.” 

The National Research Council (NRC)41 highlighted the need for EPA to conduct 

rigorous quantitative analysis of uncertainty in its benefits estimates and to present these 

estimates to decision makers in ways that foster an appropriate appreciation of their inherent 

uncertainty. In response to these comments, EPA’s Office of Air and Radiation (OAR) is 

developing a comprehensive strategy for characterizing the aggregate impact of uncertainty in 

key modeling elements on both health incidence and benefits estimates. Components of that 

process include emissions modeling, air quality modeling, health effects incidence estimation, 

and valuation. 

In benefit analyses of air pollution regulations conducted to date, the estimated impact of 

reductions in premature mortality has accounted for 85% to 95% of total benefits. Therefore, it 

is particularly important to characterize the uncertainties associated with reductions in premature 

mortality. The health impact functions used to estimate avoided premature deaths associated 

 

40 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. (2009). Regulatory Impact Analysis: National Emission Standards for 

Hazardous Air Pollutants from the Portland Cement Manufacturing Industry. Office of Air and Radiation. 

Retrieved on May 4, 2009, from http://www.epa.gov/ttn/ecas/regdata/RIAs/portlandcementria_4-20-09.pdf 41 National Research Council (NRC). (2002). Estimating the Public Health Benefits of Proposed Air Pollution 

Regulations. The National Academies Press: Washington, D.C. 

127 
with reductions in ozone have associated standard errors that represent the statistical errors 

around the effect estimates in the underlying epidemiological studies.42 In our results, we report 

credible intervals based on these standard errors, reflecting the uncertainty in the estimated 

change in incidence of avoided premature deaths. We also provide multiple estimates, to reflect 

model uncertainty between alternative study designs. 

 For premature mortality associated with exposure to PM, we follow the same approach 

that has been used in several recent RIAs.43,44,45 First, we use Monte Carlo methods for 

estimating random sampling error associated with the concentration response functions from 

epidemiological studies and economic valuation functions. Monte Carlo simulation uses random 

sampling from distributions of parameters to characterize the effects of uncertainty on output 

variables, such as incidence of premature mortality. Specifically, we used Monte Carlo methods 

to generate confidence intervals around the estimated health impact and dollar benefits. 

Distributions for individual effect estimates are based on the reported standard errors in the 

epidemiological studies. 

Second, as a sensitivity analysis, we use the results of our expert elicitation of the 

concentration response function describing the relationship between premature mortality and 

ambient PM2.5 concentration.46, 47 Incorporating only the uncertainty from random sampling 

error omits important sources of uncertainty (e.g., in the functional form of the model; whether 

or not a threshold may exist). This second approach attempts to incorporate these other sources 

of uncertainty. 

8.4.4 Value of a Statistical Life 

What Commenters Said: 

The Chamber of Shipping of America noted that the estimated benefits of the coordinated 

strategy rise from $45 billion in 2020 to $110 billion in 2030. They noted that the bulk of these 

benefits are related to the reduction in premature mortalities each year and that, assuming the 

 

42 Health impact functions measure the change in a health endpoint of interest, such as hospital admissions, for a 

given change in ambient ozone or PM concentration. 

43 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, (2004a). Final Regulatory Analysis: Control of Emissions from Nonroad 

Diesel Engines. EPA420-R-04-007. Prepared by Office of Air and Radiation. Retrieved on April 10, 2009, from 

http://www.epa.gov/nonroad-diesel/2004fr/420r04007.pdf 44 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, (2005). Regulatory Impact Analysis for the Clean Air Interstate Rule.

EPA 452/-03-001. Prepared by Office of Air and Radiation. Retrieved on April 10, 2009, from 

http://www.epa.gov/interstateairquality/tsd0175.pdf 45 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, (2006). Regulatory Impact Analysis for the PM NAAQS. EPA Prepared 

by Office of Air and Radiation. Retrieved on April 10, 2009, from 

http://www.epa.gov/ttn/ecas/regdata/RIAs/Chapter%205--Benefits.pdf 46 Expert elicitation is a formal, highly structured and well documented process whereby expert judgments, usually 

of multiple experts, are obtained (Ayyb, 2002). 

47 Industrial Economics, Inc. (2006). Expanded Expert Judgment Assessment of the Concentration-Response 

Relationship Between PM2.5 Exposure and Mortality. Prepared for EPA Office of Air Quality Planning and 

Standards, September. Retrieved on April 10, 2009, from 

http://www.epa.gov/ttn/ecas/regdata/Uncertainty/pm_ee_report.pdf 

128 
calculation of premature mortality was correct, the value associated with each premature 

mortality appears to the commenter to be high perhaps by as much as two orders of magnitude. 

In 2030, the EPA uses a value of statistical life (VSL) of $7.9 million. The commenter stated 

that while they are not experts in this field, this VSL, when applied to a number that is essentially 

the shortening of life by a matter of months at the end of life, appears to be excessive. The 

commenter contrasted the U.S. value with the EU’s valuation of life year (VOLY) values that are 

on the order of €50,000. According to the commenter, applying a value of $100,000 to each 

mortality would lower benefits to $1.3 billion and total benefits to about $11.3 billion. This 

approach would substantially change the benefit/cost ratio and, according to the commenter, 

points out the need to be more accurate on the estimate of health impacts, both for mortality and 

morbidity. 

Our Response: 

EPA agrees that there is a large amount of uncertainty in the VSL for application to 

environmental policy analysis. However, as noted in the RIA, the SAB Environmental 

Economics Advisory Committee has advised that the EPA “continue to use a wage-risk-based 

VSL as its primary estimate, including appropriate sensitivity analyses to reflect the uncertainty 

of these estimates,” and that “the only risk characteristic for which adjustments to the VSL can 

be made is the timing of the risk”(EPA-SAB-EEAC-00-013).48 The Agency therefore applies 

the VSL that was vetted and endorsed by the Science Advisory Board in the Guidelines for 

Preparing Economic Analyses (U.S. EPA, 2000) while the Agency continues its efforts to update 

its guidance on this issue.49 This approach calculates a mean value across VSL estimates 

derived from 26 labor market and contingent valuation studies published between 1974 and 

1991. The mean VSL across these studies is $6.3 million (2000$). In developing our estim

the benefits of premature mortality reductions, we also discount the VSL over a lag period 

between exposure and premature mortality, but we do not adjust the VSL to reflect any 

differences across age groups, consistent w

ate of 

ith SAB advice. 

 

The Agency is committed to using scientifically sound, appropriately reviewed evidence 

in valuing mortality risk reductions and has made significant progress in responding to the SABEEAC’s specific recommendations. The Agency anticipates presenting results from this effort to 

the SAB-EEAC in Spring 2010 and that draft guidance will be available shortly thereafter. 

48 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). July 2000a. “An SAB Report on EPA’s White Paper Valuing the 

Benefits of Fatal Cancer Risk Reduction.” EPA-SAB-EEAC-00-013. 

49 In the (draft) update of the Economic Guidelines, EPA retained the VSL endorsed by the SAB with the 

understanding that further updates to the mortality risk valuation guidance would be forthcoming in the near future. 

Therefore, this report does not represent final agency policy. The 2000 guidelines can be downloaded here: 

http://yosemite.epa.gov/ee/epa/eed.nsf/webpages/Guidelines.html, and the draft updated version (2008) of the 

guidelines can be downloaded here: http://yosemite.epa.gov/ee/epa/eerm.nsf/vwRepNumLookup/EE0516?OpenDocument 

129 
CHAPTER 9: Alternative Program Options 

What We Proposed:

The comments in this section generally correspond to Section IX of the preamble to the 

proposed rule, where we describe the programmatic alternatives that were considered. The 

Regulatory Impact Analysis describes alternatives in Chapter 9. 

See Chapter 3 of this document for a discussion of issues related to the technical 

feasibility and lead time of emissions controls.

9.1 Land-Side Controls 

What Commenters Said:

Maersk agreed with EPA’s decision not to act on mandatory cold ironing requirements at 

this time, as international standards for power delivery are not yet established, and funding for 

infrastructure and power availability may be problematic in many U.S. ports. Maersk believes 

that investments in solutions that travel with the vessels are the most effective in achieving widespread environmental benefits, because these can usually be implemented more quickly and 

provide greater flexibility for operations and route redeployments. (Maersk, 0261) 

Earthjustice et al commented that the use of shore power or “cold ironing” can result in 

tremendous public health benefits, and encouraged EPA to consider voluntary and incentivebased measures to encourage use of shore power if EPA doesn’t mandate its use. Examples given 

include working with state and local agencies and port authorities to develop programs to reduce 

electricity rates for participants, establishing federal grants for ship-side shore power installation, 

and instituting differentiated dockage fees and privileged docking. (FOE, 0320) 

Our Response:

Some port authorities already require cold-ironing for frequent-calling vessels and are 

pursuing additional reductions from shoreside port equipment. EPA is working with East Coast 

ports to develop plans for shoreside power as part of port development plans. As discussed in 

the proposal and RIA, EPA believes the infrastructure to support shore power needs more time to 

develop before shore power could be adopted on a national basis. Thus, we are not adopting any 

provisions in this rule with respect to cold ironing or other land-side power emission reduction 

programs. 

9.2 Program for Existing Engines 

9.2.1 Voluntary Program 

What Commenters Said:

(A) We support development of a Voluntary Program for In-Use Engines 

In response to EPA’s request for comment on the possibility of a Voluntary Marine 

Verification Program for in-use engines, many commenters supported this idea and encouraged 

130 
EPA to consider incentives and voluntary programs to reduce emissions from in-use Category 3 

engines. 

Commenters Supporting a Voluntary Verification Program: 

Texas Legislative Air Quality Caucus. (0367) 

MECA (0319) 

NESCAUM (0356) 

Canadian Shipowners’ Association (0245) 

American Lung Association (0227) 

CATF (0335) 

 

MECA commented that PM and NOX emission control technology options have already 

been developed and demonstrated on existing large marine vessels, suggesting that a large-scale 

retrofit program could be technically feasible. “The program could provide incentives for 

demonstrations of advanced technologies that provide emission reductions in advance of the 

effective dates of the proposed Tier 2 and Tier 3 standards or that provide emission reductions 

beyond the proposed standards.” (0319) 

 Maersk expressed interest in initiatives such as the Voluntary Marine Verification 

Programs described in this section, and requested additional information on how these programs 

might work. “We would also like to offer to assist in developing ideas for effective incentive 

programs which will further accelerate emissions reductions. In terms of existing vessels, the 

U.S. ECA proposal is on track and other IMO requirements are already in place to achieve 

reductions from these vessels. Since the U.S. is now a signatory to MARPOL, U.S. regulations 

should align fully with MARPOL requirements.” (0261) 

(B) We Encourage EPA to Develop other Incentive Programs 

SCAQMD urges EPA to fund demonstration of early implementation of needed 

technologies, and develop incentive or other programs for early development and deployment of 

retrofit kits and for routing of the cleanest vessels to areas with the worst air pollution. (0309) 

The Ozone Transport Commission members encourage the EPA to evaluate additional 

methods including faster turnover of the existing fleet so that air quality benefits may accrue in a 

more expeditious manner. (0227) 

Earthjustice et al suggested that EPA carefully structure any incentive programs or grants 

to encourage broader participation in voluntary programs, and provided examples of European 

programs.(0320) 

SBAPCD offered to work with EPA and other stakeholders to evaluate potential 

incentive based approaches to cleaning up the existing fleet. SBAPCD noted that EPA should 

evaluate California’s successful Carl Moyer program for reducing mobile source emissions while 

creating partnerships with operators, in terms of its applicability to ships. SBAPCD also 

suggested the approach of differential port fees as an incentive for ships to use cleaner engines 

and conduct retrofits. (0231) 

131 
(C) Voluntary Measures should supplement, not obviate regulation 

Earthjustice et al commented that “the voluntary measures that EPA outlines in its 

proposed rule, while in some respects commendable, are not sufficient to achieve the levels of air 

emission reductions needed to protect public health and the environment. Insufficient attention is 

paid to the potential degree of industry participation and actual reductions that may or may not 

be realized under such programs. EPA’s proposal lacks a detailed description of specific 

voluntary programs; fails to establish safeguards, incentives, monitoring, and goals; and 

summarily rejects some promising voluntary measures. In light of this, voluntary measures 

should be enhanced, but they should be considered supplemental to, and not in lieu of, regulatory 

mandates to attain air pollution objectives from existing U.S.-flagged vessels.” (0320) 

Our Response:

While we are not adopting any provisions in this rule to establish voluntary programs or 

other incentives to reduce emissions from existing vessels, we will continue to work with 

interested stakeholders to further these goals. 

9.2.2 Regulatory Program 

(A) Mandatory Retrofits are Needed 

Several commenters encouraged EPA to regulate existing Category 3 engines, 

particularly in the form of a mandatory retrofit program, similar to the current program for 

Category 1 and 2 marine engines. 

 We encourage EPA to extend this rule to in-use as well as to new engines. (NRDC 0232) 

SBAPCD offered to work with EPA and other stakeholders to evaluate potential 

regulatory approaches to cleaning up the existing fleet (0231). 

The Ozone Transport Commission commented that EPA should examine the availability 

of NOX reducing technologies such as engine timing, engine cooling and advanced computer 

controls and similar technologies as retrofits to the existing fleet (0227). 

As EPA itself acknowledges, ocean-going vessels have a very long life. While the 

standards EPA has proposed for new engines will ultimately lead to a much cleaner fleet of 

ocean-going vessels, it will be decades before the full suite of emission reductions are achieved. 

Moreover, securing emissions reductions from existing engines is often a very cost-effective 

means of lowering pollution on a much faster time frame. Our comments on NOX standards for 

existing C3 ships apply to all existing C3 ships in U.S. waters regardless of nationality. 

(ALA/EDF, 0366) 

SCAQMD stated that the MARPOL retrofit program is inadequate and compliance 

deadlines for new engines are too late to meet local air quality planning needs. Also, EPA should 

treat major maintenance as making the engine new. Further, other technical approaches such as 

water injection and humid air motor used in combination may provide sufficient benefits to 

achieve the Tier 3 standard and may be easier to retrofit than SCR. (0309). 

132 
Earthjustice et al also commented that, “while some may contend that existing vessels are 

subject to MARPOL Annex VI standards pursuant to the Act to Prevent Pollution from Ships, 

only ships built from 1990 to 1999 with an available certified remanufacture system fall under 

that Act’s standards. Furthermore, ships older than 1990 are omitted from any regulation.” (FOE 

0320) 

We also strongly request EPA to set NOX limits for existing engines that mirror the 

MARPOL Annex VI amendments. In this NPRM, EPA is proposing not to establish NOX

standards for existing engines, but instead to rely on the Act to Prevent Pollution from Ships and 

Annex VI. We believe EPA should also ensure the implementation of these standards under the 

Clean Air Act. (ALA/EDF, 0366) 

Earthjustice et al commented that EPA’s decision to not acknowledge a remanufacturing 

process for Category 3 ship engines or “like new” engines effectively rejects regulation of 

existing vessels. Since EPA has found that the engines used in such ships tend to be integral to 

the vessel, and because they are very difficult to remove, owners and operators of commercial 

vessels regularly rebuild existing engines to extend their service lives rather than install a 

completely new engine. Thus, a remanufactured engine criteria or threshold should be 

established for Category 3 engines. (FOE, 0320) “Technologies and approaches, such as humid 

air motors, emulsified fuel, selective catalytic reduction retrofits, and vessel design 

improvements, could be applied now to existing vessels which would, in combination, produce 

NOX reductions of 85 to 90 percent or more.”(FOE, 0320) 

In-use requirements to be applied at the time of major engine servicing are necessary to 

address the NOX emissions from the legacy fleet of vessels which will continue to call at our 

ports for many years to come. Based upon our forecasting, controlling NOX emissions from 

vessels in the future will be one of our most significant challenges. The new [built] standards 

will help, however in-use requirements will also be necessary. [Port of Long Beach, 0232, 0365] 

Port of Los Angeles echoed the port of Long Beach's comments regarding extension of this rule 

to address in-use vessel operations. (0232) 

The Clean Air Task Force and the Ohio Environmental Council et al both requested that 

EPA require marine vessels to meet emission standards when engines are rebuilt. They believe 

EPA’s proposal can be strengthened by promulgating measures to reduce non-sulfur related (ie 

NOX) emissions from existing C3 ships. They both also commented that EPA should explore 

additional approaches to reduce emissions of NOX and PM from the existing fleet of ships 

travelling in U.S. waters. (0264, 0314) 

SCAQMD suggested that EPA make use of a policy to define engines undergoing major 

maintenance as "new," similar to U.S. EPA policy for locomotives. (0309) 

Substantial reduction of NOX emissions from existing ships is critical. In addition, a failure to 

reduce existing emissions from ships will provide unregulated ships with a competitive advantage 

over cleaner ships. (CATF 0264) 

The Ohio Environmental Council et al., and CATF both urge EPA to use all means at its 

disposal to reduce NOX emissions from existing ships, including engine rebuild standards, low 

sulfur distillate fuel requirements, operational restrictions and economic incentives. “We 

specifically support EPA’s proposed Voluntary Marine Verification Program, which we believe 

133 
will complement EPA’s NCDC. EPA should establish emission standards for NOX, CO, HC and 

PM from remanufactured marine engines. EPA includes substantially modified vessels within its 

definition of “new vessel.” We urge EPA to do the same with respect to its definition of “new 

marine engine.” EPA states in the C3 Marine Engine NPR that it is not practical to adopt a 

remanufacturing program for C3 engines because such engines are not “remanufactured” all at 

one time, but rather engine components may be replaced as needed at different times. We do not 

believe that this is a bar to a requirement that a ship’s engine meet tightened emission levels 

when a certain aggregate portion of its major components have been replaced (e.g., 50%), even if 

those replacements do not all occur at the same time; we urge EPA to adopt such a requirement.” 

(0264, 0314) 

The Ohio Environmental Council et al., and CATF both urge EPA to adopt requirements 

that simply require available control technology to be used on existing engines. “Specifically, we 

urge EPA to require all C3 engines built prior to 2000 to comply with EPA’s Tier 1 NOX limits, 

and for engines built after 2000 to comply with EPA’s Tier 2 standards, provided that there is an 

approved remanufacture kit available for that engine meeting the applicable standard.” (0264, 

0314) 

(B) Retrofits Might Not Be Beneficial 

The Chamber of Shipping of America supported EPA’s decision to not pursue standards 

for existing engines at this time. They agreed with EPA’s determination that remanufacturing 

programs for Category 3 engines are inappropriate. “Cat 3 engines are not in a practical sense 

subject to rebuilding as are smaller diesel engines used in locomotive and other heavy duty 

engines. Further, these Cat 3 engines have long life spans due to the rigid daily maintenance 

programs which limit major work to relining of cylinders and valve replacements. Further, the 

cylinder liner replacements should not be considered a “remanufacture” as is the case with 

smaller diesel engines.” They also expressed concerns about costs and safety. (0256) 

The Pacific Merchant Shipping Association and the World Shipping Council commented 

that development of a remanufacturing requirement for Category 3 marine diesel engines is 

unlikely to produce significant emission benefits in light of the longevity of these slow-speed, 2-

stroke engines. (0275, 0325) 

(C) U.S. Regulations for Existing Vessels Should Align with MARPOL 

Maersk commented that the U.S. ECA proposal is on track and other IMO requirements 

are already in place to achieve reductions from existing vessels. Since the U.S. is now a 

signatory to MARPOL, Maersk commented that U.S. regulations should align fully with 

MARPOL requirements (0261). 

(D) EPA Should Require PM Reporting from Existing Vessels 

Earthjustice et al commented that EPA possesses the authority to require PM reporting on 

existing U.S. ships with remanufactured engines that are functionally equivalent to freshly 

manufactured engines. EPA’s goals in establishing the PM reporting requirement are furthered 

by the inclusion of existing vessels, especially because existing ships represent the largest ship 

demographic (FOE, 0320) 

134 
(E) Comments on EPA’s Authority to Regulate In-use Vessels 

NRDC commented that EPA has the legal authority to regulate in-use vessels, and 

pointed to the passage of the enabling legislation for MARPOL Annex VI as evidence of such 

authority. (0232) 

SCAQMD noted that the level of maintenance triggering "new" designation is not 

specified in the Clean Air Act and EPA thus has discretion to broadly define this. They also 

expressed concern that further delays could occur if IMO action is denied or delayed, while EPA 

determines whether it has authority to regulate in-use vessels, and adopts such regulations. 

(0309) 

Our Response:

We agree that it would be desirable to achieve emission reductions from existing 

Category 3 marine engines. However, although Category 3 engines may remain in the fleet for 

several decades, they are not maintained in the same way as Category 1 or Category 2 engines. 

Because there is no specific maintenance action common to all Category 3 engines that (1) 

would return an engine to as-new condition and (2) could be used to identify engines as being 

remanufactured and therefore “new,” we conclude it is not possible to extend the marine 

remanufacture program to Category 3 engines at this time. 

135 
CHAPTER 10: Application of ECA Requirements in the Great 

Lakes 

What We Proposed:

The comments in this section relate to Sections IV and VI.B.5 of the preamble, with 

respect to applying the CAA marine fuel sulfur program and the ECA requirements within the 

Great Lakes. These include comments related to the applicable regulations, the emissions 

inventory, and the air quality and human health benefits on the Great Lakes. See Chapter 2 of 

this Summary and Analysis document for a discussion of general ECA-related comments, and 

Chapter 5 for a discussion of comments related to implementation of Annex VI through APPS in 

U.S. internal waters. See Chapter 8 for a discussion of other comments related to environmental 

impacts and benefits. 

In Section IV of the preamble, we proposed fuel sulfur limits under section 211(c) of the 

Clean Air Act that match the limits that apply under Annex VI in ECAs. The adoption of such 

standards would: (1) forbid the production and sale of fuel oil above 1,000 ppm sulfur for use in 

the waters within the proposed ECA (as well as internal U.S. waters); and (2) allow for the 

production and sale of up to 1,000 ppm sulfur fuel for use in C3 marine vessels. 

In Section VI.B.5 of the preamble, we proposed regulatory text under APPS that clarifies 

that the NOX and fuel sulfur requirements set out in MARPOL Annex VI Regulations 13, 14, and 

18 generally, and the requirements that apply in designated ECAs specifically, would apply to 

internal waters such as the Mississippi River and the Great Lakes that can be accessed by oceangoing vessels. We noted that vessel emissions in these waters affect U.S. air quality to an equal, 

if not greater extent that emissions taking place in coastal waters. This provision would apply 

only to those internal waters that are shoreward of an ECA designated under Annex VI; internal 

waters that are adjacent to northwestern Alaska and western Hawaii would therefore not be 

affected. This provision is necessary because the recent USG proposal for ECA designation that 

was submitted to IMO, although intended to protect air quality in U.S. ports and internal areas, 

does not explicitly state that it applies to internal waters. 

We received a large number of written comments with respect to these provisions and 

their application to vessels that operate on the Great Lakes. These written comments were 

submitted by about 50 entities representing a wide spectrum of entities that would be affected by 

the application of the ECA requirements within the Great Lakes. These include companies than 

own vessels, and their employees; companies that use the products transported by ship on the 

lakes, including steel and utility companies; regional associations; port authorities; fuel 

providers; and environmental and governmental groups. Many of these commenters also 

provided testimony at the public hearings for this rule. 

10.1 General Comments Supporting or Opposing Application of ECA 

requirements within the Great Lakes 

We received comments on our proposal to apply the ECA requirements within the Great 

Lakes from the following: Agri-Fine, OAR-2007-0121-0315; American Great Lakes Ports 

Association,OAR-2007-0121-0262; American Iron and Steel Institute, OAR-2007-0121-0295; 

American Maritime Officer Services, OAR-2007-0121-0364; American Maritime Officers of the 

136 
137 

Great Lakes, OAR-2007-0121-0318; ArcelorMittel USA, OAR-2007-0121-0280; Calumet Area 

Industrial Commission, OAR-2007-0121-0332; Canadian Shipowners’ Association, OAR-2007-

0121-0227, 0245 and 0297; Canadian Steel Producers Association, OAR-2007-0121-0359; 

Central Marine Logistics, Capt. Tom Wiater, OAR-2007-0121-0276 and 0304; Employees of 

Central Marine Logistics, OAR-2007-0121-0234, 0236, 0237, 0238, 0239, 0240, 0260, 0293, 

and 0371; Chamber of Marine Commerce, OAR-2007-0121-0353; Chamber of Shipping of 

America, OAR-2007-0121-0256 and -0227; City of Sarnia, ON, CAN, OAR-2007-0121-0306; 

City of Superior, WI, OAR-2007-0121-0352; Clean Air Task Force, OAR-2007-0121-0264, 

0227 and 0335; Cleveland Port Authority, OAR-2007-0121-0310; Cliffs Natural Resources Inc., 

ArcelorMittel USA, US Steel Corp., OAR-2007-0121-0376; Council of Great Lakes Industries; 

OAR-2007-0121-0296, 0312 and 0363; CSX Transportation, OAR-2007-0121-0300; Detroit 

Regional Chamber, OAR-2007-0121-0248 and 0274; The Development Association, OAR2007-0121-0279 and 0290; DTE Energy, OAR-2007-0121-0328; Duluth Chamber of 

Commerce, OAR-2007-0121-0282; Duluth Propeller Club, OAR-2007-0121-0292, 0313 and 

0399; Duluth Seaway Port Authority, OAR-2007-0121-0283; Great Lakes Maritime Task Force, 

OAR-2007-0121-0269 and -0329; Great Lakes Metro Chambers Coalition, OAR-2007-0121-

0258; Greater Cleveland Partnership, OAR-2007-0121-0330; Interlake Steamship, OAR-2007-

0121-0268 and 0357; Keystone Shipping Company, OAR-2007-0121-0273, 0311, and 0349; 

Kinder Morgan, OAR-2007-0121-0326; Kindra Lake Towing, OAR-2007-0121-0291; Lafarge 

North America, OAR-2007-0121-0383; Lake Carriers’ Association, OAR-2007-0121-0233 and 

0345; Lower Lakes Towing, OAR-2007-0121-0230; Maritime AFL-CIO, OAR-2007-0121-

0321; Midwest Energy Resources Co., OAR-2007-0121-0342; Minnesota Chamber of 

Commerce, OAR-2007-0121-0350; Murphy Oil, OAR-2007-0121-0301; Ohio Environmental 

Council, Earth Day Coalition, Marsh Area Regional Council, Ohio League of Conservation 

Voters, OAR-2007-0121-0314; Ozinga Materials, OAR-2007-0121-0343; Raffin Construction 

Co., OAR-2007-0121-0344; Robertson, Paul, Economic Minister, Government of Canada, OAR2007-0121-0252; Shipping Federation of Canada, OAR-2007-0121-0270; Soo Marine Supply 

Inc., OAR-2007-0121-0351; Stupak, Bart, Representative, US Congress (MI), OAR-2007-0121-

0338; Transportation Institute, OAR-2007-0121-0302 and 0355; Two Harbors Area Chamber of 

Commerce, OAR-2007-0121-0324; Warner Petroleum Corporation, OAR-2007-0121-0251; 

Wisconsin Commercial Ports Association, OAR-2007-0121-0368 

10.1.1 General Support for Application of ECA to the Great Lakes 

What Commenters Said: 

The environmental groups (e.g., Clean Air Task Force, 0265; Marsh Area Regional 

Council et al, 0314) and the Shipping Federation of Canada (0270) are supportive of the 

application of ECA requirements within the Great Lakes. For example, Marsh Area Regional 

Council, et al., notes that “emissions from Great Lakes Shipping can travel into the heart of the 

Midwest, and must be controlled (Marsh Area Regional Council et al, 0314). The Shipping 

Federation of Canada cites the benefits of harmonized standards, and offers three 

recommendations to improve the program: to clarify the standards are performance based and 

would allow the use of scrubbers; specify procedures that would apply when ships cannot 

purchase compliant fuels; and create an incentive program to reduce the overall carbon footprint 

of the supply chain that would acknowledge the potential of intermodal shifts (Shipping 

Federation of Canada, 0270). Similarly, the Canadian Shipowners Association indicated they 

support the objective of reducing air emissions, but that such reductions must be achieved in a 
manner than minimizes the risks of modal shift and industrial diversions to mitigate the adverse 

unintended consequences of modal shift, fuel supply disruption and lost economic activities 

(CSA, 0245). 

Our Response:

We agree that application of the ECA requirements within the Great Lakes will provide 

environmental benefits. 

With regard to the recommendations of the Shipping Federation of Canada, our final rule 

clarifies that the use of equivalent technology will be permitted, and we provide procedures that 

would apply when ships cannot purchase compliant fuels generally, including in internal waters 

(see Chapter 4 of this document). 

We also provide a separate provision that will allow operators on the Great Lakes to 

purchase marine residual fuel through 2014 if even if compliant 10,000 ppm S fuel is 

unavailable. Under this provision, if marine residual fuel meeting the 10,000 ppm S standard is 

not available, it will not be a violation of our standards for owners of vessels operating on the 

Great Lakes to purchase and use marine residual fuel with sulfur content above 10,000 ppm S 

provided the fuel they purchase is the lowest sulfur marine residual fuel available at that port. 

With regard to an incentive program to reduce the overall carbon footprint of the supply 

chain, we will consider this suggestion as part of any future consideration of GHG emissions 

from vessels. 

10.1.2 General Opposition of Application of ECA to the Great Lakes 

What Commenters Said: 

A wide spectrum of commenters voiced opposition to the application of the ECA to the 

Great Lakes. Many of these commenters cited a lack of environmental and economic analysis to 

support application of these requirements. Some of these commenters were concerned about 

EPA’s authority to set standards for fuels sold on the Great Lakes. Others said that EPA did not 

do appropriate analysis to justify applying the ECA requirements within the Lakes. Many said 

the economic impacts to the Lakes will be severe, with at least one commenter saying that this 

proposed rule would cause the greatest disruption of commerce in the history of the Great Lakes 

(Great Lakes Maritime Task Force, 0269). Many of these commenters asserted that the 

provisions will result in transportation modal and industrial source shifts that will result in 

increased emissions. Other commenters said that 30 days was not enough time to review the 

proposal for the Lakes, with some urging EPA to exempt the Lakes or to postpone such a 

decision until more analysis can be carried out. Several commenters noted that the impacts on 

Canada and on small businesses were not addressed 

Our Response: 

 Our responses to each of these sets of comments are set out below. 

138 
10.2 EPA does not have legal authority to extend the ECA requirements 

within the Great Lakes 

What Commenters Said:

The Great Lakes Maritime Task Force commented that EPA made this proposal without 

the legal authority to do so, either under the Act to Prevent Pollution from Ships or the Clean Air 

Act (GLMTF, 0269). They argue that APPS does not implement the 2008 Amendment to Annex 

VI and that APPS does not authorize EPA to regulate the use of fuel in internal waters, let alone 

the Great Lakes. They also argue that prior to enacting a ban on residual fuel, including such a 

ban on the Great Lakes, EPA must make certain findings under CAA §211(c)(2)(A). Several 

other commenters also questioned whether EPA met its legal obligation in proposing applying 

the ECA requirements within the Great Lakes. Similar comments were made by other 

stakeholders, with Canadian Shipowners Association noting their concern that EPA is taking 

liberties with the ambiguities of APPS and that there is no real authority to include the internal 

waters of the U.S. when implementing ocean-going IMO standards. They recommended that the 

rule be postponed until EPA has a clear legal basis (CSA, 0245) 

Our Response:

See Chapter 5 of this document for a discussion of our authority to extend the ECA 

requirements within U.S. internal waters generally. 

See Chapter 4 of this document for a discussion of the requirements to restrict the 

production and sale of residual fuel in the United States generally. 

10.3 EPA has not justified extending the ECA requirements within the Great 

Lakes 

We performed an extensive economic analysis to examine the inventory contribution, air 

quality impacts, benefits, and costs for all vessels covered by this rule, including Great Lakes 

vessels. In response to the comments in this section we also prepared a Note to the Docket that 

organizes the Great Lakes-specific analyses in a single place.50 That Note explains how the 

Great Lakes were taken into account in our inventory, air quality, benefit, and cost analyses. It 

also provides a brief analysis of the potential for modal and source shifts as a result of this rule. 

It also provides additional information regarding impacts on the Great Lakes marine 

transportation market. 

 

50 Memorandum to Docket EPA-HQ-OAR-2007-0121 from Michael J. Samulski. Control of Emissions from New 

Marine Compression-Ignition Engines at or above 30 Liters per Cylinder – Information in Support of Applying 

Emission Control Area (ECA) Requirements to the Great Lakes Region. 

139 
10.3.1 Extending the ECA requirements within the Great Lakes is not supported by 

EPA’s analysis 

What Commenters Said: 

Many of the commenters who oppose application of the ECA requirements within the 

Great Lakes insisted that EPA is doing so without adequate analysis, and that the proposed rule 

would expand, without explanation or justification, the scope of the regulation to vessels in the 

Great Lakes (Agri-Fine, 0315; Duluth Seaway, 0283; Kindra Lake Towing, 0291; Minnesota 

Chamber of Commerce, 0350; Duluth Area Chamber of Commerce, 0282; Calumet Area 

Industrial Commission, 0332 Superior WI, 0352). Others said that EPA appears to have casually 

and carelessly included "internal waters" (i.e.: Great Lakes) within the scope of this regulatory 

action, with little understanding of the unique impacts of the proposal on the region's economy 

and environment. (American Great Lakes Ports Association, 0262; Wisconsin Commercial Ports 

Association, 0368). Warner Petroleum Corporation stated that the inclusion of the Great Lakes 

as in ECA in the proposed rule is an afterthought and that potential environmental, economic, 

and hardship assessments have not been conducted for these navigation waterways. Great Lakes 

Maritime Task Force said that EPA does not provide the factual basis for applying the ECA 

requirements within the Great Lakes and that the analysis that was performed focuses on the 

coasts. Therefore, the public cannot comment on the need for these controls on the Lakes 

(GLMTF, 0269). The Canadian Shipowners Association also argued that EPA did not conduct 

proper analysis of air emissions or adequately identify negative environmental and commercial 

effects of the proposal (CSA, 0245). 

Other commenters said EPA never gave any clear indication it was considering ECA 

designation for the Great Lakes before the proposed rule. ArcelorMittal noted that there was 

only limited discussion of this provision in the ANPRM, and that the ECA submission was 

ambiguous about the Great Lakes. However, the proposed rule provides almost no support for 

EPA’s current position to designate the Great Lakes as an ECA (ArcelorMittal, 0280). 

Transportation Institute stated that they were “blindsided by the sudden turn of the EPA’s 

regulatory fevor to determine ... ‘coasts’ and ‘coastal waters’ somehow now mystically 

encompasses the American vessels plying the freshwaters of the Great Lakes” and noted that 

while EPA proudly denotes its efforts to provide incentives and publicize emissions issues 

among maritime interests along the East and West Coasts, no similar demonstrable effort is 

noted or apparent for the Great Lakes region (Transportation Institute, 0302). GLMTF also notes 

that the coastal ECA has been in the works for many years through a transparent, meticulous and 

science-based process, but it appears that the Great Lakes were just tacked onto the ECA with a 

simple justification that vessel emissions in internal waters affect U.S. air quality to an equal if 

not greater extent” with no clarification of that statement, and with no consideration of key 

differences between OGV and vessels that operate on the Great Lakes (GLMTF, 0269). Marine 

Trade Department commented that EPA’s perfunctory approach to the Great Lakes ECA is 

particularly shocking in that this region would negatively impact the Great Lakes shipping 

business and shoreside industries more than any other region in the country. (Maritime Trades 

Department, 0321). Canadian Shipowners Association noted that EPA did not include the 

Pacific U.S. territories, smaller Hawaiian Islands the U.S. territories of Puerto Rico, the U.S. 

Virgin Islands, or Western Alaska and the Aleutian Islands in the ECA submitted to IMO 

because further information is required, and suggested that the Great Lakes not be included into 

an ECA for the same reason (Canadian Shipowners Association, 0245). 

140 
Warner Petroleum Corporation also commented that the proposal does not present data to 

demonstrate the lakes meet the ECA criteria and so inclusion of the great lakes in the ECA is not 

justified by the standards and criteria established by EPA (Warner Petroleum Corporation, 0251). 

See also comments from Calumet Area Industrial Commission (0332); (Canadian 

Shipowners’ Association, 0245); Interlake Steamship (0268); CSX Transportation, 0300); 

Greater Cleveland Partnership (0330); Congressman Stupak (0338); Chamber of Marine 

Commerce (0353); ArcelorMittel USA (0280); Canadian Shipowners’ Association (0245); 

Keystone Shipping (0349); 

Our Response: 

The main emphasis of these comments is that our analyses do not take into account the 

peculiarities of the Great Lakes region, with regard to operating profiles, average sulfur content 

of fuel sold on the Lakes, attainment status of coastal areas, and the existence of transportation 

alternatives for Great Lakes marine transportation service consumers. 

The Great Lakes were included in all aspects of the analysis supporting this rule. The 

national inventory estimates were broken out by regions in our NPRM, including the Great 

Lakes, Gulf Coast, and other areas (see Chapter 3 of the Draft RIA). However, the air quality 

impacts and benefits modeling which relies on those regional inputs are reported out for the 

nation as a whole. The justifications for regions such as the Gulf of Mexico and the Great Lakes 

were presented with equal weight in the NPRM. Nevertheless, in response to this comment, we 

prepared a Note to the Docket that organizes the Great Lakes-specific analyses in a single place. 

This Note explains how the Great Lakes were taken into account in our inventory, air quality, 

benefit, and cost analyses. It also provides a brief analysis of the potential for modal and source 

shifts as a result of this rule.51

In addition, in response to these comments and as suggested by Congress, we will 

perform an additional analysis of the economic impacts of the application of the ECA 

requirements on ships operating on the Great Lakes. This study, which we expect to complete by 

summer 2010, will be developed cooperatively with stakeholders and will examine the economic 

impacts of the rule on Great Lakes shipping including whether these standards may lead to a 

modal shift away from marine transportation and toward transportation by rail or truck. We will 

take into account data and studies submitted by participants as well as other information. 

Based on our analysis in the NPRM and subsequently in our docket note, we are 

finalizing this rule as proposed, including the Great Lakes in the internal waterways to be 

covered by the ECA requirements through our authority granted in the Act to Prevent Pollution 

from Ships (see Sections 5.4 and 5.5 of this document for more information about APPS). 

 

51 Memorandum to Docket EPA-HQ-OAR-2007-0121 from Michael J. Samulski. Control of Emissions from New 

Marine Compression-Ignition Engines at or above 30 Liters per Cylinder – Information in Support of Applying 

Emission Control Area (ECA) Requirements to the Great Lakes Region. 

141 
10.3.2 Specific comments on inventory inputs and assumptions for the Great Lakes 

What Commenters Said: 

Several commenters are critical of the assumptions we used in our air emission inventory 

modeling for the Great Lakes, alleging that the analysis does not accurately and fully reflect the 

unique characteristics and contribution of the vessels that ply the Great Lakes. (Keystone 

Shipping Co., 0349) 

The Lake Carriers’ Association (LCA) indicated that their analysis of EPA’s 1999 

National Emission Inventory found it to vastly overstate vessel emissions in the Port of 

Cleveland, Ohio. Those flawed Cleveland findings were then extrapolated to other Great Lakes 

port states, cities, and counties based on port tonnages. LCA fears the RIA analysis may be a 

repeat of this overestimate for the Great Lakes. (Lake Carriers’ Association, 0345, p. 12-13) 

Although LCA has previously provided the EPA with data on laker vessel efficiency and 

demonstrated that the EPA data on emissions at Great Lakes ports was in error by a factor of 

more than 300 percent, the EPA neither recognized the laker vessel efficiencies nor corrected 

their erroneous data. (Canadian Shipowners Association, 0245, p. 4 and p. 37) In comments 

provided by Keystone Shipping Co., they acknowledge that it appears the more recent analysis of 

Great Lakes port air emissions was referenced and used in some of the studies referenced in the 

RIA; however, it is not certain nor could it be determined how that data was incorporated into the 

final Regional analysis conclusions. (Keystone Shipping Co., 0349, Appendix 1, p. 4) 

Other comments concerning the inputs to our inventory modeling include the following: 

 Great Lakes bulkers stay in port in populated areas for much shorter periods of 

time that ocean going ships do. Nearly all Great Lakes Bulk Carriers are 

equipped with self-unloading equipment that allows them to unload in a matter of 

hours, versus the days that ocean going vessels often spend in port. (Interlake 

Steamship, 0268, p. 3) 

 Two or three ports were used to extrapolate emission contributions for all ports on 

the Great Lakes and for in-transit times. Although certainly more appropriate 

than extrapolating from the port of Long Beach, we question the validity of using 

those ports to determine emissions for the entire Great Lakes Region. One cannot 

calculate emissions from laker vessels through mathematical formula from one or 

two ports because of the vast differences in port facilities and traffic activity. 

(Great Lakes Maritime Task Force, 0269, p. 24 and p. 37) 

 The analysis for “in transit” time as applied to the Great Lakes fleet is flawed and 

incomplete. (Great Lakes Maritime Task Force, 0269, p. 24) While the global 

model used may be suitable for ports that are geographically separated and may 

have accuracy for coastal ports with foreign voyages, there are over 70 ports in 

the relatively small geographic area of the Great Lakes and it is not clear how the 

modeling accounted for such a large number of ports in the confined geographical 

location. (Keystone Shipping Co., 0349, Appendix 1, p. 3) 

142 
 Even EPA’s use of a predictive emissions model, such as the STEEM analysis 

presented in the Regulatory Impact Analysis, does not clearly take steamers into 

account. (Great Lakes Maritime Task Force, 0269, p. 28) 

 Vessels like Interlake’s, that operate exclusively within the Great Lakes, typically 

last decades longer than those that operate on the oceans. (Interlake Steamship, 

0268, p. 4) 

 The environmental benefits of the ECA are based on very large growth estimates 

for ocean shipping, with high horse-powered engines, and these estimates are not 

at all representative of the Great Lakes region. (Canadian Shipowners 

Association, 0245, p. 4) 

 The baseline inventory is established in 2002 and there has been substantial 

refinement in the Great Lakes vessel port and vessel information since that time 

particularly on the Great Lakes. (Keystone Shipping Co., 0349, Appendix 1, p 3 

and p. 4) 

We also received comments on the fuel sulfur content level used in our inventory 

modeling. While an ocean-going vessel can currently purchase and burn up to 4.5 percent 

sulphur in fuel, the reality for the Canadian fleet in the Great Lakes is a fleet average sulphur 

content of only 1.7 percent. (Canadian Shipowners Association, 0245, p. 15) Based on “business 

confidential” fuel analysis previously provided to EPA, a Great Lakes Maritime Task Force 

member calculated that the weighted average sulfur position of more than 130 million gallons of 

fuel (Heavy and Intermediate Fuel Oil) burned over the post 4.5 years in the Great Lakes is 1.5 

percent. (Great Lakes Maritime Task Force, 0269, p. 5) The average sulfur content for all 

residual fuel consumed by the eight Key Lakes vessels from 2006 through August 2009 was 1.62 

percent. By assuming a higher sulfur content of 2.7 percent, EPA inflates the current 

environmental impact of the Great Lakes ships and overstates the benefits of reducing the sulfur 

content in fuels. (Keystone Shipping Co., 0349, p. 2) The sulphur content of residual fuel sold 

for use on the Great Lakes has a dramatically lower sulphur content (approximately 1.7 percent) 

than similar fuels on a global basis (approximately 3.5 percent - 4.5 percent). (Lower Lakes 

Towing LTD, 0230, p. 1) The average sulfur content for all residual fuel consumed by 

Interlake’s vessels from 2006 through August 2009 was 1.8969 percent. However, because 

Interlake’s vessels consume MDO during maneuvering and while in port, the weighted average 

sulfur content for all fuels used by Interlake’s vessels impacted by the proposed rule is 1.6818 

percent. (Interlake Steamship, 0268, p. 3) 

Our Response: 

Since the development of the 1999 National Emission Inventory, the Category 3 vessel 

inventory for the U.S., including the Great Lakes, has been updated. We agree that earlier 

analyses overestimated the emissions of Category 3 vessels in the Great Lakes, by including 

some Category 2 vessels. For this rule, the Category 2 vessels were carefully removed from the 

call data for the Great Lakes ports. 

We agree that marine transportation on the Great Lakes has unique characteristics that 

need to be taken into consideration. While the overall methodology for inventory development 

143 
outlined in the RIA applies to all areas of the U.S., this methodology allows for and uses a 

number of inputs specific to the Great Lakes. The LCA port data for Cleveland and DuluthSuperior were used to develop the port time-in-mode data for the Category 3 vessels operating 

on the Great Lakes. In addition, U.S. Army Corp of Engineers (USACE) call data and vessel 

characteristics specific to each Great Lakes port was used; call data for Cleveland and DuluthSuperior were not simply applied to the other Great Lakes ports. Although it would have been 

preferable to use port-specific information for every port, this approach uses all Great Lakes port 

data available at the time of the analysis. 

The Great Lakes do include a large number of ports in a rather small geographical 

location. Ports were each treated separately for the purposes of inventory estimation. There are 

four modes of port operation included in the port inventories: hotelling, maneuvering, reduced 

speed zone (RSZ), and cruise. The hotelling and maneuvering emissions are assigned to a single 

latitude/longitude coordinate point using the port center as defined by the Army Corp of 

Engineers in the Principal Ports of the United States dataset. The RSZ and cruise routes were 

modeled as lines. The RSZ distance for each Great Lake port was fixed at three nautical miles. 

The cruise mode emissions assume a 7 nautical mile distance beyond the RSZ. Because some 

ports are confined to a rather small location, the RSZ and cruise mode links overlap. In these 

cases, the emissions for those ports, once calculated, were allocated to the same links, such that 

the total emissions allocated to the links are the sum of emissions from all of the ports sharing 

that link. 

The interport emissions were estimated using the Waterway Network Ship Traffic, 

Energy, and Environmental Model (STEEM). STEEM uses a spatially-defined waterway 

network based on empirical shipping information. Emissions along the waterway network are 

calculated using entrances and clearances data in conjunction with vessel characteristics such as 

vessel speed and engine power. In the Great Lakes, the waterway network, call data, and vessel 

characteristic data used to develop interport emissions are specific to the Great Lakes. Although 

the STEEM inventory is not segregated by ship type, steamers are included in the STEEM 

inventory. 

Other inputs specific to Great Lakes include age distributions and growth. Age 

distributions by engine type were developed specifically for the Great Lakes. Age distributions 

were determined using USACE entrances and clearances data for 2005 linked with Lloyds data 

to determine ship engine characteristics and build date. The age distributions for Great Lakes 

vessels reflect more aged vessels than those for ocean-going vessels, as some commenters have 

suggested. Similarly, an average annualized growth rate was developed specifically for the 

Great Lakes. The growth rate for the Great Lakes (1.7 percent) is the lowest regional growth rate 

used in the analysis; the range of regional growth rates used is 1.7 to 5.0 percent. 

Inventories are one of the first products required at the start of the rulemaking process. 

The inventories for this rule were developed several years ago. Calendar year 2002 was used as 

the base year, since it was the latest year for which information was available at the time the 

analysis was done. These emission inventories are then used as the basis for air quality 

modeling, which feeds into the benefit and deposition modeling. Unfortunately, it would be a 

considerable effort to update both the port and interport (STEEM) portions of the inventory to 

incorporate more recent data and carry these updates through all of the subsequent modeling and 

analysis. 

144 
Our analysis uses a baseline residual fuel sulfur level of 2.7 percent in the Great Lakes, 

which is based on the global average. To the extent that Great Lakes vessels would use lower 

sulfur fuel than currently modeled, even without an ECA, the realized benefits (and to some 

extent the incremental costs) would be lower. However, due to the high benefit to cost ratio of 

this program, we can still conclude that the benefits would still greatly outweigh the costs. 

10.3.3 Specific comments on the inventory contributions of Great Lakes vessels 

What Commenters Said: 

Several commenters asserted that the contribution of Great Lakes shipping to national 

inventories is not significant. These include comments that EPA’s own analysis demonstrates 

that vessels operated on the Great Lakes are not a major contributor to the U.S. C3 vessel 

emissions inventory. (Great Lakes Maritime Task Force, 0269, p. 32; Keystone Shipping Co., 

0349, p. 3) The 1998 Emission Inventory shows that the Great Lakes shipping accounts for 3 

percent of the NOX and PM emissions from commercial marine vessels. (Greater Cleveland 

Partnership, 0330, p. 3) A comparison of the contribution of Great Lakes steamer fleet emissions 

to the total national U.S. C3 vessel emissions confirms that the Great Lakes steamers’ 

contribution is extremely small, far less than one percent. (Great Lakes Maritime Task Force, 

0269, p. 24 and p. 27) The actual Great Lakes steam vessel contribution relative to the EPA 

provided numbers for the Great Lakes in the RIA is quite small and nearly insignificant 

particularly for NOX, HC, and CO. (Keystone Shipping Co., 0349, Appendix 1, p. 6) The EPA 

models used to support the proposal for a North American Emission Control Area show that the 

marine industry’s contribution to total sulphur deposition is generally less than 2 percent and 

rarely more than 5 percent of the total throughout the Great Lakes region. This is in marked 

contrast to the IMO SECA targeted West coast, for example, where in many areas marine 

sulphur emissions account for more than 60 percent of the total. (Canadian Shipowners 

Association, written hearing testimony, 0227, p. 3) 

Finally, one commenter noted that the contribution of steamers to this inventory is also 

quite small. When comparing EPA recommended emission factors for various marine vessels, 

steamers’ emissions are a small fraction of diesels’ emissions for HC, NOX, and CO; [i]t’s really 

only in Particulate Matter that diesels are superior. (Lake Carriers’ Association, 0345, p. 14) 

Our Response:

The analysis for this rule agrees with earlier estimates that the Great Lakes contribution 

to national NOX and PM emissions from Category 3 vessels is 2-3 percent. However, this does 

not reduce the need for emission control for vessels that operate on the Great Lakes. Their 

relative contribution to localized inventories, such as the air inventories for Duluth, Chicago, 

Detroit, Cleveland, and other areas along the lakes, can be substantial. 

The impacts of these inventories on the Lakes region can be seen more clearly on the air 

quality maps developed for this rule, shown in Chapter 2 of the RIA. Many of the port and 

coastal areas of the Lakes are in nonattainment for ozone, PM, or both, in part due to emissions 

from vessels that are the subject of this action. Reductions in the sulfur content of fuel used in 

lake vessels and in their engine emissions will assist these areas in their attainment plans. 

Emissions from lake vessels are also transported inland, affecting air quality in areas far from the 

lakes. 

145 
Similarly, we agree that the Great Lakes steamers’ contribution to the national total 

would be less than one percent. Our marine diesel engine inventory takes into account the 

different emission rates for steamships operating on the Great Lakes (further evidence we 

considered the Great Lakes with some specificity). The emission factors for steamships are 

estimated to be lower than slow-speed or medium-speed diesel engines for HC, CO, and NOX

and comparable for PM but much higher for CO2. Generally, the low relative emission 

contribution from a subcategory of engines does not lead us to exempt engines and their fuels 

from regulation. This is because all broad categories of mobile sources can be broken into small 

enough categories as to make only a small contribution. However, as discussed below in section 

10.4.3, we are excluding Great Lakes steamships from the ECA fuel sulfur requirements. For the 

purpose of this exclusion, Great Lakes steamships means vessels, operating exclusively on the 

Great Lakes and Saint Lawrence Seaway, whose primary propulsion is a steam turbine or steam 

reciprocating engine. In addition, these steamships must have been in service on the Great Lakes 

prior to October 30, 2009. This does not include diesel propulsion Category 3 vessels with 

auxiliary boilers. 

10.3.4 Specific comments on air quality modeling inputs and assumptions for the 

Great Lakes 

What Commenters Said: 

The Canadian Shipowners Association commented that the analysis of the benefits of the 

coastal ECA is not directly transferable to inland waters such as the Great Lakes. This is because 

the amount of marine sulfur emissions from ships is smaller and because the prevailing winds are 

different. In addition, they question the air quality modeling which they say “suggests that 

marine pollution is carried uniformly inland from the east coasts”. They reference a 2009 study 

of global marine emissions as evidence that emissions on the east coast are carried out to sea by 

prevailing winds. (Canadian Shipowners Association, 0245, page 15) 

The Chamber of Shipping of America commented that the basis for much of EPA’s 

modeling data is questionable, including assumptions that weather and wind conditions are 

similar at all U.S. coastlines. 

Our Response:

The commenters are incorrect in assuming EPA’s analysis only considered coastal 

emissions. The air quality modeling analysis performed for the coordinated strategy takes into 

account the location and amount of marine sulfur emissions in the Great Lakes region as well as 

elsewhere. In addition the meteorological inputs to the air quality model closely match observed 

meteorology for 2002 including within the Great Lakes region. 

Conventional wisdom suggests that prevailing winds, over the U.S. and Canada, travel 

from west to east. On average, this is true, especially for the north Atlantic and the Pacific 

coasts. In the Gulf of Mexico, prevailing winds typically come from the southeast. However, 

these winds fluctuate in speed and direction, and are less consistent on the north Atlantic coast 

than other coasts. As such, air pollution off the east coast, even 200 nm from shore, affects the 

air we breathe. 

146 
We agree that emissions on the northeast coast can be carried out to sea by prevailing 

winds. As seen in Figure 2-38 of the RIA, the largest predicted improvements in sulfur 

deposition from the proposed reduction in emissions along the eastern coasts of the U.S. and 

Canada occur over the Atlantic Ocean. It is reasonable to assume that if the EPA modeling 

domain extended further east, the simulation would have shown large improvements far out to 

sea. However, prevailing wind patterns can vary by season and by location; and daily 

meteorological conditions can certainly vary from climatological averages. While the frequency 

of maritime influences can vary by location, it is not uncommon for locations all across the 

United States to be affected by emissions that originate offshore. An EPA analysis of air parcel 

back trajectories over the 12-year period from 1995-2006 concluded that highly-populated 

coastal cities in the northeastern U.S. were impacted by marine airmasses between 10-20 percent 

of the time. The intent of the EPA analyses was to demonstrate this impact of marine pollution 

on inland populations and ecosystems. 

One advantage of the annual (2002) MM5 meteorological modeling that was used to 

drive the air quality modeling simulations performed for the EPA analysis, is that it employed a 

fine horizontal grid resolution of 12 km. Unlike the coarse-resolution global modeling 

mentioned in the comment (where the grid resolution was 1.8 x 1.8 degrees latitude/longitude), 

the EPA MM5 modeling was able to capture important smaller scale phenomena like the sea 

breeze. These local circulations are well-known to result in the onshore transport of any air 

pollution trapped near the surface over large water bodies. In addition, EPA’s evaluation of the 

meteorological modeling inputs closely matched observations for 2002 and therefore were an 

appropriate dataset for assessing the frequency and impact magnitude of shipping emissions on 

inland locations. 

Note that there were additional comments on this topic which were not specific to the 

Great Lakes. See Section 8.2.4 of this document for additional information on transport of 

emissions and prevailing winds. 

10.3.5 Specific comments on benefits for the Great Lakes 

What Commenters Said: 

The Canadian Shipowners Association commented that The rule poses a higher economic 

burden on Great Lakes shipping while achieving only 1/5 of the benefit – this is not an equitable 

outcome of the proposed rule. 

Our Response:

 We disagree with the commenter's assertion that the coordinated strategy will place a 

higher economic burden on shipping activity within the Great Lakes region while achieving only 

1/5 of the benefit. In a memo published to the docket ("Regulatory Impacts of Proposed 

Category 3 Vessel Emission Standards on Great Lakes Shipping," Docket EPA-HQ-OAR-2007-

0121), we found that emissions from shipping on the Great Lakes affects air quality in the midwestern U.S. and that the benefits associated with the coordinated strategy that will accrue to the 

six U.S. states that border the Great Lakes will greatly outweigh the costs 

 The report estimated that for the Great Lakes fleet, in 2030, the costs of control will be 

$49 million compared to national costs of $3.1 billion. Approximately 1.6 percent of the total 

147 
costs of the program are therefore incurred by vessels operating on the Great Lakes. In terms of 

cost-effectiveness (a ratio of engineering costs incurred per ton of emissions reduced), the NOX, 

SOX and PM emissions reductions from the proposal compare favorably to other land-based 

control programs that have been implemented. For the national program, we estimated a cost 

effectiveness of $510/ton NOX, $930/ton SOX, and $7,950/ton PM. The cost effectiveness of PM 

and SOX emission control is not significantly different for the Great Lakes vessels versus oceangoing vessels. The reason for this is that costs associated with PM and SOX emission reductions 

are primarily driven by fuel costs, which are a function of how much the ship operates in the 

ECA. To determine the cost effectiveness of NOX emission reductions in an ECA, the analysis 

considered both hardware costs (SCR unit) and operational costs (urea consumption) to 

determine the cost effectiveness of NOX emission reductions in an ECA. As the amount of 

operation in the ECA increases, urea consumption increases proportionately with emission 

reductions. However, hardware costs remain constant. Therefore, increasing the amount of ship 

operation included in an ECA increases the estimated emission reductions per dollar spent on 

hardware. This results in a directionally improved NOX cost effectiveness for Great Lake 

vessels. 

 The report also estimated the health-related benefits associated with the coordinated 

strategy in the 6 western states that border the Great Lakes (IL, IN, MI, MN, OH, and WI). In 

the analysis, we disaggregated the PM2.5-related benefits that accrue to these states from the 

nationally aggregated PM2.5 benefits totals presented in the rulemaking support documentation 

that accompanied the NPRM. The monetized PM-related benefits in the 6 states accounts for 

between 1.4 and 1.7 percent of the nationally-aggregated monetized benefits ( and saving 

between 180 and 450 lives in 2030). Note that improvements in air quality that occur in Canada 

as a result of ships operating in the U.S. portion of the ECA are not accounted for in these 

benefits. 

 For both the national program as a whole, and the Great Lakes specifically, the monetized 

health benefits of the Category 3 marine vessel program greatly outweigh the associated costs. 

Nationally, in 2030, the estimated monetized PM2.5 benefit of the proposed standards would be 

between $110 and $270 billion. The annual costs would be significantly less, at approximately 

$3.1 billion. For the six western states bordering the Great Lakes, the estimated monetized 

PM2.5 benefits in 2030 would be between $1.6 and $3.8 billion. In comparison, the total 

projected costs for Great Lakes vessels, in 2030 would be $0.05 billion. 

 The benefits considered here are the focused on the monetized human health benefits 

associated with reductions in PM2.5 emissions. Additional benefits that would be expected were 

not considered in these calculations. These additional benefits would include human health 

benefits associated with improvements in ozone concentrations, and benefits to ecological 

systems associated with improvement in air quality and acid deposition. At the same time, all 

costs of emission control are considered. 

148 
10.4 The economic impacts of applying the ECA requirements on the Lakes 

will be severe 

The majority of the comments we received with respect to our proposal to apply the ECA 

requirements within the Great Lakes expressed concern about the continued viability of marine 

transportation in that region. These commenters note that marine transportation is an efficient 

mode of transportation in the Great Lakes. Many commenters describe the adverse impacts that 

are expected if the provisions for the Great Lakes are finalized. These adverse impacts are 

expected to occur because the provisions will force the retirement of steamer vessels and will 

raises operating costs for vessels that use intermediate fuel, making them less competitive 

compared to rail and truck alternatives. The result of these adverse impacts is expected to be 

modal shifts away from marine transportation as well as source shifts as manufacturers relocate 

in response to increased transportation costs. This section summarizes comments from: 

American Great Lakes Port Association, 0262; Wisconsin Commercial Ports Association, 0368; 

American Maritime Officers Service, 0364; American Maritime Officers, 0318; ArcelorMittel 

USA, 0280; Canadian Shipowners’ Association, 0245; Mr. Grzesiek, 0234; Lower Lakes 

Towing Ltd., 0230; Keystone Shipping Co (0349); Warner Petroleum Transportation, 0251; 

Government of Canada, 0252; Chamber of Shipping of America, 0256; (Great Lakes Metro 

Chambers Coalition, 0258; American Great Lakes Ports Association, 0262; Interlake Steamship, 

0268; Shipping Federation of Canada, 0270; Capt. Wiater, 0276, 0304; Duluth Seaway, 0283; 

Duluth-Superior Propeller Club; AISI, 0295; CGLI, 0296; Murphy, 0301; Transportation 

Institute, 0302; Port of Cleveland, 0310; Marine Trades Department, 0321; Congressman Stupak, 

0338; Midwest Energy Resources, 0342; Soo Marine Supply, 0351; CSPA, 0359; USS, 0376; 

Larfarge, 0383; Keystone Shipping, 0349, Lake Carriers’ Association, 3045; Great Lakes 

Maritime Task Force; 0269; Canadian Shipowners Association (0245). 

After summarizing this set of comments by issue area, we respond to the ensemble of 

these concerns in Section 10.4.4. See also our note to the docket explains how the Great Lakes 

were taken into account in our inventory, air quality, benefit, and cost analyses and provides an 

analysis of the potential for modal and source shifts as a result of this rule.52

10.4.1 The Great Lakes are an efficient transportation mode 

What Commenters Said: 

One theme that was repeated throughout many of the comments we receive with respect 

to the Great Lakes is their importance as a transportation corridor for a variety of manufacturing 

activities including steel, cement, electricity, and agricultural goods particularly grain. 

Manufacturers receive inputs (e.g., iron ore, limestone, coal) from the upper Lake region, and 

transport finished goods (steel, cement, grain) throughout the region. Many commenters note 

that the Great Lakes fleet is small, with 55 U.S. vessels (13 steamships, 13 vessels that burn 

intermediate fuel, and 29 other vessels). These vessels moved about 101 million tons of dry-bulk 

cargo in 2008. The 26 most effected vessels represent about 50 percent of the capacity needed to 

 

52 Memorandum to Docket EPA-HQ-OAR-2007-0121 from Michael J. Samulski. Control of Emissions from New 

Marine Compression-Ignition Engines at or above 30 Liters per Cylinder – Information in Support of Applying 

Emission Control Area (ECA) Requirements to the Great Lakes Region. 

149 
meet the demand for moving iron ore, coal, limestone, and cement. Several commenters noted 

that the Great Lakes and St. Lawrence Seaway are over 2,000 miles long, although the largest 

vessels are captive on the lakes since they are too large for the locks on the St. Lawrence and 

Welland Canal are limited to 740 ft. This is important because vessels would have to comply 

with the ECA fuel requirements virtually all of the time and would not be able to save costs by 

fuel switching, an option available to ocean-going vessels that operate on the coasts and spend 

most of their time outside the ECA. 

Citing various studies, including a recent study by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 

commenters noted that marine transportation is the most efficient transportation in the region. 

Because there is less friction as a vessel moves through water, less power is needed. As a result, 

a laker can move one ton of goods 607 miles on one gallon of fuel. The same ton of goods could 

be moved only 202 miles on a gallon of fuel by rail, ad only 59 miles by truck. Another 

comparison notes that it would take 700 rail cars (with 14 to 21 engines) to transport the same 

quantity of bulk good that can be moved in one 1,000 foot laker, or 2,800 trucks. This would 

result in the additional consumption of tens of millions more gallons of fuel – up to 85 million 

more in the case of trucks. In addition to fuel costs, there are the costs of manufacturing and 

maintaining these extra rail cars, tires, and transportation congestion issues. For all of these 

reasons, marine transportation is very economical, with commenters noting the USACE study 

conclusion that the next least costly mode of transportation would result in an addition $3.6 

billion of transportation costs per year for Great Lakes industries. The USACE study estimates 

there are 44,000 U.S. jobs directly dependent on Great Lakes shipping, with tens of thousands of 

additional jobs in shipping-dependent Industries. Finally, the Transportation Institute, the 

Government of Canada and Canadian Shipowners’ Association, among others, noted that this 

rule will undercut the current U.S./Canada joint effort to promote short sea shipping to reduce 

greenhouse gas emissions, improve the environment, relieve land-side infrastructure congestion, 

limiting harmful surface runoff, and avoid highway fatalities. 

10.4.2 The economic impacts of applying the ECA requirements within the Great 

Lakes will be substantial 

What Commenters Said: 

Several commenters expressed concern that the application of the ECA requirements 

within the Great Lakes would be detrimental to the local economy. As expressed by one 

commenter, the rule will cause irreparable damage to Great Lakes Shipping industry, industries 

which rely on it, the economic health of the Great Lakes region and the environment due to the 

dramatic increase in cost and resultant modal shift to less efficient modes of transportation 

(Lower Lakes Towing Ltd., 0230). This section summarizes comments describing these adverse 

impacts; comments discussing the causes of these impacts are summarized in later sections. 

Several commenters noted that the primary industries serviced by Lakers were built 

around the Great Lakes to take advantage of the proximity to natural resources and the 

economics of scale provided by waterborne transportation – a dramatic increase in operating 

costs passed onto these companies would limit their ability to compete in the global economy 

(Lower Lakes Towing Ltd., 0230). Including the Great Lakes in the ECA and enacting an 

almost immediate ban on the use of residual and heavy blended fuels will dramatically impact 

every port and port community along this bi-national waterway (Duluth-Superior Propeller 

150 
Club). SOO Marine Supply stated they are starting to see a glimmer of hope in 2010 that 

business may return with some normality... half of their customer base will be eliminated 

overnight (Soo Marine Supply, 0351). Banning the use of residual fuel will significantly 

challenge our ability to get economical raw materials required in the manufacturing process. The 

proposed regulations will also jeopardize our ability to move our products to their end markets. 

(Lafarge, 0383) 

One commenter stated that EPA has no grounds to extend the ECA approach to the Great 

Lakes, and doing so would effectively bring the majority of the fleet currently in operation in the 

Great Lakes to a halt. The implications of such a move would be disastrous to the national 

economy, as well as to our members in the Detroit region (Detroit Regional Chamber, 0248) 

Warner Petroleum commented that imposing more restrictive regulations at a faster pace 

than currently called for in international agreements poses a serious threat to jobs, the economy 

and the very survival of the Great Lakes shipping industry. ... The increased fuel costs alone 

will create a major disincentive for steel companies, limestone, cement and other major freight 

customers to continue operating within the Great Lakes region ... The region will also become 

far less attractive for the newly emerging alternative energy industry ... ability to move large 

turbine components cost-effectively will negatively impact our competitiveness with other 

regions and countries... Warner Petroleum has invested more than $7.9 million in the past 3 

years; many of the jobs we’ve created would be lost (Warner Petroleum Corporation, 0251) 

Great Lakes Metro Chambers Coalition stated that the application of an ECA to the Great 

Lakes appears to have been a last-minute idea, and we fear that it will be counter-productive to 

interconnected goals of clean air, energy efficiency, and economic sustainability... The rule 

would have a devastating job impact on the Great Lakes shipping industry, raw material 

shippers, fuel suppliers, and end users, including the steel, automobile, power, and 

manufacturing industries. The new rule comes at a time when the states in the highly-integrated 

Great Lakes/Midwest manufacturing belt have been among the hardest hit by the recession. 

(Great Lakes Metro Chambers Coalition, 2058) 

ArcelorMittal noted that their 25 million tons of annual North American steelmaking 

capacity ... are located on the Great Lakes [because it] requires approximately 40 million tons of 

iron or and stone ... 100 percent of which is delivered by Lake freighters. Efficient lake bulk 

transportation is why these plants are cited where they are, and also explains why many facilities 

without lake access have been shut down. ... Although the Great Lakes received sparse attention 

in the Proposed Rule and underlying record, the rule nonetheless threatens severe harm to the 

future of Great Lakes Shipping, would impair the viability of the industries which depend on that 

shipping capacity and risks causing significant harm to the environment. ... Nor does the 

Proposed Rule contain any distinct analysis of the economic impact that imposing an ECA would 

have on the Great Lakes shipping and the industry it supports. (ArcelorMittal, 0280) Kindra 

Lake Towing was also concerned that the provisions would put the American steel industry at 

risk (Kindra Lake Towing, 0291). AISI noted that well over half of the U.S. production of steel 

takes place at facilities located in the Great Lakes states, and as such those facilities rely heavily 

on Great Lakes shipping of raw materials that feed those operations. ... Much of the inputs are 

moved by vessels on the Great Lakes. In addition, finished products also are transported within 

the region. For this reason, the proposed rule’s applicability to Great Lakes vessels is of vital 

concern to the North American steel industry. ... Steel production levels have begun to climb. 

Hundreds of thousands of jobs are at stake if transport of materials cannot be accomplished 

151 
efficiently, economically, and safely. ... Added costs for steelmaking will have cascading effect 

... and provide a competitive advantage to foreign steel importers (AISI, 0295) US Steel noted 

that American steel industry is heavily depending on Great Lakes shipping and would see its 

costs increase significantly without concomitant environmental benefits. It takes 2.2 tons of raw 

materials to make a single ton of steel, so cost effective, environmentally sound and efficient 

bulk transportation is critical to the steel industry ... all of those raw materials as well as the 

finished product would move within the ECA at a higher transportation cost under the proposed 

EPA rule (USS, 0376) 

DTE noted that their largest coal fired power plant in Monroe, MI, uses a flue gas 

desulfurization system that requires limestone. Escalated fuel costs may significantly impact the 

quarry if it can’t transport product via vessels because lakers have been taken out of service. 

Plant can’t accommodate trucks or rail. Construction of those facilities would be expensive and 

those costs would be passed on to electrical customers. Also, the air use permit for the facility 

requires delivery of limestone by freighter and the permit does not have a provision for 

additional potential truck or rail traffic. There is a similar issue for coal, especially at the 

Monroe power plant since the rail lines to that plant are already congested. (DTE, 0328) 

10.4.2.1 EPA’s rule will upset the advantages of marine transportation in the Great Lakes 

region 

What Commenters Said:

Commenters expect that the above-described economic impacts will occur because the 

proposal will result in the early retirement of the steamer fleet and increased fuel prices that will 

make it harder for vessels that use intermediate fuel to compete. The resulting loss of capacity 

and increased operating costs will make lakers less able to compete with land-based 

transportation, leading to modal shifts, source shifts, and adverse economic impacts for the 

region. Each of these is described below. 

10.4.2.2 Steamships on the Great Lakes Cannot Comply with ECA Fuel Sulfur Levels 

What Commenters Said:

There are 13 steam vessels in the U.S. Great Lakes fleet. The Great Lakes Maritime Task 

Force and Lake Carriers’ Association, among others, commented extensively on the safety 

concerns associated with using distillate fuel in steamers. These safety reasons stem from the 

design and operation of these vessels. Their engines designed with heavy, high BTU fuel in 

mind. While boilers can be safety lighted with distillate fuel, this can be done only during cold 

start-up and only for as long as necessary for atomization and heating of the primary fuel. Even 

if engines could be modified for fuel switching, the constant mode shifting that is necessary for 

lake operations would create a safety hazard. Specifically, according to the GLMTF, as boilers 

are added or turned off, it creates the possibility that unburned fuel will be present in the firebox 

for a short period of time. This could lead to an explosion as the fuel ignites. They note that 

boiler explosions can result in loss of life. Many commenters cited a statement from the 

American Bureau of Shipping, the U.S. classification society for marine vessels with regard to 

the use of distillate in these boilers advising that: “...a) unburnt fuel may be admitted to a hot 

furnace, following flame failure. This could result in an explosion in the furnace...” 

152 
In addition, there are issues with the flame pattern and burning of fuel, having to do with 

the possibility of issues with the distribution of the flame inside the boiler that would cause 

uneven heating of the tubes that surround the firebox, which could crack and expose engine room 

personnel to boiling hot water and steam. Finally, there are issues with the flash point of the 

fuel, since lakers are required by Coast Guard to use products with a minimum flash point of 60 

degrees C. 

Consequently, a requirement for steamships to comply with the ECA fuel requirements 

would result in the immediate and permanent retirement of the 13 steam vessels in the United 

States fleet, which are about 25 percent of the U.S. vessel fleet on the Lakes and a significant 

portion of total shipping capacity. This loss of capacity would adversely affect the steel and 

utility industries that rely on bulk shipment of raw inputs to their plants by ship, as well as for the 

transportation of their production. An alternative method would need to be found to move those 

inputs and outputs, which would have to be rail or truck. This would be especially unfortunate 

because shipping is so much more efficient than rail or truck transportation. One commenter 

explained that the Great Lakes fleet has an extraordinarily low horsepower/cargo tonnage ratio: 

0.2 to 0.3, compared to 1:1 for rail and 15:1 for trucks. One steamer carries about 2.7 million net 

tons of cargo, equivalent to 135,000 truckloads. Therefore, the modal shift from marine to rail or 

truck will result in increased emissions and increased safety hazards from more congestion on 

the railways and highways. 

Lake Carriers’ Association, GLMTF, Keystone Shipping, and others commented that the 

option of converting steamships to motor vessels is not feasible given the cost ($22 million per 

ship), the lack of shipyard capacity to convert all steamships, the time required, and the loss of 

capacity while the ships are being retrofit. For similar reasons it is not possible to build new 

vessels to replace these older steamships. 

10.4.2.3 Operating cost for vessels that use intermediate fuel will be significantly higher 

What Commenters Said:

In addition to the steamships that cannot use distillate fuel, a significant number of the 

remaining Great Lakes vessels will also have difficulties complying with the ECA fuel 

requirements. These are the 13 U.S. vessels that have Category 3 marine diesel propulsion 

engines and currently use residual or intermediate fuels in their engines. Several commenters 

wrote that while these vessels can switch to distillate, the additional cost would threaten their 

long-term viability and result in their losing business to rail and truck transportation. 

Another commenter noted that vessels previously burning intermediate fuel would face 

increased costs of $1/gallon. These costs would apply all the time; these vessels cannot engage 

in fuel switching to reduce costs because they would operate 100 percent of the time in the ECA. 

Others noted that the operating cost increase will be even higher when the distillate requirement 

begins in 2015; commenters said that currently distillate fuel on the lakes is priced 3 times more 

than residual fuel. Some commenters questioned whether these ships could switch to 1.0 percent 

S fuel by 2012 because the fuel won’t be available (see 10.4.2.4, below), forcing them to switch 

to distillate fuel earlier. 

Some commenters noted that mandating these intermediate-fuel vessels to burn low 

sulfur distillate fuel could require retrofitting or replacing some vessel engines at significant 

153 
expense to accommodate the cleaner but far more expensive, and its not clear if these retrofits 

could be made given cost and shipyard constraints (American Maritime Officers, 0318; Midwest 

Energy Resources, 0342), 

Some of these commenters pointed out that there is already fierce competition between 

lake and rail transportation for some services, and an increase in lake transportation operating 

costs would result in the loss of business to rail or even truck. According to this commenter, 

marine freight rates are low because ships don’t need to be replaced. If owners incur large 

capital costs to enable fuel switching or to employ an alternative technology to comply with the 

rule, the higher freight rates could mean loss of business to rail or truck since haulage or freight 

contracts can be lost to shipping and railroad competitors for just pennies a ton. Some 

commenters argued that these increased operating costs cannot be easily passed on to customers. 

Some commenters also noted that the ECA fuel requirements could come on top of requirements 

for ballast water and future energy efficiency standards, and that the combination of all of these 

requirements will make land-based transportation more attractive. 

Interlake Steamship noted that they recently repowered 2 steam vessels with Tier 2 

engines, and is planning to repower another. They said the $60M investment was based on the 

ability to use intermediate fuel; these projects would have very low or possibly negative return if 

the proposed rule is implemented (Interlake Steamship, 0268). Similarly, CSPA noted that for 

vessels costing on average $50 million and having decades-long lifespan, it is unrealistic to 

implement wholesale changes over only a two to five-year period. They said emission 

reductions can necessarily only take place within the investment profile of the current fleet and 

the difficult economic climate in both the U.S. and Canada. The Seaway is operating at 

approximately 50 percent capacity due to the economic crisis, and the proposed program would 

result in further reductions in traffic and economic activity, affecting their revenues and 

profitability (CSPA, 0359). 

10.4.2.4 Fuel meeting the 1.0 percent fuel sulfur standard for 2012 will not be available on 

the Great Lakes 

What Commenters Said:

Several commenters, expressed concern that a 1.0 percent fuel sulfur standard would 

drive the use of distillate fuel. Canadian Shipowners Association commented that, based on a 

recent survey of fuel refiners in Canada conducted by their members, there is little likelihood of 

residual fuels with a sulfur content of less than 1.0 percent being available to support the Great 

Lakes market in 2012. Canadian Shipowners Association claimed that, due to fuel stability 

issues, it is not technically feasible to blend intermediate fuel oils with MDO beyond a certain 

proportion; usually, 30 or 40 centistokes is the lower threshold of viscosity below which the fuel 

becomes unstable and therefore unusable. At this level of blending, it may be possible to meet 

the 1.0 percent limit, but this is highly unlikely. As a result, the 1.0 percent sulfur limit for 2012 

effectively means that vessels will be forced to burn distillate fuel while in waters covered by the 

proposed rule (including all of the Great Lakes) in order to be certain that the 1.0 percent limit 

has been met. Effectively, this imposes the 0.1 percent sulfur limit in 2012, not in 2015, as it 

should be under MARPOL Annex VI. Effectively, according to Canadian Shipowners 

Association, the marine industry will have no alternative but to switch to distillate fuels once the 

fuel standard is reduced to 1.0 percent sulfur content. 

154 
Matson Navigation Company expressed concern whether the fuels that would be required 

for a North American ECA would be available in 2012 and 2015. They stated there are 

indications that fuel suppliers will not provide such fuels in California and some other states 

which would effectively force Matson to use ultra low sulfur fuel in boilers, propulsion and 

auxiliary engines onboard vessels for an extended period of time. 

The American Petroleum Institute commented that removal of sulfur from heavy fuel oil 

is technically more difficult and much more costly than is the case for gasoline or diesel fuel, 

which are core refinery products. They stated that large volumes of low-sulfur residual marine 

fuel cannot reliably be produced at sulfur contents below 1.0 percent due to technical, quality, 

and economic constraints. In contrast, Murphy Oil, which supplies marine fuel to the Great 

Lakes, commented that they intend to meet the 1.0 percent fuel sulfur standard in 2012 with a 

residual fuel that will be created by blending with ultra low sulfur diesel fuel. 

The Canadian shipowners also noted that U.S. refineries are designed to produce 

gasoline, and that the Montreal refinery may close, further affecting the availability of fuel on the 

Lakes. 

10.4.2.5 The ECA requirements will lead to a transportation modal shift on the Great 

Lakes 

What Commenters Said:

The above comments raise two sets of issues: those associated with the use of lower 

sulfur fuel in steamships, and those associated with the increase price of fuel for other vessels 

that use residual or intermediate fuels. As a result of these effects, commenters predict there will 

be a serious transportation modal shift on the Great Lakes, away from marine shipping and 

toward rail and truck transportation. Many of these commenters criticize EPA for not 

considering the potential of modal shift with respect to the environmental impacts and increased 

congestion stemming from a significant increase in rail and truck traffic. Some of these 

commenters suggest that, unlike the demand for ocean marine transportation services, the 

demand for marine transportation on the Lakes is not inelastic and that increases in marine 

freight rates due to compliance with the fuel requirements could lead marine transportation 

consumers to use other modes of transportation. The Chamber of Marine Shipping cites a 

Canadian study that says shifting to distillate could induce a shift of 10-20 percent of existing 

market share to other modes of transportation (Chamber of Marine Shipping, 0353). More 

specifically, the Canadian Shipowners Association estimates that fuel costs will increase up to 

about 63 percent, resulting in operating costs increasing about 32 percent. This translates to a 15 

to 20 percent increase in commodity freight rates which will lead at least some commodities 

(aggregates, possibly some Canadian agricultural movements) to switch to other transportation 

modes. (Canadian Shipowners Association, 0245) 

The Canadian Shipowners Association also noted that in addition to increased fuel prices, 

the use of lower sulfur fuel will lead to increased transportation time making ship transportation 

less attractive. MDO has a higher calorific value by weight but a lower calorific value by 

volume. As a result, engine rack settings will have to be increased by about 10 percent to obtain 

the same power output, and it is unknown if fuel racks will be able to adjust to these changes due 

to the age of the ships. This could lead to a speed loss of 2.5 to 5 percent, although this has not 

been quantified. 

155 
One commenter noted that freshwater shipping has been a major factor in controlling rail 

costs and absent that control railroads would raise their rates – potentially to the rates charged by 

trucks. Thus the higher operating costs will result in modal shift to rail and trucks, whose rates 

will also increase. One commenter noted that the increased fuel prices will affect more than just 

the vessels that operate exclusively on the Lakes. This commenter noted that foreign vessels will 

not want to incur the additional cost of ECA-compliant fuel for the 2,340 mile voyage up the 

seaway system to discharge or pick up cargo on the Lakes. Instead, they will call on coastal 

ports, leading to more traffic by rail or truck to move bulk materials to those ports. The net 

result is that the costs for everything using these materials, from electricity to steel, will increase. 

10.4.2.6 The ECA requirements will lead to source shifts on the Great Lakes 

What Commenters Said:

Several commenters raised the possibility of source shifts as a result of the application of 

the ECA requirements within the Great Lakes. According to these commenters, centers of 

production will move from the Great Lakes to other areas of the country, or even to other 

countries where the environmental laws are less stringent. 

10.4.2.7 The ECA requirements will lead to Refinery Product Shifts 

What Commenters Said: 

Murphy Oil commented that they can blend fuel to meet the 1.0 percent standard. 

However, the product that they currently sell to ships on the Great Lakes (#6 fuel oil), will need 

to find a different market beginning in 2015, since it cannot meet the 0.1 percent fuel sulfur limit. 

This fuel oil will need to be transported to other locations by rail and/or truck, which will result 

in additional emissions. 

10.4.3 Our Response 

The stakeholders who submitted the comments summarized above voiced the concern 

that the program will have significant adverse effects on Great Lakes transportation. With regard 

to steamers, the concern is that these vessels cannot safely use compliant fuel and will therefore 

be removed from the fleet. This removal of marine transportation capacity will necessarily result 

in a modal shift to rail and truck since new cargo vessels cannot be built in time to replace this 

ship capacity and, even if they could, the cost would be prohibitive. With regard to vessels that 

use intermediate fuel, there are two concerns. The first concern is that 1.0 percent sulfur residual 

fuel will not be available in 2012, forcing vessels to use distillate fuel. The second concern is 

that the additional operating costs associated with lower sulfur fuel are so high as to render 

marine transportation noncompetitive with rail and truck. If vessels owners lose freight, there is 

a risk their operations will become financially unsound and these ships will also be withdrawn 

from the fleet, adding to a transportation modal shift. The loss of capacity and increased 

operating costs will also lead to source shifts for the steel, cement, and oil industries. These 

modal and source shifts will lead to more, not less, air pollution, and will put the local economy 

at risk. 

With regard to the steamship concerns, these comments and follow-up conversations with 

ship owners have clarified the special challenges posed by the use of lower sulfur fuel distillate 

156 
fuel in steam engines. While we continue to believe this is a technical problem that can be 

solved, we acknowledge that this safety concern must be addressed for existing steamships. 

These technical concerns led us to consider a number of options to address the safety issue. 

Since our proposal was published, however, Congress acted to address this concern by placing a 

prohibition on EPA’s use of funds, in this fiscal year, to finalize application of the ECA fuel 

sulfur requirements to internal waters for existing steamships that operate exclusively within the 

Great Lakes. Therefore, we are excluding Great Lakes steamships from the ECA fuel sulfur 

requirements. For the purpose of this exclusion, Great Lakes steamships means vessels, 

operating exclusively on the Great Lakes and Saint Lawrence Seaway, whose primary propulsion 

is a steam turbine or steam reciprocating engine. In addition, these steamships must have been in 

service on the Great Lakes prior to October 30, 2009. The exclusion does not extend to diesel 

propulsion Category 3 vessels with auxiliary boilers. The immediate impact of this revision to 

our program is that the existing 13 U.S.-flag steamships may continue to operate on the Great 

Lakes with no change to their operation, and thus this pressure for a modal shift from marine to 

land-based transportation is removed. 

With regard to the availability of 1 percent sulfur intermediate fuel on the Lakes, studies 

performed in support of the 2008 Amendment to Annex VI and the North American ECA 

application conclude that 1.0 percent sulfur fuel will generally be available in the marine fuels 

market. The International Maritime Organization established a Cross Government/Industry 

Scientific Group of Experts to evaluate the effects of the various fuel standard options under 

consideration at that time. This expert group engaged the services of EnSys to assess the impact 

of these fuel options using the WORLD model. The final report from the Experts Study presents 

contains details on the capabilities of the WORLD model and explains why the WORLD model 

was chosen as the appropriate tool for modeling the economic impacts of the different fuel 

options. Two of the scenarios modeled in support of this effort were consideration of a 1.0 

percent sulfur global requirement and evaluation of a 1.0 percent sulfur requirement for multiple 

ECAs (North America, Europe/Mediterranean Sea/Black Sea, and Asia) totaling 15 percent of 

global bunker fuel consumption. The supporting work performed by EnSys for API, considered 

a global 1.0 percent fuel sulfur requirement to drive the use of distillate fuel, but the multiple 

ECA scenario to be met through the use of lower sulfur residual fuel. In its final report, EnSys 

stated that it would require a sulfur standard below 0.5 percent to force a conversion to distillate 

fuel. They did note that refiners may choose to blend residual fuel with distillate blendstocks to 

comply with a 1.0 percent sulfur requirement rather than investing in residual fuel processing 

equipment. This modeling suggests that 1.0 percent sulfur residual fuels can be supplied in 

quantities large enough to support the proposed North American ECA in addition to existing 

ECAs in the Baltic and North Sea. In response to the comments from the Canadian Shipowners 

Association, the characteristics of U.S. refineries (designed to produce gasoline) were reflected 

in this analysis. While the WORLD model may not have taken into account the situation at the 

Montreal refinery, it is not clear from these comments why the Montreal refinery is expected to 

close or whether it is likely to be a direct result of this program. 

API’s comments are consistent with the EnSys study. API suggested that removing 

sulfur from residual fuel is difficult and costly. The EnSys study noted that refiners would 

choose to blend distillate into bunker fuels rather than remove sulfur through residual fuel 

processing. API expressed concern over whether large volumes of lower sulfur residual fuel can 

be produced, not whether it can be produced at all. The EnSys study shows that lower sulfur 

residual fuel could be produced in sufficient quantities for multiple ECAs in quantities greater 

157 
than needed to supply the U.S./Canada ECA and all other known ECAs, but not for a global 

requirement. In addition, to the extent that equivalent technology, such as SOX scrubbers, is used 

to comply with this requirement, the demand for 1.0 percent sulfur fuel would be reduced. 

Canadian Shipowners’ Association commented that blending current residual fuel with 

enough distillate to reduce the sulfur content below 1.0 percent could result in very low viscosity 

fuel. However, this argument focuses on blending distillate fuel into current residual fuel rather 

than producing a lower sulfur residual fuel. In other words, CSA did not consider the amount, or 

fuel sulfur content, of the distillate that must be blended into the refinery bottoms to create the 

marine residual oil in the first place. By blending a low sulfur distillate into the refinery 

bottoms, a lower sulfur residual fuel oil can be produced. This lower sulfur residual fuel could 

then be blended with marine distillate oil, under current practices, to make the various IFO 

grades. Finally, Murphy Oil, which supplies bunker fuel to the Great Lakes carriers, stated that it 

can produce the 1.0 percent sulfur residual fuel. 

We acknowledge that just because 1.0 percent sulfur fuel is available, either through 

refining or blending, this does not necessarily mean it will be available on the Great Lakes. As 

noted above, Great Lakes shippers raised concerns that it would not be available and they would 

be required to purchase distillate fuel to comply with the 1.0 percent sulfur requirement. 

However, we note that they also commented that residual fuels used on the Great Lakes have 

much lower baseline sulfur levels than residual fuels used in vessels operating in the oceans. 

This is important because it means that less processing or blending of the fuel would be 

necessary to meet the 1.0 percent sulfur limit. Based on this observation, and the comments 

from Murphy Oil, we continue to expect that bunkering terminals on the Great Lakes will be able 

to supply 1.0 percent residual fuel. 

Nevertheless, this final rule contains a provision that would allow ships on the Great 

Lakes to purchase fuel with fuel sulfur content in excess of 1.0 percent to comply with the ECA 

requirements. Specifically, in lieu of a study of the availability of 1.0 percent sulfur fuel on the 

Great Lakes recommended by Congress, we are including a provision that would allow the use of 

1.0 percent fuel sulfur (10,000 ppm) standard if residual fuel meeting that standard is not 

available on the Great Lakes. This provision will ensure that operators on the Great Lakes will 

be able to buy marine residual fuels when the 10,000 ppm S standard applies even if compliant 

10,000 ppm S fuel is not available. Under this provision, if marine residual fuel meeting the 

10,000 ppm S standard is not available, it will not be a violation of our standards for vessel 

operators to bunker and use marine residual fuel with sulfur content above 10,000 ppm S 

provided the fuel they purchase is the lowest sulfur marine residual fuel available at the port. We 

believe this market based approach will provide a significant incentive to fuel suppliers to 

provide 10,000 ppm S fuel, while giving Great Lakes shippers confidence that marine residual 

fuel will be available for their use during the 10,000 ppm S fuel program. 

With regard to the cost of 0.1 percent sulfur fuel on the Great Lakes, many commenters 

are concerned about price differential between residual and distillate fuel. Some commenters 

said distillate costs three times more than residual; others said that distillate costs $1.00 per 

gallon more. The Canadian Shipowners Association study of potential mode shifts on the Lakes 

as a result of applying the ECA fuel requirements estimated fuel cost increases in 2012 and 

2015. Using publicly posted prices at Sarnia for various marine fuels for 2008, and spot prices 

for June 7, 2008 and July 10, 2009, they estimate that fuel costs will increase up to 63 percent in 

2012 (based on the June 7, 2008 price differential between Bunker C and MDO) and up to 76 

158 
percent in 2016 (based on the differential between Bunker C and MGO plus a $100 premium 

reflecting a “likely” cost increase by refiners). Their study estimates price differential to be 

between $86 and $116 per tonne for MDO, and $106 to $130 per tonne for MGO+$100, 

compared to Bunker C. However, it should be noted that these price differentials for Bunker C, 

MDO, and MGO+$100 (fuel prices for 2008 on average and June 7, 2008 specifically) occurred 

during a period of extreme prices for distillate. The world fuel market was experiencing very 

strong demand for distillate in the mid-2008 period which pushed up the price for distillate to 

near-historic highs. This market condition persisted until it peaked in August, 2008; by 

December 2008 prices dropped significantly and prices in 2009 have more closely tracked 

historic rates. Therefore, a more appropriate comparison is the July 10, 2009 baseline. When the 

data reported in the Canadian study for these prices is used, they estimates fuel cost increases of 

28 percent for 2012 (based on the differential between Bunker C and MGO) and 47 percent for 

2015 (based on the differential between Bunker C and MDO+$100), which are estimated to 

increase operating costs by about 6 and 9 percent, respectively. 

A price differential of $1.00 per gallon is about the same as a differential of about $500 

per tonne of fuel. While such a differential is possible, having occurred in rather unique 

circumstances in the past, and is unlikely to recur if the supply and demand fuel markets remain 

roughly in equilibrium (i.e., there are no unexpected shocks in the market that would lead the 

price of residual or distillate fuel to be abnormally high) and the oil prices are close to those 

being projected by EIA. On December 6, the WTI oil price was $75.47 per barrel. This is 

significantly higher than the $57/barrel WTI used on our refinery modeling, yet the price 

difference between residual and distillate fuel is close to our estimate of $145/tonne, or 

$0.30/gallon (see Table 10-2). Because residual and distillate fuel are commodities, there is no 

reason to believe that the price differential between residual and distillate fuel on the Great Lakes 

will be vastly different from the differential on the world market. 

Table 10-1 Fuel Price Differential, Residual and Distillate Fuels 

Houston Singapore Rotterdam Fujairah 

$/tonne 

Distillate $642.5 $627.0 $619.5 $634.5 

IFO 380 $459.5 $472.5 $454.0 $472.0 

Difference $183.0 $154.5 $165.5 $162.5 

$/gallon 

Distillate $2.03 $1.99 $1.96 $2.01 

IFO 380 $1.69 $1.74 $1.67 $1.74 

Difference $0.34 $0.25 $0.29 $0.27 

WTI $75.47 

distillate $315.80 gallon/tonne 

IFO 380 271.56 gallon/tonne 

Source: www.bunkerworld.com, 12/7/2009 

159 
Table 10-2 Estimated Marine Fuel Costs (Source: RIA, Chap 5) 

REFERENCE CASE HIGH PRICE CASE 

FUEL UNITS 

Baseline ECA Baseline ECA 

$/bbl $ 61.75 $ 62.23 $ 102.70 $ 103.03 MGO 

$/tonne $ 464 $ 468 $ 772 $ 775 

$/bbl $ 61.89 $ 62.95 $ 102.38 $ 103.70 MDO 

$/tonne $ 458 $ 466 $ 757 $ 767 

$/bbl $ 49.87 $ 49.63 $ 83.14 $ 82.52 IFO 

$/tonne $ 322 $ 321 $ 538 $ 534 

With regard to transportation modal shift, the analysis for this program relies on the 

assumption of nearly perfectly inelastic demand for marine transportation services. For oceangoing vessels, this effect is fairly clear: to ship a container from Asia to the United States there 

are only two options: ship or air, and air is several times more expensive than ship and therefore 

is not a feasible option for all but the lightest or most perishable goods. 

We acknowledge that there are alternative, land-based modes of transportation available 

for goods that are moved on the Great Lakes (truck and rail). However, as noted by many of the 

commenters, the USACE study shows that the next least costly mode of transportation would 

result in an addition $3.6 billion of transportation costs per year for Great Lakes industries. The 

study also reports that a Great Lakes bulk carrier can move one ton of cargo 607 miles on one 

gallon of fuel; a train can move a ton of cargo only 202 miles on one gallon of fuel, and a truck 

only 59 miles. The Great Lakes St. Lawrence Seaway Study performed by Transport Canada et 

al. (2007) provides an estimate of the cost savings offered by the Great Lakes St. Lawrence 

Seaway by commodity (Table 3.1, reproduced below). This information shows that the next 

least expensive form of transportation would cost an addition $9.35/ton transported , for metallic 

minerals and ores, and the average cost savings for shipping by the Lakes is about $14.80 per 

ton. In comparison, the fuel requirements will impose an addition cost of about $0.40 per ton. 

Given all of this information, it is hard to imagine that the additional fuel costs associated with 

using ECA-compliant fuel will result in a large transportation modal shift, especially since rail 

and truck transportation will be required to use ULSD in the same time frame. 

Table 10-3 Transportation Savings Offered by the GLSLS by commodity 

(in descending order of total shipper savings, numbers rounded to nearest 1,000) 

COMMIDITY GROUP SAMPLE SIZE TONS SAVINGS/TON TOTAL SAVINGS 

Aggregates and Slag 37,813.000 $16.03 $605,988,000

Metallic Minerals and Ores 62,395,300 $19.35 $583,464,000

Coal, Coke, Pet Code 40,783,600 $13.36 $544,961,000

Iron, Steel and Other Metals 12,872,200 $32.49 $418,219,000

Non-metallic Minerals 8,883,600 $19,50 $173,224,000

Wheat 8,046,500 $17.37 $139,776,000

Petroleum Products 3,932,500 $18.60 $73,137,000

Other Grains and Feed 

Ingredients 

1,819,400 $28.20 $51,330,000

Soybeans 1,691,800 $22.26 $37,667,000

Corn 1,169,300 $23.61 $27,614,000

Total 179,407,200 $14.80 $2,665,360,000

160 
Source: Great Lakes St. Lawrence Seaway Study, Final Report, Fall 2007, available at http://www.glslsstudy.com/Supporting%20documents/GLSLS%20finalreport%20Fall%202007.pdf 

The price differentials provided in the study performed for the Canadian Shipowners 

Association suggests that the rate increases associated with fuel cost increases along the order 

expected to result from this program are small: 6 percent rate increase in 2012 and 9 percent 

increase in 2015 as a result of switching to MDO (2012) and MGO+$100 (2015). These rate 

increase are not likely to be high enough to provoke shippers to switch to higher cost rail or truck 

transportation. It should be noted that even at the higher price differentials cited by the Canadian 

Shipowners Association, their study suggests that while such high fuel prices would lead to a 20 

percent shift in the aggregate/construction market, the main impacts on the salt and Canadian 

petroleum industries would be an inability to re-capture market share already lost to rail. Also, 

while they note agricultural freight could decrease by 12.3 percent, this would be constrained by 

the carrying capacity of the rail system. 

In addition, it is common practice in the marine industry to include a fuel cost differential 

in transportation contracts, passing those costs on to the industrial transportation purchaser. As 

long as the capacity is there, and as noted above the provision for steam ships and the special 

provisions for 1.0 percent sulfur fuel are designed to retain the shipping capacity on the Great 

Lakes, the fuel differential for ships will be much less than shifting to rail or truck. This is 

particularly true given the limited capacity for the rail and truck industries, and the infeasibility 

of a construction program to provide sufficient rail cars, locomotives, and trucks to replace the 

Great Lakes vessels. As noted by several commenters, there currently aren’t enough rail cars 

and truck to take over the transportation of aggregates, iron ore, coal, and other bulk goods to 

facilities along the lakes, and such a building campaign would cost many times the increased 

costs associated with the program. This will also limit any possible modal shift caused by 

increased operating costs on the Great Lakes. Also would need to be considered are the 

additional costs in road congestion, both on the rails and on the interstates, the additional costs in 

time, for loading and unloading individual railcars and trucks, as well as movement over these 

different distances. Finally, operating costs for rail and truck transportation will be changing, 

due to the requirements for ultra-low sulfur diesel fuel, and personnel costs may be different. 

In sum, while our costs analysis shows that operating costs will increase for all vessels, 

including Great Lakes vessels, this increase will not be so high as to cause the removal of vessels 

from the U.S. Great Lakes fleet or the shift of significant amounts of cargo from ships to landbased transportation in the Great Lakes area. It should be noted that about half of the large U.S. 

Great Lakes cargo vessels already operate on distillate fuel and have for some time. These U.S. 

vessels are subject to our domestic federal engine standards and are already unable to purchase 

distillate fuel in the United States that is not compliant with the ECA requirements. Also, at least 

some of the Great Lakes vessels currently operating on residual fuel are ocean-going vessels that 

will be required to comply with the relevant engine and fuel requirements as they pass through 

the North American ECA on their way to the Lakes. 

With regard to the potential speed reductions that may result from using MDO, the 

Canadian comments were unsure about the actual impacts. However, a speed reduction of 2.5 to 

5 percent may be within the existing speed variations on the Lakes due to weather, congestion at 

the locks, port scheduling, etc. Also, shipowners have indicated to EPA that they are constantly 

changing their scheduling based on market needs, and therefore it may be difficult to estimate 

161 
with any precision the “typical” time of a ship voyage on the lakes and timing changes that may 

be associated with fuel changes. 

We acknowledge that investing in upgrades and retrofits in an uncertain regulatory 

climate is difficult. At the same time, however, we cannot delay implementation of standards 

due to private investment decisions. We expect that most companies that operate on the Lakes 

will be able to accommodate the new requirements. To address those cases of extreme hardship, 

we have developed an economic hardship provision that may help companies in these situations 

adjust to the new regulatory regime. This is discussed in more detail in Section VI of the 

preamble. Specifically, at the suggestion of Congress, we are finalizing a provision that provides 

for relief in the event of serious economic hardship that allows Great Lakes shippers to petition 

EPA for a temporary exemption from the 2015 fuel sulfur standards (0.1 percent sulfur). The 

shipper must show that despite taking all possible business, technical, and economic steps to 

comply with the fuel sulfur requirements, the burden of compliance costs would create a serious 

economic hardship for the company. Once again, this provision will help reduce the likelihood 

of a reduction in carrying capacity on the Lakes. 

The combination of these three provisions (steamers, 1.0 percent fuel requirement, 

economic hardship) is expected to reduce or eliminate any pressure for transportation modal shift 

on the Great Lakes. 

For similar reasons, we do not expect there to be a source shift as a result of the provision 

extending the ECA requirements within the Great Lakes. We do not expect there to be a 

reduction in shipping capacity on the Great Lakes, and therefore bulk carriers will continue to be 

able to provide transportation for the steel, cement, utility, and refining industries. While the 

fuel price differential will increase operating costs, this increase will not be large enough to 

warrant taking steel or other production offshore, or to the interior of the country, since the costs 

of moving a plant are not likely to exceed the additional operating costs associated with the 

program. For example, if steelmakers shut Great Lakes furnaces and take steel production 

offshore, they will incur not only the costs of ramping up production elsewhere but also the costs 

associated with transporting the finished product back into the United States, including the 

additional costs associated with operating in the coastal ECA and the additional costs associated 

with moving the goods by rail or truck to the plants where they will eventually be used as inputs 

to make other goods. 

With respect to a refinery shift, it is not clear that transporting #6 fuel to other facilities 

for their use will necessarily result in increased emissions. This will depend on how much fuel is 

transferred, the final use of the fuel (e.g., in a power plant subject to emission controls) and how 

the fuel is transferred (by low-emission heavy-duty trucks or locomotives equipped with Tier 3 

or Tier 4 engines). Any resulting emission impacts should be compared to the emissions from 

Category 3 engines that currently operate on the Lakes and that use higher sulfur residual fuel 

emissions, making them the equivalent of an uncontrolled power plant operating on the lakes. In 

any case, it is not clear that moving large amounts of #6 fuel away from the Lakes will be 

necessary as it may be used offered for sale for use outside the ECA or for use on vessels with 

SOX scrubbers or vessels that operate outside of the ECA. 

162 
Finally, in response to these comments and at the suggestion of Congress53, we will 

perform an additional analysis of the economic impacts of the application of the ECA 

requirements on ships operating on the Great Lakes. This study, which we expect to complete by 

summer 2010, will be developed cooperatively with stakeholders and will examine the economic 

impacts of the rule on great lakes shipping including whether these standards may lead to a 

modal shift away from marine transportation and toward transportation by rail or truck. We will 

take into account data and studies submitted by participants as well as other information. 

In the meantime, we are finalizing this rule as proposed, including the Great Lakes in the 

internal waterways to be covered by the ECA requirements through our authority granted in the 

Act to Prevent Pollution from Ships (see Sections 5.4 and 5.5 of this document for more 

information about APPS). 

10.5 Comments on EPA’s Economic Impact Analysis regarding the Great 

Lakes 

We performed an Economic Impact Assessment to estimate the social costs associated 

with the proposed program and how those costs will be shared across stakeholders. This analysis 

was performed at the national level, for the program as a whole. The total estimated social costs 

of the coordinated strategy in 2030 are equivalent to the estimated engineering compliance costs 

of the program, at approximately $3.1 billion. We estimate that compliance with the coordinated 

strategy would increase the price of a new vessel by 0.5 to 2 percent, depending on the vessel 

type. The price impact of the coordinated strategy on the marine transportation services sector 

would vary, depending on the route and the amount of time spent in waterways covered by the 

engine and fuel controls (the U.S. ECA and U.S. internal waters covered by the coordinated 

strategy). For example, we estimate that the cost of operating a ship in liner service between 

Singapore, Seattle, and Los Angeles/Long Beach, which includes about 1,700 nm of operation in 

waterways covered by the coordinated strategy, would increase by about 3 percent. On the 

Lakes, operating costs would increase by the full amount of the fuel price increase (see response 

in Section 10.4.3, above). 

What Commenters Said:

Several commenters suggested that EPA is incorrect in assuming nearly perfectly 

inelastic demand for marine transportation services on the Lakes. Unlike ocean-going marine 

transportation, Great Lakes marine transportation market is elastic because there are alternative 

modes of transportation available in this geographic market, namely rail and truck. 

(ArcelorMittal, 2080). The Transportation Institute notes considerable attention and effort has 

been given to encourage shippers to consider waterborne transportation for coastwise movement 

of cargo that otherwise would be carried on truck or rail, with the goal of relieving traffic 

congestion, saving infrastructure dollars, reducing greenhouse gases, limiting harmful surface 

runoff, and avoiding highway fatalities. This suggests that demand for this transportation is 

more elastic. (Transportation Institute, 0302). 

 

53 111th Congress, “Department of the Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2010” and 

associated legislative report. 

163 
Our Response: 

As explained in the RIA for this rule and in the discussion in Section 10.4.4, our 

assumption that the demand for marine transportation services is nearly perfectly inelastic relies 

on the observation that most cargoes shipped by vessel over the Great Lakes could be shipped by 

rail or truck only at great expense: by using hundreds of rail cars or thousands of trucks per load. 

This makes demand for marine transportation inelastic since, as noted above, the next most 

favorable mode is expensive and difficult. The price differential between shipping by vessel and 

shipping by rail favors shipping in most cases, and the small increase in operating costs 

associated with this rule is not likely to change that dynamic, especially given the upcoming 

stringent standards for rail engines and fuels. 

Nevertheless, in response to these comments and as suggested by Congress, we will 

perform an additional analysis of the economic impacts of the application of the ECA 

requirements on ships operating on the Great Lakes. This study, which we expect to complete by 

Summer, 2010, will be developed cooperatively with stakeholders and will examine whether 

these standards may lead to a modal shift away from marine transportation and toward 

transportation by rail or truck. We may reconsider the assumption of nearly perfectly inelastic 

demand for marine transportation services on the Great Lakes, depending on the outcome of this 

study. 

In the meantime, we are finalizing this rule as proposed, including the Great Lakes in the 

internal waterways to be covered by the ECA requirements through our authority granted in the 

Act to Prevent Pollution from Ships (see Sections 5.4 and 5.5 of this document for more 

information about APPS). If the study referred to above suggests a different approach is more 

appropriate, it will be addressed in a separate future rulemaking. 

10.6 Comments Requesting Extended Comment Period, Separate Rule 

10.6.1 EPA Should Extend the Comment Period for this Rule 

What Commenters Said: 

Several commenters requested that EPA extend comment period to raise issues so EPA 

will have a complete record it can consider before finalizing the standards. Several of these 

commenters expressed concern that EPA only recently extended the proposed regulations to 

include vessels that operate solely on the Great Lakes, and that this action was taken without any 

meaningful consultation with affected parties and with only 30 days to provide comment on the 

rule. See Calumet Area Industrial Commission (0332); Calumet Area Industrial Commission 

(0332); Duluth Area Chamber of Commerce (0282); Keystone Shipping (0349); ArcelorMittel 

USA, 0280; Greater Cleveland Area Partnership; Great Lakes Metro Chambers Coalition. 

Others requested 90 additional days for comment (Agri-Fine, 0315; Development Association, 

0279; Kindra Lake Towing, 0291; CSX, 0300; Superior Mayor (0352); City of Sarnia, ON 

(0306). The Canadian Shipowners Association stated that while the proposal was made available 

7/1/09, it was not published until 8/29/09; published rule set out comment period deadline of 

9/28/09. They noted that normal practice is to allow 30-90 days after publication, and stated that 

more time is needed to give this issue the consideration it requires and therefore EPA should 

allowed the maximum permitted time for comment on the official, published version of the 

proposed rule if it intends on proceeding to the final rulemaking with this flawed regulation 

164 
(Canadian Shipowners Association, 0245). Kinder Morgan, Raffin Construction Co., Two 

Harbors Area Chamber of Commerce, and Ozinga Materials also requested a 90-day extension of 

the comment period (Kinder Morgan, 0326; Raffin Construction Co., 0344; Two Harbors Area 

Chamber of Commerce, 0324; Ozinga Materials, 0343) 

Some commenters noted that the 30-days comment period of the proposed rules and the 

short planned implementation scheduled remove any feasible option for the development and 

implementation of survival business options (Warner Petroleum Corporation, 0251; Keystone 

Shipping, 0349) 

Our Response: 

EPA began this action with an Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, published on 

December 7, 2007 (72 FR 69522). We received specific comments on the application of a fuel 

standard on the Great Lakes from the Lake Carriers’ Association (see EPA-HQ-OAR-2007-

0121-0101). 

Given that the standards we are adopting under the Clean Air Act are largely consistent 

with the Annex VI requirements and our ANPRM, and given the opportunity for interested 

persons to view the proposal well before it was published, we believe commenters have had 

sufficient time to review the substance of the proposal and prepare their written comments. This 

is supported by the large number of comments we received on the proposal and the ANPRM 

from a wide range of interested parties. See response in Section 1.3 for additional discussion. 

Our proposal was a direct outgrowth of the ANRPM and our March 2009 proposal. The 

NPRM was signed June 26, 2009 and was made available on our website on July 1, 2009 

(www.epa.gov/otaq/oceanvessels.htm). An e-mail note informing all parties that commented on 

our ANRPM notifying them that the NPRM was available was sent by EPA on July 1, 2009. 

The comment period was extended to September 28, 2009. We have accepted and responded to 

comments received as late as November 30, 2009. 

The implementation schedule for the ECA fuel requirements will not begin earlier than 

August 2012 and this final rule contains various provisions that will help owners of Great Lakes 

vessels as they develop their compliance plans. 

10.6.2 EPA Should Establish a Separate Action for the Great Lakes 

What Commenters Said: 

Several commenters were concerned that EPA did not adequately study the effects of 

applying the ECA requirements on the Great Lakes, with once commenter stating that EPA must 

simply concede that it lacks the scientific data ... to justify extending the coastal ECAs to the 

Great Lakes; this commenter recommended EPA postpone implementation until the need has 

been substantiated (Lake Carriers’ Association, 0345). Other commenters requested that EPA 

suspend application of ECA rules to the Great Lakes region and establish a separate regulatory 

action to focus on appropriate and workable emission regulations for Great Lakes vessel 

operators. As a part of a separate regulatory action, they asked that EPA conduct a thorough 

analysis of the impact of emissions from Great Lakes vessels on regional air quality, an analysis 

of the technical challenges unique to Great Lakes vessels, an analysis of potential modal shift 

165 
impacts, and an analysis of employment impacts in the Great Lakes region. EPA should develop 

and disclose sound scientific data to show whether and to what extent fuel from these vessels 

presents risks to public health; give the public adequate time to consider the data; and disclose 

alternatives that will both reduce pollution and preserve the economic activity that relies on 

movement of cargo across the Great Lakes. Finally, they urged EPA to work cooperatively with 

Great Lakes vessel operators to determine if there are alternative options available, such as 

exhaust emission control technologies. Several of these commenters also requested that EPA 

suspend application of the ECA to the Great Lakes until such an action is completed. Keystone 

Shipping enclosed a copy of their report, Great Lakes Steam Vessels Regional Contribution for 

consideration. (American Great Lakes Ports Association, 0262; Wisconsin Commercial Ports 

Association, 0368; American Maritime Officers, 0318; ArcelorMittel USA, 0280; Great Lakes 

Metro Chambers Coalition, 0258; Wisconsin Commercial Ports Association, 0368; Duluth 

Seaway, 0283; Duluth-Superior Propeller Club, 0292; AISI, 0295; CGLI, 0296; Transportation 

Institute, 0302; Port of Cleveland, 0310; DTE, 0328; Greater Cleveland Partnership, 0330; 

Midwest Energy Resources, 0342; Minnesota Chamber of Commerce, 0350; Chamber of Marine 

Commerce, 0353; CSPA, 0359; USS, 0376; Lafarge, 0383; Duluth Area Chamber of Commerce, 

0282; Calumet Area Industrial Commission, 0332); Government of Canada, 0252; Great Lakes 

Metro Chambers Coalition, 0258; Keystone Shipping, 0349; Lake Carriers’ Association, 0345; 

Great Lakes Maritime Task Force, 0269; 

Our Response: 

For all of the reasons explained elsewhere in the RIA for this rule and in this S&A 

document concerning the inventory and air quality impacts of ships that operate on the Great 

Lakes, we are not excluding the Great Lakes from this final rule. 

Nevertheless, in response to these comments and as suggested by Congress, we will 

perform an additional analysis of the economic impacts of the application of the ECA 

requirements on ships operating on the Great Lakes. This study, which we expect to complete by 

Summer, 2010, will be developed cooperatively with stakeholders and will examine the 

economic impacts of the rule on great lakes shipping including whether these standards may lead 

to a modal shift away from marine transportation and toward transportation by rail or truck. We 

will take into account data and studies submitted by participants as well as other information. 

In the meantime, we are finalizing this rule as proposed, including the Great Lakes in the 

internal waterways to be covered by the ECA requirements through our authority granted in the 

Act to Prevent Pollution from Ships (see Sections 5.4 and 5.5 of this document for more 

information about APPS). 

10.7 Other Comments on EPA’s Analysis for the Great Lakes Region 

10.7.1 EPA must consider National Security impacts and energy impacts 

What Commenters Said:

One commenter noted that 50 percent of lakers have been laid up for past 2 years. The 

industry expected recovery by 2012 but with ECA that is not likely. This means that more 

mariners will lose their jobs to injudicious regulation and the result will be fewer merchant 

marines available for national security functions (American Maritime Officers, 0318) 

166 
Another commenter expressed concern that modal transportation shift from marine to rail 

and truck transportation would also compromise efforts to reduce dependence on foreign 

supplies of petroleum products (AISI, 0295) 

Our Response: 

We understand the importance of the merchant marine to the national security of the 

United States. However, we do not think that our rule, in and of itself, will result in a change in 

the amount of goods transported on the lakes by vessels or the number of merchant mariners 

employed in this sector. Nevertheless, we can consider this aspect of the fuel requirements in the 

study which we plan to complete by Summer 2010 to look at the economic impacts of the 

application of the ECA requirements within the Great Lakes. 

For the reasons discussed in 10.4.3, above, we do not expect there to be a transportation 

modal shift from marine to rail or truck. Therefore, we do not expect increases in fuel 

consumption from that shift and greater dependence on foreign energy than would otherwise be 

the case. 

10.7.2 EPA must consider the Impacts on the Canadian Economy 

What Commenters Said:

The Maritime Trades Department and The Great Lakes Maritime Task Force commented 

that EPA did not take into consideration the impact of this rule on Canada, its maritime industry, 

or the related industries there and in the U.S. (Maritime Trades Department, 0321; Great Lakes 

Maritime Task Force, 0269). Canadian Shipowners Association recommended that EPA should 

develop a binational, cooperative approach for the Lakes with Canada (Canadian Shipowners 

Association, 0245) 

Our Response:

We are not legally required to take into account the economic impacts of regulatory 

action on the Canadian economy. However, Canadian vessels were included in the analysis 

performed for this rule in the foreign vessel category for our inventory and cost analyses. 

10.7.3 EPA must consider the impacts on small businesses that operate on the Great 

Lakes 

What Commenters Said: 

The Great Lakes Maritime Task Force (0269), among others, noted that EPA is required 

by the Regulatory Flexibility Act to consider the impacts of the proposed program on small 

businesses. The Proposal completely ignores the impact on shippers who are small businesses. 

Our Response:

We have examined the impacts of this requirement on small businesses operating 

regulated vessels on the Great Lakes for the final rule. It can be found in Chapter 8 of the RIA 

for this rule. Based on this analysis, we find that this provision will not have a significant impact 

167 
on a substantial number of small businesses. In addition, as noted above, we are including 

provisions with respect to steamships, fuels, and economic hardship that may help any small 

businesses who have difficulty complying with the requirements. 

10.7.4 EPA Must Consider Alternative Approaches for the Great Lakes 

We received comments urging us to consider alternatives. One set of comments 

recommended a different fuel sulfur limit. Another recommended an averaging program. 

10.7.4.1 EPA should consider an alternative fuel sulfur limit 

What Commenters Said:

Some commenters suggested EPA consider alternative programs for ships that operate on 

the Great Lakes. 

A number of commenters stated that the residual fuel used by Great Lakes vessels has a 

lower sulfur content than residual fuel used by ships operating in the ocean. Several commenters 

said that the sulfur content in residual fuel sold in the Great Lakes is less than 2.5 percent but not 

as low as 1.0 percent. The Canadian Shipowners Association (CSA) commented that he current 

bunker fuel range is 1.6-2.7 percent sulfur and this is blended with various proportions of marine 

diesel oil (MDO). CSA and Lower Lakes Towing commented that the current sulfur content of 

residual fuels sold on the Great Lakes is 1.7 percent. Keystone stated that the average sulfur 

content for all residual fuel consumed by their eight vessels, from 2006 through August 2009, 

was 1.62 percent and that the weighted average for all heavy fuel burning Jones Act vessels is 

estimated at about 1.55 percent sulfur. Great Lakes Marine Task Force commented that one of 

their members calculated an average fuel sulfur level of the heavy and intermediate fuel they 

consumed over the past 4.5 years was 1.5 percent. Murphy Oil commented that its refinery 

terminal is the only fuel supply location for vessels operating in the upper Great Lakes and that 

its residual fuel averages about 1.5 percent sulfur. 

CSA and Lower Lake Towing recommended that the 1.0 percent fuel sulfur standard be 

replaced with a 1.5 percent fuel sulfur standard that applies until 2020, with further reductions as 

technology and fuel supplies will allow for. They commented that fuel suppliers would be able 

to make 1.5 percent fuel residual fuel available on the Great Lakes. Keystone recommended a 

2.5 percent fuel sulfur standard for domestic Great Lake shipping beginning in 2012, followed by 

a 0.1 percent sulfur standard in 2020. 

One commenter suggested a solution that would preserve net environmental benefits 

would be to reduce the fuel sulfur limit from 4.5 percent to 1.5 percent in the Great Lakes until 

2020. This would allow these inland vessels to continue to burn residual fuels at or below 1.5 

percent, the current ECA limit, and would allow time for those vessels to be phased out and new, 

more efficient vessels be built to replace them (Canadian Shipowners, hearing testimony). 

Keystone Shipping (0349) provided a range of options for EPA to consider for the Great 

Lakes, including: 

a. Remove the designation of the Great Lakes as an ECA 

b. Exempt Jones Act trade from the Great Lakes ECA 

168 
c. Exempt steam ships from the ECA 

d. Extend the phase-in period for vessels physically confined to the Great Lakes, i.e., 

cannot ever and will not ever trade outside the ECA 

e. Apply global PM and SOX controls to the Great Lakes (2012: 3.5 percent sulfur; 2020: 

0.5 percent sulfur) 

f. Apply PM and SOX controls – more stringent than global, but less imminently 

devastating to the U.S. domestic Great Lakes shipping (2012: 2.5 percent sulfur: 

2020: 0.1 percent sulfur) 

Our Response:

The approach described by the Canadian Shipowners would be difficult because of the 

complications it would create for foreign vessels that operate on the Lakes. Foreign vessels 

account for about one-third of the vessels on the Lakes. This alternative would allow them to 

also use the higher sulfur fuels. But because they would be required to comply with the ECA 

outside the Great Lakes system, this means they would either have to use 1.0 percent sulfur fuel 

while operating in the Lakes or install yet another fuel tank for the 1.5 percent fuel that they 

would use in a “relaxed” ECA on the Great Lakes. This would add greater complication to the 

compliance program for the ECA. Further, these foreign ships could be held in noncompliance 

at their period surveys if they use a higher sulfur fuel in an ECA. Finally, it’s not clear how 

these vessels would refuel on the Lakes. 

We do not agree with comments that the near term fuel sulfur limit for the Great Lakes 

should be raised to a higher limit of 1.5 percent or 2.5 percent as suggested by some commenters. 

As discussed above, we believe that 1.0 percent fuel will be available in the Great Lakes when 

the ECA standards go into place. In addition, we are finalizing near-term relief provisions with 

respect to the availability of compliant residual fuel on the Great Lakes. We also do not agree 

that the long term standard of 0.1 percent sulfur should be delayed or relaxed for the Great 

Lakes. As discussed above, we expect this fuel to be widely available in 2015. 

Finally, and perhaps most importantly, allowing the use of 1.5 percent sulfur fuel on the 

Lakes until 2020 will not achieve the same environmental goals as requiring the use of 1.0 

percent fuel sulfur as required by Annex VI and APPS, which reduces the fuels sulfur content 

level to 0.1 percent by 2015. The net result of such an alternative would be additional emissions 

from ships until 2020. 

10.7.4.2 EPA should consider a fleet averaging approach 

What Commenters Said:

In their supplemental comments, Canadian Shipowners Association requested that EPA 

consider a fleet averaging approach. This program would extend the 0.1 percent sulfur fuel 

requirement to 2020, but require the fuel sulfur content of fuel used in a fleet to meet a declining 

average, beginning in 2011. This approach would allow owners time to investigate alternative 

technologies and implement investment options. It also avoids any issues associated with fuel 

blending. Specifically, shipowners could meet the declining average through using any one or 

more of several options: 

o Retire older less fuel efficient vessels (steamships) 

169 
o Invest in new more fuel efficient vessels 

o Use alternate abatement technology (freshwater scrubbers) 

o Change existing vessels over to MDO 

o Retrofit marine engines to improve fuel efficiency and fleet average 

o Consider alternative fuels such as biodiesel and natural gas 

Our Response:

While we are not generally opposed to averaging provisions in our mobile source 

programs, the programs that we do have (e.g., manufacturer fleet averaging programs) are 

feasible because these program will not, on average, have a detrimental impact on human health 

and the environment. Most of these programs are designed to provide flexibilities to 

manufacturers as they phase in production of new emission technology. In this case, we are not 

revising our program to adopt an averaging approach in this final rule. We received no detailed 

analysis that estimates the benefits of such a program. In addition, we are not persuaded a fleetwide averaging approach would yield the same air quality and environmental benefits as the 

proposed program, due to variability in where ships operate, the amount of time they operate, 

and the variability in the actual operations between ships. 

10.7.5 Vessels that Operate on the Great Lakes Already Participate in a Program to 

Reduce Emissions. 

What Commenters Said:

The Canadian Shipowners’ Association noted that ships on Lakes already participate in 

Green Marine program to reduce their emissions (Canadian Shipowners’ Association, 0245). 

This program, described in more detail at http://www.green-marine.org/action.html, was created 

for the St. Lawrence and Great Lakes regions. It is a voluntary industry-led environmental 

program whose focus is environmental protection and sustainability. It provides three tools to 

help member businesses achieve even more effective environmental management: training, 

research and development, and adoption of an environmental management system. Participants 

that have fulfilled the requirements of the program receive the Green Marine seal of certification. 

Many ships also have Environmental Management systems, and shipowners are constantly 

optimizing vessel schedules and routes to transport the maximum amount of goods in the most 

efficient way possible. See also comments from Chamber of Marine Shipping, 0353, Canadian 

Steel Producers Association, 0359. 

Our Response:

We applaud the creation of the Green Marine program, and acknowledge that these 

voluntary industry programs can have a significant positive impact on the environment in the 

Lakes. However, EPA is legally required by the Clean Air Act to address air emissions from 

Category 3 marine diesel engines that operate in the Great Lakes region through mandatory 

emission standards. In addition, we believe it is most equitable to extend the international 

program to the Great Lakes through an enforceable program. However, we are optimistic that 

the results of this program can be augmented by the Green Marine program which takes into 

account all aspects of ship emissions, not just air emissions. 

170 
10.7.6 Low-Speed 2-stroke engines are designed to operate on heavy fuel 

What Commenters Said:

Canadian Shipowners Association commented that low-speed 2-stroke engines are 

designed to operate on heavy fuel, and that Wartsila warned in a 2002 paper that a switch from 

high-sulfur heavy fuel oil to low-sulfur fuels can lead to engine issues. They noted that a 

permanent switch to MDO will require consultation with engine manufacturers to determine 

proper modifications (Canadian Shipowners Association, 0245). 

Our Response:

Both Wartsila and MAN B&W, the main Category 3 marine diesel engine manufacturers, 

have issued guidance about fuel switching. For Wärtsilä, see LOW SULPHUR GUIDELINES 

(Made: 23rd March, 2005; Updated: 9th January, 2006; available at 

http://www.wartsila.com/Wartsila/global//docs/en/ship_power/media_publications/technical_pap

ers/low_sulphur_guidelines.pdf). For MAN B&W, see Operation on Low-Sulphur Fuels - TwoStroke Engines (available at 

http://www.manbw.com/files/news/filesof5271/Operation%20on%20Low-Sulphur%20Fuels.pdf 

More discussion of this issue can be found in Chapter 4 of the RIA for this rule. 

171 
CHAPTER 11: Technical Amendments 

What We Proposed:

The comments in this section generally correspond to Section IV.E of the preamble to the 

proposed rule, where we described several amendments to the regulations that apply for various 

highway and nonroad engine programs. The applicable regulatory provisions for these 

requirements are in 40 CFR parts 86, 89, 92, 94, 1027, 1033, 1039, 1045, 1048, 1051, 1054, 

1060, 1065, and 1068. These regulations apply to a variety of sizes and classes of diesel and 

gasoline engines, both land-based and marine. 

We received some comments regarding minor typographical errors. We are finalizing 

these changes, but are not summarizing them in this chapter. We also received comments related 

to the testing provisions in part 1065 that are summarized in a separate memorandum to the 

docket. 

The following sections summarize and respond to the remaining comments. We start 

with issues of general interest, followed by a separate discussion of issues for each category of 

engines. 

11.1 General Compliance Provisions (40 Part 1068) and Other Broadly 

Applicable Comments 

Comment: EMA objected to the proposed amendment at §1039.240 and §1048.240 

requiring that all test points over the durability demonstration meet the emission standard, 

especially on account of the variability associated with measuring very low emission levels. 

They also pointed out that the proposed language would be problematic for carry-across 

deterioration factors where it would be unclear how to evaluate an engine’s compliance at midlife measurement points. 

Response: Our interpretation of this longstanding requirement is that engines must meet 

emission standards “throughout the useful life.” It would not be appropriate to certify an engine 

family if we can expect from the durability demonstration that the engine will be exceeding 

emission standards for some portion of the engine’s useful life. This is a concern especially as 

we consider the potentially opposing trends for changing HC and NOX emission levels relative to 

an NOX+HC emission standard. An engine might have higher emission levels at some mid-life 

point than at the end of the useful life. 

We have modified the regulatory language to more carefully specify that the durability 

demonstration applies within the engine family. In other words, for a given engine family, all 

measured results are expected to be below the applicable standard. This applies for individual 

test points and the full-life value after applying the deterioration factor. When applying a carryacross deterioration factor to a different engine family, the compliance demonstration for the 

second engine family would be based solely on the official emission result (from the low-hour 

test) and the deteriorated emission result, which results fro m applying the deterioration factor to 

the official emission result. 

172 
Issue Response 

§1027.105: EMD requested that we update the fee 

values in the regulations since they have changed 

substantially from the published values that applied in 

2005. 

The regulations provide a means of calculating the 

applicable fees for each new calendar year. It is true that 

the tabulated numbers are outdated, but this would occur 

again in another year. We plan to revise this approach in 

the future, likely to replace the table of values (for 

illustration) with a link to an EPA website that is 

updated regularly to include the current figures. In the 

meantime, this information is available in guidance 

letters we post on the Internet at: 

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

§1068.1: EMA requested that we add text to clarify that 

land-based turbines are not subject to part 1068, and that 

marine turbines are not subject to part 1068 before they 

are subject to emission standards under part 1042. 

We have revised §1042.670 to explicitly exclude marine 

gas turbine engines from part 1068 until those engines 

are subject to standards. For land-based engines, we are 

relying on the language of §1068.1 and §1068.260 to 

make this clear. Section 1068.1 states that the part 

applies to engines that are regulated by one of the 

applicable standard-setting parts. Land-based gas 

turbine engines are not subject to emission standards. 

Also, §1068.260 specifies that the presumption that 

engines are subject to part 1068 does not apply for gas 

turbine engines. 

§1068.25, §1068.105, §1068.261, §1068.501: Impco 

supports the proposed changes.

We are adopting the changes as proposed. 

EMA expressed a concern about the wide range of 

regulatory provisions requiring manufacturers to get 

EPA approval. With no deadline for EPA decisions on 

those requests for approval, manufacturers are concerned 

that they may be forced into a need to make decisions 

regarding their products before the EPA decision is 

made and communicated. EMA recommends that EPA 

implement formal response deadline and develop a 

process for manufacturers to presume EPA approval 

under certain circumstances. 

We agree that waiting for EPA approval can be difficult 

for manufacturers. That is why some provisions allow 

manufacturers to presume approval or automatically 

grant approval when a certificate is issued. However, in 

certain cases these approaches are not appropriate. We 

commit to evaluate our review practices to eliminate any 

unnecessary delays for approvals. 

§1033.801: EMD objected to the proposed change to the 

definition of “total hydrocarbon” and “total hydrocarbon 

equivalent,” pointing out that the specified hydrogen-tocarbon ratio should be characterized as an atomic ratio, 

not a mass ratio. 

We agree with the comment and have revised the 

regulation accordingly. This change applies for several 

engine categories. 

173 
Issue Response 

EMA recommended clarifying the regulations where we 

define engine families to give examples of “cylinder 

arrangements”, such as in-line or v-block construction. 

This applies across engine categories. 

We agree with the comment and have revised the 

regulation accordingly. This applies for everything 

except locomotives. 

EMA noted that the provisions in §1039.235 related to 

EPA testing were misplaced, given that the section 

heading describes only manufacturers’ testing 

responsibilities. They also objected to the specific 

provision allowing EPA to adjust engines differently 

than the manufacturers’ settings/adjustments for their 

own testing. It was also unclear whether this provision 

applied only for certification, or also for selective 

enforcement audits. 

We agree that the section heading should be revised to 

reflect the fact that EPA may also perform tests related 

to certification. These provisions do not apply for 

selective enforcement audits, though we may consider 

adding comparable language to §1068.410 in the future. 

We have revised the regulation to clarify that the 

adjustments in question are those that the manufacturer 

applies during production. If the engine might be 

calibrated or assembled with a certain degree of 

variability, we specifically should not be constrained to 

test engines only in the configuration selected by the 

manufacturer. This is the primary purpose for 

manufacturers to identify the production variability in 

their application for certification. 

We are making these changes in §1039.235 and 

§1042.235. We intend to make these same changes for 

nonroad spark-ignition engines in a later rulemaking to 

ensure that affected companies will have the opportunity 

to comment on the changes. 

§1039.715(b): EMA recommended that we the term 

“reserved credits” in paragraph (b) to define the term.. 

We agree with the comment and have revised the 

regulation accordingly. This also applies for §1033.715 

and §1042.715. We intend to make these same changes 

for nonroad spark-ignition engines in a later rulemaking. 

§1039.735: EMA suggested that we revise the regulation 

to accommodate the fact that engine manufacturers do 

not always know the ultimate purchaser for their 

engines, which is already reflected in current EPA 

implementation of the emission-credit provisions. 

We agree with the comment and have revised the 

regulation accordingly. This also applies for §1042.735. 

We intend to make these same changes for nonroad 

spark-ignition engines in a later rulemaking. 

EMA, Impco, and the Industrial Truck Association 

objected to the proposed definition of “carryover,” 

pointing out that the language seemed to prevent 

manufacturers from making any changes if they wanted 

to use carryover emission data to certify an engine 

family for a subsequent model year. They recommended 

removing the second sentence of the proposed 

definition. 

We did not intend for the proposed language to be 

limiting as understood by the commenters, since it 

referred “generally” to the fact that things don’t change 

from year to year. However, we acknowledge that the 

proposed language could continue to cause confusion. 

We agree that a shorter definition referring to the actual 

carryover provisions in the regulations is sufficient. 

This change applies for §1033.901, §1042.901, 

§1039.801, and §1048.801. 

174 
Issue Response 

EMA recommended revising the ABT reporting 

requirements to refer to “U.S.-directed production 

volumes” rather than “engines with a point of first retail 

sale in the United States.” This would allow for 

manufacturers to make a good-faith effort to determine 

whether engines are destined for customers in the United 

States or not. 

We agree with the comment and making this change in 

§1033.730, §1039.730, §1042.730, and §1054.730. We 

intend to make these same changes for Marine SI 

engines and recreational vehicles in a later rulemaking to 

ensure that affected companies will have the opportunity 

to comment on the changes. 

§1068.103(a): EMA shared a concern that limiting 

engine families to a certain set of engine configurations 

without a proper definition could cause confusion. In 

particular, they noted that the engine configuration 

should not be defined by parts that are not emissionrelated. 

We have adopted a definition of “engine configuration” 

in most of the standard-setting parts that would address 

EMA’s concern. We have revised part 1068 to include 

this definition. 

§1068.105(a): EMA and NMMA recommended adding a 

provision specifically allowing equipment manufacturers 

(or boat builders) to install engines built before new 

standards started to apply if they were held in the engine 

manufacturer’s inventory. 

We agree with the comment and have revised the 

regulation accordingly. 

§1068.240: EMA recommended making several minor 

changes to the section as proposed: (1) correcting cross 

references to the revised paragraphs, (2) revising the 

labeling requirements to avoid differentiating the 

different kinds of replacement engines, (3) revising the 

description of “installation instructions” to refer instead 

to assembling complete engines. 

We agree with the corrected references and have revised 

the regulation accordingly. We also agree that it is not 

necessary for labels to differentiate among the different 

kinds of replacement engines (this is already the case for 

replacement engines under §1068.240(b). Finally, we 

specifically intend for the manufacturers installation 

instructions to be something they can provide by, for 

example, posting on a publicly accessible website. 

§1068.240: EMA suggested that we clarify that 

replacement engines meeting the tracking requirements 

of §1068.240(b) not count toward the sales limit for 

untracked replacement engines even if it was not clear at 

the point of initial shipment to a distributor that the 

engine would meet all these requirements. 

We agree with the comment and have revised the 

regulation accordingly. 

175 
Issue Response 

§1068.240: EMA requested that we accommodate 

shipment of engines over 7 liters per cylinder to 

distributors before they made the demonstrations 

required under §1068.240(b). This would allow them to 

respond more quickly if an operator would have an 

urgent need for a replacement engine. 

We understand that manufacturers want to be responsive 

to demand for replacement engines, but we are aware 

that there is a risk to selling noncompliant engines to a 

distributor and trusting the distributor to follow 

regulatory requirements in spite of the potential to sell 

the engine as if it were certified. We are therefore 

adopting a provision to allow this practice, but are 

including a requirement for the manufacturer to report to 

EPA annually regarding the disposition of the engine. 

The manufacturer would also need to send a final report 

after the engine is sold as a replacement engine, 

describing how all the requirements and conditions 

associated with the exemption were met. If an engine is 

installed in a vessel in a way that does not meet the 

requirements of the replacement engine exemption (or 

Annex VI, as applicable), the manufacturer would be 

found in violation of §1068.101. 

§1068.40: EMA suggested a general change to allow for 

lead time to implement technical amendments, providing 

an automatic period of 90 days after publication of a 

final rule in the Federal Register, or until the start of the 

next model year. 

Most of the changes we make under part 1068 do not 

require lead time because they deal with compliance 

provisions describing what to do if something goes 

wrong, or the changes add in flexibility. We are revising 

§1068.40 in two ways to address EMA’s concern. First, 

we are adding a provision that specifically allows lead 

time for the changes we are making to §1068.240. If we 

are aware of any similar changes that call for lead time, 

we can include those with a date for applying the new 

requirements. Second, we are including an automatic 

60-day grace period for any changes that require a 

change in production procedures (including labels), a 

redesign of the product, or a change in the information 

required for an application for certification. We believe 

that any other changes to the regulation should apply 

immediately when the rule change goes into effect. 

§1068.225: EMA pointed out the need for a correction to 

a reference in paragraph (b). 

We agree with the comment and have revised the 

regulation accordingly. 

§1068.260(a) and (b): EMA requested that we clarify 

how these two paragraphs apply for emission-related 

components that are not covered by the delegatedassembly provisions of §1068.261. 

We have modified these paragraphs to more clearly state 

how we allow manufacturers to ship partially assembled 

engines, whether the emission-related components are 

shipped along with the engine, or whether they are 

shipped separately. In particular, for parts that are not 

covered by §1068.261, we would generally allow for 

separate shipment, but we may specify certain 

conditions to ensure that engines will eventually be 

assembled in a certified configuration. 

176 
Issue Response 

§1068.261: EMA recommended that we clarify which 

parts of aftertreatment systems and air intake systems 

are subject to the delegated-assembly provisions, 

including several specific recommendations about which 

parts to include and which parts to exclude. 

We are not prepared to make final determinations in this 

regard in the current rulemaking. We look forward to 

working with engine manufacturers in the future to 

further clarify these provisions. 

§1068.260(c): EMA recommended that we revise this 

provision to mirror §1068.261(b), where manufacturers 

keep records instead of asking for approval for an 

exemption related to intra-company shipments. 

We agree with the comment and have revised the 

regulation accordingly. 

In addition, we are making minor changes to the regulations describing how to amend an 

application for certification. In particular, we specify that the application must be amended 

based on new information that should be included in the application, rather than referring only to 

information that is included in the application. We are also cleaning up the characterization of 

what information must be included in the amendment. We are making these changes to 

§§1033.225, 1039.225, and 1042.225. We intend to make these changes to other parts in a later 

rulemaking. 

177 
11.2 Land-based Nonroad Spark-ignition Engines above 19 kW (40 Part 1048) 

Issue Response 

§1048.240(e): Impco and the Industrial Truck 

Association were concerned that the proposed language 

would prevent manufacturers from demonstrating 

compliance with the field-testing standards using 

engines that no longer qualified as low-hour engines. 

We agree that there was no intent to limit testing to lowhour engines. We have revised the regulatory text to 

require manufacturers to demonstrate that engines 

comply with field-testing standards “throughout the 

useful life.” Depending on the circumstances, 

manufacturers might apply deterioration factors to 

emission results from low-hour engines, but other 

approaches may also be acceptable. 

§1048.405: Impco and the Industrial Truck Association 

objected to the proposed change to allow 24 months to 

complete testing after EPA received an in-use test plan 

(rather than starting the clock after approving the plan), 

recommending that the language remain unchanged to 

avoid penalizing manufacturers if EPA takes a long time 

to review the plan, or revise the regulation to specify that 

plans are presumed to be approved within 30 days. 

EMA suggested that we omit the 24-month specification 

and replace it with a 36-month requirement from the 

point of selecting a family for in-use testing. EMA also 

suggested adding a provision to allow EPA to approve 

an extension of the deadline for circumstances beyond 

the manufacturer’s control. 

We believe EMA’s suggested approach of specifying a 

36-month deadline for the overall testing program is the 

most effective way to address the various concerns for 

EPA and manufacturers. We are also including in the 

final rule a requirement that manufacturers respond to an 

EPA request for additional information within 30 days. 

This would address the problem we have experienced 

recently by multiple manufacturers that submitted 

incomplete or inadequate testing plans and were not very 

responsive to requests for complete and correct 

information. 

The regulation currently allows us to cancel the test plan 

for circumstances beyond the manufacturers’ control. 

We agree that it would be appropriate to allow us instead 

to extend the deadlines. 

§1048.30: EMA objected to the proposed provision 

requiring manufacturers to keep records for one year if 

the records are not related to certification. 

The regulations specify several recordkeeping 

requirements that are unrelated to certification, such as 

records related to exempt engines. Unless we state how 

long these records must be kept, any such recordkeeping 

requirement will not be meaningful or enforceable. It is 

therefore not appropriate to make the suggested change. 

178 
11.3 Locomotives (40 Parts 92 and 1033) 

Locomotives Operating in Mexico

Comment: Under current regulations, EPA does not allow locomotive manufacturers to 

introduce engine designs that increase NOX emissions when the locomotive is operating in 

Mexico, even if the engine design would reverse the adjustment to allow the locomotive to 

conform to NOX emissions standards when it returns to the United States. EPA noted its 

concerns over the potential adverse impacts on U.S. air quality, recognizing that emissions that 

occur outside the territorial boundaries of the U.S. can impact air quality within the U.S. 

Locomotive manufacturers had objected to these regulations, claiming EPA had no authority to 

prevent such designs. We did not propose to change these provisions, but we requested 

comment on what conditions we should set if we allow such designs, including whether to 

approve the design only if it was calibrated to remain in the low NOX mode until it was at least 

200 miles away from the U.S. border. 

Two locomotive manufacturers commented that EPA does not have authority to prevent 

these engine designs because they affect emissions performance outside the United States. They 

also provided additional comments with respect to how EPA should apply and enforce an 

allowance to include such features. EMA commented that EPA should not allow such features 

for Tier 4 locomotives because of concerns about catalyst damage. 

Response: The two commenters who support these engine designs continue to argue that 

EPA does not have authority to prevent these engine designs because they affect emissions 

performance outside the United States. The commenters did not support EPA allowing such an 

engine design only if it operates beyond 200 miles beyond U.S. territory, saying any limitation of 

operation outside of the United States is inappropriate. As we stated previously, we disagree 

with the commenters’ claim that EPA does not have the authority to restrict the types of AECDs 

in question for locomotives introduced into U.S. commerce. Section 203(a)(3) of the CAA gives 

EPA broad authority to prohibit the installation of components that render emission controls 

inoperative. As we have stated, emissions that occur in Mexico can and do affect U.S. air quality, 

and EPA is authorized to deny introduction of locomotives and locomotive engines into 

American commerce that adversely effect air quality in the United States. Neither commenter 

disputes that emissions outside the U.S. can affect U.S. air quality. Neither the Clean Air Act 

nor the existing regulations require any exceptions for AECDs that only operate outside the U.S. 

In addition, the comment from EMA indicates that, at least with regard to one type of 

emission control (SCR), extended disabling of the emission control could lead to deterioration or 

malfunction of the emission control that would prevent the controls from performing as intended 

when they would be reactivated. This is further reason not to allow such AECDs in these 

engines that go back and forth over the United States border. We reject the commenters' 

argument regarding EPA authority, and for the reasons discussed above, EPA will not change its 

regulations to allow such AECDs. 

179 
Energy Saving Design Features

 Comment: GE opposed the proposed change to §1033.530(h) to limit this provision to new 

features that were not commonly incorporated into locomotives in 2008. In particular they were 

concerned about distributed power technology that uses radio controls to optimize operation of 

locomotives throughout a train. Such technology was being incorporated into some but not all 

newly manufactured locomotives in 2008, but not incorporated into most older locomotives. 

 Response: We agree with GE that the case of distributed power technology is not clear. 

Therefore, we are adding a special provision to §1033.530(h) to address it. This provision 

specifies that the adjustment for incorporating distributed power in freshly manufactured 

locomotives will be prorated by 50 percent. This proration reflects that fact that the fraction of a 

manufacturer’s new sales that included distributed power has varied over the last few years and 

varied by manufacturer. In some cases, it has been as low as zero percent, while in others it has 

been essentially all locomotives. 

Issue Response 

GE asked that hotel power for passenger locomotives be 

excluded from the definition of AECD. 

We continue to believe that hotel power falls within the 

proper scope of what is an AECD. However, GE’s 

concern is being addressed by clarifying that hotel 

power is not a defeat device, provided the same emission 

controls are applied in hotel and non-hotel modes (as 

was already specified in the existing regulations) or we 

approve necessary modification of the emission controls. 

EMD requested that we modify the interim test fuel 

allowances of §92.12 and §1033.150. 

This issue was addressed in a previous rulemaking (73 

FR 3797). 

180 
11.4 Land-based Nonroad Diesel Engines (40 Parts 89 and 1039) 

Issue Response 

§1039.125: EMA recommended changing the 

maintenance specifications for particulate traps and 

trap oxidizers to allow for replacement of these 

components, not just cleaning and repair. 

In practice, the filters on such parts may be cleaned in place 

on the equipment but may also be removed from the 

equipment and cleaned in a separate location (making it 

impractical to install the original filter). If the filter is 

cleaned in a separate location, then a previously cleaned 

alternate filter could be installed in its place. We believe the 

existing regulatory language that allows for the cleaning of 

such parts allows for the installation of an alternate cleaned 

filter. Under such practice the replacement filter should be 

comparable to the original filter since the filter must enable 

the engine to meet the same emission standard and 

subsequent maintenance intervals as the originally certified 

configuration. 

§1039.125 EMA also requested that we allow 

manufacturers to schedule maintenance more 

frequently, and that we allow them to replace old 

trap-related components with new components. 

We agree with EMA’s suggestion that we allow scheduling 

shorter intervals and replacement with new components, 

provided that manufacturers pay for the maintenance and 

they demonstrate to our satisfaction that such maintenance 

will be performed according to the specified schedule. We 

are also finalizing the proposed revisions to §1039.125(a)(5), 

which allows the manufacturer to request shorter 

maintenance intervals under limited conditions. Any shorter 

maintenance intervals approved by EPA under 

§1039.125(a)(5) do not require the manufacturer to pay for 

such maintenance unless the manufacturer chooses to do so 

to fulfill the requirements of §1039.125(a)(1). 

§1039.135: EMA pointed out that they will need 

lead time to implement the revised labeling 

requirements. They also requested that we clarify 

that a flexible approach to identifying dates of 

manufacture is acceptable to avoid potentially 

conflicting requirements. Dates may be expressed 

for example as 06/2009 or 2009/06. 

We agree that manufacturers may need several months to 

modify their labeling practices. We have included a 

provision in §1039.104 to specify that the new requirement 

does not start until the 2011 model year. 

As we noted in an earlier rule, “We intend to further 

standardize labeling with further specification related to the 

format of the build date. For example, we believe it is not 

appropriate to identify the date with coded alphanumeric 

characters intended to disguise the information from anyone 

who is not privy to the coded meaning. Spelling out the full 

date is clearly acceptable. We would also consider acceptable 

certain standard abbreviations, such as Sep 10 or 09/10 to 

indicate September 2010. We plan to propose detailed 

specifications in a future rulemaking to describe a range of 

acceptable ways to identify an engine’s build date.” We 

would also agree that reversing the month and year is 

acceptable. 

181 
Issue Response 

§1039.201(h): EMA questioned whether the 

proposed provision allowing for alternate 

certification processes was necessary considering 

that §1039.605 seems to address a similar concern. 

EMA requested that we at least clarify that 

manufacturers modifying certified engines and 

recertifying them in a different configuration are 

responsible for their work. EMA recommended the 

following language: “The alternate certification 

provisions identified are the responsibility of the 

party responsible for the conversion of the engine 

from its original certified motor vehicle 

configuration to its nonroad configuration.” 

The provisions of §1039.605 describe how a company can 

avoid re-certifying an engine that is adapted for use in an 

application that differs from the original certification. There 

are circumstances where a different kind of conversion or 

modification would occur that would require recertification. 

It may be difficult to follow all the normal certification 

procedures under these circumstances (such as doing a lowhour test and applying a deterioration factor to an engine that 

has already undergone substantial operation in the field). We 

need to be able to adjust the certification protocol for these 

unusual circumstances. It should be clear that the 

manufacturer that modifies and recertifies the engine is 

responsible for their work, both to certify the engines and to 

modify them in a way that is consistent with their 

certification. Note also that the prohibitions identified in 

§1068.101 apply to the company that introduces engines into 

commerce. 

§1039.225(f): EMA objected to the regulatory 

language specifying that manufacturers raising their 

FEL for a family mid-year must use the higher FEL 

for the whole model year (unless they raise the FEL 

to reflect a new engine configuration in the family). 

The proposed approach is something we have already 

adopted in most of our nonroad programs. Manufacturers 

establish an FEL for the emission family based on 

certification testing with the worst-case engine configuration. 

If manufacturers add a new configuration that has higher 

emissions than the original certification engine, they should 

be able to raise the FEL starting with the introduction of the 

new engine configuration. Absent such a change, it is not 

clear that there would be any technical basis for changing the 

FEL only after some point in time. If the engine family 

needs a higher FEL to ensure compliance, then this 

conclusion should apply for the whole engine family. We 

note further that the provision in question specifies only that 

the higher FEL applies for calculating emission credits at the 

end of the model year; it does not address in-use compliance. 

§1039.245: EMA suggested revising the regulatory 

text to refer to “steady-state and transient test 

cycles” instead of “duty-cycle emission standards”. 

EMA properly interpreted the regulatory provision as 

proposed. We refer to “duty-cycle emission standards” and 

“duty-cycle testing” in various places in the regulations to 

contrast these with not-to-exceed testing and standards, 

which do not involve operation over a specific duty cycle. 

We believe this change is not necessary. 

182 
Issue Response 

§1039.715: EMA recommended that we revise the 

description of banked emission credits. (1) 

Paragraph (a) should continue to limit credit 

banking. (2) Use the term “reserved credits” in 

paragraph (b) to define the term.. 

Part of the rationale for making the changes to §1039.715 

was to clarify the relationship between banking and 

averaging. Banking refers simply to carrying over a balance 

of emission credits; this involves no transaction or use of the 

credits. Manufacturers “spend” these credits by trading them 

or using averaging to demonstrate compliance in a given 

model year. It is not necessary to limit banking to an 

averaging set because there is no transaction. We limit credit 

exchanges to an averaging set for trading and averaging, 

where there is a transaction to use up the credits. 

We agree that paragraph (b) should identify reserved credits 

and have revised the regulation accordingly. 

§1039.801: EMA pointed out that the definition of 

“new nonroad engine” mistakenly omitted the table 

describing when emission standards started to 

apply. 

We agree with the comment and have revised the regulation 

accordingly. 

The provisions of §89.101(b) already allow for 

manufacturers to include part replacements in their scheduled 

maintenance, since this is consistent with the approach 

specified in §1039.125 starting with Tier 4 standards. We 

will approve any request to apply this Tier 4 provision early. 

§89.109(c)(4): EMA suggested adding in a specific 

allowance to schedule maintenance involving 

replacement of certain components. 

§1039.627(a)(3): EMA pointed out that the 

references to §1039.102 should point to paragraph 

(e), not (d). 

We agree with the comment and have revised the regulation 

accordingly. 

11.5 Evaporative Emission Standards for Nonroad Spark-ignition Engines 

and Equipment (40 Part 1060) 

Issue Response 

§1060.520: MTD pointed out that our sample calculation 

for determining a mass emission rate did not match the 

lead-in description and appeared to include an error in 

the final value. 

We agree with the comment and have revised the 

regulation accordingly. 

§1060.137: EMA suggested making a broader 

accommodation to omit labeling of very small 

components. 

We agree with the comment and have revised the 

regulation accordingly. 

183 
11.6 Heavy-Duty Highway Engines 

Issue Response 

§86.1001-84: EMA suggested allowing manufacturers of 

heavy-duty vehicles certified using chassis-based test 

procedures to use the SEA provision in part 86, subpart 

G, or in part 1068, subpart E. 

We agree with the comment and have revised the 

regulation accordingly. This provision is stated in 

§86.601-84. 

§1068.410: EMA suggested that we specify that the idlespeed adjustments not apply for heavy-duty highway 

engines. 

We believe it is appropriate to omit the specified idlespeed adjustment for all manufacturers. This is most 

likely to apply for Small SI engines and we concluded 

that this provision should not be part of production-line 

testing for those engines. 

§1068.415(a): EMA recommended that we add 

regulatory text to preserve the current policy describing 

which test procedures apply for selective enforcement 

audits with heavy-duty engines. 

We agree with the comment. We have included the 

paragraph in question in the revised §86.1001, and not in 

part 1068, since part 86 is the standard-setting part for 

heavy-duty highway engines. 

§1068.415(c): EMA expressed a concern that an 

expectation for testing two engines per day was 

unreasonable in many cases. Paying for outside testing 

would be very costly, would add complexity with 

respect to quality control, and would be difficult to 

justify. EMA requested that we clarify that limited 

testing capability in existing certification test cells 

should be a valid bases for approving a reduced testing 

rate. 

We are aware that selective enforcement audit testing 

would pose a challenge for manufacturers that likely 

have a full schedule of testing for their test labs. We 

will take this into account as best we can in the effort to 

complete the audit in a timely way. 

We expect to revisit this provision in a future rule to 

more carefully specify minimum testing rates for 

engines tested under selective enforcement auditing. 

§1068.440: EMA recommended revising the text to 

avoid using the term “production-line testing,” since this 

may be understood to imply a requirement for 

manufacturers to perform routine testing with production 

engines. This would not be appropriate for heavy-duty 

highway engines. 

We agree with the comment and have revised the 

regulation accordingly. 

184 
185 

11.7 Marine Spark-ignition Engines (40 Part 1045) 

Issue Response 

§1045.405: Impco and the Industrial Truck Association 

objected to the proposed change to allow 24 months to 

complete testing after EPA received an in-use test plan 

(rather than starting the clock after approving the plan), 

recommending that the language remain unchanged to 

avoid penalizing manufacturers if EPA takes a long time 

to review the plan, or revise the regulation to specify that 

plans are presumed to be approved within 30 days. 

EMA suggested that we omit the 24-month specification 

and replace it with a 36-month requirement from the 

point of selecting a family for in-use testing. EMA also 

suggested adding a provision to allow EPA to approve 

an extension of the deadline for circumstances beyond 

the manufacturer’s control. 

We believe EMA’s suggested approach of specifying a 

36-month deadline for the overall testing program is the 

most effective way to address the various concerns for 

EPA and manufacturers. We are also including in the 

final rule a requirement that manufacturers respond to an 

EPA request for additional information within 30 days. 

This would address the problem we have experienced 

recently by multiple manufacturers that submitted 

incomplete or inadequate testing plans and were not very 

responsive to requests for complete and correct 

information. 

The regulation currently allows us to cancel the test plan 

for circumstances beyond the manufacturers’ control. 

We agree that it would be appropriate to allow us instead 

to extend the deadlines.