Regulatory Announcement

Proposal of Emission Control Area 

Designation for Geographic Control 

of Emissions from Ships

The United States and Canada have proposed designation of an 

area off our coasts in which stringent international emission controls 

would apply to ships. When adopted, this control program would 

dramatically reduce air pollution from ships and deliver substantial 

benefits to large segments of the population, as well as to marine and 

terrestrial ecosystems. This fact sheet contains an overview of the 

proposal.

Overview

In July 2009, the United States and Canada jointly proposed designation of an Emission 

Control Area (ECA) for specific portions of U.S. and Canadian coastal waters, 

reflecting common interests, shared geography and interrelated economies. In addition, 

France has joined the ECA proposal on behalf of its island territories of Saint-Pierre 

and Miquelon, which form an archipelago off the coast of Newfoundland.

Designation of this ECA would control the emission of nitrogen oxides (NOx), sulfur 

oxides (SOx), and particulate matter (PM) from ships, most of which are flagged 

outside of the United States. These ships are significant contributors to our national 

mobile-source emission inventory. In the U.S. and Canada combined, the ECA is 

expected to reduce emissions of NOx by 320,000 tons, PM2.5 by 90,000 tons, and 

SOx by 920,000 tons per year, which is 23 percent, 74 percent, and 86 percent below 

current levels, respectively. The overall cost of the ECA is estimated at $3.2 billion. 

The ECA would be expected to save as many as 14,000 lives and provide relief from 

respiratory symptoms for nearly five million people each year. In total, the monetized 

health-related benefits of the proposed ECA are estimated to be as much as $110 

billion in the U.S. in 2020.

Office of Transportation and Air Quality

 EPA-420-F-09-015a

 December 2009
Regulatory Announcement

2

For the U.S., the proposed ECA designation is one component of EPA’s coordinated strategy 

to address harmful ship emissions. Complementing the ECA proposal are final Clean Air Act 

(CAA) engine and fuel standards for ships that EPA issued December 2009.1 These standards 

are similar in stringency to the new standards that will apply to all ships in the ECA.

The proposed area of the ECA includes waters adjacent to the Pacific coast, the Atlantic/Gulf 

coast and the eight mainHawaiian Islands.2

 The proposed ECA would extend up to 200 nautical 

miles from the coastal baselines of United States, Canada and France, except that it would not 

extend into marine areas subject to the sovereignty, sovereign rights, or jurisdiction of other 

States.

The proposed ECA does not include the Pacific U.S. territories, the smaller Hawaiian Islands, 

the U.S. territories of Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands, Western Alaska including the 

Aleutian Islands, and the U.S. and Canadian Arctic. While these areas also experience the 

1

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

December 18, 2009). See www.epa.gov/otaq/oceanvessels.htm

2

As used here, the main Hawaiian Islands include the islands of Hawaii, Maui, Oahu, Molokai, Niihau, Kauai, Lanai, and 

Kahoolawe. These islands are the main populated islands of the Hawaiian Islands chain, with the exception of Kahoolawe, 

which is an uninhabited nature reserve.

Figure 1: Area Proposed for ECA Designation
Regulatory Announcement

3

environmental impacts of ship emissions, further information must be gathered to properly 

assess these areas and determine how ECA controls will help. If further information supports 

the need for an ECA designation in any of these areas, a separate proposal would be submitted 

to the IMO, following the criteria contained in MARPOL Annex VI. 

The Need to Reduce Emissions from Engines on Ships

The large marine diesel engines on ships are significant contributors to our national mobile-source 

emission inventory. Today’s Category 3 marine engines must meet relatively modest emission 

requirements and therefore generate significant emissions of fine particulate matter (PM2.5), 

NOx, and SOx that contribute to nonattainment of the National Ambient Air Quality Standards 

for PM2.5 and ozone. Emissions from these engines also cause harm to public welfare, contributing 

to visibility impairment and other detrimental environmental impacts across the United States. 

Many of our nation’s most serious ozone and PM2.5 nonattainment areas are affected by emissions 

from ships. Currently more than 40 major U.S. ports3

 along our Atlantic, Gulf of Mexico, and 

Pacific coasts are located in nonattainment areas for ozone and/or PM2.5

The contribution of these engines to air pollution is expected to grow even more over the next 

two decades. Without further action, by 2030, NOx emissions from ships are projected to more 

than double, growing to 2.1 million tons a year while annual PM2.5 emissions are expected to 

almost triple to 170,000 tons. Designation of the proposed ECA would significantly reduce emissions 

from ships and deliver substantial benefits to large segments of the population, as well as to 

marine and terrestrial ecosystems.

3

American Association of Port Authorities (AAPA), Industry Statistics, port rankings by cargo tonnage
Regulatory Announcement

4

Emission Control Area Standards

In October 2008, the IMO adopted stringent new standards to control harmful exhaust emissions 

from the engines that power ships. The member states of IMO agreed to amend Annex VI to 

the International Convention on the Prevention of Pollution from Ships (MARPOL), adopting 

new tiers of NOx and fuel sulfur controls. The most stringent of these new emission standards 

apply to ships operating in specially designated Emission Control Areas (ECAs):

•	 Beginning in 2015, fuel used by all vessels operating in these areas cannot exceed 0.1

percent fuel sulfur (1000 ppm) . This requirement is expected to reduce PM and SOx 

emissions by more than 85 percent.

•	 Beginning in 2016, new engines on vessels operating in these areas must use emission

controls that achieve an 80 percent reduction in NOx emissions.

In most cases, ships already have the capability to store two or more fuels. However, to meet the 

2015 requirement of 1,000 ppm fuel sulfur, some vessels may need to be modified for additional 

distillate fuel storage capacity. As an alternative to using lower sulfur fuel, ship operators may 

choose to equip their vessels with exhaust gas cleaning devices (“scrubbers”). In this case, the 

scrubber extracts sulfur from the exhaust. 

Figure 2: U.S. Ports and Nonattainment Areas 
Regulatory Announcement

5

Costs

The costs of implementing and complying with the proposed ECA are expected to be small in 

comparison to the health and welfare benefits and within the costs of achieving similar emissions 

reductions through additional controls on land-based sources. We estimate the total costs of 

improving ship emissions from current performance to ECA standards while operating in the 

proposed ECA will be approximately $3.2 billion in 2020. The cost to reduce a ton of NOx, 

SOx and PM is estimated at $2,400, $1,100 and $10,000, respectively. In comparison, the 2007 

heavy-duty highway truck rule cost $2,300/ ton for NOx and $15,000/ ton for PM. Improving 

current ship emission levels to ECA standards is one of the most cost-effective measures available 

to obtain necessary improvements to the air quality in the U.S. and Canada.

The economic impacts of complying with the program on ships engaged in international trade 

are expected to be modest. For example, operating costs for a ship in a route that includes about 

1,700 nm of operation in the proposed ECA would increase by about 3 percent. This operating 

cost increase would raise the cost of transport of a 20 foot container by about $18.

Benefits

The U.S. coastline and much of the interior of the country will experience significant improvements 

in air quality due to reduced PM and ozone from ships complying with ECA standards. Coastal 

areas would experience the largest improvements; however, significant improvements would 

extend hundreds of miles inland to reach nonattainment areas in states such as Nevada, 

Tennessee and Pennsylvania. National treasures such as the Grand Canyon National Park and 

the Great Smoky Mountains would also see air quality improvements.
Regulatory Announcement

6

Figure 4: Potential Benefits of U.S. ECA Ozone Reductions in 2020

Figure 3: Potential Benefits of U.S. ECA Ambient PM2.5 Reductions in 2020
Regulatory Announcement

7

Table 1 presents the estimated annual reduction of ship-related adverse health impacts in 2020 

that would result from applying the ECA standards. The figures in this table clearly illustrate the 

health benefits of designating the proposed ECA for the U.S. and Canada. Our analysis shows 

that as many as 14,000 lives will be saved and nearly five million people will experience relief 

from acute respiratory symptoms each year

Table 1: Estimated PM2.5- and Ozone-Related Human Health Impacts 

Associated with Ship Emissions in the U.S. and Canada

Health Effect 2020 Annual Ship-Related 

Incidence

2020 Annual Reduction in Ship-Related 

Incidence with an ECAa

Premature Mortalityb 8,100 – 21,000 5,500 – 14,000

Chronic Bronchitis 5,500 3,900

Hospital Admissionsc 11,000 4,800

Emergency Room Visits 6,700 3,800

Acute Bronchitis 13,000 9,300

Acute Respiratory Symptoms 8,900,000 4,900,000

Total U.S.-Related Monetized Benefits $47 - 110 billion b,d

Next Steps

On July 17, 2009, the joint U.S.-Canada proposal was accepted in principle at MEPC 59. The 

amendments to MARPOL Annex VI designating this ECA will circulate among member states 

until March 2010, when MEPC 60 will be held. At MEPC 60, member states who are Parties 

to MARPOL Annex VI (those who have ratified the treaty) will vote on the adoption of these 

amendments. Given the MARPOL amendment acceptance process and the lead time specified 

in the regulations, an ECA adopted at MEPC 60 could be expected to enter into force as early 

as August 2012.

 a Based on ship emission inventory reductions due to switching from 2.7% sulfur residual fuel to 0.1% sulfur distillate fuel and an overall fleet NOx reduction in the ECA of 23%, in 2020, from Tier II levels. In the long term, a 

75% reduction in NOx emissions from Tier II levels would be expected in the ECA.

b Includes both PM2.5- and ozone-related estimates of premature mortality. The range is based on the high- and 

low-end estimate of incidence derived from several alternative studies used to estimate PM2.5- and ozone-related 

premature mortality in the U.S.

c Includes estimates of both cardiovascular- and respiratory-related hospital admissions.

d The monetized benefits, presented in year 2006 dollars, are for the U.S. only, and reflect the use of a 3 percent 

discount rate in the valuation of premature mortality and nonfatal heart attacks.
Regulatory Announcement

8

For More Information

You can access the U.S. proposal and related documents on EPA’s Office of Transportation and 

Air Quality web site at:

www.epa.gov/otaq/oceanvessels.htm

For additional information, please contact the Assessment and Standards Division at

otaq@epa.gov, or:

Assessment and Standards Division 

Office of Transportation and Air Quality 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

2000 Traverwood Dr. 

Ann Arbor, MI 48105