[Federal Register: August 28, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 166)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 44441-44595]
[DOCID:fr28au09-23]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

Part II

Environmental Protection Agency

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

40 CFR Parts 80, 85, 86, et al.

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

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Parts 80, 85, 86, 94, 1027, 1033, 1039, 1042, 1043, 1045,
1048, 1051, 1054, 1060, 1065, and 1068

[EPA-HQ-OAR-2007-0121; FRL-8926-5]
RIN 2060-AO38

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

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed Rule.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: EPA is proposing emission standards for new marine diesel
engines with per cylinder displacement at or above 30 liters (called
Category 3 marine diesel engines) installed on U.S. vessels, under
section 213 of the Clean Air Act (CAA or ``the Act''). The proposed
engine standards are equivalent to the nitrogen oxides (NOX)
limits recently adopted in the amendments to Annex VI to the
International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships
(MARPOL Annex VI) and are based on the position advanced by the United
States Government as part of those international negotiations. The
near-term standards for newly-built engines would apply beginning in
2011. Long-term standards would begin in 2016 and are based on the
application of high-efficiency aftertreatment technology. We are also
proposing a change to our diesel fuel program that would forbid the
production and sale of marine fuel oil above 1,000 ppm sulfur for use
in the waters within the proposed U.S. ECA and internal U.S. waters and
allow for the production and sale of 1,000 ppm sulfur fuel for use in
Category 3 marine vessels.
    This proposal is part of a coordinated strategy to ensure that all
ships that affect U.S. air quality meet stringent NOX and
fuel sulfur requirements. In addition, on March 27, 2009, the U.S.
Government forwarded a proposal to the International Maritime
Organization (IMO) to amend MARPOL Annex VI to designate an Emission
Control Area (ECA) off U.S. coasts. If this proposed amendment is not
timely adopted by IMO, we intend to take supplemental action to control
emissions from vessels affecting U.S. air quality.
    We project that in 2030 this coordinated strategy would reduce
annual emissions of NOX and particulate matter (PM) from
ocean-going vessels by 1.2 million and 143,000 tons, respectively.
These reductions are estimated to annually prevent between 13,000 and
32,000 PM-related premature deaths, between 220 and 980 ozone-related
premature deaths, 1,500,000 work days lost, and 10,000,000 minor
restricted-activity days. The estimated annual monetized health
benefits of this coordinated strategy in 2030 would be between $110 and
$280 billion, assuming a 3 percent discount rate (or between $100 and
$260 billion assuming a 7 percent discount rate). The annual costs
would be significantly less, at approximately $3.1 billion.
    The proposed regulations also include technical amendments to our
motor vehicle and nonroad engine regulations. Many of these changes
involve minor adjustments or corrections to our recently finalized rule
for new nonroad spark-ignition engines, or adjustment to other
regulatory provisions to align with this recent final rule.

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

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-
OAR-2007-0121, by one of the following methods:
     http://www.regulations.gov: Follow the on-line
instructions for submitting comments.
     E-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
     Mail: Air Docket, Environmental Protection Agency,
Mailcode: 6102T, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460. In
addition, please mail a copy of your comments on the information
collection provisions to the Office of Information and Regulatory
Affairs, Office of Management and Budget (OMB), Attn: Desk Officer for
EPA, 725 17th St., NW., Washington, DC 20503.
     Hand Delivery: EPA Docket Center, (Air Docket), U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, EPA West Building, 1301 Constitution
Ave., NW., Room: 3334, Mail Code: 2822T, Washington DC. Such deliveries
are only accepted during the Docket's normal hours of operation, and
special arrangements should be made for deliveries of boxed
information.
    Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-
2007-0121. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included
in the public docket without change and may be made available online at
http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information
provided, unless the comment includes information claimed to be
Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose
disclosure is restricted by statute. Do not submit information that you
consider to be CBI or otherwise protected through http://
www.regulations.gov or e-mail. The http://www.regulations.gov Web site
is an ``anonymous access'' system, which means EPA will not know your
identity or contact information unless you provide it in the body of
your comment. If you send an e-mail comment directly to EPA without
going through http://www.regulations.gov your e-mail address will be
automatically captured and included as part of the comment that is
placed in the public docket and made available on the Internet. If you
submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends that you include your name
and other contact information in the body of your comment and with any
disk or CD-ROM you submit. If EPA cannot read your comment due to
technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, EPA
may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic files should avoid
the use of special characters, any form of encryption, and be free of
any defects or viruses. For additional information about EPA's public
docket visit the EPA Docket Center homepage at http://www.epa.gov/
epahome/dockets.htm. For additional instructions on submitting
comments, go to Section I.A of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of
this document, and also go to Section X.A of the Public Participation
section of this document.
    Docket: All documents in the docket are listed in the http://
www.regulations.gov index. Although listed in the index, some
information is not publicly available, e.g., CBI or other information
whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such
as copyrighted material, will be publicly available only in hard copy.
Publicly available docket materials are available either electronically
in http://www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at the EPA-HQ-OAR-2007-
0121 Docket, EPA/DC, EPA West, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave., NW.,
Washington, DC. The Public Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30
p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone
number for the Public Reading Room is<PHONE_NUMBER>, and the telephone
number for the EPA-HQ-OAR-2007-0121 is<PHONE_NUMBER>.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Amy Kopin, U.S. EPA, Office of
Transportation and Air Quality, Assessment and Standards Division
(ASD), Environmental Protection Agency, 2000 Traverwood Drive, Ann
Arbor, MI 48105; telephone number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax number: (734)
214-4050; e-mail address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or Assessment and
Standards Division Hotline; telephone number:<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. General Information

A. Does This Action Apply to Me?

    This action will affect companies that manufacture, sell, or import
into the United States new marine compression-ignition engines with per
cylinder displacement at or above 30 liters for use on vessels flagged
or registered in the United States; companies and persons that make
vessels that will be flagged or registered in the United States and
that use such engines; and the owners or operators of such U.S.
vessels. Additionally, this action may affect companies and persons
that rebuild or maintain these engines. Finally, this action may also
affect those that manufacture, import, distribute, sell, and dispense
fuel for use by Category 3 marine vessels. Affected categories and
entities include the following:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                        Examples of
           Category               NAICS Code \a\    potentially affected
                                                          entities
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Industry......................  333618...........  Manufacturers of new
                                                    marine diesel
                                                    engines.
Industry......................  336611...........  Manufacturers of
                                                    marine vessels.
Industry......................  811310...........  Engine repair and
                                                    maintenance.
Industry......................  483..............  Water transportation,
                                                    freight and
                                                    passenger.
Industry......................  324110...........  Petroleum Refineries.
Industry......................  424710, 424720...  Petroleum Bulk
                                                    Stations and
                                                    Terminals; Petroleum
                                                    and Petroleum
                                                    Products
                                                    Wholesalers.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note:
\a\ North American Industry Classification System (NAICS).

    This table is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a
guide for readers regarding entities likely to be regulated by this
action. This table lists the types of entities that EPA is now aware
could potentially be regulated by this action. Other types of entities
not listed in the table could also be regulated. To determine whether
your company is regulated by this action, you should carefully examine
the applicability criteria in 40 CFR 80.501, 94.1, 1042.1, and 1065.1,
and the proposed regulations. If you have questions, consult the person
listed in the preceding FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section.

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

    1. Submitting CBI. Do not submit this information to EPA through
http://www.regulations.gov or e-mail. Clearly mark the part or all of
the information that you claim to be CBI. For CBI information in a disk
or CD ROM that you mail to EPA, mark the outside of the disk or CD ROM
as CBI and then identify electronically within the disk or CD ROM the
specific information that is claimed as CBI. In addition to one
complete version of the comment that includes information claimed as
CBI, a copy of the comment that does not contain the information
claimed as CBI must be submitted for inclusion in the public docket.
Information so marked will not be disclosed except in accordance with
procedures set forth in 40 CFR part 2.
    2. Tips for Preparing Your Comments. When submitting comments,
remember to:
     Identify the rulemaking by docket number and other
identifying information (subject heading, Federal Register date and
page number).
     Follow directions--The agency may ask you to respond to
specific questions or organize comments by referencing a Code of
Federal Regulations (CFR) part or section number.
     Explain why you agree or disagree, suggest alternatives,
and substitute language for your requested changes.
     Describe any assumptions and provide any technical
information and/or data that you used.
     If you estimate potential costs or burdens, explain how
you arrived at your estimate in sufficient detail to allow for it to be
reproduced.
     Provide specific examples to illustrate your concerns, and
suggest alternatives.
     Explain your views as clearly as possible, avoiding the
use of profanity or personal threats.
     Make sure to submit your comments by the comment period
deadline identified.

II. Additional Information About This Rulemaking

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

Table of Contents

I. Overview
    A. What Are the Elements of EPA's Coordinated Strategy for
Ocean-Going Vessels?
    B. Why is EPA Making this Proposal?
    C. Statutory Basis for Action
II. Air Quality, Health and Welfare Impacts
    A. Public Health Impacts
    B. Environmental Impacts
    C. Air Quality Modeling Results
    D. Emissions From Ships With Category 3 Engines
III. Engine Standards
    A. What Category 3 Marine Engines are Covered?
    B. What Standards are we Proposing for Freshly Manufactured
Engines?
    C. Are the Standards Feasible?
IV. Fuel Standards
    A. Background
    B. Current Diesel Fuel Standards
    C. Applicability
    D. Fuel Sulfur Standards
    E. Technical Amendments to the Current Diesel Fuel Sulfur
Program Regulations
V. Emission Control Areas for U.S. Coasts
    A. What is an ECA?
    B. U.S. Emission Control Area Designation
    C. Technological Approaches to Comply With ECA Standards
    D. ECA Designation and Foreign-Flagged Vessels
VI. Certification and Compliance Program
    A. Compliance Provisions for Category 3 Engines
    B. Compliance Provisions To Implement Annex VI NOX
Regulation and the NOX Technical Code
    C. Changes to the Requirements Specific to Engines Below 30
Liters per Cylinder
    D. Other Proposed Regulatory Issues
    E. Coast Guard's Marine Vessel Certification Program
VII. Costs and Economic Impacts

    A. Estimated Fuel Costs
    B. Estimated Engine Costs
    C. Cost Effectiveness
    D. Economic Impact Analysis
VIII. Benefits
    A. Overview
    B. Quantified Human Health Impacts
    C. Monetized Benefits
    D. What Are the Limitations of the Benefits Analysis?
    E. Comparison of Costs and Benefits
IX. Alternative Program Options
    A. Mandatory Cold Ironing Requirement
    B. Earlier Adoption of CAA Tier 3 standards
    C. Standards for Existing Engines
X. Public Participation
    A. How Do I Submit Comments?
    B. How Should I Submit CBI to the Agency?
    C. Will There Be a Public Hearing?
    D. Comment Period
    E. What Should I Consider as I Prepare My Comments for EPA?
XI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
    A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review
    B. Paperwork Reduction Act
    C. Regulatory Flexibility Act
    D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
    E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism
    F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With
Indian Tribal Governments
    G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From
Environmental Health and Safety Risks
    H. Executive Order 13211: Actions That Significantly Affect
Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use
    I. National Technology Transfer Advancement Act
    J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions To Address
Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income
Populations
XII. Statutory Provisions and Legal Authority

I. Overview

    This proposal is part of a coordinated strategy to address
emissions from ocean-going vessels and is an important step in EPA's
ongoing National Clean Diesel Campaign (NCDC). In recent years, we have
adopted major new programs designed to reduce emissions from new diesel
engines, including those used in highway (66 FR 5001, January 18,
2001), nonroad (69 FR 38957, June 29, 2004), locomotive, and marine
applications (73 FR 25098, May 6, 2008). When fully phased in, these
programs will significantly reduce emissions of harmful regulated
pollutants from these categories of engines and vehicles. This Notice
of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) sets out the next step in this ambitious
effort by addressing emissions from the largest marine diesel engines,
called Category 3 (C3) marine diesel engines. These are engines with
per cylinder displacement at or above 30 liters per cylinder, which are
used primarily for propulsion power on ocean-going vessels (OGV).
    Emissions from OGV remain at high levels. The Category 3 engines on
these vessels use emission control technology that is comparable to
that used by nonroad engines in the early 1990s, and use fuel that can
have a sulfur content of 30,000 ppm or more. As a result, these engines
emit high levels of pollutants that contribute to unhealthy air in many
areas of the U.S. Nationally, in 2009, emissions from Category 3
engines account for about 10 percent of mobile source nitrogen oxides
(NOX) emissions, about 24 percent of mobile source diesel
PM2.5 emissions (with PM2.5 referring to
particles with a nominal mean aerodynamic diameter less than or equal
to 2.5 [micro]m), and about 80 percent of mobile source sulfur oxides
(SOX) emissions. As we look into the future, however,
emissions from ocean-going vessels are expected to become a dominant
inventory source. This will be due to both emission reductions from
other mobile sources as new emission controls go into effect and to the
anticipated activity growth for ocean transportation. Without new
controls, we anticipate the contribution of ocean-going vessels to
national emission inventories to increase to about 24 percent, 34
percent, and 93 percent of mobile source NOX,
PM2.5, and SOX emissions, respectively in 2020,
growing to 40 percent, 48 percent, and 95 percent respectively in 2030.
The coordinated emission control strategy will lead to significant
reductions in these emissions and important benefits to public health.
    The evolution of EPA's strategy to control mobile source diesel
emissions has followed a technology progression, beginning with the
application of high-efficiency advanced aftertreatment approaches and
low sulfur fuel requirements first to highway vehicles, then to nonroad
engines and equipment, followed by locomotives and smaller marine
diesel engines. The benefits of this approach include maximizing air
quality benefits by focusing on the largest populations of sources with
the shortest service lives, allowing engine manufacturers to spread
initial research and development costs over a larger population of
engines, and allowing manufacturers to address the challenges of
applying advanced emission controls on smaller engines.
    EPA has been working with engine manufacturers and other industry
stakeholders for many years to identify and resolve challenges
associated with applying advanced diesel engine technology to Category
3 engines to achieve significant NOX emission reductions.
This work was fundamental in developing the emission limits for
Category 3 engines that we are proposing in this action and informed
the position advocated by the United States in the international
negotiations for more stringent tiers of international engine emission
limits.
    Our coordinated strategy to control emissions from ocean-going
vessels consists of actions at both the national and international
levels. It includes: (1) The engine and fuel controls we are proposing
in this action under our Clean Air Act authority; (2) the proposal \1\
submitted by the United States Government (USG) to the International
Maritime Organization (IMO) to amend Annex VI of the International
Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships (MARPOL Annex VI)
to designate U.S. coasts as an Emission Control Area (ECA) \2\ in which
all vessels, regardless of flag, would be required to meet the most
stringent engine and marine fuel sulfur requirements in Annex VI; and
(3) the new engine emission and fuel sulfur limits contained in the
amendments to Annex VI that are applicable to all vessels regardless of
flag and that are implemented in the U.S. through the Act to Prevent
Pollution from Ships (APPS).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Proposal to Designate an Emission Control Area for Nitrogen
Oxides, Sulphur Oxides and Particulate Matter, Submitted by the
United States and Canada. IMO Document MEPC59/6/5, 27 March, 2009. A
copy of this document can be found at http://www.epa.gov/otaq/regs/
nonroad/marine/ci/mepc-59-eca-proposal.pdf.
    \2\ For the purpose of this proposal, the term ``ECA'' refers to
both the ECA and internal U.S. waters. Refer to Section VI.B. for a
discussion of the application of the fuel sulfur and engine emission
limits to U.S. internal waters through APPS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The amendments to APPS to incorporate Annex VI provide the
authority to ensure compliance with MARPOL Annex VI by U.S. and foreign
vessels that enter U.S. ports or operate in U.S. waters. In light of
this, we are deciding not to revisit our existing approach with respect
to foreign vessels in this rule. However, the MARPOL Annex VI Tier III
NOX and stringent fuel sulfur limits are geographically
based and would not become effective absent designation of U.S. coasts
as an ECA. As noted above, the United States forwarded a proposal to
IMO to amend Annex VI to designate U.S. coasts as an ECA. If this
amendment is not adopted in a timely manner by IMO, we intend to take
supplemental action to control emissions from vessels that affect U.S.
air quality.
    Our coordinated strategy for ocean-going vessels would
significantly reduce emissions from foreign and domestic

vessels that affect U.S. air quality, and the impacts on human health
and welfare would be substantial. We project that by 2030 this program
would reduce annual emissions of NOX and particulate matter
(PM) by 1.2 million and 143,000 tons, respectively, and the magnitude
of these reductions would continue to grow well beyond 2030.\3\ These
reductions are estimated to annually prevent between 13,000 and 32,000
PM-related premature deaths, between 220 and 980 ozone-related
premature deaths, 1,500,000 work days lost, and 10,000,000 minor
restricted-activity days. The estimated annual monetized health
benefits of this coordinated strategy in 2030 would be between $110 and
$280 billion, assuming a 3 percent discount rate (or between $100 and
$260 billion assuming a 7 percent discount rate). The annual cost of
the overall program in 2030 would be significantly less, at
approximately $3.1 billion.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ These emission inventory reductions include reductions from
ships operating within the 24 nautical mile regulatory zone off the
California Coastline, beginning with the effective date of the
Coordinated Strategy program elements. The California regulation
contains a provision that would sunset the requirements of the rule
if the Federal program achieves equivalent emission reductions. See
http://www.arb.ca.gov/regact/2008/fuelogv08/fro13.pdf at 13 CCR
2299.2(j)(1).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    Our coordinated strategy for ocean-going vessels, including the CAA
emission standard proposed in this action, continues EPA's program to
progressively apply advanced aftertreatment emission control standards
to diesel engines and reflects the evolution of this technology from
the largest inventory source (highway engines), to land-based nonroad
engines, to locomotives and marine diesel engines up to 30 liters per
cylinder. The results of these forerunner programs are dramatic
reductions in NOX and PM2.5 emissions on the
order of 80 to 90 percent, which will lead to significant improvements
in national air quality.
    The combination of controls in the coordinated strategy for ocean-
going vessels is expected to provide significant reductions in
PM2.5, NOX, SOX, and toxic compounds,
both in the near term (as early as 2011) and in the long term. These
reductions would be achieved in a manner that: (1) Is very cost
effective compared to additional controls on portside vehicles and
equipment and other land-based mobile sources that are already subject
to stringent technology-forcing emission standards; (2) leverages the
international program adopted by IMO to ensure that all ships that
operate in areas that affect U.S. air quality are required to use
stringent emission control technology; and (3) provides the lead time
needed to deal with the engineering design workload that is involved in
applying advanced high-efficiency aftertreatment technology to these
very large engines. Overall, the coordinated strategy constitutes a
comprehensive program that addresses the problems caused by ocean-going
vessel emissions from both a near-term and long-term perspective. It
does this while providing for an orderly and cost-effective
implementation schedule for the vessel owners and manufacturers, and in
a way that is consistent with the international requirements for these
vessels.
    The human health and welfare impacts of emissions from ocean-going
vessels, along with estimates of their contribution to national
emission inventories, are described in Section II. The proposed new
tiers of Clean Air Act engine emission standards to address these
emissions, and our justifications for them, are discussed in Section
III. Section IV contains proposed changes to our existing marine diesel
fuel program. In Section V, we describe a key component of the
coordinated strategy: the recently-submitted proposal to amend MARPOL
Annex VI to designate U.S. coasts as an ECA, as well as the IMO
approval process.
    In addition to the new emission limits, we are proposing several
revisions to our Clean Air Act testing, certification, and compliance
provisions to better ensure emissions control in use. We are also
proposing several regulations for the purpose of implementing MARPOL
Annex VI pursuant to the Act to Prevent Pollution From Ships (33 USC
1901 et seq.). These revisions are described in Section VI. Sections
VII and VIII present the estimated costs and benefits of our
coordinated program to address OGV emissions, and Section IX presents
the analysis of programmatic alternatives and a discussion of a
potential Voluntary Marine Verification Program.
(1) What CAA Standards Is EPA Proposing?
    We are proposing new tiers of Category 3 marine diesel engine
standards under our Clean Air Act authority, as well as certain
revisions to our marine fuel program.
    Category 3 Engine Standards. Our current standards for Category 3
engines were adopted in 2003. These Tier 1 standards are equivalent to
the first tier of MARPOL Annex VI NOX limits and require the
use of control technology comparable to that used by nonroad engines in
the early 1990s. We did not adopt PM standards at that time because the
vast majority of PM emissions from Category 3 engines are the result of
the sulfur content of the residual fuel they use and because of
measurement issues.\4\ The combination of the engine and fuel standards
we are proposing in this NPRM and the USG proposal for ECA designation
will require all vessels that operate in coastal areas that affect U.S.
air quality to meet advanced engine standards and fuel controls.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ As explained in the NPRM, there were no acceptable
procedures for measuring PM from Category 3 marine engines.
Specifically, established PM test methods showed unacceptable
variability when sulfur levels exceed 0.8 weight percent, which was
common at that time for both residual and distillate marine fuels
for Category 3 engines, and no PM test method or calculation
methodology had been developed to correct that variability for these
engines. See 67 FR 37569, May 29, 2002.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We are proposing to revise our CAA engine program to include two
additional tiers of NOX standards for new marine diesel
engines with per cylinder displacement at or above 30 liters (Category
3 engines) installed on vessels flagged or registered in the United
States. The proposed near-term Tier 2 standards would apply beginning
in 2011 and would require more efficient use of engine technologies
being used today, including engine timing, engine cooling, and advanced
computer controls. The proposed long-term Tier 3 standards would apply
beginning in 2016 and would require the use of high-efficiency
aftertreatment technology such as selective catalytic reduction.
    Because much of the operation of U.S. vessels occurs in areas that
would have little, if any, impact on U.S. air quality, we are proposing
that our Clean Air Act program allow the use of alternative emission
control devices (AECDs) that would permit a ship to meet less stringent
requirements on the open sea. The use of these devices would be subject
to certain restrictions, including a requirement that the AECD not
disable emission controls while operating in areas where emissions
could reasonably be expected to adversely affect U.S. air quality, and
that the engine is equipped with a NOX emission monitoring
device. In addition, the engine would be required to meet the Tier 2
NOX limits when the AECD is implemented, and an AECD would
not be allowed on any Tier 2 or earlier engine.
    In addition to the NOX emission limits, we are proposing
standards for emissions of hydrocarbons (HC) and carbon monoxides (CO)
from new Category 3 engines. As explained in

Section III.B.1, below, we are not proposing to set a standard for PM
emissions for Category 3 engines. However, significant PM emissions
benefits will be achieved through the ECA fuel sulfur requirements that
will apply to ships that operate in areas that affect U.S. air quality.
We are also proposing to require engine manufacturers to measure and
report PM emissions pursuant to our authority in section 208 of the
Act.
    Fuel Sulfur Limits. EPA is in this notice proposing fuel sulfur
limits under section 211(c) of the Clean Air Act that match the limits
that apply under Annex VI in ECAs. First, we are proposing to forbid
the production and sale of fuel oil with a sulfur content above 1,000
ppm for use in the waters within the proposed ECA (as well as internal
U.S. waters). Second, we are proposing a revision to our existing
diesel fuel program to allow for the production and sale of 1,000 ppm
sulfur fuel for use in Category 3 marine vessels. This would allow
production and distribution of fuel consistent with the new sulfur
limits that will become applicable, under Annex VI, in ECAs beginning
in 2015. Our current diesel fuel program sets a sulfur limit of 15 ppm
that will be fully phased-in by December 1, 2014 for nonroad,
locomotive, and marine (NRLM) diesel fuel produced for distribution/
sale and use in the U.S. Without this proposed change to our existing
diesel fuel regulations, fuel with a sulfur content of up to 1,000 ppm
could be used in C3 marine vessels, but it could not be legally
produced in the U.S. after June 1, 2014.
(2) What is the United States Government Proposal for Designation of an
Emission Control Area?
    MARPOL Annex VI contains the international standards for air
emissions from ships, including NOX and SOX /PM
emissions. The Annex VI NOX and SOX /PM limits
are set out in Table I-1. Annex VI was originally adopted by the
Parties in 1997 but did not go into force until 2005, after it was
ratified by fifteen countries representing at least 50 percent of the
world's merchant shipping tonnage. The initial program consisted of
engine NOX emission standards and fuel sulfur limits. The
NOX standards apply to all engines above 130 kW installed on
a ship constructed on or after January 1, 2000 and were intended to
reduce NOX emissions by about 30 percent from uncontrolled.
There were two fuel sulfur limits: A global limit of 45,000 ppm and a
more stringent 15,000 ppm limit that applies in SOX Emission
Control Areas (SECAs). This approach ensured that the cleanest fuel was
used in areas that demonstrated a need for additional SOX
reductions, while retaining the ability of ships to use higher sulfur
residual fuel on the open ocean.
    Annex VI was amended in October 2008, adding two tiers of
NOX limits (Tier II and Tier III) and two sets of fuel
sulfur standards.\5\ These amendments will enter into force on July 1,
2010 unless an objection is raised before January 1, 2010 by at least
one-third of the parties to the Annex or by parties that represent at
least 50 percent of the world's gross merchant tonnage. The most
stringent NOX and fuel sulfur limits are regionally based
and will apply only in designated ECAs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ Note that the MARPOL Annex VI standards are referred to as
Tiers I, II, and III; EPA's Category 3 emission standards are
referred to as Tiers 1, 2, and 3.

                                           Table I--1--Annex VI NOX Emission Standards and Fuel Sulfur Limits
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Less than 130
                                                                                RPM              130-2000 RPM \a\         Over 2000 RPM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NOX.....................................  Tier I.....................          \b\ 2004              17.0       45.0 [middot] n(-0.20)               9.8
                                          Tier II....................              2011              14.4       44.0 [middot] n(-0.23)               7.7
                                          Tier III...................              2016               3.4        9.0 [middot] n(-0.20)               2.0
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                Global
                                                                  ECA
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fuel Sulfur..............................              2004  45,000 ppm \c\................                         2005  15,000 ppm \c\
                                                       2012  35,000 ppm \c\................                         2010  10,000 ppm \c\
                                                       2020  5,000 ppm c d.................                         2015  1,000 ppm \c\
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Notes:
\a\ Applicable standards are calculated from n (maximum in-use engine speed in revolutions per minute (rpm)), rounded to one decimal place.
\b\ Tier 1 NOX standards apply for engines originally manufactured after 2004, and proposed to also to certain earlier engines.
\c\ Annex VI standards are in terms of percent sulfur. Global sulfur limits are 4.5%; 3.5%; 0.5%. ECA sulfur limits are 1.5%; 1.0%; 0.1%.
\d\ Subject to a feasibility review in 2018; may be delayed to 2025.

    To realize the benefits from the MARPOL Annex VI Tier III
NOX and fuel sulfur controls, areas must be designated as
Emission Control Areas. On March 27, 2009, the U.S. and Canadian
governments submitted a proposal to amend MARPOL Annex VI to designate
North American coastal waters as an ECA (referred to as the ``U.S./
Canada ECA'' or the ``North American ECA'').\6\ A description of this
submittal and the IMO approval process is set out in Section V. ECA
designation would ensure that ships that affect U.S. air quality meet
stringent NOX and fuel sulfur requirements while operating
within 200 nautical miles of U.S. coasts. We expect the U.S./Canadian
proposal will be adopted by the Parties to MARPOL Annex VI in March
2010. If, however, the proposed amendment is not adopted in a timely
manner, we intend to take supplemental action to control harmful
emissions from vessels that affect U.S. air quality.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ Proposal to Designate an Emission Control Area for Nitrogen
Oxides, Sulphur Oxides and Particulate Matter, Submitted by the
United States and Canada. IMO Document MEPC59/6/5, 27 March, 2009. A
copy of this document can be found at http://www.epa.gov/otaq/regs/
nonroad/marine/ci/mepc-59-eca-proposal.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

(3) Regulations To Implement Annex VI
    The United States became a party to MARPOL Annex VI by depositing
its instrument of ratification with IMO on October 8, 2008. This was
preceded by the President signing into law the Maritime Pollution
Prevention Act of 2008 (Pub. L. 110-280) on July 21, 2008, that
contains amendments to the Act to Prevent Pollution from Ships (33
U.S.C. 1901 et seq.). These APPS amendments require compliance with
Annex VI by all persons subject to the engine and

vessel requirements of Annex VI. The amendments also authorize the
United States Coast Guard and EPA to enforce the provisions of Annex VI
against domestic and foreign vessels and to develop implementing
regulations, as necessary. In addition, APPS gives EPA sole authority
to certify engines installed on U.S. vessels to the Annex VI
requirements. This NPRM contains proposed regulations to implement
several aspects of the Annex VI engine and fuel regulations, which we
are proposing under that APPS authority. Our cost and benefit analyses
for the coordinated strategy includes the costs for U.S. vessels of
implementing those provisions of the MARPOL Annex VI program that are
in addition to the ECA requirements.
(4) Technical Amendments
    The proposed regulations also include technical amendments to our
motor vehicle and nonroad engine regulations. Many of these changes
involve minor adjustments or corrections to our recently finalized rule
for new nonroad spark-ignition engines, or adjustment to other
regulatory provisions to align with this recent final rule.
(5) Summary
    The coordinated strategy emission control requirements are the
MARPOL Annex VI global Tier II NOX standards included in the
amendments to Annex VI and the ECA Tier 3 NOX limits and
fuel sulfur limits that will apply when the U.S. coasts are designated
as an ECA through an additional amendment to Annex VI. The Annex VI
requirements, including the future ECA requirements, will be
enforceable for U.S. and foreign vessels operating in the United States
waters through the Act to Prevent Pollution from Ships.
    We are also adopting the engine controls for Category 3 engines on
U.S. vessels under our Clean Air Act program, as required by Section
213 of the Act.
    Finally, we are proposing additional requirements that are not part
of the Annex VI program or the ECA. These are: Limits on hydrocarbon
and carbon monoxide emissions for Category 3 engines; PM measurement
requirement, to obtain data on PM emissions from engines operating on
distillate fuel; and changes to our Clean Air Act diesel fuel program
to allow production and sale of ECA-compliant fuel. We are also
considering changes to our emission control program for smaller marine
diesel engines to harmonize with the Annex VI NOX
requirements, for U.S. vessels that operate internationally.

B. Why is EPA Making This Proposal?

(1) OGV Contribute to Serious Air Quality Problems
    Ocean-going vessels subject to this proposal generate significant
emissions of PM2.5, SOX, and NOX that
contribute to nonattainment of the National Ambient Air Quality
Standards (NAAQS) for PM2.5 and ground-level ozone (smog).
NOX and SOX are both precursors to secondary
PM2.5 formation. Both PM2.5 and NOX
adversely affect human health. NOX is a key precursor to
ozone as well. NOX, SOX and PM2.5
emissions from ocean-going vessels also cause harm to public welfare,
including contributing to deposition of nitrogen and sulfur, visibility
impairment and other harmful environmental impacts across the U.S.
    The health and environmental effects associated with these
emissions are a classic example of a negative externality (an activity
that imposes uncompensated costs on others). With a negative
externality, an activity's social cost (the costs borne to society
imposed as a result of the activity taking place) is not taken into
account in the total cost of producing goods and services. In this
case, as described in this section below and in Section II, emissions
from ocean-going vessels impose public health and environmental costs
on society, and these added costs to society are not reflected in the
costs of providing the transportation services. The market system
itself cannot correct this externality because firms in the market are
rewarded for minimizing their production costs, including the costs of
pollution control. In addition, firms that may take steps to use
equipment that reduces air pollution may find themselves at a
competitive disadvantage compared to firms that do not. To correct this
market failure and reduce the negative externality from these
emissions, we propose to set a cap on the rate of emission production
from these sources. EPA's coordinated strategy for ocean-going vessels
will accomplish this since both domestic and foreign ocean-going
vessels will be required to reduce their emissions to a technologically
feasible limit.
    Emissions from ocean-going vessels account for substantial portions
of the country's ambient PM2.5, SOX and
NOX levels. We estimate that in 2009 these engines account
for about 80 percent of mobile source sulfur dioxide (SO2)
emissions, 10 percent of mobile source NOX emissions and
about 24 percent of mobile source diesel PM2.5 emissions.
Emissions from ocean-going vessels are expected to dominate the mobile
source inventory in the future, due to both the expected emission
reductions from other mobile sources as a result of more stringent
emission controls and due to growth in the demand for ocean
transportation services. By 2030, the coordinated strategy would reduce
annual SO2 emissions from these diesel engines by 1.3
million tons, annual NOX emissions by 1.2 million tons, and
PM2.5 emissions by 143,000 tons, and those reductions would
continue to grow beyond 2030 as fleet turnover to the clean engines
continues. While a share of these emissions occur at sea, our air
quality modeling results described in Section II show they have a
significant impact on ambient air quality far inland.
    Both ozone and PM2.5 are associated with serious public
health problems, including premature mortality, aggravation of
respiratory and cardiovascular disease (as indicated by increased
hospital admissions and emergency room visits, school absences, lost
work days, and restricted activity days), changes in lung function and
increased respiratory symptoms, altered respiratory defense mechanisms,
and chronic bronchitis. Diesel exhaust is of special public health
concern, and since 2002 EPA has classified it as likely to be
carcinogenic to humans by inhalation at environmental exposures. Recent
studies are showing that populations living near large diesel emission
sources such as major roadways, rail yards, and marine ports are likely
to experience greater diesel exhaust exposure levels than the overall
U.S. population, putting them at greater health risks.7 8 9
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ U.S. EPA. (2004). Final Regulatory Impact Analysis: Control
of Emissions from Nonroad Diesel Engines, Chapter 3. Report No.
EPA420-R-04-007. http://www.epa.gov/nonroad-diesel/2004fr.htm#ria.
    \8\ State of California Air Resources Board. Roseville Rail Yard
Study. Sacramento, CA: California EPA, California Air Resources
Board (CARB). Stationary Source Division. This document is available
electronically at: http://www.arb.ca.gov/diesel/documents/
rrstudy.htm.
    \9\ Di, P., Servin, A., Rosenkranz, K., Schwehr, B., Tran, H.,
(2006). Diesel Particulate Matter Exposure Assessment Study for the
Ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach. Sacramento, CA: California EPA,
California Air Resources Board (CARB). Retrieved March 19, 2009 from
http://www.arb.ca.gov/regact/marine2005/portstudy0406.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    EPA recently updated its initial screening-level analysis \10\ of
selected marine port areas to better understand the populations that
are exposed to diesel particulate matter emissions from

these facilities.11 12 13 14 This screening-level analysis
focused on a representative selection of national marine ports.\15\ Of
the 45 marine ports selected, the results indicate that at least 18
million people, including a disproportionate number of low-income
households, African-Americans, and Hispanics, live in the vicinity of
these facilities and are being exposed to ambient diesel PM levels that
are 2.0 [mu] g/m\3\ and 0.2 [mu] g/m\3\ above levels found in areas
further from these facilities. Considering only ocean-going marine
engine diesel PM emissions, the results indicate that 6.5 million
people are exposed to ambient diesel particulate matter (DPM) levels
that are 2.0 [mu]g/m \3\ and 0.2 [mu] g/m\3\ above levels found in
areas further from these facilities. Because those populations exposed
to diesel PM emissions from marine ports are more likely to be low-
income and minority residents, these populations would benefit from the
controls being proposed in this action. The detailed findings of this
study are available in the public docket for this rulemaking.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ This type of screening-level analysis is an inexact tool
and not appropriate for regulatory decision-making; it is useful in
beginning to understand potential impacts and for illustrative
purposes. Additionally, the emissions inventories used as inputs for
the analyses are not official estimates and likely underestimate
overall emissions because they are not inclusive of all emission
sources at the individual ports in the sample.
    \11\ ICF International. September 28, 2007. Estimation of diesel
particulate matter concentration isopleths for marine harbor areas
and rail yards. Memorandum to EPA under Work Assignment Number 0-3,
Contract Number EP-C-06-094. This memo is available in Docket EPA-
HQ-OAR-2007-0121.
    \12\ ICF International. September 28, 2007. Estimation of diesel
particulate matter population exposure near selected harbor areas
and rail yards. Memorandum to EPA under Work Assignment Number 0-3,
Contract Number EP-C-06-094. This memo is available in Docket EPA-
HQ-OAR-2007-0121.
    \13\ ICF International, December 10, 2008. Estimation of diesel
particulate matter population exposure near selected harbor areas
with revised harbor emissions. Memorandum to EPA under Work
Assignment Number 2-9. Contract Number EP-C-06-094. This memo is
available in Docket EPA-HQ-OAR-2007-0121.
    \14\ ICF International. December 1, 2008. Estimation of diesel
particulate matter concentration isopleths near selected harbor
areas with revised emissions. Memorandum to EPA under Work
Assignment Number 1-9. Contract Number EP-C-06-094. This memo is
available in Docket EPA-HQ-OAR-2007-0121.
    \15\ The Agency selected a representative sample from the top
150 U.S. ports including coastal and Great Lake ports.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Even outside port areas, millions of Americans continue to live in
areas that do not meet existing air quality standards today. With
regard to PM2.5 nonattainment, in 2005 EPA designated 39
nonattainment areas for the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS (70 FR 943,
January 5, 2005). These areas are composed of 208 full or partial
counties with a total population exceeding 88 million. The 1997
PM2.5 NAAQS was recently revised and the 2006
PM2.5 NAAQS became effective on December 18, 2006. As of
December 22, 2008, there are 58 2006 PM2.5 nonattainment
areas composed of 211 full or partial counties. These numbers do not
include individuals living in areas that may fail to maintain or
achieve the PM2.5 NAAQS in the future. Currently, ozone
concentrations exceeding the 8-hour ozone NAAQS occur over wide
geographic areas, including most of the nation's major population
centers. As of December 2008, there are approximately 132 million
people living in 57 areas (293 full or partial counties) designated as
not in attainment with the 8-hour ozone NAAQS. These numbers do not
include people living in areas where there is a potential that the area
may fail to maintain or achieve the 8-hour ozone NAAQS.
    In addition to public health impacts, there are serious public
welfare and environmental impacts associated with PM2.5 and
ozone emissions. Specifically, NOX and SOX
emissions from diesel engines contribute to the acidification,
nitrification, and eutrophication of water bodies. NOX,
SOX and direct emissions of PM2.5 can contribute
to the substantial impairment of visibility in many parts of the U.S.
where people live, work, and recreate, including national parks,
wilderness areas, and mandatory class I Federal areas.\16\ The
deposition of airborne particles can also reduce the aesthetic appeal
of buildings and culturally important articles through soiling, and can
contribute directly (or in conjunction with other pollutants) to
structural damage by means of corrosion or erosion. Finally, ozone
causes damage to vegetation which leads to crop and forestry economic
losses, as well as harm to national parks, wilderness areas, and other
natural systems.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ These areas are defined in section 162 of the Act as those
national parks exceeding 6,000 acres, wilderness areas and memorial
parks exceeding 5,000 acres, and all international parks which were
in existence on August 7, 1977. Section 169 of the Clean Air Act
provides additional authority to address existing visibility
impairment and prevent future visibility impairment in the 156
national parks, forests and wilderness areas categorized as
mandatory class I Federal areas.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    While EPA has already adopted many emission control programs that
are expected to reduce ambient PM2.5 and ozone levels,
including the Nonroad Spark Ignition Engine rule (73 FR 59034, Oct. 8,
2008), the Locomotive and Marine Diesel Engine Rule (73 FR 25098, May
6, 2008), the Clean Air Interstate Rule (CAIR) (70 FR 25162, May 12,
2005) and the Clean Air Nonroad Diesel Rule (69 FR 38957, June 29,
2004), the Heavy Duty Engine and Vehicle Standards and Highway Diesel
Fuel Sulfur Control Requirements (66 FR 5002, Jan. 18, 2001), and the
Tier 2 Vehicle and Gasoline Sulfur Program (65 FR 6698, Feb. 10, 2000),
the additional PM2.5, SOX and NOX
emission reductions resulting from the coordinated approach described
in this action would assist states in attaining and maintaining the
PM2.5 and ozone NAAQS near term and in the decades to come.
    Air quality modeling conducted by EPA projects that in 2020 at
least 13 counties with about 30 million people may violate the 1997
standards for PM2.5 and 50 counties with about 50 million
people may violate the 2008 standards for ozone. These numbers likely
underestimate the impacted population since they do not include the
people who live in areas which do not meet the 2006 PM2.5
NAAQS. In addition, these numbers do not include the additional 13
million people in 12 counties who live in areas that have air quality
measurements within 10 percent of the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS and
the additional 80 million people in 135 counties who live in areas that
have air quality measurements within 10% of the 2008 ozone NAAQS. The
emission reductions resulting from this coordinated strategy would
assist these and other states to both attain and maintain the
PM2.5 and ozone NAAQS.
    State and local governments are working to protect the health of
their citizens and comply with requirements of the Clean Air Act. As
part of this effort, they recognize the need to secure additional major
reductions in diesel PM2.5, SOX and
NOX emissions by undertaking numerous state level actions,
while also seeking Agency action, including the setting of the CAA
Category 3 engine standards being proposed in this NPRM and the U.S.
proposal to IMO to amend Annex VI to designate U.S. coastal areas as an
ECA, and related CAA certification and fuel provisions to complement
that ECA proposal. EPA's coordinated strategy to reduce OGV emissions
through engine emission controls and fuel sulfur limits would play a
critical part in state efforts to attain and maintain the NAAQS through
the next two decades.
    In addition to regulatory programs, the Agency has a number of
innovative programs that partner government, industry, and local
communities together to help address challenging air quality problems.
Under the National Clean Diesel Campaign, EPA promotes a variety of
emission reduction strategies such as retrofitting, repairing,
replacing and repowering engines, reducing idling and switching to
cleaner fuels.
    In 2008, Congress appropriated funding for the Diesel Emissions

Reduction Program (DERA) under the Energy Policy Act of 2005 (EPAct
2005) to reduce emissions from heavy-duty diesel engines in the
existing fleet. The EPAct 2005 directs EPA to break the funding into
two different components: A National competition and a State allocation
program. The National Program, with 70 percent of the funding, consists
of three separate competitions: (1) The National Clean Diesel Funding
Assistance Program; (2) the National Clean Diesel Emerging Technologies
Program; and (3) the SmartWay Clean Diesel Finance Program. The State
Clean Diesel Grant and Loan Program utilizes the remaining 30 percent
of the funding. In the first year of the program, EPA awarded 119
grants totaling $49.2 million for diesel emissions reduction projects
and programs across the country for cleaner fuels, verified
technologies and certified engine configurations.
    Through $300 million in funding provided to the DERA program under
the American Reinvestment and Recovery Act of 2009, EPA will promote
and preserve jobs while improving public health and achieving
significant reductions in diesel emissions.
    Furthermore, EPA's National Clean Diesel Campaign, through its
Clean Ports USA program, is working with port authorities, terminal
operators, shipping, truck and rail companies to promote cleaner diesel
technologies and strategies today through education, incentives, and
financial assistance for diesel emissions reductions at ports. Part of
these efforts involves clean diesel programs that can further reduce
emissions from the existing fleet of diesel engines. Finally, many of
the companies operating in states and communities suffering from poor
air quality have voluntarily entered into Memoranda of Understanding
(MOUs) designed to ensure that the cleanest technologies are used first
in regions with the most challenging air quality issues.
    In addition to the above innovative programs, we are seeking
comment on a Voluntary Marine Verification Program to address emissions
from existing Category 3 engines. This voluntary program would extend
our existing diesel retrofit verification program to these largest
marine vessels. The concept is described in Section IX.C.3 below.
    Taken together, these voluntary approaches can augment the
coordinated strategy and help states and communities achieve larger
reductions sooner in the areas of our country that need them the most.
The Agency remains committed to furthering these programs and others so
that all of our citizens can breathe clean healthy air.
(2) Advanced Emission Technology Solutions are Available
    Air pollution from marine diesel exhaust is a challenging problem.
However, we believe it can be addressed effectively through the use of
existing technology to reduce engine-out emissions combined with high-
efficiency catalytic aftertreatment technologies. As discussed in
greater detail in Section III.C, the development of these
aftertreatment technologies for highway and nonroad diesel applications
has advanced rapidly in recent years, so that very large emission
reductions in NOX emissions can be achieved.
    Control of NOX emissions from Category 3 engines can be
achieved with high-efficiency exhaust emission control technologies.
Such technologies have already been applied to meet our light-duty
passenger car standards and are expected to be used to meet the
stringent NOX standards included in EPA's heavy-duty highway
diesel, nonroad Tier 4, and locomotive and marine diesel engine
programs. They have been in production for heavy duty trucks in Europe
since 2005, as well as in many stationary source applications
throughout the world. These technologies are discussed further in
Section III.C. While these technologies can be sensitive to sulfur,
their use will be required only in ECAs designated under MARPOL Annex
VI, and they are expected to be able to operate on ECA fuel meeting a
1,000 ppm fuel sulfur. With the lead time available and the assurance
of 1,000 ppm fuel for ocean-going vessels in 2015, as would be required
through ECA designation for U.S. coasts, we are confident the proposed
application of advanced NOX technology to Category 3 marine
engines will proceed at a reasonable rate of progress and will result
in systems capable of achieving the proposed standards on the proposed
schedule. Use of this lower sulfur fuel will also result in substantial
PM emission reductions, since most of the PM emissions from Category 3
engines is due to the use of high sulfur residual fuel.

C. Statutory Basis for Action

    Authority for the actions proposed in this documents is granted to
the Environmental Protection Agency by sections 114, 203, 205, 206,
207, 208, 211, 213, 216, and 301(a) of the Clean Air Act as amended in
1990 (42 U.S.C. 7414, 7522, 7524, 7525, 7541, 7542, 7545, 7547, 7550
and 7601(a)), and by sections 1901-1915 of the Act to Prevent Pollution
from Ships (33 U.S.C. 1909 et seq.).
(1) Clean Air Act Basis for Action
    EPA is proposing the fuel requirements pursuant to its authority in
section 211 (c) of the Clean Air Act, which allow EPA to regulate fuels
that contribute to air pollution which endangers public health or
welfare (42 U.S.C. 7545(c)). As discussed previously in EPA's Clean Air
Nonroad Diesel rule (69 FR 38958) and below in Section II of this
preamble, the combustion of high sulfur diesel fuel by nonroad,
locomotive, and marine diesel engines contributes to air quality
problems that endanger public health and welfare. Section II also
discusses the significant contribution to these air quality problems by
Category 3 marine vessels. Additional support for the procedural and
enforcement-related aspects of the fuel controls in the proposed rule,
including the record keeping requirements, comes from sections 114(a)
and 301(a) of the CAA (42 U.S.C. Sections 7414 (a) and 7601 (a)).
    EPA is proposing emissions standards for new Category 3 marine
diesel engines pursuant to its authority under section 213(a)(3) of the
Clean Air Act, which directs the Administrator to set standards
regulating emissions of NOX, volatile organic compounds
(VOCs), or CO for classes or categories of engines, like marine diesel
engines, that contribute to ozone or carbon monoxide concentrations in
more than one nonattainment area. These ``standards shall achieve the
greatest degree of emission reduction achievable through the
application of technology which the Administrator determines will be
available for the engines or vehicles, giving appropriate consideration
to cost, lead time, noise, energy, and safety factors associated with
the application of such technology.''
    EPA is proposing a PM measurement requirement for new Category 3
marine diesel engines pursuant to its authority under section 208,
which requires manufacturers and other persons subject to Title II
requirements to ``provide information the Administrator may reasonably
require * * * to otherwise carry out the provisions of this part* * *''
    EPA is also acting under its authority to implement and enforce the
Category 3 marine diesel emission standards. Section 213(d) provides
that the standards EPA adopts for marine diesel engines ``shall be
subject to Sections 206, 207, 208, and 209'' of the Clean Air Act, with
such modifications that the Administrator deems appropriate to the

regulations implementing these sections.'' In addition, the marine
standards ``shall be enforced in the same manner as [motor vehicle]
standards prescribed under section 202'' of the Act. Section 213(d)
also grants EPA authority to promulgate or revise regulations as
necessary to determine compliance with and enforce standards adopted
under section 213.
    As required under section 213(a)(3), we believe the evidence
provided in Section III.C of this Preamble and in Chapter 4 of draft
Regulatory Impact Analysis (RIA) indicates that the stringent
NOX emission standards proposed in this NPRM for newly-built
Category 3 marine diesel engines are feasible and reflect the greatest
degree of emission reduction achievable through the use of technology
that will be available in the model years to which they apply. We have
given appropriate consideration to costs in proposing these standards.
Our review of the costs and cost-effectiveness of these standards
indicate that they will be reasonable and comparable to the cost-
effectiveness of other mobile source emission reduction strategies that
have been required. We have also reviewed and given appropriate
consideration to the energy factors of this rule in terms of fuel
efficiency as well as any safety and noise factors associated with
these proposed standards.
    The information in Section II of this preamble and Chapter 2 of the
draft RIA regarding air quality and public health impacts provides
strong evidence that emissions from Category 3 marine diesel engines
significantly and adversely impact public health or welfare. EPA has
already found in previous rules that emissions from new marine diesel
engines contribute to ozone and CO concentrations in more than one area
which has failed to attain the ozone and carbon monoxide NAAQS (64 FR
73300, December 29, 1999).
    The NOX and PM emission reductions expected to be
achieved through the coordinated strategy would be important to states'
efforts to attain and maintain the Ozone and the PM2.5 NAAQS
in the near term and in the decades to come, and would significantly
reduce the risk of adverse effects to human health and welfare.
(2) APPS Basis for Action
    EPA is proposing regulations to implement MARPOL Annex VI pursuant
to its authority in section 1903 of the Act to Prevent Pollution from
Ships (APPS). Section 1903 gives the Administrator the authority to
prescribe any necessary or desired regulations to carry out the
provisions of Regulations 12 through 19 of Annex VI.
    The Act to Prevent Pollution from Ships implements and makes Annex
VI requirements enforceable domestically. However, certain
clarifications are necessary with respect to implementing Regulation 13
and the requirements of the NOX Technical Code with respect
to issuance of Engine International Air Pollution Prevention (EIAPP)
certificates, approval of alternative compliance methods. Clarification
is also needed with respect to the application of the Annex VI
requirements to certain U.S. and foreign vessels that operate in U.S.
waters.

II. Air Quality, Health and Welfare Impacts

    The proposed NOX limits combined with the ECA
designation for U.S. coasts and related proposed fuel standards are
expected to significantly reduce emissions of NOX, PM, and
SOX from ocean-going vessels. Emissions of these compounds
contribute to nonattainment of the NAAQS for PM and ozone. In addition
to contributing to PM nonattainment, these engines are emitting diesel
particulate matter, which is associated with a host of adverse health
effects, including cancer. In addition to their health effects,
emissions from these engines also contribute to welfare and
environmental effects including deposition, visibility impairment and
harm to ecosystems from ozone.
    This section summarizes the general health and welfare effects of
these emissions. Interested readers are encouraged to refer to the
draft RIA for more in-depth discussions.

A. Public Health Impacts

(1) Particulate Matter
(a) Background
    Particulate matter is a generic term for a broad class of
chemically and physically diverse substances. It can be principally
characterized as discrete particles that exist in the condensed (liquid
or solid) phase spanning several orders of magnitude in size. Since
1987, EPA has delineated that subset of inhalable particles small
enough to penetrate to the thoracic region (including the
tracheobronchial and alveolar regions) of the respiratory tract
(referred to as thoracic particles). Current NAAQS use PM2.5
as the indicator for fine particles (with PM2.5 referring to
particles with a nominal mean aerodynamic diameter less than or equal
to 2.5 [micro]m), and use PM10 as the indicator for purposes
of regulating the coarse fraction of PM10 (referred to as
thoracic coarse particles or coarse-fraction particles; generally
including particles with a nominal mean aerodynamic diameter greater
than 2.5 [micro]m and less than or equal to 10 [micro]m, or
PM10-2.5). Ultrafine particles are a subset of fine
particles, generally less than 100 nanometers (0.1 [mu]m) in
aerodynamic diameter.
    Fine particles are produced primarily by combustion processes and
by transformations of gaseous emissions (e.g., SOX,
NOX and VOC) in the atmosphere. The chemical and physical
properties of PM2.5 may vary greatly with time, region,
meteorology, and source category. Thus, PM2.5 may include a
complex mixture of different pollutants including sulfates, nitrates,
organic compounds, elemental carbon and metal compounds. These
particles can remain in the atmosphere for days to weeks and travel
hundreds to thousands of kilometers.\17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ U.S. EPA. (2005). Review of the National Ambient Air
Quality Standard for Particulate Matter: Policy Assessment of
Scientific and Technical Information, OAQPS Staff Paper. EPA-452/R-
05-005a. Retrieved March 19, 2009 from http://www.epa.gov/ttn/naaqs/
standards/pm/data/pmstaffpaper_20051221.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

(b) Health Effects of PM
    Scientific studies show ambient PM is associated with a series of
adverse health effects. These health effects are discussed in detail in
EPA's 2004 Particulate Matter Air Quality Criteria Document (PM AQCD)
and the 2005 PM Staff Paper.\18\ Further discussion\19\ of health
effects associated\20\ with PM can also be found in the draft RIA for
this rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ U.S. EPA (2004). Air Quality Criteria for Particulate
Matter. Volume I EPA600/P-99/002aF and Volume II EPA600/P-99/002bF.
Retrieved on March 19, 2009 from Docket EPA-HQ-OAR-2003-0190 at
http://www.regulations.gov/.
    \19\ U.S. EPA. (2005). Review of the National Ambient Air
Quality Standard for Particulate Matter: Policy Assessment of
Scientific and Technical Information, OAQPS Staff Paper. EPA-452/R-
05-005a. Retrieved March 19, 2009 from http://www.epa.gov/ttn/naaqs/
standards/pm/data/pmstaffpaper_20051221.pdf.
    \20\ The PM NAAQS is currently under review and the EPA is
considering all available science on PM health effects, including
information which has been published since 2004, in the development
of the upcoming PM Integrated Science Assessment Document (ISA). A
first draft of the PM ISA was completed in December 2008 and was
submitted for review by the Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee
(CASAC) of EPA's Science Advisory Board. Comments from the general
public have also been requested. For more information, see http://
cfpub.epa.gov/ncea/cfm/recordisplay.cfm?deid=201805.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Health effects associated with short-term exposures (hours to days)
to ambient PM include premature mortality, aggravation of
cardiovascular and lung disease (as indicated by increased hospital
admissions and

emergency department visits), increased respiratory symptoms including
cough and difficulty breathing, decrements in lung function, altered
heart rate rhythm, and other more subtle changes in blood markers
related to cardiovascular health.\21\ Long-term exposure to
PM2.5 and sulfates has also been associated with mortality
from cardiopulmonary disease and lung cancer, and effects on the
respiratory system such as reduced lung function growth or development
of respiratory disease. A new analysis shows an association between
long-term PM2.5 exposure and a measure of atherosclerosis
development.22, 23
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\ U.S. EPA. (2006). National Ambient Air Quality Standards
for Particulate Matter; Proposed Rule. 71 FR 2620, January 17, 2006.
    \22\ K[uuml]nzli, N., Jerrett, M., Mack, W.J., et al. (2004).
Ambient air pollution and atherosclerosis in Los Angeles. Environ
Health Perspect.,113, 201-206
    \23\ This study is included in the 2006 Provisional Assessment
of Recent Studies on Health Effects of Particulate Matter Exposure.
The provisional assessment did not and could not (given a very short
timeframe) undergo the extensive critical review by CASAC and the
public, as did the PM AQCD. The provisional assessment found that
the ``new'' studies expand the scientific information and provide
important insights on the relationship between PM exposure and
health effects of PM. The provisional assessment also found that
``new'' studies generally strengthen the evidence that acute and
chronic exposure to fine particles and acute exposure to thoracic
coarse particles are associated with health effects. Further, the
provisional science assessment found that the results reported in
the studies did not dramatically diverge from previous findings, and
taken in context with the findings of the AQCD, the new information
and findings did not materially change any of the broad scientific
conclusions regarding the health effects of PM exposure made in the
AQCD. However, it is important to note that this assessment was
limited to screening, surveying, and preparing a provisional
assessment of these studies. For reasons outlined in Section I.C of
the preamble for the final PM NAAQS rulemaking in 2006 (see 71 FR
61148-49, October 17, 2006), EPA based its NAAQS decision on the
science presented in the 2004 AQCD.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Studies examining populations exposed over the long term (one or
more years) to different levels of air pollution, including the Harvard
Six Cities Study and the American Cancer Society Study, show
associations between long-term exposure to ambient PM2.5 and
both total and cardiopulmonary premature mortality.\24\ In
addition\25\, an extension\26\ of the American Cancer Society Study
shows an association between PM2.5 and sulfate
concentrations and lung cancer mortality.\27\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \24\ Dockery, D.W., Pope, C.A. III, Xu, X, et al. (1993). An
association between air pollution and mortality in six U.S. cities.
N Engl J Med, 329, 1753-1759. Retrieved on March 19, 2009 from
http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/full/329/24/1753.
    \25\ Pope, C.A., III, Thun, M.J., Namboodiri, M.M., Dockery,
D.W., Evans, J.S., Speizer, F.E., and Heath, C.W., Jr. (1995).
Particulate air pollution as a predictor of mortality in a
prospective study of U.S. adults. Am. J. Respir. Crit. Care Med,
151, 669-674.
    \26\ Krewski, D., Burnett, R.T., Goldberg, M.S., et al. (2000).
Reanalysis of the Harvard Six Cities study and the American Cancer
Society study of particulate air pollution and mortality. A special
report of the Institute's Particle Epidemiology Reanalysis Project.
Cambridge, MA: Health Effects Institute. Retrieved on March 19, 2009
from http://es.epa.gov/ncer/science/pm/hei/Rean-ExecSumm.pdf.
    \27\ Pope, C. A., III, Burnett, R.T., Thun, M. J., Calle, E.E.,
Krewski, D., Ito, K., Thurston, G.D., (2002). Lung cancer,
cardiopulmonary mortality, and long-term exposure to fine
particulate air pollution. J. Am. Med. Assoc., 287, 1132-1141.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

(c) Health Effects of Diesel Particulate Matter
    Marine diesel engines emit diesel exhaust (DE), a complex mixture
composed of carbon dioxide, oxygen, nitrogen, water vapor, carbon
monoxide, nitrogen compounds, sulfur compounds and numerous low-
molecular-weight hydrocarbons. A number of these gaseous hydrocarbon
components are individually known to be toxic, including aldehydes,
benzene and 1,3-butadiene. The diesel particulate matter (DPM) present
in DE consists of fine particles (< 2.5 [micro]m), including a subgroup
with a large number of ultrafine particles (< 0.1 [micro]m). These
particles have a large surface area which makes them an excellent
medium for adsorbing organics and their small size makes them highly
respirable. Many of the organic compounds present in the gases and on
the particles, such as polycyclic organic matter (POM), are
individually known to have mutagenic and carcinogenic properties.
Diesel exhaust varies significantly in chemical composition and
particle sizes between different engine types (heavy-duty, light-duty),
engine operating conditions (idle, accelerate, decelerate), and fuel
formulations (high/low sulfur fuel). Also, there are emissions
differences between on-road and nonroad engines because the nonroad
engines are generally of older technology. This is especially true for
marine diesel engines.\28\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \28\ U.S. EPA (2002). Health Assessment Document for Diesel
Engine Exhaust. EPA/600/8-90/057F Office of Research and
Development, Washington DC. Retrieved on March 17, 2009 from http://
cfpub.epa.gov/ncea/cfm/recordisplay.cfm?deid=29060. pp. 1-1 1-2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    After being emitted in the engine exhaust, diesel exhaust undergoes
dilution as well as chemical and physical changes in the atmosphere.
The lifetime for some of the compounds present in diesel exhaust ranges
from hours to days.\29\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \29\ U.S. EPA (2002). Health Assessment Document for Diesel
Engine Exhaust. EPA/600/8-90/057F Office of Research and
Development, Washington DC. Retrieved on March 17, 2009 from http://
cfpub.epa.gov/ncea/cfm/recordisplay.cfm?deid=29060.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

(i) Diesel Exhaust: Potential Cancer Effects
    In EPA's 2002 Diesel Health Assessment Document (Diesel HAD),\30\
exposure to diesel exhaust was classified as likely to be carcinogenic
to humans by inhalation from environmental exposures, in accordance
with the revised draft 1996/1999 EPA cancer guidelines. A number of
other agencies (National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health,
the International Agency for Research on Cancer, the World Health
Organization, California EPA, and the U.S. Department of Health and
Human Services) have made similar classifications. However, EPA also
concluded in the Diesel HAD that it is not possible currently to
calculate a cancer unit risk for diesel exhaust due to a variety of
factors that limit the current studies, such as limited quantitative
exposure histories in occupational groups investigated for lung cancer.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \30\ U.S. EPA (2002). Health Assessment Document for Diesel
Engine Exhaust. EPA/600/8-90/057F Office of Research and
Development, Washington DC. Retrieved on March 17, 2009 from http://
cfpub.epa.gov/ncea/cfm/recordisplay.cfm?deid=29060. pp. 1-1 1-2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For the Diesel HAD, EPA reviewed 22 epidemiologic studies on the
subject of the carcinogenicity of workers exposed to diesel exhaust in
various occupations, finding increased lung cancer risk, although not
always statistically significant, in 8 out of 10 cohort studies and 10
out of 12 case-control studies within several industries. Relative risk
for lung cancer associated with exposure ranged from 1.2 to 1.5,
although a few studies show relative risks as high as 2.6.
Additionally, the Diesel HAD also relied on two independent meta-
analyses, which examined 23 and 30 occupational studies respectively,
which found statistically significant increases in smoking-adjusted
relative lung cancer risk associated with exposure to diesel exhaust of
1.33 to 1.47. These meta-analyses demonstrate the effect of pooling
many studies and in this case show the positive relationship between
diesel exhaust exposure and lung cancer across a variety of diesel
exhaust-exposed occupations.31,32
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \31\ Bhatia, R., Lopipero, P., Smith, A. (1998). Diesel exposure
and lung cancer. Epidemiology, 9(1), 84-91.
    \32\ Lipsett, M., Campleman, S. (1999). Occupational exposure to
diesel exhaust and lung cancer: a meta-analysis. Am J Public Health,
80(7), 1009-1017.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In the absence of a cancer unit risk, the Diesel HAD sought to
provide additional insight into the significance of the diesel exhaust-
cancer hazard by

estimating possible ranges of risk that might be present in the
population. An exploratory analysis was used to characterize a possible
risk range by comparing a typical environmental exposure level for
highway diesel sources to a selected range of occupational exposure
levels. The occupationally observed risks were then proportionally
scaled according to the exposure ratios to obtain an estimate of the
possible environmental risk. A number of calculations are needed to
accomplish this, and these can be seen in the EPA Diesel HAD. The
outcome was that environmental risks from diesel exhaust exposure could
range from a low of 10-4 to 10-5 to as high as
10-3, reflecting the range of occupational exposures that
could be associated with the relative and absolute risk levels observed
in the occupational studies. Because of uncertainties, the analysis
acknowledged that the risks could be lower than 10-4 or
10-5, and a zero risk from diesel exhaust exposure was not
ruled out.
(ii) Diesel Exhaust: Other Health Effects
    Noncancer health effects of acute and chronic exposure to diesel
exhaust emissions are also of concern to the EPA. EPA derived a diesel
exhaust reference concentration (RfC) from consideration of four well-
conducted chronic rat inhalation studies showing adverse pulmonary
effects.\33,34,35,36\ The RfC is 5 [mu]g/m \3\ for diesel exhaust as
measured by DPM. This RfC does not consider allergenic effects such as
those associated with asthma or immunologic effects. There is growing
evidence, discussed in the Diesel HAD, that exposure to diesel exhaust
can exacerbate these effects, but the exposure-response data are
presently lacking to derive an RfC. The EPA Diesel HAD states, ``With
DPM [diesel particulate matter] being a ubiquitous component of ambient
PM, there is an uncertainty about the adequacy of the existing DE
[diesel exhaust] noncancer database to identify all of the pertinent
DE-caused noncancer health hazards.'' (p. 9-19). The Diesel HAD
concludes ``that acute exposure to DE [diesel exhaust] has been
associated with irritation of the eye, nose, and throat, respiratory
symptoms (cough and phlegm), and neurophysiological symptoms such as
headache, lightheadedness, nausea, vomiting, and numbness or tingling
of the extremities.''\37\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \33\ Ishinishi, N. Kuwabara, N. Takaki, Y., et al. (1988) Long-
term inhalation experiments on diesel exhaust. In: Diesel exhaust
and health risks. Results of the HERP studies. Ibaraki, Japan:
Research Committee for HERP Studies; pp. 11-84.
    \34\ Henrich, U., Fuhst, R., Rittinghausen, S., et al. (1995).
Chronic inhalation exposure of Wistar rats and two different strains
of mice to diesel engine exhaust, carbon black, and titanium
dioxide. Inhal Toxicol, 7, 553-556.
    \35\ Mauderly, J.L., Jones, R.K., Griffith, W.C., et al. (1987).
Diesel exhaust is a pulmonary carcinogen in rats exposted
chronically by inhalation. Fundam. Appl. Toxicol., 9, 208-221.
    \36\ Nikula, K.J., Snipes, M.B., Barr, E.B., et al. (1995).
Comparative pulmonary toxicities and carcinogenicities of
chronically inhaled diesel exhaust and carbon black in F344 rats.
Fundam. Appl. Toxicol, 25, 80-94.
    \37\ U.S. EPA (2002). Health Assessment Document for Diesel
Engine Exhaust. EPA/600/8-90/057F Office of Research and
Development, Washington DC. Retrieved on March 17, 2009 from http://
cfpub.epa.gov/ncea/cfm/recordisplay.cfm?deid=29060. p. 9-9.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

(iii) Ambient PM2.5 Levels and Exposure to Diesel Exhaust PM
    The Diesel HAD also briefly summarizes health effects associated
with ambient PM and discusses the EPA's annual PM2.5 NAAQS
of 15 [mu]g/m \3\. There is a much more extensive body of human data
showing a wide spectrum of adverse health effects associated with
exposure to ambient PM, of which diesel exhaust is an important
component. The PM2.5 NAAQS is designed to provide protection
from the noncancer and premature mortality effects of PM2.5
as a whole.
(iv) Diesel Exhaust PM Exposures
    Exposure of people to diesel exhaust depends on their various
activities, the time spent in those activities, the locations where
these activities occur, and the levels of diesel exhaust pollutants in
those locations. The major difference between ambient levels of diesel
particulate and exposure levels for diesel particulate is that exposure
accounts for a person moving from location to location, proximity to
the emission source, and whether the exposure occurs in an enclosed
environment.
Occupational Exposures
    Occupational exposures to diesel exhaust from mobile sources,
including marine diesel engines, can be several orders of magnitude
greater than typical exposures in the non-occupationally exposed
population.
    Over the years, diesel particulate exposures have been measured for
a number of occupational groups. A wide range of exposures have been
reported, from 2 [mu]g/m \3\ to 1,280 [mu]g/m \3\, for a variety of
occupations. As discussed in the Diesel HAD, the National Institute of
Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) has estimated a total of
1,400,000 workers are occupationally exposed to diesel exhaust from on-
road and nonroad vehicles including marine diesel engines.
Elevated Concentrations and Ambient Exposures in Mobile Source-Impacted
Areas
    Regions immediately downwind of marine ports may experience
elevated ambient concentrations of directly-emitted PM2.5
from diesel engines. Due to the unique nature of marine ports,
emissions from a large number of diesel engines are concentrated in a
small area.
    A 2006 study from the California Air Resources Board (CARB)
evaluated air quality impacts of diesel engine emissions within the
Ports of Long Beach and Los Angeles in California, one of the largest
ports in the U.S.\38\ The port study employed the ISCST3 dispersion
model. With local meteorological data used in the modeling, annual
average concentrations were substantially elevated over an area
exceeding 200,000 acres. Because the ports are located near heavily-
populated areas, the modeling indicated that over 700,000 people lived
in areas with at least 0.3 [mu]g/m \3\ of port-related diesel PM in
ambient air, about 360,000 people lived in areas with at least 0.6
[mu]g/m \3\ of diesel PM, and about 50,000 people lived in areas with
at least 1.5 [mu]g/m \3\, of ambient diesel PM directly from the port.
This study highlights the substantial contribution ports can make to
elevated ambient concentrations in populated areas.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \38\ Di, P., Servin, A., Rosenkranz, K., Schwehr, B., Tran, H.,
(2006). Diesel Particulate Matter Exposure Assessment Study for the
Ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach. Sacramento, CA: California EPA,
California Air Resources Board (CARB). Retrieved March 19, 2009 from
http://www.arb.ca.gov/regact/marine2005/portstudy0406.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    EPA recently updated its initial screening-level analysis of a
representative selection of national marine port areas to better
understand the populations that are exposed to DPM emissions from these
facilities.39, 40, 41, 42 As part of this study,

a computer geographic information system (GIS) was used to identify the
locations and property boundaries of 45 marine ports.\43\ Census
information was used to estimate the size and demographic
characteristics of the population living in the vicinity of the ports.
The results indicate that at least 18 million people, including a
disproportionate number of low-income households, African-Americans,
and Hispanics, live in the vicinity of these facilities and are being
exposed to ambient DPM levels that are 2.0 [mu]g/m \3\ and 0.2 [mu]g/m
\3\ above levels found in areas further from these facilities. These
populations will benefit from the combination of the proposed CAA
standards along with ECA designations through MARPOL Annex VI. This
study is discussed in greater detail in Chapter 2 of the draft RIA and
detailed findings of this study are available in the public docket for
this rulemaking.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \39\ ICF International. September 28, 2007. Estimation of diesel
particulate matter concentration isopleths for marine harbor areas
and rail yards. Memorandum to EPA under Work Assignment Number 0-3,
Contract Number EP-C-06-094. This memo is available in Docket EPA-
HQ-OAR-2007-0121.
    \40\ ICF International. September 28, 2007. Estimation of diesel
particulate matter population exposure near selected harbor areas
and rail yards. Memorandum to EPA under Work Assignment Number 0-3,
Contract Number EP-C-06-094. This memo is available in Docket EPA-
HQ-OAR-2007-0121.
    \41\ ICF International, December 10, 2008. Estimation of diesel
particulate matter population exposure near selected harbor areas
with revised harbor emissions. Memorandum to EPA under Work
Assignment Number 2-9. Contract Number EP-C-06-094. This memo is
available in Docket EPA-HQ-OAR-2007-0121.
    \42\ ICF International. December 1, 2008. Estimation of diesel
particulate matter concentration isopleths near selected harbor
areas with revised emissions. Memorandum to EPA under Work
Assignment Number 1-9. Contract Number EP-C-06-094. This memo is
available in Docket EPA-HQ-OAR-2007-0121.
    \43\ The Agency selected a representative sample from the top
150 U.S. ports including coastal, inland, and Great Lake ports.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

(2) Ozone
(a) Background
    Ground-level ozone pollution is typically formed by the reaction of
VOC and NOX in the lower atmosphere in the presence of heat
and sunlight. These pollutants, often referred to as ozone precursors,
are emitted by many types of pollution sources, such as highway and
nonroad motor vehicles and engines, power plants, chemical plants,
refineries, makers of consumer and commercial products, industrial
facilities, and smaller area sources.
    The science of ozone formation, transport, and accumulation is
complex.\44\ Ground-level ozone is produced and destroyed in a cyclical
set of chemical reactions, many of which are sensitive to temperature
and sunlight. When ambient temperatures and sunlight levels remain high
for several days and the air is relatively stagnant, ozone and its
precursors can build up and result in more ozone than typically occurs
on a single high-temperature day. Ozone can be transported hundreds of
miles downwind from precursor emissions, resulting in elevated ozone
levels even in areas with low local VOC or NOX emissions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \44\ U.S. EPA. (2006). Air Quality Criteria for Ozone and
Related Photochemical Oxidants (Final). EPA/600/R-05/004aF-cF.
Washington, DC: U.S. EPA. Retrieved on March 19, 2009 from Docket
EPA-HQ-OAR-2003-0190 at http://www.regulations.gov/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

(b) Health Effects of Ozone
    The health and welfare effects of ozone are well documented and are
assessed in EPA's 2006 Air Quality Criteria Document (ozone AQCD) and
2007 Staff Paper.45,46 Ozone can irritate the respiratory
system, causing coughing, throat irritation, and/or uncomfortable
sensation in the chest. Ozone can reduce lung function and make it more
difficult to breathe deeply; breathing may also become more rapid and
shallow than normal, thereby limiting a person's activity. Ozone can
also aggravate asthma, leading to more asthma attacks that require
medical attention and/or the use of additional medication. In addition,
there is suggestive evidence of a contribution of ozone to
cardiovascular-related morbidity and highly suggestive evidence that
short-term ozone exposure directly or indirectly contributes to non-
accidental and cardiopulmonary-related mortality, but additional
research is needed to clarify the underlying mechanisms causing these
effects. In a recent report on the estimation of ozone-related
premature mortality published by the National Research Council (NRC), a
panel of experts and reviewers concluded that short-term exposure to
ambient ozone is likely to contribute to premature deaths and that
ozone-related mortality should be included in estimates of the health
benefits of reducing ozone exposure.\47\ Animal toxicological evidence
indicates that with repeated exposure, ozone can inflame and damage the
lining of the lungs, which may lead to permanent changes in lung tissue
and irreversible reductions in lung function. People who are more
susceptible to effects associated with exposure to ozone can include
children, the elderly, and individuals with respiratory disease such as
asthma. Those with greater exposures to ozone, for instance due to time
spent outdoors (e.g., children and outdoor workers), are of particular
concern.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \45\ U.S. EPA. (2006). Air Quality Criteria for Ozone and
Related Photochemical Oxidants (Final). EPA/600/R-05/004aF-cF.
Washington, DC: U.S. EPA. Retrieved on March 19, 2009 from Docket
EPA-HQ-OAR-2003-0190 at http://www.regulations.gov/.
    \46\ U.S. EPA (2007). Review of the National Ambient Air Quality
Standards for Ozone: Policy Assessment of Scientific and Technical
Information, OAQPS Staff Paper. EPA-452/R-07-003. Washsington, DC,
U.S. EPA. Retrieved on March 19, 2009 from Docket EPA-HQ-OAR-2003-
0190 at http://www.regulations.gov/.
    \47\ National Research Council (NRC), 2008. Estimating Mortality
Risk Reduction and Economic Benefits from Controlling Ozone Air
Pollution. The National Academies Press: Washington, DC.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The 2006 ozone AQCD also examined relevant new scientific
information that has emerged in the past decade, including the impact
of ozone exposure on such health effects as changes in lung structure
and biochemistry, inflammation of the lungs, exacerbation and causation
of asthma, respiratory illness-related school absence, hospital
admissions and premature mortality. Animal toxicological studies have
suggested potential interactions between ozone and PM with increased
responses observed to mixtures of the two pollutants compared to either
ozone or PM alone. The respiratory morbidity observed in animal studies
along with the evidence from epidemiologic studies supports a causal
relationship between acute ambient ozone exposures and increased
respiratory-related emergency room visits and hospitalizations in the
warm season. In addition, there is suggestive evidence of a
contribution of ozone to cardiovascular-related morbidity and non-
accidental and cardiopulmonary mortality.
(3) NOX and SOX
(a) Background
    Nitrogen dioxide (NO2) is a member of the NOX
family of gases. Most NO2 is formed in the air through the
oxidation of nitric oxide (NO) emitted when fuel is burned at a high
temperature. SO2, a member of the sulfur oxide
(SOX) family of gases, is formed from burning fuels
containing sulfur (e.g., coal or oil derived), extracting gasoline from
oil, or extracting metals from ore.
    SO2 and NO2 can dissolve in water vapor and
further oxidize to form sulfuric and nitric acid which react with
ammonia to form sulfates and nitrates, both of which are important
components of ambient PM. The health effects of ambient PM are
discussed in Section II.A.1 of this preamble. NOX along with
non-methane hydrocarbon (NMHC) are the two major precursors of ozone.
The health effects of ozone are covered in Section II.A.2.
(b) Health Effects of NOX
    Information on the health effects of NO2 can be found in
the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Integrated Science Assessment
(ISA) for Nitrogen Oxides.\48\ The U.S. EPA has

concluded that the findings of epidemiologic, controlled human
exposure, and animal toxicological studies provide evidence that is
sufficient to infer a likely causal relationship between respiratory
effects and short-term NO2 exposure. The ISA concludes that
the strongest evidence for such a relationship comes from epidemiologic
studies of respiratory effects including symptoms, emergency department
visits, and hospital admissions. The ISA also draws two broad
conclusions regarding airway responsiveness following NO2
exposure. First, the ISA concludes that NO2 exposure may
enhance the sensitivity to allergen-induced decrements in lung function
and increase the allergen-induced airway inflammatory response at
exposures as low as 0.26 ppm NO2 for 30 minutes. Second,
exposure to NO2 has been found to enhance the inherent
responsiveness of the airway to subsequent nonspecific challenges in
controlled human exposure studies of asthmatic subjects. Enhanced
airway responsiveness could have important clinical implications for
asthmatics since transient increases in airway responsiveness following
NO2 exposure have the potential to increase symptoms and
worsen asthma control. Together, the epidemiologic and experimental
data sets form a plausible, consistent, and coherent description of a
relationship between NO2 exposures and an array of adverse
health effects that range from the onset of respiratory symptoms to
hospital admission.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \48\ U.S. EPA (2008). Integrated Science Assessment for Oxides
of Nitrogen--Health Criteria (Final Report). EPA/600/R-08/071.
Washington, DC: U.S.EPA. Retrieved on March 19, 2009 from http://
cfpub.epa.gov/ncea/cfm/recordisplay.cfm?deid=194645.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Although the weight of evidence supporting a causal relationship is
somewhat less certain than that associated with respiratory morbidity,
NO2 has also been linked to other health endpoints. These
include all-cause (nonaccidental) mortality, hospital admissions or
emergency department visits for cardiovascular disease, and decrements
in lung function growth associated with chronic exposure.
(c) Health Effects of SOX
    Information on the health effects of SO2 can be found in
the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Integrated Science Assessment
for Sulfur Oxides.\49\ SO2 has long been known to cause
adverse respiratory health effects, particularly among individuals with
asthma. Other potentially sensitive groups include children and the
elderly. During periods of elevated ventilation, asthmatics may
experience symptomatic bronchoconstriction within minutes of exposure.
Following an extensive evaluation of health evidence from epidemiologic
and laboratory studies, the EPA has concluded that there is a causal
relationship between respiratory health effects and short-term exposure
to SO2. Separately, based on an evaluation of the
epidemiologic evidence of associations between short-term exposure to
SO2 and mortality, the EPA has concluded that the overall
evidence is suggestive of a causal relationship between short-term
exposure to SO2 and mortality.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \49\ U.S. EPA. (2008). Integrated Science Assessment (ISA) for
Sulfur Oxides--Health Criteria (Final Report). EPA/600/R-08/047F.
Washington, DC: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Retrieved on
March 18, 2009 from http://cfpub.epa.gov/ncea/cfm/
recordisplay.cfm?deid=198843
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. Environmental Impacts

(1) Deposition of Nitrogen and Sulfur
    Emissions of 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
sensitivity of terrestrial and aquatic ecosystems to acidification from
nitrogen and sulfur deposition is predominantly governed by geology.
Prolonged exposure to excess nitrogen and sulfur deposition in
sensitive areas acidifies lakes, rivers and soils. Increased acidity in
surface waters creates inhospitable conditions for biota and affects
the abundance and nutritional value of preferred prey species,
threatening biodiversity and ecosystem function. Over time, acidifying
deposition also removes essential nutrients from forest soils,
depleting the capacity of soils to neutralize future acid loadings and
negatively affecting forest sustainability. Major effects include a
decline in sensitive forest tree species, such as red spruce (Picea
rubens) and sugar maple (Acer saccharum), and a loss of biodiversity of
fishes, zooplankton, and macro invertebrates.
    In addition to the role nitrogen deposition plays in acidification,
nitrogen deposition also causes ecosystem nutrient enrichment leading
to eutrophication that alters biogeochemical cycles. Excess nitrogen
also leads to the loss of nitrogen sensitive lichen species as they are
outcompeted by invasive grasses as well as altering the biodiversity of
terrestrial ecosystems, such as grasslands and meadows. Nitrogen
deposition contributes to eutrophication of estuaries and the
associated effects including toxic algal blooms and fish kills. For a
broader explanation of the topics treated here, refer to the
description in Section 2.3.1 of the draft RIA.
    There are a number of important quantified relationships between
nitrogen deposition levels and ecological effects. Certain lichen
species are the most sensitive terrestrial taxa to nitrogen with
species losses occurring at just 3 kg N/ha/yr in the Pacific Northwest,
southern California and Alaska. A United States Forest Service study
conducted in areas within the Tongass Forest in Southeast Alaska found
evidence of sulfur emissions impacting lichen communities.\50\ 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \50\ Dillman, K., Geiser, L., & Brenner, G. (2007). Air Quality
Bio-Monitoring with Lichens. The Togass National Forest. USDA Forest
Service. Retrieved March 18, 2009 from http://gis.nacse.org/
lichenair/?page=reports.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Lichen are an important food source for caribou. This is causing
concern about the potential role damage to lichens may be having on the
Southern Alaska Peninsula Caribou Herd, which is an important food
source to local subsistence-based cultures. This herd has been
decreasing in size, exhibiting both poor calf survival and low
pregnancy rates, which are signs of dietary stress. Currently, there is
a complete caribou hunting ban, including a ban on subsistence hunting.
    Across the U.S., there are many terrestrial and aquatic ecosystems
that have been identified as particularly sensitive to nitrogen
deposition. The most extreme effects resulting from nitrogen deposition
on aquatic ecosystems are due to nitrogen enrichment which contributes
to ``hypoxic'' zones devoid of life. Three hypoxia zones of special
concern in the U.S. are the zones located in the Gulf of Mexico, the
Chesapeake Bay in the mid-Atlantic region, and Long Island Sound in the
northeast U.S.\51\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \51\ U.S. EPA. (2008). Nitrogen Dioxide/Sulfur Dioxide Secondary
NAAQS Review: Integrated Science Assessment (ISA). Washington, DC:
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Retrieved on March 18, 2009
from http://cfpub.epa.gov/ncea/cfm/recordisplay.cfm?deid=180903
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

(2) Deposition of Particulate Matter and Air Toxics
    The combination of the proposed CAA NOX standards along
with ECA designation through amendment to MARPOL Annex VI would reduce
NOX, SOX, and PM2.5 emissions from
ships.

Ship emissions of PM2.5 contain small amounts of metals:
nickel, vanadium, cadmium, iron, lead, copper, zinc,
aluminum.52 53 54 Investigations of trace metals near
roadways and industrial facilities indicate that a substantial burden
of heavy metals can accumulate on vegetative surfaces. Copper, zinc,
and nickel are directly toxic to vegetation under field conditions.\55\
While metals typically exhibit low solubility, limiting their
bioavailability and direct toxicity, chemical transformations of metal
compounds occur in the environment, particularly in the presence of
acidic or other oxidizing species. These chemical changes influence the
mobility and toxicity of metals in the environment. Once taken up into
plant tissue, a metal compound can undergo chemical changes, accumulate
and be passed along to herbivores, or can re-enter the soil and further
cycle in the environment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \52\ Agrawal H., Malloy Q.G.J., Welch W.A., Wayne Miller J.,
Cocker III D.R. (2008) In-use gaseous and particulate matter
emissions from a modern ocean going container vessel. Atmospheric
Environment, 42(21), 5504-5510.
    \53\ Miller, W., et al. (2008 June 10). Measuring Emissions from
Ocean Going Vessels. Presentation presented at the Fuel, Engines,
and Control Devices Workshop, San Pedro, California.
    \54\ Isakson J., Persson T.A., E. Selin Lindgren E. (2001)
Identification and assessment of ship emissions and their effects in
the harbour of Gteborg, Sweeden. Atmospheric Environment, 35(21),
3659-3666.
    \55\ U.S. EPA. (2004). Air Quality Criteria for Particulate
Matter (AQCD). Washington, DC: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
Retrieved on March 18, 2009 from http://cfpub.epa.gov/ncea/cfm/
recordisplay.cfm?deid=87903
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Although there has been no direct evidence of a physiological
association between tree injury and heavy metal exposures, heavy metals
have been implicated because of similarities between metal deposition
patterns and forest decline.56 57 This correlation was
further explored in high elevation forests in the northeast U.S. and
the data strongly imply that metal stress causes tree injury and
contributes to forest decline in the Northeast.\58\ Contamination of
plant leaves by heavy metals can lead to elevated soil levels. Trace
metals absorbed into the plant frequently bind to the leaf tissue, and
then are lost when the leaf drops. As the fallen leaves decompose, the
heavy metals are transferred into the soil.59 60
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \56\ U.S. EPA. (2004). Air Quality Criteria for Particulate
Matter (AQCD). Washington, DC: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
Retrieved on March 18, 2009 from http://cfpub.epa.gov/ncea/cfm/
recordisplay.cfm?deid=87903
    \57\ Gawel, J. E.; Ahner, B. A.; Friedland, A. J.; Morel, F. M.
M. (1996) Role for heavy metals in forest decline indicated by
phytochelatin measurements. Nature (London), 381, 64-65.
    \58\ U.S. EPA. (2004). Air Quality Criteria for Particulate
Matter (AQCD). Washington, DC: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
Retrieved on March 18, 2009 from http://cfpub.epa.gov/ncea/cfm/
recordisplay.cfm?deid=87903
    \59\ Cotrufo M.F., De Santo A.V., Alfani A., Bartoli G., De
Cristofaro A. (1995) Effects of urban heavy metal pollution on
organic matter decomposition in Quercus ilex L. Woods. Environmental
Pollution, 89(1), 81-87.
    \60\ Niklinska M., Laskowski R., Maryanski M. (1998). Effect of
heavy metals and storage time on two types of forest litter: basal
respiration rate and exchangeable metals. Ecotoxicological
Environmental Safety, 41, 8-18.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Ships also emit air toxics, including polycyclic aromatic
hydrocarbons (PAHs), a class of polycyclic organic matter (POM) that
contains compounds which are known or suspected carcinogens. Since the
majority of PAHs are adsorbed onto particles less than 1.0 [mu]m in
diameter, long range transport is possible. Particles of this size can
remain airborne for days or even months and travel distances up to
10,000 km before being deposited on terrestrial or aquatic
surfaces.\61\ Atmospheric deposition of particles is believed to be the
major source of PAHs to the sediments of Lake Michigan, Chesapeake Bay,
Tampa Bay and other coastal areas of the U.S.62 63 64 65 66
PAHs tend to accumulate in sediments and reach high enough
concentrations in some coastal environments to pose an environmental
health threat that includes cancer in fish populations, toxicity to
organisms living in the sediment, and risks to those (e.g., migratory
birds) that consume these organisms.67 68 PAHs tend to
accumulate in sediments and bioaccumulate in fresh water, flora and
fauna.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \61\ U.S. EPA. (2004). Air Quality Criteria for Particulate
Matter (AQCD). Washington, DC: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
Retrieved on March 18, 2009 from http://cfpub.epa.gov/ncea/cfm/
recordisplay.cfm?deid=87903
    \62\ Dickhut R.M., Canuel E.A., Gustafson K.E., Liu K., Arzayus
K.M., Walker S.E., Edgecombe G., Gaylor M.O., MacDonald E.H. (2000).
Automotive Sources of Carcinogenic Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons
Associated with Particulate Matter in the Chesapeake Bay Region.
Environmental Science & Technology, 34(21), 4635-4640.
    \63\ Simcik M.F., Eisenreich, S.J., Golden K.A., et al. (1996)
Atmospheric Loading of Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons to Lake
Michigan as Recorded in the Sediments. Environmental Science and
Technology, 30, 3039-3046.
    \64\ Simcik M.F., Eisenreich S.J., Lioy P.J. (1999) Source
apportionment and source/sink relationship of PAHs in the coastal
atmosphere of Chicago and Lake Michigan. Atmospheric Environment,
33, 5071-5079.
    \65\ Poor N., Tremblay R., Kay H., et al. (2002) Atmospheric
concentrations and dry deposition rates of polycyclic aromatic
hydrocarbons (PAHs) for Tampa Bay, Florida, USA. Atmospheric
Environment, 38, 6005-6015.
    \66\ Arzavus K.M., Dickhut R.M., Canuel E.A. (2001) Fate of
Atmospherically Deposited Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons (PAHs) in
Chesapeake Bay. Environmental Science & Technology, 35, 2178-2183.
    \67\ Simcik M.F., Eisenreich, S.J., Golden K.A., et al. (1996)
Atmospheric Loading of Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons to Lake
Michigan as Recorded in the Sediments. Environmental Science and
Technology, 30, 3039-3046.
    \68\ Simcik M.F., Eisenreich S.J., Lioy P.J. (1999) Source
apportionment and source/sink relationship of PAHs in the coastal
atmosphere of Chicago and Lake Michigan. Atmospheric Environment,
33, 5071-5079.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The deposition of airborne particles can reduce the aesthetic
appeal of buildings and culturally important articles through soiling,
and can contribute directly (or in conjunction with other pollutants)
to structural damage by means of corrosion or erosion.\69\ Particles
affect materials principally by promoting and accelerating the
corrosion of metals, by degrading paints, and by deteriorating building
materials such as concrete and limestone. Particles contribute to these
effects because of their electrolytic, hygroscopic, and acidic
properties, and their ability to adsorb corrosive gases (principally
sulfur dioxide). The rate of metal corrosion depends on a number of
factors, including the deposition rate and nature of the pollutant; the
influence of the metal protective corrosion film; the amount of
moisture present; variability in the electrochemical reactions; the
presence and concentration of other surface electrolytes; and the
orientation of the metal surface.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \69\ U.S. EPA. (2005). Review of the National Ambient Air
Quality Standards for Particulate Matter: Policy Assessment of
Scientific and Technical Information, OAQPS Staff Paper. Retrieved
on April 9, 2009 from http://www.epa.gov/ttn/naaqs/standards/pm/
data/pmstaffpaper_20051221.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

(3) Impacts on Visibility
    Emissions from ships contribute to poor visibility in the U.S.
through their primary PM2.5 emissions, as well as
NOX and SOX emissions which contribute to the
formation of secondary PM2.5.\70\ Visibility can be defined
as the degree to which the atmosphere is transparent to visible light.
Airborne particles degrade visibility by scattering and absorbing
light. Visibility is important because it has direct significance to
people's enjoyment of daily activities in all parts of the country.
Individuals value good visibility for the well-being it provides them
directly where they live and work and in places where they enjoy
recreational opportunities. Visibility is also highly valued in
significant natural areas such as national parks and wilderness areas,
and special emphasis is given to

protecting visibility in these areas. For more information on
visibility, see the final 2004 PM AQCD as well as the 2005 PM Staff
Paper.71, 72
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \70\ U.S. EPA. (2004). Air Quality Criteria for Particulate
Matter (AQCD). Volume I Document No. EPA600/P-99/002aF and Volume II
Document No. EPA600/P-99/002bF. Washington, DC: U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency. Retrieved on March 18, 2009 from http://
cfpub.epa.gov/ncea/cfm/recordisplay.cfm?deid=87903
    \71\ U.S. EPA. (2004). Air Quality Criteria for Particulate
Matter (AQCD). Volume I Document No. EPA600/P-99/002aF and Volume II
Document No. EPA600/P-99/002bF. Washington, DC: U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency. Retrieved on March 18, 2009 from http://
cfpub.epa.gov/ncea/cfm/recordisplay.cfm?deid=87903
    \72\ U.S. EPA. (2005). Review of the National Ambient Air
Quality Standard for Particulate Matter: Policy Assessment of
Scientific and Technical Information, OAQPS Staff Paper. EPA-452/R-
05-005. Washington, DC: US Environmental Protection Agency.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    EPA is pursuing a two-part strategy to address visibility. First,
to address the welfare effects of PM on visibility, EPA has set
secondary PM2.5 standards which act in conjunction with the
establishment of a regional haze program. In setting this secondary
standard, EPA has concluded that PM2.5 causes adverse
effects on visibility in various locations, depending on PM
concentrations and factors such as chemical composition and average
relative humidity. Second, section 169 of the Clean Air Act provides
additional authority to address existing visibility impairment and
prevent future visibility impairment in the 156 national parks, forests
and wilderness areas categorized as mandatory class I Federal areas (62
FR 38680-81, July 18, 1997).\73\ In July 1999, the regional haze rule
(64 FR 35714) was put in place to protect the visibility in mandatory
class I Federal areas. Visibility can be said to be impaired in both
PM2.5 nonattainment areas and mandatory class I Federal
areas.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \73\ These areas are defined in section 162 of the Act as those
national parks exceeding 6,000 acres, wilderness areas and memorial
parks exceeding 5,000 acres, and all international parks which were
in existence on August 7, 1977.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

(4) Plant and Ecosystem Effects of Ozone
    Elevated ozone levels contribute to environmental effects, with
impacts to plants and ecosystems being of most concern. Ozone can
produce both acute and chronic injury in sensitive species depending on
the concentration level and the duration of the exposure. Ozone effects
also tend to accumulate over the growing season of the plant, so that
even low concentrations experienced for a longer duration have the
potential to create chronic stress on vegetation. Ozone damage to
plants includes visible injury to leaves and a reduction in food
production through impaired photosynthesis, both of which can lead to
reduced crop yields, forestry production, and use of sensitive
ornamentals in landscaping. In addition, the reduced food production in
plants and subsequent reduced root growth and storage below ground, can
result in other, more subtle plant and ecosystems impacts. These
include increased susceptibility of plants to insect attack, disease,
harsh weather, interspecies competition and overall decreased plant
vigor. The adverse effects of ozone on forest and other natural
vegetation can potentially lead to species shifts and loss from the
affected ecosystems, resulting in a loss or reduction in associated
ecosystem goods and services. Lastly, visible ozone injury to leaves
can result in a loss of aesthetic value in areas of special scenic
significance like national parks and wilderness areas. The final 2006
ozone AQCD presents more detailed information on ozone effects on
vegetation and ecosystems.

C. Air Quality Modeling Results

    Air quality modeling was performed to assess the impact of the
combination of the proposed CAA NOX standards along with ECA
designation through Amendment to MARPOL Annex VI. We looked at impacts
on future ambient PM2.5 and ozone levels, as well as
nitrogen and sulfur deposition levels and visibility impairment. In
this section, we present information on current levels of pollution as
well as model projected levels of pollution for 2020 and 2030.\74\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \74\ As discussed in Section 3.7 of the draft RIA, the
inventories used for the air quality modeling in 2020 and 2030
differ slightly from each other. The difference between 2020 and
2030 is small and was due to an error in calculating the 200
nautical miles distance. In addition, as discussed in Section 3.7 of
the draft RIA, the 2020 air quality control case does not include
global controls for areas that are beyond 200 nautical miles but
within the air quality modeling domain. The impact of this latter
difference is expected to be minimal.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The air quality modeling uses EPA's Community Multiscale Air
Quality (CMAQ) model. The CMAQ modeling domain is rectangular in shape
and encompasses all of the lower 48 states, portions of Canada and
Mexico, and areas extending into the ocean up to 1,000 nautical miles
(nm), depending on the coast. The smallest area of ocean coverage is
over the northeast U.S. In places like Maine and Cape Cod, the
easternmost points of the contiguous U.S., the distance to the edge of
the CMAQ modeling domain is approximately 150 nm. The rest of the U.S.
shoreline has at least 200 nm between the shoreline and boundary of the
air quality modeling. The CMAQ modeling domain is described in more
detail in Section <IP_ADDRESS> of the draft RIA. The performance of the CMAQ
modeling was evaluated over a 2002 base case. More detail about the
performance evaluation is contained within the Section <IP_ADDRESS> of the
draft RIA. The model was able to reproduce historical concentrations of
ozone and PM2.5 over the land with low amounts of bias and
error. While we are not able to evaluate the model's performance over
the ocean, there is no evidence to suggest that model performance is
unsatisfactory over the ocean.
(1) Particulate Matter
    The vast majority of PM emissions from Category 3 engines are the
result of the sulfur content of the residual fuel they use (67 FR
37569, May 29, 2002).\75\ Although this proposed rule would not set PM
standards, ECA designation would require the use of fuel meeting the
most stringent MARPOL Annex VI fuel sulfur limits, yielding significant
PM and SOX reductions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \75\ As explained in the NPRM, there were no acceptable
procedures for measuring PM from Category 3 marine engines.
Specifically, established PM test methods showed unacceptable
variability when sulfur levels exceed 0.8 weight percent, which was
common at that time for both residual and distillate marine fuels
for Category 3 engines, and no PM test method or calculation
methodology had been developed to correct that variability for these
engines.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

(a) Current Levels
    PM2.5 concentrations exceeding the level of the
PM2.5 NAAQS occur in many parts of the country. In 2005, EPA
designated 39 nonattainment areas for the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS
(70 FR 943, January 5, 2005). These areas are composed of 208 full or
partial counties with a total population exceeding 88 million. The 1997
PM2.5 NAAQS was recently revised and the 2006 24-hour
PM2.5 NAAQS became effective on December 18, 2006. Area
designations for the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS are expected
to be promulgated in 2009 and become effective 90 days after
publication in the Federal Register.
(b) Projected Levels
    A number of state governments have told EPA that they need the
reductions the coordinated strategy will provide in order to meet and
maintain the PM2.5 NAAQS.\76\ Most areas designated as not
attaining the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS will need to attain the 1997
standards in the 2010 to 2015 time frame, and then maintain them
thereafter. The 2006 24-hour PM2.5 nonattainment areas will
be required to attain the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS in the
2014 to 2019 time frame and then be required to maintain the 2006 24-
hour PM2.5 NAAQS

thereafter. The fuel sulfur emission standards will become effective in
2010 and 2015, and the NOX engine emission standards will
become effective in 2016. Therefore, the coordinated strategy emission
reductions will be useful to states in attaining or maintaining the
PM2.5 NAAQS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \76\ See the Advanced Notice of Proposed Rule Making at Docket
Number: EPA-HQ-OAR-2007-0121.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    EPA has already adopted many emission control programs that are
expected to reduce ambient PM2.5 levels and which will
assist in reducing the number of areas that fail to achieve the
PM2.5 NAAQS. Even so, our air quality modeling for this
proposal projects that in 2020, with all current controls but excluding
the reductions expected to occur as a result of the coordinated
strategy, that at least 13 counties with a population of almost 30
million may not attain the 1997 annual PM2.5 standard of 15
[micro]g/m \3\.\77\ These numbers do not account for additional areas
that have air quality measurements above the 2006 24-hour standard of
35 [micro]g/m\3\. The numbers also do not account for those areas that
are close to (e.g., within 10 percent of) the 1997 or 2006
PM2.5 standard. These areas, although not violating the
standards, will also benefit from the additional reductions from this
rule ensuring long term maintenance of the PM2.5 NAAQS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \77\ See Section <IP_ADDRESS>.2 of the draft RIA, specifically Table
2-9, for more detail.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Air quality analysis modeling the expected impacts of the
coordinated strategy shows that in 2020 and 2030 all of the modeled
counties would experience decreases in their annual PM2.5
design values. For areas with current annual PM2.5 design
values greater than 15 [micro]g/m\3\, the modeled future-year,
population-weighted annual PM2.5 design values are expected
to decrease on average by 0.8 [micro]g/m\3\ in 2020 and by 1.7
[micro]g/m\3\ in 2030.\78\ The maximum decrease for annual
PM2.5 design values are projected to be in Miami, FL, with a
3.1 [micro]g/m\3\ decrease for 2020 and a 6.0 [micro]g/m\3\ decrease
for 2030. The air quality modeling methodology and the projected
reductions are discussed in more detail in Chapter 2 of the draft RIA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \78\ Note that the 2030 projections are based on a 100 nm ECA so
are an underestimate of likely changes to PM2.5 design
values. Additional detail on the air quality modeling is included in
Chapter 2 of the draft RIA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

(2) Ozone
(a) Current Levels
    The U.S. EPA has recently amended the ozone NAAQS (73 FR 16436,
March 27, 2008). That final 2008 ozone NAAQS rule set forth revisions
to the previous 1997 NAAQS for ozone to provide increased protection of
public health and welfare. As of March 4, 2009, there are 57 areas
designated as nonattainment for the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS, comprising
293 full or partial counties with a total population of approximately
132 million people. These numbers do not include the people living in
areas where there is a future risk of failing to maintain or attain the
1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS. The numbers above likely underestimate the
number of counties that are not meeting the ozone NAAQS because the
nonattainment areas associated with the more stringent 2008 8-hour
ozone NAAQS have not yet been designated. Table II-1 provides an
estimate, based on 2005-07 air quality data, of the counties with
design values greater than the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS of 0.075 ppm.

   Table II-1--Counties With Design Values Greater Than the 2008 Ozone
                NAAQS Based on 2005-2007 Air Quality Data
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                             Number of
                                             counties     Population \a\