would include targets for engine speeds other than the test points
speeds.  Equivalent control could involve either using of the same
injection timing map for the tested and non-tested engine speeds, or
following a linear interpolation between test points for NOx emissions
at non-test speeds.  For example, manufacturers might provide operators
with a series of NOx maps that relate allowable NOx emission levels to
various operating parameters.  Operators would then be required to
adjust their engine until it was below the NOx targets.  We also request
comment on other methods of addressing this adjustability.

	In addition, we remain concerned that Category 3 engines operate at
relatively low power levels when they are operating in port areas.  Ship
pilots generally operate engines at reduced power for several miles to
approach a port, with even lower power levels very close to shore.
Because of the relatively low weighting of the low-power test modes in
the ISO E3 test cycle, it is very possible that manufacturers could meet
the cycle-weighted average emission standards without significantly
reducing emissions at the low-power modes that are more prevalent for
these engines as they operate close to commercial ports.  This, of
course, has the potential to reduce on-shore emission benefits.  This
issue would generally not apply to vessels that rely on multiple engines
providing electric-drive propulsion, since these engines can be shut
down as needed to maintain the desired engine loading.  We are
considering a variety of options to address this concern.  We could
re-weight the modes of the duty cycle to emphasize low-power operation.
This has several potential drawbacks.  For example, we have no
information to provide a basis for applying different weighting factors.
 Also, changing the duty cycle would depart from the historic norm for
marine engine testing.  This would make it more difficult to make use of
past emission data, which is all based on the established modal
weighting.

An alternative approach would be to cap emission rates at the two
low-power modes.  We could set the cap at the same level as the emission
standard, or allow for a small variation above the emission standard.
For mechanically controlled engines, such an approach could dictate the
overall design of the engine.  On the other hand, there is increasing
use of electronic controls, which would enable the manufacturer to
target emission controls specifically for low-power operation with
little or no effect on controlling emissions at higher power.  We
request comment on the need for addressing emissions at low power
operation and whether and how the test procedure should be changed to
accommodate this operation.  See section VI.B for additional discussion
of low power NOx emissions for engines equipped with exhaust
aftertreatment.

3.  Test Fuel

	Appropriate test procedures need to represent in-use operating
conditions as much as possible, including specification of test fuels
consistent with the fuels that compliant engines will use over their
lifetimes.  For the Tier 1 standards, we allow engine testing using
distillate fuel, even though vessels with Category 3 marine engines
primarily use the significantly less expensive residual fuel.  This
provision is consistent with the specifications of the NOx Technical
Code.  Also, most manufacturers have test facilities designed to test
engines using distillate fuel.  Distillate fuel is easier to test with
because it does not need to be heated to remain a liquid and
manufacturers have indicated that it is difficult to obtain local
permits for testing with residual fuel.  However, we believe it is
important to specify a test fuel that is consistent with the in-use fuel
with which engines will operate in service.  This is especially true for
PM measurements.  We request comment on the appropriate test fuel for
emission testing and if this fuel should be representative on the fuel
on which a specific engine is designed to operate.

	For any NOx measurements from engines operating on residual fuel we
recognize that there may be emission-related effects due to fuel
quality, specifically fuel-bound nitrogen.  If the standards were based
on distillate fuel, we would consider a NOx correction factor to account
for the impact of fuel quality when testing on residual fuel.  This
correction would be useful because of the high levels of nitrogen
contained in residual fuel.  Such a correction factor would likely
involve measuring fuel-bound nitrogen and correcting measured values to
what would occur with a nitrogen concentration of 0.4 weight percent.
This corrected value would be used to determine whether the engine meets
emission standards or not.  We request comment on the need for
corrections and, if so, how the appropriate corrections would be
developed.

B.  On-off Technologies

One of the features of the emission control technologies that could be
used to achieve significant NOx and PM reductions from C3 engines is
that they are not integral to the engine and the engine can be operated
without them.  Aftertreatment systems such as SCR or emission scrubbing,
or the use of lower sulfur fuel, require a positive action on the part
of the ship owner to make sure the emission control system is in
operation or that the appropriate fuel is used.  These types of
technologies are often called “on-off” technologies.

The increased operating costs of such controls associated with urea or
other catalysts or with distillate usage suggest that it may be
reasonable to allow these systems to be turned off while a ship is
operated on the open ocean, far away from sensitive areas that are
affected by ship emissions.  In other words, EPA could elect to set
geographically-based NOx and PM standards, with one limit that would
apply when ships are operated within a specified distance from U.S.
coasts, and another that would apply when ships are operated outside
those limits.

If EPA were to adopt such an approach, we would need to determine the
areas in which ships would have to comply with the standards.  We are
currently exploring this issue through the air quality modeling for our
proposed standards.  There are other issues associated with such an
approach, including:  the technological feasibility of by-pass systems
and their impacts on the emission control systems when they are not in
use; the level of the standard that would apply when the system is
turned off; and how compliance would be demonstrated.  There may also be
additional certification requirements for ships equipped with such
systems.

We request comment on all aspects of this alternative, especially with
regard to how such systems could be designed to ensure no loss of
emission reductions.

C.  Parameter Adjustment

	Given the broad range of ignition properties for in-use residual fuels,
we expect that our in-use adjustment allowance for Category 3 engines
would result in a broad range of adjustment.  We are therefore
considering a requirement for operators to perform a simple field
measurement test to confirm emissions after parameter adjustments or
maintenance operations, using onboard emission measurement systems with
electronic-logging equipment.  We expect this issue will be equally
important for more advanced engines that rely on water injection or
aftertreatment for emission reductions.  Onboard verification systems
could add significant assurance that engines have properly operating
emission controls.

	We envision a simpler measurement system than the type specified in
Chapter 6 of the NOx Technical Code.  As we described in the 2003 final
rule, we believe that onboard emission equipment that is relatively
inexpensive and easy to use could verify that an engine is properly
adjusted and is operating within the engine manufacturer’s
specifications.  Note that Annex VI includes specifications allowing
operators to choose to verify emissions through onboard testing, which
suggests that Annex VI also envisioned that onboard measurement systems
could be of value to operators.  We request comment on requiring onboard
verification systems on ships with Category 3 marine engines and on a
description of such a system.

D.  Certification of Existing Engines

	While we normally require certification only for newly built engines,
we are considering emission standards that would apply to remanufactured
engines in the existing fleet.  This leads to questions about how one
would certify the modified engines.  We are considering adoption of one
or more of the following simplified certification procedures for in-use
engines:

Basing certification for any engine on a pre-existing certificate if the
engine is modified to be the same as a later engine that is already
certified to the Tier 1 NOx standard.

Testing in-use engines using portable emission measurement equipment,
with appropriate consideration for any necessary deviations in the
engine test cycle.

Broadening the engine family concept for in-use engines to reduce the
amount of testing necessary to certify a range of engines.  This would
require the same or similar hardware and calibration requirements to
ensure that a single test engine can properly represent all the engines
in the broader engine family.

Developing alternatives to the NOx Technical File to simplify the
certification burdens for existing vessels while ensuring that the
modified engines and emission components may be appropriately surveyed
and inspected.

	We request comment on the best approach for ensuring compliance from
existing engines.  We also request comment on the simplified
certification procedures listed above.

E.  Other Compliance Issues

In addition to the compliance issues described above we are also seeking
comment on to addition issues, described in this section:  (1) the
application of the standards engines on foreign-flagged vessels that
enter U.S. ports; and (2) whether the standards should apply to gas
turbines or natural gas engines.

1. Engines on Foreign-Flagged Vessels

	Our current federal marine diesel engine standards do not apply to
Category 1, 2, and 3 marine diesel engines installed on foreign-flagged
vessels.  In our 2003 Final Rule we acknowledged the contribution of
engines on foreign-flagged vessels to U.S. air pollution but did not
apply federal standards to foreign vessels (see 68 FR 9759, February 28,
2003).  This section summarizes the discussion from that 2003 Final
Rule.  We will continue to evaluate this issue as we develop the
proposal for this rule.

Section 213 of the Clean Air Act (42 U.S.C. 7547), authorizes regulation
of “new nonroad engine” and “new nonroad vehicle.”  However,
Title II of the Clean Air Act does not define either “new nonroad
engine” or “new nonroad vehicle.”  Section 216 defines a “new
motor vehicle engine” to include an engine that has been
“imported.”  EPA modeled the current regulatory definitions of
“new nonroad engine” and “new marine engine” at 40 CFR 89.2 and
40 CFR 94.2, respectively, after the statutory definitions of “new
motor vehicle engine” and “new motor vehicle.”  This was a
reasonable exercise of the discretion provided to EPA by the Clean Air
Act to interpret “new nonroad engine” or “new nonroad vehicle.”
See Engine Manufacturers Assoc. v. EPA, 88 F.3d 1075, 1087 (D.C. Cir.
1996).

	The 1999 marine diesel engine rule did not apply to marine engines on
foreign vessels.  40 CFR 94.1(b)(3).  At that time, we concluded that
engines installed on vessels flagged or registered in another country,
that come into the United States temporarily, will not be subject to the
emission standards.  At that time, we believed that they were not
considered imported under the U.S. customs law.  As a result, we did not
apply the standards adopted in that rule to those vessels (64 FR 73300,
Dec. 29, 1999).

	The May 29, 2002 proposed rule for Category 3 marine diesel engines
solicited comment on whether to exercise our discretion and modify the
definition of a “new marine engine” to find that engine emission
standards apply to foreign vessels that enter U.S. ports.  However, in
the February 28, 2003 final rule we determined that we did not need to
determine whether we have the discretion to interpret “new” nonroad
engine or vessel in such a manner.

	Foreign vessels were expected to comply with the MARPOL standards
whether or not they were also subject to the equivalent Clean Air Act
standards being adopted in that final rule.  Consequently, we concluded
that no significant emission reductions would be achieved by treating
foreign vessels as “new” for purposes of the Tier 1 standards and
there would be no significant loss in emission reductions by not
including them.  Therefore, we did not include foreign engines and
vessels in our 2003 rulemaking and we did not revise the definition of
“new marine engine” at that time.

In this rule we will evaluate under what circumstances we may and should
define new nonroad engine and vessel to include foreign engines and
vessels.  As part of that evaluation, we will also assess the progress
made by the international community toward the adoption of new more
stringent international consensus standards that reflect advanced
emission-control technologies.

2. Non-Diesel Engines

Gas turbine engines are internal combustion engines that can operate
using diesel fuel, residual fuel, or natural gas, but do not operate on
a compression-ignition or other reciprocating engine cycle.  Power is
extracted from the combustion gas using a rotating turbine rather than
reciprocating pistons.  While gas turbine engines are used primarily in
naval ships, a small number are being used in commercial ships.  In
addition, we have received indication that their use is growing in some
applications such as cruise ships and liquid natural gas carriers.  As
we develop the proposal for this rule we will consider whether it is
appropriate to regulate emissions from gas turbine engines and, if so,
whether special provisions would be needed for testing and certifying
turbine engines.  For example, since turbine engines have no cylinders,
we may need to address how to apply any regulatory provisions that
depend on a specified value for per-cylinder displacement.  We would
welcome any emissions information that is available for turbine engines.

	Marine engines have been developed that can operate either on natural
gas or a dual-fuel.  In a dual-fuel application, a mixture of marine
diesel oil and natural gas is used for the main engine that provides a
means to comply with the low-sulfur fuel requirement.  Natural gas
engines are especially attractive to vessels that carry a cargo of
liquefied petroleum gas due to the readily available fuel supply.
Natural gas powered engines are similar to Category 3 marine engines
operating on traditional diesel fuels, and we would consider including
these engines in this rulemaking.

We request comment on other fuels and engine types that we should
consider in the scope of this rulemaking.  We also request comments on
test procedure or other compliance issues that would need to be
considered for these other fuels and engines.

VIII. Potential Regulatory Impacts

A. Emission Inventory

1. Estimated Inventory Contribution

	Category 3 marine engines contribute to the formation of ground level
ozone and concentrations of fine particles in the ambient atmosphere.
Based on our current emission inventory analysis, we estimate that these
engines contributed nearly 6 percent of mobile source NOx, over 10
percent of mobile source PM2.5, and about 40 percent of mobile source
SO2 in 2001.  We estimate that their contribution will increase to about
34 percent of mobile source NOx, 45 percent of mobile source PM2.5, and
94 percent of mobile source SO2 by 2030 without further controls on
these engines.  Our current estimates for NOx, PM2.5, SO2 inventories
are set out in Tables VIII-1 through VIII-3.  The inventory projections
for 2020 and 2030 include the impact of existing emission mobile source
and stationary source control programs previously adopted by EPA
(excluding the recently adopted MSAT regulations, signed on February 9,
2007 which will have an impact on future highway non-diesel PM2.5
levels).

Table VIII-1:  50-State Annual NOx Baseline Emission Levels

for Mobile and Other Source Categories

Category	2001a	2020	2030

	short tons	% of mobile source	% of total	short tons	% of mobile source
% of total	short tons	% of mobile source	% of total

Commercial Marine (C3)b	744,444	5.7%	3.3%	1,399,834	23.2%	11.5%
2,076,260	34.3%	17.1%

Locomotive	1,118,786	8.6%	5.0%	860,474	14.2%	7.1%	854,226	14.1%	7.0%

Recreational Marine Diesel	40,437	0.3%	0.2%	45,477	0.8%	0.4%	48,102	0.8%
0.4%

Commercial Marine (C1 & C2)	834,025	6.4%	3.7%	676,154	11.2%	5.6%	680,025
11.2%	5.6%

Land-Based Nonroad Diesel	1,548,236	11.9%	6.9%	678,377	11.2%	5.6%
434,466	7.2%	3.6%

Small Nonroad SI	114,319	0.9%	0.5%	114,881	1.9%	0.9%	133,197	2.2%	1.1%

Recreational Marine SI	44,732	0.3%	0.2%	86,908	1.4%	0.7%	96,143	1.6%
0.8%

SI Recreational Vehicles	5,488	0.0%	0.0%	17,496	0.3%	0.1%	20,136	0.3%
0.2%

Large Nonroad SI (>25hp)	321,098	2.5%	1.4%	46,319	0.8%	0.4%	46,253	0.8%
0.4%

Aircraft	83,764	0.6%	0.4%	105,133	1.7%	0.9%	118,740	2.0%	1.0%

Total Off Highway	4,855,329	37.5%	21.8%	4,031,054	66.7%	33.2%	4,507,547
74.4%	37.0%

Highway Diesel	3,750,886	28.9%	16.8%	646,961	10.7%	5.3%	260,915	4.3%
2.1%

Highway non-diesel	4,354,430	33.6%	19.5%	1,361,276	22.5%	11.2%	1,289,780
21.3%	10.6%

Total Highway	8,105,316	62.5%	36.3%	2,008,237	33.3%	16.5%	1,550,695
25.6%	12.7%

Total Mobile Sources	12,960,645	100%	58.1%	6,039,291	100%	49.7%
6,058,242	100%	49.8%

Stationary Point & Area Sources	9,355,659	-	41.9%	6,111,866	-	50.3%
6,111,866	-	50.2%

Total Man-Made Sources	22,316,304	-	100%	12,151,157	-	100%	12,170,108	-
100%

a The locomotive, commercial marine (C1 & C2), and recreational marine
diesel estimates are for calendar year 2002.

b This category includes emissions from Category 3 (C3) propulsion
engines and C2/3 auxiliary engines used on ocean-going vessels.

Table VIII-2:  50-State Annual PM2.5 Baseline Emission Levels

for Mobile and Other Source Categories

Category	2001a	2020	2030

	short tons	% of mobile source	% of total	short tons	% of mobile source
% of total	short tons	% of mobile source	% of total

Commercial Marine (C3)b	54,599	10.9%	2.2%	111,188	33.6%	5.2%	166,751
45.4%	7.6%

Locomotive	29,660	5.9%	1.2%	26,301	8.0%	1.2%	25,109	6.8%	1.1%

Recreational Marine Diesel	1,096	0.2%	0.0%	1,006	0.3%	0.0%	1,140	0.3%
0.1%

Commercial Marine (C1 & C2)	28,730	5.7%	1.2%	22,236	6.7%	1.0%	23,760
6.5%	1.1%

Land-Based Nonroad Diesel	164,180	32.8%	6.7%	46,075	13.9%	2.1%	17,934
4.9%	0.8%

Small Nonroad SI	25,466	5.1%	1.0%	32,904	10.0%	1.5%	37,878	10.3%	1.7%

Recreational Marine SI	16,837	3.4%	0.7%	6,367	1.9%	0.3%	6,163	1.7%	0.3%

SI Recreational Vehicles	12,301	2.5%	0.5%	11,773	3.6%	0.5%	9,953	2.7%
0.5%

Large Nonroad SI (>25hp)	1,610	0.3%	0.1%	2,421	0.7%	0.1%	2,844	0.8%	0.1%

Aircraft	5,664	1.1%	0.2%	7,044	2.1%	0.3%	8,569	2.3%	0.4%

Total Off Highway	340,143	68.0%	13.8%	267,315	80.9%	12.4%	300,101	81.8%
13.7%

Highway Diesel	109,952	22.0%	4.5%	15,800	4.8%	0.7%	10,072	2.7%	0.5%

Highway non-diesel	50,277	10.0%	2.0%	47,354	14.3%	2.2%	56,734	15.5%	2.6%

Total Highway	160,229	32.0%	6.5%	63,154	19.1%	2.9%	66,806	18.2%	3.1%

Total Mobile Sources	500,372	100%	20.3%	330,469	100%	15.4%	366,907	100%
16.8%

Stationary Point & Area Sources	1,963,264	-	79.7%	1,817,722	-	84.6%
1,817,722	-	83.2%

Total Man-Made Sources	2,463,636	-	100%	2,148,191	-	100%	2,184,629	-
100%

a The locomotive, commercial marine (C1 & C2), and recreational marine
diesel estimates are for calendar year 2002.

b This category includes emissions from Category 3 (C3) propulsion
engines and C2/3 auxiliary engines used on ocean-going vessels.

Table VIII-3:  50-State Annual SO2 Baseline Emission Levels

for Mobile and Other Source Categories

Category	2001a	2020	2030

	short tons	% of mobile source	% of total	short tons	% of mobile source
% of total	short tons	% of mobile source	% of total

Commercial Marine (C3)b	432,496	41.0%	2.7%	883,520	92.8%	9.6%	1,326,920
94.3%	13.8%

Locomotive	76,727	7.3%	0.5%	400	0.0%	0.0%	468	0.0%	0.0%

Recreational Marine Diesel	5,145	0.5%	0.0%	162	0.0%	0.0%	192	0.0%	0.0%

Commercial Marine (C1 & C2)	80,353	7.6%	0.5%	3,104	0.3%	0.0%	3,586	0.3%
0.0%

Land-Based Nonroad Diesel	167,615	15.9%	1.0%	999	0.1%	0.0%	1,078	0.1%
0.0%

Small Nonroad SI	6,710	0.6%	0.0%	8,797	0.9%	0.1%	10,196	0.7%	0.1%

Recreational Marine SI	2,739	0.3%	0.0%	2,963	0.3%	0.0%	3,142	0.2%	0.0%

SI Recreational Vehicles	1,241	0.1%	0.0%	2,643	0.3%	0.0%	2,784	0.2%	0.0%

Large Nonroad SI (>25hp)	925	0.1%	0.0%	905	0.1%	0.0%	1,020	0.1%	0.0%

Aircraft	7,890	0.7%	0.0%	9,907	1.0%	0.1%	11,137	0.8%	0.1%

Total Off Highway	781,840	74.1%	4.9%	913,401	95.9%	10.0%	1,360,523	96.6%
14.1%

Highway Diesel	103,632	9.8%	0.6%	3,443	0.4%	0.0%	4,453	0.3%	0.0%

Highway non-diesel	169,125	16.0%	1.0%	35,195	3.7%	0.4%	42,709	3.0%	0.4%

Total Highway	272,757	25.9%	1.7%	38,638	4.1%	0.4%	47,162	3.4%	0.5%

Total Mobile Sources	1,054,597	100%	6.5%	952,039	100%	10.4%	1,407,685
100%	14.6%

Stationary Point & Area Sources	15,057,420	-	93.5%	8,215,016	-	89.6%
8,215,016	-	85.4%

Total Man-Made Sources	16,112,017	-	100%	9,167,055	-	100%	9,622,701	-
100%

a The locomotive, commercial marine (C1 & C2), and recreational marine
diesel estimates are for calendar year 2002.

b This category includes emissions from Category 3 (C3) propulsion
engines and C2/3 auxiliary engines used on ocean-going vessels.

	The United States is actively engaged in international trade and is
frequently visited by ocean-going marine vessels.  As shown in Figure
II-1, the ports which accommodate these vessels are located along the
entire coastline of the United States.  Commercial marine vessels,
powered by Category 3 marine engines, contribute significantly to the
emissions inventory for many U.S. ports.  This is illustrated in Table
VIII-4 which presents the mobile source inventory contributions of these
vessels for several ports.  The ports in this table were selected to
present a sampling over a wide geographic area along the U.S. coasts.
In 2005, these twenty ports received approximately 60 percent of the
vessel calls to the U.S. from ships of 10,000 DWT or greater.

Table VIII-4:  Contribution of Commercial Marine Vesselsa

to Mobile Source Inventories for Selected Ports in 2002

Port Area	NOx	PM2.5	SOx

Valdez, AK

Seattle, WA

Tacoma, WA

San Francisco, CA

Oakland, CA

LA/Long Beach, CA

Beaumont, TX

Galveston, TX

Houston, TX

New Orleans, LA

South Louisiana, LA

Miami, FL

Port Everglades, FL

Jacksonville, FL

Savannah, GA

Charleston, SC

Wilmington, NC

Baltimore, MD

New York/New Jersey

Boston, MA	4%

10%

20%

1%

8%

5%

6%

5%

3%

14%

12%

13%

9%

5%

24%

22%

7%

12%

4%

4%	10%

20%

38%

1%

14%

10%

20%

12%

10%

24%

24%

25%

20%

11%

39%

33%

16%

27%

9%

5%	43%

56%

74%

31%

80%

71%

55%

47%

41%

59%

58%

66%

56%

52%

80%

87%

73%

69%

39%

30%

b This category includes emissions from Category 3 (C3) propulsion
engines and C2/3 auxiliary engines used on ocean-going vessels.

Currently, more than 40 major U.S. deep sea ports are located in areas
that are designated as being in nonattainment for either or both the
8-hour ozone NAAQS and PM2.5 NAAQS.  Many ports are located in areas
rated as class I federal areas for visibility impairment and regional
haze.  It should be noted that emissions from ocean-going vessels are
not simply a localized problem related only to cities that have
commercial ports.  Virtually all U.S. coastal areas are affected by
emissions from ships that transit between those ports, using shipping
lanes that are close to land.  Many of these coastal areas also have
high population densities.  For example, Santa Barbara, which has no
commercial port, estimates that engines on ocean-going marine vessels
currently contribute about 37 percent of total NOx in their area.  These
emissions are from ships that transit the area, and “are comparable to
(even slightly larger than) the amount of NOx produced onshore by cars
and truck.”  By 2015 these emissions are expected to increase 67
percent, contributing 61 percent of Santa Barbara’s total NOx
emissions. This mix of emission sources led Santa Barbara to point out
that they will be unable to meet air quality standards for ozone without
significant emission reductions from these vessels, even if they
completely eliminate all other sources of pollution.  Interport
emissions from OGV also contribute to other environmental problems,
affecting sensitive marine and land ecosystems.

2. Inventory Calculation Methodology

The exhaust emission inventories presented above for commercial marine
vessels, with Category 3 marine engines, include emissions from vessels
in-port and from vessels engaged in interport transit.  This section
gives a general overview of the methodology used to estimate the
emission contribution these vessels.  A more detailed description of
this inventory analysis is available in the public docket.

For the purposes of this analysis, in-port operation includes cruising,
reduced speed zone, maneuvering, and hotelling.  The in-port analysis
includes operation out to a 25 nautical mile radius from the entrance to
the port.  Interport operation includes ship traffic, within the U.S.
Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ), not included as part of the port
emissions analysis.  In general, the EEZ extends to 200 nautical miles
from the U.S. coast.  Exceptions include geographic regions near Canada,
Mexico and the Bahamas where the EEZ extends less than 200 nautical
miles from the U.S. coast.

The port inventories are based on detailed emission estimates for eleven
specific ports.  The port inventories were estimated using activity data
for that port (number of port calls, vessel types and typical times in
different operating modes) and an emission factor for each mode.
Emission estimates for all other commercial ports were developed by
matching each of the other commercial ports to one of the eleven
specific ports.  Matching was based on characteristics of port activity,
such as predominant vessel types, harbor craft and region of the
country.  The detailed port emissions were then scaled for the other
commercial ports based on relative port activity.   An exception to this
is that detailed port inventories for fourteen California ports were
provided by the California Air Resources Board (ARB).

To calculate the mobile fractions in Table VIII-4, we compared
commercial marine port inventory estimates described above to
county-level mobile source emission estimates developed in support of
the recent rulemaking for national PM ambient air quality standards.
Both propulsion engines and auxiliary engines are included in these
estimates.  The county-level inventories were adjusted to include the
updated emissions estimates for commercial marine vessels.

Recently, the California Air Resources Board (ARB) sponsored the
development of new national inventory estimates for Category 3 marine
engines.  The new approach captures actual interport activity, by using
information on ship movements, ship attributes, and the distances of
routes.  We believe that this methodology is an improvement over past
evaluations of interport shipping emissions which were based on
estimates of ton-miles of cargo moved.  The new methodology captures
ship traffic more completely which results in much higher estimates of
total emissions from commercial marine vessels engaged in interport
traffic within the U.S. EEZ.

	Our emission inventory estimates for interport traffic are based on the
ARB-sponsored study with four primary modifications.,  First, we use
only the interport traffic estimates from the study and rely on our own,
more detailed, analysis of in-port emissions.  Second, we modified the
geographic boundaries of the inventory to align with the U.S. EEZ.
Third, we use adjusted emission factors for PM emissions to better
reflect the sum of available PM emissions data from engines on marine
vessels.

	The detailed inventory studies described above were performed for 2002.
 To calculate emission inventories for future years, we applied separate
growth rates for the West Coast, Gulf Coast, East Coast, and Great
Lakes.  These emission inventory growth estimates were determined based
on economic growth projections of trade between the United States and
other regions of the world.  In contrast, the ARB-sponsored study looks
at a range of growth rates based on extrapolations of historical growth
in installed power.  The approach used by EPA is more conservative in
that it uses lower growth rate projections.

The inventory estimates include emissions from both U.S. flagged vessels
and foreign flagged vessels.  The majority of the ship operation near
the U.S. coast is from ships that are not registered in the United
States.  According to the U.S. Maritime Administration, in 2005,
approximately 87 percent of the calls by ocean-going vessels (10,000
dead weight tons or greater) at U.S. ports were made by foreign vessels.

Based on our emissions inventory analysis, auxiliary engines contribute
approximately half of the exhaust emissions from vessels in port.  In
contrast, auxiliary engines only represent about 4 percent of the
exhaust emissions from ships engaged in interport traffic.

	The exhaust emission inventory for commercial marine vessels with
Category 3 marine engines includes operation that extends out to 200
nautical miles from shore.  Considering all emissions from ships
operating in the U.S. EEZ, emissions in ports contribute to less than 20
percent of the total inventory.  However, we recognize that emissions
closer to shore are more likely to impact human health and welfare
because of their proximity to human populations.  We have initiated
efforts to perform air quality modeling to quantify these impacts.  The
air quality modeling will consider transport of emissions over the
ocean, meteorological data, population densities, emissions from other
sources, and other relevant information.  We request comment on the
methodology used to develop exhaust inventory estimates for ships with
Category 3 engines operating near the U.S. coast.

	As discussed above, the national inventories presented here are for the
Exclusive Economic Zone around the 50 states.  Note that the ship
traffic in the EEZ includes not only direct movements to and from U.S.
ports, but also movements up and down the coast.  The boundaries for the
EEZ are presented in Figure VIII-1.

Figure VIII-1:  Regions of U.S. EEZ used for Category 3 Inventory
Analysis

Table VIII-5 presents the 2002 national exhaust emission inventory for
commercial marine vessels, with Category 3 marine engines, subdivided
into the seven regions shown in the above figure.  The Alaska and Hawaii
regions contribute to roughly one-fifth of the national emissions
inventory.  The inventory for the Alaska EEZ includes emissions from
ships on a great circle route, along the Aleutian Islands, between Asia
and the U.S. West Coast.  Therefore, eastern Alaska, which includes most
of the state population, is presented separately in the table below.
The Hawaii EEZ includes major shipping lanes across the Pacific that
pass near the Hawaiian isles.

Table VIII-5:  2002 Regional U.S. Emissions from Commercial Marine
Vesselsa [tons/yr]

Region	NOx

[short tons]	PM2.5

[short tons]	SOx

[short tons]

South Pacific	116,057	8,283	62,944

North Pacific	28,941	2,205	16,469

East Coast	243,261	17,901	153,597

Gulf Coast	192,130	14,374	110,382

Alaska (east)	20,078	1,458	11,037

Alaska (west)	66,768	4,799	35,998

Hawaii	60,501	4,372	32,970

Great Lakes (U.S. only)	16,708	1,207	9,098

Great Lakes (Canada only)	5,621	405	3,043

Total (using U.S. only Great Lakes)	744,444	54,599	432,496

a This category includes emissions from Category 3 (C3) propulsion
engines and C2/3 auxiliary engines used on ocean-going vessels.

B. Potential Costs

	The emission-control technologies we are considering for Category 3
marine engines are already in development or in commercial use in some
marine applications.  The draft Regulatory Impact Analysis for the May
29, 2002 proposed rulemaking for Category 3 marine engines (67 FR 37548)
included an analysis of regulatory alternatives which including advanced
technologies.  To estimate costs of this prospective emissions control
program, we expect to start with cost estimates that were developed as
part of that regulatory analysis.  We will modify these costs as needed
to take into account advances in technology, changes in cost structure,
and comments received on this ANPRM.  We encourage commenters to review
the information covering all aspects of engine costs in the regulatory
impact documents for the earlier Category 3 rulemaking and to provide
comments on cost-related issues.  In addition, we are interested in cost
information associated with potential retrofitting concepts and in
information about any unique costs associated with equipment redesign
for the marine market.

	We will also consider the economics of desulfurizing residual fuel,
using of distillate fuel, and blending high and low sulfur fuels.  Due
to high refinery production costs, it is not likely that much new volume
of residual fuel will be desulfurized.  We expect to employ a world wide
refinery modeling analysis to estimate the cost for desulfurizing
residual fuel and to estimate the cost for the production of additional
distillate fuel in our analysis for different fuel volume scenarios.
Additionally, we will estimate scrubbing costs and potential scrubber
penetration rates for ships, as the use of scrubbers is another method
that ships may use to comply, in lieu of using low sulfur fuel.  The
resulting fuel cost from our refinery analysis will be compared to the
costs from scrubbing and fuel blending to determine the most economical
method for complying with the standards for Category 3 marine engines.
We request comment on the potential costs of low sulfur marine fuels.

IX. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review

	Under section (3)(f)(1) Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4,
1993), the Agency must determine whether the regulatory action is
“significant” and therefore subject to review by the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) and the requirements of this Executive
Order.  This Advance Notice has been sent to the Office of Management
and Budget (OMB) for review under EO 12866 and any changes made in
response to OMB recommendations have been documented in the docket for
this action.

B. Paperwork Reduction Act

We will prepare information collection requirements as part of our
proposed rule and submit them for approval to the Office of Management
and Budget (OMB) under the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et
seq.

C.  Regulatory Flexibility Act

The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) as amended by the Small Business
Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act (SBREFA), requires agencies to
endeavor, consistent with the objectives of the rule and applicable
statutes, to fit regulatory and information requirements to the scale of
businesses, organizations, and governmental jurisdictions subject to
their regulations. SBREFA amended the RFA to strengthen its analytical
and procedural requirements and to ensure that small entities are
adequately considered during rule development.  The Agency accordingly
requests comment on the potential impacts on a small entity of the
program described in this notice.  These comments will help the Agency
meet its obligations under SBREFA and will suggest how EPA can minimize
the impacts of this rule for small entities that may be adversely
impacted.

Depending on the number of small entities identified prior to the
proposal and the level of any contemplated regulatory action, we may
convene a Small Business Advocacy Review Panel under section 609(b) of
the Regulatory Flexibility Act as amended by SBREFA.  The purpose of the
Panel would be to collect the advice and recommendations of
representatives of small entities that could be impacted by the eventual
rule.  If we determine that a panel is not warranted, we would intend to
work on a less formal basis with those small entities identified.

Although we do not believe that this rule will have a significant
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities, we are
requesting information on small entities potentially impacted by this
rulemaking.  Information on company size, number of employees, annual
revenues and product lines would be especially useful.  Confidential
business information may be submitted as described under SUPPLEMENTARY
INFORMATION.

D.  Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), Public Law
104-4, establishes requirements for Federal agencies to assess the
effects of their regulatory actions on State, local, and tribal
governments and the private sector. Under section 202 of the UMRA, EPA
generally must prepare a written statement, including a cost-benefit
analysis, for proposed and final rules with "Federal mandates" that may
result in expenditures to State, local, and tribal governments, in the
aggregate, or to the private sector, of $100 million or more in any one
year. Before promulgating an EPA rule for which a written statement is
needed, section 205 of the UMRA generally requires EPA to identify and
consider a reasonable number of regulatory alternatives and adopt the
least costly, most cost-effective or least burdensome alternative that
achieves the objectives of the rule. The provisions of section 205 do
not apply when they are inconsistent with applicable law. Moreover,
section 205 allows EPA to adopt an alternative other than the least
costly, most cost-effective or least burdensome alternative if the
Administrator publishes with the final rule an explanation why that
alternative was not adopted. Before EPA establishes any regulatory
requirements that may significantly or uniquely affect small
governments, including tribal governments, it must have developed under
section 203 of the UMRA a small government agency plan. The plan must
provide for notifying potentially affected small governments, enabling
officials of affected small governments to have meaningful and timely
input in the development of EPA regulatory proposals with significant
Federal intergovernmental mandates, and informing, educating, and
advising small governments on compliance with the regulatory
requirements.

As part of the development of our Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, we will
examine the impacts of our proposal with respect to expected
expenditures by State, local, and tribal governments, in the aggregate,
or by the private sector of $100 million or more in any one year.

E.  Executive Order 13132: Federalism

Executive Order 13132, entitled “Federalism” (64 FR 43255, August
10, 1999), requires EPA to develop an accountable process to ensure
“meaningful and timely input by State and local officials in the
development of regulatory policies that have federalism implications.”
 “Policies that have federalism implications” is defined in the
Executive Order to include regulations that have “substantial direct
effects on the States, on the relationship between the national
government and the States, or on the distribution of power and
responsibilities among the various levels of government.”

Under Section 6 of Executive Order 13132, EPA may not issue a regulation
that has federalism implications, that imposes substantial direct
compliance costs, and that is not required by statute, unless the
Federal government provides the funds necessary to pay the direct
compliance costs incurred by State and local governments, or EPA
consults with State and local officials early in the process of
developing the proposed regulation.  EPA also may not issue a regulation
that has federalism implications and that preempts State law, unless the
Agency consults with State and local officials early in the process of
developing the proposed regulation.

Section 4 of the Executive Order contains additional requirements for
rules that preempt State or local law, even if those rules do not have
federalism implications (i.e., the rules will not have substantial
direct effects on the States, on the relationship between the national
government and the states, or on the distribution of power and
responsibilities among the various levels of government).  Those
requirements include providing all affected State and local officials
notice and an opportunity for appropriate participation in the
development of the regulation.  If the preemption is not based on
express or implied statutory authority, EPA also must consult, to the
extent practicable, with appropriate State and local officials regarding
the conflict between State law and Federally protected interests within
the agency’s area of regulatory responsibility.

As part of the development of our Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, we will
examine the impacts of our proposal with respect to the relationship
between the national government and the States, or on the distribution
of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government, as
specified in Executive Order 13132.

In the spirit of Executive Order 13132, and consistent with EPA policy
to promote communications between EPA and State and local governments,
EPA specifically solicits comment on this proposed rule from State and
local officials.

F.  Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination with Indian
Tribal Governments

	Executive Order 13175, entitled “Consultation and Coordination with
Indian Tribal Governments” (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), requires
EPA to develop an accountable process to ensure “meaningful and timely
input by tribal officials in the development of regulatory policies that
have tribal implications.”  “Policies that have tribal
implications” is defined in the Executive Order to include regulations
that have “substantial direct effects on one or more Indian tribes, on
the relationship between the Federal government and the Indian tribes,
or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal
government and Indian tribes.”

	As part of the development of our Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, we
will examine the impacts of our proposal with respect to tribal
implications.

G.  Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children from Environmental
Health and Safety Risks

	Executive Order 13045, “Protection of Children from Environmental
Health Risks and Safety Risks” (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997) applies
to any rule that: (1) is determined to be “economically significant”
as defined under Executive Order 12866, and (2) concerns an
environmental health or safety risk that EPA has reason to believe may
have a disproportionate effect on children.  If the regulatory action
meets both criteria, the Agency must evaluate the environmental health
or safety effects of the planned rule on children, and explain why the
planned regulation is preferable to other potentially effective and
reasonably feasible alternatives considered by the Agency.

	This rule is not subject to the Executive Order because it does not
involve decisions on environmental health or safety risks that may
disproportionately affect children.  The EPA believes that the emissions
reductions from the strategies proposed in this rulemaking will further
improve air quality and will further improve children’s health.

H.  Executive Order 13211: Actions that Significantly Affect Energy
Supply, Distribution, or Use

Executive Order 13211, “Actions Concerning Regulations That
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use” (66 Fed.
Reg. 28355 (May 22, 2001)) requires that we determine whether or not
there is a significant impact on the supply of energy caused by our
rulemaking.  These impacts include: reductions in supply, reductions in
production, increases in energy usage, increases in the cost of energy
production and distribution, or other similarly adverse outcomes.  We
anticipate that our proposal will not be a “significant energy
action” as defined by this order because we are not reducing the
supply or production of any fuels or electricity, nor are we increasing
the use or cost of energy by more than the stated thresholds.  The
proposed standards will have for their aim the reduction of emissions
from certain marine engines using either exhaust gas cleaning technology
or an alternative grade of marine fuel, and will have no effect on fuel
formulation.

I.  National Technology Transfer Advancement Act

Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of
1995 (“NTTAA”), Public Law 104 113, 12(d) (15 U.S.C. 272 note)
directs EPA to use voluntary consensus standards in its regulatory
activities unless doing so would be inconsistent with applicable law or
otherwise impractical.  Voluntary consensus standards are technical
standards (e.g., materials specifications, test methods, sampling
procedures, and business practices) that are developed or adopted by
voluntary consensus standards bodies.  NTTAA directs EPA to provide
Congress, through OMB, explanations when the Agency decides not to use
available and applicable voluntary consensus standards.

As part of the development of our Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, we will
examine the availability and use of voluntary consensus standards.

J. Executive Order 12898:  Federal Actions to Address Environmental
Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations

Executive Order (EO) 12898 (59 FR 7629 (Feb. 16, 1994)) establishes
federal executive policy on environmental justice.  Its main provision
directs federal agencies, to the greatest extent practicable and
permitted by law, to make environmental justice part of their mission by
identifying and addressing, as appropriate, disproportionately high and
adverse human health or environmental effects of their programs,
policies, and activities on minority populations and low-income
populations in the United States.

Control of Emissions from New Marine Compression-Ignition Engines at or
Above 30 Liters per Cylinder page 105 of 105 - ANPRM

EPA has determined that this proposed rule will not have
disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental
effects on minority or low-income populations because it increases the
level of environmental protection for all affected populations without
having any disproportionately high and adverse human health or
environmental effects on any population, including any minority or
low-income population.  Rather the opposite as more low-income
individuals tend to live closer to marine ports, and it is these areas
that will receive the most benefits in this rule that will reduce
emissions of large marine engines.

List of Subjects

40 CFR Part 9

Reporting and recordkeeping requirements

40 CFR Part 94

Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure, Air
pollution control, Confidential business information, Imports,
Incorporation by reference, Penalties, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, Vessels, Warranties.

Dated_____________

___________________________________

Stephen L. Johnson,

Administrator.

 66 FR 5001, January 18, 2001

 69 FR 38957, June 29, 2004

 72 FR 15937, April 3, 2007

 Marine diesel engines at or above 30 l/cyl displacement are not
included in this program.

 U.S. EPA (2002) Health Assessment Document for Diesel Engine Exhaust.
EPA/600/8-90/057F.  Office of Research and Development, Washington DC.
This document is available electronically at   HYPERLINK
"http://cfpub.epa.gov/ncea/cfm/recordisplay.cfm?deid=29060"
http://cfpub.epa.gov/ncea/cfm/recordisplay.cfm?deid=29060 .  This
document is available in Docket EPA-HQ-OAR-2007-0121.

 Kinnee,E.J.; Touman, J.S.; Mason, R.; Thurman,J.; Beidler, A.; Bailey,
C.; Cook, R. (2004) Allocation of onroad mobile emissions to road
segments for air toxics modeling in an urban area. Transport. Res. Part
D 9:  139-150.

 State of California Air Resources Board.  Roseville Rail Yard Study.
Stationary Source Division, October 14, 2004. This document is available
electronically at:   HYPERLINK
"http://www.arb.ca.gov/diesel/documents/rrstudy.htm"
http://www.arb.ca.gov/diesel/documents/rrstudy.htm    and State of
California Air Resources Board.  Diesel Particulate Matter Exposure
Assessment Study for the Ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach, April
2006.  This document is available electronically at:    HYPERLINK
"http://www.arb.ca.gov/regact/marine2005/portstudy0406.pdf"
http://www.arb.ca.gov/regact/marine2005/portstudy0406.pdf .  This
document is available in Docket EPA-HQ-OAR-2007-0121.

 68 FR 9748, February 28, 2003.

 “Revision of the MARPOL Annex VI, the NOx Technical Code and Related
Guidelines; Development of Standards for NOx, PM, and SOx,” submitted
by the United States, BLG 11/5, Sub-Committee on Bulk Liquids and Gases,
11th  Session, Agenda Item 5, February 9, 2007, Docket ID
EPA-HQ-OAR-2007-0121-0034.  This document is also available on our
website:    HYPERLINK "http://www.epa.gov/otaq/oceanvessels.com"
www.epa.gov/otaq/oceanvessels.com

 See “Maersk Line Announces Fuel Switch for Vessels Calling
California” at   HYPERLINK
"http://www.maerskline.com/globalfile/?path=/pdf/environment_fuel_initia
tive"
http://www.maerskline.com/globalfile/?path=/pdf/environment_fuel_initiat
ive

 American Association of Port Authorities (AAPA), Industry Statistics,
2005 port rankings by cargo tonnage.

 In general, the United States Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) extends to
200 nautical miles from the U.S. coast.  Exceptions include geographic
regions near Canada, Mexico and the Bahamas where the EEZ extends less
than 200 nautical miles from the U.S. coast.  See map in Figure VIII-1,
below.

 U.S. EPA (2002) Health Assessment Document for Diesel Engine Exhaust.
EPA/600/8-90/057F.  Office of Research and Development, Washington DC.
This document is available electronically at   HYPERLINK
"http://cfpub.epa.gov/ncea/cfm/recordisplay.cfm?deid=29060"
http://cfpub.epa.gov/ncea/cfm/recordisplay.cfm?deid=29060 .  This
document is available in Docket EPA-HQ-OAR-2007-0121.

 Kinnee,E.J.; Touman, J.S.; Mason, R.; Thurman,J.; Beidler, A.; Bailey,
C.; Cook, R. (2004) Allocation of onroad mobile emissions to road
segments for air toxics modeling in an urban area. Transport. Res. Part
D 9:  139-150.

 State of California Air Resources Board.  Roseville Rail Yard Study.
Stationary Source Division, October 14, 2004. This document is available
electronically at:   HYPERLINK
"http://www.arb.ca.gov/diesel/documents/rrstudy.htm"
http://www.arb.ca.gov/diesel/documents/rrstudy.htm    and State of
California Air Resources Board.  Diesel Particulate Matter Exposure
Assessment Study for the Ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach, April
2006.  This document is available electronically at:    HYPERLINK
"http://www.arb.ca.gov/regact/marine2005/portstudy0406.pdf"
http://www.arb.ca.gov/regact/marine2005/portstudy0406.pdf .  These
documents are available in Docket EPA-HQ-OAR-2007-0121.

 Memorandum to Docket A–2001–11 from Jean-Marie Revelt, Santa
Barbara County Air Quality News, Issue 62, July-August 2001 and other
materials provided to EPA by Santa Barbara County,’’ March 14, 2002.

 California Air Resources Board (2006). Emission Reduction Plan for
Ports and Goods Movements, (April 2006) Appendix B-3, Available
electronically at   HYPERLINK
"http://www.arb.ca.gov/gmp/docs/finalgmpplan090905.pdf"
www.arb.ca.gov/gmp/docs/finalgmpplan090905.pdf  ;

 Texas Commission On Environmental Quality (2006)
Houston-Galveston-Brazoria 8-Hour Ozone State Implmental Plan & Rules,
Informational Meeting Presentation, Kelly Keel, Air Quality Planning
Section.

 Air consulting and Engineering Solutions, Final Report PhassII Corpus
Christi Regional Airshed, (August 2001)  Project Number 21-01-0006.

 The Port Authority of New York & New Jersey, (2003), The New York,
Northern New Jersey, Long Island Nonattainment Area Commercial Marine
Vessel Emissions Inventory, Prepared by Starcrest Consulting Group, LLC.

  State of California Air Resources Board.  Roseville Rail Yard Study.
Stationary Source Division, October 14, 2004. This document is available
electronically at:   HYPERLINK
"http://www.arb.ca.gov/diesel/documents/rrstudy.htm"
http://www.arb.ca.gov/diesel/documents/rrstudy.htm   and State of
California Air Resources Board and State of California Air Resources
Board.  Diesel Particulate Matter Exposure Assessment Study for the
Ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach, April 2006.  This document is
available electronically at:    HYPERLINK
"ftp://ftp.arb.ca.gov/carbis/msprog/offroad/marinevess/documents/portstu
dy0406.pdf"
ftp://ftp.arb.ca.gov/carbis/msprog/offroad/marinevess/documents/portstud
y0406.pdf .  These documents are available in Docket
EPA-HQ-OAR-2007-0121.

 For example, see: California Air Resources Board (2006).  Emission
Reduction Plan for Ports and Goods Movements, (April 2006), Available
electronically at   HYPERLINK
"http://www.arb.ca.gov/gmp/docs/finalgmpplan090905.pdf"
www.arb.ca.gov/gmp/docs/finalgmpplan090905.pdf

 For example, see letter dated November 29, 2006 from California
Environmental Protection Agency to Administrator Stephen L. Johnson and
January 20, 2006 letter from Executive Director, Puget Sound Clean Air
Agency to Administrator Stephen L. Johnson.

US EPA, Air Quality Designations and Classifications for the Fine
Particles (PM2.5) National Ambient Air Quality Standards, December 17,
2004. (70 FR 943, Jan 5. 2005) This document is available in Docket
EPA-HQ-OAR-2007-0121.  This document is also available on the web at:
HYPERLINK "http://www.epa.gov/pmdesignations/"
http://www.epa.gov/pmdesignations/

U.S.EPA (1996) Air Quality Criteria for Particulate Matter, EPA
600-P-95-001aF, EPA 600-P-95-001bF.   This document is available in
Docket EPA-HQ-OAR-2007-0121.

U.S. EPA (2004) Air Quality Criteria for Particulate Matter (Oct 2004),
Volume I Document No. EPA600/P-99/002aF and Volume II Document No.
EPA600/P-99/002bF.  This document is available in Docket
EPA-HQ-OAR-2007-0121.

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. This document is
available in Docket EPA-HQ-OAR-2007-0121.

 Dockery, DW; Pope, CA 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.

 Pope Ca, III; Thun, MJ; Namboodiri, MM; Docery, DW; Evans, JS; Speizer,
FE; Heath, CW. 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.

Riekider, M.; Cascio, W.E.; Griggs, T.R.; Herbst, M.C.; Bromberg, P.A.;
Neas, L.; Williams, R.W.; Devlin, R.B. (2003) Particulate Matter
Exposures in Cars is Associated with Cardiovascular Effects in Healthy
Young Men.  Am. J. Respir. Crit. Care Med. 169:  934-940.

 Riediker, M.; Cascio, W.E.; Griggs, T.R.; et al. (2004)  Particulate
matter exposure in cars is associated with cardiovascular effects in
healthy young men.  Am J Respir Crit Care Med 169: 934–940.

 Van Vliet, P.; Knape, M.; de Hartog, J.; Janssen, N.; Harssema, H.;
Brunekreef, B. (1997).  Motor vehicle exhaust and chronic respiratory
symptoms in children living near freeways.  Env. Research 74: 122-132.

 Brunekreef, B., Janssen, N.A.H.; de Hartog, J.; Harssema, H.; Knape,
M.; van Vliet, P. (1997).  Air pollution from truck traffic and lung
function in children living near roadways.  Epidemiology 8:298-303.

 Kim, J.J.; Smorodinsky, S.; Lipsett, M.; Singer, B.C.; Hodgson, A.T.;
Ostro, B (2004). Traffic-related air pollution near busy roads:  The
East Bay children’s respiratory health study.  Am. J. Respir. Crit.
Care Med.  170:  520-526.

U.S. EPA Air Quality Criteria for Ozone and Related Photochemical
Oxidants (Final). U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington,
D.C., EPA 600/R-05/004aF-cF, 2006.  This document may be accessed
electronically at:
http://www.epa.gov/ttn/naaqs/standards/ozone/s_o3_cr_cd.html.  This
document is available in Docket EPA-HQ-OAR-2007-0121.

 EPA proposes to set the 8-hour primary ozone standard to a level within
the range of 0.070-0.075 ppm.  The agency also requests comments on
alternative levels of the 8-hour primary ozone standard, within a range
from 0.060 ppm up to and including retention of the current standard
(0.084 ppm).  EPA also proposes two options for the secondary ozone
standard.  One option would establish a new form of standard designed
specifically to protect sensitive plants from damage caused by repeated
ozone exposure throughout the growing season.  This cumulative standard
would add daily ozone concentrations across a three month period.  EPA
is proposing to set the level of the cumulative standard within the
range of 7 to 21 ppm-hours.  The other option would follow the current
practice of making the secondary standard equal to the proposed 8-hour
primary standard.

 U.S. EPA Air Quality Criteria for Ozone and Related Photochemical
Oxidants (Final). U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington,
D.C., EPA 600/R-05/004aF-cF, 2006.  This document is available in Docket
EPA-HQ-OAR-2007-0121.  This document may be accessed electronically at:
http://www.epa.gov/ttn/naaqs/standards/ozone/s_o3_cr_cd.html

 U.S. EPA (2006) Review of the National Ambient Air Quality Standards
for Ozone, Policy Assessment of Scientific and Technical Information.
OAQPS Staff Paper Second Draft.EPA-452/D-05-002.  This document is
available in Docket EPA-HQ-OAR-2007-0121.  This document is available
electronically at:
http:www.epa.gov/ttn/naaqs/standards/ozone/s_o3_cr_sp.html.

 To express chronic noncancer hazards, we used the RfC as part of a
calculation called the hazard quotient (HQ), which is the ratio between
the concentration to which a person is exposed and the RfC.   (RfC is
defined by EPA as, “an estimate of a continuous inhalation exposure to
the human population, including sensitive subgroups, with uncertainty
spanning perhaps an order of magnitude, that is likely to be without
appreciable risks of deleterious noncancer effects during a
lifetime.”) A value of the HQ less than one indicates that the
exposure is lower than the RfC and that no adverse health effects would
be expected.

 U. S. EPA (2006)  National-Scale Air Toxics Assessment for 1999.
HYPERLINK "http://www.epa.gov/ttn/atw/nata1999"
http://www.epa.gov/ttn/atw/nata1999 .

 U.S. EPA (2002) Health Assessment Document for Diesel Engine Exhaust.
EPA/600/8-90/057F Office of Research and Development, Washington DC.
Pp1-1 1-2.  This document is available in Docket EPA-HQ-OAR-2007-0121.
This document is available electronically at   HYPERLINK
"http://cfpub.epa.gov/ncea/cfm/recordisplay.cfm?deid=29060"
http://cfpub.epa.gov/ncea/cfm/recordisplay.cfm?deid=29060

 U.S. EPA (2002) Health Assessment Document for Diesel Engine Exhaust.
EPA/600/8-90/057F Office of Research and Development, Washington DC.
This document is available in Docket EPA-HQ-OAR-2007-0121.

This document is available electronically at   HYPERLINK
"http://cfpub.epa.gov/ncea/cfm/recordisplay.cfm?deid=29060"
http://cfpub.epa.gov/ncea/cfm/recordisplay.cfm?deid=29060

 U.S. EPA (2002) Health Assessment Document for Diesel Engine Exhaust.
EPA/6008-90/057F  Office of Research and Development, Washington DC.
This document is available in Docket EPA-HQ-OAR-2007-0121.

 Bhatia, R., Lopipero, P., Smith, A. (1998) Diesel exposure and lung
cancer.  Epidemiology 9(1):84-91.

 Lipsett, M: Campleman, S; (1999) Occupational exposure to diesel
exhaust and lung cancer:  a meta-analysis. Am J Public Health 80(7):
1009-1017.

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.

Heinrich, 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.

Mauderly, JL; Jones, RK; Griffith, WC; et al. (1987) Diesel exhaust is a
pulmonary carcinogen in rats exposed chronically by inhalation. Fundam.
Appl. Toxicol. 9:208-221.

Nikula, KJ; Snipes, MB; Barr, EB; 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.

   Diesel HAD Page 2-110, 8-12; Woskie, SR; Smith, TJ; Hammond, SK: et
al. (1988a) Estimation of the DE exposures of railroad workers: II.
National and historical exposures.  Am J Ind Med 12:381-394.

 Hand, R.; Pingkuan, D.; Servin, A.; Hunsaker, L.; Suer, C. (2004)
Roseville rail yard study.  California Air Resources Board.  [Online at
http://www.arb.ca.gov/diesel/documents/rrstudy.htm]

 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.  California Air Resources Board. [Online at
http://www.arb.ca.gov/msprog/offroad/marinevess/marinevess.htm]

 Chronic exposure is defined in the glossary of the Integrated Risk
Information (IRIS) database (  HYPERLINK "http://www.epa.gov/iris"
http://www.epa.gov/iris ) as repeated exposure by the oral, dermal, or
inhalation route for more than approximately 10 percent of the life span
in humans (more than approximately 90 days to 2 years in typically used
laboratory animal species).

 Defined in the IRIS database as exposure to a substance spanning
approximately 10 percent of the lifetime of an organism.

 Defined in the IRIS database as exposure by the oral, dermal, or
inhalation route for 24 hours or less.

 See discussion in U.S. EPA , National Ambient Air Quality Standards for
Particulate Matter; Proposed Rule; January 17, 2006, Vol71  p 2676.
This document is available in Docket EPA-HQ-OAR-2007-0121.

This information is available electronically at   HYPERLINK
"http://epa.gov/fedrgstr/EPA-AIR/2006/January/Day-17/a177.pdf"
http://epa.gov/fedrgstr/EPA-AIR/2006/January/Day-17/a177.pdf

 U.S. EPA (2004) Air Quality Criteria for Particulate Matter (Oct 2004),
Volume I Document No. EPA600/P-99/002aF and Volume II Document No.
EPA600/P-99/002bF.  This document is available in Docket
EPA-HQ-OAR-2007-0121.

 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. This document is
available in Docket EPA-HQ-OAR-2007-0121.

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.

US EPA, Air Quality Designations and Classifications for the Fine
Particles (PM2.5) National Ambient Air Quality Standards, December 17,
2004. (70 FR 943, Jan 5. 2005) This document is available in Docket
EPA-HQ-OAR-2007-0121.

This document is also available on the web at:
http://www.epa.gov/pmdesignations/

USEPA.  Regional Haze Regulations, July 1, 1999.  (64 FR 35714, July 1,
1999) This document is available in Docket EPA-HQ-OAR-2007-0121.

U.S.EPA Air Quality Criteria for Ozone and Related Photochemical
Oxidants  (Final).  U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington,
D.C., EPA 600/R-05/004aF-cF,2006.  This document is available in Docket
EPA-HQ-OAR-2007-0121. This document may be accessed electronically at:
http://www.epa.gov/ttn/naaqs/standards/ozone/s_o3_cr_cd.html

 Deposition of Air Pollutants to the Great Waters, Third Report to
Congress, June 2000,  EPA-453/R-00-005.  This document is available in
Docket EPA-HQ-OAR-2007-0121.  It is also available at
www.epa.gov/oar/oaqps/gr8water/3rdrpt/obtain.html.

 Bricker, Suzanne B., et al, National Estuarine Eutrophication
Assessment, Effects of Nutrient Enrichment in the Nation's Estuaries,
National Ocean Service, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration,
September, 1999.

 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.  This document is available in Docket
EPA-HQ-OAR-2007-0121.

 See   HYPERLINK "http://www.imo.org"  www.imo.org   Go to Conventions,
Status of Conventions – Summary.

 46 USCS Appx § 688

 Final Regulatory Support Document:  Control of Emissions from New
Marine Compression-Ignition Engines at or Above 30 Liters per Cylinder.
EPA420-R-03-004, January 2003, pg. 3-50.  This document is available at
 HYPERLINK "http://www.epa.gov/otaq/regs/nonroad/marine/ci/r03004.pdf"
http://www.epa.gov/otaq/regs/nonroad/marine/ci/r03004.pdf  .  We will
update these statistics for more recent years; however, these results
are not expected to change significantly given the U.S. share of the
ownership of ocean-going vessels.  MARAD data from 2005 indicates that
while about 4.7 percent of all ocean-going vessels are owned by citizens
of the United States (5th largest fleet) only about 1.9 percent of all
ocean-going vessels are flagged here.  Also according to that data,
while Greece, Japan, China, and Germany account for the largest fleets
in terms of ownership (15.3, 13.0, 11, and 8.9 percent, respectively),
Panama and Liberia account for the largest fleets by flag (21.6 and 8.9
percent, respectively).

 Proposal to Initiate a Revision Process, Submitted by Finland, Germany,
Italy, the Netherlands, Norway, Sweden and the United Kingdom.  MEPC
53/4/4, 15 April 2005.  Marine Environment Protection Committee, 53rd
Session, Agenda Item 4.

 Revision of the NOx Technical Code, Tier 2 Emission Limits for Diesel
Marine Engines At or Above 130 kW, submitted by the United States.  MEPC
44/11/7, 24 December 1999.  Marine Environment Protection Committee,
44th  Session, Agenda Item 11.

 “Revision of the MARPOL Annex VI, the NOx Technical Code and Related
Guidelines; Development of Standards for NOx, PM, and SOx,” submitted
by the United States, BLG 11/5, Sub-Committee on Bulk Liquids and Gases,
11th  Session, Agenda Item 5, February 9, 2007, Docket ID
EPA-HQ-OAR-2007-0121-0034.  This document is also available on our
website:    HYPERLINK "http://www.epa.gov/otaq/oceanvessels.com"
www.epa.gov/otaq/oceanvessels.com

 Freidrich, A., Heinen, F., Kamakate, F., Kojak, D., “Air Pollution
and Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Ocean-Going Ships:  Impacts,
Mitigation Options and Opportunities for Managing Growth,” The
International Council on Clean Transportation, March 2007, Docket ID
EPA-HQ-OAR-2007-0121-0033.

 This NOx standard is the same as the internationally negotiated NOx
standards established by the International Maritime Organization (IMO)
in Annex VI to the International Convention on the Prevention of
Pollution from Ships, 1973, as Modified by the Protocol of 1978 Relating
Thereto (MARPOL).

 “MARPOL Annex VI Revision - Proposals Related to Future Emission
Limits and Issues for Clarification,” Submitted by EUROMOT to the IMO
Subcommittee on Bulk Liquids and Gases, BLG 10/14/12, January 26, 2006,
Docket ID EPA-HQ-OAR-2007-0121-0014.

 Henningsen, S., “2007 Panel Discussion on Emission Reduction
Solutions for Marine Vessels; Engine Technologies” presentation by MAN
B&W at the Clean Ships: Advanced Technology for Clean Air Conference,
February 8, 2007, Docket ID EPA-HQ-OAR-2007-0121-0031.

 Heim, K., “Future Emission Legislation and Reduction
Possibilities,” presentation by Wartsila at the CIMAC Circle 2006,
September 28, 2006, Docket ID EPA-HQ-OAR-2007-0121-0017.

 Aabo, K., Kjemtrup, N., “Latest on Emission Control Water Emulsion
and Exhaust Gas Re-Circulation,” MAN B&W, CIMAC paper number 126,
presented at International Council on Combustion Engines Congress, 2004,
Docket ID EPA-HQ-OAR-2007-0121-0005.

 Hagström, U., “Humid Air Motor (HAM) and Selective Catalytic
Reduction (SCR) Viking Line,” presented by Viking Line at Swedish
Maritime Administration Conference on Emission Abatement Technology on
Ships, May 24-26, 2005, Docket ID EPA-HQ-OAR-2007-0121-0027.

 Koehler, H., “Field Experience with Considerably Reduced NOx and
Smoke Emissions,” MAN B&W, 2004, Docket ID EPA-HQ-OAR-2007-0121-0019.

 Aabo, K., Kjemtrup, N., “Latest on Emission Control Water Emulsion
and Exhaust Gas Re-Circulation,” MAN B&W, CIMAC paper number 126,
presented at International Council on Combustion Engines Congress, 2004,
Docket ID EPA-HQ-OAR-2007-0121-0005.

 Henningsen, S., “2007 Panel Discussion on Emission Reduction
Solutions for Marine Vessels; Engine Technologies” presentation by MAN
B&W at the Clean Ships: Advanced Technology for Clean Air Conference,
February 8, 2007, Docket ID EPA-HQ-OAR-2007-0121-0031.

 Weisser, G., “Emission Reduction Solutions for Marine Vessels –
Wartsila Perspective” presentation by Wartsila at the Clean Ships:
Advanced Technology for Clean Air Conference, February 8, 2007, Docket
ID EPA-HQ-OAR-2007-0121-0032.

 “DEC SCR Convertor System,” Muenters, May 1, 2006.

 Hagström, U., “Humid Air Motor (HAM) and Selective Catalytic
Reduction (SCR),” Viking Line, presented at Air Pollution from Ships,
May 24-26, 2005, Docket ID EPA-HQ-OAR-2007-0121-0027.

 “Reference List - SINOx® Systems,” Argillon, December 2006, Docket
ID EPA-HQ-OAR-2007-0121-0035.

 “Reference List January 2005 Marine Applications,” Hug Engineering,
January 2005, Docket ID EPA-HQ-OAR-2007-0121-0036.

 Heim, K., “Future Emission Legislation and Reduction
Possibilities,” Wärtsilä, presented at CIMAC Circle 2006, September
28, 2006, Docket ID EPA-HQ-OAR-2007-0121-0017.

 Argillon, “Exhaust Gas Aftertreatment Systems; SCR – The Most
Effective Technology for NOx Reduction,” presented at Motor Ship
Marine Propulsion Conference, May 7-8, 2003, Docket ID
EPA-HQ-OAR-2007-0121-0010.

 Holmström, Per, “Selective Catalytic Reduction,” presentation by
Munters at Clean Ships: Advanced Technology for Clean Air, February 7-9,
2007, Docket ID EPA-HQ-OAR-2007-0121-0013.

 Rasmussen, K., Ellegasrd, L., Hanafusa, M., Shimada, K., “Large Scale
SCR Application on Diesel Power Plant,” CIMAC paper number 179,
presented at International Council on Combustion Engines Congress, 2004,
Docket ID EPA-HQ-OAR-2007-0121-0007.

 “Munters SCR Converter™ System,” downloaded from www.munters.com,
November 21, 2006, Docket ID EPA-HQ-OAR-2007-0121-0023.

 Argillon, “Exhaust Gas Aftertreatment Systems; SCR – The Most
Effective Technology for NOx Reduction,” presented at Motor Ship
Marine Propulsion Conference, May 7-8, 2003, Docket ID
EPA-HQ-OAR-2007-0121-0010.

 MAN B&W, “Emission Control Two-Stroke Low-Speed Diesel Engines,”
December 1996, Docket ID EPA-HQ-OAR-2007-0121-0020.

 “NOx Emissions from M/V Hamlet,” Data provided to W. Charmley, U.S.
EPA. by P. Holmström, DEC Marine, February 5, 2007, Docket ID
EPA-HQ-OAR-2007-0121-0015.

 U.S. Department of the Interior, "Mineral Commodity Summaries 2006,"
page 118, U.S. Geological Survey, January 13, 2006, Docket ID
EPA-HQ-OAR-2007-0121-0022.

 Tokunaga, Y., Kiyotaki, G., “Development of NOx Reduction System for
Marine Diesel Engines by SCR using Liquid Hydrocarbon Distilled from
Fuel Oil as Reductant,” CIMAC paper number 63, presented at
International Council on Combustion Engines Congress, 2004, Docket ID
EPA-HQ-OAR-2007-0121-0002.

 Paro, D., “Effective, Evolving, and Envisaged Emission Control
Technologies for Marine Propulsion Engines,” presentation from
Wartsila to EPA on September 6, 2001, Docket ID
EPA-HQ-OAR-2007-0121-0028.

 Koehler, H., “Field Experience with Considerably Reduced NOx and
Smoke Emissions,” MAN B&W, 2004, Docket ID EPA-HQ-OAR-2007-0121-0019.

 Heim, K., “Future Emission Legislation and Reduction
Possibilities,” presentation by Wartsila at the CIMAC Circle 2006,
September 28, 2006, Docket ID EPA-HQ-OAR-2007-0121-0017.

 “Emission Factors for Compression Ignition Nonroad Engines Operated
on No. 2 Highway and Nonroad Diesel Fuel,” U.S. EPA, EPA420-R-98-001,
March 1998, Docket ID EPA-HQ-OAR-2007-0121-0025.

 Lyyranen, J., Jokiniemi, J., Kauppinen, E., Joutsensaari, J.,
“Aerosol Characterization in Medium-Speed Diesel Engines Operating
with Heavy Fuel Oils,” Aerosol Science Vol. 30, No. 6, pp. 771-784,
1999, Docket ID EPA-HQ-OAR-2007-0121-0009.

 Maeda, K., Takasaki, K., Masuda, K., Tsuda, M., Yasunari, M.,
“Measurement of PM Emission from Marine Diesel Engines,” CIMAC paper
number 107 presented at International Council on Combustion Engines
Congress, 2004, Docket ID EPA-HQ-OAR-2007-0121-0004.

 Kasper, A., Aufdenblatten, S., Forss, A., Mohr, M., Burtscher, H.,
“Particulate Emissions from a Low-Speed Marine Diesel Engine,”
Aerosol Science and Technology, 41:24-32, 2007.

 Takasaki, K., Tayama, K., Tanaka, H., Baba, S., Tajima, H., Strom, A.,
“NOx Emission from Bunker Fuel Combustion,” CIMAC paper number 87,
presented at International Council on Combustion Engines Congress, 2004,
Docket ID EPA-HQ-OAR-2007-0121-0003.

 Skawinski, C., “Seawater Scrubbing Advantage,” Presentation by
Marine Exhaust Solutions at the Conference for Emission Abatement
Technology on Ships held by the Swedish Maritime Administration, May
24-26, 2005, Docket ID EPA-HQ-OAR-2007-0121-0021.

 “Krystallon Seawater Scrubber,” downloaded from www.krystallon.com
on February 14, 2007, Docket ID EPA-HQ-OAR-2007-0121-0018.

 “Cloud Chamber Scrubber Performance Results for Diesel Exhaust,”
Tri-Mer Corporation, April 14, 2005, Docket ID
EPA-HQ-OAR-2007-0121-0026.

 Skawinski, C., “Seawater Scrubbing Advantage,” Presentation by
Marine Exhaust Solutions at the Conference for Emission Abatement
Technology on Ships held by the Swedish Maritime Administration, May
24-26, 2005, Docket ID EPA-HQ-OAR-2007-0121-0021.

 An, S., Nishida, O., “Marine Air Pollution Control System Development
Applying Seawater and Electrolyte,” SAE Paper 2002-01-2295, July 2002,
Docket ID EPA-HQ-OAR-2007-0121-0024.

 Houng-Soo, K., “Development of Diesel Engine Emission Control System
on NOx and SOx by Seawater Electrolysis,” CIMAC paper number 25
presented at International Council on Combustion Engines Congress, 2004,
Docket ID EPA-HQ-OAR-2007-0121-0001.

 The NOx Technical File, required pursuant to Section 2.4 of the
Technical Code on Control of Emissions of Nitrogen Oxides from Marine
Diesel Engines, is a record containing details of engine parameters,
including components and settings, which may influence the NOx emissions
of the engine.  The NOx Technical File also contains a description of
onboard NOx verification procedures required for engine surveys.  The
NOx Technical File is developed by the engine manufacturer and must be
approved by the authority issuing the engine certificate.

 Nylund, I., “Status and Potentials of the Gas Engines,” Wartsila,
CIMAC paper number 163, presented at International Council on Combustion
Engines Congress, 2004, Docket ID EPA-HQ-OAR-2007-0121-0006.

 “Vessel Calls at U.S. & World Ports; 2005,” U.S. Maritime
Administration, Office of Statistical and Economic Analysis, April 2006,
Docket ID EPA-HQ-OAR-2007-0121-0040.

 Memorandum to Docket A–2001–11 from Jean-Marie Revelt, Santa
Barbara County Air Quality News, Issue 62, July-August 2001 and other
materials provided to EPA by Santa Barbara County,’’ March 14, 2002.

 “Development of Inventories for Commercial Marine Vessels with
Category 3 Engines,” U.S. EPA, September 2007.

 Browning, L., Hartley, S., Lindhjem, C., Hoats, A., “Commercial
Marine Port Inventory Development; Baseline Inventories,” prepared by
ICF International and Environ for the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, September 2006, Docket ID EPA-HQ-OAR-2007-0121-0037.

 Regulatory Impact Analysis for the Review of the Particulate Matter
National Ambient Air Quality Standards, EPA Docket:
EPA-HQ-OAR-2006-0834-0048.3.

 Corbett, J., Ph.D., Wang, C., Ph.D., Firestone, J., Ph.D,
“Estimation, Validation, and Forecasts of Regional Commercial Marine
Vessel Inventories, Tasks 1 and 2: Baseline Inventory and Ports
Comparison; Final Report,” University of Delaware, May 3, 2006,
Available electronically at
http://www.arb.ca.gov/research/seca/jctask12.pdf, Docket ID
EPA-HQ-OAR-2007-0121-0038.

 “Recalculation of Baseline and 2005 Emissions and Fuel
Consumption,” memorandum from Lou Browning, ICF and Chris Lindhjem and
Lyndsey Parker, Environ, to Penny Carey, Mike Samulski, and Russ Smith,
U.S. EPA, July 19, 2007.

 “U.S. and Regional Totals of Marine Vessel Emissions and Fuel
Consumption under WA 0-2 Tasks 6 and 7,” draft memorandum from Abby
Hoats and Chris Lindhjem, Environ, to Lou Browning, ICF International,
April 23, 2007.

 “RTI Estimates of Growth in Bunker Fuel Consumption,” memorandum
from Michael Gallaher and Martin Ross, RTI International, to Barry
Garelick and Russ Smith, U.S. EPA, April 24, 2006, Docket ID
EPA-HQ-OAR-2007-0121-0039.

 Corbett, J., Ph.D., Wang, C., Ph.D., “Estimation, Validation, and
Forecasts of Regional Commercial Marine Vessel Inventories, Tasks 3 and
4: Forecast Inventories for 2010 and 2020; Final Report,” University
of Delaware, May 3, 2006, Docket ID EPA-HQ-OAR-2007-0121-0012.

&

&

Ó

Õ

Ø

h{M

×

Ø

&

h

h

h

 h

&

&

Æ

옍)

- h

␅؁Ĥ옍)

␅؁Ĥ옍)

␅؁Ĥ옍)

␅؁Ĥ옍)

␅؁Ĥ옍)

␅؁Ĥ옍)

옍)

␅؁Ĥ옍)

 hŽ

 hŽ

hŽ

  hŽ

hŽ

hŽ

h

 hŽ

 hŽ

hŽ

 hŽ

hŽ

! hŽ

hŽ

  hŽ

hŽ

 hŽ

hŽ

h

 hŽ

hŽ

h

h

  hŽ

hŽ

 hŽ

hŽ

  hŽ

hŽ

  hŽ

h

hQ

h

  hŽ

hŽ

  hŽ

hŽ

h

hŽ

  hŽ

hQ

  hQ

hQ

hQ

h

  hŽ

hQ

  hŽ

hŽ

  hŽ

  hŽ

 hŽ

hŽ

h…

 hŽ

hŽ

  hŽ

hŽ

  hŽ

hŽ

h

hŽ

  hŽ

hŽ

  hŽ

  hŽ

hŽ

 hŽ

hŽ

 hŽ

hŽ

 hŽ

hŽ

  hŽ

hŽ

  hŽ

 hŽ

hŽ

  hŽ

hŽ

 hŽ

hŽ

  hŽ

  hŽ

hŽ

 hŽ

hŽ

  hŽ

hŽ

h

hŽ

hŽ

 hŽ

hŽ

 hŽ

hŽ

 hŽ

hŽ

  hŽ

hŽ

 hŽ

hŽ

 hŽ

hŽ

 hŽ

hŽ

  hŽ

hŽ

  hŽ

 hŽ

hŽ

 hŽ

hŽ

h

h

u

v

h

  hŽ

hŽ

h

  hŽ

hŽ

ᔔ蹨

 hŽ

  hŽ

 hŽ

hŽ

  hŽ

hŽ

h

hÐ

h

h±

&Š

 h>

 h

혈\鐄ꣿ쐌ﰜ$ᐆ

혈\鐄ꣿ쐌ﰜ$ᐆ

&

gdŽ

/

C

J

K

]

a

b

r

s

u

v

ˆ

‰

’

“

¥

§

®

º

Û

0

7

8

l

m

“

×

ô

õ

Ѐ 摧㈪Ѐ 摧䪞-Ѐ 摧Ṡïᤀ “Vessel Calls at U.S. & World
Ports; 2005,” U.S. Maritime Administration, Office of Statistical and
Economic Analysis, April 2006, Docket ID EPA-HQ-OAR-2007-0121-0040.

 “Draft Regulatory Support Document:  Control of Emissions from
Compression-Ignition Marine Diesel Engines at or Above 30 Liters per
Cylinder,” U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, April, 2002.

DRAFT 9/21/07:  Version Sent to OMB for Interagency Review

 PAGE

 PAGE   2

DRAFT 9/21/07:  Version Sent to OMB for Interagency Review


[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 170 (Friday, September 2, 2022)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 54139-54140]
[FR Doc No: 2022-18958]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 71

[Docket No. FAA-2022-0661; Airspace Docket No. 22-AEA-10]
RIN 2120-AA66

Revocation of Class E Airspace; Brownsville, PA

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: This action removes Class E airspace in Brownsville, PA, as
Brownsville General Hospital Heliport has been abandoned and controlled
airspace is no longer required. This action enhances the safety and
management of controlled airspace within the national airspace system.

DATES: Effective 0901 UTC, November 3, 2022. The Director of the
Federal Register approves this incorporation by reference action under
1 CFR part 51, subject to the annual revision of FAA Order JO 7400.11
and publication of conforming amendments.

ADDRESSES: FAA Order JO 7400.11F, Airspace Designations and Reporting
Points, and subsequent amendments can be viewed online at www.faa.gov/air_traffic/publications/. For further information, you can contact the
Airspace Policy Group, Federal Aviation Administration, 800
Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20591; Telephone: (202) 267-
8783.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: John Fornito, Operations Support
Group, Eastern Service Center, Federal Aviation Administration, 1701
Columbia Avenue, College Park, GA 30337; Telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Authority for This Rulemaking

    The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is
found in Title 49 of the United States Code. Subtitle I, Section 106,
describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII,
Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the agency's
authority. This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described
in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart I, Section 40103. Under that section,
the FAA is charged with prescribing regulations to assign the use of
airspace necessary to ensure the safety of aircraft and the efficient
use of airspace. This regulation is within the scope of that authority
as it removes Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the
surface at Brownsville General Hospital Heliport, Brownsville, PA, due
to the closing of the heliport.

History

    The FAA published a notice of proposed rulemaking in the Federal
Register (87 FR 32374, May 31, 2022) for Docket No. FAA-2022-0661 to
remove Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the
surface at Brownsville General Hospital Heliport, Brownsville, PA.
    Interested parties were invited to participate in this rulemaking
effort by submitting written comments on the proposal to the FAA. No
comments were received.
    Class E airspace designations are published in Paragraph 6005 of
FAA Order JO 7400.11F, dated August 10, 2021, and effective September
15, 2021, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1. The Class
E airspace designations listed in this document will be published
subsequently in FAA Order JO 7400.11.

Availability and Summary of Documents for Incorporation by Reference

    This document amends FAA Order JO 7400.11F, Airspace Designations
and Reporting Points, dated August 10, 2021, and effective September
15, 2021. FAA Order JO 7400.11F is publicly available as listed in the
ADDRESSES section of this document. FAA Order JO 7400.11F lists Class
A, B, C, D, and E airspace areas, air traffic routes, and reporting
points.

The Rule

    The FAA is amending 14 CFR part 71 by removing Class E airspace
extending upward from 700 feet above the surface at Brownsville General
Hospital Heliport, Brownsville, PA, as the heliport has closed.
Therefore, the airspace is no longer necessary. This action enhances
the safety and management of controlled airspace within the national
airspace system.
    Class E airspace designations are published in Paragraph 6005 of
FAA Order JO 7400.11F, dated August 10, 2021, and effective September
15, 2021, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1. The Class
E airspace designations listed in this document will be published
subsequently in the FAA Order JO 7400.11.
    FAA Order JO 7400.11, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points,
is published yearly and effective on September 15.

Regulatory Notices and Analyses

    The FAA has determined that this regulation only involves an
established body of technical regulations for which frequent and
routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current.
It, therefore: (1) is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under
Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a ``significant rule'' under DOT
Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26, 1979);
and (3) does not warrant preparation of a regulatory evaluation as the
anticipated impact is minimal. Since this is a routine matter that only
affects air traffic procedures an air navigation, it is certified that
this rule, when promulgated, does not have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of
the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

Environmental Review

    The FAA has determined that this action qualifies for categorical
exclusion under the National Environmental Policy Act in accordance
with FAA Order 1050.1F, ``Environmental Impacts: Policies and
Procedures,'' paragraph 5-6.5a. This airspace action is not expected to
cause any potentially significant environmental impacts, and no
extraordinary circumstances exist that warrant preparation of an
environmental assessment.

Lists of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 71

    Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (air).

Adoption of the Amendment

    In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation
Administration amends 14 CFR part 71 as follows:

PART 71--DESIGNATION OF CLASS A, B, C, D, AND E AIRSPACE AREAS; AIR
TRAFFIC SERVICE ROUTES; AND REPORTING POINTS

0
1. The authority citation for part 71 continues to read as follows:

    Authority:  49 U.S.C. 106(f), 106(g); 40103, 40113, 40120; E.O.
10854, 24 FR 9565, 3 CFR, 1959-1963 Comp., p. 389.

Sec.  71.1   [Amended]

0
2. The incorporation by reference in 14 CFR 71.1 of FAA Order 7400.11F,
Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated August 10, 2021, and
effective September 15, 2021, is amended as follows:

Paragraph 6005 Class E Airspace Areas Extending Upward From 700
Feet or More Above the Surface of the Earth.

* * * * *

AEA PA E5 Brownsville, PA [Removed]

    Issued in College Park, Georgia, on August 29, 2022.
Lisa Burrows,
Manager, Airspace & Procedures Team North, Eastern Service Center, Air
Traffic Organization.
[FR Doc. 2022-18958 Filed 9-1-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 225 (Tuesday, November 22, 2011)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 72093-72094]
[FR Doc No: 2011-29895]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 71

[Docket No. FAA-2010-1016; Airspace Docket No. 11-ACE-6]
RIN 2120-AA66

Amendment of VOR Federal Airways V-81, V-89, and V-169 in the
Vicinity of Chadron, NE

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: This action amends the legal description of the VHF
omnidirectional range (VOR) Federal airways V-81, V-89, and V-169 in
the vicinity of Chadron, Nebraska. The FAA is taking this action
because the Chadron VOR distance measuring equipment (DME), included as
part of the V-81, V-89, and V-169 route structure, is being renamed the
Toadstool VOR/DME to avoid confusion with Chadron Airport that shares
the same identifier.

DATES: Effective Dates: 0901 UTC, April 5, 2012. The Director of the
Federal Register approves this incorporation by reference action under
1 CFR part 51, subject to the annual revision of FAA Order 7400.9 and
publication of conforming amendments.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Colby Abbott, Airspace, Regulations
and ATC Procedures Group, Office of Airspace Services, Federal Aviation
Administration, 800 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20591;
telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

The Rule

    This action amends Title 14 Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR)
part 71 by amending the legal description of VOR Federal Airways V-81,
V-89, and V-169, in the vicinity of Chadron, NE. Currently, V-81, V-89,
and V-169 include the Chadron, NE, [VOR/DME] as part of their route
structure. The Chadron VOR/DME and the Chadron Airport share the same
name and identifier (CDR), but are located nineteen nautical miles
apart. A navigation facility and airport having the same name and
identifier causes frequent confusion to air traffic automation systems,
as well as pilot/controller communications. To eliminate confusion, and
a potential flight safety issue, the Chadron VOR/DME is renamed the
Toadstool VOR/DME and assigned a new facility identifier (TST). All VOR
Federal

airways with Chadron, NE, [VOR/DME] included in their legal description
are amended to reflect the Toadstool, NE, [VOR/DME] name change. The
name change of the VOR/DME will coincide with the effective date of
this rule.
    Additionally, the exclusionary language in the V-169 legal
description addressing the Devils Lake West Military Operations Area
(MOA) has been simplified for clarity. No changes to the current
operational use are expected to occur from this editorial amendment.
    Since this action merely involves editorial changes in the legal
descriptions of VOR Federal airways, and does not involve a change in
the dimensions or operating requirements of that airspace, notice and
public procedures under 5 U.S.C. 553(b) are unnecessary.
    The FAA has determined that this regulation only involves an
established body of technical regulations for which frequent and
routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current.
Therefore, this regulation: (1) Is not a ``significant regulatory
action'' under Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a ``significant rule''
under DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26,
1979); and (3) does not warrant preparation of a Regulatory Evaluation
as the anticipated impact is so minimal. Since this is a routine matter
that will only affect air traffic procedures and air navigation, it is
certified that this rule, when promulgated, will not have a significant
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the
criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
    The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is
found in Title 49 of the United States Code. Subtitle I, Section 106
describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII,
Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the agency's
authority.
    This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described in
Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart I, Section 40103. Under that section, the
FAA is charged with prescribing regulations to assign the use of the
airspace necessary to ensure the safety of aircraft and the efficient
use of airspace. This regulation is within the scope of that authority
as it revises the legal description of four VOR Federal Airways in the
vicinity of Chadron, NE.
    Domestic VOR Federal Airways are published in paragraph 6010(a) of
FAA Order 7400.9V, dated August 9, 2011, and effective September 15,
2011, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1. The domestic
VOR Federal Airways listed in this document will be published
subsequently in the Order.

Environmental Review

    The FAA has determined that this action qualifies for categorical
exclusion under the National Environmental Policy Act in accordance
with FAA Order 1050.1E, Environmental Impacts: Polices and Procedures,
paragraph 311a. This airspace action is not expected to cause any
potentially significant environmental impacts, and no extraordinary
circumstances exist that warrant preparation of an environmental
assessment.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 71

    Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (air).

Adoption of the Amendment

    In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation
Administration amends 14 CFR part 71 as follows:

PART 71--DESIGNATION OF CLASS A, B, C, D, AND E AIRSPACE AREAS; AIR
TRAFFIC SERVICE ROUTES; AND REPORTING POINTS

0
1. The authority citation for 14 CFR part 71 continues to read as
follows:

    Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40103, 40113, 40120; E.O. 10854, 24
FR 9565, 3 CFR, 1959-1963 Comp., p. 389.

Sec.  71.1  [Amended]

0
2. The incorporation by reference in 14 CFR 71.1 of the Federal
Aviation Administration Order 7400.9V, Airspace Designations and
Reporting Points, dated August 9, 2011, and effective September 15,
2011, is amended as follows:

    Paragraph 6010(a)--Domestic VOR Federal Airways
* * * * *

V-81 [Amended]

    From Chihuahua, Mexico; Marfa, TX; Fort Stockton, TX; Midland,
TX; Lubbock, TX; Plainview, TX; Panhandle, TX; Dalhart, TX; Tobe,
CO; Pueblo, CO; Black Forest, CO; Jeffco, CO; Cheyenne, WY;
Scottsbluff, NE; to Toadstool, NE. The airspace outside the United
States is excluded.
* * * * *

V-89 [Amended]

    From Gill, CO; INT Gill 003[deg] and Cheyenne, WY, 131[deg]
radials; Cheyenne; to Toadstool, NE.
* * * * *

V-169 [Amended]

    From Tobe, CO; 69 MSL, Hugo, CO; 38 miles, 67MSL, Thurman, CO;
Akron, CO; Sidney, NE; Scottsbluff, NE; Toadstool, NE; Rapid City,
SD; Dupree, SD; Bismarck, ND; to Devils Lake, ND. The airspace
within the Devils Lake West MOA is excluded when activated by NOTAM.
* * * * *

    Issued in Washington, DC on November 14, 2011.
Gary A. Norek,
Acting Manager, Airspace, Regulations and ATC Procedures Group.
[FR Doc. 2011-29895 Filed 11-21-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P