IMPLEMENTATION OF THE NORTH AMERICAN EMISSION CONTROL AREA IN

THE UNITED STATESWalker B. Smith, Director

Angela Bandemehr, Project ManagerU.S. EPA Office of Global Affairs and Policy

Mexico City, MexicoMay 19, 2015

• Why have an ECA• How the NA ECA

was established• Implementation of

the NA ECA in the US

OUTLINE

• Growing ship emissions reducing air quality (most from non-U.S. ships)

• Consistent standards across all U.S. ports and internationally

• ECAs require greater reduced fuel sulfur levels than the global standard

• MARPOL Annex VI ratification important, but not enough

• U.S. could not meet domestic air quality goals without an ECA

BENEFITS OF US ESTABLISHING AN ECA

Source of inventory estimates: C3 Marine NPRM (July, 2009)Does not reflect IMO MARPOL Annex VI Amendments (October 2008)

SHIP EMISSIONS RELATIVE TO OTHER MOBILE SOURCE PM2.5 EMISSIONS IN U.S.

Why the US has an ECA:Ship Emissions in a No Action Scenario

2009 20300%

10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%

100%

17%

48%

83%

52%

All other mobile sourcesOGV Marine

Tota

l M

ob

ile S

ou

rce P

M2

.5

Em

issi

on

s

IMPROVED AIR QUALITY

• By 2030, emission reductions associated with the ECA will annually prevent:

– Between 12,000 and 31,000 premature deaths– About 1,400,000 work days lost– About 9,600,000 days with respiratory symptoms

• Estimated 2030 benefits are between $110 and $270 billion, while estimated costs are much lower at $3 billion

• Benefit to cost ratio of up to 90:1

COST-BENEFIT OF THE NA ECA IN THE US

Percent change (increase) in energy use and/or CO2 emissions attributed to growth in shipping within the Mexican modeling

domain

Mexican ship traffic projected to increase by 50-200% by 2030

EMISSION CONTROL AREAS

• North American ECA• US becomes party to

MARPOL Annex VI: January 8, 2009

• NA ECA proposed by US/approved by IMO: July 2009

• Adopted by IMO: March 26, 2010

• Entry-into-force: August 1, 2011

• Enforcement: August 1, 2012

• U.S. Caribbean Sea ECA• Adopted by IMO: July 15,

2011• Entry-into-force: January 1,

2013 • Enforcement: January 1,

2014

IMO FEEDBACK ON THE NA ECA PROPOSAL

Examples of Comments by Parties

• How size of the ECA determined

• Fuel availability in US and impact on shipping

IMO Determination

• 200 nm boundary based on scientific analysis

• Proposal contained information on costs and fuel availability

• Presented proposal and answered questions at Marine Environmental Protection Committee (MEPC) meeting in July 2009

• MEPC concluded that the ECA proposal satisfied ECA designation criteria and approved the proposal

STAKEHOLDER OUTREACHTO DESIGN AND IMPLEMENT THE NA ECA

• Canada and Mexic0• U.S. Congress, multiple U.S. Government entities• State of California, local governments• National, regional and local clean air agencies

Government

• National and International Shipping Associations• American Association of Port Authorities, major

ports• Engine and emission control manufacturers• Petroleum, refining and bunker supply industry• Shipping companies (cargo and cruise line)

Industry

• American Lung Association• EDF, NRDC, Clean Air Task Force• Community and environmental justice

organizations

Public Groups

Via domestic rulemaking process, existing clean air advisory body, stakeholder meetings and conferences, inter-agency working group, bi-lateral industry and government meetings

• US Coast Guard (USCG) is lead for vessels – verify compliance with Annex VI/ECA during vessel exams

• EPA is the lead for U.S. fuel suppliers (shore-side) and issuing Engine International Air Pollution Prevention certificates.

• Fuel Oil Non-Availability Reports (FONARs) are submitted to EPA

• EPA and Coast Guard are jointly: – Enforcing the ECA– Working on a vessel (fuel) sampling program– Coordinating with Canada and the EU on enforcement

US APPROACH TO ECA COMPLIANCE AND ENFORCEMENT

• Coast Guard reports high compliance

• EPA not seeing significant fuel availability issues

– Number of fuel non-availability reports is decreasing

– Compliant fuel available in US

– Seems to be available in most regions globally

– Pursuing enforcement of non-compliance

• No reports that the ECA is hindering business at ports

NA ECA IMPLEMENTATION IN THE US

• We could use existing programs and policies to verify and enforce

• Collaboration between EPA and Coast Guard important

• Communication with stakeholders important

• Strong enforcement is important to ensure a level playing field for the maritime industry

• Some new programs and polices were needed

LESSONS LEARNED

• USCG and EPA cooperation on ECA enforcement

• EPA guidance for industry on fuel non-availability and the FONAR system

• Compliance monitoring– EPA shore-side fuel

suppliers sampling– EPA fly-over ship emissions

sampling– USCG and EPA vessel fuel

sampling program • EPA and USCG work with

carriers and Flag States on compliance flexibility as provided for in Annex VI

NEW PROGRAMS AND POLICIES

• Because ships have high pollutant emissions and are a growing source, there is no better opportunity to improve the environment and public health than with an ECA

• Tremendous health benefits of an ECA, more protective than global standards

• Good experiences in the US implementing the NA ECA

SUMMARY

• Coast Guard: www.uscg.mil/hq/cgcvcSelect the following links: Foreign Compliance > Port State Control > MARPOLo APPS 33 U.S.C. § 1901 – 1912 (US law to implement MARPOL)o EPA Engine Emissions: 40 CFR 94 (US law for MARPOL NOx

Standards)o CG-543 Policy Letter 09-01 (Annex VI Implementation)o CG-CVC Policy Letter 12-04 (ECA Compliance)o EPA Revised Protocols (enforcement referral protocol)

• EPA MARPOL Annex VI http://www2.epa.gov/enforcement/marpol-annex-vi

• EPA Ocean Going Vessels Air Emissions Web Page: http://www.epa.gov/otaq/oceanvessels.htm 

ANNEX VI RESOURCES

QUESTIONS?

ADDITIONAL BACKGROUND

%

Improvements in deposition

for marine and terrestrial

ecosystems

Improved Ecosystem Health

• A vessel is expected to use compliant fuel when operating in the ECAs.

• If a ship owner is not able to obtain compliant fuel because it is not available, a Fuel Oil Non-Availability Report (FONAR) must be submitted.

• A FONAR is not a waiver! It is a formal statement of noncompliance.

• If 0.10% (1,000 ppm) is not available, another ECA-compliant fuel must be used if it is available.

• ECA-compliant fuel will not be deemed “unavailable” for the purposes of a FONAR if another compliant fuel is available, for example a low sulfur marine distillate (MGO/MDO) below 1,000 ppm.

FUEL OIL NON-AVAILABILITY

ECA EXEMPTIONS & EQUIVALENCIES

• USCG works with EPA in considering exemptions (Reg 3) and equivalencies (Reg 4).

• The Coast Guard, in consultation with EPA, is responsible for issuing exemptions or equivalencies for U.S. flagged vessels.

• Foreign ships must follow their flag administration exemption or equivalency process.

• EPA and USCG review foreign ship proposals to consider acceptability to U.S. government.

• USCG verifies compliance with method approved and documented in the IAPP to achieve equivalent emissions reductions.