Skip to main content

North American Emissions Control Area Is Now Here

The North American Emissions Control Area ("NAECA") entered into force last August and included a one-year grace period to give the various enforcement agencies and the maritime community sufficient time to adapt to the new regulations. The grace period ended on August 1, 2012.

The NAECA covers nearly all coastal waters of the United States and Canada out to 200 nautical miles from their coasts. A chart of the area concerned is found below:

Photo taken from: http://themaritimeblog.com/1866/cruise-lines-balk-at-pollution-proposal


Within the ECA, ships and yachts of 400 gross tons and above are required to reduce harmful air emissions by adopting one of three approved alternatives:

1. Use fuel with a sulfur content that does not exceed 1.0 %;


2. Utilize an exhaust gas cleaning system approved by its flag administration in accordance with IMO guidelines; or


3. Adopt any other technological method that is verifiable, enforceable, and has been approved by its flag administration in accordance with IMO guidelines.


Where applicable, vessels that burn more than one type of fuel must maintain detailed records regarding fuel changeovers. All vessels must continue the current requirement of retaining bunker delivery notes and samples. Beginning on January 1, 1015, the maximum sulfur content in fuel oil will lower to 0.1%. Vessels that operate predominately in coastal and inland areas of this area will potentially incur the most added costs, as those vessels will constantly operate within the NAECA.

An issue of importance is that ECA-compliant fuel will generally need to be obtained by a vessel prior to sailing for an NAECA port. This is because the obligation to utilize the low-sulfur oil arises when the vessel comes within 200 nautical miles of the NAECA. There have been numerous commentaries questioning the availability of NAECA-compliant fuel outside of the NAECA. Some suggest that vessels will have to carry a certain quantity of ECA-compliant fuel to enter the NAECA; others suggest vessels will have to divert at considerable expense and delay.

There is also some controversy, as an attempt has been made by foreign-flagged cruise ships that operate out of the NAECA. They state that they deserve a modification to the rules or some type of dispensation, as they spend a large percentage of their time underway within the NAECA. To date, such requests have been unanswered by the regulatory authorities.

I have a copy of a report from The Triton magazine related to the affect of the NAECA on yachts. If you are interested in receiving a scanned copy of this article or wish to contact me, you may do so by writing to me at miamipandi@comcast.net or mov@chaloslaw.com.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Maritime Law--Florida's Arbitration Code Is Now Revised

Those of us that practice maritime law regularly must always be on the lookout for the contract that may contain an arbitration clause. Thus, any laws related to arbitration are important to those of us practicing in this sector.       The Florida legislature has revised the Florida Arbitration Code ("FAC") and named it the Revised Florida Arbitration Code (the " Revised Act"). Since 1967, the FAC had gone mostly unchanged. The Revised Act addresses concepts that were not addressed in the old law, such as the ability of arbitrators to issue provision remedies, challenges based on notice, consolidation of separate arbitration proceedings, required conflict disclosures by arbitrators, among other major changes. The Revised Act lays out a detailed framework for international arbitration conducted under Florida law and repeals sections of the FAC. The Revised Act spells out what experienced arbitrators knew the case law to be, but codifies it all in one pl
4 comments
Read more

Maritime Law--U.S. Crewmember Required to Arbitrate Claims Applying Norwegian Law

In Alberts v. Royal Caribbean Cruises, Ltd ., No. 15-14775 (11th Cir. Aug. 23, 2016), the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit held that a U.S. citizen, working aboard a Royal Caribbean cruise ship is required to arbitrate his claims against Royal Caribbean. Plaintiff, a United States citizen, worked as the lead trumpeter on a passenger Royal Caribbean cruise ship. The ship is a Bahamian flagged vessel with a home port in Fort Lauderdale, Florida. Royal Caribbean, the operator of the vessel, is a Liberian corporation with its principal place of business in Florida. After plaintiff became ill while working for Royal Caribbean, he filed suit alleging unseaworthiness, negligence, negligence under the Jones Act, maintenance and cure, and seaman’s wages and penalties. Royal Caribbean moved to compel arbitration, and the district court granted the motion. This appeal presented an issue of first impression: Whether a seaman’s work in international waters on a cruise ship
Post a Comment
Read more

Maritime Law--Jury Hits Royal Caribbean Cruises With $20.3M Verdict for Officer's Hand Injury

In Spearman v. Royal Caribbean Cruises , Case No. 2011-023730-CA-01, a Miami-Dade County, Florida jury has awarded $20.3 million to a former crewmember of Royal Caribbean Cruises, whose hand was crushed while coming to the aid of a fellow worker during an emergency test in 2008. After a three-week trial, the jury found the Miami-based cruise company negligent in operating an unseaworthy ship and 100 percent liable for the injuries suffered by Lisa Spearman, who was working an officer on Royal Caribbean’s Voyager of the Seas . Spearman sued the company in 2011, three years after her right hand was caught in a watertight power door during a fire-safety drill. According to her lawyers, Spearman was trying to prevent the door from closing on the ship’s nurse when her hand was pulled into a recess pocket of the sliding door and crushed.  The nurse allegedly breached the company’s safety protocol when she stumbled through the door, prompting the response from Spearman. Accordin
Post a Comment
Read more