Vessel Incidental Discharge National Standards of Performance, 67818-67903 [2020-22385]

Agencies

• ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 207 (Monday, October 26, 2020)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 67818-67903]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2020-22385]



[[Page 67817]]

Vol. 85

Monday,

No. 207

October 26, 2020

Part II





Environmental Protection Agency





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





40 CFR Part 139





Vessel Incidental Discharge National Standards of Performance; Proposed 
Rule

Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 207 / Monday, October 26, 2020 / 
Proposed Rules

[[Page 67818]]


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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 139

[EPA-HQ-OW-2019-0482; FRL-10015-54-OW]
RIN 2040-AF92


Vessel Incidental Discharge National Standards of Performance

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is publishing 
for public comment a proposed rule under the Vessel Incidental 
Discharge Act that would establish national standards of performance 
for marine pollution control devices for discharges incidental to the 
normal operation of primarily non-military and non-recreational vessels 
79 feet in length and above into the waters of the United States or the 
waters of the contiguous zone. The proposed national standards of 
performance were developed in coordination with the U.S. Coast Guard 
(USCG) and in consultation with interested Governors. The proposed 
standards, once finalized and implemented through corresponding USCG 
regulations addressing implementation, compliance, and enforcement, 
would reduce the discharge of pollutants from vessels and streamline 
the current patchwork of federal, state, and local vessel discharge 
requirements. Additionally, EPA is proposing procedures for states to 
follow if they choose to petition EPA to issue an emergency order, to 
review any standard of performance, regulation, or policy, to request 
additional requirements with respect to discharges in the Great Lakes, 
or to apply to EPA to prohibit one or more types of vessel discharges 
proposed for regulation in this rulemaking into specified waters to 
provide greater environmental protection.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before November 25, 2020. Under 
the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA), comments on the information 
collection provisions are best assured of consideration if the Office 
of Management and Budget (OMB) receives a copy of your comments on or 
before November 25, 2020.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments to the public docket for this proposed 
rule, identified by Docket No. EPA-HQ-OW-2019-0482, at https://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online instructions for submitting 
comments. All submissions received must include the Docket ID No. for 
this rulemaking. Comments received may be posted without change to 
https://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information 
provided. For detailed instructions on sending comments and additional 
information on the rulemaking process, see the ``General Information'' 
heading of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of this document. Out 
of an abundance of caution for members of the public and our staff, the 
EPA Docket Center and Reading Room are closed to the public, with 
limited exceptions, to reduce the risk of transmitting COVID-19. Our 
Docket Center staff will continue to provide remote customer service 
via email, phone, and webform. We encourage the public to submit 
comments via https://www.regulations.gov or email, as there may be a 
delay in processing mail and faxes. Hand deliveries and couriers may be 
received by scheduled appointment only. For further information on EPA 
Docket Center services and the current status, please visit us online 
at https://www.epa.gov/dockets.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jack Faulk at (202) 564-0768; 
[email protected] or Katherine Weiler at (202) 566-1280; 
[email protected] of the Oceans and Coastal Management Branch 
(4504T), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue 
NW, Washington, DC 20460.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This supplementary information is organized 
as follows:

I. Public Participation
    A. How should I submit written comments?
II. Legal Authority
III. Executive Summary
IV. Background
    A. Clean Water Act
    B. Additional U.S. and International Authorities
    C. Environmental Impacts of Discharges for Which Technology-
Based Standards Would Be Established by This Rule
V. Scope of the Regulatory Action
    A. Waters
    B. Vessels
    C. Incidental Discharges
    D. Emergency and Safety Concerns
    E. Effective Date
VI. Stakeholder Engagement
    A. Informational Webinars and Public Listening Session
    B. Post-Proposal Public Meetings
    C. Consultation and Coordination With States
VII. Definitions
VIII. Development of National Discharge Standards of Performance
    A. Discharges Incidental to the Normal Operation of a Vessel--
General Standards
    1. General Operation and Maintenance
    2. Biofouling Management
    3. Oil Management
    4. Training and Education
    B. Discharges Incidental to the Normal Operation of a Vessel--
Specific Standards
    1. Ballast Tanks
    2. Bilges
    3. Boilers
    4. Cathodic Protection
    5. Chain Lockers
    6. Decks
    7. Desalination and Purification Systems
    8. Elevator Pits
    9. Exhaust Gas Emission Control Systems
    10. Fire Protection Equipment
    11. Gas Turbines
    12. Graywater Systems
    13. Hulls and Associated Niche Areas
    14. Inert Gas Systems
    15. Motor Gasoline and Compensating Systems
    16. Non-Oily Machinery
    17. Pools and Spas
    18. Refrigeration and Air Conditioning
    19. Seawater Piping
    20. Sonar Domes
    C. Discharges Incidental to the Normal Operation of a Vessel--
Federally-Protected Waters Requirements
    D. Discharges Incidental to the Normal Operation of a Vessel--
Previous VGP Discharges No Longer Requiring Control
IX. Procedures for States To Request Changes to Standards, 
Regulations, or Policy Promulgated by the Administrator
    A. Petition by a Governor for the Administrator To Establish an 
Emergency Order or Review a Standard, Regulation, or Policy
    B. Petition by a Governor for the Administrator To Establish 
Enhanced Great Lakes System Requirements
    C. Application by a State for the Administrator To Establish a 
State No-Discharge Zone
X. Implementation, Compliance, and Enforcement
XI. Regulatory Impact Analysis
XII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
    A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review and 
Executive Order 13563: Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review
    B. Executive Order 13771: Reducing Regulation and Controlling 
Regulatory Costs
    C. Paperwork Reduction Act
    D. Regulatory Flexibility Act
    E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
    F. Executive Order 13132: Federalism
    G. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With 
Indian Tribal Governments
    H. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From 
Environmental Health and Safety Risks
    I. Executive Order 13211: Actions Concerning Regulations That 
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use
    J. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act
    K. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions To Address 
Environmental Justice in

[[Page 67819]]

Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations
XIII. References

I. Public Participation

A. How should I submit written comments?

    EPA solicits comment on the proposed rule during the public comment 
period. Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OW-
2019-0482, at https://www.regulations.gov. Once submitted, comments 
cannot be edited or removed from the docket. EPA may publish any 
comment received to its public docket. Do not submit to EPA's docket at 
https://www.regulations.gov any information you consider to be 
Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose 
disclosure is restricted by statute. Multimedia submissions (audio, 
video, etc.) must be accompanied by a written comment. The written 
comment is considered the official comment and should include 
discussion of all points you wish to make. To facilitate the processing 
of comments, commenters are encouraged to organize their comments in a 
manner that corresponds to the outline of this proposal; clearly 
explain why they agree or disagree with the proposed language; suggest 
alternative language; and include any technical or economic data to 
support their comment. For comments to be considered during the 
development of the final rule, comments must be received before the end 
of the comment period.
    EPA will generally not consider comments or comment contents 
located outside of the primary submission (i.e., on the web, cloud, or 
other file sharing system). For additional submission methods, the full 
EPA public comment policy, information about CBI or multimedia 
submissions, and general guidance on making effective comments, please 
visit https://www.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets.
    EPA is temporarily suspending its Docket Center and Reading Room 
for public visitors, with limited exceptions, to reduce the risk of 
transmitting COVID-19. Our Docket Center staff will continue to provide 
remote customer service via email, phone, and webform. We encourage the 
public to submit comments via https://www.regulations.gov as there may 
be a delay in processing mail and faxes. Hand deliveries or couriers 
will be received by scheduled appointment only. For further information 
and updates on EPA Docket Center services, please visit us online at 
https://www.epa.gov/dockets.
    EPA continues to carefully and continuously monitor information 
from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), local area 
health departments, and our Federal partners so that we can respond 
rapidly as conditions change regarding COVID-19.

II. Legal Authority

    EPA proposes this rule under the authority of Clean Water Act 
Sections 301, 304, 307, 308, 312, and 501 as amended by the Vessel 
Incidental Discharge Act. 33 U.S.C. 1311, 1314, 1317, 1322, and 1361.

III. Executive Summary

    Discharges incidental to the normal operation of a vessel, also 
referred to as ``incidental discharges'' or ``discharges'' in this 
rulemaking, can have adverse impacts on aquatic ecosystems and other 
potential impacts such as to human health through contamination of food 
from aquaculture/shellfish harvesting areas because the discharges may 
contain pollutants such as aquatic nuisance species (ANS), nutrients, 
bacteria or pathogens (e.g., Escherichia coli and fecal coliform), oil 
and grease, metals, as well as other toxic, nonconventional, and 
conventional pollutants (e.g., organic matter, bicarbonate, and 
suspended solids). These pollutants can have wide-ranging environmental 
consequences that vary in degree depending on the type and number of 
vessels operating in a waterbody and the nature and extent of the 
discharge.
    The Clean Water Act (CWA), the Nonindigenous Aquatic Nuisance 
Prevention and Control Act (NANPCA), the Act to Prevent Pollution from 
Ships (APPS), and several other federal, state, local, and 
international authorities have established over time various 
requirements for both domestic and international vessels. To clarify 
and streamline existing requirements, in December of 2018, the 
President signed into law the Vessel Incidental Discharge Act (VIDA). 
33 U.S.C. 1322(p). The VIDA established a new CWA Section 312(p) titled 
``Uniform National Standards for Discharges Incidental to Normal 
Operation of Vessels.'' The VIDA consolidates and restructures the 
existing regulatory framework for non-military (vessels of the Armed 
Forces) and non-recreational vessels; clarifies current and future 
regulatory coverage for different types of vessels; and, requires EPA 
and the USCG to establish national standards of performance for marine 
pollution control devices and corresponding implementing regulations, 
respectively, to prevent or reduce the discharge of pollutants from 
vessels.
    More specifically, the new CWA Section 312(p) directs the 
Administrator of EPA (Administrator) to develop national standards of 
performance in consultation with interested Governors and with the 
concurrence of the Secretary of the department in which the USCG is 
operating (Secretary) by December 2020. With limited exceptions, the 
VIDA requires that the standards be at least as stringent as EPA's 2013 
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Vessel General 
Permit (VGP) requirements established under CWA Section 402. See 33 
U.S.C. 1322(p)(4)(B)(iii) (EPA standards); id. (5)(A)(ii) (USCG 
requirements). The VIDA also requires that the standards be technology-
based using a similar approach to that outlined by the CWA for setting, 
among other things, effluent limitation guidelines. Additionally, the 
VIDA requires the USCG to develop corresponding implementation, 
compliance, and enforcement regulations within two years after EPA 
publishes the national standards of performance. The USCG implementing 
regulations may also include requirements governing the design, 
construction, testing, approval, installation, and use of devices to 
achieve EPA national standards of performance. Importantly, 
requirements of EPA's VGP and the USCG's requirements under Section 110 
of NANPCA remain in place until these new EPA and USCG regulations 
under CWA Section 312(p) are final, effective, and enforceable. In 
addition, the VIDA repealed the 2014 EPA NPDES Small Vessel General 
Permit (sVGP) and established that neither EPA nor the states shall 
require an NPDES permit for any discharge incidental to the normal 
operation of a vessel, other than ballast water, from a small vessel or 
fishing vessel, effective immediately upon enactment of the VIDA.
    The proposed rule would establish both general and specific 
discharge standards of performance for approximately 82,000 
international and domestic non-military, non-recreational vessels 
operating in the waters of the United States or the waters of the 
contiguous zone. The types of vessels intended to be covered under the 
proposed rule include, but are not limited to, public vessels of the 
United States, fishing vessels (for ballast water only), passenger 
vessels such as cruise ships and ferries, barges, tugs and tows, 
offshore supply vessels, mobile offshore drilling units, tankers, bulk 
carriers, cargo ships, container ships, and

[[Page 67820]]

research vessels. While most provisions are intended to apply to a wide 
range of vessels, the VIDA specified that fishing vessels would only be 
subject to ballast water provisions. 33 U.S.C. 1322(p)(2)(B)(i)(III).
    The general discharge standards of performance are designed to 
apply to all vessels and incidental discharges covered by the rule, as 
appropriate, and are organized into three categories: (1) General 
Operation and Maintenance, (2) Biofouling Management, and (3) Oil 
Management. The general discharge standards of performance are 
preventative in nature and require best management practices (BMPs) to 
minimize the introduction of pollutants into the discharges, as well as 
the volume of discharges.
    The specific discharge standards of performance would establish 
requirements for 20 separate discharges incidental to the normal 
operation of a vessel from the following pieces of equipment and 
systems: Ballast tanks, bilges, boilers, cathodic protection, chain 
lockers, decks, desalination and purification systems, elevator pits, 
exhaust gas emission control systems, fire protection equipment, gas 
turbines, graywater systems, hulls and associated niche areas, inert 
gas systems, motor gasoline and compensating systems, non-oily 
machinery, pools and spas, refrigeration and air conditioning, seawater 
piping, and sonar domes. These discharge-specific requirements are 
based on best available technology economically achievable, best 
conventional pollutant control technology, and best practicable 
technology currently available, including the use of BMPs, to prevent 
or reduce the discharge of pollutants into the waters of the United 
States or the waters of the contiguous zone.
    Pursuant to the VIDA, the proposed discharge standards of 
performance are proposed to be at least as stringent as the VGP, with 
some exceptions discussed below. However, the proposed standards do not 
incorporate the VGP requirements verbatim. EPA is proposing changes to 
the VGP requirements to transition the permit requirements into 
national technology-based standards of performance, improve clarity, 
enhance enforceability and implementation, or incorporate new 
information and technology. In some cases, this resulted in EPA 
consolidating or renaming the VGP requirements to comport with the 
VIDA. As proposed, the similarities and differences between the 
requirements in the proposed discharge standards of performance and the 
requirements in the VGP can be sorted into three distinct groups. The 
first group consists of 13 proposed discharge standards that are 
substantially the same as the requirements of the VGP: Boilers, 
cathodic protection, chain lockers, decks, elevator pits, fire 
protection equipment, gas turbines, inert gas systems, motor gasoline 
and compensating systems, non-oily machinery, pools and spas, 
refrigeration and air conditioning, and sonar domes. These 13 proposed 
discharge standards encompass the intent and stringency of the VGP but 
include other changes in response to the VIDA (e.g., extent of 
regulated waters, consistency across discharge standards, 
enforceability and legal precision, as well as minor clarifications). 
The second group consists of two proposed discharge standards that are 
consistent but slightly modified from the VGP to expand controls or 
provide greater language clarifications: Bilges and desalination and 
purification systems. The third group consists of five proposed 
discharge standards which contain the greatest modifications from the 
VGP: Ballast tanks, exhaust gas emission control systems, graywater, 
hulls and associated niche areas, and seawater piping. In addition, EPA 
is proposing to modify slightly the requirements as they apply in 
federally-protected waters for five discharges: Chain lockers, decks, 
hulls and associated niche areas, pools and spas, and seawater piping. 
These modifications are being proposed to address specific VIDA 
requirements as well as incorporate new information that has become 
available since the issuance of the VGP.
    CWA Section 312(p) also directs EPA to establish additional 
discharge requirements for vessels operating in certain bodies of 
water, to include: The ``Great Lakes,'' the ``Pacific Region,'' and 
waters subject to Federal protection, in whole or in part, for 
conservation purposes (``federally-protected waters''). The proposed 
rule would establish place-based requirements to further prevent or 
reduce the discharge of pollutants into these waterbodies that may 
contain unique ecosystems, support distinctive species of aquatic flora 
and fauna, contend with more sensitive water quality issues, or 
otherwise require greater protection.
    Finally, as required under CWA Section 312(p), EPA is proposing 
specific procedural requirements for states seeking to petition EPA to 
establish different discharge standards, issue emergency orders, or 
establish no-discharge zones.
    This proposed rule, once finalized, will fulfill EPA's requirements 
under CWA Section 312(p) to establish technology-based national 
standards of performance for discharges incidental to the normal 
operation of primarily non-military, non-recreational vessels 79 feet 
in length and above. EPA solicits public comments on this proposal and 
the associated regulatory impact analysis, which can be found in the 
rulemaking docket.

IV. Background

A. Clean Water Act

    EPA's regulatory regime under the CWA to address vessel discharges 
has changed over the years due to EPA regulations, court decisions, and 
new legislation. The first sentence of the Federal Water Pollution 
Control Act Amendments of 1972, commonly known as the CWA,\1\ states, 
``[t]he objective of [the Act] is to restore and maintain the chemical, 
physical, and biological integrity of the Nation's waters.'' 33 U.S.C. 
1251(a). Section 301(a) of the CWA provides that ``the discharge of any 
pollutant by any person shall be unlawful'' unless the discharge is in 
compliance with certain other sections of the Act. 33 U.S.C. 1311(a). 
Among its provisions, the CWA authorizes EPA and other federal agencies 
to address the discharge of pollutants from vessels. As such, EPA 
established regulations to address vessel discharges authorized under 
CWA Section 311 (addressing oil), Section 312 (addressing sewage and 
discharges incidental to the normal operation of a vessel of the Armed 
Forces), and Section 402 (pursuant to which EPA established the NPDES 
VGP).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ The FWPCA is commonly referred to as the CWA following the 
1977 amendments to the FWPCA. Public Law 95-217, 91 Stat. 1566 
(1977). For ease of reference, the agencies will generally refer to 
the FWPCA in this notice as the CWA or the Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    From 1972 to 2005, EPA vessel regulations were primarily limited to 
addressing the discharge of oil and sewage under CWA Sections 311 and 
312, respectively. In December of 2003, a long-standing exclusion of 
discharges incidental to the normal operation of vessels from the CWA 
Section 402 NPDES permitting program became the subject of a lawsuit in 
the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California (Nw. 
Envtl. Advocates v. U.S. Envtl. Prot. Agency, No. C-03-05760-SI, 2005 
WL 756614). The lawsuit arose from EPA's September 2003 denial of a 
January 1999 rulemaking petition submitted to EPA by parties concerned 
about the effects of ballast water discharges. Prior to the lawsuit, 
EPA, through a 1973 regulation, had excluded discharges incidental to 
the normal

[[Page 67821]]

operation of vessels from the CWA Section 402 permitting program. See 
38 FR 13528, May 22, 1973. The petition asked the Agency to repeal its 
regulation at 40 CFR 122.3(a) that excludes certain discharges 
incidental to the normal operation of vessels from the requirement to 
obtain an NPDES permit. The petition asserted that vessels are ``point 
sources'' requiring NPDES permits for discharges to U.S. waters; that 
EPA lacks authority to exclude point source discharges from vessels 
from the NPDES program; that ballast water must be regulated under the 
NPDES program because it contains invasive plant and animal species as 
well as other materials of concern (e.g., oil, chipped paint, sediment, 
and toxins in ballast water sediment); and that enactment of CWA 
Section 312(n) (Uniform National Discharge Standards, also known as the 
UNDS program) in 1996 demonstrated Congress' rejection of the 
exclusion.
    In March 2005, the court determined the exclusion exceeded the 
Agency's authority under the CWA and subsequently in 2006 declared that 
``[t]he blanket exemption for discharges incidental to the normal 
operation of a vessel, contained in 40 CFR 122.3(a), shall be vacated 
as of September 30, 2008.'' Nw. Envtl. Advocates v. U.S. Envtl. Prot. 
Agency, C 03-05760 SI, 2006 WL 2669042, at *15 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 18, 
2006), aff'd 537 F.3d 1006 (9th Cir. 2008). Shortly thereafter, 
Congress enacted two pieces of legislation to exempt discharges 
incidental to the normal operation of certain types of vessels from the 
need to obtain a permit. The first of these, entitled the Clean Boating 
Act of 2008 (Pub. L. 110-288, July 28, 2008), amended the CWA to 
provide that discharges incidental to the normal operation of 
recreational vessels are not subject to NPDES permitting, and created a 
new regulatory regime to be implemented by EPA and the USCG under a new 
CWA Section 312(o). The second piece of legislation provided for a 
temporary moratorium on NPDES permitting for discharges, excluding 
ballast water, subject to the 40 CFR 122.3(a) exclusion from (1) 
commercial fishing vessels (as defined in 46 U.S.C. 2101 and regardless 
of size) and (2) those other non-recreational vessels less than 79 feet 
in length. S. 3298, Public Law 110-299 (July 31, 2008).
    In response to the court decision and the legislation, EPA issued 
the first VGP in December 2008 for discharges incidental to the normal 
operation of non-recreational, non-military vessels 79 feet in length 
and above. See 73 FR 79473, December 29, 2008. Additionally, in 
September 2014, EPA issued the sVGP for discharges from non-
recreational, non-military vessels less than 79 feet. See 79 FR 53702, 
September 10, 2014. Upon expiration of the 2008 permit, EPA issued the 
second VGP in 2013. See 78 FR 21938, April 12, 2013.
    After the EPA issuance of the VGP under the CWA and the USCG 
promulgation of regulations under the NANPCA, the vessel community 
expressed concerns regarding the lack of uniformity, duplication, and 
confusion associated with the vessel regulatory regime. See Errata to 
S. Rep. No. 115-89 (2019) [hereinafter VIDA Senate Report], at 3-5 
(discussing these and similar concerns), available at https://www.congress.gov/115/crpt/srpt89/CRPT-115srpt89-ERRATA.pdf. In 
response, members of Congress introduced various pieces of legislation 
to modify and clarify the regulation and management of ballast water 
and other incidental vessel discharges. In December 2018, President 
Trump signed into law the Frank LoBiondo Coast Guard Authorization Act 
of 2018, which included the VIDA. Public Law 115-282, tit. IX (2018) 
(codified primarily at 33 U.S.C. 1322(p)). The VIDA restructures the 
way EPA and the USCG regulate incidental vessel discharges from non-
military, non-recreational vessels and amended CWA Section 312 to 
include a new Subsection (p) titled ``Uniform National Standards for 
Discharges Incidental to Normal Operation of Vessels.'' CWA Section 
312(p), among other things, repeals EPA's 2014 sVGP effectively 
immediately and requires EPA and the USCG to develop new regulations to 
replace the existing EPA VGP and USCG vessel discharge requirements. 
The VIDA also specifies that, effectively immediately upon enactment of 
the VIDA, neither EPA nor NPDES-authorize states may require, or in any 
way modify, a permit under the NPDES program for any discharge 
incidental to the normal operation of a vessel from a small vessel 
(less than 79 feet in length) or fishing vessel (of any size).
    Specifically, CWA Section 312(p)(4) directs the Administrator, with 
concurrence of the Secretary and in consultation with interested 
Governors, to promulgate national standards of performance for marine 
pollution control devices for each type of discharge incidental to the 
normal operation of non-recreational and non-military vessels.\2\ CWA 
Section 312(p)(5) also directs the Secretary to develop corresponding 
implementing regulations to govern the implementation, compliance, and 
enforcement of the national standards of performance. Additionally, CWA 
Section 312(p) generally preempts states from establishing more 
stringent discharge standards once the USCG implementing regulations 
required under Section 312(p)(5)(A)-(C) are final, effective, and 
enforceable. However, the VIDA includes several exceptions to this 
expressed preemption (33 U.S.C. 1322(p)(9)(A)(ii)-(v); VIDA Senate 
Report at 15 (discussing these exceptions)), a savings clause (33 
U.S.C. 1322(p)(9)(A)(vi)), and provisions for states working directly 
with EPA or the USCG to seek and obtain additional requirements, 
including the establishment of no-discharge zones for one or more 
incidental discharges (33 U.S.C. 1322(p)(10)(D)). Although not part of 
CWA Section 312(p), the VIDA also establishes several programs to 
address invasive species, including the establishment of the ``Great 
Lakes and Lake Champlain Invasive Species Program'' research and 
development program and the ``Coastal Aquatic Invasive Species 
Mitigation Grant Program.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ CWA Section 312(b) provides authority for EPA to establish 
federal standards of performance for sewage from vessels within the 
meaning of ``sewage'' as defined in section 312(a)(6). Thus, the 
discharge of sewage from vessels, is not included in this CWA 
section 312(p) rulemaking, except when commingled with other 
discharges incidental to the normal operation of a vessel, as 
authorized in CWA section 312(p)(2)(A)(ii). EPA and the USCG 
regulate sewage from vessels under CWA section 312(b) as codified in 
40 CFR part 140 (marine sanitation device standard) and 33 CFR part 
159 subparts A-D (requirements for the design, construction, 
certification, installation, and operation of marine sanitation 
devices).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. Additional U.S. and International Authorities

    During the development of the proposed rule, EPA reviewed other 
U.S. laws and international authorities that address discharges 
incidental to the normal operation of a vessel. The requirements 
established under these authorities are currently being met and 
implemented and therefore are technologically and economically 
practicable and achievable. As appropriate, EPA considered these 
requirements while developing this proposed rule.
    As expressly provided in the VIDA, this proposed rule would not 
affect the requirements for vessels established under any other 
provision of Federal law. 33 U.S.C. 1322(p)(9)(B). EPA provides a short 
summary of these U.S. authorities as well as some international 
authorities below.

[[Page 67822]]

International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution From Ships, 
the Act To Prevent Pollution From Ships, and Implementing Regulations
    The International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from 
Ships (MARPOL 73/78) is an international treaty that regulates certain 
discharges from vessels. MARPOL Annexes regulate different types of 
vessel pollution; the United States is a party to Annexes I, II, III, 
V, and VI. MARPOL is primarily implemented in the United States by 
APPS, 33 U.S.C. 1901 et seq. The USCG is the lead agency for APPS 
implementation and issued implementing regulations primarily found at 
33 CFR part 151. Those requirements already apply to many of the 
vessels covered by the proposed rule.
    APPS regulates the discharge of oil and oily mixtures, noxious 
liquid substances, and garbage, including food wastes and plastic. With 
respect to oil and oily mixtures, the USCG regulations at 33 CFR 151.10 
prohibit ``any discharge of oil or oily mixtures into the sea from a 
ship'' except when certain conditions are met, including a discharge 
oil content of less than 15 parts per million (ppm) and that the ship 
operates oily water separating equipment, a bilge monitor, a bilge 
alarm, or a combination thereof.
    Substances regulated as noxious liquid substances under APPS are 
divided into four categories based on their potential to harm marine 
resources and human health. Under 46 CFR 153.1128, discharges of 
noxious liquid substances residues at sea may only take place at least 
12 nautical miles (NM) from the nearest land. Given this requirement, 
the proposed rule would also prohibit the discharge of noxious liquid 
substances within 12 NM from the nearest land.
    MARPOL Annex III addresses harmful substances in packaged form and 
is implemented in the United States by the Hazardous Materials 
Transportation Authorization Act of 1994, as amended (49 U.S.C. 5901 et 
seq.), and regulations appearing at 46 CFR part 148 and 49 CFR part 
176. The regulatory provisions establish labeling, packaging, and 
stowage requirements for such materials to help avoid their accidental 
loss or spillage during transport. The proposed rule does not regulate 
loss or spillage of transported materials; however, the proposed rule 
would establish BMPs to help reduce or prevent the loss of materials 
and debris overboard.
Oil Pollution Act (33 U.S.C. 2701 et seq.)
    The Oil Pollution Act of 1990 and the associated USCG implementing 
regulations at 33 CFR parts 155 and 157 also address oil and oily 
mixture discharges from vessels. These regulations establish and 
reinforce the 15 ppm discharge standard under APPS for oil and oily 
mixtures for seagoing ships and require most vessels to have an oily 
water separator. Oceangoing vessels of less than 400 gross tonnage as 
measured under the Convention Measurement System of the International 
Convention on Tonnage Measurement of Ships (GT ITC) (400 gross register 
tonnage (GRT) if GT ITC is not assigned) must either have an approved 
oily water separator or retain oily water mixtures on board for 
disposal to an approved reception facility onshore. Oceangoing vessels 
of 400 GT ITC (400 GRT if GT ITC is not assigned) and above, but less 
than 10,000 GT ITC (10,000 GRT if GT ITC is not assigned), except 
vessels that carry ballast water in their fuel oil tanks, must be 
fitted with ``approved 15 parts per million (ppm) oily-water separating 
equipment for the processing of oily mixtures from bilges or fuel oil 
tank ballast.'' 33 CFR 155.360(a)(1). Oceangoing ships of 10,000 gross 
tonnage and above and oceangoing ships of 400 gross tonnage and above 
that carry ballast water in their fuel oil tanks, must be fitted with 
approved 15 ppm oily water separating equipment for the processing of 
oily mixtures from bilges or fuel oil tank ballast, a bilge alarm, and 
a means for automatically stopping any discharge of oily mixture when 
the oil content in the effluent exceeds 15 ppm. 33 CFR 155.370. 33 CFR 
part 155 also references oil containment and cleanup equipment and 
procedures for preventing and reacting to oil spills and discharges. 
The proposed rule references or incorporates the existing requirements 
for fuel and oil established under the Oil Pollution Act and APPS and 
prohibits the discharge of oil greater than 15 ppm.
Clean Water Act Section 311 (33 U.S.C. 1321)
    CWA Section 311, Oil and Hazardous Substances Liability Act, states 
that it is a policy of the United States that there should be no 
discharges of oil or hazardous substances into the waters of the United 
States, adjoining shorelines, and certain specified areas, except where 
permitted under Federal regulations (e.g., the NPDES program). As such, 
the Act prohibits the discharge of oil or hazardous substances into 
these areas in such quantities as may be harmful. Further, the Act 
states that the President shall, by regulation, determine those 
quantities of oil and any hazardous substances that may be harmful if 
discharged. EPA defines the discharge of oil in such quantities as may 
be harmful as those that violate applicable water quality standards or 
``cause a film or sheen upon or discoloration of the surface of the 
water or adjoining shorelines or cause a sludge or emulsion to be 
deposited beneath the surface of the water or upon adjoin shorelines.'' 
40 CFR 110.3. Sheen is clarified to mean ``an iridescent appearance on 
the surface of the water.'' 40 CFR 110.1. The proposed rule would 
prohibit the discharge of oil, including oily mixtures, in such 
quantities as may be harmful.
Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (7 U.S.C. 136 et 
seq.).
    The Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) 
regulates the distribution, sale, and use of pesticides. One of the 
primary components of FIFRA requires the registration and labeling of 
all pesticides sold or distributed in the United States, ensuring that, 
if pesticides are used in accordance with the specifications on the 
label, they will not cause unreasonable adverse effects on humans or 
the environment. The proposed rule would reiterate from the VGP that 
any registered pesticide must be used in accordance with its FIFRA 
label for all activities that result in a discharge into the waters of 
the United States or the waters of the contiguous zone. The proposed 
rule does not negate the requirements under FIFRA and its implementing 
regulations to use registered pesticides consistent with the product's 
labeling. In fact, the discharge of pesticides used in violation of 
certain FIFRA requirements could also be a violation of these standards 
and therefore a violation of the CWA (e.g., exceeding hull coating 
application rates).
National Marine Sanctuaries Act (16 U.S.C. 1431 et seq. and 
Implementing Regulations Found at 15 CFR Part 922 and 50 CFR Part 404)
    The National Marine Sanctuaries Act (NMSA) authorizes the 
designation and management of National Marine Sanctuaries to protect 
marine resources with conservation, education, historical, scientific, 
and other special qualities. Under NMSA, additional restrictions and 
requirements may be imposed on vessel operators who boat in and around 
National Marine Sanctuaries. Consistent with the VGP, the proposed rule 
would

[[Page 67823]]

establish additional restrictions and requirements for certain 
discharges for vessels that operate in and around National Marine 
Sanctuaries as these areas are included in the definition of federally-
protected waters in the proposed rule as designated in Appendix A of 
Part 139. Pursuant to CWA Sections 312(9)(B) and (E), discharge 
requirements established by regulations promulgated by the Secretary of 
Commerce under the National Marine Sanctuaries Act would continue to 
apply to waters under the control of the Secretary of Commerce (e.g., 
National Marine Sanctuaries) in addition to the standards and 
requirements established in this proposed rule.

C. Environmental Impacts of Discharges for Which Technology-Based 
Discharge Standards Would Be Established by This Rule

    Discharges incidental to the normal operation of vessels can have 
significant adverse impacts on aquatic ecosystems and other potential 
impacts such as to human health through contamination of food from 
aquaculture/shellfish harvesting areas through the addition of 
pollutants (e.g., metals, nutrients, bacteria, viruses, ANS). The 
adverse environmental impacts vary considerably based on the type and 
number of vessels, the size and location of the port or marina, and the 
condition of the receiving waters. These adverse impacts are more 
likely to occur when there are significant numbers of vessels operating 
in receiving waters with limited circulation or if the receiving waters 
are already impaired. As a result of this variation, protecting U.S. 
waters from vessel-related activities poses unique challenges for 
local, state, and federal governments. Targeted reduction of certain 
discharges or constituents of concern can significantly benefit 
receiving waters.
    The information below provides an overview of the environmental 
impacts associated with the pollutants addressed in this proposed rule: 
ANS, nutrients, pathogens (including Escherichia coli and fecal 
coliform), oil and grease, metals, toxic and nonconventional pollutants 
with toxic effects, and other nonconventional and conventional 
pollutants.
Aquatic Nuisance Species (ANS)
    ANS are a persistent problem in U.S. coastal and inland waters. ANS 
can include invasive plants, animals, and pathogens. The VIDA 
specifically includes ANS in the category of nonconventional pollutants 
to be regulated through the application of best available technology 
and best practicable technology. 33 U.S.C. 1322(p)(4)(B)(i).
    ANS may be incidentally discharged or released from a vessel's 
operations through a variety of vessel systems and equipment, including 
but not limited to ballast water, sediment from ballast tanks, vessel 
hulls and appendages, seawater piping, chain lockers, and anchor 
chains. ANS pose severe threats to aquatic ecosystems, including 
outcompeting native species, damaging habitat, changing food webs, and 
altering the chemical and physical aquatic environment. Furthermore, 
ANS can have profound and wide-ranging socioeconomic impacts, such as 
damage to recreational and commercial fisheries, infrastructure, and 
water-based recreation and tourism. Once established, it is extremely 
challenging and costly to remove ANS and remediate the impacts. It has 
become even more critical to control discharges of ANS from vessel 
systems and equipment with the increase in ship traffic due to 
globalization and increased trade.
Nutrients
    Nutrients, including nitrogen, phosphorus, and other micro-
nutrients, are constituents of incidental discharges from vessels. 
Though often associated with discharges from sewage treatment 
facilities and other sources such as runoff from agricultural and urban 
stormwater sources, nutrients are also discharged from vessel sources 
such as runoff from deck cleaning, graywater, and bilgewater.
    Increased nutrient discharges from anthropogenic sources are a 
major source of water quality degradation throughout the United States 
(U.S. Geological Survey, 1999). Generally, nutrient over-enrichment of 
waterbodies adversely impacts biological diversity, fisheries, and 
coral reef and seagrass ecosystems (National Research Council, 2000). 
One of the most notable effects of nutrient over-enrichment is the 
excess proliferation of plant life and ensuing eutrophication. A 
eutrophic system has reduced levels of dissolved oxygen, increased 
turbidity, and changes in the composition of aquatic flora and fauna. 
Such conditions also fuel harmful algal blooms, which can have 
significant adverse impacts on human health as well as aquatic life 
(National Research Council, 2000; Woods Hole Oceanographic Institute, 
2007).
Pathogens
    Pathogens are another constituent that can be found in discharges 
from vessels, particularly in graywater and ballast water discharges. 
Discharges of pathogens into waterbodies can adversely impact local 
ecosystems, fisheries, and human health. Pathogens found in untreated 
graywater are similar to, and in some cases may have a higher 
concentration than, domestic sewage entering land-based wastewater 
treatment plants (U.S. EPA, 2008). Specific pathogens of concern found 
in graywater include Salmonella spp., Escherichia coli, enteroviruses, 
hepatitis, and pathogenic protists (National Research Council, 1993). 
Additional pathogen discharges have also been associated with 
ballasting operations, including Escherichia coli, intestinal 
enterococci, Vibrio cholerae, Clostridium perfringens, Salmonella spp., 
Cryptosporidium spp., Giardia spp., and a variety of viruses (Knight et 
al., 1999; Reynolds et al., 1999; Zo et al., 1999). Pathogens can 
potentially even be transported in unfilled ballast water tanks 
(Johengen et al., 2005). Under the VIDA, bacterial and viral pathogens 
can qualify as ``aquatic nuisance species.'' 33 U.S.C. 1312(p)(1)(A), 
(Q), (R) (defining the related terms ``aquatic nuisance species,'' 
``nonindigenous species,'' and ``organism'').
Oil and Grease
    Vessels can discharge a variety of oils during normal operations, 
including lubricating oils, hydraulic oils, and vegetable or organic 
oils. A significant portion of the lubricants discharged from a vessel 
during these normal operations directly enters the marine environment. 
Some types of oil and grease can be highly toxic and carcinogenic, and 
have been shown to alter the immune system, reproductive abilities, and 
liver functions of many aquatic organisms (Ober, 2010). Broadly, the 
toxicity of oil and grease to aquatic life is due to reduced oxygen 
transport potential and an inability of organisms to metabolize and 
excrete them once ingested, absorbed, or inhaled.
    The magnitude of impact of oils differs depending on the chemical 
composition, method of exposure, concentration, and environmental 
conditions (e.g., weather, salinity, temperature). It can therefore be 
difficult to identify one single parameter responsible for negatively 
impacting aquatic life. However, studies have shown that compounds with 
hydrocarbon chains are consistently associated with harmful impacts. 
Hydrocarbon chains contain strong hydrogen bonds, which do not readily 
break down in water. Such oils can then accumulate in the tissues of 
aquatic organisms and cause toxic effects.

[[Page 67824]]

    Aromatic hydrocarbon compounds, commonly present in fuels, 
lubricants, and additives, are consistently associated with acute 
toxicity and harmful effects in aquatic biota (Dupuis and Ucan-Marin, 
2015). Impacts are observed in both developing and adult organisms, and 
include reduced growth, enlarged livers, fin erosion, reproduction 
impairment, and modifications to heartbeat and respiration rates 
(Dupuis and Ucan-Marin, 2015). Laboratory experiments have shown that 
fish embryos exposed to hydrocarbons exemplify symptoms collectively 
referred to as blue sac disease (BSD). Symptoms of BSD range from 
reduced growth and spinal abnormalities, to hemorrhages and mortality 
(Dupuis and Ucan-Marin, 2015). Oils can also taint organisms that are 
consumed by humans, resulting in economic impacts to fisheries and 
potential human health effects.
    In establishing the VGP, EPA considered the research efforts 
focused on the development of environmentally acceptable lubricants 
(EALs). Production of EALs focuses on using chemicals with oxygen 
atoms, which, unlike hydrocarbons, makes them water soluble. The 
solubility of EALs increases their biodegradability, thereby decreasing 
their accumulation in aquatic environments. The solubility of EALs also 
makes it easier for aquatic life to metabolize and excrete these 
chemicals (U.S. EPA, 2011). Overall, EALs reduce bioaccumulation 
potential and toxic effects to aquatic life.
Metals
    Vessel discharges can contain metal constituents from a variety of 
on-board sources, including graywater, bilgewater, exhaust gas emission 
control systems, and firemain systems. While some metals, including 
copper, nickel, and zinc, are known to be essential to organism 
function when present at certain levels, many others, including 
thallium and arsenic, are non-essential and/or are known to have only 
adverse impacts. Even essential metals may harm organism function in 
sufficiently elevated concentrations. Some metals may also 
bioaccumulate in the tissues of aquatic organisms, intensifying toxic 
effects. Through a process called biomagnification, concentrations of 
some metals can increase up the food chain, leading to elevated levels 
in commercially harvested fish species (U.S. EPA, 2007).
    Vessel hulls and appendages are frequently coated in metal-based 
biocides to prevent
    biofouling. The most widely-used metal in biocides is copper. While 
it is an essential nutrient, copper can be both acutely and chronically 
toxic to fish, aquatic invertebrates, and aquatic plants at higher 
concentrations. Elevated concentrations of copper can adversely impact 
survivorship, growth, and reproduction of aquatic organisms (U.S. EPA, 
2016). Copper can inhibit photosynthesis in plants and interfere with 
enzyme function in both plants and animals in concentrations as low as 
4 [micro]g/L (U.S. EPA, 2016).
Other Pollutants
    Vessel discharges can contain a variety of other toxic, 
conventional, and nonconventional pollutants. This rule would help to 
prevent and control the discharge of certain pollutants that have been 
identified in the various discharges. For example, graywater can 
contain phthalates phenols, and chlorine (U.S. EPA, 2008). These 
compounds can cause a variety of adverse impacts on aquatic organisms 
and human health. Phthalates are known to interfere with reproductive 
health, liver, and kidney function in both animals and humans. 
(Sekizawa et al., 2003; DiGangi et al., 2002). Chlorine can cause 
respiratory problems, hemorrhaging, and acute mortality to aquatic 
organisms even at relatively low concentrations (U.S. EPA, 2008).
    Vessel discharges may also contain certain biocides used in vessel 
coatings, which can be harmful to aquatic organisms. For example, 
cybutryne, also commonly known as Irgarol 1051, is a biocide that 
functions by inhibiting the electron transport mechanism in algae, thus 
inhibiting growth. Numerous studies indicate that cybutryne is both 
acutely and chronically toxic to a range of marine organisms, and in 
certain cases, more harmful than tributyltin (Carbery et al, 2006; Van 
Wezel and Van Vlaardingen, 2004).
    Some vessel discharges are more acidic or basic than the receiving 
waters, which can have a localized effect on pH (Alaska Department of 
Environmental Conservation, 2007). For example, exhaust gas emission 
control systems remove sulfur dioxide in exhaust gas and dissolve it in 
washwater, where it is then ionized and produces an acidic washwater. 
Research has shown that even minor changes in ambient pH can have 
profound effects, such as developmental defects, reduced larval 
survivorship, and decreased calcification of corals and shellfish (Oyen 
et al., 1991; Zaniboni-Filho et al., 2009, Marubini and Atkinson, 
1999).

V. Scope of the Regulatory Action

A. Waters

    The proposed rule would apply to incidental discharges from non-
military, non-recreational vessels operating in the waters of the 
United States or the waters of the contiguous zone. 33 U.S.C. 
1322(p)(8)(B). Sections 502(7), 502(8), and 502(9) of the CWA define 
the terms ``navigable waters,'' ``territorial seas,'' and ``contiguous 
zone,'' respectively. The term ``navigable waters'' means the waters of 
the United States including inland waters and the territorial seas, 
where the United States includes the 50 states, the District of 
Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, the U.S. Virgin Islands, 
Guam, American Samoa, the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, 
and the Trust Territories of the Pacific Islands. The term 
``territorial seas'' means the belt of seas that extends three miles 
seaward from the line of ordinary low water along the portion of the 
coast in direct contact with the open sea and the line marking the 
seaward limit of inland waters. The term ``contiguous zone'' means the 
entire zone established or to be established by the United States under 
Article 24 of the Convention of the Territorial Sea and the Contiguous 
Zone.

B. Vessels

    The proposed rule would apply to discharges incidental to the 
normal operation of a vessel as set forth in CWA Section 312(p)(2). The 
proposed rule would not apply to discharges incidental to the normal 
operation of a vessel of the Armed Forces subject to CWA Section 
312(n); a recreational vessel subject to CWA Section 312(o); a small 
vessel less than 79 feet in length or a fishing vessel, except that the 
proposed rule would apply to any discharge of ballast water from a 
small vessel or fishing vessel; or a floating craft that is permanently 
moored to a pier, including a floating casino, hotel, restaurant, or 
bar. The types of vessels intended to be covered under the proposed 
rule include, but are not limited to, public vessels of the United 
States, commercial fishing vessels (for ballast water only), passenger 
vessels such as cruise ships and ferries, barges, tugs and tows, 
offshore supply vessels, mobile offshore drilling units, tankers, bulk 
carriers, cargo ships, container ships, and research vessels. EPA 
estimates that the domestic and international vessel population that 
would be subject to the proposed national standards of performance is 
approximately 82,000 vessels. The proposed rule also would not apply to

[[Page 67825]]

a narrow category of ballast water discharges that Congress believed do 
not pose a risk of spreading or introducing ANS (VIDA Senate Report, at 
10), or to any discharges that result from (or contain material derived 
from) an activity other than the normal operation of a vessel (33 
U.S.C. 1322(p)(2)(B)(iii)). Unless otherwise provided by CWA Section 
312(p), any incidental discharges excluded from regulation in the VIDA 
remain subject to the pre-enactment status quo (e.g., State law, NPDES 
permitting, etc.). VIDA Senate Report, at 10.
    The national standards of performance proposed herein apply equally 
to new and existing vessels except in such cases where the proposed 
rule expressly distinguishes between such vessels as authorized by CWA 
Section 312(p)(4)(C)(ii).

C. Incidental Discharges

    EPA proposes to establish general as well as specific national 
standards of performance for discharges incidental to the normal 
operation of a vessel described in CWA Section 312(p)(2). The general 
standards would be applicable to all vessels and incidental discharges 
subject to the proposed rule to the extent that the requirements are 
appropriate for each incidental discharge. The specific standards would 
be applicable to specific incidental discharges from the normal 
operation of the following types of vessel equipment and systems: 
Ballast tanks, bilges, boilers, cathodic protection, chain lockers, 
decks, desalination and purification systems, elevator pits, exhaust 
gas emission control systems, fire protection equipment, gas turbines, 
graywater systems, hulls and associated niche areas, inert gas systems, 
motor gasoline and compensating systems, non-oily machinery, pools and 
spas, refrigerators and air conditioners, seawater piping, and sonar 
domes.

D. Emergency and Safety Concerns

    The VIDA recognizes that safety of life at sea and other emergency 
situations not resulting from the negligence or malfeasance of the 
vessel owner, operator, master, or person in charge may arise, and that 
the prevention of loss of life or serious injury may require operations 
that would not otherwise be consistent with these standards. Therefore, 
it is reasonably likely that no person would be found to be in 
violation of the proposed rule under the affirmative defense described 
in CWA Section 312(p)(8)(C). The corresponding USCG implementing 
regulations would include language to address vessel emergency and 
safety considerations.

E. Effective Date

    The proposed national standards of performance, once finalized, 
would become effective beginning on the date upon which the regulations 
promulgated by the Secretary pursuant to CWA Section 312(p)(5) 
governing the implementation, compliance, and enforcement of the 
national standards of performance become final, effective, and 
enforceable. Per CWA Section 312(p)(3)(c), as of that date, the 
requirements of the VGP and all regulations promulgated by the 
Secretary pursuant to Section 1101 of the NANPCA (16 U.S.C. 4711) (as 
in effect on December 3, 2018), including the regulations contained in 
subparts C and D of part 151 of title 33, Code of Federal Regulations, 
and 46 CFR 162.060 (as in effect on December 3, 2018), shall be deemed 
repealed and have no force or effect. Similarly, as of that same date, 
any CWA Section 401 certification requirement in Part 6 of the 2013 
VGP, shall be deemed repealed and have no force or effect.

VI. Stakeholder Engagement

    During the development of the proposed rule, EPA and the USCG 
reached out to other federal agencies, states, tribes, non-governmental 
organizations, and the maritime industry. Detailed documentation of the 
stakeholder outreach prior to the proposal is in the public docket for 
the proposed rulemaking. EPA also intends to hold stakeholder 
engagement opportunities during the proposed rule public comment 
period. General summaries of the outreach are included in this section 
and in section XII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews.

A. Informational Webinars and Public Listening Session

    EPA, in coordination with the USCG, hosted two informational 
webinars on May 7 and 15, 2019 to enhance public awareness about the 
VIDA and provide opportunity for engagement. During the webinars, EPA 
and the USCG provided a general overview of the VIDA, discussed interim 
and future discharge requirements, described future state and public 
engagement opportunities, and answered clarifying questions raised by 
the audience. The webinar recordings and presentation material are 
available at https://www.epa.gov/vessels-marinas-and-ports/vessel-incidental-discharge-act-vida-engagement-opportunities.
    Additionally, EPA, in coordination with the USCG, hosted a public, 
in-person listening session at the U.S. Merchant Marine Academy in New 
York on May 29-30, 2019. At the listening session, EPA with the support 
of the USCG, provided an overview of the VIDA, described the interim 
requirements and the framework for the future regulations, and 
conducted sessions on key vessel discharges to provide an opportunity 
for public input. Fifty-two individuals from a variety of stakeholder 
groups attended and provided input. Public input largely centered on 
ballast water management systems, including testing methods and 
monitoring requirements. Stakeholders requested harmonization of 
domestic regulations with those of the International Maritime 
Organization (IMO), such as standards for exhaust gas emission control 
systems. Input was also received on challenges with compliance and 
reporting under the VGP and the USCG ballast water regulations. The 
meeting agenda and a summary of the comments received are available in 
the public docket for this proposed rulemaking.

B. Post-Proposal Public Meetings

    During the public comment period for this proposed rule, EPA 
intends to hold public meetings to provide an opportunity for 
stakeholders to ask questions about the proposed rule and describe 
procedures for submitting formal comments on the rule. Details for 
these public meetings will be made available at https://www.epa.gov/vessels-marinas-and-ports/vessel-incidental-discharge-act-vida-engagement-opportunities.

C. Consultation and Coordination With States

1. Federalism Consultation
    Pursuant to the terms of Executive Order 13132, on July 9, 2019 in 
Washington, DC, EPA and the USCG conducted a Federalism consultation 
briefing to allow states and local officials to have meaningful and 
timely input into EPA rulemaking for the development of the national 
standards of performance. Additional information regarding the VIDA 
Federalism Consultation can be found in section XII. Statutory and 
Executive Order Reviews.
2. Governors Consultation
    CWA Section 312(p)(4)(A)(iii)(II) directs EPA to develop a process 
for soliciting input from interested Governors to allow interested 
Governors to inform the development of the national standards of 
performance, including sharing information relevant to the process. On 
July 10 and 18, 2019, EPA and the USCG, with the support and assistance 
of the National

[[Page 67826]]

Governors Association, held meetings with Governor representatives to 
provide an overview of the VIDA, discuss state authorities under the 
VIDA, and solicit input on a process that would meet both the statutory 
requirements and state needs. Based on this input, EPA developed its 
``Governors' input process'' for this rulemaking. Thirteen states 
(Alaska, California, Hawaii, Maryland, Michigan, Minnesota, New York, 
North Carolina, Ohio, Puerto Rico, Virginia, Washington, and Wisconsin) 
participated in the process as did representatives from the Western 
Governors Association, the Pacific States Marine Fisheries Commission, 
and the All Islands Coral Reef Committee.
    EPA developed the VIDA Governors' input process to outline EPA's 
intended approach to engage with the states and address their expressed 
interest for multiple enhanced engagement opportunities (possibly 
regionally-based), additional details regarding the direction of the 
proposed standards, and ultimately, more involvement in the development 
of the national standards of performance.
    The Governors' input process included three regional, web-based 
forums for Governors and their representatives to inform EPA on the 
challenges and concerns associated with existing requirements under the 
VGP and to discuss potential considerations for key discharges of 
interest. The three regional, web-based forums were held on September 
10 (Western States), September 12, (Great Lakes States) and September 
19 (All States), 2019. During each forum subject-matter experts from 
EPA provided a brief background on the VIDA followed by organized 
discussions regarding the key discharges identified by the regional 
representatives prior to the forum. During the organized discussions, 
interested Governors' representatives commented on the presentation 
content, shared applicable scientific or technical information, and 
provided suggested options for EPA to consider during the development 
of the national standards of performance. In addition to the verbal 
input provided during the three regional, web-based forums, EPA 
accepted written comments. Copies of those written comments are 
included in the public docket for this proposed rule.
    Additionally, EPA held two follow-up calls with representatives 
from the Great Lakes states on December 18, 2019. During each call, EPA 
addressed the comments that had been submitted by Great Lakes states, 
including comments on specific requirements of the VIDA, non-ballast 
water discharges, and best available technology as it relates to 
ballast water treatment systems. Representatives from Michigan, New 
York, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, Illinois, Minnesota, and Ohio attended 
the calls.
    EPA also held a follow-up call with representatives from the West 
Coast states on January 15, 2020. During the call, EPA addressed the 
comments that had been submitted by West Coast states, including 
comments on outreach and engagement, the best available technology 
analysis for ballast water treatment systems, and regulation of 
biofouling and in-water cleaning and capture devices. Representatives 
from the states of California, Hawaii, Oregon, and Washington, as well 
as representatives from the Pacific States Marine Fisheries Commission 
and the Western Governors Association attended the call.
    In conjunction with the requirement to engage states in the 
development of the proposed standards, CWA Section 
312(p)(4)(A)(iii)(III) provides for governors to formally object to a 
proposed national standard of performance. As detailed in CWA Section 
312(p)(4)(A)(iii)(III), an interested Governor may submit to the 
Administrator a written, detailed objection to the proposed national 
standard of performance, describing the scientific, technical, and 
operational factors that form the basis of the objection. Before 
finalizing a national standard of performance for which there has been 
an objection from one or more interested Governors, the Administrator 
shall provide a written response to the objection detailing the 
scientific, technical, or operational factors that form the basis for 
that standard.
    To be considered an objection by the Administrator under CWA 
Section 312(p)(4)(A)(iii)(III)(aa), an objection letter from the 
Governor must:
     Be submitted in writing to the Administrator;
     Be signed by the Governor;
     Clearly state the proposed standard that is the subject of 
the objection;
     Describe the scientific, technical, or operational factors 
that indicate why the proposed standard does not represent the best 
practicable control technology currently available (BPT), best 
conventional pollutant control technology (BCT), and/or best available 
technology economically achievable (BAT) to address the conventional 
pollutants, toxic pollutants, and nonconventional pollutants contained 
in the discharge; and
     Include the scientific, technical, or operational factors 
that indicate what BPT, BCT, and BAT is available that should be 
included in the proposed standard to address the conventional 
pollutants, toxic pollutants, and nonconventional pollutants contained 
in the discharge.
    In addition, to facilitate EPA's due consideration of any 
objections within a timeframe that would enable EPA to meet its 
statutory deadline for this rulemaking, EPA requests that any 
Governor's objection be submitted within 60 days of the published 
Notice of Proposed Rulemaking.
    Pursuant to CWA Section 312(p)(4)(A)(iii)(III)(bb), the 
Administrator's response would:
     Be provided in writing to each interested Governor prior 
to publication of the final rule;
     Be signed by the Administrator; and
     Include the scientific, technical, or operational factors 
that form the basis for the proposed standard.
    3. Comments (Federalism Consultation and Governors' Consultation 
Comments)
    During the engagement with states, EPA received pre-proposal 
comments from states, governors, and governors' representatives. EPA 
received comments submitted by representatives from Hawaii, Guam, 
American Samoa, the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, 
Puerto Rico, U.S. Virgin Islands, Florida, California, Washington, 
Oregon, Wisconsin, Michigan, Minnesota, and the Western Governors 
Association. The pre-proposal comments primarily focused on ballast 
water, biofouling, and the state engagement process. These comments can 
be found in the public docket for this proposed rule.

VII. Definitions

    The proposed rule includes definitions for several statutory, 
regulatory, and technical terms. These definitions apply solely for the 
purposes of the proposed rule and do not affect the definition of any 
similar terms used in any other context. By including these 
definitions, EPA has, where possible, relied on existing definitions 
from other laws, regulations, and the VGP to provide consistency with 
existing requirements. Many of the proposed definitions are taken 
either verbatim or with minor clarifying edits from the VIDA, the 
legislation upon which this proposed rule is based. This includes 
definitions for: ANS, ballast water, ballast water exchange, ballast 
water management system, Captain of the Port (COTP) Zone, commercial 
vessel--as that term is used for vessels operating within the Pacific 
Region, empty ballast tank, Great Lakes State, internal waters, live or 
living, marine pollution control device, organism, Pacific Region, port 
or

[[Page 67827]]

place of destination, render nonviable, saltwater flush, Secretary, 
small vessel or fishing vessel (and the term ``fishing vessel'' to 
direct the reader to the definition of ``small vessel or fishing 
vessel''), and VGP.
    To provide additional clarity for certain proposed standards, if 
terms were not defined in the VIDA, the proposed rule includes 
definitions from other sections of the CWA, USCG regulations, the VGP, 
and other regulations. Additionally, EPA is proposing to include new 
definitions for federally-protected waters, fouling rating, marine 
growth prevention system, mid-ocean, and oil-to-sea interface. Terms 
not defined in the proposed rule have the meaning defined under the CWA 
and any applicable regulations.

VIII. Development of National Discharge Standards of Performance

    The CWA established a two-step process for implementation of 
increasingly stringent limitations. The first step, to be accomplished 
by July 1, 1977, required compliance with standards based on ``the 
application of the best practicable control technology currently 
available [BPT] as defined by the Administrator. . . .'' 33 U.S.C. 
1311(b)(1)(A). The second step, to be accomplished by July 1, 1987, 
required compliance with standards based on application of the ``best 
available technology economically achievable [BAT] for such category or 
class. . . .'' 33 U.S.C. 1311(b)(2)(A). The CWA, as amended in 1977, 
replaced the BAT standard with a new standard, ``best conventional 
pollutant control technology [BCT],'' but only for certain so-called 
``conventional pollutants'' (i.e., total suspended solids, oil and 
grease, biochemical oxygen demand (BOD5), fecal coliform, 
and pH). 33 U.S.C. 1311(b)(2)(E) (1976 ed., Supp. III). Section 
312(p)(4)(B)(i) of the VIDA requires the national standards of 
performance promulgated for conventional pollutants, toxic pollutants, 
and nonconventional pollutants (including ANS) be developed using the 
same statutory framework as applied to the VGP. Specifically, the 
national standards of performance developed under the VIDA for all 
categories and classes of vessels must require the application of best 
practicable control technology currently available (BPT) for 
conventional, toxic, and nonconventional pollutants; best conventional 
pollutant control technology (BCT) for conventional pollutants; and 
best available technology economically achievable (BAT) for toxic and 
nonconventional pollutants (including ANS), which will result in 
reasonable progress toward the national goal of eliminating the 
discharge of all pollutants. 33 U.S.C. 1322(p)(4)(B)(i). The VIDA 
specifically adopts by reference the existing BPT, BCT, and BAT 
standards defined elsewhere in the CWA at Sections 301(b) and 304(b). 
33 U.S.C. 1322(p)(1)(F), (G), (I). CWA Section 312(p)(4)(B)(ii) also 
directs EPA to use BMPs to control or abate any discharge incidental to 
the normal operation of a vessel if numeric discharge standard 
standards are infeasible or if the BMPs are reasonably necessary to 
achieve the standards or to carry out the purpose of reducing and 
eliminating the discharge of pollutants.
    In addition, CWA Section 312(p)(4)(B) establishes minimum 
requirements for the national standards of performance such that, ``the 
combination of any equipment or best management practice . . . shall 
not be less stringent than'' the effluent limits and related 
requirements established in parts 2.1, 2.2, or 5 of the VGP. 33 U.S.C. 
1322(p)(4)(B)(iii). Thus, while the statute directs EPA to set the 
national standards of performance at the level of BPT/BCT/BAT, 
depending on the pollutant, it also creates a presumption that those 
standards would provide protection at least equivalent to the VGP 
requirements absent one of the exceptions at CWA Section 
312(p)(4)(D)(ii)(II) for situations where either new information 
becomes available that ``would have justified the application of a 
less-stringent standard'' or ``if the Administrator determines that a 
material technical mistake or misinterpretation of law occurred when 
promulgating the existing standard.'' Absent one of those exceptions, 
the statute directs that EPA ``shall not revise a standard of 
performance . . . to be less stringent than an applicable existing 
requirement.'' 33 U.S.C. 312(p)(4)(D)(ii)(I).
    EPA endeavored to identify instances where the BPT/BCT/BAT level of 
control called for new, more stringent options for the national 
standards of performance; however, where EPA identified no such new 
information or options, EPA is continuing to rely on the BPT/BCT/BAT 
analysis that led to the development of the VGP requirements. This 
approach is consistent with EPA's obligations under CWA Section 
312(p)(4) for the following reasons. The effluent limits that EPA 
adopted in the VGP were already the product of a BPT/BCT/BAT analysis 
described in the permit fact sheets for both the 2008 and 2013 
iterations of the VGP and corresponding supporting materials. The text 
of CWA Section 312(p)(4)(D)(ii) prohibits EPA from ``revis[ing] a 
standard of performance. . . to be less stringent than an applicable 
existing requirement.'' There is a narrow exception for instances where 
EPA identifies absent new information or technical or legal error in 
the VGP analysis. Absent such exception, the VIDA prohibits EPA from 
identifying a less stringent option as BPT/BCT/BAT. Indeed, by 
identifying the VGP as the minimum requirements for the national 
standards of performance and then expressly identifying the 
circumstances under which EPA could select a different, less stringent 
standard (i.e., new information or error), the text and legislative 
history of the VIDA show that Congress intended to preserve the 
existing VGP requirements as a regulatory floor. VIDA Senate Report, at 
12 (``The exceptions to this provision [for new information and 
technical or legal error] would provide the sole basis for the 
Administrator to weaken standards of performance compared to the legacy 
VGP requirements. . . .''). Moreover, Congress did not intend for EPA 
to depart from the considerations that informed the VGP. To the 
contrary, although the VIDA is a permit-less regime, Congress defined 
BPT, BCT, and BAT with ``intentional[] cross-reference[s]'' to where 
those terms are used elsewhere in the CWA ``to ensure that the 
Administrator makes identical considerations when setting the standards 
of performance under CWA Section 312(p) as the Administrator was 
previously required to do when setting technology-based effluent limits 
for permits'' like in the VGP. VIDA Senate Report, at 11. It is 
significant that Congress gave EPA only a two-year deadline to develop 
the national standards of performance for marine pollution control 
devices for each type of discharge incidental to the normal operation 
of a vessel that is subject to regulation under the VIDA. The VGP 
requirements address more than 30 such discharges and given the short 
timeframe that Congress set forth for this task, EPA did not think it 
was necessary or appropriate to re-analyze the marine pollution control 
device standards for which there have not been meaningful changes in 
technology or practice since EPA last undertook a BPT/BCT/BAT analysis. 
In contrast to this initial promulgation of standards, Congress 
established a significantly longer five-year cycle for review and, if 
appropriate, future revision of the initial standards. 33 U.S.C. 
1322(p)(4)(D)(i).
    While EPA is, for most of the discharges addressed in this

[[Page 67828]]

rulemaking, relying on the BPT/BCT/BAT analysis that was performed to 
develop the VGP, EPA is not incorporating the VGP requirements 
verbatim. In many cases, EPA proposes change to translate the VGP 
discharge requirements into national standards of performance or 
otherwise improve the clarity to enhance implementation and 
enforceability. As the proposed changes do not materially differ from 
the requirements established in the VGP, EPA can reasonably rely on the 
BPT/BCT/BAT analysis that supported the VGP to develop the new proposed 
standards under the VIDA.
    Where EPA research identified new alternatives or new options for 
marine pollution control devices, EPA evaluated those options as 
candidates for new BPT/BCT/BAT requirements. The CWA requires 
consideration of BPT for conventional, toxic, and nonconventional 
pollutants. CWA Section 304(a)(4) designates the following as 
conventional pollutants: Biochemical oxygen demand, total suspended 
solids, fecal coliform, pH, and any additional pollutants defined by 
the Administrator as conventional. The Administrator designated oil and 
grease as an additional conventional pollutant on July 30, 1979. 40 CFR 
401.16. Toxic pollutants (e.g., toxic metals such as arsenic, mercury, 
selenium, and chromium; toxic organic pollutants such as benzene, 
benzo-a-pyrene, phenol, and napthalene) are those outlined in CWA 
Section 307(a) and subsequently identified in EPA regulations at 40 CFR 
401.15 and 40 CFR part 423 Appendix A. All other pollutants are 
nonconventional.
    In determining BPT, under CWA Sections 301(b)(1)(A) and 
304(b)(1)(B), and 40 CFR 125.3(d)(1), EPA evaluates several factors. 
EPA first considers the cost of application of technology in relation 
to the effluent reduction benefits. The Agency also considers the age 
of equipment and facilities, the processes employed, engineering 
aspects of various types of control technologies, process changes, non-
water quality environmental impacts (including energy requirements), 
and such other factors as the Administrator deems appropriate. If, 
however, existing performance is uniformly inadequate within an 
industrial category, EPA may establish limitations based on higher 
levels of control if the Agency determines that the technology is 
available in another category or subcategory and can be practically 
applied to this industrial category.
    The 1977 amendments to the CWA required EPA to identify effluent 
reduction levels for conventional pollutants associated with BCT for 
discharges from existing industrial point sources. 33 U.S.C. 
1311(b)(2)(E); 1314(b)(4)(B); 40 CFR 125.3(d)(2). In addition to 
considering the other factors specified in CWA Section 304(b)(4)(B) to 
establish BCT requirements, EPA also considers a two-part ``cost-
reasonableness'' test. EPA explained its methodology for the 
development of BCT requirements in 1986. See 51 FR 24974, July 9, 1986.
    For toxic pollutants and nonconventional pollutants, EPA 
promulgates discharge standards based on BAT. 33 U.S.C. 1311(b)(2)(A); 
1314(b)(2)(B); 40 CFR 125.3(d)(3). In establishing BAT, the technology 
must be technologically ``available'' and ``economically achievable.'' 
The factors considered in assessing BAT include the cost of achieving 
BAT effluent reductions, the age of equipment and facilities involved, 
the process employed, potential process changes, non-water quality 
environmental impacts, including energy requirements, and other such 
factors as the Administrator deems appropriate. EPA retains 
considerable discretion in assigning the weight accorded to these 
factors. See Weyerhaeuser Co v. Costle, 590 F.2d 1011, 1045 (D.C. Cir. 
1978). BAT discharge standards may be based on effluent reductions 
attainable through changes in a facility's processes and operations. 
Where existing performance is uniformly inadequate, BAT may reflect a 
higher level of performance than is currently being achieved within a 
subcategory based on technology transferred from a different 
subcategory or category. Am. Paper Inst. 5 V. Train, 539 F.2d 328, 353 
(D.C. Cir. 1976); Am. Frozen Food Inst. V. Train, 539 F.2d 107, 132 
(D.C. Cir. 1976). BAT may be based upon process changes or internal 
controls, even when these technologies are not common industry 
practice.
    The proposed rule contains discharge standards that correspond to 
required levels of technology-based control (BPT, BCT, BAT) for 
discharges incidental to the normal operation of a vessel, as required 
by the CWA. As noted above, some discharge standards have been 
established by examining other existing laws and requirements (e.g., 
Oil Pollution Act, APPS, and the Clean Hull Act). Where these laws 
already exist, it was deemed feasible for the operators to implement 
these practices as part of the proposed standards because these are 
demonstrated practices that EPA found to be technologically available 
and economically practicable (BPT) or achievable (BAT). For example, 
the proposed standards reaffirm requirements of the Clean Hull Act that 
coating on vessel hulls must not contain TBT or any other organotin 
compound used as a biocide. In some cases, such as with certain 
discharges of oils, graywater from passenger vessels, and ballast 
water, numeric discharge standards are being proposed. In assessing the 
availability and achievability of the technologies discussed herein, in 
addition to the rationale for the VGP effluent limits, EPA considered 
studies and data from both domestic and international sources including 
studies and data from foreign-flagged vessels as appropriate.
    Additionally, EPA is proposing that two of the VGP-named discharges 
do not require specific discharge requirements beyond the general 
discharge requirements in Subpart B. EPA acknowledges that discharges 
from motor gasoline and compensating systems and inert gas systems are 
indeed discharges incidental to the normal operation of a vessel; 
however, EPA determined that the requirements outlined in the general 
discharge standards section in Subpart B of the proposed rule are 
sufficient and at least as stringent as the VGP.

A. Discharges Incidental to the Normal Operation of a Vessel--General 
Standards

    This section describes the proposed national standards of 
performance associated with the general discharge requirements proposed 
in 40 CFR part 139, subpart B. These proposed standards are designed to 
apply to all vessels and incidental discharges subject to the proposed 
rule to the extent the requirements are appropriate for each incidental 
discharge. These proposed standards are proactive and preventative in 
nature and are designed to minimize the introduction of pollutants into 
the waters of the United States and the waters of the contiguous zone. 
These proposed standards are based on EPA's analysis of available and 
relevant information, including available technical data, existing 
statutes and regulations, statistical industry information, and 
research studies included in the public docket for this proposed rule.
1. General Operation and Maintenance
    The first category of proposed national standards of performance 
would establish requirements associated with the general operation and 
maintenance vessel practices that are designed to eliminate or reduce 
the discharge of pollutants. EPA considers these proposed requirements 
to be consistent with the VGP requirements

[[Page 67829]]

and provides a consolidation of requirements from many subparts within 
Part 2 of the VGP. The first requirement proposes that all discharges 
covered under this rulemaking be minimized. For purposes of this 
proposed rule and consistent with the technology-based requirements of 
the CWA, EPA is proposing to clarify the term ``minimize'' to mean to 
reduce or eliminate to the extent achievable using any control measure 
that is technologically available and economically practicable and 
achievable and supported by demonstrated BMPs such that compliance can 
be documented in shipboard logs and plans as determined by the 
Secretary (that is, the Secretary of the department in which the USCG 
is operating). The ``minimize'' requirement is included pursuant to the 
CWA Section 312(p)(2)(H) definition of BMP within the technology-based 
BPT/BCT/BAT analysis. Minimizing discharges provides a reasonable 
approach by which EPA, the regulated community, and the public can 
determine and evaluate appropriate control measures for vessels to 
control all specific discharges identified in 40 CFR part 139, subpart 
B of this proposed rulemaking. To minimize discharges, operators should 
consider the use of reception facilities, storage onboard the vessel, 
or reduced production of pollutants to be discharged. For some vessel 
discharges, such as for graywater, minimization of pollutants in those 
discharges can be achieved without using highly engineered, complex 
treatment systems. Other vessel discharges, such as ballast water, may 
require more complex behavioral practices such as saltwater flushing or 
ballast water exchange.
    The proposed general operation and management standard would also 
include provisions from the VGP (Parts 2.2.2 and 5.3.1.2) that are 
intended to minimize the discharges from vessels to nearshore waters by 
requiring, to the extent practicable, that vessels discharge while 
underway and as far from shore as practical.
    The proposed general operation and management standard also would 
include requirements that limit the types and quantities of materials 
discharged. For one, EPA is clarifying that the addition of any 
materials to an incidental discharge, other than for treatment of the 
discharge, that is not incidental to the normal operation of the 
vessel, is prohibited as is using dilution to meet any effluent 
discharge standards. EPA is also proposing a requirement specifying 
that only the amount of a material (e.g., disinfectant, cleaner, 
biocide, coating, sacrificial anode) necessary to perform its intended 
function is authorized to be used if its residue could be discharged 
and that any such materials used do not contain biocides or toxic or 
hazardous materials banned for use in the United States. Also, EPA is 
proposing to prohibit the discharge of any material used that will be 
subsequently discharged that contains any materials banned for use in 
the United States. For any pesticide products (e.g., biocides, anti-
microbials) subject to FIFRA registration, vessel operators must follow 
the FIFRA label for all activities that result in a discharge into the 
waters of the United States or the waters of the contiguous zone.
    The presence or use of toxic or hazardous materials may be 
necessary for the operation of vessels. For purposes of the proposed 
rule, the term ``Toxic or Hazardous Materials'' means any toxic 
pollutant identified in 40 CFR 401.15 or any hazardous material as 
defined in 49 CFR 171.8. EPA is proposing requirements for how toxic or 
hazardous materials are managed to minimize the potential for discharge 
of these materials. Toxic or hazardous material containers must be 
appropriately sealed, labeled, and secured, and located in an area of 
the vessel that minimizes exposure to ocean spray and precipitation 
consistent with vessel design. Materials that may not be considered 
toxic in small concentrations could pose an environmental threat if 
significant amounts are washed overboard, particularly in shallow or 
impaired waters. Wastes should be managed in accordance with any 
applicable local, state, and federal regulations, which are outside of 
the scope of this proposed rule. For example, the Resource Conservation 
and Recovery Act (RCRA) governs the generation, transportation, 
storage, and disposal of solid and hazardous wastes.
    Therefore, the proposed rule would require that all vessel 
operators practice good environmental stewardship by minimizing any 
exposure of cargo or other onboard materials that may be inadvertently 
discharged by containerizing or covering materials with a tarp, and 
generally limiting any exposure of these materials to wind, rain, or 
spray. The proposed rule acknowledges that these requirements would 
apply unless the vessel operator reasonably determines this would 
interfere with essential vessel operations or safety of the vessel or 
doing so would violate any applicable regulations that establish 
specifications for safe transportation, handling, carriage, and storage 
of toxic or hazardous materials. Also, to avoid discharges and prevent 
emergency or other dangerous situations, the proposed standard would 
require that containers holding toxic or hazardous materials not be 
overfilled and incompatible materials not be mixed in containers.
    Like the requirements related to toxic and hazardous materials, the 
proposed standard would also require control measures to prevent or 
minimize the overboard discharge of cargo, on-deck debris, garbage, and 
residue and would prohibit the jettisoning of cargo or toxic or 
hazardous materials. EPA proposal would also require vessel operators 
to clean out cargo residues (i.e., broom clean or equivalent) from any 
cargo compartment or tank prior to discharging washwater from such 
areas overboard. EPA is proposing that these material management 
measures be followed to minimize the discharge of pollutants.
    The proposed rule would also require vessel operators to maintain 
their topside surface (i.e., outer surfaces above the waterline) in a 
manner that minimizes the discharge of rust (and other corrosion by-
products), cleaning compounds, paint chips, non-skid material 
fragments, and other materials associated with exterior topside surface 
preservation. Additionally, this EPA standard proposes that coating 
techniques selected for any topside surfaces must minimize the residual 
paint and coating entering the water and that the discharge of any 
unused paints and coatings is prohibited.
    The last proposed general operation and maintenance requirement 
specifies that any equipment that is expected to release, drip, leak, 
or spill oil or oily mixtures, fuel, or other toxic or hazardous 
materials that may be discharged or drained or pumped to the bilge, 
must be maintained regularly to minimize the discharge of pollutants. 
As with other requirements in the proposed general operation and 
maintenance standard, EPA considers this requirement to be consistent 
with the bilgewater requirements in Part 2.2.2 of the VGP.
2. Biofouling Management
    Vessel biofouling is the accumulation of aquatic organisms such as 
plants, animals, and micro-organisms on vessel equipment or systems 
submerged or exposed to the aquatic environment. Biofouling can be 
broadly separated into microfouling, which consists of microscopic 
organisms including bacteria and diatoms, and macrofouling, which 
consists of large, distinct multicellular organisms visible to the

[[Page 67830]]

human eye, such as barnacles, tubeworms, or fronds of algae. Studies 
suggest that biofouling on vessel equipment and systems is one of the 
main vectors for the introduction and spread of ANS (Drake and Lodge, 
2007; Gollasch, 2002; Hewitt and Campbell, 2010; Hewitt et al., 2009). 
Biofouling also produces drag on a vessel hull and protruding niche 
areas, requiring greater fuel consumption and increased greenhouse gas 
emissions. It can additionally result in hull corrosion and blockage of 
internal piping, such as the engine cooling and firemain systems, 
thereby degrading the integrity of the vessel structure and impeding 
safe operation.
    EPA understands the statutory definition of ``discharge incidental 
to the normal operation of a vessel'' (incidental discharge) at 33 
U.S.C.1322(a)(12) to include any discharge of biofouling organisms from 
vessel equipment and systems. Consistent with the VGP discharges of 
biofouling organisms from vessel equipment and systems while the vessel 
is immersed or exposed to the aquatic environment are incidental to the 
normal operation of a vessel. Such discharges during normal operation 
of the vessel include, but are not limited to, those from maintenance 
and cleaning activities of hulls, niche areas, and associated coatings. 
EPA included management requirements to minimize the discharge of 
biofouling organisms from vessel equipment and systems in both the VGP 
and the discharge regulations for the vessels of the Armed Forces. 33 
U.S.C. 1322(n)). The VGP in Parts 2.2.23 and 4.1.3, respectively, 
required that vessel operators minimize the transport of attached 
living organisms and conduct annual inspections of the vessel hull, 
including niche areas, for fouling organisms. Part 4.1.4 of the VGP 
also required vessel operators to prepare drydock inspection reports 
noting that the vessel hull and niche areas had been inspected for 
attached living organisms and those organisms had been removed or 
neutralized and make these reports available to EPA or an authorized 
representative of EPA upon request. With one of the legislative 
purposes of the VIDA being to establish uniform national incidental 
discharge regulations that are as stringent as the VGP, except in those 
circumstances specified by the VIDA in CWA Section 
312(p)(4)(D)(ii)(II), EPA is proposing to include requirements for the 
discharge of biofouling organisms from vessel equipment and systems in 
this rulemaking.
    The proposed rule would require each vessel to develop and follow a 
biofouling management plan with a goal to prevent macrofouling, thereby 
minimizing the potential for the introduction and spread of ANS. A 
biofouling management plan that would be consistent with the VGP and 
fulfill the purpose of the proposed rule is one that provides a 
holistic strategy that considers the operational profile of the vessel, 
identifies the appropriate antifouling systems, and details the 
biofouling management practices for specific areas of the vessel. The 
details of the plan will be established by the Secretary, although the 
plan elements must prioritize procedures and strategies to prevent 
macrofouling.
    While the VGP does not explicitly require a biofouling management 
plan, it requires the majority of the components of the proposed 
biofouling management plan individually, such as the consideration of 
vessel class, operations, and biocide release rates and components in 
the selection of antifouling systems, an annual inspection of the 
vessel hull and niche areas for assessment of biofouling organisms and 
condition of anti-fouling paint, a drydock inspection report noting 
that the vessel hull and niche areas have been inspected for biofouling 
organisms and those organisms have been removed or neutralized, 
reporting of cleaning schedules and methods, and appropriate disposal 
of wastes generated during cleaning operations. Additionally, according 
to the Clean Hull Act of 2009, every vessel engaging in one or more 
international voyages is required to carry an antifouling system 
certificate that contains the details of the antifouling system. 
Moreover, under the National Invasive Species Act, the USCG requires 
the individual in charge of any vessel equipped with ballast water 
tanks that operates in the waters of the United States to maintain a 
ballast water management plan that has been developed specifically for 
the vessel and that will allow those responsible for the plan's 
implementation to understand and follow the vessel's ballast water 
management strategy and comply with the requirements. The ballast water 
management plan must also include detailed biofouling maintenance and 
sediment removal procedures (33 CFR 151.2050(g)(3)). According to 
guidance issued by the USCG on these regulations, such procedures 
constitute a ``Biofouling Management and Sediment Plan.'' Under this 
guidance, the USCG advised that IMO Resolution Marine Environment 
Protection Committee (MEPC) 207(62) provides a basis for developing and 
implementing a vessel-specific biofouling management plan.
    Developing individual biofouling management plans for vessels is 
important because vessels can vary widely in operational profile and, 
therefore, in the extent and type of biofouling. EPA recognizes, 
however, that vessels with similar operational profiles, such as 
vessels that cross the same waterbodies, travel at similar speeds, and 
share the same design, may also employ the same management measures, 
such as selecting the same types of antifouling systems, and applying 
the same inspection and cleaning schedules. EPA anticipates that fleet 
owners may develop a biofouling management plan template that can be 
readily adapted into a vessel-specific biofouling management plan.
3. Oil Management
    The proposed rule aims to minimize discharges of oil, including 
oily mixtures. The proposed standard would require vessel operators to 
use control and response measures to minimize and contain spills and 
overflows during fueling, maintenance, and other vessel operations. 
Also, the proposed standard specifies that the discharge of used or 
spent oil no longer being used for its intended purpose would be 
prohibited, including any used or spent oil that may be added to an 
incidental discharge that is otherwise authorized to be discharged. 
Discharges of small amounts of oil, including oily mixtures, incidental 
to the normal operation of a vessel are permissible provided such 
discharges comply with the otherwise applicable existing legal 
requirements. For example, consistent with the CWA and as implemented 
by the 2013 VGP, this standard would prohibit the discharge of oil in 
such quantities as may be harmful, as defined in 40 CFR 110.3.
    Section 139.3 of the proposed rule specifies that, except as 
expressly provided, nothing in this part would affect the applicability 
of any other provision of Federal law as specified in several statutory 
and regulatory citations. Two of those citations are to CWA Section 311 
and to APPS. Those two laws address discharges of oil. Under CWA 
Section 311, any oil, including oily mixtures, other than those 
exempted in 40 CFR 110.5, may not be discharged in such quantities as 
``may be harmful,'' which is defined to include those discharges that 
violate applicable water quality standards or ``cause a film or sheen 
upon or discoloration of the surface of the water or adjoining 
shorelines or cause a sludge

[[Page 67831]]

or emulsion to be deposited beneath the surface of the water or upon 
adjoining shorelines.'' Discharges that are not included in the 
description of ``may be harmful'' include discharges of oil from a 
properly functioning vessel engine (including an engine on a public 
vessel) and any discharges of such oil accumulated in the bilges of a 
vessel discharged in compliance with 33 CFR part 151, subpart A; other 
discharges of oil permitted under MARPOL 73/78, Annex I, as provided in 
33 CFR part 151, subpart A; and any discharge of oil explicitly 
permitted by the Administrator in connection with research, 
demonstration projects, or studies relating to the prevention, control, 
or abatement of oil pollution. Regarding the APPS (33 U.S.C. 1901 et 
seq.), the United States enacted it to implement the obligations under 
MARPOL 73/78. The USCG is the lead agency for APPS implementation and 
issued implementing regulations primarily found at 33 CFR part 151. 
Those APPS requirements already apply to many of the vessels that would 
be covered by the proposed rule. Among other things, APPS regulates the 
discharge of oil and oily mixtures. Generally, these requirements 
prohibit ``any discharge of oil or oily mixtures into the sea from a 
ship'' except when certain conditions are met, including a discharge 
oil content of less than 15 ppm and that the ship operates oily-water 
separating equipment, an oil content monitor, a bilge alarm, or a 
combination thereof.
    Additionally, the proposed rule would require measures during 
fueling, maintenance and other vessel operations to control and respond 
to spills and overflows, such as may occur from human error or improper 
equipment use. These proposed requirements reinforce existing 
requirements that require taking immediate and appropriate corrective 
actions if an oil spill is observed as a result of vessel operations. 
This includes maintaining appropriate spill containment and cleanup 
materials onboard and using such immediately in the event of any spill.
    The proposed rule also includes requirements for oil-to-sea 
interfaces. Specifically, the proposed standard would require use of 
EALs for such oil-to-sea interfaces unless technically infeasible and 
sets out a series of mandatory BMPs for minimizing lubricant discharges 
during maintenance.
    Oil-to-sea interfaces are seals or surfaces on ship-board equipment 
where the design is such that small quantities of oil can escape into 
the surrounding sea during normal vessel operations. For example, 
below-water seals frequently use lubricating oil mechanisms that 
maintain higher pressure than the surrounding sea to ensure that no 
seawater enters the system and compromises the unit's performance. 
During normal operation, small quantities of lubricant oil in those 
interfaces are released into surrounding waters. Above-deck equipment 
can also have oil-to-sea interfaces when portions of the machinery 
extend overboard, thereby allowing lubricant oil to be released 
directly into surrounding waters. Constituents of conventional 
hydraulic and lubricating oils vary by manufacturer, but may include 
copper, tin, aluminum, nickel, and lead. In addition, traditional 
mineral oils have a small biodegradation rate, a high potential for 
bioaccumulation and a measurable toxicity towards marine organisms. In 
the case of a controllable pitch propellers (CPP), up to 20 ounces of 
such oils could be released for every CPP blade that is replaced, with 
blade replacement occurring at drydock intervals or when the blade is 
damaged. When the blade replacement includes removal of the blade port 
cover (generally occurring infrequently, less than once per month), up 
to five gallons of oil could be discharged into surrounding waters 
unless the service is performed in drydock.
    Additionally, many ocean-going ships operate with oil-lubricated 
stern tubes and use lubricating oils in much of the other machinery 
both on-deck and underwater. Oil leakage from stern tubes, once 
considered a part of normal ``operational consumption'' of oil, has 
become an issue of global concern and is now treated as oil pollution. 
A 2001 study commissioned by the European Commission DG Joint Research 
Centre concluded that routine unauthorized operational discharges of 
oil from ships into the Mediterranean Sea created more pollution than 
accidental spills (Pavlakis et al., 2001). Similarly, an analysis of 
data on oil consumption sourced from a lubricant supplier indicated 
that daily stern tube lubricant consumption rates for different vessels 
could range up to 20 liters per day (Etkin, 2010). This analysis 
estimated that operational discharges (including stern tube leakage) 
from vessels add between 36.9 million liters and 61 million liters of 
lubricating oil into marine port waters annually.
    Vessels use lubricants in a wide variety of ship-board 
applications. Examples of lubricated equipment with oil-to-sea 
interfaces include:
     Stern tube: A stern tube is the casing or hole through the 
hull of the vessel that enables the propeller shaft to connect the 
vessel's engine to the propeller on the exterior of the vessel. Stern 
tubes contain seals designed to keep the stern tube lubricant from 
exiting the equipment array and being discharged to waters at the 
exterior of the vessel's hull.
     Controllable pitch propeller: Variably-pitched propeller 
blades are for changing the speed or direction of a vessel and 
supplementing the main propulsion system. Controllable pitch propellers 
also contain seals that prevent the lubricant from exiting the 
equipment array.
     Rudder bearings: These bearings allow a vessel's rudder to 
turn freely; they also use seals with an oil-to-sea interface.
     On-deck equipment: Hose handling cranes, hydraulic system 
prov cranes, hydraulic cranes, and hydraulic stern ramps are examples 
of machinery with the potential for above-water discharges of 
lubricants. When vessels are underway, this equipment is often not 
operational, and any lubricant losses are typically captured during 
deck washdown and treated as part of deck washdown wastewater. However, 
discharges can occur when portions of the machinery such as booms or 
jibs, trolleys, cables, hoist gear, or derrick arms are in use and 
extend over the side of vessel.
    The EAL portion of the proposal provides that the EAL would need to 
meet three criteria; it must be ``biodegradable,'' ``minimally-toxic,'' 
and ``not bioaccumulative'' as defined in the proposed rule.
    The proposed standard for oil-to-sea interfaces is slightly 
different from what was required for oil-to-sea interfaces in the VGP. 
EPA is proposing four changes. First, for clarity, EPA moved the EAL 
requirements to a general standard for oil management applicable to any 
specific discharge that may have an oil-to-sea interface rather than a 
specific discharge standard as was done in Part 2.2.9 of the VGP, and 
eliminated the specific discharge category, identified in Part 2.2.9 of 
the VGP as ``Controllable Pitch Propeller (CPP) and Thruster Hydraulic 
Fluid and other Oil-to-sea Interfaces including Lubrication Discharges 
from Paddle Wheel Propulsion, Stern Tubes, Thruster Bearings, 
Stabilizers Rudder Bearings, Azimuth Thrusters, and Propulsion Pod 
Lubrication and Wire Rope and Mechanical Equipment Subject to 
Immersion.'' The change demonstrates that the standard covers all oil-
to-sea interfaces on vessels rather than just the interfaces listed in 
the name of that section of the VGP. EPA notes that

[[Page 67832]]

certain types of seals used on below-deck equipment such as air seals 
are based on designs that use an air gap or other mechanical features 
to prevent oils from reaching waters at the exterior of the vessel's 
hull. To the extent that these seals do not allow the lubricant to be 
released under normal circumstances, they are not considered to be oil-
to-sea interfaces. Second, the VGP included specific criteria for 
demonstrating that use of an EAL was ``technically infeasible.'' Under 
the VIDA delineation of responsibilities between EPA and the USCG, 
determinations of technical infeasibility regarding the use of an EAL 
are most properly treated as a matter of implementation and as such, 
would be addressed as part of the implementing regulations to be 
developed by the USCG. Third, EPA made minor revisions to the wording 
of the standard to clarify that the scope of this discharge category 
extends to all types of equipment with direct oil-to-sea interfaces, 
including any on-deck equipment where lubricant losses can occur when 
portions of the machinery extend over the side of the hull. Fourth, the 
VGP provided two ways that a lubricant could be classified as an EAL: 
the EAL must be ``biodegradable,'' ``minimally-toxic,'' and ``not 
bioaccumulative'' as defined in the VGP; or, the EAL must be labeled 
under a defined list of labeling programs (e.g., the European Union's 
European Ecolabel and Germany's Blue Angel). EPA is proposing to remove 
the list of acceptable labeling programs acknowledging that the 
requirements of these different labeling programs are established by 
organizations for which neither EPA nor the USCG have control over any 
modifications to the criteria these organizations may make to identify 
acceptable products for labeling. The expectation is that all or most 
of the labeling programs identified in the VGP meet the EAL criteria in 
the proposed rule and as such would provide a comparable list of 
options from which vessel operators could select appropriate 
lubricants. This provides a clear delineation of expectations for any 
institution interested in establishing a labeling program if that 
program demonstrates products that are labeled based on criteria that 
are at least as stringent as those in the proposed rule for 
biodegradability, toxicity, and bioaccumulation.
    Although certification programs to label lubricants as 
``environmentally acceptable lubricants'' have existed for some time, 
the VGP was one of the first regulatory programs to require use of 
EALs. Today, more than sixteen manufacturers produce EALs for the 
global shipping community, giving vessel operators a wide array of 
choices for optimizing lubricant technical performance. Most major 
marine equipment manufacturers have approved EALs for use in their 
machinery, and new equipment is being introduced commercially such as 
air seals, composite bearings, electric motors, and synthetic line. The 
market for EALs continues to expand around the world, particularly in 
Europe where the use of such lubricants is promoted through a 
combination of tax breaks, purchasing subsidies, and national and 
international labeling programs.
    In the analysis EPA completed for the VGP, the Agency found that 
product substitution of EALs for other lubricants in oil-to-sea 
applications (unless technically infeasible) together with the required 
BMPs for maintenance represents BAT. As the Agency described when it 
issued the VGP, use of EALs in lieu of conventional formulations for 
oil-to-sea interfaces can offer significantly reduced discharges of 
pollutants of concern (U.S. EPA, 2011).
    As part of the BAT analysis for the VGP, EPA considered the 
processes employed and potential process changes that might be 
necessary for vessels to use EALs. As EPA explained at the time, EALs 
are readily available and their use is economically achievable for most 
applications (U.S. EPA, 2011). New vessels in particular can select 
equipment during design and construction that is compatible with EALs. 
Furthermore, vessel operators can design additional onboard storage 
capacity for EALs if they choose to use traditional mineral-based oil 
for engine lubrication (thereby needing two types of oils on-hand). The 
extra storage capacity needed would be minor. EPA, however, continues 
to believe that the use of EALs in all applications is not practicable 
or achievable, therefore this proposed rule retains the provision from 
the VGP oil-to-sea interface requirements that allows for a claim of 
``technically infeasible.''
    The Agency considered several other approaches for regulating oil-
to-sea interfaces in the proposed rule. For one, the most recent 
version of the European Ecolabel program has a modified definition of 
what constitutes an ``environmentally acceptable lubricant'' in that it 
now allows for ``small quantities'' (i.e., <0.1 percent) of 
bioaccumulative substances in lubricant formulations. EPA considered 
revising the definition of ``biodegradable'' to bring the terminology 
more in line with current European Ecolabel requirements for a 10-day 
test pass window rather than a 28-day test pass window for achieving 
specific levels of degradation. EPA notes that stakeholders involved in 
the European Ecolabel program felt strongly that this change in the 
test pass window would significantly reduce the number of lubricant 
formulations available on the market. To ensure widespread installation 
and use of EALs by vessels that operate in the waters of the United 
States or the waters of the contiguous zone, EPA is retaining the 
definition of biodegradable as used in the VGP.
4. Training and Education
    The proposed rule does not include training and education 
requirements. CWA Section 312(p)(5)(A)(ii)(III) requires the USCG to 
promulgate training and educational requirements that are not less 
stringent than those contained in the VGP.

B. Discharges Incidental to the Normal Operation of a Vessel--Specific 
Standards

    This section describes the proposed national standards of 
performance for discharges incidental to the normal operation of a 
regulated vessel. The proposed national standards of performance would 
apply to regulated vessels operating within the waters of the United 
States or the waters of the contiguous zone. The proposed rule would 
require that a discharge comprised of two or more regulated incidental 
discharges must meet the national standards of performance established 
for each of those commingled discharges.
1. Ballast Tanks
i. Applicability
    Ballast water is any water, suspended matter, and other materials 
taken on-board a vessel to control or maintain trim, draught, 
stability, or stresses of the vessel, regardless of the means by which 
any such water or suspended matter is carried; or during the cleaning, 
maintenance, or other operation of a ballast tank or ballast management 
system of the vessel. The term ``ballast water'' does not include any 
substance that is added to the water that is directly related to the 
operation of a properly functioning ballast water management system. As 
defined in the proposed standards, a ballast tank is any tank or hold 
on a vessel used for carrying ballast water, regardless of whether the 
tank or hold was designed for that purpose. Fresh water, sea water, or 
ice carried onboard a vessel for food safety and product quality 
purposes is not

[[Page 67833]]

considered ballast water and, as such, would not be subject to the 
ballast water requirements in the proposed rule. Ballast water 
discharge volumes and rates vary significantly by vessel type, ballast 
tank capacity, and type of deballasting equipment for the universe of 
vessels covered under the VGP and VIDA. Most passenger vessels have 
ballast capacities of less than 5,000 cubic meters (approximately 1.3 
million gallons) of water. Cargo/container ships generally have ballast 
capacities of 5 to 20 thousand cubic meters (more than 1.3 to 5.3 
million gallons) of water while some bulk carriers and tankers have 
ballast capacities greater than 40 thousand cubic meters (over 10 
million gallons) of water.
    Ballast water may contain toxic and nonconventional pollutants such 
as rust inhibitors, epoxy coating materials, zinc or aluminum (from 
anodes), iron, nickel, copper, bronze, silver, and other material or 
sediment from inside the tanks, pipes, or other machinery. More 
importantly, ballast water may also contain marine and freshwater 
organisms that originate from where the water is collected. When 
ballast water is discharged, these organisms may establish new 
populations of ANS in the receiving waterbodies. Ballast water 
discharged from vessels has been, and continues to be, a significant 
environmental concern because it can introduce and spread ANS that 
threaten the diversity and abundance of native species, threaten the 
ecological stability of our Nation's waters, and threaten the 
commercial, agricultural, aquacultural, and recreational use of those 
waters.
    Currently, ballast water discharges are regulated by multiple 
federal and state laws and regulations. The USCG regulates ballast 
water discharges under the Nonindigenous Aquatic Nuisance Prevention 
and Control Act of 1990 (NANPCA), and amendments thereto by the 
National Invasive Species Act (NISA) of 1996 (33 CFR part 151 subparts 
C and D). Starting in 2009, EPA regulated ballast water discharges 
under the NPDES program authorized under CWA Section 402; however, the 
VIDA requires that ballast water be regulated as an incidental 
discharge under CWA Section 312. The VIDA set as a minimum baseline the 
VGP/NPDES requirements previously developed under CWA Section 402. 
Additionally, several states (California, Michigan, Minnesota, Ohio, 
Oregon, Washington, and Wisconsin) previously used their certification 
authorities under CWA Section 401 or under stand-alone state 
authorities to impose additional, state-specific requirements that 
would apply to commercial vessels operating within their state waters. 
Such additional stand-alone State standards will no longer be 
permissible under the VIDA once EPA has established national standards 
and the USCG has promulgated implementing regulations that are final, 
effective, and enforceable. [33 U.S.C. 1322(p)(9)(A)(i)].
    The proposed standards for ballast water reflect BAT and consider 
the previous requirements established in the 2013 VGP and 33 CFR part 
151 subparts C and D, the BAT factors as specified in Section 304(b) of 
the Clean Water Act, as well as the new requirements established in the 
VIDA. The analysis described herein is based largely on information 
gathered and included in the public docket for this proposed rulemaking 
and includes information on the United States and international 
requirements surrounding ballast water discharges and the candidate 
control technologies (both best management practices and treatment 
technologies).
ii. Exclusions
    The proposed standards for ballast water apply to any vessel 
equipped with one or more ballast tanks that operates in the waters of 
the United States or waters of the contiguous zone, except as excluded 
by statute or regulation. Pursuant to the VIDA in CWA Section 
312(p)(2)(B)(ii), the proposed rule would exclude the following five 
discharges from the CWA Section 312(p) ballast water standards.
A. Vessels That Continuously Take on and Discharge Ballast Water in a 
Flow-Through System
    The proposed rule would exclude discharges of ballast water from a 
vessel that continuously takes on and discharges ballast water in a 
flow-through system, if the Administrator determines that the system 
cannot materially contribute to the spread or introduction of an ANS 
from ballast water into waters of the United States or the contiguous 
zone, acknowledging that such a flow-through system may have additional 
areas on the hull (e.g., niches) requiring more rigorous biofouling 
management. EPA is unaware of any such vessels currently in commercial 
operation, but theoretically a vessel could be designed to have ambient 
water flow through the hull for vessel stability without retaining any 
of that water in such a way that it would be transported. Should any 
such vessel begin commercial operation, EPA expects that it would 
evaluate the ballasting configuration to determine if the vessel meets 
the statutory description, in which case it would be excluded from the 
ballast water discharge standards. In that instance, the Administrator 
would notify the vessel owner or operator of such a determination. [33 
U.S.C. 1322(p)(2)(B)(ii)(I)]
B. Vessels in the National Defense Reserve Fleet Scheduled for Disposal
    The proposed rule would exclude discharges of ballast water from a 
vessel that is in the National Defense Reserve Fleet that is scheduled 
for disposal, if the vessel does not have an operable ballast water 
management system.
C. Vessels Discharging Ballast Water Consisting Solely of Water Meeting 
the Safe Drinking Water Act Requirements
    The existing USCG regulations (33 CFR 151.2025) allow vessels to 
use, as ballast water, water from a U.S. public water system (PWS), as 
defined in 40 CFR 141.2, that meets the requirements of the Safe 
Drinking Water Act (SDWA) at 40 CFR parts 141 and 143. In plain terms, 
this means finished, potable water as opposed to untreated water that 
is owned or operated by a PWS but not necessarily potable. Those USCG 
regulations specify that vessels using water from a PWS as ballast must 
maintain a record of which PWS they received the water from as well as 
a receipt, invoice, or other documentation from the PWS indicating that 
water came from that system. Furthermore, vessels must certify that the 
ballast tanks have either previously cleaned (including removing all 
residual sediments) and not subsequently introduced ambient water, or 
never introduced ambient water to those tanks and supply lines. The 
existing EPA requirements in the VGP similarly allow vessels to use 
water, not only from a U.S. public water system, but also from a 
Canadian drinking water system, as defined in Health Canada's 
Guidelines for Canadian Drinking Water Quality.
    As specified by Congress in the VIDA, the proposed rule would 
exclude a vessel that discharges ballast water consisting solely of 
water taken onboard from a public or commercial source that, at the 
time the water is taken onboard, meets the applicable requirements of 
the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) (42 U.S.C. 300f et seq.) at 40 CFR 
parts 141 and 143. As provided in the existing VGP, EPA proposes that 
this exclusion also applies to water taken on board that meets Health 
Canada's Guidelines for Canadian Drinking Water Quality because EPA has 
evaluated these Guidelines and found them to be consistent with the 
applicable requirements of the SDWA. Canada's drinking water treatment 
processes

[[Page 67834]]

require a high degree of disinfection and, in many cases filtration, 
which would make the likelihood of loading ANS into a vessel's ballast 
tank highly unlikely. Further, as under existing requirements, EPA 
proposes that this exclusion applies only if the ballast tanks have 
either been previously cleaned (including removing all residual 
sediments) and not subsequently loaded with ambient water; or, if the 
ambient water has never been introduced to the ballast tanks and supply 
lines. Note that EPA considered whether use of a potable water 
generator installed onboard the vessel should be covered under this 
exclusion; however, pursuant to CWA Section 312(p), this exclusion is 
only available to ballast water that is taken onboard from a public or 
commercial source that is compliant with SDWA requirements at the time 
it is taken aboard the vessel (U.S. EPA, 2015).
D. Vessels Carrying All Permanent Ballast Water in Sealed Tanks
    The proposed rule would exclude discharges of ballast water from a 
vessel that carries all permanent ballast water in sealed tanks that 
are not subject to discharge. This exclusion is consistent with the 
previous requirements of the VGP and was specified by Congress under 
the VIDA.
    This exclusion is different from the proposed ballast water 
exchange and saltwater flushing exemptions (described in VIII.B.1.ix. 
Ballast Water Exchange and Saltwater Flushing) for ballast contained in 
sealed tanks, which EPA proposes to be for ballast tanks that are not 
permanently sealed.
E. Vessels Discharging Ballast Water Into a Reception Facility
    The proposed rule would exclude discharges of ballast water from a 
vessel that only discharges ballast water into a reception facility 
(which could include another vessel for the purpose of storing or 
treating that ballast water). This exclusion would carry forward the 
existing VGP requirements and USCG regulation (33 CFR 151.2025) that 
allow discharges to a reception facility as an eligible ballast water 
management method. In such instances, once the ballast water is 
offloaded to a reception facility, that ballast water would be subject 
to regulation if discharged from that facility. Consistent with the 
rationale provided in the VGP fact sheet, EPA would continue to expect 
that all vessel piping and supporting infrastructure up to the last 
manifold or valve immediately before the reception facility manifold 
connection, or similar appurtenance, prevent untreated ballast water 
from being discharged. Any such discharge not meeting this requirement 
would be expected to meet the discharge standards in the proposed rule.
iii. Exclusion Not Continued From Existing USCG Regulations for Crude 
Oil Tankers
    Crude oil tankers engaged in coastwise trade are excluded from the 
existing USCG regulation (33 CFR 151.2015(b)), consistent with Section 
1101(c)(2)(L) of the National Invasive Species Act of 1996 (16 U.S.C. 
4711). However, these same vessels are not excluded from meeting the 
ballast water requirements in the VGP and are not exempted under the 
VIDA. Therefore, pursuant to CWA Section 312(p)(4)(B)(iii), which 
requires this proposed rule to be at least as stringent than specified 
parts of the VGP, EPA proposes that crude oil tankers engaged in 
coastwise trade not be excluded from meeting the ballast water 
requirements set forth in the proposed rule. Such vessels are not 
inherently unable to perform ballast water exchanges and other ANS 
management practices that their currently non-exempt counterparts 
routinely carry out. EPA expects this proposal to impose no additional 
costs given that the requirements are presently in effect under the 
VGP.
iv. Ballast Water Best Management Practices (BMPs)
    Pursuant to CWA Section 312(p)(4)(B)(ii), EPA is proposing BMPs to 
control or abate ballast water discharges from all vessels equipped 
with ballast tanks. Following the requirement of the VIDA that EPA 
requirements must not be less stringent than the VGP unless a less 
stringent requirement is justified, EPA proposes to retain many of the 
BMPs in the VGP as they were designed to reduce the number of living 
organisms taken up and discharged in ballast water. At present, these 
BMPs are widely followed and implemented, thus technologically 
available and economically achievable. They have no unacceptable non-
water quality environmental impacts (e.g., energy requirements, air 
impacts, solid waste impacts, and changes in waters use). They are 
proposed to be carried forward from both the existing EPA requirements 
in the VGP and USCG regulations (33 CFR part 151 subpart D). Discussion 
of BMPs not proposed to be carried forward from the VGP and USCG 
regulations is included in VIII.B.1.iv.H. Best Management Practices Not 
Continued from Existing Requirements. The proposed BMPs are described 
below.
A. Clean Ballast Tanks Regularly
    As required under the VGP and USCG regulations, the proposed rule 
would require ballast tanks to be flushed regularly and cleaned 
thoroughly at every scheduled drydock to remove sediment and biofouling 
organisms. Residual sediment left in ballast tanks can negatively 
affect the ability of a vessel to meet discharge standards, even when a 
ballast water management system (BWMS) is properly operated and 
maintained. Such sediments may pose a risk of spreading ANS as 
organisms can survive in ballast sediment for prolonged periods of time 
in resting stages.
B. Use High Sea Suction
    Consistent with EPA requirements under the VGP, the proposed rule 
would require that, when practicable and available, high sea suction 
sea chests must be used when at a port or where clearance to the bottom 
of the waterbody is less than 5 meters to the lower edge of the sea 
chest. As an example of when use of high sea suction may not be 
practicable is to avoid ice or algae, or other biofilm on the water 
surface. This BMP minimizes the potential for uptake of bottom-dwelling 
organisms, suspended solids, particulate organic carbon, and turbidity 
into the ballast tanks.
C. Use Ballast Water Pumps When in a Port
    As previously required under the VGP, the proposed rule would 
require that when practicable, ballast water must be discharged in port 
using pumps rather than using gravity to drain tanks. This BMP has been 
shown to increase the mortality rate of living organisms in the ballast 
water during discharge, particularly zooplankton and other larger 
organisms, that would otherwise be discharged, given the physical 
action of the pumps (e.g., cavitation, entrainment, and/or 
impingement).
D. Maintain Sea Chest Screens
    The proposed rule would require that the sea chest screen(s) must 
be maintained and fully intact. This BMP is consistent with an EPA 
requirement under the VGP for existing bulk carriers operating 
exclusively in the Laurentian Great Lakes, also known as ``Lakers,'' 
but EPA proposes to expand it to all vessels with ballast tanks. These 
screens are designed to keep the largest living organisms, such as 
fish, as well as bacteria and viruses associated with these organisms, 
out of ballast tanks.

[[Page 67835]]

This BMP may reduce the risk of spreading ANS. Adequately maintaining 
sea chest screens is a simple technology-based practice that is 
available, economically achievable, and beneficial to all vessels to 
reduce the threat of ANS dispersal.
E. Prohibit Ballast Tank Cleaning Discharges
    As described above, the proposed rule would require ballast tanks 
to be periodically flushed and cleaned to remove sediment and 
biofouling organisms; however, the proposed rule also would prohibit 
the discharge of residual sediment or water from ballast tank 
cleanings. Rather, these wastes should be disposed of in accordance 
with any applicable local, state, and federal regulations, which are 
outside of the scope of this proposed rule.
F. Avoid Ballast Water Discharge or Uptake in Areas With Coral Reefs
    The proposed rule would require vessel owners and operators to 
avoid the discharge or uptake of ballast water in areas with coral 
reefs. This BMP is consistent with the VGP requirements. The VGP also 
included similar prohibitions for ``marine sanctuaries, marine 
preserves, marine parks, . . . or other waters'' listed in Appendix G. 
The proposed rule also would prohibit the discharge and uptake of 
ballast water in those areas but under a separate section of the 
proposed rule specific to activities in federally-protected waters as 
described in VIII.B.1.xiii. Additional Considerations in Federally-
Protected Waters.
    Further, consistent with a USCG Marine Safety Information Bulletin 
(Ballast Water Best Management Practices to Reduce the Likelihood of 
Transporting Pathogens That May Spread Stony Coral Tissue Loss Disease; 
Marine Safety Information Bulletin, OES-MSIB Number: 07-19, September 
6, 2019), ballast water discharges should be conducted as far from 
coral reefs as possible, regardless of whether the reef is inside or 
outside of 12 NM from shore (USCG, 2019a).
    EPA is seeking input for the development of the final rule 
regarding: (1) How best to define areas with coral reefs, and (2) 
public availability of navigational charts that can be used for 
identifying areas with coral reefs.
G. Develop a Ballast Water Management Plan
    Like the previous requirements of the VGP and the USCG regulations, 
the proposed rule would require that any vessel with one or more 
ballast tanks develop and follow a vessel-specific ballast water 
management plan (BWMP) to minimize the potential for the introduction 
and spread of ANS. Such a BWMP should employ a holistic strategy that 
considers the operational profile of the vessel and the appropriate 
ballast water management practices and systems. Details of such a plan 
will be detailed in the corresponding implementation regulation to be 
promulgated by the Secretary as specified in section 139.1(e) of the 
proposed rule.
H. Best Management Practices Not Continued From Existing Requirements
    The proposed rule would not include one BMP that is currently 
included as a measure in both the VGP and USCG regulations at 33 CFR 
part 151 subparts C and D. These practices were adopted from the 
voluntary ``Code of Best Practices for Ballast Water Management'' of 
the Shipping Federation of Canada dated September 28, 2000, for vessels 
operating in the Great Lakes and St. Lawrence Seaway and codified in 
the VGP and USCG regulations (Shipping Federal of Canada, 2000).
    EPA proposes not to continue the requirement that vessel operators 
must minimize or avoid uptake of ballast water in the following areas 
and situations:
     Areas known to have infestations or populations of harmful 
organisms and pathogens (e.g., toxic algal blooms);
     Areas near sewage outfalls;
     Areas near dredging operations;
     Areas where tidal flushing is known to be poor or times 
when a tidal stream is known to be turbid;
     In darkness, when bottom-dwelling organisms may rise in 
the water column
     Where propellers may stir up the sediment; and
     Areas with pods of whales, convergence zones, and 
boundaries of major currents.
    The proposed deletion is based on the finding that such measures 
are not practical to implement. These conditions are usually beyond the 
control of the vessel operator during the uptake and discharge of 
ballast water and thus it is not an available measure or practice to 
minimize or avoid uptake of ballast water in those areas and 
situations. 33 U.S.C. 1314(b)(2)(B). In lieu of these measures, the 
VIDA and the proposed rule contain several provisions that can help 
address some of the situations identified above. For example, in cases 
of a known outbreak of harmful algal blooms or viral hemorrhagic 
septicemia, a state can submit a petition to EPA or the USCG requesting 
EPA to issue an emergency order as provided for in CWA Section 
312(p)(7)(A)(i). The emergency order provision in the VIDA acknowledges 
that when a water quality or invasive species issue is identified in a 
geographic area, EPA will identify appropriate BMPs to address that 
concern and impose specific requirements on the universe of vessels 
(and potentially others) as necessary. 33 U.S.C. 1322(p)(4)(E)(i).
v. Numeric Ballast Water Discharge Standard
    Pursuant to CWA Section 312(p)(4)(B)(iii), the proposed rule would 
continue, as a numeric discharge standard, the numeric discharge 
limitations previously contained in the VGP, to include:
     For organisms greater than or equal to 50 micrometers in 
minimum dimension: Discharge must include less than 10 living organisms 
per cubic meter of ballast water.
     For organisms less than 50 micrometers and greater than or 
equal to 10 micrometers: Discharge must include less than 10 living 
organisms per milliliter (mL) of ballast water.
     Indicator microorganisms must not exceed:
    [cir] Toxicogenic Vibrio cholerae (serotypes O1 and O139): A 
concentration of less than 1 colony forming unit (cfu) per 100 mL.
    [cir] Escherichia coli: A concentration of less than 250 cfu per 
100 mL.
    [cir] Intestinal enterococci: A concentration of less than 100 cfu 
per 100 mL.
    The proposed rule would define ``living'' using the CWA Section 
312(p)(6)(D) clarification that the terms `live' and `living' shall not 
include an organism that has been rendered nonviable; or preclude the 
consideration of any method of measuring the concentration of organisms 
in ballast water that are capable of reproduction. However, it is 
important to recognize that as of the time of the proposed rule, the 
USCG has not identified any testing protocols, based on best available 
science, that are available for use to quantify nonviable organisms in 
ballast water. As such, compliance with the proposed discharge standard 
requires the use of test methods as detailed in the 2010 EPA Generic 
Protocol for the Verification of Ballast Water Treatment Technology 
that do not consider non-viable organisms as part of the test protocol. 
Should the USCG identify one or more testing protocols that enumerate 
nonviable organisms, such methods would be acceptable for demonstrating 
compliance with the proposed numeric

[[Page 67836]]

ballast water discharge standard (U.S. EPA, 2010).
    In addition, the proposed rule would continue the numeric discharge 
limitations as a numeric standard for four biocide parameters contained 
in the VGP, namely:
     For any BWMS using chlorine dioxide, the chlorine dioxide 
must not exceed 200 [micro]g/L;
     For any BWMS using chlorine or ozone, the total residual 
oxidizers must not exceed 100 [micro]g/L; and
     For any BWMS using peracetic acid, the peracetic acid must 
not exceed 500 [micro]g/L and the hydrogen peroxide must not exceed 
1,000 [micro]g/L.
    The standard for both the organisms and biocide parameters 
represents instantaneous maximum values not to be exceeded.
    The proposed rule would continue the requirement contained in the 
VGP and USCG regulations at 33 CFR part 151 that, prior to the 
compliance date for the vessel to meet the discharge standard, ballast 
water exchange must be conducted as required in section 139.10(e) of 
the proposed rule, or the applicable regional requirements in sections 
139.10(f) and 139.10(g) of the proposed rule, for any vessel subject to 
the ballast water discharge standard. As directed in the VIDA, the USCG 
will include requirements regarding compliance dates in its proposed 
regulation. 33 U.S.C. 1322(p)(5)(A)(iv).
A. BAT Rationale for Standard Pursuant to VIDA
1. Types of Ballast Water Management Systems Determined To Represent 
BAT
    The treatment technologies used for ballast water management 
representing BAT typically have three processes: Physical separation, 
disinfection, and neutralization. For physical separation, filtration 
is used most often as a pre-treatment by removing large organisms and 
particles (down to about 40-50 [micro]m) from ballast water. Filtration 
improves the efficiency of subsequent disinfection processes by 
lowering the amount of chemicals or ultraviolet (UV) light needed. 
Filtration is also important for chemical disinfection because 
chemicals are relatively ineffective against organisms buried in 
sediment, especially invertebrates in resting stages (U.S. EPA, 2011a).
    Disinfection is the effect of a chemical (e.g., an oxidant) or 
physical action (e.g., UV irradiation, heat, shear force, etc) that 
kills organisms or renders them no longer able to reproduce. The types 
of disinfection processes of a BWMS broadly includes UV radiation, 
electrochlorination, chemical addition, ozonation, heat and 
deoxygenation. Disinfection using UV radiation is currently the most 
common disinfection technology used in BWMS and is typically combined 
with filtration during ballasting. The UV light is emitted from a 
mercury arc lamp, and the rays transfer electromagnetic energy through 
the organism's cell membrane to chemically alter DNA in its nucleus 
which kills the organism or terminates its ability to reproduce. A UV-
based BWMS often includes a second round of UV treatment when 
deballasting.
    Electrochlorination (or electrolysis) systems are the second most 
common type of disinfection system used to treat ballast water. 
Electrochlorination creates hypochlorous acid, the active substance, by 
running an electric current through saltwater. The two primary 
requirements for treatment are a minimum salinity in the ambient water 
for the reaction to occur and a power source with direct current to run 
the electrolyzer. Two design options for electrochlorination systems 
are used in BWMS: In-line and side-stream treatment. Both systems 
undergo the same chemical reaction in an electrolyzer but vary in the 
concentrations of active substance created and in the volume of water 
dosed. Chemical addition (e.g., liquid sodium hypochlorite), ozonation, 
and deoxygenation are other types of ballast water disinfection 
technologies that have been developed and type-approved; although, use 
of these systems is far less common than UV and electrochlorination 
systems.
    Neutralization is the addition of a neutralizing agent that reacts 
with excess disinfection chemicals to eliminate their toxicity at 
discharge. Neutralization is an important step in chemical ballast 
water treatment to avoid excess chemicals, residual oxidizers, and 
disinfection by-products from entering and impairing the water at the 
point of discharge. As required in the 2013 VGP, the proposed rule 
includes a numeric standard for residual biocides which can be met 
through neutralization of treated ballast water.
2. Justification for the Numeric Ballast Water Discharge Standard
i. Type-Approval of Ballast Water Management Systems is a Well-
Established and Demonstrated Process for Selection of Technologies
    As a preliminary matter, EPA notes that the establishment of a 
ballast water discharge standard for vessels (both domestic and 
international) using technology based criteria pursuant to the CWA 
poses challenges that are not present for stationary facilities for 
which EPA routinely establishes national discharge effluent limitations 
guidelines and standards based on BAT under the effluent limitation 
guidelines program. Importantly, it is impractical to conduct routine 
monitoring and analysis of the discharged ballast water from vessels to 
assess the ability of an installed BWMS onboard a ship to meet the 
numerical discharge standard for biological parameters. Rather, the 
biological efficacy of any BWMS is best demonstrated through a series 
of land-based and shipboard trials performed specific to each BWMS. 
Such a system, when selected, installed, and operated consistent with 
the manufacturer's specifications, as tested in those land-based and 
shipboard trials, and ``type-approved'' by an Administration (i.e., the 
federal agency responsible for approvals) is then expected to meet the 
discharge standard for biological parameters in the proposed rule.
    The BWMS type-approval process was first developed as part of the 
IMO International Convention for the Control and Management of Ships' 
Ballast Water and Sediments (i.e., the BWM Convention), an 
international treaty developed with a goal of establishing an 
international standard for the management of ballast water (IMO, 2004). 
The BWM Convention was adopted in 2004 after more than 14 years of 
complex negotiations between IMO member states and entered into force 
in 2017, 12 months after ratification of the BWM Convention by a 
minimum of 30 member states, representing at least 35 percent of world 
merchant shipping tonnage. Regulation D-2 of that BWM Convention 
established the ballast water discharge performance standard as 
follows:
     Organisms greater than or equal to 50 micrometers in 
minimum dimension--less than 10 viable organisms per cubic meter;
     Organisms less than 50 micrometers in minimum dimension 
and greater than or equal to 10 micrometers in minimum dimension--less 
than 10 viable organisms per milliliter;
     Indicator microbes:
    [cir] Toxicogenic Vibrio cholerae (O1 and O139): Less than 1 colony 
forming unit (cfu) per 100 milliliters or less than 1 cfu per gram (wet 
weight) zooplankton samples;
    [cir] Escherichia coli: Less than 250 cfu per 100 milliliters; and
    [cir] Intestinal enterococci: Less than 100 cfu per 100 
milliliters.
    Regulation D-3 requires that any BWMS used to meet the standard be 
approved in accordance with specific IMO procedures, which had 
initially

[[Page 67837]]

been adopted as guidelines (Guidelines for Approval of Ballast Water 
Management Systems, or more commonly referred to as ``G8'' for being 
the eighth in a series of BWM Convention guidelines) but subsequently 
adopted into the BWM Convention as mandatory (IMO, 2008; IMO, 2016). 
The approval process includes detailed requirements for BWMS vendors to 
submit BWMS for both land-based and shipboard testing by independent 
third-party test facilities to demonstrate that the BWMS can meet the 
D-2 standard following technical specifications detailed in the Code 
for Approval of Ballast Water Management Systems (BWMS Code, Resolution 
MEPC.300(72; 13 April 2018, effective October 13, 2019) (IMO, 2018a). 
Upon a successful demonstration that a BWMS can meet the D-2 standard, 
such a system is approved (``type-approved'') for use onboard a ship. 
Adoption of the BWM Convention in 2004 prompted development of ballast 
water management systems (BWMS) that could demonstrate compliance with 
the D-2 standard. In this approach, unlike how EPA develops effluent 
limitations guidelines and standards based on demonstrated treatment 
system effectiveness, the BWM Convention establishes a standard, then 
vendors develop systems to be demonstrated and approved as meeting that 
standard. As of October 2019, the IMO recognizes 80 BWMS approved by 
one or more administrations as capable of meeting the D-2 standard 
(IMO, 2019).
    While the United States is not party to the BWM Convention, the 
USCG developed domestic regulations with the intent to harmonize as 
closely as possible with the adopted BWM Convention, and established a 
discharge standard to be met using a BWMS that has been demonstrated as 
capable of meeting that standard through a USCG type-approval process. 
Criteria for the USCG type-approval are detailed in regulations at 46 
CFR 162.060, Ballast Water Management Systems and address BWMS design, 
installation, operation, and testing to ensure any type-approved system 
meets both performance and safety standards. The USCG type-approval 
testing requirements were widely accepted as having been more complex 
and rigorous than those of the IMO (although this is not necessarily 
still the case since adoption of the BWMS Code). The USCG regulations 
provide for temporary use of foreign type-approved BWMS in the United 
States for up to five years after the vessel is required to comply with 
the ballast water discharge standard.
    Type-approval is a critical step in verifying that a BWMS, when 
tested under standardized and relatively challenging conditions, is 
capable of consistently meeting the discharge standard. In the USCG 
type-approval testing process to determine biological efficacy, careful 
analyses are employed to (1) assure the source water for testing meets 
a threshold concentration of organisms to meaningfully challenge the 
BWMS, and (2) to quantify (ideally, sparse) concentrations of living 
organisms in treated and untreated (i.e., control) discharge water. As 
part of its type-approval procedure, the USCG regulations require BWMS 
land-based testing to be conducted pursuant to the ETV Protocol (i.e., 
the 2010 Generic Protocol for the Verification of Ballast Water 
Treatment Technology, developed under the now defunct EPA Environmental 
Technology Verification Program) that outlined the experimental design, 
sampling and analysis protocols, test, and reporting requirements (U.S. 
EPA, 2010).
    The USCG type-approval process contrasts with the typical approach 
when EPA develops a numeric discharge effluent limitations guideline or 
standard under the effluent limitation guidelines program. There, EPA 
does not also specify the technology that must be used; rather, EPA 
identifies one or more technologies that have been demonstrated as 
being capable of meeting the discharge standard and the discharger 
selects one of those technologies. EPA typically establishes numeric 
effluent discharge limits based on a daily maximum and long-term (i.e., 
monthly) average to reflect pollution control that reflects BAT, 
including accounting for variability at well-operated systems. 
Compliance with such effluent limits is demonstrated through routine 
self-monitoring by the discharger. Because of the challenges with 
collecting and testing representative samples of ballast water at the 
time of discharge, regulating discharged ballast water sourced from 
around the world has required a different approach. Namely, EPA adopted 
the USCG and IMO approach over the last decade by not only setting the 
numeric discharge limitations, but also specifying the technologies 
deemed to meet the limitations through the type-approval process. 
Currently, for vessels operating in waters of the United States and 
contiguous zones, compliance with the key biological parameters (i.e., 
organisms in the 10-50 microns and greater than 50 microns ranges) is 
achieved largely through demonstrating that any installed BWMS is 
operated and maintained consistent with the criteria under which that 
system received USCG type-approval, acknowledging that discharges are 
required to meet the discharge standard as well.
    The proposed ballast water discharge standard reflects EPA's BAT 
analysis that any USCG type-approved BWMS kill, render harmless, or 
remove living organisms from ballast water. These approved technologies 
have been demonstrated to achieve the existing requirements, and 
therefore are technologically available; for the reasons set out in the 
2013 VGP Fact Sheet, they are also economically achievable and have no 
unacceptable non-water quality environmental impacts. The USCG type-
approved its first BWMS in 2016 and to date, more than two dozen 
systems have received USCG type-approval (USCG, 2019).
ii. International Nature of Vessel Operations Dictates Consideration of 
IMO Discharge Standard
    When developing the VGP, EPA established the numeric ballast water 
effluent limits equivalent to the standard in the USCG regulations (33 
CFR 151.1511 and 151.2030) and generally consistent with the BWM 
Convention. In establishing those effluent limits, EPA demonstrated it 
was critical to consider that BWM Convention. As described above, the 
United States is not a party to the BWM Convention; however, both the 
USCG (serving as the lead for the U.S. delegation) and EPA were 
actively involved in the standard setting discussions that led to the 
BWM Convention numeric discharge standard which entered into force in 
September 2017. Worldwide, it is estimated that approximately 34,000-
70,000 commercial vessels are required to meet a ballast water 
discharge standard (IMO, 2016a; King and Hagan, 2013). Vessels from IMO 
member countries that have signed onto the BWM Convention are required 
to comply with both the BWM Convention and U.S. ballast water 
regulations when operating in U.S. waters. Similarly, U.S.-flagged 
vessels must meet the BWM Convention requirements when operating in any 
countries that are a signatory of that BWM Convention (e.g., a U.S.-
flagged vessel will be required to comply with Canadian regulations 
developed pursuant to the BWM Convention when in Canadian waters).
    Based on the most recent five years of VGP annual reports submitted 
to EPA, over 75 percent of vessels discharging ballast water spent 25 
percent or less of

[[Page 67838]]

their time (and nearly 60 percent of those vessels that discharged 
ballast water spent less than 10 percent of their time) operating in 
waters of the United States or waters of the contiguous zone (U.S. EPA, 
2020). As of October 31, 2019, 81 IMO member countries representing 
more than 80 percent of the world merchant fleet by tonnage have 
ratified the BWM Convention, thus requiring vessels either flying the 
flag of those countries or operating in those countries to comply with 
that BWM Convention (IMO, 2020). Thus, vessels comprising 80 percent of 
the world merchant fleet by tonnage are obligated to comply with the 
BWM Convention anywhere they operate in the world, including while 
operating in the United States. The movement of vessels through 
international waters, the need to comply with any international 
pollution control standard, and the great variability in source water 
quality among all the ports where vessels operate presents process and 
engineering challenges that are unique to the vessel community. This is 
particularly true of BWMS where the physical scale of such systems 
relative to the vessels themselves often makes it impossible to 
accommodate redundant systems or potentially even two different systems 
to be used depending on where the vessel may be ballasting. These 
practical challenges relate to the technical availability of such 
requirements where the relationship between U.S. and other 
international requirements may limit the ability of the vessel to 
select and install technologies capable of complying with multiple sets 
of requirements where that vessel is intending to voyage. With that in 
mind, it is important that EPA considers the implications for the 
entire universe of vessels that may operate in waters of the U.S. and 
waters of the contiguous zone. So, while the U.S. requirements do not 
have to be identical to the BWM Convention, it is important that, to 
the extent possible, U.S. requirements do not conflict with 
international obligations for the vessels of flag states that have 
signed onto that BWM Convention.
    In 2015, in Nat. Res. Def. Council, et al. v. U.S. Envtl. Prot. 
Agency, et al., 808 F.3d 556 (2d Cir. 2015), the United States Court of 
Appeals for the Second Circuit found, among other things, that EPA 
acted arbitrarily and capriciously in the 2013 VGP because EPA failed 
to address why it did not select technologies that could have resulted 
in a more stringent limitation than the technologies underlying the IMO 
Standard. The court stated that there are shipboard technologies 
capable of surpassing the international standard and that EPA failed to 
demonstrate why limits based on these technologies were not considered. 
The information cited by the court is the 2011 Science Advisory Board 
(SAB) report that showed that nine BWMS representing five types of 
systems had data generated during their IMO type-approval testing 
demonstrating that these systems can meet a standard between the IMO/
USCG standard and 10 times the standard for one or more organism sizes 
(U.S. EPA, 2011b).
    Establishing a discharge standard necessarily based on the most 
stringent of type-approved systems, as implied by the court's decision, 
is not required where mitigated by one of the factors relevant to BAT 
under CWA Section 304(b), therefore EPA does not believe the Second 
Circuit's decision must dictate the outcome of the agency's analysis. 
As discussed above, the BAT factors, particularly with respect to 
process considerations and engineering challenges, weigh in favor of 
maintaining the proposed ballast water standard at a level of 
consistency with the IMO standard. This is not to say that U.S. 
requirements must or should always be identical with the international 
standard. However, particularly for ballast water discharges, which are 
frequently significant in scale and expensive to control and which are 
intrinsic to the long-distance movement of vessels through 
international waters, EPA places value on being consistent with 
international obligations, when reasonably possible, in establishing 
BAT. Here, it is neither reasonable nor appropriate for the universe of 
vessels that would be regulated under the proposed ballast water 
discharge standard to not consider the international obligations for 
those vessels. The current world economic and trade system is 
predicated on timely and efficient maritime transportation, a 
significant proportion of which operates globally where trade takes it. 
Many of the vessels that are subject to the U.S. discharge standard 
spend most of their time outside of waters of the United States and 
waters of the contiguous zone, are operating under international 
ballast water obligations, which for the most part is the IMO standard 
established in the BWM Convention.
    The record for this proposed rulemaking demonstrates that the 
proposed standard reflects BAT in that the current technology, USCG 
type-approved BWMS, are technologically available, safe, effective, 
reliable, and commercially available for shipboard installation. Also, 
the record indicates that their use is economically achievable. These 
technologies have been shown (i.e., through shipboard type approval 
testing) to substantially reduce the concentration of living organisms 
in ballast water discharges (and achieve the IMO and USCG/EPA discharge 
standards) compared to mid-ocean exchange or discharges of unexchanged 
ballast water.
iii. Proposed Standard Accounts for Multiple Sources of Variability
    The proposed standard successfully accounts for various sources of 
variability inherent in addressing ANS in ballast water, including:
     Vessel size, operational profile (e.g., voyage lengths, 
volumes of ballast water, ballast water flow rates, etc.) and class and 
flag state;
     Ballast water management system (BWMS) performance in 
diverse environments; and
     Discharge monitoring (i.e., sampling and analysis).
    This variability in addressing ANS dictates that different BWMS 
options are needed to account for differences in vessels such as 
different voyage patterns (in marine, brackish, or fresh waters), 
ballasting rates, architectural characteristics of the vessel such as 
space constraints or the need to locate the BWMS in a hazardous 
location onboard the vessel, and BWMS vendor support availability at 
locations around the world where that vessel intends to voyage. That 
is, a BWMS that is technically and operationally appropriate for one 
vessel may not be so appropriate for a different vessel, or even a 
similar vessel with a different operating profile. EPA analysis for the 
proposed rule is based on a similar determination that a wide range of 
available systems is necessary to accommodate technical and operational 
differences of varying vessel types, sizes, operating profiles, classes 
and flag states. The existing discharge standard has promoted through 
the type-approval process a range of types of BWMS disinfection 
technologies (including UV, electrochlorination, chemical addition, 
ozonation, and deoxygenation) that operate under a wide range of 
conditions allowing vessel operators to select a system that is most 
appropriate for that vessel, considering factors such as:
     The vessel's ballast tank(s), pump(s), and piping 
configuration;
     Temperature, salinity, and turbidity range of uptake water 
in areas where the vessel voyages;
     Duration of voyages and segments of each voyage that can 
affect the

[[Page 67839]]

necessary holding time for certain systems;
     Ballast water capacity and required uptake and discharge 
pumping rates;
     Treatment system weight and space considerations, 
including accessibility and acceptability for use in hazardous spaces;
     Availability of service, support, replacement parts, 
supplies, etc. in areas where the vessel voyages;
     Compatibility of treatment with vessel construction (e.g., 
corrosivity concerns);
     Power demand and energy consumption to pump ballast and 
operate treatment system; and
     Safety concerns (e.g., explosivity risks, particularly on 
oil and chemical carriers).
    Certain systems may be more advantageous for certain types of 
vessels. For example, the choice of many shipowners may be limited to 
UV systems as compared to chemical-based systems for those vessels that 
operate in ports around the world that ban or impose very low discharge 
limits on certain hazardous chemicals (i.e., treatment chemicals) used 
by certain BWMS. In addition, it may be difficult or impossible for a 
vessel operator to obtain specific chemicals for certain BWMS in 
certain ports around the world. Similarly, a vessel owner may choose a 
chemical-based system because they do not have the electrical 
generation capacity (or room to add such capacity) onboard to support a 
UV system. Shipowners' decisions may also be based on the ease of 
operational and maintenance requirements. As such, it is critical that 
a range of BWMS be available to the global shipping industry to reduce 
ANS discharge under a variety of operational and environmental 
conditions.
    Variability is inherent to all well-operated treatment systems. 
When EPA establishes BAT, it must consider the variability at a well-
operated treatment system to ensure that the standard is 
technologically available. EPA's approach to providing for some 
variability for well-operated systems in establishing BAT limits in 
effluent limitations guidelines rulemakings has been upheld by the 
courts several times. See for example, Nat'l Wildlife Fed'n v. U.S. 
Envtl. Prot. Agency, 286 F.3d 554, 572 (D.C. Cir. 2002), which upheld 
EPA's decision to set the monthly average at the 95th percentile by 
stating that EPA has considerable discretion in determining a technical 
approach that will ensure that the effluent limitations reasonably 
account for the expected variability in plant operations while still 
maintaining an effective level of control. See also Chemical Mfrs. 
Ass'n v. EPA, 870 F.2d 177, 229 (5th Cir. 1989), where it is upheld 
that the purpose of these variability factors is to account for routine 
fluctuations that occur in plant operation, not to allow poor 
performance. As is typically the case in the effluent guidelines 
program, operators design pollution control systems to achieve results 
below the discharge standard on a long-term basis to account for normal 
variability at well-operated systems.
    The goal of the USCG type-approval process is to demonstrate that a 
BWMS can treat ballast water such that organism concentrations in 
discharged water are sufficiently low to meet the discharge standard 
(e.g., less than 10 organisms per cubic meter of ballast water as an 
instantaneous maximum) for a given number of consecutive valid tests. 
The individual test results are reflective of the conditions of the 
water quality at the land-based and ship-based testing facility at the 
time. The type-approval process acknowledges that there will be 
variability in how systems are tested but establishes an instantaneous 
maximum value to verify BWMS performance using a set of challenging, 
but not rare, water quality conditions representative of the natural 
environment. Comparing type-approval data for different systems would 
only be appropriate if all other variables were held constant or under 
complete control during the test. However, that is not the case. For 
example, as required in the USCG type-approval process, shipboard 
testing occurs on systems for a period of six months in the locations 
where that vessel voyages during that time period, regardless of where 
else that vessel has voyaged or plans to voyage in the future. As such, 
the test results illustrate that BWMS manufacturers are having systems 
tested in a variety of environmental conditions and locations around 
the world, all with the goal of demonstrating that the BWMS can 
consistently meet, not necessarily exceed, the IMO discharge standard. 
Demonstrating a system can achieve this discharge standard regardless 
of the environmental factors is the standard by which the USCG 
evaluates these systems. [46 CFR 162.060-10(f)(2)]. To do otherwise is 
to unfairly favor systems that may have had more favorable test 
conditions.
    Multiple sources of variability exist in type-approval sampling and 
analysis that also affects the results of type-approval testing. For 
example, stratification in ballast tanks, variability between tanks, 
flow rates, and contamination in uptake and discharge pipes are just a 
few of the considerations that may impact type-approval testing. It is 
also a challenge to capture and count appropriately sized organisms and 
to collect samples such that the sample collection process does not 
physically damage or kill these organisms (which should be counted as 
dead or nonviable only if such happens as a result of the BWMS, not 
because of poor sample collection and handling practices). Currently, 
the ETV Protocol is an EPA and USCG accepted method to evaluate the 
performance characteristics of commercial-ready BWMS regarding factors 
such as biological treatment performance, predictability/reliability, 
cost, environmental acceptability, and safety. Based on the ETV 
Protocol, the determination of the concentration of living organisms in 
treated water is done through manual microscope counts by trained 
microscopists.
    The sources of uncertainty are systematic error, which is the loss 
of organisms during sampling and processing, which can be substantial, 
and random error, which is the difference in organism counts among 
analysts and among replicate subsamples, as well as variability across 
measurements of sample volumes. Counting organisms within a size class 
under a microscope is also challenging. For one, it is difficult to 
evaluate and count dormant or immotile organisms. Also, organisms can 
have a wide variety of shapes making it difficult to assign to a size 
class. For example, phytoplankton (organisms in the 10-50 micron size 
class) may be combined in chains or radially and may be either 
symmetrical or asymmetrical. Also, sizing generally is to be based on 
the minimum diameter of width of the cell except for things such as 
spikes, hair, or appendages. The Second Circuit recognized and upheld 
an EPA rule that considers the margin of error inherent in measuring 
aquatic organisms to allow for a standard that is not equivalent to 
also represent the same level of control. See for example, Riverkeeper, 
Inc. v. U.S. Envtl. Prot. Agency, 358 F.3d 174, 188-89 (2d Cir. 2004) 
upholding EPA's Track II requirements allowing for ``substantially 
similar'' reductions in impingement and entrainment at new facility 
cooling water intake structures as not a less stringent standard but 
the same standard accounting for the measurement margin of error when 
measuring in the natural environment.
    In the case of ballast water, the operators experience even greater 
variability than would exist at a shoreside facility subject to a 
typical effluent guideline because, rather than the numeric discharge 
standard being a

[[Page 67840]]

long-term or monthly average, that standard is based on an 
instantaneous maximum standard, never to be exceeded, which is the unit 
of time selected for compliance monitoring because of the challenges 
associated with monitoring, despite varying turbidity, salinity, 
temperatures and other environmental factors. Vessel owners may have to 
modify vessel operations to ensure ballast water treatment requirements 
do not exceed the limitations of the BWMS. BWMS manufacturers must 
account for these two conflicting challenges--continuous compliance and 
inherent variability--in their system design and operation. Vendors 
accomplish this by (1) designing their systems to achieve long-term 
average discharge concentrations that are lower than the numeric 
discharge standard, and (2) adequately controlling for variation in 
BWMS performance. Designing a system to meet an instantaneous maximum 
requires even a higher level of control than that necessary to meet a 
daily maximum. Designing and operating BWMS to consistently achieve 
levels close to the numeric discharge standard is poor practice because 
even relatively slight variability would result in a high rate of non-
compliance with the instantaneous maximum numeric discharge standard 
(and would not pass the USCG type-approval testing process). This 
partially explains why some of the test results described by the Second 
Circuit Court decision on the VGP were lower than the current standard. 
Nat. Res. Def. Council v. U.S. Envtl. Prot. Agency, 808 F.3d 566, 570 
n.11 (2d Cir. 2015). EPA recognizes that variability in performance 
around the long-term average occurs during normal operations, and that 
at times even well-operated BWMS will discharge at a level that is 
higher than the long-term average performance.
iv. Proposed Standard Provides a High Level of Pollutant Reduction
    The record demonstrates that the proposed standard reflects BAT in 
that the current technology, USCG type-approved BWMS, are 
technologically available, safe, effective, reliable, and commercially 
available for shipboard installation. Also, the record indicates that 
their use is economically achievable. These technologies have shown to 
substantially reduce the concentration of living organisms in ballast 
water discharges as necessary to meet the discharge standard, beyond 
the reduction achieved through mid-ocean exchange or unexchanged 
ballast water.
    Specifically, the current standard of 10 organisms per the 
specified volume of ballast water for the two organism size classes 
reflects BAT and the current technology basis, use of a USCG type-
approved BWMS, effectively removes ANS from ballast water. The Golden 
Bear Research Center at the California State University Maritime 
Academy, a university-government-industry partnership that provides 
shipboard testing of commercial ballast water treatment technologies, 
recently found BWMS that meet the proposed standard to be highly 
efficient, achieving several log reductions in pollutant loadings. In 
2018, the Center compiled over 100 side-by-side comparisons of the 
concentrations of ``living'' organisms pumped into their test facility 
during both land-based and shipboard tests in relation to the final 
discharge concentration of living organisms after ballast treatment. 
The order of magnitude of reduction of organisms ranged from 1,000 to 
over 1,000,000 times; more than half of the comparisons fell in the 
range 100,000 to 1,000,000 times, or, using the terminology of food and 
drinking water management, a 5-log to 6-log reduction in targeted 
organisms (in the log10 scale). In fact, the actual reduction is likely 
larger because the data were conservatively calculated using fixed 
minimum detection levels in treated water even when no live organisms 
were observed at all. This evaluation demonstrates that type-approved 
BWMS that are designed to meet the proposed standard are highly 
efficient, achieving several log reductions in pollutant loadings. This 
level of organism reduction approaches and even exceeds the stringency 
required in drinking water testing and food management practices 
(Golden Bear, 2018).
3. Available Information Does Not Justify a More Stringent Discharge 
Standard
i. Data Quality of IMO BWMS Type-Approval Data Are Inadequate for BAT 
Evaluation
    EPA carefully considered the IMO BWMS test data in the 2011 SAB 
report that the Second Circuit Court referenced in its decision on the 
VGP as evidence of BWMS capability, but finds they lack the necessary 
quality for EPA to develop a revised, more stringent standard for two 
reasons. Nat. Res. Def. Council v. U.S. Envtl. Prot. Agency, 808 F.3d 
566, 570 (2d Cir. 2015). First, the data packages used in the SAB 
report were from ballast water management system vendors for their IMO 
type-approval packages developed under the original Guidelines for 
Approval of Ballast Water Management Systems (G8) adopted in 2005 and 
revised in 2008 (IMO, 2008). The SAB panel, in response to Charge 
Question 1, concluded that the BWMS tested under the IMO ``will likely 
meet USCG Phase I standards.'' In fact, after the SAB report, the USCG 
found that not to be the case. Further, every vendor with a BWMS 
requesting USCG type-approval has had to undergo a new round of testing 
to demonstrate system performance to the satisfaction of the USCG. The 
IMO has since updated, and codified, new type approval test 
requirements (IMO, 2018a) that entered into effect in 2019 and address 
many of the quality issues that limited the reliability of the IMO 
type-approval data for evaluating BWMS performance.
    Second, although the SAB panel determined that nine BWMS 
representing five BWMS categories had reliable data, they did not fully 
assess data quality. Instead, the SAB panel made a critical assumption 
that all protocols and methods were followed exactly as described, 
regardless of the presence or absence of Quality Assurance/Quality 
Control (QA/QC) procedures and documentation. Therefore, any use of the 
findings of the SAB panel must consider this lack of quality 
assessment. While the USCG does accept IMO data packages for its 
Alternate Management System (AMS) program, importantly, the 
requirements for the USCG BWMS type-approval testing require a 
different type of testing and a higher level of QA/QC than that 
required by the IMO until the recent entry into effect of the BWMS 
Code.
    As part of the analysis for the proposed rule, EPA conducted an 
independent review of BWMS performance and data quality. EPA developed 
a rating system to provide an objective method for determining whether 
available performance data are of acceptable quality for development of 
the proposed standard. EPA found that most of the IMO data packages 
lacked information on test-specific Quality Management Plans, Quality 
Assurance Project Plans, and individual test results. Average data 
results were frequently submitted without specific sample dates or 
reporting of the individual results. While the quality of data improved 
over time, many reports did not contain adequate information on field 
replicate samples used for QA/QC measures or actual BWMS flow rates at 
the time of samples. Also, and importantly, the IMO G8 guidelines 
required five successful land-based tests as part of the type-approval 
process regardless of how many tests were conducted to achieve those 
five successful tests. Thus, for example, a

[[Page 67841]]

system that passed five land-based tests but also failed five tests 
would be considered to have a successful land-based test for type-
approval. The IMO did recently revise the G8 guidelines to address this 
issue. Now, as codified in the BWMS Code, five successful consecutive 
land-based tests demonstrating compliance with the discharge standard 
are necessary for type-approval.
    For these reasons, EPA found that foreign type-approval data, such 
as that used by the SAB in its analysis, is inadequate to assess 
whether any IMO-approved BWMS can meet the proposed discharge standard 
and it follows that such a testing regime would not be of sufficient 
scientific rigor to be appropriate for use in a BAT analysis. In 
contrast, EPA found that performance data developed consistent with the 
USCG type-approval procedures and requirements provided at 46 CFR 
162.060 would be of sufficient quality for use in evaluating whether a 
particular BWMS meets the proposed standard.
ii. Type-Approval Data Do Not Support a More Stringent Standard
    To date, more than thirty BWMS have received USCG type-approval. 
The USCG treats all type-approval submissions as proprietary 
information; however, EPA was provided anonymous data for 9 
manufacturers (11 different BWMS) from the Ballast Water Equipment 
Manufacturers Association (BEMA). EPA analyzed the data and determined 
the data submission requirements of the USCG type-approval regulations 
at 46 CFR 162.060 provides data of sufficient quality for EPA to 
evaluate system effectiveness for a BAT determination (Ballast Water 
Equipment Manufacturers Association, 2020).
    EPA considers that receipt and review of additional type-approval 
packages would not support a more stringent standard because these test 
results are within the same order of magnitude as the current standard 
and fall within the margin of error expected due to the great 
variability associated with the characteristics of ballast water and 
challenges associated with monitoring, analyzing, and enumerating 
organisms in the different size classes. As noted above, in addressing 
EPA's effluent limitation guidelines for cooling water intake systems, 
the Second Circuit Court of Appeals explained that it is reasonable for 
a performance standard to reflect the margin of error that is inherent 
when measuring organisms in a natural environment. See Riverkeeper, 
Inc. v. U.S. E.P.A., 358 F.3d 174, 188-89 (2d Cir. 2004). The type 
approval data must be considered with that margin of error in mind. For 
example, type approval data provided by BEMA for the 11 different BWMS 
show the discharge concentrations of organisms greater than 50 microns 
range from less than 1 to as high as 9.5 organisms per cubic meter, and 
for organisms between 10 and 50 microns, discharges range from less 
than 1 to 9.7 organisms per milliliter (mL).
    In VIII.B.1.vi.A.3.i., Data Quality of IMO BWMS Type-Approval Data 
are Inadequate for BAT Evaluation, EPA explains the basis for its 
determination that the IMO data are not of adequate quality to base a 
standard. However, to demonstrate the impact of the variability of 
ballast water characteristics, EPA evaluated the court's citation to 
three UV/filtration systems (Hyde Marine Guardian, Optimarin, and Alfa 
Laval/Alfa Wall Pure Ballast). Nat. Res. Def. Council v. U.S. Envtl. 
Prot. Agency, 808 F.3d 566, 570 n.11 (2d Cir. 2015). The court stated 
EPA failed to consider the SAB data that showed these systems can meet 
a standard between the current standard and 10 times the standard. 
Implicit in the court's statements are that these three systems are 
1.4, 3.7, 4.5, or even 7.7 times as effective as the current standard 
based on the average discharge standard achieved by each BWMS. However, 
that effectiveness is mischaracterized. In fact, as demonstrated in the 
USCG type-approval data, simply because one type of BWMS had a lower 
average discharge concentration than a second type of system did not 
mean that first system had a higher treatment efficiency. Importantly, 
the test results demonstrate that in some instances, BWMS achieved a 
lower discharge standard than a second system during type-approval 
testing but that first system had fewer organisms to treat in the 
intake water than that second system. The BEMA data, as highlighted by 
the examples provided above, demonstrate that performance varies even 
within a single BWMS and achieving a low average discharge 
concentration or high log reduction in one setting does not necessarily 
mean this system is demonstrated to be a more effective system in all 
situations. In any case, the effectiveness of any USCG type-approved 
BMWS should not be downplayed. As demonstrated in the data provided by 
BEMA, every one of the 11 systems achieved a treatment efficiency of at 
least 99 percent, for both size classes and in both land-based and 
shipboard testing meaning that any difference in treatment efficiency 
between these systems is something less than one percent.
    The test results identified by the court indicating greater removal 
of organisms are not an indication that these systems can achieve a 
more stringent standard in all conditions. Rather, the test results 
provide a variety of situations where BWMS manufacturers are testing 
their systems in a variety of environmental conditions and locations 
around the world, all with the goal of obtaining USCG type approval by 
demonstrating that the BWMS can consistently meet, not necessarily 
exceed, the IMO discharge standard. [46 CFR 162.060-10(f)(2)].
    To further demonstrate the true performance of a BWMS and to 
highlight the change in treatment effectiveness associated with meeting 
a more stringent discharge standard, EPA evaluated data provided 
directly to EPA by the BWMS manufacturer, Alfa Laval, that had been 
included as part of its type-approval package submitted to the USCG in 
September 2016 for its PureBallast 3 filtration + UV BWMS, which 
received USCG type-approval in December 2016. The results of EPA 
analysis are presented in Table 1. Using the court's rationale, the 
Alpha Laval PureBallast 3 system type-approved by the USCG demonstrates 
3.7 times more effective treatment for large organisms (i.e., average 
discharge concentration of 2.7) and 4.6 times more effective treatment 
for medium organisms (i.e., average discharge concentration of 2.18 
organisms). EPA calculated the actual treatment efficiency the Alfa 
Laval system achieved as well as the efficiency the system would have 
to achieve to meet the proposed discharge standard, a standard 10 times 
(10x) more stringent, and a standard 100 times (100x) more stringent. 
As shown in Table 1, the Alfa Laval system reduced large organisms (>50 
microns in size) by 99.98 percent whereas a treatment efficiency of 
99.92 percent was needed to meet the proposed discharge standard (i.e., 
the Alfa Laval system was 0.06 percent more effective). For medium 
organisms (10-50 microns in size), the Alfa Laval system was 0.29 
percent more efficient (Alfa Laval, 2017).
    Achieving a numeric discharge standard 10x and 100x more stringent 
than the proposed standard would represent an insignificant improvement 
in treatment system effectiveness for both large and medium organisms. 
For achieving a standard 10x more stringent, the difference is that 
between 99.92 and 99.99 percent efficiency for large organisms and 
97.82 and 99.78 percent for medium organisms. For achieving a

[[Page 67842]]

standard 100x more stringent, the difference is that between 99.92 and 
99.999 percent efficiency for large organisms and 97.82 and 99.98 
percent for medium organisms. These differences in performance are 
small and within the margin of error due to the variability in ballast 
water uptake and testing and does not reflect substantial improvement 
in ANS removal that would warrant a revised standard inconsistent with 
the international standard.

                    Table 1--Treatment Efficiency of the Alfa Laval PureBallast 3 USCG Type-Approved Ballast Water Management System
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                           Organisms (/m\3\)                                                Removal efficiency (%) necessary to achieve
            Size class             --------------------------------  Stringency compared      Removal    -----------------------------------------------
                                        Uptake         Discharge         to standard      efficiency (%)     <10/m\3\         <1/m\3\        <0.1/m\3\
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>=50 microns......................          13,026             2.7  3.7 times...........           99.98           99.92           99.99          99.999
10-50 microns.....................             459            2.18  4.6 times...........           99.53           97.82           99.78           99.98
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

iii. Ballast Water Test Methods Do Not Allow for Establishing a 
Discharge Standard 100 Times or 1,000 Times More Stringent or a ``No 
Detectable Organisms'' Standard
    Consideration of a standard that is less than 1 organism per volume 
of ballast water for the two organism size classes (i.e., a standard 10 
times more stringent than proposed), including any standard that would 
be more than 10, 100, or 1,000 times more stringent, is currently not 
possible because there are no performance data available at these 
organism concentrations (U.S. EPA, 2011b).
    As has been considered in the past by both EPA and the USCG, EPA 
evaluated whether a discharge standard 100x or 1,000x more stringent 
than the proposed standard is appropriate. As noted by the SAB, 
``methods (and associated detection limits) prevent testing of BWTS to 
any standard more stringent than the IMO D-2 standard and make it 
impracticable for verifying a standard 100x or 1,000x more stringent.'' 
Further, the SAB concluded that no current BWMS can meet a standard 
beyond 10x more stringent than the current standard (e.g., 100x or 
1,000x) as even showing one organism using the current test methods 
clearly exceeds that more stringent standard. As shown in the review of 
publicly available USCG type approval data provided by BEMA and 
evaluated by EPA, at least one living organism was identified in each 
BWMS type-approval test. Thus, new or improved test methods are still 
needed to support a statistical determination that technologies are 
available to meet a standard 100 or 1,000 times more stringent than the 
IMO discharge standard. Further, EPA has determined, consistent with 
findings of the SAB, that it is unreasonable to assume that a test 
result showing zero living organisms using currently available test 
methods demonstrates complete sterilization if for no other reason than 
a sample taken represents a very small portion of the overall discharge 
and the collection of that sample may have missed the few live 
organisms present in the discharge. And, collecting larger volumes of 
ballast water becomes impractical. For example, the SAB estimated that 
anywhere from 120-600 cubic meters of ballast would have to be 
collected to meet a standard 10x more stringent (U.S. EPA, 2011b).
    EPA evaluated the available USCG type-approval data and found that 
these data do not show that performance better than the proposed 
discharge standard is achievable in all vessel types and situations. It 
is important to consider that a USCG BWMS type-approval certification 
is based on its system components at the time of certification and no 
changes or optimizations to the technology can be made by the vessel 
operator. For example, the vessel operator cannot change the filter or 
chemical concentration to improve the system's performance without the 
BWMS manufacturer notifying the USCG, in accordance with 46 CFR 
162.060-16.
iv. Monitoring Limitations Do Not Support a More Stringent Standard
    If a more stringent standard were to be established, it would 
require confidence in the ability to monitor at that lower 
concentration to demonstrate both treatment effectiveness of available 
technology and compliance with the discharge standard. However, 
monitoring low concentrations of living organisms in ballast water (or 
direct organism monitoring), by mass or any other measure, at lower 
levels than necessary for demonstrating compliance with the existing 
numeric discharge standard is impractical because of challenges with 
collecting and analyzing ballast water to detect and quantify organisms 
at those levels. In lieu of direct organism monitoring, in the VGP, EPA 
developed a three-component self-monitoring program as a reliable 
indicator of whether BWMS are effectively controlling the discharge of 
living organisms: (1) Biological monitoring to indirectly assess the 
effectiveness of reducing living organisms in the discharge, (2) 
functionality monitoring of the system to assure it is operating as 
designed, and (3) residual biocide/derivative monitoring for those 
systems using active substances. Presently, there are no means to 
routinely sample and analyze in real-time ballast water for compliance 
with the discharge standard for the two largest size classes of 
organisms, and while various tools are under development, there is no 
widely-accepted methodology to formally evaluate and choose tools for 
use in regulatory enforcement applications (Drake et al., 2014).
    There is no basis either in science or the CWA's BAT factors to 
assume a BWMS can achieve a higher level of treatment than is supported 
by reliable data. Therefore, regulators have had to rely on indirect 
indicators of compliance to ensure that any BWMS continues to perform 
as demonstrated during land- and ship-based type-approval testing. 
``Functionality monitoring,'' as required by the VGP, is an indirect 
indicator of compliance entailing the use of a variety of meters, 
electronic sensors and analyzers that measure and transmit to control 
systems operational data such as flow rate, pressure drops across 
filters, disinfectant concentrations and energy intensity. If these 
indirect measurements fall within the BWMS design operating ranges, 
then it is reasonable to assume the BWMS is reducing living organisms 
as required since the USCG type-approved the BWMS as being able to 
achieve the living organism discharge standards when operating within 
the design specifications. The lack of sampling and analysis methods 
available to monitor ballast water discharges for the two largest 
organism size classes at lower concentrations than the current

[[Page 67843]]

discharge standard with any statistical significance justifies EPA 
proposing a discharge standard identical to the current standard.
    Demonstration of a higher level of treatment effectiveness 
reasonably would require testing of a different parameter for which 
there is the ability to monitor, which is likely some measure of 
organisms other than the two organism sizes classes (and bacteria) upon 
which the current standard is based. This would require a new type-
approval process, which would result in significant delays in testing, 
``approving,'' and manufacturing an adequate supply of systems 
available for installation aboard the global shipping fleet. 
Conversely, this would require a comprehensive evaluation and selection 
of more appropriate parameters than the two organism size classes, 
undertaking a comprehensive monitoring program to sample and analyze 
ballast water for those new parameters to evaluate BAT for those 
parameters. Without such an evaluation, EPA does not have the necessary 
data to justify treatment system effectiveness associated with the 
required level of pollutant control.
4. Conclusion
    In summary, EPA and the USCG are committed to protecting U.S. 
waters from invasive species and support a strong national and 
international solution that does not disrupt the continuous flow of 
maritime commerce that drives the U.S. and global economies. The 
proposed rule would implement the VIDA requirement for ballast water to 
establish the standard according to BAT by continuing the current EPA 
and USCG standard given that the standard and the USCG type-approval 
process is effective and promotes the development of highly efficient 
technology to control ANS in ballast water. In the last three years, 
the USCG has type-approved more than thirty ballast water management 
systems (BWMS) for vessels that would meet the proposed discharge 
standard, with at least half as many more under review. These systems 
have provided a variety of treatment options for a breadth of national 
and international vessels. The current standard continues to be 
appropriate to significantly reduce invasive species transport given 
the complexity of the universe of vessels that would be subject to the 
proposed rule and the great variation of vessel processes and 
engineering constraints of ballast water management. The current 
standard is driving development of type-approved BWMS that are highly 
efficient. Establishing a more stringent standard at this time would 
not result in a meaningful improvement in system performance or 
discharge reduction.
    The challenge in ballast water management that will reduce ANS 
discharges is not adopting a lower or more stringent standard, but 
instead focusing on the vessel installation of available and highly 
efficient BWMS; proper operation and maintenance of those systems to 
achieve the treatment efficacy demonstrated as part of the USCG type-
approval testing; and the evolution of vessel ballasting practices to 
minimize volumes of ballast water requiring management. Only very 
recently has EPA begun to see broad compliance of the vessel community 
with installation, operation, and maintenance of the range of the USCG 
type-approved BWMS. To date, about one-third of vessels operating 
pursuant to the requirements of the VGP have installed BWMS (U.S. EPA, 
2019). In 2017, the American Bureau of Shipping (ABS) conducted a 
global survey of 27 shipowners with 220 vessels including bulk 
carriers, tankers, containerships and gas carriers. In 2018, ABS 
repeated the survey with more than double the participants of 60 
shipowners and operators worldwide covering 483 BWMS installations for 
seven different BWMS treatment technologies. In 2018, ABS found that 35 
percent of BWMS installations were reported as operating regularly, and 
the remaining systems were either inoperable or considered problematic. 
Surprisingly, the survey findings show that the number of problematic 
BWMS in operation increased from 29 percent in 2017 to 59 percent in 
2018. It appears that many vessel operators are trying to get their 
BWMS fully functional and into operation before the USCG or IMO 
compliance deadlines (ABS, 2019) and in starting up and operating 
installed systems, often for the first time after a period of nonuse 
since installation, are finding unexpected problems. No particular 
system is identified as being more or less likely to meet the discharge 
standard.
    Opportunities for advancement in ballast water treatment and 
technology may require EPA to assist the vessel community in tackling 
installation and operational challenges with the existing BWMS and 
future type-approved systems and best management practices. Significant 
limitations remain in ANS monitoring such that setting a different 
numeric discharge standard for ANS is unlikely to result in meaningful 
technological advancement. The VIDA provides EPA and the USCG with this 
opportunity to streamline the ballast water regulations which should 
aid with the operation of demonstrated, but not yet fully optimized, 
systems and with future systems as they continue to come online.
B. Ballast Water Reception Facilities
    The VIDA expressly excludes from the discharge standards ``ballast 
water from a vessel . . . that only discharges water into a reception 
facility.'' 33 U.S.C. 1322(p)(2)(B)(ii)(V). As such, CWA Section 312(p) 
does not authorize EPA to regulate the transfer of ballast water from 
ships to a reception facility as part of the proposed rulemaking. 
Nonetheless, for the purposes of this proposed rule and to acknowledge 
the 2015 Second Circuit Court decision on the VGP, EPA reviewed and 
considered whether zero discharge or a more stringent discharge 
standard based on the use of a reception facility may be BAT for 
ballast water discharged from regulated vessels. Nat. Res. Def. Council 
v. U.S. Envtl. Prot. Agency., 808 F.3d 566, 572-75 (2d Cir. 2015). For 
the purposes of this proposed rule, unless otherwise noted, when EPA 
refers to ``onshore'' or a ``reception facility,'' it refers to both 
the transfer of ballast water to either an onshore reception facility 
or another vessel for the purpose of storing or treating that ballast 
water.
    The Second Circuit Court decision stated that EPA failed to give 
fair and thorough consideration to reception facilities in setting the 
discharge standards in the VGP. The Second Circuit stated that a 
technology is ``available'' in the following instance: ``(1) the 
transfer technology must be available within the first industry: (2) 
the transfer technology must be transferable to the second industry; 
and (3) it must be reasonably predicable that the technology, if used 
in the second industry, will be capable of removing the increment 
required by the effluent standards.'' Nat. Res. Def. Council, 808 F.3d 
at 572-73. The Second Circuit stated that in establishing BAT, 
consideration should be given to whether a particular technology that 
is being used in another industry could form that technology basis for 
BAT. As part of the proposed rule, EPA evaluated several technologies 
to identify whether any such technology is transferable from another 
industrial sector but has not found any such technologies that would 
provide a greater level of control for ballast water from vessels. This 
is largely because of the unique nature of ballast water and its use 
aboard ships--which are not stationary, and, many of which spend a very 
small portion of their time in the United States.
    In developing this proposed rule, EPA considered whether discharges 
of ballast water to a reception facility could result

[[Page 67844]]

in zero discharge or a more stringent standard for ballast water 
discharges than what currently exists. EPA investigated ballast water 
discharges to a reception facility to better understand the 
technological availability, economic achievability and the non-water 
quality environmental impacts associated with limits based on its use 
and explored the alternative forms of reception facilities--including 
fixed treatment facilities (reception facilities or wastewater 
treatment plants) and mobile, shore-based, or near-shore-based ballast 
water treatment deployed on trucks, barges or boats--and feasibility 
factors of the use of these facilities such as vessel and port 
characteristics, economic feasibility, and treatment cost estimates.
    Despite considering the potential advantages identified in recent 
years for the use of ballast water reception facilities (e.g., fewer 
onshore facilities than shipboard systems would be needed; fewer 
physical restrictions and time limitations could lead to effective 
treatment technologies), the analysis identified many challenges of 
implementing a national and international network of reception 
facilities. By far the most significant challenge is ensuring the 
availability of reception facilities at all ports of call, because if 
even one anticipated port location for a vessel does not have an 
available reception facility, that vessel would need an alternative 
approach, likely requiring installation of a shipboard treatment 
system, deferring the discharge of ballast water, or declining to call 
at that port. A search of the National Ballast Information 
Clearinghouse found that between the effective date of the 2013 VGP 
(i.e., December 19, 2013) and the end of 2017, vessels with ballast 
water operated in approximately 700 U.S. ports and discharged ballast 
water in over 400 of those ports, with individual discharges as large 
as 20 million gallons (75,000 MT) and daily combined discharges of more 
than 25 million gallons (100,000 MT) in a day in a single port 
(National Ballast Information Clearinghouse, 2020). To meet the ballast 
water discharge management needs for these vessels would require some 
type of reception facility at each of those 400 ports (as well as 
potentially at some of those other 300 ports where vessels operate with 
ballast water onboard and may at some point have the need to discharge 
ballast); otherwise, any vessel needing to discharge ballast water at 
any of these ports would need a BWMS. For example, numerous ports that 
were initially expecting to accept liquified natural gas, during which 
ships would offset the reduced cargo weight by taking on ballast water, 
are now instead planning to export that liquified natural gas, with a 
consequent need for ships to discharge ballast water while loading 
cargo. This analysis does not consider the universe of vessels that 
also operate in other countries and a similar expectation that without 
reception facility availability, these vessels would still need to 
install, operate, and maintain a BWMS. The massive scale of the new 
physical infrastructure that would be needed to accommodate the 
systematic deployment and application of shoreside ballast water 
reception facilities is another process and engineering challenge that 
weighs against the selection of a zero-discharge standard based on 
discharge to a reception facility as BAT for ballast water. 33 U.S.C. 
1314(b)(2)(B).
    Another critical challenge is retrofitting vessels with the 
appropriate ballast water systems (including pipes and pumps) required 
to move ballast water up from tanks and off the ship at a rate fast 
enough that the vessel can perform normal cargo operations without 
significant and costly delays. To date, no U.S. or international ship-
to-shore connection standard exists for non-oily ballast water 
discharges. As such, vessels are not fitted with, nor would an 
appropriate reception facility have, a standard size, configuration, 
strength, etc. on which to base a design to ensure vessels would be 
able to connect and discharge ballast water to such a facility. In a 
similar situation, the IMO established connection requirements under 
Regulation 13 of Annex I to MARPOL for oil mixtures, which have been 
codified in USCG regulations at 33 CFR 155.430, and for which, a 
similar set of requirements would be needed for non-oily ballast water 
discharges. Without such an international standard for ballast water 
connections, implementation of such a requirement would be impractical. 
Additionally, the configurations of many ports are such that a vessel 
may berth at any number of locations within the port, necessitating 
that such reception connection equipment is available at each of these 
berths and capable of being transferred from that point to the 
reception facility. As an example of the challenge associated with such 
a configuration, the Port of Duluth is a single port with 60 docks 
spanning 49 miles of coastline (Lake Carriers' Association, 2016a).
    Also, reception facilities may not provide a complete solution to 
ballast water treatment. For example, some vessels may need to 
discharge part of their ballast water before arriving in port so they 
can conduct cargo operations as soon as possible following arrival at 
the dock; some vessels need to discharge ballast water to reduce draft 
before arriving at berth; and lightering vessels may need to discharge 
ballast as they load cargo at designated anchorages or lightering 
zones. In each of these instances, some type of reception facility 
would be required, further complicating the necessary infrastructure to 
handle discharges from such disparate locations.
    The only instance of a ballast water reception facility being used 
in the United States is in Alaska, specifically to remove oil from 
ballast water discharges from single hull tanker vessels. Use of 
facilities such as this, with modifications made specifically to remove 
living organisms (e.g., filtration with second stage disinfection) 
might be available for vessels sailing dedicated routes. However, many 
commercial vessels do not stick to a single voyage pattern (even those 
usually on dedicated routes) in all instances, which would necessitate 
either finding a reception facility in the new port(s), rapidly 
installing a shipboard BWMS, or likely being unable to discharge their 
untreated ballast water in compliance with the VIDA requirements (which 
may in effect prevent this vessel from voyaging to that port). Since 
these changes in voyage patterns are often made on very short notice 
(often on less than two weeks' notice), it would not be technologically 
available to install a BWMS on these vessels quickly enough for that 
new voyage.
    EPA evaluated several studies of reception facilities in the United 
States, including ports in the Great Lakes, Baltimore, MD, California, 
and internationally, including ports in the Caspian Sea, Netherlands, 
Brazil, and Croatia. California has led the effort nationally to 
explore the possibility of reception facilities. In 2013, the 
California State Lands Commission funded a study to assess ballast 
water reception facility approaches in California. The report from that 
study (Glosten Associates, 2018), is currently the most comprehensive 
review of reception facility options in California. The authors 
concluded that a network of treatment barges would be the best 
reception facility approach when compared to land-based treatment to 
enable vessels to meet California's interim Performance Standards. 
According to the Study, such an approach would not come without impacts 
or costs. A barge-based network could lead to increased air emissions

[[Page 67845]]

and congestion at California's ports. In the case of the South Coast 
Air Basin, these ballast water reception facilities could increase 
overall harbor craft air emissions from 2.5 to 5 percent. The 30-year 
lifecycle cost of building and operating a network of treatment barges 
is estimated at $1.45 billion. Marine vessel operators will bear an 
additional $2.17 billion in costs to retrofit vessels to support 
transfer of ballast to barges. The authors estimated that it will take 
a minimum of nine years to implement such a treatment network once the 
funding is secured. Possible next steps identified by the authors 
include pilot-scale testing of the ballast water treatment methods and 
scale-up to a treatment barge to assess system performance over various 
rates of ballast water transfer. As detailed in the final report: ``The 
first six years will be occupied with the study of ballast water 
discharges, building and pilot testing of treatment barge prototype(s), 
development of transfer station standards, communication of 
requirements to marine vessels, development of the PPPs [public private 
partnerships], and contracting for the design/build of the treatment 
barges. Years 7, 8, and 9 will be occupied with phasing in the 
treatment barge network. Importantly, Year 1 starts only after budgets 
and plans have been put into place.'' Thus, in the best case, once 
funding is available, implementation of a barge-based ballast water 
management approach in California is still nine years away, if that the 
pilot project demonstrates such an approach is viable. And importantly, 
as noted in that report, as of today, no such onshore or barge-based 
reception facilities currently are in operation in the United States 
(King and Hagan, 2013; Hilliard and Kazansky, 2006; Hilliard and 
Matheickal, 2010; Brown and Caldwell, 2007; Brown and Caldwell and Bay 
Engineering, 2008; COWI A/S, 2012; Damen, 2017; Glosten Associates, 
2018; Hull & Associates, 2017; Maglic et al., 2015; Pereira and 
Brinati, 2012; U.S. EPA, 2011b; USCG, 2013).
    Another complication of a reception facility approach is that 
vessel operators in most cases are not the entities that would build 
and operate such facilities. As such, these reception facilities would 
likely only be created where an organization, such as a port authority 
or terminal operator, identifies a financial opportunity from 
constructing and operating such a facility. It would be highly 
speculative that any organization would choose to do so. The scale and 
cost of operating reception facilities at the hundreds of ports 
nationwide that handle ballast water from tens of thousands of vessels 
would require billions of dollars and weighs against finding such 
technology to be available or economically achievable. It also ignores 
the thousand plus ports worldwide directly or indirectly linked to many 
of these same vessels that reasonably would want to be able to 
discharge ballast to a reception facility at any port visited rather 
than having to also install and operate a BWMS in those areas where a 
reception facility is not available. As cited in the Second Circuit 
decision, Nat. Res. Def. Council v. U.S. Envtl. Prot. Agency., 808 F.3d 
566 (2d Cir. 2015), the SAB scientists pointed out that: ``[S]hipboard 
treatment and onshore treatment represent distinct approaches to 
ballast water management that would each require different large 
investments in infrastructure . . . . Thus we are almost certain to be 
stuck for a very long time with whichever approach is used as the BAT 
in setting discharge standards in 2013. It is thus of the utmost 
urgency that a fair and thorough comparison of the two approaches be 
made at this time.'' Whether the opinion of the SAB is accurate, it is 
likely that selecting the reception facility approach would require 
vessels to also install onboard systems for those times when the vessel 
may need to discharge ballast water in a port that may not have a 
functioning reception facility. A further complication here is not just 
in having to install an onboard system for use only some of the time, 
it is that if the onboard system is not used consistently and sits idle 
for a significant portion of the time, it is unlikely to work 
effectively and is more likely to experience mechanical problems due to 
periods of nonuse. Conversely, a vessel with an onboard system could 
operate worldwide without having to rely on others for ballast water 
management. While use of a reception facility assumes a higher level of 
treatment than can be achieved onboard a vessel, the specific 
evaluation performed at each of these hypothetical reception facilities 
may not actually result in significant discharge reductions.
    Based on the record before it, EPA has determined that reception 
facilities are not technologically available or economically achievable 
at this time. While EPA understands that the use of reception 
facilities, if available, may be a valid and effective component of 
ballast water management in certain situations, the challenges in 
creating such a comprehensive infrastructure nation-wide (and world-
wide) make reception facilities simply not technologically available as 
defined in the CWA. It also appears to have unacceptable non-water 
quality environmental impacts in some areas. It is logistically more 
complex than shipboard treatment for the shipping industry to implement 
and requires vessel as well as port modifications to be accommodated. 
It is unlikely that ballast water reception facilities could become a 
national ``one size fits all'' option for ballast water management, 
principally because it cannot accommodate widely varying trade routes 
without the availability of reception facilities in most ports. Port-
specific conditions may also preclude any technically available and/or 
economically achievable reception facility alternatives. Integration 
with port and vessel operations would require careful planning, design, 
and operation. If in the future reception facilities become available 
and economically achievable and have acceptable non-water quality 
environmental impacts in certain locations for certain specialized 
sectors of the commercial vessel industry EPA would revisit the 
standards, but, for now, such an option has not been demonstrated to 
reflect BAT.
C. Vessels Operating Exclusively on the Great Lakes
    After careful consideration of all the relevant factors, EPA 
proposes to subcategorize and not require any vessel operating 
exclusively on the Great Lakes, regardless of when they were built, to 
meet the numeric discharge standard and instead to continue to require 
that these vessels implement best management practices. As required by 
the VIDA, EPA assessed the best available technology that is 
economically achievable and determined that the challenges analyzed in 
the VGP remain true today. This proposed exemption is based on a set of 
unique circumstances that make ballast water management especially 
challenging for these vessels. The challenges include issues related to 
the operational profile and design of these vessels and issues related 
to the unique nature of the waters of the Great Lakes. A fuller 
discussion of EPA's analysis appears below.
1. Ballast Water Management of Vessels Operating Exclusively on the 
Laurentian Great Lakes
    The VGP exempted vessels that operate exclusively on the Laurentian 
Great Lakes, commonly referred to as ``Lakers,'' and built before 2009 
from meeting the numeric discharge standard. As defined by the VGP, 
this

[[Page 67846]]

includes vessels that operate upstream of the waters of the St. 
Lawrence River west of a rhumb line drawn from Cap de Rosiers to West 
Point, Anticosti Island, and west of a line along 63 W longitude from 
Anticosti Island to the north shore of the St. Lawrence River. EPA 
selected January 1, 2009 as the cutoff date because the IMO originally 
established this date to require treatment for certain new build 
vessels. At the time, EPA anticipated that vessels designed to enter 
the market beginning in 2009 would be prepared to meet the VGP 
requirements. Since that time, EPA has evaluated the few U.S. and 
Canadian Lakers that had been built since 2009 and concluded that they 
were also unable to meet the VGP discharge requirements. Consistent 
with that conclusion, the USCG regulations do not require non-seagoing 
vessels, including all Lakers, to meet the numeric discharge standard.
    The proposed rule expands the VGP exemption to any vessel operating 
exclusively on the Great Lakes, regardless of build date, because these 
vessels share the same challenges in operating BWMS under the 
environmental conditions of the Great Lakes. The exemption applies to 
vessels on the Great Lakes that are 3,000 GT ITC (1,600 (GRT) if GT ITC 
is not assigned) and above, as smaller vessels are exempt under 
139.10(d)(2)(i) of the proposed rule as described in VIII.B.1.vii.A. 
Vessels Less Than or Equal to 3,000 GT ITC (1,600 GT GRT if GT ITC is 
not assigned) and That Do Not Operate Outside the EEZ. For the purposes 
of the proposed rule and referred to as ``Great Lakes vessels'' in this 
section, the universe of vessels operating exclusively on the Great 
Lakes includes two main types of vessels. First, it includes Lakers, as 
defined in the VGP, as bulk carriers and other similar vessel types 
(e.g., tank barges) operating exclusively on the Laurentian Great 
Lakes. Second, it includes any other large vessel, according to the 
size threshold, that is 3,000 GT ITC (1,600 GRT if GT ITC is not 
assigned) and above, that voyages exclusively on the Great Lakes, such 
as ferries. Discussion in this section using the term ``Great Lakes 
vessels'' does not include seagoing vessels that operate beyond the 
boundary identified in the VGP and continued for the proposed rule, 
that being vessels that operate downstream of the waters of the St. 
Lawrence River west of a rhumb line drawn from Cap de Rosiers to West 
Point, Anticosti Island, and west of a line along 63 W longitude from 
Anticosti Island to the north shore of the St. Lawrence River.
    There are approximately 150 U.S.- and Canadian-flagged Lakers, with 
approximately 20 of these (mostly Canadian) constructed in 2009 or 
later (Marinelog, 2016; Lake Carriers' Association, 2016). The U.S. 
Lakers generally are larger than Canadian Lakers, with many of these 
vessels being too large to transit through the Welland Canal and the 
locks on the St. Lawrence Seaway, thus confining their operations to 
the four upper Great Lakes. Of the approximately 60 U.S.-flagged Lakers 
operating on the Great Lakes, only about half are small enough to fit 
through the Welland Canal; although, from 2015 through 2017, U.S. 
Lakers operated only 28 voyages east of the Welland Canal (Lake 
Carriers' Association, 2018). Common U.S. Laker routes are ore cargo 
runs from Lake Superior to U.S. mills in Indiana, Michigan, and Ohio. 
In contrast, 81 of the 84 Canadian Lakers are small enough to pass 
through the Welland Canal and locks on the St. Lawrence Seaway (Lake 
Carriers' Association, 2016). The U.S.-flagged Lakers that are small 
enough to transit the locks on the St. Lawrence Seaway are not designed 
to operate in brackish water or saltwater and therefore do not venture 
east of Quebec City on the St. Lawrence Seaway. Most Canadian Lakers, 
on the other hand, commonly operate in brackish water or saltwater and 
their hulls and ballast tanks have corrosion protection that allow them 
to transit through the locks on the St. Lawrence Seaway to Canadian 
coastal ports and for some of these vessels, even to overseas ports. 
However, U.S. and Canadian vessels that operate exclusively on the 
Great Lakes share several similar constraints with selection of BWMS 
because of the short voyages, low salinity, very cold water, high 
dissolved organic carbon content, and low UV transmittance associated 
with operation solely within the Great Lakes. Similar vessel design 
issues are present for both the existing U.S. and Canadian fleets with 
respect to vessel design and operation.
    The Second Circuit Court decision held that EPA acted arbitrarily 
and capriciously when it exempted Lakers built before 2009 (``pre-2009 
Lakers'') from the numeric technology-based effluent limitations of the 
VGP. Nat. Res. Def. Council v. U.S. Envtl. Prot. Agency., 808 F.3d 566 
(2d Cir. 2015). The court stated that EPA's decision to exempt Lakers 
was based on a flawed record that failed to consider the possibility of 
reception facilities, and that the lack of supply of updated shipboard 
systems was not a legitimate reason to exempt pre-2009 Lakers as the 
purpose of a BAT standard is to force technology to keep pace with 
need. Id. at 576. The court cited an EPA SAB Report as support for its 
decision that EPA was arbitrary and capricious because the Report did 
not declare such treatment impossible. Instead, the SAB concluded ``[a] 
variety of environmental (e.g., temperature and salinity), operational 
(e.g., ballasting flow rates and holding times), and vessel design 
(e.g., ballast volume and unmanned barges) parameters'' should be 
considered in determining the treatment standard. Id. at 577. The court 
further concluded that EPA failed to conduct an appropriate and 
factually-supported cost-analysis which might have shown that the cost 
of subjecting pre-2009 Lakers to the 2013 VGP was not unreasonably 
high, or, alternatively, that use of reception facilities was 
economically achievable. Id.
    To address all of the above issues, EPA assessed the availability 
of ballast water treatment technology by evaluating the operational and 
technical considerations for installation and operation of a USCG type-
approved BWMS on Great Lakes vessels and alternative approaches that 
could be used to develop a specific discharge standard for Great Lakes 
vessels. Specifically, EPA assessed:
     The compatibility of type-approved BWMS to meet the 
current discharge standard under the environmental conditions of the 
Great Lakes;
     the operational and technical challenges of the 
installation of type-approved BWMS given the unique structure of Great 
Lakes vessels;
     the potential use of current type-approved BWMS on Great 
Lakes vessels to meet an alternative standard; and
     the availability of other treatment technologies for Great 
Lakes vessels.
    Overall, it was found that ballast water treatment technologies are 
not available for Great Lakes vessels at this time because of the 
uniqueness of these vessels and the Great Lakes ecosystem. EPA 
evaluated the technical reasons why current type-approved BWMS are not 
compatible with the environmental conditions of the Great Lakes for 
each category of treatment system. The environmental conditions 
evaluated include the water's unique ``freshness,'' as opposed to 
salinity, the temperature of the water, and the turbidity of the ports. 
The operational and technical conditions evaluated include the length 
of voyages and its effect on the BWMS holding times required to achieve 
the discharge standard and the absence of coated ballast tanks in the 
fleet. Table 2 summarizes information on the critical limitations that 
each major disinfection

[[Page 67847]]

method currently faces for use on Great Lakes vessels.

       Table 2--Limitations of BWMS Disinfection Types for Commercial Vessels Operating on the Great Lakes
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
              BWMS disinfection method                          Limitations for use on the Great Lakes
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
UV..................................................  Areas of the Great Lakes, notably in certain river ports,
                                                       have high turbidity and high dissolved organic carbon
                                                       content such as from tannins and humic acid, which
                                                       inhibits effective UV treatment. In addition, most USCG
                                                       type-approved UV BWMS require holding times of 72 hours,
                                                       however common trade routes within the Great Lakes take
                                                       less than 72 hours with some as little as 2 hours. For
                                                       this reason, vessels would be required to delay cargo
                                                       loading and discharge ballast water until the holding
                                                       time is achieved. Several UV BWMS have since been type-
                                                       approved with holding times as little as 2.5 hours,
                                                       highlighting the advance of technology in beginning to
                                                       overcome some of the operational limitations described.
Electrochlorination.................................  Current USCG type-approved BWMS require a supply of
                                                       saltwater for generating chlorine. Vessels limited to
                                                       freshwater environments would need to prepare and bunker
                                                       a synthetic seawater solution, which would limit cargo
                                                       capacity. Also, chlorine in uncoated ballast tanks
                                                       increases corrosion rates to unacceptable levels for the
                                                       structural integrity of the vessel. Therefore, this
                                                       technology is not technically available.
Chemical Addition...................................  Current USCG type-approved BWMS allow for the addition of
                                                       chemicals. However, none of the U.S. Laker fleet that
                                                       operates exclusively on the Great Lakes have coated
                                                       ballast tanks. This results in an increase in corrosion
                                                       rates if corrosive chemicals, particularly oxidants, are
                                                       used, making this technology technologically unavailable
                                                       and economically unachievable because the vessel would be
                                                       taken out of service.
Ozonation...........................................  Current USCG type-approved BWMS allow for the addition of
                                                       ozone. However, none of the U.S. Laker fleet that
                                                       operates exclusively on the Great Lakes have coated
                                                       ballast tanks. This results in an increase in corrosion
                                                       rates, making this technology technologically unavailable
                                                       and economically unachievable because the vessel would be
                                                       taken out of service.
Deoxygenation.......................................  Current USCG-type-approved BWMS require hold times if
                                                       using a deoxygenation system. Common trade routes for
                                                       commercial vessels within the Great Lakes move ballast
                                                       water from lower ports such as Gary, Burns Harbor,
                                                       Cleveland and Toledo Transit times for these routes are
                                                       less than 72 hours (USACE, 2017). To comply with the
                                                       numeric discharge standard, vessels would need to delay
                                                       cargo loading and discharge of Great Lakes ballast water
                                                       until the holding time is achieved if using a
                                                       deoxygenation system that requires hold times greater
                                                       than transit times. Additionally, deoxygenation can
                                                       result in increased corrosion due to anaerobic
                                                       conditions, and the lack of coated ballast tanks makes
                                                       this technology unavailable.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ref: (Keister and Balog, 1992; Tuthill et al., 1998; Lake Carriers' Association, 2017; American Bureau of
  Shipping, 2015; U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 2017).

2. Compatibility of BWMS To Meet the Discharge Standard Under Great 
Lakes Environmental Conditions
    The environmental conditions of Great Lakes waters present unique 
challenges for use of any of the more than 20 USCG type-approved BWMS 
on Great Lakes vessels. At this time, none of these systems can meet 
the proposed numeric discharge standard given these conditions. Cold 
ambient water temperatures on the Great Lakes during the earlier and 
later portions of the shipping season are below the testing parameters 
of USCG BWMS type-approval testing and, therefore, BWMS have not been 
demonstrated to work sufficiently under such conditions to meet the 
numeric discharge standard. For example, winter icing conditions of the 
exceptionally fresh waters of the Great Lakes impact the ability to 
operate a BWMS, such as from ice-plugged BWMS filters. Because of 
winter ice on the Lakes, the navigation season is not usually year-
round. The Soo Locks and Welland Canal close from mid-January to late 
March, when most vessels are laid up for maintenance. However, cold 
temperature and icing conditions can persist into the Spring. Water 
temperatures in the Great Lakes during the shipping season can be as 
low as 0 [deg]C. Lake Erie is below 5 [deg]C for five months a year, 
lakes Michigan and Huron for almost half the year, and on Lake Superior 
5 [deg]C might not be reached until June and be back below by November. 
Because of the pressure drop across filters, freezing can occur at 
temperatures above 0 [deg]C. Several USCG BWMS are not approved for 
operation at a water temperature of less than 5 [deg]C (Monroy et al., 
2017; USCG, 2013).
    In addition to cold temperatures, the fresh water of the Great 
Lakes contains extremely low salinity. USCG type-approval testing for 
freshwater allows a salinity as low as 0.9 practical salinity units 
(psu), but Great Lakes water, especially Lake Superior, has a much 
lower salinity of approximately 0.063 ppt. Several USCG type-approved 
BWMS require a higher salinity than is found in the Great Lakes. For 
example, electrochlorination systems were designed to use marine water 
to provide a chloride source to generate chlorine. The freshwater of 
the Great Lakes does not provide such a source of saline water, 
requiring a Laker using such a system to bunker saltwater in an unused 
holding tank or ballast tank and then use this saltwater to generate 
chlorine for disinfection while ballasting/deballasting within the 
Great Lakes. EPA analysis demonstrates that this technology is not 
practicable and is presently unavailable.
    Turbidity, excessive levels of tannins, and filamentous bacteria in 
some areas of the Great Lakes can inhibit the ability of USCG type-
approved BWMS to meet the numeric discharge standard. Several river 
ports in the Great Lakes contain highly turbid water where ballast 
water uptake occurs. Typical levels of total suspended solids (TSS) 
found in U.S. Great Lakes port waters range from 400 mg/L in the Rouge 
River in Detroit, MI, to 1,000 mg/L in the Cuyahoga River in Cleveland, 
OH. These levels are much higher than those required for USCG type-
approval testing. Similarly, areas of the Great Lakes contain excessive 
levels of tannins that present a challenge to remove with conventional 
BWMS filters. Turbidity and excessive levels of tannins in some Great 
Lakes harbors may significantly reduce filter efficiency and UV light 
transmittance, creating a situation where both USCG and IMO type-
approved filtration and UV BWMS cannot achieve the numeric discharge 
standard. While these circumstances can also occur in coastal ports, it 
is expected that many seagoing vessels could use operational practices 
not available to vessels operating on the

[[Page 67848]]

Great Lakes, such as exchange of turbid harbor water for less turbid 
offshore water, which could be treated effectively by the BWMS. In 
addition, the Great Lakes contains significant quantities of 
filamentous bacteria that have been shown to cause significant clogging 
problems with BWMS filters.
    Other ballast water treatment technologies are under development, 
such as membrane filtration, magnetic separation with filtration, and 
pasteurization. However, no such systems to-date have been demonstrated 
as effective ballast water treatment to the satisfaction of the USCG 
for type-approval. Even if these technologies did gain USCG type-
approval, there are challenges in applying their use on the Great 
Lakes. For example, a pasteurization system is designed for large long-
haul vessels and requires multiple voyage days to reach pasteurization 
temperatures and as such would be limited in its use on the Great Lakes 
because of the many short voyages for vessels in the Great Lakes. As 
for filtration and magnetic separation with filtration, freshwater 
organisms must respond to flocculating agents like that of marine 
organisms to be effectively removed by these technologies. 
Unfortunately, to date, this ability has not been shown to exist 
(ClearBallast, 2012; Bawat, 2016; Voutchkov, 2013).
3. Technical Challenges of the Use of USCG Type-Approved BWMS on Great 
Lakes Vessels
    There are numerous, costly technical challenges to implementing 
BWMS on Great Lakes vessels. If USCG type-approved systems were 
installed on Great Lakes vessels to meet the discharge standard, some 
environmental benefit would be provided from the installation and 
operation of these type-approved systems; however, disproportionate 
costs would be incurred by this vessel community due to these technical 
challenges and the discharge standard would not be met given the known 
environmental challenges. For example, for some U.S. Lakers, 
particularly those bulk carriers that are more than 50 years old that 
have been uniquely constructed and converted over the decades, the cost 
of achieving the standard would be similar to or maybe even exceed the 
cost of vessel replacement. EPA evaluated the technical considerations 
relevant to the installation and operation of BWMS on Great Lakes 
vessels including vessel size, ballasting volumes and flow rates, 
ballast pump and piping configurations, space considerations, 
electrical requirements and corrosion issues. It is important to point 
out there are significant differences in the construction, size, 
propulsion configurations, electrical systems and capabilities, cargo 
off-loading equipment, ballast water movement, and other design aspects 
between individual vessels. These differences require a vessel-specific 
analysis to determine the technological availability and optimal method 
for installing and operating a BWMS. In order to consider these 
differences, EPA grouped the U.S. Lakers into subcategories based on 
their characteristics (Table 3).

                                                                          Table 3--Subcategories of U.S. Laker Vessels
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                      Number of U.S.                                                                                                         Ballast volume      Ballast pumping
             Subcategory                Lakers \a\          Build dates                 Length           Number ballast tanks    Number ballast pumps          (gallons)            rate (GPM)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Large Capacity Lakers...............              14  1972-1981..............  858-1,000-ft...........  14-22.................  4-36..................     9,414,132-16,406,561    20,000-79,800
Converted bulkers to self-unloading               18  1906-1959, converted     437-806 ft.............  11-22.................  2-4 pumps/Engine Room      1,411,655-12,283,281    14,000-64,800
 ships, includes barges.                               1958-2014.                                                                (E.R).
Newer build--manifold ballast system              17  1942 (1991)-2012.......  519-770................  13-21.................  2 pumps/E.R...........      2,121,000-7,851,433    17,400-40,000
Purpose built barge.................               6  1941 (1998)-2009.......  310-460................  6 including FP-17.....  1-4 pump..............        638,274-2,045,053     1,000-10,000
                                     -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Total...........................              57  .......................  .......................  ......................  ......................  .......................  ...............
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ Lake Carriers' Association, 2016. Total number of vessels carrying ballast water, including articulated tug-barges. Does not include tugboats since these vessels do not typically discharge
  ballast water. Does not include barges A-410 or 397 because they do not carry ballast water.

    The capacity of the commercially available, type-approved BWMS 
selected for a Great Lakes vessel must be compatible with the ballast 
needs of the vessels, particularly the ballasting rate of the ballast 
pumps. Particularly for Lakers, high ballasting capacities and flow 
rates limit the options for selection of some commercially available 
BWMS. The maximum capacity of commercially available filtration and UV 
BWMS is 6,000 m\3\/hr. U.S. Lakers have ballasting capacities as high 
as 18,000 m\3\/hr and therefore multiple filtration and UV BWMS would 
be required to accommodate these rates. In the analysis, EPA considered 
installation of multiple BWMS on a vessel as a means to meet the 
discharge standard. For example, the large capacity vessels may have a 
ballast water system configuration that includes individual sea chests, 
ballast pumps and ballast piping for each individual ballast tank. It 
can have one or two individual ballast pumps and piping per ballast 
tank. Four of the U.S.-flagged 1,000-foot Lakers have 18 separate 
ballast pumps and piping, and one 1,000-foot Laker (i.e., Stewart J. 
Cort) has 36 deep well ballast pumps. The M/V Indiana Harbor uses four 
main ballast pumps (two port and two starboard) to pump a total of 
11,810 m\3\/hr of ballast water. For this Laker, two BWMS would have to 
be installed (one port and one starboard), each with a capacity to 
treat at least 6,000 m\3\/hr. The M/V Paul R. Tregurtha that has a 
total ballasting capacity of 18,120 m\3\/hr and uses 18 separate 
ballast pumps and tanks, 18 individual BWMS would be needed, each with 
a capacity to treat at least 1,100 m\3\/hr or the entire ship would 
need to be re-piped at significant cost and downtime.
    Great Lakes vessels are designed to maximize cargo capacity and, 
therefore, have little to no space available in the engine room or 
around the self-unloading equipment for a BWMS. Space could be created 
from existing ballast tanks or cargo holds, although this directly 
impacts the vessel's cargo hauling capacity and therefore economic 
viability. Again, EPA analysis included the cost and lost revenue 
implications of lost cargo space or hauling capacity. Converting 
ballast tanks to accommodate a BWMS may likely also impact vessel 
stability and requires a detailed vessel-specific analysis by a marine 
engineer, naval architect, or similar expert to assess viability of 
such installation and operation.
    Electrical capacity on Great Lakes vessels has been sized to 
accommodate the loading and unloading equipment

[[Page 67849]]

that is operational while the vessel is in port. Self-unloading 
equipment would have to be operated at the same time as the BWMS and, 
as currently designed, many of these vessels lack electrical capacity 
for high electrical demand BWMS such as filtration and UV disinfection. 
Thus, additional electrical generators would be required for operation 
of the BWMS.
    The U.S. Laker fleet has another significant issue with respect to 
selection of a BWMS: Currently all vessels have uncoated steel ballast 
tanks. In this manner, U.S. Lakers differ from the Canadian Laker fleet 
and the oceangoing vessels. This design works for the fleet because the 
waters of the Great Lakes is so fresh that corrosion is not a concern 
as these vessels do not operate in brackish or ocean saline waters, 
where such coating is necessary. Any BWMS that generates chlorine for 
disinfection by electrochlorination or that doses corrosive treatment 
chemicals into the ballast water is commercially available in the 
capacities needed for Lakers and have a lower electrical demand. 
However, these systems would significantly increase the corrosion rates 
in the uncoated ballast tanks of existing U.S. Lakers. Coating ballast 
tanks on existing U.S. Lakers can be done; however, the costs to do so 
are prohibitively high, and the vessel would require dry-docking for at 
least a year, a significant lost revenue period, to clean, grind, weld 
and coat the inside of ballast tanks.
    With regards to operational considerations, many inter-lake voyages 
are shorter than 72 hours (and even as short as 2 hours) and, in these 
cases, would not provide the required residence time for BWMS 
technologies that require extended holding times to be effective such 
as chemical addition, deoxygenation, or UV for many of the USCG type-
approved UV-based BWMS U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 2017). Increasing 
voyage times by slow steaming to meet minimum hold times for certain 
BWMS may be possible, but the impact to vessel operations would need to 
be accounted for in assessing the cost of operation of such systems, 
including impacts to shippers. In fact, the entire supply chain would 
be impacted by extra voyage times.
4. Testing of BWMS on the Great Lakes
    Testing of various BWMS and their components using ambient Great 
Lakes water has been conducted at the Great Ships Initiative (GSI) \3\ 
Land-Based Research, Development, Testing and Evaluation Facility 
located in Duluth-Superior Harbor on Lake Superior. GSI provides 
freshwater ballast treatment evaluation at three scales--bench, land-
based, and on-board ship. GSI, because of its location, uses freshwater 
from the Great Lakes to evaluate performance of BWMS at removing Great 
Lakes organisms within the size ranges required in the VGP and USCG 
discharge standard (using the ETV Protocol) and the IMO protocols for 
approval of ballast water management systems.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ The Great Ships Initiative, which commented in 2005, is an 
industry led collaborative effort to address problems of ship-
mediated invasive species in the Great Lakes Saint Lawrence Seaway 
System.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    During August through October 2009, the GSI conducted land-based 
type-approval testing in accordance with IMO G8 guidelines on the 
Siemens SiCURE\TM\ BWMS (Great Ships Initiative, 2010). The Siemens 
SiCURE\TM\ BWMS is based on filtration and side-stream 
electrochlorination of seawater to produce hypochlorite, which is then 
injected into the incoming ballast water. The results showed that the 
BWMS functioned properly and was effective at reducing live organism in 
the regulated size classes at levels below the IMO ballast water 
performance standard (i.e., Regulation D-2 of the BWM Convention) after 
the five-day holding time in the fresh water ambient conditions of 
Duluth-Superior Harbor that had been augmented to achieve IMO challenge 
conditions. Target bacteria Escherichia coli and intestinal enterococci 
were also discharged at levels below the numeric discharge standard 
after the 5-day holding time. However, as mentioned previously, 
electrochlorination requires a bunker of synthetic seawater solution 
for generating chlorine and can corrode the uncoated tanks of U.S. 
Lakers.
    During September and October 2014, GSI conducted land-based testing 
of three prototype versions of the chlorine addition-based JFE 
BallastAce[supreg] BWMS to evaluate not only the biological and 
chemical performance against the USCG ballast water discharge standard, 
but also the total residual oxidant (TRO) of the chemical system (Great 
Ships Initiative, 2015). Only the JFE BallastAce BWMS operated using 
the TG BallastCleaner[supreg] at the higher target TRO concentration of 
approximately 20 mg/L was able to achieve the USCG discharge standard 
for living organisms although these concentrations did result in 
elevated levels of disinfection by-products. This system type can also 
corrode the uncoated tanks of U.S. Lakers.
    Using filtration and UV BWMS can avoid the corrosion concerns. 
However, testing of the filtration and UV Alfa Laval 
PureBallast[supreg] Version 3 BWMS in Duluth-Superior Harbor in 2010 
using ambient Great Lakes water failed to achieve the USCG and IMO 
numeric discharge standards in the two regulated size classes, even 
though intake organism densities in the Great Lakes harbor water were 
well below IMO and EPA's ETV Protocol challenge conditions. GSI 
concluded that the system failed to achieve the USCG numeric discharge 
standard due to the filters' ineffectiveness at removing filamentous 
algal forms in Duluth-Superior Harbor water. In addition, very low 
ambient UV transmittance of Duluth-Superior Harbor water (naturally 
caused by tannins) at the time of testing likely inhibited the 
effectiveness of the UV disinfection unit (Great Ships Initiative, 
2011).
5. Consideration of a Type-Approved BWMS Equipment Requirement
    EPA also considered an option in which Great Lakes vessels would be 
required to install, operate, and maintain a USCG type-approved BWMS 
but not have to meet a discharge standard. This option assumes that the 
structural challenges of installing, operating and maintaining a USCG 
type-approved BWMS, particularly for Lakers, could be overcome and 
would be available and economically achievable. Specifically, 
consideration was given to an equipment carriage requirement in which a 
Great Lakes vessel would be required to install, operate and maintain 
(i.e., carry) a USCG type-approved BWMS, but would not be required to 
meet a numeric discharge standard acknowledging the unique Great Lakes 
environmental conditions and vessel voyage patterns. The advantage to 
this approach is that, although treatment may not be able to 
consistently meet the discharge standard due to the Great Lakes 
conditions, some reduction in the discharge of ANS would likely occur.
    EPA is not proposing this approach because such a requirement to 
install a current BWMS without addressing the incompatibility with the 
environment conditions of the Great Lakes or the technical equipment 
considerations does not reflect BAT. There is significant uncertainty 
as to the operational functionality of BWMS in the Great Lakes, 
particularly when operating conditions extend outside the design 
parameters of any available treatment systems. For example, given that 
U.S. Lakers have uncoated ballast tanks, it is expected that many 
vessel

[[Page 67850]]

owners would opt for UV-based BWMS to meet such an equipment standard. 
As shown in the GSI testing of the filtration and UV Alfa Laval 
PureBallast[supreg] Version 3 BWMS in Duluth-Superior Harbor in 2010 
using ambient Great Lakes water, the system failed to achieve the USCG 
and IMO numeric discharge standards in the two regulated size classes 
due to the filters' ineffectiveness at removing filamentous algal forms 
and very low ambient UV transmittance of Duluth-Superior Harbor water 
(naturally caused by tannins) which likely inhibited the effectiveness 
of the UV disinfection unit (Great Ships Initiative, 2011). All of the 
other USCG type-approved BWMS systems were evaluated for a carriage 
requirement and it was found that these other systems face operational 
challenges similar to the UV system. Clogged filters in turbid ports 
and under icing conditions could significantly impact vessel 
operations, even halt operations, if the BWMS ceased working.
    In addition, EPA determined that such an equipment requirement does 
not meet the ``economically achievable'' portion of the BAT requirement 
for this proposed rule. An equipment standard may require a costly 
installation and maintenance of a system only to be faced with an 
imperative for the vessel owner to modify the system to be able to 
operate the vessel as necessary or even to replace the system with 
newer technology in the near future. Vessels that operate exclusively 
in the Great Lakes have a significant lifespan as compared to seagoing 
vessels due to the freshwater conditions of the Great Lakes. 
Installation of a BWMS on a Laker, for example, would be based on the 
life of the BWMS, not the life of the vessel. However, retrofitting a 
Laker for BWMS is a significantly costly endeavor, particularly for 
U.S. owned vessels, which as Jones Act vessels, are required to be 
built in U.S. shipyards or pay a 50 percent U.S. tax for repairs done 
in a foreign shipyard. For this reason, if a Laker vessel was 
reconfigured to fit a current USCG type-approved system, retrofitting 
that same vessel for a newer BWMS that may require a different 
configuration may be cost prohibitive and impede the deployment of more 
effective technologies in the future.
    There are insufficient data at this time to establish an 
alternative equipment standard for Great Lakes vessels that is 
technically available and economically achievable. EPA has determined 
that implementing a carriage standard may be short-sighted and costly 
to the vessel community with an unknown level of effectiveness to 
reduce ANS discharges in the Great Lakes. Additional research is needed 
before EPA could identify a standard that reasonably satisfies the 
statutory BAT requirements consistent with Section 903(g)(2)(B)(viii) 
of the VIDA which establishes a program for EPA, in collaboration with 
other federal agencies, to research and develop BWMS for use by vessels 
operating on the Great Lakes.
6. The Availability of Alternative Approaches for Great Lakes Vessels
    EPA assessed whether technologies are available other than USCG 
type-approved BWMS or other BMPs that could be used for Great Lakes 
vessels. The IMO has approved more than 60 commercially available BWMS. 
However, as discussed earlier, the IMO type-approval process does not 
meet EPA and USCG QA/QC criteria and as such, vendors must obtain USCG 
type-approval for any BWMS to be used in the U.S. beyond the five-year 
bridge to compliance during which time an IMO type-approved and USCG 
recognized alternate management system (AMS) may be used. EPA also 
evaluated the potential for technology transfer from other industries. 
However, adapting land-based technology for use onboard a vessel 
entails different criteria and challenges, such as acceptable shipboard 
materials, safety, hazardous spaces, and vessel stability 
considerations. For these reasons, no similar technologies have been 
identified for evaluation against this vessel-based standard, which 
accounts for vessel design, stability, and safety at sea.
    Information on technologies and practices other than type-approved 
systems is limited but EPA did evaluate alternative options for Great 
Lakes vessels. The three alternatives considered include (1) use of 
filtration only, (2) open lake exchange of highly turbid water taken up 
in river ports, and (3) exempting the use of a ballast water treatment 
system for certain voyages when the operational parameters of an 
installed BWMS cannot be met.
i. Filtration
    Some research has explored the potential of using filtration-only 
to treat ballast water; rather than the more common filtration coupled 
with disinfection. The Great Ships Initiative (GSI) evaluated the 
performance of eight commercially available filter systems which 
covered a range of technologies and nominal pore sizes using ambient 
Duluth-Superior Harbor water and amended intake water to achieve a 
minimum concentration of 24 mg/L total suspended solids (TSS). Analysis 
of the GSI filter system performance data shows that regardless of 
filter pore size, no system can achieve the IMO or USCG numeric 
discharge standards. According to GSI, the soft-bodied microzooplankton 
which make up most zooplankton in Duluth-Superior Harbor that straddle 
the 50[micro]m size range were the most difficult to remove by 
filtration. Macrozooplankton, which are the least numerous in Duluth-
Superior Harbor, were the easiest to remove by filtration (Great Ships 
Initiative, 2014).
    GSI's findings are consistent with other researchers who studied 
the performance of BWMS filtration systems in the Great Lakes. In 2012, 
Briski et al. (2014) collected before and after filtration samples from 
a 40 [micro]m BWMS filtration unit installed on the M/V Richelieu, a 
729-foot bulk carrier that typically operates in the Great Lakes and 
the Atlantic coast of North America. The three shipboard trials 
conducted dock side in Quebec City, Quebec and Sarnia, Ontario, and at 
anchor in Thunder Bay, Ontario, found filtration significantly reduced 
abundance of copepods and cladocerans, but not of juvenile dreissenid 
veligers and rotifers. Briski et al. concluded that filtration alters 
the relative abundance of zooplankton, but filtration alone does not 
reduce introduction risk of any taxonomic group due to the small 
juvenile stages and dormant eggs which can be passed through BWMS 
filters (Briski et al., 2014).
    EPA determined that filtration alone is not sufficient to meet the 
numeric discharge standard and there is neither sufficient data at this 
time to establish an alternative standard for Great Lakes vessels using 
filtration that would reduce ANS discharge at a known effectiveness 
level nor information on the practical installation and operation, 
including cost, of such a filtration alternative.
ii. Open Lake Exchange
    As detailed in the sections above, using a UV-based BWMS eliminates 
the corrosion concerns associated with use of other types of BWMS that 
rely on oxidizing chemical addition; however, Great Lakes harbors with 
high sediment loads and excessive levels of tannins, particularly in 
river ports, significantly reduce UV light transmittance and prevent 
UV-based BWMS from providing treatment necessary to achieve the 
discharge standard. EPA considered a practice in which a vessel leaving 
a turbid port could conduct an exchange after leaving the port (e.g., 
mid-lake) to flush the turbid water, then use a type-approved BWMS to 
treat the mid-lake water and any residual ballast

[[Page 67851]]

water and sediments. However, EPA determined that there is insufficient 
data to support the effectiveness of such an alternative practice in 
reducing ANS discharges in the Great Lakes. In addition, more 
information is needed to ensure any unintended consequences are avoided 
that could result from transferring river sediment to an open-lake 
environment. Importantly, it is also not clear that Lakers, which are 
not built to seagoing standards, would be able to safely conduct open-
lake exchange due to concerns regarding vessel stability and increased 
stress during the ballast exchange process.
iii. Voyage-Specific Exemptions
    EPA also considered the option of requiring Great Lakes vessels to 
meet the numeric discharge standard using a type-approved BWMS, but to 
allow the vessel to not have to use the system during certain voyages 
when the vessel is operating outside the design range of the system. 
For example, the short voyage times of many Lakers inhibit the use of 
UV disinfection, deoxygenation, or chemical treatment of many BWMS 
which require a specific holding time (e.g., 72-hour hold time after 
treatment). An exemption could be given in advance for specific voyages 
that do not allow sufficient hold time as specified for the BWMS. Short 
voyages, particularly intra-lake routes, likely pose less of a risk of 
ballast water spread of ANS, therefore the use of BWMS could be 
prioritized for inter-lake voyages. In addition, incentives could be 
explored that encourage vessel owners to modify their voyage pattern to 
accommodate sufficient holding time for inter-lake voyages.
    The same principle could be applied for voyages during cold months 
when icing condition occur, or the ambient water temperatures fall 
below the parameters of the BWMS and impede its operation. An exemption 
could be given in advance for voyages when these temperatures occur 
during the shipping season. In addition, there may be less biological 
activity during the colder months of the year and ANS spread could pose 
less of a risk. This exemption would allow the operation of a BWMS to 
be prioritized during increased temperatures when risk increases.
    In principle, these exemptions are practical approaches that could 
be beneficial to allow the prioritization of the operation of BWMS when 
there is a possibility of more ANS discharges, such as during inter-
lake voyages or higher temperatures. However, insufficient data exist 
to support the imposition of an alternative standard for Great Lakes 
vessels in the proposed rule and also, it is not clear how such an 
inconsistent management regime would be evaluated for compliance with 
the standards and enforcement purposes. Additional research is needed 
to determine the feasibility of such alternatives and the effective 
reduction of ANS from these practices. For example, one consideration 
to address is if the BWMS is only operating during certain voyages, the 
untreated ballast water and sediments in the tank may reduce the BWMS 
effectiveness during times when the system is required to be operated. 
In addition, implementation of these exemptions is contingent on the 
fact that the structural challenges can be overcome to install and 
operate a BWMS on Lakers as already described. If these structural 
challenges can be overcome, these exemptions could play a critical role 
in advancing the use of BWMS on the Great Lakes vessels during times of 
prioritized risk.
    EPA determined that these three alternatives are not sufficient to 
meet the numeric discharge standard and there is insufficient data at 
this time to establish an alternative standard or requirement for Great 
Lakes vessels that would reduce ANS discharges at a known effectiveness 
level. Additional research is needed to explore these options. Congress 
clearly acknowledged that there are not currently practicable ballast 
water management solutions for Lakers and established the Great Lakes 
and Lake Champlain Invasive Species Program under the VIDA for EPA to 
develop such solutions.
7. Conclusion
    To date, no technologies or management practices beyond those 
identified previously in the VGP and USCG regulations have been 
demonstrated to be available and implementable solutions to address 
ballast water discharges from the universe of vessels that operate 
exclusively on the Great Lakes. In November 2016, the Great Ships 
Initiative (GSI) published a briefing paper highlighting the problem 
and need for pure freshwater testing in the Great Lakes stating that 
USCG and IMO require, as a part of their testing protocols, ``challenge 
conditions for organism sizes and densities that are not a good fit for 
native (Great Lakes) assemblages'' (Great Ships Initiative, 2016). 
While more research is conducted as authorized by the VIDA, EPA is 
proposing in this rule to continue to exempt Lakers as well as other 
vessels that operate exclusively in the Great Lakes from the numeric 
discharge standard.
    EPA believes it is important that new technologies and practices be 
identified that reduce the discharge of non-indigenous species 
specifically from Great Lakes vessels and meet the BAT standard. To 
support the goal of identifying those technologies, EPA is considering 
whether to require owners/operators of Great Lakes vessels to perform a 
self-assessment either individually or in partnership with other vessel 
owners/operators and submit information annually to EPA. Details of the 
types of information considered and how that information may be used 
are described in VIII.B.1.vi.C.8.i. Vessel-Specific Data Submission to 
Inform Revised Standard for Vessels Operating Exclusively on the Great 
Lakes.
    It is important that this class of vessels remain intimately 
involved in the technology development and be the basis for the demand 
for innovative, cost-effective solutions by working closely with 
researchers and manufacturers. BWMS may very well be developed in 
stages for the various types of Great Lakes vessels. For example, the 
design and construction of a newly built vessel would provide the best 
opportunity to accommodate sufficient space for electrical and 
mechanical systems. Marine engineers and naval architects could also 
specify that ballast tanks be completely welded, all sharp metal edges 
be rounded, and all metal surfaces within the ballast tanks be coated 
with a material to prevent corrosion. The goal is that research can 
focus on development of technology to address the environmental and 
operational conditions Great Lakes vessels.
    The VIDA acknowledges the lack of availability of BWMS for Great 
Lakes vessels and authorizes EPA within its Great Lakes National 
Program Office to establish the Great Lakes and Lake Champlain Invasive 
Species Program. One of that program's purposes is identified to 
develop, achieve type-approval for, and pilot shipboard or land-based 
ballast water management systems installed on, or available for use by 
vessels operating solely within the Great Lakes and Lake Champlain to 
prevent the spread of ANS within the Great Lakes and Lake Champlain 
Systems. This program is to be developed in collaboration and 
consultation with several other federal agencies. As acknowledged by 
Congress in its inclusion of this provision in the VIDA, this program 
is expected to play a vital role to advance the development of type-
approved ballast water management system for Great Lakes vessels and 
inform future regulations.

[[Page 67852]]

    Vendors of BWMS to date have not expended adequate time and 
resources to advance systems that would work onboard Great Lakes 
vessels, because this fleet represents such a small percentage of the 
world-wide market, leaving the owners of these vessels with no 
alternative to selecting a commercially available system that would 
achieve the numeric ballast water discharge standard once installed and 
operated on the Great Lakes. This collaborative research strategy is 
important to drive the market for this technology given the small 
number of vessels. For example, the combined U.S. and Canadian Laker 
fleet is less than 150 vessels compared to the tens-of-thousands of 
other ocean-going vessels worldwide that are now purchasing and 
installing systems to meet the U.S. or IMO-based ballast water 
discharge standards.
    Once EPA has data and information that can be used to identify 
additional BAT approaches for Great Lakes vessels, be it installation 
of technology or implementation of best management practices, the 
Agency expects to propose updates to the discharge standard to reflect 
new BAT-based requirements. Such an update may address the entire 
universe of vessels that operate exclusively on the Great Lakes, or 
reasonably could consider the appropriateness of the identified 
technology or practices to the different segments of the Great Lakes 
fleet, such as among classes, types, and sizes and between new and 
existing vessels as provided for under the VIDA. While CWA Section 
312(p)(4)(D)(i) calls for EPA to review the discharge standards at 
least every five years and revise if appropriate, the Agency expects a 
more fluid assessment of the adequacy of standards for Great Lakes 
vessels, acknowledging that ballast water management research and 
development activities described under the Great Lakes and Lake 
Champlain Invasive Species Program established under the VIDA may 
provide a sound basis for proposing new or updated standards in less 
than the five-year statutory review timeframe. In CWA Sections 
312(p)(10)(B), the VIDA also creates a role for the states in 
promulgating enhanced Great Lakes requirements by enacting a process in 
which Governors of the Great Lakes states can work together to develop 
an enhanced standard of performance or other requirements with respect 
to any incidental discharge, including ballast water. In all cases 
where Great Lakes Governors propose an enhanced requirement, EPA and 
USCG may only reject the proposed requirement if it is less stringent 
than existing standards or requirements under this section, 
inconsistent with maritime safety, or inconsistent with applicable 
maritime and navigation laws and regulations.
8. EPA Seeks Input on Great Lakes Vessels
i. Vessel-Specific Data Submission To Inform Revised Standard for 
Vessels Operating Exclusively on the Great Lakes
    EPA is seeking input on whether to include in the final rule a 
provision requiring that vessels operating exclusively on the Great 
Lakes, conduct a self-assessment either individually or in partnership 
with other vessels and submit information annually to EPA. EPA would 
use this information, together with information on the general sources 
of incompatibility and the challenging environmental conditions of the 
Great Lakes with installing and operating existing USCG type-approved 
BWMS, to revise the discharge standards as new technologies become 
available and economically achievable (and have acceptable non-water 
quality environmental impacts). This information would also be critical 
for the Great Lakes and Lake Champlain Invasive Species Program effort 
to develop practical ballast water management technologies for Lakers. 
An important aspect of any future analysis of these vessels is to 
acknowledge that BAT may not result in the same discharge standards for 
other classes of vessels or that a one-size-fits-all approach for Great 
Lakes vessels may not be appropriate. This may be because the 
technologies and practices available and economically achievable for 
new vessels may be different from those available to existing vessels, 
or because the best available technology differs by class of vessels 
(e.g., self-unloading bulkers, tank barges). EPA is committed to 
performing a full assessment of environmental conditions and vessel 
ballasting activities in the Great Lakes as necessary to enhance 
requirements for Great Lakes vessel ballast water management 
technologies and practices that reduce the discharge of ANS in the 
Great Lakes. The goal of this effort is to bring all Great Lakes 
vessels into compliance with a numeric ballast water discharge standard 
as soon as is possible under the law.
    EPA seeks comment on the type of vessel-specific information that 
would be valuable for Great Lakes vessels to include in their annual 
submission and for EPA to assess. This information could include: 
Operational considerations on locations and opportune times to conduct 
ballast water monitoring; specific details of voyages that impact 
holding times of certain BWMS; details of loading/unloading logistics 
that limit ballast water management; and reasons for such limitations, 
including weather considerations, crew considerations or other 
operational information. In addition, information could be provided on 
the characteristics of ports for future opportunities for onshore or 
barge-based reception facility opportunities. Although EPA could also 
request financial information, EPA proposes not to do this at this time 
until EPA identifies a promising candidate technology or suite of 
technologies for Great Lakes vessels.
ii. Applicability of Ballast Water Discharge Standards to Vessels That 
Operate Primarily, But Not Exclusively, in the Great Lakes
    EPA is seeking input on whether to include in the final rule an 
extension of the proposed exemptions from the ballast water discharge 
standards to also include vessels operating primarily, but not 
exclusively, on the Great Lakes. As written, the proposed rule would 
require this class of vessels that operate primarily in the Great Lakes 
but do occasionally voyage to coastal ports outside of the Lakes to 
both perform a ballast water exchange prior to re-entering the Lakes 
and to meet the numeric discharge standard for any ballast water, 
including any unpumpable residual waters and sediments, subsequently 
discharged within the Great Lakes, similar to requirements applicable 
to vessels entering the Great Lakes from overseas voyages. EPA is 
seeking this input acknowledging that the BWMS installed to treat 
ballast water taken up outside of the Great Lakes will be unlikely to 
consistently meet the numeric discharge standard for ballast water 
taken up within the Great Lakes because of the same environmental 
challenges of operating a BWMS under the conditions of the Great Lakes 
described for those vessels operating exclusively within the Great 
Lakes.
    With that in mind, EPA is seeking input on whether a vessel that 
maybe voyages outside the Great Lakes once or twice a year, but in no 
case more than half of the time, should be required to install a 
ballast water management system for use during those times when the 
vessel is discharging ballast water that had been taken on outside of 
the Great Lakes. The type of information for which EPA is seeking input 
include the voyage patterns and durations and

[[Page 67853]]

ballasting and ballast management practices for these vessels both 
within and outside of the Great Lakes; tank cleaning procedures, 
frequencies, and locations and the practicability of ballast tank 
cleanings upon re-entry into the Great Lakes; financial implications 
for these vessels to install a ballast water treatment system that may 
have to be replaced within the next five years based on updates to the 
national discharge standards to future research on appropriate 
technologies and practices for managing ballast water in the Great 
Lakes; and the appropriate line of demarcation for the Great Lakes.
    The vessels that would be impacted by this option are mostly, if 
not exclusively, Canadian vessels that voyage to coastal ports outside 
of the Great Lakes where bulk cargo is reloaded onto seagoing vessels 
for transport around the world. This portion of the vessel universe 
includes bulkers, tankers, general cargo vessels, articulated tug-
barges, tugboats, river barges, and passenger vessels. Most coastal 
vessel voyages originate in ports in western Lake Superior and western 
Lake Erie where bulk cargo including grain and coal is loaded and then 
transported to Canadian ports along the St. Lawrence Seaway east of 
Montreal. EPA has limited information on this class of largely Canadian 
vessels and the nature of their voyage patterns and ballasting 
activities (Bailey et al., 2012).
    As described in VIII.B.1.vi.C.8.i. Vessel-Specific Data Submission 
to Inform Revised Standard for Vessels Operating Exclusively on the 
Great Lakes, EPA is committed to performing a full assessment of 
environmental conditions and vessel ballasting activities in the Great 
Lakes as necessary to enhance requirements for Great Lakes vessel 
ballast water management technologies and practices that reduce the 
discharge of ANS in the Great Lakes with a goal to update the standards 
at a later date based on the findings from that assessment.
vi. Exemptions From the Numeric Ballast Water Discharge Standard
    EPA proposes to exempt certain vessels from the numeric ballast 
water discharge standard as specified in 139.10(d) of the proposed 
rule. These exemptions are generally consistent with the VGP and USCG 
33 CFR part 151 subparts C and D regulations with some exceptions as 
described below.
    The proposed exclusions in section 139.10(b), VIII.B.1.ii. 
Exclusions, would exclude vessels from the ballast water regulations 
and all requirements of this part on the basis that those vessels do 
not contribute significantly to the introduction or spread of ANS. 
Excluding those vessels minimizes other non-water quality environmental 
impacts that may result from the operation of ballast water treatment 
systems, including increased energy usage and increased carbon 
emissions in instances that outweigh any meaningful benefit from 
nominal reductions in ANS discharges.
    In contrast, the proposed exemptions in section 139.10(d)(3) as 
described in this section, would exempt vessels from the numeric 
ballast water discharge standard in section 139.10(d) only. Exempt 
vessels would still be required to meet the ballast water BMPs 
described in section 139.10(c) of the proposed rule and the ballast 
water exchange and saltwater flushing requirements included in section 
139.10(e) of the proposed rule, as applicable.
    There are six categories of vessels that would be exempt from the 
discharge standard, and they are: Any vessel that is less than or equal 
to 3,000 GT ITC (1,600 GRT if GT ITC is not assigned) and that does not 
operate outside the exclusive economic zone (EEZ); any non-seagoing, 
unmanned, unpowered barge, except any barge that is part of a dedicated 
vessel combination such as an integrated or articulated tug and barge 
unit; any vessel that uptakes and discharges ballast water exclusively 
in a single COTP Zone; any vessel that does not travel more than 10 NM 
and does not pass through any locks; any vessel that operates 
exclusively in the Laurentian Great Lakes; and any vessel in the USCG 
Shipboard Technology Evaluation Program (STEP). In VIII.B.1.v.C.1. 
Ballast Water Management of Vessels Operating Exclusively on the 
Laurentian Great Lakes, we explained the exemption for vessels that 
operate exclusively in the Laurentian Great Lakes. Discussion of all 
six categories is included below.
A. Vessels Less Than or Equal to 3,000 GT ITC (1,600 GRT if GT ITC Is 
Not Assigned) and That Do Not Operate Outside the EEZ
    The proposed rule would carry forward the existing VGP and USCG 33 
CFR 151.2015 exemption from the ballast water numeric discharge 
standard for vessels that are less than or equal to 3,000 GT ITC (1,600 
GRT if GT ITC is not assigned) and that do not operate outside the EEZ. 
This includes both seagoing and non-seagoing vessels. EPA bases this 
proposed exemption on the finding that ballast water technologies are 
not available or economically achievable for this universe of smaller 
vessels (e.g., tugboats) as to date, ballast water treatment systems 
generally have been designed for larger vessels or vessels that only 
uptake or discharge ballast water on either end of longer voyages. EPA 
did identify one vessel in the 2018 VGP annual reports that meets the 
exemption characteristics. EPA considered whether a different threshold 
in terms of size should be used; however, EPA proposes to retain the 
threshold from the VGP that is also consistent with the existing USCG 
ballast water regulations.
    Therefore, EPA proposes that this class of vessels can minimize the 
discharge of untreated ballast water through best management practices 
only, without being required to meet the ballast water numeric 
discharge standard. It is important to note that this exemption will be 
reconsidered in the future if technology becomes available for this 
size class of vessels.
B. Non-Seagoing Unmanned, Unpowered Barges
    Most unmanned, unpowered barges operate in internal and coastal 
waterways (i.e., non-seagoing) to transport low-value bulk items such 
as grain, coal, and iron ore. These vessels have no on-board crew and 
do not have infrastructure that allows for complex or energy intensive 
operations. EPA understands that ballasting for some of these barges is 
performed in limited instances such as to pass under bridges or to 
improve stability in bad weather or other rough water. These barges 
typically do not have dedicated ballast tanks but can use wing tanks 
(void space) in the hull when ballasting is necessary. Minimal water is 
used for ballasting. Unmanned, unpowered barges have been recognized as 
posing unique challenges for managing ballast water. For instance, 
EPA's SAB notes: ``Inland waterways and coastal barges are not self-
propelled, but rather are moved by towing or pushing with tugboats. 
Because these vessels have been designed to transport bulk cargo, or as 
working platforms, they commonly use ballast tanks or fill cargo spaces 
with water for trim and stability, or to prevent excessive motions in 
heavy seas. However, the application of [Ballast water management 
systems] on these vessels presents significant logistical challenges 
because they typically do not have their own source of power or ballast 
pumps and are unmanned.'' (U.S. EPA, 2011b).
    EPA proposes to exempt any non-seagoing, unmanned, unpowered barge, 
that is not part of a dedicated vessel combination, such as an 
integrated or articulated tug barge (ATB) unit

[[Page 67854]]

consisting of two separate vessels that operate in tandem, always 
together. The 2013 VGP, in Part 2.2.3.5.3.2, exempted all unmanned, 
unpowered barges from compliance with the numeric ballast water 
discharge standard; however, the USCG regulations at 33 CFR 151.2015 
does not exempt any seagoing vessel 3,000 GT ITC (1,600 GRT if GT ITC 
is not assigned) and above or that operates outside of the EEZ. As 
such, the proposed requirement is a harmonization of the VGP and the 
USCG existing requirements. The record indicates that an unmanned, 
unpowered barge, when part of a dedicated vessel combination, can 
install a BWMS as may be necessary to meet the discharge standard and 
as such these dedicated vessel combinations including an unmanned, 
unpowered barge are not exempt from compliance with the numeric ballast 
water discharge standard.
C. Vessels That Uptake and Discharge Ballast Water Exclusively in a 
Single COTP Zone
    Consistent with the provisions of the previous VGP and existing 
USCG regulations at 33 CFR 151.2015(c) and (d)(3), the proposed rule 
would exempt from the ballast water numeric discharge standard vessels 
that uptake and discharge ballast water exclusively in a single COTP 
Zone, but that may operate in more than one COTP Zone. This exemption 
retains the BMPs for these vessels to ensure that ballast water is 
managed appropriately, however acknowledges that in all other 
instances, the discharge does not significantly contribute to the 
introduction and spread of ANS.
D. Vessels That Travel No More Than 10 Nautical Miles and Do Not Pass 
Through Any Locks During Their Voyages
    Consistent with the provisions of the previous VGP, the proposed 
rule would exempt from the ballast water numeric discharge standard 
vessels that travel no more than 10 NM and do not pass through any 
locks during their voyages. These vessels (e.g., cross-river ferries) 
contribute insignificantly to the introduction and dispersal of ANS, 
however, the implementation of the best management practices for these 
short-voyage vessels is intended to minimize the contribution of ANS 
that the vessels could cumulatively have in a region. Exempting these 
vessels also helps minimize other non-water quality environmental 
impacts that may result from the operation of ballast water treatment 
systems, including increased energy usage and increased carbon 
emissions. 40 CFR 125.3(d)(3). Further, many existing ballast water 
treatment systems use biocides that need minimum contact time to be 
effective. Short distance voyages may not provide the time necessary 
for biocides to be effective. In fact, the discharge of ballast water 
treated with biocides may contain residuals or byproducts from that 
treatment, and short voyage times may not permit adequate decay or 
neutralization.
    While at this time EPA is not aware of any specific vessels which 
currently meet these criteria for the exemption, EPA did not want to 
inadvertently require ballast water numeric discharge standard be met 
for such vessels.
E. Vessels That Operate Exclusively in the Laurentian Great Lakes
    As described in VIII.B.1.vi.C. Vessels Operating Exclusively on the 
Great Lakes, EPA proposes to subcategorize and not require any vessel 
that operates exclusively in the Laurentian Great Lakes to meet the 
numeric ballast water discharge standard. EPA determined that the 
challenges that existed for pre-2009 Lakers at the time the VGP was 
issued remain true today not only for bulk carriers but for any vessel 
operating exclusively in the Laurentian Great Lakes. The details of the 
circumstances that make ballast water management uniquely challenging 
for pre-2009 Lakers include issues having to do with the operational 
profile and design of these vessels and with the unique nature of the 
waters of the Great Lakes as described in VIII.B.1.vi.C. Vessels 
Operating Exclusively on the Great Lakes. As such, EPA is proposing to 
expand this exemption from the VGP to any vessel operating exclusively 
on the Great Lakes, acknowledging that the extreme environmental 
conditions and operational limitations for pre-2009 Lakers also affect 
the ability of other vessels that exclusively trade on the Great Lakes 
to effectively install and operate a BWMS to effectively treat ballast 
water.
    EPA acknowledges this standard is less stringent than the VGP; 
however, the VIDA provides for less stringent requirements when, as in 
this case, the Administrator determines that a material technical 
mistake occurred when promulgating the existing requirement of the VGP. 
33 U.S.C. 1322(p)(4)(D)(ii)(II)(bb). EPA made such a material technical 
mistake when it failed to acknowledge that the extreme environmental 
conditions and operational limitations that prevented pre-2009 Lakers 
from treating its ballast water also affect the ability of other Great 
Lakes vessels from doing the same.
    Also, consistent with CWA Section 312(p)(4)(D)(ii)(II)(aa), the 
Administrator may revise a standard of performance to be less stringent 
than an applicable existing requirement if information becomes 
available that was not reasonably available when the Administrator 
promulgated the initial standard of performance or comparable 
requirement of the VGP, as applicable (including the subsequent 
scarcity or unavailability of materials used to control the relevant 
discharge); and would have justified the application of a less-
stringent standard of performance at the time of promulgation. As 
detailed in VIII.B.1.vi.C.1. Ballast Water Management of Vessels 
Operating Exclusively on the Laurentian Great Lakes, subsequent to 
issuance of the VGP, EPA evaluated post-2009 Lakers and concluded that 
they too are unable to meet the VGP discharge requirements, which is 
new information not reasonably available to the Administrator when EPA 
issued the VGP.
    EPA is not proposing to exclude any vessels from the Great Lakes 
saltwater flushing and ballast water exchange requirements when such 
vessels enter the St. Lawrence Seaway through the mouth of the Saint 
Lawrence River; thus, any vessel operating in the Laurentian Great 
Lakes that leaves the Lakes and takes on ballast water outside of the 
Lakes would be required to exchange that ballast prior to re-entering 
the St. Lawrence Seaway through the mouth of the St. Lawrence River 
consistent with the Great Lakes requirements in section 139.10(f) of 
the proposed rule. The Agency is requiring this as specifically 
established by Congress in the VIDA CWA Section 312(p)(10)(A).
F. Vessels in the USCG Shipboard Technology Evaluation Program (STEP)
    The proposed rule would exempt from the ballast water numeric 
discharge standard a vessel equipped with ballast tanks if that vessel 
is enrolled by the USCG into the Shipboard Technology Evaluation 
Program (STEP). This exemption is consistent with existing VGP 
requirements and USCG 33 CFR part 151 subpart D regulations. The STEP 
program currently applies and will continue to play a critical role in 
the development of effective ballast water treatment systems, as with 
many other related or similar programs the USCG might implement in the 
future. The program has encouraged pioneering vessel operators to 
install ballast water

[[Page 67855]]

treatment systems, contributed to the development of effective sampling 
methods, and allowed for the collection of valuable shipboard ballast 
water treatment data needed to evaluate the efficacy of ballast water 
treatment systems. Furthermore, STEP is a venue for treatment vendors 
to develop and refine systems that comply with the ballast water 
numeric discharge standard, can be successfully approved through the 
USCG type-approval process, and result in the availability of a greater 
range of systems for vessel owners. Vessels involved in STEP use 
ballast water treatment technologies that share similarities in 
capabilities (and in many cases, are the same systems) as those 
described in the technical reports EPA used to inform the proposed 
rule. Therefore, EPA proposes to exempt them as they are effectively 
using treatments systems which reflect BAT.
vii. Numeric Ballast Water Discharge Standard Compliance Dates
    EPA is not proposing compliance dates for the numeric ballast water 
discharge standard; rather, the Agency expects the USCG to include such 
as part of its VIDA CWA Section 312(p)(5) implementation, compliance, 
and enforcement rulemaking. The Agency acknowledges and supports 
continuation of the USCG extension program, in 33 CFR 151.1513 and 
151.2036, for those cases where the master, owner, operator, agent, or 
person in charge of a vessel subject to this subpart can document that, 
despite all efforts, compliance with the numeric ballast water 
discharge standard is not possible. The details of such vessel-specific 
requests are left to the USCG. For perspective, the existing USCG 
review considers safety and regulatory requirements of electrical 
equipment, vessel capacity to accommodate BWMS, vessel age, shipyard 
availability, or other similar factors and extensions are granted for 
no longer than the minimum time needed, as determined by the USCG, for 
the vessel to comply with the numeric ballast water discharge standard.
viii. Ballast Water Exchange and Saltwater Flushing
A. Ballast Water Exchange
    The proposed rule would require certain vessels to conduct a 
ballast water exchange as an interim ballast water management measure 
prior to compliance with the ballast water numeric discharge standard. 
Except for vessels entering the Great Lakes, vessels on Pacific Region 
voyages, and vessels with empty ballast tanks, the VIDA did not alter 
the ballast water exchange requirements in the VGP and USCG regulations 
at 33 CFR 151.2025. EPA proposes to maintain these requirements that 
prior to a vessel meeting its compliance date for meeting the numeric 
ballast water discharge standard, any vessel operating beyond the EEZ 
and with ballast water onboard that was taken within 200 NM of any 
shore must either meet the numeric discharge standard or conduct a mid-
ocean exchange further than 200 NM from any shore, prior to entering 
waters of the United States or waters of the contiguous zone. As in the 
VGP, the exchange must occur as early as practicable in the voyage, so 
long as the exchange occurs more than 200 NM from shore. This 
requirement reduces the likelihood of the spread of ANS, most notably 
prior to a ballast water numeric discharge standard compliance date, by 
increasing the mortality of living organisms in ballast tanks and 
ensuring that the discharge contains fewer viable living organisms.
    As to the requirements that would apply to vessels entering the 
Great Lakes and vessels on Pacific Region voyages, those are described 
in VIII.B.1.x. Vessels Entering the Great Lakes and VIII.B.1.xi. 
Pacific Region. The proposed requirements for empty ballast water tanks 
are described in the next section.
B. Saltwater Flushing for Empty Ballast Tanks
    Saltwater flushing is defined as the addition of as much mid-ocean 
water into each empty ballast tank as is safe for the vessel and crew; 
and the mixing of the flush water with residual ballast water and 
sediment through the motion of the vessel; and the discharge of that 
mixed water, such that the resultant residual water has the highest 
salinity possible; and is at least 30 parts per thousand. A saltwater 
flushing may require more than one fill-mix-empty sequence, 
particularly if only small quantities of water can be safely taken 
onboard a vessel at one time.
    The VIDA expanded the requirements that apply to empty ballast 
tanks beyond the existing EPA requirements in the VGP and in the USCG 
regulations. Specifically, CWA Section 312(p)(6)(B) requires that 
vessels conduct mandatory saltwater flushing of empty ballast tanks 
that carry unpumpable ballast water and residual sediments. As 
established by the VIDA, EPA proposes to require that vessels with 
empty ballast tanks and bound for a port or place of destination 
subject to the jurisdiction of the U.S. must conduct a saltwater flush 
no less than 200 NM from any shore, for a voyage originating outside 
the United States or Canadian EEZ, or no less than 50 NM from any 
shore, for a voyage originating within the United States or Canadian 
EEZ, prior to arriving at that port or place of destination.
    The saltwater flushing requirement is important as it is a widely-
used, low-cost preventative approach that minimizes the risk that ANS 
will be introduced from unpumpable ballast water and residual sediment. 
The technologies and practices of saltwater flushing are therefore 
available, practicable, and economically achievable. Saltwater flushing 
is most effective at eliminating organisms adapted to freshwater and 
low salinity environments due to the combined impacts of saltwater 
shock and physical dilution. However, saltwater flushing should also 
reduce viable living organisms adapted to estuarine, coastal and marine 
environments. Saltwater flushing reduces viable living organisms in 
residual ballast water through dilution. It also reduces organisms in 
resting stages in the residual sediment. Resting stages of ANS often 
inhabit the sediment in ballast tanks; thus, a reduction in the number 
of these organisms will likely reduce the propagule of these potential 
invaders.
    The VIDA also specifies certain exceptions to these saltwater flush 
requirements. Exceptions are identified if the unpumpable residual 
waters and sediments were treated by a USCG type-approved BWMS; sourced 
within the same port or place of destination or contiguous portions of 
a single COTP Zone; or if the vessel is operating exclusively within 
the internal waters of the United States or Canada. The VIDA also 
describes additional exceptions including: If compliance would 
compromise the safety of the vessel as determined by the USCG; is 
otherwise prohibited by any federal, Canadian, or international law 
(including regulations) pertaining to vessel safety; or if design 
limitations of the vessel prevent a saltwater flush from being 
conducted.
    The saltwater flushing exception in the VIDA based on the safety of 
the vessel is not included in this proposed rule; rather, EPA expects 
that such safety concerns will be fully articulated in the USCG 
implementing regulations as applicable to all types of discharges. 
Section 139.1(b)(3)of the proposed rule makes very clear that the 
numeric ballast water discharge standard is not applicable if 
compliance with such standard would compromise the safety of the vessel 
or is in the interest of ensuring the safety of life at sea, as 
determined by the Secretary.
    The proposed rule would add a limitation to the design exclusion as

[[Page 67856]]

established by the VIDA to apply only to existing vessels, defined as a 
vessel constructed prior to the date identified in the forthcoming USCG 
implementation regulations as described in section 139.1(e) of the 
proposed rule. EPA interprets this provision in the VIDA to apply only 
to existing vessels since the VIDA added permanent exchange 
requirements, presumably because of the added benefit in performing 
such an exchange. This limitation is important to create a disincentive 
to designing and constructing new vessels that are not capable of 
conducting an exchange or flush. It is critical that new vessels have 
the capability to conduct exchange and flushing, even if they install a 
ballast water management system, particularly as a contingency measure 
if the treatment system fails to operate as expected.
    With the exception of Pacific nearshore voyages (as described in 
the section below), the VGP only specified requirements for saltwater 
flushing of empty tanks for vessels that are engaged in an 
international voyage and traverse more than one COTP Zone. These 
vessels are required to either seal the tank or conduct saltwater 
flushing of such tanks in an area 200 NM from any shore. The VGP also 
allowed, except for vessels entering the Great Lakes or in federally-
protected waters, a vessel to not deviate from its voyage, or delay the 
voyage to conduct ballast water exchange or saltwater flushing. 
However, the VIDA did not include such an exemption and as such an 
exemption is not included in the proposed rule.
    The proposed requirements for saltwater flushing as established by 
the VIDA would be new for vessels engaged in coast-wise voyages on the 
East Coast and Gulf Coast within the EEZ and traverse more than a 
single COTP Zone outside of internal waters. These vessels will now be 
required to conduct a saltwater flush of empty ballast tanks no less 
than 50 NM from any shore before arriving at a U.S. port, regardless of 
whether they must deviate from their voyage to do so.
    The oceangoing vessels subject to this requirement are either those 
that have an empty ballast tank or a tank that contains unpumpable 
residual water, or are vessels that certify, consistent with USCG 
regulations, that they have ``No Ballast on Board'' (NOBOB). The USCG 
and the VGP defined NOBOB vessels as ``those vessels that have 
discharged ballast water to carry cargo, and as a result, have only 
unpumpable residual water and sediment remaining in tanks.'' See 70 FR 
51832, August 31, 2005.
ix. Vessels Entering the Great Lakes
    The proposed rule would require, based on CWA Section 
312(p)(10)(A), vessels entering the St. Lawrence Seaway through the 
mouth of the St. Lawrence River to conduct a complete ballast water 
exchange or saltwater flush (as appropriate) not less than 200 NM from 
any shore for a voyage originating outside the EEZ; or not less than 50 
NM from any shore for a voyage originating within the EEZ. There are 
exceptions to these requirements including: If the vessel has no 
residual ballast water or sediments onboard to the satisfaction of the 
Secretary; empty tanks are sealed; or ballast water is retained onboard 
while operating in the Great Lakes. Consistent with the previous 
requirements in the VGP, the proposed rule does not contain an 
exception for vessels that use a ballast water management system to 
treat the ballast water prior to discharge. Therefore, the proposed 
rule would make permanent the requirement for both exchange and 
treatment for most vessels entering the Great Lakes.
    The VGP required vessels that operate outside the EEZ and more than 
200 NM from any shore and then enter the Great Lakes through the St. 
Lawrence Seaway to conduct ballast water exchange or flushing in 
addition to treatment, if ballast water uptake occurred within the 
previous 30 days from a coastal, estuarine, or freshwater ecosystem 
with a salinity of less than 18 parts per thousand. EPA proposes that 
this requirement of the VGP is not necessary to include in the proposed 
rule given that the VIDA statutory requirements are more restrictive 
than (and supersede) the VGP.
    Consistent with the VIDA, the proposed rule would expand the 
requirement for exchange or saltwater flushing plus treatment for 
vessels entering the Great Lakes through the St. Lawrence River to a 
larger universe of vessels, as compared to the previous VGP and USCG 33 
CFR part 151 regulations. First, the proposed rule would extend the 
requirement for exchange plus treatment to vessels with voyages 
originating within the United States or Canadian EEZ that enter the 
Seaway; these would be primarily Canadian vessels. Second, the proposed 
rule would extend the requirement for exchange plus treatment to 
international vessels with voyages originating from higher salinity 
ports outside the EEZ; these were not included in the VGP. In 2014 and 
2015, a total of 81 unique vessels arrived at U.S. ports in the Great 
Lakes from oversees on 131 voyages. Most of these voyages departed from 
European ports (82 percent). However, there is limited data of the 
salinity of the origination port. Therefore, it is difficult to 
estimate the affected universe from higher salinity ports that would 
now be required to do exchange plus treatment. However, many of these 
vessels may have been conducting exchange plus treatment prior to the 
compliance dates for these vessels to install a ballast water 
management system, to ensure compliance with the VGP. Consequently, 
there may be minimal impact on these vessels.
    Existing USCG regulations at 33 CFR 151.1502 require that vessels, 
after operating on the waters beyond the EEZ during any part of their 
voyage, that enter through the St. Lawrence Seaway or that navigate 
north of the George Washington Bridge on the Hudson River, perform a 
ballast water exchange or saltwater flush regardless of other port 
calls in the U.S. or Canada during that voyage, except as expressly 
provided in 33 CFR 151.2015(a). In the proposed rule, EPA does not 
specifically identify this universe of vessels for having to perform a 
ballast water exchange or saltwater flush prior to entering the Hudson 
River or St. Lawrence Seaway, unless the vessel is meeting the ballast 
water numeric discharge standard (e.g., has installed and is operating 
a USCG type-approved ballast water management system), as the proposed 
rule would require such ballast water exchange or saltwater flush for 
all vessels subject to the ballast water discharge standard. Therefore, 
while the proposed rule does not call out this universe of vessels 
specifically, similar requirements are being proposed for these and a 
larger universe of vessels.
    Consistent with the VIDA (CWA Section 312(p)(10)(A)(ii)(I)), the 
proposed rule would provide additional exceptions to ballast water 
exchange or saltwater flush requirements for vessels entering the Great 
Lakes, if compliance would compromise the safety of the vessel; or is 
otherwise prohibited by any federal, Canadian, or international law 
(including regulations) pertaining to vessel safety; or if design 
limitations of an existing vessel prevent a ballast water exchange from 
being conducted. As described in the previous section, the proposed 
rule would add a limitation to the design exclusion to apply only to 
existing vessels, defined as a vessel constructed prior to the date 
identified in the forthcoming USCG implementation regulations, as 
described in section 139.1(e) of the proposed rule. This limitation is 
important to prevent the design and

[[Page 67857]]

construction of new vessels that cannot conduct an exchange or flush. 
It is critical that new vessels entering the Great Lakes have this 
capability, even if they install a ballast water management system, 
particularly as a contingency measure if the treatment system fails to 
operate as expected.
x. Pacific Region
    The CWA Section 312(p)(10)(C) establishes more stringent Pacific 
Region requirements for ballast water exchange than currently required 
in the VGP. As established by the VIDA, the proposed rule would require 
that any vessel that operates either between two ports within the U.S. 
Pacific Region; or between ports in the Pacific Region and the Canadian 
or Mexican Pacific Coast north of parallel 20 degrees north latitude, 
inclusive of the Gulf of California, must conduct a complete ballast 
water exchange in waters more than 50 NM from shore. The term ``Pacific 
Region'' includes the entire EEZ adjacent to the states of Alaska, 
California, Hawaii, Oregon, and Washington. There are exceptions in the 
VIDA to these exchange requirements including if the vessel is using a 
type-approved BWMS or for voyages between or to specific ports in the 
states of Washington, Oregon, California, Alaska, and Hawaii, and the 
Port of Los Angeles, the Port of Long Beach, and the El Segundo 
offshore marine oil terminal, if the ballast water originated from 
specified areas.
    The VIDA also specifies, and the proposed rule would require, that 
any vessel that transports ballast water sourced from low salinity 
waters (less than 18 parts per thousand) and in voyages to a Pacific 
Region port or place of destination with low salinity, must conduct a 
complete ballast water exchange. The exchange must occur not less than 
50 NM from shore, if the ballast water was sourced from a Pacific 
Region port; or more than 200 NM from shore, if the ballast water was 
not sourced from a Pacific Region port. These exchange requirements 
would not apply to any vessel voyaging to the Pacific Region that is 
using a type-approved BWMS that achieves standards of performance for 
low salinity water that are more stringent than the existing VGP and 
USCG ballast water numeric discharge standards. The low salinity water 
standards of performance as specified in CWA Section 
312(p)(10)(C)(iii)(II) are:
    (A) Less than 1 organism per 10 cubic meters, if that organism (1) 
is living or has not been rendered nonviable; and (2) is 50 or more 
micrometers in minimum dimension;
    (B) less than 1 organism per 10 milliliters, if that organism (1) 
is living or has not been rendered nonviable; and (2) is more than 10, 
but less than 50, micrometers in minimum dimension; and
    (C) concentrations of indicator microbes that are less than (1) 1 
colony-forming unit of toxicogenic Vibrio cholerae (serotypes O1 and 
O139) per 100 milliliters or less than 1 colony-forming unit of that 
microbe per gram of wet weight of zoological samples; (2) 126 colony-
forming units of Escherichia coli per 100 milliliters; and (3) 33 
colony-forming units of intestinal enterococci per 100 milliliters. 
There are exceptions to these requirements including if the vessel does 
not have residual ballast water or sediments onboard; empty tanks are 
sealed; or ballast water is retained onboard.
    As established by the VIDA, the proposed rule would exempt vessels 
from the Pacific Region requirements if any of the following conditions 
exist: (1) Compliance would compromise the safety of the vessel; (2) 
design limitations of an existing vessel prevent a ballast water 
exchange from being conducted; (3) the vessel has no residual ballast 
water or sediments onboard to the satisfaction of the Secretary, or the 
vessel retains all ballast water while in waters subject to the 
requirement; or (4) empty ballast tanks on the vessel are sealed in a 
manner that ensures that no discharge or uptake occurs and that any 
subsequent discharge of ballast water is subject to the requirement. As 
described in the previous ballast water exchange sections, the proposed 
rule would add a limitation to the design exclusion to apply only to 
existing vessels, defined as a vessel constructed prior to the date 
identified in the forthcoming USCG implementation regulations, as 
described in section139.1(e) of the proposed rule and only as 
determined by the Secretary. This limitation is important to prevent 
the design and construction of new vessels that cannot conduct an 
exchange or flush. It is critical that new vessels voyaging to the 
Pacific Region have this capability, even if they install a ballast 
water management system, particularly if the treatment system fails to 
operate as expected.
    As compared to the VGP, the VIDA expanded requirements for the 
Pacific Region to include exchange or more stringent treatment for low 
salinity waters. For some vessels the proposed rule requirement to 
conduct ballast water exchange in the Pacific Region is an interim 
requirement until a vessel installs a type-approved ballast water 
treatment system that meets the ballast water discharge standard. 
However, any vessel that transports low salinity ballast water (less 
than 18 ppt) and voyages to a low salinity Pacific Region port must 
continue to conduct a complete ballast water exchange more than 50 NM 
from shore, unless it has installed a type-approved BWMS that achieves 
standards of performance, depending on the parameter, up to 100 times 
more stringent than the existing discharge standard. Currently, there 
is not a USCG type-approval process for BWMS to demonstrate the ability 
to achieve this more stringent standard. Therefore, vessels from low 
salinity waters would need to continue to conduct exchange until such a 
process is developed and BWMS are approved to meet that more stringent 
standard.
    For the most part, the continental shelf along the Pacific coast is 
narrow along both North and South America. Deep water environments 
beyond the continental shelf typically support ecosystems that are 
quite different than those which exist closer to shore. Due in part to 
this short width of the continental shelf, relatively deep waters 
beyond 50 NM from the Pacific shore, exchange at this distance from the 
Pacific shore will be effective.
    In addition, the VIDA described the applicability of the Pacific 
Region exchange requirements differently as compared to the VGP. The 
proposed rule implements the VIDA requirements as established by 
Congress in the statute rather than as written in the VGP. The VGP 
required exchange for vessels on nearshore voyages which carry ballast 
water taken on in areas less than 50 NM from any shore. It defined 
nearshore voyages as those vessels engaged in coastwise trade along the 
U.S. Pacific coast operating in and between ports in Alaska, 
California, Oregon and Washington that travel between more than one 
COTP Zone. The VIDA did not include the stipulation that a vessel 
voyage must be more than one COTP Zone. In addition, the VIDA includes 
vessels operating in ports in the state of Hawaii, with certain 
exceptions, in the exchange requirements which the VGP did not include. 
The VGP required exchange for all other vessels that sail from foreign, 
non-U.S Pacific, Atlantic (including the Caribbean Sea), or Gulf of 
Mexico ports, which do not sail further than 200 NM from any shore, and 
that discharge or will discharge ballast water into the territorial sea 
or inland waters of Alaska or off the west coast of the continental 
U.S. The VIDA did not identify nearshore voyages from outside of the 
Pacific Region EEZ (although it did include parts of Canada and

[[Page 67858]]

Mexico) as required to conduct exchange.
xi. Additional Considerations in Federally-Protected Waters
    The proposed rule would require avoiding the discharge or uptake of 
ballast water in federally-protected waters. This requirement is 
similar to the existing VGP requirement with one key exception. The 
proposed standard removes the applicability of this requirement in 
areas outside the boundaries of a federally-protected water but that 
nonetheless may directly affect that federally-protected water. EPA is 
not including this expansion of the affected area based on the Agency's 
determination that information needed by a vessel operator to make such 
a ``may directly affect'' determination is highly dependent on the 
specific instant at which a ballast water uptake or discharge event is 
to occur and that the necessary information to make that determination 
is not readily available and not easily characterized. However, the 
Agency does recommend that the discharge or uptake of ballast water be 
conducted as far from federally-protected waters as possible.
2. Bilges
    Bilgewater consists of water and residue that accumulates in a 
lower compartment of the vessel's hull. The source of bilgewater is 
typically drainage from interior machinery, engine rooms, and decks. 
Bilgewater contains both conventional and toxic pollutants including 
oil, grease, volatile and semi-volatile organic compounds, inorganic 
salts, and metals. Volumes vary with the size of the vessel and 
discharges typically occur several times per week. Cruise ships have 
been estimated to generate 25,000 gallons per week for a 3,000 
passenger/crew vessel (U.S. EPA, 2008). However, bilgewater treatment 
technologies can remove pollutants from bilgewater. For example, 
ultrafiltration can be effective in removing turbidity and suspended 
solids, organic carbon, and several trace metals (such as aluminum, 
iron, and zinc) from bilgewater, in addition to oil (Tomaszewska et 
al., 2005).
    Under MARPOL Annex I, all ships of 400 GT ITC and above are 
required to have equipment installed onboard that limits the discharge 
of oil to less than 15 ppm when a ship is underway. All vessels of 400 
GT ITC and above are also required to have an oil content monitor 
(OCM), including a bilge alarm, integrated into the piping system to 
detect whether the treated bilgewater that is being discharged from the 
bilge separator meets the discharge requirements. Bilge separators, 
OCMs, and bilge alarms are certified by the USCG to meet 46 CFR part 
162 (MARPOL Annex I implementing regulations). Type approval is based 
on testing of manufacturer-supplied oil pollution control equipment by 
an independent laboratory, in accordance with test conditions 
prescribed by the USCG (33 CFR parts 155 and 157 and 46 CFR part 162). 
Additionally, as appropriate, the discharge of bilgewater also must 
comply with related requirements in 33 CFR part 151, 40 CFR part 110 
and 46 CFR part 162.
    The VGP included several requirements for bilgewater that are now 
proposed as general requirements in the proposed standards in Subpart 
B--General Standards for Discharges Incidental to the Normal Operation 
of a Vessel and applicable to all vessels and all discharges. First, 
the VGP required operators to minimize the discharge of bilgewater by 
minimizing production, storing bilgewater while operating in the waters 
of the United States, and discharging the bilgewater to a reception 
facility. These VGP requirements are consistent with, and incorporated 
as expected practices of, the proposed general discharge standards in 
section 139.4(b)(1) that require vessels to minimize discharges. 
Second, the VGP required vessels greater than 400 GT ITC that regularly 
sail outside the territorial sea (i.e., at least once per month) to 
discharge treated bilgewater while underway and if feasible, at least 1 
NM from shore. With the slight modification described in the following 
paragraph, the proposed bilgewater discharge standard is consistent 
with the VGP requirements. Third, the VGP required certain operators to 
meet a discharge limit for oil of 15 ppm or to not discharge oil in 
quantities that may be harmful as defined in 40 CFR 110.3. These VGP 
requirements are consistent with the proposed general discharge 
standards in section 139.6(b)(2) that prohibit the discharge of oil in 
such quantities as may be harmful. As such, the specific discharge 
standard for bilges does not duplicate these three requirements; 
rather, bilgewater discharges must meet these requirements as 
applicable to all vessels and all discharges.
    The proposed rule would expand upon the applicability of the 
requirement to discharge treated bilgewater while underway to all 
vessels of 400 GT ITC and above, not just those that regularly sail 
outside the territorial sea. However, the proposed rule provides added 
flexibility by allowing any vessel, including vessels of 400 GT ITC and 
above to discharge treated bilgewater any distance from shore (the VGP 
prohibited these vessels from discharging bilgewater within 1 NM of 
shore). This modification acknowledges that the VGP requirement for 
discharging while underway, which was triggered if vessels operate 
outside of waters subject to the VGP at least monthly is difficult to 
implement and led to confusion about whether and when a vessel may be 
authorized to discharge bilgewater when not underway. For additional 
context, data from the most recent VGP annual reports show that very 
few vessels in this size class discharge bilgewater, treated or 
untreated, into waters of the United States. The VGP annual reports for 
the 2019 operating year show that of the more than 28,000 vessels of 
400 gross tonnage and above operating in waters covered by the VGP, 
more than 99.7 percent of those vessels did not discharge any 
bilgewater, treated or untreated, into these waters. However, to 
provide additional opportunities to discharge, the proposed VIDA 
standards allow all vessels, including vessels of 400 GT ITC and above, 
to discharge treated bilgewater while underway anywhere, except in 
federally-protected waters. EPA expects this slight modification to the 
VGP requirements would clarify the applicability of the requirements 
but would not impose any significant additional cost burden; rather, it 
would only require certain vessel operators to adjust the timing and 
location of bilgewater disposal. Consistent with section 139.1(b)(3) of 
the proposed standards, an operator of a vessel of 400 GT ITC and above 
may discharge bilgewater, treated or untreated, while stationary (and 
not underway) if compliance with this part would compromise the safety 
of life at sea.
    The proposed rule would also continue the requirement from the VGP 
and require that the discharge of bilgewater must not contain any 
flocculants or other additives except when used with an oily water 
separator or to maintain or clean equipment. And consistent with the 
VGP, the use of any additives to remove the appearance of a visible 
sheen would be prohibited.
    Finally, as discussed in VIII C. Discharges Incidental to the 
Normal Operation of a Vessel--Specialized Areas, and as required by the 
VGP, EPA proposes additional controls for discharges from bilges into 
federally-protected waters.
    EPA researched the state of bilgewater treatment systems to 
consider whether a targeted reduction in the bilgewater numeric 
discharge standard from 15 ppm to 5 ppm oil and grease might have

[[Page 67859]]

been appropriate (U.S. EPA, 2011c). Previous comments submitted through 
the VGP comment period in 2013 indicated that technology meeting such a 
limit appeared to be available for most vessels and economically 
achievable for at least new vessels. However, those previous comments 
generally made three major assertions:
    1. Before imposing requirements in the U.S., EPA should work with 
the international community at IMO to explore whether to have more 
stringent limits for new build vessels;
    2. EPA should seek additional information as to whether systems do, 
in fact, continue to perform as indicated in their type approval data 
when on-board ships; and
    3. Type approved systems capable of meeting a 5 ppm limit are 
available.
    After considering the VGP comments and other relevant information, 
EPA decided not to propose a 5 ppm numeric discharge standard for 
several reasons. First, concerns were raised during the VGP comment 
period regarding whether these systems are, in practice, ``available,'' 
and function onboard ships as their type approval data indicate they 
should. Additionally, a 2015 study, identified as the ``MAX1 Studies'' 
and commissioned by the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation, with 
oversight from the USCG, reached the conclusion that existing 
regulations for oily water separators ``. . . are, for the most part, 
sufficient for their purposes'' and that the focus needs to be on 
implementation and application of existing regulations. Lastly, 
assuming that systems are indeed capable of meeting a 5 ppm numeric 
discharge standard, the standard OCMs in wide use may be unreliable at 
this low of a detection level and may therefore result in frequent 
false alarms.
    At this time, EPA invites comment on the proposed standard and 
whether the following should be required by the final rule: (1) Type-
approved systems capable of meeting a 5 ppm numeric discharge standard, 
and (2) OCMs that can consistently and accurately determine oil content 
at these low detection levels when considering margin for error. The 
research performed by EPA suggests that OCMs relying on alternative 
mechanisms other than turbidity/light scattering, such as UV 
fluorescence, may be more accurate since the monitor can differentiate 
between oil and other contaminants. EPA invites comment on the cost and 
availability of such OCMs.
3. Boilers
    Boiler blowdown is the discharge of water and constituents from the 
boiler during regular intervals to avoid concentration of impurities 
and at intermittent intervals for cleaning or other purposes. Boiler 
blowdown occurs on vessels with steam propulsion or a steam generator 
to control anti-corrosion and anti-scaling treatment concentrations and 
to remove sludge from boiler systems. Routine blowdown involves 
releasing a volume of about one to ten percent of the water in the 
boiler system, usually below the waterline to manage the accumulation 
of solids and buildup of dissolved solids in the boiler water. 
Frequency of required blowdown varies, typically between once every two 
weeks to once every couple of months although on some vessels, blowdown 
may be as frequent as daily or even continuously. The constituents of 
boiler blowdown discharge vary according to the types of feed water 
treatment used, but may include toxic pollutants such as antimony, 
arsenic, cadmium, copper, chromium, lead, nickel, selenium, thallium, 
zinc, and bis (2-ethylhexyl) phthalate.
    EPA endeavored to identify new technology and best management 
options for discharges from boilers; however, EPA did not identify new 
information or options. As such, EPA relied on the BPT/BCT/BAT analysis 
that led to the development of the VGP requirements, following the 
procedures described in section 4.2 of the Final 2013 VGP Fact Sheet. 
Similar to the VGP, the proposed standard would require that the 
discharge of boiler blowdown be minimized when in port. This 
requirement acknowledges that blowdown typically must be performed as 
necessary and that while the amount of blowdown can often be minimized, 
the timing of such blowdown, in many instances, cannot be safely 
changed, such as to only those times when a vessel is not in port.
    The proposed boiler standard does not carry forward language from 
the VGP regarding the prohibition on boiler blowdown discharges for 
vessels greater than 400 gross tonnage which leave the territorial sea 
at least once per week except in three specific instances: (1) The 
vessel remained within waters subject to this permit for a longer 
period than the necessary duration between blowdown cycles; (2) the 
vessel needed to conduct blowdown immediately before entering drydock; 
or (3) for safety purposes. EPA opted not to include similar language 
in the proposed rule because the VGP approach, which was triggered if 
vessels operate outside of waters subject to the VGP at least once a 
week, led to confusion about when a vessel may be authorized to 
discharge boiler blowdown. Rather, the proposed boiler blowdown 
standard was developed acknowledging that, consistent with the General 
Operation and Maintenance requirements described in Subpart B, vessel 
operators would be expected to minimize discharges of blowdown to only 
those times when necessary and to discharge while the vessel is 
underway when practical and as far away from shore as practical.
    As drafted, and consistent with the VGP, the proposed standard 
would allow the discharge of boiler blowdown (1) if the vessel remains 
within waters of the United States and waters of the contiguous zone 
for a longer period than the necessary duration between blowdown 
cycles, (2) if the vessel needs to conduct blowdown immediately before 
entering drydock, or (3) for safety purposes.
    This proposed standard is similar to the VGP requirements for 
blowdown that was applied to vessels greater than 400 GT ITC but 
expands the requirement to all vessels. EPA proposes the standard with 
the expectation that all vessels and not just vessels of 400 GT ITC and 
above can minimize discharges of blowdown and when having to discharge 
boiler blowdown, can discharge while underway if practical and as far 
from shore as practical. Based on the VGP experience whereby vessels 
greater than 400 GT ITC have been meeting this requirement by adjusting 
the timing and location of blowdown events, EPA expects that (smaller 
vessels) can similarly change the timing and location of their blowdown 
events as necessary to minimize the discharge. EPA expects this slight 
modification to the VGP requirements would reduce the discharge of 
various pollutants but would not impose any significant additional cost 
burden; rather, it would only require certain vessel operators to 
adjust the timing and location of blowdown events.
    Finally, as discussed in VIII C. Discharges Incidental to the 
Normal Operation of a Vessel--Specialized Areas, and as required by the 
VGP, EPA proposes to prohibit the discharge of boiler blowdown into 
federally-protected waters.
4. Cathodic Protection
    Cathodic protection systems are used on vessels to prevent steel 
hull or metal structure corrosion. The two types of cathodic protection 
are galvanic (i.e., sacrificial anodes) and impressed current cathodic 
protection (ICCP). Using the first method, anodes of, typically, 
magnesium, zinc, or aluminum are ``sacrificed'' to the

[[Page 67860]]

corrosive forces of the seawater, which creates a flow of electrons to 
the cathode, thereby preventing the cathode (e.g., the hull) from 
corroding. Using ICCP, a direct current is passed through the hull such 
that the electrochemical potential of the hull is sufficiently high 
enough to prevent corrosion. The discharge from either method of 
cathodic protection is continuous when the vessel is waterborne. 
However, galvanic protection discharges include both toxic and 
nonconventional pollutants such as ionized zinc, magnesium, and 
aluminum.
    EPA endeavored to identify new technology and best management 
options for discharges resulting from cathodic protection; however, EPA 
did not identify new technology since the development of the VGP. As 
such, EPA relied on the BPT/BCT/BAT analysis that led to the 
development of the VGP requirements and is proposing to require 
substantively the same standard of performance required by the VGP 
acknowledging that many of the VGP requirements for cathodic protection 
are now incorporated into section 139.4 of the proposed rulemaking for 
general operation and maintenance as applicable to all specific 
discharges. For example, Part 2.2.7 (Cathodic Protection) of the VGP 
required that sacrificial anodes must not be used more than necessary 
to adequately prevent corrosion of the vessel's hull, sea chest, 
rudder, and other exposed vessel areas. EPA is not including this 
specific requirement for cathodic protection in section 139.13 of this 
proposed rulemaking since section 139.4(b)(5)(i) proposes a similar 
requirement that any materials used onboard, including any sacrificial 
anodes, that are subsequently discharged be used only in the amount 
necessary to perform their intended function.
    EPA is proposing to continue the requirement from the VGP that any 
spaces between flush-fit anodes and the backing must be filled. This 
proposed standard is in consideration of the fact that niche areas on 
the hull are more susceptible to fouling as well as more difficult to 
clean and as such can become hotspots for fouling organisms.
    EPA is not carrying forward the requirement from the VGP regarding 
the selection of sacrificial anode systems based on toxicity of the 
anode. The proposed approach is consistent with the technological 
evaluation performed for the VGP, which acknowledged that type of anode 
metal selected based on toxicity (magnesium, then aluminum, then zinc) 
may not be technologically feasible and/or economically practicable and 
achievable in many instances. EPA has recently learned of more 
situations where anode selection based on toxicity presents practical 
challenges. For example, in harbors or estuaries with high pollutant 
loads, zinc is the preferred anode material for vessels that spend time 
in those waters because of concerns with pollutants causing aluminum 
anodes to passivate and lose effectiveness. While EPA is not continuing 
this concept from the VGP, the Agency does continue to support 
operators considering toxicity as part of the anode selection process.
    These proposed requirements represent a practicable and achievable 
approach to reducing discharges from this necessary hull protection 
operation.
    EPA did consider requiring use of ICCP because these systems 
eliminate or reduce the need for sacrificial anodes. However, there is 
a risk of overprotecting using these systems (e.g., embrittlement in 
high-strength vessels) or debonding of protective coatings, and 
operation of these systems generally should only be installed on 
vessels that are manned full-time by a highly skilled crew able to 
carefully monitor and maintain these systems. As such, the Agency 
recommends, but is not proposing to require, operators consider the use 
of ICCP in place of or to reduce the use of sacrificial electrodes when 
technologically feasible (e.g., adequate power sources, appropriate for 
vessel hull size and design), safe, and adequate to protect against 
corrosion, particularly for new vessels.
5. Chain Lockers
    Chain lockers are the storage area onboard for housing the vessel's 
anchor and chain. Water, sediment, biofouling organisms, and 
contaminants can enter and accumulate in the chain locker during anchor 
retrieval and precipitation events; the accumulation of water and other 
materials in the chain locker is often referred to as the chain locker 
effluent. This effluent can contain both conventional and 
nonconventional pollutants including ANS and residue from the inside of 
the locker itself, such as rust, paint chips, grease, and zinc. The 
sump collects these liquids and materials that enter the chain locker 
prior to discharge or disposal.
    EPA endeavored to identify new technology and best management 
options for discharges from chain lockers; however, EPA did not 
identify new information or options since the development of the VGP. 
As such, EPA relied on the BPT/BCT/BAT analysis that led to the 
development of the VGP requirements and is proposing to require 
substantively the same standard of performance required by the VGP.
    As required by the VGP, EPA proposes that vessel operators must 
perform BMPs that would reduce or eliminate chain locker effluent 
discharge. Specifically, EPA proposes that vessel operators must 
thoroughly rinse the anchor chain of biofouling organisms and sediments 
each time it is brought out of the water. Additionally, EPA proposes 
that the discharge of accumulated water and sediment from the chain 
locker is prohibited when the vessel is in port. Finally, although not 
required in the VGP, EPA is proposing that for all vessels that operate 
beyond the waters of the contiguous zone, anchors and anchor chains 
must be rinsed of biofouling organisms and sediment, prior to entering 
the waters of the contiguous zone. This requirement is intended to 
minimize the discharge of biofouling organisms when vessels that 
operate beyond waters of the contiguous zone re-enter these waters and 
subsequently drop anchor in waters of the United States or waters of 
the contiguous zone.
    Finally, as discussed in VIII C. Discharges Incidental to the 
Normal Operation of a Vessel--Specialized Areas, EPA proposes to 
prohibit any discharge of accumulated water and sediment from any chain 
locker into federally-protected waters.
6. Decks
    Deck discharges may result from deck runoff, deck wash down, or 
deck flooding. Deck runoff consists of rain and other precipitation and 
seawater which washes over the decks or well decks. Deck washdowns 
consist of cleaners and freshwater or saltwater. Deck flooding 
generally consists of seawater from the flooding of a docking well 
(well deck) on a vessel used to transport, load, and unload amphibious 
vessels, or freshwater from washing the well deck and equipment and 
vessels stored in the well deck. Deck washdown, runoff, and flooding 
discharges include those from all deck and bulkhead areas, and 
associated equipment. The constituents and volumes vary widely, are 
highly dependent on a vessel's purpose, service, practices, and may 
include both conventional and nonconventional pollutants such as oil, 
grease, fuel, cleaner or detergent residue, paint chips, paint 
droplets, and general debris.
    EPA endeavored to identify new technology and best management 
options for discharges from decks; however, EPA did not identify any 
technology since the development of the

[[Page 67861]]

VGP. As such, EPA relied on the BPT/BCT/BAT analysis that led to the 
development of the VGP requirements and is proposing to require 
substantively the same requirements of the VGP.
    EPA proposes that it is infeasible to set a specific numeric 
discharge standard for discharges from decks and well decks because of 
the variation in vessel size and associated deck surface area, the 
types of equipment operated on the deck, and limitations on space for 
treatment equipment. As such, EPA proposes that BMPs must be 
implemented to minimize the volume of discharges and the various 
pollutants from decks.
    As required in the VGP, the proposed rule would require vessel 
operators to properly maintain the deck and bulkhead areas to keep the 
deck clean; prevent excess corrosion, leaks, and metal discharges; 
contain potential contaminants to keep them from entering the waste 
stream; and use environmentally safe products. Properly maintaining the 
deck would include the use of coamings or drip pans for machinery on 
the deck that is expected to leak or otherwise release oil, so that any 
accumulated oils from these areas can be collected and managed 
appropriately.
    As required in the VGP, EPA also proposes that prior to performing 
a deck washdown and when underway, exposed decks must be kept broom 
clean, to remove existing debris and prevent the introduction of 
garbage or other debris into any waste stream. Broom clean means a 
condition in which the deck shows that care has been taken to prevent 
or eliminate any visible concentration of debris or garbage. Similarly, 
discharge of floating solids, visible foam, halogenated phenolic 
compounds, dispersants, surfactants, and spills must be minimized in 
any deck washdown water discharged overboard. Additionally, during deck 
washdown, the proposed rule would require that the washdown be 
conducted with minimally-toxic, phosphate-free, and biodegradable 
soaps, cleaners, and detergents. The proposed standard would also 
require that deck washdowns be minimized in port. Lastly, the proposed 
rule would require that where applicable by an international treaty or 
convention or the Secretary, a vessel must be fitted with and use 
physical barriers (e.g., spill rails, scuppers, and scupper plugs) 
during any washdown to collect runoff for treatment.
    Finally, as discussed in VIII C. Discharges Incidental to the 
Normal Operation of a Vessel--Specialized Areas, and as is required of 
medium and large cruise ships by the VGP, EPA proposes to prohibit the 
discharge of deck wash from all vessels into federally-protected 
waters.
7. Desalination and Purification Systems
    Distilling and reverse osmosis plants also known as water 
purification plants or desalination systems, generate freshwater from 
seawater for a variety of shipboard applications. These include potable 
water for drinking, onboard services (e.g., laundry and food 
preparation), and high-purity feedwater for boilers. The wastewater 
from these systems is essentially concentrated seawater with the same 
constituents of seawater, including dissolved and suspended solids and 
metals; however, anti-scaling, anti-foaming, and acidic treatments and 
cleaning compounds are also injected into the distillation system, and 
can be present in the discharge. As such, the wastewater can contain 
toxic, conventional, and nonconventional pollutants.
    EPA endeavored to identify new technology and best management 
options for discharges from desalination and purification systems; 
however, EPA did not identify any new technology since the development 
of the VGP. As such, EPA relied on the BPT/BCT/BAT analysis that led to 
the development of the VGP requirements and is proposing to require 
substantively the same standard of performance required by the VGP.
    EPA is proposing to modify the language used in the VGP associated 
with toxic and hazardous materials to add more clarity by proposing to 
prohibit discharges resulting from the cleaning of desalination or 
purification systems with hazardous or toxic materials.
8. Elevator Pits
    Most vessels with multiple decks are equipped with elevators to 
facilitate the transportation of maintenance equipment, people, and 
cargo between decks. A pit at the bottom of the elevator collects 
liquids and debris from elevator operations. The liquid and debris that 
accumulates in the pits, often referred to as elevator pit effluent, 
can be emptied by gravity draining, discharged using the firemain, 
transferred to bilge, or containerized for onshore disposal. The 
effluent may contain toxic, conventional, and nonconventional 
pollutants such as oil, hydraulic fluid, lubricants, cleaning solvents, 
soot, and paint chips.
    EPA endeavored to identify new technology and best management 
options for discharges from elevator pits; however, EPA did not 
identify any new technology since the development of the VGP. As such, 
EPA relied on the BPT/BCT/BAT analysis that led to the development of 
the VGP requirements and is proposing to require substantively the same 
standard of performance required by the VGP.
    As required by the VGP, EPA proposes to prohibit the discharge of 
untreated accumulated water and sediment from any elevator pit.
9. Exhaust Gas Emission Control Systems
    Exhaust gas emission control systems for reducing sulfur oxides 
(SOX) and nitrogen oxides (NOX) in marine exhaust 
can produce washwater and residues that must be treated or held for 
shore-side disposal. Two such systems are exhaust gas cleaning systems 
(EGCS) and exhaust gas recirculation (EGR) systems.
    An EGCS is used primarily to remove SOX from marine 
exhaust. Commonly referred to as ``scrubbers,'' these systems capture 
contaminants that can end up in washwater and residue that result from 
the scrubbing process. EGCS washwater is typically treated and 
discharged overboard. Residues are usually disposed of on-shore once 
the vessel is in port. Untreated EGCS washwater is more acidic than the 
surrounding seawater, and it contains toxic, conventional, and 
nonconventional pollutants including sulfur compounds, polycyclic 
aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs), and traces of oil, NOX, heavy 
metals, and captured particulate matter. Use of an EGCS to scrub 
emissions of SOX also reduces the pH significantly primarily 
through the formation of sulfuric acid. In addition, the high volume of 
seawater that some vessels pump for the scrubbing process can result in 
higher turbidity in nearby waters, particularly in shallow areas.
    The use of scrubbers on ships is in large part an outgrowth of 
international treaties for reducing sulfur emissions from marine 
exhaust. Under MARPOL standards and subsequent updates, as of January 
2020, the highest permissible sulfur content of marine fuel globally is 
0.5 percent. The allowable fuel sulfur content for vessels operating in 
Emission Control Areas has been further restricted to 0.1 percent as of 
January 2015. The United States is a signatory to the international 
treaties and is included in the North American Emission Control Area, 
meaning that the 0.1 percent limit for marine fuel sulfur content is 
currently in effect for vessels operating in the waters of the United

[[Page 67862]]

States or the waters of the contiguous zone.
    MARPOL approved the use of an EGCS to achieve the international 
standards for marine emissions as an alternative to operating on low 
sulfur fuel. This approval spurred many vessel owners to install 
scrubbers in lieu of switching to costlier low sulfur fuels. Recent 
information from the international registrar and classification society 
Det Norske Veritas and Germanischer Lloyd (DNV GL, 2019) indicates that 
out of the total vessel universe, there are currently 3,000 ships with 
installed or firmly planned scrubber systems, with predictions ranging 
up to as many as 4,000 installations.
    The two main ``wet'' scrubber EGCS technologies used on vessels for 
meeting the MARPOL marine emissions requirements are open-loop and 
closed-loop systems. Although use of scrubbers on ships is relatively 
recent, these systems are based on technologies deployed for land-based 
systems for controlling smokestack emissions and generally transfer 
well to ship-board use. Open-loop systems remove the contaminants from 
marine exhaust by running the exhaust through seawater sourced from 
outside the vessel and then discharging the resulting washwater back 
out to sea. In contrast, closed-loop systems use freshwater and inject 
caustic soda to neutralize the exhaust. A small portion of the 
washwater is bled off and treated to remove suspended solids, which are 
held for shore-side disposal. While this design is not completely 
closed-loop, it can operate in zero discharge mode for a period of 
time. Hybrid scrubbers are systems that can operate either in open- or 
closed-loop mode. Typically, at sea, these hybrid systems operate in 
open-loop mode, whereas in nearshore waters, harbors, and estuaries, 
they operate in closed-loop mode. Dry scrubbers are another type of 
EGCS; however, these systems do not generate wastewater, and hence 
would not be subject to these proposed requirements.
    EGR systems are used to reduce NOX emissions in marine 
exhaust. Vessels often use EGR systems to achieve the mandatory 
NOX emissions limits set out in MARPOL Annex VI. These 
systems minimize NOX production by cooling part of the 
engine exhaust gas and then redirecting it back to the engine air 
intake. The addition of the recirculated engine exhaust reduces the 
amount of oxygen available for fuel combustion, reducing peak 
combustion temperatures, resulting in significantly reduced 
NOX formation. The cooling of the recirculated exhaust gas 
causes condensation of water vapor formed during combustion, generating 
a continuous wastewater stream (bleed-off water) from the condensate. 
This condensate can contain toxic, conventional, and nonconventional 
pollutants such as particulates (soot, metals, and hydrocarbons) and 
sulfur. In some cases, the EGR systems also capture oils, for example 
from cylinder lubrication, that are emitted from the combustion process 
which are collected as part of the scavenged air. Excess bleed-off 
water that accumulates in an EGR system is typically discharged 
overboard following treatment, and any residues are held for shore-side 
disposal. On vessels that use high-sulfur fuel and an EGCS, the EGR 
system bleed-off water is often combined with the EGCS washwater and 
processed as a combined waste stream.
    EPA is proposing a standard for EGCS and EGR discharges based on 
IMO's guidelines for discharges from these two types of emission 
control systems. Specifically, the standard is largely based on the IMO 
2015 Guidelines for Exhaust Gas Cleaning Systems (Resolution 
MEPC.259(68) and the IMO 2018 Guidelines for the Discharge of Exhaust 
Gas Recirculation (EGR) Bleed-Off Water (MEPC 307(73))). The IMO EGCS 
guidelines mostly focus on the air emissions of scrubbers; however, 
Section 10 of these guidelines sets out limits for five constituents in 
scrubber washwater: pH, PAH, turbidity, nitrates, and additives. 
Section 10 also includes handling and disposal criteria for scrubber 
residues. While the IMO criteria are guidelines rather than 
requirements, EPA is proposing to incorporate the discharge 
requirements of the IMO EGCS guidelines as EPA standards. With respect 
to discharges from EGR systems, the IMO EGR guidelines were based 
primarily on the IMO's own 2015 guidelines for EGCS discharges, with a 
few key differences in recognition of the composition of the EGR bleed-
off washwater and the on-board process for handling this waste stream. 
The proposed standard reflects this parallel structure and retains the 
minor distinctions in the IMO EGR guidelines to accommodate differences 
between the two systems.
    The proposed standard carries forward most of the VGP EGCS 
requirements, which were based largely on the 2009 version of the IMO 
EGCS guidelines. The key difference is that in an effort to harmonize 
EPA standards with the IMO guidelines to the extent possible, EPA 
proposes to amend the pH limit for discharges of EGCS washwater to 6.5 
and is adding the additional IMO option for determining the limit based 
on either in-water measurement or a calculation-based methodology. In 
contrast, the VGP requirement is for EGCS washwater discharges to have 
a pH of no less than 6.0 as measured at the overboard discharge point. 
The VGP did not include specific requirements for discharges from EGR 
systems, in part because international awareness of the environmental 
effects of these discharges was not at the forefront of concerns 
relating to implementation of the NOX emissions standards at 
the time.
    As part of the effort to harmonize the EPA exhaust gas emission 
control systems discharge standards under the VIDA with the IMO 
guidelines, EPA has also reworded the phrasing of the proposed standard 
to harmonize more closely with the language in the IMO guidelines. In 
this context, EPA notes that in the exception proposed in section 
139.18(b)(1)(i)(A) pertaining to the pH limit, the use of the word 
``transit'' refers specifically to when a vessel is underway as part of 
entering or exiting port. Similarly, EPA notes that in section 
139.18(b)(1)(i)(B), the pH discharge limit as determined either by 
measurement or computation applies to the vessel both when stationary 
as well as when underway. EPA elected not to include these 
clarifications so as to not diverge from the language in the IMO 
guidelines, but was able to confirm through consultation with IMO 
experts and technical staff that they reflect the original intent of 
the IMO guidelines.
    As EPA acknowledged in the factsheet accompanying the 2013 VGP, the 
reason the VGP established a different pH limit for EGCS discharges 
from the IMO was that the NPDES permitting framework requires discharge 
limits to be set at the point of discharge. At the time, EPA determined 
that the 6.0 limit applied at the point of discharge maximized 
consistency with the IMO guideline for a pH of 6.5 four meters from the 
hull by accounting for the buffering ``likely to occur within the 4-
meter range.'' Under the VIDA, in contrast, EPA no longer needs to 
account for the buffering because EPA is now proposing a standard of 
performance rather than a limit for a permit. The discharge standard 
continues to include the additional provision, consistent with the IMO 
guideline, that the maximum difference allowed between inlet and outlet 
during maneuvering and transit is 2.0 pH units.
    EPA previously presented its BAT analysis for the EGCS limits for 
the other four parameters--PAH, nitrates, turbidity, and additives--as 
part of the NPDES permit issuance process. That analysis is not 
revisited here since the

[[Page 67863]]

only part of the proposed standard that differs from the 2013 VGP is 
the pH limit for EGCS washwater and that does not represent a change in 
a BAT factor such that revisiting the BAT analysis is necessary. EPA 
refers readers to the original BAT analysis accompanying the 2013 VGP 
for additional information.
    EPA's BAT analysis determined that use of EGCS technologies to meet 
the proposed EGCS standard is economically achievable for several 
reasons. As was true when EPA first issued the VGP EGCS requirements in 
2013, EGCS manufacturers already design their systems to meet the IMO 
guidelines, so any numeric discharge standard imposed by turning these 
guidelines into regulatory requirements will not result in any 
additional financial burden to operators. Second, given the current 
price differential between high and low sulfur fuels, use of an EGCS 
allows vessel operators to realize significant cost savings when using 
lower grade fuel with scrubbers compared to using more expensive, 
higher grade fuels with lower sulfur content. EPA also notes that the 
proposed pH numeric discharge standard will result in less confusion 
for the shipping community by harmonizing EGCS requirements with 
international guidelines as set out by IMO.
    The Agency considered several other options for regulating EGCS 
discharges. However, existing technology alternatives to the proposed 
EGCS discharge standard are either impractical or expensive. For 
example, increased use of neutralization chemicals would introduce 
significant occupational and passenger safety issues because of 
chemical storage and handling issues. Modifying existing open-loop 
systems to hybrid systems (i.e., that can also run in a closed-loop 
mode) would be another option; however, this retrofitting could cost an 
additional $3-5 million per vessel beyond the capital expenditures that 
vessel owners have already incurred for installing scrubbers in 
anticipation of the 2020 marine exhaust emissions limits. Yet another 
alternative would be to require vessels to switch from scrubbers to low 
sulfur fuel while in U.S. waters. Some vessels with scrubbers already 
switch to low sulfur fuels when in harbors or waters with sensitive 
ecosystems either in response to requests from port authorities or 
because of company policies to minimize seawater agitation. However, 
using low sulfur fuels for extended periods of time can be expensive. 
For example, EPA received estimates from cruise ship operators that 
suggests incremental costs per vessel for switching to low sulfur fuel 
can be as much as an additional $67,000 per week.
    Another option considered was to ban discharges from scrubbers 
outright (i.e., establish a zero-discharge standard for scrubbers). In 
fact, several port authorities and flag states, including Norway 
(``heritage fjords''), Fujairah (United Arab Emirates), Marseille, and 
Singapore have already banned use of open-loop scrubbers or discharges 
from open-loop scrubbers (U.S. EPA, 2020a). These restrictions are 
typically precautionary rather than based on data or modeling in the 
specific ports or regions in question (U.S. EPA, 2020a), leading the 
Agency to conclude that insufficient data exist at this time to warrant 
prohibiting these discharges under the Clean Water Act. Technical 
committees at the IMO are currently revisiting the need to perform 
additional assessments of environmental impacts from EGCS discharges, 
and EPA will continue to monitor the availability of research findings 
compiled in connection with these discussions.
    EPA's proposed exhaust gas emission control standard also includes 
requirements for discharges of EGR bleed-off water and residues in 
recognition of the fact that they can exhibit low pH and contain other 
toxic, conventional, and nonconventional pollutants covered under the 
CWA. The requirements mirror those in the 2018 IMO EGR guidelines in 
that they largely include the same limits as listed in the 2015 IMO 
guidelines for EGCS discharges. EPA determined that shipboard 
technology for meeting these limits is readily available since the 
international marine community needed to address the requirements upon 
publication of the 2018 IMO EGR guidelines. As such, EPA has determined 
that the existing technology for meeting the limits is economically 
achievable, and EPA notes that the IMO has not received any indication 
from the maritime community that achieving the limits resulted in any 
undue economic burden or that alternative technologies for handling the 
EGR waste stream exist that merit investigation. The proposed standard 
includes the same prohibition as found in the IMO EGR guidelines for 
discharges of EGR bleed-off captured in holding tanks. The 
applicability of EPA proposed standard for EGR bleed-off however, would 
exclude when the vessel is underway and operating on fuel that meets 
the MARPOL Annex VI sulfur emissions requirements in effect starting in 
2020. The applicability is slightly different from that in the IMO EGR 
guidelines which prohibit such discharges in harbors, estuaries, and 
polar waters whether underway or not. EPA is proposing to apply this 
standard consistent with how the Agency assessed and applied other 
requirements in the proposed rule; namely, the proposed standard 
considers whether a vessel is in port, underway, or outside of the 
waters of the United States and the waters of the contiguous zone. 
Lastly, the proposed standard for EGR does not include the IMO 
guideline exception for oil content in EGR bleed-off water since the 
same oil content numeric discharge standard is already required 
separately in section 139.6 of the proposed rule for all incidental 
discharges.
10. Fire Protection Equipment
    Fire protection equipment includes all components used for fire 
protection including firemain systems, sprinkler systems, 
extinguishers, and firefighting agents such as foam. Firemain systems 
draw in water through the sea chest to supply water for fire hose 
stations, sprinkler systems, or firefighting foam distribution 
stations. Firemain systems can be pressurized or non-pressurized and 
are necessary to ensure the safety of the vessel and crew. The systems 
are also tested regularly to ensure that the system will be operational 
in an emergency. Additionally, firemain systems have numerous secondary 
purposes onboard vessels, such as for deck and equipment washdowns, 
machinery cooling water, and ballasting. However, whenever the firemain 
system is used for a secondary purpose, any resulting incidental 
discharge would be required to meet the proposed national standard of 
performance for secondary use (e.g., deck runoff). Firemain water can 
contain a variety of constituents, including copper, zinc, nickel, 
aluminum, tin, silver, iron, titanium, and chromium. Many of these 
constituents can be traced to the corrosion and erosion of the firemain 
piping system, valves, or pumps.
    Firefighting foams (fluorinated and non-fluorinated) can be added 
to a firemain system and mixed with seawater to address emergencies 
onboard a vessel. The constituents of firefighting foam can vary by 
manufacturer but can include persistent, bioaccumulative, toxic, and 
non-biodegradable ingredients. Discharges of firefighting foam can also 
contain phthalate, copper, nickel, and iron, which can be constituents 
in the composition of firemain piping. Fluorinated firefighting foam 
contains per- and poly-fluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) or their 
precursors; examples include aqueous film forming foam,

[[Page 67864]]

alcohol resistant aqueous film forming foam, film-forming fluoroprotein 
foam, fluoroprotein foam, alcohol-resistant fluoroprotein foam, and 
other fluorinated compounds. Non-fluorinated firefighting foam does not 
contain per- and poly-fluoroalkyl substances or their precursors; 
examples include protein foam, alcohol-resistant protein foam, 
synthetic fluorine free foam, and synthetic alcohol-resistant fluorine 
free foam. PFAS such as perfluorooctane sulfonate (PFOS) and 
perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA), among others, are persistent, 
bioaccumulative, and potentially toxic and carcinogenic chemical 
compounds. Information regarding the presence of fluorinated 
surfactants and toxic or hazardous substances in firefighting foam are 
typically found on the safety data sheets for individual products. 
Additionally, other types of foams exist that can be used in fire 
equipment systems that are not intended for fire suppression but are 
designed for testing and training. These foams are often called testing 
or training foams, tend to be less expensive, and can mimic the 
properties of firefighting foams.
    Consistent with the VGP, EPA is proposing requirements that apply 
to discharges from fire protection equipment during testing, training, 
maintenance, inspection, or certification. The proposed standard would 
not apply to the use of fire protection equipment in emergency 
situations or when compliance with such would compromise the safety of 
the vessel or life at sea (See section 139.1(b)(3)).
    EPA proposes to prohibit any discharge from fire protection 
equipment during testing, training, maintenance, inspection, or 
certification in port with the exclusion of any USCG-required 
inspection or certification. EPA also proposes to prohibit the 
discharge of fluorinated firefighting foam during testing, training, 
maintenance, inspection, or certification with the exclusion of any 
USCG-required inspection or certification. Other options exist for 
testing, training, or maintenance such as testing without foam, 
collecting the foam such that it is not discharged, or, when foam is 
required, using a non-fluorinated foam (FFFC, 2020; NFPA, 2016). And 
according to the National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) there are 
many firefighting foams and training foams that are non-fluorinated 
that can be used for testing, training, and maintenance (FFFC, 2020; 
NFPA, 2016). However, the USCG has indicated that for certain USCG-
required inspections and certifications discharges must occur in port 
and need to use fluorinated foams.
    EPA also considered proposing more stringent requirements than the 
VGP in relation to the discharge of firefighting foam. Specifically, 
EPA explored proposing requirements that would include product 
substitution to use firefighting foams that do not contain 
bioaccumulative or toxic or hazardous materials. EPA has used product 
substitution for other technology-based rules such as those that apply 
to oil and gas. See 40 CFR part 435. As such, EPA considered, for the 
purposes of testing, training, maintenance, inspection or 
certification, also prohibiting the discharge of non-fluorinated 
firefighting foams that contain bioaccumulative or toxic or hazardous 
materials (as identified in 40 CFR 401.15 or defined in 49 CFR 171.8). 
Based on the Best Practice Guidance for Use of Class B Firefighting 
Foams from the Fire Fighting Foam Coalition (FFFC, 2020), NFPA codes 
and standards--NFPA 11--Standards for Low-, Medium-, and High-Expansion 
Foam (NFPA, 2016), and discussions with the USCG, testing and training 
methods exist that limit or eliminate the need to discharge foam (FFFC, 
2020; NFPA, 2016). Specifically, in many situations it may be possible 
to perform these activities by only using water (water equivalency 
method), collecting the foam, or using non-fluorinated training foam 
that does not contain bioaccumulative or toxic or hazardous materials. 
EPA reviewed numerous foam Safety Data Sheets for bioaccumulative or 
toxic or hazardous materials and identified several potential foam 
options that vessels owners and operators may be able to use if the 
Agency moved forward with this approach in the final rule (EPA, 2020).
    However, EPA was unable to compile adequate information on the 
availability and economic achievability considerations of using non-
fluorinated foams that do not contain bioaccumulative or toxic or 
hazardous materials to justify proposing a requirement that would limit 
the types of non-fluorinated foams that could be used for testing, 
training, maintenance, inspection or certification. As such, EPA is 
soliciting feedback and additional information on the availability and 
economic achievability of expanding the prohibition on the discharge of 
firefighting foam to include non-fluorinated foam that contains 
bioaccumulative or toxic or hazardous materials. If it is found to meet 
the applicable statutory requirements, the final standard would 
prohibit the discharge of both fluorinated foams and non-fluorinated 
foams that contain bioaccumulative or toxic or hazardous materials 
during testing, training, maintenance, inspection or certification with 
the exception of USCG-required inspection and certification. 
Specifically, EPA is interested in feedback on: (1) The availability of 
non-fluorinated foams, training foams, or surrogate test liquids that 
do not contain bioaccumulative or toxic or hazardous materials that can 
satisfy firefighting testing, training, and maintenance needs, (2) the 
extent to which vessels are already using these alternative foams, (3) 
the extent to which vessels are already performing testing, training, 
and maintenance using only water, (4) the number of vessels and types 
of systems that are not able to use the water-equivalency method, (5) 
the extent to which the vessel community is collecting foam prior to 
discharge, (6) economic considerations associated with prohibiting the 
discharge of these types of non-fluorinated firefighting foams, and any 
other information that would support the Agency's determination of 
whether to expand the prohibition of the discharge of firefighting 
foams to include non-fluorinated foams that contain bioaccumulative or 
toxic or hazardous materials.
    Finally, as discussed in VIII C. Discharges Incidental to the 
Normal Operation of a Vessel--Specialized Areas, and as required by the 
VGP, EPA proposes additional controls for discharges from fire 
protection equipment for testing, training, and maintenance purposes 
for vessels operating in federally-protected waters.
11. Gas Turbines
    Gas turbines are used on some vessels for propulsion and 
electricity generation. Occasionally, they must be cleaned to remove 
by-products that can accumulate and affect their operation. The by-
products and cleaning products can include toxic and conventional 
pollutants including salts, lubricants, combustion residuals, 
naphthalene, and other hydrocarbons. Additionally, due to the nature of 
the materials being cleaned, there is a higher probability of heavy 
metal concentrations. Rates and concentrations of gas turbine wash 
water discharge vary according to the frequency of washdown and under 
most circumstances vessel operators can choose where and when to wash 
down gas turbines.
    EPA endeavored to identify new technology and best management 
options for discharges from gas turbines; however, EPA did not identify 
any new technology since the development of the VGP. As such, EPA 
relied on the BPT/

[[Page 67865]]

BCT/BAT analysis that led to the development of the VGP requirements 
and is proposing to require substantively the same standard of 
performance required by the VGP.
    As was required by the VGP, EPA proposes requirements that apply to 
discharges from the washing of gas turbine components. EPA proposes to 
prohibit the discharge of untreated gas turbine washwater unless 
determined to be infeasible.
12. Graywater Systems
    Graywater is water drained or collected from showers, baths, sinks, 
and laundry facilities. Graywater discharges can contain bacteria, 
pathogens, oil and grease, detergent and soap residue, metals (e.g., 
cadmium, chromium, lead, copper, zinc, silver, nickel, mercury), 
solids, and nutrients. Some vessels have the capacity to collect and 
hold graywater for later treatment and discharge. Vessels that do not 
have graywater holding capacity continuously discharge it to receiving 
waters. The volume of graywater generated by a vessel is dependent on 
the number of passengers and crew. It is estimated that, in general, 30 
to 85 gallons of graywater is generated per person per day. Estimates 
of graywater generation by cruise ships that can accommodate 
approximately 3,000 passengers and crew range from 96,000 to 272,000 
gallons of graywater per day or 1,000,000 gallons per week.
    Many elements of the proposed standard, including certain BMPs, 
mirror those found in the VGP. For example, under the proposed General 
Operation and Maintenance standard the operators of all vessels are 
required to minimize the discharge of graywater. Minimization can 
include reducing the production of graywater, holding the graywater 
onboard, or using a reception facility. Additionally, as required by 
the VGP, minimally-toxic, phosphate-free, and biodegradable soaps, 
cleaners, and detergents must be used if they enter the graywater 
system. The proposed standard also requires vessels to minimize the 
introduction of kitchen oils and food and oil residue to the graywater 
system. Also, as would be required for all discharges in section 
139.4(b)(2) of the proposed rule, vessels must discharge while underway 
when practical and as far from shore as practical. This storage 
requirement is particularly relevant for graywater as many vessels have 
graywater storage capabilities onboard that allow for graywater to be 
stored and either discharged to a reception facility or held until 
underway and as far from shore as practical.
    For non-Great Lakes vessels, the numeric effluent requirements from 
the VGP have remained the same with one exception. The proposed 
standard does not include the percent removal requirements for BOD and 
TSS from the VGP. The percent removal requirement, which is based on 
secondary treatment regulations for domestic sewage, is not necessary 
for graywater discharges because there is greater ability to control 
the contribution of BOD and TSS onboard a vessel.
    As in the VGP, EPA is not proposing graywater discharge standards 
for commercial vessels in the Great Lakes consistent with CWA Section 
312(a)(6) that specifies the term ``sewage,'' with respect to 
commercial vessels on the Great Lakes, shall include graywater. As 
such, graywater discharges from commercial vessels on the Great Lakes 
are subject to the requirements in CWA Sections 312(a)-(m) and the 
implementing regulations at 40 CFR part 140 and 33 CFR part 159.
    Non-commercial vessels operating on the Great Lakes may only 
discharge graywater if the discharge is treated such that it does not 
exceed 200 fecal coliform forming units per 100 milliliters and 
contains no more than 150 milligrams per liter of suspended solids. 
This is because the Agency determined that graywater treatment using an 
existing system meeting the 40 CFR part 140 standards represents the 
appropriate level of control for those vessels operating in the Great 
Lakes that do not hold their graywater for onshore disposal. Hence, 
either treatment devices or adequate holding capacity are available and 
used for managing graywater from vessels operating on the Great Lakes.
    As in the VGP, the numeric discharge standard would apply to the 
discharge from any passenger vessel with overnight accommodations for 
500 or more passengers (identified as a ``large cruise ship'' in the 
VGP), as well as any passenger vessel with overnight accommodations for 
100-499 passengers (identified as a ``medium cruise ship'' in the VGP) 
unless the vessel was constructed before December 19, 2008 and does not 
voyage beyond 1 NM from shore, such as is often the situation for older 
river cruise vessels.
    In preparing the proposed standard, EPA endeavored to identify new 
technology and BMPs for graywater discharges or applicability of 
existing technologies and practices to different classes of vessels 
than had been subject to similar requirements in the VGP. Hereafter, 
this section describes proposed requirements for graywater systems that 
are new or modified from the VGP. First, EPA proposes to prohibit the 
discharge of graywater within 3 NM from shore for any vessel that 
voyages at least 3 NM from shore and has remaining available graywater 
storage capacity, unless the discharge meets the standards in section 
139.21(f) of the proposed rule. Similarly, EPA proposes to prohibit the 
discharge of graywater within 1 NM from shore from any vessel that 
voyages at least 1 NM but not more than 3 NM from shore and has 
remaining available graywater storage capacity, unless the discharge 
meets the standards in section 139.21(f) of the proposed rule. Also, 
EPA is proposing that the discharge of graywater from any new vessel of 
400 gross tonnage (GT ITC) and above, and any new ferry authorized by 
the USCG to carry 250 or more people would be required to meet the 
numeric discharge standard in section 139.21(f) of the proposed rule. 
Such vessels could be equipped either with a treatment system or 
sufficient storage capacity to retain all graywater onboard while 
operating in waters subject to the proposed rule. The costs of these 
proposed requirements as compared to those in the VGP are described in 
the regulatory impact analysis for the proposed rule. EPA expects these 
new requirements would reduce the discharge of various pollutants 
without a significant increase in compliance costs. EPA believes the 
proposed standard, while more stringent than existing requirements 
under the VGP, is appropriate and has been demonstrated to be 
technologically available and economically achievable. Based on VGP 
reporting data, between one-third and one-half of manned vessels of 400 
GT ITC or above that are not cruise ships or ferries are equipped with 
a treatment system for graywater, graywater mixed with sewage, or a 
combined treatment system that may treat graywater. As such, the data 
for existing vessels indicate that it is an appropriate requirement for 
new build vessels in this category to install a treatment system or 
storage capacity. EPA expects that vessels built with storage capacity 
may be serviced by stationary and mobile (e.g., trucks and barges) 
pumpout facilities that currently receive sewage and graywater from 
vessels and welcomes public comment on the availability of such 
facilities for vessels unable to install treatment systems.
    Additionally, as required by the VGP, EPA proposes additional 
controls for discharges of graywater for vessels operating in 
federally-protected waters as discussed in VIII C. Discharges

[[Page 67866]]

Incidental to the Normal Operation of a Vessel--Specialized Areas.
    In evaluating options for graywater treatment, EPA reaffirmed that 
treatment of commingled graywater and sewage by an ``advanced 
wastewater treatment system (AWTS),'' a sophisticated marine sanitation 
device, produces significant constituent reductions in the resulting 
effluent. AWTS differ from traditional treatment systems in that they 
generally employ enhanced methods for treatment, solids separation, and 
disinfection, such as through the use of membrane technologies and UV 
disinfection. AWTS are currently in wide use and economically 
achievable for certain vessel classes. For example, the Cruise Lines 
International Association (2019) reports that 68 percent of member 
lines' global fleet capacity is currently served by AWTS. Also, all new 
ships on order by member lines will be equipped with AWTS. In Alaska, 
under the existing ``Large Cruise Ship General Permit,'' certain large 
commercial passenger vessels may only discharge wastewater (including 
sewage and graywater) that has been treated by an AWTS or equivalent 
system. As such, the numeric discharge standard included in the 
proposed standard, which was also present in the VGP, is based on the 
performance of these treatment systems.
    The proposed time period for the application of the numeric 
discharge standard for graywater differs from that presented earlier 
for ballast tanks. For graywater systems, EPA proposes a monthly 
average numeric discharge standard, a commonly used metric for 
establishing numeric effluent discharge limits. While daily maximums 
are also frequently used, EPA is not proposing to include daily 
maximums in the standard. Monitoring discharges onboard a vessel 
presents unique challenges compared to monitoring discharges from land-
based facilities for which numeric effluent discharge limits are 
typically established. For ballast tanks, however, EPA proposes the use 
of instantaneous maximums. As indicated in the ballast tanks section, 
the challenges associated with collecting and testing representative 
samples of ballast water at the time of discharge required a different 
approach. Systems that are designed to meet an instantaneous maximum 
require a higher level of control, and therefore less variability, in 
the system. Since the discharge of ballast water carries the risk of 
establishing ANS, the use of an instantaneous maximum is preferred over 
the use of a long-term average where the upper bounds of variability in 
the discharge may be problematic.
    Graywater discharges, on the other hand, do not carry the same 
level of risk. As such, the numeric discharge standard proposed in 
section 139.21(f) uses monthly averages to allow for the variability 
that is expected in a well-operated treatment system. At the same time, 
the monthly averages require the vessel operator to remain vigilant to 
ensure that, despite this variability, discharges consistently meet the 
numeric limit. Vessels to which the standard applies would be expected 
to operate treatment systems that can consistently achieve compliance 
with the monthly average based on the vessel's expected loadings. 
Pursuant to the general operation and maintenance standards of the 
proposed rule, vessels are expected to discharge while underway when 
practical and as far from shore as practical. This encourages 
commingling of the graywater constituents and further decreases the 
risks associated with variability in the system. EPA recognizes that 
the option to install AWTS or sufficient holding capacity may be 
unavailable for certain vessels for such reasons as cost, stability of 
the vessel, or space constraints. As such, EPA does not propose that 
all vessels be required to treat graywater discharges to the limits 
found in section 139.21(f) of the proposed rule.
13. Hulls and Associated Niche Areas
Coatings
    Vessel hulls are often coated with antifouling compounds to prevent 
or inhibit the attachment and growth of biofouling organisms. 
Selection, application, and maintenance of an appropriate coating type 
and thickness according to vessel profile is critical to effective 
biofouling management, and therefore preventing the introduction and 
spread of ANS from the vessel hull and associated niche areas. Multiple 
types of coatings are available for use, including hard, controlled 
depletion or ablative, self-polishing copolymer, and fouling release 
coatings. Coatings may employ physical, biological, chemical, or a 
combination of controls to reduce biofouling. Those that contain 
biocides prevent the attachment of biofouling organisms to the vessel 
surface by continuously leaching substances that are toxic to aquatic 
life. The most commonly used biocide is copper. Manufacturers may also 
combine copper with other biocides, often termed ``booster biocides,'' 
to increase the effectiveness of the coating. Cleaning the coating 
results in pulses of biocide into the environment, particularly if 
surfaces are cleaned within the first 90 days following application.
    The proposed rule would require that the selection of a coating for 
the hull and associated equipment must be specific to the vessel's 
operational profile, including biocidal coatings, that have effective 
biocide release rates and components that are biodegradable once 
separated from the vessel surface. Operational profile factors can 
influence biofouling rates and include the vessel speed during a 
typical voyage, aquatic environments traversed, type of surface 
painted, typical water flow for any hull and niche areas, planned 
periods between drydock, and expected periods of inactivity or 
idleness. Generally, an optimal biocide will have broad spectrum 
activity, low mammalian toxicity, low water solubility, no 
bioaccumulation up the food chain, no persistence in the environment, 
and compatibility with raw materials (IMO, 2002). EPA is aware that 
non-biocidal coatings are available, and vessels that typically operate 
at high speeds may effectively manage biofouling with fouling release 
coatings. Additionally, vessels traveling in waters with lower 
biofouling pressure and those that spend less time at dock are expected 
to have a lower biofouling rate and should select either non-biocidal 
coating or coatings with low biocide discharge rates. However, these 
coatings may not be suitable for all operational profiles.
    Adhering to manufacturer specifications is necessary to ensure the 
longevity and effectiveness of the coating and is considered best 
practice. If a coating is not properly selected, applied, or 
maintained, it will likely show signs of deterioration, such as 
indications of excessive cleaning actions (e.g., brush marks) or 
blistering due to the internal failure of the paint system. Such 
excessive deterioration may allow for biofouling organisms to grow on 
exposed surfaces, increasing the risk of introduction and spread of 
ANS. Improper application and maintenance of the coating may also 
increase the discharge of particles into the aquatic environment and 
degradation of the integrity of wetted surfaces. The VGP required that 
any antifouling coatings be applied, maintained, and removed consistent 
with the FIFRA label, if applicable. The proposed rule would similarly 
require that coatings be applied, maintained, and reapplied consistent 
with manufacturer specifications, including the thickness, the method 
of application, and the lifespan of the coating. One way to achieve 
this proposed requirement is to schedule the in-service period of the 
coating to match the vessel's drydock cycles. Larger vessels, 
particularly those

[[Page 67867]]

used in the carriage of goods, are required to adhere to requirements 
for safety inspections and maintenance activities that dictate how 
frequently they must be drydocked. Factoring this schedule into the 
coating selection ensures the coating will sufficiently protect the 
vessel for the period needed without creating additional leachate or 
wastes.
Tributyltin (TBT) Requirements
    The International Convention on the Control of Harmful Anti-fouling 
Systems on Ships (AFS Convention) was adopted in 2001 and came into 
force in 2008. The United States became a contracting party to the AFS 
Convention on November 21, 2012. Domestically, the Clean Hull Act of 
2009 implements the requirements of the AFS Convention. Consistent with 
the AFS Convention, the Clean Hull Act, and the VGP, the proposed rule 
reaffirms that coatings on vessel hulls must not contain TBT or any 
other organotin compound used as a biocide. Additionally, the proposed 
rule states that any vessel hull previously applied with a hull coating 
containing TBT (whether or not used as a biocide) or any other 
organotin compound (if used as a biocide) must either maintain an 
effective overcoat on the vessel hull so that no TBT or other organotin 
leaches from the vessel hull or remove any TBT or other organotin 
compound from the vessel hull. EPA is unaware of any non-biocidal use 
of TBT which would result in a residual presence in antifouling paints; 
therefore, EPA reaffirms a zero-discharge standard of TBT from vessel 
hulls. EPA expects that few, if any, vessels have exposed TBT coatings 
on their hulls and that a zero-discharge standard for all organotin 
compounds, including TBT, is technologically achievable based on the 
availability of other antifouling coating options. This standard is 
also economically achievable because few, if any, vessels still use TBT 
as an antifoulant.
    Other less toxic organotin compounds such as dibutyltin oxide are 
used in small quantities as catalysts in some biocide-free coatings. 
One class of biocidal-free coatings, which are sometimes referred to as 
fouling release coatings, produce a non-stick surface to which fouling 
organisms cannot firmly adhere. To function properly, the coating 
surface must remain smooth, intact, and not leach into the surrounding 
water. Because these less toxic organotins are used as a catalyst in 
the production of biocide-free coatings, such production may result in 
trace amounts of organotin in antifouling coatings. Consistent with the 
AFS Convention, the Clean Hull Act, and the VGP, EPA proposed rule 
would authorize the use of non-biocidal coatings that contain trace 
amounts of catalytic organotin (other than TBT) if the trace amounts of 
organotin are not used as a biocide. When used as a catalyst, EPA 
proposed rule states that an organotin compound must contain less than 
2,500 mg total tin per kilogram of dry paint and must not be designed 
to slough or otherwise peel from the vessel hull, noting that 
incidental amounts of a coating discharged by abrasion during cleaning 
or after contact with other hard surfaces (e.g., moorings) are 
acceptable.
Cybutryne Requirements
    Cybutryne, commonly known as Irgarol 1051, is a biocide that 
functions by inhibiting the electron transport mechanism in algae, thus 
inhibiting growth. There are numerous commercially-available 
antifoulants that are similar in cost and have a much lower negative 
impact on the aquatic environment (IMO, 2018). Restrictions on 
cybutryne are already in place in a number of countries globally, and 
cybutryne is therefore less widely used in comparison to other 
antifoulants (IMO, 2017). Coatings that do not contain cybutryne are 
both technologically available and economically achievable. Therefore, 
EPA proposes to prohibit the application of cybutryne-containing 
coatings on hulls and niche areas. In cases where cybutryne coatings 
have been applied previously to a vessel, EPA proposes an effective 
overcoat must be applied and maintained so that no cybutryne leaches 
from the vessel hull, noting that incidental amounts of coating 
discharged by abrasion during cleaning or after contact with the other 
hard surfaces are acceptable. EPA is aware that overcoats are 
commercially available.
Copper Requirements
    Copper, primarily in the form of cuprous oxide, is the most common 
biocide in antifouling coatings, accounting for approximately ninety 
percent of the volume of sales of specialty antifouling biocides in the 
United States (U.S. EPA, 2018). Copper is a broad-spectrum biocide that 
effectively prevents both micro- and macrofouling. Copper is considered 
less harmful to the aquatic environment than TBT-containing compounds, 
but its use has nevertheless contributed to loadings in copper-impaired 
waters. Consistent with the VGP, EPA proposes to require that, as 
appropriate based on vessel class and operations, alternatives to 
copper-based coatings be considered for vessels spending 30 or more 
days per year in copper-impaired waters or using these waters as their 
home port. However, despite the potential impacts of copper-based 
coatings, there is a concern that replacement of copper with other 
biocides may cause different, and potentially more harmful, 
environmental impacts. EPA determined that there are no direct 
substitutions for copper as a biocide that are as affordable or as 
effective, without posing similar risks to non-target aquatic species 
(U.S. EPA, 2018). As such, EPA is not proposing to require the 
selection of an alternative antifouling coating to copper antifouling 
coating for vessels.
    The significance of the discharges from a biocidal coating depends 
not only on the substance used, but also on the ``leaching rate'' of 
the biocide (IMO, 2009). In other words, the rate of discharge or entry 
into the environment from the coating itself. While the rate at which 
copper leaches from coatings is relatively slow (average discharge 
rates range from 3.8-22 [mu]g/cm\2\/day), copper-containing coatings 
can account for significant accumulations of metals in receiving waters 
of ports where numerous vessels are present (Valkirs et al., 2003; 
Zirino and Seligman, 2002). EPA is aware that maximum leach rates for 
copper-based antifouling paints on recreational vessels have been 
established both federally and locally. However, EPA does not currently 
have the data available to establish a leach rate that would be 
appropriate for the wide variety of vessels covered under the VIDA. 
Therefore, the proposed rule does not require a specific, maximum 
copper leach rate for antifouling coatings, acknowledging that use of 
antifouling coatings is also regulated in the United States. through 
FIFRA. At this time, EPA invites comment as to what maximum leach rates 
would sufficiently prevent biofouling while restricting the discharge 
of copper into the aquatic environment, recognizing that different 
leach rates may be required depending on the vessel profile, and 
according to the differentiations designated by the VIDA (e.g., vessel 
size, class, type, and age).
Cleaning
    Most commercial vessels are required to undertake periodic hull 
surveys as part of International Association of Classification 
Societies rules and in accordance with IMO conventions. Whenever 
possible, EPA suggests that drydock cleaning is the preferred BMP to 
in-water hull and niche cleaning. Drydock schedules should be factored

[[Page 67868]]

into the inspection and management of areas susceptible to biofouling.
    EPA recognizes that in many instances it is not technologically 
available or economically achievable for a vessel to be drydocked 
outside of the regular schedule to clean biofouling from the hull or 
niche areas. Some vessels are too large to be regularly removed from 
the water, and any repair or maintenance required on the hull or niches 
must occur while the vessel is pier-side between drydockings. 
Therefore, EPA believes the Act does not require the prohibition of in-
water cleaning at this time. In-water cleaning that is conducted as a 
preventative measure can be an important component of biofouling 
management. Preventative in-water cleaning is the frequent, gentle 
cleaning of the vessel hull and appendages to prevent the growth of 
biofouling organisms, with minimal impacts to the antifouling system. 
However, EPA also recognizes that there may be places where in-water 
cleaning should not occur, notably in federally-protected waters, based 
on the unique resources present in those areas.
    Studies have estimated that even a biofilm can increase the drag on 
a vessel by up to 25 percent (Townsin, 2003; Schultz, 2007). Predictive 
analytics have shown that frequent cleaning reduces fuel consumption 
and that increasing cleaning to an interval of approximately six months 
can save hundreds of thousands of dollars per vessel in fuel costs 
(Marr, 2017). Therefore, conducting preventative cleaning can reduce 
drag, enhance operations, and reduce the discharge of ANS. 
Additionally, preventative cleaning has been shown to effectively 
reduce biofouling without significantly increasing biocide loading into 
the aquatic environment (Tribou and Swain, 2017). In contrast, 
macrofouling requires more abrasive removal techniques, which may 
damage the antifouling coating, resulting in a higher tendency for 
subsequent biofouling as well as a larger pulse of biocides and 
particles into the aquatic environment. Additionally, macrofouling (FR 
>20) is composed of more diverse and mature organisms and, depending on 
geographic origin, may present a greater risk of discharging ANS than a 
slime layer.
    The VGP required that vessel owners/operators minimize the 
transport of attached living organisms when traveling into U.S. waters 
from outside the Economic Exclusive Zone or between COTP Zones using 
techniques such as selecting and maintaining an appropriate anti-
fouling management system; in water inspections, cleaning, and 
maintenance of hulls; and thorough hull and niche area cleaning when 
the vessel is in drydock. The VGP also required that vessel owners/
operators who remove biofouling organisms from hulls while the vessel 
is waterborne employ methods that minimize the discharge of fouling 
organisms and antifouling coatings. Such methods include the use of 
appropriate cleaning brush or sponge rigidity to minimize removal of 
antifouling coatings and biocide releases into the water column; 
limiting the use of hard brushes and surfaces for the removal of hard 
growth; and when available and feasible, use of a vacuum or other 
control technology to minimize the release or dispersion of antifouling 
coatings and fouling organisms into the water column. The VGP also 
prohibited the in-water cleaning of hulls coated with copper-based 
anti-fouling paints in copper-impaired waters within the first 365 days 
after paint application unless there is a significant visible 
indication of hull fouling.
    Consistent with the VGP, EPA is proposing that vessel hulls and 
niche areas must be cleaned regularly to minimize biofouling (i.e., 
grooming or preventative cleaning). Regular cleaning to minimize 
biofouling is considered an industry best practice, in large part due 
to the economic incentive involved: Costs associated with regular in-
water cleaning, including the cleaning services, disruptions to a 
ship's schedule, and staff time, are outweighed by the fuel savings 
that result from a low fouling rating (FR) as that term is defined in 
the proposed regulations; reductions in fouling from FR-20 to FR-10 
have been estimated to generate hundreds of thousands of dollars in 
fuel savings annually per ship. Several mechanisms are utilized by 
vessel owners to determine the necessary intervals of such cleanings, 
including regular inspections, ISO standard 19030 measurements of hull 
and propeller performance, and/or advanced data analytics. Further, 
many technologies are available for preventative in-water cleaning, 
including diver-operated technologies or remotely operated vehicles. A 
review of the market of hull cleaning robots sponsored by the USCG in 
2016 identified no fewer than 15 technologies capable of conducting in-
water cleaning of vessel hulls. More recently, remotely operated 
vehicles for preventative cleaning have also been developed as 
equipment attached to the vessel itself, enabling flexibility in 
cleaning schedule along a vessel's route.
    Additionally, consistent with the VGP, the proposed rule would also 
require that the cleaning methods used cause no or minimal damage to 
the underlying coating, ensuring that the coating is not degraded and 
the release of biocide into the aquatic environment is minimized. These 
requirements are considered best practice and would ensure the 
longevity and effectiveness of the coating and minimize the pollutant 
loading into the surrounding environment.
    EPA is also proposing to prohibit in-water cleaning of biofouling 
that exceeds a fouling rating of FR-20, except in the following two 
circumstances: (1) When the fouling is local in origin and cleaning 
does not result in the substantial removal of a biocidal antifouling 
coating, as indicated by a plume or cloud of paint; or (2) when an in-
water cleaning and capture (IWCC) system is used that is designed and 
operated to capture coatings and biofouling organisms; filter 
biofouling organisms from the effluent, and minimize the release of 
biocides. Pursuant to this proposed standard, fouling is considered to 
be local if a vessel follows a `clean-before-you-go' strategy, whereby 
in-water cleaning is conducted prior to leaving a port on fouling 
accumulated in that port. If IWCC systems are used, discharge of any 
wastes filtered or otherwise removed from the system is prohibited. 
Also, understanding that IWCC systems may not be available in many 
ports, EPA recommends, but does not propose to require, the use of IWCC 
systems for removal of local macrofouling.
    IWCC systems reduce the discharge of fouling organisms and coating 
particles into the surrounding environment, and allow solids removed 
from the vessel hulls to be collected and disposed of onshore. Cleaning 
of hulls and niche areas, such as with IWCC systems, is necessary for 
vessel maintenance, and therefore the discharge of treated or filtered 
effluent from these systems is considered incidental to the normal 
operation of a vessel and authorized under the VIDA. IWCC discharges 
result ``from a protective, preservative . . . application to the hull 
of the vessel'' (33 U.S.C. 1322(a)(12)(A)(i)). Vessels following 
effective biofouling management strategies generally should be able to 
maintain fouling at or below an advanced slime layer. Therefore, use of 
such IWCC systems would primarily occur either to remove fouling that 
is local in origin (e.g., after periods of idleness) or in contingency 
scenarios. Technologies to remove and capture biofouling have emerged 
since the last VGP issuance. These technologies are available and 
becoming common practice globally. To date, EPA has identified four 
companies that have

[[Page 67869]]

designed IWCC systems, operating in more than 15 countries and across 
six continents. This international information is relevant to this 
sector because a significant number of vessels to which this rule 
applies operate internationally. EPA anticipates that this technology 
will continue to improve and become more widely available. Similar to 
proactive cleaning, IWCC devices are advertised as being capable of 
providing hundreds of thousands of dollars in fuel savings annually to 
many vessel owners and operators, and thus there is an economic 
incentive independent of this rule driving their use. Additionally, the 
shipping industry has outlined the lack of approved in-water cleaning 
facilities as an impedance to effective biofouling management, 
resulting in ships increasingly cleaning offshore and in open waters, 
which bring added safety concerns. The primary challenge with using an 
IWCC is not the lack of technologies themselves, but regulatory 
frameworks that do not allow for these technologies to be used in 
various areas around the world. Removal of regulatory obstacles 
associated with the use of IWCC will afford vessel owners and operators 
with the opportunity to realize operational savings associated with 
maintaining a clean hull. As such, EPA expects that regular cleaning of 
biofouling consisting of FR-20 or below, in combination with the 
potential for controlled cleaning of biofouling exceeding FR-20 through 
IWCC devices, represents best available technology economically 
achievable to control the release of ANS and biocides from vessel hulls 
and associated niche areas, with likely long term cost savings to the 
vessel industry.
    In line with the VGP, EPA is also proposing to minimize discharges 
of copper to aquatic ecosystems by restricting the in-water cleaning of 
vessels coated with copper-based antifouling paints in copper-impaired 
waters within the first 365 days after paint application. The proposed 
rule would allow in-water cleaning of copper-based coatings in copper-
impaired waters within the 365 days following application only in 
circumstances when an IWCC system consistent with the aforementioned 
specifications is used. EPA understands that biocidal coatings are 
generally designed to remain free of fouling for the 365 days after 
application, prior to requiring in-water hull cleaning. Additionally, 
the majority of copper-impaired waters within the United States are 
streams, creeks, and rivers which generally have lower fouling pressure 
in comparison to warmer, marine waterbodies, and therefore vessels 
primarily operating in these waters would likely not require cleaning 
within the 365 days following application of the coating. For vessels 
operating in the few copper-impaired areas of coastal waterbodies in 
the United States, there remains the option to either conduct cleaning 
at a nearby, non-impaired port or to employ the use of an IWCC system 
as described above. Although it is unlikely that a vessel with a 
copper-based coating will have to clean within a copper-impaired water 
during the 365 days following application, EPA has further determined 
that there are alternatives to copper-based coatings that are available 
for use, which, over the coating lifespan would result in costs 
comparable to copper-based coatings.
    Additionally, EPA proposes to prohibit in-water cleaning on any 
section of a biocidal antifouling coating which has shown significant 
deterioration since the most recent application of the coating. Such a 
level of deterioration indicates failure at the anticorrosive/
antifouling interface which can result in a soft blister that is more 
likely to be broken by cleaning. Cleaning of paint that has reached 
this level may cause rupturing of paint blisters, which not only 
results in discharges of coating particles, but also increases the rate 
of damage to the anti-fouling system more generally. In turn, the 
exposed surface is subject to increased fouling and risk of corrosion. 
EPA expects that an antifouling system selected in accordance with the 
vessel's operating profile, and cleaned with minimally abrasive 
cleaning methods, should not present signs of significant deterioration 
at the anticorrosive/antifouling interface, therefore adherence to this 
standard is achievable by following the coating and cleaning practices 
in the proposed guidelines.
    Consistent with proposed requirements for detergents used for deck 
washdown in this proposed rule and the VGP, EPA proposes that cleaning 
agents used on vessel surfaces that maintain direct contact with 
ambient waters, such as the scum lines of the hull, must be minimally-
toxic, phosphate-free, and biodegradable. Finally, as proposed in 
section 139.40, EPA proposes additional controls for discharges from 
in-water cleaning when vessels are operating in federally-protected 
waters.
14. Inert Gas Systems
    Inert gas is used on tankers for several reasons, with one of the 
primary uses being to control the oxygen levels in the atmosphere in 
the cargo and ballast tanks to prevent explosion and suppress 
flammability. Inert gas system discharges consist of scrubber washwater 
and water from deck water seals when used as an integral part of the 
inert gas system.
    EPA endeavored to identify new technology and best management 
options for inert gas system discharges; however, EPA did not identify 
any new technology since the development of the VGP. As such, EPA 
relied on the BPT/BCT/BAT analysis that led to the development of the 
VGP requirements and is proposing to require substantively the same 
standard of performance required by the VGP.
    As required by the VGP, EPA proposes that all inert gas scrubber 
washwater and water from deck seals must meet all of the requirements 
identified in the general discharge standards, and notably, 
requirements for oily discharges, including requirements set forth in 
MARPOL Annex I, EPA oil regulations, and USCG oil regulations as 
appropriate for the vessel.
15. Motor Gasoline and Compensating Systems
    Motor gasoline and compensating discharge is the discharge of 
seawater that is taken into motor gasoline tanks to replace the weight 
of fuel as it is used and eliminate free space where vapors could 
accumulate. The compensating system is used for fuel tanks to supply 
pressure for the gasoline and to keep the tank full to prevent 
potentially explosive gasoline vapors from forming. The seawater is 
discharged when the vessel refills the tanks with gasoline or when 
performing maintenance. The discharge can contain both toxic and 
conventional pollutants including residual oils or traces of gasoline 
constituents, which can include alkanes, alkenes, aromatics (e.g., 
benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene, phenol, and naphthalene), metals, and 
additives. Most vessels by design do not produce this discharge.
    EPA endeavored to identify new technology and best management 
options for motor gasoline and compensating discharges; however, EPA 
did not identify any new technology since the development of the VGP. 
As such, EPA relied on the BPT/BCT/BAT analysis that led to the 
development of the VGP requirements and is proposing to require 
substantively the same standard of performance required by the VGP.
    As required by the VGP, EPA proposes that all motor gasoline and 
compensating discharge must meet the requirements identified in the 
general

[[Page 67870]]

discharge standards, and notably, requirements for oily discharges, 
including requirements set forth in MARPOL Annex I, EPA oil 
regulations, and USCG oil regulations as appropriate for the vessel.
    Finally, as discussed in VIII C. Discharges Incidental to the 
Normal Operation of a Vessel--Specialized Areas, and as required by the 
VGP, EPA proposes several additional controls for discharges from motor 
gasoline and compensating systems from a vessel operating in federally-
protected waters.
16. Non-Oily Machinery
    Non-oily machinery wastewater is the combined wastewater from the 
operation of distilling plants, water chillers, valve packings, water 
piping, low- and high-pressure air compressors, propulsion engine 
jacket coolers, fire pumps, and seawater and potable water pumps. Non-
oily machinery wastewater systems are intended to keep wastewater from 
machinery that does not contain oil separate from wastewater that has 
oil content. Non-oily machinery wastewater discharge rates vary by 
vessel size and operation type, ranging from 100 to 4,000 gallons per 
hour. Constituents of non-oily machinery wastewater discharge can 
include a suite of conventional and nonconventional pollutants 
including metals and organics.
    EPA endeavored to identify new technology and best management 
options for discharges of non-oily machinery wastewater; however, EPA 
did not identify any new technology since the development of the VGP. 
As such, EPA relied on the BPT/BCT/BAT analysis that led to the 
development of the VGP requirements and is proposing to require 
substantively the same standard of performance required by the VGP.
    As required by the VGP, EPA proposes that the discharge of 
untreated non-oily wastewater and packing gland or stuffing box 
effluent that contains toxic or bioaccumulative additives or the 
discharge of oil in such quantities as may be harmful is prohibited.
17. Pools and Spas
    Cruise ships and other vessels occasionally have pools or spas 
onboard that use water treated with chlorine or bromine as a 
disinfectant. When pools or spas are drained, the water is discharged 
overboard or sent to an advanced wastewater treatment system. The 
discharge water can contain nonconventional pollutants such as bromine 
and chlorine.
    EPA endeavored to identify new technology and best management 
options for pool and spa wastewater; however, EPA did not identify any 
new technology since the development of the VGP. As such, EPA relied on 
the BPT/BCT/BAT analysis that led to the development of the VGP 
requirements and is proposing substantively similar requirements as the 
VGP. EPA determined the dechlorination limits by using those 
established for ballast water treatment systems and by evaluating 
comments submitted by the public on the 2008 and 2013 VGPs that 
indicated such limits are achievable. Furthermore, the proposed numeric 
discharge standard is consistent with common dechlorination limits from 
shore-based sewage treatment facilities.
    The proposed standard would require vessel operators to discharge 
while underway and dechlorinate and/or debrominate any pool or spa 
water, except for unintentional or inadvertent releases from overflows 
across the decks and into overboard drains, prior to discharging 
overboard. To be considered dechlorinated, the total residual chlorine 
in the pool or spa effluent must be less than 100[micro]g/L. To be 
considered debrominated, the total residual oxidant in the pool or spa 
effluent must be less than 25[micro]g/L. Additionally, the proposed 
standard would require the discharge of pool and spa water overboard to 
occur while the vessel is underway unless determined infeasible by the 
Secretary.
    Finally, as discussed in VIII C. Discharges Incidental to the 
Normal Operation of a Vessel--Specialized Areas, and as required by the 
VGP, EPA proposes additional controls for discharges from pools and 
spas from vessels operating in federally-protected waters.
18. Refrigeration and Air Conditioning
    Condensation from cold refrigeration or evaporator coils of air 
conditioning systems drips from the coils and collects in drip troughs 
which typically channel to a drainage system. The condensate discharge 
may contain toxic, conventional, and nonconventional pollutants 
including detergents, seawater, food residue, and trace metals. This 
waste stream can easily be segregated from oily wastes, and toxic or 
hazardous materials and safely discharged, channeled, or collected for 
temporary holding until disposed of onshore or drained to the bilge.
    EPA endeavored to identify new technology and best management 
options for refrigeration and air conditioning condensate; however, EPA 
did not identify any new technology or management options since the 
development of the VGP. As such, EPA relied on the BPT/BCT/BAT analysis 
that led to the development of the VGP requirements and is proposing 
substantively similar requirements as the VGP.
    As required by the VGP, EPA proposes to prohibit the discharge of 
refrigeration and air conditioning condensate directly overboard that 
contacts toxic or hazardous materials.
19. Seawater Piping
    Seawater piping systems, including sea chests and grates, are a 
niche area that have the potential to harbor and discharge a large 
quantity of ANS, which are a nonconventional pollutant. Niche areas 
represent a challenge for biofouling management as they are generally 
more difficult to access and are protected from hydrodynamic forces, 
facilitating the accumulation and survivorship of fouling organisms. 
Niche areas account for approximately 10 percent of the total wetted 
surface area of a vessel (Moser et al., 2017). However, over 80 percent 
of species sampled in vessel biofouling studies were found in niche 
areas (Bell et al., 2011). Therefore, while the relative surface area 
of niche areas in proportion to the hull may be low, the risk of such 
areas contributing to the discharge of ANS is significant. 
Additionally, seawater piping systems on commercial vessels may provide 
water uptake for firefighting response, engine cooling, and ballast 
water. Ensuring that these systems are unobstructed from macrofouling 
organisms is vital to ship operations, including the structural 
integrity of the vessel and the safety of the crew.
    The VGP required vessel owners/operators to remove fouling 
organisms from seawater piping on a regular basis and dispose of 
removed substances in accordance with local, state, and federal 
regulations. The VGP also prohibited the discharge of removed fouling 
organisms into regulated waters. Additionally, the VGP required a 
drydock inspection report noting that the sea chest and other surface 
and niche areas of the vessel have been inspected for attached living 
organisms, and those organisms have been removed or neutralized.
    EPA proposes any vessel with a seawater piping system (sea chests, 
grates, and any sea-piping) that accumulates biofouling that exceeds a 
fouling rating of FR-20 must be fitted with a Marine Growth Prevention 
System (MGPS).
    The most common MGPS for seawater includes sacrificial anodic 
copper systems and chlorine-based dosing systems. Such systems are 
already widely in use and available. EPA

[[Page 67871]]

recognizes that there may be a variety of systems capable of addressing 
biofouling in seawater systems, and an effective, preventative 
biofouling management strategy may include a combination of different 
systems. EPA therefore expanded the definition of an MGPS for this 
standard to also include chemical injection; electrolysis, ultrasound, 
ultraviolet radiation, or electrochlorination; application of an 
antifouling coating; or use of cupro-nickel piping. Due to the many 
options available and the wide extent of their current use, EPA 
considers the MGPS options provided to be best available technology.
    An MGPS can vary widely in operational characteristics and 
placement suitability. EPA proposes that the MGPS selection must 
consider the level, frequency, and type of expected biofouling and the 
design, location, and area in which the system will be used. For 
example, it has been suggested that an MGPS installed in the sea chest 
provides protection to both the sea chest and internal pipework, while 
one installed in the strainer may only protect the internal pipework. 
Furthermore, anti-fouling coating selection and application should be 
appropriate to the material of the piping and level of waterflow to 
which the coated area is subjected. Based on the potential differences 
in profile of the coated areas, the coating applied to a seawater 
system may be different from the coating applied to the vessel hull. 
EPA recommends that the MGPS should be selected, installed, and 
maintained according to the manufacturer specifications.
    Upon identification that biofouling exceeds a level of FR-20 
despite preventative measures, then reactive measures must be used to 
remove biofouling. Such measures can include freshwater flushing or 
chemical dosing. For example, vessels that use seawater cooling systems 
to condense low pressure steam from propulsion plants or generator 
turbines already practice freshwater flushing as a means of removing 
biofouling. However, discharges resulting from reactive measures to 
remove macrofouling are prohibited in port.
    When these vessels are in port for more than a few days, the main 
steam plant is shut down and does not circulate. This can cause an 
accumulation of biological growth within the system; consequently, a 
freshwater layup is carried-out by flushing the seawater in the system 
with potable or surrounding freshwater (e.g., lake water) and 
thoroughly cleaning the system. EPA expects the frequency at which 
reactive measures should be used will be vessel-specific and therefore 
is not proposing a specific time interval. Time intervals should be 
determined based on a vessel's operational profile. Finally, as 
proposed in section 139.40, EPA proposes additional controls for 
discharges from seawater piping systems when vessels are operating in 
federally-protected waters.
    Seawater piping discharges also include non-contact engine cooling 
water, hydraulic system cooling water, refrigeration cooling water, and 
freshwater lay-up wastewater. Such systems use ambient water to absorb 
the heat from heat exchangers, propulsion systems, and mechanical 
auxiliary systems. The water is typically circulated through an 
enclosed system that does not come in direct contact with machinery, 
but still may contain sediment from water intake, traces of hydraulic 
or lubricating oils, and trace metals leached or eroded from the pipes 
within the system. Additionally, because it is used for cooling, the 
effluent will have an increased temperature. Cooling water can reach 
high temperatures with the thermal difference between seawater intake 
and discharge typically ranging from 5 [deg]C to 25 [deg]C, with 
maximum temperatures reaching 140 [deg]C. EPA is aware that use of 
shore-power may reduce the discharges of seawater from cooling system; 
however, EPA recognizes that shore-power may not be available in many 
locations, may not be sufficient for the electricity needs of the 
vessel, and may not be compatible with the vessel's systems. Therefore, 
currently, EPA is not proposing to require the use of shore-power to 
reduce thermal discharges from seawater piping systems.
20. Sonar Domes
    Sonar dome discharge consists of leachate from anti-fouling 
materials into the surrounding seawater and the discharge of seawater 
or freshwater retained within the sonar dome. Sonar domes house 
detection, navigation, and ranging equipment and are filled with water 
to maintain their shape and pressure. They are typically found on 
research vessels but may occur on other vessel classes. Sonar dome 
discharge occasionally occurs when the water in the dome is drained for 
maintenance or repair; discharge rates are estimated to range from 300 
to 74,000 gallons from inside the sonar dome for each repair event. 
This discharge from inside the dome may include toxic pollutants 
including zinc, copper, nickel, and epoxy paints. Additionally, 
discharge occurs when materials leach from the exterior of the dome. 
Components that may leach into surrounding waters include antifouling 
agents, plastic, iron and rubber.
    EPA endeavored to identify new technology and best management 
options for sonar domes; however, EPA did not identify any new 
technology or management options since the development of the VGP. As 
such, EPA relied on the BPT/BCT/BAT analysis that led to the 
development of the VGP requirements and is proposing to require 
substantively the same standard of performance required by the VGP.
    EPA proposes to prohibit the discharge of water during maintenance 
or repair from inside the sonar domes. Additionally, the proposed 
standard would prohibit the use of bioaccumulative biocides when non-
bioaccumulative alternatives are available.

C. Discharges Incidental to the Normal Operation of a Vessel--
Federally-Protected Waters Requirements

    The VIDA, in CWA Section 312(p)(4)(B)(iii), specifies that EPA must 
propose national standards of performance that are no less stringent 
than the VGP requirements relating to effluent limits and related 
requirements, including with respect to waters subject to Federal 
protection, in whole or in part, for conservation purposes (with 
limited exemptions for new information or to correct mistakes or 
misinterpretations made in previous requirements in the VGP). 
Therefore, EPA proposes to prohibit or limit discharges in federally-
protected waters consistent with the VGP requirements established for 
``waters federally-protected for conservation purposes.'' EPA proposes 
that the designated federally-protected waters for this rulemaking 
consist of the areas of waters listed in Appendix G of the VGP 
(National Marine Sanctuaries, Marine National Monuments, National 
Parks, National Wildlife Refuges, National Wilderness Areas, or parts 
of the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System) plus any additional 
individual waters that have been added to these nationally-recognized 
waters since the establishment of the VGP Appendix G; this updated list 
of waters is proposed in Appendix A of Part 139 in this rulemaking. 
Federally-protected waters are likely to be of high quality and consist 
of unique ecosystems which may include distinctive species of aquatic 
animals and plants. Furthermore, as protected areas, these waters are 
more likely to have a greater abundance of sensitive species of plants 
and animals that may have trouble

[[Page 67872]]

surviving in areas with greater anthropogenic impact. Such waters are 
important to the public at large, as evidenced by the waters' special 
status or designation by the Federal government as National Marine 
Sanctuaries, Marine National Monuments, National Parks, National 
Wildlife Refuges, National Wilderness Areas, or parts of the National 
Wild and Scenic Rivers System.
    To develop the list of applicable ``federally-protected waters,'' 
for the VGP, EPA reviewed several federal authorities that protect 
waters that are known to be of high value or sensitive to environmental 
impacts, such as those administered by the Bureau of Land Management 
(BLM), the National Park Service (NPS), the United States Fish and 
Wildlife Service (FWS), the Forest Service (USFS), and the National 
Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). These areas, identified 
in Appendix G of the VGP, include:
     National Marine Sanctuaries--as designated under the 
National Marine Sanctuaries Act (16 U.S.C. 1431 et seq.) and 
implementing regulations found at 15 CFR part 922 and 50 CFR part 404. 
Maps and a list of national marine sanctuaries are currently available 
at https://sanctuaries.noaa.gov.
     Marine National Monuments--as designated by presidential 
proclamation under the Antiquities Act of 1906 (54 U.S.C. 320301 et 
seq). Maps and a list of marine national monuments are currently 
available at https://fisheries.noaa.gov.
     National Parks (including National Preserves and National 
Monuments)--as designated under the National Park Service Organic Act, 
as amended (54 U.S.C. 100101 et seq.) within the National Park System 
by the NPS within the U.S. Department of the Interior. Maps and a list 
of national parks are currently available at https://www.nps.gov/findpark.index.htm.
     National Wildlife Refuges (including Wetland Management 
Districts, Waterfowl Production Areas, National Game Preserves, 
Wildlife Management Area, and National Fish and Wildlife Refuges)--as 
designated under the National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act 
of 1966 as amended by the National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement 
Act of 1997 (16 U.S.C. 668dd et seq). Maps and a list of national 
wildlife refuges are currently available at https://www.fws.gov/refuges.
     National Wilderness Areas--as designated under the 
Wilderness Act of 1964 (16 U.S.C. 1131 et seq). Section 4(c) of the 
Wilderness Act strictly prohibits motorized vehicles, vessels, 
aircrafts or equipment for the purposes of transport of any kind within 
the boundaries of all wilderness areas (16 U.S.C. 1133(c)). Exceptions 
to this Act include motorized vehicle use for the purposes of gathering 
information on minerals or other resources; for the purposes of 
controlling fire, insects, or disease; and in wilderness areas where 
aircraft or motorized boat use have already been established prior to 
1964. Maps and a list of national wilderness areas are available at 
https://www.wilderness.net.
     National Wild and Scenic Rivers--as designated 
under the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act of 1968 (16 U.S.C. 1271 et seq). 
Maps and a list of national wild and scenic rivers are currently 
available at https://www.rivers.gov.
    EPA does not propose to include Outstanding National Resource 
Waters (ONRWs) on the list of federally-protected waters in this 
proposed rule as these are State or Tribal water quality-based 
designations under the antidegradation policy of the CWA. CWA Section 
312(p)(9) establishes state authorities under the VIDA and CWA Section 
312(p)(10) establishes specific regional requirements and neither 
section includes nor references the ONRWs established under the VGP.
    As required by the VGP, EPA proposes to include discharge 
requirements for vessels operating in federally-protected waters as 
designated in Appendix A. These requirements are in addition to any 
applicable general or specific discharge requirements in Subparts B and 
C of the proposed rule. The following paragraphs describe the 
additional discharge requirements established when a vessel is 
operating in federally-protected waters.
    Ballast Tanks: EPA proposes that, generally consistent with section 
2.2.3.3. of the VGP, the discharge or uptake of ballast water must be 
avoided in federally-protected waters, except for those vessels 
operating within the boundaries of any national marine sanctuary that 
preserves shipwrecks or maritime heritage in the Great Lakes, including 
Thunder Bay National Marine Sanctuary and Underwater Preserve, as 
necessary to allow for safe and efficient vessel operation, unless the 
designation documents for such sanctuary do not allow taking up or 
discharging ballast water in such sanctuary, pursuant to the Howard 
Coble Coast Guard and Maritime Transportation Act of 2014, Public Law 
113-281, title VI, sec. 610, as amended by the Coast Guard 
Reauthorization Act of 2015, Public Law 114-120, title VI, sec. 602).
    Bilges: EPA proposes that, consistent with section 2.2.2 of the 
VGP, for any vessel of 400 GT ITC (400 GRT if GT ITC is not assigned) 
and above, the discharge of bilgewater is prohibited.
    Boilers: EPA proposes that, consistent with section 2.2.6 of the 
VGP, any discharge from a boiler into federally-protected waters is 
prohibited. This requirement acknowledges that small volumes of routine 
blowdown may be discharged because of design and operational 
considerations of the boiler if compliance with this part would 
compromise the safety of life at sea consistent with exclusion from 
these discharge standards in section 139.1(b)(3) of the proposed rule.
    Fire Protection Equipment: EPA proposes that, generally consistent 
with section 2.2.5 of the VGP for aqueous film forming foam and section 
2.2.12 of the VGP for firemain systems, the discharge from fire 
protection equipment during training, testing, maintenance, inspection, 
and certification into federally-protected waters is prohibited and the 
discharge of fluorinated foam in federally-protected waters is 
prohibited.
    Graywater: EPA proposes that, consistent with section 2.2.15 of the 
VGP, the discharge of graywater into federally-protected waters is 
prohibited from any vessel with remaining available graywater storage 
capacity.
    Motor Gasoline and Compensating Discharge: EPA proposes that, 
consistent with section 2.2.16 of the VGP, the discharge of motor 
gasoline and compensating discharges into federally-protected waters is 
prohibited.
    Additionally, EPA proposes to include several new or modified 
discharge requirements for vessels operating in federally-protected 
waters. EPA proposes that these additional requirements are 
technologically available because the waters that are ``federally 
protected'' waters are limited and thus vessels are able to operate 
without discharging in these protected waters. For example, a vessel 
traveling through the Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary can 
ordinarily wait to discharge accumulated water and sediment from any 
chain locker or chemically-dosed seawater piping until no longer in 
those federally-protected waters. EPA proposes that the requirement is 
economically achievable because EPA does not have any information 
indicating that vessels undertaking an activity such as holding would 
incur costs.
    Chain Lockers: EPA proposes that the discharge of accumulated water 
and sediment from any chain locker into federally-protected waters is 
prohibited.

[[Page 67873]]

This is a proposed new requirement that acknowledges that cleanout of 
chain lockers is not a time sensitive activity and as such, can be 
scheduled at times when a vessel is outside of these sensitive waters.
    Decks: EPA proposes that the discharge of deck washdown into 
federally-protected waters is prohibited. This proposed requirement 
extends coverage from certain vessels in the VGP to all vessels that 
acknowledges that washing of decks is an activity that can be scheduled 
for times when a vessel is outside of these sensitive waters.
    Hulls and Associated Niche Areas: EPA proposes that the discharge 
from in-water cleaning of vessel hulls and niche areas into federally-
protected waters is prohibited. This is a new requirement that 
acknowledges in-water cleaning of vessel hulls and niche areas is an 
activity that can be scheduled for times when the vessel is outside of 
these sensitive waters.
    Pools and Spas: EPA proposes that the discharge of pool or spa 
water into federally-protected waters is prohibited. This proposed 
requirement extends coverage from medium and large cruise ships to all 
vessels with pools or spas and acknowledges that these discharges can 
be scheduled for times when the vessel is outside of these sensitive 
waters.
    Seawater Piping Systems: EPA proposes that the discharge of 
chemical dosing, as required in section 139.28 of the proposed rule, 
into federally-protected waters is prohibited. This is a new 
requirement that acknowledges chemical dosing and the resultant 
discharge is an activity that can be scheduled for times when the 
vessel is outside of these sensitive waters.
    EPA specifically solicits comment on the use of the VGP's Appendix 
G water areas and more specifically the list of waters in Appendix A as 
the proposed static list of federally-protected waters, including 
whether specific designations of waters should be added to or excluded 
from the proposed list. EPA also specifically solicits comments on the 
additional discharge requirements proposed for vessels operating in 
federally-protected waters.

D. Discharges Incidental to the Normal Operation of a Vessel--Previous 
VGP Discharges No Longer Requiring Control

    EPA proposes to exclude fish hold effluent and small boat engine 
wet exhaust as independent discharges incidental to the normal 
operation of a vessel under the proposed rule.
    Fish hold is the area where fish are kept once caught and kept 
fresh during the remainder of the vessel's voyage before being 
offloaded to shore or another tender vessel. The fish hold is typically 
a refrigerated seawater holding tank, where the fish are kept cool by 
mechanical refrigeration or ice. With the exception of ballast water, 
CWA Section 312(p)(2)(B)(i)(III) excludes from these proposed 
regulations discharges incidental to the normal operation of a fishing 
vessel; therefore, EPA proposes that although this discharge was 
included in the VGP, it should not be a discharge incidental to the 
normal operation of a vessel subject to these regulations.
    Small boat engines use ambient water that is injected into the 
exhaust for cooling and noise reduction purposes. Similar to fishing 
vessels, with the exception of ballast water, CWA Section 
312(p)(2)(B)(i)(III) excludes from these proposed regulations 
discharges incidental to the normal operation of a vessel less than 79 
feet; therefore, EPA proposes that although this discharge was included 
in the VGP, it should not be a discharge incidental to the normal 
operation of a vessel subject to these regulations.

IX. Procedures for States To Request Changes to Standards, Regulations, 
or Policy Promulgated by the Administrator

A. Petition by a Governor for the Administrator To Establish an 
Emergency Order or Review a Standard, Regulation, or Policy

    Under CWA Section 312(p)(7)(A), a Governor of a state may submit a 
petition to the Administrator to issue an emergency order or to review 
any standard of performance, regulation, or policy if there exists new 
information that could reasonably result in a change. A petition must 
be signed by the Governor (or a designee) and must include the purpose 
of the petition (request for emergency order or to review of any 
standard of performance, regulation, or policy); any applicable 
scientific or technical information that forms the basis of the 
petition; and the direct and indirect benefits if the requested 
petition were to be granted by the Administrator. The Administrator 
shall grant or deny the petition and either issue the relevant 
emergency order or submit a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking to the 
Federal Register for comment for a change in any standard of 
performance, regulation, or policy.
    EPA specifically solicits comment on the proposed process for 
Governors to solicit the issuance of an emergency order or to review 
any standard of performance, regulation of policy, including whether a 
more detailed process should be developed.

B. Petition by a Governor for the Administrator To Establish Enhanced 
Great Lakes System Requirements

    CWA Section 312(p)(10)(B) creates a process for establishing 
enhanced federal standards or requirements to apply within the Great 
Lakes System in lieu of any comparable standards or requirements 
promulgated under CWA Section 312(p)(4)-(5). Any Governor of a Great 
Lakes State (or the Governor's designee) may initiate the process by 
submitting a petition for an enhanced standard to the other Great Lakes 
States Governors, as well as the as the Executive Director of the Great 
Lakes Commission and the Director of EPA's Great Lakes National Program 
Office. The petition must seek the endorsement of fellow governors for 
an enhanced standard of performance or other requirement with respect 
to any discharge that is subject to regulation under CWA Section 312(p) 
that occurs in the Great Lakes System. A petition shall include an 
explanation regarding why the applicable standard of performance or 
other requirement is at least as stringent as a comparable standard of 
performance or other requirement in the final rule; in accordance with 
maritime safety; and in accordance with applicable maritime and 
navigation laws and regulations. After involving the Great Lakes 
Commission, the requisite number of Governors may jointly submit to the 
Administrator and the Secretary an endorsement of a proposed standard 
of performance or other requirement to apply within the Great Lakes 
System.
    Upon receipt of the proposed standard of performance or requirement 
from a Great Lakes Governor, the Administrator shall submit, after 
consultation with the USCG, a notice to the Federal Register that 
provides an opportunity for public comment on the proposed standard of 
performance or requirement. In addition, the Administrator shall 
commence a review of the proposed standard of performance or 
requirement to determine if it is at least as stringent as the 
comparable CWA Section 312(p) standard. During review, pursuant to CWA 
Section 312(p)(10)(B)(iii)(III)(bb), the Administrator shall consult 
with the Secretary, the Governor of each Great Lakes State, and 
representatives from the Federal and provincial governments of Canada; 
shall take into consideration any relevant data or public comments 
received; and shall not take into consideration any preliminary 
assessment by the Great Lakes

[[Page 67874]]

Commission or dissenting opinion submitted by a Governor of a Great 
Lake State. Not later than 180 days after receipt of the proposed 
standard of performance or requirement, the Administrator, in 
concurrence with the Secretary, shall approve or disapprove the 
proposal. If the proposal is disapproved, the Administrator shall 
submit a notice of determination to the Federal Register that describes 
the reasons why the standard of performance or requirement is less 
stringent or inconsistent with applicable maritime and navigational 
laws and provide any recommendations for modification of the proposal. 
If the Administrator approves a proposed standard of performance or 
other requirement, the Administrator shall submit a notice of the 
determination to the Governor of each Great Lakes State and to the 
Federal Register. Additionally, the Administrator shall establish by 
regulation the proposed standard of performance for the Great Lakes.
    EPA specifically solicits comment on the process to request 
enhanced Great Lakes system requirements, including the extent to which 
EPA should provide further details in the final rule considering the 
details already included in the VIDA.

C. Application by a State for the Administrator To Establish a State 
No-Discharge Zone

    Under CWA Section 312(p) states have an opportunity to apply to EPA 
to prohibit one or more discharges incidental to the normal operation 
of a vessel, whether treated or not, into specified waters, if the 
state determines that the protection and enhancement of the quality of 
some or all of its waters require greater environmental protection.
    Pursuant to CWA Section 312(p)(10)(D)(iii)(I), a discharge 
prohibition established by EPA through regulation would not apply until 
after the Administrator reviews the state application, makes a 
determination with concurrence from the USCG, publishes a proposed rule 
for comment, and publishes a regulation establishing that (1) the 
prohibition would protect and enhance the quality of the specified 
waters; (2) adequate facilities for the safe and sanitary removal of 
the discharge incidental to the normal operation of a vessel are 
reasonably available for the waters to which the prohibition would 
apply; and (3) the discharge can safely be collected and stored until a 
vessel reaches a discharge facility or other location. If the no-
discharge zone concerns ballast water discharges regulated under CWA 
Section 312(p), then the Administrator must also determine that 
adequate facilities are reasonably available after considering at a 
minimum water depth, dock size, pumpout capacity and flow rate, 
availability of year round operations, proximity to navigational 
routes, the ratio of pumpout facilities to vessels in operation in 
those specified waters. The VIDA also provides that the prohibition for 
ballast water discharges will not unreasonably interfere with the safe 
loading and unloading of cargo, passengers, or fuel.
    EPA proposes that a state application for such a prohibition must 
include (i) a signature by the Governor; (ii) a certification that the 
protection and enhancement of the waters for which the state is seeking 
a prohibition require greater environmental protection than the 
applicable national standard of performance provides; (iii) a detailed 
analysis of how the requested prohibition for each individual discharge 
requested will protect the waters for which the state is seeking a 
prohibition; (iv) a table identifying types and number of vessels 
operating in the waterbody and a table identifying the types and number 
of vessels that will be the subject of the prohibition; (v) a map 
detailing the location, operating hours, draught requirements, and 
service capabilities of commercial and recreational pump-out facilities 
(both mobile and stationary) available to receive each individual 
discharge in the waters for which the state is seeking a prohibition; 
(vi) a table identifying the location and geographic area of each 
proposed no-discharge zone; and (vii) a detailed analysis of how the 
vessels subject to the prohibition may be impacted with regards to 
collection capability, storage capability, need for retrofitting, 
travel time to facility, and safety concerns.
    EPA is proposing that these additional procedures because its 
history with CWA Section 312 sewage no-discharge zones suggests that 
the statutory language does not provide enough detail or description to 
clearly define a workable process without additional clarification.
    EPA specifically solicits comment on the no-discharge zone 
application process.

X. Implementation, Compliance, and Enforcement

    CWA Section 312(p)(5) directs the USCG to develop implementing 
regulations governing the design, construction, testing, approval, 
installation, and use of marine pollution control devices as are 
necessary to ensure compliance with the national standards of 
performance presented in the proposed rule. Additionally, the USCG 
shall promulgate requirements to ensure, monitor, and enforce 
compliance of the proposed standards. As such, the proposed rule does 
not include implementation, compliance, or enforcement provisions.

XI. Regulatory Impact Analysis

    EPA projects that the incremental costs and benefits arising from 
the proposed rule will be minor and that the vessel community will 
experience a net savings of $12.4 million annually. This regulatory 
relief is principally the result of the VIDA exclusion of small vessels 
and fishing vessels from federal incidental discharge requirements 
(e.g., CWA permits and national discharges standards), except for 
ballast water. When compared to the current VGP requirements, this 
exclusion will ultimately reduce burden on more than 155,000 vessels.
    EPA estimates that 66,000 U.S.- and 16,000 foreign-flagged vessels 
will need to comply with the proposed standards once finalized. In 
addition to its assessment of the cost impacts specifically to the 
66,000 U.S.-flagged vessels, EPA also examined the cost impacts to the 
approximately 500 foreign-flagged vessels that are U.S.-owned.
    The cost analysis, found in the Regulatory Impact Analysis (RIA) 
located in the rulemaking docket, uses compliance with the VGP and the 
sVGP, as well as other regulations and industry standards, (i.e., the 
status quo that existed prior to the passage of the VIDA) as the 
analytic baseline. The analysis compares baseline cost impacts 
experienced by the regulated community immediately prior to passage of 
the VIDA legislation to projected cost impacts expected as a result of 
the proposed new EPA standards. The VIDA repealed the sVGP effective 
immediately upon signature, while stipulating that VGP requirements are 
to remain in place until the new VIDA program is fully in force and 
effective. This analysis accounts for both the impacts of the proposed 
new EPA standards as well as the regulatory relief expected as a result 
of the VIDA exclusion of small vessels and fishing vessels from the 
discharge requirements, except for ballast water, and the corresponding 
repeal of the sVGP.
    The cost analysis groups the proposed rule's major impacts into 
four categories. The first category of impacts is comprised of new 
standards in the proposed rule that result in incremental costs 
compared to existing VGP

[[Page 67875]]

requirements. In this category, EPA is proposing two new discharge 
requirements, one for graywater systems and one for seawater piping 
systems, that together are projected to result in incremental costs of 
$4.3 million annually. The second category describes proposed standards 
that are not expected to result in incremental costs compared to the 
VGP baseline since they reflect practices already in place on vessels 
as a result of other regulations and industry standards. The third 
category describes changes mandated by Congress directly in the VIDA 
that are projected to result in incremental costs to the regulated 
community. These provisions impose new ballast water requirements 
nationally and regionally in the Pacific Region and the Great Lakes. 
The estimated incremental cost for vessels to meet these 
Congressionally-mandated provisions is $5.5 million annually. The 
fourth category is the reduction in costs projected to result from the 
VIDA exclusion of small vessels and fishing vessels from the discharge 
requirements, except for ballast water, and the corresponding repeal of 
the sVGP. EPA estimates that this regulatory relief will result in 
annual cost savings of nearly $22.2 million to the vessel community.
    To evaluate the potential impact of the proposed rule on small 
entities, EPA used a cost-to revenue test to evaluate potential 
severity of economic impact on vessels owned by small entities. The 
test calculates annualized pre-tax compliance cost as a percentage of 
total revenues and uses a threshold of 1 and 3 percent to identify 
entities that would be significantly impacted if this proposed rule 
were to go final. EPA projects the potential impacts would not exceed 
these conventional cost/revenue thresholds. In addition, the Agency 
completed estimates of the paperwork burden associated with the 
proposed rulemaking. These estimates project the annualized paperwork 
burden on states that voluntarily petition EPA for any one of the 
following: Establishment of no-discharge zones, review of national 
standards of performance, issuance of emergency orders, and 
establishment of enhanced Great Lakes System requirements.
    EPA also assessed the environmental impacts from this proposal. The 
Agency does not expect the proposed rule to change environmental 
benefits significantly compared to those realized by the VGP since the 
existing VGP requirements are largely proposed to be adopted as the new 
discharge standards. EPA notes that the VIDA exclusion of small vessels 
and fishing vessels, except for ballast water, and the corresponding 
repeal of the sVGP could potentially lead to a reduction in 
environmental benefits to the extent that affected vessels no longer 
adhere to practices previously required under the sVGP. In particular, 
the RIA examines possible losses in benefits from the elimination of 
the sVGP discharge management requirements for bilgewater, graywater, 
and anti-fouling hull coatings.
    EPA did not evaluate the cost impacts from changes in monitoring, 
reporting, self-inspection, or recordkeeping associated with the VIDA 
re-allocation of EPA and USCG authorities and responsibilities. The 
USCG will present an analysis of these impacts, and other relevant 
impacts, in documentation supporting their rulemaking for the USCG 
portions of the CWA Section 312(p) program.
    The RIA is available in the docket for this proposed rulemaking. 
EPA solicits comment on all aspects of its RIA including the underlying 
assumptions and methodology.

XII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Additional information about these statutes and Executive Orders 
can be found at https://www.epa.gov/laws-regulations/laws-and-executive-orders.

A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review and Executive 
Order 13563: Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review

    The proposed rule is a significant regulatory action that was 
submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review 
because it raises novel legal or policy issues. Any changes made in 
response to OMB recommendations have been documented in the public 
docket for this proposed rule.
    In addition, EPA prepared an analysis of the potential impacts 
associated with this proposed rule. The regulatory impact analysis is 
available in the public docket for this proposed rule, and both costs 
and benefits are summarized in Section XI. Regulatory Impact Analysis.

B. Executive Order 13771: Reducing Regulation and Controlling 
Regulatory Costs

    The proposed rule is expected to be an Executive Order 13771 
deregulatory action. Details on the estimated cost savings of this 
proposed rule can be found in EPA's analysis of the potential costs and 
benefits associated with this action.

C. Paperwork Reduction Act

    This proposed rule, once finalized by EPA and implemented through 
corresponding USCG requirements addressing implementation, compliance, 
and enforcement, would impose an information collection burden to 
states under the PRA. The information collection activities in this 
proposed rule have been submitted for approval to the Office of 
Management and Budget (OMB) under the PRA. The Information Collection 
Request (ICR) document that EPA prepared has been assigned EPA ICR 
number 2605.01. You can find a copy of the ICR in the docket for this 
rule, and it is briefly summarized here.
Background
    EPA has regulated discharges incidental to the normal operation of 
vessels under the CWA Section 402 NPDES permitting program since 2008. 
The information collection burden associated with EPA's regulation of 
those activities are included as part of the Information Collection 
Request (ICR) for the NPDES Program, OMB Control No. 2040-0004.
    The current inventory of vessels included in the NPDES ICR includes 
72,942 vessels covered under the VGP and 137,739 small vessels covered 
under the Small Vessel General Permit (sVGP). That ICR identifies a 
total of 292,466 responses annually specific to the VGP and sVGP with a 
total annual burden of 269,919 hours for activities including: 
Reporting (Notice of Intent, Notice of Termination, annual report); 
inspection (routine, annual, and drydock) and monitoring; and 
recordkeeping.
    As described below, the enactment of the VIDA in 2018 authorized 
EPA and the USCG to establish a new regulatory framework for the 
discharges covered by the VGP which will result in a change in the type 
of information collected, the Agency responsible for collecting the 
information, and ultimately the information collection burden.
    Upon enactment of the VIDA (December 4, 2018), the sVGP was 
repealed and incidental discharges from small vessels and fishing 
vessels less than 79 feet with the exception of ballast water were 
excluded from requirements established under the VIDA. Thus, any 
monitoring and reporting burden beyond those for ballast water for 
small vessels or fishing vessels less than 79 feet in length was 
terminated. Additionally, once EPA develops new national standards of 
performance for discharges incidental to the normal operation of a 
vessel (as is

[[Page 67876]]

being proposed in this rulemaking) and the USCG establishes 
requirements that address implementation, compliance, and enforcement 
of the national standards, the information collection burden 
established under the EPA VGP will be terminated and the information 
collection burden will be modified as described below.
Proposed Rule
    As detailed in CWA Section 312(p)(5), upon implementation of 
monitoring, reporting, and recordkeeping requirements by the USCG, the 
paperwork requirements for vessel owners and operators would need to be 
reported to the USCG and not to EPA. As such it is expected that much 
of the existing paperwork burden on vessel owners and operators under 
the VGP requirements would be managed by the USCG upon implementation 
of their specific reporting and monitoring requirements. Therefore, the 
proposed rule would not impose a new paperwork burden on vessel owners 
and operators.
    However, the proposed rule would impose a new information 
collection burden on states seeking to petition EPA to establish 
different national standards of performance including enhanced 
standards in the Great Lakes, issue emergency orders, or establish no-
discharge zones. EPA does not anticipate an information collection 
burden on states until the USCG has established final implementing 
requirements (required by the VIDA as soon as practicable but not later 
than two years after the EPA discharge standards proposed in this 
rulemaking are finalized). After such time, the information collection 
burden relates to the voluntary preparation and submission of petitions 
by states and is therefore an intermittent activity.
    The ICR submitted for approval to the OMB as part of this 
rulemaking reflects an anticipated burden to states in the third year 
of the three-year ICR cycle. This includes one petition of each type: 
Modification of national standards of performance, issuance of 
emergency orders, and establishment no-discharge zones. EPA does not 
expect petitions for enhanced Great Lakes System requirements during 
this ICR cycle. The type and level of detail of information that a 
state would need to generate to petition EPA under CWA Section 312(p) 
is most analogous to the information prepared for an application to EPA 
under the existing CWA Section 312 ICR (OMB control number 2040-0187), 
which includes state activities related to petitioning EPA for no-
discharge zones for sewage and discharges incidental to the normal 
operation of vessels of the Armed Forces. For incidental discharges 
from vessels of the Armed Forces, states may also petition EPA for 
review of standards. Because of the parallels in discharge types and 
state activities, EPA used the burden estimates in the existing ICR to 
inform the expected burden for this proposed rule. Looking ahead, EPA 
proposes that this new ICR be combined with the existing CWA Section 
312 ICR (OMB control number 2040-0187) expected to be renewed in August 
2022. This would create a single ICR that would include the information 
collection burden for all three vessel programs under CWA Section 312 
(sewage, vessels of the Armed Forces, and commercial vessels).
    The hour and cost estimates, summarized below, include such 
activities as reviewing the relevant regulations and guidance 
documents, gathering and analyzing the required information, and 
preparing and submitting the application.
    Respondents/affected entities: State governments (SIC code 9511, 
NAICS code 924110) are the only respondents to the data collection 
activities described in this ICR.
    Respondent's obligation to respond: Preparation and submission of a 
petition is a voluntary action that may be undertaken by the 
respondent. This is not a reporting requirement, nor are there any 
deadlines associated with these petitions.
    Estimated number of respondents: Three respondents are anticipated 
during this three-year ICR cycle.
    Frequency of response: Three petitions are anticipated during this 
three-year ICR cycle, each in the third year, including one petition 
each for establishment of a no-discharge zone, review of standards, and 
issuance of an emergency order.
    Total estimated burden: Approximately 82 hours per year.
    Total estimated cost: $4,560 per year, including $150 annualized 
operation & maintenance costs.
    An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required 
to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a 
currently valid OMB control number. The OMB control numbers for the 
EPA's regulations in 40 CFR are listed in 40 CFR part 9.
    Written comments and recommendations for the proposed information 
collection should be sent within 30 days of publication of this notice 
to https://www.reginfo.gov/public/do/PRAMain. This particular 
information collection request can be located by selecting ``Currently 
under 30-day Review--Open for Public Comments'' or by using the search 
function. Since OMB is required to make a decision concerning the ICR 
between 30 and 60 days after receipt, OMB must receive comments no 
later than November 25, 2020. EPA will respond to any ICR-related 
comments in the final rule.

D. Regulatory Flexibility Act

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) generally requires an agency 
to prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis of any rule subject to 
notice-and-comment rulemaking requirements under the Administrative 
Procedure Act or any other statute, unless the agency certifies that 
the rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial 
number of small entities. Small entities include small businesses, 
small organizations, and small governmental jurisdictions.
    EPA certifies that this action will not have a significant economic 
impact on a substantial number of small entities under the RFA. 
Although the proposed rule will impose requirements on any small entity 
that operates a vessel subject to the standards, EPA used a cost-to-
revenue test to evaluate potential severity of economic impact on 
vessels owned by small entities. EPA determined that the projected cost 
burden would not exceed the conventional cost/revenue thresholds used 
for small entity impact screening analyses (costs greater than 1 
percent and 3 percent of annual revenue). Details of the screening 
analysis are presented in the section entitled ``Small Business 
Impacts'' in the RIA accompanying the proposed rule.

E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

    Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), 2 
U.S.C. 1531-1538, requires federal agencies, unless otherwise 
prohibited by law, to assess the effects of their regulatory actions on 
state, local, and tribal governments, and the private sector. An action 
contains a federal mandate if it may result in expenditures of $100 
million or more (annually, adjusted for inflation) for state, local, 
and tribal governments, in the aggregate, or the private sector in any 
one year ($160 million in 2018). This action does not contain any 
unfunded mandate as described in UMRA, 2 U.S.C. 1531-1538, and does not 
significantly or uniquely affect small governments.

F. Executive Order 13132: Federalism

    Under Executive Order 13132, EPA may not issue an action with 
federalism implications, that imposes substantial direct compliance 
costs, and that is not required by statute, unless the federal

[[Page 67877]]

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 development of the action.
    EPA has concluded that this action has federalism implications for 
the following reason. The VIDA added a new CWA Section 312(p)(9)(A) 
that specifies beginning on the effective date of the requirements 
promulgated by the Secretary established under CWA Section 312(p)(5), 
no state, political subdivision of a state, or interstate agency may 
adopt or enforce any law, regulation, or other requirement with respect 
to an incidental discharge subject to regulation under the VIDA except 
insofar as such law, regulation, or other requirement is identical to 
or less stringent than the federal regulations under the VIDA. 
Accordingly, EPA and the USCG conducted a Federalism consultation 
briefing on July 9th, 2019 in Washington, DC to allow states and local 
officials to have meaningful and timely input into the development of 
EPA rulemaking.
    EPA provided an overview of the VIDA, described the interim 
requirements and the framework of future regulations, identified state 
provisions associated with the VIDA, and received comments and 
questions. The briefing was attended by representatives from the 
National Governors Association, the National Conference of State 
Legislatures, the U.S. Conference of Mayors, the County Executives of 
America, the National Association of Counties, the National League of 
Cities, Environmental Council of the States, the Association of Clean 
Water Administrators, the National Water Resources Association, the 
Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies, the National Association of 
State Boating Law Administrators, the Western Governors Association, 
and the Western States Water Council. Pre-proposal comments were 
accepted from July 9, 2019 to September 9, 2019 and are described in 
conjunction with the Governors' Consultation comments.
    Additionally, pursuant to the terms of Executive Order 13132 and 
Agency policy, a federalism summary impact statement is required in the 
final rule to summarize not only the issues and concerns raised by 
state and local government commenters during the proposed rule's 
development, but also to describe how and the extent to which the 
agency addressed those concerns. Further, as required by Section 8(a) 
of Executive Order 13132, EPA in the final rule will include a 
certification from its Federalism Official stating that EPA met the 
Executive Order's requirements in a meaningful and timely manner. A 
copy of this certification will be included in the public version of 
the official record once the action is finalized.

G. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With Indian 
Tribal Governments

    This proposed action has tribal implications as specified in 
Executive Order 13175. See 65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000. However, it 
will neither impose substantial direct compliance costs on federally 
recognized tribal governments, nor preempt tribal law. Tribes may 
primarily be interested in this action because commercial vessels may 
operate in or near tribal waters. Additionally, Tribes may have TAS 
under Section 309 of the CWA. To that end, EPA consulted with tribal 
officials under the EPA Policy on Consultation and Coordination with 
Indian Tribes early in the process of developing this regulation to 
permit them to have meaningful and timely input into its development. A 
summary of that consultation and coordination follows.
    EPA initiated a tribal consultation and coordination process for 
this action by sending a ``Notice of Consultation and Coordination'' 
letter on June 18, 2019, to all 573 federally recognized tribes. The 
letter invited tribal leaders and designated consultation 
representatives to participate in the tribal consultation and 
coordination process, which lasted from July 11 to September 11, 2019. 
EPA held an informational webinar for tribal representatives on July 
11, 2019, to obtain meaningful and timely input during the development 
of the proposed rule. During the webinar, EPA provided an overview of 
the VIDA, described the interim requirements and the framework of 
future regulations, and identified tribal provisions associated with 
the VIDA. A total of nine tribal representatives participated in the 
webinar. EPA also provided an informational presentation on the VIDA 
during the Region 10 Regional Tribal Operations Committee (RTOC) call 
on July 18, 2019, as requested by the RTOC. During the consultation 
period, tribes and tribal organizations sent two pre-proposal comment 
letters to EPA as part of the consultation process. In addition, EPA 
held one consultation meeting with the leadership of a tribe, at the 
tribe's request, to obtain pre-proposal input and answer questions 
regarding the forthcoming rule.
    EPA incorporated the feedback it received from tribal 
representatives in the proposed rule. Records of the tribal 
informational webinar, and a consultation summary summarizing the 
written and verbal comments submitted by tribes are included in the 
public docket for this proposed rule. The Agency specifically solicits 
additional comment on this proposed rule from tribal officials.

H. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From Environmental 
Health and Safety Risks

    This action is not subject to Executive Order 13045 because it is 
not economically significant as defined in Executive Order 12866, and 
because EPA does not believe the environmental health or safety risks 
addressed by this action present a disproportionate risk to children. 
See 62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997. The proposed national standards of 
performance are designed to control discharges incidental to the normal 
operation of a vessel that could adversely affect human health and the 
environment. The proposed rule is intended to reduce discharges to 
receiving waters that could affect any person using the receiving 
waters, regardless of age.

I. Executive Order 13211: Actions That Concern Regulations That 
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, and Use

    This action is not a ``significant energy action'' as defined by 
Executive Order 13211 because it is not likely to have a significant 
adverse effect on the supply, distribution or use of energy. See 66 FR 
28355, May 22, 2001. EPA believes that any additional energy usage 
would be insignificant compared to the total energy usage of vessels 
and the total annual U.S. energy consumption.

J. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act

    The proposed rule would establish national standards of performance 
but does not establish environmental monitoring or measurement 
requirements and thus does not include technical standards. Similarly, 
EPA proposes not to identify specific, prescribed analytic methods. 
Rather, the national standards of performance in this proposed rule 
would be the basis of USCG implementing regulations with respect to 
inspections, monitoring, reporting, sampling, and recordkeeping to 
ensure, monitor, and enforce compliance with these standards. The 
applicability of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act 
is appropriately assessed as part of that USCG rulemaking as 
established in CWA Section 312(p)(5)(A).

[[Page 67878]]

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

    EPA proposes that this action does not have disproportionately high 
and adverse human health or environmental effects on minority 
populations, low-income populations and/or indigenous peoples, as 
specified in Executive Order 12898. See 59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994. 
While EPA was unable to perform a detailed environmental justice 
analysis because it lacks data on the exact location of vessels and 
their associated discharges, the proposed rule will increase 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. Overall, the proposed rule would reduce the amount of 
pollution entering waterbodies from vessels, which will yield health 
benefits and improve the recreational utility of waterbodies where 
vessels are subject to the proposed standards.

XIII. References

Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation (ADEC). (2007). 
Large Commercial Passenger Vessel Wastewater Discharge: General 
Permit Information Sheet. Retrieved from https://www.dec.state.ak.us/water/cruise_ships/gp/2008_GP_Info2.pdf.
Alfa Laval. (2017). Personal communication between Peter Sahlen and 
Frida Norlen, Alfa Laval and Jack Faulk, USEPA. April 1 and April 3, 
2017.
American Bureau of Shipping (ABS). (2019). Best Practices for 
Operations of Ballast Water Management Systems Report. Available at 
https://safety4sea.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/04/ABS-2019-best-practices-for-operations-of-BWMS-report-2019_04.pdf.
Bailey, S.A., Chan, F., Ellis, S.M., Bronnenhuber, J.E., Badie, 
J.N., Simard, N. (2012). Risk Assessment for Ship-Mediated 
Introductions of Aquatic Nonindigenous Species to the Great Lakes 
and Freshwater St. Lawrence River. Canadian Science Advisory 
Secretariat.
Ballast Water Equipment Manufacturers Association (BEMA). 2020. 
Compilation of BWMS Type Approval Testing Biological Efficacy Data. 
February 13, 2020.
Bawat. A. (2016). Bawat Ballast Water Treatment. Available at https://www.bawat.dk/images/BAWAT_PRESENTATION_AUGUST_2016_2.pdf.
Bell, A., Phillips, S., Denny, C., Georgiades, E., and Kluza, D. 
(2011). Risk Analysis: Vessel Biofouling. Wellington: Ministry of 
Agriculture and Forestry Biosecurity New Zealand.
Briski, E., Linley, R., Adams, J., and Bailey, S. (2014). Evaluating 
Efficacy of a Ballast Water Filtration System for Reducing Spread of 
Aquatic Species in Freshwater Ecosystems. Management of Biological 
Invasions Volume 5, Issue 3, pp 245-253.
Brown and Caldwell. (2007). Port of Milwaukee Onshore Ballast Water 
Treatment--Feasibility Study Report. Prepared for the Wisconsin 
Department of Natural Resources. October 12, 2007.
Brown and Caldwell and Bay Engineering, Inc. (2008). Port of 
Milwaukee Off-Ship Ballast Water Treatment Feasibility Study Report, 
Phase 2. Prepared for the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources. 
August 28, 2008.
Carbery, K., Owen, R., Frickers, T., Otero, E., and J. Readman. 
(2006). Mar. Pollut. Bull., 52, 635-644.
ClearBallast. (2012). Overview of Hitachi Ballast Water Purification 
System-ClearBallast.
COWI A/S. (2012). Ballast Water Treatment in Ports--Feasibility 
Study. Prepared for the Danish Shipowners' Association. November 
2012.
Cruise Lines International Association. (2019). 2019 Environmental 
Technologies and Practices Report. Retrieved from https://cruising.org/en/news-and-research/research/2019/september/2019-environment-technologies-and-practices-table---cruise-industry-report.
Damen. (2017). Damen's InvaSave Port-Based Ballast Water Management 
System Has World Premiere. (marketing sheet). May 2, 2017.
DiGangi, J., Schettler, T., Cobbing, M., & Rossi, M. (2002). 
Aggregate exposures to phthalate in humans.
DNV GL. (2019). Global Sulphur Cap 2020 Update, External Webinar 
(presented on May 23, 2019), Kristian Johnsen, Fabian Kock, 
Alexander Strom, and Christos Chryssakis.
Drake, J.M. and D.M. Lodge. (2007). Hull fouling is a risk factor 
for intercontinental species exchange in aquatic ecosystems. Aquat. 
Invasions, 2 (2), 121-131.
Drake, L.A., Tamburri, M.N., First, M.R., Smith, G.J., and Johengen, 
T.H. (2014). How Many Organisms Are in Ballast Water Discharge? A 
Framework for Validating and Selecting Compliance Monitoring Tools. 
Mar Pollut Bull. 86: 122-128.
Dupuis, A., and Ucan-Marin, F. (2015). A literature review on the 
aquatic toxicology of petroleum oil: An overview of oil properties 
and effects to aquatic biota. DFO Can. Sci. Advis. Sec. Res. Doc. 
2015/007. vi + 52 p.
Etkin, D.S. (2010). Worldwide analysis of in-port vessel operational 
lubricant discharges and leaks. Proc. 33rd Arctic and Marine 
Oilspill Program Technical Seminar: p. 529-554.
Glosten Associates. (2018). Feasibility Study of Shore-based Ballast 
Water Reception Facilities in California, prepared for the 
California State Lands Commission by the Delta Stewardship Council, 
April 13, 2018.
Golden Bear Research Center (Golden Bear). (2018). Test Facility 
Researchers Condemn Ballast Treatment Pessimism, February 26, 2018.
Gollasch, S. (2002). The Importance of Ship Hull Fouling as a Vector 
of Species Introductions into the North Sea. Biofouling, 18 (2), 
105-121.
Great Ships Initiative (GSI). (2010). Report of the Land-Based 
Freshwater Testing of the Siemens SiCURETM Ballast Water 
Management System. GSI/LB/F/A/1, pp 1-58.
Great Ships Initiative (GSI). (2011). Final Report of the Land-
Based, Freshwater Testing of the Alfa Laval AB PureBallast[supreg] 
Ballast Water Treatment System. GSI/LB/F/A/2, pp 1-94.
Great Ships Initiative (GSI). (2014). Technical Report Land Based 
Performance Evaluation in Ambient and Augmented Duluth-Superior 
Harbor Water of Eight Commercially Available Ballast Water Treatment 
System Filter Units. GSI/LB/QAQC/TR/FLTR, pp 1-67.
Great Ships Initiative (GSI). (2015). Technical Report Land-Based 
Status Test of the JFE BallastAce[supreg] Ballast Water Management 
System and Components at the GSI Testing Facility. GSI/LB/QAQC/TR/
JFE, pp 1-146.
Great Ships Initiative (GSI). (2016). Briefing Paper for the Great 
Lakes Commission Great Lakes and St. Lawrence Ballast Water 
Workshop, November 16-17, 2016.
Hewitt, C. and M. Campbell. (2010). The relative contribution of 
vectors to the introduction and translocation of marine invasive 
species.
Hewitt, C.L, Gollasch, S., and D. Minchin. (2009). Chapter 6: The 
Vessel as a Vector--Biofouling, Ballast Water and Sediments. 
Biological Invasions in Marine Ecosystems, Springer-Verlag Berlin 
Heidelberg.
Hilliard, R.W. and Kazansky, O. (2006). Assessment of Shipping 
Traffic and Ballast Water Movements to and From Caspian Region, and 
Preliminary Appraisal of Possible Ballast Water Management Options. 
IMO/UNOPS/CEP Project Technical Report IMO RER/03/G31. November 5, 
2006.
Hilliard, R.W. and Matheickal, J.T. (2010). Alternative Ballast 
Water Management Options for Caspian Region Shipping: Outcomes of a 
Recent CEP/IMO/UNOPS Project. In: Emerging Ballast Water Management 
Systems, Proceedings of the IMO-WMU Research and Development Forum 
(Malmo, Sweden). January 26-29, 2010.
Hull and Associates, Inc. (2017). Preliminary Cost Estimate for the 
Shoreside Ballast Treatment and Supply for the U.S. Great Lakes. 
Prepared by Hull & Associates, Inc. for Lake Carriers' Association 
(LCA), Rocky River, OH. February 2017.
International Maritime Organization (IMO). (2002). Anti-fouling 
systems. Retrieved from https://www.imo.org/en/OurWork/Environment/Anti-foulingSystems/Documents/FOULING2003.pdf.
International Maritime Organization (IMO). (2004). International 
Convention for the Control and Management of Ships' Ballast Water 
and Sediments. BWM/CONF/36.

[[Page 67879]]

International Maritime Organization (IMO). (2008). Guidelines for 
Approval of Ballast Water Management Systems (G8). Annex 4 
Resolution MEPC.174(58).
International Maritime Organization (IMO). (2016). Resolution 
MEPC.279(70), Annex 5. Available at https://www.imo.org/en/KnowledgeCentre/IndexofIMOResolutions/Marine-Environment-Protection-Committee-%28MEPC%29/Documents/MEPC.279%2870%29.pdf.
International Maritime Organization (IMO). (2016a). Marine 
Environmental Protection Committee (MEPC). Harmful Aquatic Organisms 
in Ballast Water. Submitted by Liberia. MEPC 69/INF .22, February 
12, 2016.
International Maritime Organization (IMO). (2017). Consideration of 
an initial proposal to amend Annex 1 to the AFS Convention to 
include controls on cybutryne. PPR 5/INF.8.
International Maritime Organization (IMO). (2018). Amendment of 
Annex 1 to the AFS Convention to include controls on cybutryne, and 
consequential revision of relevant guidelines: Information 
presenting scientific evidence for the adverse effects of cybutryne 
to the environment. PPR 6/INF.7.
International Maritime Organization (IMO). (2018a). Code for 
Approval of Ballast Water Management Systems, Resolution 
MEPC.300(72), April 13, 2018.
International Maritime Organization (IMO). (2019). Lists of Type-
Approved Ballast Water Management Systems, updated October 2019.
International Maritime Organization (IMO). (2020). Status of IMO 
Treaties, April 7, 2020.
Johengen T.H., Reid D.F., Fahnenstiel G.L., MacIsaac H.J., Dobbs F., 
Doblin M., Ruiz GM & Jenkins PT (2005). Assessment of transoceanic 
NOBOB vessels and low-salinity ballast water as vectors for non-
indigenous species introductions to the Great Lakes--Chapter 5. 
Final Report to Great Lakes Protection Fund. 287 pp.
Keister, T., and Balog, D. (1992). Field Evaluation of Ozone for 
Control of Corrosion and Scale in a Zero Blowdown Application, 
Association of Water Technologies, 5th Annual Convention, San Diego, 
CA, (1992).
King, D., and Hagan, P. (2013). Economic and Logistical Feasibility 
of Port-Based Ballast Water Treatment: A Case Study at the Port of 
Baltimore (USA). MERC Ballast Water Discussion Paper No. 6, (Review 
Draft). UMCES Ref. No.: [UMCES]CBL 2013-011. May 2013.
Lake Carriers' Association (LCA). (2016). List of Member Vessel 
Ballasting Characteristics. Provided to Jack Faulk, USEPA via email.
Lake Carriers' Association (LCA). (2016a). Meeting Notes for 
Conference Call with Lake Carriers Association, EPA, and EPA 
contractor staff. August 2, 2016.
Lake Carriers' Association (LCA). (2017). Email from Tom Rayburn, 
LCA to Mark Briggs, Eastern Research Group, Inc. March 6, 2017.
Lake Carriers' Association (LCA). (2018). Email from Tom Rayburn, 
LCA to Mark Briggs, Eastern Research Group, Inc. May 8, 2018.
Maglic, L., Zec, D. and V. Francic. (2015). Effectiveness of a 
Barge-Based Ballast Water Treatment System for Multi-Terminal Ports. 
Promet--Traffic & Transportation. 27:5, 429-437.
Marinelog. (2016). Fednav Claims a Lakes BWTS First. Available at 
https://www.marinelog.com/index.php?option=com_k2&view=item&id=22780:fednav-claims-a-lakes-bwts-first&Itemid=230.
Marr, B. (2017). IoT and Big Data at Caterpillar: How Predictive 
Maintenance Saves Millions of Dollars. Forbes. Retrieved from 
https://www.forbes.com/sites/bernardmarr/2017/02/07/iot-and-big-data-at-caterpillar-how-predictive-maintenance-saves-millions-of-dollars/#70a82fd17240.
Marubini, F. and M.J. Atkinson. (1999). Effects of lowered pH and 
elevated nitrate on coral calcification. Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser., 188, 
117-121.
Monroy, O., Linley, R., Chan, Pl, Kydd, J. (2017). Evaluating 
Efficacy of Filtration + UV-C Radiation for Ballast Water Treatment 
at Different Temperatures. Journal of Sea Research.
Moser, C.S., Wier, T.P., First, M.R., Grant, J.F., Riley, S.C., 
Robbins-Wamsley, S.H., Tamburri, M.N., Ruiz, G.M., Miller, A.W., and 
L.A. Drake. (2017). Biol. Invasions, 19, 1745-1759.
National Ballast Information Clearinghouse (NBIC). (2020), NBIC 
Reported Ballast Water Discharge Ports--Dec 13 2013 through Dec 31 
2017, 2020.
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and National 
Geospatial-Intelligence Agency; U.S. Chart No. 1--Symbols, 
Abbreviations and Terms used on Paper and Electronic Navigational 
Charts, 13th Edition, April 15, 2019.
National Research Council. (1993). Managing Wastewater in Coastal 
Urban Areas. United States of America: National Academy of Sciences.
National Research Council. (2000). Clean Coastal Waters: 
Understanding and Reducing the Effects of Nutrient Pollution. United 
States of America. National Academy of Sciences.
Ober, H.K. (2012). Effects of Oil Spills on Marine and Coastal 
Wildlife. University of Florida IFAS Extension, WEC285.
Oyen, F.G.F., Camps, L.E.C.M.M., and S.E. Wedelaar Bonga. (1991). 
Effect of acid stress on the embryonic development of the common 
carp (Cyprinus carpio). Aquat. Toxicol., 19, 1-12.
Pavlakis, P., Tarchi, D. & Sieber, A.J. (2001). On the Monitoring of 
Illicit Vessel Discharges, A Reconnaissance Study in the 
Mediterranean Sea, EC DG Joint Research Center, Institute for the 
Protection and Security of the Citizen Humanitarian Security Unit.
Pereira, N.N. and Brinati, H.L. (2012). Onshore Ballast Water 
Treatment: A Viable Option for Major Ports. Marine Pollution 
Bulletin, 64(2296-2304).
Reynolds, K., Knight, I., Wells, C., Pepper, I., & Gerba, C. (1999). 
Detection of human pathogenic protozoa and viruses in ballast water 
using conventional and molecular methods. General Meeting of the 
American Society for Microbiology. Chicago, IL.
Schultz, M.P. (2007). Effects of coating roughness and biofouling on 
ship resistance and powering. Biofouling, 23 (5), 331-341.
Sekizawa, J., S. Dobson & R. Touch III. (2003). Diethyl Phthalate. 
World Health Organization, Concise International Chemical Assessment 
Document 52.
Shipping Federation of Canada. (2000). Code of Best Practices for 
Ballast Water Management.
Tomaszewska, M., Orecki, A., & Karakulski, K. (2005). Treatment of 
bilge water using a combination of ultrafiltration and reverse 
osmosis. Desalination, 185, 203-212.
Townsin, R.L. (2003). The Ship Hull Fouling Penalty. Biofouling, 19 
(Supplement), 9-15.
Tribou, M. and G. Swain. (2017). The effects of grooming on a copper 
ablative coating: A six year study. Biofouling, 33 (6), 494-504.
Tuthill, A., Avery, R., Lamb, S., and Kobrin, G. (1998). Effects of 
Chlorine on Common Materials in Freshwater. Materials Performance, 
Vol. 37, No. 11, pp. 52-56.
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE). (2017). GL_Waterborne Harbor 
Transit Time Matrix.
U.S. Coast Guard (USCG). (2013). Ballast Water Treatment, U.S. Great 
Lakes Bulk Carrier Engineering and Cost Study, Volume 1I: Analysis 
of On-Board Treatment Methods, Alternative Ballast Water Management 
Practices, and Implementation Costs. Acquisition Directorate. Report 
No. CG-D-12-13.
U.S. Coast Guard (USCG). (2019). Marine Safety Center BWMS Type 
Approval Status. Available at https://www.dco.uscg.mil/Portals/9/MSC/BWMS/BWMS_Approval_Status_9JUL19.pdf.
U.S. Coast Guard (USCG). (2019a). Ballast Water Best Management 
Practices to Reduce the Likelihood of Transporting Pathogens That 
May Spread Stony Coral Tissue Loss Disease, Marine Safety 
Information Bulletin OES-MISB Number: 07-19, September 6, 2019.
U.S. EPA. (2007). Framework for Metals Risk Assessment. Retrieved 
from https://www.epa.gov/osa/metalsframework.
U.S. EPA. (2008). Cruise ship discharge assessment report (EPA-842-
R-07-005). Washington DC: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
U.S. EPA. (2010). Generic Protocol for the Verification of Ballast 
Water Treatment Technology. EPA/600/R-10/146.
U.S. EPA. (2011). Environmentally Acceptable Lubricants. (EPA-800-R-
11-002) Washington DC: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
U.S. EPA. (2011a). Ballast Water Self-Monitoring. EPA-800-R-11-003.
U.S. EPA. (2011b). Efficacy of Ballast Water Treatment Systems: A 
Report by the EPA Science Advisory Board. EPA-SAB-11-009.

[[Page 67880]]

U.S. EPA. (2011c). Oily Bilgewater Separators. (EPA-800-R-11-007) 
Washington DC: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
U.S. EPA. (2015). Feasibility and Efficacy of Using Potable Water 
Generators as an Alternative Option for Meeting Ballast Water 
Discharge Limits. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of 
Wastewater Management. Washington, DC. EPA 830-R-15-002. July 2015.
U.S. EPA. (2016). Draft Aquatic Life Ambient Estuarine/Marine Water 
Quality Criteria for Copper--2016. (EPA-822-P-16-001) Washington, 
DC: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
U.S. EPA. (2018). Copper Compounds Interim Registration Review 
Decision Case Nos. 0636, 0649, 4025, 4026. (EPA-HQ-OPP-2010-0212). 
Washington DC: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
U.S. EPA. (2019) U.S. EPA Ballast Water Update, Jack Faulk, 
presented at the BWMTech North America Conference, Ft. Lauderdale, 
FL, September 25, 2019.
U.S. EPA. (2020), VGP eNOI Query for Vessels Discharging Ballast by 
Time in the United States.
U.S. EPA. (2020a), Note to file--Summary of restrictions on 
discharges from Exhaust Gas Control Systems, August 11, 2020.
U.S. Geological Survey (USGS). (1999). The Quality of our Nation's 
Waters: Nutrients and Pesticides. USGS Circular 1225. Retrieved from 
https://pubs.usgs.gov/circ/circ1225.
Valkirs, A.O., Seligman, P.F., Haslbeck, E., and J.S. Caso. (2003). 
Mar. Pollut. Bull., 46, 763-779.
Van Wezel, A.P. and P. Van Vlaardingen. (2004). Environmental risk 
limits for antifouling substances. Aquat. Toxicol., 66, 427-444.
Voutchkov, N. (2013). Desalination Engineering Planning and Design. 
McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc., NY, NY.
Woods Hole Oceanographic Institute (WHOI). (2007). Harmful Algae: 
What are Harmful Algal Blooms (HABS). Retrieved from https://www.whoi.edu/redtide.
Zaniboni-Filho, E., Nu[ntilde]er, A.P.O., Reynalte-Tataje, D.A., and 
R.L. Serafini. (2009) Fish Physiol. Biochem., 35, 151-155.
Zirino, A. and P.F. Seligman. (2002). Copper Chemistry, Toxicity, 
and Bioavailability and Its Relationship to Regulation in the Marine 
Environment. Office of Naval Research Second Workshop Report, 
Technical Document 3140.
Zo, Y., Grimm, C., Matte, M., Matte, G., Knight, I.T., Huq, A., & 
Colwell, R.R. (1999). Detection and enumeration of pathogenic 
bacteria in ballast Water of Transoceanic Vessels Entering the Great 
Lakes and Resistance to Common Antibiotics. General Meeting of the 
American Society for Microbiology. Chicago, IL: American Society of 
Microbiology.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 139

    Environmental protection, commercial vessels, coastal zone, 
incidental discharges.

Andrew Wheeler,
Administrator.

    For the reasons set forth in the preamble, EPA proposes to amend 40 
CFR subchapter D by adding part 139 to read as follows:

PART 139--DISCHARGES INCIDENTAL TO THE NORMAL OPERATION OF VESSELS

Subpart A--Scope
Sec.
139.1 Coverage.
139.2 Definitions.
139.3 Other Federal laws.
Subpart B--General Standards for Discharges Incidental to the Normal 
Operation of a Vessel
139.4 General operation and maintenance.
139.5 Biofouling management.
139.6 Oil management.
Subpart C--Standards for Specific Discharges Incidental to the Normal 
Operation of a Vessel
139.10 Ballast tanks.
139.11 Bilges.
139.12 Boilers.
139.13 Cathodic protection.
139.14 Chain lockers.
139.15 Decks.
139.16 Desalination and purification systems.
139.17 Elevator pits.
139.18 Exhaust gas emission control systems.
139.19 Fire protection equipment.
139.20 Gas turbines.
139.21 Graywater systems.
139.22 Hulls and associated niche areas.
139.23 Inert gas systems.
139.24 Motor gasoline and compensating systems.
139.25 Non-oily machinery.
139.26 Pools and spas.
139.27 Refrigeration and air conditioning.
139.28 Seawater piping.
139.29 Sonar domes.
Subpart D--Special Area Requirements
139.40 Federally-protected waters.
Subpart E--Procedures for States To Request Changes to Standards, 
Regulations, or Policy Promulgated by the Administrator
139.50 Petition by a Governor for the Administrator to establish an 
emergency order or review a standard, regulation, or policy.
139.51 Petition by a Governor for the Administrator to establish 
enhanced Great Lakes System requirements.
139.52 Application by a State for the Administrator to establish a 
State No-Discharge Zone.
Appendix A to Part 139--Federally-Protected Waters

Subpart A--Scope


Sec.  139.1  Coverage.

    (a) Vessel discharges. Except as provided in paragraph (b) of this 
section, this part applies to:
    (1) Any discharge incidental to the normal operation of a vessel; 
and
    (2) Any discharge incidental to the normal operation of a vessel 
(such as most graywater) that is commingled with sewage, subject to the 
conditions that:
    (i) Nothing in this part prevents a state from regulating sewage 
discharges; and
    (ii) Any such commingled discharge must comply with all applicable 
requirements of:
    (A) This part; and
    (B) Any law applicable to the discharge of sewage.
    (b) Exclusions. This part does not apply to any discharge:
    (1) Incidental to the normal operation of:
    (i) A vessel of the Armed Forces subject to 33 U.S.C. 1322(n);
    (ii) A recreational vessel subject to 33 U.S.C. 1322(o);
    (iii) A small vessel or fishing vessel, except that this part 
applies to any discharge of ballast water from a small vessel or 
fishing vessel; or
    (iv) A floating craft that is permanently moored to a pier, 
including a floating casino, hotel, restaurant, or bar; or
    (2) That results from, or contains material derived from, an 
activity other than the normal operation of the vessel, such as 
material resulting from an industrial or manufacturing process onboard 
the vessel; or
    (3) If compliance with this part would compromise the safety of 
life at sea.
    (c) Area of coverage. The standards in this part apply to any 
vessel identified in paragraph (a) of this section, not otherwise 
excluded in paragraph (b) of this section, while operating in the 
waters of the United States or the waters of the contiguous zone.
    (d) Effective date. (1) The standards in this part are effective 
beginning on the date upon which regulations promulgated by the 
Secretary governing the design, construction, testing, approval, 
installation, and use of marine pollution control devices as necessary 
to ensure compliance with the standards are final, effective, and 
enforceable.
    (2) As of the effective date identified in paragraph (d)(1) of this 
section, the requirements of the Vessel General Permit and all 
regulations promulgated by the Secretary pursuant to Section 1101 of 
the Nonindigenous Aquatic Nuisance Prevention and Control Act of

[[Page 67881]]

1990 (16 U.S.C. 4711), including the regulations contained in 46 CFR 
162.060 and 33 CFR part 151 subparts C and D, as in effect on December 
3, 2018, shall be deemed repealed and have no force or effect.


Sec.  139.2  Definitions.

    The following definitions apply for the purposes of this part. 
Terms not defined in this section have the meaning as defined under the 
Clean Water Act (CWA) and applicable regulations.
    Administrator means the Administrator of the Environmental 
Protection Agency. (source: CWA section 101(d)).
    Aquatic Nuisance Species (ANS) means a nonindigenous species that 
threatens the diversity or abundance of a native species; the 
ecological stability of waters of the United States or the waters of 
the contiguous zone; or a commercial, agricultural, aquacultural, or 
recreational activity that is dependent on waters of the United States 
or the waters of the contiguous zone. (source: CWA section 
312(p)(1)(A)).
    Ballast tank means any tank or hold on a vessel used for carrying 
ballast water, whether or not the tank or hold was designed for that 
purpose. (source: 33 CFR 151.1504).
    Ballast water means any water, to include suspended matter and 
other materials taken onboard a vessel, to control or maintain trim, 
draught, stability, or stresses of the vessel, regardless of the means 
by which any such water or suspended matter is carried; or during the 
cleaning, maintenance, or other operation of a ballast tank or ballast 
water management system of the vessel. The term does not include any 
substance that is added to that water that is directly related to the 
operation of a properly functioning ballast water management system. 
(source: CWA section 312(p)(1)(B)).
    Ballast water exchange means the replacement of ballast water in a 
ballast tank using one of the following methods:
    (1) Flow-through exchange, in which ballast water is flushed out by 
pumping in mid-ocean water at the bottom of the tank if practicable, 
and continuously overflowing the tank from the top, until three full 
volumes of tank water have been changed.
    (2) Empty and refill exchange, in which ballast water is pumped out 
until the pump loses suction, after which the ballast tank is refilled 
with water from the mid-ocean. (source: CWA section 312(p)(1)(D)).
    Ballast water management system means any marine pollution control 
device (including all ballast water treatment equipment, ballast tanks, 
pipes, pumps, and all associated control and monitoring equipment) that 
processes ballast water to kill, render nonviable, or remove organisms; 
or to avoid the uptake or discharge of organisms. (source: CWA section 
312(p)(1)(E)).
    Bioaccumulative means the failure to meet one or more of the 
criteria established in the definition of Not Bioaccumulative.
    Biodegradable for the following classes of substances, means (all 
percentages are on a weight/weight concentration basis):
    (1) For oils: At least 90% of the formulation (for any substances 
present above 0.1%) demonstrates, within 28 days, either the removal of 
at least 70% of dissolved organic carbon (DOC), production of at least 
60% of the theoretical carbon dioxide, or consumption of at least 60% 
of the theoretical oxygen demand). Up to 5% of the formulation may be 
non-biodegradable but may not be bioaccumulative. The remaining 5% must 
be inherently biodegradable.
    (2) For greases: At least 75% of the formulation (for any 
substances present above 0.1%) demonstrates, within 28 days, either the 
removal of at least 70% of DOC, production of at least 60% of the 
theoretical carbon dioxide, or consumption of at least 60% of the 
theoretical oxygen demand). Up to 25% of the formulation may be non-
biodegradable or inherently biodegradable but may not be 
bioaccumulative.
    (3) For soaps, cleaners, and detergents: A product that 
demonstrates, within 28 days, either the removal of at least 70% of 
DOC, production of at least 60% of the theoretical carbon dioxide, or 
consumption of at least 60% of the theoretical oxygen demand.
    (4) For biocides: A compound or mixture that, within 28 days, 
demonstrates removal of at least 70% of DOC and production of at least 
60% of the theoretical carbon dioxide.
    Biofouling means the accumulation of aquatic organisms such as 
micro-organisms, plants, and animals on surfaces and structures 
immersed in or exposed to the aquatic environment. (source: Modified 
from IMO MEPC.207(62)).
    Broom clean means a condition in which care has been taken to 
prevent or eliminate any visible concentration of tank or cargo 
residues, so that any remaining tank or cargo residues consist only of 
dust, powder, or isolated and random pieces, none of which exceeds one 
inch in diameter. (source: Modified from 33 CFR 151.66).
    Captain of the Port (COTP) zone means such zone as established by 
the Secretary pursuant to sections 92, 93, and 633 of title 14, United 
States Code. (source: CWA section 312(p)(1)(J)).
    Commercial vessel means, except as the term is used in Sec.  
139.10(g), any vessel used in the business of transporting property for 
compensation or hire, or in transporting property in the business of 
the owner, lessee, or operator of the vessel. (source: CWA section 
312(a)(10)). As used in Sec.  139.10(g), the term commercial vessel 
means a vessel operating between:
    (1) Two ports or places of destination within the Pacific Region; 
or
    (2) A port or place of destination within the Pacific Region and a 
port or place of destination on the Pacific Coast of Canada or Mexico 
north of parallel 20 degrees north latitude, inclusive of the Gulf of 
California. (source: CWA section 312(p)(10)(C)(i)).
    Constructed in respect of a vessel means a stage of construction 
when:
    (1) The keel of a vessel is laid;
    (2) Construction identifiable with the specific vessel begins;
    (3) Assembly of the vessel has commenced and comprises at least 50 
tons or 1% of the estimated mass of all structural material of the 
vessel, whichever is less; or
    (4) The vessel undergoes a major conversion. (source: 33 CFR 
151.1504).
    Contiguous zone means the entire zone established by the United 
States under Article 24 of the Convention on the Territorial Sea and 
the Contiguous Zone. (source: CWA section 502(9)).
    Discharge means ``discharge incidental to the normal operation of a 
vessel'' as defined in this section.
    Discharge incidental to the normal operation of a vessel means a 
discharge, including--
    (1) Graywater, bilge water, cooling water, weather deck runoff, 
ballast water, oil water separator effluent, and any other pollutant 
discharge from the operation of a marine propulsion system, shipboard 
maneuvering system, crew habitability system, or installed major 
equipment, such as an aircraft carrier elevator or a catapult, or from 
a protective, preservative, or absorptive application to the hull of 
the vessel; and
    (2) A discharge in connection with the testing, maintenance, and 
repair of a system described in clause (1):
    (i) Whenever the vessel is waterborne; and does not include--
    (A) A discharge of rubbish, trash, garbage, or other such material 
discharged overboard;
    (B) An air emission resulting from the operation of a vessel 
propulsion system,

[[Page 67882]]

motor driven equipment, or incinerator; or
    (3) A discharge that is not covered by Sec.  122.3 of this chapter 
(as in effect on February 10, 1996). (source: CWA section 312).
    Discharge of oil in such quantities as may be harmful means any 
discharge of oil, including an oily mixture, in such quantities 
identified in 40 CFR 110.3 and excluding those discharges specified in 
40 CFR 110.5.
    Empty ballast tank means a tank that has previously held ballast 
water that has been drained to the limit of the functional or 
operational capabilities of the tank (such as loss of pump suction); is 
recorded as empty on a vessel log; and may contain unpumpable residual 
ballast water and sediment. (source: CWA section 312(p)(1)(K)).
    Environmentally Acceptable Lubricant (EAL) means a lubricant, 
including any oil or grease, that is ``biodegradable,'' ``minimally-
toxic,'' and ``not bioaccumulative,'' as these terms are defined in 
Sec.  139.2.
    Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) means the area established by 
Presidential Proclamation Number 5030, dated March 10, 1983 which 
extends from the base line of the territorial sea of the United States 
seaward 200 nautical miles, and the equivalent zone of Canada. (source: 
33 CFR 151.1504).
    Existing vessel means a vessel constructed, or where construction 
has begun, prior to the date identified in regulations promulgated by 
the Secretary as described in Sec.  139.1(e).
    Federally-protected waters means any waters of the United States or 
the waters of the contiguous zone subject to federal protection, in 
whole or in part, for conservation purposes, located within any area 
listed in Appendix A, as designated under:
    (1) National Marine Sanctuaries designated under the National 
Marine Sanctuaries Act (16 U.S.C. 1431 et seq.);
    (2) Marine National Monuments designated under the Antiquities Act 
of 1906;
    (3) A unit of the National Park System, including National 
Preserves and National Monuments, designated by the National Park 
Service within the U.S. Department of the Interior;
    (4) A unit of the National Wildlife Refuge System, including 
Wetland Management Districts, Waterfowl Production Areas, National Game 
Preserves, Wildlife Management Areas, and National Fish and Wildlife 
Refuges designated under the National Wildlife Refuge System 
Administration Act of 1966 as amended by the National Wildlife Refuge 
System Improvement Act of 1997;
    (5) National Wilderness Areas designated under the Wilderness Act 
of 1964 (16 U.S.C. 1131-1136); and
    (6) Any component designated under the National Wild and Scenic 
Rivers Act of 1968, 16 U.S.C. 1273.
    Fouling rating means the scale developed by the U.S. Navy (Naval 
Ships' Technical Manual, Chapter 81, Waterborne Underwater Hull 
Cleaning of Navy Ships, Revision 5, S9086-CQ-STM-010, 2006) that 
assigns a fouling rating (FR) number to the 10 most frequently 
encountered biofouling patterns. Numbers are assigned on a scale from 0 
to 100, in 10-point increments, with the lowest number representing a 
clean hull and the higher numbers representing biofouling organism 
populations of increasing variety and severity.
    Graywater means drainage from dishwater, shower, laundry, bath, and 
washbasin drains. It does not include drainage from toilets, urinals, 
hospitals, animal spaces, and cargo spaces. (source: 33 CFR 151.05).
    Great Lakes means Lake Ontario, Lake Erie, Lake Huron (including 
Lake Saint Clair), Lake Michigan, Lake Superior, and the connecting 
channels (Saint Mary's River, Saint Clair River, Detroit River, Niagara 
River, and Saint Lawrence River to the Canadian border), and includes 
all other bodies of water within the drainage basin of such lakes and 
connecting channels. (source: CWA section 118(a)(3)(B)).
    Great Lakes State means any of the states of Illinois, Indiana, 
Michigan, Minnesota, New York, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin. 
(source: CWA section 312(p)(1)(M)).
    Gross Register Tonnage (GRT) means the gross tonnage measurement of 
the vessel under the Regulatory Measurement System. (source: 46 CFR 
69.9).
    Gross Tonnage ITC (GT ITC) means the gross tonnage measurement of 
the vessel under the Convention Measurement System. (source: 46 CFR 
69.9).
    Impaired waterbody means a waterbody identified by a state, tribe, 
or EPA pursuant to section 303(d) of the CWA as not meeting applicable 
state or tribal water quality standards (these waters are called 
``water quality limited segments'' under 40 CFR 130.2(j)) and includes 
both waters with approved or established Total Maximum Daily Loads 
(TMDL) and those for which a TMDL has not yet been approved or 
established.
    Inherently biodegradable means the property of being able to be 
biodegraded when subjected to sunlight, water, and naturally occurring 
microbes to the following level: Greater than 70% biodegraded after 28 
days using OECD Test Guidelines 302C or greater than 20% but less than 
60% biodegraded after 28 days using OECD Test Guidelines 301 A-F.
    Internal Waters means:
    (1) With respect to the United States, the waters shoreward of the 
territorial sea baseline, including waters of the Great Lakes extending 
to the maritime boundary with Canada, and
    (2) With respect to any other nation, the waters shoreward of its 
territorial sea baseline, as recognized by the United States. (source: 
Modified from 33 CFR 2.24 as referenced in CWA section 312(p)(1)(O)).
    Live or living, notwithstanding any other provision of law 
(including regulations), does not:
    (1) Include an organism that has been rendered nonviable; or
    (2) Preclude the consideration of any method of measuring the 
concentration of organisms in ballast water that are capable of 
reproduction. (source: CWA Section 312(p)(6)(D)(i)).
    Major conversion means a conversion of an existing vessel:
    (1) That substantially alters the dimensions or carrying capacity 
of the vessel; or
    (2) That changes the type of the vessel; or
    (3) The intent of which, in the opinion of the government of the 
country under whose authority the vessel is operating, is substantially 
to prolong its life; or
    (4) Which otherwise so alters the vessel that, if it were a new 
vessel, it would become subject to relevant provisions of MARPOL not 
applicable to it as an existing vessel. (source: 33 CFR 151.05).
    Marine Growth Prevention System (MGPS) means an anti-fouling system 
used for the prevention of biofouling accumulation in seawater piping 
systems and sea chests. (source: Modified from IMO MEPC.207(62)).
    Marine Pollution Control Device (MPCD) means any equipment or 
management practice (or combination of equipment and management 
practice) for installation and use onboard a vessel that is: Designed 
to receive, retain, treat, control, or discharge a discharge incidental 
to the normal operation of a vessel; and determined by the 
Administrator and the Secretary to be the most effective equipment or 
management practice (or combination of equipment and a management 
practice) to reduce the environmental impacts of the discharge, 
consistent with the factors considered in developing the

[[Page 67883]]

standards in this part. (source: CWA section 312(p)(1)(P)).
    Master means the officer having command of a vessel. (source: 46 
CFR 10.107).
    Mid-ocean means greater than 200 nautical miles (NM) from any 
shore, except when a ballast water exchange or saltwater flush outside 
of 50 NM is authorized in this part, then it means greater than 50 NM 
from any shore. For regular maintenance of ballast tanks to remove 
sediments, it means outside the waters of the United States or the 
waters of the contiguous zone.
    Minimally-Toxic means, for lubricants (all percentages are on a 
weight/weight basis):
    (1) If both the complete formulation and the main constituents 
(that is constituents making up greater than or equal to 5% of the 
complete formulation) are evaluated, then the acute aquatic toxicity of 
lubricants, other than greases and total loss lubricants, must be at 
least 100 mg/L and the LC50 of greases and total loss lubricants must 
be at least 1000 mg/L; or
    (2) If each constituent is evaluated, rather than the complete 
formulation and main constituents, then for each constituent present 
above 0.1%: Up to 20% of the formulation can have an LC50 greater than 
10 mg/L but less than 100 mg/L and an NOEC greater than 1 mg/L but less 
than 10 mg/L; up to 5% of the formulation can have an LC50 greater than 
1 mg/L but less than 10 mg/L and an NOEC greater than 0.1 mg/L but less 
than 1 mg/L; and up to 1% of the formulation can have an LC50 less than 
1 mg/L and an NOEC less than 0.1 mg/L.
    Minimally-toxic, phosphate-free, and biodegradable means properties 
of a substance or mixture of substances that:
    (1) Have an acute aquatic toxicity value corresponding to a 
concentration greater than 10 ppm;
    (2) Do not produce residuals with an LC50 less than 10 ppm;
    (3) Are not bioaccumulative;
    (4) Do not cause the pH of the receiving water to go below 6.0 or 
above 9.0;
    (5) Contain, by weight, 0.5% or less of phosphates or derivatives 
of phosphate; and
    (6) Are biodegradable.
    Minimize means to reduce or eliminate to the extent achievable 
using any control measure that is technologically available and 
economically practicable and achievable and supported by demonstrated 
best management practices such that compliance can be documented in 
shipboard logs and plans.
    Niche Areas means areas on a ship that may be more susceptible to 
biofouling due to different hydrodynamic forces, susceptibility to 
coating system wear or damage, or being inadequately, or not, painted 
(e.g., sea chests, bow thrusters, propeller shafts, inlet gratings, 
drydock support strips) (source: MEPC.207(62)).
    Not bioaccumulative means any of the following:
    (1) The partition coefficient in the marine environment is log KOW 
less than 3 or greater than 7;
    (2) The molecular mass is greater than 800 Daltons;
    (3) The molecular diameter is greater than 1.5 nanometer;
    (4) The bioconcentration factor (BCF) or bioaccumulation factor 
(BAF) is less than 100 L/kg; or
    (5) The polymer with molecular weight fraction below 1,000 g/mol is 
less than 1%.
    Oil means oil of any kind or in any form, including but not limited 
to any petroleum, fuel oil, environmentally acceptable lubricant, 
sludge, oil refuse, and oil mixed with wastes other than dredged spoil. 
(source: CWA section 311(a)(1)).
    Oily mixture means a mixture, in any form, with any oil content, 
including, but not limited to:
    (1) Slops from bilges;
    (2) Slops from oil cargoes (such as cargo tank washings, oily 
waste, and oily refuse);
    (3) Oil residue; and
    (4) Oily ballast water from cargo or fuel oil tanks. (source: 33 
CFR 151.05).
    Oil-to-Sea interface means any seal or surface on ship-board 
equipment where the design is such that oil or oily mixtures can escape 
directly into surrounding waters. Oil-to-sea interfaces are found on 
equipment that is subject to submersion as well as equipment that can 
extend overboard.
    Organism means an animal, including fish and fish eggs and larvae; 
a plant; a pathogen; a microbe; a virus; a prokaryote (including any 
archean or bacterium); a fungus; and a protist. (source: CWA section 
312(p)(1)(R)).
    Pacific region means any Federal or state water adjacent to the 
State of Alaska, California, Hawaii, Oregon, or Washington; and 
extending from shore. The term includes the entire exclusive economic 
zone (as defined in Section 1001 of the Oil Pollution Act of 1990 (33 
U.S.C. 2701)) adjacent to each Pacific Region State. (source: CWA 
section 312(p)(1)(S)).
    Port or place of destination means a port or place to which a 
vessel is bound to anchor, to moor, or be otherwise secured. (source: 
CWA section 312(p)(1)(T)).
    Reception facility refers to any fixed, floating, or mobile 
facility capable of receiving wastes and residues from ships and fit 
for that purpose. (source: Modified from MEPC.1/Circ.834/Rev.1).
    Render nonviable means, with respect to an organism in ballast 
water, the action of a ballast water management system that renders the 
organism permanently incapable of reproduction following treatment. 
(source: CWA section 312(p)(1)(U)).
    Saltwater flush means the addition of as much mid-ocean water into 
each empty ballast tank of a vessel as is safe for the vessel and crew; 
and the mixing of the flush water with residual ballast water and 
sediment through the motion of the vessel; and the discharge of that 
mixed water, such that the resultant residual water remaining in the 
tank has the highest salinity possible; and is at least 30 parts per 
thousand. A saltwater flush may require more than one fill-mix-empty 
sequence, particularly if only small quantities of water can be safely 
taken onboard a vessel at one time. (source: CWA section 312(p)(1)(V)).
    Scheduled drydocking means hauling out of a vessel or placing a 
vessel in a drydock or slipway for an examination of all accessible 
parts of the vessel's underwater hull and all through-hull fittings and 
does not include emergency drydocking and emergency hull repairs. 
(source: Modified from 46 CFR 31.10-21).
    Seagoing vessel means a vessel in commercial service that operates 
beyond either the boundary line established by 46 CFR part 7 or the St. 
Lawrence River west of a rhumb line drawn from Cap des Rosiers to 
Point-Sud-Oeste (West Point), Anticosti Island, and west of a line 
along 63' W longitude from Anticosti Island to the north shore of the 
St. Lawrence River. It does not include a vessel that navigates 
exclusively on internal waters. (source: Modified from 33 CFR 
151.2005).
    Secretary means the Secretary of the department in which the Coast 
Guard is operating. (source: CWA section 312(p)(1)(W)).
    Small vessel or fishing vessel means a vessel with a vessel length 
that is less than 79 feet; or a fishing vessel, fish processing vessel, 
or fish tender vessel (as those terms are defined in Section 2101 of 
title 46, United States Code), regardless of the vessel length. 
(source: CWA section 312(p)(1)(Y)).
    Toxic or hazardous materials means any toxic pollutant as defined 
in 40 CFR 401.15 or any hazardous material as defined in 49 CFR 171.8.

[[Page 67884]]

    Underway means a vessel is not at anchor, or made fast to the 
shore, or aground. (source: 33 CFR 83.03).
    Vessel General Permit (VGP) means the permit that is the subject of 
the notice of final permit issuance entitled ``Final National Pollutant 
Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) General Permit for Discharges 
Incidental to the Normal Operation of a Vessel'' (78 FR 21938 (April 
12, 2013)). (source: CWA section 312(p)(1)(Z)).
    Vessel length means the horizontal distance between the foremost 
part of a vessel's stem to the aftermost part of its stern, excluding 
fittings and attachments. (source: 33 CFR 151.05).
    Visible sheen means, with respect to oil and oily mixtures, a 
silvery or metallic sheen or gloss, increased reflectivity, visual 
color, iridescence, or an oil slick on the surface of the water.
    Voyage means any transit by a vessel traveling from or destined for 
any United States port or place.


Sec.  139.3  Other Federal laws.

    (a) Except as expressly provided in this part, nothing in this part 
affects the applicability to a vessel of any other provision of Federal 
law, including:
    (1) Sections 311 and 312 of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act 
(33 U.S.C. 1321 et seq. and 33 U.S.C. 1322 et seq.), also known as the 
CWA;
    (2) The Act to Prevent Pollution from Ships (33 U.S.C. 1901 et 
seq.);
    (3) Title X of the Coast Guard Authorization Act of 2010 (33 U.S.C. 
3801 et seq.), also known as the Clean Hulls Act;
    (4) The Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (7 
U.S.C. 136 et seq.); and
    (5) The National Marine Sanctuaries Act (16 U.S.C. 1431 et seq.) 
and implementing regulations found at 15 CFR part 922 and 50 CFR part 
404.
    (b) Nothing in this part affects the authority of the Secretary of 
Commerce or the Secretary of the Interior to administer any land or 
waters under the administrative control of the Secretary of Commerce or 
the Secretary of the Interior, respectively.
    (c) Nothing in this part shall be construed to affect, supersede, 
or relieve the master of any otherwise applicable requirements or 
prohibitions associated with a vessel's right to innocent passage as 
provided for under customary international law.

Subpart B--General Standards for Discharges Incidental to the 
Normal Operation of a Vessel


Sec.  139.4  General operation and maintenance.

    (a) The requirements in paragraph (b) of this section apply to any 
discharge incidental to the normal operation of a vessel subject to 
regulation under this part.
    (b) Vessels must implement the following practices:
    (1) Minimize discharges.
    (2) Discharge while underway when practical and as far from shore 
as practical.
    (3) Addition of any materials to a discharge, other than for 
treatment of the discharge, that is not incidental to the normal 
operation of the vessel is prohibited.
    (4) Dilution of any discharge for the purpose of meeting any 
standard in this part is prohibited.
    (5) Any material used onboard that will be subsequently discharged 
(e.g., disinfectants, cleaners, biocides, coatings, sacrificial anodes) 
must:
    (i) Be used only in the amount necessary to perform the intended 
function of that material;
    (ii) Not contain any materials banned for use in the United States; 
and
    (iii) If subject to FIFRA registration, be used according to the 
FIFRA label. Proper use includes labeling requirements for proper 
application sites, rates, frequency of application, and methods; 
maintenance; removal; and storage and disposal of wastes and 
containers.
    (6) Any toxic or hazardous materials onboard which might wash 
overboard or dissolve as a result of contact with precipitation or 
surface water spray must be stored in appropriately sealed, labeled, 
and secured containers and be located in areas of the vessel that 
minimize exposure to ocean spray and precipitation consistent with 
vessel design, unless the master determines this would interfere with 
essential vessel operations or safety of the vessel or would violate 
any applicable regulations that establish specifications for safe 
transportation, handling, carriage, and storage of toxic or hazardous 
materials.
    (7) Containers holding toxic or hazardous materials must not be 
overfilled and incompatible materials must not be mixed in containers.
    (8) The overboard discharge or disposal of containers with toxic or 
hazardous materials is prohibited.
    (9) Prior to washing the cargo compartment or tank and discharging 
washwater overboard, any cargo compartment or tank must be in broom 
clean condition or its equivalent, to minimize any remaining residue 
from these areas.
    (10) Topside surfaces (e.g., exposed decks, hull above waterline, 
and related appurtenances) must be maintained to minimize the discharge 
of cleaning compounds, paint chips, non-skid material fragments, and 
other materials associated with exterior surface preservation.
    (11) Painting techniques on topside surfaces must minimize the 
discharge of paint.
    (12) Discharge of unused paint and coatings is prohibited.
    (13) Any equipment that may release, drip, leak, or spill oil or 
oily mixtures, fuel, or other toxic or hazardous materials that may be 
discharged, including to the bilge, must be maintained to minimize or 
eliminate the discharge of pollutants.


Sec.  139.5  Biofouling management.

    (a) The requirements in paragraph (b) of this section apply to any 
vessel subject to regulation under this part.
    (b) A vessel-specific biofouling management plan must be developed 
and followed with a goal to prevent macrofouling, thereby minimizing 
the potential for the introduction and spread of ANS. A biofouling 
management plan is a holistic strategy that considers the operational 
profile of the vessel, identifies the appropriate antifouling systems, 
and details the biofouling management practices for specific areas of 
the vessel. The plan elements must prioritize procedures and strategies 
to prevent macrofouling.


Sec.  139.6  Oil management.

    (a) The requirements in paragraphs (b) through (d) of this section 
apply to vessel equipment and operations that use or discharge oil or 
oily mixtures.
    (b) The following discharges are prohibited:
    (1) Used or spent oil no longer being used for its intended 
purpose; and
    (2) Oil in such quantities as may be harmful.
    (c) During fueling, maintenance, and other vessel operations, 
control and response measures must be used to prevent, minimize, and 
contain spills and overflows.
    (d) An environmentally acceptable lubricant (EAL) must be used in 
any oil-to-sea interface unless such use is technically infeasible.

[[Page 67885]]

Subpart C--Standards for Specific Discharges Incidental to the 
Normal Operation of a Vessel


Sec.  139.10  Ballast tanks.

    (a) Applicability. Except for any vessel otherwise excluded in 
paragraph (b) of this section, the requirements in paragraphs (b) 
through (h) of this section apply to any vessel equipped with one or 
more ballast tanks.
    (b) Exclusions. The requirements of Sec.  139.10 do not apply to 
the following vessels:
    (1) A vessel that continuously takes on and discharges ballast 
water in a flow-through system, if the Administrator determines that 
system cannot materially contribute to the spread or introduction of 
ANS;
    (2) A vessel in the National Defense Reserve Fleet scheduled for 
disposal, if the vessel does not have an operable BWMS;
    (3) A vessel that discharges ballast water consisting solely of 
water taken onboard from a public or commercial source that, at the 
time the water is taken onboard, meets the applicable requirements or 
permit requirements of the Safe Drinking Water Act (42 U.S.C. 300f et 
seq.) or Health Canada's Guidelines for Canadian Drinking Water 
Quality;
    (4) A vessel that carries all permanent ballast water in sealed 
tanks that are not subject to discharge except under emergency 
circumstances; or
    (5) A vessel that only discharges ballast water to a reception 
facility.
    (c) Ballast Water Best Management Practices (BMPs). (1) Any vessel 
equipped with ballast tanks must minimize the discharge and uptake of 
ANS by adhering to the following practices:
    (i) Ballast tanks must be periodically flushed and cleaned to 
remove sediment and biofouling organisms;
    (ii) When practicable and available, high sea suction must be used 
when in port or where clearance to the bottom of the waterbody is less 
than 5 meters to the lower edge of the sea chest;
    (iii) When practicable, ballast water pumps must be used in port 
instead of draining by gravity to empty ballast tanks; and
    (iv) Any sea chest screen must be maintained and fully intact.
    (2) Discharge of any sediment or water from ballast tank cleaning 
is prohibited.
    (3) Discharge or uptake of ballast water must be avoided in areas 
with coral reefs; discharge and uptake should be conducted as far from 
coral reefs as possible.
    (4) A vessel-specific ballast water management plan must be 
developed and followed to minimize the potential for the introduction 
and spread of ANS. A ballast water management plan is a holistic 
strategy that considers the operational profile of the vessel and the 
appropriate ballast water management practices and systems.
    (d) Ballast Water Discharge Standard. Unless exempted in paragraph 
(d)(3) of this section, any ballast water discharge must meet the 
following numeric discharge standard:
    (1) Biological parameters (expressed as instantaneous maximums).
    (i) Organisms greater than or equal to 50 micrometers in minimum 
dimension: Less than 10 living organisms per cubic meter.
    (ii) Organisms less than 50 micrometers and greater than or equal 
to 10 micrometers: Less than 10 living organisms per milliliter (mL).
    (iii) Toxicogenic Vibrio cholerae (serotypes O1 and O139): Less 
than 1 colony forming unit (cfu) per 100 mL.
    (iv) Escherichia coli: A concentration of less than 250 cfu per 100 
mL.
    (v) Intestinal enterococci: A concentration of less than 100 cfu 
per 100 mL.
    (2) Biocide parameters (expressed as instantaneous maximums).
    (i) Chlorine dioxide: For any discharge from a BWMS using chlorine 
dioxide, chlorine dioxide must not exceed 200 [micro]g/L.
    (ii) Total residual oxidizers: For any discharge from a BWMS using 
chlorine or ozone, total residual oxidizers must not exceed 100 
[micro]g/L.
    (iii) Peracetic acid: For any discharge from a BWMS using peracetic 
acid, peracetic acid must not exceed 500 [micro]g/L.
    (iv) Hydrogen peroxide: For any discharge from a BWMS using 
peracetic acid, hydrogen peroxide must not exceed 1,000 [micro]g/L.
    (3) Exemptions: The ballast water discharge standards in paragraphs 
(d)(1) and (2) of this section do not apply to any vessel that:
    (i) Is less than or equal to 3,000 GT ITC (1,600 GRT if GT ITC is 
not assigned), and does not operate outside of the EEZ;
    (ii) Is a non-seagoing, unmanned, unpowered barge, except any barge 
that is part of a dedicated vessel combination such as an integrated or 
articulated tug and barge unit;
    (iii) Takes on and discharges ballast water exclusively in the 
contiguous portions of a single COTP Zone;
    (iv) Does not travel more than 10 NM and passes through no locks;
    (v) Is a vessel that operates exclusively in the Great Lakes and 
the St. Lawrence River west of a rhumb line drawn from Cap des Rosiers 
to Point-Sud-Oeste (West Point), Anticosti Island, and west of a line 
along 63 W. longitude from Anticosti Island to the north shore of the 
St. Lawrence River;
    (vi) Is enrolled in the USCG Shipboard Technology Evaluation 
Program (STEP); or
    (vii) Discharges ballast water prior to an applicable ballast water 
discharge standard compliance date established in regulations 
promulgated by the Secretary as described in 139.1(d).
    (e) Ballast Water Exchange and Saltwater Flushing. Except for any 
vessel identified in paragraph (e)(3), (f), or (g) of this section, 
prior to an applicable ballast water discharge standard compliance date 
established in regulations promulgated by the Secretary as described in 
Sec.  139.1(d), any vessel must meet the requirements in paragraphs 
(e)(1) and (2) of this section.
    (1) Any vessel that carries ballast water taken on in areas less 
than 200 NM from any shore that will subsequently operate outside the 
EEZ and more than 200 NM from any shore must:
    (i) Conduct ballast water exchange in waters not less than 200 NM 
from any shore prior to discharging that ballast water; and
    (ii) Commence ballast water exchange not less than 200 NM from any 
shore and as early in the vessel voyage as practicable.
    (2) For any ballast tank that is empty or contains unpumpable 
residual water on a vessel bound for a port or place of destination 
subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, the master must, 
prior to arriving at that port or place of destination, either:
    (i) Seal the tank so that there is no discharge or uptake and 
subsequent discharge of ballast water, or
    (ii) Conduct a saltwater flush:
    (A) Not less than 200 NM from any shore for a voyage originating 
outside the United States or Canadian EEZ; or
    (B) not less than 50 NM from any shore for a voyage originating 
within the United States or Canadian EEZ.
    (3) Exceptions: Paragraphs (e)(1) and (2), do not apply under any 
of the following circumstances:
    (i) If the unpumpable residual waters and sediments of an empty 
ballast tank were subject to treatment, in compliance with applicable 
requirements, through a BWMS approved or accepted by the Secretary;
    (ii) Except as otherwise required under this part, if the 
unpumpable residual waters and sediments of an empty ballast tank were 
sourced solely within:

[[Page 67886]]

    (A) The same port or place of destination; or
    (B) Contiguous portions of a single COTP Zone;
    (iii) If complying with an applicable requirement of this paragraph 
(e):
    (A) Would compromise the safety of the vessel; or
    (B) Is otherwise prohibited by any Federal, Canadian, or 
international law (including regulations) pertaining to vessel safety;
    (iv) If design limitations of an existing vessel prevent a ballast 
water exchange or saltwater flush from being conducted in accordance 
with this paragraph (e); or
    (v) If the vessel is operating exclusively within the internal 
waters of the United States and Canada.
    (f) Vessels entering the Great Lakes. (1) Ballast Water Exchange--
Except as provided in paragraph (f)(2) of this section, any vessel 
entering the St. Lawrence Seaway through the mouth of the St. Lawrence 
River must conduct a complete ballast water exchange or saltwater 
flush:
    (i) Not less than 200 NM from any shore for a voyage originating 
outside the EEZ; or
    (ii) Not less than 50 NM from any shore for a voyage originating 
within the EEZ.
    (2) Exceptions: The requirements of paragraph (f)(1) of this 
section do not apply to any vessel if:
    (i) Complying with paragraph (f)(1) of this section:
    (A) Would compromise the safety of the vessel; or
    (B) Is otherwise prohibited by any Federal, Canadian, or 
international law (including regulations) pertaining to vessel safety.
    (ii) Design limitations of an existing vessel prevent a ballast 
water exchange from being conducted in accordance with an applicable 
requirement of paragraph (f)(1) of this section.
    (iii) The vessel has no residual ballast water or sediments 
onboard.
    (iv) The vessel retains all ballast water while in waters subject 
to the requirement.
    (v) The empty ballast tanks on the vessel are sealed in a manner 
that ensures that no discharge or uptake occurs, and any subsequent 
discharge of ballast water is subject to the requirement.
    (g) Pacific waters. (1) Ballast Water Exchange:
    (i) Except as provided in paragraphs (g)(1)(ii) and (g)(3) of this 
section, any vessel that operates either between two ports or places of 
destination within the Pacific Region; or a port or place of 
destination within the Pacific Region and a port or place of 
destination on the Pacific Coast of Canada or Mexico north of parallel 
20 degrees north latitude, inclusive of the Gulf of California, must 
conduct a complete ballast water exchange in waters more than 50 NM 
from shore.
    (ii) Exemptions: The requirements of paragraph (g)(1)(i) of this 
section do not apply to any vessel:
    (A) Using, in compliance with applicable requirements, a type-
approved BWMS approved or accepted by the Secretary.
    (B) Voyaging:
    (1) Between or to a port or place of destination in the State of 
Washington, if the ballast water to be discharged from the commercial 
vessel originated solely from waters located between the parallel 46 
degrees north latitude, including the internal waters of the Columbia 
River, and the internal waters of Canada south of parallel 50 degrees 
north latitude, including the waters of the Strait of Georgia and the 
Strait of Juan de Fuca;
    (2) Between ports or places of destination in the State of Oregon, 
if the ballast water to be discharged from the commercial vessel 
originated solely from waters located between the parallel 40 degrees 
north latitude and the parallel 50 degrees north latitude;
    (3) Between ports or places of destination in the State of 
California within the San Francisco Bay area east of the Golden Gate 
Bridge, including the Port of Stockton and the Port of Sacramento, if 
the ballast water to be discharged from the commercial vessel 
originated solely from ports or places within that area;
    (4) Between the Port of Los Angeles, the Port of Long Beach, and 
the El Segundo offshore marine oil terminal, if the ballast water to be 
discharged from the commercial vessel originated solely from the Port 
of Los Angeles, the Port of Long Beach, or the El Segundo offshore 
marine oil terminal;
    (5) Between a port or place of destination in the State of Alaska 
within a single COTP Zone;
    (6) Between ports or places of destination in different counties of 
the State of Hawaii, if the vessel conducts a complete ballast water 
exchange in waters that are more than 10 NM from shore and at least 200 
meters deep; or
    (7) Between ports or places of destination within the same county 
of the State of Hawaii, if the vessel does not transit outside state 
marine waters during the voyage.
    (2) Low-Salinity Ballast Water:
    (i) Except as provided in paragraphs (g)(2)(ii) and (g)(3) of this 
section, a complete ballast water exchange must be conducted for any 
commercial vessel that transports ballast water sourced from waters 
with a measured salinity of less than 18 parts per thousand and voyages 
to a Pacific Region port or place of destination with a measured 
salinity of less than 18 parts per thousand:
    (A) Not less than 50 NM from shore, if the ballast water was 
sourced from a Pacific Region port or place of destination.
    (B) More than 200 NM from shore, if the ballast water was not 
sourced from a Pacific Region port or place of destination.
    (ii) Exception: The requirements of paragraph (g)(2)(i) of this 
section do not apply to any vessel voyaging to a port or place of 
destination in the Pacific Region that is using, in compliance with 
applicable requirements, a type-approved BWMS accepted by the 
Secretary, or a type-approved BWMS approved by the secretary to achieve 
the following numeric discharge standard for biological parameters 
(expressed as instantaneous maximums):
    (A) Organisms greater than or equal to 50 micrometers in minimum 
dimension: Less than 1 living organism per 10 cubic meters.
    (B) Organisms less than 50 micrometers and greater than or equal to 
10 micrometers: Less than 1 living organisms per 100 milliliters (mL).
    (C) Toxicogenic Vibrio cholerae (serotypes O1 and O139): Less than 
1 colony forming unit (cfu) per 100 mL or less than 1 cfu per gram of 
wet weight of zoological samples.
    (D) Escherichia coli: Less than 126 cfu per 100 mL.
    (E) Intestinal enterococci: Less than 33 cfu per 100 mL.
    (3) General Exceptions: The requirements of paragraphs (g)(1) and 
(2) of this section do not apply to a commercial vessel if:
    (i) Complying with the requirement would compromise the safety of 
the commercial vessel.
    (ii) If design limitations of an existing vessel, prevent a ballast 
water exchange from being conducted in accordance with paragraphs 
(g)(1) and (2) of this section, as applicable.
    (iii) The commercial vessel:
    (A) Has no residual ballast water or sediments onboard; or
    (B) Retains all ballast water while in waters subject to those 
requirements.
    (iv) Empty ballast tanks on the commercial vessel are sealed in a 
manner that ensures that:
    (A) No discharge or uptake occurs; and
    (B) Any subsequent discharge of ballast water is subject to those 
requirements.
    (h) Federally-protected waters. Additional standards applicable to

[[Page 67887]]

discharges from ballast tanks when a vessel is operating in federally-
protected waters are contained in Sec.  139.40(b).


Sec.  139.11  Bilges.

    (a) The requirements in paragraphs (b) through (d) of this section 
apply to discharges from the bilge consisting of water and residue that 
accumulates in a lower compartment of the vessel's hull below the 
waterline. This includes any water and residue from a cargo area that 
comes into contact with oily materials or a below-deck parking area or 
other storage area for motor vehicles or other motorized equipment.
    (b) The discharge of bilgewater from any vessel must not contain 
any flocculants or other additives except when used with an oily water 
separator or to maintain or clean equipment. The use of any additives 
to remove the appearance of a visible sheen is prohibited.
    (c) For any vessel of 400 GT ITC (400 GRT if GT ITC is not 
assigned) and above, the discharge of bilgewater must occur when the 
vessel is underway.
    (d) Additional standards applicable to discharges from bilges when 
a vessel is operating in federally-protected waters are contained in 
Sec.  139.40(c).


Sec.  139.12  Boilers.

    (a) The requirements in paragraphs (b) and (c) of this section 
apply to discharges resulting from boiler blowdown.
    (b) The discharge from boiler blowdown must be minimized when in 
port.
    (c) Additional standards applicable to discharges from boilers when 
a vessel is operating in federally-protected waters are contained in 
Sec.  139.40(d).


Sec.  139.13  Cathodic protection.

    (a) The requirements in paragraph (b) of this section apply to 
discharges resulting from a vessel's cathodic corrosion control 
protection device, including sacrificial anodes and impressed current 
cathodic protection systems.
    (b) Spaces between any flush-fit anode and backing must be filled 
to remove potential hotspots for biofouling organisms.


Sec.  139.14  Chain lockers.

    (a) The requirements in paragraphs (b) through (e) of this section 
apply to accumulated precipitation and seawater that is emptied from 
the compartment used to store the anchor chain on a vessel.
    (b) Anchors and anchor chains must be rinsed of biofouling 
organisms and sediment when the anchor is retrieved.
    (c) The discharge of accumulated water and sediment from any chain 
locker is prohibited in port.
    (d) For all vessels that operate beyond the waters of the 
contiguous zone, anchors and anchor chains must be rinsed of biofouling 
organisms and sediment prior to entering the waters of the contiguous 
zone.
    (e) Additional standards applicable to a discharge from chain 
lockers when a vessel is operating in federally-protected waters are 
contained in Sec.  139.40(e).


Sec.  139.15  Decks.

    (a) The requirements in paragraphs (b) through (i) of this section 
apply to the overboard discharge of washdown and runoff, including but 
not limited to precipitation and sea water, from decks, well decks, and 
bulkhead areas.
    (b) Coamings or drip pans must be used for machinery that is 
expected to leak or otherwise release oil on the deck; accumulated oil 
must be collected.
    (c) Where required by an applicable international treaty or 
convention or the Secretary, the vessel must be fitted with and use 
physical barriers (e.g., spill rails, scuppers and scupper plugs) to 
collect runoff for treatment during any washdown.
    (d) Control measures must be used to minimize the introduction of 
on-deck debris, garbage, residue, and spill into deck washdown and 
runoff.
    (e) Vessel decks must be kept in broom clean condition whenever the 
vessel is underway and prior to any deck washdown.
    (f) Deck washdowns must be minimized in port.
    (g) The discharge of floating solids, visible foam, halogenated 
phenolic compounds, dispersants, surfactants, and spills must be 
minimized in any deck washdown.
    (h) Any soap, cleaner, or detergent used for deck washdown must be 
minimally-toxic, phosphate-free, and biodegradable.
    (i) Additional standards applicable to discharges from decks when a 
vessel is operating in federally-protected waters are contained in 
Sec.  139.40(f).


Sec.  139.16  Desalination and purification systems.

    (a) The requirements in paragraph (b) of this section apply to 
discharges from onboard desalination and purification systems used to 
generate freshwater from seawater or otherwise purify water.
    (b) The discharge resulting from the cleaning of desalination and 
purification systems with toxic or hazardous materials is prohibited.


Sec.  139.17  Elevator pits.

    (a) The requirements in paragraph (b) of this section apply to the 
liquid that accumulates in, and is discharged from, the sumps of 
elevator wells on vessels.
    (b) The discharge of untreated accumulated water and sediment from 
any elevator pit is prohibited.


Sec.  139.18  Exhaust gas emission control systems.

    (a) Applicability. The requirements in paragraphs (b) through (e) 
of this section apply to discharges from the operation and cleaning of 
any exhaust gas cleaning system (EGCS) and exhaust gas recirculation 
(EGR) system.
    (b) Discharge requirements. Unless excluded in paragraph (c) of 
this section, any discharge identified in paragraph (a) of this section 
must meet the following discharge requirements.
    (1) pH. (i) The discharge must meet one of the following 
requirements:
    (A) The discharge must have a pH of no less than 6.5 as measured at 
the vessel's overboard discharge point with the exception that during 
maneuvering and transit, the maximum difference of two pH units is 
allowed between inlet water and overboard discharge values; or
    (B) The pH discharge limit is the value that will achieve a minimum 
pH of 6.5 at 4 meters from the overboard discharge point with the ship 
stationary. This overboard pH discharge limit is to be determined at 
the overboard discharge monitoring point and is to be recorded as the 
vessel's discharge limit. The overboard pH can be determined either by 
means of direct measurement, or by using a calculation-based 
methodology (computational fluid dynamics or other equally 
scientifically established empirical formulas).
    (ii) The pH numeric discharge standard may be exceeded for up to 15 
minutes in any 12-hour period.
    (2) PAHs (Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons).
    (i) The maximum continuous PAH concentration in the discharge must 
be no greater than 50 [micro]g/L PAHphe (phenanthrene equivalence) 
above the inlet water PAH concentration. The PAH concentration in the 
discharge must be measured downstream of the water treatment equipment 
and upstream of any dilution (or other reactant dosing unit, if used).
    (ii) The 50 [micro]g/L numeric discharge standard is normalized for 
a discharge flow rate of 45 tons(t)/MWh where the MW refers to the 
Maximum Continuous Rating or 80% of the power rating of the fuel oil 
combustion unit. This numeric discharge standard is adjusted upward or 
downward for varying discharge flow

[[Page 67888]]

rates, pursuant to Table 1 to paragraph (b)(2)(ii) of this section.

                                         Table 1 to Paragraph (b)(2)(ii)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                    Numeric
                                                   discharge
                                                   standard
               Flow rate (t/MWh)                  ([micro]g/L                Measurement technology
                                                    PAHphe
                                                 equivalents)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
0-1...........................................           2,250  Ultraviolet light.
2.5...........................................             900  Ultraviolet light.
5.............................................             450  Fluorescence \a\.
11.25.........................................             200  Fluorescence.
22.5..........................................             100  Fluorescence.
45............................................              50  Fluorescence.
90............................................              25  Fluorescence.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ For any Flow Rate greater than 2.5 t/MWh, Fluorescence technology must be used.

    (iii) The continuous PAHphe numeric discharge standard may be 
exceeded by 100% for up to 15 minutes in any 12-hour period.
    (3) Turbidity/suspended particulate matter.
    (i) The washwater treatment system must be designed to minimize 
suspended particulate matter, including heavy metals and ash.
    (ii) The maximum continuous turbidity in the discharge must be no 
greater than 25 FNU (formazin nephlometric units) or 25 NTU 
(nephlometric turbidity units) or equivalent units above the inlet 
water turbidity. However, to account for periods of high inlet 
turbidity, readings must be a rolling average over a 15-minute period 
to a maximum of 25 FNU with the discharge measured downstream of the 
water treatment equipment and upstream of dilution (or reactant dosing, 
if used).
    (iii) The continuous turbidity numeric discharge standard may be 
exceeded by 20% for up to 15 minutes in any 12-hour period.
    (4) Nitrates:
    (i) The washwater treatment system must prevent the discharge of 
nitrates beyond that associated with a 12% removal of NOX 
from the exhaust, or beyond 60 mg/L normalized for a discharge rate of 
45 tons/MWh, whichever is greater.
    (c) Applicability. The discharges of EGR bleed-off water from 
vessels that are underway and operating on fuel that meets the 
emissions requirements for sulfur starting in 2020 as specified in 
MARPOL Annex VI are excluded from paragraph (b) of this section.
    (d) Prohibition. The discharge of EGR bleed-off water retained 
onboard in a holding tank that does not meet the discharge requirements 
in paragraph (b) of this section, is prohibited.


Sec.  139.19  Fire protection equipment.

    (a) The requirements in paragraphs (b) through (d) of this section 
apply to the discharge from fire protection equipment. As specified in 
Sec.  139.1(b)(3), these requirements do not apply to discharges from 
fire protection equipment when used for emergencies or when compliance 
with such requirements would compromise the safety of the vessel or 
life at sea.
    (b) The discharge from fire protection equipment during testing, 
training, maintenance, inspection, or certification, excluding USCG-
required inspection and certification, is prohibited in port and must 
not contain any fluorinated firefighting foam.
    (c) Additional requirements applicable to discharges from fire 
protection equipment when a vessel is operating in federally-protected 
waters are contained in Sec.  139.40(g).


Sec.  139.20  Gas turbines.

    (a) The requirements in paragraph (b) of this section apply to 
discharges from the washing of gas turbine components.
    (b) The discharge of untreated gas turbine washwater is prohibited 
unless infeasible.


Sec.  139.21  Graywater systems.

    (a) The requirements in paragraphs (b) through (h) of this section 
apply to discharges of graywater except for graywater from any 
commercial vessel on the Great Lakes that is subject to the 
requirements in 40 CFR part 140 and 33 CFR part 159.
    (b) The introduction of kitchen waste, food, oils, and oily 
residues to the graywater system must be minimized.
    (c) Any soaps, cleaners, and detergents discharged in graywater 
must be minimally-toxic, phosphate-free, and biodegradable.
    (d) The discharge of graywater is prohibited from any vessel:
    (1) Within 3 NM from shore that voyages at least 3 NM from shore 
and has remaining available graywater storage capacity, unless the 
discharge meets the standards in paragraph (f) of this section; and
    (2) Within 1 NM from shore that voyages at least 1 NM from shore 
but not beyond 3 NM from shore and has remaining available graywater 
storage capacity, unless the discharge meets the standards in paragraph 
(f) of this section.
    (e) The discharge of graywater from the following vessels must meet 
the numeric discharge standard established in paragraph (f) of this 
section:
    (1) Any new vessel of 400 GT ITC (400 GRT if GT ITC is not 
assigned) and above;
    (2) Any passenger vessel with overnight accommodations for 500 or 
more passengers;
    (3) Any passenger vessel with overnight accommodations for 100-499 
passengers unless the vessel was constructed before December 19, 2008, 
and does not voyage beyond 1 NM from shore; and
    (4) Any new ferry authorized by the USCG to carry 250 or more 
people.
    (f) A vessel identified in paragraph (e) of this section that is 
discharging graywater must meet the following numeric discharge 
standard:
    (1) Fecal coliform.
    (i) The 30-day geometric mean must not exceed 20 cfu/100 mL (colony 
forming units/milliliter).
    (ii) Greater than 90% of samples must not exceed 40 cfu/100 mL.
    (2) BOD5.
    (i) The 30-day average must not exceed 30 mg/L.
    (ii) The 7-day average must not exceed 45 mg/L.
    (3) Suspended solids.
    (i) The 30-day average must not exceed 30 mg/L.

[[Page 67889]]

    (ii) The 7-day average must not exceed 45 mg/L.
    (4) pH.
    (i) Must be maintained between 6.0 and 9.0.
    (ii) [Reserved]
    (5) Total residual chlorine.
    (i) Must not exceed 10.0 [micro]g/L.
    (ii) [Reserved]
    (g) The discharge of graywater from any vessel operating on the 
Great Lakes that is not a commercial vessel must not exceed 200 fecal 
coliform forming units per 100 milliliters and contain no more than 150 
milligrams per liter of suspended solids.
    (h) Additional standards applicable to discharges from graywater 
systems when a vessel is operating in federally-protected waters are 
contained in Sec.  139.40(h).


Sec.  139.22  Hulls and associated niche areas.

    (a) Applicability. The requirements in paragraphs (b) and (c) of 
this section apply to the discharge of coatings, biofouling organisms, 
and other materials from vessel hull surfaces and niche areas.
    (b) Coatings. (1) Coatings applied to the vessel must be specific 
to the operational profile of the vessel and the equipment to which it 
is applied, including, for biocidal coatings, having appropriate 
effective biocide release rates and components that are biodegradable 
once separated from the vessel surface.
    (2) Coatings must be applied, maintained, and reapplied consistent 
with manufacturer specifications, including the thickness, the method 
of application, and the lifespan of the coating.
    (3) Coatings on vessel hulls and niches must not contain 
tributyltin (TBT) or any other organotin compound used as a biocide.
    (i) Any vessel hull previously covered with a coating containing 
TBT (whether or not used as a biocide) or any other organotin compound 
(if used as a biocide) must:
    (A) Maintain an effective overcoat on the vessel hull so that no 
TBT or other organotin leaches from the vessel hull; or
    (B) Remove any TBT or other organotin compound from the vessel 
hull.
    (4) When an organotin compound other than TBT is used as a catalyst 
in the coating (e.g., dibutyltin), the coating must:
    (i) Contain less than 2,500 mg total tin per kilogram of dry paint; 
and
    (ii) Not be designed to slough or otherwise peel from the vessel 
hull, noting that incidental amounts of coating discharged by abrasion 
during cleaning or after contact with other hard surfaces (e.g., 
moorings) are acceptable.
    (5) Coatings that contain cybutryne must not be applied on vessel 
hulls and niches.
    (i) Any vessel that has previously applied a coating that contains 
cybutryne to the vessel hull must:
    (A) Apply and maintain an effective overcoat of the vessel hull so 
that no cybutryne leaches from the vessel hull, noting that incidental 
amounts of coating discharged by abrasion during cleaning or after 
contact with other hard surfaces (e.g., moorings) are acceptable; or
    (B) Remove any cybutryne coating from the vessel hull.
    (6) Alternatives to copper-based coatings must be considered for 
vessels spending 30 or more days per year in a copper-impaired 
waterbody or using these waters as their home port.
    (c) Cleaning. (1) Hulls and niche areas must be cleaned regularly 
to minimize biofouling.
    (2) Cleaning techniques must minimize damage to the coating.
    (3) Cleaning must not result in a plume or cloud of paint.
    (4) In-water cleaning of biofouling that exceeds a fouling rating 
of FR-20 is prohibited unless one or more of the following conditions 
are met:
    (i) The biofouling is local in origin and cleaning does not result 
in a plume or cloud of paint; or
    (ii) An in-water cleaning and capture (IWCC) system is designed and 
operated to:
    (A) Capture coatings and biofouling organisms;
    (B) Filter biofouling organisms from the effluent; and
    (C) Minimize the release of biocides.
    (5) The discharge of any wastes filtered or otherwise removed from 
any IWCC system is prohibited.
    (6) In-water cleaning of any copper-based hull coatings is 
prohibited in a copper-impaired waterbody within the first 365 days 
after application, unless an IWCC system consistent with paragraph 
(c)(2)(ii) of this section is used.
    (7) In-water cleaning must not be conducted on any section of a 
biocidal antifouling coating that shows excessive cleaning actions 
(e.g., brush marks) or blistering due to the internal failure of the 
paint system.
    (8) Any soap, cleaner, or detergent used on vessel surfaces, such 
as a scum line of the hull, must be minimally-toxic, phosphate-free, 
and biodegradable.
    (9) Additional standards applicable to discharges from hulls and 
associated niche areas when a vessel is operating in federally-
protected waters are contained in Sec.  139.40(i).


Sec.  139.23  Inert gas systems.

    (a) The requirements in paragraph (b) of this section apply to the 
discharge of washwater from an inert gas system and deck seal water 
when used as an integral part of that system.
    (b) The discharge from inert gas systems must meet the general 
discharge requirements in subpart B of this part.


Sec.  139.24  Motor gasoline and compensating systems.

    (a) The requirements in paragraphs (b) and (c) of this section 
apply to the discharge of motor gasoline and compensating ambient water 
added to keep gasoline tanks full to prevent potentially explosive 
gasoline vapors from forming.
    (b) The discharge of motor gasoline and compensating discharges 
must meet all general discharge requirements in subpart B of this part.
    (c) Additional standards applicable to discharges from motor 
gasoline and compensating systems when a vessel is operating in 
federally-protected waters are contained in Sec.  139.40(j).


Sec.  139.25  Non-oily machinery.

    (a) The requirements in paragraph (b) of this section apply to 
discharges from machinery that contains no oil, including discharges 
from the operation of desalination systems, water chillers, valve 
packings, water piping, low- and high-pressure air compressors, 
propulsion engine jacket coolers, fire pumps, and seawater and potable 
water pumps.
    (b) The discharge of untreated non-oily machinery wastewater and 
packing gland or stuffing box effluent containing toxic or 
bioaccumulative additives or the discharge of oil in such quantities as 
may be harmful is prohibited.


Sec.  139.26  Pools and spas.

    (a) The requirements in paragraphs (b) and (c) of this section 
apply to discharges from pools and spas.
    (b) Except for unintentional or inadvertent releases from overflows 
across the decks and into overboard drains caused by, but not limited 
to, weather, vessel traffic, marine wildlife avoidance or navigational 
maneuvering, discharge of pool and spa water must:
    (1) Occur only while the vessel is underway, unless determined to 
be infeasible, and;
    (2) Meet the following numeric discharge standard:
    (i) For chlorine disinfection: Total residual chlorine less than 
100 [micro]g/L; and

[[Page 67890]]

    (ii) For bromine disinfection: Total residual oxidant less than 25 
[micro]g/L.
    (c) Additional standards applicable to discharges from pools and 
spas when a vessel is operating in federally-protected waters are 
contained in Sec.  139.40(k).


Sec.  139.27  Refrigeration and air conditioning.

    (a) The requirements in paragraph (b) of this section apply to 
discharges of condensation from refrigeration, air conditioning, and 
similar chilling equipment.
    (b) The direct overboard discharge of any condensate that contacts 
toxic or hazardous materials is prohibited.


Sec.  139.28  Seawater piping.

    (a) The requirements in paragraphs (b) and (c) of this section 
apply to discharges from seawater piping systems that provide water for 
other vessel uses (e.g., engines, hydraulic systems, and 
refrigeration), including while a vessel is in port or in layup.
    (b) Seawater piping systems, including sea chests, grates, and 
similar appurtenances, that accumulate biofouling that exceeds a 
fouling rating of FR-20 must be fitted with a Marine Growth Prevention 
System (MGPS).
    (1) An MGPS must be selected to address:
    (i) The level, frequency, and type of biofouling; and
    (ii) The design, location, and area in which the system will be 
used.
    (2) An MGPS must include one, or some combination of the following:
    (i) Chemical injection;
    (ii) Electrolysis, ultrasound, ultraviolet radiation, or 
electrochlorination;
    (iii) Application of an antifouling coating; or
    (iv) Use of cupro-nickel piping.
    (3) Upon identification of biofouling that exceeds a fouling rating 
of FR-20 in a seawater piping system, reactive measures to manage the 
macrofouling must be used. Discharges resulting from reactive measures 
to remove macrofouling are prohibited in port.
    (c) Additional standards applicable to discharges from seawater 
piping when a vessel is operating in federally-protected waters are 
contained in Sec.  139.40(l).


Sec.  139.29  Sonar domes.

    (a) The requirements in paragraphs (b) and (c) of this section 
apply to discharges from sonar domes.
    (b) The discharge of water during maintenance or repair from inside 
the sonar dome is prohibited.
    (c) Use of bioaccumulative biocides on the exterior of any sonar 
dome is prohibited when non-bioaccumulative alternatives are available.

Subpart D--Special Area Requirements


Sec.  139.40  Federally-protected waters.

    (a) Applicability. The requirements in paragraphs (b) through (l) 
of this section are in addition to applicable standards in subparts B 
and C of this part and apply when a vessel is operating in federally-
protected waters.
    (b) Ballast tanks. The discharge or uptake of ballast water in 
federally-protected waters must be avoided except for those vessels 
operating within the boundaries of any national marine sanctuary that 
preserves shipwrecks or maritime heritage in the Great Lakes, unless 
the designation documents for such sanctuary do not allow taking up or 
discharging ballast water in such sanctuary, pursuant to the Howard 
Coble Coast Guard and Maritime Transportation Act of 2014, as amended 
by the Coast Guard Reauthorization Act of 2015, Public Law 114-120, 
title VI, sec 602.
    (c) Bilges. For any vessel of 400 GT ITC (400 GRT if GT ITC is not 
assigned) and above, the discharge of bilgewater into federally-
protected waters is prohibited.
    (d) Boilers. The discharge of boiler blowdown into federally-
protected waters is prohibited.
    (e) Chain lockers. The discharge of accumulated water and sediment 
from any chain locker into federally-protected waters is prohibited.
    (f) Decks. The discharge of deck washdown into federally-protected 
waters is prohibited.
    (g) Fire protection equipment. The discharge from fire protection 
equipment during testing, training, maintenance, inspection, or 
certification into federally-protected water is prohibited. The 
discharge of non-fluorinated firefighting foam into federally-protected 
waters is prohibited except by any vessel owned or under contract with 
the United States, state, or local government to do business 
exclusively in any federally-protected waters.
    (h) Graywater system. The discharge of graywater into federally-
protected waters from any vessel with remaining available graywater 
storage capacity is prohibited.
    (i) Hulls and associated niche areas. The discharge from in-water 
cleaning of vessel hulls and niche areas into federally-protected 
waters is prohibited.
    (j) Motor gasoline and compensating systems. The discharge of motor 
gasoline and compensating discharges into federally-protected waters is 
prohibited.
    (k) Pools and spas. The discharge of pool or spa water into 
federally-protected waters is prohibited.
    (l) Seawater piping systems. The discharge of chemical dosing, as 
described in Sec.  139.28, into federally-protected waters is 
prohibited.

Subpart E--Procedures for States To Request Changes to Standards, 
Regulations, or Policy Promulgated by the Administrator


Sec.  139.50  Petition by a Governor for the Administrator to establish 
an emergency order or review a standard, regulation, or policy.

    (a) The Governor of a State (or a designee) may submit a petition 
to the Administrator:
    (1) To issue an emergency order under CWA section 312(p)(4)(e); or
    (2) To review any standard of performance, regulation, or policy 
promulgated by the Administrator under CWA section 312(p)(4) or (6), if 
there exists new information that could reasonably result in a change 
to:
    (i) The standard of performance, regulation, or policy; or
    (ii) A determination on which the standard of performance, 
regulation, or policy was based.
    (b) A petition under paragraph (a) of this section shall be signed 
by the Governor (or a designee) and must include:
    (1) The purpose of the petition (request for emergency order or a 
review of a standard, regulation, or policy);
    (2) Any applicable scientific or technical information that forms 
the basis of the petition; and
    (3) The direct and indirect benefits if the requested petition were 
to be granted by the Administrator.
    (c) The Administrator shall grant or deny:
    (1) A petition under paragraph (a)(1) of this section by not later 
than the date that is 180 days after the date on which the petition is 
submitted; and
    (2) A petition under paragraph (a)(2) of this section by not later 
than the date that is one year after the date on which the petition is 
submitted.
    (d) If the Administrator determines to grant a petition:
    (1) In the case of a petition under paragraph (a)(1) of this 
section, the Administrator shall immediately issue the relevant 
emergency order under CWA section 312(p)(4)(E); or
    (2) In the case of a petition under paragraph (a)(2) of this 
section, the Administrator shall submit a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking 
to the Federal Register to revise the relevant standard, requirement, 
regulation, or policy under

[[Page 67891]]

CWA section 312(p)(4) or (6), as applicable.
    (e) If the Administrator determines to deny a petition, the 
Administrator shall submit a notice to the Federal Register, that 
includes a detailed explanation of the scientific, technical, or 
operational factors that form the basis of the determination.


Sec.  139.51  Petition by a Governor for the Administrator to establish 
enhanced Great Lakes system requirements.

    (a) The Governors endorsing a proposed standard or requirement 
under CWA section 312(p)(10)(ii)(III)(bb) may jointly submit to the 
Administrator for approval each proposed standard of performance or 
other requirement developed and endorsed pursuant to CWA section 
312(p)(10)(ii) with respect to any discharge that is subject to 
regulation under this part and occurs within the Great Lakes System.
    (b) A petition under paragraph (a) of this section must include:
    (1) An explanation regarding why the applicable standard of 
performance or other requirement is at least as stringent as a 
comparable standard of performance or other requirement under this 
part;
    (2) Information indicating that the standard of performance or 
other requirement is in accordance with maritime safety; and
    (3) Information indicating that the standard of performance or 
other requirement is in accordance with applicable maritime and 
navigation laws and regulations.
    (c) On receipt of a proposed standard of performance or other 
requirement under paragraph (b) of this section, the Administrator 
shall submit, after consultation with USCG, a document to the Federal 
Register that, at minimum:
    (1) States that the proposed standard or requirement is publicly 
available; and
    (2) Provides an opportunity for public comment regarding the 
proposed standard or requirement.
    (d) The Administrator shall commence a review of each proposed 
standard of performance or other requirement covered by the notice to 
determine whether that standard or requirement is at least as stringent 
as comparable standards and requirements under this part.
    (e) In carrying out paragraph (d) of this section, the 
Administrator:
    (1) Shall consult with the Secretary,
    (2) Shall consult with the Governor of each Great Lakes State and 
representatives from the Federal and provincial governments of Canada;
    (3) Shall take into consideration any relevant data or public 
comments received under paragraph (c)(2) of this section; and
    (4) Shall not take into consideration any preliminary assessment by 
the Great Lakes Commission or any dissenting opinion by a Governor of a 
Great Lakes State, except to the extent that such an assessment or 
opinion is relevant to the criteria for the applicable determination 
under paragraph (d) of this section.
    (f) Upon review and determination, the Administrator, in 
concurrence with the Secretary, shall approve each proposed standard or 
other requirement, unless the Administrator determines that the 
proposed standard or other requirement is not at least as stringent as 
comparable standards and requirements under this part.
    (g) If the Administrator approves a proposed standard or other 
requirement, the Administrator shall submit notification of the 
determination to the Governor of each Great Lakes State and to the 
Federal Register.
    (h) If the Administrator disapproves a proposed standard of 
performance or other requirement, the Administrator shall submit a 
notice that must include:
    (1) A description of the reasons why the standard or requirement 
is, as applicable, less stringent than a comparable standard or 
requirement under this part, and
    (2) Any recommendations regarding changes the Governors of the 
Great Lakes States could make to conform the disapproved portion of the 
standard or requirement to the requirements of paragraph (b) of this 
section.
    (i) Disapproval of a proposed standard or requirement by the 
Administrator under paragraph (h) of this section shall be considered 
to be a final agency action subject to judicial review under section 
509.
    (j) On approval by the Administrator of a proposed standard of 
performance or other requirement, the Administrator shall establish, by 
regulation, the proposed standard or requirement within the Great Lakes 
System in lieu of any comparable standard or other requirement 
promulgated under CWA section 312(p)(4).


Sec.  139.52  Application by a State for the Administrator to establish 
a State No-Discharge Zone.

    (a) If any state determines that the protection and enhancement of 
the quality of some or all of the waters within the state require 
greater environmental protection, the Governor of a State (or a 
designee) may submit a petition to the Administrator to establish a 
regulation prohibiting one or more discharges, whether treated or not 
treated, into such waters subject to the application.
    (b) A prohibition by the Administrator under paragraph (a) of this 
section shall not apply until the Administrator, in concurrence with 
the Secretary, reviews the state application and makes the applicable 
determinations described in paragraph (d) of this section and publishes 
a regulation establishing the prohibition.
    (c) An application submitted by the state under paragraph (a) of 
this section shall be signed by the Governor (or a designee) and must 
include:
    (1) A certification that a prohibition of the discharge(s) would 
protect and enhance the quality of the specific waters within the state 
to a greater extent than the applicable Federal standard provides;
    (2) A detailed analysis of the direct and indirect benefits of the 
requested prohibition for each individual discharge for which the state 
is seeking a prohibition;
    (3) A table identifying the types and number of vessels operating 
in the waterbody and a table identifying the types and number of 
vessels that would be subject to the prohibition;
    (4) A table identifying the location, operating schedule, draught 
requirements, pumpout capacity, pumpout flow rate, and fee structure of 
each facility capable of servicing the vessels that would be subject to 
the prohibition and available to receive the prohibited discharge;
    (5) A map indicating the location of each facility identified in 
paragraph (5) within the proposed waters;
    (6) A table identifying the location and geographic area of each 
proposed no-discharge zone; and
    (7) A detailed analysis of the impacts to vessels subject to the 
prohibition, including a discussion of how these vessels may feasibly 
collect and store the discharge, the extent to which retrofitting may 
be required, costs that are incurred as a result of the discharge 
prohibition, and any safety implications.
    (d) On application of a State, the Administrator, in concurrence 
with the Secretary, shall, by regulation, prohibit the discharge from a 
vessel of one or more discharges subject to regulation under this part, 
whether treated or not treated, into the waters covered by the 
application if the Administrator determines that--
    (1) The prohibition of the discharge would protect and enhance the 
quality of the specified waters within the state;
    (2) Adequate facilities for the safe and sanitary removal and 
treatment of the prohibited discharge are reasonably

[[Page 67892]]

available, taking costs into consideration, for the water and all 
vessels to which the prohibition would apply. A determination of 
adequacy shall consider, at a minimum, water depth, dock size, pumpout 
facility capacity and flow rate, availability of year-round operations, 
proximity to navigation routes, and the ratio of pumpout facilities to 
the population and discharge capacity of vessels operating in those 
waters;
    (3) The discharge can be safely collected and stored until a vessel 
reaches an appropriate facility or location for discharge;
    (4) In the case of an application for the prohibition of the 
discharge of ballast water in port (or in any other location where 
cargo, passengers, or fuel are loaded and unloaded):
    (i) The considerations for adequate facilities described in 
paragraph (d)(2) of this section apply; and
    (ii) The prohibition will not unreasonably interfere with the safe 
loading and unloading of cargo, passengers, or fuel.
    (e) The Administrator shall submit to the Secretary a request for 
written concurrence on a determination made to establish a prohibition.
    (1) A failure by the Secretary to concur with the Administrator 60 
days after the date on which the Administrator submits a request for 
concurrence shall not prevent the Administrator from prohibiting the 
discharge or discharges, subject to the condition that the 
Administrator shall include in the administrative record of the 
promulgation:
    (i) Documentation of the request for concurrence; and
    (ii) The response of the Administrator to any written objections 
received from the Secretary relating to the prohibition during the 60-
day period beginning on the date of the request for concurrence.
    (f) Upon a determination by the Administrator that an application 
meets the criteria in paragraph (c) of this section, the Administrator 
shall approve or disapprove an application submitted by a state.
    (g) If the Administrator approves the application, the 
Administrator shall submit a notice of proposed rulemaking to the 
Federal Register.
    (h) A prohibition by the Administrator under paragraph (a) of this 
section shall not apply until the Administrator publishes a final rule 
establishing the prohibition.

Appendix A to Part 139--Federally-Protected Waters 1

A.1 National Marine Sanctuaries

American Samoa National Marine Sanctuary
Channel Islands National Marine Sanctuary
Cordell Bank National Marine Sanctuary
Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary
Flower Garden Banks National Marine Sanctuary
Gray's Reef National Marine Sanctuary
Greater Farallones National Marine Sanctuary
Hawaii Humpback Whale National Marine Sanctuary
Mallows Bay-Potomac River National Marine Sanctuary
Monitor National Marine Sanctuary
Monterey Bay National Marine Sanctuary
Olympic Coast National Marine Sanctuary
Stellwagen Bank National Marine Sanctuary
Thunder Bay National Marine Sanctuary

A.2 Marine National Monuments

Mariana Trench Marine National Monument
Northeast Canyons and Seamounts Marine National Monument
Pacific Remote Islands Marine National Monument
Papah[amacr]naumoku[amacr]kea Marine National Monument
Rose Atoll Marine National Monument

A.3 National Parks (National Reserves and Monuments)

Alabama

Birmingham Civil Rights National Monument
Horseshoe Bend National Military Park
Freedom Riders National Monument
Little River Canyon National Preserve
Muscle Shoals National Heritage Area
Russell Cave National Monument
Trail of Tears National Historic Trail
Tuskegee Airmen National Historic Site

Alaska

Aleutian World War II National Historic Area
Aniakchak National Monument & Preserve
Bering Land Bridge National Preserve
Cape Krusenstern National Monument
Denali National Park & Preserve
Gates of the Artic National Park & Preserve
Glacier Bay National Park & Preserve
Katmai National Park & Preserve
Kenai Fjords National Park
Klondike Gold Rush National Historical Park
Kobuk Valley National Park
Lake Clark National Park & Preserve
Noatak National Preserve
Sitka National Historical Park
Wrangell--St Elias National Park & Preserve
Yukon--Charley Rivers National Preserve

American Samoa

National Park of America Samoa

Arizona

Canyon de Chelly National Monument
Casa Grande Ruins National Monument
Chiricahua National Monument
Glen Canyon National Recreation Area
Grand Canyon National Park
Hohokam Pima National Monument
Lake Mead National Recreation Area
Montezuma Castle National Monument
Navajo National Monument
Organ Pipe Cactus National Monument
Parashant National Monument
Petrified Forest National Park
Pipe Spring National Monument
Saguaro National Park
Sunset Crater Volcano National Monument
Tonto National Monument
Tumacacori National Historical Park
Tuzigoot National Monument
Walnut Canyon National Monument
Wupatki National Monument
Yuma Crossing National Heritage Area

Arkansas

Hot Springs National Park
Pea Ridge National Military Park
Trail of Tears National Historic Trail

California

Alcatraz Island
Cabrillo National Monument
Castle Mountains National Monument
Cesar E. Chavez National Monument
Channel Islands National Park
Death Valley National Park
Devils Postpile National Monument
Fort Point National Historic Site
Golden Gate National Recreation Area
John Muir National Historic Site
Joshua Tree National Park
Lassen Volcanic National Park
Lava Beds National Monument
Mojave National Preserve
Muir Woods National Monument
Pinnacles National Park
Point Reyes National Seashore
Redwood National Park
Rosie the Riveter WWII Home Front National Historical Park
San Francisco Maritime National Historical Park
Santa Monica Mountains National Recreation Area
Sequoia & Kings Canyon National Parks
Tule Lake National Monument
Whiskeytown National Recreation Area
Yosemite National Park

Colorado

Bent's Old Fort National Historical Site
Black Canyon of The Gunnison National Park
Colorado National Monument
Curecanti National Recreation Area
Dinosaur National Monument
Florissant Fossil Beds National Monument
Great Sand Dunes National Park & Preserve
Hovenweep National Monument
Mesa Verde National Park
Rocky Mountain National Park
Santa Fe National Historic Trail
Yucca House National Monument

Connecticut

Quinebaug & Shetucket Rivers Valley National Heritage Corridor

Delaware

Captain John Smith Chesapeake National Historic Trail
First State National Historical Park

District of Columbia

Anacostia Park
Capitol Hill Parks
Captain John Smith Chesapeake National Historic Trail
Chesapeake & Ohio Canal National Historical Park
Chesapeake Bay Gateways Network
Kenilworth Park & Aquatic Gardens
Meridian Hill Park
National Capital Parks-East

[[Page 67893]]

National Mall & Memorial Parks
Potomac Heritage National Scenic Trail

Florida

Big Cypress National Preserve
Biscayne National Park
Canaveral National Seashore
Castillo De San Marcos National Monument
De Soto National Memorial
Dry Tortugas National Park
Everglades National Park
Fort Caroline National Memorial
Fort Matanzas National Monument
Gulf Islands National Seashore
Timucuan Ecological and Historical Preserve

Georgia

Augusta Canal National Heritage Area
Chattahoochee River National Recreation Area
Chickamauga & Chattanooga National Military Park
Cumberland Island National Seashore
Fort Frederica National Monument
Fort Pulaski National Monument
Jimmy Carter National Historic Site
Martin Luther King, Jr. National Historical Park
Ocmulgee National Historical Park

Guam

War in The Pacific National Historical Park

Hawaii

Haleakala National Park
Hawai'i Volcanoes National Park
Kalaupapa National Historical Park
Kaloko-Honokohau National Historical Park
Pu`uhonua O Honaunau National Historical Park
Puukohola Heiau National Historical Site

Idaho

City of Rocks National Reserve
Craters Of The Moon National Monument and Preserve
Hagerman Fossil Beds National Monument
Lewis & Clark National Historic Trail
Minidoka Internment National Monument
Nez Perce National Historical Park
Yellowstone National Park

Illinois

Lewis & Clark National Historic Trail
Pullman National Monument
Trail Of Tears National Historic Trail

Indiana

George Rogers Clark National Historical Park
Indiana Dunes National Park
Lincoln Boyhood National Memorial

Iowa

Effigy Mounds National Monument
Lewis & Clark National Historic Trail

Kansas

Lewis & Clark National Historic Trail
Tallgrass Prairie National Preserve

Kentucky

Abraham Lincoln Birthplace National Historical Park
Big South Fork National River and Recreation Area
Camp Nelson National Monument
Cumberland Gap National Historical Park
Mammoth Cave National Park
Trail Of Tears National Historic Trail

Louisiana

Cane River National Heritage Area
Cane River Creole National Historical Park
Jean Lafitte National Historical Park and Preserve
New Orleans Jazz National Historical Park
Poverty Point National Monument

Maine

Acadia National Park
Katahdin Woods and Waters National Monument
Roosevelt Campobello International Park
Saint Croix Island International Historic Site

Maryland

Antietam National Battlefield
Assateague Island National Seashore
Captain John Smith Chesapeake National Historic Trail
Catoctin Mountain Park
Chesapeake & Ohio Canal National Historical Park
Chesapeake Bay Gateways Network
Clara Barton National Historic Site
Fort Foote Park
Fort McHenry National Monument and Historic Shrine
Fort Washington Park
Glen Echo Park
Greenbelt Park
Harmony Hall
Harpers Ferry National Historical Park
Harriet Tubman Underground Railroad National Historical Park
Monocacy National Battlefield
Oxon Cove Park & Oxon Hill Farm
Piscataway Park
Potomac Heritage National Scenic Trail
Thomas Stone National Historic Site

Massachusetts

Adams National Historical Park
Blackstone River Valley National Heritage Corridor
Boston National Historical Park
Boston African American National Historic Site
Boston Harbor Islands National Recreation Area
Cape Cod National Seashore
Essex National Heritage Area
Lowell National Historical Park
Minute Man National Historic Site
New Bedford Whaling National Historical Park
Salem Maritime National Historic Site
Saugus Iron Works National Historic Site
Springfield Armory National Historic Site

Michigan

Isle Royale National Park
Keweenaw National Historical Park
Pictured Rocks National Lakeshore
Sleeping Bear Dunes National Lakeshore

Minnesota

Grand Portage National Monument
Mississippi National River and Recreation Area
Pipestone National Monument
Saint Croix National Scenic Riverway
Voyageurs National Park

Mississippi

Gulf Islands National Seashore
Natchez National Historical Park
Natchez Trace National Scenic Trail

Missouri

Gateway Arch National Park
George Washington Carver National Monument
Jefferson National Expansion Memorial
Lewis & Clark National Historic Trail
Ozark National Scenic Riverways
Sainte Genevieve National Historical Park
Trail Of Tears National Historic Trail
Wilson's Creek National Battlefield

Montana

Bighorn Canyon National Recreation Area
Glacier National Park
Lewis & Clark National Historic Trail
Little Bighorn Battlefield National Monument
Nez Perce National Historical Park
Yellowstone National Park

Nebraska

Agate Fossil Beds National Monument
Homestead National Monument of America
Lewis & Clark National Historic Trail
Niobrara National Scenic River
Scotts Bluff National Monument

Nevada

Death Valley National Park
Great Basin National Park
Lake Mead National Recreation Area
Tule Springs Fossil Beds

New Hampshire

Saint-Gaudens National Historical Park

New Jersey

Appalachian National Scenic Trail
Delaware National Scenic River
Delaware Water Gap National Recreation Area
Ellis Island National Monument
Gateway National Recreation Area
Great Egg Harbor River
Lower Delaware National Wild and Scenic River
Morristown National Historical Park
New Jersey Pinelands National Reserve
Paterson Great Falls National Historical Park
Thomas Edison National Historical Park

New Mexico

Aztec Ruins National Monument
Bandelier National Monument
Capulin Volcano National Monument
Carlsbad Caverns National Park
Chaco Culture National Historical Park
El Malpais National Monument
El Morro National Monument
Fort Union National Monument
Gila Cliff Dwellings National Monument
Manhattan Project National Historical Park
Pecos National Historical Park
Petroglyph National Monument
Salinas Pueblo Missions National Monument
Valles Caldera National Preserve
White Sands National Park

New York

African Burial Ground National Monument
Castle Clinton National Monument
Chesapeake Bay Gateways Network
Ellis Island National Monument

[[Page 67894]]

Erie Canalway National Heritage Corridor
Fire Island National Seashore
Fort Stanwix National Monument
Gateway National Recreation Area
Governors Island National Monument
Harriet Tubman National Historical Park
Hudson River Valley National Heritage Area
National Parks of New York Harbor
Saratoga National Historical Park
Statue Of Liberty National Monument
Stonewall National Monument
Upper Delaware Scenic and Recreational River
Women's Rights National Historical Park

North Carolina

Blue Ridge National Heritage Area
Cape Hatteras National Seashore
Cape Lookout National Seashore
Great Smoky Mountains National Park
Wright Brothers National Monument

North Dakota

Fort Union Trading Post National Historic Site
Lewis & Clark National Historic Trail
Theodore Roosevelt National Park

Northern Mariana Islands

American Memorial Park

Ohio

Charles Young Buffalo Soldiers National Monument
Cuyahoga Valley National Park
Dayton Aviation Heritage National Historical Park
Hopewell Culture National Historical Park
Perry's Victory & International Peace Memorial

Oklahoma

Chickasaw National Recreation Area
Trail Of Tears National Historic Trail

Oregon

Crater Lake National Park
Fort Vancouver National Historic Site
John Day Fossil Beds National Monument
Lewis & Clark National Historic Trail
Lewis and Clark National Historical Park
Nez Perce National Historical Park
Oregon Caves National Monument

Pennsylvania

Chesapeake Bay Gateways Network
Delaware National Scenic River
Delaware & Lehigh National Heritage Corridor
Delaware Water Gap National Recreation Area
First State National Historical Park
Independence National Historical Park
Johnstown Flood National Memorial
Lackawanna Heritage Valley
Lower Delaware National Wild and Scenic River
Potomac Heritage National Scenic Trail
Rivers Of Steel National Heritage Area
Schuylkill River Valley National Heritage Area
Upper Delaware Scenic and Recreational River
Valley Forge National Historical Park

Rhode Island

Blackstone River Valley National Historical Park

South Carolina

Congaree National Park
Fort Moultrie National Monument
Fort Sumter National Historical Park

South Dakota

Badlands National Park
Jewel Cave National Monument
Lewis & Clark National Historic Trail
Missouri Recreational River
Wind Cave National Park

Tennessee

Big South Fork National River and Recreation Area
Cumberland Gap National Historical Park
Great Smoky Mountains National Park
Manhattan Project National Historical Park
Obed Wild and Scenic River

Texas

Alibates Flint Quarries National Monument
Amistad National Recreation Area
Big Bend National Park
Big Thicket National Preserve
Chamizal National Memorial
Guadalupe Mountains National Park
Lake Meredith National Recreation Area
Lyndon B Johnson National Historical Park
Padre Island National Seashore
Rio Grande Wild and Scenic River
San Antonio Missions National Historical Park
Waco Mammoth National Monument

Utah

Arches National Park
Bryce Canyon National Park
Canyonlands National Park
Capitol Reef National Park
Cedar Breaks National Monument
Dinosaur National Monument
Glen Canyon National Recreation Area
Golden Spike National Historical Park
Hovenweep National Monument
Natural Bridges National Monument
Rainbow Bridge National Monument
Timpanogos Cave National Monument
Zion National Park

Vermont

Marsh-Billings-Rockefeller National Historical Park

Virgin Islands

Buck Island Reef National Monument
Salt River Bay National Historical Park and Ecological Reserve
Virgin Islands National Park
Virgin Islands Coral Reef National Monument

Virginia

Appomattox Court House National Historical Park
Assateague Island National Seashore
Booker T Washington National Monument
Cape Henry Memorial
Captain John Smith Chesapeake National Historic Trail
Cedar Creek & Belle Grove National Historical Park
Chesapeake Bay Gateways Network
Colonial National Historical Park
Cumberland Gap National Historical Park
Fort Monroe National Monument
Fredericksburg & Spotsylvania National Military Park
George Washington Birthplace National Monument
Great Falls Park
Harpers Ferry National Historical Park
Historic Jamestowne
Lyndon Baines Johnson Memorial Grove on the Potomac
Potomac Heritage National Scenic Trail
Prince William Forest Park
Shenandoah National Park
Theodore Roosevelt Island Park
Yorktown Battlefield

Washington

Ebey's Landing National Historical Reserve
Fort Vancouver National Historic Site
Lake Chelan National Recreation Area
Lake Roosevelt National Recreation Area
Lewis & Clark National Historic Park
Manhattan Project National Historical Park
Mount Rainier National Park
Nez Perce National Historical Park
North Cascades National Park
Olympic National Park
Ross Lake National Recreation Area
San Juan Island National Historical Park

West Virginia

Bluestone National Scenic River
Chesapeake Bay Gateways Network
Gauley River National Recreation Area
Harpers Ferry National Historical Park
New River Gorge National River

Wisconsin

Apostle Islands National Lakeshore
Saint Croix National Scenic Riverway

Wyoming

Bighorn Canyon National Recreation Area
Devils Tower National Monument
Fossil Butte National Monument
Grand Teton National Park
Yellowstone National Park

A.4 National Wildlife Refuges

    Refuges that have boundaries in multiple states are listed only 
in the state where the main visitor entrance is located. Maps of 
each national wildlife refuge are available at https://www.fws.gov/refuges.

Alabama

Bon Secour National Wildlife Refuge
Cahaba River National Wildlife Refuge
Choctaw National Wildlife Refuge
Eufaula National Wildlife Refuge
Fern Cave National Wildlife Refuge
Key Cave National Wildlife Refuge
Mountain Longleaf National Wildlife Refuge
Sauta Cave National Wildlife Refuge
Watercress Darter National Wildlife Refuge
Wheeler National Wildlife Refuge

Alaska

Alaska Maritime National Wildlife Refuge
Alaska Peninsula National Wildlife Refuge
Arctic National Wildlife Refuge
Becharof National Wildlife Refuge
Innoko National Wildlife Refuge
Izembek National Wildlife Refuge
Kanuti National Wildlife Refuge
Kenai National Wildlife Refuge
Kodiak National Wildlife Refuge
Koyukuk National Wildlife Refuge
Nowitna National Wildlife Refuge
Selawik National Wildlife Refuge

[[Page 67895]]

Tetlin National Wildlife Refuge
Togiak National Wildlife Refuge
Yukon Delta Flats National Wildlife Refuge
Yukon Delta National Wildlife Refuge

Arizona

Bill Williams River National Wildlife Refuge
Buenos Aires National Wildlife Refuge
Cabeza Prieta National Wildlife Refuge
Cibola National Wildlife Refuge
Havasu National Wildlife Refuge
Imperial National Wildlife Refuge
Kofa National Wildlife Refuge
Leslie Canyon National Wildlife Refuge
San Bernardino National Wildlife Refuge

Arkansas

Bald Knob National Wildlife Refuge
Big Lake National Wildlife Refuge
Cache River National Wildlife Refuge
Felsenthal National Wildlife Refuge
Holla Bend National Wildlife Refuge
Logan Cave National Wildlife Refuge
Overflow National Wildlife Refuge
Pond Creek National Wildlife Refuge
Wapanocca National Wildlife Refuge
White River National Wildlife Refuge

California

Antioch Dunes National Wildlife Refuge
Bitter Creek National Wildlife Refuge
Blue Ridge National Wildlife Refuge
Butte Sink Wildlife Management Area
Castle Rock National Wildlife Refuge
Clear Lake National Wildlife Refuge
Coachella Valley National Wildlife Refuge
Colusa National Wildlife Refuge
Delevan National Wildlife Refuge
Don Edwards San Francisco Bay National Wildlife Refuge
Ellicott Slough National Wildlife Refuge
Farallon Islands National Wildlife Refuge
Grasslands Wildlife Management Area
Grulla National Wildlife Refuge
Hopper Mountain National Wildlife Refuge
Humboldt Bay National Wildlife Refuge
Kern National Wildlife Refuge
Kesterton National Wildlife Refuge
Lower Klamath National Wildlife Refuge
Marin Islands National Wildlife Refuge
Merced National Wildlife Refuge
Modoc National Wildlife Refuge
North Central Valley Wildlife Management Area
Pixley National Wildlife Refuge
Sacramento National Wildlife Refuge
Sacramento River National Wildlife Refuge
Salinas River National Wildlife Refuge
San Diego Bay National Wildlife Refuge
San Diego National Wildlife Refuge
San Joaquin River National Wildlife Refuge
San Luis National Wildlife Refuge
San Pablo Bay National Wildlife Refuge
Seal Beach National Wildlife Refuge
Sonny Bono Salton Sea National Wildlife Refuge
Stone Lakes National Wildlife Refuge
Sutter National Wildlife Refuge
Tijuana Slough National Wildlife Refuge
Tule Lake National Wildlife Refuge
Willow Creek-Lurline Wildlife Management Area
Windom Wetland Management District

Colorado

Alamosa National Wildlife Refuge
Arapaho National Wildlife Refuge
Baca National Wildlife Refuge
Browns Park National Wildlife Refuge
Monte Vista National Wildlife Refuge
Rocky Flats National Wildlife Refuge
Rocky Mountain Arsenal National Wildlife Refuge
Two Ponds National Wildlife Refuge

Connecticut

Stewart B. McKinney National Wildlife Refuge

Delaware

Bombay Hook National Wildlife Refuge
Prime Hook National Wildlife Refuge

Florida

Archie Carr National Wildlife Refuge
Arthur R. Marshall Loxahatchee National Wildlife Refuge
Caloosahatchee National Wildlife Refuge
Cedar Keys National Wildlife Refuge
Chassahowitzka National Wildlife Refuge
Crocodile Lake National Wildlife Refuge
Crystal River National Wildlife Refuge
Egmont Key National Wildlife Refuge
Everglades Headwaters NWR and Conservation Area
Florida Panther National Wildlife Refuge
Great White Heron National Wildlife Refuge
Hobe Sound National Wildlife Refuge
Island Bay National Wildlife Refuge
J.N. ``Ding'' Darling National Wildlife Refuge
Key West National Wildlife Refuge
Lake Wales Ridge National Wildlife Refuge
Lake Woodruff National Wildlife Refuge
Lower Suwannee National Wildlife Refuge
Matlacha Pass National Wildlife Refuge
Merritt Island National Wildlife Refuge
National Key Deer Refuge
Passage Key National Wildlife Refuge
Pelican Island National Wildlife Refuge
Pine Island National Wildlife Refuge
Pinellas National Wildlife Refuge
St. Johns National Wildlife Refuge
St. Marks National Wildlife Refuge
St. Vincent National Wildlife Refuge
Ten Thousand Islands National Wildlife Refuge

Georgia

Banks Lake National Wildlife Refuge
Blackbeard Island National Wildlife Refuge
Bond Swamp National Wildlife Refuge
Harris Neck National Wildlife Refuge
Okefenokee National Wildlife Refuge
Piedmont National Wildlife Refuge
Wassaw National Wildlife Refuge
Wolf Island National Wildlife Refuge

Guam

Guadalupe-Nipomo Dunes National Wildlife Refuge

Hawaii

Hailstone National Wildlife Refuge
Hakalau Forest National Wildlife Refuge
Hanalei National Wildlife Refuge
Hawaiian Islands National Wildlife Refuge
Hule'ia National Wildlife Refuge
James Campbell National Wildlife Refuge
Kakahaia National Wildlife Refuge
Kealia Pond National Wildlife Refuge
Kilauea Point National Wildlife Refuge
Oahu Forest National Wildlife Refuge
Pearl Harbor National Wildlife Refuge
Rose Atoll National Wildlife Refuge

Idaho

Bear Lake National Wildlife Refuge
Camas National Wildlife Refuge
Deer Flat National Wildlife Refuge
Grays Lake National Wildlife Refuge
Kootenai National Wildlife Refuge
Minidoka National Wildlife Refuge
Oxford Slough Waterfowl Production Area

Illinois

Chautauqua National Wildlife Refuge
Crab Orchard National Wildlife Refuge
Cypress Creek National Wildlife Refuge
Emiquon National Wildlife Refuge
Hagerman National Wildlife Refuge
Kankakee NWR and Conservation Area
Meredosia National Wildlife Refuge
Middle Mississippi River National Wildlife Refuge
Two Rivers National Wildlife Refuge

Indiana

Big Oaks National Wildlife Refuge
Muscatatuck National Wildlife Refuge
Patoka River National Wildlife Refuge and Wildlife Management Area

Iowa

DeSoto National Wildlife Refuge
Driftless Area National Wildlife Refuge
Iowa Wetland Management District
Neal Smith National Wildlife Refuge
Port Louisa National Wildlife Refuge
Union Slough National Wildlife Refuge

Kansas

Flint Hills National Wildlife Refuge
Kirwin National Wildlife Refuge
Marais des Cygnes National Wildlife Refuge
Quivira National Wildlife Refuge

Kentucky

Clarks River National Wildlife Refuge
Green River National Wildlife Refuge

Louisiana

Atchafalaya National Wildlife Refuge
Bayou Cocodrie National Wildlife Refuge
Bayou Sauvage National Wildlife Refuge
Bayou Teche National Wildlife Refuge
Big Branch Marsh National Wildlife Refuge
Black Bayou Lake National Wildlife Refuge
Bogue Chitto National Wildlife Refuge
Breton National Wildlife Refuge
Cameron Prairie National Wildlife Refuge
Cat Island National Wildlife Refuge
Catahoula National Wildlife Refuge
D'Arbonne National Wildlife Refuge
Delta National Wildlife Refuge
Grand Cote National Wildlife Refuge
Handy Brake National Wildlife Refuge
Lacassine National Wildlife Refuge
Lake Ophelia National Wildlife Refuge
Louisiana Wetland Management District
Mandalay National Wildlife Refuge
Red River National Wildlife Refuge
Sabine National Wildlife Refuge
Shell Keys National Wildlife Refuge
Tensas River National Wildlife Refuge
Upper Ouachita National Wildlife Refuge

Maine

Aroostook National Wildlife Refuge
Carlton Pond Waterfowl Production Area
Cross Island National Wildlife Refuge
Franklin Island National Wildlife Refuge

[[Page 67896]]

Maine Coastal Islands National Wildlife Refuge
Moosehorn National Wildlife Refuge
Petit Manan National Wildlife Refuge
Pond Island National Wildlife Refuge
Rachel Carson National Wildlife Refuge
Seal Island National Wildlife Refuge
Sunkhaze Meadows National Wildlife Refuge

Maryland

Blackwater National Wildlife Refuge
Eastern Neck National Wildlife Refuge
Glenn Martin National Wildlife Refuge
Patuxent Research Refuge
Susquehanna River National Wildlife Refuge

Massachusetts

Assabet River National Wildlife Refuge
Great Meadows National Wildlife Refuge
Mashpee National Wildlife Refuge
Massasoit National Wildlife Refuge
Monomoy National Wildlife Refuge
Nantucket National Wildlife Refuge
Nomans Land Island National Wildlife Refuge
Oxbow National Wildlife Refuge
Parker River National Wildlife Refuge
Silvio O. Conte National Fish & Wildlife Refuge
Thacher Island National Wildlife Refuge

Michigan

Detroit River International Wildlife Refuge
Harbor Island National Wildlife Refuge
Huron National Wildlife Refuge
Kirtlands Warbler Wildlife Management Area
Michigan Islands National Wildlife Refuge
Michigan Wetland Management District
Seney National Wildlife Refuge
Shiawassee National Wildlife Refuge

Minnesota

Agassiz National Wildlife Refuge
Big Stone National Wildlife Refuge
Big Stone Wetland Management District
Crane Meadows National Wildlife Refuge
Detroit Lakes Wetland Management District
Fergus Falls Wetland Management District
Glacial Ridge National Wildlife Refuge
Hamden Slough National Wildlife Refuge
Litchfield Wetland Management District
Mille Lacs National Wildlife Refuge
Minnesota Valley National Wildlife Refuge
Minnesota Valley Wetland Management District
Morris Wetland Management District
Northern Tallgrass Prairie National Wildlife Refuge
Rice Lake National Wildlife Refuge
Rydell National Wildlife Refuge
Sherburne National Wildlife Refuge
Tamarac National Wildlife Refuge
Tamarac Wetland Management District
Upper Mississippi River National Wildlife & Fish Refuge

Mississippi

Coldwater River National Wildlife Refuge
Dahomey National Wildlife Refuge
Grand Bay National Wildlife Refuge
Hillside National Wildlife Refuge
Holt Collier National Wildlife Refuge
Mathews Brake National Wildlife Refuge
Mississippi Sandhill Crane National Wildlife Refuge
Morgan Brake National Wildlife Refuge
Panther Swamp National Wildlife Refuge
Sam D. Hamilton Noxubee National Wildlife Refuge
St. Catherine Creek National Wildlife Refuge
Tallahatchie National Wildlife Refuge
Theodore Roosevelt National Wildlife Refuge
Yazoo National Wildlife Refuge

Missouri

Big Muddy National Fish & Wildlife Refuge
Clarence Cannon National Wildlife Refuge
Great River National Wildlife Refuge
Loess Bluffs National Wildlife Refuge
Mingo National Wildlife Refuge
Ozark Cavefish National Wildlife Refuge
Pilot Knob National Wildlife Refuge
Swan Lake National Wildlife Refuge

Montana

Benton Lake National Wildlife Refuge
Benton Lake Wetland Management District
Black Coulee National Wildlife Refuge
Bowdoin National Wildlife Refuge
Bowdoin Wetland Management District
Charles M. Russell National Wildlife Refuge
Creedman Coulee National Wildlife Refuge
Grass Lake NWR
Hackmatack National Wildlife Refuge
Hewitt Lake National Wildlife Refuge
Lake Mason National Wildlife Refuge
Lake Thibadeau National Wildlife Refuge
Lee Metcalf National Wildlife Refuge
Lost Trail National Wildlife Refuge
Medicine Lake National Wildlife Refuge
National Bison Range
Nine-pipe National Wildlife Refuge
Northeast Montana Wetland Management District
Northwest Montana Wetland Management District
Red Rock Lakes National Wildlife Refuge
Swan River National Wildlife Refuge
UL Bend National Wildlife Refuge
War Horse National Wildlife Refuge

Nebraska

Boyer Chute National Wildlife Refuge
Crescent Lake National Wildlife Refuge
Fort Niobrara National Wildlife Refuge
John W. and Louise Seier National Wildlife Refuge
North Platte National Wildlife Refuge
Rainwater Basin Wetland Management District
Valentine National Wildlife Refuge

Nevada

Anaho Island National Wildlife Refuge
Ash Meadows National Wildlife Refuge
Desert National Wildlife Range
Fallon National Wildlife Refuge
Moapa Valley National Wildlife Refuge
Pahranagat National Wildlife Refuge
Ruby Lake National Wildlife Refuge
Sheldon National Wildlife Refuge
Stillwater National Wildlife Refuge

New Hampshire

Great Bay National Wildlife Refuge
John Hay National Wildlife Refuge
Umbagog National Wildlife Refuge
Wapack National Wildlife Refuge

New Jersey

Cape May National Wildlife Refuge
Edwin B. Forsythe National Wildlife Refuge
Great Swamp National Wildlife Refuge
Supawna Meadows National Wildlife Refuge
Wallkill River National Wildlife Refuge

New Mexico

Bitter Lake National Wildlife Refuge
Bosque del Apache National Wildlife Refuge
Las Vegas National Wildlife Refuge
Maxwell National Wildlife Refuge
Rio Mora National Wildlife Refuge and Conservation Area
San Andres National Wildlife Refuge
Sevilleta National Wildlife Refuge
Valle De Oro National Wildlife Refuge

New York

Amagansett National Wildlife Refuge
Conscience Point National Wildlife Refuge
Elizabeth A. Morton National Wildlife Refuge
Great Thicket National Wildlife Refuge
Iroquois National Wildlife Refuge
Montezuma National Wildlife Refuge
Oyster Bay National Wildlife Refuge
Seatuck National Wildlife Refuge
Shawangunk Grasslands National Wildlife Refuge
Target Rock National Wildlife Refuge
Wallkill River National Wildlife Refuge
Wertheim National Wildlife Refuge

North Carolina

Alligator River National Wildlife Refuge
Cedar Island National Wildlife Refuge
Currituck National Wildlife Refuge
Mackay Island National Wildlife Refuge
Mattamuskeet National Wildlife Refuge
Mountain Bogs National Wildlife Refuge
Pea Island National Wildlife Refuge
Pee Dee National Wildlife Refuge
Pocosin Lakes National Wildlife Refuge
Roanoke River National Wildlife Refuge
Swanquarter National Wildlife Refuge

North Dakota

Arrowwood National Wildlife Refuge
Arrowwood Wetland Management District
Audubon National Wildlife Refuge
Audubon Wetland Management District
Chase Lake National Wildlife Refuge
Chase Lake Wetland Management District
Crosby Wetland Management District
Dakota Tallgrass Prairie Wildlife Management Area
Des Lacs National Wildlife Refuge
Devils Lake Wetland Management District
Florence Lake National Wildlife Refuge
J. Clark Salyer National Wildlife Refuge
J. Clark Salyer Wetland Management District
Kellys Slough National Wildlife Refuge
Kulm Wetland Management District
Lake Alice National Wildlife Refuge
Lake Ilo National Wildlife Refuge
Lake Nettie National Wildlife Refuge
Lake Zahl National Wildlife Refuge
Long Lake National Wildlife Refuge
Long Lake Wetland Management District
Lostwood National Wildlife Refuge
Lostwood Wetland Management District
McLean National Wildlife Refuge
Shell Lake National Wildlife Refuge
Slade National Wildlife Refuge
Stewart Lake National Wildlife Refuge
Sullys Hill National Game Preserve
Tewaukon National Wildlife Refuge
Tewaukon Wetland Management District
Upper Souris National Wildlife Refuge
Valley City Wetland Management District
White Horse Hill
White Lake National Wildlife Refuge

[[Page 67897]]

Northern Mariana Islands

Mariana Arc of Fire National Wildlife Refuge
Mariana Trench Marine National Monument
Palmyra Atoll National Wildlife Refuge
Wake Atoll National Wildlife Refuge

Ohio

Cedar Point National Wildlife Refuge
Ottawa National Wildlife Refuge
West Sister Island National Wildlife Refuge

Oklahoma

Deep Fork National Wildlife Refuge
Little River National Wildlife Refuge
Optima National Wildlife Refuge
Ozark Plateau National Wildlife Refuge
Salt Plains National Wildlife Refuge
Sequoyah National Wildlife Refuge
Tishomingo National Wildlife Refuge
Washita National Wildlife Refuge
Wichita Mountains Wildlife Refuge

Oregon

Ankeny National Wildlife Refuge
Bandon Marsh National Wildlife Refuge
Baskett Slough National Wildlife Refuge
Bear Valley National Wildlife Refuge
Cape Meares National Wildlife Refuge
Cold Springs National Wildlife Refuge
Hart Mountain National Antelope Refuge
Klamath Marsh National Wildlife Refuge
Malheur National Wildlife Refuge
McKay Creek National Wildlife Refuge
Nestucca Bay National Wildlife Refuge
Oregon Islands National Wildlife Refuge
Siletz Bay National Wildlife Refuge
Three Arch Rocks National Wildlife Refuge
Tualatin River National Wildlife Refuge
Upper Klamath National Wildlife Refuge
Wapato Lake National Wildlife Refuge
William L. Finley National Wildlife Refuge

Pennsylvania

Cherry Valley National Wildlife Range
Erie National Wildlife Refuge
John Heinz National Wildlife Refuge at Tinicum

Puerto Rico

Cabo Rojo National Wildlife Refuge
Culebra National Wildlife Refuge
Desecheo National Wildlife Refuge
Laguna Cartagena National Wildlife Refuge
Navassa Island National Wildlife Refuge
Vieques National Wildlife Refuge

Rhode Island

Block Island National Wildlife Refuge
John H. Chafee National Wildlife Refuge
Ninigret National Wildlife Refuge
Sachuest Point National Wildlife Refuge
Trustom Pond National Wildlife Refuge

South Carolina

Cape Romain National Wildlife Refuge
Carolina Sandhills National Wildlife Refuge
Ernest F. Hollings ACE Basin National Wildlife Refuge
Pinckney Island National Wildlife Refuge
Santee National Wildlife Refuge
Savannah National Wildlife Refuge
Tybee National Wildlife Refuge
Waccamaw National Wildlife Refuge

South Dakota

Huron Wetland Management District
Karl E. Mundt National Wildlife Refuge
Lacreek National Wildlife Refuge
Lake Andes National Wildlife Refuge
Madison Wetland Management District
Sand Lake National Wildlife Refuge
Sand Lake Wetland Management District
Waubay National Wildlife Refuge

Tennessee

Chickasaw National Wildlife Refuge
Cross Creeks National Wildlife Refuge
Hatchie National Wildlife Refuge
Lake Isom National Wildlife Refuge
Lower Hatchie National Wildlife Refuge
Reelfoot National Wildlife Refuge
Tennessee National Wildlife Refuge

Texas

Anahuac National Wildlife Refuge
Aransas National Wildlife Refuge
Attwater Prairie Chicken National Wildlife Refuge
Balcones Canyonlands National Wildlife Refuge
Big Boggy National Wildlife Refuge
Brazoria National Wildlife Refuge
Buffalo Lake National Wildlife Refuge
Caddo Lake National Wildlife Refuge
Guam National Wildlife Refuge
Laguna Atascosa National Wildlife Refuge
Lower Rio Grande Valley National Wildlife Refuge
McFaddin National Wildlife Refuge
Muleshoe National Wildlife Refuge
Neches River National Wildlife Refuge
San Bernard National Wildlife Refuge
Santa Ana National Wildlife Refuge
Texas Point National Wildlife Refuge
Trinity River National Wildlife Refuge

United States Minor Outlying Islands

Baker Island National Wildlife Refuge
Howland Island National Wildlife Refuge
Jarvis Island National Wildlife Refuge
Johnston Atoll National Wildlife Refuge
Kingman Reef National Wildlife Refuge
Midway Atoll National Wildlife Refuge

Utah

Bear River Migratory Bird Refuge
Fish Springs National Wildlife Refuge
Ouray National Wildlife Refuge

Vermont

Missisquoi National Wildlife Refuge

Virgin Islands

Buck Island National Wildlife Refuge
Green Cay National Wildlife Refuge
Sandy Point National Wildlife Refuge

Virginia

Back Bay National Wildlife Refuge
Chincoteague National Wildlife Refuge
Eastern Shore of Virginia National Wildlife Refuge
Elizabeth Hartwell Mason Neck National Wildlife Refuge
Featherstone National Wildlife Refuge
Fisherman Island National Wildlife Refuge
Great Dismal Swamp National Wildlife Refuge
James River National Wildlife Refuge
Nansemond National Wildlife Refuge
Occoquan Bay National Wildlife Refuge
Plum Tree Island National Wildlife Refuge
Presquile National Wildlife Refuge
Rappahannock River Valley National Wildlife Refuge
Wallops Island National Wildlife Refuge

Washington

Billy Frank Jr. Nisqually National Wildlife Refuge
Columbia National Wildlife Refuge
Conboy Lake National Wildlife Refuge
Copalis National Wildlife Refuge
Dungeness National Wildlife Refuge
Flattery Rocks National Wildlife Refuge
Franz Lake National Wildlife Refuge
Grays Harbor National Wildlife Refuge
Hanford Reach National Monument
Julia Butler Hansen Refuge for the Columbian White-Tailed Deer
Lewis and Clark National Wildlife Refuge
Little Pend Oreille National Wildlife Refuge
McNary National Wildlife Refuge
Pierce National Wildlife Refuge
Protection Island National Wildlife Refuge
Quillayute Needles National Wildlife Refuge
Ridgefield National Wildlife Refuge
Saddle Mountain National Wildlife Refuge
San Juan Islands National Wildlife Refuge
Steigerwald Lake National Wildlife Refuge
Toppenish National Wildlife Refuge
Turnbull National Wildlife Refuge
Umatilla National Wildlife Refuge
Willapa National Wildlife Refuge

West Virginia

Canaan Valley National Wildlife Refuge
Ohio River Islands National Wildlife Refuge

Wisconsin

Fox River National Wildlife Refuge
Gravel Island National Wildlife Refuge
Green Bay National Wildlife Refuge
Hagerman National Wildlife Refuge
Horicon National Wildlife Refuge
Leopold Wetland Management District
Necedah National Wildlife Refuge
St. Croix Wetland Management District
St. Croix Wetland Management District
Trempealeau National Wildlife Refuge
Whittlesey Creek National Wildlife Refuge

Wyoming

Bamforth National Wildlife Refuge
Cokeville Meadows National Wildlife Refuge
Hutton Lake National Wildlife Refuge
Mortenson Lake National Wildlife Refuge
National Elk Refuge National Wildlife Refuge
Pathfinder National Wildlife Refuge
Seedskadee National Wildlife Refuge

A.5 National Wilderness Areas

Alabama

Cheaha Wilderness
Dugger Mountain Wilderness
Sipsey Wilderness

Alaska

Aleutian Islands Wilderness
Andreafsky Wilderness
Becharof Wilderness
Bering Sea Wilderness
Bogoslof Wilderness
Chamisso Wilderness
Chuck River Wilderness
Coronation Island Wilderness
Denali Wilderness
Endicott River Wilderness
Forrester Island Wilderness
Gates of the Arctic Wilderness
Glacier Bay Wilderness

[[Page 67898]]

Hazy Islands Wilderness
Innoko Wilderness
Izembek Wilderness
Jay S. Hammond Wilderness
Karta River Wilderness
Katmai Wilderness
Kenai Wilderness
Kobuk Valley Wilderness
Kootznoowoo Wilderness
Koyukuk Wilderness
Kuiu Wilderness
Maurille Islands Wilderness
Misty Fjords National Monument Wilderness
Mollie Beattie Wilderness
Noatak Wilderness
Nunivak Wilderness
Petersburg Creek-Duncan Salt Chuck Wilderness
Pleasant/Lemusurier/Inian Islands Wilderness
Russell Fjord Wilderness
Saint Lazaria Wilderness
Selawik Wilderness
Semidi Wilderness
Simeonof Wilderness
South Baranof Wilderness
South Etolin Wilderness
South Prince of Wales Wilderness
Stikine-LeConte Wilderness
Tebenkof Bay Wilderness
Togiak Wilderness
Tracy Arm-Fords Terror Wilderness
Tuxedni Wilderness
Unimak Wilderness
Warren Island Wilderness
West Chichagof-Yakobi Wilderness
Wrangell-Saint Elias Wilderness

Arizona

Apache Creek Wilderness
Aravaipa Canyon Wilderness
Arrastra Mountain Wilderness
Aubrey Peak Wilderness
Baboquivari Peak Wilderness
Bear Wallow Wilderness
Beaver Dam Mountains Wilderness
Big Horn Mountains Wilderness
Cabeza Prieta Wilderness
Castle Creek Wilderness
Cedar Bench Wilderness
Chiricahua National Monument Wilderness
Chiricahua Wilderness
Cottonwood Point Wilderness
Coyote Mountains Wilderness
Dos Cabezas Mountains Wilderness
Eagletail Mountains Wilderness
East Cactus Plain Wilderness
Escudilla Wilderness
Fishhooks Wilderness
Fossil Springs Wilderness
Four Peaks Wilderness
Galiuro Wilderness
Gibraltar Mountain Wilderness
Grand Wash Cliffs Wilderness
Granite Mountain Wilderness
Harcuvar Mountains Wilderness
Harquahala Mountains Wilderness
Hassayampa River Canyon Wilderness
Havasu Wilderness
Hells Canyon Wilderness
Hellsgate Wilderness
Hummingbird Springs Wilderness
Imperial Refuge Wilderness
Juniper Mesa Wilderness
Kachina Peaks Wilderness
Kanab Creek Wilderness
Kendrick Mountain Wilderness
Kofa Wilderness
Mazatzal Wilderness
Miller Peak Wilderness
Mount Baldy Wilderness
Mount Logan Wilderness
Mount Nutt Wilderness
Mount Tipton Wilderness
Mount Trumbull Wilderness
Mount Wilson Wilderness
Mt. Wrightson Wilderness
Muggins Mountain Wilderness
Munds Mountain Wilderness
Needle's Eye Wilderness
New Water Mountains Wilderness
North Maricopa Mountains Wilderness
North Santa Teresa Wilderness
Organ Pipe Cactus Wilderness
Paiute Wilderness
Pajarita Wilderness
Paria Canyon-Vermilion Cliffs Wilderness
Peloncillo Mountains Wilderness
Petrified Forest National Wilderness Area
Pine Mountain Wilderness
Pusch Ridge Wilderness
Rawhide Mountains Wilderness
Red Rock-Secret Mountain Wilderness
Redfield Canyon Wilderness
Rincon Mountain Wilderness
Saddle Mountain Wilderness
Saguaro Wilderness
Salome Wilderness
Salt River Canyon Wilderness
Santa Teresa Wilderness
Sierra Ancha Wilderness
Sierra Estrella Wilderness
Signal Mountain Wilderness
South Maricopa Mountains Wilderness
Strawberry Crater Wilderness
Superstition Wilderness
Swansea Wilderness
Sycamore Canyon Wilderness
Table Top Wilderness
Tres Alamos Wilderness
Trigo Mountain Wilderness
Upper Burro Creek Wilderness
Wabayuma Peak Wilderness
Warm Springs Wilderness
West Clear Creek Wilderness
Wet Beaver Wilderness
White Canyon Wilderness
Woodchute Wilderness
Woolsey Peak Wilderness

Arkansas

Big Lake Wilderness
Black Fork Mountain Wilderness
Buffalo National River Wilderness
Caney Creek Wilderness
Dry Creek Wilderness
East Fork Wilderness
Flatside Wilderness
Hurricane Creek Wilderness
Leatherwood Wilderness
Poteau Mountain Wilderness
Richland Creek Wilderness
Upper Buffalo Wilderness

California

Agua Tibia Wilderness
Ansel Adams Wilderness
Argus Range Wilderness
Avawatz Mountains Wilderness
Beauty Mountain Wilderness
Big Maria Mountains Wilderness
Bigelow Cholla Garden Wilderness
Bighorn Mountain Wilderness
Black Mountain Wilderness
Bright Star Wilderness
Bristol Mountains Wilderness
Bucks Lake Wilderness
Buzzards Peak Wilderness
Cache Creek Wilderness
Cadiz Dunes Wilderness
Cahuilla Mountain Wilderness
Caribou Wilderness
Carrizo Gorge Wilderness
Carson-Iceberg Wilderness
Castle Crags Wilderness
Cedar Roughs Wilderness
Chanchelulla Wilderness
Chemehuevi Mountains Wilderness
Chimney Peak Wilderness
Chuckwalla Mountains Wilderness
Chumash Wilderness
Cleghorn Lakes Wilderness
Clipper Mountain Wilderness
Coso Range Wilderness
Coyote Mountains Wilderness
Cucamonga Wilderness
Darwin Falls Wilderness
Dead Mountains Wilderness
Death Valley Wilderness
Desolation Wilderness
Dick Smith Wilderness
Dinkey Lakes Wilderness
Domeland Wilderness
El Paso Mountains Wilderness
Elkhorn Ridge Wilderness
Emigrant Wilderness
Farallon Wilderness
Fish Creek Mountains Wilderness
Funeral Mountains Wilderness
Garcia Wilderness
Golden Trout Wilderness
Golden Valley Wilderness
Granite Chief Wilderness
Granite Mountain Wilderness
Grass Valley Wilderness
Great Falls Basin Wilderness
Hain Wilderness
Hauser Wilderness
Havasu Wilderness
Hollow Hills Wilderness
Hoover Wilderness
Ibex Wilderness
Imperial Refuge Wilderness
Indian Pass Wilderness
Inyo Mountains Wilderness
Ishi Wilderness
Jacumba Wilderness
Jennie Lakes Wilderness
John Krebs Wilderness
John Muir Wilderness
Joshua Tree Wilderness
Kaiser Wilderness
Kelso Dunes Wilderness
Kiavah Wilderness
King Range Wilderness
Kingston Range Wilderness
Lassen Volcanic Wilderness
Lava Beds Wilderness
Little Chuckwalla Mountains Wilderness
Little Picacho Wilderness
Machesna Mountain Wilderness
Magic Mountain Wilderness
Malpais Mesa Wilderness
Manly Peak Wilderness
Marble Mountain Wilderness
Matilija Wilderness
Mecca Hills Wilderness
Mesquite Wilderness

[[Page 67899]]

Milpitas Wash Wilderness
Mojave Wilderness
Mokelumne Wilderness
Monarch Wilderness
Mount Lassic Wilderness
Mt. Shasta Wilderness
Newberry Mountains Wilderness
Nopah Range Wilderness
North Algodones Dunes Wilderness
North Fork Wilderness
North Mesquite Mountains Wilderness
Old Woman Mountains Wilderness
Orocopia Mountains Wilderness
Otay Mountain Wilderness
Owens Peak Wilderness
Owens River Headwaters
Wilderness Pahrump Valley Wilderness
Palen/McCoy Wilderness
Palo Verde Mountains Wilderness
Phillip Burton Wilderness
Picacho Peak Wilderness
Pine Creek Wilderness
Pinto Mountains Wilderness
Piper Mountain Wilderness
Piute Mountains Wilderness
Pleasant View Ridge Wilderness
Red Buttes Wilderness
Resting Spring Range Wilderness
Rice Valley Wilderness
Riverside Mountains Wilderness
Rocks and Islands Wilderness
Rodman Mountains Wilderness
Russian Wilderness
Sacatar Trail Wilderness
Saddle Peak Hills Wilderness
San Gabriel Wilderness
San Gorgonio Wilderness
San Jacinto Wilderness
San Mateo Canyon Wilderness
San Rafael Wilderness
Sanhedrin Wilderness
Santa Lucia Wilderness
Santa Rosa Wilderness
Sawtooth Mountains Wilderness
Sequoia-Kings Canyon Wilderness
Sespe Wilderness
Sheep Mountain Wilderness
Sheephole Valley Wilderness
Silver Peak Wilderness
Siskiyou Wilderness
Snow Mountain Wilderness
Soda Mountains Wilderness
South Fork Eel River Wilderness
South Fork San Jacinto Wilderness
South Nopah Range Wilderness
South Sierra Wilderness
South Warner Wilderness
Stateline Wilderness
Stepladder Mountains Wilderness
Surprise Canyon Wilderness
Sylvania Mountains Wilderness
Thousand Lakes Wilderness
Trilobite Wilderness
Trinity Alps Wilderness
Turtle Mountains Wilderness
Ventana Wilderness
Whipple Mountains Wilderness
White Mountains Wilderness
Yolla Bolly-Middle Eel Wilderness
Yosemite Wilderness
Yuki Wilderness

Colorado

Black Canyon of the Gunnison Wilderness
Black Ridge Canyons Wilderness
Buffalo Peaks Wilderness
Byers Peak Wilderness
Cache La Poudre Wilderness
Collegiate Peaks Wilderness
Comanche Peak Wilderness
Dominguez Canyon Wilderness
Eagles Nest Wilderness
Flat Tops Wilderness
Fossil Ridge Wilderness
Great Sand Dunes Wilderness
Greenhorn Mountain Wilderness
Gunnison Gorge Wilderness
Hermosa Creek Wilderness
Holy Cross Wilderness
Hunter-Fryingpan Wilderness
Indian Peaks Wilderness
James Peak Wilderness
La Garita Wilderness
Lizard Head Wilderness
Lost Creek Wilderness
Maroon Bells-Snowmass Wilderness
Mesa Verde Wilderness
Mount Evans Wilderness
Mount Massive Wilderness
Mount Sneffels Wilderness
Mount Zirkel Wilderness
Neota Wilderness
Never Summer Wilderness
Platte River Wilderness
Powderhorn Wilderness
Ptarmigan Peak Wilderness
Raggeds Wilderness
Rawah Wilderness
Rocky Mountain National Park Wilderness
Sangre de Cristo Wilderness
Sarvis Creek Wilderness
South San Juan Wilderness
Spanish Peaks Wilderness
Uncompahgre Wilderness
Vasquez Peak Wilderness
Weminuche Wilderness
West Elk Wilderness

Florida

Alexander Springs Wilderness
Big Gum Swamp Wilderness
Billies Bay Wilderness
Bradwell Bay Wilderness
Cedar Keys Wilderness
Chassahowitzka Wilderness
Florida Keys Wilderness
Island Bay Wilderness
J.N. ``Ding'' Darling Wilderness
Juniper Prairie Wilderness
Lake Woodruff Wilderness
Little Lake George Wilderness
Marjory Stoneman Douglas Wilderness
Mud Swamp/New River Wilderness
Passage Key Wilderness
Pelican Island Wilderness
St. Marks Wilderness

Georgia

Big Frog Wilderness
Blackbeard Island Wilderness
Blood Mountain Wilderness
Brasstown Wilderness
Cohutta Wilderness
Cumberland Island Wilderness
Ellicott Rock Wilderness
Mark Trail Wilderness
Okefenokee Wilderness
Raven Cliffs Wilderness
Rich Mountain Wilderness
Southern Nantahala Wilderness
Tray Mountain Wilderness
Wolf Island Wilderness

Hawaii

Hawaii Haleakala Wilderness
Hawaii Volcanoes Wilderness

Idaho

Big Jacks Creek Wilderness
Bruneau-Jarbidge Rivers Wilderness
Cecil D. Andrus-White Clouds Wilderness
Craters of the Moon National Wilderness Area
Frank Church-River of No Return Wilderness
Gospel-Hump Wilderness
Hells Canyon Wilderness
Hemingway-Boulders Wilderness
Jim McClure-Jerry Peak Wilderness
Little Jacks Creek Wilderness
North Fork Owyhee Wilderness
Owyhee River Wilderness
Pole Creek Wilderness
Sawtooth Wilderness
Selway-Bitterroot Wilderness

Illinois

Bald Knob Wilderness
Bay Creek Wilderness
Burden Falls Wilderness
Clear Springs Wilderness
Crab Orchard Wilderness
Garden of the Gods Wilderness
Lusk Creek Wilderness
Panther Den Wilderness

Indiana

Charles C. Deam Wilderness

Kentucky

Beaver Creek Wilderness
Clifty Wilderness

Louisiana

Breton Wilderness
Kisatchie Hills Wilderness
Lacassine Wilderness

Maine

Caribou-Speckled Mountain Wilderness
Moosehorn (Baring Unit) Wilderness
Moosehorn Wilderness

Massachusetts

Monomoy Wilderness

Michigan

Beaver Basin Wilderness
Big Island Lake Wilderness
Delirium Wilderness
Horseshoe Bay Wilderness
Huron Islands Wilderness
Isle Royale Wilderness
Mackinac Wilderness
McCormick Wilderness
Michigan Islands Wilderness
Nordhouse Dunes Wilderness
Rock River Canyon Wilderness
Round Island Wilderness
Seney Wilderness
Sleeping Bear Dunes Wilderness
Sturgeon River Gorge Wilderness
Sylvania Wilderness

Minnesota

Agassiz Wilderness
Boundary Waters Canoe Area Wilderness
Tamarac Wilderness

Mississippi

Black Creek Wilderness

[[Page 67900]]

Gulf Islands Wilderness
Leaf Wilderness

Missouri

Bell Mountain Wilderness
Devils Backbone Wilderness
Hercules-Glades Wilderness
Irish Wilderness
Mingo Wilderness
Paddy Creek Wilderness
Piney Creek Wilderness
Rockpile Mountain Wilderness

Montana

Absaroka-Beartooth Wilderness
Anaconda Pintler Wilderness
Bob Marshall Wilderness
Cabinet Mountains Wilderness
Gates of the Mountains Wilderness
Great Bear Wilderness
Lee Metcalf Wilderness
Medicine Lake Wilderness
Mission Mountains Wilderness
Rattlesnake Wilderness
Red Rock Lakes Wilderness
Scapegoat Wilderness
Selway-Bitterroot Wilderness
UL Bend Wilderness

Nebraska

Fort Niobrara Wilderness
Soldier Creek Wilderness

Nevada

Alta Toquima Wilderness
Arc Dome Wilderness
Arrow Canyon Wilderness
Bald Mountain Wilderness
Becky Peak Wilderness
Big Rocks Wilderness
Black Canyon Wilderness
Black Rock Desert Wilderness
Boundary Peak Wilderness
Bridge Canyon Wilderness
Bristlecone Wilderness
Calico Mountains Wilderness
Clover Mountains Wilderness
Currant Mountain Wilderness
Death Valley Wilderness
Delamar Mountains Wilderness
East Fork High Rock Canyon Wilderness
East Humboldts Wilderness
Eldorado Wilderness
Far South Egans Wilderness
Fortification Range Wilderness
Goshute Canyon Wilderness
Government Peak Wilderness
Grant Range Wilderness
High Rock Canyon Wilderness
High Rock Lake Wilderness
High Schells Wilderness
Highland Ridge Wilderness
Ireteba Peaks Wilderness
Jarbidge Wilderness
Jimbilnan Wilderness
Jumbo Springs Wilderness
La Madre Mountain Wilderness
Lime Canyon Wilderness
Little High Rock Canyon Wilderness
Meadow Valley Range Wilderness
Mormon Mountains Wilderness
Mount Grafton Wilderness
Mt. Charleston Wilderness
Mt. Irish Wilderness
Mt. Moriah Wilderness
Mt. Rose Wilderness
Muddy Mountains Wilderness
Nellis Wash Wilderness
North Black Rock Range Wilderness
North Jackson Mountains Wilderness
North McCullough Wilderness
Pahute Peak Wilderness
Parsnip Peak Wilderness
Pine Forest Range Wilderness
Pinto Valley Wilderness
Quinn Canyon Wilderness
Rainbow Mountain Wilderness
Red Mountain Wilderness
Ruby Mountains Wilderness
Santa Rosa-Paradise Peak Wilderness
Shellback Wilderness
South Egan Range Wilderness
South Jackson Mountains Wilderness
South McCullough Wilderness
South Pahroc Range Wilderness
Spirit Mountain Wilderness
Table Mountain Wilderness
Tunnel Spring Wilderness
Wee Thump Joshua Tree Wilderness
Weepah Spring Wilderness
White Pine Range Wilderness
White Rock Range Wilderness
Worthington Mountains Wilderness
Wovoka Wilderness

New Hampshire

Great Gulf Wilderness
Pemigewasset Wilderness
Presidential Range-Dry River Wilderness
Sandwich Range Wilderness
Wild River Wilderness

New Jersey

Brigantine Wilderness
Great Swamp National Wildlife Refuge Wilderness

New Mexico

Aden Lava Flow Wilderness
Ah-shi-sle-pah Wilderness
Aldo Leopold Wilderness
Apache Kid Wilderness
Bandelier Wilderness
Bisti/De-Na-Zin Wilderness
Blue Range Wilderness
Bosque del Apache Wilderness
Broad Canyon Wilderness
Capitan Mountains Wilderness
Carlsbad Caverns Wilderness
Cebolla Wilderness
Cerro del Yuta Wilderness
Chama River Canyon Wilderness
Cinder Cone Wilderness
Columbine-Hondo Wilderness
Cruces Basin Wilderness
Dome Wilderness
East Potrillo Mountains
Gila Wilderness
Latir Peak Wilderness
Manzano Mountain Wilderness
Mount Riley Wilderness
Ojito Wilderness
Organ Mountains Wilderness
Pecos Wilderness
Potrillo Mountains Wilderness
Rio San Antonio Wilderness
Robledo Mountains Wilderness
Sabinoso Wilderness
Salt Creek Wilderness
San Pedro Parks Wilderness
Sandia Mountain Wilderness
Sierra de las Uvas Wilderness
West Malpais Wilderness
Wheeler Peak Wilderness
White Mountain Wilderness
Whitethorn Wilderness
Withington Wilderness

New York

Otis Pike Fire Island High Dune Wilderness

North Carolina

Birkhead Mountains Wilderness
Catfish Lake South Wilderness
Ellicott Rock Wilderness
Joyce Kilmer-Slickrock Wilderness
Linville Gorge Wilderness
Middle Prong Wilderness
Pocosin Wilderness
Pond Pine Wilderness
Sheep Ridge Wilderness
Shining Rock Wilderness
Southern Nantahala Wilderness
Swanquarter Wilderness

North Dakota

Chase Lake Wilderness
Lostwood Wilderness
Theodore Roosevelt Wilderness

Ohio

West Sister Island Wilderness

Oklahoma

Black Fork Mountain Wilderness
Upper Kiamichi River Wilderness
Wichita Mountains Wilderness

Oregon

Badger Creek Wilderness
Black Canyon Wilderness
Boulder Creek Wilderness
Bridge Creek Wilderness
Bull of the Woods Wilderness
Clackamas Wilderness
Copper Salmon Wilderness
Cummins Creek Wilderness
Diamond Peak Wilderness
Devils Staircase Wilderness
Drift Creek Wilderness
Eagle Cap Wilderness
Gearhart Mountain Wilderness
Grassy Knob Wilderness
Hells Canyon Wilderness
Kalmiopsis Wilderness
Lower White River Wilderness
Mark O. Hatfield Wilderness
Menagerie Wilderness
Middle Santiam Wilderness
Mill Creek Wilderness
Monument Rock Wilderness
Mount Hood Wilderness
Mount Jefferson Wilderness
Mount Thielsen Wilderness
Mount Washington Wilderness
Mountain Lakes Wilderness
North Fork John Day Wilderness
North Fork Umatilla Wilderness
Opal Creek Wilderness
Oregon Badlands Wilderness
Oregon Islands Wilderness
Red Buttes Wilderness
Roaring River Wilderness
Rock Creek Wilderness
Rogue-Umpqua Divide Wilderness
Salmon-Huckleberry Wilderness
Sky Lakes Wilderness
Soda Mountain Wilderness
Spring Basin Wilderness
Steens Mountain Wilderness
Strawberry Mountain Wilderness

[[Page 67901]]

Table Rock Wilderness
Three Arch Rocks Wilderness
Three Sisters Wilderness
Waldo Lake Wilderness
Wenaha-Tucannon Wilderness
Wild Rogue Wilderness

Pennsylvania

Allegheny Islands Wilderness
Hickory Creek Wilderness

Puerto Rico

El Toro Wilderness

South Carolina

Cape Romain Wilderness
Congaree National Park Wilderness
Ellicott Rock Wilderness
Hell Hole Bay Wilderness
Little Wambaw Swamp Wilderness
Wambaw Creek Wilderness
Wambaw Swamp Wilderness

South Dakota

Badlands Wilderness
Black Elk Wilderness

Tennessee

Bald River Gorge Wilderness
Big Frog Wilderness
Big Laurel Branch Wilderness
Citico Creek Wilderness
Cohutta Wilderness
Gee Creek Wilderness
Joyce Kilmer-Slickrock Wilderness
Little Frog Mountain Wilderness
Pond Mountain Wilderness
Sampson Mountain Wilderness
Unaka Mountain Wilderness
Upper Bald River Wilderness

Texas

Big Slough Wilderness
Guadalupe Mountains Wilderness
Indian Mounds Wilderness
Little Lake Creek Wilderness
Turkey Hill Wilderness
Upland Island Wilderness

Utah

Ashdown Gorge Wilderness
Beartrap Canyon Wilderness
Beaver Dam Mountains Wilderness
Big Wild Horse Mesa Wilderness
Blackridge Wilderness
Black Ridge Canyons Wilderness
Box-Death Hollow Wilderness
Canaan Mountain Wilderness
Cedar Mountain Wilderness Area
Cold Wash Wilderness
Cottonwood Canyon Wilderness
Cottonwood Forest Wilderness
Cougar Canyon Wilderness
Dark Canyon Wilderness
Deep Creek North Wilderness
Deep Creek Wilderness
Deseret Peak Wilderness
Desolation Canyon Wilderness
Devil's Canyon Wilderness
Doc's Pass Wilderness
Eagle Canyon Wilderness
Goose Creek Wilderness
High Uintas Wilderness
Horse Valley Wilderness
Labyrinth Canyon Wilderness
LaVerkin Creek Wilderness
Little Ocean Draw Wilderness
Little Wild Horse Canyon Wilderness
Lone Peak Wilderness
Lower Last Chance Wilderness
Mexican Mountain Wilderness
Middle Wild Horse Mesa Wilderness
Mount Naomi Wilderness
Mount Nebo Wilderness
Mount Olympus Wilderness
Mount Timpanogos Wilderness
Muddy Creek Wilderness
Nelson Mountain Wilderness
Paria Canyon-Vermilion Cliffs Wilderness
Pine Valley Mountain Wilderness
Red Butte Wilderness
Red's Canyon Wilderness
Red Mountain Wilderness
San Rafael Reef Wilderness
Sid's Mountain Wilderness
Slaughter Creek Wilderness
Taylor Creek Wilderness
Turtle Canyon Wilderness
Twin Peaks Wilderness
Wellsville Mountain Wilderness
Zion Wilderness

Vermont

Big Branch Wilderness
Breadloaf Wilderness
Bristol Cliffs Wilderness
George D. Aiken Wilderness
Glastenbury Wilderness
Joseph Battell Wilderness
Lye Brook Wilderness
Peru Peak Wilderness

Virginia

Barbours Creek Wilderness
Beartown Wilderness
Brush Mountain East Wilderness
Brush Mountain Wilderness
Garden Mountain Wilderness
Hunting Camp Creek Wilderness
James River Face Wilderness
Kimberling Creek Wilderness
Lewis Fork Wilderness
Little Dry Run Wilderness
Little Wilson Creek Wilderness
Mountain Lake Wilderness
Peters Mountain Wilderness
Priest Wilderness
Raccoon Branch Wilderness
Ramseys Draft Wilderness
Rich Hole Wilderness
Rough Mountain Wilderness
Saint Mary's Wilderness
Shawvers Run Wilderness
Shenandoah Wilderness
Stone Mountain Wilderness
Three Ridges Wilderness
Thunder Ridge Wilderness

Washington

Alpine Lakes Wilderness
Boulder River Wilderness
Buckhorn Wilderness
Clearwater Wilderness
Colonel Bob Wilderness
Daniel J. Evans Wilderness
Glacier Peak Wilderness
Glacier View Wilderness
Goat Rocks Wilderness
Henry M. Jackson Wilderness
Indian Heaven Wilderness
Juniper Dunes Wilderness
Lake Chelan-Sawtooth Wilderness
Mount Adams Wilderness
Mount Baker Wilderness
Mount Rainier Wilderness
Mount Skokomish Wilderness
Noisy-Diobsud Wilderness
Norse Peak Wilderness
Pasayten Wilderness
Salmo-Priest Wilderness
San Juan Wilderness
Stephen Mather Wilderness
Tatoosh Wilderness
The Brothers Wilderness
Trapper Creek Wilderness
Washington Islands Wilderness
Wenaha-Tucannon Wilderness
Wild Sky Wilderness
William O. Douglas Wilderness
Wonder Mountain Wilderness

West Virginia

Big Draft Wilderness
Cranberry Wilderness
Dolly Sods Wilderness
Laurel Fork North Wilderness
Laurel Fork South Wilderness
Mountain Lake Wilderness
Roaring Plains West Wilderness
Otter Creek Wilderness
Spice Run Wilderness

Wisconsin

Blackjack Springs Wilderness
Gaylord A. Nelson Wilderness
Headwaters Wilderness
Porcupine Lake Wilderness
Rainbow Lake Wilderness
Whisker Lake Wilderness
Wisconsin Islands Wilderness

Wyoming

Absaroka-Beartooth Wilderness
Bridger Wilderness
Cloud Peak Wilderness
Encampment River Wilderness
Fitzpatrick Wilderness
Gros Ventre Wilderness
Huston Park Wilderness
Jedediah Smith Wilderness
North Absaroka Wilderness
Platte River Wilderness
Popo Agie Wilderness
Savage Run Wilderness
Teton Wilderness
Washakie Wilderness
Winegar Hole Wilderness

A.6 National Wild and Scenic Rivers

Alabama

Sipsey Fork of the West Fork River

Alaska

Alagnak River
Alatna River
Andreafsky River
Aniakchak River
Beaver Creek
Birch Creek
Charley River
Chilikadrotna River
Delta River
Fortymile River
Gulkana River
Ivishak River
John River
Kobuk River
Koyukuk River (North Fork)
Mulchatna River
Noatak River

[[Page 67902]]

Nowitna River
Salmon River
Selawik River
Sheenjek River
Tinayguk River
Tlikakila River
Unalakleet River
Wind River

Arizona

Fossil Creek
Verde River

Arkansas

Big Piney Creek
Buffalo River
Cossatot River
Hurricane Creek
Little Missouri River
Mulberry River
North Sylamore Creek
Richland Creek

California

Amargosa River
American River (Lower)
American River (North Fork)
Bautista Creek
Big Sur River
Black Butte River
Cottonwood Creek
Deep Creek
Eel River
Feather River
Fuller Mill Creek
Kern River
Kings River
Klamath River
Merced River
Owens River Headwaters
Palm Canyon Creek
Piru Creek
San Jacinto River (North Fork)
Sespe Creek
Sisquoc River
Surprise Canyon Creek
Smith River
Trinity River
Tuolumne River
Whitewater River

Colorado

Cache la Poudre River

Connecticut

Eightmile River
Farmington (Lower) River & Salmon Brook
Farmington (West Branch) River
Wood & Pawcatuck Rivers

Delaware

White Clay Creek

Florida

Loxahatchee River
Wekiva River

Georgia

Chattooga River

Idaho

Battle Creek
Big Jacks Creek
Bruneau River
Bruneau River (West Fork)
Clearwater River (Middle Fork)
Cottonwood Creek
Deep Creek
Dickshooter Creek
Duncan Creek
Jarbidge River
Little Jacks Creek
Owyhee River
Owyhee River (North Fork)
Owyhee River (South Fork)
Rapid River
Red Canyon
St. Joe River
Salmon River
Salmon River (Middle Fork)
Sheep Creek
Snake River
Wickahoney Creek

Illinois

Vermilion River

Kentucky

Red River

Louisiana

Saline Bayou

Maine

Allagash Wilderness Waterway

Massachusetts

Nashua, Squannacook, Nissitissit Rivers
Sudbury, Assabet, Concord Rivers
Taunton River
Westfield River

Michigan

AuSable River
Bear Creek
Black River
Carp River
Indian River
Manistee River
Ontonagon River
Paint River
Pere Marquette River
Pine River
Presque Isle River
Sturgeon River (Hiawatha National Forest)
Sturgeon River (Ottawa National Forest)
Tahquamenon River (East Branch)
Whitefish River
Yellow Dog River

Minnesota

St. Croix River

Mississippi

Black Creek

Missouri

Eleven Point River

Montana

East Rosebud Creek
Flathead River
Missouri River

Nebraska

Missouri River
Niobrara River

New Hampshire

Lamprey River
Nashua, Squannacook, Nissitissit Rivers
Wildcat River

New Jersey

Delaware River (Lower)
Delaware River (Middle)
Great Egg Harbor River
Maurice River
Musconetcong River

New Mexico

Jemez River (East Fork)
Pecos River
Rio Chama
Rio Grande

New York

Delaware River (Upper)

North Carolina

Chattooga River
Horsepasture River
Lumber River
New River
Wilson Creek

Ohio

Big & Little Darby Creeks
Little Beaver Creek
Little Miami River

Oregon

Big Marsh Creek
Chetco River
Clackamas River
Clackamas River (South Fork)
Collawash River
Crescent Creek
Crooked River
Crooked River (North Fork)
Deschutes River
Donner und Blitzen River
Eagle Creek (Mt. Hood National Forest)
Eagle Creek (Wallowa-Whitman National Forest)
Elk Creek
Elk River
Elkhorn Creek
Fifteenmile Creek
Fish Creek
Franklin Creek
Grande Ronde River
Hood River (East Fork)
Hood River (Middle Fork)
Illinois River
Imnaha River
Jenny Creek
John Day River
John Day River (North Fork)
John Day River (South Fork)
Joseph Creek
Klamath River
Little Deschutes River
Lobster Creek
Lostine River
Malheur River
Malheur River (North Fork)
McKenzie River
Metolius River
Minam River
Molalla River
Nestucca River
North Powder River
North Umpqua River
Owyhee River
Owyhee River (North Fork)
Powder River
Quartzville Creek
River Styx
Roaring River
Roaring River (South Fork)
Rogue River

[[Page 67903]]

Rogue River (Upper)
Salmon River
Sandy River
Silver Creek (North Fork)
Smith River (North Fork)
Snake River
Sprague River
Spring Creek
Sycan River
Walker Creek
Wallowa River
Wasson Creek
Wenaha River
West Little Owyhee River
Whychus Creek
White River
Wildhorse & Kiger Creeks
Willamette River (North Fork Middle Fork)
Zigzag River

Pennsylvania

Allegheny River
Clarion River
Delaware River (Lower)
Delaware River (Middle)
Delaware River (Upper)
White Clay Creek

Puerto Rico

Rio de la Mina
Rio Icacos
Rio Mameyes

Rhode Island

Wood & Pawcatuck Rivers

South Carolina

Chattooga River

South Dakota

Missouri

Tennessee

Obed River

Texas

Rio Grande

Utah

Green River
Virgin River

Vermont

Missisquoi & Trout Rivers

Washington

Illabot Creek
Klickitat River
Pratt River
Skagit River
Snoqualmie (Middle Fork) River
White Salmon River

West Virginia

Bluestone River

Wisconsin

St. Croix River
Wolf River

Wyoming

Snake River Headwaters
Yellowstone River (Clark's Fork)

[FR Doc. 2020-22385 Filed 10-16-20; 4:15 pm]
 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P