44632 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 166 / Friday, August 28, 2009 / Proposed Rules 

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND 

SECURITY 

Coast Guard 

33 CFR Part 151 

46 CFR Part 162 

[USCG–2001–10486] 

RIN 1625–AA32 

Standards for Living Organisms in 

Ships’ Ballast Water Discharged in 

U.S. Waters 

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS. 

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking. 

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard proposes to 

amend its regulations on ballast water 

management by establishing standards 

for the allowable concentration of living 

organisms in ships’ ballast water 

discharged in U.S. waters. The Coast 

Guard also proposes to amend its 

regulations for approving engineering 

equipment by establishing an approval 

process for ballast water management 

systems. These new regulations would 

aid in controlling the introduction and 

spread of nonindigenous species from 

ships discharging ballast water in U.S. 

waters. 

DATES: Comments and related material 

must either be submitted to our online 

docket via http://www.regulations.gov 

on or before November 27, 2009 or reach 

the Docket Management Facility by that 

date. 

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments 

identified by Coast Guard docket 

number USCG–2001–10486 to the 

Docket Management Facility at the U.S. 

Department of Transportation. To avoid 

duplication, please use only one of the 

following methods: 

(1) Federal eRulemaking Portal: 

http://www.regulations.gov. 

(2) Mail: Docket Management Facility 

(M–30), U.S. Department of 

Transportation, West Building Ground 

Floor, Room W12–140, 1200 New Jersey 

Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590– 

0001. 

(3) Hand delivery: Docket 

Management Facility (M–30), U.S. 

Department of Transportation, West 

Building Ground Floor, Room W12–140, 

1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., 

Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. 

and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, 

except Federal holidays. The telephone 

number is 202–366–9329. 

(4) Fax: 202–493–2251. 

To avoid duplication, please use only 

one of these four methods. See the 

‘‘Public Participation and Request for 

Comments’’ portion of the 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section 

below for instructions on submitting 

comments. 

You may inspect the material 

proposed for incorporation by reference 

at Room 1601, Environmental Standards 

Division, U.S. Coast Guard 

Headquarters, 2100 Second Street, SW., 

Washington, DC 20593 between 9 a.m. 

and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, 

except Federal holidays. The telephone 

number is 202–372–1433. Copies of the 

material are available as indicated in the 

‘‘Incorporation by Reference’’ section of 

this preamble. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If 

you have questions on this proposed 

rulemaking, call or e-mail Mr. John 

Morris, Project Manager, Environmental 

Standards Division, U.S. Coast Guard 

Headquarters, telephone 202–372–1433, 

e-mail John.C.Morris@uscg.mil. If you 

have questions on viewing or submitting 

material to the docket, call Ms. Renee 

Wright, Chief, Dockets, Department of 

Transportation, telephone 202–366– 

9826. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Table of Contents 

I. Public Participation and Request for 

Comments 

A. Submitting Comments 

B. Viewing Comments and Documents 

C. Privacy Act 

D. Public Meeting 

II. Table of Abbreviations 

III. Legislative and Regulatory History 

IV. Background and Purpose 

V. Discussion of Proposed Rule 

VI. Incorporation by Reference 

VII. Regulatory Analysis 

A. Executive Order 12866 

B. Small Entities 

C. Assistance for Small Entities 

D. Collection of Information 

E. Federalism 

F. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

G. Taking of Private Property 

H. Civil Justice Reform 

I. Protection of Children 

J. Indian Tribal Governments 

K. Energy Effects 

L. Technical Standards 

M. Environment 

I. Public Participation and Request for 

Comments 

We encourage you to participate in 

this rulemaking by submitting 

comments and related materials. All 

comments received will be posted, 

without change, to http:// 

www.regulations.gov and will include 

any personal information you have 

provided. 

A. Submitting Comments 

If you submit a comment, please 

include the docket number for this 

rulemaking (USCG–2001–10486), 

indicate the specific section of this 

document to which each comment 

applies, and provide a reason for each 

suggestion or recommendation. You 

may submit your comments and 

material online or by fax, mail, or hand 

delivery, but please use only one of 

these means. We recommend that you 

include your name and a mailing 

address, an e-mail address, or a phone 

number in the body of your document 

so that we can contact you if we have 

questions regarding your submission. 

To submit your comment online, go to 

http://www.regulations.gov and click on 

the ‘‘submit a comment’’ box, which 

will then become highlighted in blue. 

Insert ‘‘USCG–2001–10486’’ in the 

Keyword box, click ‘‘Search’’, and then 

click on the balloon shape in the 

Actions column. If you submit your 

comments by mail or hand delivery, 

submit them in an unbound format, no 

larger than 8c by 11 inches, suitable for 

copying and electronic filing. If you 

submit comments by mail and would 

like to know that they reached the 

Facility, please enclose a stamped, selfaddressed postcard or envelope. 

We will consider all comments and 

material received during the comment 

period and may change this proposed 

rule based on your comments. 

B. Viewing Comments and Documents 

To view comments, as well as 

documents mentioned in this preamble 

as being available in the docket, go to 

http://www.regulations.gov at any time. 

Enter the docket number for this 

rulemaking (USCG–2001–10486) in the 

Keyword box, and click ‘‘Search’’. You 

may also visit the Docket Management 

Facility in Room W12–140 on the 

ground floor of the DOT West Building, 

1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., 

Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. 

and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, 

except Federal holidays. We have an 

agreement with the Department of 

Transportation to use the Docket 

Management Facility. 

C. Privacy Act 

Anyone can search the electronic 

form of all comments received into any 

of our dockets by the name of the 

individual submitting the comment (or 

signing the comment, if submitted on 

behalf of an association, business, labor 

union, etc.). You may review a Privacy 

Act notice regarding our public dockets 

in the January 17, 2008, issue of the 

Federal Register (73 FR 3316). 

D. Public Meeting 

We have determined that public 

meetings would aid this rulemaking. 

Consequently, we plan to hold public 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 166 / Friday, August 28, 2009 / Proposed Rules 44633 

1The Coast Guard moved from the Department of 

Transportation to the Department of Homeland 

Security on March 1, 2003. Homeland Security Act 

of 2002, Pub. L. 107–296 (November 25, 2002), Title 

VIII, Subtitle H, Section 888. 

meetings at times and places to be 

announced by separate notices in the 

Federal Register. 

II. Table of Abbreviations 

BWDS ballast water discharge 

standard(s) 

BWE ballast water exchange 

BWM ballast water management 

BWMS ballast water management 

system(s) 

cfu colony forming unit 

CZMA Coastal Zone Management Act 

DPEIS Draft Programmatic 

Environmental Impact Statement 

EEZ U.S. Exclusive Economic Zone 

EFH essential fish habitat 

EPA Environmental Protection Agency 

ESA Endangered Species Act 

ETV Environmental Technology 

Verification 

HAB Harmful algal blooms 

IL Independent Laboratory 

IMO International Maritime 

Organization 

MARAD U.S. Maritime Administration 

MEPC Marine Environment Protection 

Committee (of the IMO) 

NANPCA Nonindigenous Aquatic 

Nuisance Prevention and Control Act 

of 1990 

NARA National Archives and Records 

Administration 

NBIC National Ballast Information 

Clearinghouse 

NIS nonindigenous species 

NISA National Invasive Species Act of 

1996 

NMFS National Marine Fisheries 

Service 

OMSM Operation, Maintenance, and 

Safety Manual 

ppt parts per thousand 

SERC Smithsonian Environmental 

Research Center 

STEP Shipboard Technology 

Evaluation Program 

III. Legislative and Regulatory History 

Congress enacted the Nonindigenous 

Aquatic Nuisance Prevention and 

Control Act of 1990 (NANPCA), 16 

U.S.C. 4711 et seq., on November 29, 

1990, and established the Coast Guard’s 

regulatory jurisdiction over ballast water 

management (BWM). To fulfill the 

directives of NANPCA, the Coast Guard 

published a final rule in the Federal 

Register on April 8, 1993, titled ‘‘Ballast 

Water Management for Vessels Entering 

the Great Lakes’’. 58 FR 18330. On 

December 30, 1994, we published 

another final rule in the Federal 

Register titled ‘‘Ballast Water 

Management for Vessels Entering the 

Hudson River’’. 59 FR 67632. These 

rules added a new subpart C to 33 CFR 

part 151, ‘‘Ballast Water Management 

for Control of Nonindigenous Species in 

the Great Lakes and Hudson River’’, 

which established mandatory BWM 

procedures for vessels entering the Great 

Lakes and Hudson River. 

Congress enacted the National 

Invasive Species Act (NISA) on October 

26, 1996, reauthorizing and amending 

NANPCA. 16 U.S.C. 4711 et seq. 

Through NISA, Congress reemphasized 

the significant role the discharge of 

ships’ ballast water plays in the spread 

of nonindigenous species (NIS), defined 

as any species or other viable biological 

material that enters an ecosystem 

beyond its historic range, including any 

such organism transferred from one 

country into another, in U.S. waters and 

directed the Coast Guard to develop a 

voluntary national BWM program. On 

May 17, 1999, the Coast Guard 

published an interim rule in the Federal 

Register on this voluntary program 

titled ‘‘Implementation of the National 

Invasive Species Act of 1996 (NISA)’’. 

64 FR 26672. The interim rule added a 

new Subpart D to 33 CFR part 151 titled 

‘‘Ballast Water Management for Control 

of Nonindigenous Species in Waters of 

the United States’’. We published the 

final rule in the Federal Register on 

November 21, 2001. 66 FR 58381. 

Through NISA, Congress also directed 

the Secretary of the Department in 

which the Coast Guard is operating to 

submit a report to Congress evaluating 

the effectiveness of the voluntary BWM 

program. In the June 3, 2002, report to 

Congress, the Secretary of the 

Department of Transportation 1

concluded that low participation in the 

voluntary program resulted in 

insufficient data for an accurate 

assessment of its effectiveness. This 

finding triggered the requirement in 

NISA that the voluntary BWM program 

become mandatory. A copy of the report 

to Congress can be found in docket 

(USCG–2002–13147) at http:// 

www.regulations.gov. 

On July 28, 2004, we published a final 

rule in the Federal Register titled, 

‘‘Mandatory Ballast Water Management 

Program for U.S. Waters’’. 69 FR 44952. 

This final rule changed the national 

voluntary BWM program to a mandatory 

one, requiring all vessels equipped with 

ballast water tanks and bound for ports 

or places of the United States to conduct 

a mid-ocean ballast water exchange 

(BWE), retain their ballast water 

onboard, or use an alternative 

environmentally sound BWM method 

approved by the Coast Guard. 

Also, on June 14, 2004, the Coast 

Guard published a final rule in the 

Federal Register titled ‘‘Penalties for 

Non-submission of Ballast Water 

Management Reports’’. 69 FR 32864. In 

this final rule, we established penalties 

for failure to comply with the reporting 

requirements located in 33 CFR part 151 

and broadened the applicability of the 

reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements to a majority of vessels 

bound for ports or places of the United 

States. 

On August 31, 2005, we published a 

notice of policy in the Federal Register 

titled ‘‘Ballast Water Management for 

Vessels Entering the Great Lakes that 

Declare No Ballast Onboard’’. 70 FR 

51831. Through this policy, we 

established the best management 

practices for vessels entering the Great 

Lakes that have residual ballast water 

and ballast tank sediment. 

IV. Background and Purpose 

Under the legislative mandate in 

NISA, the Coast Guard must approve 

any alternative methods of ballast water 

management (BWM) that are used in 

lieu of mid-ocean ballast water 

exchange (BWE) required under NISA. 

16 U.S.C. 4711(c)(2)(D)(iii). NISA 

further stipulates that such alternative 

methods must be at least as effective as 

BWE in preventing or reducing the 

introduction of nonindigenous species 

into U.S. waters. 16 U.S.C. 

4711(c)(2)(D)(iii). Finally, NISA requires 

the Coast Guard to review and revise its 

BWM regulations not less than every 

three years based on the best scientific 

information available to the Coast Guard 

at the time of that review, and 

potentially to the exclusion of the BWM 

methods listed at 16 U.S.C. 

4711(c)(2)(D). 16 U.S.C. 4711(e). 

Determining whether an alternative 

method is as effective as BWE is not an 

easy task. The effectiveness of BWE is 

highly variable, largely depending on 

the specific vessel and voyage. These 

variables make comparing the 

effectiveness of an alternative BWM 

method to BWE extremely difficult. In 

addition, a majority of vessels are 

constrained by design or route from 

practicing BWE effectively. This is 

supported by BWE results which show 

a proportional reduction in abundance 

of organisms, so every vessel then has 

a different allowable concentration of 

organisms in its discharge. Thus, vessels 

with very large starting concentrations 

of organisms in their ballast tanks might 

still have large concentrations of 

organisms after BWE. Results from 

several studies have shown the 

effectiveness of BWE varies 

considerably and are dependent upon 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS3
44634 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 166 / Friday, August 28, 2009 / Proposed Rules 

vessel type (design), exchange method, 

ballasting system configuration, 

exchange location, and method of study. 

One group of studies suggests that the 

efficacy of ballast water exchange is 80– 

99 percent per event (Dickman and 

Zhang 1999; Hines and Ruiz 2000; Rigby 

and Hallegraeff 1993; Smith et al. 1996; 

Taylor and Bruce 2000; Zhang and 

Dickman 1999). Other studies 

demonstrate that the volumetric 

efficiency of BWE ranges from 50–90 

percent (Battelle 2003; USCG 2001; 

Zhang and Dickman 1999). 

For these reasons, BWE is not well 

suited as the basis for a protective 

programmatic regimen, even though it 

has been a useful ‘‘interim’’ 

management practice. We have 

concluded that, as an alternative to 

using BWE as the benchmark, 

establishing a standard for the 

concentration of living organisms that 

can be discharged in ballast water 

would advance the protective intent of 

NISA and simplify the process for Coast 

Guard approval of ballast water 

management systems (BWMS). 

Additionally, setting a discharge 

standard would promote the 

development of innovative BWM 

technologies, be used for enforcement of 

the BWM regulations, and assist in 

evaluating the effectiveness of the BWM 

program. 

Therefore, in this rulemaking, we 

would amend 33 CFR part 151 by 

establishing two ballast water discharge 

standards (BWDS), which are discussed 

below. We also propose amending 46 

CFR part 162 by adding an approval 

process for BWMS intended for use on 

board vessels to meet the proposed 

discharge standard. 

Vessels that would be subject to 

today’s proposed rulemaking would also 

be subject to the December 2008 

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) 

Vessel General Permit (VGP) issued 

under section 402 of the Clean Water 

Act. That VGP contains discharge limits 

for a number of discharges incidental to 

the normal operation of vessels, 

including ballast water, and applies to 

vessels being used as a means of 

transportation with incidental 

discharges into inland navigable waters 

and the three mile U.S. territorial sea. 

For more information on the VGP, visit 

EPA’s Web site at: http://www.epa.gov/ 

npdes/vessels. Nothing in today’s 

proposal is intended to affect in any 

way action EPA may take in the future 

with respect to regulation of ballast 

water discharges in the vessel general 

permit under its Clean Water Act 

authorities. See, e.g., 16 U.S.C. 

4711(b)(2)(C) and 4711(c)(2)(J). 

V. Discussion of Proposed Rule 

A. Phase-One Ballast Water Discharge 

Standard (BWDS) 

This NPRM would require that all 

vessels that operate in U.S. waters, are 

bound for ports or places in the U.S., 

and are equipped with ballast tanks, 

install and operate a Coast Guard 

approved ballast water management 

system (BWMS) before discharging 

ballast water into U.S. waters. This 

would include vessels bound for 

offshore ports or places. It would not 

include vessels that operate exclusively 

in one Captain of the Port (COTP) Zone, 

as it is unlikely that vessels operating 

only within one COTP Zone would 

introduce invasive species (from outside 

of that COTP Zone) into the waters of 

their COTP Zone. Whether the vessel 

traveled 200 nautical miles offshore 

would no longer be a factor in 

determining applicability. This means 

that some vessels that operated 

exclusively in the coastwise trade, 

which were previously exempt from 

having to perform ballast water 

exchange (BWE), would now be 

required to meet the BWDS. This 

requirement is intended to meet the 

directives under NISA that requires the 

Coast Guard to ensure to the maximum 

extent practicable that nonindigenous 

species (NIS) are not introduced and 

spread into U.S. waters and that they 

apply to all vessels equipped with 

ballast tanks that operate in U.S. waters. 

16 U.S.C. 4711(c)(1), (c)(2)A, (e) and (f). 

The proposed rule includes a phasein schedule for complying with both the 

phase-one and phase-two proposed 

BWDS based on each vessel’s ballast 

capacity and build date. During the 

phase-in period for the phase-one 

standard, ballast water exchange (BWE) 

would remain as a ballast water 

management (BWM) option for vessels 

not yet required to meet the BWDS. At 

the end of the phase-one phase-in 

schedule, the option of using BWE 

would be eliminated. From that date 

forward, all vessels would be required 

to manage their ballast water through a 

Coast Guard approved BWMS and meet 

either the proposed phase-one or phasetwo discharge standard, as applicable, 

or retain their ballast water onboard. 

The phase-one BWDS proposed in 

this notice is the same standard adopted 

by the International Maritime 

Organization (IMO) in 2004, 

‘‘International Convention for the 

Control and Management of Ships’ 

Ballast Water and Sediments’’ (BWM 

Convention). The USCG leads the U.S. 

government delegation to the IMO, the 

organization responsible for improving 

maritime safety and preventing 

pollution from vessels. In September 

1995, the IMO identified NIS as a major 

issue confronting the international 

maritime community. To address the 

issue, in 1997, the IMO adopted 

voluntary guidelines, ‘‘International 

Guidelines for Preventing the 

Introduction of Unwanted Aquatic 

Organisms and Pathogens from Ships’ 

Ballast Water and Sediment 

Discharges.’’ In February 2004, the IMO 

adopted the BWM Convention, which 

establishes BWM procedures and 

includes an international standard for 

BWD. The USCG coordinated U.S. 

participation in this effort with the 

Environmental Protection Agency, the 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration, the U.S. Department of 

Defense, the U.S. Maritime 

Administration, the U.S. Department of 

Justice, and the U.S. Department of 

State. The BWM Convention opened for 

ratification in February 2004, and under 

its terms does not enter into force until 

one year after ratification by 30 

countries representing not less than 35 

percent of the gross tonnage of the 

world’s merchant shipping. To date, the 

BWM Convention is not in force. 

The Draft Programmatic 

Environmental Impact Statement 

(DPEIS) (available in the docket for this 

rule where indicated under ADDRESSES) 

states that the phase-one proposed 

BWDS should markedly decrease the 

risks of vessel-mediated introductions of 

NIS into U.S. waters, relative to the 

status quo. We also consider that this 

BWDS, which has become the de facto 

international efficacy target for 

developers of BWMS, will be 

practicable to implement in the near 

term. Currently, numerous technology 

developers are submitting BWMS 

designed to meet this standard to 

several foreign governments for testing 

in accordance with the IMO guidelines 

for approval of BWMS. All indications 

are that there will soon be technologies 

available on the market to allow vessels 

to meet this standard. As of July 2009, 

there have been 15 BWMS given IMO 

basic approval and of those 15, eight 

have been given IMO final approval. 

Further, six BWMS have received type 

approval certifications under the 

requirements of the convention from 

foreign administrations (Liberia, 

Germany, Norway, and United 

Kingdom). Some of the manufacturers of 

BWMS that have been given type 

approval have received orders from 

vessel owners to purchase those 

BWMSs. 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 166 / Friday, August 28, 2009 / Proposed Rules 44635 

B. Phase-Two Ballast Water Discharge 

Standard (BWDS) 

While the proposed phase-one BWDS 

is practicable to achieve in the near term 

and will considerably advance 

environmental protection over the 

current exchange-based regime, we also 

recognize that it should not be the 

ultimate endpoint for protection of U.S. 

waters. We note that a number of states 

have already adopted BWDS using more 

stringent standards. We have considered 

information concerning whether 

technology to achieve this standard can 

practicably be implemented now or by 

the compliance dates under 

consideration. Although some 

technologies may be capable of 

achieving the phase-two standard, we 

believe there is not now a testing 

protocol capable of establishing that a 

technology achieves the phase-two 

standard and testing results under 

existing protocols do not provide 

sufficient statistical confidence to 

establish that technologies consistently 

meet the phase-two standard. 

The purpose of NISA, as already 

noted, is to ensure to the maximum 

extent practicable that NIS are not 

introduced and spread into U.S. waters. 

Our phase-two standard represents a 

standard that is potentially 1,000 times 

more stringent than the phase-one 

standard. We believe that setting this 

more stringent standard and 

establishing implementation dates for 

the phase-two BWDS will encourage 

technology vendors to develop 

technologies capable of meeting the 

phase-two standard. In addition, we 

expect to continue cooperative work to 

establish testing protocols that can 

establish that technologies meet the 

standard with adequate statistical 

confidence. 

We propose incorporating a 

practicability review into the phase-in 

schedule for the phase-two BWDS. The 

purpose of the review is to determine 

whether technology to achieve the 

performance standard can practicably be 

implemented, in whole or in part, by the 

applicable compliance dates. This 

includes more than just looking at 

whether there is technology available to 

achieve the phase-two standard, as we 

discuss later in this preamble. The 

initial review would be completed in 

early 2013 and, in the event that some 

or all of the phase-two standard is found 

to be not practicable, the compliance 

date for those elements found not to be 

practicable would be extended in 

accordance with the findings of the 

practicability review. At the same time, 

a date for the next practicability review 

would be established, no later than two 

years after the completion of the first 

practicability review (i.e., no later than 

2015). In establishing this time frame we 

are attempting to balance our intent to 

implement the phase-two standards as 

expeditiously as practicable with a 

consideration of how quickly progress 

in developing and testing technology 

may be likely to occur. We seek 

comment on whether one year or three 

years would be a more appropriate time 

limit for further practicability review, 

should one or more be needed. 

The Coast Guard will seek public 

input in preparing the practicability 

review, and any decision to extend the 

compliance date of elements of the 

phase-two standards found not to be 

practicable would be subject to the 

requirements of the Administrative 

Procedure Act. 

We’ve also left open the possibility 

that the practicability review might 

reveal that a more stringent standard 

between the proposed phase-one and 

the phase-two BWDS is achievable. We 

also allow for the possibility that 

technology might be capable of 

achieving a standard that is even more 

stringent than what we have proposed 

as the phase-two BWDS. In these cases, 

we would propose amending either the 

implementation timeline or the phasetwo standard, or both, at the time that 

we publicize the results of our 

practicability review. Once the phase 

two standards are fully implemented, 

the Coast Guard would continue to 

review the standards every three years, 

as required by NISA, to ensure that they 

continue to ensure, to the maximum 

extent practicable, that aquatic nuisance 

species are not introduced and spread 

into U.S. waters. 

In addition to the comments we 

receive from the public, we also will use 

the technical information gained from 

the rigorous testing of BWMS here and 

in other countries to determine whether 

it is practicable to meet the phase-two 

BWDS on the timeline we have 

proposed in this NPRM. The testing 

conducted for purposes of type approval 

in the U.S. and abroad, as well as testing 

for other purposes (such as the Coast 

Guard’s Shipboard Technology 

Evaluation Program and the U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency’s 

(EPA) Environmental Technology 

Verification Program, discussed later in 

this preamble), will provide credible 

and standardized data on the 

performance characteristics of BWMS. 

We will use technical information from 

these testing activities and any other 

information to complete the 

practicability review proposed in this 

NPRM. This practicability review could 

entail more than determining whether 

there exists one system that is capable 

of meeting the phase-two standard. It 

could also include additional 

parameters, such as the capability of the 

vendor(s) to make the system(s) 

available, and the ship building and 

repair industry to install, systems in a 

timely and practicable manner given the 

large number of vessels that would 

require such system(s), and the cost 

impact of the system(s) on the regulated 

industry. We request comment on the 

appropriate scope of the practicability 

review and, in particular, how and to 

what extent costs should be considered 

in the review. 

Practicability could also include 

consideration of scientific factors 

beyond technology. For example, it 

could include the likely effect of a 

particular decrease in the threshold 

concentration on the probability of 

introduced organisms successfully 

establishing populations in U.S. waters. 

Currently, the scientific understanding 

of the quantitative relationships 

between the frequency and magnitude 

of introductions and the probability of 

successful establishment is not well 

understood for aquatic species. Given 

that such information will help to 

improve our ability to evaluate 

appropriate prevention measures, we 

will work to elevate the priority of this 

topic for research by the Coast Guard, 

resource agencies and others funding 

environmental science. We request 

comment on whether and how such 

factors should be considered in the 

practicability review. 

C. Applicability 

The Coast Guard proposes that the 

ballast water discharge standard apply 

to all vessels discharging ballast water 

into U.S. waters. In accordance with 

NISA, certain vessels would be exempt 

from the requirements to install and 

operate a Coast Guard approved BWMS, 

including: 

• Crude oil tankers engaged in 

coastwise trade (16 U.S.C. 

4711(c)(2)(L)); 

• Any vessel of the U.S. Armed 

Forces as defined in the Federal Water 

Pollution Control Act (33 U.S.C. 

1322(a)) that is subject to the Uniformed 

National Discharge Standards for 

Vessels of the Armed Forces (33 U.S.C. 

1322(n)) (16 U.S.C. 4711(c)(2)(J)); and 

• Any warship, naval auxiliary, or 

other vessel owned or operated by a 

foreign state and used, for the time 

being, only on government noncommercial service (consistent with 

IMO BWM Convention, Article 3; 1982 

United Nations Convention on the Law 

of the Sea, Article 236). 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS3
44636 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 166 / Friday, August 28, 2009 / Proposed Rules 

Under today’s proposal, foreign 

vessels equipped with and operating a 

BWMS that has been approved by a 

Foreign Administration would be 

allowed to use the BWMS for 

discharging ballast water into U.S. 

waters if the Coast Guard determines 

that the Foreign Administration’s 

approval process is equivalent to the 

Coast Guard’s approval program, the 

BWMS otherwise meets the 

requirements of this proposed rule, and 

the resulting discharge into waters of 

the U.S. meets the applicable (i.e., 

phase-one or phase-two) proposed 

discharge standard. 

The Coast Guard initiated a BWMS 

research program on January 7, 2004, 

called the Shipboard Technology 

Evaluation Program (STEP). 69 FR 1082. 

STEP is intended to facilitate research, 

development, and shipboard testing of 

effective BWMS. Vessels participating 

in STEP would be granted equivalencies 

to the BWMS approval requirements of 

the proposed rule. In the event that 

information learned during STEP on any 

experimental BWMS leads the Coast 

Guard to conclude that there is a risk to 

the environment, vessel, and/or human 

health, testing of the BWMS would be 

stopped and acceptance to STEP would 

be withdrawn. This would mean that 

the equivalency determination would 

also be withdrawn, and that the vessel 

would be required to use a different 

Coast Guard approved BWMS to meet 

the requirements of the proposed 

rulemaking. More information on STEP 

can be found at: http://www.uscg.mil/ 

environmental_standards/. 

The Coast Guard would consider, on 

a case-by-case basis, making 

equivalency determinations for vessels 

participating in similar research 

programs conducted by Foreign 

Administrations or State governments. 

In such cases, the vessel owner or 

operator would request an equivalency 

determination from the Coast Guard. If 

a vessel granted an equivalency 

determination is later removed from one 

of these programs, the vessel would be 

required to install a different Coast 

Guard approved BWMS to meet the 

requirements of the proposed rule. 

D. Proposed Discharge Standards 

The current BWM regulations in 33 

CFR part 151 are split into two 

regulatory regimens—the Great Lakes 

Ballast Water Management Program and 

the U.S. Ballast Water Management 

Program. These regulations are found in 

33 CFR part 151 subparts C and D, 

respectively. In this proposed rule, we 

would establish a phase-one and phasetwo discharge standard for all vessels 

that discharge ballast water into U.S. 

waters. However, we would keep 

subparts C and D separate to retain some 

pre-existing regulations that are specific 

to the Great Lakes. We are retaining 

these pre-existing regulations, specific 

to the Great Lakes, because we want to 

be consistent with the Department of 

Transportation’s Saint Lawrence 

Seaway Development Corporation’s 

BWM regulations and Canadian 

(Transport Canada) BWM regulations. 

Also, the uniqueness of vessel traffic 

patterns into the Great Lakes warrants 

special treatment, as reflected in the 

pre-existing regulations. 

Invasive species have proven to be a 

significant and costly problem in the 

Great Lakes. NISA explicitly recognized 

that some areas might require special 

protections by providing that ballast 

water management regulations may be 

regional in scope. The Coast Guard thus 

requests comment on the 

appropriateness of the proposed rule for 

control of invasive species from ballast 

waters discharged into the Great Lakes 

or other areas. More specifically, are 

there characteristics of the Great Lakes 

ecosystem or other ecosystems that 

would justify more stringent standards 

or earlier compliance dates for ships 

operating in the Lakes or other areas 

than for ships in other U.S. waters, 

keeping in mind that NISA also requires 

that such regulations should be 

practicable? Should the regulations 

include provisions that apply only to 

the Great Lakes or other areas? What 

provisions of the proposed rule might be 

changed in light of the identified special 

circumstances in the Great Lakes or 

other locations (e.g.: Compliance 

schedules, treatment levels)? In 

addition, are there practices or 

technologies not addressed in the 

proposed rule that might be practicably 

applied specifically to protection of the 

Great Lakes or other ecosystems (e.g.: 

On-shore treatment or prior to entering 

freshwater or limitations on access to 

the Lakes or other areas for vessels that 

pose a special risk of discharge of new 

invasive species, and if so, how would 

those special risks be assessed in a 

practicable manner)? Please provide 

explicit information on the 

practicability of any such proposed 

approaches, including costs and 

resources required to implement and 

maintain such requirements. 

The proposed phase-one standard for 

allowable concentrations of living 

organisms in ships’ ballast water is: 

(1) For organisms larger than 50 

microns in minimum dimension: 

Discharge less than 10 organisms per 

cubic meter of ballast water. 

(2) For organisms equal to or smaller 

than 50 microns and larger than 10 

microns: Discharge less than 10 

organisms per milliliter (ml) of ballast 

water. 

(3) Indicator microorganisms must not 

exceed: 

(a) For toxicogenic Vibrio cholerae 

(serotypes O1 and O139): A 

concentration of <1 colony forming unit 

(cfu) per 100 ml; 

(b) For Escherichia coli: A 

concentration of <250 cfu per 100 ml; 

and 

(c) For intestinal enterococci: a 

concentration of <100 cfu per 100 ml. 

The Coast Guard has determined that 

the proposed phase-one standard for 

ballast water discharge would provide a 

greater degree of protection than BWE 

and will help reduce the risk of NIS 

introductions. In our study of five 

alternative ballast water discharge 

standards, detailed in the Draft 

Programmatic Environmental Impact 

Statement (DPEIS), we estimated that 

ballast water treatment to achieve the 

phase-one standard proposed in this 

rulemaking would be up to 60% more 

effective than BWE and 80% more 

effective than unmanaged ballast water 

discharge in preventing the probability 

of biological invasions. 

As described and discussed in Section 

4 (Environmental Consequences) of the 

DPEIS, the alternative ballast water 

discharge standards compared in the 

NEPA assessment can be expressed in 

terms of the proportion of organisms in 

different size classes that will be 

prevented from being introduced. Table 

1 describes the alternative BWDS. 

TABLE 1—ALLOWABLE CONCENTRATION OF ORGANISMS IN BWD, BY SIZE, FOR ALTERNATIVES 2–4 2

Large organisms >50 

microns in size 

Small organisms >10 

and ≤50 microns in 

size 

Bacteria 

Toxigenic Vibrio 

cholerae (O1 and 

O139) 

E. coli Intestinal enterococci 

Alternative 2 .............. <10 per m3 ................ <10 per ml ................. <1 cfu per 100 ml ...... <250 cfu per 100 ml .. <100 cfu per 100 ml. 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 166 / Friday, August 28, 2009 / Proposed Rules 44637 

2Note, for ease of comparison within the Table, 

the alternatives have all been standardized to 

numbers of organisms per standard unit of volume. 

For organisms larger than 50 microns, the unit 

volume is one cubic meter. For organisms less than 

or equal to 50 microns, but greater than 10 microns, 

the unit volume is 1 milliliter. Note also that if 

expressed in terms of whole numbers of organisms 

in a volume, alternative 4 would be equal to less 

than 1 organism per 10 cubic meters or 10 

milliliters of water (depending on size class) and 

the phase two standard would be less than 1 

organism per 100 cubic meters or 100 milliliters of 

water (depending on size class). 

TABLE 1—ALLOWABLE CONCENTRATION OF ORGANISMS IN BWD, BY SIZE, FOR ALTERNATIVES 2–4 2—Continued 

Large organisms >50 

microns in size 

Small organisms >10 

and ≤50 microns in 

size 

Bacteria 

Toxigenic Vibrio 

cholerae (O1 and 

O139) 

E. coli Intestinal enterococci 

Alternative 3 .............. <1 per m3 .................. <1 per ml ................... <1 cfu per 100 ml ...... <126 cfu per 100 ml .. <33 cfu per 100 ml. 

Alternative 4 .............. <0.1 per m3 ............... <0.1 per ml ................ <1 cfu per 100 ml ...... <126 cfu per 100 ml .. <33 cfu per 100 ml. 

In addition to the alternatives shown 

in the table above, Alternative 5 (which 

is essentially sterilization) would 

require the removal or inactivation of all 

living membrane-bound organisms 

(including bacteria and some viruses) 

larger than 0.1 micron. The 

mathematical modeling approach that 

we used in the DPEIS provides an 

assessment of the relative effectiveness 

in increasing extinction probability, by 

taxonomic group, of a particular 

alternative ballast water discharge 

standard. Relative effectiveness is 

measured by the proportional increase 

in theoretical extinction probability over 

the ‘no management’ option (No Action 

Alternative). 

This mathematical or analytical 

approach can be used to compare the 

alternatives in relative terms, but not in 

absolute terms. For example, Alternative 

5 in the DPEIS results in no 

introduction of nonindigenous species 

via ballast water, whereas Alternatives 

2, 3, and 4 increase extinction 

probability, and thus decrease the 

probability of successful invasions by 

different factors when compared to the 

No Action Alternative. The comparison 

is relative, rather than absolute, because 

the analysis was done using a specific 

and highly limited, but reasonable, set 

of estimates for the controlling 

variables. These variables include initial 

population size, threshold population 

size for extinction, population growth 

rate, and population variability around 

the mean growth rate. It is important to 

understand that these predictions relate 

to relative, not absolute, differences in 

risk reduction. Table 2 illustrates the 

potential impacts to the various 

environments in relation to vessels 

treating their ballast water to the 

alternative BWDS. 

TABLE 2—COMPARISON OF ALTERNATIVES

Resource Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3 Alternative 4 Alternative 5 

Marine Ecosystems ... Current impacts 

would continue— 

trophic interactions,1 changing 

community structures,2 harmful 

algal blooms 

(HAB), effects on 

ecosystem services.3

Minor to moderate reduction in NIS introductions, resulting in fewer negative changes to natural community 

structures, fewer 

HAB.

Moderate reduction in 

NIS introductions, 

resulting in fewer 

negative changes 

to natural community structures, 

fewer HAB.

Moderate to major reduction in NIS introductions, resulting in fewer negative changes to natural community 

structures, fewer 

HAB.

Unquantified. Impacts 

would likely be 

greatly reduced 

compared to the 

other alternatives. 

Estuarine Ecosystems Current impacts 

would continue 

—erosion, turbidity, 

trophic interactions, 

changing community structures, 

HAB, effects on 

ecosystem services.

Minor to moderate reduction in NIS introductions, resulting in less erosion, 

fewer negative 

changes to natural 

community structure, fewer HAB, 

lessened negative 

impacts on ecosystem services.

Moderate reduction in 

NIS introductions, 

resulting in less 

erosion, fewer negative changes to 

natural community 

structure, fewer 

HAB, lessened 

negative impacts 

on ecosystem services.

Moderate to major reduction in NIS introductions, resulting in less erosion, 

fewer negative 

changes to natural 

community structure, fewer HAB, 

lessened negative 

impacts on ecosystem services.

Unquantified. Impacts 

would likely be 

greatly reduced 

compared to the 

other alternatives. 

Freshwater Ecosystems.Current impacts 

would continue— 

erosion, trophic 

interactions, changing community 

structures, effects 

on ecosystem services.

Minor to moderate reduction in NIS introductions, resulting in less erosion, 

fewer negative 

changes to natural 

community structure, fewer HAB, 

lessened negative 

impacts on ecosystem services.

Moderate reduction in 

NIS introductions, 

resulting in less 

erosion, fewer negative changes to 

natural community 

structure, fewer 

HAB, lessened 

negative impacts 

on ecosystem services.

Moderate to major reduction in NIS introductions, resulting in less erosion, 

fewer negative 

changes to natural 

community structure, fewer HAB, 

lessened negative 

impacts on ecosystem services.

Unquantified. Impacts 

would likely be 

greatly reduced 

compared to the 

other alternatives. 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS3
44638 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 166 / Friday, August 28, 2009 / Proposed Rules 

TABLE 2—COMPARISON OF ALTERNATIVES—Continued 

Resource Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3 Alternative 4 Alternative 5 

Threatened and Endangered Species.Current impacts 

would continue, 

trophic interactions, 

changing community structures, 

HAB, disruption of 

food sources, effects on ecosystem 

services.

Minor to moderate reduction in NIS introductions, resulting in fewer negative changes to natural community 

structure, fewer 

HAB, less disruption of food 

sources, lessened 

negative impacts 

on ecosystem services.

Moderate reduction in 

NIS introductions, 

resulting in fewer 

negative changes 

to natural community structure, fewer 

HAB, less disruption of food 

sources, lessened 

negative impacts 

on ecosystem services.

Moderate to major reduction in NIS introductions, resulting in fewer negative changes to natural community 

structure, fewer 

HAB, less disruption of food 

sources, lessened 

negative impacts 

on ecosystem services.

Unquantified. Impacts 

would likely be 

greatly reduced 

compared to the 

other alternatives. 

Essential Fish Habitat Current impacts 

would continue, 

trophic interactions, 

changing community structures, 

HAB, degradation 

of habitat.

Minor to moderate reduction in NIS introductions, resulting in fewer negative changes to natural community 

structure, fewer 

HAB, less degradation of habitat.

Moderate reduction in 

NIS introductions, 

resulting in fewer 

negative changes 

to natural community structure, fewer 

HAB, less degradation of habitat.

Moderate to major reduction in NIS introductions, resulting in fewer negative changes to natural community 

structure, fewer 

HAB, less degradation of habitat.

Unquantified. Impacts 

would likely be 

greatly reduced 

compared to the 

other alternatives. 

Socioeconomics ......... Disruptions of fisheries, fouling of environment, reduction in tourism due 

to fouling, higher 

costs from NIS impacts & responses 

to them.

Minor to moderate reduction in NIS introductions, resulting in less fouling 

of the environment, 

fewer fishery disruptions, and less 

revenue lost from a 

decrease in tourism 

due to NIS impacts 

on the environment.

Moderate reduction in 

NIS introductions, 

resulting in less 

fouling of the environment, fewer 

fishery disruptions, 

and less revenue 

lost from a decrease in tourism 

due to NIS impacts 

on the environment.

Moderate to major reduction in NIS introductions, resulting in less fouling 

of the environment, 

fewer fishery disruptions, and less 

revenue lost from a 

decrease in tourism 

due to NIS impacts 

on the environment.

Unquantified. Impacts 

would likely be 

greatly reduced 

compared to the 

other alternatives. 

Resources listed are from Chapter 3, Affected Environment. Reduction amounts, and therefore environmental impacts, are based on the modeling results described in Chapter 4, Environmental Consequences. Further descriptions of the environmental impacts are found in Chapter 4, 

Environmental Consequences. Alternatives 2–5 are compared to the No Action Alternative (both BWE and no BWM) as a baseline. 

Notes: 1. Trophic interactions pertain to the feeding relationships between organisms in a food web. 

2. Community structure refers to the physical structure and composition, as well as energy flows, of a community of organisms. 

3. Ecosystem services are those resources and processes that are performed by natural systems for which there is human demand and 

benefit. 

TABLE 3—COMPARISON OF THE RELATIVE EFFECTIVENESS OF ALTERNATIVES

Alternative 

Ne = 1 Ne = 100 

No BWM 

(percent) 

BWE 

(percent) 

No BWM 

(percent) 

BWE 

(percent) 

2 ............................................................................................................................................... 52 37 78 63 

3 ............................................................................................................................................... 73 64 94 90 

4 ............................................................................................................................................... 88 85 100 100 

Ne is the extinction threshold of the population in the model. 

Alternative 3 could be 64% more 

effective than BWE and 94% more 

effective than unmanaged ballast water 

discharge and Alternative 4 could be 

85% more effective than BWE and 

100% more effective than unmanaged 

ballast water discharge in preventing the 

probability of biological invasions as 

shown in Table 3. 

As noted above, this proposed rule 

would remove the option of conducting 

BWE as a ballast water management 

method per the compliance dates of the 

implementation schedule, which detail 

the timeframe that vessels would be 

required to install and operate a Coast 

Guard approved BWMS. 

The proposed phase-two standard for 

allowable concentrations of living 

organisms in ships’ ballast water is: 

(1) For organisms larger than 50 

microns in minimum dimension: 

Discharge less than 1 per 100 cubic 

meter of ballast water; 

(2) For organisms equal to or smaller 

than 50 microns and larger than 10 

microns: Discharge less than 1 organism 

per 100 milliliter (ml) of ballast water; 

(3) For organisms less than 10 

microns in minimum dimension: 

(i) Discharge less than 103 living 

bacterial cells per 100 ml of ballast 

water; and 

(ii) Discharge less than 104 viruses or 

viral-like particles per 100 ml of ballast 

water; and 

(4) Indicator microorganisms must not 

exceed: 

(i) For Toxicogenic Vibrio cholerae 

(serotypes O1 and O139): A 

concentration of <1 colony forming unit 

(cfu) per 100 ml; 

(ii) For Escherichia coli: A 

concentration of <126 cfu per 100 ml; 

and 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 166 / Friday, August 28, 2009 / Proposed Rules 44639 

(iii) For intestinal enterococci: A 

concentration of <33 cfu per 100 ml. 

This phase-two standard largely 

mirrors the standard proposed by the 

U.S. during negotiations for the IMO 

BWM convention and the more 

stringent standard established by several 

states, either under the states’ authority 

or as state conditions to the 

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) 

Vessel General Permit (VGP). 

3. Proposed Implementation Schedule 

The proposed implementation 

schedule for meeting the proposed 

phase-one ballast water discharge 

standard is shown in Table 4. The 

proposed implementation schedule for 

meeting the proposed phase-two ballast 

water discharge standard is shown in 

Table 5. Our proposed implementation 

schedule would provide vessel owners 

and operators sufficient time to install 

the necessary equipment needed to 

comply with the phase-one discharge 

standard, without causing significant 

disruptions to vessels operations and 

maritime commerce. Our phase-one 

implementation schedule is similar to 

the implementation schedule for the 

IMO Convention as they are both based 

on build date and ballast water capacity. 

An implementation schedule using 

build dates and ballast water capacities 

was determined by the Coast Guard and 

IMO to be an appropriate mechanism for 

giving both vessel owners and BWMS 

manufacturers enough time to have 

BWMS approved and installed while 

avoiding long delays at shipyards where 

these installations would take place. As 

there are limited numbers of shipyards 

around the world, vessel owners must 

schedule BWMS installations well in 

advance. An implementation schedule 

calling for faster installation would 

likely make it difficult for vessel owners 

to comply with the requirements in 

time. However, we are requesting 

comment specifically on whether it 

would be possible for vessel owners to 

comply with a phase-one BWDS 

implementation schedule that called for 

all existing vessels to install an 

approved BWMS on their vessel by 

2014. 

We also request comment on whether 

there are any facilities ready to meet the 

requirements of becoming an 

Independent Lab (IL), and any 

technology vendors ready to submit 

their system(s) to the proposed 

protocols as soon as a facility is 

recognized as an IL, such that the initial 

practicability review, now scheduled for 

January 2013, could be moved to 

January 2012. If the IL and vendors were 

ready, would moving the practicability 

review allow time for vessels with a 

2014 compliance date to implement 

technology meeting phase two standards 

in place of technology meeting only 

phase one standards? 

TABLE 4—PROPOSED IMPLEMENTATION SCHEDULE FOR THE PHASE-ONE BALLAST WATER MANAGEMENT PROGRAM

Vessel’s ballast water capacity 

(cubic meters, m3) Vessel’s construction date Vessel’s compliance date 

New vessels: All ................................................. On or after January 1, 2012 ............................ On Delivery. 

Existing vessels: 

Less than 1500 ........................................... Before January 1, 2012 ................................... First drydocking after January 1, 2016. 

1500–5000 .................................................. Before January 1, 2012 ................................... First drydocking after January 1, 2014. 

Greater than 5000 ....................................... Before January 1, 2012 ................................... First drydocking after January 1, 2016. 

TABLE 5—PROPOSED IMPLEMENTATION SCHEDULE FOR THE PHASE-TWO BALLAST WATER MANAGEMENT PROGRAM

Vessel’s ballast water capacity 

(cubic meters, m3) Vessel’s construction date Vessel’s compliance date 

New vessels: All ................................................. On or after January 1, 2016 ............................ On Delivery. 

Existing vessels: All ............................................ Before January 1, 2016 ................................... First drydocking after January 1, 2016, UNLESS the vessel installed a BWMS meeting 

the phase-one standard before January 1, 

2016, then 5 years after installation of the 

BWMS meeting the phase-one standard. 

Note that the phase-two standard 

implementation date for all existing 

vessels that have not installed a BWMS 

meeting the phase-one standard by 

January 1, 2016 is the same compliance 

date regardless of the vessel’s ballast 

water capacity. The only exception for 

this would be for those vessels that have 

already installed a BWMS type 

approved as meeting the phase-one 

standard. (These vessels would be 

allowed additional time to comply with 

the phase-two standards, as discussed 

below.) This is because we would be 

publishing the results of a practicability 

review in early 2013 to determine 

whether it will be practicable to meet 

the phase-two standard in the proposed 

timeline. If, at that time, we determine 

that it is practicable, these vessels 

would have enough time to plan for 

installation of a system capable of 

meeting the phase-two standard and 

should be required to do so. If, however, 

our practicability review indicates that 

it will not be possible to implement the 

phase-two standard on our proposed 

timeline, those vessels would still be 

required to install a system capable of 

meeting the phase-one standard in 

accordance with the schedule in Table 

4. 

The phase-two standard also includes 

a grandfather clause for those vessels 

that install technology that has been 

type approved as meeting the phase-one 

BWDS prior to January 1, 2016. We seek 

comment on whether such a grandfather 

clause is necessary, and if so, whether 

the proposed five-year period is enough 

time, more than enough time, or not 

long enough. We specifically request 

information pertaining to the impacts, 

cost and otherwise, of the grandfather 

clause as it is proposed, as well as not 

having a grandfather clause (i.e., 

requiring all vessels to install a phasetwo technology at their first dry dock 

after January 1, 2016). Assuming a 

grandfather period is necessary, what is 

the appropriate period, and why? 

4. Practicability Review 

We are proposing to require a 

practicability review, to be published 

three years prior to the first 

implementation date for the phase-two 

BWDS, in order to determine whether 

the technology to achieve and verify 

compliance with the phase-two 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS3
44640 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 166 / Friday, August 28, 2009 / Proposed Rules 

performance standard can practicably be 

implemented, in whole or in part, by the 

applicable compliance date. 

This review would seek to determine 

first whether there was any technology 

with the verified ability to achieve the 

phase-two standard. It would examine 

whether that technology could be 

practicably made available in time to 

meet the implementation schedule. This 

review would then be used to determine 

whether to allow the phase-two 

implementation schedule to come into 

effect, to delay the schedule by some 

period of time, or to amend the standard 

and/or schedule to reflect the 

practicability review conclusions on 

what performance standards existing or 

emerging technologies could meet. Any 

proposed amendments to the standard 

or the schedule would be done through 

rule making and could also include 

consideration of grandfather periods for 

owners of vessels that have already 

complied with an earlier standard. 

The practicability review would also 

consider, among other factors, whether 

testing protocols are available to verify 

that treatment technologies can be 

expected to comply with the phase-two 

performance standard. Development of 

protocols capable of determining 

compliance with the phase-two is a high 

priority for the Coast Guard. Other 

factors to be considered could include 

cost of compliant treatment 

technologies, and whether any 

amendments have been made to the 

IMO Ballast Water Management 

Convention. 

We’ve also left open the possibility 

that the practicability review might 

reveal that a more stringent standard 

between the proposed phase-one and 

the phase-two BWDS is achievable. We 

also allow for the possibility that 

technology might be capable of 

achieving a standard that is more 

stringent than what we have proposed 

as the phase-two BWDS. In the event the 

IMO BWM Convention standard is 

subsequently raised, we would expect at 

least a matching increase in the 

domestic standard. In these cases, we 

would propose to revise this regulation 

to amend either the implementation 

timeline or the phase-two standard, or 

both, at the time that we publicize the 

results of our practicability review. 

5. Other Proposed Amendments to 33 

CFR Part 151 

In subpart C, we would add relevant 

definitions. In subpart D, we would add 

definitions, revise the provision 

allowing for discharge of ballast water 

in extraordinary circumstance 

(previously known as the ‘‘safety’’ 

exemption), and add a requirement for 

the vessel owner or operator to maintain 

the BWMS certificate of approval 

onboard the vessel. Additionally, we 

would reorganize subpart D and revise 

all section headings to remove the 

current question-and-answer format. 

B. Approval Program 

The Coast Guard proposes to add 

requirements for the approval of BWMS. 

These requirements would be added to 

46 CFR Subchapter Q, by creating a new 

subpart 162.060, ‘‘Ballast Water 

Management Systems’’. In this new 

subpart, we would establish an approval 

program, including requirements for 

designing, installing, operating, and 

testing BWMS to ensure these systems 

meet required safety and performance 

standards. These proposed approval 

requirements use information from the 

IMO G8 Guidelines for type approval of 

BWMS under the BWM Convention, the 

Protocols for Verification of Ballast 

Water Treatment Systems developed 

under EPA’s Environmental Technology 

Verification (ETV) Program, and existing 

Coast Guard approval requirements for 

equipment installed onboard vessels. 

1. Section-by-Section Summary of 

Changes to 46 CFR Subchapter Q Part 

162 

In proposed § 162.060–1, we describe 

the purpose and scope of the approval 

requirements. 

In proposed § 162.060–3, we define 

the terms used in the subpart. 

In proposed § 162.060–5, we list those 

standards which we propose to 

incorporate by reference into the 

regulations. 

In proposed § 162.060–10, we 

describe the content requirements for a 

manufacturer submitting a Letter of 

Intent to the Coast Guard stating that the 

manufacturer intends to begin testing of 

its BWMS in order to obtain Coast 

Guard approval. We also describe the 

specific procedures for obtaining 

approval of a BWMS. 

In proposed § 162.060–12, we provide 

equivalent approval procedures. First, a 

manufacturer whose BWMS has been 

approved by a Foreign Administration 

may request a written determination 

from the Coast Guard’s Marine Safety 

Center that such approval by a Foreign 

Administration is equivalent to a Coast 

Guard approval. 

Second, we recognize the importance 

of experimental shipboard testing of 

prototype BWMS, and further recognize 

that shipboard testing programs of 

prototype systems may be more 

intensive than the requirements 

proposed in this subpart. We do not 

want to create redundant requirements 

for BWMS already entered into 

recognized national or international 

shipboard testing programs, as this 

would constitute a disincentive for 

participation in these programs. 

Therefore, this section allows for a 

manufacturer whose BWMS is 

undergoing such shipboard testing 

under a recognized national program to 

request an equivalency for the 

shipboard testing requirements. In this 

case, the manufacturer would request an 

equivalency determination from the 

Coast Guard’s Marine Safety Center by 

submitting a description of the BWMS, 

the specific information on the vessel 

where the shipboard testing would 

occur, the testing protocols, and 

information about the goals and 

expected results of the testing project, as 

well as a full description of the 

recognized program under which the 

testing is taking place. If a manufacturer 

is removed from one of these programs, 

the manufacturer would need to make 

the appropriate arrangements in order to 

comply with the requirements of 

proposed § 162.060–28. 

Finally, if a manufacturer has already 

conducted a substantial amount of landbased and/or shipboard testing 

independent of the requirements of this 

subpart, the Coast Guard’s Marine 

Safety Center may make an equivalency 

determination. The manufacturer would 

submit a written request for such a 

determination to the Coast Guard’s 

Marine Safety Center. 

In proposed § 162.060–14, we 

describe the content requirements of an 

application for Coast Guard approval of 

a BWMS. This section states that each 

item requiring approval would be the 

subject of a separate application. 

In proposed § 162.060–16, we 

describe the procedures that would be 

followed if the design or conditions of 

the original approval changes, if a 

manufacturer wishes to change the 

design or conditions of an approved 

system, or if the Coast Guard determines 

that an approval or conditions of 

approval are no longer valid under the 

provisions of proposed § 162.060–14. 

In proposed § 162.060–18, we state 

that the Coast Guard may suspend, 

withdraw, or terminate approval of a 

BWMS if it is: 

• Not in compliance with the 

requirements of approval; 

• Unsuitable for its intended purpose; 

• Not in compliance with the 

requirements of other applicable laws, 

rules, and/or regulations; 

• No longer being manufactured or 

supported; or 

• Under an approval that expires. 

In proposed § 162.060–20, we 

describe design and construction 

requirements for BWMS. The IMO’s 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 166 / Friday, August 28, 2009 / Proposed Rules 44641 

Marine Environment Protection 

Committee (MEPC) Technical 

Specifications in section 4 of MEPC 

125(53), ‘‘Guidelines for Approval of 

Ballast Water Management Systems’’ 

provide a basis for the proposed 

requirements. The proposed 

requirements also refer to the applicable 

design and material requirements in the 

Coast Guard marine and electrical 

engineering regulations found in 46 CFR 

subchapters F and J, respectively. 

In proposed § 162.060–22, we outline 

the marking requirements for an 

approved BWMS. 

In proposed § 162.060–24, we 

describe the requirements and format of 

the test plans that would be required to 

be prepared prior to conducting each 

test required by this subpart. 

In proposed § 162.060–26, we 

describe the land-based testing and 

evaluation requirements for BWMS 

approval. MEPC 125(53), ‘‘Guidelines 

for Approval of Ballast Water 

Management Systems’’ provides a basis 

for the proposed requirements. The 

proposed requirements also incorporate 

findings from the draft Environmental 

Technology Verification (ETV) protocols 

of the EPA’s ETV Program. These tests 

are designed to assess the ability of a 

BWMS to meet the BWDS proposed in 

33 CFR part 151 subparts C and D, 

evaluate the suitability of the system for 

shipboard installation, and validate the 

operating and maintenance parameters 

presented by the manufacturer. 

In proposed § 162.060–28, we 

describe the shipboard testing 

requirements that would have to be 

completed in addition to the land-based 

testing requirements for Coast Guard 

approval of a BWMS. 

In proposed § 162.060–30, we 

describe tests that would be conducted 

on all electrical components submitted 

for approval as part of the complete 

BWMS. These tests assess whether 

BWMS components would operate 

properly for an extended period of time 

under harsh shipboard operating and 

environmental conditions. The 

Independent Laboratory (IL) would 

conduct all approval tests and 

evaluations under this subpart for the 

applicant. The results of these tests 

must be included in the final Test 

Report. 

In proposed § 162.060–32, we 

describe the requirements for any 

BWMS that utilizes or generates an 

active substance or preparation. 

In proposed § 162.060–34, we 

describe the required contents of the 

Test Report, format of the Test Report, 

and the IL’s responsibilities for 

completing the Test Report and 

submitting all required information to 

the Coast Guard. 

In proposed § 162.060–36, we 

describe the requirements of the Quality 

Assurance Project Plans that the IL 

would develop and be required to 

follow. 

In proposed § 162.060–38, we 

describe the requirements for an 

Operation, Maintenance, and Safety 

Manual (OMSM) that the manufacturer 

would prepare and submit along with 

the application for approval specified in 

this subpart. This OMSM would need to 

be kept onboard each vessel with an 

approved BWMS. 

In proposed § 162.060–40, we 

describe how ILs would obtain 

recognition by the Coast Guard. 

2. Discussion of Previous Comments on 

the Approval Program 

On August 5, 2004, the Coast Guard 

published a notice in the Federal 

Register with a request for comments 

regarding, among other things, whether 

proposing an approval program 

alongside a BWDS would be necessary. 

69 FR 47453. The Coast Guard further 

asked commenters to identify, if they 

supported an approval program, what 

type of testing procedures should be 

developed and what issues should be 

addressed; such as water resources, 

water quality conditions, and any other 

environmental conditions. We received 

8 comments related to the establishment 

of an approval program and discuss 

them below. 

Two commenters stated the Coast 

Guard should not require shipboard 

testing. Both commenters stated that the 

Coast Guard has a long history of 

providing onshore testing of equipment 

for Coast Guard approval, and they saw 

no reason to depart from the practice. 

One commenter also disagreed with 

shipboard testing due to logistical 

difficulty, time delay, and expense. 

The Coast Guard disagrees. Landbased testing alone does not always 

simulate long-term shipboard 

conditions. Moreover, the BWM 

Convention G8 type-approval guidelines 

employ both land-based and ship-based 

testing of BWMS. Therefore, the Coast 

Guard has proposed shipboard testing 

requirements in this rulemaking. 

One commenter stated that on-shore 

testing will need to be adaptable 

because various technologies may 

require their own individualized 

regimen of tests. 

The Coast Guard agrees that test 

facilities must be adaptable for different 

types of technologies, but we disagree 

that each technology will require its 

own individualized regimen of tests 

during land-based testing. To the 

greatest degree possible, test facilities 

must employ standard test protocols to 

ensure that different technologies, tested 

at different facilities and times, undergo 

the same level of testing. Through the 

EPA’s ETV program, stakeholder 

reviews, and partnerships with the 

Naval Research Laboratory, we 

developed the standard protocols for 

land-based tests found in this 

regulation. The basic parameters we 

would incorporate for shipboard testing, 

however, allow the IL to design tests 

that address specific needs of varying 

BWMS employing different 

technologies. 

Two commenters recommended the 

Coast Guard use ILs to perform approval 

tests. The Coast Guard agrees with these 

commenters and has incorporated ILs 

into the proposed approval process. 

One commenter stated the Coast 

Guard should use its own expertise with 

the additional resources available from 

classification societies and EPA to make 

appropriate decisions, which consider 

the safety of the vessel and crew as well 

as the harsh seafaring environment. 

The Coast Guard agrees and notes that 

we developed the BWDS and approval 

requirements proposed in this notice 

utilizing existing Coast Guard design 

and safety requirements, an extensive 

stakeholder review process within the 

EPA’s ETV program, and guidelines 

developed by the IMO with input from 

classification societies. 

One commenter stated that whatever 

testing procedures are ultimately 

adopted, it is essential that a sufficient 

number of laboratories be established so 

that a given manufacturer’s equipment 

may be evaluated and approved no more 

than six to eight weeks after its 

submission to the Coast Guard. 

The Coast Guard agrees that a 

sufficient number of laboratories should 

be established; however, we disagree 

with the six to eight week time period 

for approval after submission. Land 

based tests conducted by the IL and the 

statutorily required environmental 

assessments conducted by the Coast 

Guard during the approval process 

would necessitate more than six to eight 

weeks for complete approval. It is 

important to note that Coast Guard type 

approval of a BWMS does not require 

each individual BWMS to be tested and 

evaluated. Under the proposed process, 

a representative system would undergo 

the rigorous tests for Coast Guard 

approval, and subsequent BWMS built 

to the same design and within the rated 

capacity parameters would only require 

installation surveys. 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS3
44642 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 166 / Friday, August 28, 2009 / Proposed Rules 

3 International Convention for the Control and 

Management of Ship’s Ballast Water and Sediments 

(BWM Convention). 

C. Enforcement and Compliance 

The Coast Guard would conduct 

enforcement and compliance activities 

for the BWM program as part of the 

overall BWM enforcement and 

compliance program. This program 

would continue to be conducted as part 

of regularly scheduled Port State and 

Flag State exams and inspections, as 

well as other continued compliance 

verification and outreach efforts. All 

Coast Guard offices involved with BWM 

compliance would maintain a local 

training and qualification program for 

its inspections consistent with guidance 

provided by Office of Vessel Activities 

(CG–543), Environmental Standards 

Division (CG–5224), Areas, Sectors, and 

Districts. 

VI. Incorporation by Reference 

Material proposed for incorporation 

by reference appears in 46 CFR 

162.060–5. You may inspect this 

material at U.S. Coast Guard 

Headquarters where indicated under 

ADDRESSES. Copies of the material are 

available from the sources listed in 

§ 162.060–5. 

Before publishing a binding rule, we 

will submit this material to the Director 

of the Federal Register for approval of 

the incorporation by reference. 

VII. Regulatory Analysis 

We developed this proposed rule after 

considering numerous statutes and 

executive orders related to rulemaking. 

Below we summarize our analysis based 

on 13 of these statutes or executive 

orders. 

A. Executive Order 12866 

This proposed rule is a ‘‘significant 

regulatory action’’ under section 3(f) of 

Executive Order 12866, Regulatory 

Planning and Review. The Office of 

Management and Budget has reviewed it 

under that Order. It requires an 

assessment of potential costs and 

benefits under section 6(a)(3) of that 

Order. A preliminary assessment 

(‘‘Regulatory Analysis’’) is available in 

the docket where indicated under the 

‘‘Public Participation and Request for 

Comments’’ section of this preamble. A 

summary of the Regulatory Analysis 

(RA) follows: 

The RA provides an evaluation of the 

economic impacts associated with the 

implementation of standards limiting 

the quantities of living organisms in 

ships’ ballast water discharged in U.S. 

waters. The focus of this assessment is 

to analyze the costs and benefits of 

implementing the phase one BWDS, 

which is the same standard adopted by 

the IMO in 2004.3

While the proposed phase one BWDS 

is practicable to achieve in the near term 

and will considerably advance 

environmental protection over the 

current exchange-based regime, we also 

recognize that it is not the ultimate 

endpoint for protection of U.S. waters. 

We note that a number of states have 

already adopted BWDS using more 

stringent standards. The purpose of 

NISA, as already noted, is to ensure, to 

the maximum extent practicable, that 

NIS are not introduced and spread into 

U.S. waters. Hence, the Coast Guard is 

proposing today the adoption of a more 

stringent standard (phase-two standard) 

to take effect in 2016. The phase-two 

standard represents a standard that is 

potentially 1,000 times more stringent 

than the phase-one standard. We wish 

to solicit comments with respect to the 

following questions (when providing 

comments, please explain the reasoning 

underlying your comment and provide 

citations to and copies of any relevant 

studies, reports and other sources of 

information on which you rely): 

1. What are the acquisition, 

installation, operation/maintenance and 

replacement costs of technological 

systems that are able to meet more 

stringent standards? Please provide 

quantitative cost data specifying 

complete data sources, type of 

technology and testing status, and the 

stringency (at 10x, 100x, and 1000x the 

IMO standard and for sterilization). 

2. Are there technology systems that 

can be scalable or modified to meet 

multiple stringency standards after 

being installed? Please provide 

quantitative data specifying the 

technology, necessary modifications (to 

go to a more stringent standard), costs, 

and sources of the information. 

3. What are the additional costs for 

vessels compliant with the phase-one 

standard to go to the phase- two 

standard? Please provide quantitative 

cost data specifying complete data 

sources, type of technology, and 

possible phase-two stringencies (at 10x, 

100x, and 1000x the IMO standard and 

for sterilization). 

4. What are the technology 

alternatives and costs for smaller 

coastwise vessel types? Please provide 

quantitative data specifying the 

technology and stringency, costs, and 

sources of the information. 

5. What are the additional avoided 

environmental and social damages and 

economic benefits of ballast water 

discharge standards at more stringent 

standards? Please provide quantitative 

data and sources for all information. 

6. In light of the potentially severe 

nature of such damages, does the 

proposed rule ensure to the maximum 

extent practicable that aquatic nuisance 

species are not discharged into waters of 

the United States from vessels, as 

required by NISA? Would an approach 

that bypassed phase-one and went 

directly to the phase-two standards be 

practicable and provide greater 

protection of the aquatic environment? 

Please provide quantitative data and 

sources to support your response. 

For more details on phase one and 

two BWDS, see the ‘‘Discussion of 

Proposed Rule’’ section. 

For additional details on other 

alternatives considered for this 

rulemaking, see the Draft Programmatic 

Environmental Impact Statement 

(DPEIS) available on the docket. 

Population Affected: 

This proposed rule would affect 

vessels operating in U.S. waters that are 

equipped with ballast tanks. These 

vessels would be required to install and 

operate a Coast Guard approved ballast 

water management system (BWMS) 

before discharging ballast water into 

U.S. waters. This would include vessels 

bound for offshore ports or places. 

Additionally, whether the vessel 

traveled 200 nautical miles offshore 

would not be a factor in determining 

applicability. This means that some 

vessels that operated exclusively in the 

coastwise trade, within the U.S. 

Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ), which 

were previously exempt from having to 

perform ballast water exchange (BWE), 

would now be required to meet the 

ballast water discharge standard 

(BWDS). See the ‘‘Discussion of 

Proposed Rule’’ section of the NPRM for 

applicability of the rule regarding vessel 

operation. 

The primary source of data used in 

this analysis is the Marine Information 

for Safety and Law Enforcement 

(MISLE) system and Ballast Water 

Reporting Forms for 2007 submitted to 

the National Ballast Information 

Clearinghouse (NBIC), which maintains 

the reporting and database. MISLE is the 

Coast Guard database system for 

information on vessel characteristics, 

arrivals, casualties, and inspections. The 

NBIC database provides information on 

the amount of ballast water discharged 

in U.S. ports for the range of vessel 

types calling on U.S. waters. Since 

October 2004, all vessels, U.S. and 

foreign, operating in U.S. waters and 

bound for U.S. ports or places, have 

been required to submit reports of their 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 166 / Friday, August 28, 2009 / Proposed Rules 44643 

4The RA presents cost estimates for foreign flag 

vessels projected to call in U.S. waters. 

BWM practices to the NBIC database. 33 

CFR 151.2041. 

Approximately 7,575 vessels from the 

current vessel population, of which 

2,616 are U.S. vessels, would be 

required to meet the BWDS. We propose 

that full implementation for the phase 

one BWDS would be required by 2016. 

The installation requirements would be 

phased-in for new and existing vessels 

over the 2012 through 2016 period. 

As previously mentioned, the BWDS 

analyzed in the RA is the same standard 

as in the 2004 IMO BWM Convention 

(see the ‘‘Discussion of Proposed Rule’’ 

section for more information on the 

ratification of the Convention). For the 

purposes of the RA, we consider the 

costs of this rulemaking to involve U.S. 

vessels.4 Nevertheless, we anticipate 

that the development of treatment 

technology would involve the world 

fleet, not the U.S. fleet alone. In order 

to estimate the cost associated with 

BWMS on the U.S. fleet, we needed to 

develop the range of technologies that 

may be available and the unit costs of 

these technologies. We assume that 

there will be a broad market for the new 

BWMS that includes both U.S. and 

foreign vessels, thus improving the 

range of technologies available and the 

cost efficiencies of production. 

Costs: 

The IMO Convention has spurred 

development of BWMS designed to 

meet the IMO discharge standard 

(phase-one BWDS). Various 

technologies are being evaluated. 

Shipboard trials are being conducted for 

some of these technologies, others are 

undergoing land-based laboratory 

testing, while yet others have received 

type-approval from foreign 

administrations. 

Not all systems are appropriate for all 

vessel types. Variation in the 

operational costs relate, in part, to the 

use of chemicals or other agents in the 

BWMS and are also due to the treatment 

of certain discharges not required under 

current regulations. The BWMS on 

ships is a new process for which there 

is minimal operating practical 

experience, any discussion of the 

treatment technologies, effectiveness, 

costs, and operating issues is 

provisional. 

Approximately 4,758 BWMS 

installations for the U.S. vessels would 

be required by 2021 because of 

projected fleet growth. We expect 

highest annual costs in the period 

between 2012 and 2016, as the bulk of 

the existing fleet of vessels must meet 

the standards according to the phase-in 

schedule proposed by this rulemaking 

(see Table 6). The primary cost driver of 

this rulemaking is the installation costs 

for all existing vessels. After 

installation, we estimate operating costs 

to be substantially less. 

TABLE 6—COSTS TO U.S. VESSELS TO COMPLY WITH PHASE-ONE BWDS* 

Year 

Installation 

cost 

($Mil) 

Operating cost 

($Mil) 

Total cost 

($Mil) 

2012 ............................................................................................................................................. $238.42 $0.18 $238.61 

2013 ............................................................................................................................................. 223.91 0.34 224.25 

2014 ............................................................................................................................................. 219.63 0.48 220.11 

2015 ............................................................................................................................................. 171.40 0.59 171.99 

2016 ............................................................................................................................................. 161.15 0.68 161.84 

2017 ............................................................................................................................................. 33.82 0.66 34.47 

2018 ............................................................................................................................................. 32.51 0.63 33.14 

2019 ............................................................................................................................................. 31.24 0.61 31.85 

2020 ............................................................................................................................................. 30.03 0.58 30.62 

2021 ............................................................................................................................................. 28.87 0.56 29.44 

Total ...................................................................................................................................... 1,171.00 5.32 1,176.31 

Annualized ............................................................................................................................ 166.72 0.76 167.48 

* Present value costs discounted at 7 percent. See RA for additional discount factors. The period of analysis is 10 years (2012–2021). Discounting begins in 2012. 

We estimate the first-year cost of this 

rulemaking to be $239 million based on 

a 7 percent discount rate. The total costs 

over the phase-in period (2012–2016) 

range between $162 million to about 

$239 million depending on the year. 

Over the 10-year period of analysis 

(2012–2021), the total cost of the phaseone BWDS for the U.S. vessels is 

approximately $1.18 billion using the 7 

percent discount rate. Our cost 

assessment includes existing and new 

vessels. 

Because development and testing of 

technology to meet the phase-two 

standards has not progressed as far as 

for technology to meet the phase-one 

standards, we are not including cost 

data for the phase-two standards at this 

time. In addition to requesting data from 

the public through this notice (see 

above), the Coast Guard will seek data 

from vendors and other sources on the 

costs of achieving the phase-two 

standard prior to promulgation of the 

final rule. 

Economic Costs of Invasions of 

Nonindigenous Species (NIS): 

NIS introductions contribute to the 

loss of marine biodiversity and have 

associated significant social, economic, 

and biological impacts. NIS 

introductions in U.S. waters are 

occurring at increasingly rapid rates. 

Avoided costs associated with future 

NIS invasions represent one of the 

benefits of ballast water management 

(BWM). Economic costs from invasions 

of NIS range in the billions of dollars 

annually. Evaluation of these impacts 

was difficult because of limited 

knowledge of the patterns and basic 

processes that influence marine 

biodiversity. The most extensive review 

to date on the economic costs of 

introduced species in the U.S. includes 

estimates for many types of NIS, and is 

reflected in Table 7. 

TABLE 7—ESTIMATED ANNUAL COSTS

ASSOCIATED TO AQUATIC NONINDIGENOUS SPECIES INTRODUCTION

IN THE U.S. ($2007) 

Species Costs 

Fish ........................... $5.7 billion. 

Zebra and Quagga 

Mussels.

$1.06 billion. 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS3
44644 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 166 / Friday, August 28, 2009 / Proposed Rules 

TABLE 7—ESTIMATED ANNUAL COSTS

ASSOCIATED TO AQUATIC NONINDIGENOUS SPECIES INTRODUCTION

IN THE U.S. ($2007)—Continued 

Species Costs 

Asiatic Clam .............. $1.06 billion. 

Aquatic Weeds .......... $117 million. 

Green Crab ............... $47 million. 

Source: Pimentel, D. et al., 2005. ‘‘Update 

on the environmental and economic costs associated with alien-invasive species in the 

United States,’’ Ecological Economics. 

52:273–288. 

Though a particular invasion may 

have small direct economic impacts, the 

accumulation of these events may cost 

in the billions of dollars every year. 

Only a few invasions to date have led 

to costs in the billions of dollars per 

year. 

Benefits of Ballast Water Discharge 

Standards (BWDS): 

The benefits of BWDS are difficult to 

quantify because of the complexity of 

the ecosystem and a lack of 

understanding about the probabilities of 

invasions based on prescribed levels of 

organisms in ballast water. However, 

evaluation of costs associated with 

previous invasions (described above) 

allows a comparison of the cost of 

discharge standards versus the costs 

avoided. Because the amount of 

shipping traffic and the number of 

incidents of invasions per year are both 

increasing, historical data provide a 

lower bound for the basis of benefit 

evaluation. 

We assessed the functional benefits 

prior to comparing monetary benefit 

measures. The primary functional 

benefits of this rulemaking are: 

• A reduction in the concentration of 

all organisms leading to lower numbers 

of these organisms being introduced per 

discharge; and 

• The elimination of the exemptions 

in the BWM regulations leading to the 

discharge of unmanaged ballast water 

(e.g., safety concerns during exchange, 

deviation/delay of voyage required to 

travel to acceptable mid-ocean exchange 

location). 

This overall strategy should reduce 

the number of new invasions because 

the likelihood of establishment 

decreases with reduced numbers of 

organisms introduced per discharge or 

inoculation. 

We calculate potential benefits of the 

BWDS by estimating the number of 

invasions reduced and the range of 

economic damage avoided. We use 

information on the invasion rate of 

invertebrates from shipping reported by 

Ruiz et al. (2000) to project the number 

of future shipping invasions per year. 

We then estimate the number of fish and 

aquatic plant invasions based on 

historical relationships of fish and plant 

invasions to invertebrate invasions. We 

then adjust the projected invasions to 

account for the fraction of invasions that 

are attributable to ballast water and the 

fraction of invasions that cause severe 

economic damage. The resulting 

projection of the number of ballast water 

invasions that will cause harm is 

displayed in Table 8. 

TABLE 8—ESTIMATED NUMBER OF BALLAST WATER INVASIONS THAT CAUSE HARM

Year Invertebrate Fish Aquatic plant 

2012 ............................................................................................................................................. 0.372 0.074 0.149 

2013 ............................................................................................................................................. 0.381 0.076 0.152 

2014 ............................................................................................................................................. 0.390 0.078 0.156 

2015 ............................................................................................................................................. 0.399 0.080 0.160 

2016 ............................................................................................................................................. 0.409 0.082 0.164 

2017 ............................................................................................................................................. 0.419 0.084 0.168 

2018 ............................................................................................................................................. 0.429 0.086 0.172 

2019 ............................................................................................................................................. 0.439 0.088 0.176 

2020 ............................................................................................................................................. 0.450 0.090 0.180 

2021 ............................................................................................................................................. 0.461 0.092 0.184 

Total ............................................................................................................................................. 4.149 0.830 1.659 

To estimate the potential economic 

harm that may be caused by these 

invasions, we assign a cost per invasion 

based on the available data on the range 

of costs and damages incurred by past 

invasions. As no comprehensive 

estimate is available on the costs from 

past invasions, we do not try to develop 

a composite cost estimate for all 

invasions, but instead select a low and 

high estimate for fish, aquatic plants 

and invertebrates based on 

representative species. We then 

calculate a mid-point for the range and 

calculate costs for future invasions 

using all three values. The resulting 

ranges of costs per invasions are 

summarized in Table 9. 

TABLE 9—RANGE OF ANNUAL COSTS ASSOCIATED WITH SELECTED NIS INTRODUCTIONS

[$Million; $2007] 

Low range Mid-range High range 

Fish .............................................................................................................................................. $15.8 $160.6 $305.3 

Invertebrates ................................................................................................................................ 19.5 539.8 1,060 

Aquatic Plants .............................................................................................................................. 4.5 214.6 424.7 

Note: The RA contains additional details and source information. 

We assume that once an invasion is 

established, it will continue to generate 

costs and/or damages for each year 

subsequent to the invasion. Thus, an 

invasion that occurs in the first year of 

our analysis (2012) will incur costs/ 

damages in each of the next 10 years 

(through 2021). Based on the cumulative 

impacts of invasions, we have 

calculated a mid-range estimate of 

annual costs for all harmful ballast 

water-introduced invasions over the 10 

year period of 2012 to 2021 at $2.016 

billion at 7 percent discount rate. These 

estimates assume no BWM. 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 166 / Friday, August 28, 2009 / Proposed Rules 44645 

The Draft Programmatic 

Environmental Impact Statement 

(DPEIS) has estimated the reduction in 

the mean rate of successful 

introductions of various alternative 

standards. In comparison with the 

existing practice of ballast water 

exchange, the proposed phase-one 

BWDS (Alternative 2 in the DPEIS) is 

between 37 percent and 63 percent more 

effective in preventing invasions when 

fully implemented (see the DPEIS for 

further details on effectiveness). We use 

these estimates of the reduction in the 

rate of invasions to estimate the 

economic cost/damage avoided as a 

result of a BWDS. 

As discussed earlier, the 

implementation of the phase-one BWDS 

would be phased-in over several years. 

During the phase-in period of 2012– 

2016, there is considerable uncertainty 

as to how effective the measures will be 

in preventing invasions if only a subset 

of ships have implemented ballast water 

management. There is also uncertainty 

as to the availability and effectiveness of 

ballast water management technologies. 

Proper operation of these new 

technologies may require training and 

experience on the part of vessel 

operators. For these reasons we assume 

that no invasions will be avoided during 

the period of 2012–2015, which may 

lead to an underestimate of potential 

benefits. 

The resulting damages avoided for the 

phase-one BWDS range from a 

minimum of $6 million and the 

maximum is $553 million with a midrange estimate of $165–$282 million per 

year at a 7 percent discount rate (Table 

10). 

TABLE 10—BENEFITS (COSTS AVOIDED) FOR PHASE-ONE BWDS 

[$Millions] 

Year 

Low effectiveness—37% High effectiveness—63% 

Low Mid High Low Mid High 

2012 ................................................................................. $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 

2013 ................................................................................. 0 0 0 0 0 0 

2014 ................................................................................. 0 0 0 0 0 0 

2015 ................................................................................. 0 0 0 0 0 0 

2016 ................................................................................. 2 66 130 4 113 222 

2017 ................................................................................. 5 125 246 8 214 419 

2018 ................................................................................. 7 178 349 11 303 595 

2019 ................................................................................. 8 225 441 14 382 750 

2020 ................................................................................. 10 266 521 17 452 887 

2021 ................................................................................. 11 301 592 19 513 1,008 

Total .......................................................................... 43 1,161 2,279 74 1,977 3,881 

Annualized ................................................................ 6 165 325 10 282 553 

Note: Present value costs discounted at 7 percent. 

The annualized cost for domestic 

vessels over the 10-year period of 2012– 

2021 for the phase one BWDS is 

estimated at $167 million at a 7 percent 

discount rate. Thus, quantified benefits 

are roughly equal to estimated costs for 

the mid-point cost estimate of the phase 

one BWDS ‘‘Low Effectiveness’’. 

B. Small Entities 

Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act 

(5 U.S.C. 601–612), we have considered 

whether this proposed rule would have 

a significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities. 

The term ‘‘small entities’’ comprises 

small businesses, not-for-profit 

organizations that are independently 

owned and operated and are not 

dominant in their fields, and 

governmental jurisdictions with 

populations of less than 50,000. 

An Initial Regulatory Flexibility 

Analysis (IRFA) discussing the impact 

of this proposed rule on small entities 

is available in the docket where 

indicated under the ‘‘Public 

Participation and Request for 

Comments’’ section of this preamble. 

Based on available data, we 

determined that about 57 percent of the 

businesses affected are small by the 

Small Business Administration (SBA) 

size standards. We discovered that these 

businesses operate almost entirely in 

coastwise trade and are not involved 

with larger scale trans-ocean shipping. 

Based on our assessment of the 

impacts from the phase-one BWDS, we 

determined that some coastwise 

businesses would incur a significant 

economic impact (more than 1 percent 

impact on revenue) during the 

installation and phase-in period based. 

After installation, however, most small 

businesses would not incur a significant 

impact from the estimated annual 

recurring operating costs. We have 

determined that this proposed rule 

would have a significant economic 

impact on a substantial number of small 

entities under section 605(b) of the 

Regulatory Flexibility Act. 

C. Assistance for Small Entities 

Under section 213(a) of the Small 

Business Regulatory Enforcement 

Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104–121), 

we want to assist small entities in 

understanding the rule so that they can 

better evaluate its effects on them and 

participate in the rulemaking. If the rule 

would affect your small business, 

organization, or governmental 

jurisdiction and you have questions 

concerning its provisions or options for 

compliance, please consult Mr. John 

Morris, Project Manager, telephone 202– 

372–1433. The Coast Guard will not 

retaliate against small entities that 

question or complain about this 

proposed rule or any policy or action of 

the Coast Guard. 

Small businesses may send comments 

on the actions of Federal employees 

who enforce, or otherwise determine 

compliance with, Federal regulations to 

the Small Business and Agriculture 

Regulatory Enforcement Ombudsman 

and the Regional Small Business 

Regulatory Fairness Boards. The 

Ombudsman evaluates these actions 

annually and rates each agency’s 

responsiveness to small business. If you 

wish to comment on actions by 

employees of the Coast Guard, call 1– 

888–REG–FAIR (1–888–734–3247). 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS3
44646 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 166 / Friday, August 28, 2009 / Proposed Rules 

5Sources: Lloyds Register Report, Ballast Water 

Treatment Technology-Current Status, September 

2008; and California State Lands Commission 

Report, Assessment of the Efficacy, Availability, 

and Environmental Impacts of Ballast Water 

Treatment Systems in California Waters, January 

2009. 

D. Collection of Information 

This proposed rule would call for no 

new collection of information under the 

Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995 

(44 U.S.C. 3501–3520). 

Our research indicates that there are 

25–30 manufacturers developing BWMS 

for installation onboard vessels.5 We 

expect to receive less than 10 system 

approval requests per year. This figure 

is less than the threshold of 10 per 

twelve-month period for collection of 

information reporting purposes under 

the PRA of 1995. 

E. Federalism 

A rule has implications for federalism 

under Executive Order 13132, 

Federalism, if it has a substantial direct 

effect on State or local governments and 

would either preempt State law or 

impose a substantial direct cost of 

compliance on them. 

We have analyzed this proposed rule 

under that Order and have determined 

that it does not have implications for 

federalism. NANPCA, as reauthorized 

and amended by NISA, contains a 

‘‘savings provision’’ that saves to the 

states their authority to ‘‘adopt or 

enforce control measures for aquatic 

nuisance species, [and nothing in the 

Act would] diminish or affect the 

jurisdiction of any States over species of 

fish and wildlife.’’ 16 U.S.C. 4725. It 

also requires that ‘‘all actions taken by 

Federal agencies in implementing the 

provisions of [the Act] be consistent 

with all applicable Federal, State and 

local environmental laws.’’ Thus, the 

congressional mandate is clearly for a 

Federal-State cooperative regime in 

combating the introduction of aquatic 

nuisance species into U.S. waters from 

ships’ ballast tanks. This makes it 

unlikely that preemption, which would 

necessitate consultation with the States 

under Executive Order 13132, would 

occur. If, at some later point in the 

rulemaking process, we determine that 

preemption may become an issue, we 

would develop a plan for consultation 

with affected States/localities. 

F. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531–1538) requires 

Federal agencies to assess the effects of 

their discretionary regulatory actions. In 

particular, the Act addresses actions 

that may result in the expenditure by a 

State, local, or tribal government, in the 

aggregate, or by the private sector of 

$100,000,000 or more in any one year. 

This proposed rule would result in such 

an expenditure, and we have included 

an ‘‘Unfunded Reform Act Statement’’ 

in the Regulatory Assessment (Section 

7), located in the docket where 

indicated under the ‘‘Public 

Participation and Request for 

Comments’’ section of this preamble. 

G. Taking of Private Property 

This proposed rule would not effect a 

taking of private property or otherwise 

have taking implications under 

Executive Order 12630, Governmental 

Actions and Interference with 

Constitutionally Protected Property 

Rights. 

H. Civil Justice Reform 

This proposed rule meets applicable 

standards in sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of 

Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice 

Reform, to minimize litigation, 

eliminate ambiguity, and reduce 

burden. 

I. Protection of Children 

We have analyzed this proposed rule 

under Executive Order 13045, 

Protection of Children from 

Environmental Health Risks and Safety 

Risks. Though this proposed rule is 

economically significant, it would not 

create an environmental risk to health or 

risk to safety that might 

disproportionately affect children. 

J. Indian Tribal Governments 

This proposed rule does not have 

tribal implications under Executive 

Order 13175, Consultation and 

Coordination with Indian Tribal 

Governments, because it would not have 

a substantial direct effect on one or 

more Indian tribes, on the relationship 

between the Federal Government and 

Indian tribes, or on the distribution of 

power and responsibilities between the 

Federal Government and Indian tribes. 

K. Energy Effects 

We have analyzed this proposed rule 

under Executive Order 13211, Actions 

Concerning Regulations That 

Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution, or Use. We have 

determined that it is not a ‘‘significant 

energy action’’ under that order. Though 

it is a ‘‘significant regulatory action’’ 

under Executive Order 12866, it is not 

likely to have a significant adverse effect 

on the supply, distribution, or use of 

energy. The Administrator of the Office 

of Information and Regulatory Affairs 

has not designated it as a significant 

energy action. Therefore, it does not 

require a Statement of Energy Effects 

under Executive Order 13211. 

L. Technical Standards 

The National Technology Transfer 

and Advancement Act (NTTAA) (15 

U.S.C. 272) directs agencies to use 

voluntary consensus standards in their 

regulatory activities unless the agency 

provides Congress, through the Office of 

Management and Budget, with an 

explanation of why using these 

standards would be inconsistent with 

applicable law or otherwise impractical. 

Voluntary consensus standards are 

technical standards (e.g., specifications 

of materials, performance, design, or 

operation; test methods; sampling 

procedures; and related management 

systems practices) that are developed or 

adopted by voluntary consensus 

standards bodies. 

This proposed rule would incorporate 

a number of technical standards, all of 

which are voluntary consensus 

standards. These may be found in the 

proposed approval program 

amendments to 46 CFR part 162. 

Additionally, the proposed phase-one 

ballast water discharge standard is also, 

at least for the time being, a voluntary 

consensus standard. While the IMO 

BWM Convention has been adopted, it 

has not been ratified by enough 

countries to bring it into force as an 

international requirement. The phasetwo standard is not a voluntary 

consensus standard, but it is a standard 

that has been adopted by a number of 

states. 

M. Environment 

We have analyzed this proposed rule 

under Department of Homeland 

Security Management Directive 023–01 

and Commandant Instruction 

M16475.lD, which guide the Coast 

Guard in complying with the National 

Environmental Policy Act of 1969 

(NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321–4370f), and 

have made a determination that this 

action may have a significant effect on 

the human environment. A Draft 

Programmatic Environmental Impact 

Statement (DPEIS) is available in the 

docket where indicated under the 

Public Participation and Request for 

Comments section of this preamble. We 

encourage the public to submit 

comments on the DPEIS. 

On October 27, 2006, we initiated 

informal consultation with the U.S. Fish 

and Wildlife Service and the National 

Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) 

regarding this proposed rule in 

accordance with Section 7 of the 

Endangered Species Act of 1973 (ESA) 

(Pub. L. 93–205, 81 Stat. 884, as 

amended; 16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.) to 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 166 / Friday, August 28, 2009 / Proposed Rules 44647 

ensure that our actions are not likely to 

jeopardize the continued existence of 

listed and proposed endangered and 

threatened species or result in the 

destruction or adverse modification of 

critical habitat. The consultation and 

determinations will be reflected in the 

Final Programmatic Environmental 

Impact Statement (FPEIS). 

We initiated informal consultation 

with NMFS regarding this proposed rule 

in accordance with the MagnusonStevens Act (Pub. L. 94–265, as 

amended; 16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.) to 

demonstrate that our actions are not 

likely to affect essential fish habitat 

(EFH). The DPEIS addresses the 

potential effects the proposed rule 

would have on EFH and the FPEIS will 

contain a written assessment describing 

the effects of our actions on EFH (50 

CFR 600.920(e)(1)). 

We will seek Federal Consistency 

Determinations for 29 States and 5 U.S. 

Territories regarding this proposed rule 

as required by the Coastal Zone 

Management Act (CZMA) of 1972 (16 

U.S.C.A. § 1451–1465). Each Federal 

consistency determination letter will 

explain to each State and U.S. 

Territories that the USCG’s action is 

consistent, to the maximum extent 

practicable, with the enforceable polices 

of each State’s and U.S. Territories 

approved CZM plan. 

As previously discussed in Section 

V.A.2. of this preamble, the DPEIS 

includes a number of alternative 

discharge standards, with Alternatives 3 

and 4 establishing more stringent limits 

on concentrations of living organisms in 

ships’ ballast water than today’s 

proposed phase-one BWDS, and 

Alternative 5 requiring the removal or 

inactivation of all living membranebound organisms (including bacteria 

and some viruses) larger than 0.1 

micron (this is essentially sterilization). 

We recognize, however, that there is 

uncertainty regarding the data used to 

complete the analysis for these more 

stringent standards. We specifically 

request public comment on these and 

other alternatives (e.g., standards 

proposed or adopted by various states in 

their legislation or via the states’ 

certification under EPA’s VGP, our 

proposed phase-two standard). While 

we welcome comment on all aspects of 

alternative BWDS, we particularly wish 

to solicit comment with respect to the 

following matters. When providing 

comments, please explain the reasoning 

underlying your comment and provide 

citations to and copies of any relevant 

studies, reports, or scientific literature 

on which you rely. 

1. What BWDS is sufficient to 

adequately safeguard against the 

introduction of species into U.S. waters 

via ships’ ballast water? Should the 

standard provide for zero risk of 

spreading invasive species via ballast 

water (e.g. zero living organisms), or 

should the standard be one that 

substantially mitigates any risk, but may 

not eliminate the possibility of species 

being introduced? 

2. For any BWDS identified in 

response to (1), what is the evidence 

that the systems can meet either of the 

BWDS proposed in this NPRM, and 

what are the timeframes by which such 

BWDS can be achieved and what 

technologies are, or will be, available to 

meet such BWDS? 

3. For any BWDS identified in 

response to (1), what are the costs of 

such systems for various classes of ships 

and under differing operating 

conditions? Additionally, what are 

power requirements on board those 

vessels and what additional chemical 

storage requirements and other space 

requirements are needed on board those 

vessels? 

4. Any studies that exist on the effects 

of propagule pressure on successful 

establishment of a NIS in aquatic 

ecosystems. 

5. What are the advantages and 

disadvantages of a ballast water 

discharge standard that is more 

stringent than the IMO standard? Please 

provide quantitative data and sources of 

the information. 

List of Subjects 

33 CFR Part 151 

Administrative practice and 

procedure, Ballast water management, 

Oil pollution, Penalties, Reporting and 

recordkeeping requirements, Water 

pollution control, Ballast water 

management. 

46 CFR Part 162 

Ballast water management, Fire 

prevention, Incorporation by reference, 

Marine safety, Oil pollution, Reporting 

and recordkeeping requirements. 

For the reasons discussed in the 

preamble, the Coast Guard proposes to 

amend 33 CFR part 151 and 46 CFR part 

162 as follows: 

Title 33—Navigation and Navigable 

Waters 

CHAPTER I—COAST GUARD, 

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY 

Subchapter O—Pollution 

PART 151—VESSELS CARRYING OIL, 

NOXIOUS LIQUID SUBSTANCES, 

GARBAGE, MUNICIPAL OR 

COMMERCIAL WASTE, AND BALLAST 

WATER 

Subpart C—Ballast Water Management 

for Control of Nonindigenous Species 

in the Great Lakes and Hudson River 

1. The authority citation for subpart C 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 16 U.S.C. 4711; Department of 

Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1. 

2. In § 151.1504, add, in alphabetical 

order, definitions for the terms ‘‘Ballast 

Water Management System (BWMS)’’ 

and ‘‘Build date’’ to read as follows: 

§ 151.1504 Definitions. 

* * * * * 

Ballast Water Management System 

(BWMS) means any system which 

processes ballast water to kill or remove 

organisms. The BWMS includes all 

ballast water treatment equipment and 

all associated control and monitoring 

equipment. 

* * * * * 

Build date means the date when 

construction identifiable with the 

specific vessel begins; or assembly of 

the vessel has commenced comprising 

at least 50 tons or 1 percent of the 

estimated mass of all structural material, 

whichever is less; or the ship undergoes 

a major conversion. 

* * * * * 

3. Add § 151.1505 to read as follows: 

§ 151.1505 Severability. 

If a court finds any portion of this 

subpart to have been promulgated 

without proper authority, the remainder 

of this subpart will remain in full effect. 

4. Revise § 151.1510(a)(1) and (3) to 

read as follows: 

§ 151.1510 Ballast water management. 

(a) * * * 

(1) Carry out an exchange of ballast 

water on the waters beyond the EEZ, 

from an area more than 200 nautical 

miles from any shore, and in waters 

more than 2,000 meters (6,560 feet, 

1,093 fathoms) deep, prior to entry into 

the Snell Lock, at Massena, New York, 

or prior to navigating on the Hudson 

River, north of the George Washington 

Bridge, such that, at the conclusion of 

the exchange, any tank from which 

ballast water will be discharged 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS3
44648 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 166 / Friday, August 28, 2009 / Proposed Rules 

contains water with a minimum salinity 

level of 30 parts per thousand, unless 

the vessel is required to implement an 

approved BWMS per the schedule 

found in § 151.1512 of this subpart. 

* * * * * 

(3) Use a ballast water management 

system (BWMS) that has been approved 

by the Coast Guard. Requests for 

approval of BWMS must be submitted to 

the Commanding Officer, U.S. Coast 

Guard Marine Safety Center, Jemal 

Building, JR 10–0525, 2100 Second 

Street, SW., Washington, DC 20593. 

(i) Requirements for approval of 

BWMS are found in 46 CFR 162.060–10. 

(ii) Unless otherwise expressly 

provided for in this subpart, the master, 

owner, operator, agent, or person-incharge of vessels employing a Coast 

Guard approved BWMS must, at all 

times of discharge into the waters of the 

United States, meet the applicable 

ballast water discharge standard 

(BWDS) found in § 151.1511 of this 

subpart. 

* * * * * 

5. Add § 151.1511 to read as follows: 

§ 151.1511 Ballast water discharge 

standard (BWDS). 

(a) Vessels employing a Coast Guard 

approved BWMS must meet the 

following phase-one BWDS by the date 

listed in Table 151.1512(b) in section 

151.1512 of this subpart: 

(1) For organisms larger than 50 

microns in minimum dimension: 

Discharge less than 10 per cubic meter 

of ballast water; 

(2) For organisms equal to or smaller 

than 50 microns and larger than 10 

microns: Discharge less than 10 per 

milliliter (ml) of ballast water; and 

(3) Indicator microorganisms must not 

exceed: 

(i) For Toxicogenic Vibrio cholerae 

(serotypes O1 and O139): A 

concentration of <1 colony forming unit 

(cfu) per 100 ml; 

(ii) For Escherichia coli: A 

concentration of <250 cfu per 100 ml; 

and 

(iii) For intestinal enterococci: A 

concentration of <100 cfu per 100 ml. 

(b) Vessels employing a Coast Guard 

approved BWDS must meet the 

following phase-two BWDS by the date 

listed in Table 151.1512(c) in section 

151.1512 of this subpart: 

(1) For organisms larger than 50 

microns in minimum dimension: 

discharge less than 1 per 100 cubic 

meter of ballast water; 

(2) For organisms equal to or smaller 

than 50 microns and larger than 10 

microns: Discharge less than 1 organism 

per 100 milliliter (ml) of ballast water; 

(3) For organisms less than 10 

microns in minimum dimension: 

(i) Discharge less than 103 living 

bacterial cells per 100 ml of ballast 

water; and 

(ii) Discharge less than 104 viruses or 

viral-like particles per 100 ml of ballast 

water; and 

(4) Indicator microorganisms must not 

exceed: 

(i) For Toxicogenic Vibrio cholerae 

(serotypes O1 and O139): A 

concentration of <1 colony forming unit 

(cfu) per 100 ml; 

(ii) For Escherichia coli: A 

concentration of <126 cfu per 100 ml; 

and 

(iii) For intestinal enterococci: A 

concentration of <33 cfu per 100 ml. 

(c)(1) The Coast Guard shall, at least 

three years prior to the first compliance 

date set forth in Table 151.1512(c) in 

section 151.1512 of this subpart, publish 

the results of a practicability review to 

determine whether— 

(i) Technology to comply with the 

performance standard required under 

paragraph (b) of this section can 

practicably be implemented, in whole or 

in part, by the applicable compliance 

dates; and 

(ii) Testing protocols that can assure 

accurate measurement of compliance 

with the performance standard required 

under paragraph (b) of this section can 

practicably be implemented. 

(2) If the Coast Guard cannot make a 

determination under paragraph (c)(1) of 

this section for some or all elements of 

the performance standard listed in 

paragraph (b) of this section, the Coast 

Guard shall, at the same time that it 

publishes the results of the 

practicability review, extend the initial 

compliance date, in accordance with the 

Administrative Procedure Act, in Table 

151.1512(c) for the applicable elements 

of the performance standard, taking into 

consideration the findings of the 

practicability review. 

(3) If the Coast Guard cannot make a 

determination under paragraph (c)(1) of 

this section for some or all elements of 

the performance standard under 

paragraph (b) of this section, the Coast 

Guard shall update the practicability 

review, consistent with the 

requirements of paragraph (c)(1) of this 

section, as appropriate, but at least 

every two years, until the performance 

standard under paragraph (b) of this 

section is fully implemented. 

(4) If the Coast Guard finds, as a result 

of a practicability review under either 

paragraphs (c)(1) or (c)(3) of this section, 

that technology to achieve a significant 

improvement in treatment efficacy, 

either greater or less than the efficacy of 

the performance standards in paragraph 

(b) of this section can practicably be 

implemented, as outlined in paragraph 

(c)(1) of this section, the Coast Guard 

shall report this finding in the 

practicability review and propose an 

appropriate revision to the applicable 

requirements of this subpart. 

6. Redesignate § 151.1512 as 

§ 151.1513, and add a new § 151.1512 to 

read as follows: 

§ 151.1512 Implementation schedule. 

(a) The master, owner, operator, agent, 

or person-in-charge of the vessel subject 

to this subpart and wishing to discharge 

ballast within U.S. waters must install 

and operate a Ballast Water 

Management System (BWMS) approved 

by the Coast Guard under 46 CFR part 

162 in accordance with Table 

151.1512(b) ‘‘Implementation Schedule 

for the Phase-One Ballast Water 

Management Program’’ of this section 

and Table 151.1512(c) ‘‘Implementation 

Schedule for the Phase-Two Ballast 

Water Management Program’’ of this 

section, as applicable. Following 

installation, the master, owner, operator, 

agent, or person-in-charge of the vessel 

subject to this subpart must properly 

maintain the BWMS in accordance with 

all manufacturer specifications. 

(b) Table 151.1512(b)

Implementation Schedule for the PhaseOne Ballast Water Management 

Program 

Vessel’s 

ballast water 

capacity 

(cubic meters, m3) 

Vessel’s 

construction 

date 

Vessel’s compliance date 

New vessels ............... All ................................ On or after January 1, 2012 ............................ On delivery. 

Existing vessels .......... Less than 1500 ........... Before January 1, 2012 ................................... First drydocking after January 1, 2016. 

1500–5000 .................. Before January 1, 2012 ................................... First drydocking after January 1, 2014. 

Greater than 5000 ...... Before January 1, 2012 ................................... First drydocking after January 1, 2016. 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 166 / Friday, August 28, 2009 / Proposed Rules 44649 

(c) Table 151.1512(c)

Implementation Schedule for the PhaseTwo Ballast Water Management Program 

Vessel’s 

ballast water 

capacity 

(cubic meters, m3) 

Vessel’s 

construction 

date 

Vessel’s compliance date 

New vessels ............... All ................................ On or after January 1, 2016 ............................ On delivery. 

Existing vessels .......... All ................................ Before January 1, 2016 ................................... First drydocking after January 1, 2016, UNLESS the vessel installed a BWMS meeting the phase-one standard before January 

1, 2016, then 5 years after installation of 

the BWMS meeting the phase-one standard. 

7. Revise § 151.1516(a) to read as 

follows: 

§ 151.1516 Compliance monitoring. 

(a) The master of each vessel 

equipped with ballast tanks must 

provide, as detailed in § 151.2070, the 

following information, in written form, 

to the COTP. 

* * * * * 

8. Revise Subpart D to read as follows: 

Subpart D—Ballast Water Management for 

Control of Nonindigenous Species in 

Waters of the United States 

Sec. 

151.2000 Purpose and scope. 

151.2005 Definitions. 

151.2010 Applicability. 

151.2013 Severability. 

151.2015 Exemptions. 

151.2020 Vessels in innocent passage. 

151.2025 Ballast water management 

requirements. 

151.2030 Ballast water discharge standard 

(BWDS). 

151.2035 Implementation schedule for 

approved ballast water management 

system (BWMS). 

151.2040 Discharge of ballast water in 

extraordinary circumstances. 

151.2045 Safety exception. 

151.2050 Additional requirements— 

nonindigenous species reduction 

practices. 

151.2055 Deviation from planned voyage. 

151.2060 Reporting requirements. 

151.2065 Equivalent reporting methods for 

vessels other than those entering the 

Great Lakes or Hudson River after 

operating outside the exclusive 

economic zone or Canadian equivalent. 

151.2070 Recordkeeping requirements. 

151.2075 Enforcement and compliance. 

151.2080 Penalties. 

Appendix to Subpart D of Part 151—Ballast 

Water Reporting Form and Instructions for 

Ballast Water Reporting Form 

Authority: 16 U.S.C. 4711; Department of 

Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1. 

Subpart D—Ballast Water Management 

for Control of Nonindigenous Species 

in Waters of the United States 

§ 151.2000 Purpose and scope. 

This subpart implements the 

provisions of the Nonindigenous 

Aquatic Nuisance Prevention and 

Control Act of 1990 (NANPCA) (16 

U.S.C. 4701–4751), as amended by the 

National Invasive Species Act of 1996 

(NISA). 

§ 151.2005 Definitions. 

(a) Unless otherwise stated in this 

section, the definitions in 33 CFR 

151.1504, 33 CFR 160.203, and the 

United Nations Convention on the Law 

of the Sea apply to this part. 

(b) As used in this part— 

ANSTF means the Aquatic Nuisance 

Species Task Force mandated under the 

Nonindigenous Aquatic Nuisance 

Prevention and Control Act of 1990 

(NANPCA). 

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. 

Ballast Water Management System 

(BWMS) means any system which 

processes ballast water to kill or remove 

organisms. The BWMS includes all 

ballast water treatment equipment and 

all associated control and monitoring 

equipment. 

Build date means the date when 

construction identifiable with the 

specific vessels begins; or assembly of 

the vessel has commenced comprising 

at least 50 tons or 1 percent of the 

estimated mass of all structural material, 

whichever is less; or the ship undergoes 

a major conversion. 

Captain of the Port (COTP) means the 

Coast Guard officer designated by the 

Commandant to command a Captain of 

the Port Zone as described in part 3 of 

this chapter. 

Exchange means to replace the water 

in a ballast tank using one of the 

following methods: 

(1) Flow through exchange means to 

flush out ballast water by pumping in 

mid-ocean water at the bottom of the 

tank and continuously overflowing the 

tank from the top until three full 

volumes of water has been changed—to 

minimize the number of original 

organisms remaining in the tank. 

(2) Empty/refill exchange means to 

pump out the ballast water taken on in 

ports, estuarine, or territorial waters 

until the tank is empty, then refilling it 

with mid-ocean water. Masters or 

operators should pump out as close to 

100 percent of the ballast water as is 

safe to do so. 

Exclusive economic zone (EEZ) means 

the area established by Presidential 

Proclamation Number 5030, dated 

March 10, 1983 (48 FR 10605, 3 CFR, 

1983 Comp., p. 22), which extends from 

the base line of the territorial sea of the 

United States seaward 200 nautical 

miles, and the equivalent zone of 

Canada. 

IMO guidelines mean the Guidelines 

for the Control and Management of 

Ships’ Ballast Water to Minimize the 

Transfer of Harmful Aquatic Organisms 

and Pathogens (IMO Resolution A.868 

(20), adopted November 1997). 

NANPCA means the Nonindigenous 

Aquatic Nuisance Prevention and 

Control Act of 1990. 

NBIC means the National Ballast 

Information Clearinghouse operated by 

the Coast Guard and the Smithsonian 

Environmental Research Center as 

mandated under NISA. 

NISA means the National Invasive 

Species Act of 1996, which reauthorized 

and amended NANPCA. 

NIS reduction practices means nonballast water management practices that 

vessels employ to reduce NIS 

introductions into U.S. waters. 

Port or place of departure means any 

port or place in which a vessel is 

anchored or moored. 

Port or place of destination means any 

port or place to which a vessel is bound 

to anchor or moor. 

Shipboard Technology Evaluation 

Program (STEP) means a Coast Guard 

research program intended to facilitate 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS3
44650 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 166 / Friday, August 28, 2009 / Proposed Rules 

research, development, and shipboard 

testing of effective BWMS. STEP 

requirements are located at: http:// 

www.uscg.mil/ 

environmental_standards/. 

United States means the States, the 

District of Columbia, Guam, American 

Samoa, the Virgin Islands, the 

Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, and the 

Trust Territory of the Pacific Islands. 

Voyage means any transit by a vessel 

destined for any United States port or 

place. 

Waters of the United States means 

waters subject to the jurisdiction of the 

United States as defined in 33 CFR 2.38, 

including the navigable waters of the 

United States. For 33 Code of Federal 

Regulations part 151, subparts C and D, 

the navigable waters include the 

territorial sea as extended to 12 nautical 

miles from the baseline, pursuant to 

Presidential Proclamation No. 5928 of 

December 27, 1988. 

§ 151.2010 Applicability. 

This subpart applies to all vessels, 

U.S. and foreign, equipped with ballast 

tanks, that operate in the waters of the 

United States except as expressly 

provided in 151.2020. 

§ 151.2013 Severability. 

If a court finds any portion of this 

subpart to have been promulgated 

without proper authority, the remainder 

of this subpart will remain in full effect. 

§ 151.2015 Exemptions. 

(a) The following vessels are exempt 

from the requirements of this subpart: 

(1) Department of Defense or Coast 

Guard vessels subject to the 

requirements of section 1103 of the 

Nonindigenous Aquatic Nuisance 

Prevention and Control Act as amended 

by the National Invasive Species Act, or 

any vessel of the Armed Forces, as 

defined in the Federal Water Pollution 

Control Act (33 U.S.C. 1322(a)) that is 

subject to the ‘‘Uniform National 

Discharge Standards for Vessels of the 

Armed Forces’’ (33 U.S.C. 1322(n)); and 

(2) Any warship, naval auxiliary, or 

other vessel owned or operated by a 

foreign state, and used, for the time 

being, only on government noncommercial service. However, each such 

foreign state shall ensure that such 

vessels act in a manner consistent, so far 

as is reasonable and practicable, with 

this subpart. 

(b) Crude oil tankers engaged in 

coastwise trade are exempt from the 

requirements of §§ 151.2025, 151.2060, 

and 151.2070 of this subpart. 

(c) A vessel that operates exclusively 

within one Captain of the Port (COTP) 

Zone is exempt from the requirements 

in §§ 151.2060 and 151.2070 of this 

subpart. 

§ 151.2020 Vessels in innocent passage. 

A foreign vessel merely traversing the 

territorial sea of the U.S. (i.e., not bound 

for, entering or departing a U.S. port, or 

not navigating the internal waters of the 

U.S.) does not fall within the 

applicability of this subpart. 

§ 151.2025 Ballast water management 

requirements. 

(a) The master, owner, operator, agent, 

or person-in-charge of a vessel must: 

(1) Use a ballast water management 

system (BWMS) that has been approved 

by the Coast Guard under 46 CFR part 

162; 

(2) Retain ballast water onboard the 

vessel; or 

(3) Perform complete ballast water 

exchange in an area 200 nautical miles 

from any shore prior to discharging 

ballast water in U.S. waters, unless the 

vessel is required to implement an 

approved BWMS per the schedule 

found in § 151.2035 of this subpart. 

(b) Requests for approval of BWMS 

must be submitted to the Commanding 

Officer, U.S. Coast Guard Marine Safety 

Center, Jemal Building, JR 10–0525, 

2100 Second Street, SW., Washington, 

DC 20593, in accordance with 46 CFR 

part 162. 

(c) A vessel engaged in the foreign 

export of Alaskan North Slope Crude 

Oil must comply with §§ 151.2060 and 

151.2070 of this subpart, as well as with 

the provisions of 15 CFR 754.2(j)(1)(iii). 

Section 15 CFR 754.2(j)(1)(iii) requires a 

mandatory program of deep water 

ballast exchange unless doing so would 

endanger the safety of the vessel or 

crew. 

(d) This subpart does not authorize 

the discharge of oil or noxious liquid 

substances (NLS) in a manner 

prohibited by United States or 

international laws or regulations. Ballast 

water carried in any tank containing a 

residue of oil, NLS, or any other 

pollutant must be discharged in 

accordance with applicable regulations. 

(e) This subpart does not affect or 

supersede any requirement or 

prohibition pertaining to the discharge 

of ballast water into the waters of the 

United States under the Federal Water 

Pollution Control Act (33 U.S.C. 1251 to 

1376). 

(f) This subpart does not affect or 

supersede any requirement or 

prohibition pertaining to the discharge 

of ballast water into the waters of the 

United States under the National Marine 

Sanctuaries Act (16 U.S.C. 1431 et seq.). 

(g) Vessels with installed BWMS for 

testing and evaluation by an accepted 

Independent Laboratory in accordance 

with the requirements of 46 CFR 

162.060–10 will be deemed to be in 

compliance with paragraph (a)(1) of this 

section. 

§ 151.2030 Ballast water discharge 

standard (BWDS). 

(a) Unless otherwise expressly 

provided for in this subpart, the master, 

owner, operator, agent, or person-incharge of a vessel must ensure that 

vessels employing a Coast Guard 

approved Ballast Water Management 

System (BWMS) must, at all times of 

discharge into waters of the United 

States, meet the following phase-one 

BWDS by the date listed in Table 

151.2035(b) in section 151.2035 of this 

subpart: 

(1) For organisms larger than 50 

microns in minimum dimension: 

Discharge less than 10 per cubic meter 

of ballast water. 

(2) For organisms equal to or smaller 

than 50 microns and larger than 10 

microns: Discharge less than 10 per 

milliliter (ml) of ballast water. 

(3) Indicator microorganisms must not 

exceed: 

(i) For Toxicogenic Vibrio cholerae 

(serotypes O1 and O139): A 

concentration of <1 colony forming unit 

(cfu) per 100 ml; 

(ii) For Escherichia coli: A 

concentration of <250 cfu per 100 ml; 

and 

(iii) For intestinal enterococci: A 

concentration of <100 cfu per 100 ml. 

(b) Unless otherwise expressly 

provided for in this subpart, the master, 

owner, operator, agent, or person-incharge of a vessel must ensure that 

vessels employing a Coast Guard 

approved BWMS must, at all times of 

discharge into waters of the United 

States, meet the following phase-two 

BWDS by the date listed in Table 

151.2035(c) in section 151.2035 of this 

subpart: 

(1) For organisms larger than 50 

microns in minimum dimension: 

Discharge less than 1 per 100 cubic 

meter of ballast water; 

(2) For organisms equal to or smaller 

than 50 microns and larger than 10 

microns: Discharge less than 1 organism 

per 100 milliliter (ml) of ballast water; 

(3) For organisms less than 10 

microns in minimum dimension: 

(i) Discharge less than 10 3 living 

bacterial cells per 100 ml of ballast 

water; and 

(ii) Discharge less than 10 4 viruses or 

viral-like particles per 100 ml of ballast 

water; and 

(4) Indicator microorganisms must not 

exceed: 

(i) For Toxicogenic Vibrio cholerae 

(serotypes O1 and O139): A 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 166 / Friday, August 28, 2009 / Proposed Rules 44651 

concentration of <1 colony forming unit 

(cfu) per 100 ml; 

(ii) For Escherichia coli: A 

concentration of <126 cfu per 100 ml; 

and 

(iii) For intestinal enterococci: A 

concentration of <33 cfu per 100 ml. 

(c)(1) The Coast Guard shall, at least 

three years prior to the first compliance 

date set forth in Table 151.2035(c) in 

section 151.1512 of this subpart, publish 

the results of a practicability review to 

determine whether— 

(i) Technology to comply with the 

performance standard required under 

paragraph (b) of this section can 

practicably be implemented, in whole or 

in part, by the applicable compliance 

dates; and 

(ii) Testing protocols that can assure 

accurate measurement of compliance 

with the performance standard required 

under paragraph (b) of this section can 

practicably be implemented. 

(2) If the Coast Guard cannot make a 

determination under paragraph (c)(1) of 

this section for some or all elements of 

the performance standard listed in 

paragraph (b) of this section, the Coast 

Guard shall, at the same time that it 

publishes the results of the 

practicability review, extend the initial 

compliance date, in accordance with the 

Administrative Procedure Act, in Table 

151.2035(c) for the applicable elements 

of the performance standard, taking into 

consideration the findings of the 

practicability review. 

(3) If the Coast Guard cannot make a 

determination under paragraph (c)(1) of 

this section for some or all elements of 

the performance standard under 

paragraph (b) of this section, the Coast 

Guard shall update the practicability 

review, consistent with the 

requirements of paragraph (c)(1) of this 

section, as appropriate, but at least 

every three years, until the performance 

standard under paragraph (b) of this 

section is fully implemented. 

(4) If the Coast Guard finds, as a result 

of a practicability review under either 

paragraphs (c)(1) or (c)(3) of this section, 

that technology to achieve a significant 

improvement in treatment efficacy, 

either greater or less than the efficacy of 

the performance standards in paragraph 

(b) of this section can practicably be 

implemented, as outlined in paragraph 

(c)(1) of this section, the Coast Guard 

shall report this finding in the 

practicability review and propose an 

appropriate revision to the applicable 

requirements of this subpart. 

§ 151.2035 Implementation schedule for 

approved ballast water management 

systems (BWMS). 

(a) The master, owner, operator, agent, 

or person-in-charge of a vessel subject to 

this subpart and wishing to discharge 

ballast within U.S. waters must install 

and operate a Ballast Water 

Management System (BWMS) approved 

by the Coast Guard under 46 CFR part 

162 in accordance with Table 

151.2035(b) ‘‘Implementation Schedule 

for the Phase-One Ballast Water 

Management Program’’ of this section 

and Table 151.2035(c) ‘‘Implementation 

Schedule for the Phase-Two Ballast 

Water Management Program’’ of this 

section, as applicable. Following 

installation, the master, owner, operator, 

agent, or person-in-charge of the vessel 

subject to this subpart must properly 

maintain the BWMS in accordance with 

all manufacturer specifications. 

(b) Table 151.2035 (b)

Implementation Schedule for the PhaseOne Ballast Water Management 

Program 

Vessel’s ballast water 

capacity 

(cubic meters, m3) 

Vessel’s construction date Vessel’s compliance date 

New vessels ................ All ............................... On or after January 1, 2012 ........................... On delivery.

Existing vessels ........... Less than 1500 .......... Before January 1, 2012 .................................. First drydocking after January 1, 2016. 

1500–5000 ................. Before January 1, 2012 .................................. First drydocking after January 1, 2014. 

Greater than 5000 ...... Before January 1, 2012 .................................. First drydocking after January 1, 2016. 

(c) Table 151.2035(c)

Implementation Schedule for the PhaseTwo Ballast Water Management Program 

Vessel’s ballast water 

capacity 

(cubic meters, m3) 

Vessel’s construction date Vessel’s compliance date 

New vessels ................ All ............................... On or after January 1, 2016 ........................... On delivery.

Existing vessels ........... All ............................... Before January 1, 2016 .................................. First drydocking after January 1, 2016, UNLESS the vessel installed a BWMS meeting the phase-one standard before January 

1, 2016, then 5 years after installation of 

the BWMS meeting the phase-one standard. 

§ 151.2040 Discharge of ballast water in 

extraordinary circumstances. 

(a) The master, owner, operator, agent, 

or person-in-charge of a vessel that 

cannot practicably meet the 

requirements of § 151.2025(a)(3) of this 

subpart—either because its voyage does 

not take it into waters 200 nautical 

miles or greater from any shore for a 

sufficient length of time and the vessel 

retains ballast water on board, or 

because the master of the vessel has 

identified the safety or stability 

concerns contained in § 151.2045 of this 

subpart—will be allowed to discharge 

ballast water in areas other than the 

Great Lakes and the Hudson River. This 

exception would be allowed until the 

vessel would be required to have a Coast 

Guard approved BWMS per the 

implementation schedule found in 

Table 151.2035(b) of this subpart. The 

master, owner, operator, agent, or 

person-in-charge of the vessel must 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS3
44652 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 166 / Friday, August 28, 2009 / Proposed Rules 

discharge only that amount of ballast 

water operationally necessary to ensure 

the safety of the vessel for cargo 

operations. Ballast water records must 

be made available to the local Captain 

of the Port upon request. 

(b) A vessel that cannot practicably 

meet the requirements of 

§ 151.2025(a)(1) of this subpart because 

its approved BWMS is inoperable must 

employ one of the other ballast water 

management practices listed in 

§ 151.2025(a) of this subpart. If the 

master of the vessel determines that the 

vessel cannot employ other ballast water 

management practices due to voyage or 

safety concerns, the vessel will be 

allowed to discharge ballast water in 

areas other than the Great Lakes and the 

Hudson River. The vessel must 

discharge only that amount of ballast 

water operationally necessary to ensure 

the safety and stability of the vessel for 

cargo operations. Ballast water records 

must be made available to the local 

Captain of the Port upon request. Per the 

implementation schedule found in 

Table 151.2035(b) of this subpart, a 

vessel will be prohibited from 

discharging non-managed ballast water 

until its approved BWMS is repaired in 

accordance to the manufacturer’s 

specifications. 

§ 151.2045 Safety exception. 

(a) The master, owner, operator, agent, 

or person-in-charge of a vessel is 

responsible for the safety of the vessel, 

its crew, and its passengers. 

(b) The master, owner, operator, 

agent, or person-in-charge of a vessel is 

not required to conduct a ballast water 

management practice, including 

exchange, if the master determines that 

the practice would threaten the safety or 

stability of the vessel, its crew, or its 

passengers because of adverse weather, 

vessel design limitations, equipment 

failure, or any other extraordinary 

conditions. If the master uses this safety 

exception and the vessel— 

(1) Is on a voyage to the Great Lakes 

or Hudson River, the vessel must 

comply with the requirements of 

§ 151.1514 of subpart C of this part. 

(2) Is on a voyage to any port other 

than the Great Lakes or Hudson River, 

the vessel will not be required to 

perform a ballast water management 

practice, including exchange, that the 

master has found to threaten the safety 

of the vessel, its crew, or its passengers 

because of adverse weather, vessel 

design limitations, equipment failure, or 

any other extraordinary conditions. 

(c) Nothing in this subpart relieves the 

master, owner, operator, agent, or 

person-in-charge of a vessel of any 

responsibility, including ensuring the 

safety and stability of the vessel and the 

safety of the crew and passengers. 

§ 151.2050 Additional requirements— 

nonindigenous species reduction practices. 

The master, owner, operator, agent, or 

person-in-charge of any vessel equipped 

with ballast water tanks that operates in 

the waters of the U.S. must: 

(a) Avoid the discharge or uptake of 

ballast water in areas within, or that 

may directly affect marine sanctuaries, 

marine preserves, marine parks, or coral 

reefs. 

(b) Minimize or avoid uptake of 

ballast water in the following areas and 

situations: 

(1) Areas known to have infestations 

or populations of harmful organisms 

and pathogens (e.g., toxic algal blooms); 

(2) Areas near sewage outfalls; 

(3) Areas near dredging operations; 

(4) Areas where tidal flushing is 

known to be poor or times when a tidal 

stream is known to be turbid; 

(5) In darkness when bottom-dwelling 

organisms may rise up in the water 

column; 

(6) Where propellers may stir up the 

sediment; and 

(7) Areas with pods of whales, 

convergence zones, and boundaries of 

major currents. 

(c) Clean the ballast tanks regularly to 

remove sediments. Tanks should be 

cleaned 200 nautical miles from any 

shore or under controlled arrangements 

in port or at dry dock. Sediments should 

be disposed of in accordance with local, 

State, and Federal regulations. 

(d) Discharge only the minimal 

amount of ballast water essential for 

vessel operations while in the waters of 

the United States. 

(e) Rinse anchors and anchor chains 

when the anchor is retrieved to remove 

organisms and sediments at their place 

of origin. 

(f) Remove fouling organisms from 

hull, piping, and tanks on a regular 

basis and dispose of any removed 

substances in accordance with local, 

State and Federal regulations. 

(g) Maintain a ballast water 

management plan that has been 

developed specifically for the vessel 

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 of this subpart. The 

plan must include the following: 

(1) Detailed safety procedures; 

(2) Actions for implementing the 

mandatory BWM requirements and 

practices; 

(3) Detailed fouling maintenance and 

sediment removal procedures; 

(4) Procedures for coordinating the 

shipboard BWM strategy with Coast 

Guard authorities; 

(5) Identification of the designated 

officer[s] in charge of ensuring that the 

plan is properly implemented; 

(6) Detailed reporting requirements 

and procedures for ports and places in 

the U.S. where the vessel may visit; and 

(7) A translation of the plan into 

English, French or Spanish if the Ship’s 

working language is another language. 

(h) Train the master, operator, agent, 

person-in-charge, and crew on the 

application of ballast water and 

sediment management and treatment 

procedures. 

§ 151.2055 Deviation from planned voyage. 

As long as ballast water exchange 

(BWE) is an allowable ballast water 

management option under §§ 151.2025 

and 151.2035 of this subpart, a vessel 

will not be required to deviate from its 

voyage or delay the voyage in order to 

conduct BWE. 

§ 151.2060 Reporting requirements. 

(a) Ballast water reporting 

requirements exist for each vessel 

subject to this subpart bound for ports 

or places of the United States regardless 

of whether a vessel operated outside of 

the exclusive economic zone (which 

includes the equivalent zone of Canada), 

unless exempted in § 151.2015 of this 

subpart. 

(b) The owner, operator, agent, or 

person-in-charge of a vessel subject to 

this subpart and to whom this section 

applies must provide the information 

required by § 151.2070 of this subpart in 

electronic or written form (OMB form 

Control No. 1625–0069) to the 

Commandant, U.S. Coast Guard or the 

appropriate Captain of the Port (COTP) 

as follows: 

(1) For any vessel bound for the Great 

Lakes from outside the EEZ. 

(i) Fax the required information at 

least 24 hours before the vessel arrives 

in Montreal, Quebec to the USCG COTP 

Buffalo, Massena Detachment (315–769– 

5032); or 

(ii) As an alternative for non-U.S. and 

non-Canadian flag vessels, complete the 

ballast water information section of the 

form required by the St. Lawrence 

Seaway, ‘‘Pre-entry Information from 

Foreign Flagged Vessels Form’’, and 

submit it in accordance with the 

applicable Seaway Notice in lieu of this 

requirement. 

(2) For any vessel bound for the 

Hudson River north of the George 

Washington Bridge entering from 

outside the EEZ. Fax the information to 

the COTP New York (718–354–4249) at 

least 24 hours before the vessel enters 

New York, New York. 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 166 / Friday, August 28, 2009 / Proposed Rules 44653 

(3) For any vessel that is equipped 

with ballast water tanks and bound for 

ports or places in the United States and 

not addressed in paragraphs (b)(1) and 

(b)(2) of this section. If a vessel’s voyage 

is less than 24 hours, report before 

departing the port or place of departure. 

If a voyage exceeds 24 hours, report at 

least 24 hours before arrival at the port 

or place of destination. All required 

information is to be sent to the National 

Ballast Information Clearinghouse 

(NBIC) using only one of the following 

means: 

(i) Via the Internet at: http:// 

invasions.si.edu/nbic/index.html; 

(ii) E-mail to NBIC@BallastReport.org; 

(iii) Fax to 301–261–4319; or 

(iv) Mail to U.S. Coast Guard, c/o 

Smithsonian Environmental Research 

Center, P.O. Box 28, Edgewater, MD 

21037–0028. 

(c) If the information submitted in 

accordance with this section changes, 

submit an amended form before the 

vessel departs the waters of the United 

States. 

§ 151.2065 Equivalent reporting methods 

for vessels other than those entering the 

Great Lakes or Hudson River after 

operating outside the EEZ or Canadian 

equivalent. 

For ships required to report under 

§ 151.2060(b)(3) of this subpart, the 

Chief, Environmental Standards 

Division (CG–5224), acting for the 

Assistant Commandant for Safety, 

Security, and Stewardship (CG–5), may, 

upon receipt of a written request, 

consider and approve alternative 

methods of reporting if: 

(a) Such methods are at least as 

effective as that required by § 151.2060 

of this subpart; and 

(b) Compliance with § 151.2060 of 

this subpart is economically or 

physically impractical. The Chief, 

Environmental Standards Division (CG– 

5224), will take approval or disapproval 

action on the request submitted in 

accordance with this section within 30 

days of receipt of the request. 

§ 151.2070 Recordkeeping requirements. 

(a) The master, owner, operator, agent, 

or person-in-charge of a vessel bound 

for a port or place in the United States, 

unless specifically exempted by 

§ 151.2015 of this subpart, must 

maintain written records that include 

the following information: 

(1) Vessel information. This includes 

the name, International Maritime 

Organization (IMO) Number (official 

number if IMO number not issued), 

vessel type, owner or operator, gross 

tonnage, call sign, and port of registry 

(flag). 

(2) Voyage information. This includes 

the date and port of arrival, vessel agent, 

last port and country of call, and next 

port and country of call. 

(3) Total ballast water information. 

This includes the total ballast water 

capacity, total volume of ballast water 

on board, total number of ballast water 

tanks, and total number of ballast water 

tanks in ballast. Use units of 

measurements such as metric tons (MT), 

cubic meters (m3), long tons (LT), and 

short tons (ST). 

(4) Ballast water management. This 

includes the total number of ballast 

tanks/holds that are to be discharged 

into the waters of the United States or 

to a reception facility. If an alternative 

ballast water management method is 

used, note the number of tanks that are 

managed using an alternative method, 

as well as the type of method used. 

Indicate whether the vessel has a ballast 

water management plan and IMO 

guidelines on board, and whether the 

ballast water management plan is used. 

(5) Information on ballast water tanks 

that are to be discharged into the waters 

of the United States or to a reception 

facility. Include the following: 

(i) The origin of ballast water. This 

includes date(s), location(s), volume(s) 

and temperature(s). If a tank has been 

exchanged, list the loading port of the 

ballast water that was discharged during 

the exchange. 

(ii) The date(s), location(s), volume(s), 

method, thoroughness (percentage 

exchanged if exchange conducted), and 

sea height at time of exchange if 

exchange conducted of any ballast water 

exchanged or otherwise managed. 

(iii) The expected date, location, 

volume, and salinity of any ballast water 

to be discharged into the waters of the 

United States or a reception facility. 

(6) Discharge of sediment. If sediment 

is to be discharged within the 

jurisdiction of the United States, 

include the location of the facility 

where the disposal will take place. 

(7) Certification of accurate 

information. Include the master, owner, 

operator, agent, person-in-charge, or 

responsible officer’s printed name, title, 

and signature attesting to the accuracy 

of the information provided and 

certifying compliance with the 

requirements of this subpart. 

(8) Change to previously submitted 

information. Indicate whether the 

information is a change to information 

previously submitted for this voyage. 

(9) The master, owner, operator, 

agent, or person-in-charge of a vessel 

subject to this section must retain a 

signed copy of this information on 

board the vessel for 2 years. 

(10) The information required of this 

subpart may be used to satisfy the 

ballast water recordkeeping 

requirements for vessels subject to 33 

CFR Part 151 subpart C and 

§ 151.2025(c). 

(11) A sample form and the 

instructions for completing the form are 

in the appendix to this subpart. 

Completing the ‘‘Ballast Water 

Reporting Form’’ contained in the IMO 

Guidelines or completing the ballast 

water information section of the form 

required by the St. Lawrence Seaway 

‘‘Pre-entry Information Flagged Vessels 

Form’’ meets the requirements of this 

section. 

§ 151.2075 Enforcement and compliance. 

(a) The Captain of the Port (COTP) 

shall be provided access in order to take 

samples of ballast water and sediment, 

examine documents, and make other 

appropriate inquiries to assess the 

compliance of any vessel subject to this 

subpart. 

(b) The master, owner, operator, 

agent, or person in charge of a vessel 

subject to this section must provide to 

the COTP the records required by 

§ 151.2070 of this subpart upon request. 

(c) The NBIC will compile the data 

obtained from submitted reports. This 

data will be used, in conjunction with 

existing databases on the number of 

vessel arrivals, to assess vessel reporting 

rates. 

(d) Vessels with installed BWMS are 

subject to Coast Guard inspection in 

accordance with 46 CFR 2.75–1. 

(e) In this subpart, wherever multiple 

entities are responsible for compliance 

with any requirement of the rule, each 

entity is jointly liable for a violation of 

such requirement. 

§ 151.2080 Penalties. 

(a) A person who violates this subpart 

is liable for a civil penalty not to exceed 

$ 27,500. Each day of a continuing 

violation constitutes a separate 

violation. A vessel operated in violation 

of the regulations is liable in rem for any 

civil penalty assessed under this subpart 

for that violation. 

(b) A person who knowingly violates 

the regulations of this subpart is guilty 

of a class C felony. 

Appendix to Subpart D of Part 151— 

Ballast Water Reporting Form and 

Instructions for Ballast Water 

Reporting Form 

BILLING CODE 4910–15–P 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS3
44654 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 166 / Friday, August 28, 2009 / Proposed Rules 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS3EP28AU09.076</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 166 / Friday, August 28, 2009 / Proposed Rules 44655 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS3EP28AU09.077</GPH>
44656 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 166 / Friday, August 28, 2009 / Proposed Rules 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS3EP28AU09.078</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 166 / Friday, August 28, 2009 / Proposed Rules 44657 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS3EP28AU09.079</GPH>
44658 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 166 / Friday, August 28, 2009 / Proposed Rules 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS3EP28AU09.080</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 166 / Friday, August 28, 2009 / Proposed Rules 44659 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS3EP28AU09.081</GPH>
44660 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 166 / Friday, August 28, 2009 / Proposed Rules 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS3EP28AU09.082</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 166 / Friday, August 28, 2009 / Proposed Rules 44661 

BILLING CODE 4910–15–C 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS3EP28AU09.083</GPH>
44662 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 166 / Friday, August 28, 2009 / Proposed Rules 

Title 46—Shipping 

CHAPTER I—COAST GUARD 

Subchapter Q—Equipment, Construction, 

and Materials: Specifications and Approval 

PART 162—ENGINEERING 

EQUIPMENT 

9. Revise the authority citation for 

part 162 to read as follows: 

Authority: 16 U.S.C. 4711; 33 U.S.C. 

1321(j), 1903; 46 U.S.C. 3306, 3703, 4104, 

4302; E.O. 12234, 45 FR 58801, 3 CFR, 1980 

Comp., p. 277; E.O. 12777, 56 FR 54757, 3 

CFR, 1991 Comp., p. 351; Department of 

Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1. 

10. Add subpart 162.060 to 

subchapter Q of Chapter I of title 46 of 

the CFR to read as follows: 

Subpart 162.060—Ballast Water 

Management Systems 

Sec. 

162.060–1 Purpose and scope. 

162.060–3 Definitions. 

162.060–5 Incorporation by reference. 

Application Submission Procedures 

162.060–10 Approval procedures. 

162.060–12 Equivalency determinations for 

ballast water management systems. 

162.060–14 Information requirements for 

the ballast water management system 

application. 

162.060–16 Changes to an approved ballast 

water management system. 

162.060–18 Suspension, withdrawal or 

termination of approval. 

Ballast Water Management System Testing 

Procedures 

162.060–20 Design and construction 

requirements. 

162.060–22 Marking requirements. 

162.060–24 Test Plan requirements. 

162.060–26 Land-based testing 

requirements. 

162.060–28 Shipboard testing requirements. 

162.060–30 Testing requirements for ballast 

water management system (BWMS) 

components. 

162.060–32 Testing and evaluation 

requirements for Active Substances, 

Preparations, and Relevant Chemicals. 

162.060–34 Test Report requirements. 

162.060–36 Quality Assurance Project Plan 

(QAPP) requirements. 

162.060–38 Operation, Maintenance, and 

Safety Manual (OMSM). 

162.060–40 Requirements of Independent 

Laboratories (IL). 

Authority: 16 U.S.C. 4711; Department of 

Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1. 

Subpart 162.060—Ballast Water 

Management Systems 

§ 162.060–1 Purpose and scope. 

This subpart contains procedures and 

requirements for approval of complete 

ballast water management systems 

(BWMS) to be installed onboard vessels 

for the purpose of complying with the 

ballast water discharge standard of 33 

CFR part 151, subparts C and D. 

§ 162.060–3 Definitions. 

As used in this subpart— 

Active substance means a chemical or 

an organism, including a virus or a 

fungus, that has a general or specific 

action on or against nonindigenous 

species. 

Ballast water management system 

(BWMS) means any system which 

processes ballast water to kill or remove 

organisms. The BWMS includes all 

ballast water treatment equipment and 

all associated control and monitoring 

equipment. 

Ballast water system means the tanks, 

piping, valves, pumps, sea chests, and 

any other associated equipment the 

vessel uses for the purposes of 

ballasting. 

Ballast water treatment equipment 

means equipment that mechanically, 

physically, chemically, or biologically 

processes ballast water, either singularly 

or in combination, to remove, render 

harmless, or avoid the uptake or 

discharge of living organisms within 

ballast water and sediments. 

Control and monitoring equipment 

means installed equipment required to 

operate, control, and assess the effective 

operation of the ballast water treatment 

equipment. 

Foreign Administration means the 

Government of the State under whose 

authority the ship is operating. 

Hazardous location means areas 

where fire or explosion hazards may 

exist due to the presence of flammable 

gases/vapors, flammable liquids, 

combustible dust, or ignitable fibers. 

Refer to NEC and IEC 79–0. 

Hazardous materials means 

hazardous materials as defined in 49 

CFR 171.8; hazardous substances 

designated under 40 CFR part 116.4; 

reportable quantities as defined under 

40 CFR 117.1; materials that meet the 

criteria for hazard classes and divisions 

in 49 CFR part 173; materials under 46 

CFR 153.40 determined by the Coast 

Guard to be hazardous when 

transported in bulk; flammable liquids 

defined in 46 CFR 30.10–22; 

combustible liquids as defined in 46 

CFR 30.10–15; materials listed in Table 

46 CFR 151.05, Table 1 of 46 CFR 153, 

or Table 4 of 46 CFR part 154; or any 

liquid, liquefied gas, or compressed gas 

listed in 49 CFR 172.101. 

Independent Laboratory (IL) means an 

organization that meets the 

requirements in 46 CFR 159.010–3 and 

is accepted by the Coast Guard for 

performing approval tests and 

evaluations of BWMS required by this 

subpart. In addition to commercial 

testing laboratories, the Commandant 

may also accept classification societies 

and agencies of governments (including 

State and Federal agencies of the United 

States) that are involved in the 

evaluation and testing of BWMS, if they 

meet the requirements of § 159.010–3 of 

this subchapter. 

In-line treatment means a treatment 

system or technology used to treat 

ballast water during normal flow of 

ballast uptake or discharge. 

In-tank treatment means a treatment 

system or technology used to treat 

ballast water during the time that it 

resides in the ballast tanks. 

Pesticide means any substance or 

mixture of substances intended for 

preventing, destroying, repelling, or 

mitigating any pest as defined under the 

Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and 

Rodenticide Act (FIFRA)(7 U.S.C. 136 et 

seq.) and 40 CFR 152.3. 

Preparation means any commercial 

formulation containing one or more 

active substances, including any 

additives. This definition also includes 

any active substances generated onboard 

a vessel for the purpose of ballast water 

management and any relevant chemical 

formed in or by the BWMS that makes 

use of active substances to comply with 

the ballast water discharge standard 

codified in 33 CFR part 151 subpart C 

or D. 

Quality Assurance Project Plan 

(QAPP) means a project-specific 

technical document reflecting the 

implementation of quality assurance 

and quality control activities, including 

specifics of the BWMS to be tested, the 

Independent Laboratory, and other 

conditions affecting the actual design 

and implementation of the required 

tests and evaluations. 

Relevant chemicals mean 

transformation or reaction products that 

are produced during the treatment 

process or in the receiving environment 

and may be of concern to the aquatic 

environment and human health when 

discharged. 

Representativeness means a sample 

that can be expected to adequately 

reflect the properties of interest from 

where the sample was drawn. 

Sampling port refers to the equipment 

installed in the ballast water piping 

prior to the point of overboard discharge 

through which representative samples 

of the ballast water being discharged are 

extracted. This is equivalent to the term 

‘‘sampling facility’’ under the guidelines 

for the International Convention for the 

Control and Management of Ships’ 

Ballast Water and Sediments, 

‘‘Convention Guidelines for Ballast 

Water Sampling (G2)’’. 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 166 / Friday, August 28, 2009 / Proposed Rules 44663 

Test facilities means locations where 

ILs conduct land-based, component, 

active substance and relevant chemical 

testing and evaluations, as required by 

this subpart. 

§ 162.060–5 Incorporation by reference. 

(a) Certain material is incorporated by 

reference into this part with the 

approval of the Director of the Federal 

Register under 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 

CFR part 51. To enforce any edition 

other than that specified in this section, 

the Coast Guard must publish notice of 

change in the Federal Register and the 

material must be available to the public. 

All approved material is available for 

inspection at the National Archives and 

Records Administration (NARA). For 

information on the availability of this 

material at NARA, call 202–741–6030 or 

go to http://www.archives.gov/ 

federal_register/ 

code_of_federal_regulations/ 

ibr_locations.html. Also, it is available 

for inspection at the Environmental 

Standards Division (CG–5224), U.S. 

Coast Guard, 2100 Second Street, SW., 

Washington, DC 20593, and is available 

from the sources indicated in this 

section. 

(b) International Electrotechnical 

Commission (IEC), 3 rue Varembe, 

Geneva, Switzerland. 

(1) IEC 79–0, Electrical Apparatus for 

Explosive Gas Atmospheres, Part 0, 

General Requirements, 1983 (Including 

Amendment 2, 1991), § 162.060–38. 

(2) IEC 529, Classification of Degrees 

of Protection by Enclosures, § 162.060– 

30. 

(c) International Organization for 

Standardization (ISO) and the 

International Electrotechnical 

Commission (IEC), 1, ch. de la VoieCreuse, Case postale 56 CH–1211 

Geneva 20, Switzerland. ISO/IEC 17025, 

General Requirements for the 

Competence of Calibration and Testing 

Laboratories, § 162.060–36. 

(d) National Fire Protection 

Association (NFPA), Batterymarch Park, 

Quincy, MA 02269. NEC, see NFPA 70, 

§ 162.060–38. 

§ 162.060–10 Approval procedures. 

(a) Before any testing is initiated on 

the ballast water management system 

(BWMS), the manufacturer must submit 

a Letter of Intent providing as much as 

possible of the below information to the 

Commanding Officer, U.S. Coast Guard 

Marine Safety Center, Jemal Building, JR 

10–0525, 2100 Second Street, SW., 

Washington, DC 20593 and the 

Commanding Officer, U.S. Coast Guard, 

Office of Operating and Environmental 

Standards (CG–522), RM 1210, 2100 

Second Street, SW., Washington, DC 

20593: 

(1) Manufacturer’s name. 

(2) Name and location of Independent 

Laboratory (IL). 

(3) Name and type of BWMS. 

(4) Expected date of submission of full 

application package to the Coast Guard. 

(5) Name and type of vessel for 

shipboard testing. 

(b) The manufacturer must ensure 

testing of the BWMS is conducted by an 

Independent Laboratory in accordance 

with §§ 162.060–20 through 162.060–40 

of this subpart. 

(c) The manufacturer must submit 

application in accordance with 

§ 162.060–14 of this subpart. 

(d) Upon receipt of an application 

completed in compliance with 

§ 162.060–14 of this subpart, the Coast 

Guard Marine Safety Center will 

evaluate the application and either 

approve, disapprove, or return it to the 

manufacturer for further revision. 

(e) The Coast Guard will 

independently conduct environmental 

analyses of each system in accordance 

with the National Environmental Policy 

Act, the Endangered Species Act, and/ 

or other environmental statues, in 

addition to tests and evaluations 

conducted by an IL required by this 

subpart. Applicants are advised that 

applications including novel processes 

or active substances may encounter 

significantly longer reviews during this 

evaluation. 

(f) After evaluation of the Test Report 

and all design, construction, and 

environmental considerations, the 

Commanding Officer, U.S. Coast Guard 

Marine Safety Center, will advise the 

applicant in accordance with 46 CFR 

§§ 159.005–13 or 159.005–15 whether 

the BWMS is approved. 

(g) A BWMS is eligible for approval if: 

(1) It meets the design and 

construction requirements in § 162.060– 

20 of this subpart; 

(2) It is tested under land-based and 

shipboard conditions in accordance 

with § 162.060–26 and § 162.060–28 of 

this subpart, respectively, and thereby 

demonstrated to consistently meet the 

ballast water discharge standard in 33 

CFR part 151, subparts C and D; 

(3) All applicable components of the 

BWMS meet the component testing 

requirements of § 162.060–30 of this 

subpart; 

(4) Of the BWMS that use an active 

substance or preparation, the BWMS 

meets the requirement of § 162.060–32 

of this subpart; and 

(5) Of the BWMS that use or generate 

an active substance, preparation, or 

relevant chemical, the ballast water 

discharge, preparation, active substance, 

or relevant chemical are not found to be 

persistent, bioaccumulative, or toxic. 

(h) If tests or evaluations required by 

this section are not practicable or 

applicable, a manufacturer may submit 

a written request to the Commanding 

Officer, U.S. Coast Guard Marine Safety 

Center, Jemal Building, JR 10–0525, 

2100 Second Street, SW., Washington, 

DC 20593 for approval of alternatives. 

The request must include the 

manufacturer’s justification for any 

proposed changes and contain full 

descriptions of any proposed alternative 

tests. The Coast Guard’s Marine Safety 

Center will return a copy of the Test 

Report with a cover letter advising the 

manufacturer whether the BWMS is 

approved. Any limitations imposed by 

the BWMS on testing procedures and all 

approved deviations from any test or 

evaluation required by this subpart must 

be duly noted in the Experimental 

Design section of the Test Plan. 

(i) The Commanding Officer, USCG 

Marine Safety Center will send a copy 

of the Test Report to the applicant and 

advise the applicant whether the BWMS 

is approved. If the BWMS is approved, 

an approval certificate is sent to the 

applicant. The approval certificate lists 

conditions of approval applicable to the 

item. The approval certificate will be 

issued in accordance with 46 CFR 

2.75–5. 

§ 162.060–12 Equivalency determinations 

for ballast water management systems 

(BWMS). 

(a) A manufacturer whose BWMS has 

been approved by a Foreign 

Administration may request in writing 

for the Coast Guard to make an 

equivalency determination if it can be 

demonstrated that the BWMS 

successfully met or exceeded the 

requirements of this subpart. 

(b) A manufacturer whose BWMS that 

has successfully been used in a 

prototype experimental treatment 

system program that included tests 

onboard a vessel under normal shipping 

operations may apply for an 

equivalency for the shipboard or 

component testing requirements 

outlined in §§ 162.060–28 and 162.060– 

30 of this subpart respectively, if it can 

be demonstrated that the BWMS 

successfully met or exceeded 

comparable conditions during the 

shipboard testing period. 

(c) If a manufacturer has already 

conducted a substantial amount of landbased and/or shipboard testing 

independent of the requirements of this 

subpart, the Coast Guard may make an 

equivalency determination. 

(d) The request for an equivalency 

must include the following: 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS3
44664 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 166 / Friday, August 28, 2009 / Proposed Rules 

(1) Name, point of contact, address, 

and phone number of the authority 

overseeing the program; 

(2) Entry and exit dates to that 

program; 

(3) Final test results and findings; and 

(4) A description of any modifications 

made to the system between the 

prototype and final development of the 

system. 

(e) All requests for equivalencies 

under this section should be submitted 

in writing to the Commanding Officer, 

U.S. Coast Guard Marine Safety Center, 

Jemal Building, JR 10–0525, 2100 

Second Street, SW., Washington, DC 

20593. 

§ 162.060–14 Information requirements for 

the ballast water management system 

(BWMS) application. 

(a) A complete BWMS application 

must contain the following information: 

(1) The name and location of the 

Independent Laboratory (IL) conducting 

approval tests and evaluations; 

(2) Two sets of plans describing the 

BWMS, as specified in 46 CFR 159.005– 

12; 

(3) An Operation, Maintenance and 

Safety Manual for the BWMS that meets 

the requirements in § 162.060–38; 

(4) A bill of materials showing all 

components and specifications of the 

BWMS, as required by 46 CFR § 56.60; 

(5) A list of any system or component 

of the BWMS that may require 

certification under 46 CFR part 64 as a 

marine portable tank; 

(6) A list of any pressure vessels used 

as a part of the BWMS along with a 

description of either how each pressure 

vessel meets the requirements of 46 CFR 

part 54 or why it should be considered 

exempt from these requirements. 

Manufacturers must also submit 

detailed plans in accordance with 46 

CFR 50.20 if they intend to fabricate 

pressure vessels, heat exchangers, 

evaporators and similar appurtenances 

covered by the requirements in 46 CFR 

part 54; 

(7) Documentation of all necessary 

approval, registrations, and other 

documents or certification required for 

any active substances, preparations, or 

relevant chemicals used by the BWMS. 

The documentation must include the 

following: 

(i) A list of any active substances, 

preparations, or relevant chemicals that 

are used, produced, generated as a 

byproduct, and/or discharged in 

association with the operation of the 

BWMS; and 

(ii) A list of all limitations or 

restrictions that must be complied with 

during the approval testing and 

evaluations; 

(8) A detailed description of the 

manufacturer’s quality control 

procedures for: 

(i) In-process and final inspections; 

(ii) Tests followed in manufacturing 

the item; and 

(iii) Construction and sales 

recordkeeping maintenance systems; 

and 

(9) The completed Test Report 

prepared and submitted by the IL. 

(b) The completed application must 

be sent to the Commanding Officer, U.S. 

Coast Guard Marine Safety Center, Jemal 

Building, JR 10–0525, 2100 Second 

Street, SW., Washington, DC 20593. 

(c) If examination of the application 

reveals that it is incomplete, it will be 

returned to the applicant with an 

explanation. 

§ 162.060–16 Changes to an approved 

ballast water management system (BWMS). 

(a) The manufacturer of a BWMS that 

is approved by the Coast Guard must 

notify the Commanding Officer, USCG 

Marine Safety Center, in writing of any 

change in design or intended 

operational conditions of an approved 

BWMS. 

(b) The notification in (a) must 

include: 

(1) A description of the change, and 

its advantages; 

(2) A determination by the original IL, 

or an alternate IL deemed acceptable by 

the Coast Guard, as to whether or not 

the change affects how the BWMS 

operates; 

(3) A determination of whether or not 

the modified BWMS remains in all 

material respects, the same as the 

original; and 

(4) An indication of whether or not 

the original BWMS will continue to be 

made or discontinued altogether. 

(c) After receipt of the notice and 

information, the Coast Guard will notify 

the manufacturer and the IL in writing 

of any tests or evaluations that must be 

conducted, and then determine if 

recertification and/or modification is 

required. 

§ 162.060–18 Suspension, withdrawal, or 

termination of approval. 

The Coast Guard may suspend an 

approval issued for a BWMS in 

accordance with 46 CFR 2.75–40, 

withdraw an approval in accordance 

with 46 CFR 2.75–50(a), or terminate an 

approval in accordance with 46 CFR 

2.75–50(b) if the BWMS as 

manufactured: 

(a) Is not found to be in compliance 

with the conditions of approval; 

(b) Is unsuitable for the purpose 

intended by the manufacturer; 

(c) Does not meet the requirements of 

applicable laws, rules, and regulations 

when installed and operated as 

intended by the manufacturer; 

(d) Is no longer being manufactured or 

supported; or 

(e) When the approval expires. 

§ 162.060–20 Design and construction 

requirements. 

(a) Unless otherwise authorized by the 

Commandant, each BWMS must be 

designed and constructed in a manner 

that: 

(1) Ensures simple and effective 

means for its operation; 

(2) Allows operation to be initiated, 

controlled, and monitored by a single 

individual, and with minimal 

interaction or attention once normal 

operation is initiated; 

(3) Is robust and suitable for working 

in the shipboard environment and 

adequate for its intended service; 

(4) Meets all applicable requirements 

in 46 CFR Subchapter F, Marine 

Engineering, and Subchapter J, 

Electrical Engineering; and 

(5) Operates when the vessel is 

upright, inclined under static conditions 

at any angle of list up to and including 

15°, and when the vessel is inclined 

under dynamic, rolling conditions at 

any angle of list up to and including 

22.5° and, simultaneously, at any angle 

of trim (pitching) up to and including 

7.5° by bow or stern. Deviations from 

these angles of inclination may be 

permitted by the Coast Guard’s Marine 

Safety Center, in accordance with 

§ 162.060–10(h), considering the type, 

size, and service of intended vessels and 

considering how the BWMS is to be 

operated. 

(b) Each BWMS must have control 

and monitoring equipment that: 

(1) Automatically monitors and 

adjusts necessary treatment dosages, 

intensities, or other aspects required for 

proper operation; 

(2) Incorporates a continuous selfmonitoring function during the period 

in which the BWMS is in operation; 

(3) Records proper functioning and 

failures of the BWMS; 

(4) Records all events in which an 

alarm is activated for the purposes of 

cleaning, calibration, or repair; 

(5) Records any bypass of the BWMS; 

(6) Is able to store data for at least 24 

months and to display or print a record 

for official inspections as required; and 

(7) In the event the control and 

monitoring equipment is replaced, 

actions must be taken to ensure the data 

recorded prior to replacement remains 

available onboard for a minimum of 24 

months. 

(c) Each BWMS must be designed and 

constructed with the following 

operating and emergency controls: 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 166 / Friday, August 28, 2009 / Proposed Rules 44665 

(1) Visual means of indicating when 

the BWMS is operating, including a 

visual alarm activated whenever the 

BWMS is in operation for the purpose 

of cleaning, calibration, or repair; 

(2) Audible and visual alarm signals 

must be provided in all stations from 

which ballast water operations are 

controlled in case of any failure(s) 

compromising the proper operation of 

the BWMS; 

(3) As applicable, have means to 

activate stop valves when failure of the 

BWMS occurs; 

(4) Suitable manual by-passes or 

overrides to protect the safety of the 

ship and personnel in the event of an 

emergency; 

(5) Means that compensate for a 

momentary loss of power during 

operation of the BWMS so that 

unintentional discharges do not occur; 

(6) BWMS installed in unoccupied 

machinery spaces must be capable of 

operating automatically from the time it 

is placed on-line until it is secured; and 

(7) Adequate alarms for the applicable 

chemicals used in the BWMS and 

spaces where they are introduced or 

stored. 

(d) BWMS must comply with the 

relevant requirements of 46 CFR subpart 

111.105 if it is intended to be fitted in 

hazardous locations. Any electrical 

equipment that is a component of the 

BWMS must be installed in a nonhazardous location unless certified as 

safe for use in a hazardous location. Any 

moving parts which are fitted in 

hazardous locations must be arranged in 

a manner that avoids the formation of 

static electricity. 

(e) To ensure continued operational 

performance of the BWMS without 

interference, the following conditions 

must be incorporated into the design: 

(1) Each part of the BWMS that is 

required to be serviced routinely per the 

manufacturer’s instructions or is liable 

to wear or damage must be readily 

accessible in the installed position(s) 

recommended by the manufacturer; 

(2) To avoid interference with the 

BWMS, every access of the BWMS 

beyond the essential requirements, as 

determined by the manufacturer, must 

require the breaking of a seal, and any 

bypass or avoidance of the BWMS for 

the purpose of maintenance must 

activate an alarm; 

(3) Simple means must be provided 

aboard the ship to identify drift and 

repeatability fluctuations and re-zero 

measuring devices that are part of the 

control and monitoring equipment. 

(f) Each BWMS must be designed so 

that it does not rely in whole or in part 

on dilution of ballast water as a means 

of achieving the ballast water discharge 

standard as required in 33 CFR part 151, 

subparts C or D. 

(g) Adequate arrangements for storage, 

application, mitigation, monitoring, and 

safe handling must be made for all 

BWMS that incorporate the use of, 

produce, generate, or discharge a 

hazardous material, active substance, 

and/or pesticide in accordance with 

Coast Guard regulations on handling/ 

storage of hazardous materials (33 CFR 

126) and any other applicable Federal, 

State, and local requirements. 

(h) For any BWMS that incorporates 

the use of or generates active 

substances, preparations, or chemicals, 

the BWMS must be equipped with each 

of the following as applicable: 

(1) A means of indicating the amount 

and concentration of any chemical in 

the BWMS that is necessary for its 

effective operation; 

(2) A means of indicating when 

chemicals must be added for the proper 

continued operation of the BWMS; 

(3) Sensors and alarms in all spaces 

that may be impacted by a malfunction 

of the BWMS; 

(4) A means of monitoring all active 

substances and preparations in the 

treated discharge; 

(5) A means to ensure that any 

maximum dosage or maximum 

allowable discharge concentrations of 

active substances and preparations are 

not exceeded at any time; and 

(6) Each chemical that is specified or 

provided by the manufacturer for use in 

the operation of a BWMS and is defined 

as a hazardous material in 49 CFR 171.8 

must be certified by the procedures in 

46 CFR Part 147. 

§ 162.060–22 Marking requirements. 

(a) Each BWMS manufactured for 

Coast Guard approval must have a 

nameplate which is securely fastened to 

the BWMS and plainly marked by the 

manufacturer with the information 

listed in paragraph (b) of this section. 

(b) Each nameplate must include the 

following information: 

(1) Coast Guard Approval Number 

assigned to the system in the certificate 

of approval; 

(2) Name of the manufacturer; 

(3) Name and model number of the 

item; 

(4) The manufacturer’s serial number 

for the item; 

(5) The month and year of 

manufacture completion; and 

(6) The maximum allowable working 

pressure for the BWMS. 

(c) The information required by 

paragraph (b) of this section must 

appear on a nameplate attached to, or in 

lettering on, the BWMS. The nameplate 

or lettering must be capable of 

withstanding, without loss of 

readability, the combined effects of 

normal wear and tear and exposure to 

water, salt spray, direct sunlight, heat, 

cold, and any substance used in the 

normal operation and maintenance of 

the BWMS. The nameplate must not be 

obscured by paint, corrosion, or other 

materials that would hinder readability. 

§ 162.060–24 Test Plan requirements. 

(a) Test Plans must include an 

examination of all the manufacturer’s 

stated requirements and procedures for 

installation, calibration, maintenance, 

and operations that will be used by the 

BWMS during each test. 

(b) Test Plans must also address 

potential environmental, health, and 

safety issues; unusual operating 

requirements such as labor or materials; 

and any issues related to the disposal of 

treated ballast water, by-products, or 

waste streams. 

(c) Each Test Plan must be in the 

following format: 

(1) Title page, including all project 

participants; 

(2) Table of contents; 

(3) Project description and treatment 

performance objectives; 

(4) Project organization and personnel 

responsibilities; 

(5) Description of the Independent 

Laboratory (IL); 

(6) Treatment technology description; 

(7) Test setup, including a diagram of 

the test configuration and all 

connections of the BWMS to be tested; 

(8) Experimental design, including 

specific test procedures, installation and 

start-up plan, sample and data 

collection, and sample handling and 

preservation; 

(9) Challenge water conditions and 

preparation, including IL’s procedures 

for preparation, and a description of 

how the water quality and biological 

challenge conditions meet the 

applicable requirements of this subpart; 

(10) Pre- and post-test evaluation 

methods; 

(11) Quality Assurance Project Plan 

(QAPP); 

(12) Data management, analysis, and 

reporting, including measures of 

precision, accuracy, comparability, and 

representativeness; 

(13) Environmental, health, and safety 

plan; and 

(14) Applicable references. 

§ 162.060–26 Land-based testing 

requirements. 

(a) Each BWMS must undergo landbased tests and evaluations that meet 

the requirements of this section, in 

addition to the shipboard tests required 

in § 162.060–28. The land-based testing 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS3
44666 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 166 / Friday, August 28, 2009 / Proposed Rules 

will determine whether the biological 

efficacy of the BWMS under 

consideration for approval is sufficient 

to meet the applicable BWDS, evaluate 

the suitability of the BWMS for 

shipboard installation, and validate 

those aspects of the operating and 

maintenance parameters presented by 

the manufacturer that are appropriate 

for assessment under the relatively 

short-term, but well-controlled 

circumstances of a land-based test. 

(b) The test set-up must operate as 

described in the Test Plan requirements 

per § 161.060–24 during at least five 

consecutive valid replicate test cycles. 

(c) Each valid test cycle must include 

the following: 

(1) Uptake of test water by pumping; 

(2) Treatment of a minimum of 200 

m3 of test water with the BWMS, 

(3) Process of a minimum of 200 m3

of untreated test water through the IL in 

a manner that is in all ways identical to 

(2) above, except that the BWMS is not 

used to treat the water; 

(4) Retention of the treated and 

control water in separate tanks for a 

minimum of 24 hours; and 

(5) Discharge of the test water by 

pumping. 

(d) BWMS not tested for each of the 

3 salinity ranges and water conditions 

listed in (e) may be subject to 

operational restrictions within a 

certificate of type approval. 

(e) The BWMS must be tested in water 

conditions for which it will be 

approved. For any set of test cycles, a 

salinity range must be chosen. With 

respect to the salinity of water bodies 

where the BWMS is intended to be 

used, the test water used in the test setup must have dissolved and particulate 

content in the following combinations: 

(1) BWMS intended for use in water 

bodies with salinities greater than or 

equal to 32 parts per thousand (ppt) 

must use test water that has the 

following: 

(i) A salinity greater than 32 ppt; 

(ii) Dissolved Organic Carbon (DOC) 

in the range of 5–12 mg/l; 

(iii) Particulate Organic Carbon (POC) 

in the range of 5–12 mg/l; and 

(iv) Total Suspended Solids (TSS) 

greater than 5 mg/l; 

(2) BWMS intended for use in water 

bodies with salinities greater than 3 and 

less than 32 ppt must use test water that 

has the following: 

(i) A salinity in the range of 3–32 ppt; 

(ii) DOC in the range of 5–12 mg/l; 

(iii) POC in the range of 5–12 mg/l; 

and 

(iv) TSS greater than 5 mg/l; 

(3) BWMS intended for use in water 

bodies with salinities less than or equal 

to 3 ppt must use test water that has the 

following: 

(i) A salinity less than 3 ppt; 

(ii) DOC in the range of 5–12 mg/l; 

(iii) POC in the range of 5–12 mg/l; 

and 

(iv) TSS greater than 10 mg/l; 

(4) At least 2 sets of test cycles should 

be conducted with different salinity 

ranges and associated dissolved and 

particulate content as described. BWMS 

not tested for each of the 3 salinity 

ranges and water conditions listed in 

this section may be subject to 

operational restrictions within a 

certificate of approval. 

(f) Test cycles under adjacent salinity 

ranges listed in (e) must be separated by 

at least 10 ppt. 

(g) The BWMS must be tested at its 

rated capacity or as specified in (g)(1) 

for each test cycle and must function to 

the manufacturer’s specifications during 

the test. 

(1) In-line treatment equipment may 

be downsized for land-based testing, but 

only when the following criteria are 

met: 

(i) In-line treatment equipment with a 

Treatment Rated Capacity (TRC) equal 

to or smaller than 200 m3/h should not 

be downscaled: 

(ii) In-line treatment equipment with 

a TRC larger than 200 m3/h, but smaller 

than 1000 m3/h may be downscaled to 

a maximum of 1:5 scale, but must not 

be smaller than 200 m3/h; 

(iii) In-line treatment equipment with 

a TRC equal to or larger than 1000 m3/ 

h may be downscaled to a maximum of 

1:100 scale, but must not be smaller 

than 200 m3/h; and 

(iv) The manufacturer of the BWMS 

must demonstrate by using 

mathematical modeling and/or by 

calculations that any downscaling will 

not affect the ultimate functioning and 

effectiveness onboard a vessel of the 

type and size for which the BWMS will 

be approved; 

(2) Larger scaling may be applied and 

lower flow rates used other than those 

described in (g)(1) if the manufacturer 

can provide evidence from full-scale 

shipboard testing, in accordance with 

(g)(1)(iv), that larger scaling and lower 

flow rates will not adversely affect the 

ability to predict full-scale compliance 

with the BWDS. The procedures of 

§ 162.060–10 must be followed before 

scaling of flow rates other than those 

provided in (g)(1), may be used. 

(3) In-tank treatment equipment must 

be tested on a scale that allows 

verification of full-scale effectiveness. 

The suitability of the test set-up must be 

evaluated by the manufacturer and 

approved by the IL. 

(h) The test set-up, TRC, and scaling 

of all tests must be clearly identified in 

the Experimental Design section of the 

Test Plan per § 162.060–24. 

(i) The test set-up for approval tests 

must be representative of the 

characteristics and arrangements of the 

types of vessels in which the BWMS is 

intended to be installed. The test set-up 

must include at least the following: 

(1) The complete BWMS to be tested; 

(2) Piping and pumping arrangements; 

and 

(3) At least one storage tank that 

simulates a ballast tank, constructed so 

that the water in the tank is completely 

shielded from light. 

(j) Tanks used must— 

(1) Have a minimum capacity of 200 

m3; and 

(2) Be designed and constructed in a 

manner that minimizes the tank’s effects 

on test organisms. 

(k) The test setup piping must be 

rinsed with fresh water and the test 

tanks must be pressure-washed with tap 

water, before starting testing procedures 

and between test cycles. 

(l) The test set-up must supply 

influent water to meet the conditions 

specified in paragraph (c)(2) of this 

section and include adequate facilities 

or arrangements to meet the sampling 

requirements of paragraphs of this 

section while ensuring representative 

samples of treated and control water can 

be taken with as little adverse effects as 

possible on the test organisms. 

(m) The influent water must include: 

(1) Test organisms greater than or 

equal to 50 micrometers in size in a total 

density of at least 105 individuals per 

cubic meter. The test organisms must 

comprise at least 5 species from at least 

3 different phyla/divisions; 

(2) Test organisms greater than or 

equal to 10 micrometers and less than 

50 micrometers in size in a total density 

of at least 104 individuals per liter. Test 

organisms must also consist of at least 

5 species from at least 3 different phyla/ 

divisions; and 

(3) Heterotrophic bacteria to be 

present in a density of at least 104 living 

bacteria per milliliter. 

(n) The test organisms used for 

influent water may be either naturally 

occurring in the test water, cultured 

species that may be added to the 

influent test water, or a mixture of both. 

The classification of test organisms in 

the test water must be documented 

according to the size classes mentioned 

in paragraph (m) of this section, 

regardless if natural organisms or 

cultured organisms were used to meet 

the density and organism classification 

requirements. 

(o) If cultured test organisms are used, 

the IL must ensure that all applicable 

Federal, State, local, and Tribal 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 166 / Friday, August 28, 2009 / Proposed Rules 44667 

regulations are complied with during 

culturing and discharging of the 

cultured test organisms. 

(p) Changes in the number of test 

organisms due to treatment or storage 

must be measured. 

(q) The following bacteria do not need 

to be added to the influent water, but 

must be measured at the influent and at 

the time of discharge: 

(1) Escherichia coli; 

(2) Enterococci group; 

(3) Vibrio cholerae; and 

(4) Total heterotrophic bacteria. 

(r) Testing and evaluation must verify 

that the BWMS performs within the 

parameters specified by the 

manufacturer, such as power 

consumption and flow rate during the 

test cycle. 

(s) Samples must be collected during 

the test immediately before the test 

water enters the treatment equipment 

and upon discharge. Samples should be 

drawn using sample ports designed and 

installed as follows: 

(1) The test set up should have 

sampling ports that are arranged in an 

order that will collect representative 

samples of the water under the 

following conditions: 

(i) Sampling ports should be located 

as close as practicable to the BWMS 

prior to testing and prior to the 

discharge point after testing. Sampling 

should include any hold time; and 

(ii) Sampling ports should be located 

elsewhere as necessary to ascertain the 

proper functioning of the BWMS. 

(2) Sample ports must be designed 

and constructed to ensure the velocity 

profile at the opening of the sample port 

matches the velocity profile in the main 

stream of the pipe from which samples 

are taken. Sample ports must be 

designed and installed taking into 

consideration the findings and 

recommendations in the U.S. Coast 

Guard Research and Development 

Center (R&DC) Report ‘‘Analysis of 

Ballast Water Sampling Port Designs 

Using Computational Fluid Dynamics’’. 

The report is available for download 

from the R&DC Web site at http:// 

www.rdc.uscg.gov/. 

(i) The opening of the sample port 

should be 1.5–2 times the isokinetic 

sample diameter, Diso, which can be 

derived as follows: 

D D Q

Q ISO M

ISO

M

=

Where: 

DM is the diameter of the main pipe from 

which samples are to be extracted; 

QM is the flow rate in the main pipe; and 

Qiso is the desired sample flow rate. 

(ii) The sample port size must be 

based on the combination of maximum 

sample flow rate and minimum mainpipe flow rate that yields the largest 

isokinetic diameter. 

(iii) Samples must be drawn from a 

straight pipe section on the centerline of 

the main flow, looking into the flow. 

(iv) The sample taken should be 

drawn from the main pipe at a location 

where the flowing stream at the sample 

point is representative of the contents of 

the flow in the main pipe. The sample 

port should be located at a point where 

the flow in the main pipe is as close to 

fully mixed and fully developed as 

practicable. 

(v) Ball valves must be used for 

shutting off the flow. 

(vi) Smooth transition flow controls, 

like flexible venturi, must be used to 

control flow rates. 

(viii) Piping and fittings from the 

sample port to the sample collection 

vessel must be minimized. 

(t) Samples should be collected for: 

(1) Organisms of greater than or equal 

to 50 micrometers in size from at least 

20 liters of influent water and 1,000 

liters of treated water, in triplicate, 

respectively. If samples are concentrated 

for enumeration, the samples should be 

concentrated using a sieve no greater 

than 50 micrometer mesh in the 

diagonal dimension; 

(2) Organisms greater than or equal to 

10 micrometers and less than 50 

micrometers in size from at least 1 liter 

of influent water and at least 10 liters of 

treated water, in triplicate, respectively. 

If samples are concentrated for 

enumeration, the samples should be 

concentrated using a sieve no greater 

than 10 micrometers mesh in the 

diagonal dimension; and 

(3) Escherichia coli, enterococci, 

Vibrio cholerae, and heterotrophic 

bacteria from at least 500 milliliters of 

influent and treated water collected in 

sterile bottles, in triplicate, respectively. 

(u) All applicable environmental 

parameters such as pH, temperature, 

salinity, DO, TSS, DOC, POC, and 

turbidity must be measured at the same 

time samples are taken. 

(v) The control and treatment test 

cycles may be run simultaneously or 

sequentially. Control samples are to be 

taken in the same manner as treatment 

samples, upon influent and discharge. 

(w) The samples must be analyzed in 

such a way so that post collection 

mortality is minimized and proper 

analyses can be performed to determine 

the number of living organisms relative 

to the specifications of the discharge 

standard. Validation of the methods 

used must be made in the Test Plan 

required under § 162.060–24 of this 

subpart. 

(x) Efficacy testing and sample 

analysis is meant to determine the 

number of living organisms in the 

samples both before and after treatment. 

The methods for the collection, 

handling, storage, and analysis of 

samples must be clearly cited and 

described in the Test Plan, and they 

must include detection, enumeration, 

and identification of test organisms used 

for determining viability. When 

standard methods are not available for 

particular organisms or taxonomic 

groups, methods that are developed for 

use must also be described in detail in 

the Test Plan and include any 

experiments conducted to validate the 

use of the methods. At a minimum— 

(1) The efficacy of a proposed BWMS 

must be tested by means of standard 

scientific methodology in the form of 

controlled experiments; 

(2) The efficacy of the BWMS must be 

determined by comparing the 

concentration of organisms in the 

treated discharge with the values of the 

BWDS specified in 33 CFR part 151, 

subparts C and D; 

(3) Any statistical analyses of BWMS 

performance must include power 

analyses to evaluate the ability of the 

tests to detect differences; 

(4) If, in any test cycle, the average 

organism concentration in challenge 

water is less than 10 times the 

maximum permissible values of the 

BWDS required in 33 CFR part 151, 

subparts C and D, the test cycle is 

invalid; 

(5) If, in any test cycle, the average 

organism concentration in discharged 

control water is less than the maximum 

permissible values of the BWDS 

required in 33 CFR part 151, subparts C 

and D, the test cycle is invalid; and 

(6) Different samples may be taken for 

determination of the concentration and 

viability of organisms in the different 

groups specified in the BWDS required 

in 33 CFR part 151, subparts C and D. 

(y) Live/dead judgment must be 

determined by appropriate industry or 

government standards or methods 

approved by the Coast Guard, including, 

but not limited to morphological 

change, mobility, reaction to stimulus, 

or staining using vital dyes or molecular 

techniques. 

(z) All replicate samples collected 

within a valid set of test cycles must 

meet the BWDS required in 33 CFR part 

151, subparts C and D. 

§ 162.060–28 Shipboard testing 

requirements. 

(a) The BWMS manufacturer is 

responsible for making all arrangements 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS3EP28AU09.085</MATH>
44668 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 166 / Friday, August 28, 2009 / Proposed Rules 

for a vessel on which to conduct 

shipboard tests. 

(b) In addition to the land-based tests 

required in § 162.060–26 of this subpart, 

each BWMS approved under this 

subpart must undergo shipboard tests 

and evaluations that meet the 

requirements of this section. The 

shipboard testing will verify: 

(1) That the BWMS under 

consideration for approval consistently 

results in the routine discharge of 

ballast water that meets the BWDS 

requirements of part 151, subparts C and 

D; and 

(2) That the operating and 

maintenance parameters identified by 

the manufacturer in the Operation, 

Maintenance, and Safety Manual are 

consistently achieved. 

(c) The vessel used as a platform for 

shipboard testing under this section 

must be selected so that: 

(1) The volumes and rates of ballast 

water used and treated are 

representative of the upper end of the 

treatment rated capacity for which the 

BWMS is intended to be used; 

(2) The circumstances of the vessel’s 

operation during the period of 

shipboard testing provide an acceptable 

range of geographic and seasonal 

variability conditions. 

(i) During testing, the ballast water 

used by the vessel and treated by the 

BWMS for the purposes of the 

shipboard tests must come from at least 

3 different geographic locations that lie 

in non-neighboring marine 

biogeographical provinces (e.g., the 

IUCN Marine Ecoregions of the World, 

as published in the journal BioScience, 

2007, Vol. 57 No. 7; or the Briggs and 

Eckman bioprovinces, as published in 

Briggs, J.C., 1995, Global biogeography. 

Developments in paleontology and 

stratigraphy, Elsevier Science, 

Amsterdam.) 

(ii) Shipboard tests must be 

conducted throughout a 12 month 

period. 

(3) The ports visited by the vessel 

provide adequate availability of 

transportation and scientific support 

needed to accomplish the necessary 

sampling and analytical procedures 

during the shipboard tests. 

(d) The vessel’s ballast water system 

must be provided with sampling ports 

arranged in order to collect 

representative samples of the ship’s 

ballast water. 

(1) In addition to the sampling ports 

requirements found in 162.060–26, 

sampling ports must be located: 

(i) As close as practicable to the 

BWMS prior to testing and prior to the 

discharge point after testing to 

determine concentrations of living 

organisms upon uptake and prior to 

discharge; and 

(ii) Elsewhere as necessary to 

ascertain the proper functioning of the 

BWMS; 

(2) As close to the overboard outlet as 

possible. 

(e) The efficacy of the BWMS must be 

tested during at least ten valid test 

cycles. 

(1) A test cycle entails: 

(i) The uptake of ballast water of the 

ship; the storage of ballast water on the 

ship; 

(ii) Treatment of the ballast water by 

the BWMS, except in control tanks; and 

(iii) The discharge of ballast water 

from the ship. 

(2) All test cycles will include 

quantification of the water quality 

parameters on uptake; 

(3) Three test cycles will entail full 

experimental tests and consist of 

quantification of the concentration of 

living organisms in the ballast water on 

uptake and at discharge from the 

treatment and control tanks; 

(4) Seven test cycles will consist of 

discharge tests and of quantification of 

the concentration of living organisms in 

the treated ballast water on discharge. 

No control tanks are required; 

(5) Valid test cycles are as follows: 

(i) For full experimental test cycles, 

uptake water for both the control tank 

and ballast water to be treated must 

have living organism concentrations 

exceeding ten times the threshold 

values of BWDS required in 33 CFR part 

151, subparts C and D, and control tank 

living organism concentrations must 

exceed the values of the BWDS on 

discharge; 

(ii) For full experimental test cycles 

and discharge test cycles, the BWMS 

must operate successfully as designed, 

maintaining control of all set points and 

treatment processes, including any predischarge conditioning to remove or 

neutralize residual treatment chemicals 

or by-products; and 

(iii) For full experimental test cycles 

and discharge test cycles, all design or 

required water quality parameters must 

be met for the discharged water; 

(6) The source water for all test cycles 

must be characterized by measurement 

of water quality parameters as follows: 

(i) For all BWMS tests, salinity, 

temperature, and turbidity must be 

measured at the beginning, middle, and 

end of the period of ballast water 

uptake; and 

(ii) BWMS that make use of active 

substances or other processes that are 

affected by specific water quality 

parameters (e.g., dissolved and 

particulate organic material, pH, etc.), or 

water quality parameters identified by 

the manufacturer and/or the IL as being 

critical must be measured at the 

beginning, middle, and end of the 

period of ballast water uptake. 

(f) Samples of ballast water must be 

collected from in-line sampling ports in 

either of two ways: 

(1) Three replicate samples of water, 

collected at three discrete periods of 

time over the entire period of uptake or 

discharge (e.g. beginning, middle, end) 

as appropriate; or 

(2) One flow averaged sample of at 

least 1 cubic meter collected over the 

entire period of uptake or discharge. 

(g) The following information must be 

documented during all BWMS testing 

operations conducted on the vessel: 

(1) All ballast water operations, 

including volumes and locations of 

uptake and discharge; 

(2) All weather conditions and 

resultant effects on vessel orientation 

and vibration; 

(3) Temperature of the BWMS; 

(4) Scheduled maintenance performed 

on the system; 

(5) Unscheduled maintenance and 

repair performed on the system; 

(6) Data for all engineering parameters 

monitored as appropriate to the specific 

system; 

(7) Consumption of all solutions, 

preparations, or other consumables 

necessary for the effective operation of 

the BWMS; and 

(8) All parameters necessary for 

tracking the functioning of the control 

and monitoring equipment. 

(h) All measurements for numbers 

and viability of organisms, water quality 

parameters, engineering performance 

parameters, and environmental 

conditions must be conducted: 

(1) As described in § 162.060–26 (w) 

and (x) of this subpart, using standard 

methods from recognized bodies such as 

EPA (in 40 CFR part 136), the 

International Standards Organization, or 

others accepted by the scientific 

community, or 

(2) Using validated methods approved 

in advance by the Coast Guard. The 

possible reasons for the occurrence of an 

unsuccessful test cycle due to obvious 

mechanical or process failure or a test 

cycle discharge failing the discharge 

standard should be investigated and 

reported. 

§ 162.060–30 Testing requirements for 

ballast water management system (BWMS) 

components. 

(a) The electrical and electronic 

components, including each alarm and 

control and monitoring device of the 

BWMS, must be subjected to the 

following environmental tests when in 

the standard production configuration: 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 166 / Friday, August 28, 2009 / Proposed Rules 44669 

(1) A resonance search vertically up 

and down, horizontally from side to 

side, and horizontally from end to end, 

at a rate sufficiently low to permit 

resonance detection made over the 

following ranges of oscillation 

frequency and amplitude: 

(i) 2 to 13.3 Hz with a vibration 

amplitude of ± 1 mm; 

(ii) 13.2 to 80 Hz with an acceleration 

amplitude of ± 0.7 g; 

(2) The components must be vibrated 

in the above mentioned planes at each 

major resonant frequency for a period of 

4 hours. 

(3) In the absence of any resonant 

frequency, the components must be 

vibrated in each of the planes at 30 Hz 

with an acceleration of ± 0.7 g for a 

period of 4 hours. 

(4) Components that may be installed 

in exposed areas on the open deck or in 

enclosed spaces not environmentally 

controlled must be subjected to a low 

temperature test of ¥25 °C and a high 

temperature test of 55 °C for a period of 

two hours. 

(5) Components that may be installed 

in enclosed spaces that are 

environmentally controlled, including 

an engine-room, must be subjected to a 

low temperature test at 0 °C and a high 

temperature test at 55 °C, for a period of 

two hours. At the end of each test, the 

components are to be switched on and 

must function normally under the test 

conditions. 

(6) Components should be switched 

off for a period of two hours at a 

temperature of 55 °C in an atmosphere 

with a relative humidity of 90%. At the 

end of this period, the components 

should be switched on and should 

operate satisfactorily for one hour under 

the test conditions. 

(7) Components that may be installed 

in exposed areas on the open deck must 

be subjected to tests for protection 

against heavy seas in accordance with IP 

56 of publication IEC 529 (incorporated 

by reference; see § 162.060–5) or its 

equivalent. 

(8) Components must operate 

satisfactorily with a voltage variation of 

± 10% together with a simultaneous 

frequency variation of ± 5%, and a 

transient voltage of ± 20% together with 

a simultaneous transient frequency of 

± 10% and transient recovery time of 3 

seconds. 

(9) The components of a BWMS must 

be designed to operate when the ship is 

upright and inclined at any angle of list 

up to and including 15° either way 

under static conditions and 22.5° under 

dynamic, rolling conditions either way 

and simultaneously inclined 

dynamically (pitching) 7.5° by bow or 

stern. Deviation from these angles may 

be permitted only upon approval of a 

written waiver submitted to the Coast 

Guard in accordance with 162.060– 

10(h), taking into consideration the 

type, size and service conditions and 

locations of the ships and operational 

functioning of the equipment for where 

the system will be used. Any deviation 

permitted must be documented in the 

Type Approval Certificate. 

(10) The same component(s) must be 

used for each test required by this 

section, and testing must be conducted 

in the order in which the tests are 

described, unless otherwise authorized 

by the Coast Guard. 

(b) There shall be no cracking, 

softening, deterioration, displacement, 

breakage, leakage, or damage of 

components or materials that affects the 

operation or safety of the BWMS after 

each test. The components must remain 

operable after all tests. 

§ 162.060–32 Testing and evaluation 

requirements for Active Substances, 

Preparations, and Relevant chemicals. 

(a) A BWMS may not use an active 

substance or preparation that is a 

pesticide unless the sale and 

distribution of such pesticide is 

authorized under the Federal 

Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide 

Act (FIFRA) for use in ballast water 

treatment, prior to submission to the 

Coast Guard for approval of the BWMS. 

This requirement does not apply to the 

use of active substances or preparations 

generated solely by the use of a device 

(as defined under FIFRA) on board the 

same vessel as the ballast water to be 

treated. 

(b) A BWMS that uses an active 

substance or preparation that is not a 

pesticide, or that uses a pesticide that is 

generated solely by the use of a device 

(as defined under FIFRA) on board the 

same vessel as the ballast water to be 

treated, must prepare an assessment 

demonstrating the effectiveness of the 

BWMS for its intended use, appropriate 

dosage, hazards of the BWMS, and 

means for protection of the 

environment, and public health. This 

assessment must accompany the 

application package submitted to the 

Coast Guard. 

§ 162.060–34 Test Report requirements. 

(a) The final results of all approval 

tests and evaluations must be presented 

in a Test Report prepared by the 

Independent Laboratory (IL). 

(b) The Test Report must include all 

data regarding test conditions, quality 

control measures, results of all approval 

tests and evaluations, and all data or 

information supplied by the 

manufacturer regarding the performance 

of the system. The Test Report must 

contain all information required by 46 

CFR 159.005–11 and include applicable 

sections for all land-based, shipboard, 

component, active substance, 

preparations and relevant chemical 

tests, and evaluations. 

(c) The Test Report must include a 

summary statement that presents the 

IL’s assessment based on the tests and 

evaluations conducted. The summary 

statement should state if the BWMS— 

(i) Has been shown under the 

procedures and conditions specified in 

this subpart to meet the Ballast Water 

Discharge Standard requirements of 33 

part 151, subparts C and D; 

(ii) Is designed and constructed 

according to the requirements of 

§ 162.060–20 of this subpart; 

(iii) Is in compliance with all 

applicable U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency (EPA) regulations; 

and 

(iv) Operates at the rated capacity, 

performance, and reliability as specified 

by the manufacturer. 

(d) The Test Report for a BWMS that 

may incorporate, use, produce, generate 

as a by-product and/or discharge 

hazardous materials, active substances, 

relevant chemicals and/or pesticides 

during its operation must include the 

following information in the appendix 

of the Test Report: 

(1) A list of each active substance or 

preparation used in the BWMS. For 

each active substance or preparation 

that is a pesticide and is not generated 

solely by the use of a device on board 

the same vessel as the ballast water to 

be treated, the appendix must also 

include documentation that the sale or 

distribution of the pesticide is 

authorized under FIFRA for use for 

ballast water treatment. For all other 

active substances or preparations, the 

appendix must include documentation 

of the assessment specified at Section 

162.060–32(b); 

(2) A list of all active substances, 

preparations, and relevant chemicals, 

along with the results of all tests 

conducted; and 

(3) A list of all hazardous materials, 

including the applicable hazard classes, 

proper shipping names, reportable 

quantities as designated by 40 CFR 

117.1, and chemical names of all 

components. 

(e) The Test Report must contain the 

following documentation: 

(1) The Operation, Maintenance, and 

Safety Manual meeting the requirements 

of § 162.060–38 for the BWMS specific 

to the vessel where testing was 

conducted, with a technical description 

of the BWMS, operational and 

maintenance procedures, backup 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS3
44670 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 166 / Friday, August 28, 2009 / Proposed Rules 

procedures in case of equipment 

malfunction, installation specifications, 

installation commissioning procedures, 

and any initial calibration procedures. 

(2) Verification that— 

(i) The BWMS installation has been 

carried out in accordance with the 

technical installation specification; 

(ii) Any operational inlets and outlets 

are located in the positions indicated on 

the drawing of the pumping and piping 

arrangements; 

(iii) The workmanship of the 

installation is satisfactory and, in 

particular, that any bulkhead 

penetrations or penetrations of the 

ballast system piping are to the relevant 

approved standards; 

(iv) The control and monitoring 

equipment operates correctly; 

(v) The BWMS’s capacity is within 

the range of the Treatment Rated 

Capacity for which it is intended; and 

(vi) The amount of ballast water 

treated in the test cycle is consistent 

with the normal ballast operations of the 

ship, and that the BWMS was operated 

at the Treatment Rated Capacity for 

which it is intended to be approved. 

(f) The Test Report must contain the 

following information: 

(1) Summary Statement; 

(2) Executive Summary; 

(3) Introduction and Background; 

(4) Description of the BWMS; 

(5) For each test conducted— 

(i) Description of the test conditions; 

(ii) Experimental design; 

(iii) Methods and procedures; and 

(iv) Results and discussion; 

(6) Appendices, including— 

(i) Test Plans; 

(ii) Manufacturer supplied Operation, 

Maintenance and Safety Manual 

meeting the requirements of § 162.060– 

38; 

(iii) Data generated during testing & 

evaluations; 

(iv) Quality assurance and controls 

records; 

(v) Maintenance logs; 

(vi) Relevant records and tests results 

maintained or created during testing; 

(vii) Information on hazardous 

materials, active substances, and 

relevant chemicals and pesticides; and 

(viii) Permits, registrations, 

restrictions, and regulatory limitations 

on use. 

§ 162.060–36 Quality Assurance Project 

Plan (QAPP) requirements. 

The approval testing and evaluation 

process must contain a rigorous quality 

control and assurance program 

consisting of a Quality Assurance 

Project Plan (QAPP) developed in 

accordance with ISO/IEC 17025, 

General Requirements for the 

Competence of Calibration and Testing 

Laboratories. The Independent 

Laboratory performing approval tests 

and evaluations is responsible for 

ensuring the appropriate quality 

assurance and quality control 

procedures are implemented. 

§ 162.060–38 Operation, Maintenance, and 

Safety Manual (OMSM). 

(a) Each BWMS submitted for 

approval must include an Operation, 

Maintenance, and Safety Manual 

(OMSM), which includes a complete 

description of the BWMS, information 

on the treatment process[es], design 

criteria, physical configuration, 

electrical, instrumentation, control 

systems, operating instructions, 

maintenance requirements, and all 

health and safety issues. 

(b) Each OMSM must include the 

following sections: 

(1) Table of contents. 

(2) Manufacturer’s information. 

(3) Principles of system operation 

including— 

(i) A complete description of the 

BWMS, methods and type[s] of 

technologies used in each treatment 

stage of the BWMS; 

(ii) The theory of operation; 

(iii) Any process or technology 

limitations; 

(iv) Performance ranges and 

expectations of the system; and 

(v) A description of the locations and 

conditions for which the BWMS is 

intended. 

(4) Major system components and 

shipboard application including— 

(i) A general description of the 

materials used when constructing and 

installing the BWMS; 

(ii) A detailed description of the 

onboard physical configuration of the 

BWMS and how it will be physically 

integrated with shipboard ballast 

systems at all stages of ballast water 

treatment; general arrangement of 

installed equipment; utility connections 

such as power, water, and air; interfaces 

with shipboard systems; and required 

connections to a vessel’s piping systems 

and foundations; 

(iii) A list of each major component 

that may be fitted differently in different 

vessels with a general description of the 

different arrangements schemes; 

(iv) The range of vessel sizes, classes, 

and operations for which it is intended; 

(v) Any vessel type[s], services or 

locations where the system is not 

intended to be used; 

(vi) Maximum and minimum flow 

and volume capacities of the system; 

(vii) The dimensions and weight of 

the complete system and required 

connection and flange sizes for all major 

components; 

(viii) A description of all actual or 

potential effects of the BWMS on the 

vessel’s ballast water, ballast water 

tanks, and ballast water piping and 

pumping systems; 

(ix) A list of all active substances, 

relevant chemicals, and pesticides 

generated or stored onboard the vessel 

to be used by the BWMS; and 

(x) Information on whether the BWMS 

is designed to be used in hazardous 

locations as defined in the NEC 

(incorporated by reference; see 

§ 162.060–5) and in IEC 79–0 

(incorporated by reference; see 

§ 162.060–5). 

(5) System and major system 

component drawings as applicable 

under 46 CFR § 56.01–10(b), 

including— 

(i) Process flow diagram(s) of the 

BWMS showing the main treatment 

processes, chemicals, and monitoring 

and control devices for the BWMS; 

(ii) Footprint(s), drawings, and system 

schematics showing all major 

components and arrangements; 

(iii) Drawings of the pumping and 

piping arrangements, power panels, and 

all equipment provided with the 

BWMS; 

(iv) All treatment application points, 

waste or recycling streams, and all 

sampling points integral to the specific 

BWMS; 

(v) All locations and the sizes of all 

piping and utility connections for 

power, water, compressed air or other 

utilities as required by the BWMS; 

(vi) Detailed electrical plans of each 

relevant component of the BWMS as 

described in 46 CFR 110.25–1 and 

electrical/electronic wiring diagrams 

that include the location and electrical 

rating of power supply panels and 

BWMS control and monitoring 

equipment; 

(vii) Unit(s), construction materials, 

standards and labels on all drawings of 

equipment, piping, instruments, and 

appurtenances; and 

(viii) An index of all drawings and 

diagrams. 

(6) A description of the BWMS’s 

control and monitoring equipment and 

how it will be integrated with the 

existing shipboard ballast system, 

including— 

(i) Power demand; 

(ii) Main and local control panels; 

(iii) Power distribution system; 

(iv) Power quality equipment; 

(v) Instrumentation and control 

system architecture; 

(vi) Process control description; 

(vii) Operational set points, control 

loops, control algorithms, and alarm 

settings for routine, maintenance, and 

emergency operations; and 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 166 / Friday, August 28, 2009 / Proposed Rules 44671 

(viii) All devices required for 

measuring appropriate parameters such 

as: Pressure, temperature, flow rate, 

water quality, power, and chemical 

residuals. 

(7) A description of all relevant 

standard operating procedures 

including, but not limited to: 

(i) System start-up and system 

shutdown procedures and times; 

(ii) Emergency shutdown and system 

by-pass procedures; 

(iii) Requirements to achieve 

treatment objectives (e.g., time following 

initial treatment, critical dosages, 

residual concentrations, etc); 

(iv) Operating, safety, and emergency 

procedures; 

(v) System limitations, precautions, 

and set points; 

(vi) Detailed instructions on 

operation, calibration and zeroing of 

each monitoring device used with the 

system; 

(vii) Personnel requirements for the 

BWMS including number and types of 

personnel needed, labor burden, and 

operator training or specialty 

certification requirements. 

(8) A description of the preventive 

and corrective maintenance 

requirements of the BWMS, including: 

(i) Inspection and adjustment 

procedures; 

(ii) Troubleshooting procedures; 

(iii) An illustrated list of parts and 

spare parts; 

(iv) A list of recommended spare parts 

to have during installation and 

operation of the BWMS; 

(v) Use of tools and test equipment in 

accordance with the maintenance 

procedures; and 

(vi) Point[s] of contact for technical 

assistance. 

(9) A description of the health and 

safety risks to the personnel associated 

with the installation, operation, and 

maintenance of the BWMS including, 

but not limited to: 

(i) The storage, handling, and disposal 

of any hazardous wastes; 

(ii) Any health and safety 

certification/training requirements for 

personnel operating the BWMS; and 

(iii) All material safety data sheets for 

hazardous or relevant chemicals used, 

stored or generated by or for the system. 

(c) If any information in the OMSM 

changes as a result of approval testing 

and evaluations, a new OMSM must be 

submitted. 

§ 162.060–40 Requirements of 

Independent Laboratories (IL). 

(a) Each request for designation as an 

Independent Laboratory (IL) authorized 

to perform approval tests must either be 

delivered by visitors or through the mail 

to the Commandant (CG–521), Office of 

Design and Engineering Standards, 2nd 

Street, SW., Washington, DC 20593, in 

a written or electronic format. 

(b) Each request must include the 

following: 

(1) Name and address of the IL; 

(2) Each type of equipment the IL 

proposes to test; and 

(3) A description of the IL’s capability 

to perform approval tests including 

detailed information on the following: 

(i) Management organization, 

including personnel qualifications; 

(ii) Equipment available for 

conducting sample analysis; 

(iii) Materials available for approval 

testing; 

(iv) Each of the IL’s test rigs; and 

(v) Disposal procedures for all treated 

and control water. 

(c) The Coast Guard will review each 

request submitted to determine whether 

the IL meets the requirements of this 

section. 

(d) To obtain authorization to conduct 

approval tests— 

(1) An IL must have the management 

organization, equipment for conducting 

sample analysis, and the materials 

necessary to perform the tests; 

(2) The loss or award of a specific 

contract to test equipment must not be 

a substantial factor in the IL’s financial 

well being; and 

(3) The IL must be free of influence 

and control of the manufacturers and 

suppliers of the equipment. 

(e) Each test and evaluation must be 

performed by the IL and accepted by the 

Coast Guard. A list of independent 

laboratories accepted by the Coast 

Guard may be found at http:// 

cgmix.uscg.mil/, or may be obtained by 

contacting the Commandant (CG–521), 

2100 2nd Street, SW., Washington, DC 

20593. ILs may not be subcontracted by 

an IL for BWMS approval testing unless 

previously authorized by the Coast 

Guard. If the IL identified in the 

application requests authorization to 

subcontract approval tests or 

evaluations, the Coast Guard must 

evaluate the suitability of each 

identified IL prior to conducting any 

tests or evaluations required under this 

subpart. A request for authorization to 

subcontract must be sent to the 

Commandant (CG–521), 2100 2nd 

Street, SW., Washington, DC 20593. 

(f) Upon receipt of the approval 

application, the IL will conduct a 

readiness evaluation and determine the 

acceptability for testing. 

(g) The readiness evaluation will 

examine the design and construction of 

the BWMS to determine whether there 

are any fundamental problems that 

might constrain the ability of the BWMS 

to manage ballast water as proposed by 

the manufacturer or to operate it safely 

onboard vessels. This evaluation must 

consider the following: 

(1) The health and safety of the crew, 

including potential long term effects as 

determined by the EPA; 

(2) Any potential adverse 

environmental effects as determined by 

the EPA; 

(3) Interactions with vessel systems 

and cargo and the potential impacts to 

a vessel, including effects on corrosion 

in the ballast water system and other 

spaces; 

(h) To be approved for testing and 

evaluations, a BWMS must: 

(1) Be designed and constructed 

according to the requirements of 

§ 162.060–20; 

(2) Meet the definition of a complete 

BWMS, as defined in this subpart, to 

include both ballast water treatment 

equipment and control and monitoring 

equipment. Only complete systems in 

the configurations in which they are 

intended for sale and use will be 

accepted for approval testing. The Coast 

Guard will not separately approve 

treatment, control, or monitoring 

components; and 

(3) Meet all existing safety and 

environmental regulatory requirements 

for all locations and conditions where 

the system will be operated during the 

testing and evaluation period. 

(i) The IL has the right to reject a 

proposed BWMS for testing and 

evaluation if it does not satisfy the 

requirements in (h), is not deemed ready 

for approval testing and evaluations, or, 

if for technical or logistical reasons, that 

IL does not have the capabilities to 

accommodate the BWMS for testing or 

evaluation. 

(j) For each approval test to be 

completed, the IL must prepare a 

written test plan in accordance with 

§ 162.060–24. 

(k) Upon notification by the IL that 

the BWMS is acceptable for testing, the 

manufacturer must provide a complete 

BWMS for testing and evaluation to the 

IL. 

(l) For all land-based tests, the BWMS 

must be set up in accordance with the 

BWMS Operation, Maintenance and 

Safety Manual, with respect to 

mounting water supply and discharge 

fittings. 

(m) Prior to commencing land-based 

or shipboard testing required under this 

subpart, the manufacturer must sign a 

written statement to attest that the 

system was properly assembled and 

installed at the IL or onboard the test 

vessel. 

(n) All approval testing and 

evaluations must be conducted in 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS3
44672 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 166 / Friday, August 28, 2009 / Proposed Rules 

accordance with testing requirements of 

this subpart and within the range or 

rated capacity of the BWMS. 

(o) Upon completion of all approval 

tests and evaluations, the IL must follow 

the requirements of 46 CFR 159.005– 

9(a)(5) and ensure a complete Test 

Report is forwarded to the Commanding 

Officer, U.S. Coast Guard Marine Safety 

Center, Jemal Building, JR 10–0525, 

2100 Second Street, SW., Washington, 

DC 20593. 

Dated: August 17, 2009. 

Thad W. Allen, 

Admiral, U.S. Coast Guard, Commandant. 

[FR Doc. E9–20312 Filed 8–27–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–15–P 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS3