U.S. Coast Guard Notice of Proposed Rulemaking 

For 

Standards for Living Organisms in Ships’ Ballast Water 

Discharged in U.S. Waters

Comments By

Cruise Lines International Association, Inc. 

--- 

Docket USCG-2001-10486 

RIN 1625-AA32 

INTRODUCTION 

The Cruise Line International Association (CLIA) offers these comments on the 

U.S. Coast Guard Notice of Proposed Rulemaking on Standards for Living Organisms in 

Ships’ Ballast Water published on August 28, 2009 (74 Fed. Reg. 44632). This proposed 

rule would require vessels with ballast tanks that operate in U.S. waters and are bound for

ports or places in the U.S. to install and operate a Coast Guard approved ballast water 

management system (BWMS) before discharging into U.S. waters. The rule would 

require vessel owners to remove existing systems and install new systems when new 

technology becomes available and required. Possibly every three years. 

CLIA represents 251

 member cruise lines that operate approximately 175 

passenger vessels primarily in the registration of various international administrations or

flags and some vessels of U.S. flag. Member lines operate smaller cruise passenger ships 

on coastal and river itineraries as well as large traditional cruise vessels on international 

and worldwide itineraries. Vessels range from approximately 50 passengers and a like 

number of crew up to ships carrying as many as 6,400 passengers and 2,200 crew. Most, 

if not all, CLIA member vessels have ballast tanks and carry ballast water. However, for

many cruise ships, the need to discharge ballast in U.S. waters is eliminated through the 

ability to transfer fuel, water and other liquid loads in order to maintain trim and meet 

stability requirements. 

 1

AMA Waterways, American Cruise Lines, Avalon Waterways, Azamara Cruises, Carnival Cruise Lines, Celebrity Cruises, 

Costa Cruise Lines N.V.,Crystal Cruises, Cunard Line Limited, Disney Cruise Line, Holland, America Line, Hurtigruten, MSC

Cruises, Norwegian Cruise Line, Oceania Cruises, Paul Gauguin Cruises, Pearl Seas Cruises, Princess Cruises, Regent Seven 

Seas Cruises, Royal Caribbean International, Seabourn Cruise Line, SeaDream Yacht Club, Silversea Cruises, Uniworld 

Boutique River Cruise Collection, and Windstar Cruises 

Docket USCG-2001-10486 

CLIA 

1
Docket USCG-2001-10486 

CLIA 

2

COMMENTS 

1. CLIA recognizes and acknowledges that the movement of noninvasive species from 

one area of the world to another is a serious environmental issue attributed to 

shipping. In this regard, we note that the maritime industry as a whole has long 

advocated that the U.S. Government adopt an environmentally protective, nationally 

consistent ballast water treatment standard to address this important issue. Until 

recently, ballast water exchange was the only viable option available to shipping. 

However, the International Maritime Organization has now set performance standards 

for ballast water treatment which has allowed the development and approval of 

commercially available systems that will meet the standards proposed in Phase I of 

this Notice of Proposed Rule Making (NPRM). 

2. The proposed two phase approach would require a vessel owner to remove vessels 

from service for the purpose of installing new systems and equipment costing 

hundreds of thousands if not millions of dollars to meet the next phase. While it is 

understandable that a two phased approach may appear desirable, this approach in 

reality would be problematic for actual vessel operations and is financially 

irresponsible. Accordingly, CLIA recommends that any approved system installed to 

meet the ballast water management system requirements at the time of that ship’s 

construction and delivery, be grandfathered for the life of the system. 

3. The regulations propose to conduct a practicality review to establish the measure of 

feasibility and biological effectiveness of systems potentially meeting the Phase II 

standards. If such systems are not sufficiently developed to meet Phase II in the time 

frame envisioned, the USCG is proposing that owners and operators could be 

required to install new equipment that meets some interim standard while still 

pursuing the Phase II standard. Indeed, the proposal indicates that even after the 

Phase II standard is able to be met, that further practicality reviews be conducted with 

regard to achieving even higher standards and that ship owners would be required to 

remove old equipment and install new equipment each and every time some higher 

level of achievement is technically possible – possibly every three to five years. Such 

an approach is economically unsustainable and continues to be financially 

irresponsible not only to the owners but also to investors, shippers and the end users 

of products shipped as these escalating costs will, of necessity, be passed on. 

4. CLIA suggests that a much better and more reasonable approach, if the Coast Guard 

believes that the Phase I standard is inadequate, would be to first conduct a 

practicability review in order to measure the feasibility and biological effectiveness of 

systems meeting a higher standard that has been reasonably shown to effectively 

protect the marine environment, possibly the Phase II standard. If that higher 

standard can be met with commercially approved and available equipment proven to 

be practicable for that vessel’s configuration such as ballast tank capacity, flow rate 

and size, then another rule should be established and implemented for new ships and 

newly installed equipment. That equipment should then be grandfathered for the life 
Docket USCG-2001-10486 

CLIA 

3

of the system. The process could be repeated for any step increases in the standard 

which can be shown to enhance environmental protection. 

5. The main point is, that it is costly and difficult for ships to install equipment, such as 

ballast water treatment systems and then remove such systems only a short time later 

(three to five years) simply because a requirement changes. CLIA suggests that a 

national standard be clearly established and equipment meeting that standard be 

grandfathered for the life of the systems and that any subsequent changes to that 

standard be handled as a separate rule making with subsequent equipment also 

grandfathered for the life of the ship. We know of no other rule, standard or marine 

engineering system that is not handled in this manner. 

6. There is wide recognition of a critical need for a uniform national standard for ballast 

water as well as for other vessel discharges. Currently, ballast water is regulated by 

both the Coast Guard under the National Invasive Species Act and by the 

Environmental Protection Agency under the Clean Water Act as well as by individual 

State agencies such as the California State Lands Commission. This has created an 

uncoordinated patchwork of regulations by both federal agencies and augmented by 

regulations of dozens of state governments resulting in confusion and an unnecessary 

burden of compliance for the vessel owners while facing citizen law suits and the 

threat of criminal prosecution for the slightest offense. The Coast Guard, the 

Environmental Protection Agency and the Administration should support federal 

legislation that creates a single regulatory framework for ALL vessel discharges. 

These agencies should then rely on internal agreements, such as Memorandums of 

Understanding or Agreement to spell out the role of each agency in regulatory 

enforcement, the treatment of system approval and the certification of equipment. 

7. The issue of a national standard with some level of preemption now has another 

potential effluent that needs to be included. With the prospect of a North American 

Emissions Control Area (ECA) many operators will be exploring the use of exhaust 

gas scrubbers to meet these important emission standards. Therefore, in addition to 

the need for national standards for ballast water and the discharges regulated by the 

National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Vessel General Permit 

(VGP), it will be imperative that there be one national standard for exhaust gas 

scrubber washwater. While IMO has now approved washwater criteria from 

scrubbers, global shipping operation necessitates one national standard. The EPA 

and U.S. Coast Guard need to recognize and resolve the practice allowed under 

section 401 of the Clean Water Act that gives states the right to increase water quality 

discharge standards above the federal standard. In California, for example, their 

water quality standard is set at such a high level for ballast water discharge that no 

Phase I ballast water treatment device can meet it. Further, if a ballast water 

treatment device is ever created that does meet the current California ballast water 

discharge criteria, there is nothing stopping the State of California from further 

increasing the water quality standard in the future. The question then becomes, why 

would anyone purchase a ballast water treatment system that cannot be used in the 
Docket USCG-2001-10486 

CLIA 

4

states that a ship may operate within? Further, there is little incentive for commercial 

equipment manufacturers to invest in technology that may soon become obsolete. 

 

8. Accordingly, CLIA recommends that section 312 of the Clean Water Act be amended 

to regulate all ship discharges to the exclusion of state regulations. 

9. CLIA notes that the proposed rule is applicable to all vessels with ballast tanks, 

regardless of flag, which call in U.S. ports. CLIA suggests that exemptions should be 

included for vessels that: 

a. Never take on or discharge ballast water in U.S. waters, regardless of whether 

or not the vessel has tanks that can be used for ballast water. Many ships, 

especially cruise ships, are capable of balancing their liquid loads while in 

U.S. waters in such a manner that does not require the discharge of ballast 

water. To mandate the installation of ballast water treatment systems on ships 

that choose not to discharge ballast water in U.S. waters furthers no 

environmental purpose. 

b. Use potable, municipal, commercial or technical water for ballast or use any 

other kind of clean water from shoreside sources. Again, a requirement for 

treatment systems to be applied to this type of water furthers no environmental 

purpose. 

10. Currently, the NPRM requires manufacturers whose treatment systems have been 

approved by other IMO flag states as meeting the IMO standard to seek approval of 

their system from the Coast Guard as well. The Coast Guard should accept systems 

approved by other flag states without additional Coast Guard review unless the Coast 

Guard has strong evidence that such an approval was improperly granted. 

11. CLIA notes that the proposed regulations utilize the standard of “operating solely” 

within one Captain of the Port (COTP) zone as a discriminator for NOT requiring an 

approved ballast water treatment device or system. It is clear that the Coast Guard 

COTP zones were not and are not delineated on the basis of environmental 

characteristics, similarities or differences. For example; a ship that operates within 

Sector Jacksonville’s southern zone and Sector Miami’s northern zone would be 

required to install an approved ballast water treatment device simply because the ship 

operates in two COTP zones, regardless that the eco-systems within both areas are 

similar. CLIA recommends using more scientific-based criteria that considers the 

eco-systems variances within the area in which ships operate. Such a system has 

been successfully developed by the Australian Quarantine and Inspection Service 

(AQIS). 

12. The proposed regulation states that vessels will continue to be subject to the Vessel 

General Permit (VGP) as well as the requirements of the proposed regulation. 

However, nowhere in the proposed regulation is it stated how conflicts between the 

proposed regulation and the VGP, and there are several, are to be addressed. We 
Docket USCG-2001-10486 

CLIA 

5

recommend guiding language be added to the proposed regulation that discusses how 

to resolve conflicts between the proposed regulation and the VGP. 

13. Sections entitled “Discharge of Ballast water in Extraordinary Circumstances” and 

“Safety Exception,” are contained in 151.2040 and 151.2045, respectively. Read 

together, these two sections create a great deal of confusion as to when unmanaged 

ballast water can be discharged. It is apparent that the rules recognize the Master’s 

authority to not conduct ballast water management practices of any kind where the 

safety of the vessel/crew/ passengers would be compromised; however, it does not 

relieve the vessel of the responsibility to meet the ballast water management 

requirements found elsewhere in the rule. Presumably, invoking the safety exception 

would not relieve the legal requirement to meet ballast water management 

requirements but may mitigate fines/penalties when non-compliance was determined 

by USCG. These sections should be clarified. 

14. CLIA notes that the economic impact assessment addresses only the impact on U.S. 

flag vessels. While this is a U.S. rulemaking, the fact is that the regulations will 

apply to any ship calling at a U.S. port that has ballast tanks onboard. Accordingly, 

CLIA is of the view that the economic impact assessment is entirely too narrow in 

that is does not consider the capacity for manufacture and installation of the required 

systems on the thousands of non-U.S. flag ships calling at U.S. ports, nor does it 

assess the overall impact to the American public including shippers and end users of 

the shipped goods and products. CLIA recommends that a more detailed and 

thorough economic impact assessment be prepared so that the full measure of these 

proposed regulations can be fully understood and considered. 

CONCLUSION 

CLIA supports the U.S. Coast Guard for taking steps to establish a national 

standard for ballast water discharges from ships calling at U.S. ports. CLIA also supports 

the objective of the NPRM to establish an environmentally protective federal ballast 

water treatment standard at the earliest date possible consistent with technological, 

commercial, and economic constraints. While we recognize that numerous factors must 

be considered when proposing and implementing a ballast water treatment standard, 

CLIA is of the view that moving directly to an achievable standard that offers a proven 

biologically protective solution would be the prudent course of action. Grandfathering of 

approved systems is imperative to prevent vessels from having to install treatment 

systems more than once if and when meeting higher standards becomes possible through 

improvements in technology. Finally, CLIA recognizes that standards differing between 

the Federal agencies (USCG and EPA) and the several states are unworkable and 

underscore the need for a single national ballast water management standard.