U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800

Fax: (202) 512–2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402–0001

50–568 PDF 2009

CONTROL OF ANTI-FOULING 

SYSTEMS ON SHIPS 

(111–40) 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON 

COAST GUARD AND MARITIME TRANSPORTATION 

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON 

TRANSPORTATION AND 

INFRASTRUCTURE 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ONE HUNDRED ELEVENTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

June 10, 2009 

Printed for the use of the 

Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure 

( 

COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE 

JAMES L. OBERSTAR, Minnesota, Chairman 

NICK J. RAHALL, II, West Virginia, Vice 

Chair 

PETER A. DEFAZIO, Oregon 

JERRY F. COSTELLO, Illinois 

ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, District of 

Columbia 

JERROLD NADLER, New York 

CORRINE BROWN, Florida 

BOB FILNER, California 

EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas 

GENE TAYLOR, Mississippi 

ELIJAH E. CUMMINGS, Maryland 

ELLEN O. TAUSCHER, California 

LEONARD L. BOSWELL, Iowa 

TIM HOLDEN, Pennsylvania 

BRIAN BAIRD, Washington 

RICK LARSEN, Washington 

MICHAEL E. CAPUANO, Massachusetts 

TIMOTHY H. BISHOP, New York 

MICHAEL H. MICHAUD, Maine 

RUSS CARNAHAN, Missouri 

GRACE F. NAPOLITANO, California 

DANIEL LIPINSKI, Illinois 

MAZIE K. HIRONO, Hawaii 

JASON ALTMIRE, Pennsylvania 

TIMOTHY J. WALZ, Minnesota 

HEATH SHULER, North Carolina 

MICHAEL A. ARCURI, New York 

HARRY E. MITCHELL, Arizona 

CHRISTOPHER P. CARNEY, Pennsylvania 

JOHN J. HALL, New York 

STEVE KAGEN, Wisconsin 

STEVE COHEN, Tennessee 

LAURA A. RICHARDSON, California 

ALBIO SIRES, New Jersey 

DONNA F. EDWARDS, Maryland 

SOLOMON P. ORTIZ, Texas 

PHIL HARE, Illinois 

JOHN A. BOCCIERI, Ohio 

MARK H. SCHAUER, Michigan 

BETSY MARKEY, Colorado 

PARKER GRIFFITH, Alabama 

MICHAEL E. MCMAHON, New York 

THOMAS S. P. PERRIELLO, Virginia 

DINA TITUS, Nevada 

HARRY TEAGUE, New Mexico 

JOHN L. MICA, Florida 

DON YOUNG, Alaska 

THOMAS E. PETRI, Wisconsin 

HOWARD COBLE, North Carolina 

JOHN J. DUNCAN, JR., Tennessee 

VERNON J. EHLERS, Michigan 

FRANK A. LOBIONDO, New Jersey 

JERRY MORAN, Kansas 

GARY G. MILLER, California 

HENRY E. BROWN, JR., South Carolina 

TIMOTHY V. JOHNSON, Illinois 

TODD RUSSELL PLATTS, Pennsylvania 

SAM GRAVES, Missouri 

BILL SHUSTER, Pennsylvania 

JOHN BOOZMAN, Arkansas 

SHELLEY MOORE CAPITO, West Virginia 

JIM GERLACH, Pennsylvania 

MARIO DIAZ-BALART, Florida 

CHARLES W. DENT, Pennsylvania 

CONNIE MACK, Florida 

LYNN A WESTMORELAND, Georgia 

JEAN SCHMIDT, Ohio 

CANDICE S. MILLER, Michigan 

MARY FALLIN, Oklahoma 

VERN BUCHANAN, Florida 

ROBERT E. LATTA, Ohio 

BRETT GUTHRIE, Kentucky 

ANH ‘‘JOSEPH’’ CAO, Louisiana 

AARON SCHOCK, Illinois 

PETE OLSON, Texas 

(II) 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON COAST GUARD AND MARITIME TRANSPORTATION 

ELIJAH E. CUMMINGS, Maryland, Chairman 

CORRINE BROWN, Florida 

RICK LARSEN, Washington 

GENE TAYLOR, Mississippi 

BRIAN BAIRD, Washington 

TIMOTHY H. BISHOP, New York 

STEVE KAGEN, Wisconsin 

MICHAEL E. MCMAHON, New York 

LAURA A. RICHARDSON, California 

JAMES L. OBERSTAR, Minnesota 

(Ex Officio) 

FRANK A. LOBIONDO, New Jersey 

DON YOUNG, Alaska 

HOWARD COBLE, North Carolina 

VERNON J. EHLERS, Michigan 

TODD RUSSELL PLATTS, Pennsylvania 

PETE OLSON, Texas 

(III) 

(V) 

CONTENTS Page 

Summary of Subject Matter .................................................................................... vi 

TESTIMONY 

Jones, James, Acting Assistant Administrator, Office of Prevention, Pesticides, and Toxic Substances, Environmental Protection Agency ................... 4 

Lantz, Jeffrey G., Director of Commercial Regulations and Standards, U.S. 

Coast Guard .......................................................................................................... 4 

PREPARED STATEMENTS SUBMITTED BY WITNESSES 

Jones, James ............................................................................................................ 15 

Lantz, Jeffrey G. ...................................................................................................... 21 

SUBMISSIONS FOR THE RECORD 

Lantz, Jeffrey G., Director of Commercial Regulations and Standards, U.S. 

Coast Guard, response to question from Rep. Elijah Cummings, of Maryland ........................................................................................................................ 11

vi 


Insert offset folio 1 here 50568.001
vii 


Insert offset folio 2 here 50568.002
viii 


Insert offset folio 3 here 50568.003
ix 


Insert offset folio 4 here 50568.004
x 


Insert offset folio 5 here 50568.005
(1) 

CONTROL OF ANTI-FOULING SYSTEMS ON 

SHIPS 

Wednesday, June 10, 2009 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, SUBCOMMITTEE ON COAST GUARD AND MARITIME

TRANSPORTATION, COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE, Washington, DC. 

The Subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 2:08 p.m., in Room 

2167, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Elijah E. Cummings 

[Chairman of the Subcommittee], presiding. 

Mr. CUMMINGS. This hearing is called to order. 

At the beginning of the 110th Congress, one of the charges to the 

Chairman of the Full Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, Congressman Oberstar, said that each Subcommittee was to 

protect the environment from the impacts that modes of transportation imposed on it. In our Subcommittee we have worked diligently to keep that charge by taking specific steps to lessen the impact of commercial shipping on the marine environment as well as 

on air quality. 

Last year, for example, this Subcommittee developed and the 

Congress eventually passed the Maritime Pollution Act, H.R. 802, 

which instituted the legal changes needed to bring the United 

States in compliance with the International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships, MARPOL Convention Annex VI. 

MARPOL Annex VI limits the emissions from ships of sulfur oxide 

and nitrogen oxide, which are ozone-depleting substances. H.R. 802 

was enacted after the Annex VI Treaty was ratified by the Senate 

in April, 2006, and had come into force internationally in May of 

2006. 

Today we convene to consider another international convention 

which has now come into force and to which the United States Senate has now given its consent, the International Convention on the 

Control of Harmful Antifouling Systems on Ships. The following is 

defined by the International Maritime Organization as the 

′′unwanted growth of biological materials such as barnacles and 

algae on a surface immersed in water.′′ 

If such organisms grow on the hull of a vessel, they can add significant weight to the vessel and slow its movement through the 

water, thus causing it to consume more fuel and to release more 

polluting emissions than it might otherwise do. Additionally, as biological materials accumulate on a vessel, the vessel becomes the 

vector by which these plants and animals are introduced into environments in which they are not native. 

2 

The buildup of biological material on untreated surfaces can proceed at an astonishing rate. The IMO has written that if a vessel 

bottom is exposed to the water without any treatment, up to 300 

pounds of material could gather on each square yard of the ship’s 

hull over just a 6-month period. This could add up to 6,000 tons 

of weight on a deep-draft vessel. 

Antifouling systems are the systems used to prevent the buildup 

of biological materials on a ship’s hull. In the 1960s and 1970s an 

antifouling system was developed that relied on a compound called 

tributyltin, known more commonly as TBT. This compound was initially known as the most effective way of preventing fouling, and 

later advances in the formulation of this system required that a 

new coating of antifouling paint be applied only once every 5 years. 

Unfortunately, TBT had not been fully studied before it was released into the marine environment and it has proven to be highly 

toxic to marine life, including crustaceans, fish, and even marine 

mammals. 

TBT has caused alterations in oyster shells and has caused female dogwhelts, a type of snail, to begin to developing male sexual 

characteristics. There is even some evidence that TBT is boracic, 

meaning that larger animals can ingest it as they consume smaller 

animals on the food chain. Thus, the IMO reports that traces of 

TBT contamination have now been found even in whales. 

In October of 2001, after nearly a decade of work, the IMO adopted the International Convention on the Control of Harmful 

Antifouling Systems on Ships, which now bans the use of TBT 

among Convention signatories. This Convention also establishes a 

system under which new antifouling coatings can be tested to assess their effect on the marine environment. Coatings can be added 

to the list of prohibited antifouling systems under the Convention 

if they are found to be harmful. 

The Convention on the Control of Harmful Antifouling Systems 

on Ships was drafted to enter into force 1 year after 25 States, representing 25 percent of the merchant shipping tonnage in use 

around the world, adopted a Convention. The Convention came into 

force internationally on September 17, 2008. The United States 

Senate gave its consent to the Convention just a few days later in 

September of 2008. 

I note that currently under the U.S. law, TBT, like all 

organotins, is regulated under the Antifouling Paint Control Act of 

1998. Under this Act, the sale and most applications of TBT 

antifouling coatings in the United States are prohibited. However, 

the United States does not yet have the ability to prohibit vessels 

from other States using TBT-based antifouling coatings from entering our waters. 

At this time, the United States needs to adopt the laws that will 

bring our Nation into full compliance with the Convention, thus 

completing our ratification of the Convention and finally banning 

the entry into U.S. waters of ships with TBT coatings. Today’s 

hearing will help inform the development of such legislation. 

I look forward to the testimony of today’s witnesses and recognize our distinguished Ranking Member, Congressman LoBiondo. 

Mr. LOBIONDO. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

3 

Last September, the Senate gave its advice and consent to the 

International Convention on the Control of Harmful Antifouling 

Systems on Ships in 2001. The Bush administration submitted 

draft legislation to implement the requirements of the Convention 

for the purposes of U.S. law, and it is my understanding that the 

current administration also supports legislation to implement the 

Convention. 

The International Convention prohibits vessels of any size from 

being treated with certain antifouling paints that have a harmful 

impact on the marine environment and human health. The largest 

class of these toxic compounds, organotins and tributyltins, has 

largely been prohibited from maritime use in the United States. 

Under the Convention, all ships greater than 400 gross tons that 

engage in international voyages would be required to be inspected 

for the presence of prohibited antifouling paints and systems. Additionally, smaller vessels may be required to carry some certification 

that they are outfitted only with approved antifouling measures. 

While I support the removal of these toxic products from our waters, I think that we need to be mindful of the impacts that the 

Convention and any implementing legislation might have on the 

hundreds of thousands of recreational and commercial boat owners 

nationwide. 

Lastly, I would like to hear more about whether the Convention 

will prohibit or restrict the use of other compounds currently utilized for antifouling purposes and how any new additions to the 

Convention would come into effect under U.S. law. 

I want to commend the Coast Guard and the EPA for their work 

over the last 10 years to address this issue and for their stewardship of the marine environment. I look forward to working with 

you, Mr. Chairman, and both agencies to draft legislation to this 

effect in the coming months. 

Mr. CUMMINGS. Thank you very much. 

Mr. Ehlers. 

Mr. EHLERS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for having 

this hearing. As one of the chief defenders of the Great Lakes, let 

me say I am very, very concerned about the use of antifouling 

paints, particularly tributyltin, but also others that could contaminate the Great Lakes or any other bodies of waters in the United 

States. So I appreciate you holding the hearing, giving us an opportunity to hear testimony and try to make certain that we preserve 

and protect the waters of the United States. 

Thank you. I yield back. 

Mr. CUMMINGS. Thank you very much. 

We will now welcome our panelists. Mr. Jeffrey G. Lantz is the 

Director of Commercial Regulations and Standards with the United 

States Coast Guard. Welcome, Mr. Lantz. Mr. James Jones is the 

Acting Assistant Administrator of the Office of Prevention, Pesticides, and Toxic Substances with the Environmental Protection 

Agency. 

4 

TESTIMONY OF JEFFREY G. LANTZ, DIRECTOR OF COMMERCIAL REGULATIONS AND STANDARDS, U.S. COAST GUARD; 

AND JAMES JONES, ACTING ASSISTANT ADMINISTRATOR, 

OFFICE OF PREVENTION, PESTICIDES, AND TOXIC SUBSTANCES, ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 

Mr. CUMMINGS. Gentlemen, we will now hear from you, starting 

with Mr. Lantz. 

Mr. LANTZ. Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman and distinguished 

Members of the Subcommittee. It is a pleasure to be here. And I 

look forward to discussing the Coast Guard’s role in preventing environmental damage that can result from the use of harmful 

antifouling systems and our willingness to work with Congress 

should legislation for the International Convention on the Control 

of Harmful Antifouling Systems be developed. 

Mr. Chairman, I ask that my written testimony be included in 

the record. 

Mr. CUMMINGS. Without objection, so ordered. 

Mr. LANTZ. Antifouling coatings and systems are designed to 

minimize the amount of marine growth which accumulates on a 

ship’s hull during normal operation. Unfortunately, some of the 

antifouling coatings have proven extremely harmful to the marine 

environment and may pose risk to human health. 

Organotin compounds such as tributyltin, or TBT, are particularly troublesome. They can remain in the sediments for several 

years. They are highly toxic to marine organisms, and bioaccumulate in fish, mammals, and birds as TBT is absorbed through the 

food chain. There has also been some public concern over TBT’s potential harmful effects on human health. 

In the 1980s, concern over these health hazards motivated many 

countries, including the United States, to enact legislation restricting the use of organotin antifouling systems on smaller vessels. In 

1988, the Organotin Antifouling Paint Control Act was passed by 

Congress. Later, the International Maritime Community recognized 

the need for further action to control and ultimately eliminate the 

use of organotin compounds on ships. 

Under the International Maritime Organization, the International Convention on the Control of Harmful Antifouling Systems, commonly known as the Antifouling Convention, was adopted 

in October, 2001, and entered into force on September 17, 2008. 

The Convention prohibits the new application of organotin 

antifouling systems and requires existing systems to be removed or 

overcoated to prevent leaching. It contains surveys, certification, 

and inspection mechanisms to ensure international compliance, 

and also provides a mechanism for the inclusion of additional 

antifouling systems that are determined to pose too great a threat 

to the marine environment. 

The Convention has widespread support among multiple sectors 

of the maritime community, including ship owners and operators 

and marine paint manufacturers, as it provides a single regulatory 

international program as well as a market for non-organotin-based 

hull coatings. 

The United States shipyards also support the Convention, as 

they must currently comply with a ban on organotin coating for 

5 

vessels less than 25 meters in length and must meet strict leaching 

standards unique to the United States. 

In support of the Convention, the United States Senate gave advice and consent to the President on September 26, 2008, for ratification of the Antifouling Convention. However, this Treaty is not 

self-executing. If the United States completes ratification and becomes a party, implementing legislation will be required to give it 

effect. 

Implementing legislation on the Antifouling Convention will provide a number of positive aspects for the United States. First, it 

would deliver an even higher standard of environmental protection 

by building on the success with the Organotin Antifouling Paint 

Control Act of 1988, as it would expand the application of existing 

organotin prohibitions to all vessels, regardless of size. 

It would further protect U.S. ports and other waters against 

organotin deposition from all foreign-flagged ships. Through the 

Coast Guard’s robust Port State Control program, we would significantly contribute to the international effort to prevent environmental damage from harmful antifouling systems and it would enable U.S. engagement in the international effort to identify future 

antifouling systems that should similarly be prohibited or controlled. 

In conclusion, deposit of an instrument of ratification at IMO 

would provide concrete evidence of the United States’ continued 

commitment to protect the environmental health of our waters and 

the waters of those beyond our borders from the effects of harmful 

antifouling systems. 

Thank you for the opportunity to testify before you today and the 

opportunity to provide you with the Coast Guard’s view in support 

of the Antifouling Convention. The Coast Guard appreciates the 

work of our partners in the Environmental Protection Agency and 

we look forward to further working with them on this important 

issue. 

Thank you again. I would be happy to answer any questions you 

may have. 

Mr. CUMMINGS. Thank you very much. 

Mr. CUMMINGS. Mr. Jones. 

Mr. JONES. Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member 

LoBiondo, and Members of the Subcommittee. Thank you for the 

opportunity to testify before the Subcommittee on legislation to 

control harmful antifouling systems on ships. I am pleased to be 

here with my colleague Jeff Lantz from the U.S. Coast Guard. 

Mr. Chairman, I ask that my written testimony be introduced 

into the record. 

Mr. CUMMINGS. So ordered. 

Mr. JONES. Thank you. The Agency supports the passage of legislation to implement the Antifouling Treaty as a means of protecting domestic waters, safeguarding the global environment, and 

promoting the development of safer technologies for controlling 

fouling on ship hulls. 

The treaty relies on rigorous scientific review as the basis of determining when controls are needed to limit the negative effects 

and impacts of antifouling systems. Implementation of the treaty 

will uphold the standing of the United States as an environmental 

6 

leader. We are eager to assist your Subcommittee and Congress in 

implementing the protections afforded by the treaty through legislation. 

Let me provide some background. Organotin-based antifouling 

systems, mainly those containing in tributyltin, or TBT, are extremely effective and have long service lives, but they are extremely hazardous to aquatic organisms, including economically 

important species like oysters. 

Research has revealed that tributyltin is a potent endocrine disrupter and immunotoxin responsible for reproductive anomalies 

and other adverse effects in marine animals. Additionally, 

tributyltin from hull coatings would persist for many years in 

aquatic sediment. 

As the science on tributyltin has evolved, the Agency and Congress have taken steps to control the risks. The first step included 

prohibiting the use on smaller vessels and limiting the release rate 

of tributyltin from paint; the second step included regulating 

tributyltin paint waste in shipyards and analyzing monitoring data 

to see if these early controls reduce the risk. The science indicated 

that tributyltin levels in near coastal waters were dropping, but 

not enough to protect marine life. 

With this science in hand, the EPA became a full partner in negotiating the international agreement and worked with the 

tributyltin manufacturers on a phaseout. In 2005, the Agency canceled the last remaining registration for tributyltin antifouling 

paint and set December 31, 2005 as the last date such products 

could legally be sold in this country, except as allowed under existing stocks provisions. Canceling the registration effectively prohibits the use in the United States. 

The end result is that vessels that are painted with antifouling 

paints in the U.S. are no longer significant contributors to environmental loading with tributyltin. Unfortunately, ships that are 

maintained in places where tributyltin is still in use enter U.S. 

ports and leach tributlytin into our waters. Through the international agreement, vessels painted with tributlytin are identified 

and can be excluded from ports of countries that are parties. 

The treaty provides a mechanism for us to protect our domestic 

waters from foreign tributyltin and to influence the use of 

tributyltin by joining in united front with parties of the treaty. 

New statutory authorities, especially in enforcement of the 

tributyltin ban, are needed to supplement our domestic controls of 

tributyltin by keeping tributyltin-painted vessels from other countries out of U.S. waters. 

We expect other benefits resulting from the implementing of the 

treaty. For example, once we become a party we will be able to participate fully in the scientific evaluation of proposed controls on 

other antifouling systems that may be viewed as problematic in the 

future. In addition, we expect that because of increased pressure on 

tributyltin-based systems, the current movement toward developing 

safer alternatives will expand. 

The scientific standards for evaluating the risks associated with 

antifouling systems as laid out by the treaty provide a roadmap for 

the paint and shipping industry to develop and adopt safer subVerDate Aug 31 2005 14:50 Jan 27, 2010 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00016 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\DOCS\50568 JASON
7 

stitutes. Several safe and effective substitutes are already available. 

In summary, the controls and process to be implemented through 

the Antifouling Treaty are clearly beneficial to the environment 

and national interests. There is much to be gained in implementing 

the global Antifouling Treaty at this time, and little controversy exists regarding the impacts. 

Mr. Chairman and other Members, on behalf of EPA we are 

grateful for your work and the work of your staff in holding this 

hearing. Thank you for your leadership concerning this issue. We 

look forward to working with you. 

I will be happy to answer any questions you may have. 

Mr. CUMMINGS. Thank you very much. 

Mr. CUMMINGS. Mr. Jones, you said in your testimony that the 

production and use of TBT in some parts of the world continues to 

pose a problem that can be addressed only through a coordinated 

global effort; is that right? 

Mr. JONES. That is correct, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. CUMMINGS. How common is TBT on ships today? And given 

that the international Convention has now come into force, I mean 

how do you see us resolving this in the most effective and efficient 

manner? 

Mr. JONES. If there is legislation allowing the United States to 

exclude ships with TBT on their hulls from U.S. waters, regardless 

of where they were painted with TBT, we will be able to effectively 

protect our marine environment from TBT. 

Mr. CUMMINGS. How common is it to find TBT on ships today? 

Mr. JONES. My understanding is that there are a number of 

Asian countries that still allow TBT to be used in shipping for 

antifouling purposes. 

Mr. CUMMINGS. You also stated in your testimony that under the 

treaty, the U.S. and foreign-flagged vessels would be subject to the 

organotin prohibition, with the exception of ships used for government and noncommercial service. Is the TBT used on U.S. Government ships today? 

Mr. JONES. I would defer to my colleague from the Coast Guard. 

My understanding is that there is no use of organotin hull coatings 

on government-owned vessels. 

Mr. CUMMINGS. Mr. Lantz. 

Mr. LANTZ. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. To our knowledge, the 

Navy does not use TBT, and hasn’t for over a decade. The same 

with the Coast Guard. I don’t believe that TBT is used on any U.S. 

Government vessels. It hasn’t been allowed. If it was on some existing ships, it would have been—should have been coated so that 

there wouldn’t be any leaching into the water. 

Mr. CUMMINGS. Can either of you, or both of you, comment on 

whether TBT began to be used both in the United States and in 

other countries before its harmful effects on marine environment 

were fully understood, or whether it was introduced even though 

concerns about its safety existed at the time it was introduced? 

Mr. JONES. Mr. Chairman, it was introduced well before we 

began to understand its effects on the environment. 

8 

Mr. CUMMINGS. So you think that if we had known those effects, 

it might not have been used as much as it has been used. Is that 

right? 

Mr. JONES. Certainly, if it were—if a manufacturer, for example, 

brought TBT to the Environmental Protection Agency today to license it for this use, they would not likely obtain a license, which 

is what they would need to use TBT on ships. 

Mr. CUMMINGS. I note that you also stated that the review process for antifouling systems will consider impacts to the shipping industry and to society of potential replacement systems. Just as we 

need to ensure that antifouling systems are safe for the environment, we must also ensure that they are effective in preventing the 

fouling. 

Will new systems be assessed by the IMO to ensure that they 

meet performance standards? 

Mr. LANTZ. Mr. Chairman, yes. The new systems will be analyzed by the IMO and looked at. As for the exact criteria, there are 

a number of criteria listed in the Convention that they use. I don’t 

know those all off the top of my head, but I would provide that as 

an answer in the record to follow up, if that would be acceptable. 

Mr. CUMMINGS. I would appreciate that. 

Did you have a comment on that, Mr. Jones? 

Mr. JONES. With respect to the IMO, new systems are brought 

before the U.S. EPA for pesticide licensing, as these are treated as 

pesticides in the United States, and we have licensed a number of 

chemicals that are relatively new for antifouling purposes in the 

last 10 years. 

Mr. CUMMINGS. It has been stated in some industry magazines 

that copper will reemerge as the antifouling system of choice. Have 

the full effects of copper on the marine environment been evaluated 

and, if so, are there any concerns about the use of products based 

on copper? 

Mr. JONES. Mr. Chairman, the Environmental Protection Agency 

has authorized the use of a number of copper compounds as 

antifouling pesticides, and we do feel like we have a significant understanding of the environmental effects of copper. 

Copper does have effects on aquatic environments, but they are 

far less profound and pronounced than the effects observed from 

TBT. As you had mentioned in an earlier statement, our job is to 

balance the benefits and risks provided by a compound such as copper. We have found that the benefits of copper compounds for 

antifouling haveoutweighed the risks. 

Mr. CUMMINGS. Mr. LoBiondo. 

Mr. LOBIONDO. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Gentlemen, thank you for being here. Can you discuss what you 

think the impacts will be for becoming a party to the Convention? 

We have a couple different categories I am interested in. Whether 

it is recreational boaters, the average fishing vessel owner, or the 

average commercial boat owner in the U.S., what effects would this 

have on them? Any speculation about that? 

Mr. LANTZ. Thank you, Mr. LoBiondo. Sir, the effect really 

should not have any effect by ratifying this Convention. In the U.S. 

the use of organotin is already essentially prohibited for use by 

these vessels. Therefore, us ratifying the Convention will not inVerDate Aug 31 2005 14:50 Jan 27, 2010 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00018 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\DOCS\50568 JASON
9 

crease the burden on those two vessel types that you cited, the rec 

boats and the fishing vessels. 

This Convention, what it does for the U.S. is it gets larger U.S.- 

flagged vessels that perhaps go overseas and get this put on their 

bottom, or foreign-flagged ships who are not party to the Convention who come to our waters. So that is the main benefit that this 

Convention provides. 

But as far as additional burden, I don’t see an additional burden 

to the vessel groups that you cited. 

Thank you. 

Mr. LOBIONDO. These larger type U.S.-flagged vessels that might 

be having this treatment over there-- can you give us a guesstimate 

of how long you would think it would take the Coast Guard and 

the EPA to conduct initial surveys and certify that all applicable 

ships are following the legislation? 

Mr. LANTZ. Thank you. If we ratified the Convention we would 

be obligated to survey the vessels to verify that they don’t have the 

organotin on them. We would have to certificate them because they 

would need this for traveling internationally. So I would envision 

that as soon as we ratified the Convention, became a party, the 

first inspection we would conduct on all U.S.-flagged vessels would 

verify whether or not organotin. 

Mr. LOBIONDO. No guess as to how long that would take, though. 

Mr. LANTZ. The inspection cycle—I don’t want to really guess on 

that. I can provide a more concrete answer for the record on that 

as we work out the implementing details. 

Mr. LOBIONDO. What would they do in the meantime, before they 

are inspected, if this is implemented? Would it impact the abilities 

of U.S.-flagged vessels to engage in international voyages to countries that are parties to the Convention if they are not certified? 

Mr. LANTZ. No, sir. Currently, U.S.-flagged vessels that do trade 

to countries that are party are already receiving a certificate of voluntary compliance with the Convention. This is issued to them by 

the four classification societies that we have recognized. So they 

are already complying with the Convention. 

Mr. LOBIONDO. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. CUMMINGS. Mr. Taylor. 

Mr. TAYLOR. Mr. Lantz, I don’t want to put words in your mouth, 

but I think you said that the U.S. fleet is more or less fully in compliance. Something to that extent. So who isn’t in compliance now? 

Who would be affected by this as far as either a government agency 

or U.S.-flagged carrier? 

Mr. LANTZ. Sir, I don’t have an exact answer on who would be 

affected. To our knowledge, I don’t know of any in the U.S. fleet 

that would be. There may be some out there that are using it that 

I am not aware. 

Mr. TAYLOR. Let’s go back to the 25-meter rule. I have got to assume there is a significant number of U.S.-flagged vessels that are 

over 25 meters in length. Are those vessels at the moment excluded 

and would be included later on as far as compliance, or are they 

in compliance now? 

Mr. LANTZ. Under the terms of the Convention, they would be 

swept up under the Convention. 

10 

Mr. TAYLOR. Tell me about right now. Who does this affect as far 

as U.S.-flagged vessels? The rules were changed for whom? 

Mr. LANTZ. For the larger vessels, those over 25 meters. 

Mr. TAYLOR. Over 25 meters. 

Mr. LANTZ. Yes. 

Mr. TAYLOR. I think Mr. Jones had made the statement that 

there are safe and effective substitutes out there already, or already available. What are they? Are they as effective? 

I mean, number one, if they are not as effective you, are going 

to see your fuel costs soar as you are dragging barnacles and other 

things through the sea. The second thing is you are going to be 

hauling your vessel more often. There is a cost associated with 

that, the sand-blasting, et cetera. So how certain are you of that 

statement? 

Mr. JONES. Congressman Taylor, we are fairly certain of the 

statement as thanks to the fact that TBT has been phased out over 

the last, really, 10 years. The ingredients that are currently registered, approved for this antifouling use include zinc pyrithione; as 

I mentioned, a number of copper compounds. There is a compound 

IrgArol and a compound by the name of SEA-NINE. 

Mr. TAYLOR. Does the EPA limit the percentage of copper that 

can go into a paint? 

Mr. JONES. In our licensing decisions around any chemical, we 

evaluate and approve them in the context of the percent of the ingredient in it. 

Mr. TAYLOR. What is the maximum copper content available now 

under the law? 

Mr. JONES. I would need to get back to you. 

[The information follows:] 

11 


Insert offset folio 6 here 50568.006
12 

Mr. TAYLOR. Because they are very real life questions, where I 

have actually had boatyards complain to me that people happen to 

haul more often because you have significantly limited the amount 

of copper that can go. In fact, one brand I know of, Interlux 

Coppertox, was actually taken off the market because I am told it 

had too high a percentage of copper in it. This isn’t a nebulous 

question. 

Mr. JONES. It is a factual question. We can go back and look in 

our records to find what the percent allowed in active ingredients 

of approved products is. 

Mr. TAYLOR. I guess my question is: What are the unintended 

consequences of this? What problems do we create by trying to 

solve the problem you have outlined? Has anyone bothered to ask 

that question? 

Mr. JONES. As I mentioned, because we have a fair amount of experience, because this didn’t happen overnight, it has actually been 

phased out for a while; we have also been monitoring the degree 

to which vessel owners have struggled with the transition. And 

thus far the transition has gone quite smoothly. That doesn’t mean 

there won’t be some issues by some individuals along the way. But 

in general, the transition away from TBT compounds has been 

pretty smooth. 

Mr. TAYLOR. The next question. Mr. Lantz, this is just a practical 

question. We have had ongoing problems with the Coast Guard ignoring what I consider to be rebuilds overseas of Jones Act vessels, 

even when we show them the photographs. My boaters back home 

were regularly complaining that the navigation lights weren’t 

changed when they burn out. I remember when the Coast Guard 

actually used to rescue people for free, as opposed to now you have 

got to call a commercial towing service. 

Given the fact that the Coast Guard certainly appears to me to 

be stretched well beyond its boundaries right now with just existing missions, are you telling me that the Coast Guard now is going 

to be responsible for taking a bottom paint sample of every vessel 

that comes from overseas and they would determine, I guess at 

that point, whether or not the vessel can enter our waters? 

What is the practical—how do you foresee this happening, because that is the way I visualize it, is that they would actually take 

a scraping off the bottom paint and run a test on it. 

Mr. LANTZ. Congressman, normally we would look for certification by the flag state of the ship. If the certificate is there which 

indicates that they have compliance with the Convention, we would 

usually accept that. 

Mr. TAYLOR. Sort of like the guy telling us he really didn’t get 

his vessel rebuilt overseas. Right? That really does fail the commonsense test, sir. 

Mr. LANTZ. If we have evidence that the certificate isn’t valid, 

then of course we would investigate further, and if we had to take 

a sample, we would take a sample. 

Mr. TAYLOR. So you are basically counting on someone to tell 

you, who has no commercial incentive to tell you, he has got every 

commercial incentive to use this stuff because it is going to cut 

down on his maintenance, get better performance, and haul his 

13 

boat less often. If he sends you a piece of paper saying he is compliant, you are going to trust him. 

Mr. LANTZ. No, sir. These ships, when they show up on our 

shores, have a certificate issued by the government of the flagged 

state, the same as we would issue to the ships of our flag. It is very 

similar to virtually all the international conventions. 

Mr. TAYLOR. Of course, another government would never try to 

mislead the United States. 

Mr. LANTZ. Maybe. I don’t know, sir. 

Mr. TAYLOR. So the North Koreans—think about this. Again, 

what you are trying to do is well intended. All I see is one more 

time where we are putting rules on our vessels, raising the cost of 

doing business once again on an American vessel, making it that 

much easier for a foreign competitor to flaunt the rules, get an economic advantage over us, and no one is really going to enforce it 

because if they hold up a piece of paper from Panama or the British Virgin Islands or whoever that says they are in compliance, nobody is going to check to see if they really are. Is that correct? 

Mr. LANTZ. Usually we do accept it on its face value unless we 

have evidence that there is something wrong. Then we would investigate further. We do this the same as we do virtually all of our 

ports. 

Mr. TAYLOR. Sort of like when I handed the photographs of the 

ship being rebuilt in China as opposed to repaired in China. And 

there is a still a Jones Act vessel and no one from the Coast Guard 

ever bothered to look into it. Sort of like that instance? 

Mr. LANTZ. Unfortunately, I don’t know exactly about the situation you are talking. 

Mr. TAYLOR. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. CUMMINGS. Now, you wrote in your testimony about the 

harmful effects of TBT on marine organisms. Many sources have 

noted the chemical effects on oysters and digwhelk snails. How 

long does it take an organism affected by TBT to recover. 

Mr. Lantz? 

Mr. LANTZ. Mr. Chairman, if I could defer to the EPA on that. 

Mr. JONES. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I can’t give you a specific 

answer to that. I can say that the TBT tends to be rather persistent in the environment. And so it does take a while for the exposure of the chemical, even after we have withdrawn it from the 

environment, for that exposure to actually cease. 

Mr. CUMMINGS. Can the United States opt out of the IMO regulations regarding antifouling systems? Can we opt out of it? 

Mr. LANTZ. Mr. Chairman, once we have signed onto the Convention, no, we cannot opt out of any particular regulation. We would 

get the opportunity, if the Convention were amended, we would 

then have the opportunity whether or not to accept that amendment. Once they are in place and we have accepted them, there is 

no opt-out unless we make the decision to opt out of the Convention completely. 

Mr. CUMMINGS. What would be the cost of noncompliance? 

Mr. LANTZ. Well, if we didn’t comply after we had ratified it, certified our ships, they would be held up when they are trading internationally by those other parties. They would be subject to ports 

14 

they control by the other parties. So it would be detrimental to 

their commerce. 

Mr. CUMMINGS. How many states representing what percentage 

of shipping tonnage are now parties to the Convention under the 

control of harmful antifouling systems? 

Mr. LANTZ. Mr. Chairman, currently there are 39 countries party 

to the Convention, representing just about 67 percent of the world’s 

international shipping. 

Mr. CUMMINGS. Very well. 

Ms. Richardson. 

Mr. RICHARDSON. I have nothing. 

Mr. CUMMINGS. Thank you very much. This hearing is now concluded. Thank you. 

[Whereupon, at 2:44 p.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.] 

15 


Insert offset folio 11 here 50568.011
16 


Insert offset folio 12 here 50568.012
17 


Insert offset folio 13 here 50568.013
18 


Insert offset folio 14 here 50568.014
19 


Insert offset folio 15 here 50568.015
20 


Insert offset folio 16 here 50568.016
21 


Insert offset folio 7 here 50568.007
22 


Insert offset folio 8 here 50568.008
23 


Insert offset folio 9 here 50568.009
24 


Insert offset folio 10 here 50568.010
25 

Æ