53914 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 170 / Thursday, September 2, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

10.0 Calibration 

10.1 Calibrate the system using the gases 

described in Section 7.3. The initial 3-point 

calibration error test as described in Section 

8.1.2 is required and must meet the 

specifications in Section 13 before you start 

the test. We recommend you conduct an 

initial system performance test described in 

Section 8.1.4 as well before the test to 

validate the sampling components and 

procedures before sampling. After the test 

commences, a system performance check is 

required after each run. You must include a 

copy of the manufacturer’s certification of the 

calibration gases used in the testing as part 

of the test report. This certification must 

include the 13 documentation requirements 

in the EPA Traceability Protocol for Assay 

and Certification of Gaseous Calibration 

Standards, September 1997, as amended 

August 25, 1999. 

11.0 Analytical Procedure 

Because sample collection and analysis are 

performed together (see Section 8.0), 

additional discussion of the analytical 

procedure is not necessary. 

12.0 Calculations and Data Analysis 

12.1 Nomenclature 

ACE = Analyzer calibration error, percent of 

calibration span. 

BWO = Fraction of volume of water vapor in 

the gas stream. 

CD = Calibration drift, percent. 

CDir = Measured concentration of a 

calibration gas (low, mid, or high) when 

introduced in direct calibration mode, 

ppmv. 

CH2S = Concentration of the system 

performance check gas, ppmv H2S. 

CS = Measured concentration of the system 

performance gas when introduced in 

system calibration mode, ppmv H2S. 

CV = Manufacturer certified concentration of 

a calibration gas (low, mid, or high), 

ppmv SO2. 

CSO2 = Sample SO2 concentration, ppmv. 

CTRS = Total reduced sulfur concentration 

corrected for system performance and 

adjusted to dry conditions, ppmv. 

SP = System performance, percent. 

12.2 Analyzer Calibration Error. Use 

Equation 16C–1 to calculate the analyzer 

calibration error for the low-, mid-, and highlevel calibration gases. 

ACE = C C

C

Dir v

v

− ×100 Eq. 16C-1

12.3 System Performance. Use Equation 

16C–2 to calculate the system performance. 

SP = C C

C

S H2S

H2S

− ×100 Eq. 16C-2

12.4 Calibration Drift. Use Equation 16C– 

3 to calculate the calibration drift at a single 

concentration level after a run or series of 

runs (not to exceed a 24-hr period) from 

initial calibration. Compare the calibration 

gas response to the original response 

obtained for the gas in the initial analyzer 

calibration test (ACEi). 

CD = ACE ACE i n − Eq. 16C-3

12.5 TRS Concentration as SO2. For each 

sample or test run, calculate the arithmetic 

average of SO2 concentration values (e.g., 1- 

minute averages). Then calculate the sample 

TRS concentration using Equation 16C–4. 

C = C

SP B TRS

SO2

WO 1− − Eq. 16C-4

13.0 Method Performance 

13.1 Analyzer Calibration Error. At each 

calibration gas level (low, mid, and high), the 

calibration error must either not exceed 5.0 

percent of the calibration gas concentration 

or |Cs¥Cv| must be ≤ 0.5 ppmv. 

13.2 System Performance. The system 

performance check result must be within 20 

percent of the system performance gas 

concentration. Alternatively, the results are 

acceptable if |Cs¥Cdir| is ≤ 0.5 ppmv . 

13.3 Calibration Drift. The calibration 

drift at the end of any run or series of runs 

within a 24-hour period must not differ by 

more than 3 percent from the original ACE 

at that level or |ACEi¥ACEn| must not exceed 

0.5 ppmv. 

13.4 Interference Check. For the analyzer, 

the total interference response (i.e., the sum 

of the interference responses of all tested 

gaseous components) must not be greater 

than 2.50 percent of the calibration span. The 

results are also acceptable if the sum of the 

responses does not exceed 0.5 ppmv for a 

calibration span of 5 to 10 ppmv, or 0.2 ppmv 

for a calibration span < 5 ppmv. 

14.0 Pollution Prevention [Reserved] 

15.0 Waste Management [Reserved] 

16.0 References 

1. The references are the same as in Section 

16.0 of Method 16, Section 17.0 of Method 

16A, and Section 17.0 of Method 6C. 

2. National Council of the Paper Industry 

for Air and Stream Improvement, Inc., A 

Study of TRS Measurement Methods. 

Technical Bulletin No. 434. New York, NY. 

May 1984. 12p. 

3. Margeson, J.H., J.E. Knoll, and M.R. 

Midgett. A Manual Method for TRS 

Determination. Draft available from the 

authors. Source Branch, Quality Assurance 

Division, U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC 27711. 

17.0 Tables, Diagrams, Flowcharts, and 

Validation Data [Reserved] 

[FR Doc. 2010–21954 Filed 9–1–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 140 

[EPA–R09–OW–2010–0438; FRL–9196–3] 

RIN 2009–AA04 

Marine Sanitation Devices (MSDs): 

Proposed Regulation To Establish a 

No Discharge Zone (NDZ) for California 

State Marine Waters 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to establish 

a No Discharge Zone (NDZ) for sewage 

discharges from: Large passenger 

vessels; and oceangoing vessels of 300 

gross tons or more (referred to 

throughout this proposed rule as ‘‘Large 

oceangoing vessels’’) with two days or 

more sewage holding capacity to 

California State marine waters pursuant 

to Section 312(f)(4)(A) of the Clean 

Water Act (CWA), 33 U.S.C. 

1322(f)(4)(A). This action is being taken 

in response to an April 5, 2006 

application from the California State 

Water Resources Control Board (State) 

requesting establishment of this NDZ. 

Under Section 312(f)(4)(A), if EPA 

determines upon application by a State 

that the protection and enhancement of 

the quality of specified waters within 

such State requires such a prohibition, 

then EPA shall by regulation completely 

prohibit the discharge of any sewage 

(whether treated or not) from a vessel 

into such waters. California State 

marine waters would be defined as the 

territorial sea measured from the 

baseline, as determined in accordance 

with the Convention on the Territorial 

Sea and the Contiguous Zone, and 

extending seaward a distance of three 

miles, and would also include all 

enclosed bays and estuaries subject to 

tidal influences from the Oregon border 

to the Mexican border. (Federal Clean 

Water Act Section 502(8)). State marine 

waters also extend three miles from 

State islands, including the Farallones 

and the Northern and Southern Channel 

Islands. A map of California State 

marine waters can be obtained or 

viewed at the EPA’s Web site at 

http://www.epa.gov/region9/water/nodischarge/overview.html, or by calling 

(415) 972–3476. It should be noted that 

effective March 2009, the National 

Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration (NOAA) established 

prohibitions on the discharge of sewage 

from large vessels in waters within the 

boundaries of the four National Marine 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with PROPOSALS_PART 1EP02SE10.008</MATH> EP02SE10.009</MATH> EP02SE10.010</MATH> EP02SE10.011</MATH>
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 170 / Thursday, September 2, 2010 / Proposed Rules 53915 

1Page 33 of the April 5, 2006 State Application/ 

2 Yoder, et al., 2008, Surveillance for Waterborne 

Disease and Outbreaks Associated with 

Recreational Water Use and Other Aquatic FacilityAssociated Health Events—United States, 2005– 

2006. Centers for Disease Control, Surveillance 

Summaries, 57(SS09), September 12, 2008. 

3 Yoder, et al., 2008. 

4EPA, 2009, National Summary: 2008 Swimming 

Season Update. EPA 823–F–09–005, May 2009. 

5State Water Resources Control Board, California 

Beach Water Quality Information page: http:// 

www.swrcb.ca.gov/water_issues/programs/beaches/ 

beach_water_quality/. 

6EPA, 2001. National Coastal Condition Report. 

United States Environmental Protection Agency. 

Office of Research and Development and Office of 

Water, Washington, DC EPA–620/R–01/005. 

7EPA National Estuary Program: http:// 

www.epa.gov/nep/challenges.html. 

Sanctuaries along the California coast 

(73 FR 70487). 

DATES: Comments must be submitted to 

EPA on or before November 1, 2010. 

ADDRESSES: Submit comments, 

identified by docket number EPA–R09– 

OW–2010–0438, by one of the following 

methods: 1. Federal eRulemaking Portal: 

http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the 

on-line instructions. 2. E-mail: 

ota.allan@epa.gov. 3. Mail or deliver: 

Allan Ota (WTR–8), U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency Region IX, 75 

Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, CA 

94105–3901. 

Instructions: All comments will be 

included in the public docket without 

change and may be made available 

online at http://www.regulations.gov, 

including any personal information 

provided, unless the comment includes 

Confidential Business Information (CBI) 

or other information whose disclosure is 

restricted by statute. Information that 

you consider CBI or otherwise protected 

should be clearly identified as such and 

should not be submitted through 

http://www.regulations.gov or e-mail. 

http://www.regulations.gov is an 

‘‘anonymous access’’ system, and EPA 

will not know your identity or contact 

information unless you provide it in the 

body of your comment. If you send email directly to EPA, your e-mail 

address will be automatically captured 

and included as part of the public 

comment. If EPA cannot read your 

comment due to technical difficulties 

and cannot contact you for clarification, 

EPA may not be able to consider your 

comment. 

Docket: The index to the docket for 

this action is available electronically at 

http://www.regulations.gov and in hard 

copy at EPA Region IX, 75 Hawthorne 

Street, San Francisco, California. While 

all documents in the docket are listed in 

the index, some information may be 

publicly available only at the hard copy 

location (e.g., copyrighted material), and 

some may not be publicly available in 

either location (e.g., CBI). To inspect the 

hard copy materials, please schedule an 

appointment during normal business 

hours with the contact listed in the FOR

FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Allan Ota, Wetlands Office, Water 

Division, EPA Region 9, 75 Hawthorne 

Street (WTR–8), San Francisco, CA 

94105, (ota.allan@epa.gov). 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Background of Clean Water Act 

Section 312 

Clean Water Act Section 312, 33 

U.S.C. 1322, (hereafter referred to as 

‘‘Section 312’’), regulates the discharge 

of sewage from vessels into the 

navigable waters. Pollutants most 

frequently associated with sewage 

discharges include solids, nutrients, 

pathogens, petroleum products, heavy 

metals, pesticides, pharmaceuticals, and 

other potentially harmful compounds.1

Sewage discharges contaminate 

shellfish beds, pollute drinking water 

supplies, harm fish and other aquatic 

wildlife, and cause damage to coral 

reefs. 

Direct contact with these pollutants 

can have serious human health effects, 

with children, the elderly, and 

individuals with compromised immune 

systems being most susceptible. While 

data specifically associating disease 

outbreaks with sewage discharges from 

vessels are not available, data 

summarizing disease outbreaks and 

beach closures due to waterborne 

pathogens are available. During 2005– 

2006, the most recent period for which 

data are available, waterborne disease 

outbreaks associated with pathogen 

exposures in recreational water were 

reported by 31 States and territories 

through the Centers for Disease 

Control’s Waterborne Disease and 

Outbreak Surveillance System.2 During 

this period, 4,412 people were reported 

ill, resulting in 116 hospitalizations and 

five deaths. Thirty of these outbreaks 

were reported in California.3 These data 

include exposures to pathogens at 

beaches and other natural swimming 

locations, but pathogen sources were 

not specifically identified. 

When pathogen levels exceed water 

quality standards, States and territories 

may issue swimming advisories or close 

beaches to swimming. EPA’s Beach 

Monitoring and Notification program 

reports that of the 3,740 coastal beaches 

monitored in 2008, 1,210 (32 percent) 

had at least one swimming closure or 

advisory and coastal beaches were 

under swimming closures or advisories 

about 5 percent of the time, similar to 

the previous two years. For 2007, the 

last year for which data was available, 

138 of the 424 monitored beaches in 

California had at least one water quality 

advisory due to water quality standard 

exceedances.4 According to the State’s 

California Beach Water Quality 

Information Page in 2005, the last year 

reported, there were 104 beach closure 

events for a total of 486 beach days 

because monitoring indicated elevated 

bacteria levels.5

Shellfish beds are also vulnerable to 

coastal pollutants resulting in closures 

when water quality standards are 

exceeded. In 2001, the last 

comprehensive national study of water 

quality data at shellfish beds revealed 

that 40 percent were unsuitable for 

harvesting.6 Pathogens from a variety of 

sources, including urban and 

agricultural runoff, vessel discharges, 

sewage treatment plants and septic 

systems can contribute to shellfish bed 

contamination, closure, and illness in 

human shellfish consumers.7

Section 312(h) prohibits vessels 

equipped with installed toilet facilities 

from operating on the navigable waters 

(which include the three mile territorial 

seas), unless the vessel is equipped with 

an operable marine sanitation device 

(MSD), certified by the Coast Guard to 

meet applicable performance standards. 

33 U.S.C. 1322(h). The provisions of 

section 312 are implemented jointly by 

EPA and the Coast Guard. EPA sets 

performance standards for MSDs and is 

involved in varying degrees in the 

establishment of no discharge zones 

(NDZs) for vessel sewage. 33 U.S.C. 

1322(b) and (f). The Coast Guard is 

responsible for developing regulations 

governing the design, construction, 

certification, installation and operation 

of MSDs, consistent with EPA’s 

performance standards. 33 U.S.C. 

1322(b) and (g); see also 33 CFR part 

159. The Coast Guard’s responsibility 

includes certifying MSDs for installation 

on U.S. flagged vessels. There are three 

types of MSDs: 

• Type I MSDs are flow-through 

treatment devices that commonly use 

maceration and disinfection for the 

treatment of sewage. Type I devices may 

be installed only on vessels less than or 

equal to 65 feet in length. The 

performance standard applied to Type I 

MSDs is to produce an effluent with no 

more than 1000 fecal coliform count per 

100 mL, with no visible floating solids. 

• Type II MSDs are also flow-through 

treatment devices, which may employ 

biological treatment and disinfection, 

although some Type II MSDs use 

maceration and disinfection. Type II 

MSDs may be installed on vessels of any 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with PROPOSALS_PART 1
53916 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 170 / Thursday, September 2, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

8U.S. Coast Guard MSD Requirements: http:// 

www.uscg.mil/hq/cg5/cg5213/msd.asp. 

9California State Assembly Bill 2672, Section 

1(c). 

10California Senate Bill 771, Chapter 588, Section 

21. 

length. The performance standard 

applied to Type II MSDs is to produce 

an effluent with no more than 200 fecal 

coliform per 100 mL, and no more than 

150 mg total suspended solids per liter. 

• Type III MSDs are holding tanks, 

where sewage is stored until it can be 

disposed of shore-side or at sea (beyond 

three miles from shore). Type III MSDs 

may be installed on vessels of any 

length. [33 U.S.C. 1322 (b and h), 40 

CFR 140.3; 33 CFR part 159]. 

CWA section 312 generally preempts 

State regulation of the discharge of 

sewage from vessels: ‘‘no State or 

political subdivision thereof shall adopt 

or enforce any statute or regulation of 

such State or political subdivision with 

respect to the design, manufacture, or 

installation or use of any [MSD] on any 

vessel subject to the provision of [CWA 

section 312].’’ CWA § 312(f)(1)(A), 33 

U.S.C. 1322(f)(1)(A). Under Section 

312(f), however, States may, in certain 

circumstances, request that EPA 

establish no discharge zones (‘‘NDZs’’) 

for vessel sewage or, after required 

findings are made by EPA, establish 

such zones themselves. 

There are three types of NDZ 

designations. First, under section 

312(f)(3) States may designate portions 

or all of their waters as NDZs if the State 

determines that the protection and 

enhancement of the quality of the 

waters require greater environmental 

protection than provided by current 

Federal standards. However, no such 

prohibition applies to discharges until 

EPA determines that adequate facilities 

for the safe and sanitary removal and 

treatment of sewage from all vessels are 

reasonably available for the waters in 

the NDZ. Second, a State may apply 

under section 312(f)(4)(A) for EPA’s 

determination that the protection and 

enhancement of the quality of specified 

waters within such State requires a 

prohibition. In contrast to section 

312(f)(3) NDZ designations, section 

312(f)(4) does not require EPA to 

determine that adequate pump out 

facilities are reasonably available for all 

vessels. Upon this determination, EPA 

shall by regulation completely prohibit 

the discharge from a vessel of any 

sewage (whether treated or not) into 

such waters. Lastly, a State may apply 

under section 312(f)(4)(B) for EPA to 

establish, by regulation, a drinking 

water intake zone which prohibits the 

discharge of sewage into that zone. [33 

U.S.C. 1322(f), 40 CFR 140.4] California 

applied to EPA to establish the 

proposed NDZ under CWA section 

312(f)(4)(A). 

While section 312(f)(3) has been used 

to prohibit discharges in an entire 

State’s waters, today’s NDZ, if finalized, 

would be the first CWA section 

312(f)(4)(A) NDZ to cover an entire 

State’s waters. It would also be the first 

NDZ to only apply to discrete classes of 

vessels. Today’s proposed rule would 

apply to all California marine waters 

and to two specific types of vessels—(1) 

passenger vessels of 300 gross tons or 

more having berths or overnight 

accommodations, and (2) oceangoing 

vessels of 300 gross tons or more with 

two days or more of sewage holding 

capacity. As discussed in Sections V 

and VI of the preamble, the proposed 

NDZ will not alter existing NDZs in 

California, all of which were enacted 

pursuant to 312(f)(3). Those NDZs 

remain in effect for all vessels. These 

NDZs cover a relatively small portion of 

California’s marine waters, although as 

discussed below, certain discharges of 

sewage are also prohibited under NOAA 

regulations for marine sanctuaries in 

California waters. 

II. Enforcement 

The U.S. Coast Guard and the States 

are authorized to enforce the 

requirements of Section 312. 33 U.S.C. 

1322(k). Persons who tamper with an 

installed certified MSD, or who operate 

vessels subject to section 312 without 

operable MSDs, are subject to civil 

penalties of up to $5,000 and $2,000, 

respectively, for each violation; 

manufacturers who sell a non-certified 

MSD, or who sell a vessel subject to 

section 312 that is not equipped with a 

certified MSD, are subject to civil 

penalties of up to $5,000 for each 

violation. 33 U.S.C. 1322(j). For more 

information see 33 U.S.C. 1322(j) and 

the U.S. Coast Guard’s regulations at 33 

CFR part 159.8

III. The State’s Application for This 

NDZ 

The State of California declared the 

importance of protecting and enhancing 

coastal water quality when it enacted 

legislation in 2003–2004 to limit 

pollution from large passenger vessels 

Assembly Bill (AB) 121, AB 906, AB 

2093, and AB 2672 (available in the 

docket for today’s proposal). The new 

legislation required a number of actions 

to address and reduce sewage and other 

pollution discharges from large vessels. 

Specifically, AB 2672 required the State 

Water Resources Control Board (State 

Board) to submit an application to the 

EPA seeking Federal prohibition of 

discharges of sewage from large 

passenger vessels to State waters.9

Similarly, the State enacted the 

California Clean Coast Act of 2005 

(Senate Bill (SB) 771) to address and 

reduce sewage and other pollution 

discharges from large oceangoing 

vessels with sufficient holding tank 

capacity. SB 771 directed the State 

Board to submit an application to the 

EPA seeking prohibition of sewage 

discharges from large oceangoing 

vessels with ‘‘sufficient holding tank 

capacity’’ to contain sewage while the 

vessels are within the marine waters of 

the State. In enacting this legislation, 

the State found that California’s coastal 

waters warrant a higher level of 

protection and determined that 

protection and enhancement of coastal 

water quality requires a reduction in 

vessel sewage discharges to the State’s 

coastal waters. The legislation also 

provided that ‘‘[i]t is not the 

Legislature’s intent to establish for the 

marine waters of the State a no 

discharge zone for sewage from all 

vessels, but only for a class of 

vessels.’’ 10

The information submitted by the 

State in its application for this NDZ 

(available in the docket for today’s 

proposal) documents the importance of 

California’s marine waters, the 

sensitivity of all of California’s marine 

waters to sewage discharges, and the 

need for the proposed NDZ to protect 

and enhance those waters. 

IV. Who is affected by this rule? 

The proposed rule would completely 

prohibit the discharge of sewage 

(whether treated or not) from all large 

passenger vessels, as defined by 46 

U.S.C. 2101(22), of 300 gross tons or 

more and which have berths or 

overnight accommodations, and private, 

commercial, government, and military 

oceangoing vessels of 300 gross tons or 

more. The State’s definition of large 

passenger vessels in AB 2672 excluded 

all noncommercial, government and 

military vessels, treating them as 

‘‘oceangoing ships.’’ For this proposed 

rule EPA uses the generally applicable 

definition of ‘‘passenger vessel’’ from 

Title 46 of the US Code, but, like the 

State, applies the rule only to passenger 

vessels of 300 gross tons or more and 

which have berths or overnight 

accommodations. A large oceangoing 

vessel means a private, commercial, 

government, or military vessel of 300 

gross tons or more. 

Certain Department of Defense (DoD) 

vessels and activities may be exempt 

from these requirements. Pursuant to 

CWA Section 312(d), the Secretary of 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with PROPOSALS_PART 1
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 170 / Thursday, September 2, 2010 / Proposed Rules 53917 

11California Senate Bill 771, Chapter 588, Section 

6 (72401(a)). 

12California State Lands Commission 2006 Vessel 

Survey. 

13EPA’s December 29, 2008 Cruise Ship 

Discharge Assessment Report found that average 

reported sewage generation rates were 8.4 gallons/ 

day/person. 

14 Department of Commerce, NOAA, Federal 

Register/Vol. 73, No. 225 Published November 20, 

2008/15 CFR part 922 and Federal Register/Vol. 74, 

No. 11/Friday, January 16, 2009/Rules and 

Regulations. 

Defense promulgated DoD 4715.06–R1 

‘‘Regulations on Vessels Owned or 

Operated by the Department of Defense’’ 

(January 2005), which explains the 

circumstances under which DoD may 

exempt its vessels from the sewage 

discharge requirements of Section 312, 

including NDZs, because compliance 

would excessively and unreasonably 

detract from the vessel’s military 

characteristics, effectiveness, or safety, 

and not be in the interest of national 

security. Exempted vessels are 

nonetheless required to limit sewage 

discharges into U.S. navigable waters, 

territorial seas, and NDZs to the 

maximum extent practicable without 

endangering the health, safety, or 

welfare of the crew or other personnel 

aboard. 

The State legislation limits the 

prohibition on discharges of sewage to 

large oceangoing vessels with ‘‘sufficient 

holding tank capacity.’’ SB 771 defined 

‘‘sufficient holding tank capacity’’ to 

mean a holding tank of sufficient 

capacity to contain sewage while the 

oceangoing ship is within the marine 

waters of the State.11 For the purposes 

of this proposed rule, ‘‘sufficient holding 

tank capacity’’ means two days or more 

of sewage holding capacity based on the 

ability to hold at least two day’s sewage 

while in State marine waters. A suitable 

holding tank is a tank that was 

designed, constructed, and certified by 

the ship’s flag administration to hold 

sewage. Two days of sewage holding 

capacity is consistent with California 

State Lands Commission 2006 Vessel 

Survey Data, required under SB 771, 

that showed oceangoing vessel port calls 

averaged two days in duration.12 The 

two day duration was established based 

on this data and through consultation 

with the State. For purposes of this 

proposed rule, the two-day holding tank 

capacity would be determined by 

multiplying the crew capacity of a 

vessel by the average sewage generation 

rate of 8.4 gallons of sewage per day, per 

person.13 Oceangoing vessel capacity is 

determined by: (1) A certificate of 

inspection issued by the US Coast 

Guard for US flagged vessels; or (2) a 

MARPOL Annex 4 certificate issued by 

the signatory State for foreign flagged 

vessels. For either certificate, the 

maximum number of passengers and 

crew is identified for the vessel. 

V. EPA’s Determination That the 

Protection and Enhancement of the 

Quality of California Coastal Waters 

Requires This NDZ 

Importance of California Waters: 

California’s coastal waters contain a 

wide variety of unique, nationally 

important marine environments that 

support rich biological communities 

and a wide range of recreational, 

commercial, conservation, research, 

educational, and aesthetic values. 

Coastal areas contain the greatest variety 

of habitats in California, including 

tidepools, estuaries, embayments, 

headlands, sandy beaches, mudflats, 

tidal wetlands, eelgrass beds, kelp 

forests, and deep ocean floor. 

California’s highly varied marine 

environments support high levels of 

biological diversity and habitat for 

several dozen species listed as 

endangered, threatened, or of concern 

under Federal or State law, including 10 

species of marine mammals, 4 species of 

anadromous fish, and 9 species of sea 

birds. The State has also established 

essential habitat along much of the coast 

for nearly 100 species of fish. 

The unique values associated with 

California’s coastal marine environment 

have been recognized through the 

creation of a network of more than 200 

protected areas, reserves, sanctuaries, 

and monuments that together afford 

special resource protection status to the 

vast majority of California coastal 

waters. For example, the four Federally 

designated National Marine Sanctuaries 

(Cordell Bank, Gulf of the Farallones, 

Monterey Bay, and Channel Islands) in 

California occupy approximately onethird of the coastline and over 9,373 

square miles of marine waters (1,726 

within State waters) while the California 

Coastal National Monument protects 

more than 20,000 small islands, reefs, 

and pinnacles. The National Park 

Service manages 6 park facilities along 

the California coast including the 

Channel Islands and Redwood National 

Parks and Golden Gate National 

Recreation Area. Thirteen national 

wildlife refuges and 22 marine reserves 

have been established along the 

California coast, several of which cover 

substantial portions of marine 

embayments and estuarine areas. Three 

National Estuarine Research Reserves 

have been designated under the Coastal 

Zone Management Act as a partnership 

between the National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) 

and the State, including San Francisco 

Bay; Elkhorn Slough; and Tijuana River. 

NOAA, has also established Essential 

Fish Habitat for several species along 

the entire California coast. The State has 

designated more than 80 Marine 

Protected Areas, 34 Areas of Special 

Biological Significance—Water Quality 

Protection Areas, 14 Ecological 

Reserves, 17 State and University of 

California Reserves, 20 Marine Refuges, 

and 14 Underwater Parks and Preserves 

intended to preserve and enhance living 

marine resources, cultural and historical 

resources, and recreational and research 

opportunities. The State, pursuant to 

CWA 312(f)(3), previously established 

ten individual NDZs along the 

California coast. These NDZs were 

established after EPA made the 

necessary finding that adequate pump 

out facilities are reasonably available in 

the areas of the NDZs. 

Following establishment of the four 

federally recognized National Marine 

Sanctuaries along the California Coast, 

NOAA promulgated regulatory revisions 

to better address their concerns with 

potential impacts from vessel discharges 

by prohibiting discharges of treated and 

untreated sewage from cruise ships, and 

from large vessels with sufficient 

holding tank capacity to hold sewage 

while within the Sanctuaries.14 NOAA 

Stated that both treated and untreated 

vessel sewage are more concentrated 

than domestic land-based sewage and 

may introduce disease causing 

microorganisms into the marine 

environment and increase nutrients that 

can lead to eutrophication and oxygendepleted ‘‘dead zones.’’ As shown in 

Table 1, the four National Marine 

Sanctuaries combined with the ten 

existing NDZs account for over 33 

percent of State marine waters (38 

percent including proposed expansions 

at the Gulf of the Farallones and Cordell 

Bank). These protected areas account for 

approximately 51 percent of the 1,624 

mile California coastline. The proposed 

NDZ would apply to all State marine 

waters and would increase protections 

by prohibiting treated sewage discharges 

from the regulated classes of vessels in 

the remaining 67 percent of State 

marine waters. A map illustrating these 

areas can be obtained or viewed at the 

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

region9/water/no-discharge/ 

overview.html, ’’ or by calling (415) 

972–3476. 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with PROPOSALS_PART 1
53918 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 170 / Thursday, September 2, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

15California’s Ocean Economy, Report to the 

Resources Agency, State of California, The National 

Ocean Economics Program, 2005. 

16West Marin Chamber of Commerce. 

17The Tomales Bay Watershed Stewardship Plan: 

A Framework for Action. Tomales Bay Watershed 

Council, July 2003. 137 pp. 

18 June 2007 Pacific Institute Desalination Report. 

19April 5, 2006 State Application. 

20 2006 CWA 303(d) List. 

21Royal Caribbean Press Release—Fast Facts 

Oasis of the Seas/Allure of the Seas-http:// 

www.oasisoftheseas.com/press-materials.php. 

TABLE 1—STATUS OF CALIFORNIA MARINE WATERS AND TREATED SEWAGE PROTECTION

California marine protected area 

Area of 

California 

marine waters 

(miles 2) 

Percent of 

California 

marine waters 

Sewage 

discharges 

prohibited 

National Marine Sanctuaries* .............................................................................................. **1,726 33 .05 Yes 

Existing NDZs*** .................................................................................................................. 29 0 .5 Yes 

Proposed NDZ ..................................................................................................................... 5,222 100 Proposed 

*Office of NMS—NOAA, 2009. 

**Area of existing NMS off California’s coast and occurring outside State marine waters equals 7,647 square miles. 

***EPA Region 9 GIS Center, September 2006. 

Waters along the California coastline 

(including islands) support equally 

important economic, recreational, and 

aesthetic values. Many of these values 

are heavily dependent upon clean 

water. California’s ocean economy is the 

largest in the nation and in 2000 alone, 

directly provided approximately 

408,000 jobs and contributed $42.9 

billion to gross State product. Seventyseven percent of the State’s population 

lives on or near the coast and annually, 

over 150 million visitor-days are spent 

at California beaches. California ranks 

first in the nation as a travel destination 

and its beaches are the leading 

destination for tourists. Coastal tourism 

and recreation generate more than $10 

billion per year in wages and more than 

$20 billion per year in gross State 

product. In 2000, California’s 

commercial marine fishing industry 

generated more than $400 million.15

California coastal waters are home to 

more than 889 water contact 

recreational facilities including 450 

public beaches, of which 63 are units of 

the State Parks system. As noted above, 

over one third (138 out of 424) of 

beaches monitored in California in 2007 

reported at least one water quality 

advisory due to water quality standard 

exceedances, and 104 incidents in 2005 

resulted in 486 closure days at 

California beaches because of elevated 

bacteria levels. 

The shellfish industry in California is 

vulnerable to water quality impacts 

from pathogens from a variety of sources 

including vessel discharges. For 

example, in 2007, the State adopted a 

TMDL (total maximum daily load) for 

pathogens to protect recreational uses 

and shellfish harvesting in Tomales Bay, 

north of San Francisco, where leases 

exist for nearly half of the State’s 

shellfish growers and production of 

almost 20 percent of the State’s 

oysters.16, 17

Coastal waters are increasingly more 

important for potable water supply as 

desalination measures are used to meet 

demands. There are more than 40 

desalination plants in various stages of 

planning and operation in California.18

Given that net potable water demand 

exceeds supply in many years, it is 

anticipated that desalination will 

increase as a means to meet California’s 

projected population growth.19 CWA 

Section 312(f)(4)(B) recognized the 

importance of prohibiting vessel sewage 

near drinking water intakes by 

authorizing States to apply to the EPA 

Administrator for establishment of 

NDZs at intake zones. 

Pollutants Affecting California Marine 

Waters: These aquatic resource uses and 

values are threatened and impaired by 

pollutant discharges to most California 

coastal waters from a variety of land and 

marine activities. In addition to marine 

vessel discharges, other important 

pollutant sources include land-based 

wastewater treatment plant ocean 

outfalls, stormwater discharges, rivers 

and streams, thermal discharges from 

power plants, dredging and dredged 

material disposal operations, wind 

transport, and construction activities. 

Pollutants causing water quality 

impairment include chemicals, metals, 

nutrients, pathogens, sediments, and 

heat. Table 2 shows the current status of 

impaired water body segments along the 

California coast. In California coastal 

waters, 222 beach and water body 

segments have been designated as 

impaired under Section 303(d) of the 

CWA. Among the 222 segments, 592 

pollutant-impairments that have been 

identified as exceeding State water 

quality standards still require a TMDL 

limit. TMDLs for an additional seventynine impairments have already been 

approved by EPA.20 Information on 

impaired waters in California can be 

found at EPA’s National Summary of 

Impaired Waters and TMDLs Web site at 

‘‘http://www.epa.gov/owow/tmdl/’’, or by 

calling (415) 972–3476. 

Of the 671 impairments, at least 162 

are for pollutants commonly associated 

with sewage, including nutrients, fecal 

coliform, and pathogens. Pathogens 

alone account for approximately 120 

miles of impaired coast line in the State. 

TABLE 2—CALIFORNIA MARINE IMPAIRED WATER BODY SEGMENTS AND TMDLS* 

Impaired water body 

segments 

Total pollutant 

impairments 

Impairments 

associated with 

sewage 

Approved 

TMDL 

222 671 162 79 

*2006 CWA 303(d) list. 

Large Passenger Vessel Sewage 

Generation and Pollutants: Large 

passenger vessels continue to increase 

in size and can now accommodate as 

many as 6,300 passengers and 2,400 

crew members.21 Because these vessels 

generate large volumes of sewage, the 

State has requested that all large 

passenger vessels of 300 gross tons or 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with PROPOSALS_PART 1
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 170 / Thursday, September 2, 2010 / Proposed Rules 53919 

22California State Lands Commission 2006 Vessel 

Survey data was dictated under SB 771. 

23California State Lands Commission 2006 Vessel 

Survey reported 33 large passenger vessels making 

port calls in California with an average 709 crew 

and 2,154 passengers for an average of 2,864 people 

on board. 

24Number and frequency of port calls for large 

passenger vessels based on the January 27, 2009 

State Application Addendum. 

25 2000 Alaska Cruise Ship Initiative, reported in 

2008 EPA Cruise Ship Discharge Assessment 

Report. Two of the 21 vessels sampled were using 

reverse osmosis treatment systems. 

26 2003 Metcalf & Eddy Wastewater Engineering. 

27 2000 Alaska Cruise Ship Initiative, reported in 

2008 EPA Cruise Ship Discharge Assessment 

Report. 

greater, regardless of sewage holding 

capacity, be subject to the proposed 

rule. As mandated by SB 771, in 2006 

the California State Lands Commission 

conducted a survey (2006 Vessel 

Survey) of large passenger and large 

oceangoing vessels calling on California 

ports in order to better understand 

vessel sewage generation and 

discharges.22 Based on the 33 large 

passenger vessels reporting, an average 

sized passenger vessel holds nearly 

2,900 passengers and crew (2,154 and 

709 respectively). At a daily per person 

sewage generation rate of 8.4 gallons, an 

average sized large passenger vessel is 

capable of generating as much as 24,360 

gallons of sewage per day.23

In 2008, 48 large passenger vessels 

made 788 calls to California ports and 

spent an average of one day in port per 

arrival.24 As illustrated in Table 3, at an 

estimated 24,360 gallons per day and an 

average stay of one day, these vessels 

could potentially generate 19.2 million 

gallons of treated sewage annually while 

in State marine waters. EPA has no way 

of verifying how much treated large 

passenger vessel sewage is actually 

discharged in State marine waters; this 

depends on actual numbers of 

passengers and crew and how much 

treated sewage is discharged to 

treatment facilities on land and/or held 

for discharge outside State waters. 

However, it is likely that a significant 

portion of this estimated 19.2 million 

gallons is in fact currently being 

discharged in State waters. The intent of 

this proposed rule is to prohibit all 

sewage generated from large passenger 

vessels from entering State marine 

waters. 

TABLE 3—CALIFORNIA LARGE PASSENGER VESSEL (LPV) DATA FOR 2008 

LPVs* Passengers & crew** Port calls* Average port days** 

Estimated sewage 

generation 

(g/day)*** 

Estimated treated 

vessel sewage 

generated while 

in State waters 

(g/year)*** 

48 2,900 788 1 24,360 19,195,680 

* State’s January 27, 2009 Application Addendum. 

** State Lands Commission 2006 Vessel Survey Data. 

*** EPA calculations. 

Treated sewage discharges from 

vessels generally contain higher 

concentrations of pollutants than 

discharges of treated sewage from landbased wastewater treatment plants and 

can cause or contribute to water quality 

impairments and impacts to highly 

sensitive marine habitats. This can be 

attributed to lower dilution rates for 

large passenger vessel sewage 

discharges, especially in cases where 

these vessels employ vacuum flushing 

and conveyance to reduce water use. 

Based on data collected in 2000 for 

the Alaska Cruise Ship Initiative (21 

vessels), the average fecal coliform 

concentrations in traditional Type II 

MSD effluent was 2.04 million MPN 

(most probable number)/100 mL.25 As 

shown in Table 4, of the 92 samples 

collected, 51 exceeded EPA’s 

performance standard for Type II 

effluent fecal coliform count of 200 

MPN/100 ml. Of the 92 samples 

collected, 35 exceeded 100,000 MPN/ 

100 mL and 22 exceeded 1 million 

MPN/100 mL. The range of fecal 

coliform concentrations ranged between 

<2 MPN/100 mL and 24 million MPN/ 

100 mL. Based on these results, the 

average concentration was as much as 

20 times greater than un-treated 

municipal wastewater (ranges from 

10,000 to 100,000 MPN/100 mL) 26 and 

over 10,000 times greater than the 

Federal MSD fecal coliform standard of 

<200 MPN/100 mL. 

EPA’s 2008 Cruise Ship Discharge 

Assessment Report found that Type II 

MSD effluent concentrations of fecal 

coliform also could lead to exceedences 

of EPA’s 2006 National Recommended 

Water Quality Criteria (NRWQC) 

established for shellfish harvesting 

waters. This bacteria standard States 

that median fecal coliform 

concentrations should not exceed 14 

MPN/100 mL, with not more than 10 

percent of samples exceeding 43 MPN/ 

100 mL. EPA notes that these are 

ambient water quality criteria not 

discharge standards, and that depending 

on the amount of mixing, discharges 

exceeding the numeric level of the 

criterion at the point of discharge would 

not necessarily lead to an exceedence of 

the NRWQC. However, given the levels 

of fecal coliform in some of the samples 

discussed above, sewage discharges 

from cruise ships could be causing or 

contributing to violations of these 

NRWQC as well as State water quality 

criteria. For example, California has 

adopted the NRWQC for fecal coliform 

for shellfish in some coastal waters and 

for all coastal waters has adopted 

criteria for contact recreation not to 

exceed 200 MPN/100 mL with not more 

than 10 percent of samples exceeding 

400 MPN/100 mL. 

For suspended solids, values detected 

in effluent from Type II MSDs were 

substantially higher than levels that 

would generally be considered to 

comply with narrative NRWQC landbased discharge standards. Data for 

residual chlorine concentrations from 

Type II MSDs and advanced wastewater 

treatment systems (AWTs) also 

exceeded levels that would violate 

NWRQC standards if found in the 

ambient water. Site-specific evaluations 

would be needed to determine whether 

these vessel discharges would cause, 

have the potential to cause, or 

contribute to non-attainment of water 

quality standards.27


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with PROPOSALS_PART 1
53920 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 170 / Thursday, September 2, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

28Sampling results used include EPA sampled 

wastewater from cruise ships in 2004 and 2005, 

cruise ship compliance monitoring data for AWT 

effluent provided by the Alaska Department of 

Environmental Conservation and the Coast Guard 

for 2003–2005, and self-monitoring data for AWT 

effluent submitted by the cruise industry in 

response to EPA’s 2004 cruise ship survey. 

29March 2006, EPA Sampling Episode Report 

Princess Cruise Lines—Island Princess, Sampling 

Episode 6505. 

30 July 8, 2009 letter from Congress to 

Administrator Jackson. 

31CLIA Forecasts Continued Growth in Cruise 

Industry, January 12, 2010. http:// 

www.travelpulse.com/Resources/ 

Editorial.aspx?n=66206. 

32 GlobalSecurity.org: http:// 

www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/ship/ 

passenger-cruise.htm. 

33According to the California State Lands 

Commission 2006 Vessel Survey, 35 percent of 

vessels had sewage capacity of two days or more. 

This was extrapolated to estimate sewage capacity 

of vessels calling in 2008 as reported in the State’s 

January 27, 2009 Application Addendum. 

34California State Lands Commission 2006 Vessel 

Survey. 

35 January 27, 2009 State Application Addendum. 

TABLE 4—FECAL COLIFORM CONCENTRATIONS IN LARGE PASSENGER VESSEL EFFLUENT* 

Number of samples Federal type II MSD standard (MPN/100 ml) 

Samples >200 MPN/100 

ml 

Samples >100,000 MPN/ 

100 ml 

Samples >1,000,000 MPN/ 

100 ml 

92 <200 51 35 22 

* 2000 Alaska Cruise Ship Initiative, reported in 2008 EPA Cruise Ship Discharge Assessment Report. 

Some large passenger vessels, 

especially those traveling to Alaska, 

have installed AWTs that provide 

sewage treatment effectiveness greater 

than Type I and II MSDs; however, the 

extent to which vessels operating in 

California waters operate AWTs is 

unknown. In 2006, 23 of 28 large 

passenger vessels that operated in 

Alaskan waters had AWTs to treat both 

sewage and graywater in order to meet 

the more stringent discharge 

requirements in effect there. Analyses of 

sampling results from 2003–2005 

indicate that AWTs are very effective in 

removing pathogens, oxygen demanding 

substances, suspended solids, oil and 

grease, and particulate metals.28 AWTs 

can remove some of the dissolved 

metals, and can remove most volatile 

and semi-volatile organics to levels 

below detection limits but achieve 

moderate nutrient removals and do not 

remove all contaminants. According to 

EPA study results of a representative 

vessel, toxic pollutants such as 

ammonia, copper, nickel, selenium, and 

zinc were still discharged at 

concentrations above their toxicity 

criteria.29 Again, site specific 

evaluations would be needed to 

determine whether these vessel 

discharges would cause, have the 

potential to cause, or contribute to nonattainment of water quality standards. 

This proposed rule would address 

anticipated increases in large passenger 

vessel sewage discharges as the industry 

grows in future years. In 2007, nearly 

1.5 million passengers departed from 

California ports making the State the 

second largest cruise market in the 

nation.30 This is significant considering 

North America accounted for more than 

75 percent of the overall global cruise 

market in 2009. According to the Cruise 

Lines International Association (CLIA), 

14 new passenger vessels were 

introduced globally in 2009, 12 will be 

introduced in 2010, with a total of 23 on 

order between 2010 and 2012.31 Large 

passenger vessel traffic is increasing as 

average annual growth of the global 

cruise industry has continued at almost 

eight percent since 1980. At this rate, 

the number of cruise ship passengers is 

expected to triple to 15 million by 2020, 

while the current number of cruise 

ships globally is projected to double by 

2020,32 which will significantly 

increase the number of vessel trips in 

California marine waters. 

Vessel Sewage Generated from Large 

Oceangoing Vessels with two days or 

more sewage holding capacity: Table 5 

provides data used to determine sewage 

discharges from large oceangoing 

vessels with two days or more sewage 

holding capacity. Based on 2006 Vessel 

Survey data, approximately 35 percent 

of the 1,384 vessels reporting had two 

days or more of sewage holding 

capacity.33 This represents the 

approximate percentage of large 

oceangoing vessels that would likely be 

subject to the proposed rule. According 

to the State’s application, in 2008, 1,753 

large oceangoing vessels made 9,620 

port calls to California. Based on the 

2006 survey, 35 percent of those port 

calls (3,367 port calls) would have been 

made by vessels that are subject to the 

proposed rule.34, 35 Larger oceangoing 

vessels typically carry 15 to 25 crew 

members. The average, based on the 

2006 Vessel Survey, was 21 crew 

members. The average port stay was two 

days. At an average rate of 8.4 g/person/ 

day, an oceangoing vessel with an 

average sized crew would generate 

approximately 176 gallons of sewage per 

day. EPA multiplied the 176 g/day 

average sewage generation rate, with the 

estimated 3,367 annual port calls, and 

the average two-day port visit, to 

estimate that large oceangoing vessels 

calling on California ports generate 

almost 1.2 million gallons of sewage per 

year. As with large passenger vessels, 

EPA does not have data for determining 

how much of this sewage is discharged 

in State marine waters, however it is 

likely to be a significant portion. Unlike 

large passenger vessels, EPA does not 

have treated sewage sampling data for 

large oceangoing vessels, but lacking 

any data that would demonstrate 

otherwise, we assume that sewage from 

large oceangoing vessels has similar 

pollutant concentrations as large 

passenger vessels. The intent of the 

proposed rule is to prohibit all treated 

sewage from large oceangoing vessels 

with adequate holding capacity from 

being discharged to State marine waters. 

TABLE 5—CALIFORNIA OCEANGOING VESSEL (LOV) DATA FOR 2008 

LOVs* Port calls* 

Port calls by LOVs 

with sufficient 

holding tank 

capacity*** 

Crew** Average port 

days** 

Sewage 

(g/day)*** 

Sewage 

Generated 

while in State 

waters 

(g/year)*** 

1,753 9,620 3,367 21 2 176 1,185,184 

* State’s January 27, 2009 Application Addendum. 

** State Lands Commission 2006 Vessel Survey Data. 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with PROPOSALS_PART 1
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 170 / Thursday, September 2, 2010 / Proposed Rules 53921 

36San Pedro Bay Ports Long-Term Cargo Forecast, 

Mercer Management Consulting, 2001. 

37Container Vessel Forecast for San Pedro Bay 

Ports, Mercator Transport Group, 2000. 

38Port of Oakland Website: http:// 

www.portofoakland.com. 

39California State Lands Commission 2006 Vessel 

Survey. 

40 January 27, 2009 State Application Addendum. 

41 January 27, 2009 State Application Addendum. 

42USEPA No Discharge Zones for Vessel Sewage: 

HTTP://www.epa.gov/region09/water/no-discharge/ 

index.html. 

*** EPA calculations. 

Oceangoing vessel traffic is projected 

to increase significantly in California 

marine waters. San Pedro Bay Ports in 

Los Angeles and Long Beach comprise 

the highest volume port complex in the 

nation and project a 44 percent increase 

in the volume of container throughput 

between 2010 and 2020.36 Vessel 

container capacity will increase with 

larger ships, but port calls are still 

projected to increase from nearly 3,600 

in 2007 to as many as 5,600 in 2020.37

The Port of Oakland, the second highest 

volume port in the State and fourth in 

the nation, hosted nearly 2,000 

container ship calls in 2008 and is 

forecast to increase cargo throughput 

approximately 5 percent each year 

between now and 2017.38 This increase 

in vessel traffic will result in increased 

generation of treated vessel sewage that 

could potentially be discharged to State 

marine waters. 

Vessels Not Covered by the NDZ: As 

described in Section IV of this proposed 

rule, the State’s application requested 

that the discharge prohibitions be 

limited to a certain class of vessels. 

Vessels not covered by the proposed 

rule include oceangoing vessels with 

less than two days of sewage holding 

capacity, and vessels less than 300 gross 

tons. Based on the State’s 2006 Vessel 

Survey data and the number of vessels 

calling to California ports in 2008, 

approximately 65 percent (1,139) of the 

oceangoing vessels had less than two 

days of holding capacity and would not 

be subject to the rule as proposed.39

Multiplying the estimated 176 g/day 

average sewage generation rate, with the 

estimated 6,253 annual port calls, and 

the average two-day port visit, EPA 

estimates that large oceangoing vessels 

without adequate holding capacity 

generate approximately 2.2 million 

gallons of sewage per year. The EPA and 

the State are aware that smaller vessels, 

including recreational and smaller 

commercial vessels, also discharge 

sewage to the State’s coastal water. In 

deciding to request designation of an 

NDZ applicable only to larger vessels as 

specified above, but applicable to the 

entire California coast, the State 

legislature determined that prohibiting 

discharge from the largest vessels would 

provide a relatively efficient approach 

to reducing the vessel sewage waste 

stream along the entire coast because 

these vessels generate a significant 

amount of sewage compared to smaller 

vessels. Vessels equipped with installed 

toilets are currently prohibited from 

discharging untreated sewage in any 

navigable waters within 3 miles from 

shore. Based on State estimates for 2006, 

approximately 80 percent of the 841,000 

recreational vessels in California did not 

have Type I (flow through treatment 

device for vessels 65 feet or less) or 

Type II MSDs and therefore would be 

prohibited from discharging sewage to 

State marine waters.40 The remaining 20 

percent (168,200) can discharge treated 

sewage from their MSDs to State waters. 

Applying the State’s data for small 

vessel usage, two persons per vessel, an 

average of one full ‘‘recreation day’’ (four 

6-hour trips per year), and an 8.4 gallons 

of sewage per person per day, the total 

amount of treated sewage potentially 

discharged from recreational vessels to 

State marine waters in one year could 

amount to approximately 2.8 million 

gallons, if all discharges were within 

State waters.41

In addition to current MSD 

requirements, the ten NDZs previously 

approved along the California coast 

address small vessel pollution in high 

density recreational boating areas.42

Instead of seeking an NDZ applicable to 

all vessels, the State legislation enacted 

companion provisions designed to 

improve sewage pump out capacity and 

utilization rates for vessel pump out 

facilities by recreational and small 

commercial vessels as alternative 

approaches to reducing sewage 

discharges from smaller vessels. 

VI. Effect on Current Vessel Sewage 

Controls 

Today’s proposed rule does not alter 

existing vessel sewage discharge 

prohibitions in California waters. All 

existing NDZs in California remain in 

effect for all vessels operating in those 

waters. 

The proposed rule complements the 

discharge prohibitions recently passed 

by NOAA for all four of California’s 

NMSs. Those discharge prohibitions 

were adopted pursuant to California’s 

application to NOAA and became 

effective March 9, 2009 for the Gulf of 

the Farallones, Monterey Bay, and 

Cordell Bank National Marine 

Sanctuaries (74 FR 12088 (Mar. 23, 

2009)) and March 19, 2009 for the 

Channel Islands National Marine 

Sanctuary (74 FR 12087 (Mar. 23, 

2009)). The new Sanctuary management 

plans prohibit ‘‘discharges/deposits of 

treated and untreated sewage from 

vessels 300 gross registered tons or 

more, except oceangoing ships without 

sufficient holding tank capacity to hold 

sewage and graywater, respectively, 

while within the Sanctuary. Large 

passenger vessels are not provided an 

exception and, therefore, are prohibited 

from discharging/depositing treated or 

untreated sewage and graywater in the 

Sanctuary.’’ See Gulf of the Farallones 

National Marine Sanctuary Regulations; 

Monterey Bay National Marine 

Sanctuary Regulations; and Cordell 

Bank National Marine Sanctuary 

Regulations; Final Rule, 73 FR 70488 

(Nov. 20, 2008) and Channel Islands 

National Marine Sanctuary Regulations; 

Final Rule, 74 FR 3216 (Jan. 16, 2009). 

Like the Sanctuary prohibitions, today’s 

proposed rule would not require 

oceangoing vessels without sufficient 

holding tank capacity, as defined, to 

hold treated vessel sewage while within 

State marine waters. 

The four California National Marine 

Sanctuaries cover over 33 percent of all 

California marine waters (nearly 38 

percent with proposed Cordell bank and 

Gulf of the Farallones expansions). This 

proposal would cover all California 

waters. The discharge prohibitions in 

California’s National Marine Sanctuaries 

cover a total of 1,726 square miles of 

ocean (and would be expanded by 

almost 232 square miles with the 

proposed expansions) in addition to 

nearly 30 square miles of existing NDZs. 

In total, sewage discharges are currently 

prohibited within 1,755 square miles of 

the 5,222 square miles of California 

marine waters. Today’s prohibition 

would apply to the entire 5,222 square 

miles. 

Other Existing Vessel Pollutant 

Controls: Following several confirmed 

sewage discharge violations, the Cruise 

Lines International Association (CLIA), 

representing the 25 major cruise lines 

serving North America, adopted 

voluntary industry standards to address 

cruise industry waste management. 

Under the CLIA 2006 ‘‘Cruise Industry 

Waste Management Practices and 

Procedures’’, Association members have 

agreed to comply with requirements to 

process all sewage through an MSD 

certified in accordance with U.S. or 

international regulations prior to 

discharge. For ships that do not have 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with PROPOSALS_PART 1
53922 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 170 / Thursday, September 2, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

43April 5, 2006 State Application. 44Marine Pollution, Progress Made to Reduce 

Marine Pollution by Cruise Ships but Important 

Issues Remain, GAO 2000. 

AWTs traveling regularly on itineraries 

beyond territorial coastal waters, (CLIA) 

standards provide that discharge will 

take place only when the ship is more 

than four miles from shore and when 

the ship is traveling at a speed of not 

less than six knots (for vessels operating 

under sail, or a combination of sail and 

motor propulsion, the speed shall not be 

less than four knots). For vessels whose 

itineraries are fully within U.S. 

territorial waters, CLIA standards 

provide that discharge shall comply 

fully with U.S. and individual State 

legislation and regulations. 

To EPA’s knowledge, CLIA voluntary 

measures are not monitored or reported 

and the degree of compliance with these 

voluntary measures is unknown. The 

State of California states that existing 

MSD requirements and voluntary 

discharge limitations are not fully 

effective.43 While the number of vessels 

actually discharging partially or 

untreated sewage in State marine waters 

can only be estimated, the Government 

Accountability Office 2000 report to 

Congress 44 and the State confirm 

discharges of untreated sewage from 

large passenger vessels and other 

oceangoing vessels in State marine 

waters. 

A majority of large oceangoing vessels 

operating in U.S. waters are registered 

in foreign countries and subject to the 

‘‘International Convention for the 

Prevention of Pollution from Ships, 

1973 as modified by the Protocol of 

1978 relating thereto’’ (‘‘MARPOL’’). The 

principal international instrument 

regulating discharges of sewage from 

vessels is Annex IV to MARPOL. While 

the United States is not a Party to 

MARPOL Annex IV, and thus is not 

bound by its provisions, a vessel flying 

the flag of a country who is a Party to 

Annex IV remains subject to the 

Annex’s requirements (as implemented 

and enforced by the flag State) no matter 

where the vessel sails, including when 

the vessel is operating in U.S. waters. 

Annex IV applies to subject vessels 

engaged in international voyages of 400 

gross tonnage and above, and to subject 

vessels of less than 400 gross tonnage 

which are certified to carry more than 

15 persons (passengers and crew). The 

Annex contains, among other 

requirements, limits on the discharge of 

sewage into the sea, and provisions for 

the survey and certification of a vessel’s 

sewage treatment device. In particular, 

Annex IV prohibits the discharge of 

sewage into the sea except when: 

The vessel is discharging comminuted 

and disinfected sewage from an 

approved system at a distance of more 

than three miles (nm) from the nearest 

land; or 

The vessel is discharging sewage 

which is not comminuted or disinfected 

(i.e., untreated sewage), at a distance of 

more than 12 nm from the nearest land, 

provided that sewage that has been 

stored in holding tanks, or sewage 

originating from spaces containing 

living animals, is not discharged 

instantaneously but at a moderate rate 

when the ship is en route and 

proceeding at a speed of at least four 

knots; or 

The vessel is using a type-approved 

sewage treatment plant (STP) that has 

been certified to meet the applicable 

International Maritime Organization’s 

recommendations and regulations, the 

test results are laid down in the ship’s 

International Sewage Pollution 

Prevention Certificate, and the effluent 

does not produce visible floating solids 

or cause discoloration of the 

surrounding water. 

VII. Conclusion 

EPA has reviewed the State’s 

application for the establishment of an 

NDZ, and other information 

summarized above, and has determined 

that an NDZ is required to protect and 

enhance the quality of these waters. As 

shown in Table 6, by prohibiting large 

passenger vessels and large oceangoing 

vessels with two days or more of sewage 

holding tank capacity from discharging 

sewage in State marine waters, a 

significant pollutant waste stream of up 

to 20.4 million gallons of treated sewage 

per year would be prohibited from 

waters that support a variety of unique, 

nationally important and biologically 

significant environments that contribute 

to California’s recreational, economic, 

and aesthetic values. As a result, 

improved water quality would likely 

benefit human health by reducing 

pollutant exposure from recreation and 

provide benefits to wildlife and their 

habitats, commercial fisheries and shell 

bed operations, and water intakes for 

desalination plants. 

TABLE 6—CALIFORNIA VESSEL SEWAGE CONTRIBUTIONS AND NDZ PROHIBITIONS

Sewage Source 

Treated vessel 

sewage 

generation 

in State waters 

(gallons/year) 

Treated vessel 

sewage prohibited by 

this proposed 

NDZ 

(gallons/year) 

Large Passenger Vessels ............................................................................................................... 19.2 million .......................... 19.2 million. 

Large Oceangoing Vessels (with two days or more sewage holding capacity) ............................ 1.2 million ............................ 1.2 million. 

Combined Large Passenger and Large Oceangoing Vessels ....................................................... 20.4 million .......................... 20.4 million. 

Not addressed by this rule 

Large Oceangoing Vessels without holding capacity .............................................................. 2.2 million ............................ No Change. 

Recreational Vessels ............................................................................................................... 2.8 million ............................ No Change. 

Combined Large Oceangoing Vessels without holding capacity and Recreational Vessels 45.5 million ............................... No Change. 

45The proposed rule would not apply to non-recreational oceangoing vessels less than 300 gross tons in size. Insufficient data were available 

to estimate sewage generation from these smaller oceangoing vessels. Based on a review of available data describing the sizes of oceangoing 

vessels operating in US ports, it appears very few oceangoing vessels are less than 300 gross tons in size (see, e.g., Commercial Marine Activity for Deep Sea Ports in the United States, EPA420–R–99–020, September, 1999). Therefore, we do not expect that sewage discharges from 

oceangoing vessels less than 300 gross tons are significant in comparison with other types of oceangoing vessels. 

Section 312(f)(4)(A) states ‘‘If the EPA 

Administrator determines upon 

application by a State that the 

protection and enhancement of the 

quality of specified waters within such 

State requires such a prohibition, he 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with PROPOSALS_PART 1
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 170 / Thursday, September 2, 2010 / Proposed Rules 53923 

46Estimate from third party industry group, 

11/3/2009. 

47 2008 EPA Cruise Ship Discharge Assessment 

Report. 

48Cunard Queen Elizabeth 2 Technical 

Information estimated fuel consumption rate of 49.5 

feet per gallon: http://www.cunard.com/uploads/ 

QE2_Tech.pdf. 

49Ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach Vessel 

Speed Reduction Program: http:// 

www.portoflosangeles.org/environment/ogv.asp. 

Port of San Diego Voluntary Vessel Speed 

Reduction Program Showing Signs of Success: 

http://www.portofsandiego.org/environment/1728- 

voluntary-vessel-speed-reduction-program-showingsigns-of-success.html. 

50New York Times, February 16, 2010, Slow Trip 

Across Sea Aids Profit and Environment: http:// 

www.nytimes.com/2010/02/17/business/energyenvironment/17speed.html. 

shall, by regulation completely prohibit 

the discharge from a vessel of any 

sewage (whether treated or not) into 

such waters.’’ This authority has been 

delegated to EPA Regional 

Administrators. On April 5, 2006, the 

California State Water Resources 

Control Board, pursuant to State 

statutory mandates, requested that EPA 

Region 9 establish an NDZ for all State 

waters along the California coast that 

applies to large passenger vessels of 300 

gross tons or more, and oceangoing 

vessels of 300 gross tons or more that 

have two days or more of sewage 

holding capacity. For the reasons 

discussed above, the EPA Region 9 

Administrator finds that the protection 

and enhancement of the quality of 

California’s marine waters requires the 

requested NDZ. 

VIII. Public Comment 

EPA invites public comment on all 

aspects of the proposed rule and will 

accept all comments for the next 60 

days. Particular parts of the rule may 

benefit from attention and comment 

from reviewers with expertise and 

knowledge and opinions on the 

following subjects: EPA’s conclusion 

that the protection and enhancement of 

California State marine waters require 

the requested prohibition on sewage 

discharges; EPA’s prohibition of sewage 

discharges from specific classes of 

vessels; EPA’s use of a two-day sewage 

holding capacity, and the generation 

rate of 8.4 gallons per day per person, 

as the basis for applying the proposed 

rule to large oceangoing vessels; the 

definitions used in the proposed rule, 

including the definition of ‘‘large 

oceangoing vessel’’ to include private, 

commercial, government or military 

vessels of 300 gross tons or more; EPA’s 

economic analysis for vessel retrofit and 

operational costs; and whether vessels 

subject to the proposed rule are owned 

by companies that are ‘‘small entities’’ 

under the Regulatory Flexibility Act. 

IX. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory 

Planning and Review 

Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 

51735, Oct. 4, 1993), this action is a 

‘‘significant regulatory action.’’ 

Accordingly, EPA submitted this action 

to the Office of Management and Budget 

(OMB) for review under EO 12866 and 

any changes made in response to OMB 

recommendations have been 

documented in the docket for this 

action. 

In addition, EPA prepared an 

analysis, summarized in Table 7, of the 

potential costs associated with this 

action to determine whether the rule 

would have an annual effect on the 

economy of $100 million or more, or 

adversely affect in a material way the 

economy or a sector of the economy. 

Vessels that are equipped with MSDs 

and that navigate throughout California 

State Waters are already subject to the 

EPA MSD Standard at 40 CFR part 140 

and the U.S. Coast Guard MSD Standard 

at 33 CFR part 159. These standards 

prohibit the overboard discharge of 

untreated vessel sewage in State waters 

and require that vessels with installed 

toilets be equipped with U.S. Coast 

Guard certified MSDs which either 

retain sewage or treat sewage to the 

applicable standards. There are three 

types of MSDs, but only Type II and 

Type III MSDs apply to vessels affected 

by this rule. 

Vessels subject to this rule include 

large passenger vessels of 300 gross tons 

or more and oceangoing vessels of 300 

gross tons or more with two days or 

more sewage holding capacity. 

According to the State’s 2006 Vessel 

Survey data, approximately 35 percent 

of oceangoing vessels that made port 

calls in California had holding capacity 

for at least two days and, therefore, 

would be subject to the proposed rule. 

Based on an average two-day port call, 

EPA does not anticipate oceangoing 

vessels subject to the proposed rule 

would be required to employ 

operational or structural changes, such 

as making special trips beyond State 

marine waters to discharge, or 

increasing their holding capacity. If 

vessels subject to the proposed rule 

were to stay in State marine waters for 

a period of time beyond their sewage 

holding capacity operators may choose 

to make additional trips to discharge 

beyond State waters, and/or vessel 

owners may decide to retrofit their 

current holding tank capacities in order 

to comply with the rule. 

Although the proposed rule would 

not require vessel owners to retrofit any 

oceangoing vessels, EPA evaluated the 

potential costs of retrofitting holding 

tanks to increase capacity. Based on an 

industry estimate obtained by the EPA, 

the cost of holding tank retrofits could 

be approximately $100,000 each but 

would vary from vessel to vessel.46 EPA 

was unable to estimate an annual cost 

of retrofits for oceangoing vessels 

subject to the proposed rule. Data was 

not available for determining how many 

oceangoing vessel owners with vessels 

subject to the proposed rule might 

choose to implement retrofits. 

According to responses to EPA’s 2004 

cruise ship survey, large passenger 

vessels operating in Alaska had an 

average of 62 hours of sewage holding 

capacity greatly exceeding average port 

stays of one day 47 However, according 

to the State’s 2006 Vessel Survey 40 

percent of the large passenger vessels 

had less than one day holding capacity. 

As a result, some large passenger vessels 

may need to install sewage holding 

capacity retrofits to avoid discharging 

sewage in State marine waters. Based on 

2008 vessel calls, if 40 percent, or 48, 

large passenger vessels chose to retrofit 

their vessels at a cost of $200,000 per 

vessel, the resulting cost would be 

approximately $3.8 million. 

As an alternative to expanding 

holding capacity, vessels that would be 

regulated by the proposed rule may 

choose to comply by traveling outside of 

State marine waters to discharge 

sewage. For large passenger vessels, 

EPA estimates the cost of each trip 

would be approximately $2,000. This 

estimate assumes the use of 800 gallons 

of diesel fuel at $2.50 per gallon to 

travel beyond 3 miles, discharge, and 

return to port at a cruising speed of 25 

knots.48 Based on the 2008 data, if all 

788 port calls required extra trips to 

discharge sewage outside State marine 

waters, the total fuel cost would be 

approximately $1.6 million per year. 

This is likely a conservative estimate 

considering there are volunteer vessel 

speed reduction programs in place and 

under development along the California 

coast that provide incentives to vessel 

operators to reduce speeds within 20 

nautical miles of the coast to reduce air 

pollutant emissions.49 Lower speeds 

could reduce fuel consumption costs by 

as much as 30 percent.50

Vessels calling at ports within the San 

Francisco Bay, and Suisun Bay further 

inland, would have to travel beyond 3 

miles to discharge beyond the NDZ 

limit. At most, a small percentage of 

oceangoing vessels calling at the Shell 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with PROPOSALS_PART 1
53924 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 170 / Thursday, September 2, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

51U.S. Small Business Administration Table of 

Small Business Size Standards, North American 

Industry Classification System (NAICS)), http:// 

www.sba.gov/size). 

Oil Terminal of Martinez and Port of 

Benicia would need to travel 

approximately 45 miles each way to go 

beyond the 3 mile NDZ limit and back. 

Vessels calling at the Ports of Oakland 

and Richmond would travel 

approximately 18 miles each way and 

for the Port of San Francisco, 9 miles 

each way. Greater travel distances to 

discharge beyond the NDZ limit could 

incur increased costs for this small 

percentage of vessels. 

EPA was unable to estimate an annual 

cost of special trips for oceangoing 

vessels to discharge beyond State 

marine waters. Data was not available 

for determining how many oceangoing 

vessel owners with vessels subject to the 

proposed rule might choose to 

implement these operational changes. 

TABLE 7—POTENTIAL INDUSTRY COSTS FROM THE PROPOSED RULE

Expansion of holding tank**

Discharging 

outside of 

State marine 

waters ***

Large Oceangoing Vessels (with two days or more sewage holding capacity)* .......... $100,000/vessel ...................................... $2,000/trip. 

Large Passenger Vessels .............................................................................................. $3.8 million ............................................. $1.6 million. 

*Oceangoing vessels subject to proposed rule that would make operational or structural changes could not be determined. 

**One-time cost estimate. ***Annual cost estimates. 

B. Paperwork Reduction Act 

This action does not impose an 

information collection burden under the 

provisions of the Paperwork Reduction 

Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. Burden is 

defined at 5 CFR 1320.3(b). Since 

today’s rule would not establish or 

modify any information and record 

keeping requirements, it is not subject to 

the requirements of the Paperwork 

Reduction Act. 

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act 

The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) 

generally requires an agency to prepare 

a regulatory flexibility analysis of any 

rule subject to notice and comment 

rulemaking requirements under the 

Administrative Procedure Act or any 

other statute unless the agency certifies 

that the rule will not have a significant 

economic impact on a substantial 

number of small entities. Small entities 

include small businesses, small 

organizations, and small governmental 

jurisdictions. 

For purposes of assessing the impacts 

of today’s rule on small entities, small 

entity is defined as: (1) A small business 

as defined by the Small Business 

Administration’s (SBA) regulations at 13 

CFR 121.201; (2) a small governmental 

jurisdiction that is a government of a 

city, county, town, school district or 

special district with a population of less 

than 50,000; and (3) a small 

organization that is any not-for-profit 

enterprise which is independently 

owned and operated and is not 

dominant in its field. 

After considering the economic 

impacts of this proposed regulation/rule 

on small entities, EPA certifies that this 

action will not have a significant 

economic impact on a substantial 

number of small entities. The small 

entities subject to the requirements of 

this proposed rule fall under Deep Sea 

Freight Transportation (NAICS Code 

483111) and Deep Sea Passenger 

Transportation (NAICS 483112) 

classifications.51 The US Small Business 

Administration size standard for these 

businesses is 500 or fewer employees. 

To determine the size of companies that 

own large passenger and large 

oceangoing vessels that call at California 

ports, the EPA reviewed owner profiles 

for all large passenger vessels and 

several oceangoing vessels that 

responded to the 2006 vessel survey. 

Based on this review, it was determined 

that no large passenger and oceangoing 

vessels that call at California ports are 

owned by companies that employ 500 or 

fewer people. 

We continue to be interested in the 

potential impacts of the proposed rule 

on small entities and welcome 

comments on issues related to such 

impacts. 

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

This rule does not contain a Federal 

mandate that may result in expenditures 

of $100 million or more for State, local, 

and tribal governments, in the aggregate, 

or the private sector in any one year, as 

demonstrated above in section A, 

Executive Order 12866: Regulatory 

Planning and Review. 

Because the rule contains no 

regulatory requirements that might 

significantly or uniquely affect small 

governments, it is also not subject to the 

requirements of section 203 of the Act. 

Small governments are subject to the 

same requirements as other entities 

whose duties result from this rule and 

they have the same ability as other 

entities to retain and pump out treated 

sewage or discharge outside of the 

designated zones. 

E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism 

This action does not have Federalism 

implications. It will not have substantial 

direct effects on the States, on the 

relationship between the national 

government and the States, or on the 

distribution of power and 

responsibilities among the various 

levels of government, as specified in 

Executive Order 13132. Section 312(f) of 

the CWA generally preempts State 

regulation of sewage discharges in State 

waters. An NDZ allows the State to seek 

protection of its State waters that it 

would otherwise be preempted from 

providing on its own. The State of 

California is requesting that EPA take 

action to designate all State waters as an 

NDZ under CWA § 312(f)(4)(A). 

Therefore, Executive Order 13132 does 

not apply to this action. 

In the spirit of Executive Order 13132, 

and consistent with EPA policy to 

promote communications between EPA 

and State and local governments, EPA 

specifically solicits comment on this 

proposed action from State and local 

officials. 

F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation 

and Coordination With Indian Tribal 

Governments 

This action does not have any known 

tribal implications, as specified in 

Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, 

Nov. 9, 2000). The only expected impact 

on tribal rights or responsibilities is the 

improvement of ocean water quality. 

EPA has notified all California tribes 

with coastal reservations of this 

proposed action. EPA will consider any 

comments on this proposed action from 

tribal officials. 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with PROPOSALS_PART 1
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 170 / Thursday, September 2, 2010 / Proposed Rules 53925 

G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of 

Children From Environmental Health 

Risks & Safety Risks 

The order applies to economically 

significant rules under E.O. 12866 that 

concern an environmental health or 

safety risk that EPA has reason to 

believe may disproportionately affect 

children. This action is not subject to 

EO 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997) 

because it is not economically 

significant as defined in EO 12866. 

H. Executive Order 13211: Actions That 

Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution, or Use 

This action is not a ‘‘significant energy 

action’’ as defined in Executive Order 

13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001), 

because it is not likely to have a 

significant adverse effect on the supply, 

distribution, or use of energy. 

I. National Technology Transfer and 

Advancement Act 

Section 12(d) of the National 

Technology Transfer and Advancement 

Act of 1995 (NTTAA), Public Law 104– 

113, 12(d) (15 U.S.C. 272 note) directs 

EPA to use voluntary consensus 

standards in its regulatory activities 

unless to do so would be inconsistent 

with applicable law or otherwise 

impractical. Voluntary consensus 

standards are technical standards (e.g., 

materials specifications, test methods, 

sampling procedures, and business 

practices) that are developed or adopted 

by voluntary consensus standards 

bodies. NTTAA directs EPA to provide 

Congress, through OMB, explanations 

when the Agency decides not to use 

available and applicable voluntary 

consensus standards. 

This proposed rulemaking does not 

involve technical standards. Therefore, 

EPA is not considering the use of any 

voluntary consensus standards. 

J. Executive Order 12898: Federal 

Actions To Address Environmental 

Justice in Minority Populations and 

Low-Income Populations 

Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629 

(Feb. 16, 1994)) establishes Federal 

executive policy on environmental 

justice. Its main provision directs 

Federal agencies, to the greatest extent 

practicable and permitted by law, to 

make environmental justice part of their 

mission by identifying and addressing, 

as appropriate, disproportionately high 

and adverse human health or 

environmental effects of their programs, 

policies, and activities on minority 

populations and low-income 

populations in the United States. 

EPA has determined that this 

proposed rule will not have 

disproportionately high and adverse 

human health or environmental effects 

on minority or low-income populations 

because it increases the level of 

environmental protection for all affected 

populations without having any 

disproportionately high and adverse 

human health or environmental effects 

on any population, including any 

minority or low-income population. The 

proposed rule would further regulate 

and reduce pollutants from sewage in 

California marine waters thus reducing 

the risk of exposure to all populations, 

including those covered under this 

Executive order. 

Lists of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 140 

Environmental protection, Sewage 

disposal, Vessels. 

Dated: August 25, 2010. 

Jared Blumenfeld, 

Regional Administrator, Region IX. 

In consideration of the foregoing, EPA 

is proposed to be amend part 140, 

chapter 1 of title 40 of the Code of 

Federal Regulations as follows: 

PART 140—[AMENDED] 

1. The authority citation for part 140 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 33 U.S.C. 1322. 

2. Section 140.4 is amended by 

adding paragraph (b)(2)to read as 

follows: 

§ 140.4 Complete prohibition. 

* * * * * 

(b) * * * 

(2)(i) For the marine waters, of the 

State of California, including the 

territorial sea measured from the 

baseline as determined in accordance 

with the Convention on the Territorial 

Sea and the Contiguous Zone and 

extending seaward a distance of three 

miles, and also including all enclosed 

bays and estuaries subject to tidal 

influences from the Oregon border 

(41.999325 North Latitude, 124.212110 

West Longitude, decimal degrees, NAD 

1983) to the Mexican border (32.471231 

North Latitude, 117.137814 West 

Longitude, decimal degrees, NAD 1983), 

the discharge of sewage (whether treated 

or not) from large passenger vessels and 

from large oceangoing vessels that have 

two days or more holding capacity is 

completely prohibited pursuant to CWA 

section 312(f)(4)(A). A map illustrating 

these waters can be obtained from EPA 

or viewed at http://www.epa.gov/ 

region9/water/no-discharge/ 

overview.html. 

(ii) For purposes of paragraph (b)(2) of 

this section: 

(A) A ‘‘large passenger vessel’’ means 

a passenger vessel, as defined in section 

2101(22) of title 46, United States Code, 

of 300 gross tons or more, that has 

berths or overnight accommodations for 

passengers. 

(B) A ‘‘large oceangoing vessel’’ means 

a private, commercial, government, or 

military vessel of 300 gross tons or 

more. 

(C) Two days of holding capacity is 

the ability to hold in a holding tank of 

suitable design, construction and 

purpose, as determined by the vessel’s 

flag Administration, at least two days of 

sewage per the vessel’s crew capacity at 

a generation rate of 8.4 gallons per day 

per person. 

(D) Oceangoing vessel crew capacity 

is determined by: a certificate of 

inspection issued by the US Coast 

Guard for US flagged vessels; or a 

MARPOL Annex 4 certificate issued by 

the signatory State for foreign flagged 

vessels. For either certificate, the 

maximum number of passengers and 

crew is identified for the vessel. 

* * * * * 

[FR Doc. 2010–21950 Filed 9–1–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration 

50 CFR Part 223 

[Docket No. 0808071080–91228–01] 

RIN 0648–AW93 

Sea Turtle Conservation; Shrimp and 

Summer Flounder Trawling 

Requirements 

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries 

Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), 

Commerce. 

ACTION: Proposed rule; request for 

comments. 

SUMMARY: NMFS proposes to revise the 

turtle excluder device (TED) 

requirements to allow the use of new 

materials and modifications to existing 

approved TED designs. Specifically, 

proposed allowable modifications 

include the use of flat bar, rectangular 

pipe, and oval pipe as construction 

materials in currently-approved TED 

grids; an increase in maximum mesh 

size on escape flaps from 15⁄8 to 2 inches 

(4.1 to 5.1 cm); the inclusion of the 

Boone Big Boy TED for use in the 

shrimp fishery; the use of three large 

TED and Boone Wedge Cut escape 

openings; and the use of the Chauvin 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with PROPOSALS_PART 1