[Federal Register Volume 89, Number 196 (Wednesday, October 9, 2024)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 82074-82158]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2024-22013]



[[Page 82073]]

Vol. 89

Wednesday,

No. 196

October 9, 2024

Part III





Environmental Protection Agency





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





40 CFR Part 139





Vessel Incidental Discharge National Standards of Performance; Final 
Rule

Federal Register / Vol. 89 , No. 196 / Wednesday, October 9, 2024 / 
Rules and Regulations

[[Page 82074]]


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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 139

EPA-HQ-OW-2019-0482; FRL-7218-01-OW
RIN 2040-AF92


Vessel Incidental Discharge National Standards of Performance

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is promulgating 
a regulation under the Vessel Incidental Discharge Act that establishes 
Federal standards of performance for marine pollution control devices 
for discharges incidental to the normal operation of primarily non-
Armed Forces and non-recreational vessels 79 feet in length and above 
into the waters of the United States or the waters of the contiguous 
zone. The Federal standards of performance were developed in 
coordination with the U.S. Coast Guard (USCG) and in consultation with 
interested Governors. The final standards, once made final, effective, 
and enforceable through corresponding USCG regulations addressing 
implementation, compliance, and enforcement, will control the discharge 
of pollutants from vessels described above and repeal certain existing 
Federal, State, and local vessel discharge requirements, thus 
streamlining regulation of such vessel incidental discharges. EPA is 
also promulgating procedures states must follow if they choose to 
petition EPA to require the use of an emergency best management 
practice to address aquatic nuisance species (ANS) or water quality 
concerns (``emergency order''), to review any standard of performance, 
regulation, or policy, to request additional requirements with respect 
to discharges in the Great Lakes, or to apply to EPA to prohibit one or 
more types of vessel discharges regulated by this rule into specified 
waters to provide greater environmental protection.

DATES: The effective date of this rule is November 8, 2024. The Federal 
standards of performance, however, become effective beginning on the 
date upon which the regulations promulgated by the Secretary pursuant 
to CWA section 312(p)(5) governing the implementation, compliance, and 
enforcement of the Federal standards of performance become final, 
effective, and enforceable. Per CWA section 312(p)(3)(c), as of that 
date, the requirements of the VGP and all regulations promulgated by 
the Secretary pursuant to section 1101 of the NANPCA (16 U.S.C. 4711) 
(as in effect on December 3, 2018), including the regulations contained 
in subparts C and D of 33 CFR part 151 and 46 CFR 162.060 (as in effect 
on December 3, 2018), shall be deemed repealed and have no force or 
effect. Similarly, as of that same date, any CWA section 401 
certification requirement in Part 6 of the VGP, shall be deemed 
repealed and have no force or effect.

ADDRESSES: EPA established a docket for this action under Docket ID No. 
EPA-HQ-OW-2019-0482. All documents in the docket are listed on the 
https://www.regulations.gov website. Although listed in the index, some 
information is not publicly available, e.g., Confidential Business 
Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted 
by statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted material, is 
not placed on the internet and will be publicly available only in hard 
copy form. Publicly available docket materials are available 
electronically through https://www.regulations.gov.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jack Faulk, Oceans, Wetlands, and 
Communities Division, Office of Water (4504T), U.S. Environmental 
Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20460; 
telephone number: (202) 564-0768; email address: <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#d4b2b5a1b8bffabeb5b7bf94b1a4b5fab3bba2"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="aacccbdfc6c184c0cbc9c1eacfdacb84cdc5dc">[email protected]</span></a>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This supplementary information is organized 
as follows:

I. Executive Summary
II. Legal Authority
III. Background
    A. Clean Water Act
    B. Additional U.S. and International Authorities
    C. Environmental Impacts of Discharges for Which Technology-
Based Discharge Standards Are Established by This Rule
    1. Aquatic Nuisance Species (ANS)
    2. Nutrients
    3. Pathogens
    4. Oil and Grease
    5. Metals
    6. Other Pollutants
IV. Scope of the Regulatory Action
    A. Waters
    B. Vessels
    C. Incidental Discharges
    D. Emergency and Safety Concerns
    E. Effective Date
V. Stakeholder Engagement
    A. Informational Webinars and Public Listening Sessions
    B. Consultation and Coordination With States
    1. Federalism Consultation and Governors Consultation
    2. Governor Objections
VI. Public Comments Received and Agency Responses
VII. Definitions
VIII. Final Federal Discharge Standards of Performance
    A. Discharges Incidental to the Normal Operation of a Vessel--
General Standards
    1. General Operation and Maintenance
    2. Biofouling Management
    3. Oil Management
    B. Discharges Incidental to the Normal Operation of a Vessel--
Specific Standards
    1. Ballast Tanks
    2. Bilges
    3. Boilers
    4. Cathodic Protection
    5. Chain Lockers
    6. Decks
    7. Desalination and Purification Systems
    8. Elevator Pits
    9. Exhaust Gas Emission Control Systems
    10. Fire Protection Equipment
    11. Gas Turbines
    12. Graywater Systems
    13. Hulls and Associated Niche Areas
    14. Inert Gas Systems
    15. Motor Gasoline and Compensating Systems
    16. Non-Oily Machinery
    17. Pools and Spas
    18. Refrigeration and Air Conditioning
    19. Seawater Piping
    20. Sonar Domes
    C. Discharges Incidental to the Normal Operation of a Vessel--
Federally-Protected Waters Requirements
    1. Identification of Federally-Protected Waters
    2. Discharge-Specific Requirements in Federally-Protected Waters
    D. Discharges Incidental to the Normal Operation of a Vessel--
Previous VGP Discharges No Longer Requiring Control
IX. Procedures for States To Request Changes to Standards, 
Regulations, or Policy Promulgated by the Administrator
    A. Petition by a Governor for the Administrator To Establish an 
Emergency Order or Review a Standard, Regulation, or Policy
    B. Petition by a Governor for the Administrator To Establish 
Enhanced Great Lakes System Requirements
    C. Application by a State for the Administrator To Establish a 
State No-Discharge Zone
X. Implementation, Compliance, and Enforcement
XI. Economic Analysis
XII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
    A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review and 
Executive Order 14094: Modernizing Regulatory Review
    B. Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA)
    C. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)
    D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA)
    E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism
    F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With 
Indian Tribal Governments

[[Page 82075]]

    G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From 
Environmental Health and Safety Risks
    H. Executive Order 13211: Actions That Concern Regulations That 
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, and Use
    I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act
    J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions To Address 
Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income 
Populations and Executive Order 14096: Revitalizing Our Nation's 
Commitment to Environmental Justice for All
    K. Congressional Review Act (CRA)
XIII. References

I. Executive Summary

    Discharges incidental to the normal operation of a vessel, as 
defined in 33 U.S.C. 1322(a)(12), are referred to as ``incidental 
discharges'' or ``discharges'' in this publication for convenience. 
Incidental discharges contain pollutants that can adversely impact 
aquatic ecosystems and human health. Pollutants that may be found in 
these discharges include aquatic nuisance species (ANS), nutrients, 
bacteria or pathogens (e.g., Escherichia coli and fecal coliform), oil 
and grease, metals, as well as other toxic, nonconventional, and 
conventional pollutants (biochemical oxygen demand (BOD), total 
suspended solids (TSS), pH, fecal coliform, and oil and grease). These 
pollutants can have wide-ranging environmental and human health 
consequences that vary in degree depending on the type and number of 
vessels operating in a waterbody and the nature and extent of the 
discharge.
    The Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amendments of 1972 \1\ 
(commonly known as the Clean Water Act (CWA)), the Nonindigenous 
Aquatic Nuisance Prevention and Control Act (NANPCA), the Act to 
Prevent Pollution from Ships (APPS), and several other Federal, State, 
local, and international authorities have established over time various 
requirements for both domestic and international vessels. To clarify 
and streamline existing requirements, in December of 2018, the Vessel 
Incidental Discharge Act (VIDA) was signed into law. The VIDA 
established a new CWA section 312(p) titled, ``Uniform National 
Standards for Discharges Incidental to Normal Operation of Vessels.'' 
33 U.S.C. 1322(p). The VIDA consolidates and restructures the existing 
regulatory framework applicable to incidental discharges of largely 
commercial vessels 79 feet in length and above. The VIDA does not apply 
to incidental discharges from vessels of the Armed Forces, recreational 
vessels, and floating craft that are permanently moored to a pier. 
Also, the VIDA does not apply to incidental discharges from small 
vessels (less than 79 feet in length) or fishing vessels, except for 
discharges of ballast water. The VIDA requires EPA to establish Federal 
standards of performance for marine pollution control devices and the 
USCG to establish corresponding implementing regulations to prevent or 
reduce the incidental discharge of pollutants from vessels.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    More specifically, the new CWA section 312(p)(4)(A)(i) directs the 
EPA Administrator (``Administrator'') to develop Federal standards of 
performance, in consultation with interested Governors and with the 
concurrence of the Secretary of the department in which the USCG is 
operating (``Secretary''). With limited exceptions, the VIDA requires 
that the standards be at least as stringent as EPA's 2013 National 
Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Vessel General Permit 
(VGP) requirements established under CWA section 402. See 33 U.S.C. 
1322(p)(4)(B)(iii) (EPA standards); id. (5)(A)(ii) (USCG requirements). 
The VIDA also requires that the standards be technology-based using a 
similar approach outlined by the CWA for setting, among other things, 
effluent limitations guidelines. Id. (p)(4)(B)(i). The VIDA directs the 
USCG to develop corresponding implementation, compliance, and 
enforcement regulations within two years after EPA publishes the 
Federal standards of performance. Id. (p)(5). The USCG implementing 
regulations may also include requirements governing the design, 
construction, testing, approval, installation, and use of devices to 
achieve the EPA Federal standards of performance. Id. (p)(5)(B).
    Existing requirements included in EPA's VGP, as well as the USCG's 
existing requirements under section 110 of NANPCA, remain in place 
until the new EPA and USCG regulations under CWA section 312(p) are 
final, effective, and enforceable. Id. (p)(3). In addition, the VIDA 
repealed the 2014 EPA NPDES Small Vessel General Permit (sVGP) and 
established that neither EPA nor the states shall require an NPDES 
permit for any discharge incidental to the normal operation of a 
vessel, other than ballast water, from a small vessel or fishing 
vessel, effective immediately upon the VIDA's enactment. Id. 
(p)(9)(C)(i).
    The final rule establishes both general and specific discharge 
standards of performance for approximately 85,000 international and 
domestic non-Armed Forces, non-recreational vessels operating in the 
waters of the United States or the waters of the contiguous zone. The 
types of vessels covered under the final rule include but are not 
limited to public vessels of the United States, fishing vessels (for 
ballast water discharges only), passenger vessels such as cruise ships 
and ferries, barges, tugs and tows, offshore supply vessels, mobile 
offshore drilling units, tankers, bulk carriers, cargo ships, container 
ships, and research vessels. While most provisions are intended to 
apply to a wide range of vessels, the VIDA specified that fishing 
vessels would only be subject to ballast water provisions. Id. 
(p)(2)(B)(i)(III). The requirements are based on, as applicable, best 
available technology economically achievable, best conventional 
pollutant control technology, and best practicable technology currently 
available, including the use of best management practices (BMPs), to 
prevent or reduce the discharge of pollutants into the waters of the 
United States or the waters of the contiguous zone. Id. (p)(4)(B)(i) 
and (ii).
    The general discharge standards of performance apply to all vessels 
and incidental discharges covered by the rule, as appropriate, and are 
organized into three categories: (1) General Operation and Maintenance, 
(2) Biofouling Management, and (3) Oil Management. 40 CFR 139.4 through 
139.6. The general discharge standards of performance require BMPs to 
minimize the introduction of pollutants from discharges.
    The specific discharge standards of performance establish 
requirements for discharges incidental to the normal operation of a 
vessel from the following 20 distinct pieces of equipment and systems: 
ballast tanks; bilges; boilers; cathodic protection; chain lockers; 
decks; desalination and purification systems; elevator pits; exhaust 
gas emission control systems; fire protection equipment; gas turbines; 
graywater systems; hulls and associated niche areas; inert gas systems; 
motor gasoline and compensating systems; non-oily machinery; pools and 
spas; refrigeration and air conditioning; seawater piping; and sonar 
domes. 40 CFR 139.10 through 139.29.
    Pursuant to CWA section 312(p), the final discharge standards of 
performance are at least as stringent as the VGP, with some exceptions 
discussed below. 33 U.S.C.

[[Page 82076]]

1322(p)(4)(D)(ii). The final standards, however, do not incorporate the 
VGP requirements verbatim. EPA is promulgating changes to the VGP 
requirements to transition the permit requirements into regulations 
that reflect national technology-based standards of performance, to 
improve clarity, enhance enforceability and implementation, and/or to 
incorporate new information and technology. In some cases, this results 
in EPA consolidating or renaming the VGP requirements to comport with 
the VIDA. The similarities and differences between the requirements in 
the final discharge standards of performance and the requirements in 
the VGP can be sorted into three distinct groups.
    The first group consists of 13 discharge standards that are 
substantially the same as the requirements of the VGP: boilers; 
cathodic protection; chain lockers; decks; elevator pits; fire 
protection equipment; gas turbines; inert gas systems; motor gasoline 
and compensating systems; non-oily machinery; pools and spas; 
refrigeration and air conditioning; and sonar domes. These 13 discharge 
standards encompass the intent and stringency of the VGP but include 
other changes to conform the requirements to the VIDA (e.g., extent of 
regulated waters, consistency across discharge standards, 
enforceability and legal precision, minor clarifications).
    The second group consists of two discharge standards that are 
consistent but slightly modified from the VGP to moderately increase 
stringency or provide language clarifications: bilges and desalination 
and purification systems.
    The third group consists of five discharge standards that contain 
the most significant modifications from the VGP: ballast tanks, exhaust 
gas emission control systems, graywater systems, hulls and associated 
niche areas, and seawater piping. In addition, the final rule modifies 
slightly the VGP requirements as they apply in federally-protected 
waters for five discharges: chain lockers, decks, hulls and associated 
niche areas, pools and spas, and seawater piping. These modifications 
address specific VIDA requirements as well as reflect new information 
that has become available since the issuance of the VGP.
    CWA section 312(p) also directs EPA to establish additional 
discharge requirements for vessels operating in certain bodies of 
water. See CWA section 312(p)(10(A) (Great Lakes); Id. (p)(10(C) 
(Pacific Region); and Id. (p)(4)(B) (waters subject to Federal 
protection, in whole or in part, for conservation purposes 
(``federally-protected waters'')). These requirements further prevent 
or reduce the discharge of pollutants into these waterbodies that may 
contain unique ecosystems, support distinctive species of aquatic flora 
and fauna, contend with more sensitive water quality issues, or 
otherwise require greater protection.
    Finally, as required under CWA section 312(p), the final rule 
contains specific procedural requirements for states to petition EPA to 
establish different discharge standards, issue emergency orders, or 
establish a complete prohibition of one or more discharges into 
specified State waters (``no-discharge zones''). 40 CFR 139.50 through 
139.52.

II. Legal Authority

    EPA promulgates this rule under CWA sections 301, 304, 307, 308, 
312, and 501 as amended by the Vessel Incidental Discharge Act. 33 
U.S.C. 1311, 1314, 1317, 1318, 1322, and 1361. This final rule fulfills 
EPA's obligation under CWA section 312(p) to establish technology-based 
Federal standards of performance for discharges incidental to the 
normal operation of primarily non-Armed Forces, non-recreational 
vessels 79 feet in length and above. This final rule also fulfills 
EPA's consent decree obligation to sign (and promptly thereafter 
transmit to the Office of Federal Register) a decision taking final 
action following notice and comment rulemaking with regard to EPA's 
October 26, 2020, proposed rule pertaining to Federal standards of 
performance for marine pollution control devices for discharges 
incidental to the normal operation of a vessel under CWA section 
312(p)(4)(A)(i), 33 U.S.C. 1322(p)(4)(A)(i) (Vessel Incidental 
Discharge National Standards of Performance, 85 FR 67818-01 (proposed 
October 26, 2020)). (Consent Decree, Center for Biological Diversity, 
et al. v. Regan, et al., Case No. 3:23-cv-535 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 13, 
2023).
    Under 33 U.S.C. 1369(b)(4)(A), any interested person may file a 
petition for review of EPA's final agency action under 33 U.S.C. 
1322(p). Any such petition may be filed only in the United States Court 
of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. 33 U.S.C. 
1369(b)(4)(B).

III. Background

A. Clean Water Act

    The CWA's regulatory regime to control vessel discharges has 
changed over time. The first sentence of the CWA states, ``[t]he 
objective of [the Act] is to restore and maintain the chemical, 
physical, and biological integrity of the Nation's waters.'' 33 U.S.C. 
1251(a). CWA section 301(a) provides that ``the discharge of any 
pollutant by any person shall be unlawful'' unless the discharge is in 
compliance with certain other sections of the Act. 33 U.S.C. 1311(a). 
Among its provisions, the CWA authorizes EPA and other Federal agencies 
to address the discharge of pollutants from vessels. As such, EPA 
established regulations to address vessel discharges authorized under 
CWA section 311 (addressing oil), section 312 (addressing sewage and 
discharges incidental to the normal operation of a vessel of the Armed 
Forces), and section 402 (pursuant to which EPA established the VGP).
    From 1972 to 2005, EPA vessel regulations were primarily limited to 
addressing the discharge of oil and sewage under CWA sections 311 and 
312, respectively. In December of 2003, a long-standing exclusion of 
discharges incidental to the normal operation of vessels from the CWA 
section 402 NPDES permitting program became the subject of a lawsuit in 
the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California (Nw. 
Envtl. Advocates v. EPA, No. C-03-05760-SI, 2005 WL 756614). The 
lawsuit arose from EPA's September 2003 denial of a January 1999 
rulemaking petition submitted to EPA by parties concerned about the 
effects of ballast water discharges. Prior to the lawsuit, EPA, through 
a 1973 regulation, had excluded discharges incidental to the normal 
operation of vessels from the CWA section 402 permitting program. See 
38 FR 13528, May 22, 1973. The petition asked the Agency to repeal its 
regulation at 40 CFR 122.3(a) that excludes certain discharges 
incidental to the normal operation of vessels from the requirement to 
obtain an NPDES permit. The petition asserted that vessels are ``point 
sources'' requiring NPDES permits for discharges to U.S. waters; that 
EPA lacks authority to exclude point source discharges from vessels 
from the NPDES program; that ballast water must be regulated under the 
NPDES program because it contains invasive plant and animal species as 
well as other materials of concern (e.g., oil, chipped paint, sediment, 
and toxins in ballast water sediment); and that enactment of CWA 
section 312(n) (the Uniform National Discharge Standards) in 1996 
demonstrated Congress's rejection of the exclusion.
    In March 2005, the court determined the exclusion exceeded the 
Agency's authority under the CWA and subsequently declared in 2006 that

[[Page 82077]]

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

    \2\ Concurrence procedures are governed by 33 U.S.C. 
1322(p)(4)(A)(ii). Under those procedures, the Administrator must 
submit to the Secretary a request for written concurrence with 
respect to a proposed standard of performance. If the Secretary 
fails to concur, it does not prevent the Administrator from 
promulgating standard of performance, but does require the 
Administrator to respond to the Secretary's written objections.
    \3\ CWA section 312(b) provides authority for EPA to establish 
Federal standards of performance for sewage from vessels within the 
meaning of ``sewage'' as defined in section 312(a)(6). Thus, the 
discharge of sewage from vessels, is not included in this CWA 
section 312(p) rulemaking, except when commingled with other 
discharges incidental to the normal operation of a vessel, as 
authorized in CWA section 312(p)(2)(A)(ii). EPA and the USCG 
regulate sewage from vessels under CWA section 312(b) as codified in 
40 CFR part 140 (marine sanitation device standard) and 33 CFR part 
159 subparts A through D (requirements for the design, construction, 
certification, installation, and operation of marine sanitation 
devices).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. Additional U.S. and International Authorities

    During the development of the final rule, EPA reviewed other U.S. 
laws and international authorities that address discharges incidental 
to the normal operation of a vessel. Where the requirements established 
under these authorities are currently being met and implemented, EPA 
generally considers them to be technologically available and 
economically achievable as that term is used in the ``best available 
technology economically achievable'' control level specified in CWA 
section 301(b). As appropriate, EPA considered these requirements while 
developing this final rule.
    As expressly provided in the VIDA, this final rule will not affect 
the requirements for vessels established under any other provision of 
Federal law. 33 U.S.C. 1322(p)(9)(B). EPA provides a short summary of 
these U.S. authorities, as well as some international authorities, 
below.
International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution From Ships, 
the Act To Prevent Pollution from Ships, and Implementing Regulations
    The International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from 
Ships (MARPOL 73/78) is an international treaty that regulates certain 
discharges from vessels. MARPOL Annexes regulate different types of 
vessel pollution; the United States is a party to Annexes I, II, III, 
V, and VI that address prevention/control of pollution from oil, 
noxious liquid substances in bulk, harmful substances carried by sea in 
packaged form, and garbage, and

[[Page 82078]]

prevention of air pollution, respectively. MARPOL is primarily 
implemented in the United States by APPS, 33 U.S.C. 1901 et seq. The 
USCG is the lead agency for APPS implementation and issued implementing 
regulations primarily found at 33 CFR part 151. Those requirements 
already apply to many of the vessels covered by the final rule.
    APPS regulates the discharge of oil and oily mixtures, noxious 
liquid substances, and garbage, including food wastes and plastic. With 
respect to oil and oily mixtures, the USCG regulations at 33 CFR 151.10 
prohibit ``any discharge of oil or oily mixtures into the sea from a 
ship'' except when certain conditions are met. Exceptions include a 
discharge oil content of less than 15 parts per million (ppm) and when 
the ship operates oily water separating equipment, a bilge monitor, a 
bilge alarm, or a combination thereof.
    Substances regulated as noxious liquid substances under APPS are 
divided into four categories based on their potential to harm marine 
resources and human health. Under 46 CFR 153.1128, discharges of 
noxious liquid substances residues at sea may only take place at least 
12 nautical miles (NM) from the nearest land, among other requirements. 
Because discharges at least 12 NM from the nearest land are outside the 
geographic scope of the VIDA, the final rule does not affect the 
requirements for vessels established under 46 CFR 153.1128 pursuant to 
APPS.
    MARPOL Annex III addresses harmful substances in packaged form and 
is implemented in the United States by the Hazardous Materials 
Transportation Authorization Act of 1994, as amended (49 U.S.C. 5901 et 
seq.), and regulations appearing at 46 CFR part 148 and 49 CFR part 
176. The regulatory provisions establish labeling, packaging, and 
stowage requirements for such materials to help avoid accidental loss 
or spillage during transport. The final rule does not regulate loss or 
spillage of transported materials; however, the final rule establishes 
BMPs to help reduce or prevent the loss of materials and debris 
overboard.
Oil Pollution Act (33 U.S.C. 2701 et seq.)
    The Oil Pollution Act of 1990 and the associated USCG implementing 
regulations at 33 CFR parts 155 and 157 also address oil and oily 
mixture discharges from vessels. These USCG regulations establish and 
reinforce the 15 ppm discharge standard under APPS for oil and oily 
mixtures for seagoing ships and require most vessels to have an oily 
water separator. Oceangoing vessels of less than 400 gross tonnage (GT) 
must either have an approved oily water separator or retain oily water 
mixtures on board for disposal to an approved reception facility 
onshore. Oceangoing vessels of 400 GT and above, but less than 10,000 
GT, except vessels that carry ballast water in their fuel oil tanks, 
must be fitted with ``approved 15 parts per million (ppm) oily-water 
separating equipment for the processing of oily mixtures from bilges or 
fuel oil tank ballast.'' 33 CFR 155.360(a)(1). Oceangoing ships of 
10,000 gross tonnage and above and oceangoing ships of 400 gross 
tonnage and above that carry ballast water in their fuel oil tanks, 
must be fitted with approved 15 ppm oily water separating equipment for 
the processing of oily mixtures from bilges or fuel oil tank ballast, a 
bilge alarm, and a means for automatically stopping any discharge of 
oily mixture when the oil content in the effluent exceeds 15 ppm. 33 
CFR 155.370. 33 CFR part 155 also references oil containment and 
cleanup equipment and procedures for preventing and reacting to oil 
spills and discharges. The final rule is consistent with the existing 
requirements for fuel and oil established under the Oil Pollution Act 
and APPS and does not otherwise affect the requirements for vessels 
established under these Acts.
Clean Water Act Section 311 (33 U.S.C. 1321)
    CWA section 311, the Oil and Hazardous Substances Liability Act, 
states that it is a policy of the United States that there should be no 
discharges of oil or hazardous substances into the waters of the United 
States, adjoining shorelines, and certain specified areas, except where 
permitted under Federal regulations (e.g., the NPDES program). As such, 
the Act prohibits the discharge of oil or hazardous substances into 
these areas in such quantities as may be harmful. Further, the Act 
states that the President shall, by regulation, determine those 
quantities of oil and any hazardous substances that may be harmful if 
discharged. EPA defines the discharge of oil in such quantities as may 
be harmful as those that violate applicable water quality standards or 
``cause a film or sheen upon or discoloration of the surface of the 
water or adjoining shorelines or cause a sludge or emulsion to be 
deposited beneath the surface of the water or upon adjoining 
shorelines.'' 40 CFR 110.3. Sheen is clarified to mean ``an iridescent 
appearance on the surface of the water.'' 40 CFR 110.1. The final rule 
prohibits the discharge of oil, including oily mixtures, in such 
quantities as may be harmful. 40 CFR 139.56(c).
Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (7 U.S.C. 136 et 
seq.).
    The Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) 
regulates the distribution, sale, and use of pesticides. One of the 
primary components of FIFRA requires the registration and labeling of 
all pesticides sold or distributed in the United States, ensuring that, 
if pesticides are used in accordance with the specifications on the 
label, they will not cause unreasonable adverse effects on humans or 
the environment. The final rule reiterates the VGP requirement that any 
registered pesticide must be used in accordance with its FIFRA label 
for all activities that result in a discharge into the waters of the 
United States or the waters of the contiguous zone. 40 CFR 
139.4(b)(5)(iii). The final rule does not negate the requirements under 
FIFRA and its implementing regulations to use registered pesticides 
consistent with the product's labeling. In fact, the discharge of 
pesticides used in violation of certain FIFRA requirements incorporated 
into this rule is also a violation of these standards, and therefore a 
violation of the CWA (e.g., exceeding hull coating application rates).
National Marine Sanctuaries Act (16 U.S.C. 1431 et seq. and 
Implementing Regulations Found at 15 CFR Part 922 and 50 CFR Part 404)
    The National Marine Sanctuaries Act (NMSA) authorizes the 
designation and management of National Marine Sanctuaries to protect 
marine resources with conservation, education, historical, scientific, 
and other special qualities. Under NMSA, additional restrictions and 
requirements may be imposed on vessel operators that operate in and 
around National Marine Sanctuaries. Consistent with the VGP, the final 
rule establishes additional restrictions and requirements for certain 
discharges for vessels that operate in and around National Marine 
Sanctuaries as these areas are included in the definition of 
``federally-protected waters'' in the final rule and listed in appendix 
A of part 139. Pursuant to CWA sections 312(p)(9)(B) and (E), discharge 
requirements established by regulations promulgated by the Secretary of 
Commerce under the National Marine Sanctuaries Act would continue to 
apply to waters under the control of the Secretary of Commerce (e.g., 
National Marine Sanctuaries), in addition to the standards and 
requirements established in this final rule.

[[Page 82079]]

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

    While the VIDA requires EPA to establish technology-based 
standards, which do not consider the effects on receiving water quality 
(as discussed in greater detail in section VIII., Final Federal 
Discharge Standards of Performance), EPA is presenting to the public 
information about the following pollutants found in vessel discharges: 
ANS, nutrients, pathogens, oil and grease, metals, toxic and 
nonconventional pollutants with toxic effects, and other 
nonconventional and conventional pollutants. Information regarding 
water-quality impacts of these discharges and associated pollutants 
were not considered in the development of Federal standards of 
performance representing best available technology economically 
achievable, as established in this rule. EPA presents this information 
because the public may be interested in it and it informs the Economic 
Analysis that characterizes the potential benefits associated with this 
rule.
    Discharges incidental to the normal operation of vessels can have 
significant adverse impacts on aquatic ecosystems and other potential 
impacts such as to human health through contamination of food from 
aquaculture/shellfish harvesting areas through the addition of 
pollutants. The adverse environmental impacts vary considerably based 
on the type and number of vessels, the size and location of the port or 
marina, and the condition of the receiving waters. These adverse 
impacts are more likely to occur when there are significant numbers of 
vessels operating in receiving waters with limited circulation or if 
the receiving waters are already impaired. As a result of this 
variation, protecting U.S. waters from vessel-related activities poses 
unique challenges for local, State, and Federal Governments.
1. Aquatic Nuisance Species (ANS)
    ANS, which can include invasive plants, animals, and pathogens, are 
a persistent problem in U.S. coastal and inland waters. The VIDA 
specifically includes ANS in the category of nonconventional pollutants 
to be regulated through the application of best available technology 
and best practicable technology. 33 U.S.C. 1322(p)(4)(B)(i).
    ANS may be incidentally discharged or released from a vessel's 
operations through a variety of vessel systems and equipment, including 
but not limited to ballast water, sediment from ballast tanks, vessel 
hulls and appendages, seawater piping, chain lockers, and anchor 
chains. ANS pose severe threats to aquatic ecosystems, including 
outcompeting native species, damaging habitat, changing food webs, and 
altering the chemical and physical aquatic environment. Furthermore, 
ANS can have profound and wide-ranging socioeconomic impacts, such as 
damage to recreational and commercial fisheries, infrastructure, and 
water-based recreation and tourism. Once established, it is extremely 
challenging and costly to remove ANS and remediate the impacts. It has 
become even more critical to control discharges of ANS from vessel 
systems and equipment with the increase in vessel traffic due to 
globalization and increased trade.
2. Nutrients
    Nutrients, including nitrogen, phosphorus, and other micro-
nutrients, are constituents of incidental discharges from vessels. 
Though often associated with discharges from sewage treatment 
facilities and other sources such as runoff from agricultural and urban 
stormwater sources, nutrients are also discharged from vessel sources 
such as runoff from deck cleaning, graywater, and bilgewater.
    Increased nutrient discharges from anthropogenic sources are a 
major source of water quality degradation throughout the United States 
(U.S. Geological Survey, 1999). Generally, nutrient over-enrichment of 
waterbodies adversely impacts biological diversity, fisheries, and 
coral reef and seagrass ecosystems (National Research Council, 2000). 
One of the most notable effects of nutrient over-enrichment is the 
excess proliferation of plant life and ensuing eutrophication. A 
eutrophic system has reduced levels of dissolved oxygen and increased 
turbidity which can lead to changes in the composition of aquatic flora 
and fauna. Such conditions also fuel harmful algal blooms, which can 
have significant adverse impacts on human health as well as aquatic 
life (National Research Council, 2000; Woods Hole Oceanographic 
Institute, 2007).
3. Pathogens
    Pathogens-those bacteria, viruses, and other microorganisms that 
can cause disease--can be found in discharges from vessels, 
particularly in graywater and ballast water discharges. Discharges of 
pathogens into waterbodies can adversely impact local ecosystems, 
fisheries, and human health. Pathogens found in untreated graywater are 
similar to, and in some cases may have a higher concentration than, 
domestic sewage entering land-based wastewater treatment plants (U.S. 
EPA, 2008; 2011d). Specific pathogens of concern found in graywater 
include Salmonella spp., Escherichia coli, enteroviruses, hepatitis, 
and pathogenic protists (National Research Council, 1993). Additional 
pathogen discharges have also been associated with ballasting 
operations, including Escherichia coli, intestinal enterococci, Vibrio 
cholerae, Clostridium perfringens, Salmonella spp., Cryptosporidium 
spp., Giardia spp., and a variety of viruses (Knight et al., 1999; 
Reynolds et al., 1999; Zo et al., 1999). Pathogens can potentially be 
transported in unfilled ballast water tanks (Johengen et al., 2005). 
Under the VIDA, bacterial and viral pathogens can qualify as ``aquatic 
nuisance species.'' 33 U.S.C. 1312(p)(1)(A), (Q), (R) (defining the 
related terms ``aquatic nuisance species,'' ``nonindigenous species,'' 
and ``organism'').
4. Oil and Grease
    Vessels can discharge a variety of oils during normal operations, 
including lubricating oils, hydraulic oils, and vegetable or organic 
oils. A significant portion of the lubricants discharged from a vessel 
during these normal operations directly enters the aquatic environment. 
Some types of oil and grease can be highly toxic and carcinogenic, and 
have been shown to alter the immune system, reproductive abilities, and 
liver functions of many aquatic organisms (Ober, 2010). Broadly, the 
toxicity of oil and grease to aquatic life is due to reduced oxygen 
transport potential and an inability of organisms to metabolize and 
excrete oil and grease once ingested, absorbed, or inhaled.
    The magnitude of impact of oils differs depending on the chemical 
composition, method of exposure, concentration, and environmental 
conditions (e.g., weather, salinity, temperature). It can therefore be 
difficult to identify one single parameter responsible for negatively 
impacting aquatic life.
    Aromatic hydrocarbon compounds, commonly present in fuels, 
lubricants, and additives, are consistently associated with acute 
toxicity and harmful effects in aquatic biota (Dupuis and Ucan-Marin, 
2015). Impacts are observed in both developing and adult organisms, and 
include reduced growth, enlarged livers, fin erosion, reproduction 
impairment, and modifications to heartbeat and respiration rates 
(Dupuis and Ucan-Marin, 2015). Laboratory experiments have shown that 
fish embryos exposed to hydrocarbons exemplify symptoms collectively 
referred to as blue sac

[[Page 82080]]

disease. Symptoms of the disease range from reduced growth and spinal 
abnormalities, to hemorrhages and mortality (Dupuis and Ucan-Marin, 
2015). Oils can also taint organisms that are consumed by humans, 
resulting in economic impacts to fisheries and potential human health 
effects.
    In establishing the final rule, EPA considered the availability of 
environmentally acceptable lubricants (EALs). Production of EALs 
focuses on using chemicals with oxygen atoms which increases their 
water solubility and biodegradability, thereby decreasing their 
accumulation in the aquatic environment. The solubility of EALs also 
makes it easier for aquatic life to metabolize and excrete these 
chemicals (U.S. EPA, 2011). Overall, EALs reduce the bioaccumulation 
potential and toxic effects to aquatic life.
5. Metals
    Vessel discharges can contain metal constituents from a variety of 
onboard sources, including graywater, bilgewater, exhaust gas emission 
control systems, and firemain systems. While some metals, including 
copper, nickel, and zinc, are known to be essential to organism 
function when present at certain levels, many others, including 
mercury, lead, thallium, and arsenic, are non-essential and/or are 
known to have only adverse impacts. Even essential metals may harm 
organism function in sufficiently elevated concentrations. Some metals 
may also bioaccumulate in the tissues of aquatic organisms, 
intensifying toxic effects. Through a process called biomagnification, 
concentrations of some metals can increase up the food chain, leading 
to elevated levels in commercially harvested fish species (U.S. EPA, 
2007). Exposure to metals through fish consumption or other exposure 
pathways may have adverse human health effects (U.S. EPA, 2007). For 
example, exposure to elevated levels of methylmercury is associated 
with developmental and neurological effects, while exposure to lead is 
known to cause a range of health effects, from behavioral problems and 
learning disabilities to seizures and death (U.S. EPA, 2024 and 2024a). 
Additionally, ingestion of arsenic may lead to increased risk of cancer 
in the skin, liver, bladder, and lungs, as well as nausea, vomiting, 
abnormal heart rhythm, and damage to blood vessels (Agency for Toxic 
Substances and Disease Registry, 2007).
    Vessel hulls and appendages are frequently coated in metal-based 
biocides to prevent biofouling. The most widely-used metal in biocides 
is copper. While it is an essential nutrient, copper can be both 
acutely and chronically toxic to fish, aquatic invertebrates, and 
aquatic plants at higher concentrations. Elevated concentrations of 
copper can adversely impact survivorship, growth, and reproduction of 
aquatic organisms (U.S. EPA, 2016). Copper can inhibit photosynthesis 
in plants and interfere with enzyme function in both plants and animals 
in concentrations as low as 4 micrograms ([micro]g)/L (U.S. EPA, 2016).
6. Other Pollutants
    Vessel discharges can contain a variety of other toxic, 
conventional, and nonconventional pollutants. This rule is intended to 
prevent and control the discharge of certain pollutants that have been 
identified in the various discharges. For example, graywater can 
contain phthalates phenols, and chlorine (U.S. EPA, 2008). These 
compounds can cause a variety of adverse impacts on aquatic organisms 
and human health. Phthalates are known to interfere with reproductive 
health, liver, and kidney function in both animals and humans. 
(Sekizawa et al., 2003; DiGangi et al., 2002). Chlorine can cause 
respiratory problems, hemorrhaging, and acute mortality to aquatic 
organisms, even at relatively low concentrations (U.S. EPA, 2008).
    Vessel discharges may also contain certain biocides used in vessel 
coatings, which can be harmful to aquatic organisms. For example, 
cybutryne, also commonly known as Irgarol 1051, is a biocide that 
functions by inhibiting the electron transport mechanism in algae, thus 
inhibiting growth. Numerous studies indicate that cybutryne is both 
acutely and chronically toxic to a range of marine organisms, and in 
certain cases, more harmful than tributyltin (Carbery et al, 2006; Van 
Wezel and Van Vlaardingen, 2004).
    Some vessel discharges are more acidic or basic than the receiving 
waters, which can have a localized effect on pH (Alaska Department of 
Environmental Conservation, 2007). For example, exhaust gas emission 
control systems remove sulfur dioxide in exhaust gas and dissolve it in 
washwater, where it is then ionized and produces an acidic washwater. 
Research has shown that even minor changes in ambient pH can have 
profound effects, such as developmental defects, reduced larval 
survivorship, and decreased calcification of corals and shellfish (Oyen 
et al., 1991; Zaniboni-Filho et al., 2009, Marubini and Atkinson, 
1999).

IV. Scope of the Regulatory Action

A. Waters

    The final rule applies to discharges into the waters of the United 
States or the waters of the contiguous zone. 33 U.S.C. 1322(p)(8)(B). 
Sections 502(7), 502(8), and 502(9) of the CWA define the terms 
``navigable waters,'' ``territorial seas,'' and ``contiguous zone,'' 
respectively. 33 U.S.C. 1362(7)-(9). The term ``navigable waters'' 
means the waters of the United States including inland waters and the 
territorial seas, where the United States includes the 50 States, the 
District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, the U.S. Virgin 
Islands, Guam, American Samoa, the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana 
Islands, and the Trust Territories of the Pacific Islands. Id. (7). The 
term ``territorial seas'' means the belt of seas that extends three 
miles seaward from the line of ordinary low water along the portion of 
the coast in direct contact with the open sea and the line marking the 
seaward limit of inland waters. Id. (8). For simplicity, EPA uses the 
term ``shore'' to refer to the line of ordinary low water referenced in 
the foregoing definition for ``territorial seas.'' The term 
``contiguous zone'' means the entire zone established or to be 
established by the United States under Article 24 of the Convention of 
the Territorial Sea and the Contiguous Zone, which extends 12 NM under 
Article 24 of the Convention of the Territorial Sea and the Contiguous 
Zone. Id. (9).

B. Vessels

    The final rule applies to discharges incidental to the normal 
operation of any non-Armed Forces, non-recreational vessels as set 
forth in CWA section 312(p)(2). The final rule does not apply to 
discharges incidental to the normal operation of a vessel of the Armed 
Forces subject to CWA section 312(n); a recreational vessel subject to 
CWA section 312(o); a small vessel less than 79 feet in length or a 
fishing vessel, except that the rule applies to any discharge of 
ballast water from a small vessel less than 79 feet or fishing vessel; 
or a floating craft that is permanently moored to a pier, including a 
floating casino, hotel, restaurant, or bar. 33 U.S.C. 1322(p)(2)(B)(i). 
The types of vessels covered under the final rule include but are not 
limited to public vessels of the United States, commercial fishing 
vessels (for ballast water only), passenger vessels (e.g., cruise ships 
and ferries), barges, tugs and tows, offshore supply vessels, mobile 
offshore drilling units, tankers, bulk carriers, cargo ships, container 
ships, and research vessels.

[[Page 82081]]

The domestic and international vessel population that is subject to the 
Federal standards of performance includes approximately 82,000 vessels. 
The final rule also does not apply to a narrow category of specified 
ballast water discharges that Congress believed do not pose a risk of 
spreading or introducing ANS (33 U.S.C. 1322(p)(2)(B)(ii); VIDA Senate 
Report, at 10), or to any discharges that result from (or contain 
material derived from) an activity other than the normal operation of a 
vessel (33 U.S.C. 1322(p)(2)(B)(iii)). Unless otherwise provided by CWA 
section 312(p), any incidental discharges excluded from regulation in 
the VIDA remain subject to the pre-enactment status quo (e.g., State 
law, NPDES permitting, etc.). VIDA Senate Report, at 10.
    The Federal standards of performance herein apply equally to new 
and existing vessels except in such cases where the final rule 
expressly distinguishes between such vessels, as authorized by CWA 
section 312(p)(4)(C)(ii).

C. Incidental Discharges

    The final rule establishes general and specific Federal standards 
of performance for discharges incidental to the normal operation of a 
vessel described in CWA section 312(p)(2). The general standards apply 
to all vessels and all incidental discharges subject to regulation 
under CWA section 312(p). The specific standards apply to specific 
discharges incidental to the normal operation of the following types of 
vessel equipment and systems: ballast tanks, bilges, boilers, cathodic 
protection, chain lockers, decks, desalination and purification 
systems, elevator pits, exhaust gas emission control systems, fire 
protection equipment, gas turbines, graywater systems, hulls and 
associated niche areas, inert gas systems, motor gasoline and 
compensating systems, non-oily machinery, pools and spas, refrigerators 
and air conditioners, seawater piping, and sonar domes.

D. Emergency and Safety Concerns

    The VIDA recognizes that safety of life at sea and other emergency 
situations not resulting from the negligence or malfeasance of the 
vessel owner, operator, master, or person in charge may arise, and that 
the prevention of loss of life or serious injury may require operations 
that would not otherwise be consistent with these standards. Therefore, 
no person would be found to be in violation of the final rule if they 
qualify for the affirmative defense described in CWA section 
312(p)(8)(C).

E. Effective Date

    The effective date of this rule is 30 days after publication in the 
Federal Register; however, the Federal standards of performance become 
effective beginning on the date upon which the regulations promulgated 
by the Secretary pursuant to CWA section 312(p)(5) governing the 
implementation, compliance, and enforcement of the Federal standards of 
performance become final, effective, and enforceable. Per CWA section 
312(p)(3)(c), as of that date, the requirements of the VGP and all 
regulations promulgated by the Secretary pursuant to Section 1101 of 
the NANPCA (16 U.S.C. 4711) (as in effect on December 3, 2018), 
including the regulations contained in subparts C and D of 33 CFR part 
151 and 46 CFR 162.060 (as in effect on December 3, 2018), shall be 
deemed repealed and have no force or effect. Similarly, as of that same 
date, any CWA section 401 certification requirement in Part 6 of the 
VGP, shall be deemed repealed and have no force or effect.

V. Stakeholder Engagement

    During the development of the rule, EPA and the USCG engaged other 
Federal agencies, States, Tribes, non-governmental organizations, the 
general public, and the maritime industry. On October 26, 2020, EPA 
published a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (``proposed rule,'' 85 FR 
67818) in the Federal Register for public comment. Following 
publication of the proposed rule, EPA re-engaged with the states 
through the VIDA's Governors consultation process to discuss topics for 
which the states expressed an interest in further collaboration and 
conducted post-proposal outreach to States, Tribes, and interested 
stakeholders from environmental organizations and the regulated 
community to obtain additional clarification regarding their concerns 
with the proposed rule. Subsequently, on October 18, 2023, EPA 
published in the Federal Register a Supplemental Notice of Proposed 
Rulemaking (``supplemental notice,'' 88 FR 71788) for public comment 
that presented ballast water management system (BWMS) type-approval 
data that EPA received from the USCG since the proposed rule. The 
supplemental notice also included additional regulatory options that 
EPA was considering for discharges from ballast tanks, hulls and 
associated niche areas, and graywater systems. General summaries of the 
outreach are included in this section and in section XII., Statutory 
and Executive Order Reviews. Detailed documentation is also available 
in the docket.

A. Informational Webinars and Public Listening Sessions

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

B. Consultation and Coordination With States

1. Federalism Consultation and Governors Consultation
    As noted in the proposed rule, EPA concluded that this action has

[[Page 82082]]

federalism implications pursuant to the terms of Executive Order 13132. 
As such, EPA consulted with State and local officials early in the 
development of this rule. On July 9, 2019, in Washington, DC, EPA and 
the USCG conducted a Federalism consultation briefing to allow states 
and local officials to have meaningful and timely input into EPA's 
rulemaking for the development of the Federal standards of performance. 
Additional information regarding the VIDA Federalism Consultation can 
be found in section XII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews.
    In addition, CWA section 312(p)(4)(A)(iii)(II) directs EPA to 
develop a process for soliciting input from interested Governors to 
inform the development of the Federal standards of performance, 
including sharing information relevant to the process. On July 10 and 
18, 2019, EPA and the USCG, with the support and assistance of the 
National Governors Association, held meetings with Governors' 
representatives to provide an overview of the VIDA, discuss State 
authorities under the VIDA, and solicit input on a process that would 
meet both the statutory requirements and State needs. Based on this 
input, EPA developed a process to obtain Governors' input on the 
rulemaking. Thirteen states (Alaska, California, Hawaii, Maryland, 
Michigan, Minnesota, New York, North Carolina, Ohio, Puerto Rico, 
Virginia, Washington, and Wisconsin) participated in the process, as 
did representatives from the Western Governors Association, the Pacific 
States Marine Fisheries Commission, and the All Islands Coral Reef 
Committee.
    To obtain Governors' input, EPA hosted three regional, web-based 
forums for Governors and their representatives to inform EPA early in 
the development of the proposed rule on the challenges and concerns 
associated with existing requirements under the VGP and to discuss 
potential considerations for key discharges of interest. The forums 
were held in 2019 on September 10 for West Coast states, September 12 
for Great Lakes states, and September 19 for all states. During each 
forum, subject-matter experts from EPA provided a brief background on 
the VIDA followed by organized discussions regarding the key discharges 
identified by the regional representatives prior to the forum. During 
the organized discussions, interested Governors' representatives 
commented on the presentation content, shared applicable scientific or 
technical information, and provided suggestions for EPA to consider 
during the development of the Federal standards of performance. In 
addition to the verbal input provided during the forums, EPA accepted 
written comments. Copies of those written comments are included in the 
docket.
    On December 18, 2019, EPA held two follow-up calls with 
representatives from the Great Lakes states. During each call, EPA 
addressed the comments that had been submitted by the Great Lakes 
states, including comments on specific requirements of the VIDA, non-
ballast water discharges, and best available technology as it relates 
to BWMSs. Representatives from Illinois, Michigan, Minnesota, New York, 
Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin attended the calls.
    EPA also held a follow-up call with representatives from the West 
Coast states on January 15, 2020. During the call, EPA addressed the 
comments that had been submitted by West Coast states, including 
comments on outreach and engagement, the best available technology 
analysis for BWMSs, and regulation of biofouling and in-water cleaning 
and capture devices. Representatives from California, Hawaii, Oregon, 
and Washington, as well as representatives from the Pacific States 
Marine Fisheries Commission and the Western Governors Association, 
attended the call.
    After the public comment period concluded for the proposed rule, 
EPA met with State representatives to discuss topics of interest 
between June and October 2021 to inform the supplemental notice.
    During the engagement with states, EPA received pre-proposal 
comments, as well as post-proposal comments on the proposed rule and 
supplemental notice, from states, Governors, and Governors' 
representatives. Comments were received from representatives from 
Alabama, Alaska, American Samoa, California, the Commonwealth of the 
Northern Mariana Islands, Connecticut, Delaware, Florida, Guam, Hawaii, 
Illinois, Louisiana, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, 
Minnesota, Mississippi, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, North 
Carolina, Ohio, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Puerto Rico, Rhode Island, U.S. 
Virgin Islands, Virginia, Washington, Wisconsin, and the Western 
Governors Association. Comments on the proposed rule primarily focused 
on ballast water, biofouling, and the State engagement process, while 
comments on the supplemental notice focused on EPA's analysis of newly 
obtained ballast water data and the additional regulatory options 
presented for ballast tanks, hulls and associated niche areas, and 
graywater systems. These comments can be found in the docket.
2. Governor Objections
    In conjunction with the requirement to engage states in the 
development of the proposed standards, CWA section 
312(p)(4)(A)(iii)(III) provides an avenue for Governors to formally 
object to a proposed Federal standard of performance. An interested 
Governor may submit to the Administrator a written, detailed objection 
to the proposed Federal standard of performance, describing the 
scientific, technical, and operational factors that form the basis of 
the objection. Before finalizing a Federal standard of performance for 
which there has been an objection from one or more interested 
Governors, the CWA requires the Administrator to provide a written 
response to the objection detailing the scientific, technical, or 
operational factors that form the basis for that standard.
    EPA received five objection letters from the Governors of 
California, Hawaii, Michigan, Minnesota, and Washington. One or more of 
these states objected to aspects of the proposed Federal standard of 
performance for ballast tanks, biofouling management, chain lockers, 
decks, exhaust gas emission control systems, fire protection equipment, 
graywater systems, hulls and associated niche areas, and procedures for 
states to request changes to standards, regulations, or policy 
promulgated by the Administrator. In the objection letters, Governors 
also raised concerns outside of the scope of specific Federal standards 
of performance, such as the timing and substance of State consultation 
and purported inconsistency with State water quality standards. EPA 
addressed specific comments and concerns raised by these five states in 
the relevant topical sections of the Comment Response Document 
available in the docket. Consistent with the CWA, the Administrator 
responded to these Governors in writing prior to the publication of 
this final rule.

VI. Public Comments Received and Agency Responses

    EPA received 28,701 comments on the proposed rule and 45,820 
comments on the supplemental notice for a total of 74,521 comments 
received. Of these, 292 comments were unique, while the remaining 
comments were received from participants in mass mailer campaigns. The 
majority of comments addressed proposed requirements for specific 
discharges, though comments also contained feedback on general

[[Page 82083]]

topics of concern, such as stakeholder engagement. EPA fully considered 
comments and, where appropriate, made changes to the final rule to 
reflect comments received. The sections below describe those changes to 
the final rule and a comprehensive Comment Response Document is 
available in the docket.

VII. Definitions

    The final rule includes definitions for several statutory, 
regulatory, and technical terms. 40 CFR 139.2. These definitions apply 
solely for the purposes of this final rule and do not affect the 
definitions of any similar terms used in any other context. Where 
possible, EPA relied on existing definitions from other laws, 
regulations, and the VGP to provide consistency with existing 
requirements. Many of the definitions are taken either verbatim or with 
minor clarifying edits from the VIDA, the legislation which this final 
rule implements. This includes definitions for: aquatic nuisance 
species (ANS), ballast water, ballast water exchange, ballast water 
management system (BWMS), Captain of the Port (COTP) Zone, commercial 
vessel--as that term is used for vessels operating within the Pacific 
Region, empty ballast tank, Great Lakes State, internal waters, live or 
living, marine pollution control device, organism, Pacific Region, port 
or place of destination, render nonviable, saltwater flush, Secretary, 
small vessel or fishing vessel (and the term ``fishing vessel'' to 
direct the reader to the definition of ``small vessel or fishing 
vessel''), and VGP.
    EPA included definitions from other sections of the CWA, USCG 
regulations, the VGP, and other regulations, as well as new definitions 
specific to this final rule. EPA modified some of the definitions in 
the proposed rule based on public comments. Terms not defined in the 
final rule have the meaning defined under the CWA and applicable 
regulations.
    Definitions for the following terms were added to provide clarity 
and ensure that the associated regulations are understood by the 
regulated community: active discharge of biofouling, anti-fouling 
coating, anti-fouling system, ferry, fire protection equipment, in-
water cleaning with capture (IWCC), in-water cleaning without capture, 
macrofouling, marine inspector, microfouling, new ferry, passenger 
vessel, passive discharge of biofouling, and seawater piping system 
(See also the comment response sections for 40 CFR 139.21, Graywater 
systems, 40 CFR 139.22, Hulls and associated niche areas, 40 CFR 
139.28, Seawater piping, and 40 CFR 139.19, Fire protection equipment). 
In response to public comments, the final rule slightly revises the 
definitions of ``macrofouling'' and ``microfouling'' from the 
definitions presented in the supplemental notice to provide additional 
clarity and consistency. It also dispenses with the use of the Navy 
Fouling Rating scale in favor of the terms macrofouling and 
microfouling (See also the comment response for 40 CFR 139.28, Seawater 
piping).
    Several definitions were modified from the proposed rule. The 
definition for ``Marine Growth Prevention System (MGPS)'' now 
references the added definition for ``seawater piping system,'' while 
EPA modified the definition for ``niche areas'' to add clarity and 
remove language that would be confusing within the context of the VIDA 
(See also the comment response section for 40 CFR 139.22, Hulls and 
associated niche areas). In response to concerns raised by commenters, 
the definition for ``organism'' was modified to replace the word 
``means'' with ``includes,'' consistent with the CWA definition. 
Definitions for ``oil-to-sea interface,'' ``EAL,'' and ``reception 
facility'' were modified slightly to provide additional clarity for the 
regulated community (See also the comment response section for 40 CFR 
139.6, Oil management). ``Captain of the Port Zone'' now includes 
references to other United States Code for additional clarity and 
consistency (See also the comment response for Subpart A--Scope). The 
definition for ``midocean'' was modified slightly to maintain 
consistency within the final rule (See also the comment response 
section for 40 CFR 139.10, Ballast tanks). Finally, EPA removed the 
definition for ``scheduled drydocking'' as that term is not used in the 
final rule.

VIII. Final Federal Discharge Standards of Performance

    In adopting CWA section 312(p)(4)(B)(i), Congress directed EPA to 
promulgate Federal standards of performance for conventional 
pollutants, toxic pollutants, and nonconventional pollutants (including 
ANS). The VIDA cross-references existing statutory standards in the CWA 
at sections 301 and 304 of the CWA (as well as EPA's implementing 
regulations at 40 CFR 125.3), which indicates that Congress intended 
for EPA to base the VIDA standards of performance on the same statutory 
considerations as those applicable when setting technology-based 
effluent limits for permits under CWA section 402.\4\ The provisions 
cited in the VIDA (CWA sections 301(b) and 304, 33 U.S.C. 1311(b) and 
1314), are the basis for EPA's development of effluent limitations 
guidelines, which are national performance-based requirements 
established by regulation for categories of point sources based on 
degree of control that can be achieved using various levels of 
pollution control technology, as specified in the CWA. Thus, many of 
the same legal standards and considerations that apply to the 
development of technology-based effluent limitation guidelines also 
apply to the development of the VIDA's Federal standards of 
performance.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ The VIDA does not reference CWA section 306 for new source 
standards, meaning that the CWA ``best available demonstrated 
control technology'' standard does not apply to new sources 
regulated by the VIDA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The CWA and its legislative history of CWA sections 301(b) and 
304(b) (33 U.S.C. 1311(b) and 1314(b)), describe the need to press 
toward higher levels of control through research and development of new 
processes, modifications, replacement of obsolete plants and processes, 
and other improvements in technology, taking into account the cost of 
controls to ``require elimination of pollutant discharges . . . if the 
Administrator finds, on the basis of information available to him, . . 
. that such elimination is technologically and economically achievable 
for a category or class of point sources as determined in accordance 
with regulations issued by the Administrator . . .''. 33 U.S.C. 
1311(b)(2)(A). The legislative history and case law also support that 
EPA does not consider water quality impacts on individual water bodies 
as technology-based standards are developed (Statement of Senator 
Muskie, October 4, 1972, reprinted in A Legislative History of the 
Water Pollution Control Act Amendments of 1972, at 170. (U.S. Senate, 
Committee on Public Works, Serial No. 93-1, January 1973); Southwestern 
Elec. Power Co. v. EPA, 920 F.3d at 1005, ``The Administrator must 
require industry, regardless of a discharge's effect on water quality, 
to employ defined levels of technology to meet effluent limitations.'' 
(citations and internal quotations omitted).
    The CWA establishes a two-step process for implementation of 
increasingly stringent technology-based effluent limitations. The first 
step requires compliance with standards based on``the application ofthe 
best practicable control technology currently available [BPT] as 
defined by the Administrator . . .'' 33 U.S.C. 1311(b)(1)(A). The 
second step requires

[[Page 82084]]

compliance with standards based on application of the ``best available 
technology economically achievable [BAT] for such category or class . . 
.'' 33 U.S.C. 1311(b)(2)(A). The CWA, as amended in 1977, replaced the 
BAT standard with a new standard, ``best conventional pollutant control 
technology [BCT],'' but only for certain ``conventional pollutants'' 
(i.e., BOD, TSS, oil and grease, fecal coliform, and pH). See 33 U.S.C. 
1311(b)(2)(E) and 1314(a)(4) and 40 CFR 401.16.
    The CWA requires consideration of BPT for conventional, toxic, and 
nonconventional pollutants. CWA section 304(a)(4) designates the 
following as conventional pollutants: BOD, TSS, fecal coliform, and pH, 
and any additional pollutants defined by the Administrator as 
conventional. The Administrator designated oil and grease as an 
additional conventional pollutant on July 30, 1979. 40 CFR 401.16. 
Toxic pollutants (e.g., toxic metals such as arsenic, mercury, 
selenium, and chromium; toxic organic pollutants such as benzene, 
benzo-a-pyrene, phenol, and naphthalene) are those outlined in CWA 
section 307(a) and subsequently identified in EPA regulations at 40 CFR 
401.15 and 40 CFR part 423 appendix A. All other pollutants are 
nonconventional, including aquatic nuisance species. (33 U.S.C. 
1322(p)(4)(B)(i)(III)).
    In determining BPT, under CWA sections 301(b)(1)(A) and 
304(b)(1)(B), and 40 CFR 125.3(d)(1), EPA evaluates several factors. 
EPA first considers the cost of application of currently available 
technology in relation to the effluent reduction benefits. 
Traditionally, as is consistent with the statute, its legislative 
history, and caselaw, EPA defines ``currently available'' based on the 
average of the best performance of facilities within the industry, 
grouped to reflect various ages, sizes, processes, or other common 
characteristics (Chem. Mfrs. Assn. v. EPA, 870 F.2d 177, 207-208 (5th 
Cir. 1989)). The Agency also considers the age of equipment and 
facilities, the processes employed, engineering aspects of various 
types of control techniques, process changes, non-water quality 
environmental impacts (including energy requirements), and such other 
factors as the Administrator deems appropriate. If, however, existing 
performance is uniformly inadequate within an industrial category, EPA 
may establish limitations based on higher levels of control if the 
Agency determines that the technology is available in another category 
or subcategory and can be practically applied to this industrial 
category.
    The 1977 amendments to the CWA required EPA to identify effluent 
reduction levels for conventional pollutants associated with BCT for 
discharges from existing industrial point sources. 33 U.S.C. 
1311(b)(2)(E); 1314(b)(4)(B); 40 CFR 125.3(d)(2). In addition to 
considering the other factors specified in CWA section 304(b)(4)(B) to 
establish BCT requirements, EPA also considers a two-part ``cost-
reasonableness'' test. EPA explained its methodology for the 
development of BCT requirements in 1986. See 51 FR 24974, July 9, 1986.
    For toxic pollutants and nonconventional pollutants, EPA 
promulgates discharge standards based on BAT. 33 U.S.C. 1311(b)(2)(A) 
and 1314(b)(2)(B); 40 CFR 125.3(d)(3). In establishing BAT, the 
technology must be technologically ``available'' and ``economically 
achievable.'' The factors considered in assessing BAT include the cost 
of achieving BAT effluent reductions, the age of equipment and 
facilities involved, the process employed, potential process changes, 
non-water quality environmental impacts, including energy requirements, 
and other such factors as the Administrator deems appropriate. EPA 
retains considerable discretion in assigning the weight accorded to 
these factors. See Weyerhaeuser Co v. Costle, 590 F.2d 1011, 1045 (D.C. 
Cir. 1978). EPA usually determines economic achievability on the basis 
of costs of compliance with BAT limitations on overall industry and 
subcategory financial conditions. BAT discharge standards may be based 
on effluent reductions attainable through changes in a facility's 
processes and operations. BAT reflects the highest performance in the 
industry and may reflect a higher level of performance than is 
currently being achieved based on technology transferred from a 
different subcategory or category. Southwestern Elec. Power Co. v. EPA, 
920 F.3d at 1006; Am. Paper Inst. v. Train, 543 F.2d 328, 353 (D.C. 
Cir. 1976); Am. Frozen Food Inst. v. Train, 539 F.2d 107, 132 (D.C. 
Cir. 1976). BAT may be based upon process changes or internal controls, 
even when these technologies are not common industry practice. See 
American Frozen Foods, 539 F.2d 107, 132, 140 (D.C. Cir. 1976).
    CWA section 312(p)(4)(B)(ii) is also modelled off of established 
CWA concepts and directs EPA to use BMPs in certain circumstances. See, 
e.g., VIDA Senate Report at 11 (``As with the technology standards 
themselves, this best management practice language is modeled off a 
similar regulatory provision for NPDES permits to ensure that the 
Administrator applies the same relevant considerations under section 
312(p).''). Specifically, CWA section 312(p)(4)(B)(ii) requires 
employing BMPs to control or abate any discharge incidental to the 
normal operation of a vessel if: (1) numeric discharge standard 
standards are infeasible; or (2) or if the BMPs are reasonably 
necessary to achieve the standards or to carry out the purpose of 
reducing and eliminating the discharge of pollutants.
    Where EPA did not impose a numeric standard,\5\ EPA determined that 
they were infeasible. For these discharges, the particular challenges 
posed by setting standards for moving vessels at sea made numeric 
standards impracticable. For example, many of the specific discharge 
streams (e.g. chain lockers) would be impossible to monitor using 
available technology without putting the safety of crew members at 
risk. The physical nature of other discharge streams (e.g. deck 
runoff), which differs significantly from the normal contexts for which 
EPA normally imposes CWA numerical discharge standards, also makes 
setting a numeric standard impracticable. EPA also did not receive 
comments indicating that it was practicable to impose numeric standards 
for any specific discharges for which it required BMPs in the final 
rule. EPA received several comments supporting EPA's use of BMPs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ General operation and maintenance (section139.4), biofouling 
management (section 139.5), oil management (section 139.6), boilers 
(section 139.12), cathodic protection (section 139.13), chain 
lockers (section 139.14), decks (section 139.15), desalination and 
purification systems (section 139.16), elevator pits (section 
139.17), fire protection equipment (section 139.19), gas turbines 
(section 139.20), hull and associated niche areas (section 139.22), 
inert gas systems (section 139.23), motor gasoline and compensating 
systems (section 139.24), non-oily machinery (section 139.25), 
refrigeration and air conditioning (section 139.27), seawater piping 
(section 139.28), sonar domes (section 139.29).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Additionally, EPA determined for certain discharges where it was 
practicable to impose numerical discharge standards that additional 
BMPs for these specific discharges are reasonably necessary to carry 
out the purpose and intent of CWA section 312(p).\6\ For example, while 
EPA set numeric discharge standards for ballast tanks at 40 CFR 
139.10(d), the Agency also required best management practices at 40 CFR 
139.10(c) that are important for reducing discharges of ANS and thus 
are reasonably necessary to achieve the numeric discharge standards for 
ballast

[[Page 82085]]

tanks. BMPs consist of specific and implementable practices that will 
drive the reduction of pollutant discharges from vessels. BMPs rely on 
existing available technologies and will lead to reductions in 
pollutant discharges even given the highly variable nature of 
incidental discharges from vessels and practical difficulties in 
monitoring those discharges. Additionally, requiring the BMPs for those 
same specific discharges that were subject to BMPs under the VGP is 
consistent with the VIDA's requirement that existing VGP requirements 
serve as a regulatory baseline.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ Ballast tanks (section 139.10), bilges (139.11), exhaust gas 
emission control systems (section 139.18), graywater systems 
(section 139.21), pools and spas (section 139.26).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    CWA section 312(p)(4)(B) also establishes minimum requirements for 
the Federal standards of performance such that, ``the combination of 
any equipment or best management practice . . . shall not be less 
stringent than'' the effluent limits and related requirements 
established in Parts 2.1, 2.2, or 5 of the VGP. 33 U.S.C. 
1322(p)(4)(B)(iii). Thus, while the CWA directs EPA to set the Federal 
standards of performance at the level of BPT/BCT/BAT, depending on the 
pollutant, it also creates a presumption that those standards would 
provide protection at least equivalent to the VGP requirements. There 
are exceptions at CWA section 312(p)(4)(D)(ii)(II) for situations where 
either new information becomes available that ``would have justified 
the application of a less-stringent standard'' or ``if the 
Administrator determines that a material technical mistake or 
misinterpretation of law occurred when promulgating the existing 
standard.'' Absent one of those exceptions, the statute directs that 
EPA ``shall not revise a standard of performance . . . to be less 
stringent than an applicable existing requirement.'' 33 U.S.C. 
312(p)(4)(D)(ii)(I).
    EPA endeavored to identify instances where the BPT/BCT/BAT level of 
control called for new, more stringent regulation than under the VGP 
for the VIDA Federal standards of performance. Where EPA research 
identified new alternatives or new options for marine pollution control 
devices, EPA evaluated those options as candidates for new BPT/BCT/BAT 
requirements. Where EPA identified no such new information or options, 
EPA continues to rely on the BPT/BCT/BAT analysis that led to the 
development of the VGP requirements. Additionally, EPA has considered 
in its BPT/BCT/BAT analysis that VGP requirements are currently in 
effect and are being achieved by regulated parties. This approach is 
consistent with EPA's obligations under CWA section 312(p)(4) because 
the effluent limits that EPA adopted in the VGP were already the 
product of a BPT/BCT/BAT analysis described in the permit fact sheets 
for both the 2008 and 2013 iterations of the VGP and corresponding 
supporting materials. CWA section 312(p)(4)(D)(ii) prohibits EPA from 
``revis[ing] a standard of performance . . . to be less stringent than 
an applicable existing requirement'' except for the narrow exception 
identified in the previous paragraph. Absent such exception, the VIDA 
prohibits EPA from identifying a less stringent option as BPT/BCT/BAT. 
Indeed, by identifying the VGP as the minimum requirements for the 
Federal standards of performance and then expressly identifying the 
circumstances under which EPA could select a different, less stringent 
standard (i.e., new information or error), the text and legislative 
history of the VIDA show that Congress intended to preserve, in most 
instances, the existing VGP requirements as a regulatory floor. VIDA 
Senate Report, at 12 (``The exceptions to this provision [for new 
information and technical or legal error] would provide the sole basis 
for the Administrator to weaken standards of performance compared to 
the legacy VGP requirements . . . .''). Moreover, Congress did not 
intend for EPA to depart from the considerations that informed the 
VGP's technology-based effluent limits. To the contrary, although the 
VIDA created a rule-based framework, rather than a permitting 
framework, Congress defined BPT, BCT, and BAT with ``intentional[ ] 
cross-reference[s]'' to terms used elsewhere in the CWA ``to ensure 
that the Administrator makes identical considerations when setting the 
standards of performance under CWA section 312(p) as the Administrator 
was previously required to do when setting technology-based effluent 
limits for permits'' as was done in the VGP. VIDA Senate Report, at 11.
    While EPA is, for most of the discharges addressed in this 
rulemaking, relying on the BPT/BCT/BAT analysis that was performed to 
develop the VGP and the fact that certain discharge requirements are 
already currently in effect under the VGP, EPA did not incorporate the 
VGP requirements verbatim. In many cases, EPA translated the VGP 
discharge requirements into Federal standards of performance or 
otherwise improved the clarity to enhance implementation and 
enforceability. As such changes do not materially differ from the 
requirements established in the VGP, EPA reasonably relied on the BPT/
BCT/BAT analysis that supported the VGP to develop the final Federal 
standards of performance.
    In some instances, EPA updated language from the proposed rule to 
the final rule from ``including'' to ``including but not limited to'' 
to make absolutely clear that a list may be representative but not 
exhaustive and/or to ensure that language is not overly narrow or 
restrictive so as to preclude the use of new technologies or BMPs in 
the future that otherwise comply with the applicable requirements. As 
an example, 40 CFR 139.13(a) was updated to clarify that a vessel's 
cathodic corrosion protection device includes, but is not necessarily 
limited to, sacrificial anodes and impressed current cathodic 
protection systems. See 40 CFR 139.13(a) (``The requirements in 
paragraph (b) of this section apply to discharges resulting from a 
vessel's cathodic corrosion control protection device, including but 
not limited to sacrificial anodes and impressed current cathodic 
protection systems.'') (emphasis added). The final rule also uses the 
more commonly recognized abbreviation ``GT,'' rather than ``GT ITC'' as 
used in the proposed rule, to mean the same thing. This modification is 
intended to align the language with existing regulations and the IMO.
    Additionally, EPA determined that two of the VGP-named discharges 
do not require specific discharge requirements beyond the general 
discharge requirements detailed in subpart B and special area 
requirements in subpart D. Discharges from motor gasoline and 
compensating systems and inert gas systems are discharges incidental to 
the normal operation of a vessel. However, EPA determined that the 
requirements outlined in the general discharge standards in subpart B 
for both discharges, and the special area requirements in subpart D for 
motor gasoline and compensating systems, constitute BAT and are at 
least as stringent as the VGP.
    Many of the comments EPA received asserted that the proposed rule 
would not adequately protect water quality in a particular region or 
jurisdiction. Notwithstanding that the VIDA requires EPA's Federal 
standards of performance to carry forward certain VGP requirements, the 
VGP requirements and the VIDA Federal standards of performance are 
subject to different legal frameworks for considering water quality 
impacts. The VGP was an NPDES permit under which discharges had to meet 
both technology-based levels of control (See CWA sections 301(b) and 
304(b), 33 U.S.C. 1311(b) and 1314(b)) and any more stringent controls 
as necessary to protect water quality

[[Page 82086]]

(See CWA section 301(b)(1)(C); 33 U.S.C. 1311(b)(1)(C)), as well as any 
requirements of a State certification under CWA section 401 (33 U.S.C. 
1341). The VIDA, by contrast, directs EPA to establish the Federal 
standards of performance solely on a technology basis. This is evident 
from the VIDA's text, which references the CWA provisions governing 
technology-based rules and does not reference the CWA provisions 
calling for more stringent limitations to protect water quality or 
State certifications under CWA section 401. Additionally, the VIDA's 
text makes clear that EPA and authorized states may not issue NPDES 
permits to VIDA-regulated discharges, further indicating that NPDES 
permitting elements such as water quality-based effluent limitations 
and certifications under section 401 do not apply. See 33 U.S.C. 
1322(p)(9)(C)(ii).
    The VGP, like all CWA section 402 permits, needed to account for 
the potential impact of discharges on the quality of the receiving 
waters. The VGP did so in two ways, and neither are applicable to the 
VIDA Federal standards of performance. First, the CWA section 402 and 
NPDES regulations at 40 CFR 122.44(d) require permits to include more 
stringent water quality based effluent limits (WQBELs) when technology-
based effluent limits (TBELs) are not sufficient to meet applicable 
water quality standards. The VGP included WQBELs at Part 2.3. Second, 
CWA section 401(d) allows States and Tribes to condition permits on 
``any effluent limitations and other limitations, and monitoring 
requirements'' necessary to assure compliance with water quality 
requirements, including State water quality standards. Pursuant to this 
authority, the VGP included a number of specific requirements for 
individual states or Indian Country lands at Part 6. While the VIDA 
directed EPA to preserve certain VGP requirements (specifically, those 
at Parts 2.1, 2.2, and 5) in the Federal standards of performance, it 
did not preserve the WQBELs at Part 2.3 or the specific individual 
states' and Indian Country Lands' requirements at Part 6.
    In contrast to permits issued under CWA section 402, technology-
based effluent limitations developed under CWA sections 301(b) and 
304(b) do not account for the quality of the receiving waters, 
including any water quality standards that may apply. See Southwestern 
Elec. Power Co. v. EPA, 920 F.3d 999, 1005 (5th Cir. 2019) (``The Act 
requires ELGs [developed under CWA section 304(b)] to be based on 
technological feasibility rather than on water quality'') (citing E.I. 
du Pont de Nemours & Co. v. Train, 430 U.S. 112, 130-31 (1977)); See 
also Weyerhaeuser Co. v. Costle, 590 F.2d 1011, 1042 (D.C. Cir. 1978) 
(discussing Congress's decision in adopting the CWA to base national 
standards on technology rather than receiving water quality). 
Therefore, Congress intended EPA to establish the requirements of this 
regulation based on the performance of technologies without regard to 
effects on receiving water quality, after a consideration of the 
factors specified in CWA section 304(b), 33 U.S.C. 1314(b).
    Rather than incorporate water quality-based considerations into the 
Federal standards of performance, Congress instead chose to have EPA, 
the USCG, and states address location-specific water quality impacts 
through different approaches. For example, CWA section 312(p)(4)(E) 
authorizes EPA, in concurrence with the USCG and in consultation with 
states, to ``require, by order, the use of an emergency best management 
practice for any region or category of vessels'' where such an order 
``is necessary to reduce the reasonably foreseeable risk of 
introduction or establishment of an aquatic nuisance species'' or 
``will mitigate the adverse effects of a discharge that contributes to 
a violation of a water quality [standard].'' Elsewhere in the statute, 
CWA section 312(p)(10)(D) creates a process to create geographically 
bound no-discharge zones to ``protect and enhance the quality of the 
specified waters.''
    The final rule contains discharge standards that correspond to 
required levels of technology-based control (BPT, BCT, BAT) for 
discharges incidental to the normal operation of a vessel, as required 
by the CWA. In assessing the availability and achievability of the 
technologies discussed herein, in addition to the rationale for the VGP 
effluent limits, EPA considered studies and data from both domestic and 
international sources including studies and data from foreign-flagged 
vessels, as appropriate. As noted above, some discharge standards 
considered other existing laws and requirements (e.g., Oil Pollution 
Act, APPS, and the Clean Hull Act). Where these laws already exist, EPA 
includes appropriate practices pursuant to these laws as part of the 
final standards to the extent these are demonstrated practices that EPA 
finds to be the best practicable control technology currently available 
(BPT) and best available technology economically achievable (BAT). For 
example, the final standards reaffirm requirements of the Clean Hull 
Act that coating on vessel hulls must not contain tributyltin or any 
other organotin compound used as a biocide.

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

    This section describes the Federal standards of performance 
associated with the general discharge requirements in 40 CFR part 139, 
subpart B. These standards are designed to apply to all vessels and 
incidental discharges subject to the final rule to the extent the 
requirements are appropriate for each incidental discharge. These 
standards are proactive and preventative in nature and are designed to 
minimize the introduction of pollutants into the waters of the United 
States and the waters of the contiguous zone. The standards are based 
on EPA's analysis of available and relevant information, including 
available technical data, existing statutes and regulations, 
statistical industry information, and research studies included in the 
docket.
1. General Operation and Maintenance
    The first category of Federal standards of performance are 
requirements associated with general operation and maintenance 
practices that are designed to eliminate or reduce the discharge of 
pollutants from vessels. 40 CFR 139.4. Unless otherwise noted, changes 
from the proposed rule are based on public comments EPA received on the 
proposed rule. The general operation and maintenance standards contain 
an overarching requirement that all discharges subject to this rule 
must be minimized. In a change from the proposed rule intended to 
provide greater clarity, the final rule specifies that a vessel 
operator must minimize discharges through management practices 
including, but not limited to, storage onboard the vessel, proper 
storage or transfer of materials, or reduced production of discharge. 
40 CFR 139.4(b)(1). These requirements are ``best management 
practices'' (BMPs) under the CWA; which are defined under CWA section 
312(p)(1)(H) as a schedule of activities, prohibitions of practices, 
maintenance procedures, and other management practices to prevent or 
reduce the pollution of the waters of the United States or the waters 
of the contiguous zone. Further, the term ``best management practice'' 
includes any treatment requirement, operating procedure, or practice to 
control vessel runoff, spillage or leaks, sludge or waste disposal, or 
drainage from raw material storage. According to the VIDA, the 
Administrator shall require the use of best management practices to 
control or abate any discharge if numeric

[[Page 82087]]

standards of performance are infeasible; or the best management 
practices are reasonably necessary to achieve the standards of 
performance; or to carry out the purpose and intent of this subsection. 
EPA determined that these BMPs are necessary because it is infeasible 
to identify a single numeric standard where: (1) operation and 
maintenance requirements usually are not expressed numerically; and (2) 
even if they could be expressed numerically, there is not a numeric 
operation and maintenance standard that would be appropriate to apply 
to the multitude vessels, discharge streams, and pollutants subject to 
the VIDA. Id. (p)(4)(B)(ii). The final rule defines the term 
``minimize'' to mean ``to reduce or eliminate to the extent achievable 
using any control measure that is technologically available and 
economically practicable and achievable and supported by demonstrated 
BMPs such that compliance can be documented in shipboard logs and 
plans,'' which will be determined by the Secretary. Minimizing 
discharges provides a reasonable approach for vessels to reduce all the 
incidental discharges subject to this rule, including for discharges 
not subject to specific discharge standards. Minimization of some 
discharges, such as graywater, may be achieved through simple practices 
like reduced production, while other discharges, such as ballast water, 
may require more complex practices, such as saltwater flush or ballast 
water exchange. To further carry out the purpose and intent of the 
VIDA, the final rule at 40 CFR 139.4(b)(2) requires vessels to 
discharge while underway and as far from shore, as practicable. Id. 
(p)(4)(B)(ii).
    The final general operation and management standards also limit the 
types and quantities of materials that a regulated vessel may 
discharge. 40 CFR 139.4(b)(3) prohibits the addition of any materials 
to a discharge, other than for treatment of the discharge, that is not 
incidental to the normal operation of the vessel. 40 CFR 139.4(b)(4) 
prohibits using dilution to meet any effluent discharge standards. 
While EPA recognizes some vessel systems use water permissibly under 
the rule, for example to generate chlorine for disinfection, such a 
practice may not be used as a means of dilution for purposes of meeting 
the discharge standard. 40 CFR 139.4(b)(5) specifies requirements for 
any materials used onboard that may subsequently be discharged (e.g., 
disinfectants, cleaners, biocides, coatings, sacrificial anodes). The 
final rule specifies that materials used onboard that may subsequently 
be discharged must be used only in the amount necessary to perform its 
intended function, and also, in response to public comment, that 
materials must be used according to manufacturer specifications. 40 CFR 
139.4(b)(5)(i). The final rule also prohibits the discharge of any 
material used onboard that will be subsequently discharged that 
contains any materials banned for use in the United States. 40 CFR 
139.4(b)(5)(ii). For any pesticide products (e.g., biocides, anti-
microbials) subject to FIFRA registration, vessel operators must follow 
the FIFRA label for all activities that result in a discharge into the 
waters of the United States or the waters of the contiguous zone. 40 
CFR 139.4(b)(5)(iii).
    To prevent materials and associated pollutants from being washed 
overboard, the rule requires that vessel operators minimize any 
exposure of cargo or other onboard materials that may be inadvertently 
discharged by containerizing or covering materials. 40 CFR 139.4(b)(6). 
Several commenters requested clarification about the effect of this 
regulation on hopper barge operations and expressed concern about 
potential safety impacts. In a change from the proposed rule, the final 
rule at 40 CFR 139.4(b)(6) exempts hopper barges without a fixed cover 
or in circumstances when a vessel operator reasonably determines 
compliance with this requirement would interfere with essential vessel 
operations, negatively impact safety of the vessel, risk loss of life 
at sea, or violate any applicable regulations that establish 
specifications for safe transportation, handling, carriage, and storage 
of toxic or hazardous materials.
    The presence or use of toxic or hazardous materials may be 
necessary for the operation of vessels. For purposes of the final rule, 
the term ``toxic or hazardous materials'' is defined at 40 CFR 139.2 to 
mean any toxic pollutant identified in 40 CFR 401.15 or any hazardous 
material as defined in 49 CFR 171.8. To minimize and prevent discharges 
of toxic or hazardous materials, the final rule requires toxic or 
hazardous material containers to be appropriately sealed, labeled, and 
secured, and located in an area of the vessel that minimizes exposure 
to ocean spray and precipitation consistent with vessel design, unless 
the master determines this would interfere with essential vessel 
operations or safety of the vessel or crew, or would violate any 
applicable regulations that establish specifications for safe 
transportation, handling, carriage, and storage of toxic or hazardous 
materials. 40 CFR 139.4(b)(7)(i). Also, to avoid discharges and prevent 
emergency or other dangerous situations, the final rule requires that 
containers holding toxic or hazardous materials not be overfilled and 
incompatible materials not be mixed. 40 CFR 139.4(b)(7)(ii). In 
response to confusion from a commenter, the final rule includes 
additional language not included in the proposed rule to clarify that 
incompatible materials are substances which, if mixed, will create 
hazards greater than that posed by the individual substances (See the 
comment response section for 40 CFR 139.4, General operation and 
maintenance). Id. Wastes should be managed in accordance with any 
applicable local, State, and Federal regulations, which are outside of 
the scope of this final rule. For example, the Resource Conservation 
and Recovery Act (RCRA) governs the generation, transportation, 
storage, and disposal of solid and hazardous wastes.
    Like the requirements related to toxic and hazardous materials, the 
final standard at 40 CFR 139.4(b)(8) prohibits the discharge or 
disposal of containers holding toxic or hazardous materials. 40 CFR 
139.4(b)(9) requires that vessel operators clean out compartments, 
including tanks, cargo, or other spaces, to meet the definition of 
``broom clean'' or equivalent prior to washing such areas. Further, the 
final rule at 40 CFR 139.4(b)(10) requires vessel operators to maintain 
their topside surface (i.e., exposed decks, hulls above waterline, 
tank, cargo, and related appurtenances) to minimize the discharge of 
cleaning compounds, paint chips, non-skid material fragments, and other 
materials associated with exterior topside surface preservation. 40 CFR 
139.4(b)(11) requires that painting and coating techniques on topside 
surfaces minimize the discharge of paints, coatings, surface 
preparation materials, and similar substances, and 40 CFR 139.4(b)(12) 
prohibits the discharge of any unused paints and coatings.
    The final general operation and maintenance requirement 
consolidates requirements from multiple sections of the VGP and 
specifies that any equipment that may release, drip, leak, or spill oil 
or oily mixtures, fuel, or other toxic or hazardous materials, 
including to the bilge, must be maintained regularly to minimize or 
eliminate the discharges. 40 CFR 139.4(b)(13).
2. Biofouling Management
    Vessel biofouling is the accumulation of aquatic organisms such as 
plants,

[[Page 82088]]

animals, and microorganisms on vessel equipment or systems immersed in 
or exposed to the aquatic environment. Biofouling discharges include 
but are not limited to those from maintenance and cleaning activities 
of hulls, niche areas, and associated coatings. Biofouling can include 
pathogens, as well as microscopic fouling (``microfouling'') and 
macroscopic fouling (``macrofouling''). Microfouling is biofouling 
caused by bacteria, fungi, microalgae, protozoans, and other 
microscopic organisms that creates a biofilm, also called a slime 
layer. Microfouling is a precursor to macrofouling. Macrofouling is 
biofouling caused by the attachment and subsequent growth of visible 
plants and animals. Macrofouling includes large, distinct, 
multicellular individual or colonial organisms visible to the human 
eye, such as barnacles, tubeworms, mussels, fronds/filaments of algae, 
bryozoans, sea squirts, and other large attached, encrusting, or mobile 
organisms.
    Biofouling on vessel equipment and systems is one of the main 
vectors for the introduction and spread of aquatic nuisance species 
(ANS) (Gollasch, 2002; Drake and Lodge, 2007; Hewitt et al., 2009; 
Hewitt and Campbell, 2010). Biofouling organisms are discharged from 
vessel surfaces both passively through sloughing and actively through 
in-water cleaning activities (See 40 CFR 139.2, definitions of 
``passive discharge of biofouling'' and ``active discharge of 
biofouling''). Biofouling produces drag on a vessel hull and protruding 
niche areas, leading to greater fuel consumption and increased 
greenhouse gas emissions. It can also result in hull corrosion and 
blockage of internal seawater piping, such as the engine cooling and 
firemain systems, thereby degrading the integrity of the vessel 
structure and impeding safe operation.
    In the proposed rule, EPA included requirements to reduce the 
discharge of biofouling organisms from vessel equipment and systems, 
notably from hulls and associated niche areas, by requiring vessel 
operators to develop and follow a biofouling management plan and follow 
specific in-water equipment and system cleaning protocols. 
Additionally, EPA proposed to prohibit in-water cleaning of biofouling 
on hulls and associated niche areas that exceed a U.S. Navy fouling 
rating (FR) of FR-20, except when the fouling is local in origin and 
cleaning does not result in the substantial removal of a biocidal anti-
fouling coating, as indicated by a plume or cloud of paint; or, when an 
in-water cleaning and capture (IWCC) system is used that is designed 
and operated to capture coatings and biofouling organisms, filter 
biofouling organisms from the effluent, and minimize the release of 
biocides. EPA recommended, but did not propose to require, the use of 
IWCC systems for removal of local macrofouling.
    Based on comments received during the public comment period for the 
proposed rule and subsequent meetings with interested States, Tribes, 
and other stakeholders held between August and November 2021, EPA 
published a supplemental notice that discussed additional regulatory 
options for discharges from hulls and associated niche areas. The 
supplemental notice discussed five key issues raised during the public 
comment period for the proposed rule regarding the general 
applicability of the hull and associated niche area requirements and 
cleaning of this equipment as proposed in 40 CFR 139.22(a) and (d). All 
comments were considered in preparation of the final rule.
    EPA in the VGP considered discharges of biofouling organisms to be 
incidental when such discharges originate from vessel equipment and 
systems while the vessel is immersed in or exposed to the aquatic 
environment. Both the VGP and the discharge regulations promulgated 
pursuant to CWA section 312(n) for incidental discharges from vessels 
of the Armed Forces included management requirements to minimize the 
discharge of biofouling organisms from vessel equipment and systems. 
The VGP in Parts 2.2.23 and 4.1.3 required that vessel operators (1) 
minimize the transport of attached living organisms; and (2) conduct 
annual inspections of the vessel hull (including niche areas) for 
fouling organisms, respectively. Part 4.1.4 of the VGP also required 
vessel operators to prepare drydock inspection reports to demonstrate 
that the vessel hull and other surface and niche areas had been 
inspected for attached living organisms and that those organisms had 
been removed or neutralized. These reports were to be made available to 
EPA or an authorized representative of EPA upon request. Except in 
those circumstances specified in CWA section 312(p)(4)(D)(ii)(II), 
EPA's discharge regulations must be as stringent as those in the VGP. 
The final rule includes these requirements for the discharge of 
biofouling organisms from vessel equipment and systems.
    Among the comments EPA considered were ones suggesting that 
biofouling should not be regulated as a discharge incidental to the 
normal operation of a vessel under the VIDA. However, EPA continues to 
interpret the statutory definition of ``discharge incidental to the 
normal operation of a vessel'' (``incidental discharge'') at CWA 
section 312(a)(12) to include discharges of biofouling organisms from 
vessel equipment and systems. As described in the proposed rule and 
supplemental notice, biofouling discharges are an ordinary accompanying 
circumstance of vessel operation and transit and thus fit the plain 
meaning of ``discharge incidental to the normal operation of a 
vessel.'' (85 FR 67818, October 26, 2020, section VIII.A.2 and 88 FR 
71788, October 18, 2023, section IV.C.1). Additionally, the definition 
of ``discharge incidental to the normal operation of a vessel'' 
explicitly uses the word ``including,'' indicating that although 
``biofouling'' is not specifically mentioned in the definition, the 
definition's list of discharges is illustrative and not exhaustive. 33 
U.S.C. 1322(a)(12). Other enumerated terms within the definition also 
reasonably encompass biofouling. For example, ``any other pollutant 
discharge from the operation of a marine propulsion system, shipboard 
maneuvering system, crew habitability system, or installed major 
equipment. . .'' encompasses biofouling discharge from a vessel hull 
because the shipboard maneuvering systems cannot ``operate'' without 
the hull. Id. Additionally, ``a discharge in connection with the . . . 
maintenance[ ] and repair'' of any ``protective, preservative, or 
absorptive application to the hull'' could include biofouling 
discharge. Id. Finally, the statutory history and regulatory history 
support EPA's interpretation, particularly because the VGP regulated 
the same types of biofouling discharges as the final rule.
    The final rule requires each vessel to develop a biofouling 
management plan to minimize the discharge of biofouling organisms, 
thereby minimizing the potential for the introduction and spread of 
ANS. 40 CFR 139.5(b). The requirement to develop a biofouling 
management plan is intended to provide a holistic strategy that 
considers the operational profile of the vessel, identifies the 
appropriate anti-fouling systems, and details the biofouling management 
practices for specific areas of the vessel. The details of the plan 
would fall under the USCG's implementing regulations established under 
CWA section 312(p)(5), although the plan elements must prioritize 
procedures and strategies to prevent macrofouling.
    While the VGP did not explicitly require a biofouling management 
plan,

[[Page 82089]]

it required the majority of the components that EPA expects will 
comprise a biofouling management plan individually, such as: (1) the 
consideration of vessel class, operations, and biocide release rates 
and components in the selection of anti-fouling systems; (2) an annual 
inspection of the vessel hull and niche areas for assessment of 
biofouling organisms and condition of anti-fouling paint; (3) a drydock 
inspection report noting that the vessel hull and niche areas have been 
inspected for biofouling organisms and those organisms have been 
removed or neutralized; (4) reporting of cleaning schedules and 
methods; and (5) appropriate disposal of wastes generated during 
cleaning operations. Additionally, per the Clean Hull Act of 2009, 
every vessel engaging in one or more international voyages is required 
to carry an anti-fouling system certificate that contains the details 
of the anti-fouling system (See 33 U.S.C. 3821). Moreover, under 
regulations promulgated under the authority of the National Invasive 
Species Act, the USCG has required the individual in charge of any 
vessel equipped with ballast water tanks that operates in the waters of 
the United States to maintain a ballast water management plan that has 
been developed specifically for the vessel and that will allow those 
responsible for the plan's implementation to understand the vessel's 
ballast water management strategy and comply with the requirements. 33 
CFR 151.2050. That ballast water management plan is to include detailed 
biofouling maintenance and sediment removal procedures (33 CFR 
151.2050(g)(3)). Consistent with guidance issued by the USCG on those 
regulations, these procedures were to be incorporated into the ballast 
water management plan or included as separate Biofouling Management and 
Sediment Management Plans and referenced in the ballast water 
management plan (USCG, 2014). Under this guidance, the USCG advised 
that IMO Resolution Marine Environment Protection Committee (MEPC) 
207(62) provides effective guidance for developing and implementing a 
vessel-specific biofouling management plan.
    Developing vessel-specific biofouling management plans is important 
because vessels can vary widely in operational profile and, therefore, 
in the extent and type of biofouling. However, the final rule 
recognizes that vessels with similar operational profiles, such as 
vessels that cross the same waterbodies, travel at similar speeds, and 
share the same design, may also employ the same management measures, 
such as selecting the same types of anti-fouling systems and applying 
the same inspection and cleaning schedules. It is anticipated that 
fleet owners may develop a biofouling management plan template that can 
be readily adapted into a vessel-specific biofouling management plan. 
To address comments received on the proposed rule, the final rule 
clarifies that a biofouling management plan must be developed to 
minimize the discharge of biofouling organisms, prioritize procedures 
and strategies to prevent macrofouling (thereby minimizing the 
potential for the introduction and spread of ANS), and describe the 
vessel-specific anti-fouling systems and biofouling management 
practices necessary to comply with requirements in 40 CFR 139.5. The 
USCG, through its regulations developed under CWA section 312(p)(5), 
has the authority to specify the details of the plan, including how 
vessel operators are to implement and follow that plan. The final rule 
also references 40 CFR 139.13 (cathodic protection), 139.14 (chain 
lockers), 139.22 (hulls and associated niche areas), 139.28 (seawater 
piping), and 139.29 (sonar domes) for additional biofouling management 
requirements.
3. Oil Management
    The final rule aims to minimize discharges of oil, including oily 
mixtures, and requires vessel operators to use control and response 
measures to prevent, minimize, and contain spills and overflows during 
fueling, maintenance, and other vessel operations. 40 CFR 139.6(d). 
This reinforces existing requirements found at 33 CFR part 155 that 
require taking immediate and appropriate corrective actions if an oil 
spill is observed because of vessel operations, including maintaining 
appropriate spill containment and cleanup materials onboard and 
immediately using such materials in the event of any spill.
    Also, the final rule specifies that the discharge of used or spent 
oil no longer being used for its intended purpose is prohibited. 40 CFR 
139.6(b). This includes any used or spent oil that may be added to an 
incidental discharge that is otherwise authorized to be discharged. 
Overall, this section authorizes discharges of small amounts of oil, 
including oily mixtures, incidental to the normal operation of a vessel 
provided such discharges comply with the otherwise applicable existing 
legal requirements. For example, consistent with the CWA, this standard 
prohibits the discharge of oil in such quantities as may be harmful, as 
defined in 40 CFR 110.3. See 40 CFR 139.6(c) (prohibiting discharges in 
quantities that may be harmful) and 139.2 (defining ``Discharge of oil 
in such quantities as may be harmful'' by reference to 40 CFR 110.3 and 
110.5).
    The final rule at 40 CFR 139.3 specifies that, except as expressly 
provided, nothing in this part affects the applicability of any other 
provision of Federal law as specified in several statutory and 
regulatory citations. 40 CFR 139.3 includes citations for CWA section 
311 and the Act to Prevent Pollution from Ships (APPS) (33 U.S.C. 1901 
et seq.), both of which address discharges of oil. Under CWA section 
311, any oil, including oily mixtures, other than those exempted in 40 
CFR 110.5, may not be discharged in such quantities as ``may be 
harmful,'' which is defined to include those discharges that violate 
applicable water quality standards or ``cause a film or sheen upon or 
discoloration of the surface of the water or adjoining shorelines or 
cause a sludge or emulsion to be deposited beneath the surface of the 
water or upon adjoining shorelines.'' Discharges that are not included 
in the description of ``may be harmful'' include discharges of oil from 
a properly functioning vessel engine (including an engine on a public 
vessel) and any discharges of such oil accumulated in the bilges of a 
vessel discharged in compliance with 33 CFR part 151 subpart A; other 
discharges of oil permitted under MARPOL 73/78, Annex I, as provided in 
33 CFR part 151 subpart A; and any discharge of oil explicitly 
permitted by the Administrator in connection with research, 
demonstration projects, or studies relating to the prevention, control, 
or abatement of oil pollution. The United States enacted the APPS to 
implement the nation's obligations under MARPOL 73/78. As the lead 
agency for APPS implementation, the USCG issued implementing 
regulations primarily found at 33 CFR part 151. Those APPS requirements 
already apply to many of the vessels that are covered by this rule. 
Among other things, the APPS regulates the discharge of oil and oily 
mixtures. Generally, these requirements prohibit ``any discharge of oil 
or oily mixtures into the sea from a ship'' except when certain 
conditions are met, including a discharge with an oil content of less 
than 15 ppm and that the ship operates oily-water separating equipment, 
an oil content monitor, a bilge alarm, or a combination thereof.
    The final rule also includes requirements for oil-to-sea 
interfaces. Specifically, the final rule requires the use of 
environmentally acceptable lubricants (EALs) for oil-to-sea

[[Page 82090]]

interfaces unless technically infeasible. 40 CFR 139.6(e). The final 
standard for general operation and maintenance at 40 CFR 139.4 also 
identifies a series of mandatory BMPs for minimizing lubricant 
discharges during maintenance.
    Oil-to-sea interfaces are defined as seals or surfaces on shipboard 
equipment where the design is such that small quantities of oil can 
escape into the surrounding waters during normal vessel operations. See 
40 CFR 139.2. For example, below-water seals frequently use lubricating 
oil mechanisms that maintain higher pressure than the surrounding sea 
to ensure that no seawater enters the system and compromises the unit's 
performance. Above-deck equipment with portions of the machinery 
extended overboard, or equipment mounted to the exterior hull of the 
vessel, may also have oil-to-sea interfaces. During normal operation, 
small quantities of lubricant oil in these interfaces are discharged 
directly into surrounding waters. Constituents of conventional 
hydraulic and lubricating oils vary by manufacturer, but may include 
copper, tin, aluminum, nickel, and lead. In addition, traditional 
mineral oils have a low biodegradation rate, a high potential for 
bioaccumulation, and a measurable toxicity towards marine organisms.
    Vessels use lubricants in a wide variety of shipboard applications. 
Examples of lubricated equipment with oil-to-sea interfaces include:
    <bullet> Stern tube: A stern tube is the casing or hole through the 
hull of the vessel that enables the propeller shaft to connect the 
vessel's engine to the propeller on the exterior of the vessel. Stern 
tubes contain seals designed to keep the stern tube lubricant from 
exiting the equipment array and being discharged to waters at the 
exterior of the vessel's hull.
    <bullet> Controllable pitch propeller: Variably pitched propeller 
blades are for changing the speed or direction of a vessel and 
supplementing the main propulsion system. Controllable pitch propellers 
also contain seals that prevent the lubricant from exiting the 
equipment array.
    <bullet> Rudder bearings: These bearings allow a vessel's rudder to 
turn freely; they also use seals with an oil-to-sea interface.
    <bullet> Lubricated deck equipment above the water surface line 
that extends overboard: Hose handling cranes, hydraulic system 
provision handling cranes, hydraulic cranes, and hydraulic stern ramps 
are examples of machinery with the potential for above-water discharges 
of lubricants. When vessels are underway, this equipment is often not 
operational, and any lubricant losses are typically captured during 
deck washdown and treated as part of deck washdown wastewater. However, 
discharges can occur when portions of the machinery such as booms or 
jibs, trolleys, cables, hoist gear, or derrick arms are in use and 
extend over the side of vessel.
    <bullet> Lubricated equipment, such as accommodation ladders, 
mounted to the exterior of the vessel hull.
    In the case of controllable pitch propellers (CPP), up to 20 ounces 
of hydraulic and lubricating oils could be released for every CPP blade 
that is replaced, with blade replacement occurring at drydock intervals 
or when the blade is damaged. When the blade replacement includes 
removal of the blade port cover (generally occurring infrequently, less 
than once per month), up to five gallons of oil could be discharged 
into surrounding waters unless the service is performed in drydock. 
Additionally, many oceangoing vessels operate with oil-lubricated stern 
tubes. Oil leakage from stern tubes, once considered a part of normal 
``operational consumption'' of oil, has become an issue of global 
concern and is now treated as oil pollution. A 2001 study commissioned 
by the European Commission DG Joint Research Centre concluded that 
routine unauthorized operational discharges of oil from ships into the 
Mediterranean Sea created more pollution than accidental spills 
(Pavlakis et al., 2001). Similarly, an analysis of data on oil 
consumption sourced from a lubricant supplier indicated that daily 
stern tube lubricant consumption rates for different vessels could 
range up to 20 liters per day (Etkin, 2010). This analysis estimated 
that operational discharges (including stern tube leakage) from vessels 
add between 36.9 million liters and 61 million liters of lubricating 
oil into marine port waters annually.
    One commenter requested that EPA restore language from the VGP 
recommending use of seawater-based systems for stern tube lubrication 
to eliminate the discharge of oil from these interfaces to the aquatic 
environment. EPA agrees, and the Agency has added this VGP language 
back into the text of the final standard. See 40 CFR 139.6(e) 
(``Operators of new build vessels should endeavor to use seawater-based 
systems for stern tube lubrication to eliminate the discharge of oil 
from these interfaces to the aquatic environment.'')
    The final rule at 40 CFR 139.2 defines an EAL as a lubricant or 
hydraulic fluid, including any oil or grease, that is 
``biodegradable,'' ``minimally-toxic,'' and ``not bioaccumulative.'' 
The addition of ``or hydraulic fluid'' to the definition clarifies, 
consistent with VGP implementation, that any hydraulic fluid containing 
oils or greases and used in equipment with an oil-to-sea interface 
requires use of an EAL, unless technically infeasible. Based on several 
comments received regarding oil-to-sea interfaces on deck equipment, 
EPA reexamined the definition for ``oil-to-sea interface'' at 40 CFR 
139.2 and updated it to clarify that oil-to-sea interfaces are found on 
equipment subject to immersion as well as equipment above the surface 
line that extends overboard or is mounted to the exterior of the hull. 
This modification is in line with EPA's regulation of those portions of 
vessel deck equipment from which lubricant or hydraulic fluid losses 
cannot otherwise be managed onboard the vessel.
    More than 16 manufacturers have produced EALs for the global 
shipping community, providing vessel operators with a wide array of 
choices for optimizing lubricant technical performance. Most major 
marine equipment manufacturers have approved EALs for use in their 
machinery, and new equipment, such as air seals, is being introduced 
and refined commercially to minimize or eliminate the need for EALs. 
The market for EALs continues to expand around the world, particularly 
in Europe where the use of such lubricants is promoted through a 
combination of tax breaks, purchasing subsidies, and national and 
international labeling programs. Thus, EAL's are widely available to 
vessels in the marketplace and their use. And while vessels must incur 
additional costs to purchase EALs, EPA has analyzed those costs in its 
Economic Analysis and finds them to be economically achievable. The 
Agency has thus determined that product substitution of EALs for other 
lubricants in oil-to-sea applications (unless technically infeasible), 
together with the required BMPs for maintenance, represents BAT for 
discharges from oil-to-sea interfaces. Use of EALs in lieu of 
conventional formulations for oil-to-sea interfaces can offer 
significantly reduced discharges of pollutants of concern (U.S. EPA, 
2011).
    As part of the BAT analysis for the VGP, EPA considered the 
processes employed and potential process changes that might be 
necessary for vessels to use EALs. As EPA explained at the time, EALs 
are readily available, and their use is economically achievable for 
applications where it is technologically available (U.S. EPA, 2011). 
The 40 CFR 139.6(e) requirement carries forward

[[Page 82091]]

EPA's VGP approach based on BAT that numeric standards of performance 
for discharges from oil-to-sea interfaces are infeasible but that EALs 
are technologically available, economically achievable, and reasonably 
necessary to carry out the purpose and intent of this subsection. New 
vessels can select equipment during design and construction that is 
compatible with EALs. Furthermore, vessel operators can design 
additional onboard storage capacity for EALs if they choose to use 
traditional mineral-based oil for engine lubrication (thereby needing 
two types of oils on-hand). The extra storage capacity needed would be 
minor. However, EPA considers the use of EALs in some applications to 
not be technologically practicable or achievable, such as for when 
there is existing equipment for which no compatible products are 
currently available. Therefore, the final rule at 40 CFR 139.6(e) 
retains the caveat from the VGP that EALs must be used in oil-to-sea 
interfaces except when ``technically infeasible.''
    The Agency considered several other approaches for regulating oil-
to-sea interfaces. For one, the most recent version of the European 
Ecolabel program has a modified definition of what constitutes an EAL 
in that it now allows for ``small quantities'' (i.e., <0.1 percent) of 
bioaccumulative substances in lubricant formulations. EPA considered 
revising the definition of ``biodegradable'' at 40 CFR 139.2 to more 
closely align the terminology with current European Ecolabel 
requirements for achieving specific levels of degradation within 10, 
rather than 28, days. EPA notes that stakeholders involved in the 
European Ecolabel program felt strongly that this change in the test 
pass window would significantly reduce the number of lubricant 
formulations available on the market. To ensure widespread installation 
and use of EALs by vessels that operate in the waters of the United 
States or the waters of the contiguous zone, EPA in 40 CFR 139.2 
retained the definition of ``biodegradable'' as used in the VGP.
    The final standard for oil-to-sea interfaces includes EAL 
requirements as part of a general standard for oil management 
applicable to any specific discharge that may have an oil-to-sea 
interface rather than a specific discharge standard. See 40 CFR 
139.6(e). Further, the standard covers all oil-to-sea interfaces on 
vessels rather than specifically identified interfaces. Id. EPA notes 
that certain types of seals used on below-deck equipment, such as air 
seals, are based on designs that use an air gap or other mechanical 
features to prevent oils from reaching waters at the exterior of the 
vessel's hull. If these seals do not allow the lubricant to be released 
under normal circumstances, they are not considered to be oil-to-sea 
interfaces. See 40 CFR 139.2 (an ``oil-to-sea interface'' has a 
``design [ ] such that oil or oily mixtures can escape directly into 
surrounding waters'') (emphasis added). Determinations of technical 
infeasibility regarding the use of an EAL pertain to implementation and 
therefore would fall under the USCG's implementing regulations 
established under CWA section 312(p)(5). The scope of this discharge 
category extends to all types of equipment with direct oil-to-sea 
interfaces, including any equipment on-deck or mounted to the exterior 
of the vessel hull. See 40 CFR 139.2 (definition of ``oil-to-sea 
interface''). While the VGP provided that a lubricant could be 
classified as an EAL if it was either ``biodegradable,'' ``minimally-
toxic,'' and ``not bioaccumulative'' or labeled under a defined list of 
labeling programs (e.g., the European Union's European Ecolabel and 
Germany's Blue Angel), the final rule does not include a list of 
acceptable labeling programs. This is because neither EPA nor the USCG 
can control future modifications to the criteria by these 
organizations. EPA expects that all or most of the labeling programs 
identified in the VGP will meet the EAL criteria in this final rule and 
subsequent USCG implementing regulations, such that a comparable 
selection of appropriate lubricants will be available to vessel 
operators.

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

    This section describes the final specific Federal standards of 
performance for discharges incidental to the normal operation of a 
regulated vessel. The final Federal standards of performance apply to 
regulated vessels operating within the waters of the United States or 
the waters of the contiguous zone. The final rule requires that a 
discharge comprised of two or more regulated incidental discharges must 
meet the Federal standards of performance established for each of those 
commingled discharges.
1. Ballast Tanks
a. Background and Applicability
    The final rule incorporates the CWA section 312(p)(1) definition of 
``ballast water'' to mean any water, suspended matter, and other 
materials taken onboard a vessel to control or maintain trim, draft, 
stability, or stresses of the vessel, regardless of how any such water 
or suspended matter is carried; or taken onboard a vessel during the 
cleaning, maintenance, or other operation of a ballast tank or ballast 
management system of the vessel. 40 CFR 139.2. This statutory 
definition is slightly expanded and clarified from the VGP, which 
included the USCG definition of the term, meaning any water and 
suspended matter taken on board a vessel to control or maintain, trim, 
draught, stability, or stresses of the vessel, regardless of how it is 
carried. VGP appendix A; 33 CFR 151.1504. The term ``ballast water'' 
does not include any substance that is added to the water that is 
directly related to the operation of a properly functioning ballast 
water management system (BWMS). In response to several commenters, EPA 
is clarifying here that the definition of ``ballast water'' does not 
include discharges of fresh water, sea water, or ice carried onboard a 
vessel for food safety and product quality purposes and as such are not 
subject to the ballast water requirements in the final rule. The final 
rule carries forward the definition of ``ballast tank'' from the 
appendix A of the VGP to mean any tank or hold on a vessel used for 
carrying ballast water, regardless of whether the tank or hold was 
designed for that purpose. 40 CFR 139.2.
    Ballast water discharge volumes and rates vary significantly by 
vessel type, ballast tank capacity, and type of deballasting equipment 
for the universe of vessels covered under the rule. Most passenger 
vessels have ballast capacities of less than 5,000 cubic meters 
(approximately 1.3 million gallons) of water. Cargo/container ships 
generally have ballast capacities of five to 20 thousand cubic meters 
(more than 1.3 to 5.3 million gallons) of water while some bulk 
carriers and tankers have ballast capacities greater than 40 thousand 
cubic meters (over 10 million gallons) of water.
    Ballast water may contain toxic and nonconventional pollutants such 
as rust inhibitors, epoxy coating materials, zinc or aluminum (from 
anodes), iron, nickel, copper, bronze, silver, and other material or 
sediment from inside the tanks, pipes, or other machinery. Ballast 
water may also contain organisms that originate from where the water is 
collected. When ballast water is discharged, these organisms may 
establish new populations of ANS in the receiving waterbodies. Ballast 
water discharged from vessels has been, and continues to be, a 
significant environmental concern because it can introduce and spread 
ANS that threaten the diversity and abundance of native species; the 
ecological stability of U.S.

[[Page 82092]]

waters; and the commercial, agricultural, aquacultural, and 
recreational use of those waters.
    Prior to passage of the VIDA, ballast water discharges were 
regulated by multiple Federal and State laws and regulations. The USCG 
regulated ballast water discharges under the Nonindigenous Aquatic 
Nuisance Prevention and Control Act of 1990 (NANPCA), and amendments 
thereto by the National Invasive Species Act (NISA) of 1996 (33 CFR 
part 151 subparts C and D). EPA regulated ballast water discharges 
under the VGP through the NPDES program authorized under CWA section 
402. However, the VIDA established that ballast water will now be 
regulated as an incidental discharge under a new CWA section 312(p). 
The VIDA set as a presumptive minimum baseline the existing VGP 
requirements.
    Additionally, several states (California, Michigan, Minnesota, 
Ohio, Oregon, Washington, and Wisconsin) previously used their 
certification authorities under CWA section 401 or under standalone 
State authorities to impose additional, State-specific requirements on 
commercial vessels operating within their State waters. The existing 
USCG and EPA requirements for ballast water, as well as such additional 
standalone State standards, will no longer apply once EPA has 
established national standards and the USCG has promulgated 
implementing regulations that are final, effective, and enforceable 
under the VIDA. 33 U.S.C. 1322(p)(9)(A)(i).
    The final standards for ballast water reflect BAT considering the 
specified statutory factors for BAT under CWA section 304(b), as well 
as the previous requirements established in the VGP and 33 CFR part 151 
subparts C and D, and the new requirements established in the VIDA.
b. Exclusions
    The final standards for ballast water apply to any vessel equipped 
with one or more ballast tanks that operates in the waters of the 
United States or waters of the contiguous zone, except as excluded by 
statute or regulation. Pursuant to CWA section 312(p)(2)(B)(ii), the 
final rule excludes ballast water discharges from the following five 
vessel categories from the CWA section 312(p) ballast water standards: 
(1) vessels that continuously take on and discharge ballast water in a 
flow-through system; (2) vessels in the National Defense Reserve Fleet 
scheduled for disposal; (3) vessels discharging ballast water 
consisting solely of water taken onboard from a public or commercial 
source that, at the time the water is taken onboard, meets the Safe 
Drinking Water Act requirements; (4) vessels carrying all permanent 
ballast water in sealed tanks; and (5) vessels discharging ballast 
water into a reception facility. 40 CFR 139.10(b).
i. Vessels That Continuously Take on and Discharge Ballast Water in a 
Flow-Through System
    The final rule excludes discharges of ballast water from a vessel 
that continuously takes on and discharges ballast water in a flow-
through system, if the Administrator determines that the system cannot 
materially contribute to the spread or introduction of an ANS from 
ballast water into waters of the United States or the contiguous zone 
(40 CFR 139.10(b)(1)), acknowledging that such a flow-through system 
may have additional areas on the hull (e.g., niches) requiring more 
rigorous biofouling management. EPA is unaware of any such vessels 
currently in commercial operation, but theoretically a vessel could be 
designed to have ambient water flow through the hull for vessel 
stability without retaining any of that water in such a way that it 
would be transported. Should any such vessel begin commercial 
operation, EPA expects that it would evaluate the ballasting 
configuration to determine if the vessel meets the statutory 
description, in which case it would be excluded from the ballast water 
discharge standards. In that instance, the Administrator would notify 
the vessel owner/operator of such a determination. 40 CFR 139.10(b)(1); 
33 U.S.C. 1322(p)(2)(B)(ii)(I).
ii. Vessels in the National Defense Reserve Fleet Scheduled for 
Disposal
    The final rule excludes discharges of ballast water from a vessel 
in the National Defense Reserve Fleet \7\ that is scheduled for 
disposal if the vessel does not have an operable BWMS. 40 CFR 
139.10(b)(2); 33 U.S.C. 1322(p)(2)(B)(ii)(II).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ This includes a fleet of vessels, established by section 11 
of the Merchant Ship Sales Act of 1946, reserved for national 
defense and national emergencies.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

iii. Vessels Discharging Ballast Water Consisting Solely of Water 
Meeting the Safe Drinking Water Act Requirements
    The final rule excludes discharges of ballast water from a vessel 
that consist solely of water taken onboard from a public or commercial 
source that, at the time the water is taken onboard, meets the 
applicable requirements of the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) (42 
U.S.C. 300f et seq.) at 40 CFR parts 141 and 143. 40 CFR 139.10(b)(3); 
33 U.S.C. 1322(p)(2)(B)(ii)(III). In plain terms, this means that 
vessels may use and discharge finished, potable water as ballast, but 
may not use or discharge untreated water from a public water system 
that is not necessarily potable.
    The exclusion in final rule, unlike the proposed exclusion, does 
not categorically apply to water taken onboard that meets Health 
Canada's Guidelines for Canadian Drinking Water Quality because EPA 
determined that the implementation details of this Congressionally-
mandated exclusion, such as identification of potable water sources 
consistent with SDWA regulations, may be more appropriately left to the 
USCG as part of its implementation, compliance, and enforcement 
requirements under CWA section 312(p)(5). EPA does not have information 
suggesting vessels made use of a comparable allowance present in the 
VGP for water meeting Health Canada's Guidelines, and the USCG ballast 
water regulations in 33 CFR part 151 did not provide for a comparable 
allowance. Thus, prior to the VIDA, this allowance for water meeting 
Health Canada's Guidelines applied solely to the universe of vessels 
regulated under the VGP but not USCG regulations (namely, vessels 
operating on the Great Lakes). However, an industry representative for 
U.S.-flagged vessels operating on the Great Lakes commented on the 
proposed rule that it is not operationally or economically feasible for 
a U.S.-flagged vessel to receive water meeting potable water 
requirements. Thus, while the intent of EPA's proposed rule was to 
retain the expanded exclusion from the VGP to include potable water 
used as ballast that meets Health Canada's Guidelines, the final rule 
does not include such expansion to more closely align with the 
statutory language and consistent with information in a comment EPA 
received demonstrating that the requirement would not be 
technologically available and economically achievable. EPA acknowledges 
that vessels discharging ballast water consisting solely of water taken 
onboard from public or commercial water sources may be deemed to be 
consistent with applicable requirements of the SDWA and that the USCG 
may establish procedures for use of such water as a means to comply 
with the ballast water discharge standard. EPA anticipates that USCG 
may address this issue as a matter of implementation, compliance, and 
enforcement in its corresponding rulemaking under the VIDA.

[[Page 82093]]

iv. Vessels Carrying All Permanent Ballast Water in Sealed Tanks
    The final rule excludes discharges of ballast water from a vessel 
that carries all permanent ballast water in sealed tanks that are not 
subject to discharge. 40 CFR 139.10(b)(4). The final rule did not carry 
through the phrase ``except under emergency circumstances'' from the 
proposed rule in recognition that 40 CFR 139.1(b)(3) excludes 
discharges from VIDA regulation if compliance with this part would 
compromise the safety of life at sea. This 40 CFR 139.1(b)(3) exclusion 
would cover discharges of ballast water from a sealed tank in emergency 
circumstances. As such, clarification about emergency circumstances 
specific to discharges from sealed tanks is duplicative and 
unnecessary. This 40 CFR 139.10(b)(4) exclusion is different from the 
ballast water exchange and saltwater flush exemptions described in 
section VIII.B.1.h. of this preamble, Ballast Water Exchange and 
Saltwater Flush. 33 U.S.C. 1322(p)(2)(B)(ii)(IV).
v. Vessels Discharging Ballast Water Into a Reception Facility
    The final rule excludes discharges of ballast water from a vessel 
that only discharges ballast water into a reception facility (which 
could include another vessel for the purpose of storing or treating 
that ballast water). In such instances, once the ballast water is 
offloaded to a reception facility, that ballast water would be subject 
to any applicable regulation for discharges from that reception 
facility. Consistent with the rationale provided in the 2013 VGP Fact 
Sheet, EPA would continue to expect that all vessel piping and 
supporting infrastructure up to the last manifold or valve immediately 
before the reception facility manifold connection, or similar 
appurtenance, prevents untreated ballast water from being discharged. 
Any such discharge not meeting this requirement would be expected to 
meet the ballast water discharge standards in the final rule. 40 CFR 
139.10(b)(5); 33 U.S.C. 1322(p)(2)(B)(ii)(V).
c. Exemption From Existing USCG Regulations for Crude Oil Tankers Not 
Adopted
    Crude oil tankers engaged in coastwise trade are exempted from the 
existing USCG regulation (33 CFR 151.2015(b)), consistent with section 
1101(c)(2)(L) of the NISA (16 U.S.C. 4711). However, these same vessels 
are not exempted from meeting the ballast water requirements in the VGP 
and are not exempted under the VIDA. Therefore, pursuant to CWA section 
312(p)(4)(B)(iii), which requires this rule to be at least as stringent 
as specified parts of the VGP, the final rule does not exempt crude oil 
tankers engaged in coastwise trade from meeting the ballast water 
requirements set forth in the rule. Such vessels are not inherently 
unable to perform ballast water exchanges and other ANS management 
practices that their non-exempt counterparts routinely carry out. EPA 
expects this final rule to impose no additional costs given that the 
requirements are presently in effect under the VGP.
d. Ballast Water Best Management Practices
    Pursuant to CWA section 312(p)(4)(B)(ii), the final rule includes 
six ballast water BMPs for all vessels with ballast tanks and one 
additional ballast water BMP specific to Lakers to control or abate the 
number of organisms taken up and discharged in ballast water. 40 CFR 
139.10(c). The final rule retains many of the ballast water BMPs 
included in the VGP (and present in USCG regulations at 33 CFR part 151 
subpart D), in line with the VIDA's requirement that EPA's standards be 
at least as stringent as the VGP with limited exceptions. At present, 
the ballast water BMPs in this section are widely implemented and EPA 
has not identified any unacceptable non-water quality environmental 
impacts (e.g., energy requirements, air impacts, solid waste impacts, 
and changes in waters use) related to these practices. These are 
demonstrated practices that EPA finds to be technologically available 
and economically achievable.
    The final rule does not include one ballast water BMP that was 
included in both the VGP and USCG regulations at 33 CFR part 151 
subparts C and D. The final rule does not require that vessel operators 
minimize or avoid uptake of ballast water in the following areas and 
situations: areas known to have infestations or populations of harmful 
organisms and pathogens (e.g., toxic algal blooms); areas near sewage 
outfalls; areas near dredging operations; areas where tidal flushing is 
known to be poor or times when a tidal stream is known to be turbid; in 
darkness, when bottom-dwelling organisms may rise in the water column; 
where propellers may stir up the sediment; and areas with pods of 
whales, convergence zones, and boundaries of major currents.
    This change is based on extensive conversations with the USCG and 
comments received indicating that such requirements are not practical 
to implement or enforce. During these conversations, new information 
from implementation of the VGP became available indicating that these 
conditions are not well-defined and are typically beyond the control of 
the vessel operator during the uptake and discharge of ballast water. 
Additionally, it is difficult for enforcement agencies to assess 
whether a vessel operator took appropriate actions as necessary to 
comply with these requirements. Therefore, it is not practical to 
continue to require that vessels minimize or avoid uptake of ballast 
water in those areas and situations. 33 U.S.C. 1314(b)(2)(B) and 33 
U.S.C. 1322(p)(4)(D)(ii)(II)(aa). In lieu of including the uptake 
measures as individual requirements, EPA expects that appropriate 
vessel-specific ballast water BMPs will be incorporated into the 
ballast water management plans (BWMPs) discussed later in this section, 
as vessels must minimize the introduction and spread of ANS. For 
example, BWMPs could describe coordinating with local authorities to 
identify areas and situations of concern and any opportunities to 
mitigate potential issues. Demonstrating that these important 
considerations were made by vessel operators would provide for 
environmental protection but allow vessel operators to tailor measures 
specific to their vessel operations and routes.
    Additionally, the VIDA authorizes a State to petition EPA to issue 
an emergency order as provided for in CWA section 312(p)(7)(A)(i) and 
in accordance with the procedures outlined in 40 CFR 139.50 in the 
event of a known outbreak of harmful algal blooms or other emergency 
situations. Similarly, the VIDA authorizes EPA to require, by order, 
the use of an emergency BMP for any region or category of vessels if it 
is necessary to reduce risk of introduction or establishment of ANS, or 
if EPA determines that the order will mitigate the adverse effects of a 
discharge that contributes to a violation of a water quality 
requirement under CWA section 303. 33 U.S.C. 1322(p)(4)(E)(i). Thus, 
similar BMPs may be established albeit through an order where EPA and/
or the USCG identify specific instances when and where such practices 
must be implemented.
i. Develop a Ballast Water Management Plan
    The final rule requires vessels equipped with ballast tanks to 
maintain a BWMP that addresses both the uptake and discharge of ballast 
water. 40 CFR 139.10(c)(1)(i). A vessel's BWMP must

[[Page 82094]]

describe the vessel-specific (i.e., considering the unique operational 
profile of the vessel) ballast water management practices and systems 
that, ensure compliance with the requirements in this section. Specific 
details of the BWMP, including how vessel operators are to implement 
and follow the plan, would fall under the USCG's implementing 
regulations established under CWA section 312(p)(5).
    In general, this carries forward the requirement in part 2.2.3.2 of 
the VGP requiring a vessel-specific BWMP be developed and maintained. 
The VGP specifies, that at a minimum, the plan is to outline how the 
vessel will comply with all the VGP ballast water requirements. 
Additionally, the requirement to maintain a BWMP is consistent with 
existing USCG regulations at 33 CFR 151.2050. Through these 
regulations, promulgated pursuant to the NISA, the USCG has required 
the individual in charge of any vessel equipped with ballast water 
tanks that operates in the waters of the United States to maintain a 
BWMP that has been developed specifically for the vessel and that will 
allow those responsible for the plan's implementation to understand the 
vessel's ballast water management strategy and comply with the 
requirements. The USCG also required BWMPs to include detailed 
biofouling maintenance and sediment removal procedures (33 CFR 
151.2050(g)(3)).
ii. Minimize Use of Gravity To Drain Ballast Tanks in Port
    The final rule requires that vessels minimize the use of gravity to 
drain ballast tanks while in port. 40 CFR 139.10(c)(1)(ii). Instead, 
ballast tanks should be discharged in port using pumps. This BMP has 
been shown to increase the mortality rate of living organisms in 
ballast water during discharge, particularly zooplankton and other 
larger organisms, as a result of the physical action of the pumps 
(e.g., cavitation, entrainment, and/or impingement), and thereby reduce 
the propagule pressure.
iii. Use High Sea Suction
    The final rule requires that, when practicable, high sea suction 
sea chests must be used in port or where clearance to the bottom of the 
waterbody is less than five meters to the lower edge of the sea chest. 
40 CFR 139.10(c)(1)(iii). An example of when the use of high sea 
suction may not be practicable is when it is necessary to avoid ice, 
algae, or other biofilm on the water surface. This BMP minimizes the 
potential for uptake of bottom-dwelling organisms, suspended solids, 
particulate organic carbon, and turbidity into the ballast tanks.
iv. Avoid Ballast Water Discharge or Uptake in Areas With Coral Reefs
    The final rule requires vessel owners/operators to avoid the 
discharge or uptake of ballast water in areas with coral reefs. 40 CFR 
139.10(c)(1)(iv). This BMP is consistent with the VGP requirements; 
however, the VGP also included similar prohibitions for ``marine 
sanctuaries, marine preserves, marine parks, . . . or other waters'' 
listed in appendix A. The final rule carries forward these prohibitions 
in a section specific to activities in federally-protected waters, as 
described in section VIII.C. of this preamble, Discharges Incidental to 
the Normal Operation of a Vessel-Federally-Protected Waters 
Requirements and in the regulations at 40 CFR 139.40.
    Further, consistent with a USCG Marine Safety Information Bulletin 
(Ballast Water Best Management Practices to Reduce the Likelihood of 
Transporting Pathogens That May Spread Stony Coral Tissue Loss 
Disease), ballast water discharges should be conducted as far from 
coral reefs as possible, regardless of whether the reef is inside or 
outside of 12 NM from shore (USCG, 2019a).
v. Clean Ballast Tanks Periodically and Prohibit Ballast Tank Cleaning 
Discharges
    The final rule requires ballast tanks to be cleaned periodically to 
remove sediment and biofouling organisms. 40 CFR 139.10(c)(1)(v). 
Residual sediment left in ballast tanks can negatively affect the 
ability of a vessel to meet discharge standards, even when a BWMS is 
properly operated and maintained. Sediments may also allow organisms to 
survive in ballast tanks for prolonged periods of time in resting 
stages. Additionally, the final rule prohibits the discharge of 
sediment from ballast tank cleanings in waters subject to this rule.
vi. Maintain Sea Chest Screens
    The final rule requires that sea chest screen(s) be maintained and 
kept fully intact. 40 CFR 139.10(c)(1)(vi). This BMP is consistent with 
a VGP requirement for existing bulk carriers operating exclusively in 
the Laurentian Great Lakes (Lakers), but the final rule expands it to 
all vessels with ballast tanks. These screens are designed to prevent 
the largest living organisms, such as fish, as well as bacteria and 
viruses associated with these organisms, from entering ballast tanks. 
Adequately maintaining sea chest screens is a simple technology-based 
practice that is available, economically achievable, and beneficial to 
all vessels to reduce the transport of organisms.
vii. New Laker Equipment Standard
    The final rule establishes, as a BMP, a ballast water ``equipment 
standard'' that requires any new Laker to install, operate, and 
maintain a USCG type-approved BWMS. 40 CFR 139.10(c)(2). EPA's standard 
for new Lakers aligns with the ``technology-forcing'' nature of the BAT 
statutory standard. See NRDC v. EPA, 822 F.2d 104, 123 (D.C. Cir. 
1987); See also Southwestern Elec. Power Co. v. EPA, 920 F.3d at 1003 
(``By requiring BAT, the Act forces implementation of increasingly 
stringent pollution control methods.''). This approach is consistent 
with the option discussed in the supplemental notice. Discussion of 
EPA's rationale for exempting both new and existing Lakers from the 
numeric ballast water discharge standard is provided in section 
VIII.B.1.f.v. of this preamble, Vessels that Operate Exclusively in the 
Laurentian Great Lakes.
    The final rule defines a ``new Laker'' as any vessel 3,000 GT and 
above, and that operates exclusively in the Great Lakes and the St. 
Lawrence River west of a rhumb line drawn from Cap des Rosiers to 
Pointe-de-l'Ouest (West Point), Anticosti Island, and west of a line 
along 63[deg] W. longitude from Anticosti Island to the north shore of 
the St. Lawrence River, and constructed after the effective date of 
USCG regulations promulgated pursuant to CWA section 312(p)(5)(A)(i). 
40 CFR 139.2. The final definition for, and use of the term, ``new 
Laker'' corrects an improper citation in the supplemental notice to the 
French spelling of ``West Point'' to correctly read ``Pointe-de-
l'Ouest'' not ``Pointe-Sude-Oueste.'' The final definition for 
``seagoing vessel'' was also corrected to reference ``Pointe-de-
l'Ouest.''
    As described in section VIII.B.1.e.i.1 of this preamble, BAT for 
Control of Ballast Water Discharges is the Use of a USCG Type-Approved 
BWMS, the requirement to use a type-approved BWMS is a well-established 
and demonstrated process for selection of technologies. The final rule 
requires the use of a USCG type-approved BWMS because this process 
comprehensively addresses BWMS design, installation, operation, safety, 
and performance.
    Land-based and shipboard testing of ultraviolet (UV) and chemical 
addition BWMSs in the Great Lakes have demonstrated a substantial 
reduction in organisms even when the numeric

[[Page 82095]]

discharge standard cannot be achieved (GSI, 2011; GSI 2015; Bailey et 
al., 2023). An equipment standard allows vessels flexibility to operate 
BWMSs in challenging water conditions through use of operational 
contingency measures. Additionally, these implementation details can be 
determined in the USCG regulations. Although contingencies may be 
necessary in certain locations or at certain times of the year in the 
Great Lakes, EPA expects that continued operation of a BWMS consistent 
with an equipment standard over the lifetime of a vessel will still 
provide reductions in the discharge of organisms. Additionally, new 
Lakers can be designed and constructed to accommodate a USCG type-
approved BWMS and overcome certain operational and technical challenges 
such as corrosion, flow rate capacity, lack of space and lost cargo 
capacity, and adequate power.
    As described in the supplemental notice in section IV.B., Ballast 
Tanks--Equipment Standard for New Lakers (88 FR 71788, October 18, 
2023), the final rule does not establish an equipment standard for 
existing Lakers as BAT because technical and operational challenges 
would create disproportionately high costs to retrofit BWMSs onto 
existing Lakers. See 88 FR 71800, October 18, 2023, section IV.B.3.I. 
Existing Lakers also do not have the engineering flexibility available 
during the initial design and construction process to incorporate 
ballast water treatment capabilities.
    Also, two provisions in the VIDA, when read together, demonstrate 
Congress' intent for EPA to undertake additional research to develop 
effective ballast water management solutions for existing Lakers. 
First, section 903(g) of the VIDA authorized the EPA Administrator to 
establish the Great Lakes and Lake Champlain Invasive Species Program 
within the Great Lakes National Program Office that has as one of its 
purposes ``to develop, achieve type-approval for, and pilot shipboard 
or land-based ballast water management systems installed on, or 
available for use by, commercial vessels operating solely within the 
Great Lakes and Lake Champlain Systems to prevent the spread of aquatic 
nuisance species populations within the Great Lakes and Lake Champlain 
Systems.'' This program is to be developed in collaboration and 
consultation with several other Federal agencies. As described therein, 
``commercial vessels operating solely within the Great Lakes and Lake 
Champlain Systems'' are, as defined by EPA, ``Lakers.'' Thus, Congress 
clearly intended for EPA to work towards finding ballast water 
management solutions for existing Lakers and acknowledged that there 
were special technological challenges presented by Lakers. Second, 
section 903(a)(1) of the VIDA, specifically as codified in CWA section 
312(p)(6)(C), established a ``period of use of installed BWMSs'' clause 
that specifies that a vessel is deemed to be in compliance if the 
vessel is meeting the ballast water discharge standard that was 
applicable to the vessel at the time of installation of the existing 
BWMS, even if EPA subsequently establishes a more stringent discharge 
standard. Thus, an existing Laker required to install a BWMS to meet 
the discharge standard would be unlikely to benefit from any improved 
ballast water management practices developed as part of the ballast 
water research. EPA's seven-year Great Lakes Ballast Water Research and 
Development Plan is targeted to address the complexities and improve 
the operation of BWMSs on existing Lakers. EPA is also required to 
review and revise as appropriate its VIDA standards of performance 
every five years. 33 U.S.C. 1322(p)(4)(D)(i). As such, EPA expects the 
outcome of that research will support future discharge requirements for 
these vessels with a focus on finding effective technologies for the 
management of ballast water.
e. Numeric Ballast Water Discharge Standard
    EPA is establishing BAT effluent limitations for ballast water 
based on the technologies required by the VGP and USCG ballast water 
regulations. The final rule at 40 CFR 139.10(d) continues, as a numeric 
discharge standard, the numeric limitations for biological parameters 
from the VGP and USCG ballast water regulations at 33 CFR part 151 
subpart D, as follows:
    <bullet> Organisms greater than or equal to 50 micrometers in 
minimum dimension: discharge must include less than 10 living organisms 
per cubic meter of ballast water.
    <bullet> Organisms less than 50 micrometers and greater than or 
equal to 10 micrometers: discharge must include less than 10 living 
organisms per milliliter (mL) of ballast water.
    <bullet> Indicator microorganisms must not exceed:
    [cir] Toxicogenic Vibrio cholerae (serotypes O1 and O139): a 
concentration of less than 1 colony-forming unit (cfu) per 100 mL.
    [cir] Escherichia coli: a concentration of less than 250 cfu, or 
Most Probable Number (MPN), per 100 mL.
    [cir] Intestinal enterococci: a concentration of less than 100 cfu, 
or MPN, per 100 mL.
    The final rule defines ``living'' using the CWA section 
312(p)(6)(D) clarification that the terms ``live'' and ``living'' shall 
not include an organism that has been rendered nonviable or preclude 
the consideration of any method of measuring the concentration of 
organisms in ballast water that are capable of reproduction. 40 CFR 
139.2. However, it is important to recognize that, to date, the USCG 
has not identified any testing protocols, based on best available 
science, that are available for use to quantify organisms in ballast 
water that are capable of reproduction. As such, demonstrating 
compliance with the discharge standard would require the use of test 
methods, as detailed in the 2010 EPA Generic Protocol for the 
Verification of Ballast Water Treatment Technology, that do not 
consider non-viable organisms as part of the test protocol (U.S. EPA, 
2010). In the future, should the USCG identify one or more testing 
protocols that enumerate organisms in ballast water capable of 
reproduction, such methods would be acceptable for demonstrating 
compliance with the numeric ballast water discharge standard.
    The final rule reflects units of both MPN/mL and cfu/mL for 
Escherichia coli and intestinal enterococci in 40 CFR 139.10(d), and 
(g)(2) for the Pacific Region, based on input from commenters who 
pointed out that newer microbiological test methods have MPN outputs 
and that, while the test methods differ, the number of bacteria in the 
tested sample are comparable to the numeric discharge standard.
    In addition, the final rule at 40 CFR 139.10(d)(2) continues the 
discharge limitations as a numeric standard for four biocide parameters 
contained in the VGP, namely:
    <bullet> For any BWMS using chlorine dioxide, the chlorine dioxide 
must not exceed 200 [mu]g/L;
    <bullet> For any BWMS using chlorine or ozone, the total residual 
oxidizers must not exceed 100 [mu]g/L; and
    <bullet> For any BWMS using peracetic acid, the peracetic acid must 
not exceed 500 [mu]g/L and the hydrogen peroxide must not exceed 1,000 
[mu]g/L.
    The standard for both the organisms and biocide parameters 
represents instantaneous maximum values not to be exceeded.
    The final rule continues the requirement contained in the VGP and 
USCG regulations (33 CFR part 151) that, prior to the compliance date 
for the vessel to meet the discharge standard,

[[Page 82096]]

ballast water exchange must be conducted as required in 40 CFR 
139.10(e), or the applicable regional requirements in 40 CFR 139.10(f) 
and (g), for any vessel subject to the ballast water discharge 
standard. The USCG is required to include compliance dates in its 
implementing regulations established under CWA section 
312(p)(5)(A)(iv).
    For the reasons described in the following section, BAT for ballast 
water management remains the use of a USCG type-approved BWMS as 
required long-term under the USCG ballast water regulations and VGP. 
Accordingly, that is the technology on which EPA has based the numeric 
ballast water discharge standard.
i. BAT Rationale for Standard Pursuant to the VIDA
(1) BAT for Control of Ballast Water Discharges Is the Use of a USCG 
Type-Approved BWMS
(a) EPA Conducted a Comprehensive Survey of Technologies for Purposes 
of Identifying BAT
    EPA based its analysis of prospective BAT model technologies 
largely on data generated through the USCG BWMS type-approval process. 
In response to concerns expressed by commenters that EPA failed to 
review sufficient data for the proposed rule, EPA requested and 
obtained directly from the USCG a large set of land-based and shipboard 
USCG BWMS type-approval data for the 37 BWMSs that had been type-
approved as of the date of the proposed rule (October 2020) and similar 
data for 16 amendments to those systems. In total, EPA analyzed 1,820 
treatment discharge results from 49 BWMS type-approval data sets. The 
complete set of USCG BWMS type-approval data provided to EPA by the 
USCG and the Agency's comprehensive Ballast Water BAT Data Analysis of 
these data, including a sensitivity analysis, are included in the 
docket (U.S. EPA, 2023), and are updated for the final rule (U.S. EPA, 
2024). As of April 30, 2024, the USCG has type-approved 54 BWMSs. Some 
commenters suggested that EPA should analyze more recent data. However, 
EPA is unaware of any significant improvements in ballast water 
technology, monitoring, or testing. As such, allowing more time for the 
USCG to compile and share additional data with EPA on additional 
systems that have been type-approved since the proposed rule would not 
have meaningfully altered the results of the analysis. Additionally, it 
takes significant time for USCG to compile and share data with EPA. For 
example, EPA received USCG data 16 months after the initial formal 
request to USCG for the compiled type-approval data. Thus, given the 
time it takes USCG to compile and share data with EPA, EPA selected an 
appropriate cutoff point for the collection of data to enable timely 
analysis to proceed.
    EPA did not analyze IMO type-approval data for its BAT analysis 
here, and EPA's rationale for excluding IMO type-approval data from its 
analysis is described in both the proposed rule and supplemental notice 
(85 FR 67818, October 26, 2020, section VIII.B.1.v.A.3.i. and 88 FR 
71788, October 18, 2023, section III.A.1).
(b) USCG Type-Approved BWMSs Are Technologically Available and 
Economically Achievable
    Based on its review of available information, for this final rule, 
EPA selected all currently available USCG type-approved BWMSs as BAT 
for control of ballast water discharges. EPA's final rule includes a 
numeric ballast water discharge standard based on that technology. This 
outcome is consistent with the requirements in the VGP, which also 
identifies USCG type-approved BWMS as BAT and has the same numeric 
standards as the final rule.
    EPA has determined that the standard for ballast water discharges 
in the final rule is technologically available and economically 
achievable. This determination is based in part on the fact that EPA 
assessed the same type-approval process and similar technologies under 
the VGP and determined that USCG type-approved BWMS were 
technologically available and economically achievable for that permit. 
As discussed in more depth below, EPA assessed additional data 
regarding USCG type-approved systems and, based both on its prior 
analysis and new data and analysis, continues to find the suite of USCG 
type-approved BWMSs to be BAT. Additionally, vessels in the United 
States have been required to meet the same numeric standard reflecting 
USCG type-approved BWMSs as BAT under the 2013 VGP, which further 
supports EPA's determination that such systems are technologically 
available and economically achievable.
    The fact that these systems are approved through the USCG's type-
approval process also supports their availability for use on the full 
universe of vessels regulated by the VIDA. USCG regulations include 
BWMS type-approval requirements that consider design, installation, 
operation, and testing to ensure any type-approved system meets both 
performance and safety standards. 46 CFR 162.060. The type-approval 
process also supports the availability of these systems despite the 
challenges vessels present that are not present for stationary 
facilities for which EPA routinely establishes national discharge 
effluent limitations guidelines and standards based on BAT. For 
example, the USCG type-approval process separately requires that the 
BWMS be practicable onboard a vessel (e.g., able to operate despite 
roll, pitch, and vibration considerations), compatible with other 
onboard systems, durable, and be supported by credible and sustainable 
system manufacturers, suppliers, and servicers. Additionally, to be 
installed on any U.S.-flagged vessel, the USCG must verify the system 
meets certain installation and engineering requirements specified in 46 
CFR subchapters F and J.
(c) USCG Type-Approved BWMSs Have Acceptable Non-Water Quality 
Environmental Impacts
    EPA also considered non-water quality environmental impacts of its 
ballast water standards as part of its BAT analysis. EPA previously 
determined for the VGP that its numeric ballast water standards had 
acceptable non-water quality environmental impacts, and the Agency is 
not aware of any new information since the VGP that would cause EPA to 
reach a different determination for this final rule. In particular, 
based on its experience implementing this requirement for vessels since 
the 2008 VGP, EPA has not found this requirement to have unacceptable 
non-water quality environmental impacts. Specifically, EPA has 
considered the impacts of its standards related to increased energy 
usage for operating treatment equipment and associated greenhouse gases 
from an incremental increase in fuel consumption. Any such impacts are 
far exceeded by the effluent reduction benefits of treatment. 
Additionally, EPA's standard allows vessel operators to select from a 
broad range of type-approved systems to best meet their vessel's needs, 
including where appropriate to reduce energy requirements. For these 
reasons, EPA's ballast water numeric standard will not have 
unacceptable non-water quality environmental impacts.
(d) Harmonization With an International Standard Further Supports EPA's 
Selection of USCG Type-Approved BWMSs as BAT
    In identifying a model BAT technology for this rule, EPA determined 
it was appropriate to consider whether its numeric standard

[[Page 82097]]

was harmonious with international standards and promoted international 
comity. In particular, for ballast water discharges, the current world 
economic and trade system is predicated on timely and efficient 
maritime transportation, a significant proportion of which operates 
globally where trade takes it. The final numeric ballast water 
discharge standard acknowledges, as described in the preamble to the 
proposed rule, that a majority of the vessels discharging ballast water 
in waters of the United States spend the majority of their time 
operating outside of waters of the United States (U.S. EPA, 2020) and 
that these vessels for the most part are obligated to comply with the 
IMO International Convention for the Control and Management of Ships' 
Ballast Water and Sediments (the BWM Convention)--an international 
treaty developed with a goal of establishing an international standard 
for the management of ballast water (IMO, 2004)--anywhere they operate 
in the world, including while operating in the United States. This is 
not to say that U.S. requirements must or should always be identical 
with the international standard; however, it is appropriate, in EPA's 
view, to consider whether U.S. requirements are harmonious with 
international obligations for the vessels of flag states that have 
signed onto that BWM Convention.
    Indeed, the BWMS type-approval process was first developed as part 
of the IMO BWM Convention. The BWM Convention was adopted in 2004 after 
more than 14 years of complex negotiations between IMO member states 
and entered into force in 2017. The United States is not a party to the 
BWM Convention; however, both the USCG (serving as the lead for the 
U.S. delegation) and EPA were actively involved in the standard setting 
discussions that led to the BWM Convention numeric discharge standard 
that entered into force in September 2017. The USCG developed domestic 
type-approval regulations with the intent to harmonize as closely as 
possible with the adopted BWM Convention.
    While EPA received comments arguing that it should identify BAT 
based on the performance of a subset of the perceived most stringent of 
type-approved systems, pollutant discharge reductions are not the sole 
factor relevant to BAT under CWA section 304(b). As discussed in more 
detail in the proposed rule (85 FR 67818, October 26, 2020, section 
VIII.B.1.v.A.2.ii.), the BAT consideration factors in CWA section 
304(b), particularly with respect to the ``process employed'' and 
``engineering aspects of the application of various types of control 
techniques,'' weigh in favor of establishing the ballast water standard 
at a level of consistency with the IMO standard. Furthermore, section 
304(b)(2)(B) authorizes EPA to consider ``such other factors as the 
Administrator deems appropriate'' and EPA has broad discretion in 
considering those factors and the weight attributed to such factors. 
See Weyerhaeuser Co. v. Costle, 590 F.2d 1011, 1028, 1045 (D.C. Cir. 
1978); Texas Oil & Gas Ass'n v. EPA, 161 F.3d 923, 928 (5th Cir. 1998). 
Here, EPA considers consistency with the international standard to be 
an appropriate factor that weighs in favor of the BAT selected in this 
final rule because it promotes international trade and comity.
(e) USCG Type-Approved BWMSs Make Reasonable Further Progress Toward 
the National Goal of Eliminating the Discharge of All Pollutants
    EPA's ballast water standard based on USCG type-approved systems as 
BAT also makes reasonable further progress toward the national goal of 
eliminating the discharge of all pollutants. See CWA section 
304(b)(2)(B). As detailed in the preamble for the proposed rule, these 
systems have been shown to substantially reduce the concentration of 
living organisms in ballast water discharges and beyond the reduction 
achieved through midocean exchange or unexchanged ballast water. 
Specifically, as illustrated in table 1 of the proposed rule, pollutant 
discharge reduction attributable to type-approved BWMS performance is 
extremely high, with properly operated and maintained systems achieving 
treatment efficiencies of more than 99 percent. Furthermore, EPA notes 
that vessel ballasting practices to minimize volumes of ballast water 
requiring management will likely continue to evolve into the future, 
further driving reductions of pollutant discharges.
    Opportunities for advancement in ballast water treatment and 
technology may involve EPA and/or the USCG assisting the vessel 
community in addressing installation and operational challenges with 
the existing BWMSs and future type-approved systems and BMPs. The VIDA 
provides EPA and the USCG with this opportunity to enhance the ballast 
water regulations, which should aid with the operation of demonstrated, 
but not yet fully optimized, systems and with future systems as they 
continue to be developed and deployed.
(2) EPA Rejects Other Technologies as BAT for Controlling Discharges of 
Ballast Water
    Some commenters suggested that EPA should identify a single-best 
performing BWMS or a subset of better-performing BWMSs and impose that 
perceived level of performance on the entirety of the universe of 
potentially affected entities. EPA disagrees that the available 
information indicates that a higher-performing system or subset of 
systems can be identified as BAT from the data in the record. 
Additionally, even if higher performing systems could be identified, 
the record does not demonstrate that a small subset of systems capable 
of meeting a more stringent standard would be available to all vessels 
that would be required to meet a standard based on those systems, given 
the tremendous variability among vessels.
    Based on its analysis of USCG type-approval data described in the 
supplemental notice, EPA disagrees with commenters that the record 
allows for identification of a subset of so-called best-performing 
BWMSs. EPA's analysis specifically addressed commenters' suggestion and 
evaluated whether statistical differences in the treatment 
effectiveness of BWMSs could help identify systems that perform 
significantly better in terms of pollutant discharge reductions, such 
that they could reflect BAT. To do so, EPA compared treatment discharge 
concentrations of the BWMSs within six groups defined by the two common 
organism size class and three salinity categories. Statistical tests 
conducted and summarized in the Agency's comprehensive Ballast Water 
BAT Data Analysis (U.S. EPA, 2024) showed significant differences among 
systems within each group but did not point to any clear stratification 
of ``best'' or ``worst'' system groupings. Further complicating this 
analysis, the effectiveness of systems varied by organism size and/or 
salinity, such that systems had different relative comparisons 
depending on the group within which they were evaluated. For example, 
one system may have produced lower concentrations in one organism size 
class but not in the other size class, making an overall determination 
of that system's treatment effectiveness compared to other systems 
uncertain.
    The results of this statistical analysis did not point to any clear 
identification of a subset of BWMSs that stood out as representing BAT. 
Test results for both the baseline and sensitivity analyses were within 
the same order of

[[Page 82098]]

magnitude as the standard in the proposed rule and fall within the 
margin of error expected due to the variability associated with the 
characteristics of ballast water and challenges associated with 
monitoring, analyzing, and enumerating organisms in the different size 
classes. Based on the data analysis of the USCG type-approval data, EPA 
did not identify any single system or subset of systems that might be 
identified as BAT based on their superior performance in terms of 
pollutant discharge reductions.
    EPA also disagrees with the suggestion to base BAT on a small 
subset of systems because that suggestion does not account for the 
substantial variability among vessels. This variability dictates the 
need for a range of different BWMS options to adequately address 
organism reduction in ballast water discharges. That is, a BWMS that is 
technically and operationally appropriate for one vessel or set of 
conditions may not be available for a different vessel, or even a 
similar vessel with a different operating profile. EPA's BAT 
determination carries forward the existing regulatory approach, 
promoting the type-approval process using a range of types of BWMS 
disinfection technologies that operate under a wide range of 
conditions, thereby allowing vessel operators to select a system that 
is most appropriate for their vessel. The final rule provides the 
necessary flexibility for the vessel owner/operator to select a system 
that has been demonstrated through the existing USCG type-approval 
process as both capable of achieving the final numeric discharge 
standard and as suitable for their particular vessel.
(3) EPA's Numeric Ballast Water Discharge Standard Is Supported by the 
Data in the Record
    EPA's numeric ballast water discharge standard is supported by the 
data in the record for several reasons. First, EPA's experience with 
the VGP has demonstrated that the numeric standard is achievable for 
vessels subject to regulation under this rule. Based on its BAT 
analysis for the VGP and its subsequent administration of the VGP, EPA 
has direct knowledge that the numeric standard can be attained.
    Second, EPA's standard is based on USCG type-approved systems, 
which are designed and demonstrated to allow vessels to consistently 
achieve the numeric discharge standard. The goal of the USCG type-
approval process is to demonstrate that a BWMS can treat ballast water 
such that organism concentrations in discharged water are sufficiently 
low to meet the discharge standard (e.g., less than 10 organisms per 
cubic meter of ballast water as an instantaneous maximum) for a given 
number of consecutive valid tests. Type-approval is a critical step in 
verifying that a BWMS, when tested under standardized and relatively 
challenging conditions, is capable of consistently meeting a discharge 
standard. In the USCG type-approval testing process to determine 
biological efficacy, careful analyses are employed to: (1) assure the 
source water for testing meets a threshold concentration of organisms 
to meaningfully challenge the BWMS; and (2) to quantify (ideally, 
sparse) concentrations of living organisms in treated discharge water. 
As part of its type-approval procedure, the USCG regulations require 
BWMS land-based testing to be conducted pursuant to the ETV Protocol 
(i.e., the 2010 Generic Protocol for the Verification of Ballast Water 
Treatment Technology, developed under the now defunct EPA Environmental 
Technology Verification Program) that outlines the experimental design, 
sampling and analysis protocols, test, and reporting requirements (U.S. 
EPA, 2010). This rigorous process ensures that systems are consistently 
able to meet EPA's standard.
    Third, EPA's numeric standard appropriately accounts for various 
sources of variability inherent in addressing organisms (including ANS) 
in ballast water, including:
    <bullet> Vessel size and architectural characteristics, including 
but not limited to design of ballast tank(s), pump(s), and piping 
configuration;
    <bullet> Vessel operational profile (e.g., voyage lengths, volumes 
of ballast water, ballast water flow rates, etc.);
    <bullet> Vessel class and flag State;
    <bullet> Temperature, salinity, and turbidity range of uptake water 
in areas where the vessel voyages;
    <bullet> Duration of voyages and segments of each voyage that can 
affect the necessary holding time for certain systems;
    <bullet> Ballast water capacity and required uptake and discharge 
pumping rates;
    <bullet> Treatment system weight and space considerations, 
including but not limited to accessibility and acceptability for use in 
hazardous spaces;
    <bullet> Availability of service, support, replacement parts, 
supplies, etc. in areas where the vessel voyages;
    <bullet> Compatibility of treatment with vessel construction (e.g., 
corrosivity concerns);
    <bullet> Power demand and energy consumption to pump ballast and 
operate treatment system; and
    <bullet> Safety concerns (e.g., explosivity risks, particularly on 
oil and chemical carriers).
    As EPA has historically done with respect to developing effluent 
limitations guidelines, EPA is not specifying a single technology that 
must be used, but rather it is identifying one or more technologies 
that have been demonstrated as being capable of meeting the discharge 
standard. The discharger is free to select a technology most suitable 
for its operations and compliance (to be determined by USCG) is able to 
be demonstrated through routine self-monitoring. The USCG type-approved 
its first BWMS in 2016 and, to date, more than fifty systems have been 
approved through that process (USCG, 2024). The wide range of systems 
demonstrated to meet EPA's numeric standard thus accounts for the 
variability in vessel characteristics, operations, and conditions.
(4) EPA Rejects an Alternative Numeric Standard Based on Several 
Factors
    Commenters suggested that EPA adopt different or lower numeric 
standards for ballast water, arguing that EPA's data indicates that a 
limit of less than 10 organisms per volume of ballast water as an 
instantaneous maximum is not supported by available data as the most 
stringent limit that could be set based on USCG type-approved BWMSs. 
Specifically, commenters urged that EPA's results indicated that a 
numeric standard could be set at 6.01 or 6.66 organisms/volume for 
large and medium organisms size classes, respectively, or even at lower 
levels based on the results of single systems or subsets of systems. 
EPA has carefully considered this issue but disagrees with commenters 
for several reasons.
(a) Observed Numeric Differences in Test Results Are Not Scientifically 
Significant in Light of Existing Variability
    EPA disagrees that the USCG test results that EPA reviewed as part 
of this rulemaking indicate that additional pollutant control may be 
achieved through the application of a more stringent discharge standard 
such as one around 6 organisms. Whether the standard is set at 
approximately 6 or 10 organisms, both results are within the margin of 
error expected given variability in type-approval sampling and 
analysis. For example, stratification in ballast tanks, variability 
between tanks, flow rates, and contamination in uptake and discharge 
pipes are just a few of the considerations that may impact type-
approval testing. It is also a challenge to capture and count

[[Page 82099]]

appropriately sized organisms and to collect samples such that the 
sample collection process does not physically damage or kill these 
organisms (which should be counted as dead or nonviable only if such 
happens as a result of the BWMS, not because of poor sample collection 
and handling practices). Any perceived difference in system performance 
could easily be due to the variability in ballast water uptake and 
testing, and not necessarily indicative of improvement in treatment 
effectiveness that would warrant a revised standard. Indeed, the Second 
Circuit has recognized and upheld in the context of measuring aquatic 
organisms that discharge standards that are not identical may 
nonetheless represent the same level of control. Riverkeeper, Inc. v. 
EPA, 358 F.3d 174, 188-89 (2d Cir. 2004) (upholding EPA's Track II 
requirements allowing for ``substantially similar'' reductions in 
impingement and entrainment at new facility cooling water intake 
structures as not a less stringent standard but the same standard 
accounting for the measurement margin of error when measuring in the 
natural environment).
    Even a standard 10 to 100 times more stringent than EPA's would be 
insignificant and within the margin of error in terms of the expected 
level of pollution control. For example, as EPA explained in its 
proposed rule, achieving a standard 10 times more stringent than the 
standard in the final rule would result in a difference of between 
99.92 and 99.99 percent treatment efficiency for large organisms and 
97.82 and 99.78 percent treatment efficiency for medium organisms. From 
the perspective of the effectiveness of the technology (and given the 
limitations in sampling and monitoring), the differences between 99.92 
and 99.99 percent effective are scientifically insignificant.
(b) Alternative Numeric Standards Would Not Account for Variability
    A more stringent numeric standard would also fail to account for 
the variability inherent in ballast water management. Variability is 
inherent to all treatment systems, including well-operated treatment 
systems. When EPA establishes BAT, it must consider the variability of 
a well-operated treatment system to ensure that technology is available 
to achieve the discharge standard. EPA's approach to providing for some 
variability for well-operated systems in establishing BAT limits in 
effluent limitations guidelines rulemakings has been upheld. For 
example, in Nat'l Wildlife Fed'n v. EPA, 286 F.3d 554, 572 (D.C. Cir. 
2002), the D.C. Circuit upheld EPA's decision to set the monthly 
average at the 95th percentile by stating that EPA has considerable 
discretion in determining a technical approach that will ensure that 
the effluent limitations reasonably account for the expected 
variability in plant operations while still maintaining an effective 
level of control. See also Chemical Mfrs. Ass'n v. EPA, 870 F.2d 177, 
229 (5th Cir. 1989) (explaining that the purpose of these variability 
factors is to account for routine fluctuations that occur in plant 
operation, not to allow poor performance). As is typically the case in 
the effluent guidelines program, operators design pollution control 
systems to achieve results below the discharge standard on a long-term 
basis to account for normal variability of well-operated systems. 
Setting the numeric standard at the lowest measured levels or long-term 
average levels, as some commenters suggested, does not allow for this 
normal variability in system performance.
    In the case of ballast water, the operators experience an even 
greater challenge meeting the numeric discharge standard than would 
exist at a shoreside facility subject to a typical effluent guideline. 
Instead of the numeric discharge standard being a long-term or monthly 
average as it is for most land-based facilities, the VIDA standard is 
based on an instantaneous maximum standard, never to be exceeded. EPA 
reasonably selected an instantaneous maximum as the unit of time for 
compliance monitoring because of the challenges associated with 
monitoring, acknowledging that variations in turbidity, salinity, 
temperature and other environmental factors can significantly affect a 
vessel operator's ability to meet the discharge standard at all times. 
BWMS manufacturers must account for these two conflicting challenges--
continuous compliance and inherent variability--in their system design 
and operation. BWMS vendors accomplish this by: (1) designing their 
systems to achieve long-term average discharge concentrations that are 
lower than the numeric discharge standard; and (2) adequately 
controlling for variation in BWMS performance such that the system can 
meet the numeric discharge standard even in the most challenging 
conditions. Designing and operating BWMSs to consistently achieve 
levels close to the numeric discharge standard is poor practice because 
even relatively slight variability would result in a high rate of non-
compliance with the instantaneous maximum numeric discharge standard 
(and would not, for example, pass the USCG type-approval testing 
process). This partially explains why some of the test results 
described by the Second Circuit Court decision on the VGP were lower 
than the current standard. Nat. Res. Def. Council v. EPA, 808 F.3d 566, 
570 n.11 (2d Cir. 2015). EPA recognizes that variability in performance 
around the long-term average occurs during normal operations and that, 
at times, even well-operated BWMSs are certain to discharge at levels 
that are higher than the long-term average performance. EPA considered 
the need to consistently meet an instantaneous maximum standard given 
system variability in setting its numeric standard, but the standards 
suggested by commenters fail to do so.
(c) Alternative Numeric Standards Would Present Monitoring Challenges
    As described in the proposed rule (85 FR 67818, October 26, 2020, 
section VIII.B.1.v.A.3.iv.), there are monitoring challenges associated 
with collecting and analyzing ballast water to detect and quantify 
organisms at levels lower than the final numeric standard in this rule. 
These challenges gave EPA low confidence in the ability of a vessel to 
demonstrate compliance with a lower numeric discharge standard. Even 
monitoring to assess compliance with the final discharge standard 
presents challenges. For example, in the 2013 VGP, the three-component 
self-monitoring program excluded monitoring for the two largest 
organism size classes because of the difficulties/costs associated with 
directly self-monitoring living organisms in ballast water discharges. 
Rather, the 2013 VGP established a self-monitoring program that serves 
as an indicator of system performance while operating as the system was 
designed (and type-approved).
    The proposed rule described the practical and statistical 
challenges associated with performing the tests that would be necessary 
to show that a well-operated BWMS is able to reliably meet a more 
stringent or ``no detectable organisms'' standard and after 
consideration of relevant comments, EPA also did not adopt a ``no 
detectable organisms'' standard in the final rule. There are no 
performance data available at concentrations of less than one organism 
per volume of ballast water for the two largest organism size classes. 
The Agency noted that test methods (and associated method detection 
limits) prevent demonstrating that any BWMS can achieve a standard more 
stringent than the 2013 VGP numeric discharge limit. EPA highlighted 
that, consistent with findings of EPA's Science Advisory

[[Page 82100]]

Board (SAB), it was unreasonable to assume that a test result showing 
zero living organisms using currently available test methods 
demonstrates complete sterilization, if for no other reason than a 
sample taken represents a very small portion of the overall discharge 
and the collection of that sample may miss the few live organisms 
present in the discharge. Collecting larger volumes of ballast water to 
address this uncertainty is also impractical. For example, the SAB 
estimated that anywhere from 120 to 600 cubic meters of ballast water 
(similar to the amount of water that would be needed to fill about one 
to five standard school buses) would have to be collected to adequately 
assess whether the discharge meets a standard 10 times more stringent 
(U.S. EPA, 2011).
ii. Ballast Water Reception Facilities
    EPA received comments urging that it should base BAT on the use of 
ballast water reception facilities. The VIDA expressly excludes from 
the discharge standards ``ballast water from a vessel . . . that only 
discharges water into a reception facility.'' 33 U.S.C. 
1322(p)(2)(B)(ii)(V). As such, CWA section 312(p) does not authorize 
EPA to regulate the transfer of ballast water from ships to a reception 
facility under the VIDA. Nonetheless, for purposes of the final rule 
and consistent with the 2015 Second Circuit Court decision on the VGP, 
EPA reviewed and considered whether zero discharge or a more stringent 
discharge standard based on the use of a reception facility may be BAT 
for ballast water discharged from regulated vessels. Nat. Res. Def. 
Council v. EPA, 808 F.3d 566, 572-75 (2d Cir. 2015). Unless otherwise 
noted, the terms ``onshore'' and ``reception facility'' refer to both 
the transfer of ballast water to either an onshore reception facility 
or another vessel for the purpose of storing or treating that ballast 
water.
    For the reasons detailed in the proposed rule (85 FR 67818, October 
26, 2020, section VIII.B.1.v.B.), based on the record before it, EPA 
continues to conclude that reception facilities are not technologically 
available or economically achievable at this time for the purpose of 
establishing a uniform Federal discharge standard. While EPA 
understands that the use of reception facilities, if available, may be 
a valid and effective component of ballast water management in certain 
situations, the challenges in creating such a comprehensive 
infrastructure nationwide make reception facilities not technologically 
available as BAT. (See 85 FR 67818, October 26, 2020, section 
VIII.B.1.v.B., for a more detailed explanation of EPA's consideration 
of ballast water reception facilities as BAT.) It is unlikely that 
ballast water reception facilities could become a national ``one size 
fits all'' option for ballast water management, principally because it 
cannot accommodate widely varying trade routes without the availability 
of reception facilities in most ports. Port-specific conditions may 
also preclude any technologically available and/or economically 
achievable reception facility alternatives. Integration with port and 
vessel operations would require careful planning, design, and 
operation. If in the future reception facilities become available and 
economically achievable and have acceptable non-water quality 
environmental impacts in specific locations for certain specialized 
sectors of the commercial vessel industry, EPA can revisit the 
standards. For now, such an option has not been demonstrated to reflect 
BAT. EPA's finding that reception facilities do not represent BAT for 
purposes of establishing a Federal standard does not preclude a vessel 
from using such a facility for managing its ballast water where such an 
opportunity exists.
f. Exemptions From the Numeric Ballast Water Discharge Standard
    The final rule exempts certain vessels from the numeric ballast 
water discharge standard as specified in 40 CFR 139.10(d)(3). These 
exemptions are generally consistent with the VGP and USCG regulations 
(33 CFR part 151 subparts C and D) except as described below. In 
contrast to the exclusions in 40 CFR 139(b) that exclude certain 
vessels from the ballast water discharge standard in its entirety, the 
eight exemptions in 40 CFR 139.10(d)(3)(i) through (viii), as described 
in this section, exempt vessels from the numeric ballast water 
discharge standard in 40 CFR 139.10(d) only. Exempt vessels are 
required to meet the ballast water BMPs and the ballast water exchange 
and saltwater flush requirements included in 40 CFR 139.10(c) and (e), 
respectively, as applicable. These exemptions are generally consistent 
with the VGP and USCG regulations (33 CFR part 151 subparts C and D), 
with some exceptions.
i. Vessels Less Than or Equal to 3,000 GT (1,600 GRT if GT Is Not 
Assigned) and That Do Not Operate Outside the EEZ
    Consistent with the VGP and USCG regulations at 33 CFR 151.2015, 
the final rule exempts from the numeric ballast water discharge 
standard vessels that are less than or equal to 3,000 GT (1,600 GRT if 
GT is not assigned) and that do not operate outside the EEZ. 40 CFR 
139.10(d)(3)(i). This includes both seagoing and non-seagoing vessels. 
EPA bases this exemption on the finding that ballast water technologies 
are not available or economically achievable for this universe of 
smaller vessels (e.g., tugboats). BWMSs generally have been designed 
for larger vessels or vessels that only uptake or discharge ballast 
water on either end of longer voyages. EPA considered whether a 
different threshold in terms of size should be used; however, EPA did 
not identify, nor did commenters provide, information suggesting a 
different threshold would be appropriate. Therefore, EPA continues to 
conclude in this final rule that a numeric ballast water discharge 
standard is infeasible and that the BMPs imposed constitute BAT 
(requires this class of vessels to minimize the discharge of pollutants 
in ballast water through BMPs only).
ii. Vessels That Are Non-Seagoing, Unmanned, Unpowered Barges
    The final rule exempts from the numeric ballast water discharge 
standard any non-seagoing, unmanned, unpowered barge that is not part 
of a dedicated vessel combination. 40 CFR 139.10(d)(3)(ii). A dedicated 
vessel combination includes an integrated or articulated tug barge 
(ATB) unit consisting of two separate vessels that operate in tandem, 
always together. The VGP, in Part 2.2.3.5.3.2, exempted all unmanned, 
unpowered barges from compliance with the numeric ballast water 
discharge standard; however, the USCG regulations at 33 CFR 151.2015 
did not exempt any seagoing vessel 3,000 GT (1,600 GRT if GT is not 
assigned) and above or that operates outside of the EEZ.
    The record indicates that an unmanned, unpowered barge, when part 
of a dedicated vessel combination, can install a BWMS as may be 
necessary to meet the discharge standard. As such, EPA is clarifying 
that these dedicated vessel combinations, even when they include an 
unmanned, unpowered barge component, are not exempt from compliance 
with the numeric ballast water discharge standard.
    Most unmanned, unpowered barges operate in internal and coastal 
waterways (i.e., non-seagoing) to transport bulk items such as grain, 
coal, and iron ore. These vessels have no onboard crew and do not have 
infrastructure that allows for complex or energy intensive operations. 
EPA understands that ballasting for some of

[[Page 82101]]

these barges is performed in limited instances, such as to pass under 
bridges or to improve stability in bad weather or other rough water. 
These barges typically do not have dedicated ballast tanks but can use 
wing tanks (void space) in the hull when ballasting is necessary. As 
such, minimal water is used for ballasting.
    Unmanned, unpowered barges have been recognized as experiencing 
unique challenges for managing ballast water. For instance, EPA's 
Science Advisory Board (SAB) notes: ``Inland waterways and coastal 
barges are not self-propelled, but rather are moved by towing or 
pushing with tugboats. Because these vessels have been designed to 
transport bulk cargo, or as working platforms, they commonly use 
ballast tanks or fill cargo spaces with water for trim and stability, 
or to prevent excessive motions in heavy seas. However, the application 
of [ballast water management systems] on these vessels presents 
significant logistical challenges because they typically do not have 
their own source of power or ballast pumps and are unmanned.'' (U.S. 
EPA, 2011b). Therefore, the final rule requires this class of vessels 
to minimize the discharge of pollutants in ballast water through BMPs 
only.
iii. Vessels That Uptake and Discharge Ballast Water Exclusively in the 
Contiguous Portions of a Single COTP Zone
    Consistent with the VGP and USCG regulations at 33 CFR 151.2015(c) 
and (d)(3), the final rule exempts from the numeric ballast water 
discharge standard vessels that uptake and discharge ballast water 
exclusively in a single Captain of the Port Zone (COTP) Zone, but that 
may operate in more than one COTP Zone. 40 CFR 139.10(d)(3)(iii). The 
rule, as proposed and finalized, clarifies that this exemption applies 
within the contiguous portion of any single COTP Zone. EPA added the 
term ``contiguous portions'' of a single COTP Zone, consistent with its 
use in the VIDA (See 33 U.S.C. 1322(p)(6)(B)(ii)(II)(bb)), to clarify 
that the exemption applies to ballasting and deballasting operations 
within a single COTP Zone spanning contiguous waters within the 
Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) and does not apply in those instances 
when a COTP Zone includes areas that are not within a single bounded 
EEZ. For example, in the Pacific Region, Sector Honolulu covers all of 
the Hawaiian Island chain, American Samoa, Wake Island, and other 
widely dispersed areas in the Pacific Ocean that in certain instances 
require vessels to leave the EEZ to travel from one location to 
another, all within the same COTP Zone.
    This exemption is consistent with requirements of the VGP. 
Additionally, it recognizes that ensuring that the operations of these 
vessels remain within a single COTP zone is highly effective and the 
best available technology for minimizing the introduction and spread of 
ANS from vessel discharge because organisms discharged in their ballast 
water are unlikely to be foreign and invasive. This exemption does not 
apply to the ballast water BMPs for these vessels to ensure that 
ballast water is managed appropriately.
iv. Vessels That Travel No More Than 10 Nautical Miles and Do Not Pass 
Through Any Locks During Their Voyages
    Consistent with the VGP, the final rule exempts from the numeric 
ballast water discharge standard vessels that travel no more than 10 NM 
and do not pass through any locks during their voyages. 40 CFR 
139.10(d)(3)(iv). These vessels (e.g., cross-river ferries) contribute 
insignificantly to the introduction and dispersal of ANS; however, the 
implementation of BMPs for these short-voyage vessels is intended to 
minimize the contribution of ANS that the vessels could cumulatively 
have in a region. Exempting these vessels also helps minimize other 
non-water quality environmental impacts, a consideration for setting 
technology-based standards (See 40 CFR 125.3(d)(3)) that may result 
from the operation of BWMSs, including increased energy usage and 
increased carbon emissions. Further, many existing BWMSs use biocides 
that require a minimum contact time to be effective. Short distance 
voyages may not provide the time necessary for biocides to be 
effective. In fact, the discharge of ballast water treated with 
biocides may contain residuals or byproducts from that treatment, and 
short voyage times may not permit adequate decay or neutralization.
v. Vessels That Operate Exclusively in the Laurentian Great Lakes
    The final rule exempts all Lakers from the numeric ballast water 
discharge standard. 40 CFR 139.10(d)(3)(vi). As required by the VIDA, 
EPA assessed whether a technology exists that is technologically 
available and economically achievable. EPA determined that the ballast 
water numeric standard for the Lakers is infeasible because the same 
challenges that were identified and analyzed in the VGP remain true 
today. EPA has decided to retain the VGP's exemption for Lakers from 
the numeric ballast water discharge standard. Specifically, this 
exemption is based on a set of unique circumstances, as described in 
the proposed rule at section VIII.B.1.vi.E, Vessels that Operate 
Exclusively in the Laurentian Great Lakes (85 FR 67854, October 26, 
2020), including issues related to the unique nature of the waters of 
the Great Lakes, including extremely low salinity and high levels of 
suspended solids, turbidity, icing, filamentous bacteria, and dissolved 
organic carbon from tannins and humic acid. These environmental 
conditions can clog filters and inhibit BWMS treatment effectiveness 
and pose unique challenges to Lakers because, unlike other vessels 
operating in challenging water conditions, Lakers cannot leave the 
Great Lakes and thus do not have the option to perform a ballast water 
exchange and saltwater flush under more favorable conditions. In 
addition, the operational profile (e.g., short voyages) and design of 
these freshwater vessels (e.g., uncoated ballast tanks and piping 
systems that cannot withstand corrosive ballast water treatment 
chemicals) are not conducive to certain BWMSs.
    EPA acknowledges that this exemption is less stringent than the 
VGP; however, consistent with CWA section 312(p)(4)(D)(ii)(II), the 
Administrator may revise a standard of performance to be less stringent 
than an applicable existing requirement if the Administrator determines 
that a material technical mistake occurred or if information becomes 
available that was not reasonably available when the Administrator 
promulgated the initial standard of performance. EPA has concluded that 
it made such a material technical mistake in the VGP when it determined 
that the environmental conditions and operational limitations 
identified as the basis for excluding Lakers constructed prior to 2009 
from the numeric ballast water discharge standard would not be a 
limiting factor for those constructed after 2009. Additionally, the 
universe of post-2009 Lakers subject to the VGP numeric ballast water 
discharge standard is all operating under a USCG compliance date 
extension. Those extensions, granted in accordance with 33 CFR 
151.2036, are in lieu of practical implementation of the numeric 
discharge standard in 33 CFR 151.1511, and are based on a USCG 
determination that Lakers are subject to unique

[[Page 82102]]

challenges affected by vessel operations and system limitations.
    The proposed rule identified four more limited, alternative 
regulatory BMP options for Lakers, including: (1) require installation, 
operation, and maintenance of a USCG type-approved BWMS as an equipment 
standard; (2) require filtration only; (3) require open lake exchange 
of highly turbid water taken up in river ports; and (4) exempt the use 
of a BWMS for certain voyages when the operational parameters of an 
installed BWMS cannot be met.
    As described in section VIII.B.1.d.vii of this preamble, New Laker 
Equipment Standard, EPA did establish an equipment standard as a 
ballast water BMP, for any new Laker, as defined in this final rule, to 
install, operate, and maintain a BWMS that has been type-approved by 
the USCG. However, EPA does not have adequate data to demonstrate the 
engineering aspects for the application of the other three alternative 
technologies or practices to reduce discharges of organisms. As 
described in section VIII.B.1.d.vii of this preamble, New Laker 
Equipment Standard, consistent with section 903(g) of the VIDA, EPA 
established the Great Lakes and Lake Champlain Invasive Species Program 
in part to develop solutions for such issues for ballast water 
discharges from Lakers.
    Because the Laker fleet represents a very small percentage of the 
worldwide market, limited time and resources have been devoted to 
advance BWMSs for Lakers or demonstrate that these systems work onboard 
Lakers. As a result, Laker owners have no alternative in selecting a 
commercially available system that would achieve the numeric ballast 
water discharge standard. EPA's research program is a collaborative 
strategy intended to drive the market for this technology given the 
small number of vessels.
    Under CWA section 312(p)(4)(D)(i), EPA must review its discharge 
standards at least every five years and revise the standards as 
appropriate. If data and information become available that can be used 
to identify additional BAT approaches for Lakers, whether it is 
installation of technology or implementation of additional BMPs, EPA 
can propose updates to the discharge standard to reflect new BAT-based 
requirements in advance of the five-year review date. Such an update 
may address the entire universe of vessels that operate exclusively on 
the Great Lakes, or reasonably could consider the appropriateness of 
the identified technology or practices to the different segments of the 
Great Lakes fleet, such as among classes, types, and sizes and between 
new and existing vessels as provided for under the VIDA. EPA expects 
that the ballast water management research and development activities 
described under the Great Lakes and Lake Champlain Invasive Species 
Program may provide a sound basis for proposing new or updated 
standards in the future.
    Notwithstanding EPA's determination that, in the context of a 
technology-based standard, it is appropriate to exempt all Lakers from 
the numeric ballast water discharge standard, Congress also created a 
role under the VIDA for states to promulgate enhanced Great Lakes 
requirements by enacting a process, codified in CWA section 
312(p)(10)(B), in which Governors of the Great Lakes states can work 
together to develop an enhanced standard of performance or other 
requirements with respect to any incidental discharge, including 
ballast water. In all cases where Great Lakes Governors petition for an 
enhanced requirement, EPA and USCG may only reject the proposed 
requirement if it is less stringent than existing standards or 
requirements under this section, inconsistent with maritime safety, or 
inconsistent with applicable maritime and navigation laws and 
regulations. The procedures for such a petition are identified in this 
rule at 40 CFR 139.51.
vi. Vessels in the USCG Shipboard Technology Evaluation Program (STEP)
    Consistent with the VGP and USCG regulations at 33 CFR part 151 
subpart D, the final rule exempts from the numeric ballast water 
discharge standard any vessel equipped with ballast tanks if that 
vessel is enrolled by the USCG in the Shipboard Technology Evaluation 
Program (STEP). 40 CFR 139.10(d)(3)(vii). The STEP will continue to 
play a critical role in the development of effective BWMSs, as with 
many other related or similar programs the USCG might implement in the 
future. The program has encouraged pioneering vessel operators to 
install BWMSs, contributed to the development of effective sampling 
methods, and allowed for the collection of valuable shipboard ballast 
water treatment data needed to evaluate the efficacy of BWMSs. 
Furthermore, the STEP is a venue for treatment vendors to develop and 
refine systems that comply with the numeric ballast water discharge 
standard and can be successfully approved through the USCG type-
approval process, resulting in the availability of a greater range of 
systems for vessel owners. Vessels involved in the STEP use ballast 
water treatment technologies that share similarities in capabilities 
(and in many cases, are the same systems) as those described in the 
technical reports EPA used to inform the final rule. Therefore, the 
final rule exempts these vessels from meeting the numeric ballast water 
discharge standard as they are effectively using treatments systems 
that reflect BAT. Additionally, it would not be practicable for these 
vessels to simultaneously fulfill their purpose of testing BWMS to 
determine their effectiveness at meeting discharge standards while 
simultaneously requiring them to meet those discharge standards at all 
times.
vii. Vessels Discharging Ballast Water in the Same Location
    Based on new information received in comments on the proposed rule, 
the final rule includes an additional exemption from the numeric 
ballast water discharge standard for discharges of ballast water at the 
same location where that ballast water originated, provided that no 
mixing with unmanaged ballast water and/or sediment from other areas 
has occurred. 40 CFR 139.10(d)(3)(v). Because such single-location 
ballast water by its nature could not be introducing ANS or other 
pollutants, EPA's view is that imposing numeric standards on this type 
of ballast water would not result in a greater level of pollution 
control. This exemption is consistent with the IMO BWM Convention 
Regulation A-3.5. If mixing has occurred, the ballast water taken from 
other areas is subject to the numeric ballast water discharge standard. 
This exemption is being added largely to allow for the practical 
reality of the operation of certain vessels, such as semi-submersible 
vessels, and how ballast water is used on such vessels. This exemption 
allows a vessel to discharge ballast water made up of managed ballast 
water from any location with unmanaged ballast water taken up and 
discharged in a single location. The residual ballast water transported 
between COTP Zones is subject to the numeric ballast water discharge 
standards and all ballast water BMPs apply. Specific ballast tank 
management requirements for vessels traveling between two COTP Zones 
and qualifying for this exemption would fall under the USCG's 
implementing regulations established under CWA section 312(p)(5).
viii. Discharges Prior to the Ballast Water Discharge Standard 
Compliance Date
    The final rule includes an exemption providing that the ballast 
water discharge standard does not apply until

[[Page 82103]]

a given vessel's compliance date established pursuant to USCG 
regulations. 40 CFR 139.10(d)(3)(viii). This exemption is consistent 
with existing USCG procedures to address instances where the master, 
owner, operator, agent, or person in charge of a vessel can document 
that, despite all efforts, compliance with the numeric ballast water 
discharge standard is not possible. This exemption is also consistent 
with the VGP, where EPA acknowledged these procedures in its 
Enforcement Response Policy for EPA's 2013 Vessel General Permit: 
Ballast Water Discharges and U.S. Coast Guard Extensions under 33 CFR 
part 151, December 27, 2013 (U.S. EPA, 2013) whereby EPA would consider 
vessels operating under a Coast Guard extension letter pursuant to 33 
CFR 151.2036 a low enforcement priority under the VGP.
g. Numeric Ballast Water Discharge Standard Compliance Dates
    The final rule does not include compliance dates for the numeric 
ballast water discharge standard; rather, EPA expects the USCG to 
include such as part of its implementation, compliance, and enforcement 
rulemaking pursuant to CWA section 312(p)(5). EPA acknowledges and 
supports continuation of USCG procedures to address those cases where 
the master, owner, operator, agent, or person in charge of a vessel can 
document that, despite all efforts, compliance with the numeric ballast 
water discharge standard is not possible. The details of such vessel-
specific requests would fall under the USCG's implementing regulations. 
For perspective, the existing USCG review considers safety and 
regulatory requirements of electrical equipment, vessel capacity to 
accommodate BWMS, vessel age, shipyard availability, or other similar 
factors and allowances are granted for no longer than the minimum time 
needed, as determined by the USCG, for the vessel to comply with the 
numeric ballast water discharge standard.
h. Ballast Water Exchange and Saltwater Flush
    The final rule requires vessel operators to conduct a ballast water 
exchange or saltwater flush in certain instances. 40 CFR 139.10(e). The 
final rule codifies definitions of ``ballast water exchange,'' 
``saltwater flush,'' and ``empty ballast tank'' from CWA section 
312(p)(1) as these terms are used within the context of this section. 
40 CFR 139.2.
    The final rule, consistent with the provision in CWA section 
312(p)(4)(B)(iii) that the requirements be no less stringent than the 
VGP, continues the interim ballast water management requirement for 
vessel operators, unless otherwise excepted from the requirement, to 
conduct ballast water exchange in lieu of treating ballast water prior 
to a vessel's compliance date for meeting the numeric ballast water 
discharge standard. 40 CFR 139.10(e). The interim ballast water 
exchange requirements in the final rule specify that before entering 
waters of the United States or waters of the contiguous zone, any 
vessel operating beyond the EEZ and with ballast water onboard that was 
taken within 200 NM of any shore must either meet the numeric discharge 
standard or conduct a midocean exchange further than 200 NM from any 
shore prior to discharging that ballast water in waters of the United 
States or waters of the contiguous zone. The exchange must occur as 
early as practicable in the voyage, so long as the exchange occurs more 
than 200 NM from shore. 40 CFR 139.10(e)(1). This requirement reduces 
the likelihood of the spread of ANS, prior to a numeric ballast water 
discharge standard compliance date, by increasing the mortality of 
living organisms in ballast tanks and ensuring that the discharge 
contains fewer viable living organisms.
    The final rule, as directed by CWA section 312(p)(6)(B), expands 
ballast water exchange and saltwater flush requirements beyond those in 
the VGP and USCG regulations. Specifically, the final rule requires 
that vessels with empty ballast tanks bound for a port or place of 
destination subject to the jurisdiction of the United States shall, 
prior to arriving at that port or place of destination, conduct a 
ballast water exchange or saltwater flush of empty ballast tanks that 
carry unpumpable ballast water and residual sediments (or otherwise 
seal the tank so that there is no discharge or uptake and subsequent 
discharge of ballast water). Also, ballast water exchange or saltwater 
flush must occur no less than 200 NM from any shore for a voyage 
originating outside the United States or Canadian EEZ, or no less than 
50 NM from any shore for a voyage originating within the United States 
or Canadian EEZ. 40 CFR 139.10(e)(2).
    EPA notes that these saltwater flush requirements reflect a widely 
used, low-cost preventative approach that minimizes the risk that ANS 
will be introduced from unpumpable ballast water and residual sediment. 
A saltwater flush is most effective at eliminating organisms adapted to 
freshwater and low salinity environments due to the combined impacts of 
saltwater shock and physical dilution. However, a saltwater flush 
should also reduce viable living organisms adapted to estuarine, 
coastal, and marine environments. A saltwater flush reduces viable 
living organisms in residual ballast water through dilution. It also 
reduces organisms in resting stages in the residual sediment. Resting 
stages of organisms often inhabit the sediment in ballast tanks; thus, 
a reduction in the number of these organisms will likely reduce the 
propagule of potential invaders.
    The final rule incorporates from CWA section 312(p)(6)(B)(ii) 
certain exceptions to the ballast water exchange or saltwater flush 
requirements for empty tanks, including: if the unpumpable residual 
waters and sediments of an empty ballast tank were treated by a USCG 
type-approved BWMS; except as otherwise required under this part, if 
the unpumpable residual waters or sediments of an empty ballast tank 
were sourced within the same port or place of destination or sourced 
within the contiguous portions of a single COTP Zone; if complying with 
an applicable requirement would compromise the safety of the vessel or 
is otherwise prohibited by any Federal, Canadian, or international law 
(including regulations) pertaining to vessel safety; and if the vessel 
is operating exclusively within the internal waters of the United 
States or Canada. 40 CFR 139.10(e)(3).
    CWA section 312(p)(6)(B)(ii)(IV) includes one additional exception 
to the ballast water exchange or saltwater flush requirement: ``if 
design limitations of the vessel prevent a ballast water exchange or 
saltwater flush from being conducted'' in accordance with applicable 
requirements. The final rule at 40 CFR 139.10(e)(3)(iv) largely 
incorporates this exclusion but, consistent with the proposed rule, 
limits its applicability only to existing vessels, defined as a vessel 
constructed prior to the date identified in the forthcoming USCG 
implementing regulations as described in 40 CFR 139.1(e). EPA 
interprets the ``design limitation'' exclusion in the VIDA to apply 
only to existing vessels since the VIDA added permanent exchange 
requirements, presumably because of the added benefit in performing 
such an exchange. If the design exclusion applied to new vessels, it 
would undermine the purpose of the statutory ballast water exchange and 
saltwater flush requirements by disincentivizing the design and 
construction of new vessels that are capable of conducting an exchange 
or flush. It is critical that new vessels have the capability to 
conduct

[[Page 82104]]

ballast water exchange and a saltwater flush, even if they install a 
BWMS, particularly as a contingency measure if the treatment system 
fails to operate as expected. The VGP included an additional exception, 
except for vessels entering the Great Lakes or in federally- protected 
waters, for a vessel to not be required to deviate from its voyage, or 
delay the voyage to conduct a ballast water exchange or saltwater 
flush. However, CWA section 312(p)(6)(B)(ii) did not include such an 
exemption and as such the final rule does not allow this route 
deviation or delay exemption to the final rule's requirements 
implementing CWA section 312(p)(6)(B)(i).
i. Vessels Entering the Great Lakes
    The final rule requires, based on CWA section 312(p)(10)(A), 
vessels entering the St. Lawrence Seaway through the mouth of the St. 
Lawrence River to conduct a complete ballast water exchange or 
saltwater flush (as appropriate) not less than 200 NM from any shore 
for a voyage originating outside the EEZ; or not less than 50 NM from 
any shore for a voyage originating within the EEZ. 40 CFR 139.10(f)(1). 
There are exceptions to these requirements, including if: the vessel 
has no residual ballast water or sediments onboard to the satisfaction 
of the USCG; empty tanks are sealed; or ballast water is retained 
onboard while operating in the Great Lakes. 40 CFR 139.10(f)(2)(iii) 
through (v). Consistent with the VGP and the VIDA's text, the final 
rule does not contain an exception for vessels that use a BWMS to treat 
the ballast water prior to discharge.
    Part 2.2.3.7 of the VGP required vessels that operate outside the 
EEZ and more than 200 NM from any shore and then enter the Great Lakes 
through the St. Lawrence Seaway to conduct ballast water exchange or a 
saltwater flush in addition to treatment, if ballast water uptake 
occurred within the previous 30 days from a coastal, estuarine, or 
freshwater ecosystem with a salinity of less than 18 parts per 
thousand. EPA determined that this requirement of the VGP is not 
necessary to include in the final rule given that the VIDA statutory 
requirement is more restrictive than (and supersedes) that VGP 
requirement.
    Consistent with the VIDA, the final rule expands the requirement 
for exchange or a saltwater flush plus treatment for vessels entering 
the Great Lakes through the St. Lawrence River to a larger universe of 
vessels, as compared to the VGP requirements and USCG regulations found 
at 33 CFR part 151. Specifically, the final rule at 40 CFR 139.10(f)(1) 
extends the exchange and saltwater flush requirements to ``any 
vessel,'' while the VGP and USCG requirements limited these 
requirements to vessels operating outside the EEZ and more than 200 nm 
from any shore and having taken on ballast water with a salinity of 
less than 18 parts per thousand within the previous 30 days. In 2014 
and 2015, a total of 81 unique vessels arrived at U.S. ports in the 
Great Lakes from oversees on 131 voyages. Most of these voyages 
departed from European ports (82 percent). However, there are limited 
data on the salinity of the origination ports. Therefore, it is 
difficult to estimate the affected universe from higher salinity ports 
that are now required to do exchange plus treatment. However, many of 
these vessels may have been conducting exchange plus treatment prior to 
the compliance dates for these vessels to install a BWMS, to ensure 
compliance with the VGP. Consequently, there may be minimal impact on 
these vessels, and the requirement are expected to be technologically 
available and economically achievable for these vessels.
    Existing USCG regulations at 33 CFR 151.1502 require that vessels, 
after operating on the waters beyond the EEZ during any part of their 
voyage, that enter through the St. Lawrence Seaway or that navigate 
north of the George Washington Bridge on the Hudson River, perform a 
ballast water exchange or saltwater flush regardless of other port 
calls in the United States or Canada during that voyage, except as 
expressly provided in 33 CFR 151.2015(a). In the final rule, EPA does 
not specifically identify this universe of vessels as having to perform 
a ballast water exchange or saltwater flush prior to entering the 
Hudson River or St. Lawrence Seaway, unless the vessel is meeting the 
numeric ballast water discharge standard (e.g., has installed and is 
operating a USCG type-approved BWMS), as the final rule requires such 
ballast water exchange or saltwater flush for any vessels subject to 
the ballast water discharge standard. Therefore, while the final rule 
does not call out this universe of vessels specifically, similar 
requirements are being finalized for these and a larger universe of 
vessels.
    Consistent with the CWA section 312(p)(10)(A)(ii)(I), the final 
rule includes exceptions to ballast water exchange or saltwater flush 
requirements for vessels entering the Great Lakes, if: (1) compliance 
would compromise the safety of the vessel; (2) compliance is otherwise 
prohibited by any Federal, Canadian, or international law (including 
regulations) pertaining to vessel safety; or (3) design limitations of 
an existing vessel prevent a ballast water exchange from being 
conducted. 40 CFR 139.10(f)(2)(i) and (ii). As described in section 
VIII.B.1.h. of this preamble, Ballast Water Exchange and Saltwater 
Flush, the final rule adds a limitation to the design exclusion to 
apply only to existing vessels, defined as a vessel constructed prior 
to the date identified in the forthcoming USCG implementing 
regulations, as described in 40 CFR 139.1(e). This limitation is 
important to prevent the design and construction of new vessels that 
cannot conduct an exchange or flush. It is critical that new vessels 
entering the Great Lakes have this capability, even if they install a 
BWMS, particularly as a contingency measure if the treatment system 
fails to operate as expected.
j. Pacific Region
    The VIDA establishes more stringent Pacific Region requirements for 
ballast water exchange than were required under the VGP. The final rule 
requires, as dictated by CWA section 312(p)(10)(C), that any vessel 
that operates either between two ports within the U.S. Pacific Region 
or between ports in the Pacific Region and the Canadian or Mexican 
Pacific Coast north of parallel 20 degrees north latitude, inclusive of 
the Gulf of California, conduct a complete ballast water exchange in 
waters more than 50 NM from shore. 40 CFR 139.10(g)(1). The term 
``Pacific Region'' includes the entire EEZ adjacent to the states of 
Alaska, California, Hawaii, Oregon, and Washington. 33 U.S.C. 
1322(p)(1)(S). There are exceptions in the VIDA to these exchange 
requirements, including if the vessel is using a type-approved BWMS or 
for voyages between or to specific ports in the states of Washington, 
Oregon, California, Alaska, and Hawaii, and the Port of Los Angeles, 
the Port of Long Beach, and the El Segundo offshore marine oil 
terminal, if the ballast water originated from specified areas. 33 
U.S.C. 1322(p)(10)(C)(ii)(II).
    As specified in the VIDA, and codified in 40 CFR 139.10(g)(2), the 
final rule requires that any vessel that transports ballast water 
sourced from low salinity waters (less than 18 parts per thousand) and 
voyages to a Pacific Region port or place of destination with low 
salinity must conduct a complete ballast water exchange. The exchange 
must occur not less than 50 NM from shore, if the ballast water was 
sourced from a Pacific Region port; or more than 200 NM from shore, if 
the ballast water was not sourced from a Pacific Region port. These 
exchange requirements do

[[Page 82105]]

not apply to any vessel voyaging to the Pacific Region that is using a 
type-approved BWMS that achieves standards of performance for low 
salinity water that are more stringent than the existing VGP and USCG 
numeric ballast water discharge standards. The low salinity water 
standards of performance as specified in CWA section 
312(p)(10)(C)(iii)(II) are:
    <bullet> Less than 1 organism per 10 cubic meters, if that organism 
(1) is living or has not been rendered nonviable; and (2) is 50 or more 
micrometers in minimum dimension;
    <bullet> Less than 1 organism per 10 milliliters, if that organism 
(1) is living or has not been rendered nonviable; and (2) is more than 
10, but less than 50, micrometers in minimum dimension; and
    <bullet> Concentrations of indicator microbes that are less than 
(1) 1 colony-forming unit of toxicogenic Vibrio cholerae (serotypes O1 
and O139) per 100 milliliters or less than 1 colony-forming unit of 
that microbe per gram of wet weight of zoological samples; (2) 126 
colony-forming units of Escherichia coli per 100 milliliters; and (3) 
33 colony-forming units of intestinal enterococci per 100 milliliters.
    The final rule corrects a typographical error from the proposed 
rule regulatory text that indicated a discharge standard of less than 1 
organism per 100 milliliters (rather than the correct value of 1 
organism per 10 milliliters) for organisms more than 10, but less than 
50, micrometers in minimum dimension. The proposed rule preamble text 
reflected the correct value, which is carried forward into this final 
rule.
    As established by the VIDA, the final rule at 40 CFR 139.10(g)(3) 
exempts vessels from the Pacific Region requirements if any of the 
following conditions exist: (1) compliance would compromise the safety 
of the vessel; (2) design limitations of an existing vessel prevent a 
ballast water exchange from being conducted; (3) the vessel has no 
residual ballast water or sediments onboard to the satisfaction of the 
Secretary, or the vessel retains all ballast water while in waters 
subject to the requirement; or (4) empty ballast tanks on the vessel 
are sealed in a manner that ensures that no discharge or uptake occurs 
and that any subsequent discharge of ballast water is subject to the 
requirement. As described in the previous ballast water exchange 
sections, the final rule limits the design exclusion only to existing 
vessels, defined as a vessel constructed prior to the date identified 
in the forthcoming USCG implementing regulations, as described in 40 
CFR 139.1(e) and only as determined by the USCG. This limitation is 
important to prevent the design and construction of new vessels that 
cannot conduct an exchange or flush as an alternative ballast water 
management option for those instances when, for example, an installed 
BWMS fails to operate as expected.
    As compared to the VGP, the VIDA expanded requirements for the 
Pacific Region to include exchange or more stringent treatment for low 
salinity waters. Except for any vessel that transports low salinity 
ballast water (less than 18 ppt) and voyages to a low salinity Pacific 
Region port or place of destination, the final rule requirement to 
conduct ballast water exchange in the Pacific Region is an interim 
requirement until a vessel installs a type-approved BWMS that meets the 
ballast water discharge standard. As specified in CWA section 
312(p)(10)(C)(iii), any vessel that transports low salinity ballast 
water (less than 18 ppt) and voyages to a low salinity Pacific Region 
port or place of destination must continue to conduct a complete 
ballast water exchange, unless it has installed a type-approved BWMS 
that achieves standards of performance, depending on the parameter, up 
to 100 times more stringent than the existing discharge standard. Id. 
(p)(10)(C)(iii)(II). Currently, there is not a USCG type-approval 
process for BWMSs to demonstrate the ability to achieve this more 
stringent standard. Therefore, vessels from low salinity waters must 
continue to conduct exchange until such a process is developed and 
BWMSs are approved to meet that more stringent standard.
    For the most part, the continental shelf along the Pacific coast is 
narrow along both North and South America. Deep water environments 
beyond the continental shelf typically support ecosystems that are 
quite different than those which exist closer to shore. Due in part to 
the narrow width of the continental shelf and relatively deep waters 
beyond 50 NM from the Pacific shore, exchange at this distance from the 
Pacific shore will be effective.
    In addition, the VIDA described the applicability of the Pacific 
Region exchange requirements differently as compared to the VGP. The 
final rule implements the VIDA requirements as established by Congress 
in the statute rather than as written in the VGP. The VGP required 
exchange for vessels on nearshore voyages that carry ballast water 
taken on in areas less than 50 NM from any shore. It defined nearshore 
voyages as those vessels engaged in coastwise trade along the U.S. 
Pacific coast operating in and between ports in Alaska, California, 
Oregon, and Washington that travel between more than one COTP Zone. The 
VIDA did not include the stipulation that a vessel voyage must be 
between more than one COTP Zone. In addition, the VIDA includes vessels 
operating in ports in the State of Hawaii, with certain exceptions, in 
the exchange requirements that the VGP did not include. The VGP 
required exchange for all other vessels that sail from foreign, non-
U.S. Pacific, Atlantic (including the Caribbean Sea), or Gulf of Mexico 
ports, that do not sail further than 200 NM from any shore, and that 
discharge or will discharge ballast water into the territorial sea or 
inland waters of Alaska or off the west coast of the continental United 
States. The VIDA did not identify nearshore voyages from outside of the 
Pacific Region EEZ (although it did include parts of Canada and Mexico) 
as being required to conduct exchange.
2. Bilges
    Bilgewater consists of water and pollutant residues, such as oil, 
grease, and metals, that accumulate in the vessel's bilge (the lowest 
compartment of the vessel). The source of bilgewater is typically 
drainage from interior machinery, engine rooms, pipes, and decks. 
Bilgewater contains both conventional and toxic pollutants including 
oil, grease, volatile and semi-volatile organic compounds, inorganic 
salts, and metals. Volumes vary with the size of the vessel and 
discharges typically occur several times per week. Cruise ships have 
been estimated to generate 25,000 gallons of bilgewater per week for a 
3,000 passenger/crew vessel (U.S. EPA, 2008). Bilgewater treatment 
technologies can be used to remove pollutants from bilgewater. For 
example, ultrafiltration can be effective in removing turbidity and 
suspended solids, organic carbon, and several trace metals (such as 
aluminum, iron, and zinc) from bilgewater, in addition to oil 
(Tomaszewska et al., 2005).
    Under MARPOL Annex I, all ships of 400 GT and above are required to 
have equipment installed onboard that limits the discharge of oil to 
less than 15 parts per million (ppm) when a ship is underway. All 
vessels of 400 GT and above are also required to have an oil content 
monitor (OCM), including a bilge alarm, integrated into the piping 
system. In the United States, MARPOL is primarily implemented by APPS 
(33 U.S.C. 1901 et seq.). The USCG's implementing regulations for APPS 
are primarily found at 33 CFR part 151 and prohibit ``any discharge of 
oil or oily mixtures into the sea from a ship'' except when certain 
conditions are met,

[[Page 82106]]

including a discharge oil content of less than 15 ppm and that the ship 
operates oily water separating equipment, a bilge monitor, a bilge 
alarm, or a combination thereof. Additional regulations found at 46 CFR 
part 162 detail the approval procedures. Approval is based on testing 
of manufacturer-supplied oil pollution control equipment by an 
independent laboratory, in accordance with test conditions prescribed 
by the USCG (33 CFR parts 155 and 157 and 46 CFR part 162). 
Additionally, as appropriate, the discharge of bilgewater also must 
comply with related requirements in 33 CFR part 151, 40 CFR part 110, 
and 46 CFR part 162. Except as expressly provided, the final VIDA 
regulations do not affect the applicability of these other Federal laws 
to a vessel.
    To develop the bilgewater standard, EPA considered whether 
increased stringency for the numeric discharge standard for oil content 
might have been appropriate and elected to request specific information 
on the matter. Specifically, EPA sought information from commenters 
regarding the availability of type-approved systems capable of meeting 
a 5 ppm numeric discharge standard for oil, as well as the availability 
and cost of OCMs that can accurately determine oil content at 5 ppm or 
lower detection levels. The majority of commenters responding to these 
queries indicated that systems capable of meeting a 5 ppm standard may 
not be widely available or reliable once installed onboard. Concerns 
regarding reliability were largely tied to OCM issues; namely, that 
their functionality can easily be disrupted and that measurements often 
differ from analytical results. Commenters were generally in agreement 
that the existing 15 ppm standard under APPS regulations is appropriate 
and that equipment is reliable to achieve this standard. None of the 
comments received provided specific information about OCMs or their 
cost. Because no information was provided by commenters that 
affirmatively demonstrates the availability and affordability of 
systems consistently and demonstrably meeting a 5 ppm standard, EPA is 
not establishing any new enhanced system requirements. In the proposed 
rule (85 FR 67818, October 26, 2020, section VIII.B.2.), EPA explained 
that the VGP requirement for vessel operators to meet a discharge limit 
for oil of 15 ppm or to not discharge oil in quantities that may be 
harmful was consistent with the proposed general discharge standards 
for oil management. EPA also did not want to be redundant to existing 
requirements under the APPS. As such, the proposed rule did not 
explicitly identify the 15 ppm oil content limit in the proposed bilges 
regulations, despite discussing this limit at length in the preamble. 
However, one commenter expressed confusion that the numeric limit from 
the VGP was missing. Based on its consideration of comments, EPA 
determined that it is appropriate and clearer to include the 15 ppm 
directly in the regulatory standard. This approach is consistent with 
the VGP and existing regulations and, as discussed in the preambles of 
both the proposed rule and this final rule, EPA determined that 
available systems are capable of meeting this numeric standard and it 
is an existing practice. Therefore, 40 CFR 139.11(c) requires that the 
oil content of any bilgewater discharges from any vessel of 400 GT and 
above must not exceed 15 ppm.
    The final rule at 40 CFR 139.11 maintains the same requirements 
included in the proposed rule and includes one additional requirement 
based on comments received during the public comment period. Consistent 
with the proposed rule, the final rule incudes both general and 
specific standards for bilgewater, detailed in 40 CFR part 139, 
subparts B and C, respectively. The general standards require vessels 
to minimize discharges and prohibit the discharge of oil in such 
quantities as may be harmful. The specific standards in the final rule 
require that the discharge of bilgewater must not contain any 
flocculants or other additives except when used with an oily water 
separator or to maintain or clean equipment. The use of any additives 
to remove the appearance of a visible sheen is also prohibited. 40 CFR 
139.11(b).
    EPA proposed to require all vessels of 400 GT and above to 
discharge treated bilgewater when underway but allowed such discharges 
to occur any distance from shore, except in federally-protected waters. 
The VGP, on the other hand, required vessels greater than 400 GT that 
regularly sail outside the territorial sea (i.e., at least once per 
month) to discharge treated bilgewater while underway and, if 
technologically feasible, at least 1 NM from shore (emphases added). 
EPA retained the requirement to discharge while underway, as 
discharging while underway is advantageous because it promotes dilution 
of the discharge and should be available to all vessels of 400 GT and 
above. EPA proposed, however, to broaden the applicability of the 
requirement to all vessels of 400 GT and above, and not just those 
vessels greater than 400 GT that regularly sail outside the territorial 
sea. EPA proposed this new approach because it learned that the VGP 
requirement was difficult to implement and led to confusion about 
whether and when a vessel may be authorized to discharge treated 
bilgewater when not underway, particularly as it related to determining 
when a vessel would be considered to ``regularly'' sail outside the 
territorial sea. While EPA proposed to remove the discharge prohibition 
within 1 NM, commenters disagreed with its removal and EPA has 
concluded that the Agency does not have a basis for being less 
stringent than the VGP in this case that would be consistent with the 
exceptions laid out in CWA section 312(p)(4)(D)(ii)(II). As such, the 
final rule requires that bilgewater discharges from any vessel of 400 
GT and above occur when the vessel is underway with an oil content that 
does not exceed 15 ppm and, if technologically feasible, at least 1 NM 
from shore. 40 CFR 139.11(c). Such vessels have the capability, in 
terms of process and engineering, to adjust the timing and location of 
bilgewater discharges and EPA does not expect this approach to impose 
any significant additional cost burden as some vessels were subject to 
this requirement under the VGP. Additionally, EPA found that more than 
99.7 percent of vessels 400 GT and above did not discharge any 
bilgewater under the VGP, based on information from the annual reports 
for the 2019 operating year.
    Finally, as noted above and as discussed in section VIII.C. of this 
preamble, Discharges Incidental to the Normal Operation of a Vessel--
Federally-Protected Waters Requirements, the final rule requires 
additional controls for bilgewater discharges from a vessel operating 
in federally-protected waters. 40 CFR 139.40(c).
3. Boilers
    Boiler blowdown is the discharge of water and constituents from the 
boiler during regular intervals to avoid concentration of impurities 
and at intermittent intervals for cleaning or other purposes. Boiler 
blowdown occurs on vessels with steam propulsion or a steam generator 
to control anti-corrosion and anti-scaling treatment concentrations and 
to remove sludge from boiler systems. Routine blowdown involves 
releasing a volume of about one to 10 percent of the water in the 
boiler system to manage the accumulation of solids and buildup of 
dissolved solids in the boiler water. Frequency of required blowdown 
varies, typically between once every two weeks

[[Page 82107]]

to once every few months, although on some vessels blowdown may be as 
frequent as daily or even continuously. The constituents of boiler 
blowdown discharge vary according to the types of feed water treatment 
used, but may include toxic pollutants such as antimony, arsenic, 
cadmium, copper, chromium, lead, nickel, selenium, thallium, zinc, and 
bis (2-ethylhexyl) phthalate.
    EPA was unable to identify new technology or best management 
practice options for discharges from boilers. Therefore, the Agency 
relied on the BPT/BCT/BAT analysis underlying the VGP requirements, and 
the fact that the VGP requirements are currently in effect, to require 
substantively the same requirements included in the VGP. 40 CFR 139.12. 
EPA did not receive any comments suggesting revisions to the proposed 
requirements.
    The final rule requires that the discharge of boiler blowdown be 
minimized when in port. This requirement acknowledges that blowdown 
typically must be performed as necessary and that while the amount of 
blowdown can often be minimized, the timing of such blowdown, in many 
instances, cannot be safely changed, such as to only those times when a 
vessel is not in port. As such, this requirement is more specific to a 
location (when in port) than the general operation and maintenance 
requirements described in subpart B, for vessel operators to minimize 
discharges of blowdown to only those times when necessary and to 
discharge while the vessel is underway when practical and as far from 
shore as practical. To comply with the requirements of the VGP, vessels 
greater than 400 GT were adjusting the timing and location of blowdown 
events. EPA has determined that all vessels subject to the rule can 
similarly change the timing and location of their blowdown events as 
necessary to minimize the discharge. This will reduce the discharge of 
various pollutants but will not impose any significant additional cost 
burden.
    Finally, as discussed in section VIII.C. of this preamble, 
Discharges Incidental to the Normal Operation of a Vessel--Federally-
Protected Waters Requirements, the final rule prohibits the discharge 
of boiler blowdown into federally-protected waters. 40 CFR 139.40(d).
4. Cathodic Protection
    Cathodic protection systems are used on vessels to prevent steel 
hull or metal structure corrosion. The two types of cathodic protection 
are galvanic (i.e., sacrificial anodes) and impressed current cathodic 
protection (ICCP). Galvanic cathodic protection uses anodes, typically 
made of magnesium, zinc, or aluminum, that are ``sacrificed'' to the 
corrosive forces of the seawater, which creates a flow of electrons to 
the cathode, thereby preventing the cathode (e.g., the hull) from 
corroding. With ICCP, a direct current is passed through the hull such 
that the electrochemical potential of the hull is sufficiently high to 
prevent corrosion. The ICCP system releases oxidants during the 
process, generally consisting of chlorinated and brominated substances 
from the reaction with seawater. The discharge from either method of 
cathodic protection is continuous when the vessel is waterborne. 
However, galvanic protection discharges include both toxic and 
nonconventional pollutants such as ionized zinc, magnesium, and 
aluminum.
    EPA was unable to identify new technology or best management 
practice options for discharges resulting from cathodic protection, 
therefore the Agency relied on the BPT/BCT/BAT analysis underlying the 
VGP requirements and is requiring substantively the same requirements 
included in the VGP with slight modification based on comments received 
on the proposed standards. 40 CFR 139.13.
    The final rule requires that any spaces between flush-fit anodes 
and the backing must be filled, because niche areas on the hull are 
more susceptible to biofouling and more difficult to clean. 
Additionally, the general operation and maintenance requirements 
described in subpart B require that any materials used onboard that are 
subsequently discharged be used only in the amount necessary to perform 
their intended function, including any sacrificial anodes. Therefore, 
sacrificial anodes must not be used more than necessary to adequately 
prevent corrosion of the vessel's hull, sea chest, rudder, and other 
exposed vessel areas.
    EPA proposed to not carry forward a requirement from the VGP 
regarding the selection of sacrificial anode systems based on toxicity 
of the anode, though the proposed rule preamble did note that the 
Agency continues to support operators considering toxicity during 
selection. As described in the preamble of the proposed rule (85 FR 
67818, October 26, 2020, section VIII.B.4), EPA received new 
information from its implementation of the VGP that this requirement 
was not technologically feasible and/or economically practicable and 
achievable in many instances. Based on a commenter's suggestion to 
continue this concept through a BMP encouraging anode selection based 
on toxicity, however, the final rule includes a requirement to consider 
selection of anode materials based on toxicity of the base metal. 40 
CFR 139.13(c). At the same time, the requirement to consider, but not 
necessarily select, the least toxic metal acknowledges that the type of 
anode metal selected based on toxicity (magnesium, then aluminum, then 
zinc) may not be technologically feasible and/or economically 
practicable and achievable in all instances. For example, in harbors or 
estuaries with high pollutant loads, zinc is the preferred anode 
material for vessels that spend time in those waters because of 
concerns with pollutants causing aluminum anodes to passivate and lose 
effectiveness.
    EPA did consider requiring use of ICCP because these systems 
eliminate or reduce the need for sacrificial anodes. However, there is 
a risk of overprotecting using these systems (e.g., embrittlement in 
high-strength vessels) or debonding of protective coatings, and these 
systems generally should only be installed on vessels that are manned 
full-time by a highly skilled crew able to carefully monitor and 
maintain these systems. As such, the Agency recommends, but does not 
require, that operators consider the use of ICCP in place of, or to 
reduce the use of, sacrificial anodes when technologically feasible 
(e.g., adequate power sources, appropriate for vessel hull size and 
design), safe, and adequate to protect against corrosion, particularly 
for new vessels.
5. Chain Lockers
    Chain lockers are the storage area onboard for housing the vessel's 
anchor and chain. Water, sediment, biofouling organisms, and 
contaminants can enter and accumulate in the chain locker during anchor 
retrieval and precipitation events. The accumulation of water and other 
materials in the chain locker is often referred to as the chain locker 
effluent. This effluent can contain both conventional and 
nonconventional pollutants including biological organisms and residue 
from the inside of the locker itself, such as rust, paint chips, 
grease, and zinc. The sump collects these liquids and materials that 
enter the chain locker prior to discharge or disposal.
    EPA was unable to identify new technology or best management 
practices options for discharges from chain lockers, therefore the 
Agency relied on the BPT/BCT/BAT analysis underlying the VGP 
requirements and is requiring substantively the same

[[Page 82108]]

requirements included in the VGP. 40 CFR 139.14.
    The final rule requires that vessel operators implement BMPs that 
would reduce or eliminate chain locker effluent discharge. Based on 
comments received on the proposed rule, the final rule clarifies that 
the chain locker requirements apply to accumulated biological organisms 
and sediment in addition to precipitation and seawater, and that such 
requirements are intended to prevent the discharge of accumulated 
biological organisms, sediment, precipitation, and seawater when 
deploying the anchor in a new port or place of destination. 40 CFR 
139.14(a).
    The final rule also requires that vessel operators rinse the anchor 
chain of biofouling organisms and sediment when the anchor is 
retrieved. 40 CFR 139.14(b). Additionally, the final rule prohibits the 
discharge of biological organisms, sediment, precipitation, and 
seawater from any chain locker when the vessel is in port. 40 CFR 
139.14(c).
    For all vessels that operate beyond the waters of the contiguous 
zone, the final rule requires anchors and anchor chains to be rinsed of 
biofouling organisms and sediment prior to entering the waters of the 
contiguous zone. 40 CFR 139.14(d). This requirement is intended to 
minimize the discharge of biofouling organisms when vessels that 
operate beyond waters of the contiguous zone re-enter these waters and 
subsequently drop anchor in waters of the United States or waters of 
the contiguous zone. Based on comments received on the proposed rule, 
the final rule at 40 CFR 139.14(d) clarifies that this requirement may 
be satisfied by rinsing when the anchor is retrieved at the 
commencement of the voyage or when the anchor was last retrieved on a 
previous voyage, so long as the rinsing occurs after the last use of 
the anchor beyond waters of the contiguous zone.
    Finally, as discussed in section VIII.C. of this preamble, 
Discharges Incidental to the Normal Operation of a Vessel--Federally-
Protected Waters Requirements, the final rule prohibits any discharge 
of accumulated biofouling organisms, water, and sediment from any chain 
locker into federally-protected waters. 40 CFR 139.40(e).
6. Decks
    Deck discharges may result from deck runoff, deck washdown, or deck 
flooding. Deck runoff consists of rain and other precipitation or 
condensation, as well as freshwater and seawater, that sprays or washes 
over the deck, well decks, and bulkhead areas. Deck washdowns consist 
of cleaners and freshwater or saltwater. Deck flooding generally 
consists of seawater from the flooding of a docking well (well deck) on 
a vessel used to transport, load, and unload amphibious vessels, or 
freshwater from washing the well deck and equipment and vessels stored 
in the well deck. Deck washdown, runoff, and flooding discharges 
include those from all deck and bulkhead areas and associated 
equipment. The constituents and volumes vary widely depending on a 
vessel's purpose and practices and may include both conventional and 
nonconventional pollutants such as oil, grease, fuel, cleaner or 
detergent residue, paint chips, paint droplets, and general debris. 
Based on comments received on the proposed rule, the final rule 
provides additional clarification on the list of deck discharges 
identified in the proposed rule to also include condensation, seawater 
spray and washover, flooding, and waters pumped from below deck on a 
barge, all of which are also covered under this section per 40 CFR 
139.15(a).
    The final rule also includes a new requirement at 40 CFR 139.15(h), 
consistent with Part 5.4.1. of the VGP, to clarify that barges which 
discharge water pumped from below deck must minimize the contact of 
below deck condensation with oily or toxic materials and any materials 
containing hydrocarbon.
    EPA was unable to identify new technology or best management 
options for discharges from decks, therefore the Agency relied on the 
BAT analysis underlying the VGP. 40 CFR 139.15. EPA received comments 
requesting clarification on the proposed requirements for decks; 
therefore, the final deck discharge standards are similar to the 
proposed standards but include additional clarifications.
    EPA determined that these BMPs are necessary to carry out the 
intent of this subsection of the VIDA and because it is infeasible to 
set a specific numeric discharge standard for discharges from decks and 
well decks due to the variation in vessel size and associated deck 
surface area, the types of equipment operated on the deck, limitations 
on space for treatment equipment, as well as the nature of the 
discharge. As such, the final rule includes BMPs to minimize the volume 
of discharges and various pollutants from decks. The final rule 
requires vessel operators to properly maintain the deck and bulkhead 
areas to keep the deck clean; prevent excess corrosion, leaks, and 
metal discharges; contain potential contaminants to keep them from 
entering the waste stream; and use minimally toxic, phosphate-free, and 
biodegradable products. Properly maintaining the deck includes the use 
of coamings or drip pans for machinery on the deck that is expected to 
leak or otherwise release oil, so that any accumulated oils from these 
areas can be collected and managed appropriately per 40 CFR 139.15(b).
    The final rule also requires that, prior to performing a deck 
washdown and when underway, exposed decks must be kept broom clean to 
remove existing debris and prevent the introduction of garbage or other 
debris into any waste stream. 40 CFR 139.15(e). As defined in 40 CFR 
139.2, ``broom clean'' means a condition in which the deck shows that 
care has been taken to prevent or eliminate any visible concentration 
of surface residues. In response to comments received on the proposed 
rule, EPA is clarifying that broom cleaning is intended as a BMP to 
address residues. Spills may be more appropriately addressed through 
other BMPs in this section, such as coamings, drip pans, and other 
control measures. See 40 CFR 139.15(b). Similarly, control measures 
must be used to minimize the introduction of on-deck debris, garbage, 
residue, spills, floating solids, visible foam, halogenated phenolic 
compounds, dispersants, and surfactants into deck washdown and runoff. 
40 CFR 139.15(d). During deck washdown, the final rule requires that 
the washdown be conducted with minimally-toxic, phosphate-free, and 
biodegradable soaps, cleaners, and detergents. 40 CFR 139.15(g). The 
final rule also requires that discharges from deck washdowns be 
minimized in port. 40 CFR 139.15(f). Lastly, the final rule requires 
that, where applicable by an international treaty or convention or the 
Secretary, a vessel must be fitted with and use physical barriers 
(e.g., spill rails, scuppers, and scupper plugs) during any washdown to 
collect runoff. 40 CFR 139.15(c). While applicable to any discharge 
addressed in this rule, due to the nature of deck discharges, EPA 
emphasizes that deck discharges must also meet any other applicable 
discharge requirements under this rule, including but not limited to 
the general discharge standards for general operation and maintenance 
and oil management detailed in subpart B.
    Finally, as discussed in section VIII.C. of this preamble, 
Discharges Incidental to the Normal Operation of a Vessel--Federally-
Protected Waters Requirements, the final rule prohibits the discharge 
of deck wash from all vessels into federally-protected waters except 
those vessels that operate exclusively within the boundaries of 
federally-protected waters. 40 CFR 139.40(f). This prohibition is 
applicable

[[Page 82109]]

only to deck washdown and is not applicable to other deck runoff such 
as from precipitation or condensation. The final rule exempts vessels 
operating exclusively within federally-protected waters to address new 
information provided by commenters and concerns regarding necessary 
maintenance of these vessels that requires deck washdown.
7. Desalination and Purification Systems
    Distilling and reverse osmosis plants, also known as water 
purification plants or desalination systems, generate freshwater from 
seawater for a variety of shipboard applications. These include potable 
water for drinking, onboard services (e.g., laundry and food 
preparation), and high-purity feedwater for boilers. The wastewater 
from these systems is essentially concentrated seawater with the same 
constituents of seawater, including dissolved and suspended solids and 
metals; however, anti-scaling, anti-foaming, and acidic treatments and 
cleaning compounds are also injected into the distillation system and 
can be present in the discharge. As such, the wastewater can contain 
toxic, conventional, and nonconventional pollutants.
    EPA was unable to identify new technology or best management 
practice options for discharges from desalination and purification 
systems, therefore the Agency relied on the BPT/BCT/BAT analysis 
underlying the VGP requirements and is requiring substantively the same 
requirements included in the VGP. 40 CFR 139.16. EPA did not receive 
any comments suggesting revisions to the proposed requirements.
    The final rule prohibits discharges resulting from the cleaning of 
desalination and purification systems with hazardous or toxic 
materials. 40 CFR 139.16(b).
8. Elevator Pits
    Most vessels with multiple decks are equipped with elevators to 
facilitate the transportation of maintenance equipment, people, and 
cargo between decks. A pit at the bottom of the elevator collects 
liquids and debris from elevator operations. The liquid and debris that 
accumulates in the pits, often referred to as elevator pit effluent, 
can be emptied by gravity draining, discharged using the firemain, 
transferred to the bilge, or containerized for onshore disposal. The 
effluent may contain toxic, conventional, and nonconventional 
pollutants such as oil, hydraulic fluid, lubricants, cleaning solvents, 
soot, and paint chips.
    EPA was unable to identify new technology or best management 
practice options for discharges from elevator pits, therefore the 
Agency relied on the BPT/BCT/BAT analysis underlying the VGP 
requirements and is requiring substantively the same requirements 
included in the VGP with slight modifications for clarity. 40 CFR 
139.17. EPA did not receive any comments suggesting revisions to the 
proposed requirements.
    The final rule prohibits the discharge of untreated accumulated 
water and sediment from any elevator pit. 40 CFR 139.17(b).
9. Exhaust Gas Emission Control Systems
    Exhaust gas emission control systems for reducing sulfur oxides 
(SO<INF>X</INF>) and nitrogen oxides (NO<INF>X</INF>) in marine exhaust 
can produce washwater and residues that must be treated or held for 
shoreside disposal. Two such systems are exhaust gas cleaning systems 
(EGCSs) and exhaust gas recirculation (EGR) systems.
    An EGCS is used primarily to remove SO<INF>X</INF> from marine 
exhaust. Commonly referred to as ``scrubbers,'' these systems capture 
contaminants that can end up in washwater and residue that result from 
the scrubbing process. EGCS washwater is typically treated and 
discharged overboard. Residues are usually disposed of onshore once the 
vessel is in port. Untreated EGCS washwater is more acidic than the 
surrounding seawater, and it contains toxic, conventional, and 
nonconventional pollutants including sulfur compounds, polycyclic 
aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs), and traces of oil, NO<INF>X</INF>, heavy 
metals, and captured particulate matter. Use of an EGCS to scrub 
emissions of SO<INF>X</INF> reduces the pH significantly, primarily 
through the formation of sulfuric acid. The high volume of seawater 
that some vessels pump for the scrubbing process can result in higher 
turbidity in surrounding waters, particularly in shallow areas.
    The use of scrubbers on vessels is in large part an outgrowth of 
international treaties for reducing sulfur emissions from marine 
exhaust. Under MARPOL Annex VI, to which the U.S. is a signatory, the 
highest permissible sulfur content of marine fuel used on a vessel when 
operating globally is 0.5 percent while the allowable fuel sulfur 
content for fuel used on a vessel operating in Emission Control Areas 
(ECAs) is restricted to 0.1 percent as of January 2015. In addition, 
MARPOL Annex VI includes three tiers of NO<INF>X</INF> emission 
standards, where applicability is based on when the keel of a vessel is 
laid; the most stringent Tier III NO<INF>X</INF> limits apply to any 
engine while operated in a NO<INF>X</INF> ECA. There are two ECAs 
relevant to the United States: the North American ECA and the U.S. 
Caribbean Sea ECA. Both of these ECAs are for sulfur, particulate 
matter, and NO<INF>X</INF> emissions, and the requirements apply to all 
ships while operating in those areas. The 0.1 percent sulfur limit for 
marine fuel sulfur content has been in effect since 2015 for ships 
operating in the U.S. ECAs. These ECA requirements also apply to 
certain internal waters (ECA associated areas) through regulatory 
action.
    Use of an EGCS is an equivalent method to comply with the MARPOL 
Annex VI fuel sulfur requirement as an alternative to costlier low 
sulfur fuels while operating in an ECA. Recent information from the 
International Council on Clean Transportation (ICCT, 2023) indicates 
that the classification society Det Norske Veritas (DNV) projects there 
will be over 5,000 scrubbers installed on vessels worldwide by 2025. A 
scrubber must meet the same sulfur emission limit as would be achieved 
using the relevant compliant fuel (ECA or global).
    The EGCSs used on vessels, while a relatively recent development, 
are based on technologies that have been deployed for land-based 
systems for controlling smokestack emissions for years. This technology 
has transferred well to shipboard use for both new and existing 
vessels. EGCS technologies used on vessels to meet the MARPOL Annex VI 
fuel sulfur standards can be either ``dry'' or ``wet'' depending on 
whether they generate wastewater. Dry systems do not generate 
wastewater and hence are not subject to these final requirements. The 
two main wet EGCS technologies (i.e., those systems that use either 
seawater or freshwater to scrub the exhaust) are open-loop and closed-
loop systems. Open-loop systems remove the contaminants from marine 
exhaust by running the exhaust through seawater sourced from outside 
the vessel and then discharging the resulting washwater back out to 
sea. In contrast, closed-loop systems use freshwater and inject caustic 
soda to neutralize the exhaust. A small portion of the washwater is 
bled off and treated to remove suspended solids that are held for 
onshore disposal. While this design is not completely closed-loop, it 
can operate in zero discharge mode for a period. Hybrid scrubbers are 
systems that can operate either in open- or closed-loop mode. At sea, 
these hybrid systems typically operate in open-loop mode, whereas in 
nearshore waters, harbors, and estuaries, they operate in closed-loop 
mode.

[[Page 82110]]

    EGR systems are used to reduce NO<INF>X</INF> emissions in marine 
exhaust. Vessels often use EGR systems to achieve the mandatory Tier 
III NO<INF>X</INF> emissions limits set out in MARPOL Annex VI. These 
systems minimize NO<INF>X</INF> production by cooling part of the 
engine exhaust gas and then redirecting it back to the engine air 
intake. The addition of the recirculated engine exhaust reduces the 
amount of oxygen available for fuel combustion, reducing peak 
combustion temperatures and resulting in significantly reduced 
NO<INF>X</INF> formation. The cooling of the recirculated exhaust gas 
causes condensation of water vapor formed during combustion, generating 
a continuous wastewater stream (bleed-off water) from the condensate. 
This condensate can contain toxic, conventional, and nonconventional 
pollutants such as particulates (soot, metals, and hydrocarbons) and 
sulfur. In some cases, the EGR systems also capture oils, for example 
from cylinder lubrication, that are emitted from the combustion process 
and collected as part of the scavenged air. Excess bleed-off water that 
accumulates in an EGR system is typically discharged overboard 
following treatment, and any residues are held for onshore disposal. On 
vessels that use high-sulfur fuel and an EGCS, the EGR system bleed-off 
water is often combined with the EGCS washwater and processed as a 
combined waste stream.
    The final standard for EGCS in 40 CFR 139.18 is based largely on 
the IMO 2015 Guidelines for Exhaust Gas Cleaning Systems (Resolution 
MEPC.259(68))(``2015 IMO EGCS Guidelines''), with additional updates 
consistent with the 2021 Guidelines for Exhaust Gas Cleaning Systems, 
MEPC.340(77), adopted November 26, 2021 (``2021 IMO EGCS Guidelines''). 
The discharge provisions in both the 2015 and 2021 IMO EGCS Guidelines 
are largely identical to the 2009 IMO EGCS Guidelines (MEPC.184(59) 
that formed the basis of EPA's BAT determination for the 2013 VGP, as 
carried forward here. Section 10 of these Guidelines set out discharge 
limits for five parameters in scrubber washwater: pH, PAH, turbidity, 
nitrates plus nitrites, and additives, as well as handling and disposal 
criteria for scrubber residues. This standard applies to all 
discharges, upon commissioning and any subsequent/ongoing discharges. 
The final standard carries forward most of the EGCS requirements as 
proposed with the following three changes.
    First, the 2021 IMO EGCS Guidelines added a new section 10.1.7 that 
clarified discharge criteria for any EGCS water retained in a temporary 
storage tank prior to discharge. For consistency with those 
international guidelines and to provide clarity on the applicability of 
the discharge criteria when water is retained prior to discharge, 
identical criteria (for pH, PAH, and turbidity) are included in the 
final rule. Based on the analysis and implementation of the 2021 IMO 
EGCS Guidelines, EPA finds this new requirement to represent BAT for 
the VIDA regulations.
    Second, to align with the IMO EGCS Guidelines, the proposed rule 
had omitted the table from the VGP that specifies the nitrates plus 
nitrites limits at different flow rates. That table clarified how the 
limit varies depending on the discharge flowrates; however, the 
standard itself was already fully expressed in proposed rule text. 
Based on public comment noting that the table would help operators 
better understand the requirements, EPA added this table into the final 
rule at 40 CFR 139.18(b)(4)(i), acknowledging that addition of the 
table provides clarification but does not alter the requirements as 
proposed. Also, the final rule clarifies that the standards for PAH, 
turbidity, and nitrates plus nitrites apply downstream of the water 
treatment equipment including any reactant dosing unit but upstream of 
any seawater addition for pH control prior to discharge. EPA also 
incorporated concepts from the 2021 IMO EGCS Guidelines that were 
modified to provide more clarity on their application to the discharge 
standards, including clarification that megawatt (MW) refers to the 
Maximum Continuous Rating (MCR) or 80% of the power rating of all fuel 
oil combustion units whose discharge water is being monitored at that 
point.
    Third, the final rule adds a new 40 CFR 139.18(b)(6) that clarifies 
the prohibition of discharges of sludge or residues generated from the 
treatment of EGCS or EGR washwater or bleed-off water. EPA added this 
requirement to the final rule to clarify the expectation of the 
proposed rule that treatment residuals are managed properly. This 
prohibition is consistent with both the 2021 IMO EGCS Guidelines and 
the VGP.
    With respect to pH, several commenters requested additional detail 
and clarification on how the pH limit applies under the two different 
options in the standard. The first option is based strictly on the 
vessel's washwater discharge having a pH of no less than 6.5 at 
overboard discharge except during maneuvering and transit, when a 
maximum difference of two pH units is allowed between inlet water and 
overboard discharge. In that scenario, the following requirements 
apply:
    <bullet> When stationary, the pH limit is 6.5; and
    <bullet> During maneuvering and transit, a maximum difference of 
two pH units is allowed between inlet water and overboard discharge. 
So, during maneuvering and transit, if the pH of ambient (intake) water 
is, for example, 8.7, the pH limit is 6.7, or, if the ambient (intake) 
water is 8.0, the pH limit is 6.0.
    The second option is modeling-based. Under this option, the vessel 
performs modeling to determine the pH at the overboard discharge point 
while the vessel is stationary that will not cause the ambient water at 
four meters from the hull to fall below a pH value of 6.5. For vessels 
that choose this option, the modeled value for pH of the overboard 
discharge then is the pH discharge limit at all times in all locations 
so that, for example, a modeled pH limit of 5.8 becomes the overboard 
discharge limit at all times, including while in port and during 
maneuvering and transit and for which there is no additional allowance 
of two pH units between uptake and discharge.
    EPA also received several comments requesting that the Agency ban 
discharges from open-loop scrubbers outright (i.e., establish a zero-
discharge standard for open-loop scrubbers) as has been done in some 
other locations around the world. EPA received no information 
demonstrating that such a ban is technically available as a uniform 
national standard. For example, EPA has not received information 
demonstrating that there is sufficient low sulfur fuel (which may be 
needed to comply with emissions standards if scrubber discharges are 
not permitted) or that adequate onshore reception facilities are 
available for disposal of scrubber washwaters and residues that would 
be generated by the use of other scrubber configurations such as 
closed-loop or hybrid systems. Technical committees at the IMO are 
currently revisiting the need to perform additional assessments of 
environmental impacts from EGCS discharges, and EPA will continue to 
monitor the availability of research findings compiled in connection 
with these discussions.
    Another commenter stated that EPA should have included use of shore 
power as an alternative to use of scrubbers; however, the use of shore 
power has many considerations and barriers (U.S. EPA, 2022). EPA 
recommended, but did not require, its use in the VGP. Currently, 
vessels use shore power when available, in part because that allows 
them to avoid the

[[Page 82111]]

turbidity issues associated with use of the EGCSs. However, shore power 
is often not an option in smaller ports due to load issues. EPA 
continues to recommend, but not require, the use of shore power when 
available and feasible for vessel use.
    The final exhaust gas emission control standard also includes 
requirements for discharges of EGR bleed-off water and residues in 
recognition of the fact that these discharges can exhibit low pH and 
contain other toxic, conventional, and nonconventional pollutants 
covered under the CWA. The VGP did not identify EGR discharges largely 
because EGR systems are relatively new to vessels, consistent with the 
effect of the NO<INF>X</INF> emissions standards established in MARPOL 
Annex VI. The final standard for discharges from EGR systems is based 
primarily on the IMO 2018 Guidelines for the Discharge of Exhaust Gas 
Recirculation (EGR) Bleed-Off Water (MEPC 307(73))(``2018 IMO EGR 
Guidelines''), that is similar to the 2015 IMO EGCS Guidelines, with a 
few key differences that recognize the composition of EGR bleed-off 
washwater and the onboard process for handling this waste stream. EPA 
has utilized the analysis and implementation of the 2018 IMO EGR 
Guidelines to aid it in determining that its new EGR standards are 
technologically available and economically achievable.
    The final rule carries forward most of the EGR requirements as 
proposed with some modifications or clarifications, based on public 
comment. For clarity, EPA revised the heading of 40 CFR 139.18(c) from 
the proposed rule to reflect an ``exclusion'' from the 40 CFR 139.18(b) 
requirements rather than a different ``applicability'' of the 
requirements.
    As described in the proposed rule preamble (85 FR 67818, October 
26, 2020, section VIII.B.9.), EPA proposed to apply this standard based 
on the location of the vessel, consistent with how the Agency assessed 
and applied other requirements in the rule; namely, the proposed 
standard considered whether a vessel was in port, underway, or outside 
of the waters of the United States or the waters of the contiguous 
zone. The proposed rule did not specify that the exclusion from the 
discharge standard in 40 CFR 139.18(b) only applies if the vessel is no 
longer in port; however, EPA did describe such in the proposed rule 
preamble. Thus, to be consistent with both EPA's intended approach and 
the 2018 IMO EGR Guidelines, the final rule clarifies that the EGR 
bleed-off exclusion from the 40 CFR 139.18(b) requirements only apply 
if the EGR bleed-off is not retained in a holding tank prior to 
discharge, and the vessel is no longer in port, is underway, and is 
operating on a fuel that meets the sulfur content limits specified in 
Regulation 14 of MARPOL Annex VI (that is, 0.10 percent mass by mass 
(m/m) sulfur content limit while operating in the North American or 
U.S. Caribbean Sea ECAs, as of January 1, 2015; 0.50 percent m/m fuel 
sulfur content limit while operating in other U.S. coastal areas as of 
January 1, 2020).
    Comments on the proposed EGR requirements highlighted that the 
exclusion and prohibition in the proposed rule may not have been clear 
with respect to applicability of requirements based on type of fuel 
used and whether EGR discharges are retained in a holding tank prior to 
discharge. As such, the language in the final rule is restructured with 
a goal of clarifying those instances when EGR discharges are or are not 
subject to the 40 CFR 139.18(b) discharge standard and consistent with 
the 2018 IMO EGR Guidelines. Notably, for a vessel not operating on 
fuel that meets the sulfur content limits specified in Regulation 14 of 
MARPOL Annex VI, the final rule prohibits the discharge of EGR bleed-
off retained in a holding tank prior to discharge unless the vessel is 
underway, not in port, and in compliance with the 40 CFR 139.18(b) 
discharge standard.
10. Fire Protection Equipment
    Fire protection equipment includes all components used for fire 
protection including, but not limited to, firemain systems, sprinkler 
systems, extinguishers, and firefighting agents, such as foam. Firemain 
systems draw in water through the sea chest to supply water for fire 
hose stations, sprinkler systems, and firefighting foam distribution 
stations. Firemain systems can be pressurized or non-pressurized and 
are necessary to ensure the safety of the vessel and crew. The systems 
are also tested regularly to ensure that the system will be operational 
in an emergency. Additionally, firemain systems have numerous secondary 
purposes onboard vessels, such as for deck and equipment washdowns and 
anchor/anchor chain rinsing. However, whenever the firemain system is 
used for a secondary purpose, such as deck washdown, any resulting 
incidental discharge is required to meet the Federal standard of 
performance for that secondary use. Firemain water can contain a 
variety of constituents, including copper, zinc, nickel, aluminum, tin, 
silver, iron, titanium, and chromium. Many of these constituents can be 
traced to the corrosion and erosion of the firemain piping system, 
valves, or pumps.
    Firefighting foams (fluorinated and non-fluorinated) can be added 
to a firemain system and mixed with seawater to address emergencies 
onboard a vessel. The constituents of firefighting foam can vary by 
manufacturer but can include persistent, bioaccumulative, toxic, and 
non-biodegradable ingredients. Discharges of firefighting foam can also 
contain phthalate, copper, nickel, and iron, which can be constituents 
in the composition of firemain piping. Fluorinated firefighting foam 
contains per- and poly-fluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) or their 
precursors; examples include aqueous film forming foam, alcohol 
resistant aqueous film forming foam, film-forming fluoroprotein foam, 
fluoroprotein foam, alcohol-resistant fluoroprotein foam, and other 
fluorinated compounds. Non-fluorinated firefighting foam does not 
contain PFAS or their precursors; examples include protein foam, 
alcohol-resistant protein foam, synthetic fluorine free foam, and 
synthetic alcohol-resistant fluorine free foam. PFAS such as 
perfluorooctane sulfonate (PFOS) and perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA), 
among others, are persistent and bioaccumulative. Many PFAS are toxic 
and/or carcinogenic. Information regarding the presence of fluorinated 
surfactants and toxic or hazardous substances in firefighting foam are 
typically found on the safety data sheets for individual products. 
Additionally, other types of foams exist that can be used in fire 
equipment systems that are not intended for fire suppression but are 
designed for testing and training. These foams are often called testing 
or training foams, tend to be less expensive, and can mimic the 
properties of firefighting foams.
    The final rule applies to discharges from fire protection equipment 
during testing, training, maintenance, inspection, or certification. 40 
CFR 139.19(c). Based on comments received on the proposed rule, the 
final rule includes a definition for ``fire protection equipment'' and 
clarifies in 40 CFR 139.19(a) the applicability of the standards to 
discharges from the firemain for secondary uses such as deck washdown 
and anchor and anchor chain rinsing. Per 40 CFR 139.19(a), the final 
standard does not apply to the use of fire protection equipment in 
emergency situations or when compliance would compromise the safety of 
the vessel or life at sea. See 40 CFR 139.1(b)(3).
    The final rule prohibits the discharge of fluorinated firefighting 
foam except

[[Page 82112]]

in instances when required by the USCG (i.e., the Secretary) for 
certification and inspection or by the marine inspector to ensure 
vessel safety and seaworthiness. 40 CFR 139.19(b). The final rule 
clarifies that this includes activities performed pursuant to 46 CFR 
31.10 through 31.18(c) and 46 CFR 107.235(b)(4), or otherwise required 
by the marine inspector to ensure vessel safety and seaworthiness 
(e.g., pursuant to 46 CFR 31.10 through 31.17(a)(4), 46 CFR 71.25 
through 71.50, 46 CFR 91.25 through 91.50, or similar). Id. The USCG 
has indicated that, in limited circumstances, USCG-required inspections 
and certification testing of vessels with fluorinated foam systems may 
result in discharges of fluorinated foam while in port to ensure vessel 
safety. In many instances, vessels with fluorinated foams can test, 
train, or maintain the system without discharging the foam, such as 
testing without foam, collecting the foam such that it is not 
discharged, or using an alternative non-fluorinated foam (FFFC, 2020; 
NFPA, 2016). According to the National Fire Protection Association 
(NFPA), there are many firefighting foams and training foams that are 
non-fluorinated that can be used for testing, training, and maintenance 
(FFFC, 2020; NFPA, 2016). Several commenters expressed support for the 
prohibition of discharges of fluorinated foam except as directed by the 
USCG. Commenters confirmed that in many instances testing, training, 
and maintenance can be performed with water unless USCG regulations 
require foam.
    EPA also considered other more stringent requirements than the VGP 
in relation to the discharge of firefighting foam. Specifically, EPA 
explored requirements that would include product substitution to use 
firefighting foams that do not contain bioaccumulative or toxic or 
hazardous materials. EPA has used product substitution for other 
technology-based rules, such as those that apply to oil and gas. See 40 
CFR part 435. As such, EPA considered, for the purposes of testing, 
training, maintenance, inspection, or certification, also prohibiting 
the discharge of non-fluorinated firefighting foams that contain 
bioaccumulative or toxic or hazardous materials (as identified in 40 
CFR 401.15 or defined in 49 CFR 171.8). Based on the Best Practice 
Guidance for Use of Class B Firefighting Foams from the Fire Fighting 
Foam Coalition (FFFC, 2020), NFPA codes and standards--NFPA 11--
Standards for Low-, Medium-, and High-Expansion Foam (NFPA, 2016), and 
discussions with the USCG, testing and training methods exist that 
limit or eliminate the need to discharge foam (FFFC, 2020; NFPA, 2016). 
Specifically, in many situations it may be possible to perform these 
activities by only using water (water equivalency method), collecting 
the foam, or using non-fluorinated training foam that does not contain 
bioaccumulative or toxic or hazardous materials. EPA reviewed numerous 
foam Safety Data Sheets for bioaccumulative or toxic or hazardous 
materials and identified several potential foam substitute options 
(U.S. EPA, 2020).
    EPA solicited feedback on: (1) the availability of non-fluorinated 
foams, training foams, or surrogate test liquids that do not contain 
bioaccumulative or toxic or hazardous materials that can satisfy 
firefighting testing, training, and maintenance needs; (2) the extent 
to which vessels are already using these alternative foams; (3) the 
extent to which vessels are already performing testing, training, and 
maintenance using only water; (4) the number of vessels and types of 
systems that are not able to use the water-equivalency method; (5) the 
extent to which the vessel community is collecting foam prior to 
discharge; and (6) economic considerations associated with prohibiting 
the discharge of these types of non-fluorinated firefighting foams, and 
any other information that would support the Agency's determination of 
whether to expand the prohibition of the discharge of firefighting 
foams to include non-fluorinated foams that contain bioaccumulative or 
toxic or hazardous materials. Several commenters provided additional 
information on the solicited topics above, including materials 
demonstrating the limited availability of alternative foams and 
practical challenges associated with their use, such as the need for 
additional piping and onboard storage of multiple foam types. The input 
from commenters described above is consistent with the often limited 
information on bioaccumulation, toxicity, and hazardous substances 
found in Safety Data Sheets of foam formulations, as sections on 
environmental impact of chemicals are not mandatory (Appendix D to 29 
CFR 1910.1200), and there is often omission or non-disclosure of 
information on presence and effects of persistent compounds (DEHP, 
2016). EPA finds that it is not reasonable to require zero discharge of 
non-fluorinated foams that contain bioaccumulative or toxic or 
hazardous materials because the record does not demonstrate sufficient 
information and availability of alternative foams that meet 
requirements for testing, training, maintenance, inspection, or 
certification in all instances, as well as practical challenges with 
their use. EPA deems it appropriate to consider whether alternatives 
are readily available which meet requirements (i.e. consistently 
available on the market) (see CWA 304(b)(2)(B) authorizing EPA to 
consider ``such other factors as the Administrator deems 
appropriate''). Since the information does not support a finding that 
these products are readily available, EPA is not requiring zero 
discharge of non-fluorinated foams that contain bioaccumulative or 
toxic or hazardous materials. EPA may revisit this issue to determine 
whether a prohibition of certain types of discharge has become a 
practical option in the future.
    EPA initially proposed to prohibit any discharge from fire 
protection equipment during testing, training, maintenance, inspection, 
or certification in port excluding USCG-required inspection or 
certification. However, several commenters expressed regulatory and 
safety concerns with this approach. These include inconsistencies with 
existing regulatory requirements for fire drills, such as in 46 CFR 
199.180, as well as the inability to defer drills to outside of port in 
all instances. Several commenters also requested language analogous to 
the VGP that allows discharges in port if intake is from surrounding 
waters or potable water supplies and does not contain any additives or 
fluorinated firefighting foam. To address these concerns, the final 
rule allows for discharges in port from USCG-required inspection or 
certification activities to ensure vessel safety, as well as discharges 
from testing, training, maintenance, inspection, or certification 
activities if the intake is drawn from surrounding water or a potable 
water supply and does not contain additives. 40 CFR 139.19(c).
    Several commenters also expressed concern over the lack of 
reference to secondary uses in the regulatory text. Some commenters 
interpreted the proposed regulations to prohibit secondary uses such as 
for deck washdown, anchor chain rinsing, and machinery cooling water. 
Commenters articulated that, as proposed, the standard would contradict 
the requirements in 40 CFR 139.14 requiring anchor and anchor chain 
washdown, as well as prevent vessel and deck washdown and necessary 
machinery cooling. Several commenters requested the addition of 
language similar to that in the VGP to allow discharges for secondary 
purposes

[[Page 82113]]

provided that the intake comes directly from the surrounding waters or 
potable water supplies, there are no additions to the water, and that 
the discharges meet the applicable standards for that secondary use. To 
clarify requirements for secondary uses, the final standard authorizes 
discharges from fire protection equipment in port for secondary uses 
(such as deck washdown or anchor and anchor chain rinsing) provided the 
intake is from surrounding water or a potable water source, does not 
contain additives, and the discharge meets requirements for the 
specific secondary use. 40 CFR 139.19(d).
    Finally, as discussed in section VIII.C. of this preamble, 
Discharges Incidental to the Normal Operation of a Vessel--Federally-
Protected Waters Requirements, the final rule requires additional 
controls for discharges from fire protection equipment for testing, 
training, and maintenance purposes for vessels operating in federally-
protected waters. 40 CFR 139.40(g).
11. Gas Turbines
    Gas turbines are used on some vessels for propulsion and 
electricity generation. Occasionally, they must be cleaned to remove 
byproducts that can accumulate and affect their operation. The 
byproducts and cleaning products can include toxic and conventional 
pollutants including salts, lubricants, combustion residuals, 
naphthalene, and other hydrocarbons. Additionally, due to the nature of 
the materials being cleaned, there is a higher probability of heavy 
metal concentrations. Rates and concentrations of gas turbine wash 
water discharge vary according to the frequency of washdown, and under 
most circumstances vessel operators can choose where and when to wash 
down gas turbines.
    EPA was unable to identify new technology or best management 
practice options for discharges from gas turbines, therefore the Agency 
relied on the BPT/BCT/BAT analysis underlying the VGP requirements and 
is requiring substantively the same requirements included in the VGP. 
40 CFR 139.20. EPA did not receive any comments suggesting revisions to 
the proposed requirements.
    The final rule prohibits the discharge of untreated gas turbine 
washwater unless determined to be infeasible. 40 CFR 139.20(b).
12. Graywater Systems
    Graywater is water drained or collected from sources such as 
galleys, showers, baths, sinks, and laundry facilities. Graywater 
includes drainage from dishwater; however, the discharge of food waste 
and food waste derivates are regulated as garbage and are not 
incidental to the normal operation of a vessel. Therefore, they are not 
considered graywater for purposes of this rule. Graywater discharges 
can contain bacteria, pathogens, oil and grease, detergent and soap 
residue, metals (e.g., cadmium, chromium, lead, copper, zinc, silver, 
nickel, mercury), solids, and nutrients. Some vessels have the capacity 
to collect and hold graywater for later treatment and discharge. 
Vessels that do not have graywater holding capacity continuously 
discharge it to receiving waters. It is estimated that 30 to 85 gallons 
of graywater is generated per person per day. Graywater generation 
rates per person can vary based on the types of activities onboard the 
vessel. For example, vessels with overnight accommodations and onboard 
leisure activities are expected to generate higher volumes of graywater 
than a working vessel because passengers and crew are using more water 
for bathing, food preparation, and other such activities (U.S. EPA, 
2011d). Estimates of graywater generation by cruise ships that can 
accommodate approximately 3,000 passengers and crew range from 96,000 
to 272,000 gallons of graywater per day or 1,000,000 gallons per week. 
Strategies to minimize the discharge of graywater can include reducing 
the production of graywater, holding the graywater onboard, or using a 
reception facility.
    The final rule defines ``graywater'' to mean drainage from galley, 
shower, laundry, bath, water fountain, and sink drains, and other 
similar sources. 40 CFR 139.2. The revised definition is intended to 
provide better clarity regarding the sources of graywater; however, it 
does not change the types of wastewaters that were covered by the VGP 
and now regulated under this final rule. The definition now explicitly 
references the galley drains as a graywater source, and favors the term 
``sinks'' over ``washbasins'' as a more appropriately expansive term. 
The definition for ``graywater'' in the proposed rule included a 
sentence describing drainage from sources that do not constitute 
graywater, but the list was removed as it was not exhaustive. EPA 
notes, however, that drainage from toilets, urinals, hospitals or other 
medical spaces or equipment, animal spaces, and cargo spaces are not 
considered graywater for purposes of this rule.
    The final rule maintains many of the requirements included in the 
proposed rule, including the requirements for vessel operators to 
minimize the discharge of graywater and to discharge while underway 
when practical and as far from shore as practical. The final rule also 
requires that soaps, cleaners, and detergents used by vessel owner/
operators that enter the graywater system be minimally-toxic, 
phosphate-free, and biodegradable. The final rule clarifies the 
requirement to include products provided to persons onboard (e.g., 
passengers) by vessel owner/operators. EPA acknowledges the difficulty 
in applying such a requirement to products brought onboard by 
passengers/guests and therefore does not include such a requirement. 
The final rule also clarifies the requirement to include ``other 
substances'' to ensure that similar products entering the graywater 
systems are similarly minimally-toxic, phosphate-free, and 
biodegradable. The final rule includes the requirement to minimize the 
introduction of kitchen oils and food and oil residue to the graywater 
system. While filtered dishwater and drainage from galley sinks and 
floor drains are regulated as graywater under this rule, food waste and 
its derivatives are not. EPA acknowledges that food waste may 
unavoidably enter the graywater system during normal dishwashing, so 
this requirement is intended to ensure that the amount entering the 
system is minimized.
    The final rule identifies a numeric discharge standard that must be 
met for discharges of graywater from any new vessel of 400 GT and above 
that is certificated to carry 15 or more persons and provides overnight 
accommodations to those persons; any passenger vessel (excluding any 
ferry) with overnight accommodations for 500 or more persons; any 
passenger vessel (excluding any ferry) with overnight accommodations 
for 100-499 persons unless the vessel was constructed before December 
19, 2008, and does not voyage beyond 1 NM from shore; and any new ferry 
authorized by the USCG to carry 250 or more persons. Such vessels could 
be equipped either with a treatment system to meet the standards in 40 
CFR 139.21(f) or sufficient storage capacity to retain all graywater 
onboard while operating in waters subject to the VIDA. Under the 
proposed rule, the discharge of graywater from any new vessel of 400 GT 
and above was required to meet the numeric discharge standard. This 
proposal was based on VGP reporting data that indicated between one-
third and one-half of manned vessels of 400 GT or above that are not 
cruise ships or ferries are equipped with a treatment system for 
graywater, graywater mixed

[[Page 82114]]

with sewage, or a combined treatment system that may treat graywater. 
Based on EPA's knowledge of sewage handling practices, a wastewater 
that is frequently commingled with graywater, and comments received 
regarding the need for adequate pumpout facilities, EPA further assumed 
that vessels built with storage capacity would be serviced by 
stationary and mobile (e.g., trucks and barges) pumpout facilities that 
currently receive sewage and graywater from vessels, with increasing 
demand for these services driving increased availability. In light of 
public comments received on the proposed rule, however, EPA presented 
an additional regulatory option in the 2023 supplemental notice to 
limit the applicability of the provision to those new vessels of 400 GT 
and above that are certificated to carry 15 or more persons and provide 
overnight accommodations to those persons. This additional regulatory 
option was adopted in this rule on the basis of the information 
presented by EPA in the supplemental notice and the feedback received 
during the comment period. The final rule also now defines ``new 
ferry'' to clarify the applicability of 40 CFR 139.21(e)(4). 
Additionally, the final rule clarifies that ``passenger vessel'' in 40 
CFR 139.21(e)(2) and (3) does not include ferries for purposes of those 
provisions. This is consistent with the VGP that previously used the 
terminology ``cruise ship'' for those requirements. Furthermore, the 
graywater systems standard already includes specific requirements for 
ferries.
    The final numeric discharge standard generally mirrors that from 
the proposed rule, but deviates from the VGP in that it does not 
include the percent removal requirements for BOD and TSS. EPA 
acknowledges that, in the absence of the percent removal requirements 
for BOD and TSS, this provision may be less stringent than the VGP; 
however, consistent with CWA section 312(p)(4)(D)(ii)(II), the 
Administrator may revise a standard of performance to be less stringent 
than an applicable existing requirement if the Administrator determines 
that a material technical mistake occurred or if information becomes 
available that was not reasonably available when the Administrator 
promulgated the initial standard of performance. EPA made a material 
technical mistake in the VGP by including the percent removal 
requirement, because it is based on secondary treatment regulations for 
land-based municipal sewage, wherein the characteristics of the 
influent are well-understood but the facility has little control over 
the inputs. Onboard vessels, there is significant variability in 
graywater characteristics but greater ability to control the 
contribution of BOD and TSS, for example, by separating galley 
graywater from other sources of graywater entering the treatment 
system. EPA also became aware of new information through implementation 
of the VGP that the requirement for the 30-day average percent removal 
for BOD and TSS to not be less than 85 percent is also difficult to 
monitor and enforce on a vessel, unlike at a land-based facility where 
influents and effluents are more easily monitored, which was 
information not available to the Administrator when the percent removal 
requirement was promulgated. Additionally, the retained requirements 
are substantively the same as those under the VGP in terms of pollutant 
reductions achieved. The numeric limits are consistent with the VGP, 
while the percent removal requirements did not make sense in the 
context of onboard application. VGP reporting data for graywater 
systems demonstrates that the majority of vessels did not, or were not 
able to, characterize influent for BOD and TSS. Without influent 
information, it is not possible to calculate percent reduction. 
Therefore, the technical mistake discussed above, coupled with this new 
information, contributed to EPA's determination that it was appropriate 
to eliminate the percent removal requirements.
    As requested by commenters, the final numeric discharge standard 
includes additional clarifying language. First, the standard for fecal 
coliform at 40 CFR 139.21(f)(1)(i) and (ii) reflects units of both MPN/
mL and cfu/mL on the basis that newer microbiological test methods have 
MPN outputs and, while the test methods differ, the number of bacteria 
in the tested sample are comparable to the numeric discharge standard. 
The standard for fecal coliform at 40 CFR 139.21(f)(1)(ii) now also 
clarifies that percentage of samples required to comply with the 
specified fecal coliform limit is tied to the same 30-day period as the 
geometric mean standard in 40 CFR 139.21(f)(1)(i). Finally, the 
standard at 40 CFR 139.21(f)(5) and (f)(5)(i) uses ``total residual 
oxidizers,'' instead of ``total residual chlorine'' for consistency 
with the wording in other similar standards (e.g., ballast tanks). The 
provision now reads, ``For any discharge from a graywater system using 
chlorine, total residual oxidizers must not exceed 10.0 [micro]g/L.''
    The numeric discharge standards are based on the performance of 
``advanced wastewater treatment systems (AWTSs),'' which are 
sophisticated marine sanitation devices. In evaluating options for 
graywater treatment, EPA reaffirmed that treatment of commingled 
graywater and sewage by an AWTS produces significant constituent 
reductions in the resulting effluent. AWTSs differ from traditional 
treatment systems in that they generally employ enhanced methods for 
treatment, solids separation, and disinfection, such as through the use 
of membrane technologies and UV disinfection. The numeric discharge 
standard for graywater systems uses the pathogen indicator fecal 
coliform, though AWTSs also greatly reduce the concentrations of other 
pathogen indicators, such as E. coli and enterococci, during treatment 
and disinfection (U.S. EPA, 2008). AWTSs are currently in wide use and 
economically achievable for certain vessel classes. For example, the 
Cruise Lines International Association (2019) reports that 68 percent 
of member lines' global fleet capacity is currently served by AWTSs. 
Also, all new ships on order by member lines will be equipped with 
AWTSs. In Alaska, under the existing ``Large Cruise Ship General 
Permit,'' certain large commercial passenger vessels may only discharge 
wastewater (including sewage and graywater) that has been treated by an 
AWTS or equivalent system. As an alternative to using a treatment 
system to meet the numeric discharge standard, these vessels may 
instead be equipped with sufficient storage capacity to retain 
graywater onboard while operating in waters subject to the VIDA.
    For graywater, the numeric discharge standards rely on a mix of 
averaging periods and instantaneous maximums, both of which are 
commonly used in setting numeric effluent discharge limits depending on 
the nature of the pollutant and the characteristics of the discharger. 
Where EPA adopted a long-term average as opposed to an instantaneous or 
daily maximum, it did so based on two reasons. First, EPA considered 
the regulatory setting. Monitoring discharges onboard a vessel can 
present unique challenges compared to monitoring discharges from land-
based facilities, which is the typical regulatory context for numeric 
effluent discharge limits. Systems that are designed to meet an 
instantaneous maximum require a higher level of control, and therefore 
less variability, in the system. Where it was practical to adopt a 
standard based on an instantaneous or daily maximum, EPA attempted to 
do so. For example, the final standard for discharges from ballast 
tanks includes the use of instantaneous maximums. As indicated in the 
ballast tanks section,

[[Page 82115]]

the challenges associated with collecting and testing representative 
samples of ballast water at the time of discharge required a different 
approach. Second, EPA considered how the pollutant operates in the 
environment. The use of an instantaneous maximum is preferred over the 
use of a long-term average where the upper bounds of variability in the 
discharge may cause serious environmental harm. As compared to, for 
example, the discharge of ANS from untreated ballast water which can 
potentially spread and reproduce, the pollution associated with 
untreated graywater discharges contributes to a more gradual decline in 
environmental quality. As such, the use of long-term averages in 40 CFR 
139.21(f) allows for the variability that is expected in a well-
operated treatment system.
    At the same time, the monthly averages require the vessel operator 
to remain vigilant to ensure that, despite this variability, discharges 
consistently meet the numeric limit. Vessels to which the standard 
applies are expected to operate treatment systems that can consistently 
achieve compliance with the monthly average based on the vessel's 
expected loadings (or otherwise be equipped with storage to prevent 
discharges). Pursuant to the general operation and maintenance 
standards described in subpart B, vessels are expected to discharge 
while underway when practical and as far from shore as practical. This 
encourages commingling of the graywater constituents and further 
decreases the risks associated with variability in the system. EPA 
recognizes that the option to install AWTSs or sufficient holding 
capacity may be unavailable for certain vessels for such reasons as 
cost, stability of the vessel, or space constraints. As such, EPA does 
not propose that all vessels be required to treat graywater discharges 
to the numeric discharge standard found in 40 CFR 139.21(f).
    The final rule prohibits the discharge of graywater in certain 
locations unless the discharge meets the numeric discharge standard in 
40 CFR 139.21(f). The prohibition applies to discharges within 3 NM 
from shore for any vessel that voyages at least 3 NM from shore and has 
remaining available graywater storage capacity. Similarly, the 
prohibition applies to the discharge of graywater within 1 NM from 
shore from any vessel that voyages at least 1 NM but not more than 3 NM 
from shore and has remaining available graywater storage capacity. In 
other words, for vessels that voyage at least 3 NM from shore and have 
available storage capacity, the discharge of untreated graywater must 
occur while further than 3 NM from shore. For vessels that voyage at 
least 1 NM but not beyond 3 NM from shore and have available storage 
capacity, the discharge of untreated graywater must occur while further 
than 1 NM from shore. These limitations apply unless the graywater is 
treated in accordance with 40 CFR 139.21(f), and the language in 40 CFR 
139.21(f) was updated to make clear that the vessels identified in 40 
CFR 139.21(d) must also meet the numeric discharge standard if 
discharging graywater, not just those identified in 40 CFR 139.21(e). 
If a vessel is configured to be able to divert graywater to tanks 
typically used for other purposes, and it is safe and permissible to do 
so, then such tanks are considered by EPA to be available capacity for 
purposes of the foregoing requirements. These requirements are intended 
to limit nearshore discharges of pollutants without a significant 
increase in compliance costs because the requirements apply only to 
those vessels with available storage capacity.
    The final rule does not include graywater discharge standards for 
commercial vessels in the Great Lakes, consistent with CWA section 
312(a)(6) that specifies the term ``sewage,'' with respect to 
commercial vessels on the Great Lakes, shall include graywater. As 
such, graywater discharges from commercial vessels on the Great Lakes 
are subject to the requirements in CWA sections 312(a)-(l) and the 
implementing regulations at 40 CFR part 140 and 33 CFR part 159. 
Additionally, per CWA section 312(p)(9)(A)(v), the general preemption 
of State authority to adopt or enforce any law, regulation, or other 
requirement with respect to the covered incidental discharges does not 
apply to the discharge of graywater from a passenger vessel in Alaska 
(including all waters in the Alexander Archipelago) carrying 50 or more 
passengers.
    Non-commercial vessels operating on the Great Lakes may only 
discharge graywater if the discharge is treated such that it does not 
exceed 200 fecal coliform forming units per 100 milliliters and 
contains no more than 150 milligrams per liter of suspended solids. 
This is because the Agency determined that graywater treatment using an 
existing system meeting the 40 CFR part 140 standards represents the 
appropriate level of control for those non-commercial vessels operating 
in the Great Lakes that do not hold their graywater for onshore 
disposal. Hence, either treatment devices or adequate holding capacity 
are available and used for managing graywater from vessels operating on 
the Great Lakes. The final rule clarifies that this provision only 
applies if the vessel is not subject to the requirements under 40 CFR 
139.21(e), where EPA has determined a differing level of control is 
appropriate, to avoid ambiguity when a vessel is potentially subject to 
both 40 CFR 139.21(e) and (g).
    Finally, as discussed in section VIII.C. of this preamble, 
Discharges Incidental to the Normal Operation of a Vessel--Federally-
Protected Waters Requirements, the final rule establishes additional 
controls for discharges from graywater systems into federally-protected 
waters. 40 CFR 139.40(h).
13. Hulls and Associated Niche Areas
a. Anti-Fouling Coatings
    Vessel hulls are often coated with anti-fouling compounds to 
prevent or inhibit the attachment and growth of biofouling organisms. 
Selection, application, and maintenance of an appropriate anti-fouling 
coating type and thickness according to vessel profile is critical to 
effective biofouling management, and therefore preventing the 
introduction and spread of ANS from the vessel hull and associated 
niche areas. Multiple types of anti-fouling coatings are available for 
use, including hard, controlled depletion or ablative, self-polishing 
copolymer, and fouling release coatings. The use of non-biocidal and 
non-ablative anti-fouling coatings, when practicable, is recommended. 
Anti-fouling coatings may employ physical, biological, chemical, or a 
combination of controls to reduce biofouling. Those that contain 
biocides prevent the attachment of biofouling organisms to the vessel 
surface by continuously leaching substances that are toxic to aquatic 
life. The most commonly used anti-fouling biocide is copper. 
Manufacturers may also combine copper with other biocides, often called 
booster biocides, to increase the effectiveness of the anti-fouling 
coating. Cleaning the anti-fouling coating typically results in pulses 
of biocide into the environment, particularly if surfaces are cleaned 
within the first 90 days following application.
    The final rule requires that the selection of an anti-fouling 
coating for the hull and associated niche areas must be specific to the 
vessel's operational profile, and that any biocidal anti-fouling 
coatings used must have appropriate biocide release rates and 
components that are biodegradable once separated from the vessel 
surface. 40 CFR 139.22(c)(1). Operational profile factors can influence 
biofouling rates and include the vessel speed during a typical voyage, 
aquatic environments

[[Page 82116]]

traversed, type of surface painted, typical water flow for any hull and 
niche areas, planned periods between drydock, and expected periods of 
inactivity or idleness. Generally, an optimal biocide will have broad 
spectrum activity, low mammalian toxicity, low water solubility, no 
bioaccumulation up the food chain, no persistence in the environment, 
and compatibility with raw materials (IMO, 2002). Non-biocidal anti-
fouling coatings are available and vessels that typically operate at 
high speeds may effectively manage biofouling, particularly 
macrofouling, with non-biocidal anti-fouling coatings. Additionally, 
vessels operating in waters with lower biofouling pressure and those 
that spend less time at dock are expected to have a lower biofouling 
rate and should select either non-biocidal anti-fouling coatings or 
anti-fouling coatings with low biocide discharge rates. However, these 
non- or low-biocidal anti-fouling coatings may not be suitable for all 
operational profiles (e.g., for vessels that occasionally endure 
extended idling).
    Adherence to manufacturer specifications is necessary to ensure the 
longevity and effectiveness of the anti-fouling coating and is 
considered best practice. If an anti-fouling coating is not properly 
selected, applied, or maintained, it will likely show signs of 
deterioration, such as indications of excessive cleaning actions (e.g., 
brush marks) or blistering due to the internal failure of the paint 
system. Such deterioration may allow for biofouling organisms to grow 
on exposed surfaces, increasing the potential for the introduction and 
spread of ANS. Improper application and maintenance of an anti-fouling 
coating may also increase the discharge of particles into the aquatic 
environment and degradation of the integrity of wetted surfaces. The 
VGP required that any anti-fouling coatings be applied, maintained, and 
removed consistent with the FIFRA label, if applicable. The final rule 
similarly requires that anti-fouling coatings be applied, maintained, 
and reapplied consistent with manufacturer specifications, including 
but not limited to the thickness, the method of application, and the 
lifespan of the coating. 40 CFR 139.22(c)(2). One option for meeting 
this requirement is to schedule the in-service period of the anti-
fouling coating to match the vessel's drydock cycles. Larger vessels, 
particularly those used in the carriage of goods, are subject to 
requirements for safety inspections and maintenance activities that 
dictate how frequently they must be drydocked. Factoring this schedule 
into coating selection ensures the anti-fouling coating will 
sufficiently protect the vessel for the period needed without creating 
additional leachate or wastes.
b. Tributyltin (TBT) Requirements
    The International Convention on the Control of Harmful Anti-fouling 
Systems on Ships (AFS Convention) was adopted in 2001 and came into 
force in 2008. The United States became a contracting party to the AFS 
Convention on November 21, 2012. Domestically, the Clean Hull Act of 
2009 implements the requirements of the AFS Convention. Consistent with 
the AFS Convention, the Clean Hull Act, and the VGP, the final rule 
requires that anti-fouling coatings not contain TBT or any other 
organotin compound used as a biocide. Additionally, 40 CFR 
139.22(c)(3)(i) requires that any vessel hull previously covered with 
an anti-fouling coating containing TBT (whether used as a biocide or 
not) or any other organotin compound (if used as a biocide) must either 
(1) maintain an effective overcoat that forms a barrier on the vessel 
hull so that no TBT or other organotin leaches from the vessel hull; or 
(2) remove any TBT or other organotin compound from the vessel hull. 
EPA is unaware of any non-biocidal use of TBT that would result in a 
residual presence in anti-fouling paints. Combined, the requirements in 
the final rule are substantively equivalent to a zero-discharge 
standard of TBT from vessel hulls. EPA expects that few, if any, 
vessels have exposed TBT coatings on their hulls and that the final 
standard for all organotin compounds, including TBT, is technologically 
available based on other anti-fouling coating options.
    Other less toxic organotin compounds such as dibutyltin oxide are 
used in small quantities as catalysts in some non-biocidal anti-fouling 
coatings. One class of non-biocidal anti-fouling coatings, sometimes 
referred to as fouling release coatings, produce a non-stick surface to 
which fouling organisms cannot firmly adhere. To function properly, the 
coating surface must remain smooth, intact, and not leach into the 
surrounding water. Because these less toxic organotins are used as a 
catalyst in the production of non-biocidal anti-fouling coatings, such 
production may result in trace amounts of organotin in anti-fouling 
coatings. Consistent with the AFS Convention, the Clean Hull Act, and 
the VGP, the final rule authorizes the use of non-biocidal anti-fouling 
coatings that contain trace amounts of catalytic organotin (other than 
TBT) if the trace amounts of organotin are not used as a biocide. The 
final rule requires that, when used as a catalyst, an organotin 
compound must contain less than 2,500 milligrams total tin per kilogram 
of dry paint and must not be designed to slough or otherwise peel from 
the vessel hull. 40 CFR 139.22(c)(4). Incidental amounts of an anti-
fouling coating discharged by abrasion during cleaning or after contact 
with other hard surfaces (e.g., moorings) are acceptable.
c. Cybutryne Requirements
    Cybutryne, commonly known as Irgarol 1051, is a biocide that 
functions by inhibiting the electron transport mechanism in algae, thus 
inhibiting growth. There are numerous commercially available 
antifoulants that are similar in cost and are less harmful to the 
aquatic environment (IMO, 2018). Restrictions on cybutryne are already 
in place in a number of countries globally, and cybutryne is therefore 
less widely used compared to other antifoulants (IMO, 2017). Anti-
fouling coatings that do not contain cybutryne are both technologically 
available and economically achievable. Consistent with a recent 2020 
MEPC amendment to the AFS Convention, the final rule prohibits the 
application of cybutryne-containing anti-fouling coatings on hulls and 
niche areas. 40 CFR 139.22(c)(5). In cases where anti-fouling coatings 
contain cybutryne in the external anti-fouling coating layer of the 
hull or external parts of surfaces, the final rule requires either (1) 
the removal of any cybutryne coating; or (2) the application and 
maintenance of an effective overcoat that forms a barrier so that no 
cybutryne leaches from the underlying anti-fouling coating. The latter 
is provided as an option to comply with this requirement because 
overcoats are commercially available. Incidental amounts of anti-
fouling coating discharged by abrasion during cleaning or after contact 
with other hard surfaces (e.g., moorings) are acceptable.
d. Copper Requirements
    Copper, primarily in the form of cuprous oxide, is the most common 
biocidal anti-fouling coating, accounting for approximately 90 percent 
of the volume of sales of specialty anti-fouling coatings in the United 
States (U.S. EPA, 2018). Copper is a broad-spectrum biocide that 
effectively prevents both microfouling and macrofouling. Copper is 
considered less harmful to the aquatic environment than TBT-containing 
compounds, but its use has nevertheless contributed to loadings in 
copper-impaired waters. The final rule requires

[[Page 82117]]

that, as appropriate based on vessel class and operations, alternatives 
to copper-based anti-fouling coatings (e.g., non-biocidal anti-fouling 
coatings) or coatings with lower biocidal release rates be considered 
for vessels spending 30 or more days per year in copper-impaired waters 
or using these waters as their home port. 40 CFR 139.22(c)(6). EPA 
determined that there are no direct substitutions for copper as a 
biocide that are as affordable or as effective without posing similar 
risks to non-target aquatic species (U.S. EPA, 2018). As such, the 
final rule does not require the selection of an alternative anti-
fouling coating for vessels.
    The significance of discharges from a biocidal anti-fouling coating 
depends not only on the substance used, but also on the leaching rate 
of the biocide (IMO, 2009). The leaching rate is the rate of discharge 
or entry into the environment from the coating itself. While the 
leaching rate of copper from anti-fouling coatings is relatively low 
(average discharge rates range from 3.8-22 [mu]g/cm\2\/day), copper-
containing anti-fouling coatings can still account for significant 
accumulations of metals in receiving waters of ports where numerous 
vessels are present (Valkirs et al., 2003; Zirino and Seligman, 2002). 
While maximum leaching rates for copper-based anti-fouling coatings on 
recreational vessels have been established both federally and locally, 
EPA does not currently have the data available to establish a leaching 
rate that would be appropriate for the wide variety of largely 
commercial vessels subject to this rule. Therefore, the final rule does 
not require a specific, maximum copper leaching rate for anti-fouling 
coatings, acknowledging that use of anti-fouling coatings is also 
regulated in the United States through the FIFRA.
e. Cleaning
    Most commercial seagoing vessels are required to undertake periodic 
hull and niche area surveys as part of International Association of 
Classification Societies rules and in accordance with IMO conventions 
to ensure that hulls and niche areas are maintained in a satisfactory 
condition. The VGP, in part 4.1, required all vessels subject to that 
permit to inspect the hull annually, or during drydock for those areas 
that are not otherwise safe to inspect. Cleaning of hulls and niche 
areas, including the removal of any biofouling, is an important 
component of hull and niche area maintenance. Niche areas account for 
approximately 10 percent of the total wetted surface area of a vessel 
(Moser et al., 2017). However, over 80 percent of species sampled in 
vessel biofouling studies were found in niche areas (Bell et al., 
2011). Therefore, while representing a smaller surface area compared to 
the hull, niche areas may disproportionately contribute to the 
discharge of biofouling organisms.
    Vessels generally use two types of cleaning techniques to remove 
biofouling: cleaning while in drydock and in-water cleaning. Techniques 
for in-water cleaning of vessel surfaces can be broadly separated into 
two categories: (1) in-water cleaning with capture (IWCC); and (2) in-
water cleaning without capture. IWCC is the use and operation of a 
cleaning system for vessel surfaces that is designed to capture and 
transport coatings and biofouling organisms to an adjacent barge or 
shore-based facility for collection and processing. The waste stream is 
processed by a separate service provider, not the vessel. As such, EPA 
views these discharges as similar to the discharge of treated ballast 
water from a barge-based or shore-based treatment facility, which are 
not subject to regulation under the VIDA pursuant to CWA section 
312(p)(9)(C). In-water cleaning without capture refers to any in-water 
cleaning techniques that do not use a capture device.
    Vessels following effective biofouling management strategies 
generally should be able to maintain fouling at or below the 
microfouling level. The final rule requires that hulls and niche areas 
be managed to minimize biofouling, such as through preventative 
cleaning of microfouling. 40 CFR 139.22(d)(2). Preventative in-water 
cleaning, also referred to as proactive cleaning, is the frequent, 
gentle cleaning of the vessel hull and appendages to prevent or reduce 
the attachment and growth of macrofouling, with minimal impacts to the 
anti-fouling system. Preventative cleaning of microfouling can have 
many benefits, including but not limited to drag reduction, operations 
enhancement, and reduced discharge of biofouling organisms. Studies 
have estimated that even light microfouling can increase the drag on a 
vessel by up to 25 percent (Townsin, 2003; Schultz, 2007). Predictive 
analytics have shown that preventative cleaning reduces fuel 
consumption and that increasing cleaning to an interval of 
approximately six months can save hundreds of thousands of dollars in 
annual fuel costs per vessel (Marr, 2017). Additionally, preventative 
cleaning has been shown to effectively reduce biofouling without 
significantly increasing biocide loading into the aquatic environment 
(Tribou and Swain, 2017). However, one study of preventative in-water 
cleaning showed elevated levels of copper directly above cleaning 
brushes during cleaning (Scianni et al., 2023).
    Monitoring the condition of hulls and niche areas and removal of 
any biofouling identified is considered an industry best practice in 
large part due to the economic incentive involved, as the costs 
associated with regular in-water cleaning (namely, the cleaning 
services, disruptions to a vessel's schedule, and staff time), are 
outweighed by the fuel savings that result from managing vessel 
biofouling at or below the microfouling level. As such, EPA finds that 
preventative cleaning of microfouling represents BAT to control the 
release of biofouling organisms and biocides from hulls and niche 
areas, with likely long-term savings to the vessel industry.
    The final rule prohibits any discharge from in-water cleaning 
without capture of macrofouling. 40 CFR 139.22(d)(4). Removal of 
macrofouling requires more abrasive techniques that may damage the 
anti-fouling coating, resulting in increased likelihood of subsequent 
biofouling, as well as a larger pulse of biocides and particles into 
the aquatic environment. Furthermore, macrofouling is composed of more 
diverse and reproductively mature organisms and, depending on 
geographic origin, may present a greater risk of discharging biofouling 
organisms than microfouling (Davidson et al., 2013; Morrisey et al., 
2013; Department of the Environment [DOE] and New Zealand Ministry for 
Primary Industries [MPI], 2015). By effective preventative cleaning of 
microfouling, cleaning in drydock when practicable, and other best 
practices required in the final rule, vessels may minimize the need to 
conduct in-water cleaning of macrofouling. In circumstances where such 
cleaning is necessary, IWCC is available to vessels.
    The final rule requires that hull and niche area cleanings must 
minimize the damage to the anti-fouling coating, minimize the release 
of biocides, and follow applicable cleaning requirements found on the 
anti-fouling coating manufacturers' instructions and any applicable 
FIFRA label. 40 CFR 139.22(d)(3). This is consistent with requirements 
in the Uniform National Discharge Standards for Vessels of the Armed 
Forces for underwater ship husbandry at 40 CFR 1700.37. These 
requirements are considered best practices and ensure the longevity and 
effectiveness of the anti-fouling coating, while minimizing pollutant 
loading into the surrounding waters. Similar to the final standards for 
deck washdowns in

[[Page 82118]]

this rule at 40 CFR 139.15(g), the final standards for hulls and 
associated niche areas at 40 CFR 139.22(d)(7) require any soap, 
cleaner, or detergent used on vessel surfaces, including but not 
limited to the scum lines of the hull, to be minimally-toxic, 
phosphate-free, and biodegradable.
    40 CFR 139.22(d)(5) prohibits any discharge from in-water cleaning 
without capture of any copper-based hull coatings in a copper-impaired 
waterbody within the first 365 days after application of that coating. 
The final rule also prohibits in-water cleaning without capture on any 
section of an anti-fouling coating that shows excessive cleaning 
actions (e.g., brush marks) or blistering due to internal failure of 
the paint system. 40 CFR 139.22(d)(6). Such a level of deterioration 
indicates failure at the anti-corrosive/anti-fouling interface, which 
is more likely to be broken by cleaning. The rupturing of paint 
blisters results in discharges of anti-fouling coating particles and an 
increased rate of damage to the anti-fouling system more generally. In 
turn, the exposed surface is subject to increased fouling and risk of 
corrosion. EPA expects that an anti-fouling system selected in 
accordance with the vessel's operational profile and cleaned with 
minimally abrasive cleaning methods should not present signs of 
significant deterioration at the anti-corrosive/anti-fouling interface. 
Therefore, adherence to this standard is achievable by following the 
coating and cleaning practices in the final standards. In consideration 
of implementation and enforcement challenges, the final rule excludes 
the terms ``local in origin'' and ``plume or cloud of pain'' from the 
proposed rule in regard to hull and niche area cleaning, but retains 
the terms ``frequent,'' ``gentle,'' ``minimal,'' and ``minimize release 
of biocides.''
    The final rule stipulates that cleanings should take place in 
drydock when practicable. at 40 CFR 139.22(d)(1). Drydock schedules 
should be factored into the inspection and management of areas 
susceptible to biofouling. EPA recognizes that it may not be 
technologically available or economically achievable for a vessel to be 
drydocked outside of the regular schedule to clean biofouling from the 
hull or niche areas. For example, some vessels are too large to be 
regularly removed from the water, and any repair or maintenance 
required on the hull or niche areas must occur while the vessel is 
pierside between drydockings. Several mechanisms are used by vessel 
owners/operators to determine the necessary cleaning interval, 
including regular inspections, ISO standard 19030 measurements of hull 
and propeller performance, and/or advanced data analytics. Further, 
many technologies are available for preventative in-water cleaning, 
including diver-operated technologies or remotely operated vehicles. A 
review of the market of hull cleaning robots sponsored by the USCG in 
2016 identified no fewer than 15 technologies capable of conducting in-
water cleaning of vessel hulls. More recently, remotely operated 
vehicles for preventative cleaning have also been developed as 
equipment attached to the vessel itself, enabling flexibility in 
cleaning schedules along a vessel's route.
    Finally, as discussed in section VIII.C. of this preamble, 
Discharges Incidental to the Normal Operation of a Vessel--Federally-
Protected Waters Requirements, the final rule prohibits the discharge 
from in-water cleaning of vessel hulls and niche areas into federally-
protected waters except by any vessel owned or under contract with the 
United States, State, or local government to do business exclusively in 
any federally-protected waters. 40 CFR 139.40(i).
14. Inert Gas Systems
    Inert gas is used on tankers for several reasons, with one of the 
primary uses being to control the oxygen levels in the atmosphere of 
cargo and ballast tanks to prevent explosion and suppress flammability. 
Inert gas system discharges consist of scrubber washwater and water 
from deck water seals when used as an integral part of the inert gas 
system.
    EPA was unable to identify new technology or best management 
practice options for discharges from inert gas systems, therefore the 
Agency relied on the BPT/BCT/BAT analysis underlying the VGP 
requirements and is requiring substantively the same requirements 
included in the VGP. 40 CFR 139.23. EPA did not receive any comments 
suggesting revisions to the proposed standards. EPA did, however, 
modify the structure of the requirements from the proposed rule to 
clarify that while there are no additional discharge-specific 
requirements applicable to inert gas systems, as with any discharge 
incidental to the normal operation of vessel subject to regulation 
under this part, discharges from inert gas systems must meet the 
general discharge requirements in subpart B of this part.
15. Motor Gasoline and Compensating Systems
    Motor gasoline compensating system discharge is the discharge of 
seawater that is taken into motor gasoline tanks to replace the weight 
of fuel as it is used and eliminates free space where vapors could 
accumulate. The compensating system is used for fuel tanks to supply 
pressure for the gasoline and to keep the tank full to prevent 
potentially explosive gasoline vapors from forming. The seawater is 
discharged when the vessel refills the tanks with gasoline or when 
performing maintenance. The discharge can contain both toxic and 
conventional pollutants including residual oils or traces of gasoline 
constituents, which can include alkanes, alkenes, aromatics (e.g., 
benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene, phenol, and naphthalene), metals, and 
additives. Most vessels by design do not produce this discharge.
    EPA was unable to identify new technology or best management 
practice options for discharges from motor gasoline compensating 
system, therefore the Agency relied on the BPT/BCT/BAT analysis 
underlying the VGP requirements and is requiring substantively the same 
requirements included in the VGP with slight modifications for 
consistency and clarity. 40 CFR 139.24. EPA did not receive any 
comments suggesting revisions to the proposed requirements.
    The final rule does not include additional discharge-specific 
requirements applicable to motor gasoline compensating systems except 
in federally-protected waters (40 CFR 139.24(b)), but as with any 
discharge incidental to the normal operation of vessel subject to 
regulation under this part, discharges from motor gasoline compensating 
systems must meet the general discharge requirements in subpart B of 
this part (including requirements set forth for oily discharges as 
appropriate for the vessel).
    Finally, as discussed in section VIII.C. of this preamble, 
Discharges Incidental to the Normal Operation of a Vessel--Federally-
Protected Waters Requirements, the final rule requires several 
additional controls for discharges from motor gasoline compensating 
systems from a vessel operating in federally-protected waters. 40 CFR 
139.40(j).
16. Non-Oily Machinery
    Non-oily machinery wastewater is the combined wastewater from the 
operation of distilling plants, water chillers, valve packings, water 
piping, low- and high-pressure air compressors, propulsion engine 
jacket coolers, fire pumps, and seawater and potable water pumps. Non-
oily machinery wastewater systems are intended to keep wastewater from 
machinery that does

[[Page 82119]]

not contain oil separate from wastewater that has oil content. Non-oily 
machinery wastewater discharge rates vary by vessel size and operation 
type, ranging from 100 to 4,000 gallons per hour. Constituents of non-
oily machinery wastewater discharge can include a suite of conventional 
and nonconventional pollutants including metals and organics.
    EPA was unable to identify new technology or best management 
practice options for discharges of non-oily machinery wastewater, 
therefore the Agency relied on the BPT/BCT/BAT analysis underlying the 
VGP requirements and is requiring substantively the same requirements 
included in the VGP with minor modifications for clarity. 40 CFR 
139.25. EPA did not receive any comments suggesting revisions to the 
proposed requirements.
    The final rule prohibits the discharge of untreated non-oily 
machinery wastewater and packing gland or stuffing box effluent that 
contains toxic or bioaccumulative additives, or the discharge of oil in 
such quantities as may be harmful. 40 CFR 139.25(b).
17. Pools and Spas
    Cruise ships and other vessels occasionally have freshwater or 
seawater pools or spas onboard that use water treated with chlorine or 
bromine as a disinfectant. When pools or spas are drained, the water is 
discharged overboard or sent to an AWTS. The discharge water can 
contain nonconventional pollutants such as bromine and chlorine.
    EPA was unable to identify new technology or best management 
practice options for discharges from pools and spas, therefore the 
Agency relied on the BPT/BCT/BAT analysis underlying the VGP 
requirements and is requiring substantively the same requirements 
included in the VGP. 40 CFR 139.26. EPA determined the dechlorination 
limits by using those established for BWMSs and by evaluating comments 
submitted by the public on the 2008 and 2013 VGPs that indicated such 
limits are achievable. Furthermore, the final numeric discharge 
standard is consistent with common dechlorination limits from shore-
based sewage treatment facilities.
    As such, the final pool and spa discharge standards are the same as 
the proposed standards. The final rule requires vessel operators, 
except for unintentional or inadvertent releases from overflows across 
the decks and into overboard drains, to discharge while underway unless 
determined to be infeasible, and dechlorinate and/or debrominate any 
pool or spa water, prior to discharging overboard. 40 CFR 139.26(b). To 
be considered dechlorinated, the total residual chlorine in the pool or 
spa effluent must be less than 100 [micro]g/L. To be considered 
debrominated, the total residual oxidant in the pool or spa effluent 
must be less than 25 [micro]g/L.
    Finally, as discussed in section VIII.C. of this preamble, 
Discharges Incidental to the Normal Operation of a Vessel--Federally-
Protected Waters Requirements, the final rule requires additional 
controls for discharges from pools and spas from vessels operating in 
federally-protected waters. 40 CFR 139.40(k).
18. Refrigeration and Air Conditioning
    Condensation from cold refrigeration or evaporator coils of air 
conditioning systems drips from the coils and collects in drip troughs 
that typically channel to a drainage system. The condensate discharge 
may contain toxic, conventional, and nonconventional pollutants 
including but not limited to detergents, seawater, food residue, and 
trace metals. This waste stream can easily be segregated from oily 
wastes and toxic or hazardous materials and safely discharged. 
Condensation is generally directed overboard, or in some instances may 
be collected for temporary holding until onshore disposal or otherwise 
drained to the bilge.
    EPA was unable to identify new technology or best management 
practice options for refrigeration and air conditioning condensate, 
therefore the Agency relied on the BPT/BCT/BAT analysis underlying the 
VGP requirements and is requiring substantively the same requirements 
included in the VGP. 40 CFR 139.27.
    The final rule prohibits the discharge of refrigeration and air 
conditioning condensate that contacts toxic or hazardous materials. 40 
CFR 139.27(b). Any discharges from refrigeration and air conditioning 
that are commingled with other discharges (e.g., through the bilge or 
non-oily machinery) must meet the requirements for both discharges.
19. Seawater Piping
    Seawater piping systems carry seawater to various locations onboard 
the vessel via a network of pipes and pumps. This seawater is critical 
to the proper functioning of a vessel and is used for activities such 
ballasting and firefighting, as well as in a variety of systems (e.g., 
engines, hydraulics, cleaning equipment, refrigeration, toilet 
systems). Based on comments received on the proposed rule, the final 
rule includes a definition for ``seawater piping system.'' (See 40 CFR 
139.2 definition of ``seawater piping system''). Some components of 
seawater piping systems, including sea chests, sea inlet pipes, and 
overboard discharges, are also considered niche areas (See 40 CFR 
139.2, definition of ``niche areas''). Niche areas that are part of the 
seawater piping system are subject to requirements at 40 CFR 139.22.
    Seawater piping systems can harbor and discharge a large quantity 
of biofouling organisms and represent a challenge for biofouling 
management as they are generally more difficult to access. They are 
also protected from hydrodynamic forces, facilitating the accumulation 
and survivorship of biofouling organisms. Ensuring that seawater piping 
systems are unobstructed by biofouling is vital to vessel operations, 
including the structural integrity of the vessel and the safety of the 
crew.
    The final rule also requires that any vessel with a seawater piping 
system that accumulates macrofouling must be fitted with a Marine 
Growth Prevention System (MGPS). 40 CFR 139.28(c). The most common 
MGPSs for seawater include sacrificial anodic copper systems and 
chlorine-based dosing systems. These systems are already widely used 
and available. EPA recognizes that there may be a variety of systems 
capable of addressing biofouling in seawater piping systems, and an 
effective, preventative biofouling management strategy may include a 
combination of different systems (e.g., chemical injection; 
electrolysis, ultrasound, ultraviolet radiation, or 
electrochlorination; application of an anti-fouling coating; and use of 
cupro-nickel piping). Additionally, based on comments received on the 
proposed rule, the final rule includes glass-reinforced filament-wound 
epoxy-based composite piping as an acceptable component of a MGPS. 40 
CFR 139.28(c)(2)(v). EPA considers the operation and maintenance of an 
MGPS to represent BAT for the control of biofouling organisms 
associated with seawater piping systems due to the many options 
available and the wide extent of their current use.
    An MGPS can vary widely in operational characteristics and 
placement suitability. The final rule requires that MGPS selection must 
consider the level, frequency, and type of expected biofouling and the 
design, location, and area in which the system will be used. 40 CFR 
139.28(c)(1). For example, it has been suggested that an MGPS installed 
in the sea chest provides protection to both the sea chest

[[Page 82120]]

and internal pipework, while one installed in the strainer may only 
protect the internal pipework. Furthermore, anti-fouling coating 
selection and application should be appropriate to the material of the 
piping and level of waterflow to which the coated area is subjected. 
Based on the potential differences in profile of the coated areas, the 
anti-fouling coating applied to a seawater piping system may be 
different from the anti-fouling coating applied to the vessel hull. EPA 
recommends that the MGPS be selected, installed, and maintained 
according to the manufacturer specifications.
    Upon identification of macrofouling in the seawater piping system 
despite preventative measures, reactive measures such as use of 
physical cleaning devices must be used to remove biofouling; however, 
discharges from reactive measures used to remove macrofouling are 
prohibited in port. 40 CFR 139.28(c)(3). A vessel may use a separate 
service provider to clean and capture wastes from the cleaning process 
provided any discharges from those activities are managed pursuant to 
other applicable legal authorities (e.g., CWA section 402), consistent 
with 40 CFR 139.22. The frequency of inspection and identification of 
macrofouling in a seawater piping system (and use of reactive measures 
when macrofouling is present) will be vessel-specific, so the final 
rule does not identify a specific time interval for such measures. Time 
intervals should be determined based on a vessel's operational profile.
    Seawater piping system discharges include non-contact engine 
cooling water, hydraulic system cooling water, refrigeration cooling 
water, and freshwater lay-up wastewater. Such systems use ambient 
seawater to absorb the heat from heat exchangers, propulsion systems, 
and mechanical auxiliary systems. The water is typically circulated 
through an enclosed system that does not come in direct contact with 
machinery, but still may contain sediment from water intake, traces of 
hydraulic or lubricating oils, and trace metals leached or eroded from 
the pipes within the system. Additionally, because it is used for 
cooling, the effluent will have an increased temperature. Cooling water 
can reach high temperatures with the thermal difference between 
seawater intake and discharge typically ranging from 5 [deg]C to 25 
[deg]C, with maximum temperatures reaching 140 [deg]C. The use of shore 
power may reduce the discharges of seawater from cooling systems. 
Because shore power may not be available in all locations, may not be 
sufficient for the electricity needs of the vessel, and/or may not be 
compatible with the vessel's systems, the final rule does not require 
the use of shore power to reduce thermal discharges from seawater 
piping systems although EPA does recommend the use of shore power when 
available and feasible for vessel use.
    Based on comments received on the proposed rule, the final rule 
includes a new 40 CFR 139.28(b) requiring that seawater piping systems 
must be inspected, maintained, and cleaned as necessary to minimize the 
accumulation and discharge of biofouling organisms. EPA added this 
requirement as a BMP that is reasonably necessary to carry out the 
purpose of reducing and eliminating the discharge of pollutants. 
Inspection and maintenance, with occasional cleaning as necessary, is 
technologically available and economically achievable. As discussed in 
section VII. of this preamble, Definitions, the final rule dispenses 
with the use of the Navy Fouling Rating scale employed in the proposed 
rule in favor of the term ``macrofouling'' to identify fouling that had 
been designated as FR-20 in the proposed rule.
    Finally, as discussed in section VIII.C. of this preamble, 
Discharges Incidental to the Normal Operation of a Vessel--Federally-
Protected Waters Requirements, the final rule requires controls for 
discharges seawater piping systems from vessels operating in federally-
protected waters. 40 CFR 139.40(l).
20. Sonar Domes
    Sonar dome discharge consists of leachate from anti-fouling 
materials into the surrounding seawater and the discharge of seawater 
or freshwater retained within the sonar dome. Sonar domes house 
detection, navigation, and ranging equipment and are filled with water 
to maintain their shape and pressure. They are typically found on 
research vessels but may be present on other vessel classes. Sonar dome 
discharge occasionally occurs when the water in the dome is drained for 
maintenance or repair, and discharge rates are estimated to range from 
300 to 74,000 gallons from inside the sonar dome for each repair event. 
This discharge from inside the dome may include toxic pollutants 
including zinc, copper, nickel, and epoxy paints. Additionally, 
discharge occurs when materials leach from the exterior of the dome. 
Components that may leach into surrounding waters include anti-fouling 
agents, plastic, iron, and rubber.
    EPA was unable to identify new technology or best management 
practice options for discharges from sonar domes, therefore the Agency 
relied on the BPT/BCT/BAT analysis underlying the VGP requirements and 
is requiring substantively the same requirements included in the VGP. 
40 CFR 139.29. EPA did not receive any comments suggesting revisions to 
the proposed requirements.
    The final rule prohibits the discharge of water from inside the 
sonar dome during maintenance or repair. 40 CFR 139.29(b). The final 
rule also prohibits the discharge of bioaccumulative biocides from the 
exterior of the sonar dome when non-bioaccumulative alternatives are 
available. 40 CFR 139.29(c).

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

    CWA section 312(p)(4)(B)(iii) specifies that, with limited 
exceptions, EPA must establish Federal standards of performance that 
are no less stringent than the VGP requirements relating to effluent 
limits and related requirements, including with respect to waters 
subject to Federal protection, in whole or in part, for conservation 
purposes. Therefore, the final rule prohibits or limits discharges in 
federally-protected waters consistent with the VGP requirements 
established for ``waters federally-protected for conservation 
purposes.'' 40 CFR 139.40.
    The final rule includes several updates to these VGP requirements. 
EPA determined that these new requirements are technologically 
available because the scope of waters to which the requirements would 
apply are limited, such that vessels are able to operate while 
restricting their discharges in these protected waters. For example, a 
vessel traveling through the Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary can 
ordinarily wait to discharge accumulated water and sediment from any 
chain locker or chemically-dosed seawater piping until no longer in 
those federally-protected waters. EPA determined that the requirement 
is economically achievable because EPA does not have any information 
indicating that vessels undertaking an activity such as holding the 
discharge until it is no longer in federally-protected waters would 
incur costs.
1. Identification of Federally-Protected Waters
    The designated federally-protected waters for this rulemaking 
include National Marine Sanctuaries, Marine National Monuments, 
National Parks, National Wildlife Refuges, National Wilderness Areas, 
or parts of the National Wild and Scenic Rivers

[[Page 82121]]

System, consistent with the categories of waters listed in appendix G 
of the VGP. These VGP categories were based on EPA's review of several 
Federal authorities that protect waters that are known to be of high 
value or sensitive to environmental impacts, such as those administered 
by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM), the National Park Service 
(NPS), the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS), the Forest Service 
(USFS), and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). 
Consistent with CWA section 312(p)(9)(E), the requirements of this part 
(40 CFR part 139) are in addition to any requirements established by 
the Secretary of Commerce or the Secretary of the Interior to 
administer any land or waters under their administrative control (e.g., 
National Marine Sanctuaries Act requirements applicable to these areas 
established pursuant to 16 U.S.C. 1431 et seq.; 15 CFR part 922; 50 CFR 
part 404).
    Federally-protected waters are likely to be of high quality and 
consist of unique ecosystems that may include distinctive species of 
aquatic animals and plants. Furthermore, as protected areas, these 
waters are more likely to have a greater abundance of sensitive species 
of plants and animals that may have difficulty surviving in areas with 
greater anthropogenic impact. Such waters are important to the public 
at large, as evidenced by the waters' special status or designation by 
the Federal Government as National Marine Sanctuaries, Marine National 
Monuments, National Parks, National Wildlife Refuges, National 
Wilderness Areas, or parts of the National Wild and Scenic Rivers 
System. The areas considered to be federally-protected waters are as 
follows:
    <bullet> National Marine Sanctuaries--as designated under the 
National Marine Sanctuaries Act (16 U.S.C. 1431 et seq.) and 
implementing regulations found at 15 CFR part 922 and 50 CFR part 404. 
EPA retrieved this information from https://sanctuaries.noaa.gov/visit/#locations on 5/1/2024.
    <bullet> Marine National Monuments--as designated by presidential 
proclamation under the Antiquities Act of 1906 (54 U.S.C. 320301 et 
seq.). EPA retrieved this information from https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/pacific-islands/habitat-conservation/marine-national-monuments-pacific and https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/new-england-mid-atlantic/habitat-conservation/northeast-canyons-and-seamounts-marine-national on 5/13/24.
    <bullet> National Parks (including National Preserves and National 
Monuments)--as designated under the National Park Service Organic Act, 
as amended (54 U.S.C. 100101 et seq.) within the National Park System 
by the NPS within the U.S. Department of the Interior. EPA retrieved 
this information from https://www.nps.gov/aboutus/national-park-system.htm on 5/6/2024.
    <bullet> National Wildlife Refuges (including Wetland Management 
Districts, Waterfowl Production Areas, National Game Preserves, 
Wildlife Management Area, and National Fish and Wildlife Refuges)--as 
designated under the National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act 
of 1966 as amended by the National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement 
Act of 1997 (16 U.S.C. 668dd et seq.). EPA retrieved this information 
directly from USFWS, 5/10/2024; See also https://www.fws.gov/our-facilities.
    <bullet> National Wilderness Areas--as designated under the 
Wilderness Act of 1964 (16 U.S.C. 1131 et seq.). Section 4(c) of the 
Wilderness Act strictly prohibits motorized vehicles, vessels, 
aircrafts or equipment for the purposes of transport of any kind within 
the boundaries of all wilderness areas (16 U.S.C. 1133(c)). Exceptions 
to this Act include motorized vehicle use for the purposes of gathering 
information on minerals or other resources; for the purposes of 
controlling fire, insects, or disease; and in wilderness areas where 
aircraft or motorized boat use have already been established prior to 
1964. EPA retrieved this information from https://wilderness.net/practitioners/wilderness-areas/search.php#resultsSection on 4/22/2024. 
National Wild and Scenic Rivers--as designated under the Wild and 
Scenic Rivers Act of 1968 (16 U.S.C. 1271 et seq.). EPA retrieved this 
information from https://www.rivers.gov/river-miles on 4/22/2024.
    EPA does not consider Outstanding National Resource Waters (ONRWs) 
as federally-protected waters for purposes of this rule, as these are 
State or Tribal water quality-based designations under the 
antidegradation policy of the CWA. By contrast, CWA section 
312(p)(4)(B)(iii) requires EPA to promulgate regulations that are no 
less stringent than the VGP with respect to ``waters subject to Federal 
protection'' (emphasis added). In excluding ONRWs from the list of 
waters subject to Federal protection in the final rule even though such 
waters were considered federally-protected under the VGP, EPA finds 
that it made a material technical mistake or misinterpretation of law 
when it required protection of ONRWs as ``Waters Federally Protected 
Wholly or in Part for Conservation Purposes'' under the VGP.
    EPA solicited comments on the use of the VGP's appendix G, and the 
proposed rule's equivalent appendix A, as the list of federally-
protected waters. EPA updated the list of appendix A in the final rule 
based on information available from Federal agencies at the time of 
this public notice, as specified above. In response to commenter 
concerns regarding the usability of the list in appendix A, 
particularly for operators unfamiliar with U.S. federally-protected 
waters, EPA added an asterisk (``*'') modifier to denote those 
federally-protected waters that may be most relevant to vessels 
regulated under this rule. However, EPA reiterates that 40 CFR 139.40 
remains applicable to all federally-protected waters listed in appendix 
A. Specific areas in appendix A were marked with an asterisk if they 
were within 0.1 mile of the coast or Great Lakes, or within 0.5 miles 
of National Waterway Network lines (DOT, 2024). Methodology for this 
analysis is available in the docket. While this approach may not 
perfectly correspond with areas where vessels do not/do transit, it can 
assist the regulated community, particularly international operators 
who may be less familiar with U.S. waterways, to identify federally-
protected waters that they may be most likely to transit, while 
maintaining the level of stringency from the VGP.
    The final appendix A was also modified to address both public and 
interagency comments to remove several National Marine Sanctuaries that 
are protected solely for cultural or historical purposes, rather than 
marine resource conservation purposes, and for which there is no 
evidence that discharges from vessels subject to this rule would 
threaten these resources (i.e., Thunder Bay, Mallows Bay, Potomac 
River, Monitor, Wisconsin Shipwreck, and Lake Ontario NMS). Excluding 
waters that are protected solely for cultural or historical purposes 
and not for marine resource conservation purposes is consistent with 
the requirement that EPA's regulations continue VGP requirements to 
protect waters subject to Federal protection ``for conservation 
purposes.'' 33 U.S.C. 1322(p)(4)(B)(iii)(I). Such exclusion is also 
consistent with the National Marine Sanctuaries Act, as some federally-
protected waters regulations are narrowly tailored to protect 
shipwrecks and other resources. For these areas, NOAA specifically 
chose not to regulate vessel discharges because it found no evidence 
that discharges would threaten the cultural or historical resources.

[[Page 82122]]

    EPA also received comments related to the applicability of the VIDA 
to federally-protected waters outside of 12 NM. The VIDA (and by 
extension this rule) is only applicable within waters of the United 
States or waters of the contiguous zone (12 NM under Article 24 of the 
Convention of the Territorial Sea and the Contiguous Zone). Therefore, 
EPA removed the following three sanctuaries from appendix A that are 
located fully outside of these waters: Flower Garden Banks, Grey's 
Reef, and Monitor National Marine Sanctuaries. For federally-protected 
waters that contain portions that are subject to the VIDA but also 
extend outside of waters subject to the VIDA (e.g., Stellwagen Bank 
National Marine Sanctuary; Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary; 
Papah[amacr]naumoku[amacr]kea Marine National Monument), the standards 
promulgated here only apply to the portion of federally-protected 
waters within 12 NM.
2. Discharge-Specific Requirements in Federally-Protected Waters
    The final rule includes specific requirements for discharges into 
federally-protected waters, as listed in appendix A and consistent with 
CWA section 312(p)(4)(B)(iii). These requirements are in addition to 
any applicable general or specific discharge requirements in subparts B 
and C. EPA specifically solicited comments on the additional discharge 
requirements proposed for vessels operating in federally-protected 
waters. Commenters generally expressed support for the federally-
protected waters requirements except for certain discharges from 
vessels that operate exclusively in federally-protected waters. To 
address these concerns, the final rule identifies exclusions for 
vessels operating exclusively within federally-protected waters for 
discharges from ballast tanks, decks, fire protection equipment, and 
hulls and associated niche areas in 40 CFR 139.40(b), (f), (g) and (i), 
respectively. The additional requirements for vessels operating in 
federally-protected waters are described in the following paragraphs 
and are generally consistent with the relevant section(s) of the VGP 
and based on a similar BAT finding that these requirements are 
technologically available and economically achievable and do not have 
any unacceptable non-water quality environmental impacts, including 
energy requirements.
    Ballast Tanks (40 CFR 139.40(b)): The discharge or uptake of 
ballast water must be avoided in federally-protected waters, with 
certain exceptions. This requirement does not apply to a vessel 
operating within the boundaries of any National Marine Sanctuary that 
preserves shipwrecks or maritime heritage in the Great Lakes unless the 
designation documents for the sanctuary do not allow taking up or 
discharging ballast water in such sanctuary, pursuant to section 610 of 
the Howard Coble Coast Guard and Maritime Transportation Act of 2014 as 
amended by the Coast Guard Reauthorization Act of 2015. Based on 
comments received which provided new information on feasibility of the 
proposed rule, the final rule exempts any vessel that operates solely 
in a federally-protected water within a single COTP Zone from the 
discharge prohibition in federally-protected waters. Because they don't 
leave federally-protected waters, such vessels have no feasible way of 
discharging outside these areas, and ballast water discharge is a 
necessary part of normal vessel operations. This exemption is 
consistent with a comparable single COTP Zone ballast water exclusion 
applicable in other, non-federally-protected waters. Additionally, as 
described in the proposed rule (85 FR 67818, October 26, 2020, section 
VIII.B.1.i), this requirement does not apply beyond the boundaries of a 
federally-protected water. While the VGP required avoidance of uptake 
or discharge into waters that ``may directly affect'' federally-
protected waters, EPA did not include this expanded affected area as 
applied in the VGP because information needed to make a determination 
regarding a potential direct affect is highly dependent on the specific 
instant at which a ballast water uptake or discharge event is to occur, 
is not readily available, and is not easily characterized. This 
determination was based on new information on feasibility from 
commenters. As practical guidance for vessel operators that can delay a 
ballast water discharge (e.g., an exchange) until the vessel is further 
away from federally-protected waters, EPA recommends that the discharge 
or uptake of ballast water be conducted as far from federally-protected 
waters as possible.
    Bilges (40 CFR 139.40(c)): The discharge of bilgewater into 
federally-protected waters is prohibited from any vessel of 400 GT and 
above.
    Boilers (40 CFR 139.40(d)): Any discharge from a boiler into 
federally-protected waters is prohibited. This requirement 
acknowledges, however, that small volumes of routine blowdown may be 
discharged, including from boilers that are designed and operated to 
blowdown automatically, if preventing such discharge would compromise 
the safety of life at sea pursuant to 40 CFR 139.1(b)(3).
    Chain Lockers (40 CFR 139.40(e)): The discharge of accumulated 
biological organisms, water, and sediment from any chain locker into 
federally-protected waters is prohibited. Cleanout of chain lockers can 
be scheduled when a vessel is outside of protected waters. This 
prohibition does not mean that vessels should avoid rinsing their 
anchor chain in federally-protected waters after they have been 
anchored there, as generally required by 139.14(b) (``Anchors and 
anchor chains must be rinsed of biofouling organisms and sediment when 
the anchor is retrieved'').
    Decks (40 CFR 139.40(f)): The discharge of deck washdown into 
federally-protected waters is prohibited; however, the final rule 
exempts any vessel operating exclusively within federally-protected 
waters. As commenters noted, deck washdown is part of necessary 
maintenance for these vessels. Additionally, while the VGP extended 
this requirement to only large ferries (see VGP Part 5.3), the final 
rule applies it to all vessels (except those exempted) because deck 
washdowns for all vessels (except those exempted) can be scheduled when 
a vessel is outside of protected waters.
    Fire Protection Equipment (40 CFR 139.40(g)): Several commenters 
expressed concerns regarding compliance with USCG fire drill 
requirements and anchor chain washdown requirements in 40 CFR 139.14 of 
the proposed rule, which both result in the discharge of water from 
fire protection equipment. The VGP allowed anchor chain wash down from 
the firemain in federally-protected waters to comply with wash down 
requirements, but did not include any specifics for meeting USCG fire 
drill requirements. EPA has determined that the ability to discharge 
water to comply with USCG fire drill requirements is necessary to 
maintain safety and prevent loss of life at sea. Based on the 
requirements of the VGP and new information provided through comments 
on the proposed rule, the discharge from fire protection equipment into 
federally-protected waters is prohibited except to comply with USCG 
fire drill requirements or anchor and anchor chain requirements in 40 
CFR 139.14. When USCG fire drills are required, only vessels owned or 
under contract with the United States, a State, or a local government 
to do business exclusively in any federally-protected waters may 
discharge firefighting foam into federally-protected waters. 40 CFR 
139.19 already prohibits the use of

[[Page 82123]]

fluorinated firefighting foam in waters subject to this rule, with few 
exceptions.
    Graywater Systems (40 CFR 139.40(h)): The discharge of graywater 
into federally-protected waters is prohibited from any vessel with 
remaining available graywater storage capacity.
    Hulls and Associated Niche Areas (40 CFR 139.40(i)): The discharge 
from in-water cleaning of vessel hulls and niche areas into federally-
protected waters is prohibited; however, the final rule exempts any 
vessel operating exclusively within federally-protected waters to 
address commenters' concerns regarding necessary maintenance. Other 
than for vessels that operate exclusively within federally-protected 
waters, in-water cleaning of vessel hulls and niche areas can be 
scheduled when the vessel is outside of protected waters.
    Motor Gasoline and Compensating Discharge (40 CFR 139.40(j)): The 
discharge of motor gasoline and compensating discharges into federally-
protected waters is prohibited.
    Pools and Spas (40 CFR 139.40(k)): The discharge of pool or spa 
water into federally-protected waters is prohibited. This prohibition 
includes all discharges of pool or spa water regardless of chemical 
concentrations, including seawater pools. While the VGP requirement was 
only for medium and large cruise ships, the final rule extends it to 
all vessels with pools or spas because for all vessels with pools and 
spas these discharges can be scheduled when the vessel is outside of 
protected waters.
    Seawater Piping Systems (40 CFR 139.40(l)): The discharge of 
chemical dosing, as required in 40 CFR 139.28, into federally-protected 
waters is prohibited. Chemical dosing and the resultant discharge can 
be scheduled when the vessel is outside of protected waters.

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

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

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

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

    Under CWA section 312(p)(7)(A), a Governor of a State may submit a 
petition to the Administrator to either (1) issue an emergency order; 
or (2) review any standard of performance, regulation, or policy 
promulgated under that section if there exists new information that 
could reasonably result in a change. The final rule requires that such 
a petition be signed by the Governor (or a designee) and include the 
purpose of the petition (request for emergency order or review of any 
standard of performance, regulation, or policy); any applicable 
scientific or technical information that forms the basis of the 
petition; and the direct and indirect benefits if the requested 
petition were to be granted by the Administrator.
    In issuing an emergency order under CWA section 312(p)(4)(E), the 
statute directs EPA to consider the risk of introduction or 
establishment of an ANS or the adverse effects of a discharge that 
contributes to a violation of a water quality requirement. As such, EPA 
is not requiring that a petition for an emergency order include 
submission of direct and indirect cost information due to the statute's 
directive to consider risk reduction and the protection of 
environmental quality. Before issuing an emergency order, CWA section 
312(p)(4)(E)(ii) requires the Administrator to request written 
concurrence from the Secretary. Should the Secretary fail to concur 
within 60 days of the request, the Administrator may issue the order 
but must include in the administrative record documentation of the 
request and a response to any written objections received from the 
Secretary.
    To review any standard, regulation, or policy, on the other hand, 
EPA is requiring that a petition include the costs to the affected 
classes, types, and/or sizes of vessels if the petition were granted. 
40 CFR 139.50(b)(4). This is because, in setting a standard under the 
VIDA, EPA must comply with all other applicable provisions of CWA 
section 312(p), which includes setting standards based on BPT, BCT, and 
BAT. This includes a consideration of economic achievability.
    After considering the information provided in the petition and 
other factors, as appropriate and based on EPA's discretion, the 
Administrator shall grant or deny the petition. If granted, the 
Administrator will either issue the relevant emergency order for a 
petition to issue an emergency order (40 CFR 139.50(d)(1)), or submit a 
Notice of Proposed Rulemaking to the Federal Register for comment for a 
petition to review any standard of performance, regulation, or policy 
(40 CFR 139.50(d)(2)).
    EPA solicited comments on the proposed process for Governors to 
petition for the issuance of an emergency order or to review any 
standard of performance, regulation, or policy, including whether a 
more detailed process should be developed. Based on comments received 
on the proposed rule, the final rule utilizes the 180-day and one-year 
statutory timeframes associated with responding to a petition for 
issuance of an emergency order or to review any standard, regulation, 
or policy, respectively. 40 CFR 139.50(c). The final rule also includes 
an additional information requirement for petitions to review any 
standard of performance, regulation, or policy. Namely, a petition must 
identify the anticipated costs if the requested petition were to be 
granted by EPA. 40 CFR 139.50(b)(4). As explained earlier in this 
section, this is in keeping with the fact that the VIDA directs EPA to 
apply the CWA technology-based standards for BPT, BCT, and BAT when 
developing Federal standards of performance. These CWA standards 
require the Agency to account for the projected cost of achieving 
pollution reductions. Finally, EPA fixed a minor typographical error 
that was present in the proposed rule; the final rule correctly 
references CWA section 312(p)(4)(E), not 312(p)(4)(e), in 40 CFR 
139.50(a)(1).

[[Page 82124]]

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

    CWA section 312(p)(10)(B) identifies a process for establishing 
enhanced Federal standards or requirements to apply within the Great 
Lakes System in lieu of any comparable standards or requirements 
promulgated under CWA section 312(p)(4)-(5). CWA section 
312(p)(10)(B)(i)-(ii) provides that any Governor of a Great Lakes State 
(or the Governor's designee) may initiate the process by submitting a 
petition for an enhanced standard of performance or other requirement 
to the Governor of each of the other Great Lakes states, the Executive 
Director of the Great Lakes Commission, and the Director of EPA's Great 
Lakes National Program Office proposing that other Governors of the 
Great Lakes states endorse the petition. The final rule incorporates 
the requirements at CWA section 312(p)(10)(B)(iii)(I)(bb) that a 
petition shall include an explanation regarding why the applicable 
standard of performance or other requirement is (1) at least as 
stringent as a comparable standard of performance or other requirement 
in the final rule; and (2) in accordance with maritime safety and 
applicable maritime and navigation laws and regulations. 40 CFR 
139.51(b). After following the applicable statutory procedures, CWA 
section 312(p)(10)(B)(iii)(I)(aa) provides that the Great Lakes 
Governors may jointly submit to the Administrator and the Secretary an 
endorsement of a proposed standard of performance or other requirement 
to apply within the Great Lakes System. CWA section 
(p)(10)(B)(ii)(III)(bb) requires that any proposed standard or other 
requirement must be endorsed by all Great Lakes Governors if the 
proposal would impose any additional equipment requirement on a vessel, 
or at least five Great Lakes Governors if the proposal would not impose 
any additional equipment requirement on a vessel.
    Upon receipt of the proposed standard of performance or requirement 
from a Great Lakes Governor, CWA section 312(p)(10)(B)(iii)(II) 
provides that the Administrator and the Secretary must sign for 
publication in the Federal Register a joint notice that provides an 
opportunity for public comment on the proposed standard of performance 
or requirement. Pursuant to CWA section 312(p)(10)(B)(iii)(III)(aa), as 
soon as practicable after publication of the joint notice, the 
Administrator shall commence a review of the proposed standard of 
performance or requirement to determine if it is at least as stringent 
as the comparable CWA section 312(p) standards and requirements, while 
the Secretary concurrently reviews to determine whether the proposed 
standard of performance or requirement is in accordance with maritime 
safety and applicable maritime and navigation laws and regulations. 
During review, pursuant to CWA section 312(p)(10)(B)(iii)(III)(bb), the 
Administrator and the Secretary shall consult with the Governor of each 
Great Lakes State and representatives from the Federal and provincial 
governments of Canada; shall take into consideration any relevant data 
or public comments received; and shall not take into consideration any 
preliminary assessment by the Great Lakes Commission or dissenting 
opinion submitted by a Governor of a Great Lake State except to the 
extent that such an assessment or opinion is relevant to the criteria 
for the applicable determination under CWA section 
312(p)(10)(B)(iii)(III)(aa). CWA section 312(p)(10)(B)(iii)(IV) 
provides that not later than 180 days after receipt of the proposed 
standard of performance or requirement, the Administrator and the 
Secretary shall (1) approve or disapprove the proposal; and (2) submit 
to the Governor of each Great Lakes State, and issue in the Federal 
Register, a notice of the determination. Under CWA section 
312(p)(10)(B)(iii)(V), if the proposal is disapproved, the 
Administrator and Secretary shall sign and submit a notice of 
determination to the Federal Register for publication that describes 
the reasons why the standard of performance or requirement is less 
stringent or inconsistent with applicable maritime safety or maritime 
navigational laws and regulations, and provide any recommendations for 
modifications that the Great Lakes states could make to conform the 
disapproved portion of the proposal to the applicable requirements. 
Under CWA section 312(p)(10)(B)(iii)(VI), if the Administrator and 
Secretary approve a proposed standard of performance or other 
requirement, the Administrator shall establish, by regulation, the 
proposed standard or requirement within the Great Lakes in lieu of any 
comparable standard or other requirements promulgated under CWA section 
312(p)(4), and the Secretary shall establish, by regulation, any 
requirements necessary to implement, ensure compliance with, and 
enforce any new standard or requirement promulgated pursuant to this 
petition process, or to apply the proposed requirement, within the 
Great Lakes System in lieu of any comparable requirement promulgated 
under paragraph CWA section (312)(p)(5).
    EPA solicited comments on the process to request enhanced Great 
Lakes system requirements, including the extent to which EPA should 
provide further details in the final rule considering language already 
included in the VIDA. Based on comments received on the proposed rule 
and to improve clarity, EPA both replaced and added language in the 
regulations to mirror the VIDA statutory language more closely. This 
includes adding an additional provision that speaks to the timing and 
effect of a Governor's withdrawal of an endorsement for a proposed 
standard (40 CFR 139.51(f)), as well as a clarification that a complete 
prohibition of one or more discharges only applies to those waters of 
states with Governors endorsing the prohibition (40 CFR 139.51(k)). EPA 
received one comment that led to a reexamination of the provision 
dealing with judicial review and determined that, because the statute 
speaks for itself on this matter, it does not require repetition in the 
regulations and was therefore removed. EPA also made minor 
modifications to the standards to improve consistency between related 
paragraphs, add statutorily identified timeframes for the petition 
process, and fix minor typographical errors in CWA references.

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

    Under CWA section 312(p)(10)(D), states have the opportunity to 
apply to EPA to prohibit one or more discharges incidental to the 
normal operation of a vessel, whether treated or not, into specified 
waters, if the State determines that the protection and enhancement of 
the quality of some or all its waters require greater environmental 
protection.
    Pursuant to CWA section 312(p)(10)(D)(ii), a discharge prohibition 
established by EPA through regulation would not apply until the date 
the Administrator makes a determination as described in paragraph (iii) 
establishing that (1) the prohibition would protect and enhance the 
quality of the specified waters; (2) adequate facilities for the safe 
and sanitary removal of the discharge incidental to the normal 
operation of a vessel are reasonably available for the waters to which 
the prohibition would apply; and (3) the discharge can safely be 
collected and stored until a vessel reaches a discharge facility or 
other location. If the no-discharge zone (NDZ) concerns ballast water 
discharges regulated under CWA

[[Page 82125]]

section 312(p), then the Administrator must also determine that 
adequate facilities are reasonably available for vessels subject to the 
proposed NDZ after considering, at a minimum, water depth, dock size, 
pumpout capacity and flow rate, availability of year-round operations, 
proximity to navigational routes, and the ratio of pumpout facilities 
to vessels in operation in the specified waters, and that the 
prohibition for ballast water discharges will not unreasonably 
interfere with the safe loading and unloading of cargo, passengers, or 
fuel.
    CWA section 312(p)(9)(A)(v) provides Alaska the authority to 
regulate the discharge of graywater within State waters from a 
passenger vessel carrying 50 or more passengers. Pursuant to section 
1410 of Title XIV, Certain Alaskan Cruise Ship Operations, Alaska may 
petition EPA under CWA section 312(f) to prohibit the discharge of 
graywater and sewage from cruise ships operating in some or all of the 
waters of the Alexander Archipelago or the navigable waters of the 
United States within the State of Alaska or within the Kachemak Bay 
National Estuarine Research Reserve. For all other incidental 
discharges and types of vessels subject to this rule, Alaska, as with 
the rest of the states, must adhere to the application process 
identified in the VIDA and these regulations.
    The final rule is substantively similar to the proposed rule; 
however, the final rule incorporates some modifications to improve and 
clarify the application requirements and process and to address 
comments received during the public comment period. The application 
requirements are intended to ensure that the State applicant provides 
sufficient information for EPA to make the necessary determination 
identified in CWA section 312(p)(10)(D)(iii)(I) without undue delay. 
EPA's experience with CWA section 312(f) sewage NDZs suggests that an 
informed determination requires a detailed understanding of the 
proposed waters and affected vessel population to ensure that the 
discharge prohibition is both environmentally beneficial and 
achievable. For example, EPA cannot make a determination as to the 
adequacy and reasonable availability of facilities if the application 
does not characterize the location and operational capabilities of each 
facility. EPA does, however, recognize that certain information 
requirements may not be static or otherwise readily available to the 
State. Information provided by the State to fulfill these information 
requirements in the application may be projections or estimates; 
however, projections and estimates must be justified and explained in 
the application.
    The final rule identifies the information requirements for a 
state's application and the key procedural steps associated with EPA 
approval and USCG concurrence. Based on comments received, EPA made 
adjustments to some of the requirements. Among other facility 
characteristics identified in the proposed rule, the final rule 
requires the state's application to include information on the 
connections at each facility for offloading discharge(s) from vessels 
to account for the design of vessels and the potential issue that 
incompatible connections may pose for vessel access to facilities. 40 
CFR 139.52(c)(5). To address transport concerns raised during the 
comment period, the final rule incorporates a new application 
requirement for the State to explain the wastewater handling procedures 
of each facility. 40 CFR 139.52(c)(6). The purpose of this requirement 
is to ensure that storage and transport of offloaded wastewater is 
conducted safely and in conformance with applicable laws. This 
information will also assist EPA in making a timely determination 
regarding the adequacy of facilities for pumpout and treatment of the 
wastewater, as required by the VIDA. The final rule also updates the 
provision concerning the map of facility locations to allow a State to 
provide the coverage area for mobile facilities in lieu of a specific 
point location. 40 CFR 139.52(c)(7). EPA notes that some facility 
characteristics identified as required in the final rule may not always 
be relevant to mobile facilities. However, any pertinent restrictions 
that may affect vessel access to the facility must be noted. At 
commenters' request, EPA also added clarifying information in this 
preamble regarding applicability of the NDZ program to graywater in 
Alaska and the use of projections in the State application. To the 
extent that commenters otherwise asked EPA to require additional 
information in State NDZ applications, such requirements are 
unnecessary for EPA to evaluate the applications for an NDZ under the 
VIDA.
    In light of comments received, EPA concluded that the requirement 
for the application to include a table identifying the location and 
geographic area of each proposed NDZ was unclear. Therefore, the final 
rule instead includes a provision requiring a narrative explanation of 
the location of the proposed waters and a map delineating the 
boundaries of the requested prohibition using geographic coordinates. 
40 CFR 139.52(c)(1). EPA has further concluded that the 40 CFR 
139.52(h) provision from the proposed rule was not necessary to include 
in the final rule because it repeated the contents of 40 CFR 139.52(b). 
In 40 CFR 139.52(d)(2), EPA added that ``the availability of 
operational changes as a means to reduce the discharge'' is another 
factor considered in making an adequacy determination, because 
operational changes may be available as an alternative to pumpout 
facilities for certain discharges. Lastly, EPA made minor changes to 
the standards to consistently refer to the state's submittal as an 
``application,'' to emphasize that only existing facilities can be 
considered as part of EPA's adequacy determination, and to simplify the 
provisions related to the application process for clarity.
    Regarding the application process, EPA notes that within 90 days of 
receipt of an application from a State containing the required 
information, EPA will send a determination letter to the applicant with 
a tentative approval or disapproval. Following a tentative approval, 
EPA will proceed through the rulemaking process, including issuance of 
a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking and a request for concurrence from the 
USCG. If appropriate after review of public comments, EPA will publish 
a final rule establishing a prohibition. An NDZ will be enforced 
according to CWA section 312(k) and will have an effective date 30 days 
after publication of the final rule unless the State and EPA agree to a 
later date. If EPA concludes that it is appropriate to disapprove the 
application, either initially or after review of public comments on the 
Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, EPA will notify the public of the 
disapproval by publishing a notice in the Federal Register that 
includes an explanation of EPA's decision-making.

X. Implementation, Compliance, and Enforcement

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

XI. Economic Analysis

    An Economic Analysis (EA) was developed to accompany this final 
rule.

[[Page 82126]]

In the EA, EPA projects that the incremental costs arising from the 
final rule will be minor and that the vessel community will experience 
a net savings of $11.3 million annually, based on $16.1 million of 
annualized incremental costs and $27.4 million of annualized 
incremental cost savings, at a two percent discount rate. The cost 
savings are principally the result of the VIDA's exclusion of small 
vessels and fishing vessels from Federal incidental discharge 
requirements (e.g., CWA permits and national discharges standards), 
except for ballast water. When compared to the VGP requirements, this 
exclusion will reduce burden on more than 160,000 vessels. The EA 
includes a qualitative discussion of benefits.
    EPA estimates that 69,000 U.S.-flagged and 16,000 foreign-flagged 
vessels will be subject to the discharge standards in this final rule. 
The EA evaluates the cost impacts to the 69,000 U.S.-flagged vessels, 
as well as the approximately 600 foreign-flagged vessels that are U.S.-
owned.
    To estimate cost impacts, the EA uses compliance with the VGP and 
the sVGP, as well as other regulations and industry standards, as the 
analytic baseline because it represents the status quo that existed 
prior to the passage of the VIDA. The analysis projected cost impacts 
expected as a result of the final EPA standards compared to the 
baseline experienced by the regulated community immediately prior to 
passage of the VIDA legislation. The VIDA repealed the sVGP effective 
immediately upon signature, while stipulating that VGP requirements are 
to remain in place until the new VIDA program is fully in force and 
effective. This analysis accounts for both the impacts of the final EPA 
standards as well as the regulatory relief expected as a result of the 
VIDA's exclusion of small vessels and fishing vessels from the 
discharge requirements, except for ballast water, and the corresponding 
repeal of the sVGP.
    The cost analysis groups the final rule's major impacts into three 
major categories: (1) costs due to rule provisions dictated by the 
VIDA; (2) costs for rule provisions unchanged from the VGP; and (3) 
other rule provisions (including changes from the VGP). The first 
category--costs due to rule provisions dictated by the VIDA--include 
those legislative changes mandated directly in the VIDA that give rise 
to incremental costs to vessel owners/operators. These provisions 
impose new ballast water requirements nationally, as well as regionally 
in the Pacific Region and the Great Lakes. The estimated incremental 
cost for vessels to meet these ballast water-related Congressionally-
mandated provisions is $5.5 million annually. There is also an 
incremental cost associated with the State petition processes provided 
for in the VIDA, estimated at $6 thousand annually based on expected 
burden from information collection activities over the next three 
years. The second category--costs for rule provisions unchanged from 
the VGP--specifically addresses the final standard for oil-to-sea 
interfaces, which clarifies that the scope of this discharge category 
includes discharge of lubricants from equipment that extends overboard, 
and vessels must therefore use EALs in equipment that extends overboard 
as well as equipment with oil-to-sea interfaces below the waterline. 
The economic analysis accompanying the 2013 VGP did not include a cost 
estimate for EAL use on equipment that extends overboard, so this EA 
rectifies that omission. EPA estimated an average annual incremental 
cost of $5.7 million for this category. The final category discusses 
other rule provisions including changes from the VGP. First, it 
discusses the final standards that result in incremental costs compared 
to existing VGP requirements. This includes the standards promulgated 
for graywater systems and seawater piping systems for which incremental 
costs are projected to increase by $2.7 million annually. This category 
also discusses the costs of the new requirement for new Lakers to 
install, operate, and maintain a BWMS that has been type-approved by 
the USCG. The EA calculated the total annualized cost to be $2.2 
million for the new Laker equipment standard. Finally, this category 
discusses final standards that are not expected to result in 
incremental costs compared to the VGP baseline because they are largely 
consistent with the VGP and/or reflect practices already in place on 
vessels as a result of other regulations and industry standards. These 
include certain aspects of the standards for desalination and 
purification systems, exhaust gas recirculation systems, fire 
protection equipment, and hulls and associated niche area management.
    The EA also characterizes the reduction in costs projected to 
result from the VIDA's exclusion of small vessels and fishing vessels 
from the discharge requirements, except for ballast water, and the 
corresponding repeal of the sVGP. EPA estimates that this regulatory 
relief will result in annual cost savings of about $27.4 million to the 
vessel community. EPA did not evaluate the cost impacts from changes in 
monitoring, reporting, inspection, or recordkeeping associated with the 
USCG's authorities and responsibilities under the VIDA.
    To evaluate the potential impact of the final rule on small 
entities, EPA used a cost-to revenue test to evaluate potential 
severity of economic impact on vessels owned by small entities. The 
test calculates annualized pre-tax compliance cost as a percentage of 
total revenues and uses a threshold of 1 and 3 percent to identify 
entities that would be significantly impacted by this final rule. EPA 
projects the potential impacts would not exceed these conventional 
cost/revenue thresholds. In addition, the Agency completed estimates of 
the paperwork burden associated with the final rule. These estimates 
project the annualized paperwork burden on states that voluntarily 
petition EPA for any one of the following: establishment of no-
discharge zones, review of Federal standards of performance, issuance 
of emergency orders, and establishment of enhanced Great Lakes System 
requirements.
    EPA also assessed the environmental impacts from this final rule. 
The Agency does not expect the final rule to change environmental 
benefits significantly compared to those realized by the VGP. This is 
because the 2013 VGP already includes requirements for incidental 
discharges from the vessels subject to this rule, so the environmental 
benefits derived from having discharge standards in place are a 
significant part of the baseline. Additionally, the existing VGP 
requirements are largely adopted as the new discharge standards in this 
rule, in part due to the VIDA's requirement that EPA's standards be at 
least as stringent as those requirements in the 2013 VGP, barring 
certain specified exemptions. EPA notes that the VIDA exclusion of 
small vessels and fishing vessels, except for ballast water, and the 
corresponding repeal of the sVGP could potentially lead to a reduction 
in environmental benefits to the extent that affected vessels no longer 
adhere to practices previously required under the sVGP. In particular, 
the EA examines possible losses in benefits from the elimination of the 
sVGP discharge management requirements for bilgewater, graywater, and 
anti-fouling hull coatings.
    The EA updates and replaces the Regulatory Impact Analysis (RIA) 
that was prepared alongside the proposed rule. Based on comments 
received on the proposed rule, the EA includes a revised U.S. ferry 
vessel estimate based on new sources identified by a commenter and 
information available

[[Page 82127]]

from EPA's 2013 VGP electronic reporting system. The final EA is 
available in the docket.

XII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

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

A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review and Executive 
Order 14094: Modernizing Regulatory Review

    This action is a ``significant regulatory action'' as defined in 
Executive Order 12866, as amended by Executive Order 14094. 
Accordingly, EPA submitted this action to the Office of Management and 
Budget (OMB) for Executive Order 12866 review. Documentation of any 
changes made in response to Executive Order 12866 review is available 
in the docket. EPA prepared an analysis of the potential costs and 
benefits associated with this action. This Economic Analysis is 
available in the docket.

B. Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA)

    The information collection activities in this rule have been 
submitted for approval to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) 
under the PRA. The Information Collection Request (ICR) document that 
EPA prepared has been assigned EPA ICR number 2605.02. You can find a 
copy of the ICR in the docket for this rule, and it is briefly 
summarized here. The information collection requirements are not 
enforceable until OMB approves them.
    This action, once implemented through corresponding USCG 
requirements addressing implementation, compliance, and enforcement, 
would impose an information collection burden to states under the PRA. 
The action imposes a new information collection burden on states 
seeking to petition EPA to establish different Federal standards of 
performance including enhanced standards in the Great Lakes, issue 
emergency orders, or establish no-discharge zones. EPA does not 
anticipate an information collection burden on states until the USCG 
has established final implementing requirements (required by the VIDA 
as soon as practicable but not later than two years after the EPA 
discharge standards proposed in this rulemaking are finalized). After 
such time, the information collection burden relates to the voluntary 
preparation and submission of petitions by states and is therefore an 
intermittent activity.
    The ICR submitted for approval to the OMB as part of this 
rulemaking reflects an anticipated burden to states in the third year 
of the three-year ICR cycle. This includes one petition of each type: 
Modification of Federal standards of performance, issuance of emergency 
orders, and establishment no-discharge zones. EPA does not expect 
petitions for enhanced Great Lakes System requirements during this ICR 
cycle. The type and level of detail of information that a State would 
need to generate to petition EPA under CWA section 312(p) is most 
analogous to the information prepared for an application to EPA under 
the existing CWA section 312 ICR (OMB control number 2040-0187), which 
includes State activities related to petitioning EPA for no-discharge 
zones for sewage and discharges incidental to the normal operation of 
vessels of the Armed Forces. For incidental discharges from vessels of 
the Armed Forces, states may also petition EPA for a review of 
standards. Because of the parallels in discharge types and State 
activities, EPA used the burden estimates in the existing ICR to inform 
the expected burden for this proposed rule. Looking ahead, EPA expects 
that this new ICR will be combined with the existing CWA section 312 
ICR (OMB control number 2040-0187) expected to be renewed no later than 
September 30, 2026. This would create a single ICR that would include 
the information collection burden for all three vessel programs under 
CWA section 312 (sewage, vessels of the Armed Forces, and commercial 
vessels).
    The hour and cost estimates, summarized below, include such 
activities as reviewing the relevant regulations and guidance 
documents, gathering and analyzing the required information, and 
preparing and submitting the application.
    Respondents/affected entities: State governments (NAICS code 
924110) are the only respondents to the data collection activities 
described in this ICR.
    Respondent's obligation to respond: Preparation and submission of a 
petition is a voluntary action that may be undertaken by the 
respondent. This is not a reporting requirement, nor are there any 
deadlines associated with these petitions.
    Estimated number of respondents: Three respondents are anticipated 
during this three-year ICR cycle.
    Frequency of response: Three petitions are anticipated during this 
three-year ICR cycle, each in the third year, including one petition 
each for establishment of a no-discharge zone; review of any standard 
of performance, regulation, or policy; and issuance of an emergency 
order.
    Total estimated burden: Approximately 83 hours per year.
    Total estimated cost: $5,604 per year, including $150 annualized 
operation & maintenance costs.
    An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required 
to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a 
currently valid OMB control number. The OMB control numbers for EPA's 
regulations in 40 CFR are listed in 40 CFR part 9. When OMB approves 
this ICR, the Agency will announce that approval in the Federal 
Register and publish a technical amendment to 40 CFR part 9 to display 
the OMB control number for the approved information collection 
activities contained in this final rule.

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)

    I certify that this action will not have a significant economic 
impact on a substantial number of small entities under the RFA. 
Although this action will impose requirements on any small entity that 
operates a vessel subject to the standards, EPA used a cost-to-revenue 
test to evaluate the potential severity of economic impact on vessels 
owned by small entities. EPA determined that the projected cost burden 
would not exceed 1 percent of annual revenue. Details of the screening 
analysis are presented in section 8.3 (``Regulatory Flexibility Act'') 
in the Economic Analysis available in the docket.

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA)

    This action does not contain any unfunded mandate as described in 
UMRA, 2 U.S.C. 1531-1538, and does not significantly or uniquely affect 
small governments. The action imposes no enforceable duty on any State, 
local, or Tribal governments or the private sector.

E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism

    EPA has concluded that this action has federalism implications 
because it preempts State law. The VIDA added a new CWA section 
312(p)(9)(A) that specifies that, beginning on the effective date of 
the requirements promulgated by the Secretary established under CWA 
section 312(p)(5), no State, political subdivision of a State, or 
interstate agency may adopt or enforce any law, regulation, or other 
requirement with respect to an incidental discharge subject to 
regulation under the VIDA except insofar as such law, regulation, or 
other requirement is identical to or less stringent than the Federal 
regulations under the VIDA.

[[Page 82128]]

    EPA provides the following federalism summary impact statement. EPA 
consulted with State and local officials early in the process of 
developing the proposed action to permit them to have meaningful and 
timely input into its development. EPA and the USCG conducted a 
Federalism consultation briefing on July 9, 2019, in Washington, DC to 
allow for such input. EPA provided an overview of the VIDA, described 
the interim requirements and the framework of future regulations, 
identified State provisions associated with the VIDA, and received 
comments and questions. The briefing was attended by representatives 
from the National Governors Association, the National Conference of 
State Legislatures, the U.S. Conference of Mayors, the County 
Executives of America, the National Association of Counties, the 
National League of Cities, Environmental Council of the States, the 
Association of Clean Water Administrators, the National Water Resources 
Association, the Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies, the 
National Association of State Boating Law Administrators, the Western 
Governors Association, and the Western States Water Council. Pre-
proposal comments were accepted from July 9, 2019 to September 9, 2019 
and are described in conjunction with the Governors' Consultation 
comments. After the public comment period concluded, EPA met with state 
representatives to discuss topics of interest between June and October 
2021 to inform the development of the supplemental notice and final 
rule.

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

    This action has Tribal implications. However, it will neither 
impose substantial direct compliance costs on federally recognized 
Tribal governments, nor preempt Tribal law. Tribes may be interested in 
this action because commercial vessels may operate in or near Tribal 
waters. Additionally, EPA may be authorized to treat eligible federally 
recognized Tribes as a State (TAS) under section 309 of the CWA.
    EPA consulted with Tribal officials under the EPA Policy on 
Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribes early in the process 
of developing this regulation to permit them to have meaningful and 
timely input into its development. A summary of that consultation and 
coordination follows.
    EPA initiated a Tribal consultation and coordination process for 
EPA's 2020 Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (85 FR 67818, October 26, 
2020) by sending a ``Notice of Consultation and Coordination'' letter 
on June 18, 2019, to all 573 Tribes that were federally recognized at 
the time.\8\ The letter invited Tribal leaders and designated 
consultation representatives to participate in the Tribal consultation 
and coordination process that lasted from July 11 to September 11, 
2019. EPA held an informational webinar for Tribal representatives on 
July 11, 2019, to obtain meaningful and timely input during the 
development of the proposed rule. During the webinar, EPA provided an 
overview of the VIDA, described the interim requirements and the 
framework of future regulations, and identified Tribal provisions 
associated with the VIDA. A total of nine Tribal representatives 
participated in the webinar. EPA also provided an informational 
presentation on the VIDA during the Region 10 Regional Tribal 
Operations Committee (RTOC) call on July 18, 2019, as requested by the 
RTOC. During the consultation period, Tribes and Tribal organizations 
sent two pre-proposal comment letters to EPA as part of the 
consultation process. In addition, EPA held one consultation meeting 
with the leadership of a Tribe, at the Tribe's request, to obtain pre-
proposal input and answer questions regarding the forthcoming rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ In December 2019, the Little Shell Tribe of Chippewa Indians 
became the 574th federally recognized Tribe.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    EPA incorporated the feedback it received from Tribal 
representatives in the proposed rule. Records of the Tribal 
informational webinar and a consultation summary of the written and 
verbal comments submitted by Tribes are included in the public docket 
for this rule. Several Tribes requested additional consultation in 
comments submitted during the public comment period of the proposed 
rule. EPA offered additional consultation opportunities and met with 
Tribal representatives of the Gun Lake Tribe and Chippewa Ottawa 
Resource Authority in September and October 2021, respectively, to 
inform development of the supplemental notice and final rule.
    As required by section 7(a), the EPA's Tribal Consultation Official 
has certified that the requirements of the executive order have been 
met in a meaningful and timely manner. A copy of the certification is 
included in the docket.

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

    EPA interprets Executive Order 13045 as applying only to those 
regulatory actions that concern environmental health or safety risks 
that EPA has reason to believe may disproportionately affect children, 
per the definition of ``covered regulatory action'' in section 2-202 of 
the Executive Order.
    Therefore, this action is not subject to Executive Order 13045 
because it does not concern an environmental health risk or safety 
risk. Since this action does not concern human health, EPA's Policy on 
Children's Health also does not apply. However, overall, this rule 
would reduce the amount of pollution entering waterbodies from vessels 
through the minimization and control of discharges entering the waters 
of the U.S. and the contiguous zone that may contain pollutants such as 
aquatic nuisance species (ANS), nutrients, bacteria or pathogens, oil 
and grease, metals, as well as other toxic, nonconventional, and 
conventional pollutants (e.g., organic matter, bicarbonate, and 
suspended solids). This would yield human health benefits due to 
decreased exposure to these pollutants and improve the recreational 
utility of waterbodies where vessels would be subject to the proposed 
standards.

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

    This action is not a ``significant energy action'' because it is 
not likely to have a significant adverse effect on the supply, 
distribution or use of energy. Any additional energy usage would be 
insignificant compared to the total energy usage of vessels and the 
total annual U.S. energy consumption. Additionally, given that the rule 
establishes national standards of performance for vessel incidental 
discharges, and that these standards are largely borne out of existing 
requirements under the 2013 Vessel General Permit, EPA does not 
anticipate any significant climate impacts.

I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act

    This rulemaking does not involve technical standards. For 
informational purposes, EPA notes the existence of voluntary standards 
applicable to vessel activities developed by NACE; these standards 
cover topics such as corrosion prevention and biofouling inspections.

[[Page 82129]]

J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions To Address Environmental 
Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations and 
Executive Order 14096: Revitalizing Our Nation's Commitment to 
Environmental Justice for All

    EPA believes that it is not practicable to assess whether the human 
health or environmental conditions that exist prior to this action 
result in disproportionate and adverse effects on communities with 
environmental justice concerns. While EPA was unable to perform a 
detailed environmental justice analysis because it lacks data on the 
exact location of vessels and their associated discharges, the 
rulemaking would increase the level of environmental protection for all 
affected populations without having any disproportionately high and 
adverse human health or environmental effects on any population, 
including any minority or low-income population. The Agency recognizes 
that the burdens of environmental pollution disproportionately fall on 
certain communities with environmental justice concerns. Overall, this 
rule would reduce the amount of pollution entering waterbodies from 
vessels through the minimization and control of discharges entering the 
waters of the U.S. and the contiguous zone that may contain pollutants 
such as aquatic nuisance species (ANS), nutrients, bacteria or 
pathogens, oil and grease, metals, as well as other toxic, 
nonconventional, and conventional pollutants (e.g., organic matter, 
bicarbonate, and suspended solids). This would yield human health 
benefits due to decreased exposure to these pollutants and improve the 
recreational utility of waterbodies where vessels would be subject to 
the proposed standards.
    The information supporting this Executive Order review is contained 
in section III.C. of this preamble, Environmental Impacts of Discharges 
for Which Technology-Based Discharge Standards Are Established by This 
Rule, which provides information on the pollutants found in the vessel 
discharges that this rule is intended to prevent or reduce from 
entering waters of the United States or the contiguous zone. Section V. 
of this preamble, Stakeholder Engagement, describes the public 
participation opportunities associated with this rule that allowed for 
meaningful and timely input on rule development and decision-making, 
including any relevant environmental justice concerns.

K. Congressional Review Act (CRA)

    This action is subject to the CRA, and EPA will submit a rule 
report to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of 
the United States. This action is not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5 
U.S.C. 804(2).

XIII. References

Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation (ADEC). (2007). 
Large Commercial Passenger Vessel Wastewater Discharge: General 
Permit Information Sheet. Retrieved from http://www.dec.state.ak.us/water/cruise_ships/gp/2008_GP_Info2.pdf.
Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR). (2007). 
Toxicological Profile for Arsenic (Update). Atlanta, GA: U.S. 
Department of Health and Human Services, Public Health Service. 
Retrieved July 30, 2024, from https://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/toxfaqs/tfacts2.pdf.
Alfa Laval. (2017). Personal communication between Peter Sahlen and 
Frida Norlen, Alfa Laval and Jack Faulk, U.S. EPA. April 1 and April 
3, 2017.
American Bureau of Shipping (ABS). (2019). Best Practices for 
Operations of Ballast Water Management Systems Report. Retrieved 
from https://safety4sea.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/04/ABS-2019-best-practices-for-operations-of-BWMS-report-2019_04.pdf.
Bailey, S.A., Chan, F., Ellis, S.M., Bronnenhuber, J.E., Badie, 
J.N., Simard, N. (2012). Risk Assessment for Ship-Mediated 
Introductions of Aquatic Nonindigenous Species to the Great Lakes 
and Freshwater St. Lawrence River. Canadian Science Advisory 
Secretariat.
Ballast Water Equipment Manufacturers Association (BEMA). (2020). 
Compilation of BWMS Type Approval Testing Biological Efficacy Data. 
February 13, 2020.
Bawat. A. (2016). Bawat Ballast Water Treatment. Retrieved from 
http://www.bawat.dk/images/BAWAT_PRESENTATION_AUGUST_2016_2.pdf.
Bell, A., Phillips, S., Denny, C., Georgiades, E., and Kluza, D. 
(2011). Risk Analysis: Vessel Biofouling. Wellington: Ministry of 
Agriculture and Forestry Biosecurity New Zealand.
Briski, E., Linley, R., Adams, J., and Bailey, S. (2014). Evaluating 
Efficacy of a Ballast Water Filtration System for Reducing Spread of 
Aquatic Species in Freshwater Ecosystems. Management of Biological 
Invasions Volume 5, Issue 3: 245-253.
Brown and Caldwell. (2007). Port of Milwaukee Onshore Ballast Water 
Treatment--Feasibility Study Report. Prepared for the Wisconsin 
Department of Natural Resources. October 12, 2007.
Brown and Caldwell and Bay Engineering, Inc. (2008). Port of 
Milwaukee Off-Ship Ballast Water Treatment Feasibility Study Report, 
Phase 2. Prepared for the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources. 
August 28, 2008.
Carbery, K., Owen, R., Frickers, T., Otero, E., and J. Readman. 
(2006). Mar. Pollut. Bull., 52, 635-644.
ClearBallast. (2012). Overview of Hitachi Ballast Water Purification 
System--ClearBallast.
COWI A/S. (2012). Ballast Water Treatment in Ports--Feasibility 
Study. Prepared for the Danish Shipowners' Association. November 
2012.
Cruise Lines International Association. (2019). 2019 Environmental 
Technologies and Practices Report. Retrieved from https://cruising.org/en/news-and-research/research/2019/september/2019-environment-technologies-and-practices-table---cruise-industry-report.
Damen. (2017). Damen's InvaSave Port-Based Ballast Water Management 
System Has World Premiere. (marketing sheet). May 2, 2017.
Department of Environmental and Heritage Protection (DEHP), State of 
Queensland (2016). Environmental Management of Firefighting Foam 
Policy Explanatory Notes Revision 2.
DiGangi, J., Schettler, T., Cobbing, M., & Rossi, M. (2002). 
Aggregate exposures to phthalate in humans.
DNV GL. (2019). Global Sulphur Cap 2020 Update, External Webinar 
(presented on May 23, 2019), Kristian Johnsen, Fabian Kock, 
Alexander Strom, and Christos Chryssakis.
Drake, J.M. and D.M. Lodge. (2007). Hull fouling is a risk factor 
for intercontinental species exchange in aquatic ecosystems. Aquat. 
Invasions, 2 (2): 121-131.
Drake, L.A., Tamburri, M.N., First, M.R., Smith, G.J., and Johengen, 
T.H. (2014). How Many Organisms Are in Ballast Water Discharge? A 
Framework for Validating and Selecting Compliance Monitoring Tools. 
Mar Pollut Bull. 86: 122-128.
Dupuis, A., and Ucan-Marin, F. (2015). A literature review on the 
aquatic toxicology of petroleum oil: An overview of oil properties 
and effects to aquatic biota. DFO Can. Sci. Advis. Sec. Res. Doc. 
2015/007. vi + 52 p.
Etkin, D.S. (2010). Worldwide analysis of in-port vessel operational 
lubricant discharges and leaks. Proc. 33rd Arctic and Marine 
Oilspill Program Technical Seminar: 529-554.
Glosten Associates. (2018). Feasibility Study of Shore-based Ballast 
Water Reception Facilities in California. Prepared for the 
California State Lands Commission by the Delta Stewardship Council, 
April 13, 2018.
Golden Bear Research Center (Golden Bear). (2018). Test Facility 
Researchers Condemn Ballast Treatment Pessimism, February 26, 2018.
Gollasch, S. (2002). The Importance of Ship Hull Fouling as a Vector 
of Species Introductions into the North Sea. Biofouling, 18 (2): 
105-121.
Great Ships Initiative (GSI). (2010). Report of the Land-Based 
Freshwater Testing of the Siemens SiCURE<SUP>TM</SUP> Ballast Water 
Management System. GSI/LB/F/A/1, pp 1-58.

[[Page 82130]]

Great Ships Initiative (GSI). (2011). Final Report of the Land-
Based, Freshwater Testing of the Alfa Laval AB PureBallast[supreg] 
Ballast Water Treatment System. GSI/LB/F/A/2, pp 1-94.
Great Ships Initiative (GSI). (2014). Technical Report Land Based 
Performance Evaluation in Ambient and Augmented Duluth-Superior 
Harbor Water of Eight Commercially Available Ballast Water Treatment 
System Filter Units. GSI/LB/QAQC/TR/FLTR, pp 1-67.
Great Ships Initiative (GSI). (2015). Technical Report Land-Based 
Status Test of the JFE BallastAce [supreg] Ballast Water Management 
System and Components at the GSI Testing Facility. GSI/LB/QAQC/TR/
JFE, pp 1-146.
Great Ships Initiative (GSI). (2016). Briefing Paper for the Great 
Lakes Commission Great Lakes and St. Lawrence Ballast Water 
Workshop, November 16-17, 2016.
Hewitt, C. and M. Campbell. (2010). The relative contribution of 
vectors to the introduction and translocation of marine invasive 
species. Prepared for the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and 
Forestry (DAFF).
Hewitt, C.L, Gollasch, S., and D. Minchin. (2009). Chapter 6: The 
Vessel as a Vector--Biofouling, Ballast Water and Sediments. 
Biological Invasions in Marine Ecosystems, Springer-Verlag Berlin 
Heidelberg.
Hilliard, R.W. and Kazansky, O. (2006). Assessment of Shipping 
Traffic and Ballast Water Movements to and From Caspian Region, and 
Preliminary Appraisal of Possible Ballast Water Management Options. 
IMO/UNOPS/CEP Project Technical Report IMO RER/03/G31. November 5, 
2006.
Hilliard, R.W. and Matheickal, J.T. (2010). Alternative Ballast 
Water Management Options for Caspian Region Shipping: Outcomes of a 
Recent CEP/IMO/UNOPS Project. In: Emerging Ballast Water Management 
Systems, Proceedings of the IMO-WMU Research and Development Forum 
(Malmo, Sweden). January 26-29, 2010.
Hull and Associates, Inc. (2017). Preliminary Cost Estimate for the 
Shoreside Ballast Treatment and Supply for the U.S. Great Lakes. 
Prepared by Hull & Associates, Inc. for Lake Carriers' Association 
(LCA), Rocky River, OH. February 2017.
International Maritime Organization (IMO). (2002). Anti-fouling 
systems. Retrieved from http://www.imo.org/en/OurWork/Environment/Anti-foulingSystems/Documents/FOULING2003.pdf.
International Maritime Organization (IMO). (2004). International 
Convention for the Control and Management of Ships' Ballast Water 
and Sediments. BWM/CONF/36.
International Maritime Organization (IMO). (2008). Guidelines for 
Approval of Ballast Water Management Systems (G8). Annex 4 
Resolution MEPC.174(58).
International Maritime Organization (IMO). (2016). Resolution 
MEPC.279(70), Annex 5. Retrieved from http://www.imo.org/en/KnowledgeCentre/IndexofIMOResolutions/Marine-Environment-Protection-Committee-%28MEPC%29/Documents/MEPC.279%2870%29.pdf.
International Maritime Organization (IMO). (2016a). Marine 
Environmental Protection Committee (MEPC). Harmful Aquatic Organisms 
in Ballast Water. Submitted by Liberia. MEPC 69/INF.22, February 12, 
2016.
International Maritime Organization (IMO). (2017). Consideration of 
an initial proposal to amend Annex 1 to the AFS Convention to 
include controls on cybutryne. PPR 5/INF.8.
International Maritime Organization (IMO). (2018). Amendment of 
Annex 1 to the AFS Convention to include controls on cybutryne, and 
consequential revision of relevant guidelines: information 
presenting scientific evidence for the adverse effects of cybutryne 
to the environment. PPR 6/INF.7.
International Maritime Organization (IMO). (2018a). Code for 
Approval of Ballast Water Management Systems, Resolution 
MEPC.300(72), April 13, 2018.
International Maritime Organization (IMO). (2019). Lists of Type-
Approved Ballast Water Management Systems, updated October 2019.
International Maritime Organization (IMO). (2020). Status of IMO 
Treaties, April 7, 2020.
Johengen T.H., Reid D.F., Fahnenstiel G.L., MacIsaac H.J., Dobbs F., 
Doblin M., Ruiz GM & Jenkins PT. (2005). Assessment of transoceanic 
NOBOB vessels and low-salinity ballast water as vectors for non-
indigenous species introductions to the Great Lakes--Chapter 5. 
Final Report to Great Lakes Protection Fund, pp 287.
International Maritime Organization (IMO). (2023). Revised 
Guidelines for the Control and Management of Ships' Biofouling to 
Minimize the Transfer of Invasive Aquatic Species, Resolution 
MEPC.378(80), adopted July 7, 2023.
Keister, T., and Balog, D. (1992). Field Evaluation of Ozone for 
Control of Corrosion and Scale in a Zero Blowdown Application, 
Association of Water Technologies, 5th Annual Convention, San Diego, 
CA, (1992).
King, D., and Hagan, P. (2013). Economic and Logistical Feasibility 
of Port-Based Ballast Water Treatment: A Case Study at the Port of 
Baltimore (USA). MERC Ballast Water Discussion Paper No. 6, (Review 
Draft). UMCES Ref. No.: [UMCES]CBL 2013-011. May 2013.
Lake Carriers' Association (LCA). (2016). List of Member Vessel 
Ballasting Characteristics. Provided to Jack Faulk, U.S. EPA via 
email.
Lake Carriers' Association (LCA). (2016a). Meeting Notes for 
Conference Call with Lake Carriers Association, U.S. EPA, and U.S. 
EPA contractor staff. August 2, 2016.
Lake Carriers' Association (LCA). (2017). Email from Tom Rayburn, 
LCA to Mark Briggs, Eastern Research Group, Inc. March 6, 2017.
Lake Carriers' Association (LCA). (2018). Email from Tom Rayburn, 
LCA to Mark Briggs, Eastern Research Group, Inc. May 8, 2018.
Maglic, L., Zec, D. and V. Francic. (2015). Effectiveness of a 
Barge-Based Ballast Water Treatment System for Multi-Terminal Ports. 
Promet--Traffic & Transportation. 27 (5): 429-437.
Marinelog. (2016). Fednav Claims a Lakes BWTS First. Retrieved from 
http://www.marinelog.com/index.php?option=com_k2&view=item&id=22780:fednav-claims-a-lakes-bwts-first&Itemid=230.
Marr, B. (2017). IoT and Big Data at Caterpillar: How Predictive 
Maintenance Saves Millions of Dollars. Forbes. Retrieved from 
https://www.forbes.com/sites/bernardmarr/2017/02/07/iot-and-big-data-at-caterpillar-how-predictive-maintenance-saves-millions-of-dollars/#70a82fd17240.
Marubini, F. and M.J. Atkinson. (1999). Effects of lowered pH and 
elevated nitrate on coral calcification. Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser., 188: 
117-121.
Monroy, O., Linley, R., Chan, P.l., Kydd, J. (2017). Evaluating 
Efficacy of Filtration + UV-C Radiation for Ballast Water Treatment 
at Different Temperatures. Journal of Sea Research.
Moser, C.S., Wier, T.P., First, M.R., Grant, J.F., Riley, S.C., 
Robbins-Wamsley, S.H., Tamburri, M.N., Ruiz, G.M., Miller, A.W., and 
L.A. Drake. (2017). Biol. Invasions, 19, 1745-1759.
National Ballast Information Clearinghouse (NBIC). (2020). NBIC 
Reported Ballast Water Discharge Ports--Dec 13 2013 through Dec 31 
2017, 2020.
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and National 
Geospatial-Intelligence Agency; U.S. Chart No. 1--Symbols, 
Abbreviations and Terms used on Paper and Electronic Navigational 
Charts, 13th Edition, April 15, 2019.
National Research Council. (1993). Managing Wastewater in Coastal 
Urban Areas. United States of America. National Academy of Sciences.
National Research Council. (2000). Clean Coastal Waters: 
Understanding and Reducing the Effects of Nutrient Pollution. United 
States of America. National Academy of Sciences.
Ober, H.K. (2012). Effects of Oil Spills on Marine and Coastal 
Wildlife. University of Florida IFAS Extension, WEC285.
Oyen, F.G.F., Camps, L.E.C.M.M., and SE Wedelaar Bonga. (1991). 
Effect of acid stress on the embryonic development of the common 
carp (Cyprinus carpio). Aquat. Toxicol., 19: 1-12.
Pavlakis, P., Tarchi, D. & Sieber, A.J. (2001). On the Monitoring of 
Illicit Vessel Discharges, A Reconnaissance Study in the 
Mediterranean Sea, EC DG Joint Research Center, Institute for the 
Protection and Security of the Citizen Humanitarian Security Unit.
Pereira, N.N. and Brinati, H.L. (2012). Onshore Ballast Water 
Treatment: A Viable Option for Major Ports. Mar Pollut Bull. 64 
(11): 2296-2304.
Reynolds, K., Knight, I., Wells, C., Pepper, I., & Gerba, C. (1999). 
Detection of human pathogenic protozoa and viruses in

[[Page 82131]]

ballast water using conventional and molecular methods. General 
Meeting of the American Society for Microbiology. Chicago, IL.
Schultz, M.P. (2007). Effects of coating roughness and biofouling on 
ship resistance and powering. Biofouling, 23 (5): 331-341.
Scianni, C., Georgiades, E., Mihaylova, R., and Tamburri M.N. (2023) 
Balancing the consequences of in-water cleaning of biofouling to 
improve ship efficiency and reduce biosecurity risk. Frontiers in 
Marine Science 10:1239723. doi: 10.3389/fmars.2023.1239723.
Sekizawa, J., S. Dobson & R. Touch III. (2003). Diethyl Phthalate. 
World Health Organization, Concise International Chemical Assessment 
Document 52.
Shipping Federation of Canada. (2000). Code of Best Practices for 
Ballast Water Management.
Tomaszewska, M., Orecki, A., & Karakulski, K. (2005). Treatment of 
bilge water using a combination of ultrafiltration and reverse 
osmosis. Desalination, 185: 203-212.
Townsin, R.L. (2003). The Ship Hull Fouling Penalty. Biofouling, 19 
(Supplement), 9-15.
Tribou, M. and G. Swain. (2017). The effects of grooming on a copper 
ablative coating: a six year study. Biofouling, 33 (6): 494-504.
Tuthill, A., Avery, R., Lamb, S., and Kobrin, G. (1998). Effects of 
Chlorine on Common Materials in Freshwater. Materials Performance, 
Vol. 37, No. 11, pp. 52-56.
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE). (2017). GL_Waterborne Harbor 
Transit Time Matrix.
U.S. Coast Guard (USCG). (2013). Ballast Water Treatment, U.S. Great 
Lakes Bulk Carrier Engineering and Cost Study, Volume 1I: Analysis 
of On-Board Treatment Methods, Alternative Ballast Water Management 
Practices, and Implementation Costs. Acquisition Directorate. Report 
No. CG-D-12-13.
U.S. Coast Guard (USCG). (2014). Guidance on the verification of 
biofouling management and sediment management plans as required by 
33 CFR 151.2050(g)(3). Retrieved from https://www.dco.uscg.mil/Our-Organization/Assistant-Commandant-for-Prevention-Policy-CG-5P/Commercial-Regulations-Standards-CG-5PS/Office-of-Operating-and-Environmental-Standards-CG-OES/Environmental-Standards/BW-Regs-and-Policy/.
U.S. Coast Guard (USCG). (2019). Marine Safety Center BWMS Type 
Approval Status. Retrieved from https://www.dco.uscg.mil/Portals/9/MSC/BWMS/BWMS_Approval_Status_9JUL19.pdf.
U.S. Coast Guard (USCG). (2019a). Ballast Water Best Management 
Practices to Reduce the Likelihood of Transporting Pathogens That 
May Spread Stony Coral Tissue Loss Disease, Marine Safety 
Information Bulletin OES-MISB Number: 07-19, September 6, 2019.
U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT). (2024). ArcGIS Online: 
Navigable Waterway Network Lines. Retrieved from https://geodata.bts.gov/datasets/usdot::navigable-waterway-network-lines/explore.
U.S. EPA. (2007). Framework for Metals Risk Assessment. Retrieved 
from https://www.epa.gov/risk/framework-metals-risk-assessment.
U.S. EPA. (2008). Cruise ship discharge assessment report. (EPA-842-
R-07-005). Washington, DC: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
U.S. EPA. (2010). Generic Protocol for the Verification of Ballast 
Water Treatment Technology. (EPA-600-R-10-146). Washington, DC: U.S. 
Environmental Protection Agency.
U.S. EPA. (2011). Environmentally Acceptable Lubricants. (EPA-800-R-
11-002). Washington, DC: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
U.S. EPA. (2011a). Ballast Water Self-Monitoring. (EPA-800-R-11-
003). Washington, DC: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
U.S. EPA. (2011b). Efficacy of Ballast Water Treatment Systems: A 
Report by the EPA Science Advisory Board. (EPA-SAB-11-009). 
Washington, DC: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
U.S. EPA. (2011c). Oily Bilgewater Separators. (EPA-800-R-11-007). 
Washington, DC: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
U.S. EPA. (2011d). Graywater Discharges from Vessels. (EPA-800-R-11-
001). Washington, DC: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
U.S. EPA. (2013). Enforcement Response Policy for EPA's 2013 Vessel 
General Permit: Ballast Water Discharges and U.S. Coast Guard 
Extensions under 33 CFR part 151, December 27, 2013.
U.S. EPA. (2015). Feasibility and Efficacy of Using Potable Water 
Generators as an Alternative Option for Meeting Ballast Water 
Discharge Limits. (EPA 830-R-15-002). Washington, DC: U.S. 
Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Wastewater Management. 
July 2015.
U.S. EPA. (2016). Draft Aquatic Life Ambient Estuarine/Marine Water 
Quality Criteria for Copper--2016. (EPA-822-P-16-001). Washington, 
DC: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
U.S. EPA. (2018). Copper Compounds Interim Registration Review 
Decision Case Nos. 0636, 0649, 4025, 4026. (EPA-HQ-OPP-2010-0212). 
Washington, DC: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
U.S. EPA. (2019). U.S. EPA Ballast Water Update, Jack Faulk, 
presented at the BWMTech North America Conference, Ft. Lauderdale, 
FL, September 25, 2019.
U.S. EPA. (2020). VGP eNOI Query for Vessels Discharging Ballast by 
Time in the United States.
U.S. EPA. (2020a). Note to file--Summary of restrictions on 
discharges from Exhaust Gas Control Systems, August 11, 2020.
U.S. EPA. (2022). Shore Power Technology Assessment at U.S. Ports--
2022 Update. (EPA-420-R-22-037). Washington, DC: U.S. Environmental 
Protection Agency. December 2022.
U.S. EPA. (2024). Health Effects of Exposures to Mercury. Retrieved 
July 30, 2024, from https://www.epa.gov/mercury/health-effects-exposures-mercury.
U.S. EPA. (2024a). What are some of the health effects of lead? 
Retrieved July 30, 2024, from https://www.epa.gov/lead/what-are-some-health-effects-lead.
U.S. Geological Survey (USGS). (1999). The Quality of our Nation's 
Waters: Nutrients and Pesticides. USGS Circular 1225. Retrieved from 
http://pubs.usgs.gov/circ/circ1225.
Valkirs, A.O., Seligman, P.F., Haslbeck, E., and J.S. Caso. (2003). 
Mar. Pollut. Bull., 46: 763-779.
Van Wezel, A.P. and P. Van Vlaardingen. (2004). Environmental risk 
limits for antifouling substances. Aquat. Toxicol., 66: 427-444.
Voutchkov, N. (2013). Desalination Engineering Planning and Design. 
McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc., NY, NY.
Woods Hole Oceanographic Institute (WHOI). (2007). Harmful Algae: 
What are Harmful Algal Blooms (HABS). Retrieved from http://www.whoi.edu/redtide.
Zaniboni-Filho, E., Nu[ntilde]er, A.P.O., Reynalte-Tataje, D.A., and 
R.L. Serafini. (2009) Fish Physiol. Biochem., 35: 151-155.
Zirino, A. and P.F. Seligman. (2002). Copper Chemistry, Toxicity, 
and Bioavailability and Its Relationship to Regulation in the Marine 
Environment. Office of Naval Research Second Workshop Report, 
Technical Document 3140.
Zo, Y., Grimm, C., Matte, M., Matte, G., Knight, I.T., Huq, A., & 
Colwell, R.R. (1999). Detection and enumeration of pathogenic 
bacteria in ballast Water of Transoceanic Vessels Entering the Great 
Lakes and Resistance to Common Antibiotics. General Meeting of the 
American Society for Microbiology. Chicago, IL: American Society of 
Microbiology.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 139

    Environmental protection, Commercial vessels, Coastal zone, 
Incidental discharges.

Michael S. Regan,
Administrator.

0
Therefore, for the reasons set forth in the preamble, EPA amends 40 CFR 
chapter I, subchapter D by adding part 139 to read as follows:

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

Subpart A--Scope
Sec.
139.1 Coverage.
139.2 Definitions.
139.3 Other Federal laws.
Subpart B--General Standards for Discharges Incidental to the Normal 
Operation of a Vessel
139.4 General operation and maintenance.
139.5 Biofouling management.
139.6 Oil management.

[[Page 82132]]

Subpart C--Standards for Specific Discharges Incidental to the Normal 
Operation of a Vessel
139.10 Ballast tanks.
139.11 Bilges.
139.12 Boilers.
139.13 Cathodic protection.
139.14 Chain lockers.
139.15 Decks.
139.16 Desalination and purification systems.
139.17 Elevator pits.
139.18 Exhaust gas emission control systems.
139.19 Fire protection equipment.
139.20 Gas turbines.
139.21 Graywater systems.
139.22 Hulls and associated niche areas.
139.23 Inert gas systems.
139.24 Motor gasoline and compensating systems.
139.25 Non-oily machinery.
139.26 Pools and spas.
139.27 Refrigeration and air conditioning.
139.28 Seawater piping.
139.29 Sonar domes.
Subpart D--Special Area Requirements
139.40 Federally-protected waters.
Subpart E--Procedures for States to Request Changes to Standards, 
Regulations, or Policy Promulgated by the Administrator
139.50 Petition by a Governor for the Administrator to establish an 
emergency order or review a standard, regulation, or policy.
139.51 Petition by a Governor for the Administrator to establish 
enhanced Great Lakes System requirements.
139.52 Application by a State for the Administrator to establish a 
State no-discharge zone.

Appendix A to Part 139--Federally-Protected Waters

    Authority:  33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.

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

Subpart A--Scope


Sec.  139.1  Coverage.

    (a) Vessel discharges. Except as provided in paragraph (b) of this 
section, this part applies to:
    (1) Any discharge incidental to the normal operation of a vessel; 
and
    (2) Any discharge incidental to the normal operation of a vessel 
(such as most graywater) that is commingled with sewage, subject to the 
conditions that:
    (i) Nothing in this part prevents a State from regulating sewage 
discharges; and
    (ii) Any such commingled discharge must comply with all applicable 
requirements of:
    (A) This part; and
    (B) Any law applicable to the discharge of sewage.
    (b) Exclusions. This part does not apply to any discharge:
    (1) Incidental to the normal operation of:
    (i) A vessel of the Armed Forces subject to 33 U.S.C. 1322(n);
    (ii) A recreational vessel subject to 33 U.S.C. 1322(o);
    (iii) A small vessel or fishing vessel, except that this part 
applies to any discharge of ballast water from a small vessel or 
fishing vessel; or
    (iv) A floating craft that is permanently moored to a pier, 
including, but not limited to, a floating casino, hotel, restaurant, or 
bar; or
    (2) That results from, or contains material derived from, an 
activity other than the normal operation of the vessel, such as 
material resulting from an industrial or manufacturing process onboard 
the vessel; or
    (3) If compliance with this part would compromise the safety of 
life at sea.
    (c) Area of coverage. The standards in this part apply to any 
vessel identified in paragraph (a) of this section, not otherwise 
excluded in paragraph (b) of this section, while operating in the 
waters of the United States or the waters of the contiguous zone.
    (d) Effective date. (1) The standards in this part are effective 
beginning on the date upon which regulations promulgated by the 
Secretary governing the design, construction, testing, approval, 
installation, and use of marine pollution control devices as necessary 
to ensure compliance with the standards are final, effective, and 
enforceable.
    (2) As of the effective date identified in paragraph (d)(1) of this 
section, the requirements of the Vessel General Permit and all 
regulations promulgated by the Secretary pursuant to section 1101 of 
the Nonindigenous Aquatic Nuisance Prevention and Control Act of 1990 
(16 U.S.C. 4711), including the regulations contained in 46 CFR 162.060 
and 33 CFR part 151 subparts C and D, as in effect on December 3, 2018, 
shall be deemed repealed and have no force or effect.


Sec.  139.2  Definitions.

    The following definitions apply for the purposes of this part. 
Terms not defined in this section have the meaning as defined under the 
Clean Water Act (CWA) and applicable regulations.
    Active discharge of biofouling means the discharge of biofouling 
from a vessel resulting from in-water cleaning activities.
    Administrator means the Administrator of the Environmental 
Protection Agency.
    Anti-fouling coating means a coating or paint designed to prevent, 
repel, or facilitate the detachment of biofouling from hull and niche 
areas that are typically or occasionally submerged.
    Anti-fouling system means a coating, paint, surface treatment, 
surface, or device that is used on a vessel to control or prevent 
attachment of organisms.
    Aquatic nuisance species (ANS) means a nonindigenous species that 
threatens the diversity or abundance of a native species; the 
ecological stability of waters of the United States or the waters of 
the contiguous zone; or a commercial, agricultural, aquacultural, or 
recreational activity that is dependent on waters of the United States 
or the waters of the contiguous zone.
    Ballast tank means any tank or hold on a vessel used for carrying 
ballast water, whether or not the tank or hold was designed for that 
purpose.
    Ballast water means any water, to include suspended matter and 
other materials taken onboard a vessel, to control or maintain trim, 
draft, stability, or stresses of the vessel, regardless of the means by 
which any such water or suspended matter is carried; or taken onboard a 
vessel during the cleaning, maintenance, or other operation of a 
ballast tank or ballast water management system of the vessel. The term 
does not include any substance that is added to that water that is 
directly related to the operation of a properly functioning ballast 
water management system.
    Ballast water exchange means the replacement of ballast water in a 
ballast tank using one of the following methods:
    (1) Flow-through exchange, in which ballast water is flushed out by 
pumping in midocean water at the bottom of the tank if practicable, and 
continuously overflowing the tank from the top, until three full 
volumes of tank water have been changed.
    (2) Empty and refill exchange, in which ballast water is pumped out 
until the pump loses suction, after which the ballast tank is refilled 
with water from the midocean.
    Ballast water management system (BWMS) means any marine pollution 
control device (including all ballast water treatment equipment, 
ballast tanks, pipes, pumps, and all associated control and monitoring 
equipment) that processes ballast water to kill, render nonviable, or 
remove organisms; or to avoid the uptake or discharge of organisms.
    Bioaccumulative means the failure to meet one or more of the 
criteria established in the definition of not bioaccumulative.

[[Page 82133]]

    Biodegradable for the following classes of substances, means (all 
percentages are on a weight/weight concentration basis):
    (1) For oils: At least 90% of the formulation (for any substances 
present above 0.1%) demonstrates, within 28 days, either the removal of 
at least 70% of dissolved organic carbon (DOC), production of at least 
60% of the theoretical carbon dioxide, or consumption of at least 60% 
of the theoretical oxygen demand). Up to 5% of the formulation may be 
non-biodegradable but may not be bioaccumulative. The remaining 5% must 
be inherently biodegradable.
    (2) For greases: At least 75% of the formulation (for any 
substances present above 0.1%) demonstrates, within 28 days, either the 
removal of at least 70% of DOC, production of at least 60% of the 
theoretical carbon dioxide, or consumption of at least 60% of the 
theoretical oxygen demand). Up to 25% of the formulation may be non-
biodegradable or inherently biodegradable but may not be 
bioaccumulative.
    (3) For soaps, cleaners, and detergents: A product that 
demonstrates, within 28 days, either the removal of at least 70% of 
DOC, production of at least 60% of the theoretical carbon dioxide, or 
consumption of at least 60% of the theoretical oxygen demand.
    (4) For biocides: A compound or mixture that, within 28 days, 
demonstrates removal of at least 70% of DOC and production of at least 
60% of the theoretical carbon dioxide.
    Biofouling means the accumulation of aquatic organisms, such as 
microorganisms, plants, and animals, on surfaces and structures 
immersed in or exposed to the aquatic environment.
    Broom clean means a condition in which care has been taken to 
prevent or eliminate any visible concentration of tank or cargo 
residues, so that any remaining tank or cargo residues consist only of 
dust, powder, or isolated and random pieces, none of which exceeds one 
inch in diameter.
    Captain of the Port (COTP) Zone means such zone as established by 
the Secretary or Commandant of the Coast Guard pursuant to sections 
501, 503, and 504 of title 14, United States Code, as reorganized in 
Title I of the Frank LoBiondo Coast Guard Authorization Act of 2018).
    Commercial vessel means, except as the term is used in Sec.  
139.10(g), any vessel used in the business of transporting property for 
compensation or hire, or in transporting property in the business of 
the owner, lessee, or operator of the vessel. As used in Sec.  
139.10(g), the term commercial vessel means a vessel operating between:
    (1) Two ports or places of destination within the Pacific Region; 
or
    (2) A port or place of destination within the Pacific Region and a 
port or place of destination on the Pacific Coast of Canada or Mexico 
north of parallel 20 degrees north latitude, inclusive of the Gulf of 
California.
    Constructed with respect to a vessel means a stage of construction 
when one of the following occurs:
    (1) The keel of a vessel is laid;
    (2) Construction identifiable with the specific vessel begins;
    (3) Assembly of the vessel has commenced and comprises at least 50 
tons or 1 percent of the estimated mass of all structural material, 
whichever is less; or
    (4) The vessel undergoes a major conversion.
    Contiguous zone means the entire zone established by the United 
States under Article 24 of the Convention on the Territorial Sea and 
the Contiguous Zone.
    Discharge means discharge incidental to the normal operation of a 
vessel as defined in this section.
    Discharge incidental to the normal operation of a vessel means a 
discharge, including:
    (1) Graywater, bilgewater, cooling water, weather deck runoff, 
ballast water, oil water separator effluent, and any other pollutant 
discharge from the operation of a marine propulsion system, shipboard 
maneuvering system, crew habitability system, or installed major 
equipment, such as an aircraft carrier elevator or a catapult, or from 
a protective, preservative, or absorptive application to the hull of 
the vessel; and
    (2) A discharge in connection with the testing, maintenance, and 
repair of a system described in clause (1):
    (i) Whenever the vessel is waterborne; and does not include:
    (A) A discharge of rubbish, trash, garbage, or other such material 
discharged overboard;
    (B) An air emission resulting from the operation of a vessel 
propulsion system, motor driven equipment, or incinerator; or
    (3) A discharge that is not covered by Sec.  122.3 of this chapter 
(as in effect on February 10, 1996).
    Discharge of oil in such quantities as may be harmful means any 
discharge of oil, including an oily mixture, in such quantities 
identified in 40 CFR 110.3 and excluding those discharges specified in 
40 CFR 110.5.
    Empty ballast tank means a tank that has previously held ballast 
water that has been drained to the limit of the functional or 
operational capabilities of the tank (such as loss of pump suction); is 
recorded as empty on a vessel log; and may contain unpumpable residual 
ballast water and sediment.
    Environmentally acceptable lubricant (EAL) means a lubricant or 
hydraulic fluid, including any oil or grease, that is 
``biodegradable,'' ``minimally-toxic,'' and ``not bioaccumulative,'' as 
these terms are defined in this section.
    Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) means the area established by 
Presidential Proclamation Number 5030, dated March 10, 1983, that 
extends from the base line of the territorial sea of the United States 
seaward 200 nautical miles, and the equivalent zone of Canada.
    Existing vessel means a vessel constructed, or where construction 
has begun, prior to the date identified in regulations promulgated by 
the Secretary as described in Sec.  139.1(e).
    Federally-protected waters means any waters of the United States or 
the waters of the contiguous zone subject to Federal protection, in 
whole or in part, for conservation purposes, located within any area 
listed in appendix A, as designated under:
    (1) National Marine Sanctuaries designated under the National 
Marine Sanctuaries Act (16 U.S.C. 1431 et seq.);
    (2) Marine National Monuments designated under the Antiquities Act 
of 1906;
    (3) A unit of the National Park System, including but not limited 
to National Preserves and National Monuments, designated by the 
National Park Service within the U.S. Department of the Interior;
    (4) A unit of the National Wildlife Refuge System, including 
Wetland Management Districts, Waterfowl Production Areas, National Game 
Preserves, Wildlife Management Areas, and National Fish and Wildlife 
Refuges designated under the National Wildlife Refuge System 
Administration Act of 1966 as amended by the National Wildlife Refuge 
System Improvement Act of 1997;
    (5) National Wilderness Areas designated under the Wilderness Act 
of 1964 (16 U.S.C. 1131-1136); and
    (6) Any component designated under the National Wild and Scenic 
Rivers Act of 1968, 16 U.S.C. 1273.
    Ferry means a vessel that is used on a regular schedule to:
    (1) Provide transportation only between places than are not more 
than 300 miles apart; and
    (2) Transport only:
    (i) Passengers; or

[[Page 82134]]

    (ii) Vehicles or railroad cars that are being used, or have been 
used, in transporting passengers or goods.
    Fire protection equipment includes all components used for fire 
protection including but not limited to firemain systems, sprinkler 
systems, extinguishers, and firefighting agents such as foam.
    Graywater means drainage from galley, shower, laundry, bath, water 
fountain, and sink drains, and other similar sources.
    Great Lakes means Lake Ontario, Lake Erie, Lake Huron (including 
Lake Saint Clair), Lake Michigan, Lake Superior, and the connecting 
channels (Saint Mary's River, Saint Clair River, Detroit River, Niagara 
River, and Saint Lawrence River to the Canadian border), and includes 
all other bodies of water within the drainage basin of such lakes and 
connecting channels.
    Great Lakes State means any of the states of Illinois, Indiana, 
Michigan, Minnesota, New York, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin.
    Gross register tonnage (GRT) means the gross tonnage measurement of 
the vessel under the Regulatory Measurement System.
    Gross tonnage (GT) means the gross tonnage measurement of the 
vessel under the Convention Measurement System.
    Impaired waterbody means a waterbody identified by a State, tribe, 
or EPA pursuant to section 303(d) of the CWA as not meeting applicable 
State or Tribal water quality standards (these waters are called 
``water quality limited segments'' under 40 CFR 130.2(j)) and includes 
both waters with approved or established Total Maximum Daily Loads 
(TMDLs) and those for which a TMDL has not yet been approved or 
established.
    Inherently biodegradable means the property of being able to be 
biodegraded when subjected to sunlight, water, and naturally occurring 
microbes to the following level: greater than 70% biodegraded after 28 
days using Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) 
Test Guidelines 302C or greater than 20% but less than 60% biodegraded 
after 28 days using OECD Test Guidelines 301 A-F.
    Internal waters means:
    (1) With respect to the United States, the waters shoreward of the 
territorial sea baseline, including waters of the Great Lakes extending 
to the maritime boundary with Canada; and
    (2) With respect to any other nation, the waters shoreward of its 
territorial sea baseline, as recognized by the United States.
    In-water cleaning with capture (IWCC) means the use and operation 
of a cleaning system for vessel surfaces that is designed to capture 
and transport coatings and biofouling organisms to an adjacent barge or 
shore-based facility for collection and processing.
    In-water cleaning without capture means any in-water cleaning of 
vessel surfaces that does not use in-water cleaning with capture.
    Live or living, notwithstanding any other provision of law 
(including regulations), does not:
    (1) Include an organism that has been rendered nonviable; or
    (2) Preclude the consideration of any method of measuring the 
concentration of organisms in ballast water that are capable of 
reproduction.
    Macrofouling means biofouling caused by the attachment and 
subsequent growth of visible plants and animals on surfaces and 
structures immersed in or exposed to the aquatic environment. 
Macrofouling includes large, distinct multicellular individual or 
colonial organisms visible to the human eye, such as barnacles, 
tubeworms, mussels, fronds/filaments of algae, bryozoans, sea squirts, 
and other large attached, encrusting, or mobile organisms.
    Major conversion means a conversion of an existing vessel:
    (1) That substantially alters the dimensions or carrying capacity 
of the vessel; or
    (2) That changes the type of the vessel; or
    (3) The intent of which, in the opinion of the government of the 
country under whose authority the vessel is operating, is substantially 
to prolong its life; or
    (4) Which otherwise so alters the vessel that, if it were a new 
vessel, it would become subject to relevant provisions of the 
International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships 
(MARPOL) not applicable to it as an existing vessel.
    Marine Growth Prevention System (MGPS) means an anti-fouling system 
used for the prevention of biofouling accumulation in seawater piping 
systems and sea chests.
    Marine Inspector means any person from the civilian or military 
branch of the Coast Guard assigned under the superintendence and 
direction of an Officer in Charge, Marine Inspection, or any other 
person as may be designated for the performance of duties with respect 
to inspection, enforcement, and administration of Subtitle II of Title 
46, United States Code, Title 46 and Title 33 United States Code, and 
regulations issued under these statutes.
    Marine pollution control device (MPCD) means any equipment or 
management practice (or combination of equipment and management 
practice) for installation and use onboard a vessel that is:
    (1) Designed to receive, retain, treat, control, or discharge a 
discharge incidental to the normal operation of a vessel; and
    (2) Determined by the Administrator and the Secretary to be the 
most effective equipment or management practice (or combination of 
equipment and a management practice) to reduce the environmental 
impacts of the discharge, consistent with the factors considered in 
developing the standards in this part.
    Master means the officer having command of a vessel.
    Microfouling means biofouling caused by bacteria, fungi, 
microalgae, protozoans, and other microscopic organisms on structures 
and surfaces immersed in or exposed to the aquatic environment that 
creates a biofilm, also called a slime layer.
    Midocean means greater than 200 nautical miles (NM) from any shore, 
except when a ballast water exchange or saltwater flush outside of 50 
NM is authorized in this part, then it means greater than 50 NM from 
any shore.
    Minimally-toxic means, for lubricants (all percentages are on a 
weight/weight basis):
    (1) If both the complete formulation and the main constituents 
(that is constituents making up greater than or equal to 5% of the 
complete formulation) are evaluated, then the acute aquatic toxicity of 
lubricants, other than greases and total loss lubricants, must be at 
least 100 mg/L and the LC50 of greases and total loss lubricants must 
be at least 1000 mg/L; or
    (2) If each constituent is evaluated, rather than the complete 
formulation and main constituents, then for each constituent present 
above 0.1%: up to 20% of the formulation can have an LC50 greater than 
10 mg/L but less than 100 mg/L and an NOEC greater than 1 mg/L but less 
than 10 mg/L; up to 5% of the formulation can have an LC50 greater than 
1 mg/L but less than 10 mg/L and an NOEC greater than 0.1 mg/L but less 
than 1 mg/L; and up to 1% of the formulation can have an LC50 less than 
1 mg/L and an NOEC less than 0.1 mg/L.
    Minimally-toxic, phosphate-free, and biodegradable means properties 
of a substance or mixture of substances that:
    (1) Have an acute aquatic toxicity value corresponding to a 
concentration greater than 10 ppm;

[[Page 82135]]

    (2) Do not produce residuals with an LC50 less than 10 ppm;
    (3) Are not bioaccumulative;
    (4) Do not cause the pH of the receiving water to go below 6.0 or 
above 9.0;
    (5) Contain, by weight, 0.5% or less of phosphates or derivatives 
of phosphate; and
    (6) Are biodegradable.
    Minimize means to reduce or eliminate to the extent achievable 
using any control measure that is technologically available and 
economically practicable and achievable and supported by demonstrated 
best management practices such that compliance can be documented in 
shipboard logs and plans.
    New ferry means a ferry that is constructed after the effective 
date of USCG regulations promulgated pursuant to CWA section 
312(p)(5)(A)(i).
    New Laker means a vessel 3,000 GT and above, and that operates 
exclusively in the Great Lakes and the St. Lawrence River west of a 
rhumb line drawn from Cap des Rosiers to Pointe-de-l'Ouest (West 
Point), Anticosti Island, and west of a line along 63[deg] W longitude 
from Anticosti Island to the north shore of the St. Lawrence River, and 
constructed after the effective date of USCG regulations promulgated 
pursuant to CWA section 312(p)(5)(A)(i).
    Niche areas means a subset of the submerged surface area on a 
vessel that may be more susceptible to biofouling than the main hull 
due to structural complexity, different or variable hydrodynamic 
forces, susceptibility to anti-fouling coating wear or damage, or 
inadequate or no protection by an anti-fouling system.
    Not bioaccumulative means any of the following:
    (1) The partition coefficient in the marine environment is log KOW 
less than 3 or greater than 7;
    (2) The molecular mass is greater than 800 Daltons;
    (3) The molecular diameter is greater than 1.5 nanometer;
    (4) The bioconcentration factor (BCF) or bioaccumulation factor 
(BAF) is less than 100 L/kg; or
    (5) The polymer with molecular weight fraction below 1,000 g/mol is 
less than 1%.
    Oil means oil of any kind or in any form, including but not limited 
to any petroleum, fuel oil, sludge, oil refuse, and oil mixed with 
wastes other than dredged spoil.
    Oily mixture means a mixture, in any form, with any oil content, 
including but not limited to:
    (1) Slops from bilges;
    (2) Slops from oil cargoes (such as cargo tank washings, oily 
waste, and oily refuse);
    (3) Oil residue; and
    (4) Oily ballast water from cargo or fuel oil tanks.
    Oil-to-sea interface means any seal or surface on shipboard 
equipment where the design is such that oil or oily mixtures can escape 
directly into surrounding waters. Oil-to-sea interfaces are found on 
equipment that is subject to submersion as well as equipment above the 
surface line that extends overboard or is mounted to the exterior of 
the hull.
    Organism means an animal, including fish and fish eggs and larvae; 
a plant; a pathogen; a microbe; a virus; a prokaryote (including any 
archean or bacterium); a fungus; and a protist.
    Pacific Region means any Federal or State water adjacent to the 
State of Alaska, California, Hawaii, Oregon, or Washington; and 
extending from shore. The term includes the entire exclusive economic 
zone (as defined in section 1001 of the Oil Pollution Act of 1990 (33 
U.S.C. 2701)) adjacent to each Pacific Region State identified herein.
    Passenger vessel means a vessel of at least 100 gross tons:
    (1) Carrying more than 12 passengers, including at least one 
passenger for hire;
    (2) That is chartered and carrying more than 12 passengers;
    (3) That is a submersible vessel carrying at least one passenger 
for hire; or
    (4) That is a ferry carrying a passenger.
    Passive discharge of biofouling means the discharge of biofouling 
from a vessel (for example, sloughing) during a period in which the 
vessel is not undergoing active cleaning activities.
    Port or place of destination means a port or place to which a 
vessel is bound to anchor, to moor, or be otherwise secured.
    Reception facility refers to any fixed, floating, or mobile 
facility capable of receiving wastes and residues from vessels and fit 
for that purpose.
    Render nonviable means, with respect to an organism in ballast 
water, the action of a ballast water management system that renders the 
organism permanently incapable of reproduction following treatment.
    Saltwater flush means the addition of as much midocean water into 
each empty ballast tank of a vessel as is safe for the vessel and crew; 
and the mixing of the flush water with residual ballast water and 
sediment through the motion of the vessel; and the discharge of that 
mixed water, such that the resultant residual water remaining in the 
tank has the highest salinity possible; and is at least 30 parts per 
thousand. A saltwater flush may require more than one fill-mix-empty 
sequence, particularly if only small quantities of water can be safely 
taken onboard a vessel at one time.
    Seagoing vessel means a vessel in commercial service that operates 
beyond either the boundary line established by 46 CFR part 7 or the St. 
Lawrence River west of a rhumb line drawn from Cap des Rosiers to 
Pointe-de-l'Ouest (West Point), Anticosti Island, and west of a line 
along 63[deg] W longitude from Anticosti Island to the north shore of 
the St. Lawrence River. It does not include a vessel that navigates 
exclusively on internal waters.
    Seawater piping system means a system onboard a vessel that 
provides seawater for other vessel uses (e.g., ballast, engines, 
hydraulic systems, firefighting capacity, cleaning equipment, air 
conditioning, refrigeration, toilet systems) and includes any sea 
chest, grate, and similar appurtenances (e.g., strainers, filters, 
valves). Some components of a seawater piping system including sea 
chests, sea inlet pipes, and overboard discharges are also considered 
niche areas.
    Secretary means the Secretary of the department in which the United 
States Coast Guard (USCG) is operating.
    Small vessel or fishing vessel means a vessel with a vessel length 
that is less than 79 feet; or a fishing vessel, fish processing vessel, 
or fish tender vessel (as those terms are defined in section 2101 of 
title 46, United States Code), regardless of the vessel length.
    Toxic or hazardous materials means any toxic pollutant as defined 
in 40 CFR 401.15 or any hazardous material as defined in 49 CFR 171.8.
    Underway means a vessel is not at anchor, or made fast to the 
shore, or aground.
    Vessel General Permit (VGP) means the permit that is the subject of 
the notice of final permit issuance entitled ``Final National Pollutant 
Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) General Permit for Discharges 
Incidental to the Normal Operation of a Vessel'' (Federal Register 
publication on April 12, 2013).
    Vessel length means the horizontal distance between the foremost 
part of a vessel's stem to the aftermost part of its stern, excluding 
fittings and attachments.
    Visible sheen means, with respect to oil and oily mixtures, a 
silvery or metallic sheen or gloss, increased reflectivity, visual 
color, iridescence, or an oil slick on the surface of the water.

[[Page 82136]]

    Voyage means any transit by a vessel traveling from or destined for 
any United States port or place.


Sec.  139.3  Other Federal laws.

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

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


Sec.  139.4  General operation and maintenance.

    (a) The requirements in paragraph (b) of this section apply to any 
discharge incidental to the normal operation of a vessel subject to 
regulation under this part, including but not limited to those 
discharges identified in subpart C of this part.
    (b) Vessels must implement the following practices:
    (1) Minimize discharges through management practices including but 
not limited to storage onboard the vessel, proper storage or transfer 
of materials, or reduced production of discharge.
    (2) Discharge while underway when practicable and as far from shore 
as practicable.
    (3) Addition of any materials to a discharge, other than for 
treatment of the discharge, that is not incidental to the normal 
operation of the vessel is prohibited.
    (4) Dilution of any discharge for the purpose of meeting any 
standard in this part is prohibited.
    (5) Any material used onboard that will be subsequently discharged 
(e.g., disinfectants, cleaners, biocides, coatings, sacrificial anodes) 
must:
    (i) Be used according to manufacturer specifications and only in 
the amount necessary to perform the intended function of that material;
    (ii) Not contain any materials banned for use in the United States; 
and
    (iii) If subject to FIFRA registration, be used according to the 
FIFRA label. Proper use includes labeling requirements for proper 
application sites, rates, frequency of application, and methods; 
maintenance; removal; and storage and disposal of wastes and 
containers.
    (6) To minimize and prevent discharge of cargo or other onboard 
materials, cargo must be containerized or covered except for hopper 
barges without a fixed cover or where covering cargo would negatively 
impact safety of the vessel, risk loss of life at sea, or otherwise 
interfere with essential vessel operations.
    (7) To minimize and prevent discharge of toxic or hazardous 
materials, vessels must:
    (i) Store toxic or hazardous materials in appropriately sealed, 
labeled, and secured containers located in areas of the vessel that 
minimize exposure to ocean spray and precipitation consistent with 
vessel design, unless the master determines this would interfere with 
essential vessel operations or safety of the vessel or crew, or would 
violate any applicable regulations that establish specifications for 
safe transportation, handling, carriage, and storage of toxic or 
hazardous materials.
    (ii) Ensure containers holding toxic or hazardous materials are not 
overfilled and incompatible materials (i.e., substances which, if 
mixed, will create hazards greater than posed by the individual 
substances) are not mixed.
    (8) The overboard discharge or disposal of any containers holding 
toxic or hazardous materials is prohibited.
    (9) Prior to washing any compartment, tank, cargo or other space 
and discharging washwater overboard from the area, that space must be 
in broom clean condition or its equivalent.
    (10) Topside surfaces (e.g., exposed decks, hull above waterline, 
tank, cargo, and related appurtenances) must be maintained to minimize 
the discharge of cleaning compounds, paint chips, non-skid material 
fragments, and other materials associated with exterior surface 
preservation.
    (11) Painting and coating techniques on topside surfaces must 
minimize the discharge of paints, coatings, surface preparation 
materials, and similar substances.
    (12) Discharge of unused paint and coatings is prohibited.
    (13) Any equipment that may release, drip, leak, or spill oil or 
oily mixtures, fuel, or other toxic or hazardous materials, including 
to the bilge, must be maintained to minimize or eliminate the 
discharges.


Sec.  139.5  Biofouling management.

    (a) The requirements in paragraph (b) of this section apply to any 
vessel subject to regulation under this part.
    (b) A biofouling management plan must be developed to minimize the 
discharge of biofouling organisms. The plan elements must prioritize 
procedures and strategies to prevent macrofouling, thereby minimizing 
the potential for the introduction and spread of ANS. The plan must 
describe the vessel-specific anti-fouling systems and biofouling 
management practices necessary to comply with the requirements in this 
section. See Sec. Sec.  139.13, 139.14, 139.22, 139.28, and 139.29 for 
additional biofouling management requirements.


Sec.  139.6  Oil management.

    (a) The requirements in paragraphs (b) through (e) of this section 
apply to vessel equipment and operations that use or discharge oil or 
oily mixtures.
    (b) The discharge of used or spent oil no longer being used for its 
intended purpose is prohibited.
    (c) The discharge of oil in such quantities as may be harmful is 
prohibited.
    (d) During fueling, maintenance, and other vessel operations, 
control and response measures must be used to prevent, minimize, and 
contain spills and overflows.
    (e) An environmentally acceptable lubricant (EAL) must be used in 
any oil-to-sea interface unless such use is technically infeasible. 
Operators of new build vessels should endeavor to use seawater-based 
systems for stern tube lubrication to eliminate the discharge of oil 
from these interfaces to the aquatic environment.

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


Sec.  139.10  Ballast tanks.

    (a) Applicability. Except for any vessel otherwise excluded in 
paragraph (b) of this section, the requirements in paragraphs (c) 
through (h) of this section

[[Page 82137]]

apply to any vessel equipped with one or more ballast tanks.
    (b) Exclusions. The requirements of this section do not apply to 
the following vessels:
    (1) A vessel that continuously takes on and discharges ballast 
water in a flow-through system, if the Administrator determines that 
system cannot materially contribute to the spread or introduction of 
ANS into waters of the United States;
    (2) A vessel in the National Defense Reserve Fleet scheduled for 
disposal, if the vessel does not have an operable ballast water 
management system (BWMS);
    (3) A vessel that discharges ballast water consisting solely of 
water taken onboard from a public or commercial source that, at the 
time the water is taken onboard, meets the applicable requirements or 
permit requirements of the Safe Drinking Water Act (42 U.S.C. 300f et 
seq.);
    (4) A vessel that carries all permanent ballast water in sealed 
tanks that are not subject to discharge; or
    (5) A vessel that only discharges ballast water to a reception 
facility.
    (c) Ballast Water Best Management Practices. (1) Any vessel 
equipped with ballast tanks must minimize the introduction and spread 
of aquatic nuisance species (ANS) by adhering to the following 
practices:
    (i) Maintain a ballast water management plan that addresses both 
the uptake and discharge of ballast water. The plan must describe the 
vessel-specific BWMSs and practices necessary to comply with the 
requirements in this section.
    (ii) Minimize the use of gravity to drain ballast tanks in port.
    (iii) Use high sea suction in port or where clearance to the bottom 
of the waterbody is less than 5 meters to the lower edge of the sea 
chest, as practicable.
    (iv) Avoid the discharge or uptake of ballast water in areas with 
coral reefs. Discharge and uptake should be conducted as far from coral 
reefs as practicable.
    (v) Periodically clean ballast tanks to remove sediment. Discharge 
of sediment from ballast tank cleaning is prohibited.
    (vi) Maintain, and keep fully intact, sea chest screens.
    (2) Any new Laker equipped with ballast tanks must install, 
operate, and maintain a BWMS that has been type-approved by the USCG.
    (d) Ballast Water Discharge Standard. Unless exempted in paragraph 
(d)(3) of this section, any ballast water discharge must meet the 
following numeric discharge standard:
    (1) Biological parameters (expressed as instantaneous maximums).
    (i) Organisms greater than or equal to 50 micrometers in minimum 
dimension: less than 10 living organisms per cubic meter.
    (ii) Organisms less than 50 micrometers and greater than or equal 
to 10 micrometers: less than 10 living organisms per milliliter (mL).
    (iii) Toxicogenic Vibrio cholerae (serotypes O1 and O139): less 
than 1 colony-forming unit (cfu) per 100 mL.
    (iv) Escherichia coli: a concentration of less than 250 cfu, or 
Most Probable Number (MPN), per 100 mL.
    (v) Intestinal enterococci: a concentration of less than 100 cfu, 
or MPN, per 100 mL.
    (2) Biocide parameters (expressed as instantaneous maximums).
    (i) Chlorine dioxide: for any discharge from a BWMS using chlorine 
dioxide, chlorine dioxide must not exceed 200 [micro]g/L.
    (ii) Total residual oxidizers: for any discharge from a BWMS using 
chlorine or ozone, total residual oxidizers must not exceed 100 
[micro]g/L.
    (iii) Peracetic acid: for any discharge from a BWMS using peracetic 
acid, peracetic acid must not exceed 500 [micro]g/L.
    (iv) Hydrogen peroxide: for any discharge from a BWMS using 
peracetic acid, hydrogen peroxide must not exceed 1,000 [micro]g/L.
    (3) Exemptions: The ballast water discharge standards in paragraphs 
(d)(1) and (2) of this section do not apply to any vessel that:
    (i) Is less than or equal to 3,000 GT (1,600 GRT if GT is not 
assigned), and does not operate outside of the EEZ;
    (ii) Is a non-seagoing, unmanned, unpowered barge, except any barge 
that is part of a dedicated vessel combination such as an integrated or 
articulated tug and barge unit;
    (iii) Takes on and discharges ballast water exclusively in the 
contiguous portions of a single COTP Zone;
    (iv) Does not travel more than 10 NM and passes through no locks;
    (v) Discharges ballast water at the same location where that 
ballast water originated, provided that no mixing with unmanaged 
ballast water or sediment from other areas has occurred;
    (vi) Operates exclusively in the Great Lakes and the St. Lawrence 
River west of a rhumb line drawn from Cap des Rosiers to Pointe-de-
l'Ouest (West Point), Anticosti Island, and west of a line along 
63[deg] W. longitude from Anticosti Island to the north shore of the 
St. Lawrence River;
    (vii) Is enrolled in the USCG Shipboard Technology Evaluation 
Program (STEP); or
    (viii) Discharges ballast water prior to an applicable ballast 
water discharge standard compliance date established in regulations 
promulgated by the Secretary as described in 139.1(d).
    (e) Ballast Water Exchange and Saltwater Flush. Except for any 
vessel identified in paragraph (f) or (g) of this section, prior to an 
applicable ballast water discharge standard compliance date established 
in regulations promulgated by the Secretary as described in Sec.  
139.1(d), any vessel must meet the requirements in paragraphs (e)(1) 
and (2) of this section unless excluded under paragraph (e)(3) of this 
section.
    (1) Any vessel that carries ballast water taken on in areas less 
than 200 NM from any shore that will subsequently operate outside the 
EEZ and more than 200 NM from any shore must:
    (i) Conduct ballast water exchange in waters not less than 200 NM 
from any shore prior to discharging that ballast water; and
    (ii) Commence ballast water exchange not less than 200 NM from any 
shore and as early in the vessel voyage as practicable.
    (2) For any ballast tank that is empty or contains unpumpable 
residual water on a vessel bound for a port or place of destination 
subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, the master must, 
prior to arriving at that port or place of destination, either:
    (i) Seal the tank so that there is no discharge or uptake and 
subsequent discharge of ballast water, or
    (ii) Conduct a ballast water exchange or saltwater flush:
    (A) Not less than 200 NM from any shore for a voyage originating 
outside the United States or Canadian EEZ; or
    (B) Not less than 50 NM from any shore for a voyage originating 
within the United States or Canadian EEZ.
    (3) Exceptions: Paragraphs (e)(1) and (2), do not apply under any 
of the following circumstances:
    (i) If the unpumpable residual waters and sediments of an empty 
ballast tank were subject to treatment, in compliance with applicable 
requirements, through a BWMS approved or accepted by the Secretary;
    (ii) Except as otherwise required under this part, if the 
unpumpable residual waters and sediments of an empty ballast tank were 
sourced solely within:
    (A) The same port or place of destination; or
    (B) Contiguous portions of a single COTP Zone;
    (iii) If complying with an applicable requirement of this paragraph 
(e):

[[Page 82138]]

    (A) Would compromise the safety of the vessel; or
    (B) Is otherwise prohibited by any Federal, Canadian, or 
international law (including regulations) pertaining to vessel safety;
    (iv) If design limitations of an existing vessel prevent a ballast 
water exchange or saltwater flush from being conducted in accordance 
with this paragraph (e); or
    (v) If the vessel is operating exclusively within the internal 
waters of the United States and Canada.
    (f) Vessels entering the Great Lakes. (1) Ballast Water Exchange: 
Except as provided in paragraph (f)(2) of this section, any vessel 
entering the St. Lawrence Seaway through the mouth of the St. Lawrence 
River must conduct a complete ballast water exchange or saltwater 
flush:
    (i) Not less than 200 NM from any shore for a voyage originating 
outside the EEZ; or
    (ii) Not less than 50 NM from any shore for a voyage originating 
within the EEZ.
    (2) Exceptions: The requirements of paragraph (f)(1) of this 
section do not apply to any vessel if:
    (i) Complying with paragraph (f)(1) of this section:
    (A) Would compromise the safety of the vessel; or
    (B) Is otherwise prohibited by any Federal, Canadian, or 
international law (including regulations) pertaining to vessel safety.
    (ii) Design limitations of an existing vessel prevent a ballast 
water exchange from being conducted in accordance with an applicable 
requirement of paragraph (f)(1) of this section.
    (iii) The vessel has no residual ballast water or sediments 
onboard.
    (iv) The vessel retains all ballast water while in waters subject 
to the requirement.
    (v) The empty ballast tanks on the vessel are sealed in a manner 
that ensures that no discharge or uptake occurs, and any subsequent 
discharge of ballast water is subject to the requirement.
    (g) Pacific Region. (1) Ballast Water Exchange:
    (i) Except as provided in paragraphs (g)(1)(ii) and (g)(3) of this 
section, any vessel that operates either between two ports or places of 
destination within the Pacific Region; or a port or place of 
destination within the Pacific Region and a port or place of 
destination on the Pacific Coast of Canada or Mexico north of parallel 
20 degrees north latitude, inclusive of the Gulf of California, must 
conduct a complete ballast water exchange in waters more than 50 NM 
from shore.
    (ii) Exemptions: The requirements of paragraph (g)(1)(i) of this 
section do not apply to any vessel:
    (A) Using, in compliance with applicable requirements, a type-
approved BWMS approved or accepted by the Secretary.
    (B) Voyaging:
    (1) Between or to a port or place of destination in the State of 
Washington, if the ballast water to be discharged from the commercial 
vessel originated solely from waters located between the parallel 46 
degrees north latitude, including the internal waters of the Columbia 
River, and the internal waters of Canada south of parallel 50 degrees 
north latitude, including the waters of the Strait of Georgia and the 
Strait of Juan de Fuca;
    (2) Between ports or places of destination in the State of Oregon, 
if the ballast water to be discharged from the commercial vessel 
originated solely from waters located between the parallel 40 degrees 
north latitude and the parallel 50 degrees north latitude;
    (3) Between ports or places of destination in the State of 
California within the San Francisco Bay area east of the Golden Gate 
Bridge, including the Port of Stockton and the Port of Sacramento, if 
the ballast water to be discharged from the commercial vessel 
originated solely from ports or places within that area;
    (4) Between the Port of Los Angeles, the Port of Long Beach, and 
the El Segundo offshore marine oil terminal, if the ballast water to be 
discharged from the commercial vessel originated solely from the Port 
of Los Angeles, the Port of Long Beach, or the El Segundo offshore 
marine oil terminal;
    (5) Between a port or place of destination in the State of Alaska 
within a single COTP Zone;
    (6) Between ports or places of destination in different counties of 
the State of Hawaii, if the vessel conducts a complete ballast water 
exchange in waters that are more than 10 NM from shore and at least 200 
meters deep; or
    (7) Between ports or places of destination within the same county 
of the State of Hawaii, if the vessel does not transit outside State 
marine waters during the voyage.
    (2) Low-Salinity Ballast Water:
    (i) Except as provided in paragraphs (g)(2)(ii) and (g)(3) of this 
section, a complete ballast water exchange must be conducted for any 
commercial vessel that transports ballast water sourced from waters 
with a measured salinity of less than 18 parts per thousand and voyages 
to a Pacific Region port or place of destination with a measured 
salinity of less than 18 parts per thousand:
    (A) Not less than 50 NM from shore, if the ballast water was 
sourced from a Pacific Region port or place of destination.
    (B) More than 200 NM from shore, if the ballast water was not 
sourced from a Pacific Region port or place of destination.
    (ii) Exception: The requirements of paragraph (g)(2)(i) of this 
section do not apply to any vessel voyaging to a port or place of 
destination in the Pacific Region that is using, in compliance with 
applicable requirements, a type-approved BWMS accepted by the 
Secretary, or a type-approved BWMS approved by the Secretary to achieve 
the following numeric discharge standard for biological parameters 
(expressed as instantaneous maximums):
    (A) Organisms greater than or equal to 50 micrometers in minimum 
dimension: less than 1 living organism per 10 cubic meters.
    (B) Organisms less than 50 micrometers and greater than or equal to 
10 micrometers: Less than 1 living organisms per 10 milliliters (mL).
    (C) Toxicogenic Vibrio cholerae (serotypes O1 and O139): less than 
1 colony-forming unit (cfu) per 100 mL or less than 1 cfu per gram of 
wet weight of zoological samples.
    (D) Escherichia coli: less than 126 cfu, or MPN, per 100 mL.
    (E) Intestinal enterococci: less than 33 cfu, or MPN, per 100 mL.
    (3) General Exceptions: The requirements of paragraphs (g)(1) and 
(2) of this section do not apply to a commercial vessel if:
    (i) Complying with the requirement would compromise the safety of 
the commercial vessel.
    (ii) If design limitations of an existing vessel, prevent a ballast 
water exchange from being conducted in accordance with paragraphs 
(g)(1) and (2) of this section, as applicable.
    (iii) The commercial vessel:
    (A) Has no residual ballast water or sediments onboard; or
    (B) Retains all ballast water while in waters subject to those 
requirements.
    (iv) Empty ballast tanks on the commercial vessel are sealed in a 
manner that ensures that:
    (A) No discharge or uptake occurs; and
    (B) Any subsequent discharge of ballast water is subject to those 
requirements.
    (h) Federally-protected waters. Additional standards applicable to 
discharges from ballast tanks when a vessel is operating in federally-
protected waters are contained in Sec.  139.40(b).

[[Page 82139]]

Sec.  139.11  Bilges.

    (a) The requirements in paragraphs (b) through (d) of this section 
applies to bilgewater, which is the discharge of wastewater from the 
bilge consisting of water and residue that accumulates in a lower 
compartment of the vessel's hull below the waterline. This includes, 
but is not limited to, any water and residue from a cargo area that 
comes into contact with oily materials or a below-deck parking area or 
other storage area for motor vehicles or other motorized equipment.
    (b) The discharge of bilgewater from any vessel must not contain 
any flocculants or other additives except when used with an oily water 
separator or to maintain or clean equipment. The use of any additives 
to remove the appearance of a visible sheen is prohibited.
    (c) For any vessel of 400 GT and above, the discharge of bilgewater 
must:
    (1) Occur when the vessel is underway;
    (2) Not have an oil content that exceeds 15 ppm; and
    (3) If technologically feasible, occur at least 1 NM from shore.
    (d) Additional standards applicable to discharges from bilges when 
a vessel is operating in federally-protected waters are contained in 
Sec.  139.40(c).


Sec.  139.12  Boilers.

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


Sec.  139.13  Cathodic protection.

    (a) The requirements in paragraph (b) of this section apply to 
discharges resulting from a vessel's cathodic corrosion control 
protection device, including but not limited to sacrificial anodes and 
impressed current cathodic protection (ICCP) systems.
    (b) Spaces between any flush-fit anode and backing must be filled 
to remove potential hotspots for biofouling organisms.
    (c) The vessel operator must consider using, but is not required to 
use, less toxic metals when selecting sacrificial anodes.


Sec.  139.14  Chain lockers.

    (a) The requirements in paragraphs (b) through (e) of this section 
apply to accumulated biological organisms, sediment, precipitation, and 
seawater that is emptied from the compartment used to store the anchor 
chain on a vessel and are intended to prevent the discharge of 
accumulated biological organisms, sediment, precipitation, and seawater 
when deploying the anchor in a new port or place of destination.
    (b) Anchors and anchor chains must be rinsed of biofouling 
organisms and sediment when the anchor is retrieved.
    (c) The discharge of biological organisms, sediment, precipitation, 
and seawater from any chain locker is prohibited in port.
    (d) Anchors and anchor chains used beyond waters of the contiguous 
zone must be rinsed of biofouling organisms and sediment prior to 
entering the waters of the contiguous zone. This requirement may be 
satisfied by rinsing when the anchor is retrieved at the commencement 
of the voyage or when the anchor was last retrieved on a previous 
voyage, so long as the rinsing occurs after the last use of the anchor 
beyond waters of the contiguous zone.
    (e) Additional standards applicable to a discharge from chain 
lockers when a vessel is operating in federally-protected waters are 
contained in Sec.  139.40(e).


Sec.  139.15  Decks.

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


Sec.  139.16  Desalination and purification systems.

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


Sec.  139.17  Elevator pits.

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


Sec.  139.18  Exhaust gas emission control systems.

    (a) Applicability. The requirements in paragraphs (b) through (d) 
of this section apply to discharges from the operation and cleaning of 
any exhaust gas cleaning system (EGCS) and exhaust gas recirculation 
(EGR) system.
    (b) Discharge requirements. Unless excluded in paragraph (c) of 
this section, any discharge identified in paragraph (a) of this section 
must meet the following discharge requirements.
    (1) pH.
    (i) The discharge must meet one of the following requirements:
    (A) The discharge must have a pH of no less than 6.5 as measured at 
the vessel's overboard discharge point with the exception that during 
maneuvering and transit, the maximum difference of two pH units is 
allowed between inlet water and overboard discharge values; or
    (B) The pH discharge limit is the value that will achieve a minimum 
pH of 6.5 at 4 meters from the overboard discharge point with the 
vessel stationary. This overboard pH discharge limit is to be 
determined at the overboard discharge monitoring point and is to be 
recorded as the vessel's discharge limit. The overboard pH limit can be 
determined either by means of direct measurement, or by using a 
calculation-based methodology (computational fluid dynamics or other

[[Page 82140]]

equally scientifically established empirical formulas).
    (ii) The pH numeric discharge standard may be exceeded for up to 15 
minutes in any 12-hour period.
    (2) PAHs (Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons).
    (i) The maximum continuous PAH concentration in the discharge must 
be no greater than 50 [micro]g/L PAHphe (phenanthrene equivalents) 
above the inlet water PAH concentration. This standard applies 
downstream of any washwater treatment equipment including any reactant 
dosing unit but upstream of any seawater addition for control of pH 
prior to discharge.
    (ii) The 50 [micro]g/L numeric discharge standard is normalized for 
a discharge flow rate, before any seawater neutralization for pH 
control, of 45 tons (t)/megawatt-hour (MWh) where the mega-watt (MW) 
refers to the Maximum Continuous Rating (MCR) or 80% of the power 
rating of the fuel oil combustion units whose EGCS discharge water PAH 
is being monitored at that point. In cases where sensors are installed 
in a separate measurement cell, the PAH limit applies to the flow in 
the main discharge pipe from which the water is bypassed. This numeric 
discharge standard is adjusted upward or downward for different 
discharge flow rates, pursuant to table 1 to paragraph (b)(2)(ii) of 
this section.

                                         Table 1 to Paragraph (b)(2)(ii)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
  Discharge water flowrate before any     Numeric discharge standard
 seawater addition for pH control  (t/        ([micro]g/L PAHphe                 Measurement technology
                  MWh)                           equivalents)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
0-1....................................                         2,250  Ultraviolet light
2.5....................................                           900  - '' -
5......................................                           450  Fluorescence \a\
11.25..................................                           200  - '' -
22.5...................................                           100  - '' -
45.....................................                            50  - '' -
90.....................................                            25  - '' -
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ For any Flow Rate greater than 2.5 t/MWh, Fluorescence technology must be used.

    (iii) The continuous PAHphe numeric discharge standard may be 
exceeded by 100% for up to 15 minutes in any 12-hour period.
    (3) Turbidity/suspended particulate matter.
    (i) The washwater treatment system must be designed to minimize 
suspended particulate matter, including but not limited to heavy metals 
and ash.
    (ii) The maximum continuous turbidity in the discharge must be no 
greater than 25 FNU (formazin nephlometric units) or 25 NTU 
(nephlometric turbidity units) or equivalent units above the inlet 
water turbidity. However, to account for periods of high inlet 
turbidity, readings must be a rolling average over a 15-minute period 
to a maximum of 25 FNU or NTU. This standard applies downstream of any 
washwater treatment equipment including any reactant dosing unit but 
upstream of any seawater addition for control of pH prior to discharge.
    (iii) For an aggregated 15-minute period in any rolling 12-hour 
period, the continuous turbidity discharge limit may be exceeded by 
20%.
    (4) Nitrates plus nitrites:
    (i) The washwater treatment system must prevent the discharge of 
nitrates plus nitrites beyond that associated with a 12% removal of 
NO<INF>X</INF> from the exhaust, or beyond 60 mg/L normalized for a 
discharge rate of 45 tons/MWh, whichever is greater, where the MW 
refers to the MCR or 80% of the power rating of all those fuel oil 
combustion units whose EGCS discharge water nitrates plus nitrites are 
being monitored at that point. This standard applies downstream of any 
washwater treatment equipment including any reactant dosing unit but 
upstream of any seawater addition for control of pH prior to discharge. 
The 60-mg/L limit is adjusted upward for lower washwater flow rates per 
MWh, and vice-versa, and the applicable permit limits are contained in 
table 2 to paragraph (b)(4)(i) of this section.

                     Table 2 to Paragraph (b)(4)(i)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
 Discharge water flowrate before any
seawater addition for pH control  (t/   Numeric discharge standard (mg/L
                 MWh)                          nitrate + nitrite)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
0-1..................................                              2,700
2.5..................................                              1,080
5....................................                                540
11.25................................                                240
22.5.................................                                120
45...................................                                 60
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (5) Discharge water from temporary storage:
    (i) pH. See Sec.  139.18(b)(1).
    (ii) PAH. Maximum of 50 [mu]g/L PAHphe before any addition of 
seawater (or similar) for control of pH.
    (iii) Turbidity. Not greater than 25 FNU or 25 NTU or equivalent 
units, before any addition of seawater (or similar) for pH control.
    (6) Treatment Residuals: Discharges of sludge or residues generated 
from treatment of EGCS or EGR washwater or bleed-off water are 
prohibited.
    (c) Exclusion. For a vessel operating on fuel that meets the sulfur 
content limits specified in Regulation 14 of MARPOL Annex VI, discharge 
of EGR bleed-off water is excluded from paragraph (b) of this section 
if the vessel:
    (1) Does not retain the EGR bleed-off onboard in a holding tank 
prior to discharge, and
    (2) Is underway, and
    (3) Not in port.
    (d) Prohibition. For a vessel not operating on fuel that meets the 
sulfur content limits specified in Regulation 14 of MARPOL Annex VI, 
discharge of EGR

[[Page 82141]]

bleed-off water which is retained in a holding tank is prohibited 
unless the vessel:
    (1) Is underway;
    (2) Not in port; and
    (3) In compliance with the discharge standard in paragraph (b) of 
this section.


Sec.  139.19  Fire protection equipment.

    (a) The requirements in paragraphs (b) through (e) of this section 
apply to the discharge from fire protection equipment, including 
discharges for secondary purposes (e.g., anchor and anchor chain 
rinsing and deck washdown). As specified in Sec.  139.1(b)(3), these 
requirements do not apply to discharges from fire protection equipment 
when used for emergencies or when compliance with such requirements 
would compromise the safety of the vessel or life at sea.
    (b) The discharge of fluorinated firefighting foam is prohibited 
unless required for certification or inspection under 46 CFR 31.10 
through 31.18(c), 46 CFR 107.235(b)(4), or by the marine inspector to 
ensure vessel safety and seaworthiness.
    (c) The discharge from fire protection equipment to ensure 
operability (e.g., during testing, training, maintenance, inspection, 
or certification) is prohibited in port unless:
    (1) The intake is drawn from surrounding waters or a potable water 
supply and contains no additives (e.g., firefighting foam); or
    (2) Required in port by the Secretary for certification or 
inspection under 46 CFR 31.10 through 31.18(c), 46 CFR 107.235(b)(4), 
or by the marine inspector to ensure vessel safety.
    (d) The discharge from fire protection equipment for secondary uses 
is prohibited in port unless:
    (1) The intake is drawn from surrounding waters or a potable water 
supply and contains no additives (e.g., firefighting foam); and
    (2) The discharge meets applicable requirements under this part for 
the secondary use.
    (e) Additional requirements applicable to discharges from fire 
protection equipment when a vessel is operating in federally-protected 
waters are contained in Sec.  139.40(g).


Sec.  139.20  Gas turbines.

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


Sec.  139.21  Graywater systems.

    (a) The requirements in paragraphs (b) through (g) of this section 
apply to discharges of graywater except for graywater from any 
commercial vessel on the Great Lakes that is subject to the 
requirements in 40 CFR part 140 and 33 CFR part 159.
    (b) The introduction of kitchen waste, food, oils, and oily 
residues to the graywater system must be minimized.
    (c) Any soaps, cleaners, detergents, and other substances used by 
vessel operators or provided by vessel operators to persons onboard and 
discharged in graywater must be minimally-toxic, phosphate-free, and 
biodegradable.
    (d) The discharge of graywater is prohibited from any vessel:
    (1) Within 3 NM from shore that voyages at least 3 NM from shore 
and has remaining available graywater storage capacity, unless the 
discharge meets the standards in paragraph (f) of this section; and
    (2) Within 1 NM from shore that voyages at least 1 NM from shore 
but not beyond 3 NM from shore and has remaining available graywater 
storage capacity, unless the discharge meets the standards in paragraph 
(f) of this section.
    (e) The discharge of graywater from the following vessels must meet 
the numeric discharge standard established in paragraph (f) of this 
section:
    (1) Any new vessel of 400 GT (400 GRT if GT is not assigned) and 
above that is certificated to carry 15 or more persons and provides 
overnight accommodations to those persons;
    (2) Any passenger vessel, excluding any ferry, with overnight 
accommodations for 500 or more persons;
    (3) Any passenger vessel, excluding any ferry, with overnight 
accommodations for 100-499 persons unless the vessel was constructed 
before December 19, 2008, and does not voyage beyond 1 NM from shore; 
and
    (4) Any new ferry authorized by the Secretary to carry 250 or more 
persons.
    (f) A vessel identified in paragraph (d) or (e) of this section 
that is discharging graywater must meet the following numeric discharge 
standard:
    (1) Fecal coliform.
    (i) The 30-day geometric mean must not exceed 20 cfu, or MPN, per 
100 mL.
    (ii) Greater than 90% of samples must not exceed 40 cfu, or MPN, 
per 100 mL during any 30-day period.
    (2) BOD5.
    (i) The 30-day average must not exceed 30 mg/L.
    (ii) The 7-day average must not exceed 45 mg/L.
    (3) Suspended solids.
    (i) The 30-day average must not exceed 30 mg/L.
    (ii) The 7-day average must not exceed 45 mg/L.
    (4) pH.
    (i) Must be maintained between 6.0 and 9.0.
    (ii) [Reserved]
    (5) Total residual oxidizers.
    (i) For any discharge from a graywater system using chlorine, total 
residual oxidizers must not exceed 10.0 [micro]g/L.
    (ii) [Reserved]
    (g) Unless from a vessel subject to paragraph (e) of this section, 
the discharge of graywater from any vessel operating on the Great Lakes 
that is not a commercial vessel must not exceed 200 fecal coliform 
forming units per 100 milliliters and contain no more than 150 
milligrams per liter of suspended solids.
    (h) Additional standards applicable to discharges from graywater 
systems when a vessel is operating in federally-protected waters are 
contained in Sec.  139.40(h).


Sec.  139.22  Hulls and associated niche areas.

    (a) Applicability. The requirements in paragraphs (b) through (d) 
of this section apply to the discharge of anti-fouling coatings, 
biofouling organisms, and other materials from vessel hull and niche 
areas.
    (b) Transport and passive discharge. The transport of attached 
living organisms and passive discharge of biofouling must be minimized 
when traveling into U.S. waters from outside the EEZ or between COTP 
Zones. Management measures to minimize the transport of attached living 
organisms and the passive discharge of biofouling are described in 
paragraphs (c) and (d) of this section.
    (c) Anti-fouling coatings. (1) Anti-fouling coatings applied to the 
vessel must be specific to the operational profile of the vessel and 
the equipment to which it is applied, including, for biocidal coatings, 
having appropriate biocide release rates and components that are 
biodegradable once separated from the vessel surface.
    (2) Anti-fouling coatings must be applied, maintained, and 
reapplied consistent with manufacturer specifications, including but 
not limited to the thickness, the method of application, and the 
lifespan of the coating.
    (3) Anti-fouling coatings must not contain tributyltin (TBT) or any 
other organotin compound used as a biocide.
    (i) Any vessel hull previously covered with an anti-fouling coating 
containing TBT (whether or not used as a biocide) or any other 
organotin compound (if used as a biocide) must:
    (A) Maintain an effective overcoat that forms a barrier so that no 
TBT or other

[[Page 82142]]

organotin leaches from the underlying anti-fouling coating; or
    (B) Remove any TBT or other organotin compound from the vessel 
hull.
    (4) When an organotin compound other than TBT is used as a catalyst 
in the anti-fouling coating (e.g., dibutyltin), the anti-fouling 
coating must:
    (i) Contain less than 2,500 mg total tin per kilogram of dry paint; 
and
    (ii) Not be designed to slough or otherwise peel from the vessel 
hull, noting that incidental amounts of anti-fouling coating discharged 
by abrasion during cleaning or after contact with other hard surfaces 
(e.g., moorings) are acceptable.
    (5) Anti-fouling coatings must not contain cybutryne.
    (i) Any vessel that has previously applied an anti-fouling coating 
that contains cybutryne in the external coating layer of their hulls or 
external parts or surfaces must:
    (A) Apply and maintain an effective overcoat that forms a barrier 
so that no cybutryne leaches from the underlying anti-fouling coating, 
noting that incidental amounts of anti-fouling coating discharged by 
abrasion during cleaning or after contact with other hard surfaces 
(e.g., moorings) are acceptable; or
    (B) Remove any cybutryne coating.
    (6) As appropriate based on vessel class and operations, 
alternatives to copper-based anti-fouling coatings (e.g., non-biocidal 
anti-fouling coatings) or coating with lower biocidal release rates 
must be considered for vessels spending 30 or more days per year in a 
copper-impaired waterbody or using these waters as their home port.
    (d) Cleaning. (1) Cleanings should take place in drydock when 
practicable.
    (2) Hulls and niche areas must be managed to minimize biofouling 
such as through preventative cleaning of microfouling.
    (3) Hull and niche area cleanings must minimize damage to the anti-
fouling coating, minimize release of biocides, and follow applicable 
cleaning requirements found on the coating manufacturers' instructions 
and any applicable FIFRA label.
    (4) Any discharge from in-water cleaning without capture of 
macrofouling is prohibited.
    (5) Any discharge from in-water cleaning without capture of any 
copper-based hull coating in a copper-impaired water body within the 
first 365 days after application of that coating is prohibited.
    (6) In-water cleaning must not be conducted on any section of an 
anti-fouling coating that shows excessive cleaning actions (e.g., brush 
marks) or blistering due to the internal failure of the paint system.
    (7) Any soap, cleaner, or detergent used on vessel surfaces, 
including but not limited to a scum line of the hull, must be minimally 
toxic, phosphate-free, and biodegradable.
    (8) Additional standards applicable to discharges from hulls and 
associated niche areas when a vessel is operating in federally-
protected waters are contained in Sec.  139.40(i).


Sec.  139.23  Inert gas systems.

    There are no additional discharge-specific requirements that apply 
to the discharge of washwater from an inert gas system and deck seal 
water when used as an integral part of that system.


Sec.  139.24  Motor gasoline and compensating systems.

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


Sec.  139.25  Non-oily machinery.

    (a) The requirements in paragraph (b) of this section apply to 
discharges from machinery that contains no oil, including but not 
limited to discharges from the operation of desalination systems, water 
chillers, valve packings, water piping, low- and high-pressure air 
compressors, propulsion engine jacket coolers, fire pumps, and seawater 
and potable water pumps.
    (b) The discharge of untreated non-oily machinery wastewater and 
packing gland or stuffing box effluent containing toxic or 
bioaccumulative additives, or the discharge of oil in such quantities 
as may be harmful, is prohibited.


Sec.  139.26  Pools and spas.

    (a) The requirements in paragraphs (b) and (c) of this section 
apply to discharges from pools and spas.
    (b) Except for unintentional or inadvertent releases from overflows 
across the decks and into overboard drains caused by, but not limited 
to, weather, vessel traffic, marine wildlife avoidance or navigational 
maneuvering, discharge of pool and spa water must:
    (1) Occur only while the vessel is underway, unless determined to 
be infeasible; and
    (2) Meet the following numeric discharge standard:
    (i) For chlorine disinfection: total residual chlorine less than 
100 [micro]g/L; and
    (ii) For bromine disinfection: total residual oxidant less than 25 
[micro]g/L.
    (c) Additional standards applicable to discharges from pools and 
spas when a vessel is operating in federally-protected waters are 
contained in Sec.  139.40(k).


Sec.  139.27  Refrigeration and air conditioning.

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


Sec.  139.28  Seawater piping.

    (a) The requirements in paragraphs (b) through (d) of this section 
apply to discharges from seawater piping systems, including while a 
vessel is in port or in layup.
    (b) Seawater piping systems must be inspected, maintained, and 
cleaned as necessary to minimize the accumulation and discharge of 
biofouling organisms.
    (c) Seawater piping systems that accumulate macrofouling must be 
fitted with a Marine Growth Prevention System (MGPS).
    (1) An MGPS must be selected to address:
    (i) The level, frequency, and type of expected biofouling; and
    (ii) The design, location, and area in which the system will be 
used.
    (2) An MGPS must include one, or some combination of the following:
    (i) Chemical injection;
    (ii) Electrolysis, ultrasound, ultraviolet radiation, or 
electrochlorination;
    (iii) Application of an antifouling coating;
    (iv) Use of cupro-nickel piping; or
    (v) Use of glass-reinforced/filament-wound epoxy-based composite 
piping.
    (3) Upon identification of macrofouling in a seawater piping 
system, reactive measures to manage the macrofouling must be used. 
Discharges resulting from reactive measures to remove macrofouling are 
prohibited in port.
    (d) Additional standards applicable to discharges from seawater 
piping systems when a vessel is operating in federally-protected waters 
are contained in Sec.  139.40(l).


Sec.  139.29  Sonar domes.

    (a) The requirements in paragraphs (b) and (c) of this section 
apply to discharges from sonar domes.

[[Page 82143]]

    (b) The discharge of water from inside the sonar dome is prohibited 
during maintenance or repair.
    (c) Any discharge from the use of bioaccumulative biocides on the 
exterior of the sonar dome is prohibited when non-bioaccumulative 
alternatives are available.

Subpart D--Special Area Requirements


Sec.  139.40  Federally-protected waters.

    (a) Applicability. The requirements in paragraphs (b) through (l) 
of this section are in addition to applicable standards in subparts B 
and C of this part and apply when a vessel is operating in federally-
protected waters.
    (b) Ballast tanks. The discharge or uptake of ballast water in 
federally-protected waters must be avoided except for vessels:
    (1) Operating within the boundaries of any national marine 
sanctuary that preserves shipwrecks or maritime heritage in the Great 
Lakes, unless the designation documents for such sanctuary do not allow 
taking up or discharging ballast water in such sanctuary, pursuant to 
16 U.S.C. 1431 note (Pub. L. 113-281, title VI, Sec.  610, Dec. 18, 
2014, 128 Stat. 3064, as amended by Pub. L. 114-120, title VI, Sec.  
602(1), Feb. 8, 2016, 130 Stat. 79); or
    (2) That operate solely within federally-protected waters and take 
on and discharge ballast water exclusively in the contiguous portions 
of a single COTP Zone.
    (c) Bilges. For any vessel of 400 GT and above, the discharge of 
bilgewater into federally-protected waters is prohibited.
    (d) Boilers. The discharge of boiler blowdown into federally-
protected waters is prohibited.
    (e) Chain lockers. The discharge of accumulated water and sediment 
from any chain locker into federally-protected waters is prohibited.
    (f) Decks. The discharge of deck washdown into federally-protected 
waters is prohibited except for those vessels operating exclusively 
within these protected waters provided the discharge is in compliance 
with all other requirements in Sec.  139.15.
    (g) Fire protection equipment. The discharge from fire protection 
equipment into federally-protected water is prohibited except to comply 
with USCG fire drill requirements or anchor and anchor chain 
requirements in Sec.  139.14. When USCG fire drills are conducted, the 
discharge of any firefighting foam into federally-protected waters is 
prohibited except by any vessel owned or under contract with the United 
States, State, or local government to do business exclusively in any 
federally-protected waters.
    (h) Graywater systems. The discharge of graywater into federally-
protected waters from any vessel with remaining available graywater 
storage capacity is prohibited.
    (i) Hulls and associated niche areas. The discharge from in-water 
cleaning of vessel hulls and niche areas into federally-protected 
waters is prohibited except by any vessel owned or under contract with 
the United States, State, or local government to do business 
exclusively in any federally-protected waters.
    (j) Motor gasoline and compensating systems. The discharge of motor 
gasoline and compensating discharges into federally-protected waters is 
prohibited.
    (k) Pools and spas. The discharge of pool or spa water into 
federally-protected waters is prohibited.
    (l) Seawater piping systems. The discharge of chemical dosing, as 
described in Sec.  139.28, into federally-protected waters is 
prohibited.

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


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

    (a) The Governor of a State (or a designee) may submit a petition 
to the Administrator:
    (1) To issue an emergency order under CWA section 312(p)(4)(E); or
    (2) To review any standard of performance, regulation, or policy 
promulgated by the Administrator under CWA section 312(p)(4) or (6), if 
there exists new information that could reasonably result in a change 
to:
    (i) The standard of performance, regulation, or policy; or
    (ii) A determination on which the standard of performance, 
regulation, or policy was based.
    (b) A petition under paragraph (a) of this section shall be signed 
by the Governor (or a designee) and must include:
    (1) The purpose of the petition (request for emergency order or a 
review of a standard, regulation, or policy);
    (2) Any applicable scientific or technical information that forms 
the basis of the petition;
    (3) The direct and indirect benefits if the requested petition were 
to be granted by the Administrator; and
    (4) For a petition under paragraph (a)(2) of this section, the 
costs to the affected classes, types, and/or sizes of vessels if the 
requested petition were to be granted by the Administrator.
    (c) The Administrator shall grant or deny:
    (1) A petition under paragraph (a)(1) of this section by not later 
than the date that is 180 days after the date on which the petition is 
submitted; and
    (2) A petition under paragraph (a)(2) of this section by not later 
than the date that is one year after the date on which the petition is 
submitted.
    (d) If the Administrator determines to grant a petition:
    (1) In the case of a petition under paragraph (a)(1) of this 
section, the Administrator shall immediately issue the relevant 
emergency order under CWA section 312(p)(4)(E); or
    (2) In the case of a petition under paragraph (a)(2) of this 
section, the Administrator shall sign a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking 
for publication in the Federal Register to revise the relevant 
standard, requirement, regulation, or policy under CWA section 
312(p)(4) or (6), as applicable, as soon as possible and not later than 
30 days after the date of the determination.
    (e) If the Administrator determines to deny a petition, the 
Administrator shall sign a notice of the determination for publication 
in the Federal Register that includes a detailed explanation of the 
scientific, technical, or operational factors that form the basis of 
the determination, as soon as possible and not later than 30 days after 
the date of the determination.


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

    (a) The Governors endorsing a proposed standard or requirement 
under CWA section 312(p)(10)(B)(ii)(III)(bb) may jointly submit to the 
Administrator and the Secretary for approval each proposed standard of 
performance or other requirement developed and endorsed pursuant to CWA 
section 312(p)(10)(B)(ii) with respect to any discharge that is subject 
to regulation under this part and occurs within the Great Lakes System.
    (b) A petition under paragraph (a) of this section must include:
    (1) An explanation regarding why the applicable standard of 
performance or other requirement is at least as stringent as a 
comparable standard of performance or other requirement under this 
part;
    (2) An explanation regarding why the standard of performance or 
other requirement is in accordance with maritime safety; and
    (3) An explanation regarding why the standard of performance or 
other

[[Page 82144]]

requirement is in accordance with applicable maritime and navigation 
laws and regulations.
    (c) On receipt of a proposed standard of performance or other 
requirement under paragraph (b) of this section, the Administrator and 
the Secretary shall sign and transmit to the Office of Federal Register 
for publication a joint notice that, at minimum:
    (1) States that the proposed standard or requirement is publicly 
available; and
    (2) Provides an opportunity for public comment regarding the 
proposed standard or requirement during the 90-day period beginning on 
the date of receipt by the Administrator of the proposed standard or 
requirement.
    (d) The Administrator shall commence a review of each proposed 
standard of performance or other requirement covered by the notice to 
determine whether that standard or requirement is at least as stringent 
as comparable standards and requirements under this part.
    (e) In carrying out paragraph (d) of this section, the 
Administrator:
    (1) Shall consult with the Secretary,
    (2) Shall consult with the Governor of each Great Lakes State and 
representatives from the Federal and provincial governments of Canada;
    (3) Shall take into consideration any relevant data or public 
comments received under paragraph (c)(2) of this section; and
    (4) Shall not take into consideration any preliminary assessment by 
the Great Lakes Commission or any dissenting opinion by a Governor of a 
Great Lakes State, except to the extent that such an assessment or 
opinion is relevant to the criteria for the applicable determination 
under paragraph (d) of this section.
    (f) If a Governor of a Great Lakes State withdraws the endorsement 
by not later than 90 days after the Administrator receives the proposed 
standard or requirement, and the withdrawal results in the proposed 
standard or requirement not having the applicable number of 
endorsements, the Administrator shall terminate review.
    (g) Upon review and determination, the Administrator and the 
Secretary shall approve each proposed standard or other requirement, 
unless the Administrator determines that the proposed standard or other 
requirement is not at least as stringent as comparable standards and 
requirements under this part or the Secretary determines that the 
proposed standard or requirement is not in accordance with maritime 
safety or is not in accordance with applicable maritime and navigation 
laws and regulations.
    (h) If the Administrator and the Secretary approve a proposed 
standard or other requirement, the Administrator and the Secretary 
shall sign a notice of the determination and transmit the notice to the 
Governor of each Great Lakes State and to the Office of Federal 
Register for publication.
    (i) If the Administrator and the Secretary disapprove a proposed 
standard or other requirement, the Administrator and the Secretary 
shall sign a notice of the determination and transmit it to the 
Governor of each Great Lakes State and to the Office of Federal 
Register for publication. The notice must include:
    (1) A description of the reasons why the standard or requirement 
is, as applicable, less stringent than a comparable standard or 
requirement under this part, and
    (2) Any recommendations regarding changes the Governors of the 
Great Lakes states could make to conform the disapproved portion of the 
standard or requirement to the requirements of this section.
    (j) The Administrator and the Secretary shall make an approval or 
disapproval determination under this section and transmit a notice of 
such determination to the Governor of each Great Lakes State and the 
Office of Federal Register not later than 180 days after the date of 
receipt of the proposed standard or regulation.
    (k) On approval by the Administrator and the Secretary of a 
proposed standard of performance or other requirement, the 
Administrator shall establish, by regulation, the proposed standard or 
requirement within the Great Lakes System in lieu of any comparable 
standard or other requirement promulgated under CWA section 312(p)(4). 
A requirement to prohibit one or more types of discharge, whether 
treated or not treated, into waters within the Great Lakes System shall 
not apply outside the waters of the Great Lakes states of the Governors 
endorsing the requirement.


Sec.  139.52  Application by a State for the Administrator to establish 
a State no-discharge zone.

    (a) If any State determines that the protection and enhancement of 
the quality of some or all of the waters within the State require 
greater environmental protection, the Governor of a State (or a 
designee) may submit an application to the Administrator to establish a 
regulation prohibiting one or more discharges, whether treated or not 
treated, into such waters subject to the application.
    (b) A prohibition by the Administrator under paragraph (a) of this 
section shall not apply until the Administrator, in concurrence with 
the Secretary, reviews the State application and makes the applicable 
determinations described in paragraph (d) of this section and publishes 
a regulation establishing the prohibition.
    (c) An application submitted by the State under paragraph (a) of 
this section shall be signed by the Governor (or a designee) and must 
include:
    (1) A narrative explanation of the location of the proposed waters 
and a map delineating the boundaries of the requested prohibition using 
geographic coordinates;
    (2) A certification that a prohibition of the discharge(s) would 
protect and enhance the quality of the specific waters within the State 
to a greater extent than the applicable Federal standard provides;
    (3) A detailed analysis of the direct and indirect benefits of the 
requested prohibition for each individual discharge for which the State 
is seeking a prohibition;
    (4) A table identifying the types and number of vessels operating 
in the waterbody and a table identifying the types and number of 
vessels that would be subject to the prohibition;
    (5) A table identifying the location, operating schedule, draft 
requirements, pumpout capacity, pumpout flow rate, connections, and fee 
structure of each existing facility capable of servicing the vessels 
that would be subject to the prohibition and available to receive the 
prohibited discharge;
    (6) A description of the wastewater handling procedures of each 
facility identified in paragraph (c)(5) of this section, including 
information on how wastewater is stored, transported, treated, and/or 
disposed by each facility;
    (7) A map indicating the location of each stationary facility, and 
the coverage area of each mobile facility, identified in paragraph 
(c)(5) of this section within the proposed waters;
    (8) A detailed analysis of the impacts to vessels subject to the 
prohibition, including a discussion of how these vessels may feasibly 
collect and store the discharge, the extent to which retrofitting may 
be required, costs that are incurred as a result of the discharge 
prohibition, and any safety implications.
    (d) On application of a State, the Administrator, in concurrence 
with the Secretary, shall, by regulation, prohibit the discharge from a 
vessel of one or more discharges subject to regulation under this part, 
whether treated or not

[[Page 82145]]

treated, into the waters covered by the application if the 
Administrator determines that:
    (1) The prohibition of the discharge(s) would protect and enhance 
the quality of the specified waters within the State;
    (2) Adequate facilities for the safe and sanitary removal and 
treatment of the prohibited discharge(s) are reasonably available, 
including taking costs into consideration, for the water and all 
vessels to which the prohibition would apply. A determination of 
adequacy shall consider, at a minimum, water depth, dock size, pumpout 
facility capacity and flow rate, availability of year-round operations, 
proximity to navigation routes, the availability of operational changes 
as a means to reduce the discharge, and the ratio of pumpout facilities 
to the population and discharge capacity of vessels operating in those 
waters;
    (3) The discharge(s) can be safely collected and stored until a 
vessel reaches an appropriate facility or location for discharge;
    (4) In the case of an application for the prohibition of the 
discharge of ballast water in port (or in any other location where 
cargo, passengers, or fuel are loaded and unloaded):
    (i) The considerations for adequate facilities described in 
paragraph (d)(2) of this section apply; and
    (ii) The prohibition will not unreasonably interfere with the safe 
loading and unloading of cargo, passengers, or fuel.
    (e) The Administrator shall submit to the Secretary a request for 
written concurrence on a determination made to establish a prohibition.
    (1) A failure by the Secretary to concur with the Administrator 60 
days after the date on which the Administrator submits a request for 
concurrence shall not prevent the Administrator from prohibiting the 
discharge or discharges, subject to the condition that the 
Administrator shall include in the administrative record of the 
promulgation:
    (i) Documentation of the request for concurrence; and
    (ii) The response of the Administrator to any written objections 
received from the Secretary relating to the prohibition during the 60-
day period beginning on the date of the request for concurrence.
    (f) If the Administrator determines that an application meets the 
criteria in paragraph (c) of this section and approves the application, 
the Administrator shall notify the State of the tentative approval and 
develop a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking for transmittal to the Office 
of the Federal Register.

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

    The asterisk (``*'') modifier in appendix A to part 139 identifies 
those areas vessels subject to these Federal standards may be most 
likely to transit based on proximity to waters where these vessels may 
operate.

A.1 National Marine Sanctuaries

American Samoa National Marine Sanctuary *
Channel Islands National Marine Sanctuary *
Cordell Bank National Marine Sanctuary *
Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary *
Greater Farallones National Marine Sanctuary *
Hawaiian Islands Humpback Whale National Marine Sanctuary *
Monterey Bay National Marine Sanctuary *
Olympic Coast National Marine Sanctuary *
Stellwagen Bank National Marine Sanctuary *

A.2 Marine National Monuments

Mariana Trench Marine National Monument *
Northeast Canyons and Seamounts Marine National Monument *
Pacific Remote Islands Marine National Monument *
Papahanaumokuakea Marine National Monument *
Rose Atoll Marine National Monument

A.3 National Parks (National Reserves and Monuments)

Alabama

Birmingham Civil Rights National Monument
Freedom Riders National Monument
Horseshoe Bend National Military Park
Little River Canyon National Preserve
Muscle Shoals National Heritage Area
Natchez Trace National Scenic Trail *
Russell Cave National Monument
Selma to Montgomery National Historic Trail
Trail of Tears National Historic Trail
Tuskegee Airmen National Historic Site
Tuskegee Institute National Historic Site

Alaska

Aleutian World War II National Historic Area
Aniakchak National Monument and Preserve *
Bering Land Bridge National Preserve *
Cape Krusenstern National Monument *
Chilkoot National Historic Trail
Denali National Park and Preserve
Gates of the Arctic National Park and Preserve *
Glacier Bay National Park and Preserve *
Iditarod National Historic Trail
Inupiat Heritage Center
Katmai National Park and Preserve *
Kenai Fjords National Park *
Kenai Mountains-Turnagain Arm National Heritage Area
Klondike Gold Rush National Historical Park *
Kobuk Valley National Park *
Lake Clark National Park and Preserve *
Noatak National Preserve *
Sitka National Historical Park *
Wrangell-St. Elias National Park and Preserve *
Yukon-Charley Rivers National Preserve *

American Samoa

National Park of American Samoa *

Arizona

Arizona National Scenic Trail
Butterfield Overland National Historic Trail
Canyon de Chelly National Monument
Casa Grande Ruins National Monument
Chiricahua National Monument
Coronado National Memorial
Fort Bowie National Historic Site
Glen Canyon National Recreation Area
Grand Canyon-Parashant National Monument
Grand Canyon National Park
Hohokam Pima National Monument
Hubbell Trading Post National Historic Site
Lake Mead National Recreation Area
Montezuma Castle National Monument
Navajo National Monument
Old Spanish National Historic Trail
Organ Pipe Cactus National Monument
Petrified Forest National Park
Pipe Spring National Monument
Saguaro National Park
Santa Cruz Valley National Heritage Area
Sunset Crater Volcano National Monument
Tonto National Monument
Tumacacori National Historical Park
Tuzigoot National Monument
Walnut Canyon National Monument
Wupatki National Monument
Yuma Crossing National Heritage Area

Arkansas

Arkansas Post National Memorial *
Buffalo National River *
Butterfield Overland National Historic Trail
Charleston National Commemorative Site
Fort Smith National Historic Site *
Hot Springs National Park
Little Rock Central High School National Historic Site
Mississippi Delta National Heritage Area
Pea Ridge National Military Park
President William Jefferson Clinton Birthplace Home National 
Historic Site
Trail of Tears National Historic Trail

California

Butterfield Overland National Historic Trail
Cabrillo National Monument *
California National Historic Trail
Castle Mountains National Monument
Cesar E. Chavez National Monument
Channel Islands National Park *
Death Valley National Park
Devils Postpile National Monument
Eugene O'Neill National Historic Site
Fort Point National Historic Site *
Golden Gate National Recreation Area *
John Muir National Historic Site
Joshua Tree National Park
Juan Bautista de Anza National Historic Trail
Kings Canyon National Park
Lassen Volcanic National Park
Lava Beds National Monument
Manzanar National Historic Site
Mojave National Preserve
Muir Woods National Monument
Old Spanish National Historic Trail
Pacific Crest National Scenic Trail
Pinnacles National Park

[[Page 82146]]

Point Reyes National Seashore *
Pony Express National Historic Trail
Port Chicago Naval Magazine National Memorial *
Redwood National Park *
Roosevelt Campobello International Park
Rosie the Riveter/World War II Home Front National Historical Park *
Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta National Heritage Area
San Francisco Maritime National Historical Park *
Santa Monica Mountains National Recreation Area *
Sequoia National Park
Tule Lake National Monument
Whiskeytown-Shasta-Trinity National Recreation Area
Yosemite National Park

Colorado

Amache National Historic Site
Bent's Old Fort National Historic Site
Black Canyon of the Gunnison National Park
Cache La Poudre River National Heritage Area
California National Historic Trail
Colorado National Monument
Continental Divide National Scenic Trail
Curecanti National Recreation Area
Dinosaur National Monument
Florissant Fossil Beds National Monument
Great Sand Dunes National Park and Preserve
Hovenweep National Monument
Mesa Verde National Park
Old Spanish National Historic Trail
Pony Express National Historic Trail
Rocky Mountain National Park
Sand Creek Massacre National Historic Site
Sangre de Cristo National Heritage Area
Santa Fe National Historic Trail
South Park National Heritage Area
Yucca House National Monument

Connecticut

Appalachian National Scenic Trail *
Coltsville National Historical Park
New England National Scenic Trail
The Last Green Valley National Heritage Corridor
Upper Housantonic Valley National Heritage Area
Washington-Rochambeau Revolutionary Route National Historic Trail
Weir Farm National Historical Park

Delaware

    Captain John Smith Chesapeake National Historic Trail
    First State National Historical Park *
    Washington-Rochambeau Revolutionary Route National Historic 
Trail

District of Columbia

Adams Memorial
Belmont-Paul Women's Equality National Monument
Captain John Smith Chesapeake National Historic Trail
Carter G. Woodson Home National Historic Site
Chesapeake and Ohio Canal National Historical Park *
Constitution Gardens
Desert Storm/Desert Shield Memorial
Dwight D. Eisenhower Memorial
Ford's Theatre National Historic Site
Franklin Delano Roosevelt Memorial *
Frederick Douglass National Historic Site
George Washington Memorial Parkway
Global War on Terrorism Memorial
Korean War Veterans Memorial *
Lincoln Memorial *
Lyndon Baines Johnson Memorial Grove on the Potomac *
Martin Luther King Jr. Memorial *
Mary McLeod Bethune Council House National Historic Site
National Capital Parks--East *
National Mall and Memorial Parks
Pennsylvania Avenue National Historic Site
Potomac Heritage National Scenic Trail
Rock Creek Park
Star-Spangled Banner National Historic Trail
The White House and President's Park
Theodore Roosevelt Island *
Thomas Jefferson Memorial *
Vietnam Veterans Memorial
Washington-Rochambeau Revolutionary Route National Historic Trail
Washington Monument *
World War I Memorial
World War II Memorial *

Florida

Big Cypress National Preserve *
Biscayne National Park *
Canaveral National Seashore *
Castillo de San Marcos National Monument *
De Soto National Memorial *
Dry Tortugas National Park *
Everglades National Park *
Florida National Scenic Trail
Fort Caroline National Memorial *
Fort Matanzas National Monument *
Gulf Islands National Seashore *
Gullah/Geechee Cultural Heritage Corridor
Timucuan Ecological and Historic Preserve *

Georgia

Andersonville National Historic Site
Appalachian National Scenic Trail
Arabia Mountain National Heritage Area
Augusta Canal National Heritage Area
Chattahoochee River National Recreation Area
Chickamauga and Chattanooga National Military Park *
Cumberland Island National Seashore *
Fort Frederica National Monument *
Fort Pulaski National Monument *
Gullah/Geechee Cultural Heritage Corridor
Jimmy Carter National Historical Park
Kennesaw Mountain National Battlefield Park
Kettle Creek Battlefield
Martin Luther King Jr. National Historical Park
Ocmulgee Mounds National Historical Park *
Trail of Tears National Historic Trail

Guam

War in the Pacific National Historical Park *

Hawaii

Ala Kahakai National Historic Trail
Haleakala National Park *
Hawai`i Volcanoes National Park *
Honouliuli National Historic Site
Kalaupapa National Historical Park *
Kaloko-Honokhau National Historical Park *
Pearl Harbor National Memorial *
Pu`uhonua o Honaunau National Historical Park *
Pu`ukohola Heiau National Historic Site *

Idaho

California National Historic Trail
City of Rocks National Reserve
Continental Divide National Scenic Trail
Craters of the Moon National Monument and Preserve
Hagerman Fossil Beds National Monument
Lewis and Clark National Historic Trail
Minidoka National Historic Site *
Nez Perce (Nee-Me-Poo) National Historic Trail
Nez Perce National Historical Park
Oregon National Historic Trail
Pacific Northwest National Scenic Trail
Yellowstone National Park

Illinois

Abraham Lincoln National Heritage Area
Chicago Portage National Historic Site
Emmett Till and Mamie Till-Mobley National Monument
Gateway Arch National Park *
Illinois and Michigan Canal National Heritage Corridor
Lewis and Clark National Historic Trail *
Lincoln Home National Historic Site
Mormon Pioneer National Historic Trail
New Philadelphia National Historic Site
Pullman National Historical Park
Ronald Reagan Boyhood Home National Historic Site
Trail of Tears National Historic Trail

Indiana

George Rogers Clark National Historical Park
Indiana Dunes National Park *
Kennedy-King National Commemorative Site
Lewis and Clark National Historic Trail
Lincoln Boyhood National Memorial

Iowa

America's Agricultural Heritage Partnership (Silos and Smokestacks 
National Heritage Area)
Effigy Mounds National Monument *
Herbert Hoover National Historic Site
Lewis and Clark National Historic Trail
Mormon Pioneer National Historic Trail

Kansas

Brown v. Board of Education National Historical Park
California National Historic Trail
Fort Larned National Historic Site
Fort Scott National Historic Site
Freedom's Frontier National Heritage Area
Lewis and Clark National Historic Trail
Nicodemus National Historic Site
Oregon National Historic Trail
Pony Express National Historic Trail
Quindaro Townsite
Santa Fe National Historic Trail
Tallgrass Prairie National Preserve

Kentucky

Abraham Lincoln Birthplace National Historical Park
Big South Fork National River and Recreation Area
Camp Nelson National Monument *
Cumberland Gap National Historical Park
Fort Donelson National Battlefield *
Lewis and Clark National Historic Trail
Mammoth Cave National Park *
Mill Springs Battlefield National Monument *

[[Page 82147]]

Trail of Tears National Historic Trail

Louisiana

Atchafalaya National Heritage Area
Cane River Creole National Historical Park
Cane River National Heritage Area
El Camino Real de los Tejas National Historic Trail
Jean Lafitte National Historical Park and Preserve *
Mississippi Delta National Heritage Area
New Orleans Jazz National Historical Park
Poverty Point National Monument
Vicksburg National Military Park *

Maine

Acadia National Park *
Appalachian National Scenic Trail
Katahdin Woods and Waters National Monument
Saint Croix Island International Historic Site

Maryland

Antietam National Battlefield
Appalachian Forest National Heritage Area
Appalachian National Scenic Trail
Assateague Island National Seashore *
Baltimore National Heritage Area
Captain John Smith Chesapeake National Historic Trail
Catoctin Mountain Park
Chesapeake and Ohio Canal National Historical Park
Clara Barton National Historic Site
Fort McHenry National Monument and Historic Shrine *
Fort Washington Park *
George Washington Memorial Parkway *
Greenbelt Park
Hampton National Historic Site
Harpers Ferry National Historical Park
Harriet Tubman Underground Railroad National Historical Park
Journey Through Hallowed Ground National Heritage Area
Monocacy National Battlefield
National Capital Parks--East *
Piscataway Park *
Potomac Heritage National Scenic Trail
Star-Spangled Banner National Historic Trail
Thomas Stone National Historic Site
Washington-Rochambeau Revolutionary Route National Historic Trail

Massachusetts

Adams National Historical Park
Appalachian National Scenic Trail
Boston African American National Historic Site *
Boston Harbor Islands National Recreation Area *
Boston National Historical Park *
Cape Cod National Seashore *
Essex National Heritage Area
Frederick Law Olmsted National Historic Site
Freedom's Way National Heritage Area
John Fitzgerald Kennedy National Historic Site
John H. Chafee Blackstone River Valley National Heritage Corridor
Longfellow--Washington's Headquarters National Historic Site
Lowell National Historical Park
Minute Man National Historical Park
New Bedford Whaling National Historical Park *
New England National Scenic Trail
Salem Maritime National Historic Site *
Saugus Iron Works National Historic Site *
Springfield Armory National Historic Site
The Last Green Valley National Heritage Corridor
Upper Housantonic Valley National Heritage Area
Washington-Rochambeau Revolutionary Route National Historic Trail

Michigan

Father Marquette National Memorial
Isle Royale National Park *
Keweenaw National Historical Park *
MotorCities National Heritage Area
North Country National Scenic Trail
Pictured Rocks National Lakeshore *
River Raisin National Battlefield Park *
Sleeping Bear Dunes National Lakeshore *

Minnesota

Grand Portage National Monument *
Mississippi National River and Recreation Areas *
North Country National Scenic Trail
Pipestone National Monument
Saint Croix National Scenic Riverway
Voyageurs National Park *

Mississippi

Brices Cross Roads National Battlefield Site
Emmett Till and Mamie Till-Mobley National Monument
Gulf Islands National Seashore
Medgar and Myrlie Evers Home National Monument
Mississippi Delta National Heritage Area
Mississippi Gulf Coast National Heritage Area
Mississippi Hills National Heritage Area
Natchez National Historical Park *
Natchez Trace National Scenic Trail
Natchez Trace Parkway
Tupelo National Battlefield
Vicksburg National Military Park

Missouri

Butterfield Overland National Historic Trail
California National Historic Trail
Freedom's Frontier National Heritage Area
Gateway Arch National Park
George Washington Carver National Monument
Harry S Truman National Historic Site
Lewis and Clark National Historic Trail
Oregon National Historic Trail
Ozark National Scenic Riverways
Pony Express National Historic Trail
Santa Fe National Historic Trail
Ste. Genevieve National Historical Park
Trail of Tears National Historic Trail
Ulysses S. Grant National Historic Site
Wilson's Creek National Battlefield

Montana

Big Hole National Battlefield
Bighorn Canyon National Recreation Area
Continental Divide National Scenic Trail
Fort Union Trading Post National Historic Site
Glacier National Park
Grant-Kohrs Ranch National Historic Site
Lewis and Clark National Historic Trail
Little Bighorn Battlefield National Monument
Nez Perce (Nee-Me-Poo) National Historic Trail
Nez Perce National Historical Park
Pacific Northwest National Scenic Trail
Yellowstone National Park

Nebraska

Agate Fossil Beds National Monument
California National Historic Trail
Chimney Rock National Historic Site
Homestead National Historical Park
Lewis and Clark National Historic Trail
Missouri National Recreational River *
Mormon Pioneer National Historic Trail
Niobrara National Scenic River
Oregon National Historic Trail
Pony Express National Historic Trail
Scotts Bluff National Monument

Nevada

California National Historic Trail
Death Valley National Park
Great Basin National Heritage Route
Great Basin National Park
Lake Mead National Recreation Area
Old Spanish National Historic Trail
Pony Express National Historic Trail
Tule Springs Fossil Beds National Monument

New Hampshire

Appalachian National Scenic Trail
Freedom's Way National Heritage Area
Saint-Gaudens National Historical Park

New Jersey

Appalachian National Scenic Trail
Crossroads of the American Revolution National Heritage Area
Delaware Water Gap National Recreation Area
Gateway National Recreation Area *
Great Egg Harbor National Scenic and Recreational River
Middle Delaware National Scenic River
Morristown National Historical Park
Paterson Great Falls National Historical Park
Pinelands National Reserve
Statue of Liberty National Monument *
Thomas Edison National Historical Park
Washington-Rochambeau Revolutionary Route National Historic Trail

New Mexico

Aztec Ruins National Monument
Bandelier National Monument
Butterfield Overland National Historic Trail
Capulin Volcano National Monument
Carlsbad Caverns National Park
Chaco Culture National Historical Park
Continental Divide National Scenic Trail
El Camino de Tierra Adentro National Historic Trail
El Malpais National Monument
El Morro National Monument
Fort Union National Monument
Gila Cliff Dwellings National Monument
Manhattan Project National Historical Park
Northern Rio Grande National Heritage Area
Old Spanish National Historic Trail
Pecos National Historical Park
Petroglyph National Monument
Salinas Pueblo Missions National Monument
Santa Fe National Historic Trail
Valles Caldera National Preserve
White Sands National Park

New York

African Burial Ground National Monument
Appalachian National Scenic Trail
Captain John Smith Chesapeake National Historic Trail

[[Page 82148]]

Castle Clinton National Monument *
Champlain Valley National Heritage Partnership
Eleanor Roosevelt National Historic Site
Erie Canalway National Heritage Corridor
Federal Hall National Memorial
Fire Island National Seashore *
Fort Stanwix National Monument
Gateway National Recreation Area *
General Grant National Memorial
Governors Island National Monument *
Hamilton Grange National Memorial
Harriet Tubman National Historical Park
Home of Franklin D. Roosevelt National Historic Site *
Kate Mullany National Historic Site
Lower East Side Tenement National Historic Site
Martin Van Buren National Historic Site
Maurice D. Hinchey Hudson River National Heritage Area
Middle Delaware National Scenic River
Niagara Falls National Heritage Area
North Country National Scenic Trail
Sagamore Hill National Historic Site *
Saint Paul's Church National Historic Site
Saratoga National Historical Park *
Statue of Liberty National Monument *
Stonewall National Monument
Theodore Roosevelt Birthplace National Historic Site
Theodore Roosevelt Inaugural National Historic Site
Thomas Cole National Historic Site
Upper Delaware Scenic and Recreational River
Vanderbilt Mansion National Historic Site *
Washington-Rochambeau Revolutionary Route National Historic Trail
Women's Rights National Historical Park *

North Carolina

Appalachian National Scenic Trail
Blue Ridge National Heritage Area
Blue Ridge Parkway
Cape Hatteras National Seashore *
Cape Lookout National Seashore *
Carl Sandburg Home National Historic Site
Fort Raleigh National Historic Site *
Great Smoky Mountains National Park
Guilford Courthouse National Military Park
Gullah/Geechee Cultural Heritage Corridor
Moores Creek National Battlefield
Overmountain Victory National Historic Trail
Trail of Tears National Historic Trail
Wright Brothers National Memorial

North Dakota

Fort Union Trading Post National Historic Site
International Peace Garden
Knife River Indian Villages National Historic Site
Lewis and Clark National Historic Trail
North Country National Scenic Trail
Northern Plains National Heritage Area
Theodore Roosevelt National Park

Northern Mariana Islands

American Memorial Park *

Ohio

Charles Young Buffalo Soldiers National Monument
Cuyahoga Valley National Park
Dayton Aviation Heritage National Historical Park
Fallen Timbers Battlefield and Fort Miamis National Historic Site
First Ladies National Historic Site
Hopewell Culture National Historical Park
James A. Garfield National Historic Site
Lewis and Clark National Historic Trail
National Aviation National Heritage Area
North Country National Scenic Trail
Ohio and Erie National Heritage Canalway
Perry's Victory and International Peace Memorial *
William Howard Taft National Historic Site

Oklahoma

Butterfield Overland National Historic Trail
Chickasaw National Recreation Area
Fort Smith National Historic Site
Oklahoma City National Memorial
Santa Fe National Historic Trail
Trail of Tears National Historic Trail
Washita Battlefield National Historic Site

Oregon

California National Historic Trail
Crater Lake National Park
John Day Fossil Beds National Monument
Lewis and Clark National Historic Trail
Lewis and Clark National Historical Park *
Nez Perce (Nee-Me-Poo) National Historic Trail
Nez Perce National Historical Park
Oregon Caves National Monument and Preserve
Oregon National Historic Trail
Pacific Crest National Scenic Trail

Pennsylvania

Allegheny Portage Railroad National Historic Site
Appalachian National Scenic Trail
Benjamin Franklin National Memorial
Captain John Smith Chesapeake National Historic Trail
Delaware and Lehigh National Heritage Corridor
Delaware Water Gap National Recreation Area
Edgar Allan Poe National Historic Site
Eisenhower National Historic Site
Flight 93 National Memorial
Fort Necessity National Battlefield
Friendship Hill National Historic Site *
Gettysburg National Military Park
Gloria Dei (Old Swedes') Church National Historic Site
Hopewell Furnace National Historic Site
Independence National Historical Park *
Johnstown Flood National Memorial
Journey Through Hallowed Ground National Heritage Area
Lackawanna Valley National Heritage Area
Lewis and Clark National Historic Trail
Middle Delaware National Scenic River
North Country National Scenic Trail
Oil Region National Heritage Area
Potomac Heritage National Scenic Trail
Rivers of Steel National Heritage Area
Schuylkill River Valley National Heritage Area
Southwestern Pennsylvania Industrial Heritage Route (Paths of 
Progress National Heritage Route)
Steamtown National Historic Site
Susquehanna National Heritage Area
Thaddeus Kosciuszko National Memorial
Upper Delaware Scenic and Recreational River
Valley Forge National Historical Park
Washington-Rochambeau Revolutionary Route National Historic Trail

Puerto Rico

San Juan National Historic Site *

Rhode Island

Blackstone River Valley National Historical Park
John H. Chafee Blackstone River Valley National Heritage Corridor
Roger Williams National Memorial
Touro Synagogue National Historic Site
Washington-Rochambeau Revolutionary Route National Historic Trail

South Carolina

Charles Pinckney National Historic Site
Congaree National Park *
Cowpens National Battlefield
Eutaw Springs Battlefield
Fort Sumter and Fort Moultrie National Historical Park *
Gullah/Geechee Cultural Heritage Co
Historic Camden Revolutionary War Site
Kings Mountain National Military Park
Ninety Six National Historic Site
Overmountain Victory National Historic Trail
Reconstruction Era National Historical Park *
South Carolina National Heritage Corridor

South Dakota

Badlands National Park
Jewel Cave National Monument
Lewis and Clark National Historic Trail
Minuteman Missile National Historic Site
Missouri National Recreational River
Mount Rushmore National Memorial
Wind Cave National Park

Tennessee

Andrew Johnson National Historic Site
Appalachian National Scenic Trail
Big South Fork National River and Recreation Area
Chickamauga and Chattanooga National Military Park
Cumberland Gap National Historical Park
Fort Donelson National Battlefield
Great Smoky Mountains National Park
Manhattan Project National Historical Park *
Natchez Trace National Scenic Trail
Overmountain Victory National Historic Trail
Parkers Crossroads Battlefield
Shiloh National Military Park *
Stones River National Battlefield
Tennessee Civil War National Heritage Area
Trail of Tears National Historic Trail

Texas

Alibates Flint Quarries National Monument
Amistad National Recreation Area *
Big Bend National Park
Big Thicket National Preserve
Blackwell School National Historic Site
Butterfield Overland National Historic Trail
Chamizal National Memorial
El Camino de Tierra Adentro National Historic Trail
El Camino Real de los Tejas National Historic Trail
Fort Davis National Historic Site
Guadalupe Mountains National Park
Lake Meredith National Recreation Area
Lyndon B. Johnson National Historical Park
Padre Island National Seashore *

[[Page 82149]]

Palo Alto Battlefield National Historical Park
Rio Grande Wild and Scenic River
San Antonio Missions National Historical Park
Waco Mammoth National Monument

Utah

Arches National Park
Bryce Canyon National Park
California National Historic Trail
Canyonlands National Park
Capitol Reef National Park
Cedar Breaks National Monument
Dinosaur National Monument
Glen Canyon National Recreation Area
Golden Spike National Historical Park
Great Basin National Heritage Route
Hovenweep National Monument
Mormon Pioneer National Heritage Area
Mormon Pioneer National Historic Trail
Natural Bridges National Monument
Old Spanish National Historic Trail
Pony Express National Historic Trail
Rainbow Bridge National Monument
Timpanogos Cave National Monument
Zion National Park

Vermont

Appalachian National Scenic Trail
Champlain Valley National Heritage Partnership
Marsh-Billings-Rockefeller National Historical Park
North Country National Scenic Trail

Virgin Islands

Buck Island Reef National Monument *
Christiansted National Historic Site *
Salt River Bay National Historical Park and Ecological Preserve *
Virgin Islands Coral Reef National Monument *
Virgin Islands National Park *

Virginia

Appalachian National Scenic Trail
Appomattox Court House National Historical Park
Arlington House, The Robert E. Lee Memorial
Assateague Island National Seashore
Blue Ridge Parkway
Booker T. Washington National Monument
Captain John Smith Chesapeake National Historic Trail
Cedar Creek and Belle Grove National Historical Park
Colonial National Historical Park *
Cumberland Gap National Historical Park
Fort Monroe National Monument *
Fredericksburg and Spotsylvania County Battlefields Memorial 
National Military Park *
George Washington Birthplace National Monument *
George Washington Memorial Parkway
Green Springs National Historic Landmark District
Harpers Ferry National Historical Park
Jamestown National Historic Site
Journey Through Hallowed Ground National Heritage Area
Maggie L. Walker National Historic Site
Manassas National Battlefield Park
Natural Bridge State Park
Overmountain Victory National Historic Trail
Petersburg National Battlefield *
Potomac Heritage National Scenic Trail
Prince William Forest Park
Red Hill Patrick Henry National Memorial
Richmond National Battlefield Park *
Shenandoah National Park
Shenandoah Valley Battlefields National Historic District
Star-Spangled Banner National Historic Trail
Washington-Rochambeau Revolutionary Route National Historic Trail
Wolf Trap National Park for the Performing Arts

Washington

Ebey's Landing National Historical Reserve *
Fort Vancouver National Historic Site *
Klondike Gold Rush National Historical Park
Lake Chelan National Recreation Area
Lake Roosevelt National Recreation Area *
Lewis and Clark National Historic Trail
Lewis and Clark National Historical Park
Manhattan Project National Historical Park
Maritime Washington National Heritage Area
Mount Rainier National Park
Mountains to Sound Greenway National Heritage Area
Nez Perce National Historical Park
North Cascades National Park
Olympic National Park *
Oregon National Historic Trail
Pacific Crest National Scenic Trail
Pacific Northwest National Scenic Trail
Ross Lake National Recreation Area
San Juan Island National Historical Park *
Whitman Mission National Historic Site
Wing Luke Museum of the Asian Pacific American Experience

West Virginia

Appalachian Forest National Heritage Area
Appalachian National Scenic Trail
Bluestone National Scenic River
Chesapeake and Ohio Canal National Historical Park
Gauley River National Recreation Area
Harpers Ferry National Historical Park
Lewis and Clark National Historic Trail
National Coal National Heritage Area
New River Gorge National Park and Preserve
Wheeling National Heritage Area

Wisconsin

Apostle Islands National Lakeshore *
Ice Age National Scenic Trail
Ice Age National Scientific Reserve
North Country National Scenic Trail
Saint Croix National Scenic Riverway

Wyoming

Bighorn Canyon National Recreation Area
California National Historic Trail
Continental Divide National Scenic Trail
Devils Tower National Monument
Fort Laramie National Historic Site
Fossil Butte National Monument
Grand Teton National Park
John D. Rockefeller Jr. Memorial Parkway
Mormon Pioneer National Historic Trail
Nez Perce (Nee-Me-Poo) National Historic Trail
Oregon National Historic Trail
Pony Express National Historic Trail
Yellowstone National Park

A.4 National Wildlife Refuges

Alabama

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

Alaska

Alaska Maritime National Wildlife Refuge *
Alaska Peninsula National Wildlife Refuge *
Arctic National Wildlife Refuge *
Becharof National Wildlife Refuge *
Innoko National Wildlife Refuge *
Izembek National Wildlife Refuge *
Kanuti National Wildlife Refuge *
Kenai National Wildlife Refuge *
Kodiak National Wildlife Refuge *
Koyukuk National Wildlife Refuge *
Nowitna National Wildlife Refuge *
Selawik National Wildlife Refuge *
Tetlin National Wildlife Refuge
Togiak National Wildlife Refuge *
Yukon Delta National Wildlife Refuge *
Yukon Flats National Wildlife Refuge *

American Samoa

Rose Atoll National Wildlife Refuge *

Arizona

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

Arkansas

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

California

Antioch Dunes National Wildlife Refuge *
Bitter Creek National Wildlife Refuge
Blue Ridge National Wildlife Refuge
Butte Sink Wildlife Management Area
Castle Rock National Wildlife Refuge *
Cibola National Wildlife Refuge
Clear Lake National Wildlife Refuge
Coachella Valley National Wildlife Refuge
Colusa National Wildlife Refuge
Delevan National Wildlife Refuge
Don Edwards San Francisco Bay National Wildlife Refuge *
Ellicott Slough National Wildlife Refuge
Farallon Islands National Wildlife Refuge *
Grasslands Wildlife Management Area
Guadalupe-Nipomo Dunes National Wildlife Refuge *
Havasu National Wildlife Refuge
Hopper Mountain National Wildlife Refuge
Humboldt Bay National Wildlife Refuge *

[[Page 82150]]

Imperial National Wildlife Refuge
Kern National Wildlife Refuge
Lower Klamath National Wildlife Refuge
Marin Islands National Wildlife Refuge *
Merced National Wildlife Refuge
Modoc National Wildlife Refuge
Pixley National Wildlife Refuge
Sacramento National Wildlife Refuge
Sacramento River National Wildlife Refuge *
Salinas River National Wildlife Refuge *
San Diego Bay National Wildlife Refuge *
San Diego National Wildlife Refuge
San Joaquin River National Wildlife Refuge
San Luis National Wildlife Refuge
San Pablo Bay National Wildlife Refuge *
Seal Beach National Wildlife Refuge *
Sonny Bono Salton Sea National Wildlife Refuge
Steve Thompson North Central Valley Wildlife Management Area *
Stone Lakes National Wildlife Refuge *
Sutter National Wildlife Refuge
Tijuana Slough National Wildlife Refuge *
Tulare Basin Wildlife Management Area
Tule Lake National Wildlife Refuge
Willow Creek-Lurline Wildlife Management Area

Colorado

Alamosa National Wildlife Refuge
Arapaho National Wildlife Refuge
Baca National Wildlife Refuge
Browns Park National Wildlife Refuge
Colorado River Wildlife Management Area
Monte Vista National Wildlife Refuge
Rocky Flats National Wildlife Refuge
Rocky Mountain Arsenal National Wildlife Refuge
San Luis Valley Conservation Area
Sangre De Cristo Conservation Area
Two Ponds National Wildlife Refuge

Connecticut

Great Thicket National Wildlife Refuge *
Silvio O. Conte National Fish And Wildlife Refuge
Stewart B. Mckinney National Wildlife Refuge *

Delaware

Bombay Hook National Wildlife Refuge *
Prime Hook National Wildlife Refuge *

Florida

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

Georgia

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

Guam

Guam National Wildlife Refuge *

Hawaii

Hakalau Forest National Wildlife Refuge
Hanalei National Wildlife Refuge
Hawaiian Islands National Wildlife Refuge *
Hul`ia National Wildlife Refuge
James Campbell National Wildlife Refuge *
Kakahai`a National Wildlife Refuge *
Kelia Pond National Wildlife Refuge *
Kilauea Point National Wildlife Refuge *
Ohahu Forest National Wildlife Refuge
Pearl Harbor National Wildlife Refuge *

Idaho

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

Illinois

Chautauqua National Wildlife Refuge *
Clarence Cannon National Wildlife Refuge *
Crab Orchard National Wildlife Refuge
Cypress Creek National Wildlife Refuge *
Emiquon National Wildlife Refuge *
Great River National Wildlife Refuge *
Hackmatack National Wildlife Refuge
Kankakee National Wildlife Refuge And Conservation Area
Meredosia National Wildlife Refuge *
Middle Mississippi River National Wildlife Refuge *
Port Louisa National Wildlife Refuge
Two Rivers National Wildlife Refuge *
Upper Mississippi River National Wildlife And Fish Refuge *

Indiana

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

Iowa

Desoto National Wildlife Refuge *
Driftless Area National Wildlife Refuge
Iowa Wetland Management District
Neal Smith National Wildlife Refuge
Northern Tallgrass Prairie National Wildlife Refuge
Port Louisa National Wildlife Refuge *
Union Slough National Wildlife Refuge
Upper Mississippi River National Wildlife and Fish Refuge *

Kansas

Flint Hills Legacy Conservation Area
Flint Hills National Wildlife Refuge
Kirwin National Wildlife Refuge
Marais Des Cygnes National Wildlife Refuge
Quivira National Wildlife Refuge

Kentucky

Clarks River National Wildlife Refuge
Green River National Wildlife Refuge *
Ohio River Islands National Wildlife Refuge *
Reelfoot National Wildlife Refuge

Louisiana

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

Maine

Aroostook National Wildlife Refuge
Carlton Pond Waterfowl Production Area
Cross Island National Wildlife Refuge *
Franklin Island National Wildlife Refuge *
Great Thicket National Wildlife Refuge *
Moosehorn National Wildlife Refuge
Petit Manan National Wildlife Refuge *
Pond Island National Wildlife Refuge *
Rachel Carson National Wildlife Refuge *
Seal Island National Wildlife Refuge *
Sunkhaze Meadows National Wildlife Refuge
Umbagog National Wildlife Refuge

Maryland

Blackwater National Wildlife Refuge *
Chincoteague National Wildlife Refuge *
Eastern Neck National Wildlife Refuge *
Martin National Wildlife Refuge *
Patuxent Research Refuge
Susquehanna National Wildlife Refuge *

Massachusetts

Assabet River National Wildlife Refuge
Great Meadows National Wildlife Refuge
Mashpee National Wildlife Refuge
Massasoit National Wildlife Refuge
Monomoy National Wildlife Refuge *

[[Page 82151]]

Nantucket National Wildlife Refuge *
Nomans Land Island National Wildlife Refuge *
Oxbow National Wildlife Refuge
Parker River National Wildlife Refuge *
Silvio O. Conte National Fish And Wildlife Refuge *
Thacher Island National Wildlife Refuge *

Michigan

Detroit River International Wildlife Refuge *
Green Bay National Wildlife Refuge *
Harbor Island National Wildlife Refuge *
Huron National Wildlife Refuge *
Kirtland's Warbler Wildlife Management Area
Michigan Islands National Wildlife Refuge *
Michigan Wetland Management District
Seney National Wildlife Refuge *
Shiawassee National Wildlife Refuge

Minnesota

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

Mississippi

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

Missouri

Big Muddy National Fish And Wildlife Refuge *
Clarence Cannon National Wildlife Refuge *
Great River National Wildlife Refuge
Loess Bluffs National Wildlife Refuge
Middle Mississippi River National Wildlife Refuge *
Mingo National Wildlife Refuge
Ozark Cavefish National Wildlife Refuge
Pilot Knob National Wildlife Refuge
Swan Lake National Wildlife Refuge
Two Rivers National Wildlife Refuge

Montana

Benton Lake National Wildlife Refuge
Benton Lake Wetland Management District
Black Coulee National Wildlife Refuge
Blackfoot Valley Conservation Area
Bowdoin National Wildlife Refuge
Bowdoin Wetland Management District
Charles M. Russell National Wildlife Refuge
Charles M. Russell Wetland Management District
Creedman Coulee National Wildlife Refuge
Grass Lake National Wildlife Refuge
Hailstone National Wildlife Refuge
Hewitt Lake National Wildlife Refuge
Lake Mason National Wildlife Refuge
Lake Thibadeau National Wildlife Refuge
Lamesteer National Wildlife Refuge
Lee Metcalf National Wildlife Refuge
Lost Trail Conservation Area
Lost Trail National Wildlife Refuge
Medicine Lake National Wildlife Refuge
Ninepipe National Wildlife Refuge
Northeast Montana Wetland Management District
Northwest Montana Wetland Management District
Pablo National Wildlife Refuge
Red Rock Lakes National Wildlife Refuge
Rocky Mountain Front Conservation Area
Swan River National Wildlife Refuge
Swan Valley Conservation Area
UL
Bend National Wildlife Refuge
War Horse National Wildlife Refuge

Nebraska

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

Nevada

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

New Hampshire

Great Bay National Wildlife Refuge *
John Hay National Wildlife Refuge
Silvio O. Conte National Fish And Wildlife Refuge *
Umbagog National Wildlife Refuge
Wapack National Wildlife Refuge

New Jersey

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

New Mexico

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

New York

Amagansett National Wildlife Refuge *
Congressman Lester Wolff Oyster Bay National Wildlife Refuge *
Conscience Point National Wildlife Refuge *
Elizabeth A. Morton National Wildlife Refuge *
Great Thicket National Wildlife Refuge *
Iroquois National Wildlife Refuge
Lido Beach Wildlife Management Area *
Montezuma National Wildlife Refuge *
Seatuck National Wildlife Refuge *
Shawangunk Grasslands National Wildlife Refuge
Target Rock National Wildlife Refuge *
Wallkill River National Wildlife Refuge
Wertheim National Wildlife Refuge *

North Carolina

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

North Dakota

Appert Lake National Wildlife Refuge
Ardoch National Wildlife Refuge
Arrowwood National Wildlife Refuge
Arrowwood Wetland Management District
Audubon National Wildlife Refuge
Audubon Wetland Management District
Bone Hill National Wildlife Refuge
Brumba National Wildlife Refuge
Buffalo Lake National Wildlife Refuge
Camp Lake National Wildlife Refuge
Canfield Lake National Wildlife Refuge
Chase Lake National Wildlife Refuge
Chase Lake Wetland Management District
Cottonwood Lake National Wildlife Refuge
Crosby Wetland Management District
Dakota Grassland Conservation Area
Dakota Lake National Wildlife Refuge
Dakota Tallgrass Prairie Wildlife Management Area
Des Lacs National Wildlife Refuge
Devils Lake Wetland Management District
Florence Lake National Wildlife Refuge
Half-Way Lake National Wildlife Refuge
Hiddenwood National Wildlife Refuge
Hobart Lake National Wildlife Refuge
Hutchinson Lake National Wildlife Refuge

[[Page 82152]]

J. Clark Salyer National Wildlife Refuge
J. Clark Salyer Wetland Management District
Johnson Lake National Wildlife Refuge
Kellys Slough National Wildlife Refuge
Kulm Wetland Management District
Lake Alice National Wildlife Refuge
Lake George National Wildlife Refuge
Lake Ilo National Wildlife Refuge
Lake Nettie National Wildlife Refuge
Lake Otis National Wildlife Refuge
Lake Patricia National Wildlife Refuge
Lake Zahl National Wildlife Refuge
Lambs Lake National Wildlife Refuge
Little Goose National Wildlife Refuge
Long Lake National Wildlife Refuge
Long Lake Wetland Management District
Lords Lake National Wildlife Refuge
Lost Lake National Wildlife Refuge
Lostwood National Wildlife Refuge
Lostwood Wetland Management District
Maple River National Wildlife Refuge
Mclean National Wildlife Refuge
North Dakota Wildlife Management Area
Pleasant Lake National Wildlife Refuge
Pretty Rock National Wildlife Refuge
Rabb Lake National Wildlife Refuge
Rock Lake National Wildlife Refuge
Rose Lake National Wildlife Refuge
School Section Lake National Wildlife Refuge
Shell Lake National Wildlife Refuge
Sheyenne Lake National Wildlife Refuge
Sibley Lake National Wildlife Refuge
Silver Lake National Wildlife Refuge
Slade National Wildlife Refuge
Snyder Lake National Wildlife Refuge
Springwater National Wildlife Refuge
Stewart Lake National Wildlife Refuge
Stoney Slough National Wildlife Refuge
Storm Lake National Wildlife Refuge
Stump Lake National Wildlife Refuge
Sunburst Lake National Wildlife Refuge
Tewaukon National Wildlife Refuge
Tewaukon Wetland Management District
Tomahawk National Wildlife Refuge
Upper Souris National Wildlife Refuge
Valley City Wetland Management District
White Horse Hill National Game Preserve
White Lake National Wildlife Refuge
Wild Rice Lake National Wildlife Refuge
Willow Lake National Wildlife Refuge
Wintering River National Wildlife Refuge
Wood Lake National Wildlife Refuge

Ohio

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

Oklahoma

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

Oregon

Ankeny National Wildlife Refuge *
Bandon Marsh National Wildlife Refuge *
Baskett Slough National Wildlife Refuge
Bear Valley National Wildlife Refuge
Cape Meares National Wildlife Refuge *
Cold Springs National Wildlife Refuge
Deer Flat National Wildlife Refuge
Hart Mountain National Antelope Refuge
Julia Butler Hansen Refuge For The Columbian White Tail Deer *
Klamath Marsh National Wildlife Refuge
Lewis And Clark National Wildlife Refuge *
Lower Klamath National Wildlife Refuge
Malheur National Wildlife Refuge
Mckay Creek National Wildlife Refuge
Mcnary National Wildlife Refuge *
Nestucca Bay National Wildlife Refuge *
Oregon Islands National Wildlife Refuge *
Sheldon National Wildlife Refuge
Siletz Bay National Wildlife Refuge *
Three Arch Rocks National Wildlife Refuge *
Tualatin River National Wildlife Refuge
Umatilla National Wildlife Refuge *
Upper Klamath National Wildlife Refuge
Wapato Lake National Wildlife Refuge
William L. Finley National Wildlife Refuge

Pennsylvania

Cherry Valley National Wildlife Refuge
Erie National Wildlife Refuge
John Heinz National Wildlife Refuge At Tinicum
Ohio River Islands National Wildlife Refuge *

Puerto Rico

Cabo Rojo National Wildlife Refuge *
Culebra National Wildlife Refuge *
Desecheo National Wildlife Refuge *
Laguna Cartagena National Wildlife Refuge
Vieques National Wildlife Refuge *

Rhode Island

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

South Carolina

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

South Dakota

Bear Butte National Wildlife Refuge
Dakota Grassland Conservation Area
Dakota Tallgrass Prairie Wildlife Management Area
Huron Wetland Management District
Karl E. Mundt National Wildlife Refuge
Lacreek National Wildlife Refuge
Lake Andes National Wildlife Refuge
Lake Andes Wetland Management District
Madison Wetland Management District
Sand Lake National Wildlife Refuge
Sand Lake Wetland Management District
Waubay National Wildlife Refuge
Waubay Wetland Management District

Tennessee

Chickasaw National Wildlife Refuge *
Cross Creeks National Wildlife Refuge *
Hatchie National Wildlife Refuge
Lake Isom National Wildlife Refuge
Lower Hatchie National Wildlife Refuge *
Paint Rock River National Wildlife Refuge
Reelfoot National Wildlife Refuge
Tennessee National Wildlife Refuge *

Texas

Anahuac National Wildlife Refuge *
Aransas National Wildlife Refuge *
Attwater Prairie Chicken National Wildlife Refuge
Balcones Canyonlands National Wildlife Refuge
Big Boggy National Wildlife Refuge *
Brazoria National Wildlife Refuge *
Buffalo Lake National Wildlife Refuge
Caddo Lake National Wildlife Refuge
Grulla National Wildlife Refuge
Hagerman National Wildlife Refuge
Laguna Atascosa National Wildlife Refuge *
Little Sandy National Wildlife Refuge
Lower Rio Grande Valley National Wildlife Refuge *
Mcfaddin National Wildlife Refuge *
Moody National Wildlife Refuge *
Muleshoe National Wildlife Refuge
Neches River National Wildlife Refuge
San Bernard National Wildlife Refuge *
Santa Ana National Wildlife Refuge
Texas Point National Wildlife Refuge *
Trinity River National Wildlife Refuge *

United States Minor Outlying Islands

Baker Island National Wildlife Refuge *
Howland Island National Wildlife Refuge *
Jarvis Island National Wildlife Refuge *
Johnston Atoll National Wildlife Refuge *
Kingman Reef National Wildlife Refuge *
Mariana Arc Of Fire National Wildlife Refuge *
Mariana Trench National Wildlife Refuge
Midway Atoll National Wildlife Refuge *
Navassa Island National Wildlife Refuge *
Palmyra Atoll National Wildlife Refuge *
Wake Atoll National Wildlife Refuge *

Utah

Bear River Migratory Bird Refuge
Bear River Watershed Conservation Area
Colorado River Wildlife Management Area
Fish Springs National Wildlife Refuge
Ouray National Wildlife Refuge

Vermont

Missisquoi National Wildlife Refuge *
Silvio O. Conte National Fish And Wildlife Refuge *

Virgin Islands

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

Virginia

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

[[Page 82153]]

Wallops Island National Wildlife Refuge *

Washington

Billy Frank Jr. Nisqually National Wildlife Refuge *
Columbia National Wildlife Refuge
Conboy Lake National Wildlife Refuge
Copalis National Wildlife Refuge *
Dungeness National Wildlife Refuge *
Flattery Rocks National Wildlife Refuge *
Franz Lake National Wildlife Refuge *
Grays Harbor National Wildlife Refuge *
Julia Butler Hansen Refuge For The Columbian White Tail Deer
Little Pend Oreille National Wildlife Refuge
Mcnary National Wildlife Refuge *
Pierce National Wildlife Refuge
Protection Island National Wildlife Refuge *
Quillayute Needles National Wildlife Refuge *
Ridgefield National Wildlife Refuge *
Saddle Mountain National Wildlife Refuge
San Juan Islands National Wildlife Refuge *
Steigerwald Lake National Wildlife Refuge
Toppenish National Wildlife Refuge
Turnbull National Wildlife Refuge
Umatilla National Wildlife Refuge *
Willapa National Wildlife Refuge *

West Virginia

Canaan Valley National Wildlife Refuge
Ohio River Islands National Wildlife Refuge *

Wisconsin

Fox River National Wildlife Refuge
Gravel Island National Wildlife Refuge *
Green Bay National Wildlife Refuge *
Hackmatack National Wildlife Refuge
Horicon National Wildlife Refuge
Leopold Wetland Management District
Necedah National Wildlife Refuge
St. Croix Wetland Management District
Trempealeau National Wildlife Refuge *
Upper Mississippi River National Wildlife And Fish Refuge *
Whittlesey Creek National Wildlife Refuge *

Wyoming

Bamforth National Wildlife Refuge
Bear River Watershed Conservation Area
Cokeville Meadows National Wildlife Refuge
Hutton Lake National Wildlife Refuge
Mortenson Lake National Wildlife Refuge
National Elk Refuge
Pathfinder National Wildlife Refuge
Seedskadee National Wildlife Refuge
Wyoming Toad Conservation Area

A.5 National Wilderness Areas

Alabama

Cheaha Wilderness
Dugger Mountain Wilderness
Sipsey Wilderness

Alaska

Aleutian Islands Wilderness *
Andreafsky Wilderness
Becharof Wilderness *
Bering Sea Wilderness *
Bogoslof Wilderness *
Chamisso Wilderness *
Chuck River Wilderness *
Coronation Island Wilderness *
Denali Wilderness
Endicott River Wilderness
Forrester Island Wilderness *
Gates of the Arctic Wilderness *
Glacier Bay Wilderness *
Hazy Islands Wilderness *
Innoko Wilderness
Izembek Wilderness *
Jay S. Hammond Wilderness *
Karta River Wilderness *
Katmai Wilderness *
Kenai Wilderness *
Kobuk Valley Wilderness *
Kootznoowoo Wilderness *
Koyukuk Wilderness *
Kuiu Wilderness *
Maurelle Islands Wilderness *
Misty Fjords National Monument Wilderness *
Mollie Beattie Wilderness *
Noatak Wilderness
Nunivak Wilderness *
Petersburg Creek-Duncan Salt Chuck Wilderness *
Pleasant/Lemusurier/Inian Islands Wilderness *
Russell Fjord Wilderness *
Saint Lazaria Wilderness *
Selawik Wilderness
Semidi Wilderness *
Simeonof Wilderness *
South Baranof Wilderness *
South Etolin Wilderness *
South Prince of Wales Wilderness *
Stikine-LeConte Wilderness *
Tebenkof Bay Wilderness *
Togiak Wilderness
Tracy Arm-Fords Terror Wilderness *
Tuxedni Wilderness *
Unimak Wilderness *
Warren Island Wilderness *
West Chichagof-Yakobi Wilderness *
Wrangell-Saint Elias Wilderness *

Arizona

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

Arkansas

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

California

Agua Tibia Wilderness
Ansel Adams Wilderness
Argus Range Wilderness
Avawatz Mountains Wilderness

[[Page 82154]]

Beauty Mountain Wilderness
Big Maria Mountains Wilderness
Bigelow Cholla Garden Wilderness
Bighorn Mountain Wilderness
Black Mountain Wilderness
Bright Star Wilderness
Bristol Mountains Wilderness
Bucks Lake Wilderness
Buzzards Peak Wilderness
Cache Creek Wilderness
Cadiz Dunes Wilderness
Cahuilla Mountain Wilderness
Caribou Wilderness
Carrizo Gorge Wilderness
Carson-Iceberg Wilderness
Castle Crags Wilderness
Cedar Roughs Wilderness
Chanchelulla Wilderness
Chemehuevi Mountains Wilderness
Chimney Peak Wilderness
Chuckwalla Mountains Wilderness
Chumash Wilderness
Cleghorn Lakes Wilderness
Clipper Mountain Wilderness
Coso Range Wilderness
Coyote Mountains Wilderness
Cucamonga Wilderness
Darwin Falls Wilderness
Dead Mountains Wilderness
Death Valley Wilderness
Desolation Wilderness
Dick Smith Wilderness
Dinkey Lakes Wilderness
Domeland Wilderness
El Paso Mountains Wilderness
Elkhorn Ridge Wilderness
Emigrant Wilderness
Farallon Wilderness *
Fish Creek Mountains Wilderness
Funeral Mountains Wilderness
Garcia Wilderness
Golden Trout Wilderness
Golden Valley Wilderness
Granite Chief Wilderness
Granite Mountain Wilderness
Grass Valley Wilderness
Great Falls Basin Wilderness
Hain Wilderness
Hauser Wilderness
Havasu Wilderness
Hollow Hills Wilderness
Hoover Wilderness
Ibex Wilderness
Imperial Refuge Wilderness
Indian Pass Wilderness
Inyo Mountains Wilderness
Ishi Wilderness
Jacumba Wilderness *
Jennie Lakes Wilderness
John Krebs Wilderness
John Muir Wilderness
Joshua Tree Wilderness
Kaiser Wilderness
Kelso Dunes Wilderness
Kiavah Wilderness
King Range Wilderness *
Kingston Range Wilderness
Lassen Volcanic Wilderness
Lava Beds Wilderness
Little Chuckwalla Mountains Wilderness
Little Picacho Wilderness
Machesna Mountain Wilderness
Magic Mountain Wilderness
Malpais Mesa Wilderness
Manly Peak Wilderness
Marble Mountain Wilderness
Matilija Wilderness
Mecca Hills Wilderness
Mesquite Wilderness
Milpitas Wash Wilderness
Mojave Wilderness
Mokelumne Wilderness
Monarch Wilderness
Mount Lassic Wilderness
Mt. Shasta Wilderness
Newberry Mountains Wilderness
Nopah Range Wilderness
North Algodones Dunes Wilderness
North Fork Wilderness
North Mesquite Mountains Wilderness
Old Woman Mountains Wilderness
Orocopia Mountains Wilderness
Otay Mountain Wilderness *
Owens Peak Wilderness
Owens River Headwaters Wilderness
Pahrump Valley Wilderness
Palen/McCoy Wilderness
Palo Verde Mountains Wilderness
Phillip Burton Wilderness *
Picacho Peak Wilderness
Pine Creek Wilderness
Pinto Mountains Wilderness
Piper Mountain Wilderness
Piute Mountains Wilderness
Pleasant View Ridge Wilderness
Red Buttes Wilderness
Resting Spring Range Wilderness
Rice Valley Wilderness
Riverside Mountains Wilderness
Rocks and Islands Wilderness *
Rodman Mountains Wilderness
Russian Wilderness
Sacatar Trail Wilderness
Saddle Peak Hills Wilderness
San Gabriel Wilderness
San Gorgonio Wilderness
San Jacinto Wilderness
San Mateo Canyon Wilderness
San Rafael Wilderness
Sanhedrin Wilderness
Santa Lucia Wilderness
Santa Rosa Wilderness
Sawtooth Mountains Wilderness
Sequoia-Kings Canyon Wilderness
Sespe Wilderness
Sheep Mountain Wilderness
Sheephole Valley Wilderness
Silver Peak Wilderness
Siskiyou Wilderness
Snow Mountain Wilderness
Soda Mountains Wilderness
South Fork Eel River Wilderness
South Fork San Jacinto Wilderness
South Nopah Range Wilderness
South Sierra Wilderness
South Warner Wilderness
Stateline Wilderness
Stepladder Mountains Wilderness
Surprise Canyon Wilderness
Sylvania Mountains Wilderness
Thousand Lakes Wilderness
Trilobite Wilderness
Trinity Alps Wilderness
Turtle Mountains Wilderness
Ventana Wilderness
Whipple Mountains Wilderness
White Mountains Wilderness
Yolla Bolly-Middle Eel Wilderness
Yosemite Wilderness
Yuki Wilderness

Colorado

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

Florida

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

Georgia

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

[[Page 82155]]

Tray Mountain Wilderness
Wolf Island Wilderness *

Hawaii

Haleakal[amacr] Wilderness
Hawai`i Volcanoes Wilderness *

Idaho

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

Illinois

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

Indiana

Charles C. Deam Wilderness

Kentucky

Beaver Creek Wilderness
Clifty Wilderness

Louisiana

Breton Wilderness *
Kisatchie Hills Wilderness
Lacassine Wilderness

Maine

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

Massachusetts

Monomoy Wilderness *

Michigan

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

Minnesota

Agassiz Wilderness
Boundary Waters Canoe Area Wilderness *
Tamarac Wilderness

Mississippi

Black Creek Wilderness
Gulf Islands Wilderness *
Leaf Wilderness

Missouri

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

Montana

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

Nebraska

Fort Niobrara Wilderness
Soldier Creek Wilderness

Nevada

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

New Hampshire

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

New Jersey

Brigantine Wilderness *
Great Swamp National Wildlife Refuge Wilderness

New Mexico

Aden Lava Flow Wilderness
Ah-shi-sle-pah Wilderness
Aldo Leopold Wilderness
Apache Kid Wilderness
Bandelier Wilderness
Bisti/De-Na-Zin Wilderness
Blue Range Wilderness
Bosque del Apache Wilderness
Broad Canyon Wilderness
Capitan Mountains Wilderness
Carlsbad Caverns Wilderness
Cebolla Wilderness
Cerro del Yuta Wilderness
Chama River Canyon Wilderness
Cinder Cone Wilderness
Columbine-Hondo Wilderness
Cruces Basin Wilderness
Dome Wilderness
East Potrillo Mountains Wilderness
Gila Wilderness
Latir Peak Wilderness
Manzano Mountain Wilderness
Mount Riley Wilderness
Ojito Wilderness
Organ Mountains Wilderness
Pecos Wilderness
Potrillo Mountains Wilderness
Rio San Antonio Wilderness
Robledo Mountains Wilderness

[[Page 82156]]

Sabinoso Wilderness
Salt Creek Wilderness
San Pedro Parks Wilderness
Sandia Mountain Wilderness
Sierra de las Uvas Wilderness
West Malpais Wilderness
Wheeler Peak Wilderness
White Mountain Wilderness
Whitethorn Wilderness
Withington Wilderness

New York

Otis Pike Fire Island High Dune Wilderness *

North Carolina

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

North Dakota

Chase Lake Wilderness
Lostwood Wilderness
Theodore Roosevelt Wilderness

Ohio

West Sister Island Wilderness *

Oklahoma

Black Fork Mountain Wilderness
Upper Kiamichi River Wilderness
Wichita Mountains Wilderness

Oregon

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

Pennsylvania

Allegheny Islands Wilderness
Hickory Creek Wilderness

Puerto Rico

El Toro Wilderness

South Carolina

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

South Dakota

Badlands Wilderness
Black Elk Wilderness

Tennessee

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

Texas

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

Utah

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

Vermont

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

Virginia

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

Washington

Alpine Lakes Wilderness
Boulder River Wilderness
Buckhorn Wilderness
Clearwater Wilderness
Colonel Bob Wilderness
Daniel J. Evans Wilderness *
Glacier Peak Wilderness
Glacier View Wilderness

[[Page 82157]]

Goat Rocks Wilderness
Henry M. Jackson Wilderness
Indian Heaven Wilderness
Juniper Dunes Wilderness
Lake Chelan-Sawtooth Wilderness
Mount Adams Wilderness
Mount Baker Wilderness *
Mount Rainier Wilderness
Mount Skokomish Wilderness
Noisy-Diobsud Wilderness
Norse Peak Wilderness
Pasayten Wilderness *
Salmo-Priest Wilderness *
San Juan Wilderness *
Stephen Mather Wilderness *
Tatoosh Wilderness
The Brothers Wilderness
Trapper Creek Wilderness
Washington Islands Wilderness *
Wenaha-Tucannon Wilderness
Wild Sky Wilderness
William O. Douglas Wilderness
Wonder Mountain Wilderness

West Virginia

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

Wisconsin

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

Wyoming

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

A.6 National Wild and Scenic River

Alabama

Sipsey Fork of the West Fork River

Alaska

Alagnak River
Alatna River
Andreafsky River *
Aniakchak River
Beaver Creek
Birch Creek
Charley River *
Chilikadrotna River
Delta River
Fortymile River *
Gulkana River
Ivishak River
John River
Kobuk River
Mulchatna River
Noatak River
North Fork Koyukuk River *
Nowitna River
Salmon River *
Selawik River
Sheenjek River
Tinayguk River
Tlikakila River *
Unalakleet River
Wind River

Arizona

Fossil Creek
Verde River

Arkansas

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

California

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

Colorado

Cache la Poudre River

Connecticut

Eightmile River *
Farmington (Lower) River and Salmon Brook *
Housatonic River
West Branch Farmington River
Wood-Pawcatuck Rivers Watershed *

Delaware

White Clay Creek *

Florida

Loxahatchee River
Wekiva River *

Georgia

Chattooga River

Idaho

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

Illinois

Middle Fork Vermilion River

Kentucky

Red River

Louisiana

Saline Bayou

Maine

Allagash River
York River *

Massachusetts

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

Michigan

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

Minnesota

St. Croix River *

Mississippi

Black Creek

Missouri

Eleven Point River

Montana

East Rosebud Creek
Flathead River
Missouri River *

Nebraska

Missouri River *

[[Page 82158]]

Niobrara River

New Hampshire

Lamprey River *
Nashua, Squannacook and Nissitissit Rivers
Wildcat River

New Jersey

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

New Mexico

East Fork Jemez River
Pecos River
Rio Chama
Rio Grande

New York

Delaware (Upper) River

North Carolina

Chattooga River
Horsepasture River
Lumber River
New River
Wilson Creek

Ohio

Big and Little Darby Creeks
Little Beaver Creek *
Little Miami River *

Oregon

Big Marsh Creek
Chetco River
Clackamas River
Collawash River
Crescent Creek
Crooked River
Deschutes River
Donner und Blitzen River
Eagle Creek (Mt. Hood National Forest)
Eagle Creek (Wallowa-Whitman National Forest)
East Fork Hood River
Elk Creek
Elk River
Elkhorn Creek
Fifteenmile Creek
Fish Creek
Franklin Creek *
Grande Ronde River
Illinois River *
Imnaha River
Jenny Creek
John Day River
Joseph Creek
Klamath River
Little Deschutes River
Lobster Creek
Lostine River
Malheur River
McKenzie River
Metolius River
Middle Fork Hood River
Minam River
Molalla River
Nestucca River
North Fork Crooked River
North Fork John Day River
North Fork Malheur River
North Fork Middle Fork Willamette River
North Fork Owyhee River
North Fork Silver Creek
North Fork Smith River
North Fork Sprague River
North Powder River
North Umpqua River
Owyhee River
Powder River
Quartzville Creek
River Styx
Roaring River
Rogue (Upper) River
Rogue River *
Salmon River
Sandy River
Snake River *
South Fork Clackamas River
South Fork John Day River
South Fork Roaring River
Spring Creek
Sycan River
Walker Creek
Wallowa River
Wasson Creek
Wenaha River
West Little Owyhee River
White River
Whychus Creek
Wildhorse and Kiger Creeks
Zig Zag River

Pennsylvania

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

Puerto Rico

Rio de la Mina
Rio Icacos
Rio Mameyes

Rhode Island

Wood-Pawcatuck Rivers Watershed *

South Carolina

Chattooga River

South Dakota

Missouri River *

Tennessee

Obed River

Texas

Rio Grande

Utah

Green River
Virgin River

Vermont

Missisquoi and Trout Rivers

Washington

Illabot Creek
Klickitat River *
Middle Fork Snoqualmie River
Pratt River
Skagit River *
White Salmon River

West Virginia

Bluestone River

Wisconsin

St. Croix River *
Wolf River

Wyoming

Clarks Fork River
Snake River Headwaters

[FR Doc. 2024-22013 Filed 10-8-24; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>