82074 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 196 / Wednesday, October 9, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 

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: 

faulk.jack@epa.gov. 

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—FederallyProtected 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 NoDischarge 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 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES3
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 196 / Wednesday, October 9, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 82075 

1The 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. 

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. 

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. 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES3
82076 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 196 / Wednesday, October 9, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 

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 federallyprotected 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 (‘‘federallyprotected 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 nonArmed 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 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES3
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 196 / Wednesday, October 9, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 82077 

2Concurrence 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. 

3CWA 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). 

‘‘[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, nonrecreational 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 nonArmed 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.’’ 

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 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES3
82078 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 196 / Wednesday, October 9, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 

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. 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES3
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 196 / Wednesday, October 9, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 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 waterbased 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 UcanMarin, 2015). Laboratory experiments 

have shown that fish embryos exposed 

to hydrocarbons exemplify symptoms 

collectively referred to as blue sac 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES3
82080 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 196 / Wednesday, October 9, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 

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 (mg)/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. 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES3
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 196 / Wednesday, October 9, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 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, nongovernmental 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-marinasand-ports/vessel-incidental-dischargeact-vida-engagement-opportunities. 

Additionally, EPA, in coordination 

with the USCG, hosted a public, inperson 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/vesselincidental-discharge-act-vidastakeholder-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 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES3
82082 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 196 / Wednesday, October 9, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 

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, subjectmatter 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 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES3
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 196 / Wednesday, October 9, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 82083 

4The 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. 

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, antifouling 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 technologybased 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. 

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 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES3
82084 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 196 / Wednesday, October 9, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 

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). 

6Ballast 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). 

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 ‘‘costreasonableness’’ 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. 

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 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES3
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 196 / Wednesday, October 9, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 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. 

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[ ] crossreference[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 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES3
82086 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 196 / Wednesday, October 9, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 

(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 qualitybased 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 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES3
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 196 / Wednesday, October 9, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 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, 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES3
82088 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 196 / Wednesday, October 9, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 

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, 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES3
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 196 / Wednesday, October 9, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 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 antifouling 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 vesselspecific 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 vesselspecific 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 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES3
82090 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 196 / Wednesday, October 9, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 

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: 

• 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. 

• 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. 

• Rudder bearings: These bearings 

allow a vessel’s rudder to turn freely; 

they also use seals with an oil-to-sea 

interface. 

• 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. 

• 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 oillubricated 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 oilto-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 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES3
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 196 / Wednesday, October 9, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 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-tosea 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-tosea 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 ondeck 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. 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES3
82092 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 196 / Wednesday, October 9, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 

7This includes a fleet of vessels, established by 

section 11 of the Merchant Ship Sales Act of 1946, 

reserved for national defense and national 

emergencies. 

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 FlowThrough 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). 

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. 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES3
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 196 / Wednesday, October 9, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 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 nonexempt 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 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES3
82094 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 196 / Wednesday, October 9, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 

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 federallyprotected 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 typeapproved 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° 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-del’Ouest’’ not ‘‘Pointe-Sude-Oueste.’’ The 

final definition for ‘‘seagoing vessel’’ 

was also corrected to reference ‘‘Pointede-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 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES3
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 196 / Wednesday, October 9, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 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: 

• 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. 

• 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. 

• Indicator microorganisms must not 

exceed: 

Æ Toxicogenic Vibrio cholerae 

(serotypes O1 and O139): a 

concentration of less than 1 colonyforming unit (cfu) per 100 mL. 

Æ Escherichia coli: a concentration of 

less than 250 cfu, or Most Probable 

Number (MPN), per 100 mL. 

Æ 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: 

• For any BWMS using chlorine 

dioxide, the chlorine dioxide must not 

exceed 200 mg/L; 

• For any BWMS using chlorine or 

ozone, the total residual oxidizers must 

not exceed 100 mg/L; and 

• For any BWMS using peracetic 

acid, the peracetic acid must not exceed 

500 mg/L and the hydrogen peroxide 

must not exceed 1,000 mg/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, 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES3
82096 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 196 / Wednesday, October 9, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 

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 longterm 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 TypeApproved 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 typeapproval 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 typeapproved 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 typeapproval 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 typeapproval process also supports their 

availability for use on the full universe 

of vessels regulated by the VIDA. USCG 

regulations include BWMS typeapproval 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 typeapproved 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 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES3
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 196 / Wednesday, October 9, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 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 typeapproved 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 higherperforming 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 typeapproval 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 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES3
82098 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 196 / Wednesday, October 9, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 

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 typeapproval 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. Typeapproval 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: 

• Vessel size and architectural 

characteristics, including but not 

limited to design of ballast tank(s), 

pump(s), and piping configuration; 

• Vessel operational profile (e.g., 

voyage lengths, volumes of ballast 

water, ballast water flow rates, etc.); 

• Vessel class and flag State; 

• Temperature, salinity, and turbidity 

range of uptake water in areas where the 

vessel voyages; 

• Duration of voyages and segments 

of each voyage that can affect the 

necessary holding time for certain 

systems; 

• Ballast water capacity and required 

uptake and discharge pumping rates; 

• Treatment system weight and space 

considerations, including but not 

limited to accessibility and acceptability 

for use in hazardous spaces; 

• Availability of service, support, 

replacement parts, supplies, etc. in areas 

where the vessel voyages; 

• Compatibility of treatment with 

vessel construction (e.g., corrosivity 

concerns); 

• Power demand and energy 

consumption to pump ballast and 

operate treatment system; and 

• 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 typeapproved 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 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES3
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 196 / Wednesday, October 9, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 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 welloperated 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 longterm 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 selfmonitoring program excluded 

monitoring for the two largest organism 

size classes because of the difficulties/ 

costs associated with directly selfmonitoring 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 typeapproved). 

The proposed rule described the 

practical and statistical challenges 

associated with performing the tests that 

would be necessary to show that a welloperated 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 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES3
82100 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 196 / Wednesday, October 9, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 

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 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES3
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 196 / Wednesday, October 9, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 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 selfpropelled, 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 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES3
82102 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 196 / Wednesday, October 9, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 

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 typeapproved 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 BATbased 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 technologybased 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 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES3
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 196 / Wednesday, October 9, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 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, lowcost 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 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES3
82104 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 196 / Wednesday, October 9, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 

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 federallyprotected 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 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES3
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 196 / Wednesday, October 9, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 82105 

not apply to any vessel voyaging to the 

Pacific Region that is using a typeapproved 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: 

• 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; 

• 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 

• Concentrations of indicator 

microbes that are less than (1) 1 colonyforming unit of toxicogenic Vibrio 

cholerae (serotypes O1 and O139) per 

100 milliliters or less than 1 colonyforming 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 semivolatile 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, 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES3
82106 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 196 / Wednesday, October 9, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 

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 federallyprotected 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 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES3
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 196 / Wednesday, October 9, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 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 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES3
82108 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 196 / Wednesday, October 9, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 

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 federallyprotected 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 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES3
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 196 / Wednesday, October 9, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 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 (SOX) and 

nitrogen oxides (NOX) 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 

SOX 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, NOX, heavy 

metals, and captured particulate matter. 

Use of an EGCS to scrub emissions of 

SOX 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 NOX emission 

standards, where applicability is based 

on when the keel of a vessel is laid; the 

most stringent Tier III NOX limits apply 

to any engine while operated in a NOX

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 NOX 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 closedloop 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. 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES3
82110 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 196 / Wednesday, October 9, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 

EGR systems are used to reduce NOX

emissions in marine exhaust. Vessels 

often use EGR systems to achieve the 

mandatory Tier III NOX emissions limits 

set out in MARPOL Annex VI. These 

systems minimize NOX 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 NOX 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 bleedoff 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: 

• When stationary, the pH limit is 

6.5; and 

• 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 closedloop 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 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES3
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 196 / Wednesday, October 9, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 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 

NOX 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 nonbiodegradable 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. Nonfluorinated firefighting foam does not 

contain PFAS or their precursors; 

examples include protein foam, alcoholresistant 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 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES3
82112 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 196 / Wednesday, October 9, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 

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 HighExpansion 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 nonfluorinated 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 nonfluorinated 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 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES3
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 196 / Wednesday, October 9, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 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, phosphatefree, 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 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES3
82114 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 196 / Wednesday, October 9, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 

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 mg/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, 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES3
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 196 / Wednesday, October 9, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 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 federallyprotected 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 antifouling coatings are available for use, 

including hard, controlled depletion or 

ablative, self-polishing copolymer, and 

fouling release coatings. The use of nonbiocidal 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 antifouling coating. Cleaning the antifouling 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 antifouling 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 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES3
82116 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 196 / Wednesday, October 9, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 

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 nonbiocidal 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 nonbiocidal anti-fouling coatings or antifouling 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 antifouling 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 antifouling 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 antifouling 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 nonbiocidal 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 nonstick 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 nonbiocidal 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 nonbiocidal 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 cybutrynecontaining 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 antifouling 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 copperimpaired waters. The final rule requires 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES3
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 196 / Wednesday, October 9, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 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 copperimpaired 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 mg/ 

cm2/day), copper-containing antifouling 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 antifouling 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 inwater 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 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES3
82118 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 196 / Wednesday, October 9, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 

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 inwater 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 dischargespecific 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 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES3
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 196 / Wednesday, October 9, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 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 mg/L. To be considered 

debrominated, the total residual oxidant 

in the pool or spa effluent must be less 

than 25 mg/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 cupronickel piping). Additionally, based on 

comments received on the proposed 

rule, the final rule includes glassreinforced 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 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES3
82120 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 196 / Wednesday, October 9, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 

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 °C to 

25 °C, with maximum temperatures 

reaching 140 °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—FederallyProtected 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 federallyprotected 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 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES3
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 196 / Wednesday, October 9, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 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: 

• 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. 

• 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-nationalmonuments-pacific and https://

www.fisheries.noaa.gov/new-englandmid-atlantic/habitat-conservation/ 

northeast-canyons-and-seamountsmarine-national on 5/13/24. 

• 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-parksystem.htm on 5/6/2024. 

• 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. 

• 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 federallyprotected 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 federallyprotected 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 federallyprotected 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 federallyprotected 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. 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES3
82122 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 196 / Wednesday, October 9, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 

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; Papaha ̄naumokua ̄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 nonwater 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 federallyprotected 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 federallyprotected waters is prohibited from any 

vessel of 400 GT and above. 

Boilers (40 CFR 139.40(d)): Any 

discharge from a boiler into federallyprotected 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 federallyprotected 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 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES3
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 196 / Wednesday, October 9, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 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 inwater 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, inwater 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 federallyprotected 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). 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES3
82124 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 196 / Wednesday, October 9, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 

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 NoDischarge 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 nodischarge zone (NDZ) concerns ballast 

water discharges regulated under CWA 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES3
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 196 / Wednesday, October 9, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 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. 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES3
82126 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 196 / Wednesday, October 9, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 

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-tosea 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 typeapproved 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 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES3
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 196 / Wednesday, October 9, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 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/lawsregulations/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 nodischarge 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-torevenue 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. 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES3
82128 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 196 / Wednesday, October 9, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 

8 In December 2019, the Little Shell Tribe of 

Chippewa Indians became the 574th federally 

recognized Tribe. 

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 preproposal 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. 

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. 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES3
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 196 / Wednesday, October 9, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 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-BWMSreport-2019_04.pdf. 

Bailey, S.A., Chan, F., Ellis, S.M., 

Bronnenhuber, J.E., Badie, J.N., Simard, 

N. (2012). Risk Assessment for ShipMediated 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-environmenttechnologies-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 inport 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 SiCURETM Ballast Water 

Management System. GSI/LB/F/A/1, pp 

1–58. 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES3
82130 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 196 / Wednesday, October 9, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 

Great Ships Initiative (GSI). (2011). Final 

Report of the Land-Based, Freshwater 

Testing of the Alfa Laval AB 

PureBallast® 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 ® 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/MarineEnvironment-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 lowsalinity ballast water as vectors for nonindigenous 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 MultiTerminal 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-claimsa-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-andbig-data-at-caterpillar-how-predictivemaintenance-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 GeospatialIntelligence 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 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES3
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 196 / Wednesday, October 9, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 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-PreventionPolicy-CG-5P/Commercial-RegulationsStandards-CG-5PS/Office-of-Operatingand-Environmental-Standards-CG-OES/ 

Environmental-Standards/BW-Regs-andPolicy/. 

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-networklines/explore. 

U.S. EPA. (2007). Framework for Metals Risk 

Assessment. Retrieved from https://

www.epa.gov/risk/framework-metalsrisk-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 SelfMonitoring. (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/healtheffects-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., Nun ̃ er, A.P.O., ReynalteTataje, 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. 

■ 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. 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES3
82132 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 196 / Wednesday, October 9, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 

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 nodischarge zone. 

Appendix A to Part 139—FederallyProtected Waters 

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

PART 139—DISCHARGES INCIDENTAL 

TO THE NORMAL OPERATION OF 

VESSELS 

Subpart A—Scope 

§ 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. 

§ 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. 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES3
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 196 / Wednesday, October 9, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 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 nonbiodegradable 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 nonbiodegradable 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 § 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 

§ 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 

§ 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 § 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 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES3
82134 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 196 / Wednesday, October 9, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 

(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; 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES3
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 196 / Wednesday, October 9, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 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° 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 antifouling 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 fillmix-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 Pointede-l’Ouest (West Point), Anticosti 

Island, and west of a line along 63° 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. 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES3
82136 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 196 / Wednesday, October 9, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 

Voyage means any transit by a vessel 

traveling from or destined for any 

United States port or place. 

§ 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 

§ 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, nonskid 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. 

§ 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 

§§ 139.13, 139.14, 139.22, 139.28, and 

139.29 for additional biofouling 

management requirements. 

§ 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 oilto-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 

§ 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 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES3
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 196 / Wednesday, October 9, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 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 typeapproved 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 

mg/L. 

(ii) Total residual oxidizers: for any 

discharge from a BWMS using chlorine 

or ozone, total residual oxidizers must 

not exceed 100 mg/L. 

(iii) Peracetic acid: for any discharge 

from a BWMS using peracetic acid, 

peracetic acid must not exceed 500 mg/ 

L. 

(iv) Hydrogen peroxide: for any 

discharge from a BWMS using peracetic 

acid, hydrogen peroxide must not 

exceed 1,000 mg/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° 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 § 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): 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES3
82138 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 196 / Wednesday, October 9, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 

(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 typeapproved 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 typeapproved 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 § 139.40(b). 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES3
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 196 / Wednesday, October 9, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 82139 

§ 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 belowdeck 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 § 139.40(c). 

§ 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 § 139.40(d). 

§ 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. 

§ 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 § 139.40(e). 

§ 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 § 139.40(f). 

§ 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. 

§ 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. 

§ 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 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES3
82140 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 196 / Wednesday, October 9, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 

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 mg/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 mg/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 seawater addition for pH control 

(t/MWh) 

Numeric discharge standard 

(μg/L PAHphe equivalents) Measurement technology 

0–1 ................................................................................................................................ 2,250 Ultraviolet light 

2.5 ................................................................................................................................. 900 – ′′ – 

5 .................................................................................................................................... 450 Fluorescence a

11.25 ............................................................................................................................. 200 – ′′ – 

22.5 ............................................................................................................................... 100 – ′′ – 

45 .................................................................................................................................. 50 – ′′ – 

90 .................................................................................................................................. 25 – ′′ – 

aFor 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 NOX 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/MWh) 

Numeric discharge standard 

(mg/L 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 § 139.18(b)(1). 

(ii) PAH. Maximum of 50 mg/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 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES3
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 196 / Wednesday, October 9, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 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. 

§ 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 

§ 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 § 139.40(g). 

§ 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. 

§ 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 mg/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 federallyprotected waters are contained in 

§ 139.40(h). 

§ 139.22 Hulls and associated niche areas. 

(a) Applicability. The requirements in 

paragraphs (b) through (d) of this 

section apply to the discharge of antifouling 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) Antifouling 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 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES3
82142 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 196 / Wednesday, October 9, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 

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 antifouling 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 copperimpaired 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 antifouling 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 copperbased 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 antifouling 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, phosphatefree, 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 § 139.40(i). 

§ 139.23 Inert gas systems. 

There are no additional dischargespecific 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. 

§ 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 § 139.40(j). 

§ 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 nonoily 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. 

§ 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 mg/L; 

and 

(ii) For bromine disinfection: total 

residual oxidant less than 25 mg/L. 

(c) Additional standards applicable to 

discharges from pools and spas when a 

vessel is operating in federally-protected 

waters are contained in § 139.40(k). 

§ 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. 

§ 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/filamentwound 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 § 139.40(l). 

§ 139.29 Sonar domes. 

(a) The requirements in paragraphs (b) 

and (c) of this section apply to 

discharges from sonar domes. 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES3
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 196 / Wednesday, October 9, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 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 

§ 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 federallyprotected 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, § 610, 

Dec. 18, 2014, 128 Stat. 3064, as 

amended by Pub. L. 114–120, title VI, 

§ 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 federallyprotected 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 § 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 § 139.14. When USCG fire drills are 

conducted, the discharge of any 

firefighting foam into federallyprotected 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 federallyprotected waters is prohibited. 

(l) Seawater piping systems. The 

discharge of chemical dosing, as 

described in § 139.28, into federallyprotected waters is prohibited. 

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. 

(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. 

§ 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 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES3
82144 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 196 / Wednesday, October 9, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 

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. 

§ 139.52 Application by a State for the 

Administrator to establish a State nodischarge 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 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES3
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 196 / Wednesday, October 9, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 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—FederallyProtected 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 * 

Papaha ̄naumokua ̄kea 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 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES3
82146 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 196 / Wednesday, October 9, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 

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-Hono ̄khau National Historical Park * 

Pearl Harbor National Memorial * 

Pu‘uhonua o Ho ̄naunau 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 * 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES3
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 196 / Wednesday, October 9, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 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 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES3
82148 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 196 / Wednesday, October 9, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 

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 * 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES3
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 196 / Wednesday, October 9, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 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 * 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES3
82150 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 196 / Wednesday, October 9, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 

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 * 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES3
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 196 / Wednesday, October 9, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 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 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES3
82152 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 196 / Wednesday, October 9, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 

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 * 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES3
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 196 / Wednesday, October 9, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 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 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES3
82154 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 196 / Wednesday, October 9, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 

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 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES3
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 196 / Wednesday, October 9, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 82155 

Tray Mountain Wilderness 

Wolf Island Wilderness * 

Hawaii 

Haleakala ̄ 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 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES3
82156 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 196 / Wednesday, October 9, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 

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 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES3
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 196 / Wednesday, October 9, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 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 * 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES3
82158 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 196 / Wednesday, October 9, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 

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 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES3