Coast Guard based the resulting standards on an allowable concentration
of organisms larger than a specified size criterion, providing a
balance between protection and practicability and taking into account
the expected capabilities of technology. The BWDS alternatives do not
represent the minimum viable populations for all taxonomic groups.
    One commenter stated that the proposed E. coli and intestinal
enterococci standards are not strong enough in that they are less
stringent than the EPA's criteria for recreational water contact. The
Coast Guard acknowledges that the standards in the BWDS may appear to
be less stringent than EPA standards for water quality. However, the
water quality standards are for ambient conditions, not discharge
standards.
    One commenter pointed out that the concept of indicator organisms
as surrogates for pathogens has served the drinking water supply
industry well since its establishment of presence/absence testing that
is now routinely used. The Coast Guard agrees with this comment, and
notes that the DPEIS included indicator organisms in some of the
alternatives.
    One commenter stated that, based on scientific reports from both
the United States and Canada, the current BWM measures in place in the
St. Lawrence Seaway and the Great Lakes (BWE and salt-water flushing
for no ballast onboard vessels) protect the waters of the Great Lakes,
making the proposed BWDS unnecessary. The commenter further stated that
the proposed phase-one BWDS, according to available science, will
ensure that aquatic NIS are not discharged into waters of the United
States from vessels. The commenter added that the approach discussed in
the NPRM that would bypass phase one and go directly to the phase-two
standard is not practicable and it is doubtful that it would provide
greater protection of the aquatic environment.
    The Coast Guard acknowledges that there have been no new reports of
introductions of invasive NIS into the Great Lakes since implementation
of the BWM measures mentioned by the commenter. While the lack of
reports of new introductions into the Great Lakes is promising and
there is a reason to be optimistic that current BWM methods are having
an effect, there are continuing reasons to be concerned and not to
accept these findings as definitive. For instance, the lack of
comprehensive sampling may mean that some events have not been
detected. Other possibilities are that there have been introductions,
but that there have been lags in species establishment. Also, we note
that the practicability review process referenced by the commenter was
designed to ensure that any bypass of phase one to phase two would only
occur if it could be practicably achieved.
Consideration of Treatment Method Impacts
    Two commenters pointed out that the DPEIS does not address the
impacts of specific BWMS.
    Another commenter said that the statement in the DPEIS that
alternatives 2 through 5 would not have additional adverse impacts on
environmental and socioeconomic resources might not be an acceptable
assumption for some treatment options (such as chemical disinfectants).
    Two commenters recommended that the Coast Guard explicitly consider
the environmental impacts of approaches to meet BWDS. The first
commenter focused on methods that could involve active substances at
high concentrations that could be persistent, toxic, or both. The
second commenter recommended that the Coast Guard assess treatment
technologies in coordination with the EPA by conducting a FPEIS in
conjunction with the practicability review and include the impacts of
both biocide residuals and treatment byproducts, cumulative impacts
(multiple discharging ships and multiple types of active substances),
and to ensure that discharges are consistent with Clean Water Act
requirements.
    One commenter stated that the DPEIS does not analyze the effects of
potential technologies and methods for achieving BWDS, including
chemical residuals, reaction by-products, thermal pollution, energy
use, and dockside impacts, and that until those are evaluated, impacts
on ESA listed species cannot be assessed. The commenter stated that the
agency understands that the ``action'' is establishing standards, and
continues to support the process for establishing the standards.
    The Coast Guard acknowledges these comments and clarifies that
ballast water treatment systems were not included in the DPEIS. However
Appendix F of the FPEIS does include an analysis of ballast water
treatment

technologies in use by vessels enrolled or being reviewed by STEP as a
means to show the practicability of the BWDS set forth in this rule.
This information is not meant to be detailed or all-inclusive. Methods
to achieve the standard will be evaluated in separate environmental
analyses as part of the approval process. All appropriate actions,
resources, and impacts will be taken into account.
    One commenter inquired about a statement in the DPEIS under the
description of chlorine as a biocide that impact to ships' ballast
tanks from the corrosion is a concern, asking whether it is a Coast
Guard or a maritime industry concern, and why. The Coast Guard is
concerned with any potential corrosion issues that could affect the
safety or life of a vessel. Any BWMS that is going to require
additional maintenance or shorten the life of the vessel has the
potential to cause ripple effects through the maritime transportation
system.
    One commenter stated that it is very difficult, given the current
stage of scientific evidence and BWMS, to discuss the merits of more
stringent standards than those imposed by IMO, especially as extreme an
alternative as sterilization. The commenter further stated that
sterilization of ballast water would task the maritime industry with an
unwarranted standard and would probably be impossible to achieve. The
Coast Guard agrees that the total sterilization of ballast water,
specifically in regards to microbiological organisms, is challenging,
if not impossible to achieve. The preferred alternative was developed
taking into consideration environmental protection and practicability,
including the economic and technical aspects of implementing BWDSs.
    One commenter stated that destruction of spore-like phases of
marine life may be impracticable without actually distilling ballast
water and, even so, any residue may well have to be treated as toxic
waste. Another commenter stated that BWM will prevent organisms from
reproducing and releasing larvae into the environment.
    The Coast Guard does not agree or disagree with these comments, as
they relate to specific types of BWMS. As noted earlier, specific BWMS
were not included in the DPEIS. These specific BWMS will be evaluated
in separate environmental analysis as part of the approval process. All
appropriate actions, resources, and impacts will be taken into account
in that process.
    Two commenters stated that the foundation for setting any BWDS
under NEPA is the ability to conduct a cost/benefit assessment, but
that it cannot be done because there is no way to predict or quantify
the environmental benefit (measurement of invasions which did not
occur) of the treatment alternatives. The commenter explained that a
reasonable cost/efficacy ratio and measurable reduction of introduced
organisms are needed, and without a reasonable, scientifically-based
metric to show continual improvement, the perceived benefit may not
meet measured benefit, leading to more stringent regulation and
additional implementation costs.
    The Coast Guard disagrees with these comments. As we have
discussed, specific BWMS were not included in the DPEIS, but the FPEIS
does include an analysis of STEP vessels with ballast water treatment
technologies as a means to show the practicability of the BWDS set
forth in this rule. Methods to achieve the BWDS will be evaluated in
separate environmental analyses during the approval process for each
BWMS. Additionally, the Coast Guard did conduct a scientifically based
analysis to predict the relative probability of NIS establishment for
the discharge standard alternatives in the DPEIS. For purposes of
complying with NEPA, the Council on Environmental Quality regulations
state that weighing of the merits and drawbacks of the various
alternatives need not be displayed in a monetary cost-benefit analysis
and should not be when there are important qualitative considerations.
DPEIS Modeling Comments
    One commenter stated that treating a lack of current science as
meeting the ``best available science'' requirement of NISA may be a
practical necessity in order to adopt an environmentally protective and
economically rational standard in the near future. The commenter did
not think it is reasonable to assess in advance the biological
effectiveness of this ``first established standard,'' as there would be
no other numeric standard to compare to. The commenter also stated that
the relationship between the frequency and magnitude of introductions
and the probability of successful NIS establishment should be a
priority for future research to establish a baseline for future
adjustments to discharge standards.
    The Coast Guard disagrees with this comment. First, the statutory
requirement from NANPCA, as amended by NISA, is that we use ``best
scientific information available,'' not ``best available science.''
Second, although the amount of scientific information available on
aquatic NIS is not ideal, the Coast Guard conducted a scientifically-
based analysis to predict the relative probability of NIS establishment
for the BWDS alternatives in the DPEIS. New information on the
probability of aquatic NIS establishment will be considered for future
evaluation of discharge standards.
    Two commenters stated that the Coast Guard argues convincingly that
population viability analysis (PVA) is the most suitable analytical
methodology to use for the NEPA analysis, and that we should consider
revisiting the approach if new information becomes available in
intervening years. The Coast Guard agrees with the comment. New
information on the probability of aquatic NIS establishment will be
considered for future evaluation of discharge standards.
    One commenter asked whether there is precedent for using PVA for
the type of NIS application that the DPEIS addresses. Another commenter
expressed concern that the Coast Guard has not provided sufficient
documentation to support the use of PVA ``in a marine or aquatic
situation with invertebrates and/or microorganisms.''
    As the Coast Guard noted in the DPEIS, the application of PVA to
marine and aquatic invertebrates and microorganisms is novel. However,
this does not affect the underlying scientific logic of this approach
(e.g., Andersen 2005). PVA has been applied to terrestrial
invertebrates (e.g., Schultz and Hammond 2003). The diffusion model on
which the PVA in the report is based has been applied to microbial
populations (e.g., Ponciano et al 2005).
    One commenter stated that an evaluation of extinction probability
needs to consider cumulative ballast discharges from multiple ships
rather than just individual discharges from single ships, and examine
the assumption that an initial population released from an individual
ship is completely separate and isolated from other organisms released
in the same area, since several discharges in the same area may build a
population to viability before extinction can occur.
    The Coast Guard acknowledges this comment and will take this
opportunity to clarify. Based on available data, the analysis focused
explicitly on a single discharge. In order to address the broader
question of the effect of the proposed BWM measures on the rate of
species introductions from multiple discharges, the Coast Guard would
require information about the number, magnitude, and timing of the
multiple

discharges and about the species present in each discharge. As
identified in the NRC report, there are data gaps (``a profound lack of
data and information'') and therefore, there is no presently available
information on multiple discharges. As recommended by NRC, models need
to be developed to assess these risks and to link to new information as
they become available. The Coast Guard will consider models that may be
available during their practicability review under NISA. This may
provide additional information to address the risk associated with
multiple ballast discharges.
    One commenter claimed that the analysis assumes that ``a percentage
reduction in abundance is directly and linearly related to reduction in
successful invasion probability.'' The Coast Guard disagrees with this
comment. The relationship between a percentage reduction in abundance
and the probability of successful invasion is not assumed, it is based
on the underlying diffusion model for population growth. Furthermore,
the relationship is not specifically linear for this model; reducing
initial abundance by a factor f increases the probability of extinction
(i.e., unsuccessful invasion) by a factor f-c where the parameter c
depends on the parameters of the population model.
    A commenter stated that it would be helpful for the DPEIS to give
at least some consideration to organisms 10 micrometers and smaller,
given the potential for pathogenic microorganisms to be transported in
ballast water, using the framework adopted in Appendix A for larger
organisms. Another commenter was concerned that the technical approach
in the DPEIS does not adequately consider pathogens in the analysis.
The Coast Guard disagrees with these comments. Microorganisms and
pathogens were considered throughout development of the BWDS
alternatives and are included in the BWDS in the form of indicator
species. The PVA analysis in Appendix A was not applied to
microorganisms because, for smaller organisms, the lower bound of the
mean density range is already below the limits of alternatives 2
through 4 and that the Coast Guard was not aware of any basis for a
scientific, defensible, and enforceable discharge standard for
microorganisms.
    One commenter stated that the technical approach to justify the
proposed standards needs to include the transportation of bacterial and
viral NIS pathogens, including the fish-killing Viral Hemorrhagic
Septicemia (VHS) virus, by larger NIS that are infected. The commenter
said that ballast water discharge containing infected organisms could
transmit the pathogens, whether the host is alive or dead.
    The Coast Guard agrees with this comment. Microorganisms and
pathogens were considered throughout development of the BWDS
alternatives and are included in the standards themselves in the form
of indicator species. The analysis' technical approach addressed the
two larger size classes of organisms in alternatives 2 through 4, not
microorganisms, given that for smaller organisms, the lower bound of
the mean density range is already below the limits of alternatives 2
through 4. The Coast Guard was not aware of any basis for a scientific,
defensible, and enforceable discharge standard for microorganisms.
    One commenter stated that the DPEIS assumption for the PVA model,
that N(t) follows geometric Brownian Motion, should be better clarified
and defined, and is probably inappropriate for larger organisms than
the smaller than 50 micrometer class, since larger organisms move based
on several variables such as habitat and water temperature (which could
also affect motion of organisms smaller than 50 micrometers).
    The Coast Guard disagrees with the comment. The diffusion model
does not assume that individuals do not move in response to
environmental factors. It is possible that the commenter confused the
population model--which is called Brownian motion--with a model of the
same name of the movement of individuals.
    One commenter stated that the complexity of predicting the
introduction and establishment of NIS and the lack of the necessary
detailed information do not justify the Coast Guard's use of a
``generic data-poor approach'' to analysis. The commenter also
questioned whether PVA is appropriate or useful for an unknown, large
number of different species with differing characteristics and dynamics
that may be present within a ballast tank, since the Coast Guard states
``PVA is typically used to assess the status of a particular population
and therefore typically involves the development of a model of each
population of interest separately,'' and is ``a routine tool for
assessing the dynamics and extinction properties of a single
population.''
    The Coast Guard notes that the commenter's acknowledgment of the
lack of detailed information implies that any approach will be ``data-
poor.'' The diffusion model PVA approach used in the DPEIS is the best
available to science that is appropriate for this purpose. The
application of PVA to ``an unknown (but large) number of different
species'' was necessitated by the problem at hand: namely, to evaluate
alternative national standards for BWM. The diffusion model used here
is quite general and applicable to different populations. The values of
the parameters of this model are likely to vary from species to species
and environment to environment. To account for this, the analysis
considered a reasonable range of parameter values. As discussed in the
NRC report, the PVA model is acknowledged as one of a group of models
that can assess the relationship between invasion risk and propagule
pressure. The NRC report goes on to conclude that ``models of any kind
are only as informative as their input data. In the case of ballast
water, both invasion risk and organisms density discharged from ballast
water are characterized by considerable and largely unquantified,
uncertainty.''
    One commenter stated that there are gaps in the knowledge of
invasion biology required to assess the impacts of a treatment standard
and the relative degree of added benefit as compared to BWE. The Coast
Guard acknowledges this comment. Although the abundance of scientific
information on aquatic NIS is not ideal, the Coast Guard conducted a
scientifically based analysis to predict the relative probability of
NIS establishment for the discharge standard alternatives in the DPEIS.
    One commenter suggested that the statement from DPEIS Appendix A
that ``considerable uncertainty attaches to the estimate of the
extinction probability factor and the mean rate of successful
introductions relative to the baseline'' needs to be included as a
disclaimer in the main body of the PEIS. The Coast Guard agrees and
made that addition in the FPEIS.
    One commenter stated that separate risk analysis and assumptions
are needed for the freshwater environment on the Great Lakes and
offered general information and references on salinity toxicity
effects, expected number of future invasions, and BWE effectiveness.
The Coast Guard disagrees with this comment. Given that the PEIS is
programmatic to apply to the wide variety of ecosystems in the affected
environment and the generic nature of the PVA diffusion model, the
analysis is applicable over the range of the impacted area.
    Two commenters questioned the assumed range of 0.001 to 0.1 of for
the values of c, the biological population parameter. The first
commenter stated that the instantaneous growth rates for many
planktonic organisms are well-known and others can easily be determined
experimentally. The second

commenter stated that there is no justification for the selection of
this range, and no discussion of whether populations might typically
tend towards either end. The first commenter further stated that the
values for the statistical representation of the estimated total
initial number of organisms released in a single ballast water
discharge is extremely variable and questioned how the values can give
a good representation of the number of organisms discharged from a
typical ballast tank.
    The Coast Guard neither agrees nor disagrees with these comments.
As we explained in Appendix A of the DPEIS, we chose this range to
reflect the best available estimates of the extinction probability for
species introduced through ballast water discharge. The paper by Calbet
and Landry (2004) provides daily growth rates for planktonic organisms
in their native habitats. A central issue regarding NIS is the fate of
organisms introduced into habitats that are not their native ones.
Furthermore, the critical parameter c depends not only on the growth
rate of a population, but also on its variability. The values
characterizing the initial number of organisms are based on the work of
Minton et al. (2005) and provide the best available representation of
variability in the number of organisms released in a single ballast
water discharge.
    One commenter stated that the assumptions that the ballast water of
a single vessel contains 12 ``new'' species, that the most abundant is
50 percent of the total abundance, and that the ordered relative
abundances follow the geometric model is an ``extremely huge'' set of
assumptions to make and there is lack of reasoning behind them.
Furthermore, the commenter was concerned that a large number of species
may have been missed, since the 12 value comes from a study evaluating
organisms of a different size class than the alternatives, and was
concerned that there is no presentation of variation around the mean
for 12 new species.
    The Coast Guard disagrees with this comment. We provided the
rationale for each assumption in Appendix A of the DPEIS, which states
that the assumed values were based on the paper by Smith, et al.
(1999). Despite its limitations, this study reflects the best available
information on the species composition of ballast water. The
application of the PVA diffusion model was conducted by experts in the
biological and statistical fields and reviewed by others, including
cooperating agencies. The PVA diffusion model provided a generic, non-
species-specific model that, in conjunction with other information, was
used to provide insight into the potential relative impacts of the
alternatives, based on probability of NIS establishment.
    One commenter stated that there should be more consistent use of
lower and upper case letters for variables/parameters in the DPEIS, and
that the clarity of the extinction probability equation would be
improved by indicating the baseline extinction probability with a
different term/subscript, providing more information on its derivation,
and correcting the relationship to read fe = f-c fe = f-c. The
commenter also suggested that q(m) (the probability that at least one
species is successfully introduced) should be defined in the DPEIS body
text and that Ne (the percent increase in q(m) over the baseline
scenarios) should be defined.
    The Coast Guard disagrees with the comment regarding the extinction
probability equation. The equation follows from simple algebraic
substitution and no further details should be needed. On the notation
for baseline extinction probability, Appendix A already distinguishes
between baseline extinction probability and extinction probability when
initial abundance is reduced by a factor f. The Coast Guard agrees the
correct relationship is fe = f-c fe = f-c and changed the FPEIS from
``extinction probability factor fe = f-c fe = f-c'' to ``extinction
probability factor fe = f-c fe = f-c'', as in Equation (7). The Coast
Guard acknowledges the comment regarding the terms q(m) and Ne and made
changes in the FPEIS, as appropriate.
    One commenter stated that there is no sensitivity analysis or
quantification of model error with which to evaluate the PVA model used
in the DPEIS. The Coast Guard disagrees with this comment. Throughout
the DPEIS, results are given for alternative values of key parameters.
    One commenter stated that discussion in the DPEIS on the importance
of default values for multiple species is incomplete, and that examples
of predictions for probability of at least one introduction in multiple
species scenarios could convey a false sense of security. The commenter
also stated that using a default value of only twice the median number
of organisms released results in a nonzero, albeit small, probability
of at least one species being introduced in the alternative 4 scenario
and that this sensitivity issue should be discussed in the DPEIS.
    The Coast Guard disagrees with the comment. We provided the
rationale for these default values in Appendix A of the DPEIS. The
commenter's own calculation of the effect of doubling the default of
the total number of organisms in a discharge event shows that these
results are not highly sensitive to changes in the default values.
    One commenter stated that the modeling results for multiple species
support the conclusion that more stringent treatment alternatives will
substantially reduce the likelihood of new NIS introductions via
ballast water. The Coast Guard acknowledges this comment, but notes
that the correctness of this statement depends on the definition of
``substantially.''
    One commenter responded to a question in the NPRM asking for any
studies on the effects of propagule pressure on successful
establishment of a NIS in aquatic ecosystems by referring to the
research being performed by the Canadian Aquatic Invasive Species
Network in relation to shipping mode and route, and factors affecting
establishment success. The Coast Guard may use this information in a
future evaluation of discharge standards. The Coast Guard will continue
to follow the relevant literature in this area.
    One commenter stated that it seems, from the relative effectiveness
results of the analysis of BWDS alternatives, that the approach assumes
that discharges in compliance with the different alternatives contain
the stated number of organisms in the respective groups, and that the
proposed phase-one standard is equivalent to the IMO discharge
standard. The Coast Guard agrees with the comment.
    One commenter cited an error in Appendix A, table 5-8. For the
scenario with Ne = 100, c = 0.00008 and alternative 3, q(m) should be
0.00025, not 0.0025. The Coast Guard agrees with this comment and made
this correction in the FPEIS. Ne is the percent increase in q(m) over
the baseline scenarios, q(m) is the probability that at least one
species is successfully introduced, and c is the biological population
parameter.
    One commenter stated there is no evidence to suggest that the
standards outlined in alternatives 1 through 4 are biological
thresholds that represent minimum viable populations for all taxonomic
groups. The Coast Guard agrees with this comment, however, this is not
relevant to the analysis. The BWDS alternatives do not represent the
minimum viable populations for all taxonomic groups. We developed these
alternatives through a rigorous process including three separate expert
panel workshops, public scoping meetings,

and cooperating agency participation, and the Coast Guard based the
BWDS alternatives on an allowable concentration of organisms larger
than a specified size criterion, providing a balance between protection
and practicability and taking into account the expected capabilities of
technology.
DPEIS Affected Environment Comments
    One commenter suggested that the Coast Guard expand the scope of
the DPEIS to encompass the ``big picture'' by including other adjacent,
interconnected water bodies, such as the Canadian waters of the Great
Lakes, and including other interacting programs such as U.S. Department
of Agriculture's Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS).
The commenter also suggested including information in the DPEIS from an
authority on VHS and Federal agency publications on treatment methods.
    The Coast Guard disagrees with this comment. The DPEIS is a
programmatic document, and areas were addressed at the national and
ecosystem level, including a freshwater ecosystems section. APHIS
participated in the preparation of the DPEIS as a cooperating agency in
accordance with 40 CFR 1501.6. BWMS were not included in the DPEIS and
methods to achieve the standard will be evaluated in separate
environmental analysis as part of the approval process. Vessels with
BWMS enrolled in STEP are included in the FPEIS as a means evidence the
practicability of the BWDS proposed in this rule.
    Another commenter suggested including a major western freshwater
system under the DPEIS section on freshwater ecosystems and cited the
Columbia River and its watershed as very significant. The Coast Guard
agrees with this comment, and added the Columbia River as an additional
example in the FPEIS.
    One commenter suggested separating public health and shipping
safety, and expanding the latter in the Affected Environment chapter of
the DPEIS. The Coast Guard agrees and made these changes in the FPEIS.
    One commenter stated that the proposed rule and DPEIS are both
over-inclusive (too many vessels and areas) and under-inclusive (some
remedies not considered, such as using other water or other ballasting
methods). The Coast Guard made changes to the final rule, including
revised applicability to include additional exemptions and
clarification of other water and ballasting methods, which address the
examples given as evidence that the NPRM and DPEIS were both over- and
under-inclusive. These changes are summarized in this preamble in V.A.
Summary of Changes from the NPRM.
    One commenter explained that the physical environment of the Great
Lakes is more susceptible to ecosystem damage due to isolation and slow
flushing rates as compared with estuarine and ocean coastal areas. The
Coast Guard notes this comment, but did not include Great Lakes
flushing rates in the FPEIS because it analyzed the BWDS alternatives
from a nationwide scope, not by specific geographic area.
    One commenter stated that since the Great Lakes are one of the
primary freshwater resources affected by BWDS, the DPEIS could include
additional Great Lakes-specific information and references. The
commenter further suggested that it may be useful to highlight Lake
Superior as a less stressed system than the other Great Lakes and
discuss the Great Lakes Fishery Commission's fishery management
objectives pertaining to habitat in the Great Lakes. The Coast Guard
disagrees with this comment. The Great Lakes were addressed as a whole
in the DPEIS, not individually.
    Two commenters stated that the Coast Guard recognizes the
environmental damage caused by NIS, and they explained that the rapid
spread of freshwater invaders from the Great Lakes illustrates that
protecting the Great Lakes from ballast-mediated invasions protects
freshwater ecosystems across North America. The Coast Guard
acknowledges these comments.
    One commenter suggested adding Asian clams to the DPEIS discussion
of the round goby and updating the analysis to include costs of the
second underwater electric barrier. The same commenter suggested
modifying the statement about the abundance of Diporeia in Lakes
Michigan and Huron from non-existent to vastly declined, and
highlighting additional examples of food web changes related to NIS.
The Coast Guard disagrees with the first comment. The round goby was
cited as an example and does not need elaboration. The remaining
changes were made, as appropriate.
    One commenter suggested that waters within many National Park units
may represent the best available examples of healthy marine ecosystems,
and should be recognized explicitly in the DPEIS and NPRM via a clear
prohibition of ballast water discharge within their boundaries. The
Coast Guard disagrees with the recommendation for a blanket prohibition
of ballast water discharge within National Park waters. We note,
however, that 33 CFR 151.2050 requires vessel owners to avoid ballast
water discharge in marine sanctuaries, marine preserves, marine parks,
or coral reefs.
    One commenter stated that habitat destruction and loss should be
included as a stressor impacting marine, estuarine, and freshwater
environments, being that it has been implicated as the greatest threat
to imperiled species and gave a reference. The commenter also stated
that the other stressors and examples in the DPEIS need to have
citations for the references used. The Coast Guard disagrees with the
comment. Habitat destruction and loss already are mentioned and cited
in several places in the DPEIS.
    One commenter stated that the DPEIS doesn't quantify some of the
worst NIS, such as zebra mussels. The commenter also takes issue with
the apparent focus on populated aquatic environments that are already
compromised by NIS at the expense of protecting all aquatic
environments, from the pristine to the heavily used. The commenter said
that when all the economic benefits of protecting environments from NIS
are evaluated, a preventative mode is more cost effective than
mitigating undesired effects.
    The Coast Guard disagrees with this comment. The effects of zebra
mussels and other NIS are mentioned in several places in the DPEIS. A
BWDS under NANPCA/NISA is intended as a practicable standard that
significantly reduces the risk of invasions in all aquatic
environments.
    One commenter suggested that the Coast Guard define ``dead zones,''
or use the terms ``anoxia'' or ``hypoxia'' to better describe the
situation. The Coast Guard agrees with this comment, and made the
changes in the FPEIS to clarify that there will be fewer introductions
and spreading of NIS in comparison to a scenario without a BWDS.
    One commenter pointed out an apparent inconsistency where the DPEIS
states two different numbers of NIS reportedly established in San
Francisco Bay. The Coast Guard made the changes in the FPEIS.
    One commenter suggested that the Coast Guard explain what is meant
by ``increased competition'' in the DPEIS description of impacts on
bird health. The Coast Guard made the changes in the FPEIS.
    One commenter suggested that the Coast Guard update all of the
economic information in the DPEIS Economic Status section to reflect
the recent downturn in the economy. The commenter specified that they
believed the statement that tourism and recreation have provided all of
the job

growth to the U.S. ocean economy within the last decade was outdated
and not accurately cited. The Coast Guard disagrees with this comment,
as the socioeconomic information in the DPEIS is intended to represent
a longer term, e.g., a decade or more. We verified the citation and the
statement is accurately cited.
    One commenter pointed out that billions of dollars are spent and
anticipated for dealing with NIS. The commenter also felt that the
value of Michigan's extensive water resources and their uses must be
taken into account, and that the cost of not pursuing a more rigorous
standard for the Great Lakes is billions of dollars annually and will
result in incalculable natural resource losses. The Coast Guard neither
agrees nor disagrees with this comment, however, the PEIS is a
programmatic document, and areas, including socioeconomic impacts such
as water resources, were addressed at the national and ecosystem level
not the State level.
PEIS Alternatives Comments
    One commenter expressed general support of the DPEIS, stating their
appreciation of the use of the best available science and models to
justify the numeric discharge standard. The Coast Guard notes that the
standard from NANPCA, as amended by NISA, is for the Coast Guard to use
``best scientific information available,'' not ``best available
science.''
    One commenter stated that the sizes range for the alternative
standards should extend to below 0.01 micrometers, to incorporate most
pathogenic viruses, including the VHS fish virus. The commenter also
said that the possibility of man-made pathogens or fragments of viruses
which could be used to contaminate freshwater city water supplies on
the Great Lakes and deserve special treatment due to their risk of
adversely affecting most native fisheries in the Great Lakes and
adjacent waters.
    The Coast Guard disagrees with this comment. Three separate expert
panel workshops, public scoping meetings, and cooperating agency
participation contributed to progressive development of the BWDS
alternatives. As a result, the Coast Guard decided that pathogenic
microorganisms, which include viruses, would be represented in terms of
indicator bacteria. The BWDS alternatives do not apply by specific
area.
    One commenter recommended that the PEIS define organism size
classes for BWDS alternatives in more detail by specifying where on the
organism the measurement is done and to use organism taxa in the
categorization. The commenter also recommended clarification on whether
chain forming algae should be classified by size of individual cells or
size of colonies. The commenter stressed that the Coast Guard must keep
in mind the ultimate goals of reducing or eliminating the risk of
invasive species when classifying organisms by size. The Coast Guard
reviewed the information provided but did not make changes in the
FPEIS, as we believe there is sufficient information in the FPEIS as it
stands.
    One commenter stated that he or she does not support a no-action
alternative. The Coast Guard appreciates the commenter's input,
however, the no-action alternative is used as a baseline in the
environmental analysis, not as an action alternative. Council on
Environmental Quality regulations require the Coast Guard to evaluate
the no-action alternative. 40 CFR 1502.14(d).
    One commenter stated that the discussion of the no-action
alternative should include that a vessel-by-vessel approach is not
practical, and that using BWE as the benchmark for system effectiveness
is not sufficiently protective of the waters of the United States. The
Coast Guard disagrees with this comment. Council on Environmental
Quality regulations require the Coast Guard to evaluate the no-action
alternative; it is used as a baseline in the environmental analysis,
not as an action alternative. Id.
    One commenter stated that ballast water retention, part of the no-
action alternative, would eliminate the introduction of species via
ballast water discharge, thus it is not appropriate for the DPEIS to
state that the no-action alternative will not eliminate the
introduction and spread of NIS. The commenter further stated that the
DPEIS should make it clear that, while a BWDS is more protective than
BWE, ballast water retention is more protective than a BWDS, and that
many vessels do not have to take any BWM actions under current
regulations and can release untreated coastal ballast water.
    The Coast Guard disagrees with the comment. The no-action
alternative is intended to reflect a set of options, any of which a
vessel may use or not use, due to preferences or capabilities. Thus the
no-action alternative as a whole will not eliminate the introduction
and spread of NIS. The Coast Guard acknowledges in the DPEIS that some
vessels may not be able to conduct BWE depending on vessel design, age,
load, sea conditions, and safety concerns.
    One commenter stated that it is confusing to include ballast water
treatment under the no-action alternative, and wondered if the Coast
Guard intended to state that treatment that is equal to or better than
BWE, without the development of a BWDS, is part of the no-action
alternative. The Coast Guard disagrees with this comment. The no-action
alternative reflects the baseline of current BWM requirements, which
includes the option of using an approved treatment that is equal to or
better than BWE. The no-action alternative is intended to reflect a set
of options, any of which a vessel may use or not use, due to
preferences or capabilities.
    A commenter stated that the DPEIS overstates the difficulty of
achieving alternative 5 because a number of sterilization options
listed in Appendix F, including gaseous chlorine, which is widely used
at municipal water treatment facilities, essentially sterilize drinking
water. This commenter also said that the DPEIS further overstates
alternative 5's difficulty by asserting that alternative 5 is the same
as elimination of ballast water discharge. The Coast Guard disagrees
with this comment. Specific BWMS were not included in the DPEIS and the
BWMS analyzed in Appendix F of the FPEIS is limited to providing a
rational basis of the practicability of a proposed alternative. Methods
to achieve the standard will be evaluated in separate environmental
analysis. The DPEIS did not state that alternative 5 is the same as
elimination of ballast water discharge but, rather, that the most
feasible approach for achieving it is through the elimination of
ballast water discharge.
    Two commenters stated that, in 1997, Congress required the Coast
Guard to examine the feasibility of modifying the Valdez Marine
Terminal to prevent the introduction of NIS, and suggested that such a
study be included in the docket and examined in the PEIS. They further
suggested that the PEIS should include an alternative that examines
whether a NIS treatment option can be accelerated at the Valdez Marine
Terminal ahead of the proposed phase-one and phase-two schedules. The
commenters also stated there are onshore treatment solutions for
vessels, including crude oil carriers.
    The Coast Guard disagrees with this comment. Vessels discharging
ballast water to shore or vessel/barge-based treatment facilities
essentially achieve alternative 5 (near sterilization) by not
discharging to the waters of the United States. It would not be
practicable to develop a PEIS alternative involving shoreside
facilities, as there are not currently any available that are designed

to remove living organisms from ballast water. They can be viewed as
one of the potential options available to vessels.
    One commenter stated that ballast water treatment must ensure that
ballast does not contain NIS of sufficient quantity to allow survival
and inoculation, and that DPEIS alternatives 2 through 4 do not assure
this standard can be met, but that alterative 5 does. This commenter
and one other stated that the alternative 2 standard is not appropriate
for the entire United States, because site-specific treatment options
may be able to achieve treatment that exceeds the alternative 2
standard. The first commenter stated that alternative 5 should be the
goal, with reduced standards allowed only when it is proven technically
infeasible to meet this goal.
    The Coast Guard disagrees with these comments. The DPEIS evaluated
the BWDS alternatives, not the means of meeting them. Any methods to
achieve the standard, including ballast water treatment, will be
evaluated in a separate environmental analysis as part of the approval
process. However, as stated previously, the FPEIS does analyze STEP
vessels with BWMS to determine the practicability of the BWDS set forth
in this rule. The goal of a BWDS, as stated in the DPEIS, is the
reduction of NIS introductions and spread and associated impacts.
    One commenter stated that the Coast Guard should attempt to
implement the most protective alternative available in the absence of
detailed environmental data to determine the population level at which
an introduced species will survive. The commenter also noted the
difficulty in comparing the effectiveness of alternatives 1 through 4,
and acknowledged that alternative 5 will not remove the risk of all NIS
introductions. The commenter further recommended that alternative
treatment systems, such as onshore facilities, be considered in more
detail during the practicability review.
    The Coast Guard disagrees with this comment. NEPA does not require
a Federal agency to select the most environmentally protective
alternative. Currently, there are no U.S. type-approved BWMS intended
for use onboard vessels that can practicably and safely achieve
complete sterilization of ballast water. Although difficult, the Coast
Guard made a scientifically-founded evaluation of the alternatives. The
preferred alternative was developed taking into consideration
environmental protection and practicability, including economic and
technical aspects.
    The Coast Guard also disagrees with the commenter's suggestion to
take onshore facilities into account during practicability reviews. The
purpose of the practicability review is not to establish that there are
alternatives to shipboard BWMS capable of meeting the applicable BWDS,
but to determine specifically whether such shipboard BWMS are
practicably available. The presence of onshore facilities will not
factor into that analysis.
    One commenter requested that the DPEIS be revised to provide a
complete quantitative analysis of alternative 5, as required by NEPA.
The Coast Guard disagrees with this comment. NEPA does not require a
quantitative analysis of each alternative, but rather ``to document and
define changes in the natural environment, including the plant and
animal systems, and to accumulate necessary data and other information
for a continuing analysis of these changes or trends and an
interpretation of their underlying causes.'' Since alternative 5 is the
only alternative that assures that no living organisms larger than 0.1
micrometer are released via ballast water the impacts on environmental
resources are expected to be minimal.
    One commenter stated that the Coast Guard's preferred alternative
does not achieve a sufficient reduction in the predicted mean rate of
successful NIS introductions. The Coast Guard disagrees with this
comment. Under NISA, Congress authorized the use of environmentally
sound alternative BWM methods that are at least as effective as BWE in
preventing and controlling infestations of aquatic NIS. The preferred
alternative achieves that requirement.
    One commenter provided the information that over 80 percent of
vessels arriving in California retain all ballast onboard, to refute
the DPEIS statement that few vessels have the ability to retain ballast
onboard. The commenter further stated that vessels may conduct internal
ballast transfers or alter cargo handling operations to reduce the need
to de-ballast.
    The Coast Guard disagrees with the comment. The Coast Guard does
not believe that such retention percentages are applicable to many
vessels calling at U.S. ports. Ballasting operations depend on whether
vessels are offloading or loading cargo, on vessels' ability to carry
near-maximum cargo loads on all legs of a voyage, and on the design and
configuration of the vessel (e.g., bulk carriers cannot retain ballast
water, whereas container vessels may have the physical capacity to do
so).
    One commenter stated that the PEIS should note that the existing
BWM strategy (mid-ocean BWE) is not enforceable to any degree of
accuracy. This comment is beyond the scope of the DPEIS. We note,
however, that the Coast Guard enforces the BWE requirement during both
port state control boardings and annual inspections of vessels, and
that there have been a variety of civil penalty actions which directly
contradict the commenter's assertion.
    One commenter stated that since alternative 2 is not the most
environmentally protective one, the Coast Guard must further discuss
why this alternative is preferred. The Coast Guard's environmental and
socioeconomic rationale for selecting alternative 2 as the preferred
alternative is stated in the FPEIS.
    One commenter pointed out that the DPEIS states that a 2001
workshop in Oakland, CA recommended, as a long-term proposal, the
complete removal or inactivity in ballast water for the first two
functional groups (coastal holoplankton-meroplankton-demersals and
phytoplankton-cysts-algal propagules). The commenter wanted to know why
this is not considered as a long term goal, even if it were to be a
protracted implementation.
    The Coast Guard used information from the 2001 workshop and from
other expert panel workshops, public scoping meetings, cooperating
agency participation, and other sources in developing the proposed
BWDS. The goal of a BWDS is prevention of NIS introductions and spread
and associated impacts. The phase-two standard proposed in the NPRM was
based on the most stringent quantitative standards currently in place
in a state. However, under NANPCA/NISA, any proposal of a standard must
consider practicability, which accounts for the non-inclusion of a no
living organism standard.
PEIS Environmental Consequences
    One commenter stated that the phase-one standard is less effective
than BWE. The Coast Guard disagrees with this comment. Chapter 4 and
appendix A of the PEIS show that alternatives 2 and 3 are more
effective than the no-action alternative.
    One commenter stated that nektonic organisms were not included in
chapter 4 of the DPEIS. The Coast Guard disagrees with this comment.
Nektonic organisms (e.g. fish), though not directly addressed as a
group, are indirectly addressed throughout the FPEIS.
    One commenter suggested that ballast water discharge is one of the
key vectors for viral transmission, especially VHS. The commenter said
that, with no special regulation for Great Lakes vessels, viruses (such
as VHS) could

spread through Lake Superior and possibly move into other waterways.
    The Coast Guard has not identified any studies that directly
identify ballast water as a documented VHS vector in the Great Lakes.
There is a need for further information on possible vectors, including
ballast water, vessel fouling, and live and dead fish. The Coast Guard
notes that the BWDS alternatives do not generally apply by specific
geographic area, but rather are nationwide in scope. However, we will
keep this comment in mind as we conduct more research into the effects
of implementing a BWDS in the Great Lakes, as well as nationwide.
    One commenter stated that impacts of a BWDS need to be clarified as
far as it would affect ecology, the economy, industry, and society,
among other aspects. The Coast Guard believes that the DPEIS addressed
those issues at the programmatic level.
    One commenter suggested that the sentence ``Economic sectors
dependent on the health of aquatic and coastal resources would benefit
from overall healthier ecosystems with fewer invasive species'' in
chapter 4 was misleading because a BWDS will not result in fewer
existing invasive NIS, but fewer introductions in the future. The Coast
Guard agrees with this comment and changed the sentence in the FPEIS to
clarify that there will be fewer introductions and spreading of NIS in
comparison to a scenario without a BWDS.
    One commenter stated that vessels may be able to meet the preferred
alternative for organisms larger than 50 micrometers without BWE or
treatment. The Coast Guard neither agrees nor disagrees with this
statement, but notes that the BWDS is to be used for measuring the
effectiveness of BWMS during the approval process in addition to
measuring compliance from vessels at the point of discharge. It is not
intended that vessels be allowed to assert their non-BWMS method of
dealing with ballast water meets the BWDS.
    One commenter stated that heterotrophic bacteria may also bloom
within a ballast tank as a result of the increased substrate. The Coast
Guard agrees with this comment, but saw no need to make changes to the
FPEIS.
    One commenter suggested that hull fouling is a larger factor than
ballast water for NIS introductions from vessels. The Coast Guard
acknowledges that biofouling is mentioned in the DPEIS, however, this
comment is beyond the scope of this rule. We note that 33 CFR 151.2050
does include some provisions for preventing hull fouling.
    One commenter stated that a cited author never intended to create a
link between the economics of development of a BWDS and an increase in
hull fouling. The Coast Guard has reviewed the use of this author's
work and removed that text from the FPEIS.
    One commenter noted that the threat of species introductions comes
not only from foreign vessels, but also from vessels operating in the
coastal waters of the United States. The Coast Guard agrees with this
statement, and notes that the NPRM proposed requiring all vessels to
comply with the BWDS. For reasons discussed elsewhere in this document,
some of those requirements are being reevaluated. The PEIS does not
intend to imply that NIS introductions come only from foreign vessels.
    One commenter pointed out that the impacts of seawater should be
considered regarding ballast water discharge. This comment is beyond
the scope of this rule, which evaluates the impacts of NIS, but not the
seawater in the discharge.
    One commenter observed that the analyses of BWDS efficacy relative
to BWE fails to account for the differences in potential risk
associated with species that are sourced from different biogeographical
habitats. The Coast Guard disagrees with this comment. The impacts of
NIS invasions necessarily evaluate species that are transferred from
one biogeographical area to a different one, and the effects, including
risk, are described in the DPEIS.
    One commenter stated that the Coast Guard should fully consider the
economic input required for the alternatives. The Coast Guard agrees
with this comment, and notes that the preferred alternative was
developed taking into consideration environmental protection and
practicability, including but not limited to economic and technical
considerations.
    One commenter stated that the evaluation of extinction probability
applies only to individual ballast discharges from single ships without
considering cumulative discharges from multiple ships, which could
substantially increase the initial population of released organisms.
The Coast Guard acknowledges that the PVA diffusion model provided a
generic, non species-specific model that we used, in conjunction with
other information, to provide insight into the potential relative
impacts of the alternatives, i.e., the focus was on relative comparison
of alternatives in terms of probability of NIS establishment.
Cumulative impacts at the macro level are addressed in the FPEIS.
    One commenter suggested that the Coast Guard insert the phrase
``with the implementation of a federal BWDS'' into page 4-23, line 34,
of the DPEIS, where it states, ``Thus, if the volume of shipping
remains at the same level, ballast-mediated invasions are likely to be
reduced.'' The Coast Guard disagrees with this comment. The sentence in
the Cumulative Impacts section that the commenter referred to, as well
as the following sentence, set the context for the last sentence in
that paragraph, ``Thus, a BWDS would be expected to decrease NIS
introductions from distinct [ballast water] discharge events, but the
total number of introductions could still increase due to increases in
global trade.'' The commenter's suggested change would alter the
intended meaning.
    One commenter noted that if alternatives 2 through 4 can provide
minor to major reductions, then alternative 5 should provide at least
moderate to major reductions. The Coast Guard agrees with this comment.
The DPEIS states that the impacts of NIS on the environment under
alternative 5 would likely be greatly reduced compared to the other
alternatives.
    One commenter stated that there was vague language in specific
sentences in the section on impacts of alternatives on listed species
and habitat and in the cumulative impacts section of the Environmental
Consequences, chapter 4 of the DPEIS. The Coast Guard reviewed and
corrected the cited sentences and made changes in the FPEIS, as
appropriate.
    One commenter observed that the 8 percent reduction of NIS between
10 and 50 micrometers noted in the preferred alternative was not
worthwhile given the effort. The Coast Guard disagrees with this
comment. The preferred alternative was developed taking into
consideration environmental protection and practicability, including
economic and technical aspects.
    One commenter stated that the Coast Guard must send a consistency
determination to the State of New York. The Coast Guard agrees with
this comment. We submitted Initial Coastal Zone Management Consistency
determinations to the 34 coastal states and territories, including New
York, in March 2010.
    One commenter noted that the DPEIS failed to account for the
differences in potential risk associated with species that are sourced
from, and discharged into, low salinity habitats. The commenter also
stated that Washington and Oregon will require a higher BWDS.
    The Coast Guard prepared a PEIS because a BWDS would impact a large
geographic area and a wide variety of U.S. ecosystems. The PEIS does
not

evaluate specific areas or ecosystems. Additionally, we note that the
final rule does not preempt the States from setting more stringent
standards.
    Two commenters stated that the Coast Guard's own modeling in the
NPRM and associated DPEIS shows that only the degree of NIS infestation
of the Great Lakes from ballast water discharge changes with the
various scenarios of implementation dates for the phased BWDS. The
Coast Guard acknowledges this comment, but does not feel that any
action is necessary.
    One commenter stated that the Coast Guard should perform additional
scientific research to assess the effectiveness of current BWM efforts
for coastal waters. The Coast Guard disagrees. The DPEIS sufficiently
analyzed this issue for purposes of the rule.
    One commenter stated that the Coast Guard did not discuss details
of enforcement or compare the enforceability of different alternatives
in the DPEIS. The Coast Guard does not believe that the PEIS is the
appropriate place to discuss enforcement details.
    One commenter stated that the Coast Guard should conduct a phase-
one practicability review of the technical and economic barriers
related to implementation of a BWDS for vessels operating primarily in
the Great Lakes and St. Lawrence Seaway system. Another commenter
stated that the precise risk of NIS introductions by domestic
commercial vessels, particularly the domestic Great Lakes trade,
requires further research. The commenter said that, therefore,
application of the proposed rule to the ships in the domestic Great
Lakes trade is inappropriate.
    The Coast Guard agrees with the intent of these comments. We note
that, in general, a phase-one practicability review is effectively
taking place through the type approval of systems to meet the IMO
discharge standard, which is indicative of BWMS being available.
However, as discussed in this preamble in V.A. Summary of Changes from
the NPRM, we have revised the applicability in this final rule such
that non-seagoing vessels; vessels that take on and discharge ballast
exclusively in one COTP Zone; and seagoing vessels that operate in more
than one COTP Zone and do not operate outside of the Exclusive Economic
Zone (EEZ), and are less than or equal to 1,600 gross register tons or
less than or equal to 3,000 gross tons (International Convention on
Tonnage Measurement of Ships, 1969) will not need to comply with the
BWDS at this time. We are continuing to analyze the practicability of
implementing any BWDS to these vessels. We also intend to conduct
additional research, as necessary. The results of which will be
included in a notice or other rulemaking document.
Miscellaneous Comments on the DPEIS
    Six commenters pointed out that the DPEIS contains no evidence to
suggest that ballast water discharged by towing vessels and barges
operating only on the U.S. inland waterways has resulted in or
contributed to the introduction or spread of NIS. Five of these
commenters further stated that the same comment also applies to towing
vessels and barges operating within the same coastal ecosystem, and
that they are not aware of a Coast Guard effort to analyze NBIC data to
determine the role of vessels, particularly domestic towing vessels, in
the introduction and spread of invasive NIS.
    An additional commenter pointed out that there is no evidence of
NIS introduction or spread by towing vessels and barges operating
primarily in U.S. coastal zones. Two commenters stated that it is
unfair to regulate domestic towing vessels and barges with much smaller
ballast water capacity than crude oil tankers in the U.S. coastwise
trade which NISA exempts from BWM requirements.
    One commenter stated that requiring the installation of very
expensive BWMS on thousands of towing vessels and barges with very
limited ballast water capacity is cost-prohibitive or not cost-
effective. The commenter argued that costs must be considered both in
absolute terms and against lack of evidence that towing vessels or
barges operating primarily in U.S. coastal zones have contributed to
the introduction or spread of invasive species, their smaller volumes
of ballast water, and technological and operational impediments to the
installation of BWMS.
    These comments are not directly relevant to the DPEIS; they are
instead comments on the NPRM itself. The Coast Guard has addressed the
issue of applicability to towing vessels in our responses in this
preamble in V.B.1 Discussion of Comments: Applicability.
    One commenter recommended a study of species-by-species NIS risk
analysis on the Great Lakes to focus the need for regulatory efforts on
specific routes, where reducing the risk of species transfer would have
the greatest benefit. The Coast Guard disagrees with this
recommendation. It would not be practicable to develop risk profiles of
specific routes, because risk profiles change as functions of the
environmental characteristics of the locations, the traffic between
them, and the introduction of new species by vessels and multiple non-
ship vectors.
    One commenter stated that onshore ballast water treatment facility
options must be examined by the Coast Guard in the PEIS since there are
proven, technically-feasible onshore treatment solutions for vessels
with dedicated trade routes. They suggested that the Valdez Marine
Terminal could be retrofitted with NIS control to treat crude oil
vessels engaged in foreign trade regulated under the proposed rule and
crude oil vessels engaged in coastwise trade regulated under the Clean
Water Act.
    The Coast Guard disagrees with this comment. The scope of the PEIS
encompasses the standard for discharges from vessels, not an analysis
of the means to achieve the standard. While discharge to shore is an
option for vessels under the NPRM, provided there are facilities
available, it is beyond the Coast Guard's authority to require
shoreside facilities in all ports. NANPCA, as amended by NISA, grants
Coast Guard the authority to regulate vessel BWM practices, and this
authority does not extend to onshore ballast water treatment
facilities. 16 U.S.C 4711. Ballast water discharged to a shore-side
facility is not subject to the Coast Guard's proposed BWDS as it would
not be a discharge into waters of the United States from a vessel.
Discharges to waters of the United States from such shoreside treatment
facilities would be subject to regulation under the CWA NPDES permit
program.
    One commenter stated that the proposed phase-one standard is
biologically inadequate and inconsistent with the United States'
initial position in discussions during the development of the IMO
discharge standard. This initial U.S. position was for a more stringent
standard (less than 0.01 per m\3\ of water as the concentration
standard for Zooplankton and less than 0.01 per mL for smaller
organisms).
    The Coast Guard disagrees that the phase-one standard is
``biologically inadequate''. As described in the DPEIS, the standard
will be more effective than BWE. The initial U.S. negotiating position
on the IMO ballast water discharge standard in 2004 is beyond the scope
of this rulemaking; however, as stated in section V.A.1 of the
preamble, it is our intention to work toward a more stringent standard.
    One commenter stated that information about the resulting damages
avoided by implementing alternatives 3 through 5 needs to be presented
in the DPEIS on page H-10, paragraph 3, so that all alternatives can be
compared on

equal footing. The NPRM RA (available on the docket for this rule)
presents the total potential benefit from different proposed BWDS
alternatives in chapter 5 (table 5.12). The values presented in this
table enable the comparison of the benefits of alternatives 2, 3, and
4.
    One commenter stated that the production and retrofitting of any
heavy equipment onboard the world fleet would add not only cost, but
also additional energy requirements and emissions. One commenter stated
that in addition to the economic burden imposed by the additional power
and gear requirements to operate BWMS, there will also be an associated
increase in air pollutants and greenhouse gas emissions from additional
fuel combustion.
    We expect that our environmental analysis of individual BWMS, as
part of the approval process, would indicate whether that specific BWMS
might increase vessel energy requirements and emissions, which would be
taken into consideration before U.S. type approval is granted.
    One commenter stated that the DPEIS fails to provide a set of
criteria or rubric for how the Coast Guard compared each of the
alternatives in order to arrive at alternative 2 as the preferred
alternative. The commenter also stated that there is a lack of
references for key facts and insufficient cost data to support the
argument that alternatives 3 and 4 are prohibitively expensive.
    The Coast Guard acknowledges the comment that the analyses included
in the DPEIS (and NPRM) did not present a detailed cost analysis of
more stringent BWDS. There are very limited cost data available for
technologies that would meet more stringent standards. The Coast Guard
used the best information available at the time of the analysis to
evaluate alternatives 3 and 4. Therefore, we have determined that
additional analysis is needed, and have already begun its development.
As noted in this preamble in V.A. Summary of Changes from the NPRM, as
we complete this work, the Coast Guard has decided to move forward with
the proposed phase-one standard (or alternative 2) with this final
rule, which does not include a more stringent BWDS.
    One commenter asked whether the costs that appear in Appendix H of
the DPEIS are based on installation of treatment systems on U.S.-
flagged vessels only or if it includes all vessels that will be
discharging in the waters of the United States. The costs of
installation that the Coast Guard presented in Appendix H--table H-3,
``Costs to the U.S. vessels to comply with IMO BWM Convention
(Alternative 2) BWD Standard ($Mil)''--are for U.S. vessels only.
Appendix C of the NPRM RA (available in the docket), presents cost
estimates for the foreign-flagged vessels.
    One commenter stated that the argument that capital and operation
costs will double and quadruple for alternative 3 and alternative 4,
respectively, is not accurate based on data presented in Lloyd's
Register (2008) and Dobroski et al. (2009). A second commenter
requested that the Coast Guard provide some basis for why it believes
that the costs for alternative 3 would double those of alternative 2
and that the costs for alternative 4 would quadruple those for
alternative 2. This commenter echoed the belief that cost data
presented in recent reports by Lloyd's Register (2008) and the CSLC
(Dobroski et al. 2009) do not agree with Coast Guard estimates. The
commenter added that up-to-date facts and figures are needed to clearly
demonstrate that such an increase in costs will be observed in the
event that these alternatives are implemented.
    As the Coast Guard noted previously in our discussion of the
comments received on the NPRM RA, cost estimates presented in Lloyd's
Report and in the CLSC ``Assessment of Efficacy, Availability and
Environmental Impacts of Ballast Water Treatment Systems for Use in
California Waters'' (Dobroski, Scianni, Gehringer and Falkner, 2009)
are related to systems that meet the current IMO discharge standard
only and are consistent with the Coast Guard's cost estimates ($258,000
to $2,525,000) and the Congressional Budget Office ($300,000 to
$1,000,000).
    Nevertheless, the Coast Guard acknowledges that the NPRM, DPEIS,
and the NPRM RA did not present a detailed cost analysis of more
stringent standards. There are very limited cost data available for
technologies that would meet more stringent standards. Therefore, the
Coast Guard has determined that additional analysis is needed, and has
already begun its development. Noted in preamble section V.A. Summary
of Changes from the NPRM, as we complete this work, the Coast Guard has
decided to move forward with the proposed phase-one standard (or
alternative 2) with this final rule, which does not include a more
stringent standard.
    One commenter requested that sources and dates be provided for the
cost estimate data for installation and operation of the BWMS. One
commenter requested the Coast Guard provide a source for the estimate
that BWMS cost two to four times the cost of using mid-ocean BWE.
    In Chapter 3 of the NPRM RA (available on the docket), the Coast
Guard presented the data sources and timeframe used for the cost data.
In Chapter 1 of the NPRM RA, the Coast Guard also mentioned the
timeframe used for the estimates. The Coast Guard's cost estimates in
the NPRM and DPEIS relied on manufacturer-provided data. Manufacturers
supplied costs for equipment and installation. Data collection started
in 2005/2006 and costs were updated in 2007/2008.
    The Coast Guard's estimates are consistent with other notable cost
estimates such as those made by Lloyds' Register (2008) ($145,000 to
$2,000,000) and the Congressional Budget Office ($300,000 to
$1,000,000). The Coast Guard is continuously monitoring BWMS
technologies for new developments and changes in costs.
    Section 6.3 and Appendix B of the NPRM RA provided a comparison of
BWDS and BWE. The BWE cost was based on the framework used in the 2004
BWM RA adjusted for recently collected NBIC data. We did not find the
BWMS cost to be two to four times the cost of using mid-ocean BWE. We
estimated the annualized costs for BWE to be less than .01 percent of
the annualized costs of the phase-one standard.
    One commenter asked whether the conclusions presented in page H-7,
paragraph 1 of the DPEIS still hold, given the recent economic
downturn, and if there is any evidence to show that costs won't be
passed on to consumers.
    The Coast Guard did not analyze the impact of the recent economic
downturn and the potential impact on the consumers. We did include a
discussion on the uncertainties related to the cost estimates (NPRM RA,
section 3.6) and compared the costs of implementing Alternative 2 for
BWDS (the alternative proposed in the NPRM) to shipping revenues and
consumer retail prices for goods typically transported by vessels. We
compared amortized installation costs to long-term charter rates (NPRM
RA, section 4.5). The NPRM costs typically represent less than one
percent of charter rates suggesting reduced impact on consumers. Costs
to the consumer are further reduced because maritime transportation
costs generally represent only one to two percent of the retail cost of
goods.
    One commenter stated that the calculations to determine the number
of invasions and amount of economic damage that would be reduced seem
excessively convoluted and

inappropriate. The commenter also stated that the shipping-based
invasion rates of invertebrates are projected into the future and are
used to estimate the number of plant and fish invasions based on
historical relationships between the three groups (even though there is
no mention whether the relationships used take into account that the
shipping-based invertebrate invasions are only a portion of the overall
invertebrate invasions). The commenter added that these values are then
adjusted back to account for only those invasions that are attributable
to ballast water (even though this type of data involve a great deal of
uncertainty, see Fofonoff et al., 2003) and that these values are then
adjusted again to account for those invasions that cause economic harm.
    The Coast Guard acknowledges that the calculations to determine the
number of invasions and economic damage that could be reduced by the
proposed BWMS are complicated and subject to uncertainty. However, the
Coast Guard believes that each of the steps is appropriate and
necessary in order to narrow the number of invasions considered to only
those that could be reduced specifically by BWMS. In addition, as these
calculations were used to develop monetized estimates of benefits, we
also needed to limit the analysis to those invasions that cause
economic harm.
    One commenter asked what damages are likely to result from the
implementation of alternatives 3 through 5. In the NPRM RA (available
on the docket), chapter 5 (table 5.12), the Coast Guard presents the
total potential benefit from different proposed BWDS alternatives. The
values presented in this table enable the comparison of the benefits of
alternatives 2, 3, and 4. As stated in the DPEIS, it is assumed that
the implementation of alternatives 2 through 5 would not have
additional adverse impacts on environmental and socioeconomic
resources. Based on this assumption, the alternatives considered in the
DPEIS differ only in their potential to reduce the probability of NIS
threatening the ecological stability of infested waters or other
resources dependent on such waters. The impact of implementing the BWDS
defined under each alternative is determined by the respective
reduction in the number of living organisms that are introduced.
    One commenter stated their concern about the completeness and
accuracy of the information used in the DPEIS. The commenter added that
the economic and environmental benefits of effective controls on
ballast water discharge are grossly underestimated in chapters 3 and 4
of the DPEIS. The commenter recommended that, if it is determined that
additional work on the cost/benefit analysis is warranted, the Coast
Guard should work closely with the States to gather the latest economic
information on the actual and potential impacts NIS have on our water
resources.
    The Coast Guard used the best data available at the time of the
research; we reviewed peer-reviewed papers on invasion-related costs
and benefits. These papers included some local (regional) data as well
as national. The Coast Guard will continue to monitor peer-reviewed
literature to incorporate new studies and estimates as they become
available.
    One commenter stated that it was unclear in the DPEIS whether the
cost associated with failure to achieve the objectives (e.g., habitat
loss or modification, lost productivity of commercially viable native
species, lost value of existing mitigation/restoration actions) was
addressed for each of the alternatives. The commenter further states
that the true cost of implementing an alternative should include the
cost to the environment associated with NIS introductions under that
alternative.
    The Coast Guard acknowledges that some environmental costs of
invasions cannot be easily monetized. The Coast Guard used the best
data available at the time of the research; we reviewed peer reviewed
papers on invasion-related costs and benefits. In addition to the
DPEIS, chapter 5 of the NPRM RA presents an estimate of the value of
the economic harm caused by invasive NIS. We calculated these values in
order to estimate the range of monetary benefits from the proposed rule
to compare against cost estimates.
    One commenter stated that the benefits presented for alternative 2
should also be presented for alternatives 3 through 5. In the NPRM RA
(available on the docket), chapter 5 (table 5.12), the Coast Guard
presents the total potential benefits from different proposed
alternatives. The values presented in this table enable the comparison
of the benefits of alternatives 2, 3, and 4. In addition, the Coast
Guard is now further investigating costs and benefits of more stringent
standards.
    One commenter requested that the 3 and 7 percent discount rates be
explained in the DPEIS, as they are not commonly understood by
individuals outside of finance. The Coast Guard followed the guidelines
from OMB Circular A-4, which provides guidance to Federal agencies on
the development of regulatory analysis as required under paragraph
6(a)(3)(c) of Executive Order 12866, ``Regulatory Planning and
Review,'' also the Regulatory Right-to-Know Act, and a variety of
related authorities. According to OMB Circular A-4 (page 34), the RA
should provide costs and benefits estimates using both 3 and 7 percent
discount rates. For more detailed explanation on the use of discount
rates for regulatory analysis see OMB Circular A-4, pages 31 to 34.
    One commenter stated that the proposed rule and the DPEIS are
deficient in providing accurate costs, and thus justification on a
cost/benefit basis for implementation of the rule as proposed. The
commenter also states that NPRM provides much information relative to
the compliance costs for U.S.-flagged vessels but little more than a
passing comment on compliance costs for foreign-flagged vessels (74 FR
22643).
    The Coast Guard estimated cost impacts for foreign-flagged vessels
in the NPRM RA (see Appendix C) and the final rule RA (see Appendix D).
As previously discussed, we have also made the phase-one standard as
consistent as possible with the IMO BWM Convention's discharge
standard. We assume foreign government administrations that adopt the
IMO BWM Convention and the foreign-flagged vessels they administer to
be responsible for the implementation and compliance with the IMO BWM
Convention once it comes into force. We assume these foreign government
administrations and the foreign-flagged vessels they administer to be
responsible for the costs associated with the implementation and
compliance of the IMO BWM Convention. Therefore, in the analyses of the
NPRM and this final rule, our primary cost estimate of the phase-one
standard rule includes costs to U.S. flagged-vessels only. This is
similar to Coast Guard's assessment of impacts from regulations related
to other international conventions, which take into account the costs
incurred by U.S. vessels and owners and operators only (e.g.,
regulations related to The Standards of Training, Certification &
Watchkeeping Convention (STCW) and regulations related to the
International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution From Ships
(MARPOL)).
    Nonetheless, the Coast Guard estimated the foreign vessel costs of
this rule in order to illustrate the potential economic impact to
foreign-flagged vessel owners operating in the waters of the United
States. The detailed description of the economic impact on foreign
vessels is presented in the NPRM RA (Appendix C), available on the
docket.

    One commenter suggested adding a column to the DPEIS' ``Estimated
Number of Ballast Water Invasions that Cause Harm'' table for diseases,
viruses, etc., and an ``Other'' column for fish, plants, and
invertebrates. The commenter cited VHS in particular, stating that
while it is uncertain that ballast water was the mechanism for
introduction of VHS, it is the likely cause, and that State and Federal
agency costs to address VHS infection will continue to rise as the
disease spreads throughout the Great Lakes and inland waters. The Coast
Guard disagrees with this comment and believes there is sufficient
information in the FPEIS as it stands.
    One commenter stated that while the proposed rule uses the words
``introduction'' and ``spread'' in relation to ballast water, the
solution makes no distinction between these vastly different issues.
The commenter said that the DPEIS fails to calculate the costs and
benefits of BWMS regarding the introduction to or spread within an
ecosystem separately which the commenter believes is counter to the
conclusions of the Great Lakes Regional Collaboration that the most
appropriate response to NIS was to require BWMS on ocean-going vessels
and Best Management Practices on Great Lakes vessels. The Coast Guard
disagrees with this comment, as we believe the BWDS must be used to
combat both the introduction and spread of NIS in waters of the United
States.
Modal Shift Comments on the DPEIS
    Two commenters stated that it is important to consider the
potentially devastating environmental impacts of a large-scale modal
shift in their region, which already has a high volume of truck traffic
to facilitate border trade and the North American Free Trade Agreement
corridor. Another commenter raised the possibility that the cost of
retrofitting vessels for BWMS could result in a modal shift of cargoes
to surface transportation, resulting in the ``unintended consequences''
of less carbon-efficient transportation, increased air emissions, more
severely crowded roadways and increased infrastructure costs.
    As previously discussed in the NPRM RA, we compared the costs of
implementing the BWDS to shipping revenues and consumer retail prices
for good typically transported by vessels. We have also compared
amortized installation costs to long-term charter rates. These costs
typically represent less than one percent of long-term charter rates.
Although the overall cost of implementing this rule is significant, the
cost will have minimal impact on the costs of goods and services. In
addition, there are only a few substitutes for the maritime
transportation of goods from overseas and producers. The Coast Guard
did not find information or data indicating that there will be large
modal shifts.
Phase-Two Comments
    Twenty commenters addressed the phase-two standard in one way or
another. Additionally, nine commenters stated that the NPRM and DPEIS
do not evaluate the phase-two standard and that they are incomplete
without an assessment of the environmental impacts of this standard.
One of these commenters also stated that the DPEIS should clarify that
alternative 5 (elimination of all living organisms larger than 0.1
micrometer) does not correspond to the proposed phase-two standard.
    As we discussed in this preamble in V.A. Summary of Changes from
the NPRM, the Coast Guard has removed the proposed phase-two standard
from this final rule. However, after additional analysis and research
we intend to issue a rule addressing the proposed phase-two standard or
any standard higher than phase-one, and will keep these comments in
mind as we develop that rule.
    One commenter recommended that the standard 1,000 times more
stringent than phase one be included in the PEIS, as well as a zero-
discharge alternative that also restricts ocean vessel access to the
Great Lakes. The Coast Guard partly agrees with this comment. We
acknowledge that the PEIS must include the proposed phase-two standard.
We have already begun this process, and expect to issue a revised PEIS
when we address the proposed phase-two standard or any standard higher
than phase-one. However, the PEIS evaluates a BWDS that applies to the
entire United States, and not by individual geographic areas.
8. Beyond the Scope
    We received many comments that were beyond the scope of this rule.
Below, we summarize these comments, and respond to those that though
beyond the scope, do have some relevance to this rule.
    Two commenters encouraged the United States to ratify the IMO BWM
Convention. One commenter recommended conducting a multinational risk
assessment of vessel-mediated invasions of Arctic areas. One commenter
suggested methods of funding the eradication of existing aquatic
nuisance species. Another commenter expressed concerns about the Coast
Guard directing sufficient funding to the implementation of the
regulations. One commenter recommended that the Coast Guard revise 33
CFR 151.2050(c) to more accurately reflect when local, State, or
Federal regulations apply to sediment disposal, such as under
controlled arrangements at port or drydock. These comments are beyond
the scope of this rule.
    One commenter suggested the Coast Guard enter into a Memorandum of
Understanding with the Department of the Interior to address invasive
species concerns.
    The Coast Guard strives to work closely and collaboratively with
all Federal agencies on matters of mutual interest. More formal
arrangements will be pursued when necessary.
    One commenter recommended that STEP permit the enrollment of vessel
fleets as an incentive for participation. Another commenter recommended
providing incentives to companies that could lead to the development of
freshwater BWDS.
    The STEP processes and development of ballast water treatment
technologies are beyond the scope of this rule. The comments will be
forwarded to the STEP managers and appropriate Coast Guard office for
consideration.
    One commenter questioned whether treated ballast water would be
subject to the EPA VGP or be considered an industrial discharge and
therefore require a separate NPDES permit.
    We consulted EPA and confirmed that ballast water treated and
discharged in waters of the United States, as that term is defined in
the Clean Water Act, by a vessel under this regulation would be subject
to the EPA VGP.
    One commenter stated that a rapid response program to mitigate
infestations of invasive NIS should be a guiding principle of the
regulations.
    Rapid response to invasions is beyond the scope of the rule, which
focuses on preventing the introduction of new invasions. However, as a
member of the Aquatic Nuisance Species Task Force, the Coast Guard
works with other Federal and State agencies to improve the nation's
invasive species response capabilities.
    Fifty-four commenters urged the Coast Guard to work closely with
the EPA, the States, Canada and the IMO in developing a coordinated
Federal ballast water program. One commenter urged the administration
to consider NISA as the sole standard for ballast water discharge by
ocean-going vessels. Conversely, one commenter asked that

ballast water regulation of vessels in the offshore energy services be
left to States.
    These comments are beyond the scope of this rule, however, we note
that we have worked and will continue to work closely with Federal,
international, and State partners to develop a consistent, coordinated
ballast water program.
    Four commenters provided suggestions on implementation and
enforcement of the BWM program and information sharing among
governmental agencies and the public.
    While they did not address any proposals from the NPRM, these
comments had merit and will be kept in mind as the Coast Guard
continues to refine its BWM program.
    Seven commenters urged the removal of the exemption for crude oil
tankers engaged in coastwise trade under NISA.
    While we appreciate the commenters' intent, the Coast Guard lacks
the authority for the requested action, therefore this request is
outside of the scope of this rule. 16 U.S.C. 4711(c)(2)(L). However,
crude oil tankers engaged in coastwise trade will be subject to all
other applicable U.S. laws, such as the CWA, which does not contain an
exemption.

VI. Incorporation by Reference

    The Director of the Federal Register has approved the material in
46 CFR 162.060-5 for incorporation by reference under 5 U.S.C. 552 and
1 CFR part 51. You may inspect this material at U.S. Coast Guard
Headquarters where indicated under ADDRESSES. Copies of the material
are available from the sources listed in 46 CFR 162.060-5.

VII. Regulatory Analyses

    We developed this final rule after considering numerous statutes
and executive orders related to rulemaking. Below we summarize our
analyses based on 14 of these statutes or executive orders.

A. Regulatory Planning and Review

    This final rule is an economically significant regulatory action
under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and
Review, as supplemented by Executive Order 13563, Improving Regulation
and Regulatory Review. OMB has reviewed it under those Orders. It
requires an assessment of potential costs and benefits under section
6(a)(3) of Executive Order 12866. We have revised the estimates from
the NPRM Preliminary Regulatory Analysis (``NPRM RA'') to reflect the
changes described in this preamble under V. Discussion of Comments and
Changes. A final rule Regulatory Analysis (``Final Rule RA'') with
revised impact estimates of the phase-one BWDS is available in the
docket as indicated under ADDRESSES. A summary of the findings follows.
    The final rule RA provides an evaluation of the economic impacts
associated with this final rule, which is the implementation of the
phase-one BWDS.
    Table 1 provides a comparison of regulatory impacts resulting from
changes between the NPRM and the final rule.

Table 1--Comparison of Regulatory Impacts Resulting From Changes Between
                         the NPRM and Final Rule
------------------------------------------------------------------------
          Category                    NPRM               Final rule
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Applicability...............  All vessels           Oceangoing vessels
                               discharging ballast   and some coastwise
                               water into U.S.       vessels (>1,600 GT)
                               waters.               discharging ballast
                                                     water in U.S.
                                                     waters.
Compliance Start Date.......  Beginning 2012......  Revised, beginning
                                                     2013.
Number of BWMS Installations  4,758...............  3,046.
 on Vessels (10-year period
 of analysis).
Costs ($ millions,7 percent   $167 (annualized)...  $92 (annualized).
 discount rate).              $1,176 (10-year)....  $649 (10-year).
Benefits ($ millions,7        $165-$282             $141-$240
 percent discount rate).       (annualized).         (annualized)
                              $1,161-$1,977 (10-    $989-$1,684 (10-
                               year)..               year).
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: The Regulatory Analysis in the docket for this rulemaking presents
  additional discussion of calculations and ranges for costs and
  benefits.

    Based on data from the Marine Information for Safety and Law
Enforcement system and the NBIC, we estimate that approximately 3,046
existing and new U.S. vessels will potentially be required to install
and operate approved BWMS over a 10-year period of analysis.\6\ As
originally discussed in the NPRM, we consider the phase-one BWDS
regulatory costs of this rule to involve U.S. vessels, as foreign-
flagged vessels are expected to comply pursuant to the IMO BWM
Convention, which is the phase-one BWDS.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ This 10-year period of analysis was used to estimate costs
and benefits in the NPRM. See the NPRM RA and the final rule RA for
additional discussion and detail on costs and benefits over various
periods of time.
    \7\ Foreign government administrations signing on to the IMO
Convention and the foreign-flagged vessels they administer will be
responsible for compliance with the IMO Convention once it comes
into force. The final rule RA presents supplemental cost estimates
for foreign-flagged vessels projected to call in waters of the
United States.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Costs
    The primary cost drivers of this rule are installation related
costs. We estimate operation and maintenance costs to be substantially
less. Costs vary by year based on the implementation schedule of this
rule. Over a 10-year period of analysis, the total discounted present
value cost for U.S. vessels is approximately $649 million at a 7
percent discount rate (rounded primary estimate).\8\ We estimate the
annualized cost over the same period of analysis to be about $92
million at a 7 percent discount rate. Our cost assessment includes
existing and new vessels.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ Cost and benefit estimates discussed in this final rule are
based on a 7 percent discount rate. See the final rule RA in the
docket for additional discussion and estimates using other discount
rates.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Benefits
    NIS introductions contribute to the loss of marine biodiversity and
have significant social, economic, and environmental impacts. Avoided
costs associated with future initial NIS invasions and secondary spread
of invasions (which may result from the initial invasion) represent the
primary benefits of BWM. Economic costs (damages) from invasions of NIS
range in the billions of dollars annually. The most extensive review to
date on the economic costs of introduced species in the United States
includes estimates for many types of NIS and is summarized in Table 2.

Table 2--Estimated Annual Costs Associated With Aquatic NIS Introduction
                          in the United States
                               [$ in 2007]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                        Species                               Costs
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fish...................................................    $5.7 billion.
Zebra and Quagga Mussels...............................   $1.06 billion.
Asiatic Clam...........................................   $1.06 billion.
Aquatic Weeds..........................................    $117 million.
Green Crab.............................................     $47 million.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: Pimentel, D. et al., 2005. ``Update on the environmental and
  economic costs associated with alien-invasive species in the United
  States,'' Ecological Economics. 52:273-288.

    Though a particular invasion may have small direct economic
impacts, the accumulation of these events may cost in the billions of
dollars every year. Only a few invasions to date have led to quantified
cost estimates in the billions of dollars per year.
    The benefits of BWDS are difficult to quantify because of the
complexity of ecosystems and a lack of information to estimate the
probabilities of invasions based on prescribed levels of organisms in
ballast water. However, evaluation of costs associated with previous
invasions (described previously) allows a comparison of the costs of
BWDS versus the costs of avoided damages.
    The primary benefit of this rule comes from a reduction in the
concentration of all organisms, leading to lower numbers of these
organisms being introduced per discharge. This further reduces the
number of new invasions because the likelihood of establishment
decreases with reduced numbers of organisms introduced per discharge.
    The quantified benefits have decreased between the NPRM and the
final rule due to the longer phase-in period (see Table 1 this
section). We use the same benefits model for the final rule as we did
for the NPRM. This model quantifies benefits resulting from the
reduction in ``initial invasions'' from vessels engaged in ocean-going
trade. We have not found complete data or identified appropriate models
to quantify the possible benefits associated with reducing the
secondary spread of invasions. Therefore, we do not expect the
exemption of inland vessels to reduce the estimate of quantified
benefits given data and modeling limitations. See the Benefits chapter
of the final rule RA for more discussion on the data and modeling
framework used for this rulemaking.
    We calculate potential benefits of the phase-one BWDS by estimating
the number of initial invasions reduced and the range of economic
damage avoided. The FPEIS estimates the reduction in the mean rate of
successful introductions for the phase-one standard. In comparison with
the existing practice of BWE, the proposed phase-one BWDS is between 37
percent and 63 percent more effective in preventing invasions when
fully implemented (see the FPEIS for further details on effectiveness).
We use these estimates of the reduction in the rate of invasions to
estimate the economic costs avoided (or benefits) as a result of a
BWDS.
    Over a 10-year period of analysis, we estimate the total discounted
present value benefits of the phase-one BWDS to be $0.989 billion to
$1.684 billion (rounded primary estimate).\9\ We estimate the
annualized benefits over the same period of analysis to be $141 million
to $240 million per year.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ Estimates discussed in this final rule are based on a 7
percent discount rate. See the final rule RA in the docket for
additional discussion and estimates using other discount rates.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As previously discussed, the annualized cost for domestic vessels
over the period of analysis for the phase-one BWDS is estimated at
about $92 million. Thus, quantified average benefits exceed quantified
average costs for the phase-one BWDS. We also expect quantified
benefits to increase as technology is developed to achieve more
stringent discharge standards than the phase-one BWDS.

B. Small Entities

    Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601-612), we have
considered whether this final rule would have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small entities. The term ``small
entities'' comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations
that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their
fields, and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than
50,000.
    A Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis discussing the impact of
this final rule on small entities is available in the docket where
indicated under ADDRESSES.
    Based on available data, we estimate that about 29 percent of
entities affected by the final rule requirements are small under the
Regulatory Flexibility Act and the SBA size standards (compared to the
57 percent of entities affected by the NPRM provisions). This is due to
the changes in the applicability (detailed explanation of applicability
changes on section V.B.3 of this final rule). Based on our assessment
of the impacts from the phase-one BWDS, we determined that small
entities would incur a significant economic impact (more than 1 percent
impact on revenue) during installation. After installation, however, we
found most small businesses would not incur a significant economic
impact from annual recurring operating costs. We have determined that
this final rule will have a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities.

C. Assistance for Small Entities

    Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement
Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we want to assist small
entities in understanding the rule so that they can better evaluate its
effects on them and participate in the rulemaking. If the rule would
affect your small business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction
and you have questions concerning its provisions or options for
compliance, please call or email Mr. John Morris, Project Manager, U.S.
Coast Guard, telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>, email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>The
Coast Guard will not retaliate against small entities that question or
complain about this final rule or any policy or action of the Coast
Guard.
    Small businesses may send comments on the actions of Federal
employees who enforce, or otherwise determine compliance with, Federal
regulations to the Small Business and Agriculture Regulatory
Enforcement Ombudsman and the Regional Small Business Regulatory
Fairness Boards. The Ombudsman evaluates these actions annually and
rates each agency's responsiveness to small business. If you wish to
comment on actions by employees of the Coast Guard, call 1-888-REG-FAIR
(1-888-734-3247).

D. Collection of Information

    This final rule calls for new collection of information under the
Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520). As defined
in 5 CFR 1320.3(c), ``collection of information'' comprises reporting,
recordkeeping, monitoring, posting, labeling, and other, similar
actions. The title and description of the information collections, a
description of those who must collect the information, and an estimate
of the total annual burden follow. The estimate covers the time for
reviewing instructions, searching existing sources of data, gathering
and maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing the
collection. This new collection of information is due to the final rule
provision that allows vessel owners and operators to request a
compliance extension.

    In the NPRM, we found that there was no new collection of
information for BWMS approval. This finding was based on the fact that
our research indicated that there are 25-30 manufacturers developing
BWMS for installation onboard vessels.\10\ We expect to receive less
than 10 BWMS approval requests per year. This figure is less than the
threshold of 10 per 12-month period for collection of information
reporting purposes under the PRA of 1995.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ Sources: Lloyds Register Report, Ballast Water Treatment
Technology-Current Status, September 2008; and California State
Lands Commission Report, Assessment of the Efficacy, Availability,
and Environmental Impacts of Ballast Water Treatment Systems in
California Waters, January 2009.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The final rule's new collection of information is a result of
public comments received in the NPRM. In this final rule, we have
included a paperwork provision to allow vessel owners and operators to
request an extension of their compliance date if they cannot
practicably comply with the compliance date otherwise applicable to
their vessel. This extension provision will give flexibility to vessel
owners and operators to comply with this rule. Summary information
concerning all extension decisions, including the name of the vessel
and vessel owner, the term of the extension, and the basis for the
extension will be promptly posted on the U.S. Coast Guard Maritime
Information Exchange Web site (CGMIX), currently located at [http://cgmix.uscg.mil/Default.aspx].
    The Coast Guard is amending the existing collection of information
(OMB Control Number: 1625-0069) to add the above mentioned requests for
extension.
    Title: Ballast Water Management for Vessels with Ballast Tanks
Entering U.S. Waters.
    Summary of the Collection of Information: The information is needed
to carry out the requirements of 16 U.S.C. 4711 regarding the
management of ballast water, to prevent the introduction and spread of
aquatic nuisance species into U.S. waters. Respondents are owners and
operators of certain vessels. The Coast Guard is amending the existing
collection of information to include application for extensions as
established in this final rule (33 CFR 151.1513 or 151.2036).
    Need for Information: The Coast Guard may grant an extension to the
implementation schedule only in those cases where the master, owner,
operator, agent, or person in charge of a vessel subject to this
subpart can document that, despite all efforts, compliance with the
requirements of this final rule is not possible, giving flexibility to
vessel owners and operators to comply with this final rule.
    Extension evaluations will be on a per-vessel basis. Summary
information concerning all extension decisions, including the name of
the vessel and vessel owner, the term of the extension, and the basis
for the extension will be promptly posted on the Internet. Extensions
will be for no longer than the minimum time needed, as determined by
the Coast Guard, for the vessel to comply with the requirements of
Sec.  151.2030.
    Any extension request must be made no later than 12 months before
the scheduled implementation date listed in Sec.  151.1512(b) of this
subpart and submitted in writing to the Commandant (CG-522), U.S. Coast
Guard Office of Operating and Environmental Standards, 2100 2nd St.
SW., Stop 7126, Washington, DC 20593-7126.
    Proposed Use of Information: The Coast Guard will use the
information provided in the extension request to evaluate whether to
grant extension and for what period of time, and to keep records of
vessels not meeting the established compliance date. The compliance
extension provides additional time to determine how BWMS can be safely
installed. An extension postpones installation costs for affected
vessels.
    Description of the Respondents: Vessel owners and operators subject
to the requirements of this final rule (see section V.A.3.
Applicability).
    Number of Respondents: We do not have information on the potential
number of vessel owners and operators that will take advantage of the
compliance extension at this time. We estimate that between 10 and 30
percent of owners and operators of U.S. vessels affected by this final
rule might request the extension based on preliminary information from
industry, BWMS vendors and Coast Guard experts. We anticipate that
extension requests will be based on issues related to safety and
regulatory requirements of electrical equipment, vessel capacity to
accommodate BWMS, vessel age, shipyard availability, and other reasons.
At this time, we do not have the data to determine the potential number
of requests for extension. We expect to obtain this information as we
process the requests. We will revise this collection of information as
we post the requests on the Web site or as needed.
    We estimate that owners and operators of approximately 146 to 438
vessels (estimated total U.S. vessel affected by this rule is 1,459)
might request compliance extensions for the reasons listed above. We
estimate the total average number of vessels that will submit a request
for extension to be 292.
    Frequency of the Response: Vessel owners and operators will submit
a compliance extension request once.
    Burden of Response: We estimate that there could be an average of
292 existing vessels that could request an extension for installing a
BWMS. The 292 is the total number of vessels estimated to request the
extension. We estimate that the average time burden to prepare and
submit a request is approximately 8 hours (6 hours management and 2
hours clerical) \11\ but burden may vary depending on type of vessel
and reason for the extension request. The total average burden hours of
vessels requesting an extension is approximately 2,336 hours (292
vessels x 8 hours for completing and submitting the extension
documentation). The total burden cost is $141,328, calculated by (a) +
(b):
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ This estimate is based on an existing collection of
information (OMB Control Number 1625-0095) for requests of exemption
and alternatives for Oil and Hazardous Materials Pollution and
Safety Records Equivalent.

    (a) Assuming someone at a management level (equivalent to GS-12
(out-of-government rate)) prepares the submission to the Coast
Guard, the applicable wage rate is $69/hour.\12\ Therefore, the
total management cost for preparing the extension request is $69 x 6
hrs x 292 vessels = $120,888.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ Wage rate obtained from Enclosure (2) to COMDTINST 7310.1M
and validated based on the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS)
subcategory Managers (Occupation Code 11-9199).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (b) Assuming someone at the clerical level (equivalent to GS-5
(out-of-government rate)) files the copies, then the applicable wage
rate is $35/hour.\13\ Therefore, the total management cost for
preparing the extension request is $35 x 2hrs x 292 vessels =
$20,440.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ Wage rate obtained from Enclosure (2) to COMDTINST 7310.1M
and validated based on the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS)
subcategory First-line Supervisor of office and Administrative
Support Worker (Occupation Code 43-1011).

The estimated cost per vessel is $484 ($141,328/292 vessels). The final
cost of the final rule does not change given the amount of this
paperwork requirement.
    Estimate of Total Annual Burden: At this time, we do not have
information on how many vessel owners and operators will be requesting
compliance extension per year. We expect to obtain this information as
we process the requests. If we assume that 10 percent of the estimated
owners of 292 vessels (see ``Burden of Response,'' above) will be
applying to an extension every year, then the annual burden will be
equal to approximately 234 hours (29.2 vessels x 8 hrs or 10 percent of
2,336 hours). The

annual cost will be approximately $14,132 (10 percent of $141,328).
    As required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C.
3507(d)), we will submit a copy of this rule to the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) for its review of the collection of
information.
    We ask for public comment on the proposed collection of information
to help us determine how useful the information is; whether it can help
us perform our functions better; whether it is readily available
elsewhere; how accurate our estimate of the burden of collection is;
how valid our methods for determining burden are; how we can improve
the quality, usefulness, and clarity of the information; and how we can
minimize the burden of collection.
    If you submit comments on the collection of information, submit
them both to OMB and to the Docket Management Facility where indicated
under ADDRESSES, by the date under DATES.
    You need not respond to a collection of information unless it
displays a currently valid control number from OMB. Before the Coast
Guard could enforce the collection of information requirements in this
rule, OMB would need to approve the Coast Guard's request to collect
this information.

E. Federalism

    A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132,
Federalism, if it has a substantial direct effect on State or local
governments and would either preempt State law or impose a substantial
direct cost of compliance on them.
    We have analyzed this rule under that Order and have determined
that it does not have implications for federalism. NANPCA, as amended
by NISA, contains a ``savings provision'' that saves to the States
their authority to ``adopt or enforce control measures for aquatic
nuisance species, [and nothing in the Act would] diminish or affect the
jurisdiction of any State over species of fish and wildlife.'' 16
U.S.C. 4725. It also requires that ``[a]ll actions taken by Federal
agencies in implementing the provisions of [the Act] be consistent with
all applicable Federal, State and local environmental laws.'' Thus, the
congressional mandate is clearly for a Federal-State cooperative regime
in combating the introduction and spread of NIS into the waters of the
United States from ships' ballast water. This makes it unlikely that
preemption, which would necessitate consultation with the States under
Executive Order 13132, would occur.
    We received a number of comments, from organizations, individuals,
and States, on the issue of preemption. These comments are summarized
and addressed in this preamble in V.B.6. Legal.

F. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

    The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538)
requires Federal agencies to assess the effects of their discretionary
regulatory actions. In particular, the Act addresses actions that may
result in the expenditure by a State, local, or tribal government, in
the aggregate or by the private sector, of $100,000,000 (adjusted for
inflation with a base year of 1995) or more in any 1 year (2 U.S.C.
1532). The Coast Guard currently uses an inflation-adjusted value of
about $140.8 million in lieu of $100 million.\14\ The private sector
will incur costs exceeding the $140.8 million threshold during the
third and fourth years of the rule implementation period (see
Regulatory Analysis in the docket for additional details).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ The value equivalent to $100,000,000 in calendar year 1995
adjusted for inflation to calendar year 2009 is about $140,800,000
(rounded to the nearest 100,000) using the Consumer Price Index for
All Urban Consumers (CPI-U) as published by the Bureau of Labor
Statistics, series CUUR0000SA0, http://www.bls.gov/data/top20.htm
(accessed 4/26/2010). Calendar year 2009 is the latest complete year
for the annual CPI-U data series. This adjustment is based on recent
Department of Transportation guidance on adjustments to the annual
threshold (see http://regs.dot.gov/).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In accordance with 2 U.S.C. 1532(a)(1), this rule generally would
be promulgated under the authority of 46 U.S.C. Chapter 45 and also
under the authority of the statutes, Executive Orders, and delegations
cited in the ``Authority'' lines of the specific Code of Federal
Regulations parts we propose to amend. We include the assessments and
estimates that would be required by 2 U.S.C. 1532(a)(2) through (a)(4)
in the Regulatory Analysis report available in the docket as indicated
under the ADDRESSES section of this preamble.

G. Taking of Private Property

    This rule will not cause a taking of private property or otherwise
have taking implications under Executive Order 12630, Governmental
Actions and Interference with Constitutionally Protected Property
Rights.

H. Civil Justice Reform

    This rule meets applicable standards in sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2)
of Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform, to minimize litigation,
eliminate ambiguity, and reduce burden.

I. Protection of Children

    We have analyzed this rule under Executive Order 13045, Protection
of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks. Though
this rule is economically significant, it does not create an
environmental risk to health or risk to safety that may
disproportionately affect children.

J. Indian Tribal Governments

    This rule does not have tribal implications under Executive Order
13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments,
because it does not have a substantial direct effect on one or more
Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and
Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities
between the Federal Government and Indian tribes.

K. Energy Effects

    We have analyzed this rule under Executive Order 13211, Actions
Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply,
Distribution, or Use. We have determined that it is not a ``significant
energy action'' under that order. Though it is a ``significant
regulatory action'' under Executive Order 12866, it is not likely to
have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use
of energy. The Administrator of the Office of Information and
Regulatory Affairs has not designated it as a significant energy
action. Therefore, it does not require a Statement of Energy Effects
under Executive Order 13211.

L. Technical Standards

    The National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (15 U.S.C. 272
note) directs agencies to use voluntary consensus standards in their
regulatory activities unless the agency provides Congress, through OMB,
with an explanation of why using these standards would be inconsistent
with applicable law or otherwise impractical. Voluntary consensus
standards are technical standards (e.g., specifications of materials,
performance, design, or operation; test methods; sampling procedures;
and related management systems practices) that are developed or adopted
by voluntary consensus standards bodies.
    This rule uses a number of technical standards, all of which are
voluntary consensus standards. These may be found in the technology
approval program amendments to 46 CFR part 162 and are listed below.
    The voluntary consensus standards used by this rule are:

    (1) International Electrotechnical Commission (IEC), 529, Degrees
of Protection Provided by Enclosures, 1989;
    (2) International Organization for Standardization (ISO) and the
IEC, ISO/IEC 17025, General Requirements for the Competence of
Calibration and Testing Laboratories, 2005; and
    (4) Environmental Protection Agency's Environmental Technology
Verification (ETV) Program Generic Protocol for the Verification of
Ballast Water Treatment Technologies.

M. Environment

    We have analyzed this rule under Department of Homeland Security
Management Directive 023-01 and Commandant Instruction M16475.lD, which
guide the Coast Guard in complying with NEPA (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f),
and have concluded that this action may have a significant effect on
the human environment. A Final Programmatic Environmental Impact
Statement and Record of Decision are available in the docket where
indicated under ADDRESSES, and include a summary of our actions to
comply with NEPA.

List of Subjects

33 CFR Part 151

    Administrative practice and procedure, Ballast water management,
Oil pollution, Penalties, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements,
Water pollution control.

46 CFR Part 162

    Ballast water management, Fire prevention, Incorporation by
reference, Marine safety, Oil pollution, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements.

    For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard amends
33 CFR part 151 and 46 CFR part 162 as follows:

Title 33--Navigation and Navigable Waters

CHAPTER I--COAST GUARD

Subchapter O--Pollution

PART 151--VESSELS CARRYING OIL, NOXIOUS LIQUID SUBSTANCES, GARBAGE,
MUNICIPAL OR COMMERCIAL WASTE, AND BALLAST WATER

Subpart C--Ballast Water Management for Control of Nonindigenous
Species in the Great Lakes and Hudson River

0
1. The authority citation for subpart C continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 16 U.S.C. 4711; Department of Homeland Security
Delegation No. 0170.1.

0
2. Revise Sec.  151.1502 to read as follows:

Sec.  151.1502  Applicability.

    This subpart applies to all non-recreational vessels, U.S. and
foreign, that are equipped with ballast tanks that, after operating on
the waters beyond the Exclusive Economic Zone during any part of its
voyage, enter the Snell Lock at Massena, New York, or navigates north
of the George Washington Bridge on the Hudson River, regardless of
other port calls in the United States or Canada during that voyage,
except as expressly provided in 33 CFR 151.2015(a). All vessels subject
to this subpart are also required to comply with the applicable
requirements of 33 CFR 151.2050, 151.2060, and 151.2070.

0
3. In Sec.  151.1504, add, in alphabetical order, definitions for the
terms ``Alternate management system (AMS)'', ``Ballast water management
system (BWMS)'', ``Constructed'', and ``Waters of the United States''
to read as follows:

Sec.  151.1504  Definitions.

* * * * *
    Alternate management system (AMS) means a ballast water management
system approved by a foreign administration pursuant to the standards
set forth in the International Maritime Organization's International
BWM Convention, and meeting all applicable requirements of U.S. law,
and which is used in lieu of ballast water exchange.
* * * * *
    Ballast water management system (BWMS) means any system which
processes ballast water to kill, render harmless, or remove organisms.
The BWMS includes all ballast water treatment equipment and all
associated control and monitoring equipment.
* * * * *
    Constructed in respect to a vessel means a stage of construction
when--
    (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.
* * * * *
    Waters of the United States means waters subject to the
jurisdiction of the United States as defined in 33 CFR 2.38, including
the navigable waters of the United States. For 33 CFR part 151,
subparts C and D, the navigable waters include the territorial sea as
extended to 12 nautical miles from the baseline, pursuant to
Presidential Proclamation No. 5928 of December 27, 1988.
* * * * *

0
4. Add new Sec.  151.1505 to read as follows:

Sec.  151.1505  Severability.

    If a court finds any portion of this subpart to have been
promulgated without proper authority, the remainder of this subpart
will remain in full effect.

0
5. In Sec.  151.1510--
0
a. Revise the section heading; b. Revise paragraphs (a)(1) and (a)(3)
and add new paragraph (a)(4); c. Add new paragraph (d).
    The revisions and additions read as follows:

Sec.  151.1510  Ballast water management requirements.

    (a) * * *
    (1) Carry out an exchange of ballast water on the waters beyond the
U.S. Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ), from an area more than 200 nautical
miles from any shore, and in waters more than 2,000 meters (6,560 feet,
1,093 fathoms) deep, such that, at the conclusion of the exchange, any
tank from which ballast water will be discharged contains water with a
minimum salinity level of 30 parts per thousand, unless the vessel is
required to employ an approved ballast water management system (BWMS)
per the schedule in Sec.  151.1512(b) of this subpart. This exchange
must occur prior to entry into the Snell Lock at Massena, NY, or
navigating on the Hudson River, north of the George Washington Bridge.
An alternative management system (AMS) that meets the requirements of
33 CFR 151.2026 may also be used, so long as it was installed on the
vessel prior to the date that the vessel is required to comply with the
ballast water discharge standard in accordance with Sec.  151.1512(b)
of this subpart. If using an AMS, the master, owner, operator, agent,
or person in charge of the vessel subject to this subpart may employ
the AMS for no longer than 5 years from the date they would otherwise
be required to comply with the ballast water discharge standard in
accordance with Sec.  151.1512(b) of this subpart.
* * * * *
    (3) Install and operate a BWMS that has been approved by the Coast
Guard under 46 CFR part 162, in accordance with Sec.  151.1512(b) of
this subpart. Following installation of a BWMS, the master, owner,
operator, agent, or person in charge of the vessel must maintain the
BWMS in accordance with all manufacturer specifications.

    (i) Requirements for approval of BWMS are found in 46 CFR part
162.060.
    (ii) Requests for approval of BWMS must be submitted to the
Commanding Officer (Marine Safety Center), U.S. Coast Guard Marine
Safety Center, 2100 2nd St. SW., Stop 7102, Washington, DC 20593-7102,
or by email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    (4) Use only water from a U.S. public water system (PWS), as
defined in 40 CFR 141.2 and that meets the requirements of 40 CFR parts
141 and 143, as ballast water. Vessels using water from a PWS as
ballast must maintain a record of which PWS they received the water and
a receipt, invoice, or other documentation from the PWS indicating that
water came from that system. Furthermore, they must certify that they
have met the conditions in paragraphs (a)(4)(i) or (ii) of this
section, as applicable. Vessels using water from a PWS must use such
water exclusively for all ballast water unless the usage is in
accordance with Sec.  151.1515 of this subpart. Vessels using PWS water
as ballast must have either--
    (i) Previously cleaned the ballast tanks (including removing all
residual sediments) and not subsequently introduced ambient water; or
    (ii) Never introduced ambient water to those tanks and supply
lines.
* * * * *
    (d) Unless otherwise expressly provided for in this subpart, the
master, owner, operator, agent, or person in charge of vessels
employing a Coast Guard-approved BWMS must meet the applicable ballast
water discharge standard, found in Sec.  151.1511 of this subpart, at
all times of ballast water discharge into the waters of the United
States.

0
6. Add new Sec.  151.1511 to read as follows:

Sec.  151.1511  Ballast water discharge standard (BWDS).

    (a) Vessels employing a Coast Guard-approved ballast water
management system (BWMS) must meet the following BWDS by the date in
Sec.  151.1512(b) of this subpart:
    (1) For organisms greater than or equal to 50 micrometers in
minimum dimension: discharge must include fewer than 10 living
organisms per cubic meter of ballast water.
    (2) For organisms less than 50 micrometers and greater than or
equal to 10 micrometers: discharge must include fewer than 10 living
organisms per milliliter (mL) of ballast water.
    (3) Indicator microorganisms must not exceed:
    (i) For Toxicogenic Vibrio cholerae (serotypes O1 and O139): a
concentration of less than 1 colony forming unit (cfu) per 100 mL.
    (ii) For Escherichia coli: a concentration of fewer than 250 cfu
per 100 mL.
    (iii) For intestinal enterococci: a concentration of fewer than 100
cfu per 100 mL.
    (b) [Reserved]
    (c) The Coast Guard will conduct a practicability review as
follows:
    (1) No later than January 1, 2016, the Coast Guard will publish the
results of a practicability review to determine--