owners/operators and submit information annually to EPA. Details of the
types of information considered and how that information may be used
are described in VIII.B.1.vi.C.8.i. Vessel-Specific Data Submission to
Inform Revised Standard for Vessels Operating Exclusively on the Great
Lakes.
    It is important that this class of vessels remain intimately
involved in the technology development and be the basis for the demand
for innovative, cost-effective solutions by working closely with
researchers and manufacturers. BWMS may very well be developed in
stages for the various types of Great Lakes vessels. For example, the
design and construction of a newly built vessel would provide the best
opportunity to accommodate sufficient space for electrical and
mechanical systems. Marine engineers and naval architects could also
specify that ballast tanks be completely welded, all sharp metal edges
be rounded, and all metal surfaces within the ballast tanks be coated
with a material to prevent corrosion. The goal is that research can
focus on development of technology to address the environmental and
operational conditions Great Lakes vessels.
    The VIDA acknowledges the lack of availability of BWMS for Great
Lakes vessels and authorizes EPA within its Great Lakes National
Program Office to establish the Great Lakes and Lake Champlain Invasive
Species Program. One of that program's purposes is identified to
develop, achieve type-approval for, and pilot shipboard or land-based
ballast water management systems installed on, or available for use by
vessels operating solely within the Great Lakes and Lake Champlain to
prevent the spread of ANS within the Great Lakes and Lake Champlain
Systems. This program is to be developed in collaboration and
consultation with several other federal agencies. As acknowledged by
Congress in its inclusion of this provision in the VIDA, this program
is expected to play a vital role to advance the development of type-
approved ballast water management system for Great Lakes vessels and
inform future regulations.

    Vendors of BWMS to date have not expended adequate time and
resources to advance systems that would work onboard Great Lakes
vessels, because this fleet represents such a small percentage of the
world-wide market, leaving the owners of these vessels with no
alternative to selecting a commercially available system that would
achieve the numeric ballast water discharge standard once installed and
operated on the Great Lakes. This collaborative research strategy is
important to drive the market for this technology given the small
number of vessels. For example, the combined U.S. and Canadian Laker
fleet is less than 150 vessels compared to the tens-of-thousands of
other ocean-going vessels worldwide that are now purchasing and
installing systems to meet the U.S. or IMO-based ballast water
discharge standards.
    Once EPA has data and information that can be used to identify
additional BAT approaches for Great Lakes vessels, be it installation
of technology or implementation of best management practices, the
Agency expects to propose updates to the discharge standard to reflect
new BAT-based requirements. Such an update may address the entire
universe of vessels that operate exclusively on the Great Lakes, or
reasonably could consider the appropriateness of the identified
technology or practices to the different segments of the Great Lakes
fleet, such as among classes, types, and sizes and between new and
existing vessels as provided for under the VIDA. While CWA Section
312(p)(4)(D)(i) calls for EPA to review the discharge standards at
least every five years and revise if appropriate, the Agency expects a
more fluid assessment of the adequacy of standards for Great Lakes
vessels, acknowledging that ballast water management research and
development activities described under the Great Lakes and Lake
Champlain Invasive Species Program established under the VIDA may
provide a sound basis for proposing new or updated standards in less
than the five-year statutory review timeframe. In CWA Sections
312(p)(10)(B), the VIDA also creates a role for the states in
promulgating enhanced Great Lakes requirements by enacting a process in
which Governors of the Great Lakes states can work together to develop
an enhanced standard of performance or other requirements with respect
to any incidental discharge, including ballast water. In all cases
where Great Lakes Governors propose an enhanced requirement, EPA and
USCG may only reject the proposed requirement if it is less stringent
than existing standards or requirements under this section,
inconsistent with maritime safety, or inconsistent with applicable
maritime and navigation laws and regulations.
8. EPA Seeks Input on Great Lakes Vessels
i. Vessel-Specific Data Submission To Inform Revised Standard for
Vessels Operating Exclusively on the Great Lakes
    EPA is seeking input on whether to include in the final rule a
provision requiring that vessels operating exclusively on the Great
Lakes, conduct a self-assessment either individually or in partnership
with other vessels and submit information annually to EPA. EPA would
use this information, together with information on the general sources
of incompatibility and the challenging environmental conditions of the
Great Lakes with installing and operating existing USCG type-approved
BWMS, to revise the discharge standards as new technologies become
available and economically achievable (and have acceptable non-water
quality environmental impacts). This information would also be critical
for the Great Lakes and Lake Champlain Invasive Species Program effort
to develop practical ballast water management technologies for Lakers.
An important aspect of any future analysis of these vessels is to
acknowledge that BAT may not result in the same discharge standards for
other classes of vessels or that a one-size-fits-all approach for Great
Lakes vessels may not be appropriate. This may be because the
technologies and practices available and economically achievable for
new vessels may be different from those available to existing vessels,
or because the best available technology differs by class of vessels
(e.g., self-unloading bulkers, tank barges). EPA is committed to
performing a full assessment of environmental conditions and vessel
ballasting activities in the Great Lakes as necessary to enhance
requirements for Great Lakes vessel ballast water management
technologies and practices that reduce the discharge of ANS in the
Great Lakes. The goal of this effort is to bring all Great Lakes
vessels into compliance with a numeric ballast water discharge standard
as soon as is possible under the law.
    EPA seeks comment on the type of vessel-specific information that
would be valuable for Great Lakes vessels to include in their annual
submission and for EPA to assess. This information could include:
Operational considerations on locations and opportune times to conduct
ballast water monitoring; specific details of voyages that impact
holding times of certain BWMS; details of loading/unloading logistics
that limit ballast water management; and reasons for such limitations,
including weather considerations, crew considerations or other
operational information. In addition, information could be provided on
the characteristics of ports for future opportunities for onshore or
barge-based reception facility opportunities. Although EPA could also
request financial information, EPA proposes not to do this at this time
until EPA identifies a promising candidate technology or suite of
technologies for Great Lakes vessels.
ii. Applicability of Ballast Water Discharge Standards to Vessels That
Operate Primarily, But Not Exclusively, in the Great Lakes
    EPA is seeking input on whether to include in the final rule an
extension of the proposed exemptions from the ballast water discharge
standards to also include vessels operating primarily, but not
exclusively, on the Great Lakes. As written, the proposed rule would
require this class of vessels that operate primarily in the Great Lakes
but do occasionally voyage to coastal ports outside of the Lakes to
both perform a ballast water exchange prior to re-entering the Lakes
and to meet the numeric discharge standard for any ballast water,
including any unpumpable residual waters and sediments, subsequently
discharged within the Great Lakes, similar to requirements applicable
to vessels entering the Great Lakes from overseas voyages. EPA is
seeking this input acknowledging that the BWMS installed to treat
ballast water taken up outside of the Great Lakes will be unlikely to
consistently meet the numeric discharge standard for ballast water
taken up within the Great Lakes because of the same environmental
challenges of operating a BWMS under the conditions of the Great Lakes
described for those vessels operating exclusively within the Great
Lakes.
    With that in mind, EPA is seeking input on whether a vessel that
maybe voyages outside the Great Lakes once or twice a year, but in no
case more than half of the time, should be required to install a
ballast water management system for use during those times when the
vessel is discharging ballast water that had been taken on outside of
the Great Lakes. The type of information for which EPA is seeking input
include the voyage patterns and durations and

ballasting and ballast management practices for these vessels both
within and outside of the Great Lakes; tank cleaning procedures,
frequencies, and locations and the practicability of ballast tank
cleanings upon re-entry into the Great Lakes; financial implications
for these vessels to install a ballast water treatment system that may
have to be replaced within the next five years based on updates to the
national discharge standards to future research on appropriate
technologies and practices for managing ballast water in the Great
Lakes; and the appropriate line of demarcation for the Great Lakes.
    The vessels that would be impacted by this option are mostly, if
not exclusively, Canadian vessels that voyage to coastal ports outside
of the Great Lakes where bulk cargo is reloaded onto seagoing vessels
for transport around the world. This portion of the vessel universe
includes bulkers, tankers, general cargo vessels, articulated tug-
barges, tugboats, river barges, and passenger vessels. Most coastal
vessel voyages originate in ports in western Lake Superior and western
Lake Erie where bulk cargo including grain and coal is loaded and then
transported to Canadian ports along the St. Lawrence Seaway east of
Montreal. EPA has limited information on this class of largely Canadian
vessels and the nature of their voyage patterns and ballasting
activities (Bailey et al., 2012).
    As described in VIII.B.1.vi.C.8.i. Vessel-Specific Data Submission
to Inform Revised Standard for Vessels Operating Exclusively on the
Great Lakes, EPA is committed to performing a full assessment of
environmental conditions and vessel ballasting activities in the Great
Lakes as necessary to enhance requirements for Great Lakes vessel
ballast water management technologies and practices that reduce the
discharge of ANS in the Great Lakes with a goal to update the standards
at a later date based on the findings from that assessment.
vi. Exemptions From the Numeric Ballast Water Discharge Standard
    EPA proposes to exempt certain vessels from the numeric ballast
water discharge standard as specified in 139.10(d) of the proposed
rule. These exemptions are generally consistent with the VGP and USCG
33 CFR part 151 subparts C and D regulations with some exceptions as
described below.
    The proposed exclusions in section 139.10(b), VIII.B.1.ii.
Exclusions, would exclude vessels from the ballast water regulations
and all requirements of this part on the basis that those vessels do
not contribute significantly to the introduction or spread of ANS.
Excluding those vessels minimizes other non-water quality environmental
impacts that may result from the operation of ballast water treatment
systems, including increased energy usage and increased carbon
emissions in instances that outweigh any meaningful benefit from
nominal reductions in ANS discharges.
    In contrast, the proposed exemptions in section 139.10(d)(3) as
described in this section, would exempt vessels from the numeric
ballast water discharge standard in section 139.10(d) only. Exempt
vessels would still be required to meet the ballast water BMPs
described in section 139.10(c) of the proposed rule and the ballast
water exchange and saltwater flushing requirements included in section
139.10(e) of the proposed rule, as applicable.
    There are six categories of vessels that would be exempt from the
discharge standard, and they are: Any vessel that is less than or equal
to 3,000 GT ITC (1,600 GRT if GT ITC is not assigned) and that does not
operate outside the exclusive economic zone (EEZ); any non-seagoing,
unmanned, unpowered barge, except any barge that is part of a dedicated
vessel combination such as an integrated or articulated tug and barge
unit; any vessel that uptakes and discharges ballast water exclusively
in a single COTP Zone; any vessel that does not travel more than 10 NM
and does not pass through any locks; any vessel that operates
exclusively in the Laurentian Great Lakes; and any vessel in the USCG
Shipboard Technology Evaluation Program (STEP). In VIII.B.1.v.C.1.
Ballast Water Management of Vessels Operating Exclusively on the
Laurentian Great Lakes, we explained the exemption for vessels that
operate exclusively in the Laurentian Great Lakes. Discussion of all
six categories is included below.
A. Vessels Less Than or Equal to 3,000 GT ITC (1,600 GRT if GT ITC Is
Not Assigned) and That Do Not Operate Outside the EEZ
    The proposed rule would carry forward the existing VGP and USCG 33
CFR 151.2015 exemption from the ballast water numeric discharge
standard for vessels that are less than or equal to 3,000 GT ITC (1,600
GRT if GT ITC is not assigned) and that do not operate outside the EEZ.
This includes both seagoing and non-seagoing vessels. EPA bases this
proposed exemption on the finding that ballast water technologies are
not available or economically achievable for this universe of smaller
vessels (e.g., tugboats) as to date, ballast water treatment systems
generally have been designed for larger vessels or vessels that only
uptake or discharge ballast water on either end of longer voyages. EPA
did identify one vessel in the 2018 VGP annual reports that meets the
exemption characteristics. EPA considered whether a different threshold
in terms of size should be used; however, EPA proposes to retain the
threshold from the VGP that is also consistent with the existing USCG
ballast water regulations.
    Therefore, EPA proposes that this class of vessels can minimize the
discharge of untreated ballast water through best management practices
only, without being required to meet the ballast water numeric
discharge standard. It is important to note that this exemption will be
reconsidered in the future if technology becomes available for this
size class of vessels.
B. Non-Seagoing Unmanned, Unpowered Barges
    Most unmanned, unpowered barges operate in internal and coastal
waterways (i.e., non-seagoing) to transport low-value bulk items such
as grain, coal, and iron ore. These vessels have no on-board crew and
do not have infrastructure that allows for complex or energy intensive
operations. EPA understands that ballasting for some of these barges is
performed in limited instances such as to pass under bridges or to
improve stability in bad weather or other rough water. These barges
typically do not have dedicated ballast tanks but can use wing tanks
(void space) in the hull when ballasting is necessary. Minimal water is
used for ballasting. Unmanned, unpowered barges have been recognized as
posing unique challenges for managing ballast water. For instance,
EPA's SAB notes: ``Inland waterways and coastal barges are not self-
propelled, but rather are moved by towing or pushing with tugboats.
Because these vessels have been designed to transport bulk cargo, or as
working platforms, they commonly use ballast tanks or fill cargo spaces
with water for trim and stability, or to prevent excessive motions in
heavy seas. However, the application of [Ballast water management
systems] on these vessels presents significant logistical challenges
because they typically do not have their own source of power or ballast
pumps and are unmanned.'' (U.S. EPA, 2011b).
    EPA proposes to exempt any non-seagoing, unmanned, unpowered barge,
that is not part of a dedicated vessel combination, such as an
integrated or articulated tug barge (ATB) unit

consisting of two separate vessels that operate in tandem, always
together. The 2013 VGP, in Part <IP_ADDRESS>.3.2, exempted all unmanned,
unpowered barges from compliance with the numeric ballast water
discharge standard; however, the USCG regulations at 33 CFR 151.2015
does not exempt any seagoing vessel 3,000 GT ITC (1,600 GRT if GT ITC
is not assigned) and above or that operates outside of the EEZ. As
such, the proposed requirement is a harmonization of the VGP and the
USCG existing requirements. The record indicates that an unmanned,
unpowered barge, when part of a dedicated vessel combination, can
install a BWMS as may be necessary to meet the discharge standard and
as such these dedicated vessel combinations including an unmanned,
unpowered barge are not exempt from compliance with the numeric ballast
water discharge standard.
C. Vessels That Uptake and Discharge Ballast Water Exclusively in a
Single COTP Zone
    Consistent with the provisions of the previous VGP and existing
USCG regulations at 33 CFR 151.2015(c) and (d)(3), the proposed rule
would exempt from the ballast water numeric discharge standard vessels
that uptake and discharge ballast water exclusively in a single COTP
Zone, but that may operate in more than one COTP Zone. This exemption
retains the BMPs for these vessels to ensure that ballast water is
managed appropriately, however acknowledges that in all other
instances, the discharge does not significantly contribute to the
introduction and spread of ANS.
D. Vessels That Travel No More Than 10 Nautical Miles and Do Not Pass
Through Any Locks During Their Voyages
    Consistent with the provisions of the previous VGP, the proposed
rule would exempt from the ballast water numeric discharge standard
vessels that travel no more than 10 NM and do not pass through any
locks during their voyages. These vessels (e.g., cross-river ferries)
contribute insignificantly to the introduction and dispersal of ANS,
however, the implementation of the best management practices for these
short-voyage vessels is intended to minimize the contribution of ANS
that the vessels could cumulatively have in a region. Exempting these
vessels also helps minimize other non-water quality environmental
impacts that may result from the operation of ballast water treatment
systems, including increased energy usage and increased carbon
emissions. 40 CFR 125.3(d)(3). Further, many existing ballast water
treatment systems use biocides that need minimum contact time to be
effective. Short distance voyages may not provide the time necessary
for biocides to be effective. In fact, the discharge of ballast water
treated with biocides may contain residuals or byproducts from that
treatment, and short voyage times may not permit adequate decay or
neutralization.
    While at this time EPA is not aware of any specific vessels which
currently meet these criteria for the exemption, EPA did not want to
inadvertently require ballast water numeric discharge standard be met
for such vessels.
E. Vessels That Operate Exclusively in the Laurentian Great Lakes
    As described in VIII.B.1.vi.C. Vessels Operating Exclusively on the
Great Lakes, EPA proposes to subcategorize and not require any vessel
that operates exclusively in the Laurentian Great Lakes to meet the
numeric ballast water discharge standard. EPA determined that the
challenges that existed for pre-2009 Lakers at the time the VGP was
issued remain true today not only for bulk carriers but for any vessel
operating exclusively in the Laurentian Great Lakes. The details of the
circumstances that make ballast water management uniquely challenging
for pre-2009 Lakers include issues having to do with the operational
profile and design of these vessels and with the unique nature of the
waters of the Great Lakes as described in VIII.B.1.vi.C. Vessels
Operating Exclusively on the Great Lakes. As such, EPA is proposing to
expand this exemption from the VGP to any vessel operating exclusively
on the Great Lakes, acknowledging that the extreme environmental
conditions and operational limitations for pre-2009 Lakers also affect
the ability of other vessels that exclusively trade on the Great Lakes
to effectively install and operate a BWMS to effectively treat ballast
water.
    EPA acknowledges this standard is less stringent than the VGP;
however, the VIDA provides for less stringent requirements when, as in
this case, the Administrator determines that a material technical
mistake occurred when promulgating the existing requirement of the VGP.
33 U.S.C. 1322(p)(4)(D)(ii)(II)(bb). EPA made such a material technical
mistake when it failed to acknowledge that the extreme environmental
conditions and operational limitations that prevented pre-2009 Lakers
from treating its ballast water also affect the ability of other Great
Lakes vessels from doing the same.
    Also, consistent with CWA Section 312(p)(4)(D)(ii)(II)(aa), the
Administrator may revise a standard of performance to be less stringent
than an applicable existing requirement if information becomes
available that was not reasonably available when the Administrator
promulgated the initial standard of performance or comparable
requirement of the VGP, as applicable (including the subsequent
scarcity or unavailability of materials used to control the relevant
discharge); and would have justified the application of a less-
stringent standard of performance at the time of promulgation. As
detailed in VIII.B.1.vi.C.1. Ballast Water Management of Vessels
Operating Exclusively on the Laurentian Great Lakes, subsequent to
issuance of the VGP, EPA evaluated post-2009 Lakers and concluded that
they too are unable to meet the VGP discharge requirements, which is
new information not reasonably available to the Administrator when EPA
issued the VGP.
    EPA is not proposing to exclude any vessels from the Great Lakes
saltwater flushing and ballast water exchange requirements when such
vessels enter the St. Lawrence Seaway through the mouth of the Saint
Lawrence River; thus, any vessel operating in the Laurentian Great
Lakes that leaves the Lakes and takes on ballast water outside of the
Lakes would be required to exchange that ballast prior to re-entering
the St. Lawrence Seaway through the mouth of the St. Lawrence River
consistent with the Great Lakes requirements in section 139.10(f) of
the proposed rule. The Agency is requiring this as specifically
established by Congress in the VIDA CWA Section 312(p)(10)(A).
F. Vessels in the USCG Shipboard Technology Evaluation Program (STEP)
    The proposed rule would exempt from the ballast water numeric
discharge standard a vessel equipped with ballast tanks if that vessel
is enrolled by the USCG into the Shipboard Technology Evaluation
Program (STEP). This exemption is consistent with existing VGP
requirements and USCG 33 CFR part 151 subpart D regulations. The STEP
program currently applies and will continue to play a critical role in
the development of effective ballast water treatment systems, as with
many other related or similar programs the USCG might implement in the
future. The program has encouraged pioneering vessel operators to
install ballast water

treatment systems, contributed to the development of effective sampling
methods, and allowed for the collection of valuable shipboard ballast
water treatment data needed to evaluate the efficacy of ballast water
treatment systems. Furthermore, STEP is a venue for treatment vendors
to develop and refine systems that comply with the ballast water
numeric discharge standard, can be successfully approved through the
USCG type-approval process, and result in the availability of a greater
range of systems for vessel owners. Vessels involved in STEP use
ballast water treatment technologies that share similarities in
capabilities (and in many cases, are the same systems) as those
described in the technical reports EPA used to inform the proposed
rule. Therefore, EPA proposes to exempt them as they are effectively
using treatments systems which reflect BAT.
vii. Numeric Ballast Water Discharge Standard Compliance Dates
    EPA is not proposing compliance dates for the numeric ballast water
discharge standard; rather, the Agency expects the USCG to include such
as part of its VIDA CWA Section 312(p)(5) implementation, compliance,
and enforcement rulemaking. The Agency acknowledges and supports
continuation of the USCG extension program, in 33 CFR 151.1513 and
151.2036, for 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 numeric ballast water
discharge standard is not possible. The details of such vessel-specific
requests are left to the USCG. For perspective, the existing USCG
review considers safety and regulatory requirements of electrical
equipment, vessel capacity to accommodate BWMS, vessel age, shipyard
availability, or other similar factors and extensions are granted for
no longer than the minimum time needed, as determined by the USCG, for
the vessel to comply with the numeric ballast water discharge standard.
viii. Ballast Water Exchange and Saltwater Flushing
A. Ballast Water Exchange
    The proposed rule would require certain vessels to conduct a
ballast water exchange as an interim ballast water management measure
prior to compliance with the ballast water numeric discharge standard.
Except for vessels entering the Great Lakes, vessels on Pacific Region
voyages, and vessels with empty ballast tanks, the VIDA did not alter
the ballast water exchange requirements in the VGP and USCG regulations
at 33 CFR 151.2025. EPA proposes to maintain these requirements that
prior to a vessel meeting its compliance date for meeting the numeric
ballast water discharge standard, any vessel operating beyond the EEZ
and with ballast water onboard that was taken within 200 NM of any
shore must either meet the numeric discharge standard or conduct a mid-
ocean exchange further than 200 NM from any shore, prior to entering
waters of the United States or waters of the contiguous zone. As in the
VGP, the exchange must occur as early as practicable in the voyage, so
long as the exchange occurs more than 200 NM from shore. This
requirement reduces the likelihood of the spread of ANS, most notably
prior to a ballast water numeric discharge standard compliance date, by
increasing the mortality of living organisms in ballast tanks and
ensuring that the discharge contains fewer viable living organisms.
    As to the requirements that would apply to vessels entering the
Great Lakes and vessels on Pacific Region voyages, those are described
in VIII.B.1.x. Vessels Entering the Great Lakes and VIII.B.1.xi.
Pacific Region. The proposed requirements for empty ballast water tanks
are described in the next section.
B. Saltwater Flushing for Empty Ballast Tanks
    Saltwater flushing is defined as the addition of as much mid-ocean
water into each empty ballast tank as is safe for the vessel and crew;
and the mixing of the flush water with residual ballast water and
sediment through the motion of the vessel; and the discharge of that
mixed water, such that the resultant residual water has the highest
salinity possible; and is at least 30 parts per thousand. A saltwater
flushing may require more than one fill-mix-empty sequence,
particularly if only small quantities of water can be safely taken
onboard a vessel at one time.
    The VIDA expanded the requirements that apply to empty ballast
tanks beyond the existing EPA requirements in the VGP and in the USCG
regulations. Specifically, CWA Section 312(p)(6)(B) requires that
vessels conduct mandatory saltwater flushing of empty ballast tanks
that carry unpumpable ballast water and residual sediments. As
established by the VIDA, EPA proposes to require that vessels with
empty ballast tanks and bound for a port or place of destination
subject to the jurisdiction of the U.S. must conduct a saltwater flush
no less than 200 NM from any shore, for a voyage originating outside
the United States or Canadian EEZ, or no less than 50 NM from any
shore, for a voyage originating within the United States or Canadian
EEZ, prior to arriving at that port or place of destination.
    The saltwater flushing requirement is important as it is a widely-
used, low-cost preventative approach that minimizes the risk that ANS
will be introduced from unpumpable ballast water and residual sediment.
The technologies and practices of saltwater flushing are therefore
available, practicable, and economically achievable. Saltwater flushing
is most effective at eliminating organisms adapted to freshwater and
low salinity environments due to the combined impacts of saltwater
shock and physical dilution. However, saltwater flushing should also
reduce viable living organisms adapted to estuarine, coastal and marine
environments. Saltwater flushing reduces viable living organisms in
residual ballast water through dilution. It also reduces organisms in
resting stages in the residual sediment. Resting stages of ANS often
inhabit the sediment in ballast tanks; thus, a reduction in the number
of these organisms will likely reduce the propagule of these potential
invaders.
    The VIDA also specifies certain exceptions to these saltwater flush
requirements. Exceptions are identified if the unpumpable residual
waters and sediments were treated by a USCG type-approved BWMS; sourced
within the same port or place of destination or contiguous portions of
a single COTP Zone; or if the vessel is operating exclusively within
the internal waters of the United States or Canada. The VIDA also
describes additional exceptions including: If compliance would
compromise the safety of the vessel as determined by the USCG; is
otherwise prohibited by any federal, Canadian, or international law
(including regulations) pertaining to vessel safety; or if design
limitations of the vessel prevent a saltwater flush from being
conducted.
    The saltwater flushing exception in the VIDA based on the safety of
the vessel is not included in this proposed rule; rather, EPA expects
that such safety concerns will be fully articulated in the USCG
implementing regulations as applicable to all types of discharges.
Section 139.1(b)(3)of the proposed rule makes very clear that the
numeric ballast water discharge standard is not applicable if
compliance with such standard would compromise the safety of the vessel
or is in the interest of ensuring the safety of life at sea, as
determined by the Secretary.
    The proposed rule would add a limitation to the design exclusion as

established by the VIDA to apply only to existing vessels, defined as a
vessel constructed prior to the date identified in the forthcoming USCG
implementation regulations as described in section 139.1(e) of the
proposed rule. EPA interprets this provision in the VIDA to apply only
to existing vessels since the VIDA added permanent exchange
requirements, presumably because of the added benefit in performing
such an exchange. This limitation is important to create a disincentive
to designing and constructing new vessels that are not capable of
conducting an exchange or flush. It is critical that new vessels have
the capability to conduct exchange and flushing, even if they install a
ballast water management system, particularly as a contingency measure
if the treatment system fails to operate as expected.
    With the exception of Pacific nearshore voyages (as described in
the section below), the VGP only specified requirements for saltwater
flushing of empty tanks for vessels that are engaged in an
international voyage and traverse more than one COTP Zone. These
vessels are required to either seal the tank or conduct saltwater
flushing of such tanks in an area 200 NM from any shore. The VGP also
allowed, except for vessels entering the Great Lakes or in federally-
protected waters, a vessel to not deviate from its voyage, or delay the
voyage to conduct ballast water exchange or saltwater flushing.
However, the VIDA did not include such an exemption and as such an
exemption is not included in the proposed rule.
    The proposed requirements for saltwater flushing as established by
the VIDA would be new for vessels engaged in coast-wise voyages on the
East Coast and Gulf Coast within the EEZ and traverse more than a
single COTP Zone outside of internal waters. These vessels will now be
required to conduct a saltwater flush of empty ballast tanks no less
than 50 NM from any shore before arriving at a U.S. port, regardless of
whether they must deviate from their voyage to do so.
    The oceangoing vessels subject to this requirement are either those
that have an empty ballast tank or a tank that contains unpumpable
residual water, or are vessels that certify, consistent with USCG
regulations, that they have ``No Ballast on Board'' (NOBOB). The USCG
and the VGP defined NOBOB vessels as ``those vessels that have
discharged ballast water to carry cargo, and as a result, have only
unpumpable residual water and sediment remaining in tanks.'' See 70 FR
51832, August 31, 2005.
ix. Vessels Entering the Great Lakes
    The proposed rule would require, based on CWA Section
312(p)(10)(A), vessels entering the St. Lawrence Seaway through the
mouth of the St. Lawrence River to conduct a complete ballast water
exchange or saltwater flush (as appropriate) not less than 200 NM from
any shore for a voyage originating outside the EEZ; or not less than 50
NM from any shore for a voyage originating within the EEZ. There are
exceptions to these requirements including: If the vessel has no
residual ballast water or sediments onboard to the satisfaction of the
Secretary; empty tanks are sealed; or ballast water is retained onboard
while operating in the Great Lakes. Consistent with the previous
requirements in the VGP, the proposed rule does not contain an
exception for vessels that use a ballast water management system to
treat the ballast water prior to discharge. Therefore, the proposed
rule would make permanent the requirement for both exchange and
treatment for most vessels entering the Great Lakes.
    The VGP required vessels that operate outside the EEZ and more than
200 NM from any shore and then enter the Great Lakes through the St.
Lawrence Seaway to conduct ballast water exchange or flushing in
addition to treatment, if ballast water uptake occurred within the
previous 30 days from a coastal, estuarine, or freshwater ecosystem
with a salinity of less than 18 parts per thousand. EPA proposes that
this requirement of the VGP is not necessary to include in the proposed
rule given that the VIDA statutory requirements are more restrictive
than (and supersede) the VGP.
    Consistent with the VIDA, the proposed rule would expand the
requirement for exchange or saltwater flushing plus treatment for
vessels entering the Great Lakes through the St. Lawrence River to a
larger universe of vessels, as compared to the previous VGP and USCG 33
CFR part 151 regulations. First, the proposed rule would extend the
requirement for exchange plus treatment to vessels with voyages
originating within the United States or Canadian EEZ that enter the
Seaway; these would be primarily Canadian vessels. Second, the proposed
rule would extend the requirement for exchange plus treatment to
international vessels with voyages originating from higher salinity
ports outside the EEZ; these were not included in the VGP. In 2014 and
2015, a total of 81 unique vessels arrived at U.S. ports in the Great
Lakes from oversees on 131 voyages. Most of these voyages departed from
European ports (82 percent). However, there is limited data of the
salinity of the origination port. Therefore, it is difficult to
estimate the affected universe from higher salinity ports that would
now be required to do exchange plus treatment. However, many of these
vessels may have been conducting exchange plus treatment prior to the
compliance dates for these vessels to install a ballast water
management system, to ensure compliance with the VGP. Consequently,
there may be minimal impact on these vessels.
    Existing USCG regulations at 33 CFR 151.1502 require that vessels,
after operating on the waters beyond the EEZ during any part of their
voyage, that enter through the St. Lawrence Seaway or that navigate
north of the George Washington Bridge on the Hudson River, perform a
ballast water exchange or saltwater flush regardless of other port
calls in the U.S. or Canada during that voyage, except as expressly
provided in 33 CFR 151.2015(a). In the proposed rule, EPA does not
specifically identify this universe of vessels for having to perform a
ballast water exchange or saltwater flush prior to entering the Hudson
River or St. Lawrence Seaway, unless the vessel is meeting the ballast
water numeric discharge standard (e.g., has installed and is operating
a USCG type-approved ballast water management system), as the proposed
rule would require such ballast water exchange or saltwater flush for
all vessels subject to the ballast water discharge standard. Therefore,
while the proposed rule does not call out this universe of vessels
specifically, similar requirements are being proposed for these and a
larger universe of vessels.
    Consistent with the VIDA (CWA Section 312(p)(10)(A)(ii)(I)), the
proposed rule would provide additional exceptions to ballast water
exchange or saltwater flush requirements for vessels entering the Great
Lakes, if compliance would compromise the safety of the vessel; or is
otherwise prohibited by any federal, Canadian, or international law
(including regulations) pertaining to vessel safety; or if design
limitations of an existing vessel prevent a ballast water exchange from
being conducted. As described in the previous section, the proposed
rule would add a limitation to the design exclusion to apply only to
existing vessels, defined as a vessel constructed prior to the date
identified in the forthcoming USCG implementation regulations, as
described in section 139.1(e) of the proposed rule. This limitation is
important to prevent the design and

construction of new vessels that cannot conduct an exchange or flush.
It is critical that new vessels entering the Great Lakes have this
capability, even if they install a ballast water management system,
particularly as a contingency measure if the treatment system fails to
operate as expected.
x. Pacific Region
    The CWA Section 312(p)(10)(C) establishes more stringent Pacific
Region requirements for ballast water exchange than currently required
in the VGP. As established by the VIDA, the proposed rule would require
that any vessel that operates either between two ports within the U.S.
Pacific Region; or between ports in the Pacific Region and the Canadian
or Mexican Pacific Coast north of parallel 20 degrees north latitude,
inclusive of the Gulf of California, must conduct a complete ballast
water exchange in waters more than 50 NM from shore. The term ``Pacific
Region'' includes the entire EEZ adjacent to the states of Alaska,
California, Hawaii, Oregon, and Washington. There are exceptions in the
VIDA to these exchange requirements including if the vessel is using a
type-approved BWMS or for voyages between or to specific ports in the
states of Washington, Oregon, California, Alaska, and Hawaii, and the
Port of Los Angeles, the Port of Long Beach, and the El Segundo
offshore marine oil terminal, if the ballast water originated from
specified areas.
    The VIDA also specifies, and the proposed rule would require, that
any vessel that transports ballast water sourced from low salinity
waters (less than 18 parts per thousand) and in voyages to a Pacific
Region port or place of destination with low salinity, must conduct a
complete ballast water exchange. The exchange must occur not less than
50 NM from shore, if the ballast water was sourced from a Pacific
Region port; or more than 200 NM from shore, if the ballast water was
not sourced from a Pacific Region port. These exchange requirements
would not apply to any vessel voyaging to the Pacific Region that is
using a type-approved BWMS that achieves standards of performance for
low salinity water that are more stringent than the existing VGP and
USCG ballast water numeric discharge standards. The low salinity water
standards of performance as specified in CWA Section
312(p)(10)(C)(iii)(II) are:
    (A) Less than 1 organism per 10 cubic meters, if that organism (1)
is living or has not been rendered nonviable; and (2) is 50 or more
micrometers in minimum dimension;
    (B) less than 1 organism per 10 milliliters, if that organism (1)
is living or has not been rendered nonviable; and (2) is more than 10,
but less than 50, micrometers in minimum dimension; and
    (C) concentrations of indicator microbes that are less than (1) 1
colony-forming unit of toxicogenic Vibrio cholerae (serotypes O1 and
O139) per 100 milliliters or less than 1 colony-forming unit of that
microbe per gram of wet weight of zoological samples; (2) 126 colony-
forming units of Escherichia coli per 100 milliliters; and (3) 33
colony-forming units of intestinal enterococci per 100 milliliters.
There are exceptions to these requirements including if the vessel does
not have residual ballast water or sediments onboard; empty tanks are
sealed; or ballast water is retained onboard.
    As established by the VIDA, the proposed rule would exempt vessels
from the Pacific Region requirements if any of the following conditions
exist: (1) Compliance would compromise the safety of the vessel; (2)
design limitations of an existing vessel prevent a ballast water
exchange from being conducted; (3) the vessel has no residual ballast
water or sediments onboard to the satisfaction of the Secretary, or the
vessel retains all ballast water while in waters subject to the
requirement; or (4) empty ballast tanks on the vessel are sealed in a
manner that ensures that no discharge or uptake occurs and that any
subsequent discharge of ballast water is subject to the requirement. As
described in the previous ballast water exchange sections, the proposed
rule would add a limitation to the design exclusion to apply only to
existing vessels, defined as a vessel constructed prior to the date
identified in the forthcoming USCG implementation regulations, as
described in section139.1(e) of the proposed rule and only as
determined by the Secretary. This limitation is important to prevent
the design and construction of new vessels that cannot conduct an
exchange or flush. It is critical that new vessels voyaging to the
Pacific Region have this capability, even if they install a ballast
water management system, particularly if the treatment system fails to
operate as expected.
    As compared to the VGP, the VIDA expanded requirements for the
Pacific Region to include exchange or more stringent treatment for low
salinity waters. For some vessels the proposed rule requirement to
conduct ballast water exchange in the Pacific Region is an interim
requirement until a vessel installs a type-approved ballast water
treatment system that meets the ballast water discharge standard.
However, any vessel that transports low salinity ballast water (less
than 18 ppt) and voyages to a low salinity Pacific Region port must
continue to conduct a complete ballast water exchange more than 50 NM
from shore, unless it has installed a type-approved BWMS that achieves
standards of performance, depending on the parameter, up to 100 times
more stringent than the existing discharge standard. Currently, there
is not a USCG type-approval process for BWMS to demonstrate the ability
to achieve this more stringent standard. Therefore, vessels from low
salinity waters would need to continue to conduct exchange until such a
process is developed and BWMS are approved to meet that more stringent
standard.
    For the most part, the continental shelf along the Pacific coast is
narrow along both North and South America. Deep water environments
beyond the continental shelf typically support ecosystems that are
quite different than those which exist closer to shore. Due in part to
this short width of the continental shelf, relatively deep waters
beyond 50 NM from the Pacific shore, exchange at this distance from the
Pacific shore will be effective.
    In addition, the VIDA described the applicability of the Pacific
Region exchange requirements differently as compared to the VGP. The
proposed rule implements the VIDA requirements as established by
Congress in the statute rather than as written in the VGP. The VGP
required exchange for vessels on nearshore voyages which carry ballast
water taken on in areas less than 50 NM from any shore. It defined
nearshore voyages as those vessels engaged in coastwise trade along the
U.S. Pacific coast operating in and between ports in Alaska,
California, Oregon and Washington that travel between more than one
COTP Zone. The VIDA did not include the stipulation that a vessel
voyage must be more than one COTP Zone. In addition, the VIDA includes
vessels operating in ports in the state of Hawaii, with certain
exceptions, in the exchange requirements which the VGP did not include.
The VGP required exchange for all other vessels that sail from foreign,
non-U.S Pacific, Atlantic (including the Caribbean Sea), or Gulf of
Mexico ports, which do not sail further than 200 NM from any shore, and
that discharge or will discharge ballast water into the territorial sea
or inland waters of Alaska or off the west coast of the continental
U.S. The VIDA did not identify nearshore voyages from outside of the
Pacific Region EEZ (although it did include parts of Canada and

Mexico) as required to conduct exchange.
xi. Additional Considerations in Federally-Protected Waters
    The proposed rule would require avoiding the discharge or uptake of
ballast water in federally-protected waters. This requirement is
similar to the existing VGP requirement with one key exception. The
proposed standard removes the applicability of this requirement in
areas outside the boundaries of a federally-protected water but that
nonetheless may directly affect that federally-protected water. EPA is
not including this expansion of the affected area based on the Agency's
determination that information needed by a vessel operator to make such
a ``may directly affect'' determination is highly dependent on the
specific instant at which a ballast water uptake or discharge event is
to occur and that the necessary information to make that determination
is not readily available and not easily characterized. However, the
Agency does recommend that the discharge or uptake of ballast water be
conducted as far from federally-protected waters as possible.
2. Bilges
    Bilgewater consists of water and residue that accumulates in a
lower compartment of the vessel's hull. The source of bilgewater is
typically drainage from interior machinery, engine rooms, and decks.
Bilgewater contains both conventional and toxic pollutants including
oil, grease, volatile and semi-volatile organic compounds, inorganic
salts, and metals. Volumes vary with the size of the vessel and
discharges typically occur several times per week. Cruise ships have
been estimated to generate 25,000 gallons per week for a 3,000
passenger/crew vessel (U.S. EPA, 2008). However, bilgewater treatment
technologies can remove pollutants from bilgewater. For example,
ultrafiltration can be effective in removing turbidity and suspended
solids, organic carbon, and several trace metals (such as aluminum,
iron, and zinc) from bilgewater, in addition to oil (Tomaszewska et
al., 2005).
    Under MARPOL Annex I, all ships of 400 GT ITC and above are
required to have equipment installed onboard that limits the discharge
of oil to less than 15 ppm when a ship is underway. All vessels of 400
GT ITC and above are also required to have an oil content monitor
(OCM), including a bilge alarm, integrated into the piping system to
detect whether the treated bilgewater that is being discharged from the
bilge separator meets the discharge requirements. Bilge separators,
OCMs, and bilge alarms are certified by the USCG to meet 46 CFR part
162 (MARPOL Annex I implementing regulations). Type approval is based
on testing of manufacturer-supplied oil pollution control equipment by
an independent laboratory, in accordance with test conditions
prescribed by the USCG (33 CFR parts 155 and 157 and 46 CFR part 162).
Additionally, as appropriate, the discharge of bilgewater also must
comply with related requirements in 33 CFR part 151, 40 CFR part 110
and 46 CFR part 162.
    The VGP included several requirements for bilgewater that are now
proposed as general requirements in the proposed standards in Subpart
B--General Standards for Discharges Incidental to the Normal Operation
of a Vessel and applicable to all vessels and all discharges. First,
the VGP required operators to minimize the discharge of bilgewater by
minimizing production, storing bilgewater while operating in the waters
of the United States, and discharging the bilgewater to a reception
facility. These VGP requirements are consistent with, and incorporated
as expected practices of, the proposed general discharge standards in
section 139.4(b)(1) that require vessels to minimize discharges.
Second, the VGP required vessels greater than 400 GT ITC that regularly
sail outside the territorial sea (i.e., at least once per month) to
discharge treated bilgewater while underway and if feasible, at least 1
NM from shore. With the slight modification described in the following
paragraph, the proposed bilgewater discharge standard is consistent
with the VGP requirements. Third, the VGP required certain operators to
meet a discharge limit for oil of 15 ppm or to not discharge oil in
quantities that may be harmful as defined in 40 CFR 110.3. These VGP
requirements are consistent with the proposed general discharge
standards in section 139.6(b)(2) that prohibit the discharge of oil in
such quantities as may be harmful. As such, the specific discharge
standard for bilges does not duplicate these three requirements;
rather, bilgewater discharges must meet these requirements as
applicable to all vessels and all discharges.
    The proposed rule would expand upon the applicability of the
requirement to discharge treated bilgewater while underway to all
vessels of 400 GT ITC and above, not just those that regularly sail
outside the territorial sea. However, the proposed rule provides added
flexibility by allowing any vessel, including vessels of 400 GT ITC and
above to discharge treated bilgewater any distance from shore (the VGP
prohibited these vessels from discharging bilgewater within 1 NM of
shore). This modification acknowledges that the VGP requirement for
discharging while underway, which was triggered if vessels operate
outside of waters subject to the VGP at least monthly is difficult to
implement and led to confusion about whether and when a vessel may be
authorized to discharge bilgewater when not underway. For additional
context, data from the most recent VGP annual reports show that very
few vessels in this size class discharge bilgewater, treated or
untreated, into waters of the United States. The VGP annual reports for
the 2019 operating year show that of the more than 28,000 vessels of
400 gross tonnage and above operating in waters covered by the VGP,
more than 99.7 percent of those vessels did not discharge any
bilgewater, treated or untreated, into these waters. However, to
provide additional opportunities to discharge, the proposed VIDA
standards allow all vessels, including vessels of 400 GT ITC and above,
to discharge treated bilgewater while underway anywhere, except in
federally-protected waters. EPA expects this slight modification to the
VGP requirements would clarify the applicability of the requirements
but would not impose any significant additional cost burden; rather, it
would only require certain vessel operators to adjust the timing and
location of bilgewater disposal. Consistent with section 139.1(b)(3) of
the proposed standards, an operator of a vessel of 400 GT ITC and above
may discharge bilgewater, treated or untreated, while stationary (and
not underway) if compliance with this part would compromise the safety
of life at sea.
    The proposed rule would also continue the requirement from the VGP
and require that the discharge of bilgewater must not contain any
flocculants or other additives except when used with an oily water
separator or to maintain or clean equipment. And consistent with the
VGP, the use of any additives to remove the appearance of a visible
sheen would be prohibited.
    Finally, as discussed in VIII C. Discharges Incidental to the
Normal Operation of a Vessel--Specialized Areas, and as required by the
VGP, EPA proposes additional controls for discharges from bilges into
federally-protected waters.
    EPA researched the state of bilgewater treatment systems to
consider whether a targeted reduction in the bilgewater numeric
discharge standard from 15 ppm to 5 ppm oil and grease might have

been appropriate (U.S. EPA, 2011c). Previous comments submitted through
the VGP comment period in 2013 indicated that technology meeting such a
limit appeared to be available for most vessels and economically
achievable for at least new vessels. However, those previous comments
generally made three major assertions:
    1. Before imposing requirements in the U.S., EPA should work with
the international community at IMO to explore whether to have more
stringent limits for new build vessels;
    2. EPA should seek additional information as to whether systems do,
in fact, continue to perform as indicated in their type approval data
when on-board ships; and
    3. Type approved systems capable of meeting a 5 ppm limit are
available.
    After considering the VGP comments and other relevant information,
EPA decided not to propose a 5 ppm numeric discharge standard for
several reasons. First, concerns were raised during the VGP comment
period regarding whether these systems are, in practice, ``available,''
and function onboard ships as their type approval data indicate they
should. Additionally, a 2015 study, identified as the ``MAX1 Studies''
and commissioned by the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation, with
oversight from the USCG, reached the conclusion that existing
regulations for oily water separators ``. . . are, for the most part,
sufficient for their purposes'' and that the focus needs to be on
implementation and application of existing regulations. Lastly,
assuming that systems are indeed capable of meeting a 5 ppm numeric
discharge standard, the standard OCMs in wide use may be unreliable at
this low of a detection level and may therefore result in frequent
false alarms.
    At this time, EPA invites comment on the proposed standard and
whether the following should be required by the final rule: (1) Type-
approved systems capable of meeting a 5 ppm numeric discharge standard,
and (2) OCMs that can consistently and accurately determine oil content
at these low detection levels when considering margin for error. The
research performed by EPA suggests that OCMs relying on alternative
mechanisms other than turbidity/light scattering, such as UV
fluorescence, may be more accurate since the monitor can differentiate
between oil and other contaminants. EPA invites comment on the cost and
availability of such OCMs.
3. Boilers
    Boiler blowdown is the discharge of water and constituents from the
boiler during regular intervals to avoid concentration of impurities
and at intermittent intervals for cleaning or other purposes. Boiler
blowdown occurs on vessels with steam propulsion or a steam generator
to control anti-corrosion and anti-scaling treatment concentrations and
to remove sludge from boiler systems. Routine blowdown involves
releasing a volume of about one to ten percent of the water in the
boiler system, usually below the waterline to manage the accumulation
of solids and buildup of dissolved solids in the boiler water.
Frequency of required blowdown varies, typically between once every two
weeks to once every couple of months although on some vessels, blowdown
may be as frequent as daily or even continuously. The constituents of
boiler blowdown discharge vary according to the types of feed water
treatment used, but may include toxic pollutants such as antimony,
arsenic, cadmium, copper, chromium, lead, nickel, selenium, thallium,
zinc, and bis (2-ethylhexyl) phthalate.
    EPA endeavored to identify new technology and best management
options for discharges from boilers; however, EPA did not identify new
information or options. As such, EPA relied on the BPT/BCT/BAT analysis
that led to the development of the VGP requirements, following the
procedures described in section 4.2 of the Final 2013 VGP Fact Sheet.
Similar to the VGP, the proposed standard would require that the
discharge of boiler blowdown be minimized when in port. This
requirement acknowledges that blowdown typically must be performed as
necessary and that while the amount of blowdown can often be minimized,
the timing of such blowdown, in many instances, cannot be safely
changed, such as to only those times when a vessel is not in port.
    The proposed boiler standard does not carry forward language from
the VGP regarding the prohibition on boiler blowdown discharges for
vessels greater than 400 gross tonnage which leave the territorial sea
at least once per week except in three specific instances: (1) The
vessel remained within waters subject to this permit for a longer
period than the necessary duration between blowdown cycles; (2) the
vessel needed to conduct blowdown immediately before entering drydock;
or (3) for safety purposes. EPA opted not to include similar language
in the proposed rule because the VGP approach, which was triggered if
vessels operate outside of waters subject to the VGP at least once a
week, led to confusion about when a vessel may be authorized to
discharge boiler blowdown. Rather, the proposed boiler blowdown
standard was developed acknowledging that, consistent with the General
Operation and Maintenance requirements described in Subpart B, vessel
operators would be expected to minimize discharges of blowdown to only
those times when necessary and to discharge while the vessel is
underway when practical and as far away from shore as practical.
    As drafted, and consistent with the VGP, the proposed standard
would allow the discharge of boiler blowdown (1) if the vessel remains
within waters of the United States and waters of the contiguous zone
for a longer period than the necessary duration between blowdown
cycles, (2) if the vessel needs to conduct blowdown immediately before
entering drydock, or (3) for safety purposes.
    This proposed standard is similar to the VGP requirements for
blowdown that was applied to vessels greater than 400 GT ITC but
expands the requirement to all vessels. EPA proposes the standard with
the expectation that all vessels and not just vessels of 400 GT ITC and
above can minimize discharges of blowdown and when having to discharge
boiler blowdown, can discharge while underway if practical and as far
from shore as practical. Based on the VGP experience whereby vessels
greater than 400 GT ITC have been meeting this requirement by adjusting
the timing and location of blowdown events, EPA expects that (smaller
vessels) can similarly change the timing and location of their blowdown
events as necessary to minimize the discharge. EPA expects this slight
modification to the VGP requirements would reduce the discharge of
various pollutants but would not impose any significant additional cost
burden; rather, it would only require certain vessel operators to
adjust the timing and location of blowdown events.
    Finally, as discussed in VIII C. Discharges Incidental to the
Normal Operation of a Vessel--Specialized Areas, and as required by the
VGP, EPA proposes to prohibit the discharge of boiler blowdown into
federally-protected waters.
4. Cathodic Protection
    Cathodic protection systems are used on vessels to prevent steel
hull or metal structure corrosion. The two types of cathodic protection
are galvanic (i.e., sacrificial anodes) and impressed current cathodic
protection (ICCP). Using the first method, anodes of, typically,
magnesium, zinc, or aluminum are ``sacrificed'' to the

corrosive forces of the seawater, which creates a flow of electrons to
the cathode, thereby preventing the cathode (e.g., the hull) from
corroding. Using ICCP, a direct current is passed through the hull such
that the electrochemical potential of the hull is sufficiently high
enough to prevent corrosion. The discharge from either method of
cathodic protection is continuous when the vessel is waterborne.
However, galvanic protection discharges include both toxic and
nonconventional pollutants such as ionized zinc, magnesium, and
aluminum.
    EPA endeavored to identify new technology and best management
options for discharges resulting from cathodic protection; however, EPA
did not identify new technology since the development of the VGP. As
such, EPA relied on the BPT/BCT/BAT analysis that led to the
development of the VGP requirements and is proposing to require
substantively the same standard of performance required by the VGP
acknowledging that many of the VGP requirements for cathodic protection
are now incorporated into section 139.4 of the proposed rulemaking for
general operation and maintenance as applicable to all specific
discharges. For example, Part 2.2.7 (Cathodic Protection) of the VGP
required that sacrificial anodes must not be used more than necessary
to adequately prevent corrosion of the vessel's hull, sea chest,
rudder, and other exposed vessel areas. EPA is not including this
specific requirement for cathodic protection in section 139.13 of this
proposed rulemaking since section 139.4(b)(5)(i) proposes a similar
requirement that any materials used onboard, including any sacrificial
anodes, that are subsequently discharged be used only in the amount
necessary to perform their intended function.
    EPA is proposing to continue the requirement from the VGP that any
spaces between flush-fit anodes and the backing must be filled. This
proposed standard is in consideration of the fact that niche areas on
the hull are more susceptible to fouling as well as more difficult to
clean and as such can become hotspots for fouling organisms.
    EPA is not carrying forward the requirement from the VGP regarding
the selection of sacrificial anode systems based on toxicity of the
anode. The proposed approach is consistent with the technological
evaluation performed for the VGP, which acknowledged that type of anode
metal selected based on toxicity (magnesium, then aluminum, then zinc)
may not be technologically feasible and/or economically practicable and
achievable in many instances. EPA has recently learned of more
situations where anode selection based on toxicity presents practical
challenges. For example, in harbors or estuaries with high pollutant
loads, zinc is the preferred anode material for vessels that spend time
in those waters because of concerns with pollutants causing aluminum
anodes to passivate and lose effectiveness. While EPA is not continuing
this concept from the VGP, the Agency does continue to support
operators considering toxicity as part of the anode selection process.
    These proposed requirements represent a practicable and achievable
approach to reducing discharges from this necessary hull protection
operation.
    EPA did consider requiring use of ICCP because these systems
eliminate or reduce the need for sacrificial anodes. However, there is
a risk of overprotecting using these systems (e.g., embrittlement in
high-strength vessels) or debonding of protective coatings, and
operation of these systems generally should only be installed on
vessels that are manned full-time by a highly skilled crew able to
carefully monitor and maintain these systems. As such, the Agency
recommends, but is not proposing to require, operators consider the use
of ICCP in place of or to reduce the use of sacrificial electrodes when
technologically feasible (e.g., adequate power sources, appropriate for
vessel hull size and design), safe, and adequate to protect against
corrosion, particularly for new vessels.
5. Chain Lockers
    Chain lockers are the storage area onboard for housing the vessel's
anchor and chain. Water, sediment, biofouling organisms, and
contaminants can enter and accumulate in the chain locker during anchor
retrieval and precipitation events; the accumulation of water and other
materials in the chain locker is often referred to as the chain locker
effluent. This effluent can contain both conventional and
nonconventional pollutants including ANS and residue from the inside of
the locker itself, such as rust, paint chips, grease, and zinc. The
sump collects these liquids and materials that enter the chain locker
prior to discharge or disposal.
    EPA endeavored to identify new technology and best management
options for discharges from chain lockers; however, EPA did not
identify new information or options since the development of the VGP.
As such, EPA relied on the BPT/BCT/BAT analysis that led to the
development of the VGP requirements and is proposing to require
substantively the same standard of performance required by the VGP.
    As required by the VGP, EPA proposes that vessel operators must
perform BMPs that would reduce or eliminate chain locker effluent
discharge. Specifically, EPA proposes that vessel operators must
thoroughly rinse the anchor chain of biofouling organisms and sediments
each time it is brought out of the water. Additionally, EPA proposes
that the discharge of accumulated water and sediment from the chain
locker is prohibited when the vessel is in port. Finally, although not
required in the VGP, EPA is proposing that for all vessels that operate
beyond the waters of the contiguous zone, anchors and anchor chains
must be rinsed of biofouling organisms and sediment, prior to entering
the waters of the contiguous zone. This requirement is intended to
minimize the discharge of biofouling organisms when vessels that
operate beyond waters of the contiguous zone re-enter these waters and
subsequently drop anchor in waters of the United States or waters of
the contiguous zone.
    Finally, as discussed in VIII C. Discharges Incidental to the
Normal Operation of a Vessel--Specialized Areas, EPA proposes to
prohibit any discharge of accumulated water and sediment from any chain
locker into federally-protected waters.
6. Decks
    Deck discharges may result from deck runoff, deck wash down, or
deck flooding. Deck runoff consists of rain and other precipitation and
seawater which washes over the decks or well decks. Deck washdowns
consist of cleaners and freshwater or saltwater. Deck flooding
generally consists of seawater from the flooding of a docking well
(well deck) on a vessel used to transport, load, and unload amphibious
vessels, or freshwater from washing the well deck and equipment and
vessels stored in the well deck. Deck washdown, runoff, and flooding
discharges include those from all deck and bulkhead areas, and
associated equipment. The constituents and volumes vary widely, are
highly dependent on a vessel's purpose, service, practices, and may
include both conventional and nonconventional pollutants such as oil,
grease, fuel, cleaner or detergent residue, paint chips, paint
droplets, and general debris.
    EPA endeavored to identify new technology and best management
options for discharges from decks; however, EPA did not identify any
technology since the development of the

VGP. As such, EPA relied on the BPT/BCT/BAT analysis that led to the
development of the VGP requirements and is proposing to require
substantively the same requirements of the VGP.
    EPA proposes that it is infeasible to set a specific numeric
discharge standard for discharges from decks and well decks because of
the variation in vessel size and associated deck surface area, the
types of equipment operated on the deck, and limitations on space for
treatment equipment. As such, EPA proposes that BMPs must be
implemented to minimize the volume of discharges and the various
pollutants from decks.
    As required in the VGP, the proposed rule would require vessel
operators to properly maintain the deck and bulkhead areas to keep the
deck clean; prevent excess corrosion, leaks, and metal discharges;
contain potential contaminants to keep them from entering the waste
stream; and use environmentally safe products. Properly maintaining the
deck would include the use of coamings or drip pans for machinery on
the deck that is expected to leak or otherwise release oil, so that any
accumulated oils from these areas can be collected and managed
appropriately.
    As required in the VGP, EPA also proposes that prior to performing
a deck washdown and when underway, exposed decks must be kept broom
clean, to remove existing debris and prevent the introduction of
garbage or other debris into any waste stream. Broom clean means a
condition in which the deck shows that care has been taken to prevent
or eliminate any visible concentration of debris or garbage. Similarly,
discharge of floating solids, visible foam, halogenated phenolic
compounds, dispersants, surfactants, and spills must be minimized in
any deck washdown water discharged overboard. Additionally, during deck
washdown, the proposed rule would require that the washdown be
conducted with minimally-toxic, phosphate-free, and biodegradable
soaps, cleaners, and detergents. The proposed standard would also
require that deck washdowns be minimized in port. Lastly, the proposed
rule would require that where applicable by an international treaty or
convention or the Secretary, a vessel must be fitted with and use
physical barriers (e.g., spill rails, scuppers, and scupper plugs)
during any washdown to collect runoff for treatment.
    Finally, as discussed in VIII C. Discharges Incidental to the
Normal Operation of a Vessel--Specialized Areas, and as is required of
medium and large cruise ships by the VGP, EPA proposes to prohibit the
discharge of deck wash from all vessels into federally-protected
waters.
7. Desalination and Purification Systems
    Distilling and reverse osmosis plants also known as water
purification plants or desalination systems, generate freshwater from
seawater for a variety of shipboard applications. These include potable
water for drinking, onboard services (e.g., laundry and food
preparation), and high-purity feedwater for boilers. The wastewater
from these systems is essentially concentrated seawater with the same
constituents of seawater, including dissolved and suspended solids and
metals; however, anti-scaling, anti-foaming, and acidic treatments and
cleaning compounds are also injected into the distillation system, and
can be present in the discharge. As such, the wastewater can contain
toxic, conventional, and nonconventional pollutants.
    EPA endeavored to identify new technology and best management
options for discharges from desalination and purification systems;
however, EPA did not identify any new technology since the development
of the VGP. As such, EPA relied on the BPT/BCT/BAT analysis that led to
the development of the VGP requirements and is proposing to require
substantively the same standard of performance required by the VGP.
    EPA is proposing to modify the language used in the VGP associated
with toxic and hazardous materials to add more clarity by proposing to
prohibit discharges resulting from the cleaning of desalination or
purification systems with hazardous or toxic materials.
8. Elevator Pits
    Most vessels with multiple decks are equipped with elevators to
facilitate the transportation of maintenance equipment, people, and
cargo between decks. A pit at the bottom of the elevator collects
liquids and debris from elevator operations. The liquid and debris that
accumulates in the pits, often referred to as elevator pit effluent,
can be emptied by gravity draining, discharged using the firemain,
transferred to bilge, or containerized for onshore disposal. The
effluent may contain toxic, conventional, and nonconventional
pollutants such as oil, hydraulic fluid, lubricants, cleaning solvents,
soot, and paint chips.
    EPA endeavored to identify new technology and best management
options for discharges from elevator pits; however, EPA did not
identify any new technology since the development of the VGP. As such,
EPA relied on the BPT/BCT/BAT analysis that led to the development of
the VGP requirements and is proposing to require substantively the same
standard of performance required by the VGP.
    As required by the VGP, EPA proposes to prohibit the discharge of
untreated accumulated water and sediment from any elevator pit.
9. Exhaust Gas Emission Control Systems
    Exhaust gas emission control systems for reducing sulfur oxides
(SOX) and nitrogen oxides (NOX) in marine exhaust
can produce washwater and residues that must be treated or held for
shore-side disposal. Two such systems are exhaust gas cleaning systems
(EGCS) and exhaust gas recirculation (EGR) systems.
    An EGCS is used primarily to remove SOX from marine
exhaust. Commonly referred to as ``scrubbers,'' these systems capture
contaminants that can end up in washwater and residue that result from
the scrubbing process. EGCS washwater is typically treated and
discharged overboard. Residues are usually disposed of on-shore once
the vessel is in port. Untreated EGCS washwater is more acidic than the
surrounding seawater, and it contains toxic, conventional, and
nonconventional pollutants including sulfur compounds, polycyclic
aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs), and traces of oil, NOX, heavy
metals, and captured particulate matter. Use of an EGCS to scrub
emissions of SOX also reduces the pH significantly primarily
through the formation of sulfuric acid. In addition, the high volume of
seawater that some vessels pump for the scrubbing process can result in
higher turbidity in nearby waters, particularly in shallow areas.
    The use of scrubbers on ships is in large part an outgrowth of
international treaties for reducing sulfur emissions from marine
exhaust. Under MARPOL standards and subsequent updates, as of January
2020, the highest permissible sulfur content of marine fuel globally is
0.5 percent. The allowable fuel sulfur content for vessels operating in
Emission Control Areas has been further restricted to 0.1 percent as of
January 2015. The United States is a signatory to the international
treaties and is included in the North American Emission Control Area,
meaning that the 0.1 percent limit for marine fuel sulfur content is
currently in effect for vessels operating in the waters of the United

States or the waters of the contiguous zone.
    MARPOL approved the use of an EGCS to achieve the international
standards for marine emissions as an alternative to operating on low
sulfur fuel. This approval spurred many vessel owners to install
scrubbers in lieu of switching to costlier low sulfur fuels. Recent
information from the international registrar and classification society
Det Norske Veritas and Germanischer Lloyd (DNV GL, 2019) indicates that
out of the total vessel universe, there are currently 3,000 ships with
installed or firmly planned scrubber systems, with predictions ranging
up to as many as 4,000 installations.
    The two main ``wet'' scrubber EGCS technologies used on vessels for
meeting the MARPOL marine emissions requirements are open-loop and
closed-loop systems. Although use of scrubbers on ships is relatively
recent, these systems are based on technologies deployed for land-based
systems for controlling smokestack emissions and generally transfer
well to ship-board use. Open-loop systems remove the contaminants from
marine exhaust by running the exhaust through seawater sourced from
outside the vessel and then discharging the resulting washwater back
out to sea. In contrast, closed-loop systems use freshwater and inject
caustic soda to neutralize the exhaust. A small portion of the
washwater is bled off and treated to remove suspended solids, which are
held for shore-side disposal. While this design is not completely
closed-loop, it can operate in zero discharge mode for a period of
time. Hybrid scrubbers are systems that can operate either in open- or
closed-loop mode. Typically, at sea, these hybrid systems operate in
open-loop mode, whereas in nearshore waters, harbors, and estuaries,
they operate in closed-loop mode. Dry scrubbers are another type of
EGCS; however, these systems do not generate wastewater, and hence
would not be subject to these proposed requirements.
    EGR systems are used to reduce NOX emissions in marine
exhaust. Vessels often use EGR systems to achieve the mandatory
NOX emissions limits set out in MARPOL Annex VI. These
systems minimize NOX production by cooling part of the
engine exhaust gas and then redirecting it back to the engine air
intake. The addition of the recirculated engine exhaust reduces the
amount of oxygen available for fuel combustion, reducing peak
combustion temperatures, resulting in significantly reduced
NOX formation. The cooling of the recirculated exhaust gas
causes condensation of water vapor formed during combustion, generating
a continuous wastewater stream (bleed-off water) from the condensate.
This condensate can contain toxic, conventional, and nonconventional
pollutants such as particulates (soot, metals, and hydrocarbons) and
sulfur. In some cases, the EGR systems also capture oils, for example
from cylinder lubrication, that are emitted from the combustion process
which are collected as part of the scavenged air. Excess bleed-off
water that accumulates in an EGR system is typically discharged
overboard following treatment, and any residues are held for shore-side
disposal. On vessels that use high-sulfur fuel and an EGCS, the EGR
system bleed-off water is often combined with the EGCS washwater and
processed as a combined waste stream.
    EPA is proposing a standard for EGCS and EGR discharges based on
IMO's guidelines for discharges from these two types of emission
control systems. Specifically, the standard is largely based on the IMO
2015 Guidelines for Exhaust Gas Cleaning Systems (Resolution
MEPC.259(68) and the IMO 2018 Guidelines for the Discharge of Exhaust
Gas Recirculation (EGR) Bleed-Off Water (MEPC 307(73))). The IMO EGCS
guidelines mostly focus on the air emissions of scrubbers; however,
Section 10 of these guidelines sets out limits for five constituents in
scrubber washwater: pH, PAH, turbidity, nitrates, and additives.
Section 10 also includes handling and disposal criteria for scrubber
residues. While the IMO criteria are guidelines rather than
requirements, EPA is proposing to incorporate the discharge
requirements of the IMO EGCS guidelines as EPA standards. With respect
to discharges from EGR systems, the IMO EGR guidelines were based
primarily on the IMO's own 2015 guidelines for EGCS discharges, with a
few key differences in recognition of the composition of the EGR bleed-
off washwater and the on-board process for handling this waste stream.
The proposed standard reflects this parallel structure and retains the
minor distinctions in the IMO EGR guidelines to accommodate differences
between the two systems.
    The proposed standard carries forward most of the VGP EGCS
requirements, which were based largely on the 2009 version of the IMO
EGCS guidelines. The key difference is that in an effort to harmonize
EPA standards with the IMO guidelines to the extent possible, EPA
proposes to amend the pH limit for discharges of EGCS washwater to 6.5
and is adding the additional IMO option for determining the limit based
on either in-water measurement or a calculation-based methodology. In
contrast, the VGP requirement is for EGCS washwater discharges to have
a pH of no less than 6.0 as measured at the overboard discharge point.
The VGP did not include specific requirements for discharges from EGR
systems, in part because international awareness of the environmental
effects of these discharges was not at the forefront of concerns
relating to implementation of the NOX emissions standards at
the time.
    As part of the effort to harmonize the EPA exhaust gas emission
control systems discharge standards under the VIDA with the IMO
guidelines, EPA has also reworded the phrasing of the proposed standard
to harmonize more closely with the language in the IMO guidelines. In
this context, EPA notes that in the exception proposed in section
139.18(b)(1)(i)(A) pertaining to the pH limit, the use of the word
``transit'' refers specifically to when a vessel is underway as part of
entering or exiting port. Similarly, EPA notes that in section
139.18(b)(1)(i)(B), the pH discharge limit as determined either by
measurement or computation applies to the vessel both when stationary
as well as when underway. EPA elected not to include these
clarifications so as to not diverge from the language in the IMO
guidelines, but was able to confirm through consultation with IMO
experts and technical staff that they reflect the original intent of
the IMO guidelines.
    As EPA acknowledged in the factsheet accompanying the 2013 VGP, the
reason the VGP established a different pH limit for EGCS discharges
from the IMO was that the NPDES permitting framework requires discharge
limits to be set at the point of discharge. At the time, EPA determined
that the 6.0 limit applied at the point of discharge maximized
consistency with the IMO guideline for a pH of 6.5 four meters from the
hull by accounting for the buffering ``likely to occur within the 4-
meter range.'' Under the VIDA, in contrast, EPA no longer needs to
account for the buffering because EPA is now proposing a standard of
performance rather than a limit for a permit. The discharge standard
continues to include the additional provision, consistent with the IMO
guideline, that the maximum difference allowed between inlet and outlet
during maneuvering and transit is 2.0 pH units.
    EPA previously presented its BAT analysis for the EGCS limits for
the other four parameters--PAH, nitrates, turbidity, and additives--as
part of the NPDES permit issuance process. That analysis is not
revisited here since the

only part of the proposed standard that differs from the 2013 VGP is
the pH limit for EGCS washwater and that does not represent a change in
a BAT factor such that revisiting the BAT analysis is necessary. EPA
refers readers to the original BAT analysis accompanying the 2013 VGP
for additional information.
    EPA's BAT analysis determined that use of EGCS technologies to meet
the proposed EGCS standard is economically achievable for several
reasons. As was true when EPA first issued the VGP EGCS requirements in
2013, EGCS manufacturers already design their systems to meet the IMO
guidelines, so any numeric discharge standard imposed by turning these
guidelines into regulatory requirements will not result in any
additional financial burden to operators. Second, given the current
price differential between high and low sulfur fuels, use of an EGCS
allows vessel operators to realize significant cost savings when using
lower grade fuel with scrubbers compared to using more expensive,
higher grade fuels with lower sulfur content. EPA also notes that the
proposed pH numeric discharge standard will result in less confusion
for the shipping community by harmonizing EGCS requirements with
international guidelines as set out by IMO.
    The Agency considered several other options for regulating EGCS
discharges. However, existing technology alternatives to the proposed
EGCS discharge standard are either impractical or expensive. For
example, increased use of neutralization chemicals would introduce
significant occupational and passenger safety issues because of
chemical storage and handling issues. Modifying existing open-loop
systems to hybrid systems (i.e., that can also run in a closed-loop
mode) would be another option; however, this retrofitting could cost an
additional $3-5 million per vessel beyond the capital expenditures that
vessel owners have already incurred for installing scrubbers in
anticipation of the 2020 marine exhaust emissions limits. Yet another
alternative would be to require vessels to switch from scrubbers to low
sulfur fuel while in U.S. waters. Some vessels with scrubbers already
switch to low sulfur fuels when in harbors or waters with sensitive
ecosystems either in response to requests from port authorities or
because of company policies to minimize seawater agitation. However,
using low sulfur fuels for extended periods of time can be expensive.
For example, EPA received estimates from cruise ship operators that
suggests incremental costs per vessel for switching to low sulfur fuel
can be as much as an additional $67,000 per week.
    Another option considered was to ban discharges from scrubbers
outright (i.e., establish a zero-discharge standard for scrubbers). In
fact, several port authorities and flag states, including Norway
(``heritage fjords''), Fujairah (United Arab Emirates), Marseille, and
Singapore have already banned use of open-loop scrubbers or discharges
from open-loop scrubbers (U.S. EPA, 2020a). These restrictions are
typically precautionary rather than based on data or modeling in the
specific ports or regions in question (U.S. EPA, 2020a), leading the
Agency to conclude that insufficient data exist at this time to warrant
prohibiting these discharges under the Clean Water Act. Technical
committees at the IMO are currently revisiting the need to perform
additional assessments of environmental impacts from EGCS discharges,
and EPA will continue to monitor the availability of research findings
compiled in connection with these discussions.
    EPA's proposed exhaust gas emission control standard also includes
requirements for discharges of EGR bleed-off water and residues in
recognition of the fact that they can exhibit low pH and contain other
toxic, conventional, and nonconventional pollutants covered under the
CWA. The requirements mirror those in the 2018 IMO EGR guidelines in
that they largely include the same limits as listed in the 2015 IMO
guidelines for EGCS discharges. EPA determined that shipboard
technology for meeting these limits is readily available since the
international marine community needed to address the requirements upon
publication of the 2018 IMO EGR guidelines. As such, EPA has determined
that the existing technology for meeting the limits is economically
achievable, and EPA notes that the IMO has not received any indication
from the maritime community that achieving the limits resulted in any
undue economic burden or that alternative technologies for handling the
EGR waste stream exist that merit investigation. The proposed standard
includes the same prohibition as found in the IMO EGR guidelines for
discharges of EGR bleed-off captured in holding tanks. The
applicability of EPA proposed standard for EGR bleed-off however, would
exclude when the vessel is underway and operating on fuel that meets
the MARPOL Annex VI sulfur emissions requirements in effect starting in
2020. The applicability is slightly different from that in the IMO EGR
guidelines which prohibit such discharges in harbors, estuaries, and
polar waters whether underway or not. EPA is proposing to apply this
standard consistent with how the Agency assessed and applied other
requirements in the proposed rule; namely, the proposed standard
considers whether a vessel is in port, underway, or outside of the
waters of the United States and the waters of the contiguous zone.
Lastly, the proposed standard for EGR does not include the IMO
guideline exception for oil content in EGR bleed-off water since the
same oil content numeric discharge standard is already required
separately in section 139.6 of the proposed rule for all incidental
discharges.
10. Fire Protection Equipment
    Fire protection equipment includes all components used for fire
protection including firemain systems, sprinkler systems,
extinguishers, and firefighting agents such as foam. Firemain systems
draw in water through the sea chest to supply water for fire hose
stations, sprinkler systems, or firefighting foam distribution
stations. Firemain systems can be pressurized or non-pressurized and
are necessary to ensure the safety of the vessel and crew. The systems
are also tested regularly to ensure that the system will be operational
in an emergency. Additionally, firemain systems have numerous secondary
purposes onboard vessels, such as for deck and equipment washdowns,
machinery cooling water, and ballasting. However, whenever the firemain
system is used for a secondary purpose, any resulting incidental
discharge would be required to meet the proposed national standard of
performance for secondary use (e.g., deck runoff). Firemain water can
contain a variety of constituents, including copper, zinc, nickel,
aluminum, tin, silver, iron, titanium, and chromium. Many of these
constituents can be traced to the corrosion and erosion of the firemain
piping system, valves, or pumps.
    Firefighting foams (fluorinated and non-fluorinated) can be added
to a firemain system and mixed with seawater to address emergencies
onboard a vessel. The constituents of firefighting foam can vary by
manufacturer but can include persistent, bioaccumulative, toxic, and
non-biodegradable ingredients. Discharges of firefighting foam can also
contain phthalate, copper, nickel, and iron, which can be constituents
in the composition of firemain piping. Fluorinated firefighting foam
contains per- and poly-fluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) or their
precursors; examples include aqueous film forming foam,

alcohol resistant aqueous film forming foam, film-forming fluoroprotein
foam, fluoroprotein foam, alcohol-resistant fluoroprotein foam, and
other fluorinated compounds. Non-fluorinated firefighting foam does not
contain per- and poly-fluoroalkyl substances or their precursors;
examples include protein foam, alcohol-resistant protein foam,
synthetic fluorine free foam, and synthetic alcohol-resistant fluorine
free foam. PFAS such as perfluorooctane sulfonate (PFOS) and
perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA), among others, are persistent,
bioaccumulative, and potentially toxic and carcinogenic chemical
compounds. Information regarding the presence of fluorinated
surfactants and toxic or hazardous substances in firefighting foam are
typically found on the safety data sheets for individual products.
Additionally, other types of foams exist that can be used in fire
equipment systems that are not intended for fire suppression but are
designed for testing and training. These foams are often called testing
or training foams, tend to be less expensive, and can mimic the
properties of firefighting foams.
    Consistent with the VGP, EPA is proposing requirements that apply
to discharges from fire protection equipment during testing, training,
maintenance, inspection, or certification. The proposed standard would
not apply to the use of fire protection equipment in emergency
situations or when compliance with such would compromise the safety of
the vessel or life at sea (See section 139.1(b)(3)).
    EPA proposes to prohibit any discharge from fire protection
equipment during testing, training, maintenance, inspection, or
certification in port with the exclusion of any USCG-required
inspection or certification. EPA also proposes to prohibit the
discharge of fluorinated firefighting foam during testing, training,
maintenance, inspection, or certification with the exclusion of any
USCG-required inspection or certification. Other options exist for
testing, training, or maintenance such as testing without foam,
collecting the foam such that it is not discharged, or, when foam is
required, using a non-fluorinated foam (FFFC, 2020; NFPA, 2016). And
according to the National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) there are
many firefighting foams and training foams that are non-fluorinated
that can be used for testing, training, and maintenance (FFFC, 2020;
NFPA, 2016). However, the USCG has indicated that for certain USCG-
required inspections and certifications discharges must occur in port
and need to use fluorinated foams.
    EPA also considered proposing more stringent requirements than the
VGP in relation to the discharge of firefighting foam. Specifically,
EPA explored proposing requirements that would include product
substitution to use firefighting foams that do not contain
bioaccumulative or toxic or hazardous materials. EPA has used product
substitution for other technology-based rules such as those that apply
to oil and gas. See 40 CFR part 435. As such, EPA considered, for the
purposes of testing, training, maintenance, inspection or
certification, also prohibiting the discharge of non-fluorinated
firefighting foams that contain bioaccumulative or toxic or hazardous
materials (as identified in 40 CFR 401.15 or defined in 49 CFR 171.8).
Based on the Best Practice Guidance for Use of Class B Firefighting
Foams from the Fire Fighting Foam Coalition (FFFC, 2020), NFPA codes
and standards--NFPA 11--Standards for Low-, Medium-, and High-Expansion
Foam (NFPA, 2016), and discussions with the USCG, testing and training
methods exist that limit or eliminate the need to discharge foam (FFFC,
2020; NFPA, 2016). Specifically, in many situations it may be possible
to perform these activities by only using water (water equivalency
method), collecting the foam, or using non-fluorinated training foam
that does not contain bioaccumulative or toxic or hazardous materials.
EPA reviewed numerous foam Safety Data Sheets for bioaccumulative or
toxic or hazardous materials and identified several potential foam
options that vessels owners and operators may be able to use if the
Agency moved forward with this approach in the final rule (EPA, 2020).
    However, EPA was unable to compile adequate information on the
availability and economic achievability considerations of using non-
fluorinated foams that do not contain bioaccumulative or toxic or
hazardous materials to justify proposing a requirement that would limit
the types of non-fluorinated foams that could be used for testing,
training, maintenance, inspection or certification. As such, EPA is
soliciting feedback and additional information on the availability and
economic achievability of expanding the prohibition on the discharge of
firefighting foam to include non-fluorinated foam that contains
bioaccumulative or toxic or hazardous materials. If it is found to meet
the applicable statutory requirements, the final standard would
prohibit the discharge of both fluorinated foams and non-fluorinated
foams that contain bioaccumulative or toxic or hazardous materials
during testing, training, maintenance, inspection or certification with
the exception of USCG-required inspection and certification.
Specifically, EPA is interested in feedback on: (1) The availability of
non-fluorinated foams, training foams, or surrogate test liquids that
do not contain bioaccumulative or toxic or hazardous materials that can
satisfy firefighting testing, training, and maintenance needs, (2) the
extent to which vessels are already using these alternative foams, (3)
the extent to which vessels are already performing testing, training,
and maintenance using only water, (4) the number of vessels and types
of systems that are not able to use the water-equivalency method, (5)
the extent to which the vessel community is collecting foam prior to
discharge, (6) economic considerations associated with prohibiting the
discharge of these types of non-fluorinated firefighting foams, and any
other information that would support the Agency's determination of
whether to expand the prohibition of the discharge of firefighting
foams to include non-fluorinated foams that contain bioaccumulative or
toxic or hazardous materials.
    Finally, as discussed in VIII C. Discharges Incidental to the
Normal Operation of a Vessel--Specialized Areas, and as required by the
VGP, EPA proposes additional controls for discharges from fire
protection equipment for testing, training, and maintenance purposes
for vessels operating in federally-protected waters.
11. Gas Turbines
    Gas turbines are used on some vessels for propulsion and
electricity generation. Occasionally, they must be cleaned to remove
by-products that can accumulate and affect their operation. The by-
products and cleaning products can include toxic and conventional
pollutants including salts, lubricants, combustion residuals,
naphthalene, and other hydrocarbons. Additionally, due to the nature of
the materials being cleaned, there is a higher probability of heavy
metal concentrations. Rates and concentrations of gas turbine wash
water discharge vary according to the frequency of washdown and under
most circumstances vessel operators can choose where and when to wash
down gas turbines.
    EPA endeavored to identify new technology and best management
options for discharges from gas turbines; however, EPA did not identify
any new technology since the development of the VGP. As such, EPA
relied on the BPT/

BCT/BAT analysis that led to the development of the VGP requirements
and is proposing to require substantively the same standard of
performance required by the VGP.
    As was required by the VGP, EPA proposes requirements that apply to
discharges from the washing of gas turbine components. EPA proposes to
prohibit the discharge of untreated gas turbine washwater unless
determined to be infeasible.
12. Graywater Systems
    Graywater is water drained or collected from showers, baths, sinks,
and laundry facilities. Graywater discharges can contain bacteria,
pathogens, oil and grease, detergent and soap residue, metals (e.g.,
cadmium, chromium, lead, copper, zinc, silver, nickel, mercury),
solids, and nutrients. Some vessels have the capacity to collect and
hold graywater for later treatment and discharge. Vessels that do not
have graywater holding capacity continuously discharge it to receiving
waters. The volume of graywater generated by a vessel is dependent on
the number of passengers and crew. It is estimated that, in general, 30
to 85 gallons of graywater is generated per person per day. Estimates
of graywater generation by cruise ships that can accommodate
approximately 3,000 passengers and crew range from 96,000 to 272,000
gallons of graywater per day or 1,000,000 gallons per week.
    Many elements of the proposed standard, including certain BMPs,
mirror those found in the VGP. For example, under the proposed General
Operation and Maintenance standard the operators of all vessels are
required to minimize the discharge of graywater. Minimization can
include reducing the production of graywater, holding the graywater
onboard, or using a reception facility. Additionally, as required by
the VGP, minimally-toxic, phosphate-free, and biodegradable soaps,
cleaners, and detergents must be used if they enter the graywater
system. The proposed standard also requires vessels to minimize the
introduction of kitchen oils and food and oil residue to the graywater
system. Also, as would be required for all discharges in section
139.4(b)(2) of the proposed rule, vessels must discharge while underway
when practical and as far from shore as practical. This storage
requirement is particularly relevant for graywater as many vessels have
graywater storage capabilities onboard that allow for graywater to be
stored and either discharged to a reception facility or held until
underway and as far from shore as practical.
    For non-Great Lakes vessels, the numeric effluent requirements from
the VGP have remained the same with one exception. The proposed
standard does not include the percent removal requirements for BOD and
TSS from the VGP. The percent removal requirement, which is based on
secondary treatment regulations for domestic sewage, is not necessary
for graywater discharges because there is greater ability to control
the contribution of BOD and TSS onboard a vessel.
    As in the VGP, EPA is not proposing graywater discharge standards
for commercial vessels in the Great Lakes consistent with CWA Section
312(a)(6) that specifies the term ``sewage,'' with respect to
commercial vessels on the Great Lakes, shall include graywater. As
such, graywater discharges from commercial vessels on the Great Lakes
are subject to the requirements in CWA Sections 312(a)-(m) and the
implementing regulations at 40 CFR part 140 and 33 CFR part 159.
    Non-commercial vessels operating on the Great Lakes may only
discharge graywater if the discharge is treated such that it does not
exceed 200 fecal coliform forming units per 100 milliliters and
contains no more than 150 milligrams per liter of suspended solids.
This is because the Agency determined that graywater treatment using an
existing system meeting the 40 CFR part 140 standards represents the
appropriate level of control for those vessels operating in the Great
Lakes that do not hold their graywater for onshore disposal. Hence,
either treatment devices or adequate holding capacity are available and
used for managing graywater from vessels operating on the Great Lakes.
    As in the VGP, the numeric discharge standard would apply to the
discharge from any passenger vessel with overnight accommodations for
500 or more passengers (identified as a ``large cruise ship'' in the
VGP), as well as any passenger vessel with overnight accommodations for
100-499 passengers (identified as a ``medium cruise ship'' in the VGP)
unless the vessel was constructed before December 19, 2008 and does not
voyage beyond 1 NM from shore, such as is often the situation for older
river cruise vessels.
    In preparing the proposed standard, EPA endeavored to identify new
technology and BMPs for graywater discharges or applicability of
existing technologies and practices to different classes of vessels
than had been subject to similar requirements in the VGP. Hereafter,
this section describes proposed requirements for graywater systems that
are new or modified from the VGP. First, EPA proposes to prohibit the
discharge of graywater within 3 NM from shore for any vessel that
voyages at least 3 NM from shore and has remaining available graywater
storage capacity, unless the discharge meets the standards in section
139.21(f) of the proposed rule. Similarly, EPA proposes to prohibit the
discharge of graywater within 1 NM from shore from any vessel that
voyages at least 1 NM but not more than 3 NM from shore and has
remaining available graywater storage capacity, unless the discharge
meets the standards in section 139.21(f) of the proposed rule. Also,
EPA is proposing that the discharge of graywater from any new vessel of
400 gross tonnage (GT ITC) and above, and any new ferry authorized by
the USCG to carry 250 or more people would be required to meet the
numeric discharge standard in section 139.21(f) of the proposed rule.
Such vessels could be equipped either with a treatment system or
sufficient storage capacity to retain all graywater onboard while
operating in waters subject to the proposed rule. The costs of these
proposed requirements as compared to those in the VGP are described in
the regulatory impact analysis for the proposed rule. EPA expects these
new requirements would reduce the discharge of various pollutants
without a significant increase in compliance costs. EPA believes the
proposed standard, while more stringent than existing requirements
under the VGP, is appropriate and has been demonstrated to be
technologically available and economically achievable. Based on VGP
reporting data, between one-third and one-half of manned vessels of 400
GT ITC or above that are not cruise ships or ferries are equipped with
a treatment system for graywater, graywater mixed with sewage, or a
combined treatment system that may treat graywater. As such, the data
for existing vessels indicate that it is an appropriate requirement for
new build vessels in this category to install a treatment system or
storage capacity. EPA expects that vessels built with storage capacity
may be serviced by stationary and mobile (e.g., trucks and barges)
pumpout facilities that currently receive sewage and graywater from
vessels and welcomes public comment on the availability of such
facilities for vessels unable to install treatment systems.
    Additionally, as required by the VGP, EPA proposes additional
controls for discharges of graywater for vessels operating in
federally-protected waters as discussed in VIII C. Discharges

Incidental to the Normal Operation of a Vessel--Specialized Areas.
    In evaluating options for graywater treatment, EPA reaffirmed that
treatment of commingled graywater and sewage by an ``advanced
wastewater treatment system (AWTS),'' a sophisticated marine sanitation
device, produces significant constituent reductions in the resulting
effluent. AWTS differ from traditional treatment systems in that they
generally employ enhanced methods for treatment, solids separation, and
disinfection, such as through the use of membrane technologies and UV
disinfection. AWTS are currently in wide use and economically
achievable for certain vessel classes. For example, the Cruise Lines
International Association (2019) reports that 68 percent of member
lines' global fleet capacity is currently served by AWTS. Also, all new
ships on order by member lines will be equipped with AWTS. In Alaska,
under the existing ``Large Cruise Ship General Permit,'' certain large
commercial passenger vessels may only discharge wastewater (including
sewage and graywater) that has been treated by an AWTS or equivalent
system. As such, the numeric discharge standard included in the
proposed standard, which was also present in the VGP, is based on the
performance of these treatment systems.
    The proposed time period for the application of the numeric
discharge standard for graywater differs from that presented earlier
for ballast tanks. For graywater systems, EPA proposes a monthly
average numeric discharge standard, a commonly used metric for
establishing numeric effluent discharge limits. While daily maximums
are also frequently used, EPA is not proposing to include daily
maximums in the standard. Monitoring discharges onboard a vessel
presents unique challenges compared to monitoring discharges from land-
based facilities for which numeric effluent discharge limits are
typically established. For ballast tanks, however, EPA proposes the use
of instantaneous maximums. As indicated in the ballast tanks section,
the challenges associated with collecting and testing representative
samples of ballast water at the time of discharge required a different
approach. Systems that are designed to meet an instantaneous maximum
require a higher level of control, and therefore less variability, in
the system. Since the discharge of ballast water carries the risk of
establishing ANS, the use of an instantaneous maximum is preferred over
the use of a long-term average where the upper bounds of variability in
the discharge may be problematic.
    Graywater discharges, on the other hand, do not carry the same
level of risk. As such, the numeric discharge standard proposed in
section 139.21(f) uses monthly averages to allow for the variability
that is expected in a well-operated treatment system. At the same time,
the monthly averages require the vessel operator to remain vigilant to
ensure that, despite this variability, discharges consistently meet the
numeric limit. Vessels to which the standard applies would be expected
to operate treatment systems that can consistently achieve compliance
with the monthly average based on the vessel's expected loadings.
Pursuant to the general operation and maintenance standards of the
proposed rule, vessels are expected to discharge while underway when
practical and as far from shore as practical. This encourages
commingling of the graywater constituents and further decreases the
risks associated with variability in the system. EPA recognizes that
the option to install AWTS or sufficient holding capacity may be
unavailable for certain vessels for such reasons as cost, stability of
the vessel, or space constraints. As such, EPA does not propose that
all vessels be required to treat graywater discharges to the limits
found in section 139.21(f) of the proposed rule.
13. Hulls and Associated Niche Areas
Coatings
    Vessel hulls are often coated with antifouling compounds to prevent
or inhibit the attachment and growth of biofouling organisms.
Selection, application, and maintenance of an appropriate coating type
and thickness according to vessel profile is critical to effective
biofouling management, and therefore preventing the introduction and
spread of ANS from the vessel hull and associated niche areas. Multiple
types of coatings are available for use, including hard, controlled
depletion or ablative, self-polishing copolymer, and fouling release
coatings. Coatings may employ physical, biological, chemical, or a
combination of controls to reduce biofouling. Those that contain
biocides prevent the attachment of biofouling organisms to the vessel
surface by continuously leaching substances that are toxic to aquatic
life. The most commonly used biocide is copper. Manufacturers may also
combine copper with other biocides, often termed ``booster biocides,''
to increase the effectiveness of the coating. Cleaning the coating
results in pulses of biocide into the environment, particularly if
surfaces are cleaned within the first 90 days following application.
    The proposed rule would require that the selection of a coating for
the hull and associated equipment must be specific to the vessel's
operational profile, including biocidal coatings, that have effective
biocide release rates and components that are biodegradable once
separated from the vessel surface. Operational profile factors can
influence biofouling rates and include the vessel speed during a
typical voyage, aquatic environments traversed, type of surface
painted, typical water flow for any hull and niche areas, planned
periods between drydock, and expected periods of inactivity or
idleness. Generally, an optimal biocide will have broad spectrum
activity, low mammalian toxicity, low water solubility, no
bioaccumulation up the food chain, no persistence in the environment,
and compatibility with raw materials (IMO, 2002). EPA is aware that
non-biocidal coatings are available, and vessels that typically operate
at high speeds may effectively manage biofouling with fouling release
coatings. Additionally, vessels traveling in waters with lower
biofouling pressure and those that spend less time at dock are expected
to have a lower biofouling rate and should select either non-biocidal
coating or coatings with low biocide discharge rates. However, these
coatings may not be suitable for all operational profiles.
    Adhering to manufacturer specifications is necessary to ensure the
longevity and effectiveness of the coating and is considered best
practice. If a coating is not properly selected, applied, or
maintained, it will likely show signs of deterioration, such as
indications of excessive cleaning actions (e.g., brush marks) or
blistering due to the internal failure of the paint system. Such
excessive deterioration may allow for biofouling organisms to grow on
exposed surfaces, increasing the risk of introduction and spread of
ANS. Improper application and maintenance of the coating may also
increase the discharge of particles into the aquatic environment and
degradation of the integrity of wetted surfaces. The VGP required that
any antifouling coatings be applied, maintained, and removed consistent
with the FIFRA label, if applicable. The proposed rule would similarly
require that coatings be applied, maintained, and reapplied consistent
with manufacturer specifications, including the thickness, the method
of application, and the lifespan of the coating. One way to achieve
this proposed requirement is to schedule the in-service period of the
coating to match the vessel's drydock cycles. Larger vessels,
particularly those

used in the carriage of goods, are required to adhere to requirements
for safety inspections and maintenance activities that dictate how
frequently they must be drydocked. Factoring this schedule into the
coating selection ensures the coating will sufficiently protect the
vessel for the period needed without creating additional leachate or
wastes.
Tributyltin (TBT) Requirements
    The International Convention on the Control of Harmful Anti-fouling
Systems on Ships (AFS Convention) was adopted in 2001 and came into
force in 2008. The United States became a contracting party to the AFS
Convention on November 21, 2012. Domestically, the Clean Hull Act of
2009 implements the requirements of the AFS Convention. Consistent with
the AFS Convention, the Clean Hull Act, and the VGP, the proposed rule
reaffirms that coatings on vessel hulls must not contain TBT or any
other organotin compound used as a biocide. Additionally, the proposed
rule states that any vessel hull previously applied with a hull coating
containing TBT (whether or not used as a biocide) or any other
organotin compound (if used as a biocide) must either maintain an
effective overcoat on the vessel hull so that no TBT or other organotin
leaches from the vessel hull or remove any TBT or other organotin
compound from the vessel hull. EPA is unaware of any non-biocidal use
of TBT which would result in a residual presence in antifouling paints;
therefore, EPA reaffirms a zero-discharge standard of TBT from vessel
hulls. EPA expects that few, if any, vessels have exposed TBT coatings
on their hulls and that a zero-discharge standard for all organotin
compounds, including TBT, is technologically achievable based on the
availability of other antifouling coating options. This standard is
also economically achievable because few, if any, vessels still use TBT
as an antifoulant.
    Other less toxic organotin compounds such as dibutyltin oxide are
used in small quantities as catalysts in some biocide-free coatings.
One class of biocidal-free coatings, which are sometimes referred to as
fouling release coatings, produce a non-stick surface to which fouling
organisms cannot firmly adhere. To function properly, the coating
surface must remain smooth, intact, and not leach into the surrounding
water. Because these less toxic organotins are used as a catalyst in
the production of biocide-free coatings, such production may result in
trace amounts of organotin in antifouling coatings. Consistent with the
AFS Convention, the Clean Hull Act, and the VGP, EPA proposed rule
would authorize the use of non-biocidal coatings that contain trace
amounts of catalytic organotin (other than TBT) if the trace amounts of
organotin are not used as a biocide. When used as a catalyst, EPA
proposed rule states that an organotin compound must contain less than
2,500 mg total tin per kilogram of dry paint and must not be designed
to slough or otherwise peel from the vessel hull, noting that
incidental amounts of a coating discharged by abrasion during cleaning
or after contact with other hard surfaces (e.g., moorings) are
acceptable.
Cybutryne Requirements
    Cybutryne, commonly known as Irgarol 1051, is a biocide that
functions by inhibiting the electron transport mechanism in algae, thus
inhibiting growth. There are numerous commercially-available
antifoulants that are similar in cost and have a much lower negative
impact on the aquatic environment (IMO, 2018). Restrictions on
cybutryne are already in place in a number of countries globally, and
cybutryne is therefore less widely used in comparison to other
antifoulants (IMO, 2017). Coatings that do not contain cybutryne are
both technologically available and economically achievable. Therefore,
EPA proposes to prohibit the application of cybutryne-containing
coatings on hulls and niche areas. In cases where cybutryne coatings
have been applied previously to a vessel, EPA proposes an effective
overcoat must be applied and maintained so that no cybutryne leaches
from the vessel hull, noting that incidental amounts of coating
discharged by abrasion during cleaning or after contact with the other
hard surfaces are acceptable. EPA is aware that overcoats are
commercially available.
Copper Requirements
    Copper, primarily in the form of cuprous oxide, is the most common
biocide in antifouling coatings, accounting for approximately ninety
percent of the volume of sales of specialty antifouling biocides in the
United States (U.S. EPA, 2018). Copper is a broad-spectrum biocide that
effectively prevents both micro- and macrofouling. Copper is considered
less harmful to the aquatic environment than TBT-containing compounds,
but its use has nevertheless contributed to loadings in copper-impaired
waters. Consistent with the VGP, EPA proposes to require that, as
appropriate based on vessel class and operations, alternatives to
copper-based coatings be considered for vessels spending 30 or more
days per year in copper-impaired waters or using these waters as their
home port. However, despite the potential impacts of copper-based
coatings, there is a concern that replacement of copper with other
biocides may cause different, and potentially more harmful,
environmental impacts. EPA determined that there are no direct
substitutions for copper as a biocide that are as affordable or as
effective, without posing similar risks to non-target aquatic species
(U.S. EPA, 2018). As such, EPA is not proposing to require the
selection of an alternative antifouling coating to copper antifouling
coating for vessels.
    The significance of the discharges from a biocidal coating depends
not only on the substance used, but also on the ``leaching rate'' of
the biocide (IMO, 2009). In other words, the rate of discharge or entry
into the environment from the coating itself. While the rate at which
copper leaches from coatings is relatively slow (average discharge
rates range from 3.8-22 [mu]g/cm\2\/day), copper-containing coatings
can account for significant accumulations of metals in receiving waters
of ports where numerous vessels are present (Valkirs et al., 2003;
Zirino and Seligman, 2002). EPA is aware that maximum leach rates for
copper-based antifouling paints on recreational vessels have been
established both federally and locally. However, EPA does not currently
have the data available to establish a leach rate that would be
appropriate for the wide variety of vessels covered under the VIDA.
Therefore, the proposed rule does not require a specific, maximum
copper leach rate for antifouling coatings, acknowledging that use of
antifouling coatings is also regulated in the United States. through
FIFRA. At this time, EPA invites comment as to what maximum leach rates
would sufficiently prevent biofouling while restricting the discharge
of copper into the aquatic environment, recognizing that different
leach rates may be required depending on the vessel profile, and
according to the differentiations designated by the VIDA (e.g., vessel
size, class, type, and age).
Cleaning
    Most commercial vessels are required to undertake periodic hull
surveys as part of International Association of Classification
Societies rules and in accordance with IMO conventions. Whenever
possible, EPA suggests that drydock cleaning is the preferred BMP to
in-water hull and niche cleaning. Drydock schedules should be factored

into the inspection and management of areas susceptible to biofouling.
    EPA recognizes that in many instances it is not technologically
available or economically achievable for a vessel to be drydocked
outside of the regular schedule to clean biofouling from the hull or
niche areas. Some vessels are too large to be regularly removed from
the water, and any repair or maintenance required on the hull or niches
must occur while the vessel is pier-side between drydockings.
Therefore, EPA believes the Act does not require the prohibition of in-
water cleaning at this time. In-water cleaning that is conducted as a
preventative measure can be an important component of biofouling
management. Preventative in-water cleaning is the frequent, gentle
cleaning of the vessel hull and appendages to prevent the growth of
biofouling organisms, with minimal impacts to the antifouling system.
However, EPA also recognizes that there may be places where in-water
cleaning should not occur, notably in federally-protected waters, based
on the unique resources present in those areas.
    Studies have estimated that even a biofilm can increase the drag on
a vessel by up to 25 percent (Townsin, 2003; Schultz, 2007). Predictive
analytics have shown that frequent cleaning reduces fuel consumption
and that increasing cleaning to an interval of approximately six months
can save hundreds of thousands of dollars per vessel in fuel costs
(Marr, 2017). Therefore, conducting preventative cleaning can reduce
drag, enhance operations, and reduce the discharge of ANS.
Additionally, preventative cleaning has been shown to effectively
reduce biofouling without significantly increasing biocide loading into
the aquatic environment (Tribou and Swain, 2017). In contrast,
macrofouling requires more abrasive removal techniques, which may
damage the antifouling coating, resulting in a higher tendency for
subsequent biofouling as well as a larger pulse of biocides and
particles into the aquatic environment. Additionally, macrofouling (FR
>20) is composed of more diverse and mature organisms and, depending on
geographic origin, may present a greater risk of discharging ANS than a
slime layer.
    The VGP required that vessel owners/operators minimize the
transport of attached living organisms when traveling into U.S. waters
from outside the Economic Exclusive Zone or between COTP Zones using
techniques such as selecting and maintaining an appropriate anti-
fouling management system; in water inspections, cleaning, and
maintenance of hulls; and thorough hull and niche area cleaning when
the vessel is in drydock. The VGP also required that vessel owners/
operators who remove biofouling organisms from hulls while the vessel
is waterborne employ methods that minimize the discharge of fouling
organisms and antifouling coatings. Such methods include the use of
appropriate cleaning brush or sponge rigidity to minimize removal of
antifouling coatings and biocide releases into the water column;
limiting the use of hard brushes and surfaces for the removal of hard
growth; and when available and feasible, use of a vacuum or other
control technology to minimize the release or dispersion of antifouling
coatings and fouling organisms into the water column. The VGP also
prohibited the in-water cleaning of hulls coated with copper-based
anti-fouling paints in copper-impaired waters within the first 365 days
after paint application unless there is a significant visible
indication of hull fouling.
    Consistent with the VGP, EPA is proposing that vessel hulls and
niche areas must be cleaned regularly to minimize biofouling (i.e.,
grooming or preventative cleaning). Regular cleaning to minimize
biofouling is considered an industry best practice, in large part due
to the economic incentive involved: Costs associated with regular in-
water cleaning, including the cleaning services, disruptions to a
ship's schedule, and staff time, are outweighed by the fuel savings
that result from a low fouling rating (FR) as that term is defined in
the proposed regulations; reductions in fouling from FR-20 to FR-10
have been estimated to generate hundreds of thousands of dollars in
fuel savings annually per ship. Several mechanisms are utilized by
vessel owners to determine the necessary intervals of such cleanings,
including regular inspections, ISO standard 19030 measurements of hull
and propeller performance, and/or advanced data analytics. Further,
many technologies are available for preventative in-water cleaning,
including diver-operated technologies or remotely operated vehicles. A
review of the market of hull cleaning robots sponsored by the USCG in
2016 identified no fewer than 15 technologies capable of conducting in-
water cleaning of vessel hulls. More recently, remotely operated
vehicles for preventative cleaning have also been developed as
equipment attached to the vessel itself, enabling flexibility in
cleaning schedule along a vessel's route.
    Additionally, consistent with the VGP, the proposed rule would also
require that the cleaning methods used cause no or minimal damage to
the underlying coating, ensuring that the coating is not degraded and
the release of biocide into the aquatic environment is minimized. These