67818 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 207 / Monday, October 26, 2020 / Proposed Rules

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION All submissions received must include 1. General Operation and Maintenance AGENCY the Docket ID No. for this rulemaking. 2. Biofouling Management Comments received may be posted 3. Oil Management 40 CFR Part 139 without change to https:// 4. Training and Education B. Discharges Incidental to the Normal [EPA–HQ–OW–2019–0482; FRL–10015–54– www.regulations.gov, including any Operation of a Vessel—Specific OW] personal information provided. For Standards detailed instructions on sending 1. Ballast Tanks RIN 2040–AF92 comments and additional information 2. Bilges on the rulemaking process, see the 3. Boilers Vessel Incidental Discharge National 4. Cathodic Protection Standards of Performance ‘‘General Information’’ heading of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of 5. Chain Lockers 6. Decks AGENCY: Environmental Protection this document. Out of an abundance of 7. Desalination and Purification Systems Agency (EPA). caution for members of the public and 8. Elevator Pits ACTION: Proposed rule. our staff, the EPA Docket Center and 9. Exhaust Gas Emission Control Systems Reading Room are closed to the public, 10. Fire Protection Equipment SUMMARY: The U.S. Environmental with limited exceptions, to reduce the 11. Gas Turbines Protection Agency (EPA) is publishing risk of transmitting COVID–19. Our 12. Graywater Systems for public comment a proposed rule Docket Center staff will continue to 13. Hulls and Associated Niche Areas under the Vessel Incidental Discharge provide remote customer service via 14. Inert Gas Systems Act that would establish national email, phone, and webform. We 15. Motor Gasoline and Compensating standards of performance for marine Systems encourage the public to submit 16. Non-Oily Machinery pollution control devices for discharges comments via https:// incidental to the normal operation of 17. Pools and Spas www.regulations.gov or email, as there 18. Refrigeration and Air Conditioning primarily non-military and non- may be a delay in processing mail and 19. Seawater Piping recreational vessels 79 feet in length and faxes. Hand deliveries and couriers may 20. Sonar Domes above into the waters of the United be received by scheduled appointment C. Discharges Incidental to the Normal States or the waters of the contiguous only. For further information on EPA Operation of a Vessel—Federally- zone. The proposed national standards Docket Center services and the current Protected Waters Requirements of performance were developed in status, please visit us online at https:// D. Discharges Incidental to the Normal coordination with the U.S. Coast Guard Operation of a Vessel—Previous VGP www.epa.gov/dockets. Discharges No Longer Requiring Control (USCG) and in consultation with FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jack interested Governors. The proposed IX. Procedures for States To Request Changes Faulk at (202) 564–0768; faulk.jack@ to Standards, Regulations, or Policy standards, once finalized and epa.gov or Katherine Weiler at (202) Promulgated by the Administrator implemented through corresponding 566–1280; [email protected] of A. Petition by a Governor for the USCG regulations addressing the Oceans and Coastal Management Administrator To Establish an implementation, compliance, and Branch (4504T), U.S. Environmental Emergency Order or Review a Standard, enforcement, would reduce the Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Regulation, or Policy B. Petition by a Governor for the discharge of pollutants from vessels and Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20460. streamline the current patchwork of Administrator To Establish Enhanced SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This federal, state, and local vessel discharge Great Lakes System Requirements supplementary information is organized requirements. Additionally, EPA is C. Application by a State for the as follows: Administrator To Establish a State No- proposing procedures for states to Discharge Zone I. Public Participation follow if they choose to petition EPA to X. Implementation, Compliance, and issue an emergency order, to review any A. How should I submit written comments? Enforcement standard of performance, regulation, or II. Legal Authority XI. Regulatory Impact Analysis policy, to request additional III. Executive Summary XII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews requirements with respect to discharges IV. Background A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory in the Great Lakes, or to apply to EPA A. Clean Water Act Planning and Review and Executive to prohibit one or more types of vessel B. Additional U.S. and International Order 13563: Improving Regulation and discharges proposed for regulation in Authorities Regulatory Review C. Environmental Impacts of Discharges for B. Executive Order 13771: Reducing this rulemaking into specified waters to Regulation and Controlling Regulatory provide greater environmental Which Technology-Based Standards Would Be Established by This Rule Costs protection. V. Scope of the Regulatory Action C. Paperwork Reduction Act DATES: Comments must be received on A. Waters D. Regulatory Flexibility Act or before November 25, 2020. Under the B. Vessels E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act C. Incidental Discharges F. Executive Order 13132: Federalism Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA), G. Executive Order 13175: Consultation comments on the information collection D. Emergency and Safety Concerns E. Effective Date and Coordination With Indian Tribal provisions are best assured of VI. Stakeholder Engagement Governments consideration if the Office of A. Informational Webinars and Public H. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Management and Budget (OMB) Listening Session Children From Environmental Health receives a copy of your comments on or B. Post-Proposal Public Meetings and Safety Risks before November 25, 2020. C. Consultation and Coordination With I. Executive Order 13211: Actions Concerning Regulations That ADDRESSES: Submit your comments to States Significantly Affect Energy Supply, the public docket for this proposed rule, VII. Definitions VIII. Development of National Discharge Distribution, or Use identified by Docket No. EPA–HQ–OW– Standards of Performance J. National Technology Transfer and 2019–0482, at https:// A. Discharges Incidental to the Normal Advancement Act www.regulations.gov. Follow the online Operation of a Vessel—General K. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions instructions for submitting comments. Standards To Address Environmental Justice in

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:58 Oct 23, 2020 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00002 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\26OCP2.SGM 26OCP2 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 207 / Monday, October 26, 2020 / Proposed Rules 67819

Minority Populations and Low-Income EPA continues to carefully and reduce the discharge of pollutants from Populations continuously monitor information from vessels. XIII. References the Centers for Disease Control and More specifically, the new CWA I. Public Participation Prevention (CDC), local area health Section 312(p) directs the Administrator departments, and our Federal partners of EPA (Administrator) to develop A. How should I submit written so that we can respond rapidly as national standards of performance in comments? conditions change regarding COVID–19. consultation with interested Governors EPA solicits comment on the and with the concurrence of the proposed rule during the public II. Legal Authority Secretary of the department in which comment period. Submit your EPA proposes this rule under the the USCG is operating (Secretary) by comments, identified by Docket ID No. authority of Clean Water Act Sections December 2020. With limited EPA–HQ–OW–2019–0482, at https:// 301, 304, 307, 308, 312, and 501 as exceptions, the VIDA requires that the www.regulations.gov. Once submitted, amended by the Vessel Incidental standards be at least as stringent as comments cannot be edited or removed Discharge Act. 33 U.S.C. 1311, 1314, EPA’s 2013 National Pollutant from the docket. EPA may publish any 1317, 1322, and 1361. Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) comment received to its public docket. Vessel General Permit (VGP) Do not submit to EPA’s docket at III. Executive Summary requirements established under CWA https://www.regulations.gov any Discharges incidental to the normal Section 402. See 33 U.S.C. information you consider to be operation of a vessel, also referred to as 1322(p)(4)(B)(iii) (EPA standards); id. Confidential Business Information (CBI) ‘‘incidental discharges’’ or ‘‘discharges’’ (5)(A)(ii) (USCG requirements). The or other information whose disclosure is in this rulemaking, can have adverse VIDA also requires that the standards be restricted by statute. Multimedia impacts on aquatic ecosystems and technology-based using a similar submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be other potential impacts such as to approach to that outlined by the CWA accompanied by a written comment. human health through contamination of for setting, among other things, effluent The written comment is considered the food from aquaculture/shellfish limitation guidelines. Additionally, the official comment and should include harvesting areas because the discharges VIDA requires the USCG to develop discussion of all points you wish to may contain pollutants such as aquatic corresponding implementation, make. To facilitate the processing of nuisance species (ANS), nutrients, compliance, and enforcement comments, commenters are encouraged bacteria or pathogens (e.g., Escherichia regulations within two years after EPA to organize their comments in a manner coli and fecal coliform), oil and grease, publishes the national standards of that corresponds to the outline of this metals, as well as other toxic, performance. The USCG implementing regulations may also include proposal; clearly explain why they agree nonconventional, and conventional requirements governing the design, or disagree with the proposed language; pollutants (e.g., organic matter, construction, testing, approval, suggest alternative language; and bicarbonate, and suspended solids). installation, and use of devices to include any technical or economic data These pollutants can have wide-ranging achieve EPA national standards of to support their comment. For environmental consequences that vary performance. Importantly, requirements comments to be considered during the in degree depending on the type and of EPA’s VGP and the USCG’s development of the final rule, comments number of vessels operating in a requirements under Section 110 of must be received before the end of the waterbody and the nature and extent of comment period. NANPCA remain in place until these the discharge. EPA will generally not consider new EPA and USCG regulations under comments or comment contents located The Clean Water Act (CWA), the CWA Section 312(p) are final, effective, outside of the primary submission (i.e., Nonindigenous Aquatic Nuisance and enforceable. In addition, the VIDA on the web, cloud, or other file sharing Prevention and Control Act (NANPCA), repealed the 2014 EPA NPDES Small system). For additional submission the Act to Prevent Pollution from Ships Vessel General Permit (sVGP) and methods, the full EPA public comment (APPS), and several other federal, state, established that neither EPA nor the policy, information about CBI or local, and international authorities have states shall require an NPDES permit for multimedia submissions, and general established over time various any discharge incidental to the normal guidance on making effective requirements for both domestic and operation of a vessel, other than ballast comments, please visit https:// international vessels. To clarify and water, from a small vessel or fishing www.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa- streamline existing requirements, in vessel, effective immediately upon dockets. December of 2018, the President signed enactment of the VIDA. EPA is temporarily suspending its into law the Vessel Incidental Discharge The proposed rule would establish Docket Center and Reading Room for Act (VIDA). 33 U.S.C. 1322(p). The both general and specific discharge public visitors, with limited exceptions, VIDA established a new CWA Section standards of performance for to reduce the risk of transmitting 312(p) titled ‘‘Uniform National approximately 82,000 international and COVID–19. Our Docket Center staff will Standards for Discharges Incidental to domestic non-military, non-recreational continue to provide remote customer Normal Operation of Vessels.’’ The vessels operating in the waters of the service via email, phone, and webform. VIDA consolidates and restructures the United States or the waters of the We encourage the public to submit existing regulatory framework for non- contiguous zone. The types of vessels comments via https:// military (vessels of the Armed Forces) intended to be covered under the www.regulations.gov as there may be a and non-recreational vessels; clarifies proposed rule include, but are not delay in processing mail and faxes. current and future regulatory coverage limited to, public vessels of the United Hand deliveries or couriers will be for different types of vessels; and, States, fishing vessels (for ballast water received by scheduled appointment requires EPA and the USCG to establish only), passenger vessels such as cruise only. For further information and national standards of performance for ships and ferries, barges, tugs and tows, updates on EPA Docket Center services, marine pollution control devices and offshore supply vessels, mobile offshore please visit us online at https:// corresponding implementing drilling units, tankers, bulk carriers, www.epa.gov/dockets. regulations, respectively, to prevent or cargo ships, container ships, and

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:58 Oct 23, 2020 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00003 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\26OCP2.SGM 26OCP2 67820 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 207 / Monday, October 26, 2020 / Proposed Rules

research vessels. While most provisions first group consists of 13 proposed technology-based national standards of are intended to apply to a wide range of discharge standards that are performance for discharges incidental to vessels, the VIDA specified that fishing substantially the same as the the normal operation of primarily non- vessels would only be subject to ballast requirements of the VGP: Boilers, military, non-recreational vessels 79 feet water provisions. 33 U.S.C. cathodic protection, chain lockers, in length and above. EPA solicits public 1322(p)(2)(B)(i)(III). decks, elevator pits, fire protection comments on this proposal and the The general discharge standards of equipment, gas turbines, inert gas associated regulatory impact analysis, performance are designed to apply to all systems, motor gasoline and which can be found in the rulemaking vessels and incidental discharges compensating systems, non-oily docket. covered by the rule, as appropriate, and machinery, pools and spas, refrigeration are organized into three categories: (1) and air conditioning, and sonar domes. IV. Background General Operation and Maintenance, (2) These 13 proposed discharge standards A. Clean Water Act Biofouling Management, and (3) Oil encompass the intent and stringency of EPA’s regulatory regime under the Management. The general discharge the VGP but include other changes in CWA to address vessel discharges has standards of performance are response to the VIDA (e.g., extent of changed over the years due to EPA preventative in nature and require best regulated waters, consistency across regulations, court decisions, and new management practices (BMPs) to discharge standards, enforceability and legislation. The first sentence of the minimize the introduction of pollutants legal precision, as well as minor Federal Water Pollution Control Act into the discharges, as well as the clarifications). The second group Amendments of 1972, commonly volume of discharges. consists of two proposed discharge known as the CWA,1 states, ‘‘[t]he The specific discharge standards of standards that are consistent but slightly objective of [the Act] is to restore and performance would establish modified from the VGP to expand maintain the chemical, physical, and requirements for 20 separate discharges controls or provide greater language incidental to the normal operation of a clarifications: Bilges and desalination biological integrity of the Nation’s vessel from the following pieces of and purification systems. The third waters.’’ 33 U.S.C. 1251(a). Section equipment and systems: Ballast tanks, group consists of five proposed 301(a) of the CWA provides that ‘‘the bilges, boilers, cathodic protection, discharge standards which contain the discharge of any pollutant by any chain lockers, decks, desalination and greatest modifications from the VGP: person shall be unlawful’’ unless the purification systems, elevator pits, Ballast tanks, exhaust gas emission discharge is in compliance with certain exhaust gas emission control systems, control systems, graywater, hulls and other sections of the Act. 33 U.S.C. fire protection equipment, gas turbines, associated niche areas, and seawater 1311(a). Among its provisions, the CWA graywater systems, hulls and associated piping. In addition, EPA is proposing to authorizes EPA and other federal niche areas, inert gas systems, motor modify slightly the requirements as they agencies to address the discharge of gasoline and compensating systems, apply in federally-protected waters for pollutants from vessels. As such, EPA non-oily machinery, pools and spas, five discharges: Chain lockers, decks, established regulations to address vessel refrigeration and air conditioning, hulls and associated niche areas, pools discharges authorized under CWA seawater piping, and sonar domes. and spas, and seawater piping. These Section 311 (addressing oil), Section These discharge-specific requirements modifications are being proposed to 312 (addressing sewage and discharges are based on best available technology address specific VIDA requirements as incidental to the normal operation of a economically achievable, best well as incorporate new information vessel of the Armed Forces), and conventional pollutant control that has become available since the Section 402 (pursuant to which EPA technology, and best practicable issuance of the VGP. established the NPDES VGP). technology currently available, CWA Section 312(p) also directs EPA From 1972 to 2005, EPA vessel including the use of BMPs, to prevent or to establish additional discharge regulations were primarily limited to reduce the discharge of pollutants into requirements for vessels operating in addressing the discharge of oil and the waters of the United States or the certain bodies of water, to include: The sewage under CWA Sections 311 and waters of the contiguous zone. ‘‘Great Lakes,’’ the ‘‘Pacific Region,’’ and 312, respectively. In December of 2003, Pursuant to the VIDA, the proposed waters subject to Federal protection, in a long-standing exclusion of discharges discharge standards of performance are whole or in part, for conservation incidental to the normal operation of proposed to be at least as stringent as purposes (‘‘federally-protected waters’’). vessels from the CWA Section 402 the VGP, with some exceptions The proposed rule would establish NPDES permitting program became the discussed below. However, the place-based requirements to further subject of a lawsuit in the U.S. District proposed standards do not incorporate prevent or reduce the discharge of Court for the Northern District of the VGP requirements verbatim. EPA is pollutants into these waterbodies that California (Nw. Envtl. Advocates v. U.S. proposing changes to the VGP may contain unique ecosystems, Envtl. Prot. Agency, No. C–03–05760–SI, requirements to transition the permit support distinctive species of aquatic 2005 WL 756614). The lawsuit arose requirements into national technology- flora and fauna, contend with more from EPA’s September 2003 denial of a based standards of performance, sensitive water quality issues, or January 1999 rulemaking petition improve clarity, enhance enforceability otherwise require greater protection. submitted to EPA by parties concerned and implementation, or incorporate new Finally, as required under CWA about the effects of ballast water information and technology. In some Section 312(p), EPA is proposing discharges. Prior to the lawsuit, EPA, cases, this resulted in EPA consolidating specific procedural requirements for through a 1973 regulation, had excluded or renaming the VGP requirements to states seeking to petition EPA to discharges incidental to the normal comport with the VIDA. As proposed, establish different discharge standards, the similarities and differences between issue emergency orders, or establish no- 1 The FWPCA is commonly referred to as the the requirements in the proposed discharge zones. CWA following the 1977 amendments to the FWPCA. Public Law 95–217, 91 Stat. 1566 (1977). discharge standards of performance and This proposed rule, once finalized, For ease of reference, the agencies will generally the requirements in the VGP can be will fulfill EPA’s requirements under refer to the FWPCA in this notice as the CWA or sorted into three distinct groups. The CWA Section 312(p) to establish the Act.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:58 Oct 23, 2020 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00004 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\26OCP2.SGM 26OCP2 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 207 / Monday, October 26, 2020 / Proposed Rules 67821

operation of vessels from the CWA issued the sVGP for discharges from 312(p)(5) also directs the Secretary to Section 402 permitting program. See 38 non-recreational, non-military vessels develop corresponding implementing FR 13528, May 22, 1973. The petition less than 79 feet. See 79 FR 53702, regulations to govern the asked the Agency to repeal its regulation September 10, 2014. Upon expiration of implementation, compliance, and at 40 CFR 122.3(a) that excludes certain the 2008 permit, EPA issued the second enforcement of the national standards of discharges incidental to the normal VGP in 2013. See 78 FR 21938, April 12, performance. Additionally, CWA operation of vessels from the 2013. Section 312(p) generally preempts states requirement to obtain an NPDES permit. After the EPA issuance of the VGP from establishing more stringent The petition asserted that vessels are under the CWA and the USCG discharge standards once the USCG ‘‘point sources’’ requiring NPDES promulgation of regulations under the implementing regulations required permits for discharges to U.S. waters; NANPCA, the vessel community under Section 312(p)(5)(A)–(C) are final, that EPA lacks authority to exclude expressed concerns regarding the lack of effective, and enforceable. However, the point source discharges from vessels uniformity, duplication, and confusion VIDA includes several exceptions to this from the NPDES program; that ballast associated with the vessel regulatory expressed preemption (33 U.S.C. water must be regulated under the regime. See Errata to S. Rep. No. 115– 1322(p)(9)(A)(ii)–(v); VIDA Senate NPDES program because it contains 89 (2019) [hereinafter VIDA Senate Report at 15 (discussing these invasive plant and animal species as Report], at 3–5 (discussing these and exceptions)), a savings clause (33 U.S.C. well as other materials of concern (e.g., similar concerns), available at https:// 1322(p)(9)(A)(vi)), and provisions for oil, chipped paint, sediment, and toxins www.congress.gov/115/crpt/srpt89/ states working directly with EPA or the in ballast water sediment); and that CRPT-115srpt89-ERRATA.pdf. In USCG to seek and obtain additional enactment of CWA Section 312(n) response, members of Congress requirements, including the (Uniform National Discharge Standards, introduced various pieces of legislation establishment of no-discharge zones for also known as the UNDS program) in to modify and clarify the regulation and one or more incidental discharges (33 1996 demonstrated Congress’ rejection management of ballast water and other U.S.C. 1322(p)(10)(D)). Although not of the exclusion. incidental vessel discharges. In part of CWA Section 312(p), the VIDA In March 2005, the court determined December 2018, President Trump signed the exclusion exceeded the Agency’s also establishes several programs to into law the Frank LoBiondo Coast address invasive species, including the authority under the CWA and Guard Authorization Act of 2018, which subsequently in 2006 declared that establishment of the ‘‘Great Lakes and included the VIDA. Public Law 115– Lake Champlain Invasive Species ‘‘[t]he blanket exemption for discharges 282, tit. IX (2018) (codified primarily at incidental to the normal operation of a Program’’ research and development 33 U.S.C. 1322(p)). The VIDA program and the ‘‘Coastal Aquatic vessel, contained in 40 CFR 122.3(a), restructures the way EPA and the USCG shall be vacated as of September 30, Invasive Species Mitigation Grant regulate incidental vessel discharges Program.’’ 2008.’’ Nw. Envtl. Advocates v. U.S. from non-military, non-recreational Envtl. Prot. Agency, C 03–05760 SI, vessels and amended CWA Section 312 B. Additional U.S. and International 2006 WL 2669042, at *15 (N.D. Cal. to include a new Subsection (p) titled Authorities Sept. 18, 2006), aff’d 537 F.3d 1006 (9th ‘‘Uniform National Standards for Cir. 2008). Shortly thereafter, Congress Discharges Incidental to Normal During the development of the enacted two pieces of legislation to Operation of Vessels.’’ CWA Section proposed rule, EPA reviewed other U.S. exempt discharges incidental to the 312(p), among other things, repeals laws and international authorities that normal operation of certain types of EPA’s 2014 sVGP effectively address discharges incidental to the vessels from the need to obtain a permit. immediately and requires EPA and the normal operation of a vessel. The The first of these, entitled the Clean USCG to develop new regulations to requirements established under these Boating Act of 2008 (Pub. L. 110–288, replace the existing EPA VGP and USCG authorities are currently being met and July 28, 2008), amended the CWA to vessel discharge requirements. The implemented and therefore are provide that discharges incidental to the VIDA also specifies that, effectively technologically and economically normal operation of recreational vessels immediately upon enactment of the practicable and achievable. As are not subject to NPDES permitting, VIDA, neither EPA nor NPDES- appropriate, EPA considered these and created a new regulatory regime to authorize states may require, or in any requirements while developing this be implemented by EPA and the USCG way modify, a permit under the NPDES proposed rule. under a new CWA Section 312(o). The program for any discharge incidental to second piece of legislation provided for As expressly provided in the VIDA, the normal operation of a vessel from a a temporary moratorium on NPDES this proposed rule would not affect the small vessel (less than 79 feet in length) permitting for discharges, excluding requirements for vessels established ballast water, subject to the 40 CFR or fishing vessel (of any size). under any other provision of Federal Specifically, CWA Section 312(p)(4) 122.3(a) exclusion from (1) commercial law. 33 U.S.C. 1322(p)(9)(B). EPA directs the Administrator, with fishing vessels (as defined in 46 U.S.C. provides a short summary of these U.S. concurrence of the Secretary and in 2101 and regardless of size) and (2) authorities as well as some international consultation with interested Governors, those other non-recreational vessels less authorities below. than 79 feet in length. S. 3298, Public to promulgate national standards of Law 110–299 (July 31, 2008). performance for marine pollution discharge of sewage from vessels, is not included In response to the court decision and control devices for each type of in this CWA section 312(p) rulemaking, except discharge incidental to the normal when commingled with other discharges incidental the legislation, EPA issued the first VGP to the normal operation of a vessel, as authorized in December 2008 for discharges operation of non-recreational and non- 2 in CWA section 312(p)(2)(A)(ii). EPA and the USCG incidental to the normal operation of military vessels. CWA Section regulate sewage from vessels under CWA section non-recreational, non-military vessels 312(b) as codified in 40 CFR part 140 (marine 2 CWA Section 312(b) provides authority for EPA sanitation device standard) and 33 CFR part 159 79 feet in length and above. See 73 FR to establish federal standards of performance for subparts A–D (requirements for the design, 79473, December 29, 2008. sewage from vessels within the meaning of construction, certification, installation, and Additionally, in September 2014, EPA ‘‘sewage’’ as defined in section 312(a)(6). Thus, the operation of marine sanitation devices).

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:58 Oct 23, 2020 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00005 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\26OCP2.SGM 26OCP2 67822 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 207 / Monday, October 26, 2020 / Proposed Rules

International Convention for the Oil Pollution Act (33 U.S.C. 2701 et areas in such quantities as may be Prevention of Pollution From Ships, the seq.) harmful. Further, the Act states that the Act To Prevent Pollution From Ships, The Oil Pollution Act of 1990 and the President shall, by regulation, determine and Implementing Regulations associated USCG implementing those quantities of oil and any regulations at 33 CFR parts 155 and 157 hazardous substances that may be The International Convention for the also address oil and oily mixture harmful if discharged. EPA defines the Prevention of Pollution from Ships discharges from vessels. These discharge of oil in such quantities as (MARPOL 73/78) is an international regulations establish and reinforce the may be harmful as those that violate treaty that regulates certain discharges 15 ppm discharge standard under APPS applicable water quality standards or from vessels. MARPOL Annexes for oil and oily mixtures for seagoing ‘‘cause a film or sheen upon or discoloration of the surface of the water regulate different types of vessel ships and require most vessels to have or adjoining shorelines or cause a sludge pollution; the United States is a party to an oily water separator. Oceangoing or emulsion to be deposited beneath the Annexes I, II, III, V, and VI. MARPOL vessels of less than 400 gross tonnage as surface of the water or upon adjoin is primarily implemented in the United measured under the Convention shorelines.’’ 40 CFR 110.3. Sheen is States by APPS, 33 U.S.C. 1901 et seq. Measurement System of the clarified to mean ‘‘an iridescent The USCG is the lead agency for APPS International Convention on Tonnage appearance on the surface of the water.’’ implementation and issued Measurement of Ships (GT ITC) (400 40 CFR 110.1. The proposed rule would implementing regulations primarily gross register tonnage (GRT) if GT ITC prohibit the discharge of oil, including found at 33 CFR part 151. Those is not assigned) must either have an requirements already apply to many of oily mixtures, in such quantities as may approved oily water separator or retain be harmful. the vessels covered by the proposed oily water mixtures on board for rule. disposal to an approved reception Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and APPS regulates the discharge of oil facility onshore. Oceangoing vessels of Rodenticide Act (7 U.S.C. 136 et seq.). and oily mixtures, noxious liquid 400 GT ITC (400 GRT if GT ITC is not The Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, substances, and garbage, including food assigned) and above, but less than and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) regulates wastes and plastic. With respect to oil 10,000 GT ITC (10,000 GRT if GT ITC the distribution, sale, and use of and oily mixtures, the USCG regulations is not assigned), except vessels that pesticides. One of the primary at 33 CFR 151.10 prohibit ‘‘any carry ballast water in their fuel oil tanks, components of FIFRA requires the must be fitted with ‘‘approved 15 parts discharge of oil or oily mixtures into the registration and labeling of all pesticides per million (ppm) oily-water separating sea from a ship’’ except when certain sold or distributed in the United States, equipment for the processing of oily conditions are met, including a ensuring that, if pesticides are used in mixtures from bilges or fuel oil tank discharge oil content of less than 15 accordance with the specifications on ballast.’’ 33 CFR 155.360(a)(1). parts per million (ppm) and that the the label, they will not cause Oceangoing ships of 10,000 gross unreasonable adverse effects on humans ship operates oily water separating tonnage and above and oceangoing or the environment. The proposed rule equipment, a bilge monitor, a bilge ships of 400 gross tonnage and above would reiterate from the VGP that any alarm, or a combination thereof. that carry ballast water in their fuel oil registered pesticide must be used in Substances regulated as noxious tanks, must be fitted with approved 15 accordance with its FIFRA label for all liquid substances under APPS are ppm oily water separating equipment activities that result in a discharge into divided into four categories based on for the processing of oily mixtures from the waters of the United States or the their potential to harm marine resources bilges or fuel oil tank ballast, a bilge waters of the contiguous zone. The and human health. Under 46 CFR alarm, and a means for automatically proposed rule does not negate the 153.1128, discharges of noxious liquid stopping any discharge of oily mixture requirements under FIFRA and its substances residues at sea may only take when the oil content in the effluent implementing regulations to use place at least 12 nautical miles (NM) exceeds 15 ppm. 33 CFR 155.370. 33 registered pesticides consistent with the from the nearest land. Given this CFR part 155 also references oil product’s labeling. In fact, the discharge requirement, the proposed rule would containment and cleanup equipment of pesticides used in violation of certain also prohibit the discharge of noxious and procedures for preventing and FIFRA requirements could also be a liquid substances within 12 NM from reacting to oil spills and discharges. The violation of these standards and the nearest land. proposed rule references or incorporates therefore a violation of the CWA (e.g., the existing requirements for fuel and exceeding hull coating application MARPOL Annex III addresses harmful oil established under the Oil Pollution rates). substances in packaged form and is Act and APPS and prohibits the National Marine Sanctuaries Act (16 implemented in the United States by the discharge of oil greater than 15 ppm. Hazardous Materials Transportation U.S.C. 1431 et seq. and Implementing Authorization Act of 1994, as amended Clean Water Act Section 311 (33 U.S.C. Regulations Found at 15 CFR Part 922 (49 U.S.C. 5901 et seq.), and regulations 1321) and 50 CFR Part 404) appearing at 46 CFR part 148 and 49 CWA Section 311, Oil and Hazardous The National Marine Sanctuaries Act CFR part 176. The regulatory provisions Substances Liability Act, states that it is (NMSA) authorizes the designation and establish labeling, packaging, and a policy of the United States that there management of National Marine stowage requirements for such materials should be no discharges of oil or Sanctuaries to protect marine resources to help avoid their accidental loss or hazardous substances into the waters of with conservation, education, historical, spillage during transport. The proposed the United States, adjoining shorelines, scientific, and other special qualities. rule does not regulate loss or spillage of and certain specified areas, except Under NMSA, additional restrictions transported materials; however, the where permitted under Federal and requirements may be imposed on proposed rule would establish BMPs to regulations (e.g., the NPDES program). vessel operators who boat in and around help reduce or prevent the loss of As such, the Act prohibits the discharge National Marine Sanctuaries. Consistent materials and debris overboard. of oil or hazardous substances into these with the VGP, the proposed rule would

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:58 Oct 23, 2020 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00006 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\26OCP2.SGM 26OCP2 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 207 / Monday, October 26, 2020 / Proposed Rules 67823

establish additional restrictions and available technology and best water discharges. Discharges of requirements for certain discharges for practicable technology. 33 U.S.C. pathogens into waterbodies can vessels that operate in and around 1322(p)(4)(B)(i). adversely impact local ecosystems, National Marine Sanctuaries as these ANS may be incidentally discharged fisheries, and human health. Pathogens areas are included in the definition of or released from a vessel’s operations found in untreated graywater are similar federally-protected waters in the through a variety of vessel systems and to, and in some cases may have a higher proposed rule as designated in equipment, including but not limited to concentration than, domestic sewage Appendix A of Part 139. Pursuant to ballast water, sediment from ballast entering land-based wastewater CWA Sections 312(9)(B) and (E), tanks, vessel hulls and appendages, treatment plants (U.S. EPA, 2008). discharge requirements established by seawater piping, chain lockers, and Specific pathogens of concern found in regulations promulgated by the anchor chains. ANS pose severe threats graywater include Salmonella spp., Secretary of Commerce under the to aquatic ecosystems, including Escherichia coli, enteroviruses, National Marine Sanctuaries Act would outcompeting native species, damaging hepatitis, and pathogenic protists continue to apply to waters under the habitat, changing food webs, and (National Research Council, 1993). control of the Secretary of Commerce altering the chemical and physical Additional pathogen discharges have (e.g., National Marine Sanctuaries) in aquatic environment. Furthermore, ANS also been associated with ballasting addition to the standards and can have profound and wide-ranging operations, including Escherichia coli, requirements established in this socioeconomic impacts, such as damage intestinal enterococci, Vibrio cholerae, proposed rule. to recreational and commercial Clostridium perfringens, Salmonella fisheries, infrastructure, and water- spp., Cryptosporidium spp., Giardia C. Environmental Impacts of Discharges based recreation and tourism. Once for Which Technology-Based Discharge spp., and a variety of viruses (Knight et established, it is extremely challenging al., 1999; Reynolds et al., 1999; Zo et al., Standards Would Be Established by and costly to remove ANS and This Rule 1999). Pathogens can potentially even remediate the impacts. It has become be transported in unfilled ballast water Discharges incidental to the normal even more critical to control discharges tanks (Johengen et al., 2005). Under the operation of vessels can have significant of ANS from vessel systems and VIDA, bacterial and viral pathogens can adverse impacts on aquatic ecosystems equipment with the increase in ship qualify as ‘‘aquatic nuisance species.’’ and other potential impacts such as to traffic due to globalization and 33 U.S.C. 1312(p)(1)(A), (Q), (R) human health through contamination of increased trade. (defining the related terms ‘‘aquatic food from aquaculture/shellfish nuisance species,’’ ‘‘nonindigenous harvesting areas through the addition of Nutrients species,’’ and ‘‘organism’’). pollutants (e.g., metals, nutrients, Nutrients, including nitrogen, bacteria, viruses, ANS). The adverse phosphorus, and other micro-nutrients, Oil and Grease environmental impacts vary are constituents of incidental discharges Vessels can discharge a variety of oils considerably based on the type and from vessels. Though often associated number of vessels, the size and location with discharges from sewage treatment during normal operations, including of the port or marina, and the condition facilities and other sources such as lubricating oils, hydraulic oils, and of the receiving waters. These adverse runoff from agricultural and urban vegetable or organic oils. A significant impacts are more likely to occur when stormwater sources, nutrients are also portion of the lubricants discharged there are significant numbers of vessels discharged from vessel sources such as from a vessel during these normal operating in receiving waters with runoff from deck cleaning, graywater, operations directly enters the marine limited circulation or if the receiving and bilgewater. environment. Some types of oil and waters are already impaired. As a result Increased nutrient discharges from grease can be highly toxic and of this variation, protecting U.S. waters anthropogenic sources are a major carcinogenic, and have been shown to from vessel-related activities poses source of water quality degradation alter the immune system, reproductive unique challenges for local, state, and throughout the United States (U.S. abilities, and liver functions of many federal governments. Targeted reduction Geological Survey, 1999). Generally, aquatic organisms (Ober, 2010). Broadly, of certain discharges or constituents of nutrient over-enrichment of waterbodies the toxicity of oil and grease to aquatic concern can significantly benefit adversely impacts biological diversity, life is due to reduced oxygen transport receiving waters. fisheries, and coral reef and seagrass potential and an inability of organisms The information below provides an ecosystems (National Research Council, to metabolize and excrete them once overview of the environmental impacts 2000). One of the most notable effects of ingested, absorbed, or inhaled. associated with the pollutants addressed nutrient over-enrichment is the excess The magnitude of impact of oils in this proposed rule: ANS, nutrients, proliferation of plant life and ensuing differs depending on the chemical pathogens (including Escherichia coli eutrophication. A eutrophic system has composition, method of exposure, and fecal coliform), oil and grease, reduced levels of dissolved oxygen, concentration, and environmental metals, toxic and nonconventional increased turbidity, and changes in the conditions (e.g., weather, salinity, pollutants with toxic effects, and other composition of aquatic flora and fauna. temperature). It can therefore be nonconventional and conventional Such conditions also fuel harmful algal difficult to identify one single parameter pollutants. blooms, which can have significant responsible for negatively impacting adverse impacts on human health as aquatic life. However, studies have Aquatic Nuisance Species (ANS) well as aquatic life (National Research shown that compounds with ANS are a persistent problem in U.S. Council, 2000; Woods Hole hydrocarbon chains are consistently coastal and inland waters. ANS can Oceanographic Institute, 2007). associated with harmful impacts. include invasive plants, animals, and Hydrocarbon chains contain strong pathogens. The VIDA specifically Pathogens hydrogen bonds, which do not readily includes ANS in the category of Pathogens are another constituent that break down in water. Such oils can then nonconventional pollutants to be can be found in discharges from vessels, accumulate in the tissues of aquatic regulated through the application of best particularly in graywater and ballast organisms and cause toxic effects.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:58 Oct 23, 2020 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00007 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\26OCP2.SGM 26OCP2 67824 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 207 / Monday, October 26, 2020 / Proposed Rules

Aromatic hydrocarbon compounds, an essential nutrient, copper can be both V. Scope of the Regulatory Action commonly present in fuels, lubricants, acutely and chronically toxic to fish, A. Waters and additives, are consistently aquatic invertebrates, and aquatic plants associated with acute toxicity and at higher concentrations. Elevated The proposed rule would apply to harmful effects in aquatic biota (Dupuis concentrations of copper can adversely incidental discharges from non-military, and Ucan-Marin, 2015). Impacts are impact survivorship, growth, and non-recreational vessels operating in the waters of the United States or the waters observed in both developing and adult reproduction of aquatic organisms (U.S. of the contiguous zone. 33 U.S.C. organisms, and include reduced growth, EPA, 2016). Copper can inhibit enlarged livers, fin erosion, 1322(p)(8)(B). Sections 502(7), 502(8), photosynthesis in plants and interfere and 502(9) of the CWA define the terms reproduction impairment, and with enzyme function in both plants modifications to heartbeat and ‘‘navigable waters,’’ ‘‘territorial seas,’’ and animals in concentrations as low as respiration rates (Dupuis and Ucan- and ‘‘contiguous zone,’’ respectively. m Marin, 2015). Laboratory experiments 4 g/L (U.S. EPA, 2016). The term ‘‘navigable waters’’ means the have shown that fish embryos exposed Other Pollutants waters of the United States including to hydrocarbons exemplify symptoms inland waters and the territorial seas, collectively referred to as blue sac Vessel discharges can contain a where the United States includes the 50 disease (BSD). Symptoms of BSD range variety of other toxic, conventional, and states, the District of Columbia, the from reduced growth and spinal nonconventional pollutants. This rule Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, the U.S. abnormalities, to hemorrhages and would help to prevent and control the Virgin Islands, Guam, American Samoa, mortality (Dupuis and Ucan-Marin, discharge of certain pollutants that have the Commonwealth of the Northern 2015). Oils can also taint organisms that been identified in the various Mariana Islands, and the Trust are consumed by humans, resulting in discharges. For example, graywater can Territories of the Pacific Islands. The economic impacts to fisheries and contain phthalates phenols, and term ‘‘territorial seas’’ means the belt of seas that extends three miles seaward potential human health effects. chlorine (U.S. EPA, 2008). These from the line of ordinary low water In establishing the VGP, EPA compounds can cause a variety of considered the research efforts focused along the portion of the coast in direct adverse impacts on aquatic organisms on the development of environmentally contact with the open sea and the line and human health. Phthalates are acceptable lubricants (EALs). marking the seaward limit of inland Production of EALs focuses on using known to interfere with reproductive waters. The term ‘‘contiguous zone’’ chemicals with oxygen atoms, which, health, liver, and kidney function in means the entire zone established or to unlike hydrocarbons, makes them water both animals and humans. (Sekizawa et be established by the United States soluble. The solubility of EALs al., 2003; DiGangi et al., 2002). Chlorine under Article 24 of the Convention of increases their biodegradability, thereby can cause respiratory problems, the Territorial Sea and the Contiguous decreasing their accumulation in hemorrhaging, and acute mortality to Zone. aquatic organisms even at relatively low aquatic environments. The solubility of B. Vessels EALs also makes it easier for aquatic life concentrations (U.S. EPA, 2008). The proposed rule would apply to to metabolize and excrete these Vessel discharges may also contain chemicals (U.S. EPA, 2011). Overall, discharges incidental to the normal certain biocides used in vessel coatings, operation of a vessel as set forth in CWA EALs reduce bioaccumulation potential which can be harmful to aquatic and toxic effects to aquatic life. Section 312(p)(2). The proposed rule organisms. For example, cybutryne, also would not apply to discharges Metals commonly known as Irgarol 1051, is a incidental to the normal operation of a Vessel discharges can contain metal biocide that functions by inhibiting the vessel of the Armed Forces subject to constituents from a variety of on-board electron transport mechanism in algae, CWA Section 312(n); a recreational sources, including graywater, thus inhibiting growth. Numerous vessel subject to CWA Section 312(o); a bilgewater, exhaust gas emission control studies indicate that cybutryne is both small vessel less than 79 feet in length systems, and firemain systems. While acutely and chronically toxic to a range or a fishing vessel, except that the some metals, including copper, nickel, of marine organisms, and in certain proposed rule would apply to any and zinc, are known to be essential to cases, more harmful than tributyltin discharge of ballast water from a small organism function when present at (Carbery et al, 2006; Van Wezel and Van vessel or fishing vessel; or a floating certain levels, many others, including Vlaardingen, 2004). craft that is permanently moored to a pier, including a floating casino, hotel, thallium and arsenic, are non-essential Some vessel discharges are more restaurant, or bar. The types of vessels and/or are known to have only adverse acidic or basic than the receiving intended to be covered under the impacts. Even essential metals may waters, which can have a localized proposed rule include, but are not harm organism function in sufficiently effect on pH (Alaska Department of elevated concentrations. Some metals limited to, public vessels of the United Environmental Conservation, 2007). For may also bioaccumulate in the tissues of States, commercial fishing vessels (for example, exhaust gas emission control aquatic organisms, intensifying toxic ballast water only), passenger vessels effects. Through a process called systems remove sulfur dioxide in such as cruise ships and ferries, barges, biomagnification, concentrations of exhaust gas and dissolve it in tugs and tows, offshore supply vessels, some metals can increase up the food washwater, where it is then ionized and mobile offshore drilling units, tankers, chain, leading to elevated levels in produces an acidic washwater. Research bulk carriers, cargo ships, container commercially harvested fish species has shown that even minor changes in ships, and research vessels. EPA (U.S. EPA, 2007). ambient pH can have profound effects, estimates that the domestic and Vessel hulls and appendages are such as developmental defects, reduced international vessel population that frequently coated in metal-based larval survivorship, and decreased would be subject to the proposed biocides to prevent calcification of corals and shellfish national standards of performance is biofouling. The most widely-used (Oyen et al., 1991; Zaniboni-Filho et al., approximately 82,000 vessels. The metal in biocides is copper. While it is 2009, Marubini and Atkinson, 1999). proposed rule also would not apply to

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:58 Oct 23, 2020 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00008 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\26OCP2.SGM 26OCP2 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 207 / Monday, October 26, 2020 / Proposed Rules 67825

a narrow category of ballast water E. Effective Date session, EPA with the support of the discharges that Congress believed do not The proposed national standards of USCG, provided an overview of the pose a risk of spreading or introducing performance, once finalized, would VIDA, described the interim ANS (VIDA Senate Report, at 10), or to become effective beginning on the date requirements and the framework for the any discharges that result from (or upon which the regulations future regulations, and conducted contain material derived from) an promulgated by the Secretary pursuant sessions on key vessel discharges to activity other than the normal operation to CWA Section 312(p)(5) governing the provide an opportunity for public input. of a vessel (33 U.S.C. 1322(p)(2)(B)(iii)). implementation, compliance, and Fifty-two individuals from a variety of Unless otherwise provided by CWA enforcement of the national standards of stakeholder groups attended and Section 312(p), any incidental performance become final, effective, and provided input. Public input largely discharges excluded from regulation in enforceable. Per CWA Section centered on ballast water management the VIDA remain subject to the pre- 312(p)(3)(c), as of that date, the systems, including testing methods and enactment status quo (e.g., State law, requirements of the VGP and all monitoring requirements. Stakeholders NPDES permitting, etc.). VIDA Senate regulations promulgated by the requested harmonization of domestic Report, at 10. regulations with those of the The national standards of Secretary pursuant to Section 1101 of the NANPCA (16 U.S.C. 4711) (as in International Maritime Organization performance proposed herein apply (IMO), such as standards for exhaust gas equally to new and existing vessels effect on December 3, 2018), including the regulations contained in subparts C emission control systems. Input was except in such cases where the also received on challenges with proposed rule expressly distinguishes and D of part 151 of title 33, Code of Federal Regulations, and 46 CFR compliance and reporting under the between such vessels as authorized by VGP and the USCG ballast water CWA Section 312(p)(4)(C)(ii). 162.060 (as in effect on December 3, 2018), shall be deemed repealed and regulations. The meeting agenda and a C. Incidental Discharges have no force or effect. Similarly, as of summary of the comments received are available in the public docket for this EPA proposes to establish general as that same date, any CWA Section 401 proposed rulemaking. well as specific national standards of certification requirement in Part 6 of the performance for discharges incidental to 2013 VGP, shall be deemed repealed B. Post-Proposal Public Meetings and have no force or effect. the normal operation of a vessel During the public comment period for described in CWA Section 312(p)(2). VI. Stakeholder Engagement this proposed rule, EPA intends to hold The general standards would be During the development of the public meetings to provide an applicable to all vessels and incidental opportunity for stakeholders to ask discharges subject to the proposed rule proposed rule, EPA and the USCG reached out to other federal agencies, questions about the proposed rule and to the extent that the requirements are describe procedures for submitting appropriate for each incidental states, tribes, non-governmental formal comments on the rule. Details for discharge. The specific standards would organizations, and the maritime these public meetings will be made be applicable to specific incidental industry. Detailed documentation of the available at https://www.epa.gov/ discharges from the normal operation of stakeholder outreach prior to the vessels-marinas-and-ports/vessel- the following types of vessel equipment proposal is in the public docket for the incidental-discharge-act-vida- and systems: Ballast tanks, bilges, proposed rulemaking. EPA also intends engagement-opportunities. boilers, cathodic protection, chain to hold stakeholder engagement lockers, decks, desalination and opportunities during the proposed rule C. Consultation and Coordination With purification systems, elevator pits, public comment period. General States exhaust gas emission control systems, summaries of the outreach are included 1. Federalism Consultation fire protection equipment, gas turbines, in this section and in section XII. graywater systems, hulls and associated Statutory and Executive Order Reviews. Pursuant to the terms of Executive Order 13132, on July 9, 2019 in niche areas, inert gas systems, motor A. Informational Webinars and Public Washington, DC, EPA and the USCG gasoline and compensating systems, Listening Session non-oily machinery, pools and spas, conducted a Federalism consultation refrigerators and air conditioners, EPA, in coordination with the USCG, briefing to allow states and local seawater piping, and sonar domes. hosted two informational webinars on officials to have meaningful and timely May 7 and 15, 2019 to enhance public input into EPA rulemaking for the D. Emergency and Safety Concerns awareness about the VIDA and provide development of the national standards The VIDA recognizes that safety of life opportunity for engagement. During the of performance. Additional information at sea and other emergency situations webinars, EPA and the USCG provided regarding the VIDA Federalism not resulting from the negligence or a general overview of the VIDA, Consultation can be found in section malfeasance of the vessel owner, discussed interim and future discharge XII. Statutory and Executive Order operator, master, or person in charge requirements, described future state and Reviews. may arise, and that the prevention of public engagement opportunities, and loss of life or serious injury may require answered clarifying questions raised by 2. Governors Consultation operations that would not otherwise be the audience. The webinar recordings CWA Section 312(p)(4)(A)(iii)(II) consistent with these standards. and presentation material are available directs EPA to develop a process for Therefore, it is reasonably likely that no at https://www.epa.gov/vessels-marinas- soliciting input from interested person would be found to be in and-ports/vessel-incidental-discharge- Governors to allow interested Governors violation of the proposed rule under the act-vida-engagement-opportunities. to inform the development of the affirmative defense described in CWA Additionally, EPA, in coordination national standards of performance, Section 312(p)(8)(C). The corresponding with the USCG, hosted a public, in- including sharing information relevant USCG implementing regulations would person listening session at the U.S. to the process. On July 10 and 18, 2019, include language to address vessel Merchant Marine Academy in New York EPA and the USCG, with the support emergency and safety considerations. on May 29–30, 2019. At the listening and assistance of the National

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:58 Oct 23, 2020 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00009 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\26OCP2.SGM 26OCP2 67826 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 207 / Monday, October 26, 2020 / Proposed Rules

Governors Association, held meetings non-ballast water discharges, and best should be included in the proposed with Governor representatives to available technology as it relates to standard to address the conventional provide an overview of the VIDA, ballast water treatment systems. pollutants, toxic pollutants, and discuss state authorities under the Representatives from Michigan, New nonconventional pollutants contained VIDA, and solicit input on a process York, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, Illinois, in the discharge. that would meet both the statutory Minnesota, and Ohio attended the calls. In addition, to facilitate EPA’s due requirements and state needs. Based on EPA also held a follow-up call with consideration of any objections within a this input, EPA developed its representatives from the West Coast timeframe that would enable EPA to ‘‘Governors’ input process’’ for this states on January 15, 2020. During the meet its statutory deadline for this rulemaking. Thirteen states (Alaska, call, EPA addressed the comments that rulemaking, EPA requests that any California, Hawaii, Maryland, Michigan, had been submitted by West Coast Governor’s objection be submitted Minnesota, New York, North Carolina, states, including comments on outreach within 60 days of the published Notice Ohio, Puerto Rico, Virginia, and engagement, the best available of Proposed Rulemaking. Washington, and Wisconsin) technology analysis for ballast water Pursuant to CWA Section participated in the process as did treatment systems, and regulation of 312(p)(4)(A)(iii)(III)(bb), the representatives from the Western biofouling and in-water cleaning and Administrator’s response would: Governors Association, the Pacific capture devices. Representatives from • Be provided in writing to each States Marine Fisheries Commission, the states of California, Hawaii, Oregon, interested Governor prior to publication and the All Islands Coral Reef and Washington, as well as of the final rule; Committee. representatives from the Pacific States • Be signed by the Administrator; and EPA developed the VIDA Governors’ Marine Fisheries Commission and the • Include the scientific, technical, or input process to outline EPA’s intended Western Governors Association operational factors that form the basis approach to engage with the states and attended the call. for the proposed standard. address their expressed interest for In conjunction with the requirement 3. Comments (Federalism multiple enhanced engagement to engage states in the development of Consultation and Governors’ opportunities (possibly regionally- the proposed standards, CWA Section Consultation Comments) based), additional details regarding the 312(p)(4)(A)(iii)(III) provides for During the engagement with states, direction of the proposed standards, and governors to formally object to a EPA received pre-proposal comments ultimately, more involvement in the proposed national standard of from states, governors, and governors’ development of the national standards performance. As detailed in CWA representatives. EPA received comments of performance. Section 312(p)(4)(A)(iii)(III), an submitted by representatives from The Governors’ input process interested Governor may submit to the Hawaii, Guam, American Samoa, the included three regional, web-based Administrator a written, detailed Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana forums for Governors and their objection to the proposed national Islands, Puerto Rico, U.S. Virgin Islands, representatives to inform EPA on the standard of performance, describing the Florida, California, Washington, Oregon, challenges and concerns associated with scientific, technical, and operational Wisconsin, Michigan, Minnesota, and existing requirements under the VGP factors that form the basis of the the Western Governors Association. The and to discuss potential considerations objection. Before finalizing a national pre-proposal comments primarily for key discharges of interest. The three standard of performance for which there focused on ballast water, biofouling, and regional, web-based forums were held has been an objection from one or more the state engagement process. These on September 10 (Western States), interested Governors, the Administrator comments can be found in the public September 12, (Great Lakes States) and shall provide a written response to the docket for this proposed rule. September 19 (All States), 2019. During objection detailing the scientific, VII. Definitions each forum subject-matter experts from technical, or operational factors that The proposed rule includes EPA provided a brief background on the form the basis for that standard. VIDA followed by organized discussions To be considered an objection by the definitions for several statutory, regarding the key discharges identified Administrator under CWA Section regulatory, and technical terms. These by the regional representatives prior to 312(p)(4)(A)(iii)(III)(aa), an objection definitions apply solely for the purposes the forum. During the organized letter from the Governor must: of the proposed rule and do not affect discussions, interested Governors’ • Be submitted in writing to the the definition of any similar terms used representatives commented on the Administrator; in any other context. By including these presentation content, shared applicable • Be signed by the Governor; definitions, EPA has, where possible, scientific or technical information, and • Clearly state the proposed standard relied on existing definitions from other provided suggested options for EPA to that is the subject of the objection; laws, regulations, and the VGP to consider during the development of the • Describe the scientific, technical, or provide consistency with existing national standards of performance. In operational factors that indicate why the requirements. Many of the proposed addition to the verbal input provided proposed standard does not represent definitions are taken either verbatim or during the three regional, web-based the best practicable control technology with minor clarifying edits from the forums, EPA accepted written currently available (BPT), best VIDA, the legislation upon which this comments. Copies of those written conventional pollutant control proposed rule is based. This includes comments are included in the public technology (BCT), and/or best available definitions for: ANS, ballast water, docket for this proposed rule. technology economically achievable ballast water exchange, ballast water Additionally, EPA held two follow-up (BAT) to address the conventional management system, Captain of the Port calls with representatives from the Great pollutants, toxic pollutants, and (COTP) Zone, commercial vessel—as Lakes states on December 18, 2019. nonconventional pollutants contained that term is used for vessels operating During each call, EPA addressed the in the discharge; and within the Pacific Region, empty ballast comments that had been submitted by • Include the scientific, technical, or tank, Great Lakes State, internal waters, Great Lakes states, including comments operational factors that indicate what live or living, marine pollution control on specific requirements of the VIDA, BPT, BCT, and BAT is available that device, organism, Pacific Region, port or

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:58 Oct 23, 2020 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00010 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\26OCP2.SGM 26OCP2 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 207 / Monday, October 26, 2020 / Proposed Rules 67827

place of destination, render nonviable, pollutants (including ANS), which will 312(p)(4)(D)(ii) prohibits EPA from saltwater flush, Secretary, small vessel result in reasonable progress toward the ‘‘revis[ing] a standard of or fishing vessel (and the term ‘‘fishing national goal of eliminating the performance. . . to be less stringent vessel’’ to direct the reader to the discharge of all pollutants. 33 U.S.C. than an applicable existing definition of ‘‘small vessel or fishing 1322(p)(4)(B)(i). The VIDA specifically requirement.’’ There is a narrow vessel’’), and VGP. adopts by reference the existing BPT, exception for instances where EPA To provide additional clarity for BCT, and BAT standards defined identifies absent new information or certain proposed standards, if terms elsewhere in the CWA at Sections technical or legal error in the VGP were not defined in the VIDA, the 301(b) and 304(b). 33 U.S.C. analysis. Absent such exception, the proposed rule includes definitions from 1322(p)(1)(F), (G), (I). CWA Section VIDA prohibits EPA from identifying a other sections of the CWA, USCG 312(p)(4)(B)(ii) also directs EPA to use less stringent option as BPT/BCT/BAT. regulations, the VGP, and other BMPs to control or abate any discharge Indeed, by identifying the VGP as the regulations. Additionally, EPA is incidental to the normal operation of a minimum requirements for the national proposing to include new definitions for vessel if numeric discharge standard standards of performance and then federally-protected waters, fouling standards are infeasible or if the BMPs expressly identifying the circumstances rating, marine growth prevention are reasonably necessary to achieve the under which EPA could select a system, mid-ocean, and oil-to-sea standards or to carry out the purpose of different, less stringent standard (i.e., interface. Terms not defined in the reducing and eliminating the discharge new information or error), the text and proposed rule have the meaning defined of pollutants. legislative history of the VIDA show that under the CWA and any applicable In addition, CWA Section 312(p)(4)(B) Congress intended to preserve the regulations. establishes minimum requirements for existing VGP requirements as a the national standards of performance VIII. Development of National regulatory floor. VIDA Senate Report, at such that, ‘‘the combination of any Discharge Standards of Performance 12 (‘‘The exceptions to this provision equipment or best management practice [for new information and technical or The CWA established a two-step . . . shall not be less stringent than’’ the legal error] would provide the sole basis process for implementation of effluent limits and related requirements for the Administrator to weaken increasingly stringent limitations. The established in parts 2.1, 2.2, or 5 of the standards of performance compared to first step, to be accomplished by July 1, VGP. 33 U.S.C. 1322(p)(4)(B)(iii). Thus, the legacy VGP requirements. . . .’’). 1977, required compliance with while the statute directs EPA to set the Moreover, Congress did not intend for standards based on ‘‘the application of national standards of performance at the EPA to depart from the considerations the best practicable control technology level of BPT/BCT/BAT, depending on that informed the VGP. To the contrary, currently available [BPT] as defined by the pollutant, it also creates a the Administrator. . . .’’ 33 U.S.C. although the VIDA is a permit-less presumption that those standards would regime, Congress defined BPT, BCT, and 1311(b)(1)(A). The second step, to be provide protection at least equivalent to accomplished by July 1, 1987, required BAT with ‘‘intentional[] cross- the VGP requirements absent one of the reference[s]’’ to where those terms are compliance with standards based on exceptions at CWA Section application of the ‘‘best available used elsewhere in the CWA ‘‘to ensure 312(p)(4)(D)(ii)(II) for situations where that the Administrator makes identical technology economically achievable either new information becomes [BAT] for such category or class. . . .’’ considerations when setting the available that ‘‘would have justified the standards of performance under CWA 33 U.S.C. 1311(b)(2)(A). The CWA, as application of a less-stringent standard’’ Section 312(p) as the Administrator was amended in 1977, replaced the BAT or ‘‘if the Administrator determines that previously required to do when setting standard with a new standard, ‘‘best a material technical mistake or technology-based effluent limits for conventional pollutant control misinterpretation of law occurred when permits’’ like in the VGP. VIDA Senate technology [BCT],’’ but only for certain promulgating the existing standard.’’ Report, at 11. It is significant that so-called ‘‘conventional pollutants’’ Absent one of those exceptions, the Congress gave EPA only a two-year (i.e., total suspended solids, oil and statute directs that EPA ‘‘shall not revise deadline to develop the national grease, biochemical oxygen demand a standard of performance . . . to be standards of performance for marine (BOD5), fecal coliform, and pH). 33 less stringent than an applicable pollution control devices for each type U.S.C. 1311(b)(2)(E) (1976 ed., Supp. existing requirement.’’ 33 U.S.C. III). Section 312(p)(4)(B)(i) of the VIDA 312(p)(4)(D)(ii)(I). of discharge incidental to the normal requires the national standards of EPA endeavored to identify instances operation of a vessel that is subject to performance promulgated for where the BPT/BCT/BAT level of regulation under the VIDA. The VGP conventional pollutants, toxic control called for new, more stringent requirements address more than 30 such pollutants, and nonconventional options for the national standards of discharges and given the short pollutants (including ANS) be performance; however, where EPA timeframe that Congress set forth for developed using the same statutory identified no such new information or this task, EPA did not think it was framework as applied to the VGP. options, EPA is continuing to rely on necessary or appropriate to re-analyze Specifically, the national standards of the BPT/BCT/BAT analysis that led to the marine pollution control device performance developed under the VIDA the development of the VGP standards for which there have not been for all categories and classes of vessels requirements. This approach is meaningful changes in technology or must require the application of best consistent with EPA’s obligations under practice since EPA last undertook a practicable control technology currently CWA Section 312(p)(4) for the following BPT/BCT/BAT analysis. In contrast to available (BPT) for conventional, toxic, reasons. The effluent limits that EPA this initial promulgation of standards, and nonconventional pollutants; best adopted in the VGP were already the Congress established a significantly conventional pollutant control product of a BPT/BCT/BAT analysis longer five-year cycle for review and, if technology (BCT) for conventional described in the permit fact sheets for appropriate, future revision of the initial pollutants; and best available both the 2008 and 2013 iterations of the standards. 33 U.S.C. 1322(p)(4)(D)(i). technology economically achievable VGP and corresponding supporting While EPA is, for most of the (BAT) for toxic and nonconventional materials. The text of CWA Section discharges addressed in this

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:58 Oct 23, 2020 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00011 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\26OCP2.SGM 26OCP2 67828 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 207 / Monday, October 26, 2020 / Proposed Rules

rulemaking, relying on the BPT/BCT/ pollutants associated with BCT for requirements of the Clean Hull Act that BAT analysis that was performed to discharges from existing industrial point coating on vessel hulls must not contain develop the VGP, EPA is not sources. 33 U.S.C. 1311(b)(2)(E); TBT or any other organotin compound incorporating the VGP requirements 1314(b)(4)(B); 40 CFR 125.3(d)(2). In used as a biocide. In some cases, such verbatim. In many cases, EPA proposes addition to considering the other factors as with certain discharges of oils, change to translate the VGP discharge specified in CWA Section 304(b)(4)(B) graywater from passenger vessels, and requirements into national standards of to establish BCT requirements, EPA also ballast water, numeric discharge performance or otherwise improve the considers a two-part ‘‘cost- standards are being proposed. In clarity to enhance implementation and reasonableness’’ test. EPA explained its assessing the availability and enforceability. As the proposed changes methodology for the development of achievability of the technologies do not materially differ from the BCT requirements in 1986. See 51 FR discussed herein, in addition to the requirements established in the VGP, 24974, July 9, 1986. rationale for the VGP effluent limits, EPA can reasonably rely on the BPT/ For toxic pollutants and EPA considered studies and data from BCT/BAT analysis that supported the nonconventional pollutants, EPA both domestic and international sources VGP to develop the new proposed promulgates discharge standards based including studies and data from foreign- standards under the VIDA. on BAT. 33 U.S.C. 1311(b)(2)(A); flagged vessels as appropriate. Where EPA research identified new 1314(b)(2)(B); 40 CFR 125.3(d)(3). In Additionally, EPA is proposing that alternatives or new options for marine establishing BAT, the technology must two of the VGP-named discharges do pollution control devices, EPA be technologically ‘‘available’’ and not require specific discharge evaluated those options as candidates ‘‘economically achievable.’’ The factors requirements beyond the general for new BPT/BCT/BAT requirements. considered in assessing BAT include the discharge requirements in Subpart B. The CWA requires consideration of BPT cost of achieving BAT effluent EPA acknowledges that discharges from for conventional, toxic, and reductions, the age of equipment and motor gasoline and compensating nonconventional pollutants. CWA facilities involved, the process systems and inert gas systems are Section 304(a)(4) designates the employed, potential process changes, indeed discharges incidental to the following as conventional pollutants: non-water quality environmental normal operation of a vessel; however, Biochemical oxygen demand, total impacts, including energy requirements, EPA determined that the requirements suspended solids, fecal coliform, pH, and other such factors as the outlined in the general discharge and any additional pollutants defined Administrator deems appropriate. EPA standards section in Subpart B of the by the Administrator as conventional. retains considerable discretion in proposed rule are sufficient and at least The Administrator designated oil and assigning the weight accorded to these as stringent as the VGP. grease as an additional conventional factors. See Weyerhaeuser Co v. Costle, A. Discharges Incidental to the Normal pollutant on July 30, 1979. 40 CFR 590 F.2d 1011, 1045 (D.C. Cir. 1978). Operation of a Vessel—General 401.16. Toxic pollutants (e.g., toxic BAT discharge standards may be based Standards metals such as arsenic, mercury, on effluent reductions attainable selenium, and chromium; toxic organic through changes in a facility’s processes This section describes the proposed pollutants such as benzene, benzo-a- and operations. Where existing national standards of performance pyrene, phenol, and napthalene) are performance is uniformly inadequate, associated with the general discharge those outlined in CWA Section 307(a) BAT may reflect a higher level of requirements proposed in 40 CFR part and subsequently identified in EPA performance than is currently being 139, subpart B. These proposed regulations at 40 CFR 401.15 and 40 achieved within a subcategory based on standards are designed to apply to all CFR part 423 Appendix A. All other technology transferred from a different vessels and incidental discharges pollutants are nonconventional. subcategory or category. Am. Paper Inst. subject to the proposed rule to the In determining BPT, under CWA 5 V. Train, 539 F.2d 328, 353 (D.C. Cir. extent the requirements are appropriate Sections 301(b)(1)(A) and 304(b)(1)(B), 1976); Am. Frozen Food Inst. V. Train, for each incidental discharge. These and 40 CFR 125.3(d)(1), EPA evaluates 539 F.2d 107, 132 (D.C. Cir. 1976). BAT proposed standards are proactive and several factors. EPA first considers the may be based upon process changes or preventative in nature and are designed cost of application of technology in internal controls, even when these to minimize the introduction of relation to the effluent reduction technologies are not common industry pollutants into the waters of the United benefits. The Agency also considers the practice. States and the waters of the contiguous age of equipment and facilities, the The proposed rule contains discharge zone. These proposed standards are processes employed, engineering standards that correspond to required based on EPA’s analysis of available and aspects of various types of control levels of technology-based control (BPT, relevant information, including technologies, process changes, non- BCT, BAT) for discharges incidental to available technical data, existing water quality environmental impacts the normal operation of a vessel, as statutes and regulations, statistical (including energy requirements), and required by the CWA. As noted above, industry information, and research such other factors as the Administrator some discharge standards have been studies included in the public docket deems appropriate. If, however, existing established by examining other existing for this proposed rule. performance is uniformly inadequate laws and requirements (e.g., Oil within an industrial category, EPA may Pollution Act, APPS, and the Clean Hull 1. General Operation and Maintenance establish limitations based on higher Act). Where these laws already exist, it The first category of proposed levels of control if the Agency was deemed feasible for the operators to national standards of performance determines that the technology is implement these practices as part of the would establish requirements associated available in another category or proposed standards because these are with the general operation and subcategory and can be practically demonstrated practices that EPA found maintenance vessel practices that are applied to this industrial category. to be technologically available and designed to eliminate or reduce the The 1977 amendments to the CWA economically practicable (BPT) or discharge of pollutants. EPA considers required EPA to identify effluent achievable (BAT). For example, the these proposed requirements to be reduction levels for conventional proposed standards reaffirm consistent with the VGP requirements

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:58 Oct 23, 2020 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00012 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\26OCP2.SGM 26OCP2 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 207 / Monday, October 26, 2020 / Proposed Rules 67829

and provides a consolidation of cleaner, biocide, coating, sacrificial hazardous materials. Also, to avoid requirements from many subparts anode) necessary to perform its discharges and prevent emergency or within Part 2 of the VGP. The first intended function is authorized to be other dangerous situations, the requirement proposes that all discharges used if its residue could be discharged proposed standard would require that covered under this rulemaking be and that any such materials used do not containers holding toxic or hazardous minimized. For purposes of this contain biocides or toxic or hazardous materials not be overfilled and proposed rule and consistent with the materials banned for use in the United incompatible materials not be mixed in technology-based requirements of the States. Also, EPA is proposing to containers. CWA, EPA is proposing to clarify the prohibit the discharge of any material Like the requirements related to toxic term ‘‘minimize’’ to mean to reduce or used that will be subsequently and hazardous materials, the proposed eliminate to the extent achievable using discharged that contains any materials standard would also require control any control measure that is banned for use in the United States. For measures to prevent or minimize the technologically available and any pesticide products (e.g., biocides, overboard discharge of cargo, on-deck economically practicable and achievable anti-microbials) subject to FIFRA debris, garbage, and residue and would and supported by demonstrated BMPs registration, vessel operators must prohibit the jettisoning of cargo or toxic such that compliance can be follow the FIFRA label for all activities or hazardous materials. EPA proposal documented in shipboard logs and that result in a discharge into the waters would also require vessel operators to plans as determined by the Secretary of the United States or the waters of the clean out cargo residues (i.e., broom (that is, the Secretary of the department contiguous zone. clean or equivalent) from any cargo in which the USCG is operating). The The presence or use of toxic or compartment or tank prior to ‘‘minimize’’ requirement is included hazardous materials may be necessary discharging washwater from such areas pursuant to the CWA Section for the operation of vessels. For overboard. EPA is proposing that these 312(p)(2)(H) definition of BMP within purposes of the proposed rule, the term material management measures be the technology-based BPT/BCT/BAT ‘‘Toxic or Hazardous Materials’’ means followed to minimize the discharge of analysis. Minimizing discharges any toxic pollutant identified in 40 CFR pollutants. provides a reasonable approach by 401.15 or any hazardous material as The proposed rule would also require which EPA, the regulated community, defined in 49 CFR 171.8. EPA is vessel operators to maintain their and the public can determine and proposing requirements for how toxic or topside surface (i.e., outer surfaces evaluate appropriate control measures hazardous materials are managed to above the waterline) in a manner that for vessels to control all specific minimize the potential for discharge of minimizes the discharge of rust (and discharges identified in 40 CFR part these materials. Toxic or hazardous other corrosion by-products), cleaning 139, subpart B of this proposed material containers must be compounds, paint chips, non-skid rulemaking. To minimize discharges, appropriately sealed, labeled, and material fragments, and other materials operators should consider the use of secured, and located in an area of the associated with exterior topside surface reception facilities, storage onboard the vessel that minimizes exposure to ocean preservation. Additionally, this EPA vessel, or reduced production of spray and precipitation consistent with standard proposes that coating pollutants to be discharged. For some vessel design. Materials that may not be techniques selected for any topside vessel discharges, such as for graywater, considered toxic in small concentrations surfaces must minimize the residual minimization of pollutants in those could pose an environmental threat if paint and coating entering the water and discharges can be achieved without significant amounts are washed that the discharge of any unused paints using highly engineered, complex overboard, particularly in shallow or and coatings is prohibited. treatment systems. Other vessel impaired waters. Wastes should be The last proposed general operation discharges, such as ballast water, may managed in accordance with any and maintenance requirement specifies require more complex behavioral applicable local, state, and federal that any equipment that is expected to practices such as saltwater flushing or regulations, which are outside of the release, drip, leak, or spill oil or oily ballast water exchange. scope of this proposed rule. For mixtures, fuel, or other toxic or The proposed general operation and example, the Resource Conservation and hazardous materials that may be management standard would also Recovery Act (RCRA) governs the discharged or drained or pumped to the include provisions from the VGP (Parts generation, transportation, storage, and bilge, must be maintained regularly to 2.2.2 and 5.3.1.2) that are intended to disposal of solid and hazardous wastes. minimize the discharge of pollutants. As minimize the discharges from vessels to Therefore, the proposed rule would with other requirements in the proposed nearshore waters by requiring, to the require that all vessel operators practice general operation and maintenance extent practicable, that vessels discharge good environmental stewardship by standard, EPA considers this while underway and as far from shore minimizing any exposure of cargo or requirement to be consistent with the as practical. other onboard materials that may be bilgewater requirements in Part 2.2.2 of The proposed general operation and inadvertently discharged by the VGP. management standard also would containerizing or covering materials include requirements that limit the with a tarp, and generally limiting any 2. Biofouling Management types and quantities of materials exposure of these materials to wind, Vessel biofouling is the accumulation discharged. For one, EPA is clarifying rain, or spray. The proposed rule of aquatic organisms such as plants, that the addition of any materials to an acknowledges that these requirements animals, and micro-organisms on vessel incidental discharge, other than for would apply unless the vessel operator equipment or systems submerged or treatment of the discharge, that is not reasonably determines this would exposed to the aquatic environment. incidental to the normal operation of the interfere with essential vessel Biofouling can be broadly separated into vessel, is prohibited as is using dilution operations or safety of the vessel or microfouling, which consists of to meet any effluent discharge doing so would violate any applicable microscopic organisms including standards. EPA is also proposing a regulations that establish specifications bacteria and diatoms, and macrofouling, requirement specifying that only the for safe transportation, handling, which consists of large, distinct amount of a material (e.g., disinfectant, carriage, and storage of toxic or multicellular organisms visible to the

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:58 Oct 23, 2020 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00013 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\26OCP2.SGM 26OCP2 67830 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 207 / Monday, October 26, 2020 / Proposed Rules

human eye, such as barnacles, The proposed rule would require each basis for developing and implementing tubeworms, or fronds of algae. Studies vessel to develop and follow a a vessel-specific biofouling management suggest that biofouling on vessel biofouling management plan with a goal plan. equipment and systems is one of the to prevent macrofouling, thereby Developing individual biofouling main vectors for the introduction and minimizing the potential for the management plans for vessels is spread of ANS (Drake and Lodge, 2007; introduction and spread of ANS. A important because vessels can vary Gollasch, 2002; Hewitt and Campbell, biofouling management plan that would widely in operational profile and, 2010; Hewitt et al., 2009). Biofouling be consistent with the VGP and fulfill therefore, in the extent and type of also produces drag on a vessel hull and the purpose of the proposed rule is one biofouling. EPA recognizes, however, protruding niche areas, requiring greater that provides a holistic strategy that that vessels with similar operational fuel consumption and increased considers the operational profile of the profiles, such as vessels that cross the greenhouse gas emissions. It can vessel, identifies the appropriate same waterbodies, travel at similar additionally result in hull corrosion and antifouling systems, and details the speeds, and share the same design, may blockage of internal piping, such as the biofouling management practices for also employ the same management engine cooling and firemain systems, specific areas of the vessel. The details measures, such as selecting the same thereby degrading the integrity of the of the plan will be established by the types of antifouling systems, and vessel structure and impeding safe Secretary, although the plan elements applying the same inspection and operation. must prioritize procedures and cleaning schedules. EPA anticipates that fleet owners may develop a biofouling EPA understands the statutory strategies to prevent macrofouling. management plan template that can be definition of ‘‘discharge incidental to While the VGP does not explicitly readily adapted into a vessel-specific the normal operation of a vessel’’ require a biofouling management plan, biofouling management plan. (incidental discharge) at 33 it requires the majority of the U.S.C.1322(a)(12) to include any components of the proposed biofouling 3. Oil Management discharge of biofouling organisms from management plan individually, such as The proposed rule aims to minimize vessel equipment and systems. the consideration of vessel class, discharges of oil, including oily Consistent with the VGP discharges of operations, and biocide release rates and mixtures. The proposed standard would biofouling organisms from vessel components in the selection of require vessel operators to use control equipment and systems while the vessel antifouling systems, an annual and response measures to minimize and is immersed or exposed to the aquatic inspection of the vessel hull and niche contain spills and overflows during environment are incidental to the areas for assessment of biofouling fueling, maintenance, and other vessel normal operation of a vessel. Such organisms and condition of anti-fouling operations. Also, the proposed standard discharges during normal operation of paint, a drydock inspection report specifies that the discharge of used or the vessel include, but are not limited noting that the vessel hull and niche spent oil no longer being used for its to, those from maintenance and cleaning areas have been inspected for biofouling intended purpose would be prohibited, activities of hulls, niche areas, and organisms and those organisms have including any used or spent oil that may associated coatings. EPA included been removed or neutralized, reporting be added to an incidental discharge that management requirements to minimize of cleaning schedules and methods, and is otherwise authorized to be the discharge of biofouling organisms appropriate disposal of wastes generated discharged. Discharges of small amounts from vessel equipment and systems in during cleaning operations. of oil, including oily mixtures, both the VGP and the discharge Additionally, according to the Clean incidental to the normal operation of a regulations for the vessels of the Armed Hull Act of 2009, every vessel engaging vessel are permissible provided such Forces. 33 U.S.C. 1322(n)). The VGP in in one or more international voyages is discharges comply with the otherwise Parts 2.2.23 and 4.1.3, respectively, required to carry an antifouling system applicable existing legal requirements. required that vessel operators minimize certificate that contains the details of For example, consistent with the CWA the transport of attached living the antifouling system. Moreover, under and as implemented by the 2013 VGP, organisms and conduct annual the National Invasive Species Act, the this standard would prohibit the inspections of the vessel hull, including USCG requires the individual in charge discharge of oil in such quantities as niche areas, for fouling organisms. Part of any vessel equipped with ballast may be harmful, as defined in 40 CFR 4.1.4 of the VGP also required vessel water tanks that operates in the waters 110.3. operators to prepare drydock inspection of the United States to maintain a ballast Section 139.3 of the proposed rule reports noting that the vessel hull and water management plan that has been specifies that, except as expressly niche areas had been inspected for developed specifically for the vessel and provided, nothing in this part would attached living organisms and those that will allow those responsible for the affect the applicability of any other organisms had been removed or plan’s implementation to understand provision of Federal law as specified in neutralized and make these reports and follow the vessel’s ballast water several statutory and regulatory available to EPA or an authorized management strategy and comply with citations. Two of those citations are to representative of EPA upon request. the requirements. The ballast water CWA Section 311 and to APPS. Those With one of the legislative purposes of management plan must also include two laws address discharges of oil. the VIDA being to establish uniform detailed biofouling maintenance and Under CWA Section 311, any oil, national incidental discharge sediment removal procedures (33 CFR including oily mixtures, other than regulations that are as stringent as the 151.2050(g)(3)). According to guidance those exempted in 40 CFR 110.5, may VGP, except in those circumstances issued by the USCG on these not be discharged in such quantities as specified by the VIDA in CWA Section regulations, such procedures constitute ‘‘may be harmful,’’ which is defined to 312(p)(4)(D)(ii)(II), EPA is proposing to a ‘‘Biofouling Management and include those discharges that violate include requirements for the discharge Sediment Plan.’’ Under this guidance, applicable water quality standards or of biofouling organisms from vessel the USCG advised that IMO Resolution ‘‘cause a film or sheen upon or equipment and systems in this Marine Environment Protection discoloration of the surface of the water rulemaking. Committee (MEPC) 207(62) provides a or adjoining shorelines or cause a sludge

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:58 Oct 23, 2020 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00014 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\26OCP2.SGM 26OCP2 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 207 / Monday, October 26, 2020 / Proposed Rules 67831

or emulsion to be deposited beneath the surrounding sea during normal vessel vessel that enables the propeller shaft to surface of the water or upon adjoining operations. For example, below-water connect the vessel’s engine to the shorelines.’’ Discharges that are not seals frequently use lubricating oil propeller on the exterior of the vessel. included in the description of ‘‘may be mechanisms that maintain higher Stern tubes contain seals designed to harmful’’ include discharges of oil from pressure than the surrounding sea to keep the stern tube lubricant from a properly functioning vessel engine ensure that no seawater enters the exiting the equipment array and being (including an engine on a public vessel) system and compromises the unit’s discharged to waters at the exterior of and any discharges of such oil performance. During normal operation, the vessel’s hull. accumulated in the bilges of a vessel small quantities of lubricant oil in those • Controllable pitch propeller: discharged in compliance with 33 CFR interfaces are released into surrounding Variably-pitched propeller blades are for part 151, subpart A; other discharges of waters. Above-deck equipment can also changing the speed or direction of a oil permitted under MARPOL 73/78, have oil-to-sea interfaces when portions vessel and supplementing the main Annex I, as provided in 33 CFR part of the machinery extend overboard, propulsion system. Controllable pitch 151, subpart A; and any discharge of oil thereby allowing lubricant oil to be propellers also contain seals that explicitly permitted by the released directly into surrounding prevent the lubricant from exiting the Administrator in connection with waters. Constituents of conventional equipment array. research, demonstration projects, or hydraulic and lubricating oils vary by • Rudder bearings: These bearings studies relating to the prevention, manufacturer, but may include copper, allow a vessel’s rudder to turn freely; control, or abatement of oil pollution. tin, aluminum, nickel, and lead. In they also use seals with an oil-to-sea Regarding the APPS (33 U.S.C. 1901 et addition, traditional mineral oils have a interface. seq.), the United States enacted it to small biodegradation rate, a high • On-deck equipment: Hose handling implement the obligations under potential for bioaccumulation and a cranes, hydraulic system prov cranes, MARPOL 73/78. The USCG is the lead measurable toxicity towards marine hydraulic cranes, and hydraulic stern agency for APPS implementation and organisms. In the case of a controllable ramps are examples of machinery with issued implementing regulations pitch propellers (CPP), up to 20 ounces the potential for above-water discharges primarily found at 33 CFR part 151. of such oils could be released for every of lubricants. When vessels are Those APPS requirements already apply CPP blade that is replaced, with blade underway, this equipment is often not to many of the vessels that would be replacement occurring at drydock operational, and any lubricant losses are covered by the proposed rule. Among intervals or when the blade is damaged. typically captured during deck other things, APPS regulates the When the blade replacement includes washdown and treated as part of deck discharge of oil and oily mixtures. removal of the blade port cover washdown wastewater. However, Generally, these requirements prohibit (generally occurring infrequently, less discharges can occur when portions of ‘‘any discharge of oil or oily mixtures than once per month), up to five gallons the machinery such as booms or jibs, into the sea from a ship’’ except when of oil could be discharged into trolleys, cables, hoist gear, or derrick certain conditions are met, including a surrounding waters unless the service is arms are in use and extend over the side discharge oil content of less than 15 performed in drydock. of vessel. ppm and that the ship operates oily- Additionally, many ocean-going ships The EAL portion of the proposal water separating equipment, an oil operate with oil-lubricated stern tubes provides that the EAL would need to content monitor, a bilge alarm, or a and use lubricating oils in much of the meet three criteria; it must be combination thereof. other machinery both on-deck and ‘‘biodegradable,’’ ‘‘minimally-toxic,’’ Additionally, the proposed rule underwater. Oil leakage from stern and ‘‘not bioaccumulative’’ as defined would require measures during fueling, tubes, once considered a part of normal in the proposed rule. maintenance and other vessel ‘‘operational consumption’’ of oil, has The proposed standard for oil-to-sea operations to control and respond to become an issue of global concern and interfaces is slightly different from what spills and overflows, such as may occur is now treated as oil pollution. A 2001 was required for oil-to-sea interfaces in from human error or improper study commissioned by the European the VGP. EPA is proposing four changes. equipment use. These proposed Commission DG Joint Research Centre First, for clarity, EPA moved the EAL requirements reinforce existing concluded that routine unauthorized requirements to a general standard for requirements that require taking operational discharges of oil from ships oil management applicable to any immediate and appropriate corrective into the Mediterranean Sea created more specific discharge that may have an oil- actions if an oil spill is observed as a pollution than accidental spills to-sea interface rather than a specific result of vessel operations. This (Pavlakis et al., 2001). Similarly, an discharge standard as was done in Part includes maintaining appropriate spill analysis of data on oil consumption 2.2.9 of the VGP, and eliminated the containment and cleanup materials sourced from a lubricant supplier specific discharge category, identified in onboard and using such immediately in indicated that daily stern tube lubricant Part 2.2.9 of the VGP as ‘‘Controllable the event of any spill. consumption rates for different vessels Pitch Propeller (CPP) and Thruster The proposed rule also includes could range up to 20 liters per day Hydraulic Fluid and other Oil-to-sea requirements for oil-to-sea interfaces. (Etkin, 2010). This analysis estimated Interfaces including Lubrication Specifically, the proposed standard that operational discharges (including Discharges from Paddle Wheel would require use of EALs for such oil- stern tube leakage) from vessels add Propulsion, Stern Tubes, Thruster to-sea interfaces unless technically between 36.9 million liters and 61 Bearings, Stabilizers Rudder Bearings, infeasible and sets out a series of million liters of lubricating oil into Azimuth Thrusters, and Propulsion Pod mandatory BMPs for minimizing marine port waters annually. Lubrication and Wire Rope and lubricant discharges during Vessels use lubricants in a wide Mechanical Equipment Subject to maintenance. variety of ship-board applications. Immersion.’’ The change demonstrates Oil-to-sea interfaces are seals or Examples of lubricated equipment with that the standard covers all oil-to-sea surfaces on ship-board equipment oil-to-sea interfaces include: interfaces on vessels rather than just the where the design is such that small • Stern tube: A stern tube is the interfaces listed in the name of that quantities of oil can escape into the casing or hole through the hull of the section of the VGP. EPA notes that

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:58 Oct 23, 2020 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00015 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\26OCP2.SGM 26OCP2 67832 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 207 / Monday, October 26, 2020 / Proposed Rules

certain types of seals used on below- regulatory programs to require use of current European Ecolabel requirements deck equipment such as air seals are EALs. Today, more than sixteen for a 10-day test pass window rather based on designs that use an air gap or manufacturers produce EALs for the than a 28-day test pass window for other mechanical features to prevent global shipping community, giving achieving specific levels of degradation. oils from reaching waters at the exterior vessel operators a wide array of choices EPA notes that stakeholders involved in of the vessel’s hull. To the extent that for optimizing lubricant technical the European Ecolabel program felt these seals do not allow the lubricant to performance. Most major marine strongly that this change in the test pass be released under normal equipment manufacturers have window would significantly reduce the circumstances, they are not considered approved EALs for use in their number of lubricant formulations to be oil-to-sea interfaces. Second, the machinery, and new equipment is being available on the market. To ensure VGP included specific criteria for introduced commercially such as air widespread installation and use of EALs demonstrating that use of an EAL was seals, composite bearings, electric by vessels that operate in the waters of ‘‘technically infeasible.’’ Under the motors, and synthetic line. The market the United States or the waters of the VIDA delineation of responsibilities for EALs continues to expand around contiguous zone, EPA is retaining the between EPA and the USCG, the world, particularly in Europe where definition of biodegradable as used in determinations of technical infeasibility the use of such lubricants is promoted the VGP. through a combination of tax breaks, regarding the use of an EAL are most 4. Training and Education properly treated as a matter of purchasing subsidies, and national and implementation and as such, would be international labeling programs. The proposed rule does not include addressed as part of the implementing In the analysis EPA completed for the training and education requirements. regulations to be developed by the VGP, the Agency found that product CWA Section 312(p)(5)(A)(ii)(III) USCG. Third, EPA made minor substitution of EALs for other lubricants requires the USCG to promulgate revisions to the wording of the standard in oil-to-sea applications (unless training and educational requirements to clarify that the scope of this discharge technically infeasible) together with the that are not less stringent than those category extends to all types of required BMPs for maintenance contained in the VGP. equipment with direct oil-to-sea represents BAT. As the Agency B. Discharges Incidental to the Normal interfaces, including any on-deck described when it issued the VGP, use Operation of a Vessel—Specific equipment where lubricant losses can of EALs in lieu of conventional Standards occur when portions of the machinery formulations for oil-to-sea interfaces can offer significantly reduced discharges of This section describes the proposed extend over the side of the hull. Fourth, national standards of performance for the VGP provided two ways that a pollutants of concern (U.S. EPA, 2011). As part of the BAT analysis for the discharges incidental to the normal lubricant could be classified as an EAL: VGP, EPA considered the processes operation of a regulated vessel. The the EAL must be ‘‘biodegradable,’’ employed and potential process changes proposed national standards of ‘‘minimally-toxic,’’ and ‘‘not that might be necessary for vessels to performance would apply to regulated bioaccumulative’’ as defined in the use EALs. As EPA explained at the time, vessels operating within the waters of VGP; or, the EAL must be labeled under EALs are readily available and their use the United States or the waters of the a defined list of labeling programs (e.g., is economically achievable for most contiguous zone. The proposed rule the European Union’s European applications (U.S. EPA, 2011). New would require that a discharge Ecolabel and Germany’s Blue Angel). vessels in particular can select comprised of two or more regulated EPA is proposing to remove the list of equipment during design and incidental discharges must meet the acceptable labeling programs construction that is compatible with national standards of performance acknowledging that the requirements of EALs. Furthermore, vessel operators can established for each of those these different labeling programs are design additional onboard storage commingled discharges. established by organizations for which capacity for EALs if they choose to use 1. Ballast Tanks neither EPA nor the USCG have control traditional mineral-based oil for engine over any modifications to the criteria lubrication (thereby needing two types i. Applicability these organizations may make to of oils on-hand). The extra storage Ballast water is any water, suspended identify acceptable products for capacity needed would be minor. EPA, matter, and other materials taken on- labeling. The expectation is that all or however, continues to believe that the board a vessel to control or maintain most of the labeling programs identified use of EALs in all applications is not trim, draught, stability, or stresses of the in the VGP meet the EAL criteria in the practicable or achievable, therefore this vessel, regardless of the means by which proposed rule and as such would proposed rule retains the provision from any such water or suspended matter is provide a comparable list of options the VGP oil-to-sea interface carried; or during the cleaning, from which vessel operators could requirements that allows for a claim of maintenance, or other operation of a select appropriate lubricants. This ‘‘technically infeasible.’’ ballast tank or ballast management provides a clear delineation of The Agency considered several other system of the vessel. The term ‘‘ballast expectations for any institution approaches for regulating oil-to-sea water’’ does not include any substance interested in establishing a labeling interfaces in the proposed rule. For one, that is added to the water that is directly program if that program demonstrates the most recent version of the European related to the operation of a properly products that are labeled based on Ecolabel program has a modified functioning ballast water management criteria that are at least as stringent as definition of what constitutes an system. As defined in the proposed those in the proposed rule for ‘‘environmentally acceptable lubricant’’ standards, a ballast tank is any tank or biodegradability, toxicity, and in that it now allows for ‘‘small hold on a vessel used for carrying bioaccumulation. quantities’’ (i.e., <0.1 percent) of ballast water, regardless of whether the Although certification programs to bioaccumulative substances in lubricant tank or hold was designed for that label lubricants as ‘‘environmentally formulations. EPA considered revising purpose. Fresh water, sea water, or ice acceptable lubricants’’ have existed for the definition of ‘‘biodegradable’’ to carried onboard a vessel for food safety some time, the VGP was one of the first bring the terminology more in line with and product quality purposes is not

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:58 Oct 23, 2020 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00016 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\26OCP2.SGM 26OCP2 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 207 / Monday, October 26, 2020 / Proposed Rules 67833

considered ballast water and, as such, their state waters. Such additional excluded from the ballast water would not be subject to the ballast water stand-alone State standards will no discharge standards. In that instance, requirements in the proposed rule. longer be permissible under the VIDA the Administrator would notify the Ballast water discharge volumes and once EPA has established national vessel owner or operator of such a rates vary significantly by vessel type, standards and the USCG has determination. [33 U.S.C. ballast tank capacity, and type of promulgated implementing regulations 1322(p)(2)(B)(ii)(I)] deballasting equipment for the universe that are final, effective, and enforceable. B. Vessels in the National Defense of vessels covered under the VGP and [33 U.S.C. 1322(p)(9)(A)(i)]. Reserve Fleet Scheduled for Disposal VIDA. Most passenger vessels have The proposed standards for ballast ballast capacities of less than 5,000 water reflect BAT and consider the The proposed rule would exclude cubic meters (approximately 1.3 million previous requirements established in discharges of ballast water from a vessel gallons) of water. Cargo/container ships the 2013 VGP and 33 CFR part 151 that is in the National Defense Reserve generally have ballast capacities of 5 to subparts C and D, the BAT factors as Fleet that is scheduled for disposal, if 20 thousand cubic meters (more than specified in Section 304(b) of the Clean the vessel does not have an operable 1.3 to 5.3 million gallons) of water while Water Act, as well as the new ballast water management system. some bulk carriers and tankers have requirements established in the VIDA. C. Vessels Discharging Ballast Water ballast capacities greater than 40 The analysis described herein is based Consisting Solely of Water Meeting the thousand cubic meters (over 10 million largely on information gathered and Safe Drinking Water Act Requirements gallons) of water. included in the public docket for this Ballast water may contain toxic and proposed rulemaking and includes The existing USCG regulations (33 nonconventional pollutants such as rust information on the United States and CFR 151.2025) allow vessels to use, as inhibitors, epoxy coating materials, zinc international requirements surrounding ballast water, water from a U.S. public or aluminum (from anodes), iron, ballast water discharges and the water system (PWS), as defined in 40 nickel, copper, bronze, silver, and other candidate control technologies (both CFR 141.2, that meets the requirements material or sediment from inside the best management practices and of the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) tanks, pipes, or other machinery. More treatment technologies). at 40 CFR parts 141 and 143. In plain importantly, ballast water may also terms, this means finished, potable ii. Exclusions contain marine and freshwater water as opposed to untreated water that organisms that originate from where the The proposed standards for ballast is owned or operated by a PWS but not water is collected. When ballast water is water apply to any vessel equipped with necessarily potable. Those USCG discharged, these organisms may one or more ballast tanks that operates regulations specify that vessels using establish new populations of ANS in the in the waters of the United States or water from a PWS as ballast must receiving waterbodies. Ballast water waters of the contiguous zone, except as maintain a record of which PWS they discharged from vessels has been, and excluded by statute or regulation. received the water from as well as a continues to be, a significant Pursuant to the VIDA in CWA Section receipt, invoice, or other documentation environmental concern because it can 312(p)(2)(B)(ii), the proposed rule from the PWS indicating that water introduce and spread ANS that threaten would exclude the following five came from that system. Furthermore, the diversity and abundance of native discharges from the CWA Section 312(p) vessels must certify that the ballast species, threaten the ecological stability ballast water standards. tanks have either previously cleaned (including removing all residual of our Nation’s waters, and threaten the A. Vessels That Continuously Take on commercial, agricultural, aquacultural, sediments) and not subsequently and Discharge Ballast Water in a Flow- introduced ambient water, or never and recreational use of those waters. Through System Currently, ballast water discharges are introduced ambient water to those tanks regulated by multiple federal and state The proposed rule would exclude and supply lines. The existing EPA laws and regulations. The USCG discharges of ballast water from a vessel requirements in the VGP similarly allow regulates ballast water discharges under that continuously takes on and vessels to use water, not only from a the Nonindigenous Aquatic Nuisance discharges ballast water in a flow- U.S. public water system, but also from Prevention and Control Act of 1990 through system, if the Administrator a Canadian drinking water system, as (NANPCA), and amendments thereto by determines that the system cannot defined in Health Canada’s Guidelines the National Invasive Species Act materially contribute to the spread or for Canadian Drinking Water Quality. (NISA) of 1996 (33 CFR part 151 introduction of an ANS from ballast As specified by Congress in the VIDA, subparts C and D). Starting in 2009, EPA water into waters of the United States or the proposed rule would exclude a regulated ballast water discharges under the contiguous zone, acknowledging vessel that discharges ballast water the NPDES program authorized under that such a flow-through system may consisting solely of water taken onboard CWA Section 402; however, the VIDA have additional areas on the hull (e.g., from a public or commercial source that, requires that ballast water be regulated niches) requiring more rigorous at the time the water is taken onboard, as an incidental discharge under CWA biofouling management. EPA is unaware meets the applicable requirements of the Section 312. The VIDA set as a of any such vessels currently in Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) (42 minimum baseline the VGP/NPDES commercial operation, but theoretically U.S.C. 300f et seq.) at 40 CFR parts 141 requirements previously developed a vessel could be designed to have and 143. As provided in the existing under CWA Section 402. Additionally, ambient water flow through the hull for VGP, EPA proposes that this exclusion several states (California, Michigan, vessel stability without retaining any of also applies to water taken on board that Minnesota, Ohio, Oregon, Washington, that water in such a way that it would meets Health Canada’s Guidelines for and Wisconsin) previously used their be transported. Should any such vessel Canadian Drinking Water Quality certification authorities under CWA begin commercial operation, EPA because EPA has evaluated these Section 401 or under stand-alone state expects that it would evaluate the Guidelines and found them to be authorities to impose additional, state- ballasting configuration to determine if consistent with the applicable specific requirements that would apply the vessel meets the statutory requirements of the SDWA. Canada’s to commercial vessels operating within description, in which case it would be drinking water treatment processes

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:58 Oct 23, 2020 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00017 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\26OCP2.SGM 26OCP2 67834 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 207 / Monday, October 26, 2020 / Proposed Rules

require a high degree of disinfection water from being discharged. Any such The proposed BMPs are described and, in many cases filtration, which discharge not meeting this requirement below. would make the likelihood of loading would be expected to meet the A. Clean Ballast Tanks Regularly ANS into a vessel’s ballast tank highly discharge standards in the proposed unlikely. Further, as under existing rule. As required under the VGP and USCG requirements, EPA proposes that this regulations, the proposed rule would exclusion applies only if the ballast iii. Exclusion Not Continued From require ballast tanks to be flushed tanks have either been previously Existing USCG Regulations for Crude regularly and cleaned thoroughly at cleaned (including removing all residual Oil Tankers every scheduled drydock to remove sediments) and not subsequently loaded Crude oil tankers engaged in sediment and biofouling organisms. with ambient water; or, if the ambient coastwise trade are excluded from the Residual sediment left in ballast tanks water has never been introduced to the existing USCG regulation (33 CFR can negatively affect the ability of a ballast tanks and supply lines. Note that 151.2015(b)), consistent with Section vessel to meet discharge standards, even EPA considered whether use of a 1101(c)(2)(L) of the National Invasive when a ballast water management potable water generator installed Species Act of 1996 (16 U.S.C. 4711). system (BWMS) is properly operated onboard the vessel should be covered However, these same vessels are not and maintained. Such sediments may under this exclusion; however, pursuant excluded from meeting the ballast water pose a risk of spreading ANS as to CWA Section 312(p), this exclusion is requirements in the VGP and are not organisms can survive in ballast only available to ballast water that is exempted under the VIDA. Therefore, sediment for prolonged periods of time taken onboard from a public or pursuant to CWA Section in resting stages. commercial source that is compliant 312(p)(4)(B)(iii), which requires this B. Use High Sea Suction with SDWA requirements at the time it proposed rule to be at least as stringent Consistent with EPA requirements is taken aboard the vessel (U.S. EPA, than specified parts of the VGP, EPA under the VGP, the proposed rule would 2015). proposes that crude oil tankers engaged require that, when practicable and in coastwise trade not be excluded from D. Vessels Carrying All Permanent available, high sea suction sea chests meeting the ballast water requirements Ballast Water in Sealed Tanks must be used when at a port or where set forth in the proposed rule. Such The proposed rule would exclude clearance to the bottom of the vessels are not inherently unable to discharges of ballast water from a vessel waterbody is less than 5 meters to the perform ballast water exchanges and that carries all permanent ballast water lower edge of the sea chest. As an other ANS management practices that in sealed tanks that are not subject to example of when use of high sea suction their currently non-exempt counterparts discharge. This exclusion is consistent may not be practicable is to avoid ice or routinely carry out. EPA expects this with the previous requirements of the algae, or other biofilm on the water proposal to impose no additional costs VGP and was specified by Congress surface. This BMP minimizes the given that the requirements are under the VIDA. potential for uptake of bottom-dwelling presently in effect under the VGP. This exclusion is different from the organisms, suspended solids, particulate proposed ballast water exchange and iv. Ballast Water Best Management organic carbon, and turbidity into the saltwater flushing exemptions Practices (BMPs) ballast tanks. (described in VIII.B.1.ix. Ballast Water Exchange and Saltwater Flushing) for Pursuant to CWA Section C. Use Ballast Water Pumps When in a ballast contained in sealed tanks, which 312(p)(4)(B)(ii), EPA is proposing BMPs Port EPA proposes to be for ballast tanks that to control or abate ballast water As previously required under the are not permanently sealed. discharges from all vessels equipped VGP, the proposed rule would require with ballast tanks. Following the that when practicable, ballast water E. Vessels Discharging Ballast Water requirement of the VIDA that EPA must be discharged in port using pumps Into a Reception Facility requirements must not be less stringent rather than using gravity to drain tanks. The proposed rule would exclude than the VGP unless a less stringent This BMP has been shown to increase discharges of ballast water from a vessel requirement is justified, EPA proposes the mortality rate of living organisms in that only discharges ballast water into a to retain many of the BMPs in the VGP the ballast water during discharge, reception facility (which could include as they were designed to reduce the particularly zooplankton and other another vessel for the purpose of storing number of living organisms taken up larger organisms, that would otherwise or treating that ballast water). This and discharged in ballast water. At be discharged, given the physical action exclusion would carry forward the present, these BMPs are widely of the pumps (e.g., cavitation, existing VGP requirements and USCG followed and implemented, thus entrainment, and/or impingement). regulation (33 CFR 151.2025) that allow technologically available and discharges to a reception facility as an economically achievable. They have no D. Maintain Sea Chest Screens eligible ballast water management unacceptable non-water quality The proposed rule would require that method. In such instances, once the environmental impacts (e.g., energy the sea chest screen(s) must be ballast water is offloaded to a reception requirements, air impacts, solid waste maintained and fully intact. This BMP facility, that ballast water would be impacts, and changes in waters use). is consistent with an EPA requirement subject to regulation if discharged from They are proposed to be carried forward under the VGP for existing bulk carriers that facility. Consistent with the from both the existing EPA operating exclusively in the Laurentian rationale provided in the VGP fact sheet, requirements in the VGP and USCG Great Lakes, also known as ‘‘Lakers,’’ EPA would continue to expect that all regulations (33 CFR part 151 subpart D). but EPA proposes to expand it to all vessel piping and supporting Discussion of BMPs not proposed to be vessels with ballast tanks. These screens infrastructure up to the last manifold or carried forward from the VGP and USCG are designed to keep the largest living valve immediately before the reception regulations is included in VIII.B.1.iv.H. organisms, such as fish, as well as facility manifold connection, or similar Best Management Practices Not bacteria and viruses associated with appurtenance, prevent untreated ballast Continued from Existing Requirements. these organisms, out of ballast tanks.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:58 Oct 23, 2020 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00018 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\26OCP2.SGM 26OCP2 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 207 / Monday, October 26, 2020 / Proposed Rules 67835

This BMP may reduce the risk of ballast water management plan (BWMP) order as provided for in CWA Section spreading ANS. Adequately maintaining to minimize the potential for the 312(p)(7)(A)(i). The emergency order sea chest screens is a simple technology- introduction and spread of ANS. Such provision in the VIDA acknowledges based practice that is available, a BWMP should employ a holistic that when a water quality or invasive economically achievable, and beneficial strategy that considers the operational species issue is identified in a to all vessels to reduce the threat of ANS profile of the vessel and the appropriate geographic area, EPA will identify dispersal. ballast water management practices and appropriate BMPs to address that concern and impose specific E. Prohibit Ballast Tank Cleaning systems. Details of such a plan will be requirements on the universe of vessels Discharges detailed in the corresponding implementation regulation to be (and potentially others) as necessary. 33 As described above, the proposed rule promulgated by the Secretary as U.S.C. 1322(p)(4)(E)(i). would require ballast tanks to be specified in section 139.1(e) of the v. Numeric Ballast Water Discharge periodically flushed and cleaned to proposed rule. remove sediment and biofouling Standard organisms; however, the proposed rule H. Best Management Practices Not Pursuant to CWA Section also would prohibit the discharge of Continued From Existing Requirements 312(p)(4)(B)(iii), the proposed rule residual sediment or water from ballast The proposed rule would not include would continue, as a numeric discharge tank cleanings. Rather, these wastes one BMP that is currently included as standard, the numeric discharge should be disposed of in accordance a measure in both the VGP and USCG limitations previously contained in the with any applicable local, state, and regulations at 33 CFR part 151 subparts VGP, to include: federal regulations, which are outside of C and D. These practices were adopted • For organisms greater than or equal the scope of this proposed rule. from the voluntary ‘‘Code of Best to 50 micrometers in minimum F. Avoid Ballast Water Discharge or Practices for Ballast Water dimension: Discharge must include less Uptake in Areas With Coral Reefs Management’’ of the Shipping than 10 living organisms per cubic Federation of Canada dated September meter of ballast water. The proposed rule would require 28, 2000, for vessels operating in the • For organisms less than 50 vessel owners and operators to avoid the Great Lakes and St. Lawrence Seaway micrometers and greater than or equal to discharge or uptake of ballast water in and codified in the VGP and USCG 10 micrometers: Discharge must include areas with coral reefs. This BMP is regulations (Shipping Federal of less than 10 living organisms per consistent with the VGP requirements. Canada, 2000). milliliter (mL) of ballast water. The VGP also included similar EPA proposes not to continue the • Indicator microorganisms must not prohibitions for ‘‘marine sanctuaries, requirement that vessel operators must exceed: marine preserves, marine parks, . . . or minimize or avoid uptake of ballast Æ Toxicogenic Vibrio cholerae other waters’’ listed in Appendix G. The water in the following areas and (serotypes O1 and O139): A proposed rule also would prohibit the situations: concentration of less than 1 colony discharge and uptake of ballast water in • Areas known to have infestations or forming unit (cfu) per 100 mL. those areas but under a separate section populations of harmful organisms and Æ Escherichia coli: A concentration of of the proposed rule specific to pathogens (e.g., toxic algal blooms); • less than 250 cfu per 100 mL. activities in federally-protected waters Areas near sewage outfalls; Æ as described in VIII.B.1.xiii. Additional • Areas near dredging operations; Intestinal enterococci: A Considerations in Federally-Protected • Areas where tidal flushing is known concentration of less than 100 cfu per Waters. to be poor or times when a tidal stream 100 mL. Further, consistent with a USCG is known to be turbid; The proposed rule would define Marine Safety Information Bulletin • In darkness, when bottom-dwelling ‘‘living’’ using the CWA Section (Ballast Water Best Management organisms may rise in the water column 312(p)(6)(D) clarification that the terms Practices to Reduce the Likelihood of • Where propellers may stir up the ‘live’ and ‘living’ shall not include an Transporting Pathogens That May sediment; and organism that has been rendered Spread Stony Coral Tissue Loss Disease; • Areas with pods of whales, nonviable; or preclude the consideration Marine Safety Information Bulletin, convergence zones, and boundaries of of any method of measuring the OES–MSIB Number: 07–19, September major currents. concentration of organisms in ballast 6, 2019), ballast water discharges should The proposed deletion is based on the water that are capable of reproduction. be conducted as far from coral reefs as finding that such measures are not However, it is important to recognize possible, regardless of whether the reef practical to implement. These that as of the time of the proposed rule, is inside or outside of 12 NM from shore conditions are usually beyond the the USCG has not identified any testing (USCG, 2019a). control of the vessel operator during the protocols, based on best available EPA is seeking input for the uptake and discharge of ballast water science, that are available for use to development of the final rule regarding: and thus it is not an available measure quantify nonviable organisms in ballast (1) How best to define areas with coral or practice to minimize or avoid uptake water. As such, compliance with the reefs, and (2) public availability of of ballast water in those areas and proposed discharge standard requires navigational charts that can be used for situations. 33 U.S.C. 1314(b)(2)(B). In the use of test methods as detailed in identifying areas with coral reefs. lieu of these measures, the VIDA and the 2010 EPA Generic Protocol for the the proposed rule contain several Verification of Ballast Water Treatment G. Develop a Ballast Water Management provisions that can help address some Technology that do not consider non- Plan of the situations identified above. For viable organisms as part of the test Like the previous requirements of the example, in cases of a known outbreak protocol. Should the USCG identify one VGP and the USCG regulations, the of harmful algal blooms or viral or more testing protocols that enumerate proposed rule would require that any hemorrhagic septicemia, a state can nonviable organisms, such methods vessel with one or more ballast tanks submit a petition to EPA or the USCG would be acceptable for demonstrating develop and follow a vessel-specific requesting EPA to issue an emergency compliance with the proposed numeric

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:58 Oct 23, 2020 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00019 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\26OCP2.SGM 26OCP2 67836 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 207 / Monday, October 26, 2020 / Proposed Rules

ballast water discharge standard (U.S. ozonation, heat and deoxygenation. present for stationary facilities for EPA, 2010). Disinfection using UV radiation is which EPA routinely establishes In addition, the proposed rule would currently the most common disinfection national discharge effluent limitations continue the numeric discharge technology used in BWMS and is guidelines and standards based on BAT limitations as a numeric standard for typically combined with filtration under the effluent limitation guidelines four biocide parameters contained in the during ballasting. The UV light is program. Importantly, it is impractical VGP, namely: emitted from a mercury arc lamp, and to conduct routine monitoring and • For any BWMS using chlorine the rays transfer electromagnetic energy analysis of the discharged ballast water dioxide, the chlorine dioxide must not through the organism’s cell membrane from vessels to assess the ability of an exceed 200 mg/L; to chemically alter DNA in its nucleus installed BWMS onboard a ship to meet • For any BWMS using chlorine or which kills the organism or terminates the numerical discharge standard for ozone, the total residual oxidizers must its ability to reproduce. A UV-based biological parameters. Rather, the not exceed 100 mg/L; and BWMS often includes a second round of biological efficacy of any BWMS is best • For any BWMS using peracetic UV treatment when deballasting. demonstrated through a series of land- acid, the peracetic acid must not exceed Electrochlorination (or electrolysis) based and shipboard trials performed 500 mg/L and the hydrogen peroxide systems are the second most common specific to each BWMS. Such a system, must not exceed 1,000 mg/L. type of disinfection system used to treat when selected, installed, and operated The standard for both the organisms ballast water. Electrochlorination consistent with the manufacturer’s and biocide parameters represents creates hypochlorous acid, the active specifications, as tested in those land- instantaneous maximum values not to substance, by running an electric based and shipboard trials, and ‘‘type- be exceeded. current through saltwater. The two approved’’ by an Administration (i.e., The proposed rule would continue primary requirements for treatment are the federal agency responsible for the requirement contained in the VGP a minimum salinity in the ambient approvals) is then expected to meet the and USCG regulations at 33 CFR part water for the reaction to occur and a discharge standard for biological 151 that, prior to the compliance date power source with direct current to run parameters in the proposed rule. for the vessel to meet the discharge the electrolyzer. Two design options for The BWMS type-approval process standard, ballast water exchange must electrochlorination systems are used in was first developed as part of the IMO be conducted as required in section BWMS: In-line and side-stream International Convention for the Control 139.10(e) of the proposed rule, or the treatment. Both systems undergo the and Management of Ships’ Ballast Water applicable regional requirements in same chemical reaction in an and Sediments (i.e., the BWM sections 139.10(f) and 139.10(g) of the electrolyzer but vary in the Convention), an international treaty proposed rule, for any vessel subject to concentrations of active substance developed with a goal of establishing an the ballast water discharge standard. As created and in the volume of water international standard for the directed in the VIDA, the USCG will dosed. Chemical addition (e.g., liquid management of ballast water (IMO, include requirements regarding sodium hypochlorite), ozonation, and 2004). The BWM Convention was compliance dates in its proposed deoxygenation are other types of ballast adopted in 2004 after more than 14 regulation. 33 U.S.C. 1322(p)(5)(A)(iv). water disinfection technologies that years of complex negotiations between have been developed and type- IMO member states and entered into A. BAT Rationale for Standard Pursuant approved; although, use of these force in 2017, 12 months after to VIDA systems is far less common than UV and ratification of the BWM Convention by 1. Types of Ballast Water Management electrochlorination systems. a minimum of 30 member states, Systems Determined To Represent BAT Neutralization is the addition of a representing at least 35 percent of world merchant shipping tonnage. Regulation The treatment technologies used for neutralizing agent that reacts with D–2 of that BWM Convention ballast water management representing excess disinfection chemicals to established the ballast water discharge BAT typically have three processes: eliminate their toxicity at discharge. performance standard as follows: Physical separation, disinfection, and Neutralization is an important step in • Organisms greater than or equal to neutralization. For physical separation, chemical ballast water treatment to 50 micrometers in minimum filtration is used most often as a pre- avoid excess chemicals, residual dimension—less than 10 viable treatment by removing large organisms oxidizers, and disinfection by-products organisms per cubic meter; and particles (down to about 40–50 mm) from entering and impairing the water at • the point of discharge. As required in Organisms less than 50 micrometers from ballast water. Filtration improves in minimum dimension and greater than the efficiency of subsequent disinfection the 2013 VGP, the proposed rule includes a numeric standard for residual or equal to 10 micrometers in minimum processes by lowering the amount of dimension—less than 10 viable chemicals or ultraviolet (UV) light biocides which can be met through neutralization of treated ballast water. organisms per milliliter; needed. Filtration is also important for • Indicator microbes: chemical disinfection because 2. Justification for the Numeric Ballast Æ Toxicogenic Vibrio cholerae (O1 chemicals are relatively ineffective Water Discharge Standard and O139): Less than 1 colony forming against organisms buried in sediment, i. Type-Approval of Ballast Water unit (cfu) per 100 milliliters or less than especially invertebrates in resting stages 1 cfu per gram (wet weight) zooplankton (U.S. EPA, 2011a). Management Systems is a Well- Established and Demonstrated Process samples; Disinfection is the effect of a chemical Æ Escherichia coli: Less than 250 cfu for Selection of Technologies (e.g., an oxidant) or physical action (e.g., per 100 milliliters; and UV irradiation, heat, shear force, etc) As a preliminary matter, EPA notes Æ Intestinal enterococci: Less than that kills organisms or renders them no that the establishment of a ballast water 100 cfu per 100 milliliters. longer able to reproduce. The types of discharge standard for vessels (both Regulation D–3 requires that any disinfection processes of a BWMS domestic and international) using BWMS used to meet the standard be broadly includes UV radiation, technology based criteria pursuant to approved in accordance with specific electrochlorination, chemical addition, the CWA poses challenges that are not IMO procedures, which had initially

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:58 Oct 23, 2020 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00020 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\26OCP2.SGM 26OCP2 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 207 / Monday, October 26, 2020 / Proposed Rules 67837

been adopted as guidelines (Guidelines with the ballast water discharge that any installed BWMS is operated for Approval of Ballast Water standard. and maintained consistent with the Management Systems, or more Type-approval is a critical step in criteria under which that system commonly referred to as ‘‘G8’’ for being verifying that a BWMS, when tested received USCG type-approval, the eighth in a series of BWM under standardized and relatively acknowledging that discharges are Convention guidelines) but challenging conditions, is capable of required to meet the discharge standard subsequently adopted into the BWM consistently meeting the discharge as well. Convention as mandatory (IMO, 2008; standard. In the USCG type-approval The proposed ballast water discharge IMO, 2016). The approval process testing process to determine biological standard reflects EPA’s BAT analysis includes detailed requirements for efficacy, careful analyses are employed that any USCG type-approved BWMS BWMS vendors to submit BWMS for to (1) assure the source water for testing kill, render harmless, or remove living both land-based and shipboard testing meets a threshold concentration of organisms from ballast water. These by independent third-party test facilities organisms to meaningfully challenge the approved technologies have been BWMS, and (2) to quantify (ideally, demonstrated to achieve the existing to demonstrate that the BWMS can meet sparse) concentrations of living requirements, and therefore are the D–2 standard following technical organisms in treated and untreated (i.e., technologically available; for the specifications detailed in the Code for control) discharge water. As part of its reasons set out in the 2013 VGP Fact Approval of Ballast Water Management type-approval procedure, the USCG Sheet, they are also economically Systems (BWMS Code, Resolution regulations require BWMS land-based achievable and have no unacceptable MEPC.300(72; 13 April 2018, effective testing to be conducted pursuant to the non-water quality environmental October 13, 2019) (IMO, 2018a). Upon a ETV Protocol (i.e., the 2010 Generic impacts. The USCG type-approved its successful demonstration that a BWMS Protocol for the Verification of Ballast first BWMS in 2016 and to date, more can meet the D–2 standard, such a Water Treatment Technology, than two dozen systems have received system is approved (‘‘type-approved’’) developed under the now defunct EPA USCG type-approval (USCG, 2019). for use onboard a ship. Adoption of the Environmental Technology Verification ii. International Nature of Vessel BWM Convention in 2004 prompted Program) that outlined the experimental Operations Dictates Consideration of development of ballast water design, sampling and analysis protocols, IMO Discharge Standard management systems (BWMS) that test, and reporting requirements (U.S. could demonstrate compliance with the EPA, 2010). When developing the VGP, EPA D–2 standard. In this approach, unlike The USCG type-approval process established the numeric ballast water how EPA develops effluent limitations contrasts with the typical approach effluent limits equivalent to the guidelines and standards based on when EPA develops a numeric standard in the USCG regulations (33 demonstrated treatment system discharge effluent limitations guideline CFR 151.1511 and 151.2030) and effectiveness, the BWM Convention or standard under the effluent limitation generally consistent with the BWM establishes a standard, then vendors guidelines program. There, EPA does Convention. In establishing those develop systems to be demonstrated and not also specify the technology that effluent limits, EPA demonstrated it was approved as meeting that standard. As must be used; rather, EPA identifies one critical to consider that BWM of October 2019, the IMO recognizes 80 or more technologies that have been Convention. As described above, the BWMS approved by one or more demonstrated as being capable of United States is not a party to the BWM administrations as capable of meeting meeting the discharge standard and the Convention; however, both the USCG the D–2 standard (IMO, 2019). discharger selects one of those (serving as the lead for the U.S. technologies. EPA typically establishes delegation) and EPA were actively While the United States is not party numeric effluent discharge limits based involved in the standard setting to the BWM Convention, the USCG on a daily maximum and long-term (i.e., discussions that led to the BWM developed domestic regulations with monthly) average to reflect pollution Convention numeric discharge standard the intent to harmonize as closely as control that reflects BAT, including which entered into force in September possible with the adopted BWM accounting for variability at well- 2017. Worldwide, it is estimated that Convention, and established a discharge operated systems. Compliance with approximately 34,000–70,000 standard to be met using a BWMS that such effluent limits is demonstrated commercial vessels are required to meet has been demonstrated as capable of through routine self-monitoring by the a ballast water discharge standard (IMO, meeting that standard through a USCG discharger. Because of the challenges 2016a; King and Hagan, 2013). Vessels type-approval process. Criteria for the with collecting and testing from IMO member countries that have USCG type-approval are detailed in representative samples of ballast water signed onto the BWM Convention are regulations at 46 CFR 162.060, Ballast at the time of discharge, regulating required to comply with both the BWM Water Management Systems and discharged ballast water sourced from Convention and U.S. ballast water address BWMS design, installation, around the world has required a regulations when operating in U.S. operation, and testing to ensure any different approach. Namely, EPA waters. Similarly, U.S.-flagged vessels type-approved system meets both adopted the USCG and IMO approach must meet the BWM Convention performance and safety standards. The over the last decade by not only setting requirements when operating in any USCG type-approval testing the numeric discharge limitations, but countries that are a signatory of that requirements were widely accepted as also specifying the technologies deemed BWM Convention (e.g., a U.S.-flagged having been more complex and rigorous to meet the limitations through the type- vessel will be required to comply with than those of the IMO (although this is approval process. Currently, for vessels Canadian regulations developed not necessarily still the case since operating in waters of the United States pursuant to the BWM Convention when adoption of the BWMS Code). The and contiguous zones, compliance with in Canadian waters). USCG regulations provide for temporary the key biological parameters (i.e., Based on the most recent five years of use of foreign type-approved BWMS in organisms in the 10–50 microns and VGP annual reports submitted to EPA, the United States for up to five years greater than 50 microns ranges) is over 75 percent of vessels discharging after the vessel is required to comply achieved largely through demonstrating ballast water spent 25 percent or less of

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:58 Oct 23, 2020 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00021 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\26OCP2.SGM 26OCP2 67838 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 207 / Monday, October 26, 2020 / Proposed Rules

their time (and nearly 60 percent of shipboard technologies capable of that their use is economically those vessels that discharged ballast surpassing the international standard achievable. These technologies have water spent less than 10 percent of their and that EPA failed to demonstrate why been shown (i.e., through shipboard time) operating in waters of the United limits based on these technologies were type approval testing) to substantially States or waters of the contiguous zone not considered. The information cited reduce the concentration of living (U.S. EPA, 2020). As of October 31, by the court is the 2011 Science organisms in ballast water discharges 2019, 81 IMO member countries Advisory Board (SAB) report that (and achieve the IMO and USCG/EPA representing more than 80 percent of the showed that nine BWMS representing discharge standards) compared to mid- world merchant fleet by tonnage have five types of systems had data generated ocean exchange or discharges of ratified the BWM Convention, thus during their IMO type-approval testing unexchanged ballast water. requiring vessels either flying the flag of demonstrating that these systems can iii. Proposed Standard Accounts for those countries or operating in those meet a standard between the IMO/USCG Multiple Sources of Variability countries to comply with that BWM standard and 10 times the standard for Convention (IMO, 2020). Thus, vessels one or more organism sizes (U.S. EPA, The proposed standard successfully comprising 80 percent of the world 2011b). accounts for various sources of merchant fleet by tonnage are obligated Establishing a discharge standard variability inherent in addressing ANS to comply with the BWM Convention necessarily based on the most stringent in ballast water, including: anywhere they operate in the world, of type-approved systems, as implied by • Vessel size, operational profile (e.g., including while operating in the United the court’s decision, is not required voyage lengths, volumes of ballast States. The movement of vessels where mitigated by one of the factors water, ballast water flow rates, etc.) and through international waters, the need relevant to BAT under CWA Section class and flag state; to comply with any international 304(b), therefore EPA does not believe • Ballast water management system pollution control standard, and the great the Second Circuit’s decision must (BWMS) performance in diverse variability in source water quality dictate the outcome of the agency’s environments; and among all the ports where vessels analysis. As discussed above, the BAT • Discharge monitoring (i.e., sampling operate presents process and factors, particularly with respect to and analysis). engineering challenges that are unique process considerations and engineering This variability in addressing ANS to the vessel community. This is challenges, weigh in favor of dictates that different BWMS options particularly true of BWMS where the maintaining the proposed ballast water are needed to account for differences in standard at a level of consistency with physical scale of such systems relative vessels such as different voyage patterns the IMO standard. This is not to say that to the vessels themselves often makes it (in marine, brackish, or fresh waters), U.S. requirements must or should impossible to accommodate redundant ballasting rates, architectural always be identical with the systems or potentially even two characteristics of the vessel such as international standard. However, different systems to be used depending space constraints or the need to locate particularly for ballast water discharges, on where the vessel may be ballasting. the BWMS in a hazardous location which are frequently significant in scale These practical challenges relate to the onboard the vessel, and BWMS vendor and expensive to control and which are technical availability of such support availability at locations around intrinsic to the long-distance movement requirements where the relationship the world where that vessel intends to of vessels through international waters, between U.S. and other international EPA places value on being consistent voyage. That is, a BWMS that is requirements may limit the ability of the with international obligations, when technically and operationally vessel to select and install technologies reasonably possible, in establishing appropriate for one vessel may not be so capable of complying with multiple sets BAT. Here, it is neither reasonable nor appropriate for a different vessel, or of requirements where that vessel is appropriate for the universe of vessels even a similar vessel with a different intending to voyage. With that in mind, that would be regulated under the operating profile. EPA analysis for the it is important that EPA considers the proposed ballast water discharge proposed rule is based on a similar implications for the entire universe of standard to not consider the determination that a wide range of vessels that may operate in waters of the international obligations for those available systems is necessary to U.S. and waters of the contiguous zone. vessels. The current world economic accommodate technical and operational So, while the U.S. requirements do not and trade system is predicated on timely differences of varying vessel types, have to be identical to the BWM and efficient maritime transportation, a sizes, operating profiles, classes and flag Convention, it is important that, to the significant proportion of which operates states. The existing discharge standard extent possible, U.S. requirements do globally where trade takes it. Many of has promoted through the type-approval not conflict with international the vessels that are subject to the U.S. process a range of types of BWMS obligations for the vessels of flag states discharge standard spend most of their disinfection technologies (including UV, that have signed onto that BWM time outside of waters of the United electrochlorination, chemical addition, Convention. States and waters of the contiguous ozonation, and deoxygenation) that In 2015, in Nat. Res. Def. Council, et zone, are operating under international operate under a wide range of al. v. U.S. Envtl. Prot. Agency, et al., 808 ballast water obligations, which for the conditions allowing vessel operators to F.3d 556 (2d Cir. 2015), the United most part is the IMO standard select a system that is most appropriate States Court of Appeals for the Second established in the BWM Convention. for that vessel, considering factors such Circuit found, among other things, that The record for this proposed as: EPA acted arbitrarily and capriciously rulemaking demonstrates that the • The vessel’s ballast tank(s), in the 2013 VGP because EPA failed to proposed standard reflects BAT in that pump(s), and piping configuration; address why it did not select the current technology, USCG type- • Temperature, salinity, and turbidity technologies that could have resulted in approved BWMS, are technologically range of uptake water in areas where the a more stringent limitation than the available, safe, effective, reliable, and vessel voyages; technologies underlying the IMO commercially available for shipboard • Duration of voyages and segments Standard. The court stated that there are installation. Also, the record indicates of each voyage that can affect the

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:58 Oct 23, 2020 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00022 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\26OCP2.SGM 26OCP2 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 207 / Monday, October 26, 2020 / Proposed Rules 67839

necessary holding time for certain See also Chemical Mfrs. Ass’n v. EPA, considerations that may impact type- systems; 870 F.2d 177, 229 (5th Cir. 1989), where approval testing. It is also a challenge to • Ballast water capacity and required it is upheld that the purpose of these capture and count appropriately sized uptake and discharge pumping rates; variability factors is to account for organisms and to collect samples such • Treatment system weight and space routine fluctuations that occur in plant that the sample collection process does considerations, including accessibility operation, not to allow poor not physically damage or kill these and acceptability for use in hazardous performance. As is typically the case in organisms (which should be counted as spaces; the effluent guidelines program, dead or nonviable only if such happens • Availability of service, support, operators design pollution control as a result of the BWMS, not because of replacement parts, supplies, etc. in areas systems to achieve results below the poor sample collection and handling where the vessel voyages; discharge standard on a long-term basis practices). Currently, the ETV Protocol • Compatibility of treatment with to account for normal variability at well- is an EPA and USCG accepted method vessel construction (e.g., corrosivity operated systems. to evaluate the performance concerns); The goal of the USCG type-approval • characteristics of commercial-ready Power demand and energy process is to demonstrate that a BWMS BWMS regarding factors such as consumption to pump ballast and can treat ballast water such that biological treatment performance, operate treatment system; and • organism concentrations in discharged predictability/reliability, cost, Safety concerns (e.g., explosivity water are sufficiently low to meet the environmental acceptability, and safety. risks, particularly on oil and chemical discharge standard (e.g., less than 10 Based on the ETV Protocol, the carriers). organisms per cubic meter of ballast determination of the concentration of Certain systems may be more water as an instantaneous maximum) for living organisms in treated water is advantageous for certain types of a given number of consecutive valid done through manual microscope vessels. For example, the choice of tests. The individual test results are counts by trained microscopists. many shipowners may be limited to UV reflective of the conditions of the water The sources of uncertainty are systems as compared to chemical-based quality at the land-based and ship-based systematic error, which is the loss of systems for those vessels that operate in testing facility at the time. The type- organisms during sampling and ports around the world that ban or approval process acknowledges that processing, which can be substantial, impose very low discharge limits on there will be variability in how systems and random error, which is the certain hazardous chemicals (i.e., are tested but establishes an difference in organism counts among treatment chemicals) used by certain instantaneous maximum value to verify analysts and among replicate BWMS. In addition, it may be difficult BWMS performance using a set of subsamples, as well as variability across or impossible for a vessel operator to challenging, but not rare, water quality measurements of sample volumes. obtain specific chemicals for certain conditions representative of the natural Counting organisms within a size class BWMS in certain ports around the environment. Comparing type-approval under a microscope is also challenging. world. Similarly, a vessel owner may data for different systems would only be For one, it is difficult to evaluate and choose a chemical-based system because appropriate if all other variables were count dormant or immotile organisms. they do not have the electrical held constant or under complete control Also, organisms can have a wide variety generation capacity (or room to add during the test. However, that is not the of shapes making it difficult to assign to such capacity) onboard to support a UV case. For example, as required in the a size class. For example, phytoplankton system. Shipowners’ decisions may also USCG type-approval process, shipboard (organisms in the 10–50 micron size be based on the ease of operational and testing occurs on systems for a period of class) may be combined in chains or maintenance requirements. As such, it six months in the locations where that radially and may be either symmetrical is critical that a range of BWMS be vessel voyages during that time period, or asymmetrical. Also, sizing generally available to the global shipping industry regardless of where else that vessel has is to be based on the minimum diameter to reduce ANS discharge under a variety voyaged or plans to voyage in the future. of width of the cell except for things of operational and environmental As such, the test results illustrate that such as spikes, hair, or appendages. The conditions. BWMS manufacturers are having Second Circuit recognized and upheld Variability is inherent to all well- systems tested in a variety of an EPA rule that considers the margin operated treatment systems. When EPA environmental conditions and locations of error inherent in measuring aquatic establishes BAT, it must consider the around the world, all with the goal of organisms to allow for a standard that is variability at a well-operated treatment demonstrating that the BWMS can not equivalent to also represent the system to ensure that the standard is consistently meet, not necessarily same level of control. See for example, technologically available. EPA’s exceed, the IMO discharge standard. Riverkeeper, Inc. v. U.S. Envtl. Prot. approach to providing for some Demonstrating a system can achieve this Agency, 358 F.3d 174, 188–89 (2d Cir. variability for well-operated systems in discharge standard regardless of the 2004) upholding EPA’s Track II establishing BAT limits in effluent environmental factors is the standard by requirements allowing for ‘‘substantially limitations guidelines rulemakings has which the USCG evaluates these similar’’ reductions in impingement and been upheld by the courts several times. systems. [46 CFR 162.060–10(f)(2)]. To entrainment at new facility cooling See for example, Nat’l Wildlife Fed’n v. do otherwise is to unfairly favor systems water intake structures as not a less U.S. Envtl. Prot. Agency, 286 F.3d 554, that may have had more favorable test stringent standard but the same 572 (D.C. Cir. 2002), which upheld conditions. standard accounting for the EPA’s decision to set the monthly Multiple sources of variability exist in measurement margin of error when average at the 95th percentile by stating type-approval sampling and analysis measuring in the natural environment. that EPA has considerable discretion in that also affects the results of type- In the case of ballast water, the determining a technical approach that approval testing. For example, operators experience even greater will ensure that the effluent limitations stratification in ballast tanks, variability variability than would exist at a reasonably account for the expected between tanks, flow rates, and shoreside facility subject to a typical variability in plant operations while still contamination in uptake and discharge effluent guideline because, rather than maintaining an effective level of control. pipes are just a few of the the numeric discharge standard being a

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:58 Oct 23, 2020 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00023 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\26OCP2.SGM 26OCP2 67840 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 207 / Monday, October 26, 2020 / Proposed Rules

long-term or monthly average, that of ballast water for the two organism adopted in 2005 and revised in 2008 standard is based on an instantaneous size classes reflects BAT and the current (IMO, 2008). The SAB panel, in maximum standard, never to be technology basis, use of a USCG type- response to Charge Question 1, exceeded, which is the unit of time approved BWMS, effectively removes concluded that the BWMS tested under selected for compliance monitoring ANS from ballast water. The Golden the IMO ‘‘will likely meet USCG Phase because of the challenges associated Bear Research Center at the California I standards.’’ In fact, after the SAB with monitoring, despite varying State University Maritime Academy, a report, the USCG found that not to be turbidity, salinity, temperatures and university-government-industry the case. Further, every vendor with a other environmental factors. Vessel partnership that provides shipboard BWMS requesting USCG type-approval owners may have to modify vessel testing of commercial ballast water has had to undergo a new round of operations to ensure ballast water treatment technologies, recently found testing to demonstrate system treatment requirements do not exceed BWMS that meet the proposed standard performance to the satisfaction of the the limitations of the BWMS. BWMS to be highly efficient, achieving several USCG. The IMO has since updated, and manufacturers must account for these log reductions in pollutant loadings. In codified, new type approval test two conflicting challenges—continuous 2018, the Center compiled over 100 requirements (IMO, 2018a) that entered compliance and inherent variability—in side-by-side comparisons of the into effect in 2019 and address many of their system design and operation. concentrations of ‘‘living’’ organisms the quality issues that limited the Vendors accomplish this by (1) pumped into their test facility during reliability of the IMO type-approval data designing their systems to achieve long- both land-based and shipboard tests in for evaluating BWMS performance. term average discharge concentrations relation to the final discharge Second, although the SAB panel that are lower than the numeric concentration of living organisms after determined that nine BWMS discharge standard, and (2) adequately ballast treatment. The order of representing five BWMS categories had controlling for variation in BWMS magnitude of reduction of organisms reliable data, they did not fully assess performance. Designing a system to ranged from 1,000 to over 1,000,000 data quality. Instead, the SAB panel meet an instantaneous maximum times; more than half of the made a critical assumption that all requires even a higher level of control comparisons fell in the range 100,000 to protocols and methods were followed than that necessary to meet a daily 1,000,000 times, or, using the exactly as described, regardless of the maximum. Designing and operating terminology of food and drinking water presence or absence of Quality BWMS to consistently achieve levels management, a 5-log to 6-log reduction Assurance/Quality Control (QA/QC) close to the numeric discharge standard in targeted organisms (in the log10 procedures and documentation. is poor practice because even relatively scale). In fact, the actual reduction is Therefore, any use of the findings of the slight variability would result in a high likely larger because the data were SAB panel must consider this lack of rate of non-compliance with the conservatively calculated using fixed quality assessment. While the USCG instantaneous maximum numeric minimum detection levels in treated does accept IMO data packages for its discharge standard (and would not pass water even when no live organisms Alternate Management System (AMS) the USCG type-approval testing were observed at all. This evaluation program, importantly, the requirements process). This partially explains why demonstrates that type-approved BWMS for the USCG BWMS type-approval some of the test results described by the that are designed to meet the proposed testing require a different type of testing and a higher level of QA/QC than that Second Circuit Court decision on the standard are highly efficient, achieving required by the IMO until the recent VGP were lower than the current several log reductions in pollutant entry into effect of the BWMS Code. standard. Nat. Res. Def. Council v. U.S. loadings. This level of organism Envtl. Prot. Agency, 808 F.3d 566, 570 As part of the analysis for the reduction approaches and even exceeds proposed rule, EPA conducted an n.11 (2d Cir. 2015). EPA recognizes that the stringency required in drinking variability in performance around the independent review of BWMS water testing and food management performance and data quality. EPA long-term average occurs during normal practices (Golden Bear, 2018). operations, and that at times even well- developed a rating system to provide an operated BWMS will discharge at a level 3. Available Information Does Not objective method for determining that is higher than the long-term average Justify a More Stringent Discharge whether available performance data are performance. Standard of acceptable quality for development of the proposed standard. EPA found that i. Data Quality of IMO BWMS Type- iv. Proposed Standard Provides a High most of the IMO data packages lacked Approval Data Are Inadequate for BAT Level of Pollutant Reduction information on test-specific Quality Evaluation The record demonstrates that the Management Plans, Quality Assurance proposed standard reflects BAT in that EPA carefully considered the IMO Project Plans, and individual test the current technology, USCG type- BWMS test data in the 2011 SAB report results. Average data results were approved BWMS, are technologically that the Second Circuit Court referenced frequently submitted without specific available, safe, effective, reliable, and in its decision on the VGP as evidence sample dates or reporting of the commercially available for shipboard of BWMS capability, but finds they lack individual results. While the quality of installation. Also, the record indicates the necessary quality for EPA to develop data improved over time, many reports that their use is economically a revised, more stringent standard for did not contain adequate information on achievable. These technologies have two reasons. Nat. Res. Def. Council v. field replicate samples used for QA/QC shown to substantially reduce the U.S. Envtl. Prot. Agency, 808 F.3d 566, measures or actual BWMS flow rates at concentration of living organisms in 570 (2d Cir. 2015). First, the data the time of samples. Also, and ballast water discharges as necessary to packages used in the SAB report were importantly, the IMO G8 guidelines meet the discharge standard, beyond the from ballast water management system required five successful land-based tests reduction achieved through mid-ocean vendors for their IMO type-approval as part of the type-approval process exchange or unexchanged ballast water. packages developed under the original regardless of how many tests were Specifically, the current standard of Guidelines for Approval of Ballast conducted to achieve those five 10 organisms per the specified volume Water Management Systems (G8) successful tests. Thus, for example, a

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:58 Oct 23, 2020 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00024 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\26OCP2.SGM 26OCP2 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 207 / Monday, October 26, 2020 / Proposed Rules 67841

system that passed five land-based tests data must be considered with that between these systems is something less but also failed five tests would be margin of error in mind. For example, than one percent. considered to have a successful land- type approval data provided by BEMA The test results identified by the court based test for type-approval. The IMO for the 11 different BWMS show the indicating greater removal of organisms did recently revise the G8 guidelines to discharge concentrations of organisms are not an indication that these systems address this issue. Now, as codified in greater than 50 microns range from less can achieve a more stringent standard in the BWMS Code, five successful than 1 to as high as 9.5 organisms per all conditions. Rather, the test results consecutive land-based tests cubic meter, and for organisms between provide a variety of situations where demonstrating compliance with the 10 and 50 microns, discharges range BWMS manufacturers are testing their discharge standard are necessary for from less than 1 to 9.7 organisms per systems in a variety of environmental type-approval. milliliter (mL). conditions and locations around the For these reasons, EPA found that In VIII.B.1.vi.A.3.i., Data Quality of world, all with the goal of obtaining foreign type-approval data, such as that IMO BWMS Type-Approval Data are USCG type approval by demonstrating used by the SAB in its analysis, is Inadequate for BAT Evaluation, EPA that the BWMS can consistently meet, inadequate to assess whether any IMO- explains the basis for its determination not necessarily exceed, the IMO approved BWMS can meet the proposed that the IMO data are not of adequate discharge standard. [46 CFR 162.060– discharge standard and it follows that quality to base a standard. However, to 10(f)(2)]. To further demonstrate the true such a testing regime would not be of demonstrate the impact of the performance of a BWMS and to sufficient scientific rigor to be variability of ballast water appropriate for use in a BAT analysis. highlight the change in treatment characteristics, EPA evaluated the In contrast, EPA found that performance effectiveness associated with meeting a court’s citation to three UV/filtration data developed consistent with the more stringent discharge standard, EPA systems (Hyde Marine Guardian, USCG type-approval procedures and evaluated data provided directly to EPA Optimarin, and Alfa Laval/Alfa Wall requirements provided at 46 CFR by the BWMS manufacturer, Alfa Laval, Pure Ballast). Nat. Res. Def. Council v. 162.060 would be of sufficient quality that had been included as part of its U.S. Envtl. Prot. Agency, 808 F.3d 566, for use in evaluating whether a type-approval package submitted to the 570 n.11 (2d Cir. 2015). The court stated particular BWMS meets the proposed USCG in September 2016 for its EPA failed to consider the SAB data that standard. PureBallast 3 filtration + UV BWMS, showed these systems can meet a which received USCG type-approval in ii. Type-Approval Data Do Not Support standard between the current standard December 2016. The results of EPA a More Stringent Standard and 10 times the standard. Implicit in analysis are presented in Table 1. Using To date, more than thirty BWMS have the court’s statements are that these the court’s rationale, the Alpha Laval received USCG type-approval. The three systems are 1.4, 3.7, 4.5, or even PureBallast 3 system type-approved by USCG treats all type-approval 7.7 times as effective as the current the USCG demonstrates 3.7 times more submissions as proprietary information; standard based on the average discharge effective treatment for large organisms however, EPA was provided anonymous standard achieved by each BWMS. (i.e., average discharge concentration of data for 9 manufacturers (11 different However, that effectiveness is 2.7) and 4.6 times more effective BWMS) from the Ballast Water mischaracterized. In fact, as treatment for medium organisms (i.e., Equipment Manufacturers Association demonstrated in the USCG type- average discharge concentration of 2.18 (BEMA). EPA analyzed the data and approval data, simply because one type organisms). EPA calculated the actual determined the data submission of BWMS had a lower average discharge treatment efficiency the Alfa Laval requirements of the USCG type-approval concentration than a second type of system achieved as well as the regulations at 46 CFR 162.060 provides system did not mean that first system efficiency the system would have to data of sufficient quality for EPA to had a higher treatment efficiency. achieve to meet the proposed discharge evaluate system effectiveness for a BAT Importantly, the test results demonstrate standard, a standard 10 times (10×) determination (Ballast Water Equipment that in some instances, BWMS achieved more stringent, and a standard 100 Manufacturers Association, 2020). a lower discharge standard than a times (100×) more stringent. As shown EPA considers that receipt and review second system during type-approval in Table 1, the Alfa Laval system of additional type-approval packages testing but that first system had fewer reduced large organisms (>50 microns would not support a more stringent organisms to treat in the intake water in size) by 99.98 percent whereas a standard because these test results are than that second system. The BEMA treatment efficiency of 99.92 percent within the same order of magnitude as data, as highlighted by the examples was needed to meet the proposed the current standard and fall within the provided above, demonstrate that discharge standard (i.e., the Alfa Laval margin of error expected due to the great performance varies even within a single system was 0.06 percent more effective). variability associated with the BWMS and achieving a low average For medium organisms (10–50 microns characteristics of ballast water and discharge concentration or high log in size), the Alfa Laval system was 0.29 challenges associated with monitoring, reduction in one setting does not percent more efficient (Alfa Laval, analyzing, and enumerating organisms necessarily mean this system is 2017). in the different size classes. As noted demonstrated to be a more effective Achieving a numeric discharge above, in addressing EPA’s effluent system in all situations. In any case, the standard 10× and 100× more stringent limitation guidelines for cooling water effectiveness of any USCG type- than the proposed standard would intake systems, the Second Circuit Court approved BMWS should not be represent an insignificant improvement of Appeals explained that it is downplayed. As demonstrated in the in treatment system effectiveness for reasonable for a performance standard data provided by BEMA, every one of both large and medium organisms. For to reflect the margin of error that is the 11 systems achieved a treatment achieving a standard 10× more stringent, inherent when measuring organisms in efficiency of at least 99 percent, for both the difference is that between 99.92 and a natural environment. See Riverkeeper, size classes and in both land-based and 99.99 percent efficiency for large Inc. v. U.S. E.P.A., 358 F.3d 174, 188– shipboard testing meaning that any organisms and 97.82 and 99.78 percent 89 (2d Cir. 2004). The type approval difference in treatment efficiency for medium organisms. For achieving a

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:58 Oct 23, 2020 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00025 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\26OCP2.SGM 26OCP2 67842 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 207 / Monday, October 26, 2020 / Proposed Rules

standard 100× more stringent, the differences in performance are small removal that would warrant a revised difference is that between 99.92 and and within the margin of error due to standard inconsistent with the 99.999 percent efficiency for large the variability in ballast water uptake international standard. organisms and 97.82 and 99.98 percent and testing and does not reflect for medium organisms. These substantial improvement in ANS TABLE 1—TREATMENT EFFICIENCY OF THE ALFA LAVAL PUREBALLAST 3 USCG TYPE-APPROVED BALLAST WATER MANAGEMENT SYSTEM

Organisms Removal efficiency (%) necessary to achieve 3 Stringency Removal Size class (/m ) compared efficiency 3 3 3 Uptake Discharge to standard (%) <10/m <1/m <0.1/m

≥50 microns ...... 13,026 2.7 3.7 times ...... 99.98 99.92 99.99 99.999 10–50 microns ...... 459 2.18 4.6 times ...... 99.53 97.82 99.78 99.98

iii. Ballast Water Test Methods Do Not overall discharge and the collection of effectively controlling the discharge of Allow for Establishing a Discharge that sample may have missed the few living organisms: (1) Biological Standard 100 Times or 1,000 Times live organisms present in the discharge. monitoring to indirectly assess the More Stringent or a ‘‘No Detectable And, collecting larger volumes of ballast effectiveness of reducing living Organisms’’ Standard water becomes impractical. For organisms in the discharge, (2) Consideration of a standard that is example, the SAB estimated that functionality monitoring of the system less than 1 organism per volume of anywhere from 120–600 cubic meters of to assure it is operating as designed, and ballast water for the two organism size ballast would have to be collected to (3) residual biocide/derivative × classes (i.e., a standard 10 times more meet a standard 10 more stringent monitoring for those systems using stringent than proposed), including any (U.S. EPA, 2011b). active substances. Presently, there are standard that would be more than 10, EPA evaluated the available USCG no means to routinely sample and 100, or 1,000 times more stringent, is type-approval data and found that these analyze in real-time ballast water for currently not possible because there are data do not show that performance compliance with the discharge standard no performance data available at these better than the proposed discharge for the two largest size classes of organism concentrations (U.S. EPA, standard is achievable in all vessel types organisms, and while various tools are 2011b). and situations. It is important to under development, there is no widely- As has been considered in the past by consider that a USCG BWMS type- accepted methodology to formally both EPA and the USCG, EPA evaluated approval certification is based on its evaluate and choose tools for use in whether a discharge standard 100× or system components at the time of regulatory enforcement applications 1,000× more stringent than the proposed certification and no changes or (Drake et al., 2014). standard is appropriate. As noted by the optimizations to the technology can be There is no basis either in science or SAB, ‘‘methods (and associated made by the vessel operator. For the CWA’s BAT factors to assume a detection limits) prevent testing of example, the vessel operator cannot BWMS can achieve a higher level of BWTS to any standard more stringent change the filter or chemical treatment than is supported by reliable than the IMO D–2 standard and make it concentration to improve the system’s data. Therefore, regulators have had to impracticable for verifying a standard performance without the BWMS rely on indirect indicators of 100× or 1,000× more stringent.’’ Further, manufacturer notifying the USCG, in compliance to ensure that any BWMS the SAB concluded that no current accordance with 46 CFR 162.060–16. continues to perform as demonstrated BWMS can meet a standard beyond 10× during land- and ship-based type- iv. Monitoring Limitations Do Not more stringent than the current standard approval testing. ‘‘Functionality Support a More Stringent Standard (e.g., 100× or 1,000×) as even showing monitoring,’’ as required by the VGP, is one organism using the current test If a more stringent standard were to be an indirect indicator of compliance methods clearly exceeds that more established, it would require confidence entailing the use of a variety of meters, stringent standard. As shown in the in the ability to monitor at that lower electronic sensors and analyzers that review of publicly available USCG type concentration to demonstrate both measure and transmit to control systems approval data provided by BEMA and treatment effectiveness of available operational data such as flow rate, evaluated by EPA, at least one living technology and compliance with the pressure drops across filters, organism was identified in each BWMS discharge standard. However, disinfectant concentrations and energy type-approval test. Thus, new or monitoring low concentrations of living intensity. If these indirect improved test methods are still needed organisms in ballast water (or direct measurements fall within the BWMS to support a statistical determination organism monitoring), by mass or any design operating ranges, then it is that technologies are available to meet a other measure, at lower levels than reasonable to assume the BWMS is standard 100 or 1,000 times more necessary for demonstrating compliance reducing living organisms as required stringent than the IMO discharge with the existing numeric discharge since the USCG type-approved the standard. Further, EPA has determined, standard is impractical because of BWMS as being able to achieve the consistent with findings of the SAB, that challenges with collecting and living organism discharge standards it is unreasonable to assume that a test analyzing ballast water to detect and when operating within the design result showing zero living organisms quantify organisms at those levels. In specifications. The lack of sampling and using currently available test methods lieu of direct organism monitoring, in analysis methods available to monitor demonstrates complete sterilization if the VGP, EPA developed a three- ballast water discharges for the two for no other reason than a sample taken component self-monitoring program as a largest organism size classes at lower represents a very small portion of the reliable indicator of whether BWMS are concentrations than the current

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:58 Oct 23, 2020 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00026 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\26OCP2.SGM 26OCP2 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 207 / Monday, October 26, 2020 / Proposed Rules 67843

discharge standard with any statistical a meaningful improvement in system yet fully optimized, systems and with significance justifies EPA proposing a performance or discharge reduction. future systems as they continue to come discharge standard identical to the The challenge in ballast water online. current standard. management that will reduce ANS Demonstration of a higher level of discharges is not adopting a lower or B. Ballast Water Reception Facilities treatment effectiveness reasonably more stringent standard, but instead The VIDA expressly excludes from would require testing of a different focusing on the vessel installation of the discharge standards ‘‘ballast water parameter for which there is the ability available and highly efficient BWMS; from a vessel . . . that only discharges to monitor, which is likely some proper operation and maintenance of water into a reception facility.’’ 33 measure of organisms other than the two those systems to achieve the treatment U.S.C. 1322(p)(2)(B)(ii)(V). As such, organism sizes classes (and bacteria) efficacy demonstrated as part of the CWA Section 312(p) does not authorize upon which the current standard is USCG type-approval testing; and the EPA to regulate the transfer of ballast based. This would require a new type- evolution of vessel ballasting practices water from ships to a reception facility approval process, which would result in to minimize volumes of ballast water as part of the proposed rulemaking. significant delays in testing, requiring management. Only very Nonetheless, for the purposes of this ‘‘approving,’’ and manufacturing an recently has EPA begun to see broad proposed rule and to acknowledge the adequate supply of systems available for compliance of the vessel community 2015 Second Circuit Court decision on installation aboard the global shipping with installation, operation, and the VGP, EPA reviewed and considered fleet. Conversely, this would require a maintenance of the range of the USCG whether zero discharge or a more comprehensive evaluation and selection type-approved BWMS. To date, about stringent discharge standard based on of more appropriate parameters than the one-third of vessels operating pursuant the use of a reception facility may be two organism size classes, undertaking to the requirements of the VGP have BAT for ballast water discharged from a comprehensive monitoring program to installed BWMS (U.S. EPA, 2019). In regulated vessels. Nat. Res. Def. Council sample and analyze ballast water for 2017, the American Bureau of Shipping v. U.S. Envtl. Prot. Agency., 808 F.3d those new parameters to evaluate BAT (ABS) conducted a global survey of 27 566, 572–75 (2d Cir. 2015). For the for those parameters. Without such an shipowners with 220 vessels including purposes of this proposed rule, unless evaluation, EPA does not have the bulk carriers, tankers, containerships otherwise noted, when EPA refers to necessary data to justify treatment and gas carriers. In 2018, ABS repeated ‘‘onshore’’ or a ‘‘reception facility,’’ it system effectiveness associated with the the survey with more than double the refers to both the transfer of ballast required level of pollutant control. participants of 60 shipowners and water to either an onshore reception operators worldwide covering 483 facility or another vessel for the purpose 4. Conclusion BWMS installations for seven different of storing or treating that ballast water. In summary, EPA and the USCG are BWMS treatment technologies. In 2018, The Second Circuit Court decision committed to protecting U.S. waters ABS found that 35 percent of BWMS stated that EPA failed to give fair and from invasive species and support a installations were reported as operating thorough consideration to reception strong national and international regularly, and the remaining systems facilities in setting the discharge solution that does not disrupt the were either inoperable or considered standards in the VGP. The Second continuous flow of maritime commerce problematic. Surprisingly, the survey Circuit stated that a technology is that drives the U.S. and global findings show that the number of ‘‘available’’ in the following instance: economies. The proposed rule would problematic BWMS in operation ‘‘(1) the transfer technology must be implement the VIDA requirement for increased from 29 percent in 2017 to 59 available within the first industry: (2) ballast water to establish the standard percent in 2018. It appears that many the transfer technology must be according to BAT by continuing the vessel operators are trying to get their transferable to the second industry; and current EPA and USCG standard given BWMS fully functional and into (3) it must be reasonably predicable that that the standard and the USCG type- operation before the USCG or IMO the technology, if used in the second approval process is effective and compliance deadlines (ABS, 2019) and industry, will be capable of removing promotes the development of highly in starting up and operating installed the increment required by the effluent efficient technology to control ANS in systems, often for the first time after a standards.’’ Nat. Res. Def. Council, 808 ballast water. In the last three years, the period of nonuse since installation, are F.3d at 572–73. The Second Circuit USCG has type-approved more than finding unexpected problems. No stated that in establishing BAT, thirty ballast water management systems particular system is identified as being consideration should be given to (BWMS) for vessels that would meet the more or less likely to meet the discharge whether a particular technology that is proposed discharge standard, with at standard. being used in another industry could least half as many more under review. Opportunities for advancement in form that technology basis for BAT. As These systems have provided a variety ballast water treatment and technology part of the proposed rule, EPA evaluated of treatment options for a breadth of may require EPA to assist the vessel several technologies to identify whether national and international vessels. The community in tackling installation and any such technology is transferable from current standard continues to be operational challenges with the existing another industrial sector but has not appropriate to significantly reduce BWMS and future type-approved found any such technologies that would invasive species transport given the systems and best management practices. provide a greater level of control for complexity of the universe of vessels Significant limitations remain in ANS ballast water from vessels. This is that would be subject to the proposed monitoring such that setting a different largely because of the unique nature of rule and the great variation of vessel numeric discharge standard for ANS is ballast water and its use aboard ships— processes and engineering constraints of unlikely to result in meaningful which are not stationary, and, many of ballast water management. The current technological advancement. The VIDA which spend a very small portion of standard is driving development of provides EPA and the USCG with this their time in the United States. type-approved BWMS that are highly opportunity to streamline the ballast In developing this proposed rule, EPA efficient. Establishing a more stringent water regulations which should aid with considered whether discharges of ballast standard at this time would not result in the operation of demonstrated, but not water to a reception facility could result

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:58 Oct 23, 2020 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00027 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\26OCP2.SGM 26OCP2 67844 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 207 / Monday, October 26, 2020 / Proposed Rules

in zero discharge or a more stringent liquified natural gas, during which vessels may need to discharge part of standard for ballast water discharges ships would offset the reduced cargo their ballast water before arriving in port than what currently exists. EPA weight by taking on ballast water, are so they can conduct cargo operations as investigated ballast water discharges to now instead planning to export that soon as possible following arrival at the a reception facility to better understand liquified natural gas, with a consequent dock; some vessels need to discharge the technological availability, economic need for ships to discharge ballast water ballast water to reduce draft before achievability and the non-water quality while loading cargo. This analysis does arriving at berth; and lightering vessels environmental impacts associated with not consider the universe of vessels that may need to discharge ballast as they limits based on its use and explored the also operate in other countries and a load cargo at designated anchorages or alternative forms of reception similar expectation that without lightering zones. In each of these facilities—including fixed treatment reception facility availability, these instances, some type of reception facilities (reception facilities or vessels would still need to install, facility would be required, further wastewater treatment plants) and operate, and maintain a BWMS. The complicating the necessary mobile, shore-based, or near-shore- massive scale of the new physical infrastructure to handle discharges from based ballast water treatment deployed infrastructure that would be needed to such disparate locations. on trucks, barges or boats—and accommodate the systematic The only instance of a ballast water feasibility factors of the use of these deployment and application of reception facility being used in the facilities such as vessel and port shoreside ballast water reception United States is in Alaska, specifically characteristics, economic feasibility, facilities is another process and to remove oil from ballast water and treatment cost estimates. engineering challenge that weighs discharges from single hull tanker vessels. Use of facilities such as this, Despite considering the potential against the selection of a zero-discharge with modifications made specifically to advantages identified in recent years for standard based on discharge to a remove living organisms (e.g., filtration the use of ballast water reception reception facility as BAT for ballast with second stage disinfection) might be facilities (e.g., fewer onshore facilities water. 33 U.S.C. 1314(b)(2)(B). Another critical challenge is available for vessels sailing dedicated than shipboard systems would be retrofitting vessels with the appropriate routes. However, many commercial needed; fewer physical restrictions and ballast water systems (including pipes vessels do not stick to a single voyage time limitations could lead to effective and pumps) required to move ballast pattern (even those usually on dedicated treatment technologies), the analysis water up from tanks and off the ship at routes) in all instances, which would identified many challenges of a rate fast enough that the vessel can necessitate either finding a reception implementing a national and perform normal cargo operations facility in the new port(s), rapidly international network of reception without significant and costly delays. installing a shipboard BWMS, or likely facilities. By far the most significant To date, no U.S. or international ship- being unable to discharge their challenge is ensuring the availability of to-shore connection standard exists for untreated ballast water in compliance reception facilities at all ports of call, non-oily ballast water discharges. As with the VIDA requirements (which because if even one anticipated port such, vessels are not fitted with, nor may in effect prevent this vessel from location for a vessel does not have an would an appropriate reception facility voyaging to that port). Since these available reception facility, that vessel have, a standard size, configuration, changes in voyage patterns are often would need an alternative approach, strength, etc. on which to base a design made on very short notice (often on less likely requiring installation of a to ensure vessels would be able to than two weeks’ notice), it would not be shipboard treatment system, deferring connect and discharge ballast water to technologically available to install a the discharge of ballast water, or such a facility. In a similar situation, the BWMS on these vessels quickly enough declining to call at that port. A search IMO established connection for that new voyage. of the National Ballast Information requirements under Regulation 13 of EPA evaluated several studies of Clearinghouse found that between the Annex I to MARPOL for oil mixtures, reception facilities in the United States, effective date of the 2013 VGP (i.e., which have been codified in USCG including ports in the Great Lakes, December 19, 2013) and the end of regulations at 33 CFR 155.430, and for Baltimore, MD, California, and 2017, vessels with ballast water which, a similar set of requirements internationally, including ports in the operated in approximately 700 U.S. would be needed for non-oily ballast Caspian Sea, Netherlands, Brazil, and ports and discharged ballast water in water discharges. Without such an Croatia. California has led the effort over 400 of those ports, with individual international standard for ballast water nationally to explore the possibility of discharges as large as 20 million gallons connections, implementation of such a reception facilities. In 2013, the (75,000 MT) and daily combined requirement would be impractical. California State Lands Commission discharges of more than 25 million Additionally, the configurations of funded a study to assess ballast water gallons (100,000 MT) in a day in a single many ports are such that a vessel may reception facility approaches in port (National Ballast Information berth at any number of locations within California. The report from that study Clearinghouse, 2020). To meet the the port, necessitating that such (Glosten Associates, 2018), is currently ballast water discharge management reception connection equipment is the most comprehensive review of needs for these vessels would require available at each of these berths and reception facility options in California. some type of reception facility at each capable of being transferred from that The authors concluded that a network of of those 400 ports (as well as potentially point to the reception facility. As an treatment barges would be the best at some of those other 300 ports where example of the challenge associated reception facility approach when vessels operate with ballast water with such a configuration, the Port of compared to land-based treatment to onboard and may at some point have the Duluth is a single port with 60 docks enable vessels to meet California’s need to discharge ballast); otherwise, spanning 49 miles of coastline (Lake interim Performance Standards. any vessel needing to discharge ballast Carriers’ Association, 2016a). According to the Study, such an water at any of these ports would need Also, reception facilities may not approach would not come without a BWMS. For example, numerous ports provide a complete solution to ballast impacts or costs. A barge-based network that were initially expecting to accept water treatment. For example, some could lead to increased air emissions

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:58 Oct 23, 2020 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00028 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\26OCP2.SGM 26OCP2 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 207 / Monday, October 26, 2020 / Proposed Rules 67845

and congestion at California’s ports. In handle ballast water from tens of technologically available as defined in the case of the South Coast Air Basin, thousands of vessels would require the CWA. It also appears to have these ballast water reception facilities billions of dollars and weighs against unacceptable non-water quality could increase overall harbor craft air finding such technology to be available environmental impacts in some areas. It emissions from 2.5 to 5 percent. The 30- or economically achievable. It also is logistically more complex than year lifecycle cost of building and ignores the thousand plus ports shipboard treatment for the shipping operating a network of treatment barges worldwide directly or indirectly linked industry to implement and requires is estimated at $1.45 billion. Marine to many of these same vessels that vessel as well as port modifications to vessel operators will bear an additional reasonably would want to be able to be accommodated. It is unlikely that $2.17 billion in costs to retrofit vessels discharge ballast to a reception facility ballast water reception facilities could to support transfer of ballast to barges. at any port visited rather than having to become a national ‘‘one size fits all’’ The authors estimated that it will take also install and operate a BWMS in option for ballast water management, a minimum of nine years to implement those areas where a reception facility is principally because it cannot such a treatment network once the not available. As cited in the Second accommodate widely varying trade funding is secured. Possible next steps Circuit decision, Nat. Res. Def. Council routes without the availability of identified by the authors include pilot- v. U.S. Envtl. Prot. Agency., 808 F.3d reception facilities in most ports. Port- scale testing of the ballast water 566 (2d Cir. 2015), the SAB scientists specific conditions may also preclude treatment methods and scale-up to a pointed out that: ‘‘[S]hipboard treatment any technically available and/or treatment barge to assess system and onshore treatment represent distinct economically achievable reception performance over various rates of ballast approaches to ballast water management facility alternatives. Integration with water transfer. As detailed in the final that would each require different large port and vessel operations would report: ‘‘The first six years will be investments in infrastructure .... require careful planning, design, and occupied with the study of ballast water Thus we are almost certain to be stuck operation. If in the future reception discharges, building and pilot testing of for a very long time with whichever facilities become available and treatment barge prototype(s), approach is used as the BAT in setting economically achievable and have development of transfer station discharge standards in 2013. It is thus acceptable non-water quality standards, communication of of the utmost urgency that a fair and environmental impacts in certain requirements to marine vessels, thorough comparison of the two locations for certain specialized sectors development of the PPPs [public private approaches be made at this time.’’ of the commercial vessel industry EPA partnerships], and contracting for the Whether the opinion of the SAB is would revisit the standards, but, for design/build of the treatment barges. accurate, it is likely that selecting the now, such an option has not been Years 7, 8, and 9 will be occupied with reception facility approach would demonstrated to reflect BAT. phasing in the treatment barge network. require vessels to also install onboard C. Vessels Operating Exclusively on the Importantly, Year 1 starts only after systems for those times when the vessel Great Lakes budgets and plans have been put into may need to discharge ballast water in After careful consideration of all the place.’’ Thus, in the best case, once a port that may not have a functioning relevant factors, EPA proposes to reception facility. A further funding is available, implementation of subcategorize and not require any vessel a barge-based ballast water management complication here is not just in having operating exclusively on the Great approach in California is still nine years to install an onboard system for use only Lakes, regardless of when they were away, if that the pilot project some of the time, it is that if the onboard built, to meet the numeric discharge demonstrates such an approach is system is not used consistently and sits standard and instead to continue to viable. And importantly, as noted in idle for a significant portion of the time, require that these vessels implement that report, as of today, no such onshore it is unlikely to work effectively and is best management practices. As required or barge-based reception facilities more likely to experience mechanical by the VIDA, EPA assessed the best currently are in operation in the United problems due to periods of nonuse. available technology that is States (King and Hagan, 2013; Hilliard Conversely, a vessel with an onboard economically achievable and and Kazansky, 2006; Hilliard and system could operate worldwide determined that the challenges analyzed Matheickal, 2010; Brown and Caldwell, without having to rely on others for in the VGP remain true today. This 2007; Brown and Caldwell and Bay ballast water management. While use of proposed exemption is based on a set of Engineering, 2008; COWI A/S, 2012; a reception facility assumes a higher unique circumstances that make ballast Damen, 2017; Glosten Associates, 2018; level of treatment than can be achieved water management especially Hull & Associates, 2017; Maglic et al., onboard a vessel, the specific evaluation challenging for these vessels. The 2015; Pereira and Brinati, 2012; U.S. performed at each of these hypothetical challenges include issues related to the EPA, 2011b; USCG, 2013). reception facilities may not actually operational profile and design of these Another complication of a reception result in significant discharge vessels and issues related to the unique facility approach is that vessel operators reductions. nature of the waters of the Great Lakes. in most cases are not the entities that Based on the record before it, EPA has A fuller discussion of EPA’s analysis would build and operate such facilities. determined that reception facilities are appears below. As such, these reception facilities would not technologically available or likely only be created where an economically achievable at this time. 1. Ballast Water Management of Vessels organization, such as a port authority or While EPA understands that the use of Operating Exclusively on the Laurentian terminal operator, identifies a financial reception facilities, if available, may be Great Lakes opportunity from constructing and a valid and effective component of The VGP exempted vessels that operating such a facility. It would be ballast water management in certain operate exclusively on the Laurentian highly speculative that any organization situations, the challenges in creating Great Lakes, commonly referred to as would choose to do so. The scale and such a comprehensive infrastructure ‘‘Lakers,’’ and built before 2009 from cost of operating reception facilities at nation-wide (and world-wide) make meeting the numeric discharge the hundreds of ports nationwide that reception facilities simply not standard. As defined by the VGP, this

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:58 Oct 23, 2020 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00029 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\26OCP2.SGM 26OCP2 67846 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 207 / Monday, October 26, 2020 / Proposed Rules

includes vessels that operate upstream There are approximately 150 U.S.- purpose of a BAT standard is to force of the waters of the St. Lawrence River and Canadian-flagged Lakers, with technology to keep pace with need. Id. west of a rhumb line drawn from Cap approximately 20 of these (mostly at 576. The court cited an EPA SAB de Rosiers to West Point, Anticosti Canadian) constructed in 2009 or later Report as support for its decision that Island, and west of a line along 63 W (Marinelog, 2016; Lake Carriers’ EPA was arbitrary and capricious longitude from Anticosti Island to the Association, 2016). The U.S. Lakers because the Report did not declare such north shore of the St. Lawrence River. generally are larger than Canadian treatment impossible. Instead, the SAB EPA selected January 1, 2009 as the Lakers, with many of these vessels being concluded ‘‘[a] variety of environmental cutoff date because the IMO originally too large to transit through the Welland (e.g., temperature and salinity), established this date to require Canal and the locks on the St. Lawrence operational (e.g., ballasting flow rates treatment for certain new build vessels. Seaway, thus confining their operations and holding times), and vessel design At the time, EPA anticipated that to the four upper Great Lakes. Of the (e.g., ballast volume and unmanned vessels designed to enter the market approximately 60 U.S.-flagged Lakers barges) parameters’’ should be beginning in 2009 would be prepared to operating on the Great Lakes, only about considered in determining the treatment meet the VGP requirements. Since that half are small enough to fit through the standard. Id. at 577. The court further time, EPA has evaluated the few U.S. Welland Canal; although, from 2015 concluded that EPA failed to conduct an and Canadian Lakers that had been built through 2017, U.S. Lakers operated only appropriate and factually-supported since 2009 and concluded that they 28 voyages east of the Welland Canal cost-analysis which might have shown were also unable to meet the VGP (Lake Carriers’ Association, 2018). that the cost of subjecting pre-2009 discharge requirements. Consistent with Common U.S. Laker routes are ore cargo Lakers to the 2013 VGP was not that conclusion, the USCG regulations runs from Lake Superior to U.S. mills in unreasonably high, or, alternatively, that do not require non-seagoing vessels, Indiana, Michigan, and Ohio. In use of reception facilities was including all Lakers, to meet the contrast, 81 of the 84 Canadian Lakers economically achievable. Id. numeric discharge standard. are small enough to pass through the To address all of the above issues, EPA assessed the availability of ballast The proposed rule expands the VGP Welland Canal and locks on the St. water treatment technology by exemption to any vessel operating Lawrence Seaway (Lake Carriers’ evaluating the operational and technical exclusively on the Great Lakes, Association, 2016). The U.S.-flagged Lakers that are small enough to transit considerations for installation and regardless of build date, because these operation of a USCG type-approved vessels share the same challenges in the locks on the St. Lawrence Seaway are not designed to operate in brackish BWMS on Great Lakes vessels and operating BWMS under the alternative approaches that could be environmental conditions of the Great water or saltwater and therefore do not venture east of Quebec City on the St. used to develop a specific discharge Lakes. The exemption applies to vessels standard for Great Lakes vessels. on the Great Lakes that are 3,000 GT ITC Lawrence Seaway. Most Canadian Lakers, on the other hand, commonly Specifically, EPA assessed: (1,600 (GRT) if GT ITC is not assigned) • The compatibility of type-approved operate in brackish water or saltwater and above, as smaller vessels are exempt BWMS to meet the current discharge and their hulls and ballast tanks have under 139.10(d)(2)(i) of the proposed standard under the environmental corrosion protection that allow them to rule as described in VIII.B.1.vii.A. conditions of the Great Lakes; Vessels Less Than or Equal to 3,000 GT transit through the locks on the St. • the operational and technical ITC (1,600 GT GRT if GT ITC is not Lawrence Seaway to Canadian coastal challenges of the installation of type- assigned) and That Do Not Operate ports and for some of these vessels, even approved BWMS given the unique Outside the EEZ. For the purposes of the to overseas ports. However, U.S. and structure of Great Lakes vessels; proposed rule and referred to as ‘‘Great Canadian vessels that operate • the potential use of current type- Lakes vessels’’ in this section, the exclusively on the Great Lakes share approved BWMS on Great Lakes vessels universe of vessels operating several similar constraints with to meet an alternative standard; and exclusively on the Great Lakes includes selection of BWMS because of the short • the availability of other treatment two main types of vessels. First, it voyages, low salinity, very cold water, technologies for Great Lakes vessels. includes Lakers, as defined in the VGP, high dissolved organic carbon content, Overall, it was found that ballast as bulk carriers and other similar vessel and low UV transmittance associated water treatment technologies are not types (e.g., tank barges) operating with operation solely within the Great available for Great Lakes vessels at this exclusively on the Laurentian Great Lakes. Similar vessel design issues are time because of the uniqueness of these Lakes. Second, it includes any other present for both the existing U.S. and vessels and the Great Lakes ecosystem. large vessel, according to the size Canadian fleets with respect to vessel EPA evaluated the technical reasons threshold, that is 3,000 GT ITC (1,600 design and operation. why current type-approved BWMS are GRT if GT ITC is not assigned) and The Second Circuit Court decision not compatible with the environmental above, that voyages exclusively on the held that EPA acted arbitrarily and conditions of the Great Lakes for each Great Lakes, such as ferries. Discussion capriciously when it exempted Lakers category of treatment system. The in this section using the term ‘‘Great built before 2009 (‘‘pre-2009 Lakers’’) environmental conditions evaluated Lakes vessels’’ does not include from the numeric technology-based include the water’s unique ‘‘freshness,’’ seagoing vessels that operate beyond the effluent limitations of the VGP. Nat. as opposed to salinity, the temperature boundary identified in the VGP and Res. Def. Council v. U.S. Envtl. Prot. of the water, and the turbidity of the continued for the proposed rule, that Agency., 808 F.3d 566 (2d Cir. 2015). ports. The operational and technical being vessels that operate downstream The court stated that EPA’s decision to conditions evaluated include the length of the waters of the St. Lawrence River exempt Lakers was based on a flawed of voyages and its effect on the BWMS west of a rhumb line drawn from Cap record that failed to consider the holding times required to achieve the de Rosiers to West Point, Anticosti possibility of reception facilities, and discharge standard and the absence of Island, and west of a line along 63 W that the lack of supply of updated coated ballast tanks in the fleet. Table 2 longitude from Anticosti Island to the shipboard systems was not a legitimate summarizes information on the critical north shore of the St. Lawrence River. reason to exempt pre-2009 Lakers as the limitations that each major disinfection

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:58 Oct 23, 2020 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00030 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\26OCP2.SGM 26OCP2 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 207 / Monday, October 26, 2020 / Proposed Rules 67847

method currently faces for use on Great Lakes vessels.

TABLE 2—LIMITATIONS OF BWMS DISINFECTION TYPES FOR COMMERCIAL VESSELS OPERATING ON THE GREAT LAKES

BWMS disinfection method Limitations for use on the Great Lakes

UV ...... Areas of the Great Lakes, notably in certain river ports, have high turbidity and high dissolved organic carbon con- tent such as from tannins and humic acid, which inhibits effective UV treatment. In addition, most USCG type- approved UV BWMS require holding times of 72 hours, however common trade routes within the Great Lakes take less than 72 hours with some as little as 2 hours. For this reason, vessels would be required to delay cargo loading and discharge ballast water until the holding time is achieved. Several UV BWMS have since been type- approved with holding times as little as 2.5 hours, highlighting the advance of technology in beginning to over- come some of the operational limitations described. Electrochlorination ...... Current USCG type-approved BWMS require a supply of saltwater for generating chlorine. Vessels limited to fresh- water environments would need to prepare and bunker a synthetic seawater solution, which would limit cargo capacity. Also, chlorine in uncoated ballast tanks increases corrosion rates to unacceptable levels for the struc- tural integrity of the vessel. Therefore, this technology is not technically available. Chemical Addition ...... Current USCG type-approved BWMS allow for the addition of chemicals. However, none of the U.S. Laker fleet that operates exclusively on the Great Lakes have coated ballast tanks. This results in an increase in corrosion rates if corrosive chemicals, particularly oxidants, are used, making this technology technologically unavailable and economically unachievable because the vessel would be taken out of service. Ozonation ...... Current USCG type-approved BWMS allow for the addition of ozone. However, none of the U.S. Laker fleet that operates exclusively on the Great Lakes have coated ballast tanks. This results in an increase in corrosion rates, making this technology technologically unavailable and economically unachievable because the vessel would be taken out of service. Deoxygenation ...... Current USCG-type-approved BWMS require hold times if using a deoxygenation system. Common trade routes for commercial vessels within the Great Lakes move ballast water from lower ports such as Gary, Burns Harbor, Cleveland and Toledo Transit times for these routes are less than 72 hours (USACE, 2017). To comply with the numeric discharge standard, vessels would need to delay cargo loading and discharge of Great Lakes ballast water until the holding time is achieved if using a deoxygenation system that requires hold times greater than transit times. Additionally, deoxygenation can result in increased corrosion due to anaerobic conditions, and the lack of coated ballast tanks makes this technology unavailable. Ref: (Keister and Balog, 1992; Tuthill et al., 1998; Lake Carriers’ Association, 2017; American Bureau of Shipping, 2015; U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 2017).

2. Compatibility of BWMS To Meet the 0 °C. Lake Erie is below 5 °C for five EPA analysis demonstrates that this Discharge Standard Under Great Lakes months a year, lakes Michigan and technology is not practicable and is Environmental Conditions Huron for almost half the year, and on presently unavailable. ° The environmental conditions of Lake Superior 5 C might not be reached Turbidity, excessive levels of tannins, Great Lakes waters present unique until June and be back below by and filamentous bacteria in some areas challenges for use of any of the more November. Because of the pressure drop of the Great Lakes can inhibit the ability across filters, freezing can occur at of USCG type-approved BWMS to meet than 20 USCG type-approved BWMS on ° Great Lakes vessels. At this time, none temperatures above 0 C. Several USCG the numeric discharge standard. Several BWMS are not approved for operation at river ports in the Great Lakes contain of these systems can meet the proposed ° numeric discharge standard given these a water temperature of less than 5 C highly turbid water where ballast water conditions. Cold ambient water (Monroy et al., 2017; USCG, 2013). uptake occurs. Typical levels of total temperatures on the Great Lakes during In addition to cold temperatures, the suspended solids (TSS) found in U.S. the earlier and later portions of the fresh water of the Great Lakes contains Great Lakes port waters range from 400 shipping season are below the testing extremely low salinity. USCG type- mg/L in the Rouge River in Detroit, MI, parameters of USCG BWMS type- approval testing for freshwater allows a to 1,000 mg/L in the Cuyahoga River in approval testing and, therefore, BWMS salinity as low as 0.9 practical salinity Cleveland, OH. These levels are much have not been demonstrated to work units (psu), but Great Lakes water, higher than those required for USCG sufficiently under such conditions to especially Lake Superior, has a much type-approval testing. Similarly, areas of meet the numeric discharge standard. lower salinity of approximately 0.063 the Great Lakes contain excessive levels For example, winter icing conditions of ppt. Several USCG type-approved of tannins that present a challenge to the exceptionally fresh waters of the BWMS require a higher salinity than is remove with conventional BWMS Great Lakes impact the ability to operate found in the Great Lakes. For example, filters. Turbidity and excessive levels of a BWMS, such as from ice-plugged electrochlorination systems were tannins in some Great Lakes harbors BWMS filters. Because of winter ice on designed to use marine water to provide may significantly reduce filter efficiency the Lakes, the navigation season is not a chloride source to generate chlorine. and UV light transmittance, creating a usually year-round. The Soo Locks and The freshwater of the Great Lakes does situation where both USCG and IMO Welland Canal close from mid-January not provide such a source of saline type-approved filtration and UV BWMS to late March, when most vessels are water, requiring a Laker using such a cannot achieve the numeric discharge laid up for maintenance. However, cold system to bunker saltwater in an unused standard. While these circumstances temperature and icing conditions can holding tank or ballast tank and then can also occur in coastal ports, it is persist into the Spring. Water use this saltwater to generate chlorine expected that many seagoing vessels temperatures in the Great Lakes during for disinfection while ballasting/ could use operational practices not the shipping season can be as low as deballasting within the Great Lakes. available to vessels operating on the

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:58 Oct 23, 2020 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00031 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\26OCP2.SGM 26OCP2 67848 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 207 / Monday, October 26, 2020 / Proposed Rules

Great Lakes, such as exchange of turbid with filtration, freshwater organisms that are more than 50 years old that harbor water for less turbid offshore must respond to flocculating agents like have been uniquely constructed and water, which could be treated that of marine organisms to be converted over the decades, the cost of effectively by the BWMS. In addition, effectively removed by these achieving the standard would be similar the Great Lakes contains significant technologies. Unfortunately, to date, to or maybe even exceed the cost of quantities of filamentous bacteria that this ability has not been shown to exist vessel replacement. EPA evaluated the have been shown to cause significant (ClearBallast, 2012; Bawat, 2016; technical considerations relevant to the clogging problems with BWMS filters. Voutchkov, 2013). installation and operation of BWMS on Other ballast water treatment Great Lakes vessels including vessel 3. Technical Challenges of the Use of technologies are under development, size, ballasting volumes and flow rates, USCG Type-Approved BWMS on Great such as membrane filtration, magnetic ballast pump and piping configurations, Lakes Vessels separation with filtration, and space considerations, electrical pasteurization. However, no such There are numerous, costly technical requirements and corrosion issues. It is systems to-date have been demonstrated challenges to implementing BWMS on important to point out there are as effective ballast water treatment to Great Lakes vessels. If USCG type- significant differences in the the satisfaction of the USCG for type- approved systems were installed on construction, size, propulsion approval. Even if these technologies did Great Lakes vessels to meet the configurations, electrical systems and gain USCG type-approval, there are discharge standard, some environmental capabilities, cargo off-loading challenges in applying their use on the benefit would be provided from the equipment, ballast water movement, Great Lakes. For example, a installation and operation of these type- and other design aspects between pasteurization system is designed for approved systems; however, individual vessels. These differences large long-haul vessels and requires disproportionate costs would be require a vessel-specific analysis to multiple voyage days to reach incurred by this vessel community due determine the technological availability pasteurization temperatures and as such to these technical challenges and the and optimal method for installing and would be limited in its use on the Great discharge standard would not be met operating a BWMS. In order to consider Lakes because of the many short given the known environmental these differences, EPA grouped the U.S. voyages for vessels in the Great Lakes. challenges. For example, for some U.S. Lakers into subcategories based on their As for filtration and magnetic separation Lakers, particularly those bulk carriers characteristics (Table 3). TABLE 3—SUBCATEGORIES OF U.S. LAKER VESSELS

Number of Number ballast Number ballast Ballast volume Ballast Subcategory a Build dates Length pumping rate U.S. Lakers tanks pumps (gallons) (GPM)

Large Capacity Lakers ...... 14 1972–1981 ..... 858–1,000-ft ... 14–22 ...... 4–36 ...... 9,414,132–16,406,561 20,000–79,800 Converted bulkers to self-un- 18 1906–1959, 437–806 ft ...... 11–22 ...... 2–4 pumps/En- 1,411,655–12,283,281 14,000–64,800 loading ships, includes converted gine Room barges. 1958–2014. (E.R). Newer build—manifold ballast 17 1942 (1991)– 519–770 ...... 13–21 ...... 2 pumps/E.R. 2,121,000–7,851,433 17,400–40,000 system. 2012. Purpose built barge ...... 6 1941 (1998)– 310–460 ...... 6 including FP– 1–4 pump ...... 638,274–2,045,053 1,000–10,000 2009. 17.

Total ...... 57 ...... a Lake Carriers’ Association, 2016. Total number of vessels carrying ballast water, including articulated tug-barges. Does not include tugboats since these vessels do not typically discharge ballast water. Does not include barges A–410 or 397 because they do not carry ballast water.

The capacity of the commercially piping for each individual ballast tank. Great Lakes vessels are designed to available, type-approved BWMS It can have one or two individual ballast maximize cargo capacity and, therefore, selected for a Great Lakes vessel must be pumps and piping per ballast tank. Four have little to no space available in the compatible with the ballast needs of the of the U.S.-flagged 1,000-foot Lakers engine room or around the self- vessels, particularly the ballasting rate have 18 separate ballast pumps and unloading equipment for a BWMS. of the ballast pumps. Particularly for piping, and one 1,000-foot Laker (i.e., Space could be created from existing Lakers, high ballasting capacities and Stewart J. Cort) has 36 deep well ballast ballast tanks or cargo holds, although flow rates limit the options for selection pumps. The M/V Indiana Harbor uses this directly impacts the vessel’s cargo of some commercially available BWMS. four main ballast pumps (two port and hauling capacity and therefore The maximum capacity of commercially two starboard) to pump a total of economic viability. Again, EPA analysis available filtration and UV BWMS is 11,810 m3/hr of ballast water. For this included the cost and lost revenue 3 6,000 m /hr. U.S. Lakers have ballasting Laker, two BWMS would have to be implications of lost cargo space or capacities as high as 18,000 m3/hr and hauling capacity. Converting ballast installed (one port and one starboard), therefore multiple filtration and UV tanks to accommodate a BWMS may each with a capacity to treat at least BWMS would be required to likely also impact vessel stability and 6,000 m3/hr. The M/V Paul R. Tregurtha accommodate these rates. In the requires a detailed vessel-specific analysis, EPA considered installation of that has a total ballasting capacity of analysis by a marine engineer, naval 3 multiple BWMS on a vessel as a means 18,120 m /hr and uses 18 separate architect, or similar expert to assess to meet the discharge standard. For ballast pumps and tanks, 18 individual viability of such installation and example, the large capacity vessels may BWMS would be needed, each with a operation. have a ballast water system capacity to treat at least 1,100 m3/hr or Electrical capacity on Great Lakes configuration that includes individual the entire ship would need to be re- vessels has been sized to accommodate sea chests, ballast pumps and ballast piped at significant cost and downtime. the loading and unloading equipment

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:58 Oct 23, 2020 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00032 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\26OCP2.SGM 26OCP2 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 207 / Monday, October 26, 2020 / Proposed Rules 67849

that is operational while the vessel is in Research, Development, Testing and Using filtration and UV BWMS can port. Self-unloading equipment would Evaluation Facility located in Duluth- avoid the corrosion concerns. However, have to be operated at the same time as Superior Harbor on Lake Superior. GSI testing of the filtration and UV Alfa the BWMS and, as currently designed, provides freshwater ballast treatment Laval PureBallast® Version 3 BWMS in many of these vessels lack electrical evaluation at three scales—bench, land- Duluth-Superior Harbor in 2010 using capacity for high electrical demand based, and on-board ship. GSI, because ambient Great Lakes water failed to BWMS such as filtration and UV of its location, uses freshwater from the achieve the USCG and IMO numeric disinfection. Thus, additional electrical Great Lakes to evaluate performance of discharge standards in the two regulated generators would be required for BWMS at removing Great Lakes size classes, even though intake operation of the BWMS. organisms within the size ranges organism densities in the Great Lakes The U.S. Laker fleet has another required in the VGP and USCG harbor water were well below IMO and significant issue with respect to discharge standard (using the ETV EPA’s ETV Protocol challenge selection of a BWMS: Currently all Protocol) and the IMO protocols for conditions. GSI concluded that the vessels have uncoated steel ballast approval of ballast water management system failed to achieve the USCG tanks. In this manner, U.S. Lakers differ systems. numeric discharge standard due to the from the Canadian Laker fleet and the During August through October 2009, filters’ ineffectiveness at removing oceangoing vessels. This design works the GSI conducted land-based type- filamentous algal forms in Duluth- for the fleet because the waters of the approval testing in accordance with Superior Harbor water. In addition, very Great Lakes is so fresh that corrosion is IMO G8 guidelines on the Siemens low ambient UV transmittance of not a concern as these vessels do not SiCURETM BWMS (Great Ships Duluth-Superior Harbor water (naturally operate in brackish or ocean saline Initiative, 2010). The Siemens caused by tannins) at the time of testing waters, where such coating is necessary. SiCURETM BWMS is based on filtration likely inhibited the effectiveness of the Any BWMS that generates chlorine for and side-stream electrochlorination of UV disinfection unit (Great Ships disinfection by electrochlorination or seawater to produce hypochlorite, Initiative, 2011). that doses corrosive treatment chemicals which is then injected into the incoming 5. Consideration of a Type-Approved into the ballast water is commercially ballast water. The results showed that BWMS Equipment Requirement available in the capacities needed for the BWMS functioned properly and was EPA also considered an option in Lakers and have a lower electrical effective at reducing live organism in which Great Lakes vessels would be demand. However, these systems would the regulated size classes at levels below required to install, operate, and significantly increase the corrosion rates the IMO ballast water performance maintain a USCG type-approved BWMS in the uncoated ballast tanks of existing standard (i.e., Regulation D–2 of the but not have to meet a discharge U.S. Lakers. Coating ballast tanks on BWM Convention) after the five-day standard. This option assumes that the existing U.S. Lakers can be done; holding time in the fresh water ambient structural challenges of installing, however, the costs to do so are conditions of Duluth-Superior Harbor operating and maintaining a USCG type- prohibitively high, and the vessel would that had been augmented to achieve approved BWMS, particularly for require dry-docking for at least a year, IMO challenge conditions. Target Lakers, could be overcome and would a significant lost revenue period, to bacteria Escherichia coli and intestinal be available and economically clean, grind, weld and coat the inside of enterococci were also discharged at achievable. Specifically, consideration ballast tanks. levels below the numeric discharge was given to an equipment carriage With regards to operational standard after the 5-day holding time. requirement in which a Great Lakes considerations, many inter-lake voyages However, as mentioned previously, vessel would be required to install, are shorter than 72 hours (and even as electrochlorination requires a bunker of operate and maintain (i.e., carry) a short as 2 hours) and, in these cases, synthetic seawater solution for USCG type-approved BWMS, but would would not provide the required generating chlorine and can corrode the not be required to meet a numeric residence time for BWMS technologies uncoated tanks of U.S. Lakers. discharge standard acknowledging the that require extended holding times to During September and October 2014, unique Great Lakes environmental be effective such as chemical addition, GSI conducted land-based testing of conditions and vessel voyage patterns. deoxygenation, or UV for many of the three prototype versions of the chlorine The advantage to this approach is that, USCG type-approved UV-based BWMS addition-based JFE BallastAce® BWMS although treatment may not be able to U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 2017). to evaluate not only the biological and consistently meet the discharge Increasing voyage times by slow chemical performance against the USCG standard due to the Great Lakes steaming to meet minimum hold times ballast water discharge standard, but conditions, some reduction in the for certain BWMS may be possible, but also the total residual oxidant (TRO) of discharge of ANS would likely occur. the impact to vessel operations would the chemical system (Great Ships EPA is not proposing this approach need to be accounted for in assessing Initiative, 2015). Only the JFE because such a requirement to install a the cost of operation of such systems, BallastAce BWMS operated using the current BWMS without addressing the including impacts to shippers. In fact, TG BallastCleaner® at the higher target incompatibility with the environment the entire supply chain would be TRO concentration of approximately 20 conditions of the Great Lakes or the impacted by extra voyage times. mg/L was able to achieve the USCG technical equipment considerations discharge standard for living organisms does not reflect BAT. There is 4. Testing of BWMS on the Great Lakes although these concentrations did result significant uncertainty as to the Testing of various BWMS and their in elevated levels of disinfection by- operational functionality of BWMS in components using ambient Great Lakes products. This system type can also the Great Lakes, particularly when water has been conducted at the Great corrode the uncoated tanks of U.S. operating conditions extend outside the Ships Initiative (GSI) 3 Land-Based Lakers. design parameters of any available treatment systems. For example, given 3 The Great Ships Initiative, which commented in address problems of ship-mediated invasive species that U.S. Lakers have uncoated ballast 2005, is an industry led collaborative effort to in the Great Lakes Saint Lawrence Seaway System. tanks, it is expected that many vessel

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:58 Oct 23, 2020 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00033 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\26OCP2.SGM 26OCP2 67850 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 207 / Monday, October 26, 2020 / Proposed Rules

owners would opt for UV-based BWMS in the Great Lakes. Additional research of the GSI filter system performance to meet such an equipment standard. As is needed before EPA could identify a data shows that regardless of filter pore shown in the GSI testing of the filtration standard that reasonably satisfies the size, no system can achieve the IMO or and UV Alfa Laval PureBallast® Version statutory BAT requirements consistent USCG numeric discharge standards. 3 BWMS in Duluth-Superior Harbor in with Section 903(g)(2)(B)(viii) of the According to GSI, the soft-bodied 2010 using ambient Great Lakes water, VIDA which establishes a program for microzooplankton which make up most the system failed to achieve the USCG EPA, in collaboration with other federal zooplankton in Duluth-Superior Harbor and IMO numeric discharge standards agencies, to research and develop that straddle the 50mm size range were in the two regulated size classes due to BWMS for use by vessels operating on the most difficult to remove by the filters’ ineffectiveness at removing the Great Lakes. filtration. Macrozooplankton, which are filamentous algal forms and very low the least numerous in Duluth-Superior 6. The Availability of Alternative ambient UV transmittance of Duluth- Harbor, were the easiest to remove by Approaches for Great Lakes Vessels Superior Harbor water (naturally caused filtration (Great Ships Initiative, 2014). by tannins) which likely inhibited the EPA assessed whether technologies GSI’s findings are consistent with effectiveness of the UV disinfection unit are available other than USCG type- other researchers who studied the (Great Ships Initiative, 2011). All of the approved BWMS or other BMPs that performance of BWMS filtration systems other USCG type-approved BWMS could be used for Great Lakes vessels. in the Great Lakes. In 2012, Briski et al. systems were evaluated for a carriage The IMO has approved more than 60 (2014) collected before and after requirement and it was found that these commercially available BWMS. filtration samples from a 40 mm BWMS other systems face operational However, as discussed earlier, the IMO filtration unit installed on the M/V challenges similar to the UV system. type-approval process does not meet Richelieu, a 729-foot bulk carrier that Clogged filters in turbid ports and under EPA and USCG QA/QC criteria and as typically operates in the Great Lakes icing conditions could significantly such, vendors must obtain USCG type- and the Atlantic coast of North America. impact vessel operations, even halt approval for any BWMS to be used in The three shipboard trials conducted operations, if the BWMS ceased the U.S. beyond the five-year bridge to dock side in Quebec City, Quebec and working. compliance during which time an IMO Sarnia, Ontario, and at anchor in In addition, EPA determined that type-approved and USCG recognized Thunder Bay, Ontario, found filtration such an equipment requirement does alternate management system (AMS) significantly reduced abundance of not meet the ‘‘economically achievable’’ may be used. EPA also evaluated the copepods and cladocerans, but not of portion of the BAT requirement for this potential for technology transfer from juvenile dreissenid veligers and rotifers. proposed rule. An equipment standard other industries. However, adapting Briski et al. concluded that filtration may require a costly installation and land-based technology for use onboard a alters the relative abundance of maintenance of a system only to be vessel entails different criteria and zooplankton, but filtration alone does faced with an imperative for the vessel challenges, such as acceptable not reduce introduction risk of any owner to modify the system to be able shipboard materials, safety, hazardous taxonomic group due to the small to operate the vessel as necessary or spaces, and vessel stability juvenile stages and dormant eggs which even to replace the system with newer considerations. For these reasons, no can be passed through BWMS filters technology in the near future. Vessels similar technologies have been (Briski et al., 2014). that operate exclusively in the Great identified for evaluation against this EPA determined that filtration alone Lakes have a significant lifespan as vessel-based standard, which accounts is not sufficient to meet the numeric compared to seagoing vessels due to the for vessel design, stability, and safety at discharge standard and there is neither freshwater conditions of the Great sea. sufficient data at this time to establish Lakes. Installation of a BWMS on a Information on technologies and an alternative standard for Great Lakes Laker, for example, would be based on practices other than type-approved vessels using filtration that would the life of the BWMS, not the life of the systems is limited but EPA did evaluate reduce ANS discharge at a known vessel. However, retrofitting a Laker for alternative options for Great Lakes effectiveness level nor information on BWMS is a significantly costly vessels. The three alternatives the practical installation and operation, endeavor, particularly for U.S. owned considered include (1) use of filtration including cost, of such a filtration vessels, which as Jones Act vessels, are only, (2) open lake exchange of highly alternative. turbid water taken up in river ports, and required to be built in U.S. shipyards or ii. Open Lake Exchange pay a 50 percent U.S. tax for repairs (3) exempting the use of a ballast water done in a foreign shipyard. For this treatment system for certain voyages As detailed in the sections above, reason, if a Laker vessel was when the operational parameters of an using a UV-based BWMS eliminates the reconfigured to fit a current USCG type- installed BWMS cannot be met. corrosion concerns associated with use approved system, retrofitting that same of other types of BWMS that rely on i. Filtration vessel for a newer BWMS that may oxidizing chemical addition; however, require a different configuration may be Some research has explored the Great Lakes harbors with high sediment cost prohibitive and impede the potential of using filtration-only to treat loads and excessive levels of tannins, deployment of more effective ballast water; rather than the more particularly in river ports, significantly technologies in the future. common filtration coupled with reduce UV light transmittance and There are insufficient data at this time disinfection. The Great Ships Initiative prevent UV-based BWMS from to establish an alternative equipment (GSI) evaluated the performance of eight providing treatment necessary to standard for Great Lakes vessels that is commercially available filter systems achieve the discharge standard. EPA technically available and economically which covered a range of technologies considered a practice in which a vessel achievable. EPA has determined that and nominal pore sizes using ambient leaving a turbid port could conduct an implementing a carriage standard may Duluth-Superior Harbor water and exchange after leaving the port (e.g., be short-sighted and costly to the vessel amended intake water to achieve a mid-lake) to flush the turbid water, then community with an unknown level of minimum concentration of 24 mg/L use a type-approved BWMS to treat the effectiveness to reduce ANS discharges total suspended solids (TSS). Analysis mid-lake water and any residual ballast

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:58 Oct 23, 2020 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00034 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\26OCP2.SGM 26OCP2 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 207 / Monday, October 26, 2020 / Proposed Rules 67851

water and sediments. However, EPA Great Lakes vessels in the proposed rule EPA believes it is important that new determined that there is insufficient and also, it is not clear how such an technologies and practices be identified data to support the effectiveness of such inconsistent management regime would that reduce the discharge of non- an alternative practice in reducing ANS be evaluated for compliance with the indigenous species specifically from discharges in the Great Lakes. In standards and enforcement purposes. Great Lakes vessels and meet the BAT addition, more information is needed to Additional research is needed to standard. To support the goal of ensure any unintended consequences determine the feasibility of such identifying those technologies, EPA is are avoided that could result from alternatives and the effective reduction considering whether to require owners/ transferring river sediment to an open- of ANS from these practices. For operators of Great Lakes vessels to lake environment. Importantly, it is also example, one consideration to address is perform a self-assessment either not clear that Lakers, which are not built if the BWMS is only operating during individually or in partnership with to seagoing standards, would be able to certain voyages, the untreated ballast other vessel owners/operators and safely conduct open-lake exchange due water and sediments in the tank may submit information annually to EPA. to concerns regarding vessel stability reduce the BWMS effectiveness during Details of the types of information and increased stress during the ballast times when the system is required to be considered and how that information exchange process. operated. In addition, implementation may be used are described in of these exemptions is contingent on the VIII.B.1.vi.C.8.i. Vessel-Specific Data iii. Voyage-Specific Exemptions fact that the structural challenges can be Submission to Inform Revised Standard EPA also considered the option of overcome to install and operate a for Vessels Operating Exclusively on the requiring Great Lakes vessels to meet BWMS on Lakers as already described. Great Lakes. the numeric discharge standard using a If these structural challenges can be It is important that this class of type-approved BWMS, but to allow the overcome, these exemptions could play vessels remain intimately involved in vessel to not have to use the system a critical role in advancing the use of the technology development and be the during certain voyages when the vessel BWMS on the Great Lakes vessels basis for the demand for innovative, is operating outside the design range of during times of prioritized risk. cost-effective solutions by working the system. For example, the short EPA determined that these three closely with researchers and voyage times of many Lakers inhibit the alternatives are not sufficient to meet manufacturers. BWMS may very well be use of UV disinfection, deoxygenation, the numeric discharge standard and developed in stages for the various types or chemical treatment of many BWMS there is insufficient data at this time to of Great Lakes vessels. For example, the which require a specific holding time establish an alternative standard or design and construction of a newly built (e.g., 72-hour hold time after treatment). requirement for Great Lakes vessels that vessel would provide the best An exemption could be given in would reduce ANS discharges at a opportunity to accommodate sufficient advance for specific voyages that do not known effectiveness level. Additional space for electrical and mechanical allow sufficient hold time as specified research is needed to explore these systems. Marine engineers and naval for the BWMS. Short voyages, options. Congress clearly acknowledged architects could also specify that ballast particularly intra-lake routes, likely that there are not currently practicable tanks be completely welded, all sharp pose less of a risk of ballast water spread ballast water management solutions for metal edges be rounded, and all metal of ANS, therefore the use of BWMS Lakers and established the Great Lakes surfaces within the ballast tanks be could be prioritized for inter-lake and Lake Champlain Invasive Species coated with a material to prevent voyages. In addition, incentives could Program under the VIDA for EPA to corrosion. The goal is that research can be explored that encourage vessel develop such solutions. focus on development of technology to owners to modify their voyage pattern to address the environmental and 7. Conclusion accommodate sufficient holding time for operational conditions Great Lakes inter-lake voyages. To date, no technologies or vessels. The same principle could be applied management practices beyond those The VIDA acknowledges the lack of for voyages during cold months when identified previously in the VGP and availability of BWMS for Great Lakes icing condition occur, or the ambient USCG regulations have been vessels and authorizes EPA within its water temperatures fall below the demonstrated to be available and Great Lakes National Program Office to parameters of the BWMS and impede its implementable solutions to address establish the Great Lakes and Lake operation. An exemption could be given ballast water discharges from the Champlain Invasive Species Program. in advance for voyages when these universe of vessels that operate One of that program’s purposes is temperatures occur during the shipping exclusively on the Great Lakes. In identified to develop, achieve type- season. In addition, there may be less November 2016, the Great Ships approval for, and pilot shipboard or biological activity during the colder Initiative (GSI) published a briefing land-based ballast water management months of the year and ANS spread paper highlighting the problem and systems installed on, or available for use could pose less of a risk. This need for pure freshwater testing in the by vessels operating solely within the exemption would allow the operation of Great Lakes stating that USCG and IMO Great Lakes and Lake Champlain to a BWMS to be prioritized during require, as a part of their testing prevent the spread of ANS within the increased temperatures when risk protocols, ‘‘challenge conditions for Great Lakes and Lake Champlain increases. organism sizes and densities that are not Systems. This program is to be In principle, these exemptions are a good fit for native (Great Lakes) developed in collaboration and practical approaches that could be assemblages’’ (Great Ships Initiative, consultation with several other federal beneficial to allow the prioritization of 2016). While more research is agencies. As acknowledged by Congress the operation of BWMS when there is a conducted as authorized by the VIDA, in its inclusion of this provision in the possibility of more ANS discharges, EPA is proposing in this rule to VIDA, this program is expected to play such as during inter-lake voyages or continue to exempt Lakers as well as a vital role to advance the development higher temperatures. However, other vessels that operate exclusively in of type-approved ballast water insufficient data exist to support the the Great Lakes from the numeric management system for Great Lakes imposition of an alternative standard for discharge standard. vessels and inform future regulations.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:58 Oct 23, 2020 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00035 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\26OCP2.SGM 26OCP2 67852 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 207 / Monday, October 26, 2020 / Proposed Rules

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

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:58 Oct 23, 2020 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00036 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\26OCP2.SGM 26OCP2 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 207 / Monday, October 26, 2020 / Proposed Rules 67853

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

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:58 Oct 23, 2020 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00037 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\26OCP2.SGM 26OCP2 67854 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 207 / Monday, October 26, 2020 / Proposed Rules

consisting of two separate vessels that emissions. 40 CFR 125.3(d)(3). Further, Great Lakes vessels from doing the operate in tandem, always together. The many existing ballast water treatment same. 2013 VGP, in Part 2.2.3.5.3.2, exempted systems use biocides that need Also, consistent with CWA Section all unmanned, unpowered barges from minimum contact time to be effective. 312(p)(4)(D)(ii)(II)(aa), the Administrator compliance with the numeric ballast Short distance voyages may not provide may revise a standard of performance to water discharge standard; however, the the time necessary for biocides to be be less stringent than an applicable USCG regulations at 33 CFR 151.2015 effective. In fact, the discharge of ballast existing requirement if information does not exempt any seagoing vessel water treated with biocides may contain becomes available that was not 3,000 GT ITC (1,600 GRT if GT ITC is residuals or byproducts from that reasonably available when the not assigned) and above or that operates treatment, and short voyage times may Administrator promulgated the initial outside of the EEZ. As such, the not permit adequate decay or standard of performance or comparable proposed requirement is a neutralization. requirement of the VGP, as applicable harmonization of the VGP and the While at this time EPA is not aware (including the subsequent scarcity or USCG existing requirements. The record of any specific vessels which currently unavailability of materials used to indicates that an unmanned, unpowered meet these criteria for the exemption, control the relevant discharge); and barge, when part of a dedicated vessel EPA did not want to inadvertently would have justified the application of combination, can install a BWMS as require ballast water numeric discharge a less-stringent standard of performance may be necessary to meet the discharge standard be met for such vessels. at the time of promulgation. As detailed standard and as such these dedicated in VIII.B.1.vi.C.1. Ballast Water vessel combinations including an E. Vessels That Operate Exclusively in Management of Vessels Operating unmanned, unpowered barge are not the Laurentian Great Lakes Exclusively on the Laurentian Great exempt from compliance with the As described in VIII.B.1.vi.C. Vessels Lakes, subsequent to issuance of the numeric ballast water discharge Operating Exclusively on the Great VGP, EPA evaluated post-2009 Lakers standard. Lakes, EPA proposes to subcategorize and concluded that they too are unable to meet the VGP discharge C. Vessels That Uptake and Discharge and not require any vessel that operates exclusively in the Laurentian Great requirements, which is new information Ballast Water Exclusively in a Single not reasonably available to the COTP Zone Lakes to meet the numeric ballast water discharge standard. EPA determined Administrator when EPA issued the Consistent with the provisions of the VGP. that the challenges that existed for pre- previous VGP and existing USCG EPA is not proposing to exclude any 2009 Lakers at the time the VGP was regulations at 33 CFR 151.2015(c) and vessels from the Great Lakes saltwater (d)(3), the proposed rule would exempt issued remain true today not only for flushing and ballast water exchange from the ballast water numeric bulk carriers but for any vessel requirements when such vessels enter discharge standard vessels that uptake operating exclusively in the Laurentian the St. Lawrence Seaway through the and discharge ballast water exclusively Great Lakes. The details of the mouth of the Saint Lawrence River; in a single COTP Zone, but that may circumstances that make ballast water thus, any vessel operating in the operate in more than one COTP Zone. management uniquely challenging for Laurentian Great Lakes that leaves the This exemption retains the BMPs for pre-2009 Lakers include issues having Lakes and takes on ballast water outside these vessels to ensure that ballast water to do with the operational profile and of the Lakes would be required to is managed appropriately, however design of these vessels and with the exchange that ballast prior to re-entering acknowledges that in all other instances, unique nature of the waters of the Great the St. Lawrence Seaway through the the discharge does not significantly Lakes as described in VIII.B.1.vi.C. mouth of the St. Lawrence River contribute to the introduction and Vessels Operating Exclusively on the consistent with the Great Lakes spread of ANS. Great Lakes. As such, EPA is proposing requirements in section 139.10(f) of the to expand this exemption from the VGP proposed rule. The Agency is requiring D. Vessels That Travel No More Than 10 to any vessel operating exclusively on this as specifically established by Nautical Miles and Do Not Pass the Great Lakes, acknowledging that the Congress in the VIDA CWA Section Through Any Locks During Their extreme environmental conditions and 312(p)(10)(A). Voyages operational limitations for pre-2009 Consistent with the provisions of the Lakers also affect the ability of other F. Vessels in the USCG Shipboard previous VGP, the proposed rule would vessels that exclusively trade on the Technology Evaluation Program (STEP) exempt from the ballast water numeric Great Lakes to effectively install and The proposed rule would exempt discharge standard vessels that travel no operate a BWMS to effectively treat from the ballast water numeric more than 10 NM and do not pass ballast water. discharge standard a vessel equipped through any locks during their voyages. EPA acknowledges this standard is with ballast tanks if that vessel is These vessels (e.g., cross-river ferries) less stringent than the VGP; however, enrolled by the USCG into the contribute insignificantly to the the VIDA provides for less stringent Shipboard Technology Evaluation introduction and dispersal of ANS, requirements when, as in this case, the Program (STEP). This exemption is however, the implementation of the best Administrator determines that a consistent with existing VGP management practices for these short- material technical mistake occurred requirements and USCG 33 CFR part voyage vessels is intended to minimize when promulgating the existing 151 subpart D regulations. The STEP the contribution of ANS that the vessels requirement of the VGP. 33 U.S.C. program currently applies and will could cumulatively have in a region. 1322(p)(4)(D)(ii)(II)(bb). EPA made such continue to play a critical role in the Exempting these vessels also helps a material technical mistake when it development of effective ballast water minimize other non-water quality failed to acknowledge that the extreme treatment systems, as with many other environmental impacts that may result environmental conditions and related or similar programs the USCG from the operation of ballast water operational limitations that prevented might implement in the future. The treatment systems, including increased pre-2009 Lakers from treating its ballast program has encouraged pioneering energy usage and increased carbon water also affect the ability of other vessel operators to install ballast water

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:58 Oct 23, 2020 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00038 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\26OCP2.SGM 26OCP2 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 207 / Monday, October 26, 2020 / Proposed Rules 67855

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

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:58 Oct 23, 2020 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00039 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\26OCP2.SGM 26OCP2 67856 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 207 / Monday, October 26, 2020 / Proposed Rules

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

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:58 Oct 23, 2020 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00040 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\26OCP2.SGM 26OCP2 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 207 / Monday, October 26, 2020 / Proposed Rules 67857

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

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:58 Oct 23, 2020 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00041 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\26OCP2.SGM 26OCP2 67858 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 207 / Monday, October 26, 2020 / Proposed Rules

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

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:58 Oct 23, 2020 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00042 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\26OCP2.SGM 26OCP2 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 207 / Monday, October 26, 2020 / Proposed Rules 67859

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

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:58 Oct 23, 2020 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00043 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\26OCP2.SGM 26OCP2 67860 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 207 / Monday, October 26, 2020 / Proposed Rules

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

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:58 Oct 23, 2020 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00044 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\26OCP2.SGM 26OCP2 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 207 / Monday, October 26, 2020 / Proposed Rules 67861

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

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:58 Oct 23, 2020 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00045 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\26OCP2.SGM 26OCP2 67862 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 207 / Monday, October 26, 2020 / Proposed Rules

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

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:58 Oct 23, 2020 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00046 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\26OCP2.SGM 26OCP2 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 207 / Monday, October 26, 2020 / Proposed Rules 67863

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

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:58 Oct 23, 2020 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00047 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\26OCP2.SGM 26OCP2 67864 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 207 / Monday, October 26, 2020 / Proposed Rules

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

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:58 Oct 23, 2020 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00048 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\26OCP2.SGM 26OCP2 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 207 / Monday, October 26, 2020 / Proposed Rules 67865

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

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:58 Oct 23, 2020 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00049 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\26OCP2.SGM 26OCP2 67866 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 207 / Monday, October 26, 2020 / Proposed Rules

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

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:58 Oct 23, 2020 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00050 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\26OCP2.SGM 26OCP2 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 207 / Monday, October 26, 2020 / Proposed Rules 67867

used in the carriage of goods, are Convention, the Clean Hull Act, and the copper-based coatings be considered for required to adhere to requirements for VGP, EPA proposed rule would vessels spending 30 or more days per safety inspections and maintenance authorize the use of non-biocidal year in copper-impaired waters or using activities that dictate how frequently coatings that contain trace amounts of these waters as their home port. they must be drydocked. Factoring this catalytic organotin (other than TBT) if However, despite the potential impacts schedule into the coating selection the trace amounts of organotin are not of copper-based coatings, there is a ensures the coating will sufficiently used as a biocide. When used as a concern that replacement of copper with protect the vessel for the period needed catalyst, EPA proposed rule states that other biocides may cause different, and without creating additional leachate or an organotin compound must contain potentially more harmful, wastes. less than 2,500 mg total tin per kilogram environmental impacts. EPA of dry paint and must not be designed determined that there are no direct Tributyltin (TBT) Requirements to slough or otherwise peel from the substitutions for copper as a biocide that The International Convention on the vessel hull, noting that incidental are as affordable or as effective, without Control of Harmful Anti-fouling amounts of a coating discharged by posing similar risks to non-target Systems on Ships (AFS Convention) abrasion during cleaning or after contact aquatic species (U.S. EPA, 2018). As was adopted in 2001 and came into with other hard surfaces (e.g., moorings) such, EPA is not proposing to require force in 2008. The United States became are acceptable. the selection of an alternative a contracting party to the AFS antifouling coating to copper antifouling Cybutryne Requirements Convention on November 21, 2012. coating for vessels. Domestically, the Clean Hull Act of Cybutryne, commonly known as The significance of the discharges 2009 implements the requirements of Irgarol 1051, is a biocide that functions from a biocidal coating depends not the AFS Convention. Consistent with by inhibiting the electron transport only on the substance used, but also on the AFS Convention, the Clean Hull mechanism in algae, thus inhibiting the ‘‘leaching rate’’ of the biocide (IMO, Act, and the VGP, the proposed rule growth. There are numerous 2009). In other words, the rate of reaffirms that coatings on vessel hulls commercially-available antifoulants that discharge or entry into the environment must not contain TBT or any other are similar in cost and have a much from the coating itself. While the rate at organotin compound used as a biocide. lower negative impact on the aquatic which copper leaches from coatings is Additionally, the proposed rule states environment (IMO, 2018). Restrictions relatively slow (average discharge rates that any vessel hull previously applied on cybutryne are already in place in a range from 3.8–22 mg/cm2/day), copper- with a hull coating containing TBT number of countries globally, and containing coatings can account for (whether or not used as a biocide) or cybutryne is therefore less widely used significant accumulations of metals in any other organotin compound (if used in comparison to other antifoulants receiving waters of ports where as a biocide) must either maintain an (IMO, 2017). Coatings that do not numerous vessels are present (Valkirs et effective overcoat on the vessel hull so contain cybutryne are both al., 2003; Zirino and Seligman, 2002). that no TBT or other organotin leaches technologically available and EPA is aware that maximum leach rates from the vessel hull or remove any TBT economically achievable. Therefore, for copper-based antifouling paints on or other organotin compound from the EPA proposes to prohibit the recreational vessels have been vessel hull. EPA is unaware of any non- application of cybutryne-containing established both federally and locally. biocidal use of TBT which would result coatings on hulls and niche areas. In However, EPA does not currently have in a residual presence in antifouling cases where cybutryne coatings have the data available to establish a leach paints; therefore, EPA reaffirms a zero- been applied previously to a vessel, EPA rate that would be appropriate for the discharge standard of TBT from vessel proposes an effective overcoat must be wide variety of vessels covered under hulls. EPA expects that few, if any, applied and maintained so that no the VIDA. Therefore, the proposed rule vessels have exposed TBT coatings on cybutryne leaches from the vessel hull, does not require a specific, maximum their hulls and that a zero-discharge noting that incidental amounts of copper leach rate for antifouling standard for all organotin compounds, coating discharged by abrasion during coatings, acknowledging that use of including TBT, is technologically cleaning or after contact with the other antifouling coatings is also regulated in achievable based on the availability of hard surfaces are acceptable. EPA is the United States. through FIFRA. At other antifouling coating options. This aware that overcoats are commercially this time, EPA invites comment as to standard is also economically available. what maximum leach rates would achievable because few, if any, vessels Copper Requirements sufficiently prevent biofouling while still use TBT as an antifoulant. restricting the discharge of copper into Other less toxic organotin compounds Copper, primarily in the form of the aquatic environment, recognizing such as dibutyltin oxide are used in cuprous oxide, is the most common that different leach rates may be small quantities as catalysts in some biocide in antifouling coatings, required depending on the vessel biocide-free coatings. One class of accounting for approximately ninety profile, and according to the biocidal-free coatings, which are percent of the volume of sales of differentiations designated by the VIDA sometimes referred to as fouling release specialty antifouling biocides in the (e.g., vessel size, class, type, and age). coatings, produce a non-stick surface to United States (U.S. EPA, 2018). Copper which fouling organisms cannot firmly is a broad-spectrum biocide that Cleaning adhere. To function properly, the effectively prevents both micro- and Most commercial vessels are required coating surface must remain smooth, macrofouling. Copper is considered less to undertake periodic hull surveys as intact, and not leach into the harmful to the aquatic environment than part of International Association of surrounding water. Because these less TBT-containing compounds, but its use Classification Societies rules and in toxic organotins are used as a catalyst in has nevertheless contributed to loadings accordance with IMO conventions. the production of biocide-free coatings, in copper-impaired waters. Consistent Whenever possible, EPA suggests that such production may result in trace with the VGP, EPA proposes to require drydock cleaning is the preferred BMP amounts of organotin in antifouling that, as appropriate based on vessel to in-water hull and niche cleaning. coatings. Consistent with the AFS class and operations, alternatives to Drydock schedules should be factored

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:58 Oct 23, 2020 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00051 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\26OCP2.SGM 26OCP2 67868 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 207 / Monday, October 26, 2020 / Proposed Rules

into the inspection and management of and maintenance of hulls; and thorough cause no or minimal damage to the areas susceptible to biofouling. hull and niche area cleaning when the underlying coating, ensuring that the EPA recognizes that in many vessel is in drydock. The VGP also coating is not degraded and the release instances it is not technologically required that vessel owners/operators of biocide into the aquatic environment available or economically achievable for who remove biofouling organisms from is minimized. These requirements are a vessel to be drydocked outside of the hulls while the vessel is waterborne considered best practice and would regular schedule to clean biofouling employ methods that minimize the ensure the longevity and effectiveness of from the hull or niche areas. Some discharge of fouling organisms and the coating and minimize the pollutant vessels are too large to be regularly antifouling coatings. Such methods loading into the surrounding removed from the water, and any repair include the use of appropriate cleaning environment. or maintenance required on the hull or brush or sponge rigidity to minimize EPA is also proposing to prohibit in- niches must occur while the vessel is removal of antifouling coatings and water cleaning of biofouling that pier-side between drydockings. biocide releases into the water column; exceeds a fouling rating of FR–20, Therefore, EPA believes the Act does limiting the use of hard brushes and except in the following two not require the prohibition of in-water surfaces for the removal of hard growth; circumstances: (1) When the fouling is cleaning at this time. In-water cleaning and when available and feasible, use of local in origin and cleaning does not that is conducted as a preventative a vacuum or other control technology to result in the substantial removal of a measure can be an important minimize the release or dispersion of biocidal antifouling coating, as component of biofouling management. antifouling coatings and fouling indicated by a plume or cloud of paint; Preventative in-water cleaning is the organisms into the water column. The or (2) when an in-water cleaning and frequent, gentle cleaning of the vessel VGP also prohibited the in-water capture (IWCC) system is used that is hull and appendages to prevent the cleaning of hulls coated with copper- designed and operated to capture growth of biofouling organisms, with based anti-fouling paints in copper- coatings and biofouling organisms; filter minimal impacts to the antifouling impaired waters within the first 365 biofouling organisms from the effluent, system. However, EPA also recognizes days after paint application unless there and minimize the release of biocides. that there may be places where in-water is a significant visible indication of hull Pursuant to this proposed standard, cleaning should not occur, notably in fouling. fouling is considered to be local if a federally-protected waters, based on the Consistent with the VGP, EPA is vessel follows a ‘clean-before-you-go’ unique resources present in those areas. proposing that vessel hulls and niche strategy, whereby in-water cleaning is Studies have estimated that even a areas must be cleaned regularly to conducted prior to leaving a port on biofilm can increase the drag on a vessel minimize biofouling (i.e., grooming or fouling accumulated in that port. If by up to 25 percent (Townsin, 2003; preventative cleaning). Regular cleaning IWCC systems are used, discharge of Schultz, 2007). Predictive analytics have to minimize biofouling is considered an any wastes filtered or otherwise shown that frequent cleaning reduces industry best practice, in large part due removed from the system is prohibited. fuel consumption and that increasing to the economic incentive involved: Also, understanding that IWCC systems cleaning to an interval of approximately Costs associated with regular in-water may not be available in many ports, EPA six months can save hundreds of cleaning, including the cleaning recommends, but does not propose to thousands of dollars per vessel in fuel services, disruptions to a ship’s require, the use of IWCC systems for costs (Marr, 2017). Therefore, schedule, and staff time, are outweighed removal of local macrofouling. conducting preventative cleaning can by the fuel savings that result from a IWCC systems reduce the discharge of reduce drag, enhance operations, and low fouling rating (FR) as that term is fouling organisms and coating particles reduce the discharge of ANS. defined in the proposed regulations; into the surrounding environment, and Additionally, preventative cleaning has reductions in fouling from FR–20 to FR– allow solids removed from the vessel been shown to effectively reduce 10 have been estimated to generate hulls to be collected and disposed of biofouling without significantly hundreds of thousands of dollars in fuel onshore. Cleaning of hulls and niche increasing biocide loading into the savings annually per ship. Several areas, such as with IWCC systems, is aquatic environment (Tribou and Swain, mechanisms are utilized by vessel necessary for vessel maintenance, and 2017). In contrast, macrofouling requires owners to determine the necessary therefore the discharge of treated or more abrasive removal techniques, intervals of such cleanings, including filtered effluent from these systems is which may damage the antifouling regular inspections, ISO standard 19030 considered incidental to the normal coating, resulting in a higher tendency measurements of hull and propeller operation of a vessel and authorized for subsequent biofouling as well as a performance, and/or advanced data under the VIDA. IWCC discharges result larger pulse of biocides and particles analytics. Further, many technologies ‘‘from a protective, preservative . . . into the aquatic environment. are available for preventative in-water application to the hull of the vessel’’ (33 Additionally, macrofouling (FR >20) is cleaning, including diver-operated U.S.C. 1322(a)(12)(A)(i)). Vessels composed of more diverse and mature technologies or remotely operated following effective biofouling organisms and, depending on vehicles. A review of the market of hull management strategies generally should geographic origin, may present a greater cleaning robots sponsored by the USCG be able to maintain fouling at or below risk of discharging ANS than a slime in 2016 identified no fewer than 15 an advanced slime layer. Therefore, use layer. technologies capable of conducting in- of such IWCC systems would primarily The VGP required that vessel owners/ water cleaning of vessel hulls. More occur either to remove fouling that is operators minimize the transport of recently, remotely operated vehicles for local in origin (e.g., after periods of attached living organisms when preventative cleaning have also been idleness) or in contingency scenarios. traveling into U.S. waters from outside developed as equipment attached to the Technologies to remove and capture the Economic Exclusive Zone or vessel itself, enabling flexibility in biofouling have emerged since the last between COTP Zones using techniques cleaning schedule along a vessel’s route. VGP issuance. These technologies are such as selecting and maintaining an Additionally, consistent with the available and becoming common appropriate anti-fouling management VGP, the proposed rule would also practice globally. To date, EPA has system; in water inspections, cleaning, require that the cleaning methods used identified four companies that have

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:58 Oct 23, 2020 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00052 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\26OCP2.SGM 26OCP2 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 207 / Monday, October 26, 2020 / Proposed Rules 67869

designed IWCC systems, operating in pressure in comparison to warmer, atmosphere in the cargo and ballast more than 15 countries and across six marine waterbodies, and therefore tanks to prevent explosion and suppress continents. This international vessels primarily operating in these flammability. Inert gas system information is relevant to this sector waters would likely not require cleaning discharges consist of scrubber because a significant number of vessels within the 365 days following washwater and water from deck water to which this rule applies operate application of the coating. For vessels seals when used as an integral part of internationally. EPA anticipates that operating in the few copper-impaired the inert gas system. this technology will continue to areas of coastal waterbodies in the EPA endeavored to identify new improve and become more widely United States, there remains the option technology and best management available. Similar to proactive cleaning, to either conduct cleaning at a nearby, options for inert gas system discharges; IWCC devices are advertised as being non-impaired port or to employ the use however, EPA did not identify any new capable of providing hundreds of of an IWCC system as described above. technology since the development of the thousands of dollars in fuel savings Although it is unlikely that a vessel VGP. As such, EPA relied on the BPT/ annually to many vessel owners and with a copper-based coating will have to BCT/BAT analysis that led to the operators, and thus there is an economic clean within a copper-impaired water development of the VGP requirements incentive independent of this rule during the 365 days following and is proposing to require driving their use. Additionally, the application, EPA has further determined substantively the same standard of shipping industry has outlined the lack that there are alternatives to copper- performance required by the VGP. of approved in-water cleaning facilities based coatings that are available for use, As required by the VGP, EPA as an impedance to effective biofouling which, over the coating lifespan would proposes that all inert gas scrubber management, resulting in ships result in costs comparable to copper- washwater and water from deck seals increasingly cleaning offshore and in based coatings. must meet all of the requirements open waters, which bring added safety Additionally, EPA proposes to identified in the general discharge concerns. The primary challenge with prohibit in-water cleaning on any standards, and notably, requirements for using an IWCC is not the lack of section of a biocidal antifouling coating oily discharges, including requirements technologies themselves, but regulatory which has shown significant set forth in MARPOL Annex I, EPA oil frameworks that do not allow for these deterioration since the most recent regulations, and USCG oil regulations as technologies to be used in various areas application of the coating. Such a level appropriate for the vessel. around the world. Removal of regulatory of deterioration indicates failure at the 15. Motor Gasoline and Compensating obstacles associated with the use of anticorrosive/antifouling interface Systems which can result in a soft blister that is IWCC will afford vessel owners and Motor gasoline and compensating operators with the opportunity to realize more likely to be broken by cleaning. Cleaning of paint that has reached this discharge is the discharge of seawater operational savings associated with that is taken into motor gasoline tanks maintaining a clean hull. As such, EPA level may cause rupturing of paint blisters, which not only results in to replace the weight of fuel as it is used expects that regular cleaning of and eliminate free space where vapors biofouling consisting of FR–20 or below, discharges of coating particles, but also increases the rate of damage to the anti- could accumulate. The compensating in combination with the potential for system is used for fuel tanks to supply controlled cleaning of biofouling fouling system more generally. In turn, the exposed surface is subject to pressure for the gasoline and to keep the exceeding FR–20 through IWCC devices, increased fouling and risk of corrosion. tank full to prevent potentially represents best available technology EPA expects that an antifouling system explosive gasoline vapors from forming. economically achievable to control the selected in accordance with the vessel’s The seawater is discharged when the release of ANS and biocides from vessel operating profile, and cleaned with vessel refills the tanks with gasoline or hulls and associated niche areas, with minimally abrasive cleaning methods, when performing maintenance. The likely long term cost savings to the should not present signs of significant discharge can contain both toxic and vessel industry. deterioration at the anticorrosive/ conventional pollutants including In line with the VGP, EPA is also antifouling interface, therefore residual oils or traces of gasoline proposing to minimize discharges of adherence to this standard is achievable constituents, which can include copper to aquatic ecosystems by by following the coating and cleaning alkanes, alkenes, aromatics (e.g., restricting the in-water cleaning of practices in the proposed guidelines. benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene, phenol, vessels coated with copper-based Consistent with proposed and naphthalene), metals, and additives. antifouling paints in copper-impaired requirements for detergents used for Most vessels by design do not produce waters within the first 365 days after deck washdown in this proposed rule this discharge. paint application. The proposed rule and the VGP, EPA proposes that EPA endeavored to identify new would allow in-water cleaning of cleaning agents used on vessel surfaces technology and best management copper-based coatings in copper- that maintain direct contact with options for motor gasoline and impaired waters within the 365 days ambient waters, such as the scum lines compensating discharges; however, EPA following application only in of the hull, must be minimally-toxic, did not identify any new technology circumstances when an IWCC system phosphate-free, and biodegradable. since the development of the VGP. As consistent with the aforementioned Finally, as proposed in section 139.40, such, EPA relied on the BPT/BCT/BAT specifications is used. EPA understands EPA proposes additional controls for analysis that led to the development of that biocidal coatings are generally discharges from in-water cleaning when the VGP requirements and is proposing designed to remain free of fouling for vessels are operating in federally- to require substantively the same the 365 days after application, prior to protected waters. standard of performance required by the requiring in-water hull cleaning. VGP. Additionally, the majority of copper- 14. Inert Gas Systems As required by the VGP, EPA impaired waters within the United Inert gas is used on tankers for several proposes that all motor gasoline and States are streams, creeks, and rivers reasons, with one of the primary uses compensating discharge must meet the which generally have lower fouling being to control the oxygen levels in the requirements identified in the general

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:58 Oct 23, 2020 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00053 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\26OCP2.SGM 26OCP2 67870 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 207 / Monday, October 26, 2020 / Proposed Rules

discharge standards, and notably, options for pool and spa wastewater; that led to the development of the VGP requirements for oily discharges, however, EPA did not identify any new requirements and is proposing including requirements set forth in technology since the development of the substantively similar requirements as MARPOL Annex I, EPA oil regulations, VGP. As such, EPA relied on the BPT/ the VGP. and USCG oil regulations as appropriate BCT/BAT analysis that led to the As required by the VGP, EPA for the vessel. development of the VGP requirements proposes to prohibit the discharge of Finally, as discussed in VIII C. and is proposing substantively similar refrigeration and air conditioning Discharges Incidental to the Normal requirements as the VGP. EPA condensate directly overboard that Operation of a Vessel—Specialized determined the dechlorination limits by contacts toxic or hazardous materials. Areas, and as required by the VGP, EPA using those established for ballast water 19. Seawater Piping proposes several additional controls for treatment systems and by evaluating discharges from motor gasoline and comments submitted by the public on Seawater piping systems, including compensating systems from a vessel the 2008 and 2013 VGPs that indicated sea chests and grates, are a niche area operating in federally-protected waters. such limits are achievable. Furthermore, that have the potential to harbor and the proposed numeric discharge discharge a large quantity of ANS, 16. Non-Oily Machinery standard is consistent with common which are a nonconventional pollutant. Non-oily machinery wastewater is the dechlorination limits from shore-based Niche areas represent a challenge for combined wastewater from the sewage treatment facilities. biofouling management as they are operation of distilling plants, water The proposed standard would require generally more difficult to access and chillers, valve packings, water piping, vessel operators to discharge while are protected from hydrodynamic low- and high-pressure air compressors, underway and dechlorinate and/or forces, facilitating the accumulation and propulsion engine jacket coolers, fire debrominate any pool or spa water, survivorship of fouling organisms. pumps, and seawater and potable water except for unintentional or inadvertent Niche areas account for approximately pumps. Non-oily machinery wastewater releases from overflows across the decks 10 percent of the total wetted surface systems are intended to keep and into overboard drains, prior to area of a vessel (Moser et al., 2017). wastewater from machinery that does discharging overboard. To be considered However, over 80 percent of species not contain oil separate from wastewater dechlorinated, the total residual sampled in vessel biofouling studies that has oil content. Non-oily machinery chlorine in the pool or spa effluent must were found in niche areas (Bell et al., wastewater discharge rates vary by be less than 100mg/L. To be considered 2011). Therefore, while the relative vessel size and operation type, ranging debrominated, the total residual oxidant surface area of niche areas in proportion from 100 to 4,000 gallons per hour. in the pool or spa effluent must be less to the hull may be low, the risk of such Constituents of non-oily machinery than 25mg/L. Additionally, the proposed areas contributing to the discharge of wastewater discharge can include a standard would require the discharge of ANS is significant. Additionally, suite of conventional and pool and spa water overboard to occur seawater piping systems on commercial nonconventional pollutants including while the vessel is underway unless vessels may provide water uptake for metals and organics. determined infeasible by the Secretary. firefighting response, engine cooling, EPA endeavored to identify new Finally, as discussed in VIII C. and ballast water. Ensuring that these technology and best management Discharges Incidental to the Normal systems are unobstructed from options for discharges of non-oily Operation of a Vessel—Specialized macrofouling organisms is vital to ship machinery wastewater; however, EPA Areas, and as required by the VGP, EPA operations, including the structural did not identify any new technology proposes additional controls for integrity of the vessel and the safety of since the development of the VGP. As discharges from pools and spas from the crew. such, EPA relied on the BPT/BCT/BAT vessels operating in federally-protected The VGP required vessel owners/ analysis that led to the development of waters. operators to remove fouling organisms from seawater piping on a regular basis the VGP requirements and is proposing 18. Refrigeration and Air Conditioning to require substantively the same and dispose of removed substances in standard of performance required by the Condensation from cold refrigeration accordance with local, state, and federal VGP. or evaporator coils of air conditioning regulations. The VGP also prohibited As required by the VGP, EPA systems drips from the coils and collects the discharge of removed fouling proposes that the discharge of untreated in drip troughs which typically channel organisms into regulated waters. non-oily wastewater and packing gland to a drainage system. The condensate Additionally, the VGP required a or stuffing box effluent that contains discharge may contain toxic, drydock inspection report noting that toxic or bioaccumulative additives or conventional, and nonconventional the sea chest and other surface and the discharge of oil in such quantities as pollutants including detergents, niche areas of the vessel have been may be harmful is prohibited. seawater, food residue, and trace metals. inspected for attached living organisms, This waste stream can easily be and those organisms have been removed 17. Pools and Spas segregated from oily wastes, and toxic or or neutralized. Cruise ships and other vessels hazardous materials and safely EPA proposes any vessel with a occasionally have pools or spas onboard discharged, channeled, or collected for seawater piping system (sea chests, that use water treated with chlorine or temporary holding until disposed of grates, and any sea-piping) that bromine as a disinfectant. When pools onshore or drained to the bilge. accumulates biofouling that exceeds a or spas are drained, the water is EPA endeavored to identify new fouling rating of FR–20 must be fitted discharged overboard or sent to an technology and best management with a Marine Growth Prevention advanced wastewater treatment system. options for refrigeration and air System (MGPS). The discharge water can contain conditioning condensate; however, EPA The most common MGPS for seawater nonconventional pollutants such as did not identify any new technology or includes sacrificial anodic copper bromine and chlorine. management options since the systems and chlorine-based dosing EPA endeavored to identify new development of the VGP. As such, EPA systems. Such systems are already technology and best management relied on the BPT/BCT/BAT analysis widely in use and available. EPA

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:58 Oct 23, 2020 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00054 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\26OCP2.SGM 26OCP2 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 207 / Monday, October 26, 2020 / Proposed Rules 67871

recognizes that there may be a variety of which reactive measures should be used exterior of the dome. Components that systems capable of addressing will be vessel-specific and therefore is may leach into surrounding waters biofouling in seawater systems, and an not proposing a specific time interval. include antifouling agents, plastic, iron effective, preventative biofouling Time intervals should be determined and rubber. management strategy may include a based on a vessel’s operational profile. EPA endeavored to identify new combination of different systems. EPA Finally, as proposed in section 139.40, technology and best management therefore expanded the definition of an EPA proposes additional controls for options for sonar domes; however, EPA MGPS for this standard to also include discharges from seawater piping did not identify any new technology or chemical injection; electrolysis, systems when vessels are operating in management options since the ultrasound, ultraviolet radiation, or federally-protected waters. development of the VGP. As such, EPA electrochlorination; application of an Seawater piping discharges also relied on the BPT/BCT/BAT analysis antifouling coating; or use of cupro- include non-contact engine cooling that led to the development of the VGP nickel piping. Due to the many options water, hydraulic system cooling water, requirements and is proposing to available and the wide extent of their refrigeration cooling water, and require substantively the same standard current use, EPA considers the MGPS freshwater lay-up wastewater. Such of performance required by the VGP. options provided to be best available systems use ambient water to absorb the EPA proposes to prohibit the technology. heat from heat exchangers, propulsion discharge of water during maintenance An MGPS can vary widely in systems, and mechanical auxiliary or repair from inside the sonar domes. operational characteristics and systems. The water is typically Additionally, the proposed standard placement suitability. EPA proposes circulated through an enclosed system would prohibit the use of that the MGPS selection must consider that does not come in direct contact bioaccumulative biocides when non- the level, frequency, and type of with machinery, but still may contain bioaccumulative alternatives are expected biofouling and the design, sediment from water intake, traces of available. location, and area in which the system hydraulic or lubricating oils, and trace C. Discharges Incidental to the Normal will be used. For example, it has been metals leached or eroded from the pipes Operation of a Vessel—Federally- suggested that an MGPS installed in the within the system. Additionally, Protected Waters Requirements sea chest provides protection to both the because it is used for cooling, the sea chest and internal pipework, while effluent will have an increased The VIDA, in CWA Section one installed in the strainer may only temperature. Cooling water can reach 312(p)(4)(B)(iii), specifies that EPA must protect the internal pipework. high temperatures with the thermal propose national standards of Furthermore, anti-fouling coating difference between seawater intake and performance that are no less stringent selection and application should be discharge typically ranging from 5 °C to than the VGP requirements relating to appropriate to the material of the piping 25 °C, with maximum temperatures effluent limits and related requirements, and level of waterflow to which the reaching 140 °C. EPA is aware that use including with respect to waters subject coated area is subjected. Based on the of shore-power may reduce the to Federal protection, in whole or in potential differences in profile of the discharges of seawater from cooling part, for conservation purposes (with coated areas, the coating applied to a system; however, EPA recognizes that limited exemptions for new information seawater system may be different from shore-power may not be available in or to correct mistakes or the coating applied to the vessel hull. many locations, may not be sufficient misinterpretations made in previous EPA recommends that the MGPS should for the electricity needs of the vessel, requirements in the VGP). Therefore, be selected, installed, and maintained and may not be compatible with the EPA proposes to prohibit or limit according to the manufacturer vessel’s systems. Therefore, currently, discharges in federally-protected waters specifications. EPA is not proposing to require the use consistent with the VGP requirements Upon identification that biofouling of shore-power to reduce thermal established for ‘‘waters federally- exceeds a level of FR–20 despite discharges from seawater piping protected for conservation purposes.’’ preventative measures, then reactive systems. EPA proposes that the designated measures must be used to remove federally-protected waters for this biofouling. Such measures can include 20. Sonar Domes rulemaking consist of the areas of waters freshwater flushing or chemical dosing. Sonar dome discharge consists of listed in Appendix G of the VGP For example, vessels that use seawater leachate from anti-fouling materials into (National Marine Sanctuaries, Marine cooling systems to condense low the surrounding seawater and the National Monuments, National Parks, pressure steam from propulsion plants discharge of seawater or freshwater National Wildlife Refuges, National or generator turbines already practice retained within the sonar dome. Sonar Wilderness Areas, or parts of the freshwater flushing as a means of domes house detection, navigation, and National Wild and Scenic Rivers removing biofouling. However, ranging equipment and are filled with System) plus any additional individual discharges resulting from reactive water to maintain their shape and waters that have been added to these measures to remove macrofouling are pressure. They are typically found on nationally-recognized waters since the prohibited in port. research vessels but may occur on other establishment of the VGP Appendix G; When these vessels are in port for vessel classes. Sonar dome discharge this updated list of waters is proposed more than a few days, the main steam occasionally occurs when the water in in Appendix A of Part 139 in this plant is shut down and does not the dome is drained for maintenance or rulemaking. Federally-protected waters circulate. This can cause an repair; discharge rates are estimated to are likely to be of high quality and accumulation of biological growth range from 300 to 74,000 gallons from consist of unique ecosystems which within the system; consequently, a inside the sonar dome for each repair may include distinctive species of freshwater layup is carried-out by event. This discharge from inside the aquatic animals and plants. flushing the seawater in the system with dome may include toxic pollutants Furthermore, as protected areas, these potable or surrounding freshwater (e.g., including zinc, copper, nickel, and waters are more likely to have a greater lake water) and thoroughly cleaning the epoxy paints. Additionally, discharge abundance of sensitive species of plants system. EPA expects the frequency at occurs when materials leach from the and animals that may have trouble

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:58 Oct 23, 2020 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00055 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\26OCP2.SGM 26OCP2 67872 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 207 / Monday, October 26, 2020 / Proposed Rules

surviving in areas with greater prohibits motorized vehicles, vessels, Bilges: EPA proposes that, consistent anthropogenic impact. Such waters are aircrafts or equipment for the purposes with section 2.2.2 of the VGP, for any important to the public at large, as of transport of any kind within the vessel of 400 GT ITC (400 GRT if GT ITC evidenced by the waters’ special status boundaries of all wilderness areas (16 is not assigned) and above, the or designation by the Federal U.S.C. 1133(c)). Exceptions to this Act discharge of bilgewater is prohibited. government as National Marine include motorized vehicle use for the Boilers: EPA proposes that, consistent Sanctuaries, Marine National purposes of gathering information on with section 2.2.6 of the VGP, any Monuments, National Parks, National minerals or other resources; for the discharge from a boiler into federally- Wildlife Refuges, National Wilderness purposes of controlling fire, insects, or protected waters is prohibited. This Areas, or parts of the National Wild and disease; and in wilderness areas where requirement acknowledges that small Scenic Rivers System. aircraft or motorized boat use have volumes of routine blowdown may be To develop the list of applicable already been established prior to 1964. discharged because of design and ‘‘federally-protected waters,’’ for the Maps and a list of national wilderness operational considerations of the boiler VGP, EPA reviewed several federal areas are available at https:// if compliance with this part would authorities that protect waters that are www.wilderness.net. compromise the safety of life at sea known to be of high value or sensitive • National Wild and Scenic Rivers— consistent with exclusion from these to environmental impacts, such as those as designated under the Wild and discharge standards in section administered by the Bureau of Land Scenic Rivers Act of 1968 (16 U.S.C. 139.1(b)(3) of the proposed rule. Management (BLM), the National Park 1271 et seq). Maps and a list of national Fire Protection Equipment: EPA Service (NPS), the United States Fish wild and scenic rivers are currently proposes that, generally consistent with and Wildlife Service (FWS), the Forest available at https://www.rivers.gov. section 2.2.5 of the VGP for aqueous film forming foam and section 2.2.12 of Service (USFS), and the National EPA does not propose to include the VGP for firemain systems, the Oceanic and Atmospheric Outstanding National Resource Waters discharge from fire protection Administration (NOAA). These areas, (ONRWs) on the list of federally- equipment during training, testing, identified in Appendix G of the VGP, protected waters in this proposed rule maintenance, inspection, and include: as these are State or Tribal water • National Marine Sanctuaries—as certification into federally-protected quality-based designations under the designated under the National Marine waters is prohibited and the discharge antidegradation policy of the CWA. Sanctuaries Act (16 U.S.C. 1431 et seq.) of fluorinated foam in federally- CWA Section 312(p)(9) establishes state and implementing regulations found at protected waters is prohibited. authorities under the VIDA and CWA 15 CFR part 922 and 50 CFR part 404. Graywater: EPA proposes that, Section 312(p)(10) establishes specific Maps and a list of national marine consistent with section 2.2.15 of the sanctuaries are currently available at regional requirements and neither VGP, the discharge of graywater into https://sanctuaries.noaa.gov. section includes nor references the federally-protected waters is prohibited • Marine National Monuments—as ONRWs established under the VGP. from any vessel with remaining designated by presidential proclamation As required by the VGP, EPA available graywater storage capacity. under the Antiquities Act of 1906 (54 proposes to include discharge Motor Gasoline and Compensating U.S.C. 320301 et seq). Maps and a list requirements for vessels operating in Discharge: EPA proposes that, of marine national monuments are federally-protected waters as designated consistent with section 2.2.16 of the currently available at https:// in Appendix A. These requirements are VGP, the discharge of motor gasoline fisheries.noaa.gov. in addition to any applicable general or and compensating discharges into • National Parks (including National specific discharge requirements in federally-protected waters is prohibited. Preserves and National Monuments)—as Subparts B and C of the proposed rule. Additionally, EPA proposes to designated under the National Park The following paragraphs describe the include several new or modified Service Organic Act, as amended (54 additional discharge requirements discharge requirements for vessels U.S.C. 100101 et seq.) within the established when a vessel is operating operating in federally-protected waters. National Park System by the NPS within in federally-protected waters. EPA proposes that these additional the U.S. Department of the Interior. Ballast Tanks: EPA proposes that, requirements are technologically Maps and a list of national parks are generally consistent with section available because the waters that are currently available at https:// 2.2.3.3. of the VGP, the discharge or ‘‘federally protected’’ waters are limited www.nps.gov/findpark.index.htm. uptake of ballast water must be avoided and thus vessels are able to operate • National Wildlife Refuges in federally-protected waters, except for without discharging in these protected (including Wetland Management those vessels operating within the waters. For example, a vessel traveling Districts, Waterfowl Production Areas, boundaries of any national marine through the Florida Keys National National Game Preserves, Wildlife sanctuary that preserves shipwrecks or Marine Sanctuary can ordinarily wait to Management Area, and National Fish maritime heritage in the Great Lakes, discharge accumulated water and and Wildlife Refuges)—as designated including Thunder Bay National Marine sediment from any chain locker or under the National Wildlife Refuge Sanctuary and Underwater Preserve, as chemically-dosed seawater piping until System Administration Act of 1966 as necessary to allow for safe and efficient no longer in those federally-protected amended by the National Wildlife vessel operation, unless the designation waters. EPA proposes that the Refuge System Improvement Act of documents for such sanctuary do not requirement is economically achievable 1997 (16 U.S.C. 668dd et seq). Maps and allow taking up or discharging ballast because EPA does not have any a list of national wildlife refuges are water in such sanctuary, pursuant to the information indicating that vessels currently available at https:// Howard Coble Coast Guard and undertaking an activity such as holding www.fws.gov/refuges. Maritime Transportation Act of 2014, would incur costs. • National Wilderness Areas—as Public Law 113–281, title VI, sec. 610, Chain Lockers: EPA proposes that the designated under the Wilderness Act of as amended by the Coast Guard discharge of accumulated water and 1964 (16 U.S.C. 1131 et seq). Section Reauthorization Act of 2015, Public Law sediment from any chain locker into 4(c) of the Wilderness Act strictly 114–120, title VI, sec. 602). federally-protected waters is prohibited.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:58 Oct 23, 2020 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00056 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\26OCP2.SGM 26OCP2 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 207 / Monday, October 26, 2020 / Proposed Rules 67873

This is a proposed new requirement that before being offloaded to shore or including whether a more detailed acknowledges that cleanout of chain another tender vessel. The fish hold is process should be developed. lockers is not a time sensitive activity typically a refrigerated seawater holding B. Petition by a Governor for the and as such, can be scheduled at times tank, where the fish are kept cool by Administrator To Establish Enhanced when a vessel is outside of these mechanical refrigeration or ice. With the Great Lakes System Requirements sensitive waters. exception of ballast water, CWA Section Decks: EPA proposes that the 312(p)(2)(B)(i)(III) excludes from these CWA Section 312(p)(10)(B) creates a discharge of deck washdown into proposed regulations discharges process for establishing enhanced federally-protected waters is prohibited. incidental to the normal operation of a federal standards or requirements to This proposed requirement extends fishing vessel; therefore, EPA proposes apply within the Great Lakes System in coverage from certain vessels in the VGP that although this discharge was lieu of any comparable standards or to all vessels that acknowledges that included in the VGP, it should not be a requirements promulgated under CWA washing of decks is an activity that can discharge incidental to the normal Section 312(p)(4)–(5). Any Governor of be scheduled for times when a vessel is operation of a vessel subject to these a Great Lakes State (or the Governor’s outside of these sensitive waters. regulations. designee) may initiate the process by Hulls and Associated Niche Areas: submitting a petition for an enhanced Small boat engines use ambient water EPA proposes that the discharge from standard to the other Great Lakes States that is injected into the exhaust for in-water cleaning of vessel hulls and Governors, as well as the as the cooling and noise reduction purposes. niche areas into federally-protected Executive Director of the Great Lakes Similar to fishing vessels, with the waters is prohibited. This is a new Commission and the Director of EPA’s exception of ballast water, CWA Section requirement that acknowledges in-water Great Lakes National Program Office. 312(p)(2)(B)(i)(III) excludes from these cleaning of vessel hulls and niche areas The petition must seek the endorsement proposed regulations discharges is an activity that can be scheduled for of fellow governors for an enhanced incidental to the normal operation of a times when the vessel is outside of these standard of performance or other vessel less than 79 feet; therefore, EPA sensitive waters. requirement with respect to any Pools and Spas: EPA proposes that proposes that although this discharge discharge that is subject to regulation the discharge of pool or spa water into was included in the VGP, it should not under CWA Section 312(p) that occurs federally-protected waters is prohibited. be a discharge incidental to the normal in the Great Lakes System. A petition This proposed requirement extends operation of a vessel subject to these shall include an explanation regarding coverage from medium and large cruise regulations. why the applicable standard of ships to all vessels with pools or spas IX. Procedures for States To Request performance or other requirement is at and acknowledges that these discharges Changes to Standards, Regulations, or least as stringent as a comparable can be scheduled for times when the Policy Promulgated by the standard of performance or other vessel is outside of these sensitive Administrator requirement in the final rule; in waters. accordance with maritime safety; and in Seawater Piping Systems: EPA A. Petition by a Governor for the accordance with applicable maritime proposes that the discharge of chemical Administrator To Establish an and navigation laws and regulations. dosing, as required in section 139.28 of Emergency Order or Review a Standard, After involving the Great Lakes the proposed rule, into federally- Regulation, or Policy Commission, the requisite number of Governors may jointly submit to the protected waters is prohibited. This is a Under CWA Section 312(p)(7)(A), a Administrator and the Secretary an new requirement that acknowledges Governor of a state may submit a endorsement of a proposed standard of chemical dosing and the resultant petition to the Administrator to issue an performance or other requirement to discharge is an activity that can be emergency order or to review any scheduled for times when the vessel is apply within the Great Lakes System. standard of performance, regulation, or Upon receipt of the proposed outside of these sensitive waters. policy if there exists new information EPA specifically solicits comment on standard of performance or requirement that could reasonably result in a change. the use of the VGP’s Appendix G water from a Great Lakes Governor, the A petition must be signed by the areas and more specifically the list of Administrator shall submit, after Governor (or a designee) and must waters in Appendix A as the proposed consultation with the USCG, a notice to include the purpose of the petition static list of federally-protected waters, the Federal Register that provides an (request for emergency order or to including whether specific designations opportunity for public comment on the review of any standard of performance, of waters should be added to or proposed standard of performance or regulation, or policy); any applicable excluded from the proposed list. EPA requirement. In addition, the scientific or technical information that also specifically solicits comments on Administrator shall commence a review forms the basis of the petition; and the the additional discharge requirements of the proposed standard of performance direct and indirect benefits if the proposed for vessels operating in or requirement to determine if it is at requested petition were to be granted by federally-protected waters. least as stringent as the comparable the Administrator. The Administrator CWA Section 312(p) standard. During D. Discharges Incidental to the Normal shall grant or deny the petition and review, pursuant to CWA Section Operation of a Vessel—Previous VGP either issue the relevant emergency 312(p)(10)(B)(iii)(III)(bb), the Discharges No Longer Requiring Control order or submit a Notice of Proposed Administrator shall consult with the EPA proposes to exclude fish hold Rulemaking to the Federal Register for Secretary, the Governor of each Great effluent and small boat engine wet comment for a change in any standard Lakes State, and representatives from exhaust as independent discharges of performance, regulation, or policy. the Federal and provincial governments incidental to the normal operation of a EPA specifically solicits comment on of Canada; shall take into consideration vessel under the proposed rule. the proposed process for Governors to any relevant data or public comments Fish hold is the area where fish are solicit the issuance of an emergency received; and shall not take into kept once caught and kept fresh during order or to review any standard of consideration any preliminary the remainder of the vessel’s voyage performance, regulation of policy, assessment by the Great Lakes

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:58 Oct 23, 2020 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00057 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\26OCP2.SGM 26OCP2 67874 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 207 / Monday, October 26, 2020 / Proposed Rules

Commission or dissenting opinion discharges regulated under CWA ensure compliance with the national submitted by a Governor of a Great Lake Section 312(p), then the Administrator standards of performance presented in State. Not later than 180 days after must also determine that adequate the proposed rule. Additionally, the receipt of the proposed standard of facilities are reasonably available after USCG shall promulgate requirements to performance or requirement, the considering at a minimum water depth, ensure, monitor, and enforce Administrator, in concurrence with the dock size, pumpout capacity and flow compliance of the proposed standards. Secretary, shall approve or disapprove rate, availability of year round As such, the proposed rule does not the proposal. If the proposal is operations, proximity to navigational include implementation, compliance, or disapproved, the Administrator shall routes, the ratio of pumpout facilities to enforcement provisions. submit a notice of determination to the vessels in operation in those specified XI. Regulatory Impact Analysis Federal Register that describes the waters. The VIDA also provides that the reasons why the standard of prohibition for ballast water discharges EPA projects that the incremental performance or requirement is less will not unreasonably interfere with the costs and benefits arising from the stringent or inconsistent with applicable safe loading and unloading of cargo, proposed rule will be minor and that the maritime and navigational laws and passengers, or fuel. vessel community will experience a net provide any recommendations for EPA proposes that a state application savings of $12.4 million annually. This modification of the proposal. If the for such a prohibition must include (i) regulatory relief is principally the result Administrator approves a proposed a signature by the Governor; (ii) a of the VIDA exclusion of small vessels standard of performance or other certification that the protection and and fishing vessels from federal requirement, the Administrator shall enhancement of the waters for which incidental discharge requirements (e.g., submit a notice of the determination to the state is seeking a prohibition require CWA permits and national discharges the Governor of each Great Lakes State greater environmental protection than standards), except for ballast water. and to the Federal Register. the applicable national standard of When compared to the current VGP Additionally, the Administrator shall performance provides; (iii) a detailed requirements, this exclusion will establish by regulation the proposed analysis of how the requested ultimately reduce burden on more than standard of performance for the Great prohibition for each individual 155,000 vessels. Lakes. discharge requested will protect the EPA estimates that 66,000 U.S.- and EPA specifically solicits comment on waters for which the state is seeking a 16,000 foreign-flagged vessels will need the process to request enhanced Great prohibition; (iv) a table identifying types to comply with the proposed standards Lakes system requirements, including and number of vessels operating in the once finalized. In addition to its the extent to which EPA should provide waterbody and a table identifying the assessment of the cost impacts further details in the final rule types and number of vessels that will be specifically to the 66,000 U.S.-flagged considering the details already included the subject of the prohibition; (v) a map vessels, EPA also examined the cost in the VIDA. detailing the location, operating hours, impacts to the approximately 500 draught requirements, and service foreign-flagged vessels that are U.S.- C. Application by a State for the capabilities of commercial and owned. Administrator To Establish a State No- recreational pump-out facilities (both The cost analysis, found in the Discharge Zone mobile and stationary) available to Regulatory Impact Analysis (RIA) Under CWA Section 312(p) states receive each individual discharge in the located in the rulemaking docket, uses have an opportunity to apply to EPA to waters for which the state is seeking a compliance with the VGP and the sVGP, prohibit one or more discharges prohibition; (vi) a table identifying the as well as other regulations and industry incidental to the normal operation of a location and geographic area of each standards, (i.e., the status quo that vessel, whether treated or not, into proposed no-discharge zone; and (vii) a existed prior to the passage of the VIDA) specified waters, if the state determines detailed analysis of how the vessels as the analytic baseline. The analysis that the protection and enhancement of subject to the prohibition may be compares baseline cost impacts the quality of some or all of its waters impacted with regards to collection experienced by the regulated require greater environmental capability, storage capability, need for community immediately prior to protection. retrofitting, travel time to facility, and passage of the VIDA legislation to Pursuant to CWA Section safety concerns. projected cost impacts expected as a 312(p)(10)(D)(iii)(I), a discharge EPA is proposing that these additional result of the proposed new EPA prohibition established by EPA through procedures because its history with standards. The VIDA repealed the sVGP regulation would not apply until after CWA Section 312 sewage no-discharge effective immediately upon signature, the Administrator reviews the state zones suggests that the statutory while stipulating that VGP requirements application, makes a determination with language does not provide enough detail are to remain in place until the new concurrence from the USCG, publishes or description to clearly define a VIDA program is fully in force and a proposed rule for comment, and workable process without additional effective. This analysis accounts for publishes a regulation establishing that clarification. both the impacts of the proposed new (1) the prohibition would protect and EPA specifically solicits comment on EPA standards as well as the regulatory enhance the quality of the specified the no-discharge zone application relief expected as a result of the VIDA waters; (2) adequate facilities for the process. exclusion of small vessels and fishing safe and sanitary removal of the vessels from the discharge requirements, discharge incidental to the normal X. Implementation, Compliance, and except for ballast water, and the operation of a vessel are reasonably Enforcement corresponding repeal of the sVGP. available for the waters to which the CWA Section 312(p)(5) directs the The cost analysis groups the proposed prohibition would apply; and (3) the USCG to develop implementing rule’s major impacts into four discharge can safely be collected and regulations governing the design, categories. The first category of impacts stored until a vessel reaches a discharge construction, testing, approval, is comprised of new standards in the facility or other location. If the no- installation, and use of marine pollution proposed rule that result in incremental discharge zone concerns ballast water control devices as are necessary to costs compared to existing VGP

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:58 Oct 23, 2020 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00058 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\26OCP2.SGM 26OCP2 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 207 / Monday, October 26, 2020 / Proposed Rules 67875

requirements. In this category, EPA is repeal of the sVGP could potentially C. Paperwork Reduction Act proposing two new discharge lead to a reduction in environmental This proposed rule, once finalized by requirements, one for graywater systems benefits to the extent that affected EPA and implemented through and one for seawater piping systems, vessels no longer adhere to practices corresponding USCG requirements that together are projected to result in previously required under the sVGP. In addressing implementation, incremental costs of $4.3 million particular, the RIA examines possible compliance, and enforcement, would annually. The second category describes losses in benefits from the elimination impose an information collection proposed standards that are not of the sVGP discharge management burden to states under the PRA. The expected to result in incremental costs requirements for bilgewater, graywater, information collection activities in this compared to the VGP baseline since and anti-fouling hull coatings. proposed rule have been submitted for they reflect practices already in place on EPA did not evaluate the cost impacts approval to the Office of Management vessels as a result of other regulations from changes in monitoring, reporting, and Budget (OMB) under the PRA. The and industry standards. The third Information Collection Request (ICR) category describes changes mandated by self-inspection, or recordkeeping document that EPA prepared has been Congress directly in the VIDA that are associated with the VIDA re-allocation assigned EPA ICR number 2605.01. You projected to result in incremental costs of EPA and USCG authorities and can find a copy of the ICR in the docket to the regulated community. These responsibilities. The USCG will present for this rule, and it is briefly provisions impose new ballast water an analysis of these impacts, and other summarized here. requirements nationally and regionally relevant impacts, in documentation in the Pacific Region and the Great supporting their rulemaking for the Background USCG portions of the CWA Section Lakes. The estimated incremental cost EPA has regulated discharges for vessels to meet these 312(p) program. incidental to the normal operation of Congressionally-mandated provisions is The RIA is available in the docket for vessels under the CWA Section 402 $5.5 million annually. The fourth this proposed rulemaking. EPA solicits NPDES permitting program since 2008. category is the reduction in costs comment on all aspects of its RIA The information collection burden projected to result from the VIDA including the underlying assumptions associated with EPA’s regulation of exclusion of small vessels and fishing and methodology. those activities are included as part of vessels from the discharge requirements, the Information Collection Request (ICR) except for ballast water, and the XII. Statutory and Executive Order for the NPDES Program, OMB Control corresponding repeal of the sVGP. EPA Reviews No. 2040–0004. estimates that this regulatory relief will Additional information about these The current inventory of vessels result in annual cost savings of nearly statutes and Executive Orders can be included in the NPDES ICR includes $22.2 million to the vessel community. To evaluate the potential impact of found at https://www.epa.gov/laws- 72,942 vessels covered under the VGP the proposed rule on small entities, EPA regulations/laws-and-executive-orders. and 137,739 small vessels covered used a cost-to revenue test to evaluate under the Small Vessel General Permit A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory (sVGP). That ICR identifies a total of potential severity of economic impact Planning and Review and Executive on vessels owned by small entities. The 292,466 responses annually specific to Order 13563: Improving Regulation and the VGP and sVGP with a total annual test calculates annualized pre-tax Regulatory Review compliance cost as a percentage of total burden of 269,919 hours for activities revenues and uses a threshold of 1 and The proposed rule is a significant including: Reporting (Notice of Intent, 3 percent to identify entities that would regulatory action that was submitted to Notice of Termination, annual report); be significantly impacted if this the Office of Management and Budget inspection (routine, annual, and proposed rule were to go final. EPA (OMB) for review because it raises novel drydock) and monitoring; and projects the potential impacts would not legal or policy issues. Any changes recordkeeping. exceed these conventional cost/revenue made in response to OMB As described below, the enactment of thresholds. In addition, the Agency recommendations have been the VIDA in 2018 authorized EPA and completed estimates of the paperwork documented in the public docket for the USCG to establish a new regulatory burden associated with the proposed this proposed rule. framework for the discharges covered by rulemaking. These estimates project the the VGP which will result in a change In addition, EPA prepared an analysis annualized paperwork burden on states in the type of information collected, the of the potential impacts associated with that voluntarily petition EPA for any Agency responsible for collecting the this proposed rule. The regulatory one of the following: Establishment of information, and ultimately the impact analysis is available in the no-discharge zones, review of national information collection burden. public docket for this proposed rule, standards of performance, issuance of Upon enactment of the VIDA and both costs and benefits are emergency orders, and establishment of (December 4, 2018), the sVGP was summarized in Section XI. Regulatory enhanced Great Lakes System repealed and incidental discharges from Impact Analysis. requirements. small vessels and fishing vessels less EPA also assessed the environmental B. Executive Order 13771: Reducing than 79 feet with the exception of impacts from this proposal. The Agency Regulation and Controlling Regulatory ballast water were excluded from does not expect the proposed rule to Costs requirements established under the change environmental benefits VIDA. Thus, any monitoring and significantly compared to those realized The proposed rule is expected to be reporting burden beyond those for by the VGP since the existing VGP an Executive Order 13771 deregulatory ballast water for small vessels or fishing requirements are largely proposed to be action. Details on the estimated cost vessels less than 79 feet in length was adopted as the new discharge standards. savings of this proposed rule can be terminated. Additionally, once EPA EPA notes that the VIDA exclusion of found in EPA’s analysis of the potential develops new national standards of small vessels and fishing vessels, except costs and benefits associated with this performance for discharges incidental to for ballast water, and the corresponding action. the normal operation of a vessel (as is

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:58 Oct 23, 2020 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00059 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\26OCP2.SGM 26OCP2 67876 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 207 / Monday, October 26, 2020 / Proposed Rules

being proposed in this rulemaking) and Armed Forces. For incidental discharges function. Since OMB is required to the USCG establishes requirements that from vessels of the Armed Forces, states make a decision concerning the ICR address implementation, compliance, may also petition EPA for review of between 30 and 60 days after receipt, and enforcement of the national standards. Because of the parallels in OMB must receive comments no later standards, the information collection discharge types and state activities, EPA than November 25, 2020. EPA will burden established under the EPA VGP used the burden estimates in the respond to any ICR-related comments in will be terminated and the information existing ICR to inform the expected the final rule. collection burden will be modified as burden for this proposed rule. Looking D. Regulatory Flexibility Act described below. ahead, EPA proposes that this new ICR be combined with the existing CWA The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) Proposed Rule Section 312 ICR (OMB control number generally requires an agency to prepare As detailed in CWA Section 312(p)(5), 2040–0187) expected to be renewed in a regulatory flexibility analysis of any upon implementation of monitoring, August 2022. This would create a single rule subject to notice-and-comment reporting, and recordkeeping ICR that would include the information rulemaking requirements under the requirements by the USCG, the collection burden for all three vessel Administrative Procedure Act or any paperwork requirements for vessel programs under CWA Section 312 other statute, unless the agency certifies owners and operators would need to be (sewage, vessels of the Armed Forces, that the rule will not have a significant reported to the USCG and not to EPA. and commercial vessels). economic impact on a substantial As such it is expected that much of the The hour and cost estimates, number of small entities. Small entities existing paperwork burden on vessel summarized below, include such include small businesses, small owners and operators under the VGP activities as reviewing the relevant organizations, and small governmental requirements would be managed by the regulations and guidance documents, jurisdictions. USCG upon implementation of their gathering and analyzing the required EPA certifies that this action will not specific reporting and monitoring information, and preparing and have a significant economic impact on requirements. Therefore, the proposed submitting the application. a substantial number of small entities rule would not impose a new paperwork Respondents/affected entities: State under the RFA. Although the proposed burden on vessel owners and operators. governments (SIC code 9511, NAICS rule will impose requirements on any However, the proposed rule would code 924110) are the only respondents small entity that operates a vessel impose a new information collection to the data collection activities subject to the standards, EPA used a burden on states seeking to petition EPA described in this ICR. cost-to-revenue test to evaluate potential to establish different national standards Respondent’s obligation to respond: severity of economic impact on vessels of performance including enhanced Preparation and submission of a petition owned by small entities. EPA standards in the Great Lakes, issue is a voluntary action that may be determined that the projected cost emergency orders, or establish no- undertaken by the respondent. This is burden would not exceed the discharge zones. EPA does not not a reporting requirement, nor are conventional cost/revenue thresholds anticipate an information collection there any deadlines associated with used for small entity impact screening burden on states until the USCG has these petitions. analyses (costs greater than 1 percent established final implementing Estimated number of respondents: and 3 percent of annual revenue). requirements (required by the VIDA as Three respondents are anticipated Details of the screening analysis are soon as practicable but not later than during this three-year ICR cycle. presented in the section entitled ‘‘Small two years after the EPA discharge Frequency of response: Three Business Impacts’’ in the RIA standards proposed in this rulemaking petitions are anticipated during this accompanying the proposed rule. are finalized). After such time, the three-year ICR cycle, each in the third information collection burden relates to year, including one petition each for E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act the voluntary preparation and establishment of a no-discharge zone, Title II of the Unfunded Mandates submission of petitions by states and is review of standards, and issuance of an Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), 2 U.S.C. therefore an intermittent activity. emergency order. 1531–1538, requires federal agencies, The ICR submitted for approval to the Total estimated burden: unless otherwise prohibited by law, to OMB as part of this rulemaking reflects Approximately 82 hours per year. assess the effects of their regulatory an anticipated burden to states in the Total estimated cost: $4,560 per year, actions on state, local, and tribal third year of the three-year ICR cycle. including $150 annualized operation & governments, and the private sector. An This includes one petition of each type: maintenance costs. action contains a federal mandate if it Modification of national standards of An agency may not conduct or may result in expenditures of $100 performance, issuance of emergency sponsor, and a person is not required to million or more (annually, adjusted for orders, and establishment no-discharge respond to, a collection of information inflation) for state, local, and tribal zones. EPA does not expect petitions for unless it displays a currently valid OMB governments, in the aggregate, or the enhanced Great Lakes System control number. The OMB control private sector in any one year ($160 requirements during this ICR cycle. The numbers for the EPA’s regulations in 40 million in 2018). This action does not type and level of detail of information CFR are listed in 40 CFR part 9. contain any unfunded mandate as that a state would need to generate to Written comments and described in UMRA, 2 U.S.C. 1531– petition EPA under CWA Section 312(p) recommendations for the proposed 1538, and does not significantly or is most analogous to the information information collection should be sent uniquely affect small governments. prepared for an application to EPA within 30 days of publication of this under the existing CWA Section 312 ICR notice to https://www.reginfo.gov/ F. Executive Order 13132: Federalism (OMB control number 2040–0187), public/do/PRAMain. This particular Under Executive Order 13132, EPA which includes state activities related to information collection request can be may not issue an action with federalism petitioning EPA for no-discharge zones located by selecting ‘‘Currently under implications, that imposes substantial for sewage and discharges incidental to 30-day Review—Open for Public direct compliance costs, and that is not the normal operation of vessels of the Comments’’ or by using the search required by statute, unless the federal

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:58 Oct 23, 2020 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00060 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\26OCP2.SGM 26OCP2 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 207 / Monday, October 26, 2020 / Proposed Rules 67877

government provides the funds Federalism Official stating that EPA met informational webinar, and a necessary to pay the direct compliance the Executive Order’s requirements in a consultation summary summarizing the costs incurred by state and local meaningful and timely manner. A copy written and verbal comments submitted governments or EPA consults with state of this certification will be included in by tribes are included in the public and local officials early in development the public version of the official record docket for this proposed rule. The of the action. once the action is finalized. Agency specifically solicits additional EPA has concluded that this action comment on this proposed rule from G. Executive Order 13175: Consultation has federalism implications for the tribal officials. following reason. The VIDA added a and Coordination With Indian Tribal new CWA Section 312(p)(9)(A) that Governments H. Executive Order 13045: Protection of specifies beginning on the effective date This proposed action has tribal Children From Environmental Health of the requirements promulgated by the implications as specified in Executive and Safety Risks Secretary established under CWA Order 13175. See 65 FR 67249, This action is not subject to Executive Section 312(p)(5), no state, political November 9, 2000. However, it will Order 13045 because it is not subdivision of a state, or interstate neither impose substantial direct economically significant as defined in agency may adopt or enforce any law, compliance costs on federally Executive Order 12866, and because regulation, or other requirement with recognized tribal governments, nor EPA does not believe the environmental respect to an incidental discharge preempt tribal law. Tribes may health or safety risks addressed by this subject to regulation under the VIDA primarily be interested in this action action present a disproportionate risk to except insofar as such law, regulation, because commercial vessels may operate children. See 62 FR 19885, April 23, or other requirement is identical to or in or near tribal waters. Additionally, 1997. The proposed national standards less stringent than the federal Tribes may have TAS under Section 309 of performance are designed to control regulations under the VIDA. of the CWA. To that end, EPA consulted discharges incidental to the normal Accordingly, EPA and the USCG with tribal officials under the EPA operation of a vessel that could conducted a Federalism consultation Policy on Consultation and adversely affect human health and the briefing on July 9th, 2019 in Coordination with Indian Tribes early in environment. The proposed rule is Washington, DC to allow states and the process of developing this regulation intended to reduce discharges to local officials to have meaningful and to permit them to have meaningful and receiving waters that could affect any timely input into the development of timely input into its development. A person using the receiving waters, EPA rulemaking. summary of that consultation and regardless of age. EPA provided an overview of the coordination follows. I. Executive Order 13211: Actions That VIDA, described the interim EPA initiated a tribal consultation and Concern Regulations That Significantly requirements and the framework of coordination process for this action by Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, and future regulations, identified state sending a ‘‘Notice of Consultation and provisions associated with the VIDA, Coordination’’ letter on June 18, 2019, to Use and received comments and questions. all 573 federally recognized tribes. The This action is not a ‘‘significant The briefing was attended by letter invited tribal leaders and energy action’’ as defined by Executive representatives from the National designated consultation representatives Order 13211 because it is not likely to Governors Association, the National to participate in the tribal consultation have a significant adverse effect on the Conference of State Legislatures, the and coordination process, which lasted supply, distribution or use of energy. U.S. Conference of Mayors, the County from July 11 to September 11, 2019. See 66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001. EPA Executives of America, the National EPA held an informational webinar for believes that any additional energy Association of Counties, the National tribal representatives on July 11, 2019, usage would be insignificant compared League of Cities, Environmental Council to obtain meaningful and timely input to the total energy usage of vessels and of the States, the Association of Clean during the development of the proposed the total annual U.S. energy Water Administrators, the National rule. During the webinar, EPA provided consumption. Water Resources Association, the an overview of the VIDA, described the J. National Technology Transfer and Association of Fish and Wildlife interim requirements and the framework Advancement Act Agencies, the National Association of of future regulations, and identified State Boating Law Administrators, the tribal provisions associated with the The proposed rule would establish Western Governors Association, and the VIDA. A total of nine tribal national standards of performance but Western States Water Council. Pre- representatives participated in the does not establish environmental proposal comments were accepted from webinar. EPA also provided an monitoring or measurement July 9, 2019 to September 9, 2019 and informational presentation on the VIDA requirements and thus does not include are described in conjunction with the during the Region 10 Regional Tribal technical standards. Similarly, EPA Governors’ Consultation comments. Operations Committee (RTOC) call on proposes not to identify specific, Additionally, pursuant to the terms of July 18, 2019, as requested by the RTOC. prescribed analytic methods. Rather, the Executive Order 13132 and Agency During the consultation period, tribes national standards of performance in policy, a federalism summary impact and tribal organizations sent two pre- this proposed rule would be the basis of statement is required in the final rule to proposal comment letters to EPA as part USCG implementing regulations with summarize not only the issues and of the consultation process. In addition, respect to inspections, monitoring, concerns raised by state and local EPA held one consultation meeting with reporting, sampling, and recordkeeping government commenters during the the leadership of a tribe, at the tribe’s to ensure, monitor, and enforce proposed rule’s development, but also request, to obtain pre-proposal input compliance with these standards. The to describe how and the extent to which and answer questions regarding the applicability of the National Technology the agency addressed those concerns. forthcoming rule. Transfer and Advancement Act is Further, as required by Section 8(a) of EPA incorporated the feedback it appropriately assessed as part of that Executive Order 13132, EPA in the final received from tribal representatives in USCG rulemaking as established in rule will include a certification from its the proposed rule. Records of the tribal CWA Section 312(p)(5)(A).

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:58 Oct 23, 2020 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00061 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\26OCP2.SGM 26OCP2 67878 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 207 / Monday, October 26, 2020 / Proposed Rules

K. Executive Order 12898: Federal Water Filtration System for Reducing Condemn Ballast Treatment Pessimism, Actions To Address Environmental Spread of Aquatic Species in Freshwater February 26, 2018. Justice in Minority Populations and Ecosystems. Management of Biological Gollasch, S. (2002). The Importance of Ship Low-Income Populations Invasions Volume 5, Issue 3, pp 245– Hull Fouling as a Vector of Species 253. Introductions into the North Sea. EPA proposes that this action does Brown and Caldwell. (2007). Port of Biofouling, 18 (2), 105–121. not have disproportionately high and Milwaukee Onshore Ballast Water Great Ships Initiative (GSI). (2010). Report of adverse human health or environmental Treatment—Feasibility Study Report. the Land-Based Freshwater Testing of effects on minority populations, low- Prepared for the Wisconsin Department the Siemens SiCURETM Ballast Water income populations and/or indigenous of Natural Resources. October 12, 2007. Management System. GSI/LB/F/A/1, pp Brown and Caldwell and Bay Engineering, 1–58. peoples, as specified in Executive Order Inc. (2008). Port of Milwaukee Off-Ship Great Ships Initiative (GSI). (2011). Final 12898. See 59 FR 7629, February 16, Ballast Water Treatment Feasibility Report of the Land-Based, Freshwater 1994. While EPA was unable to perform Study Report, Phase 2. Prepared for the Testing of the Alfa Laval AB a detailed environmental justice Wisconsin Department of Natural PureBallast® Ballast Water Treatment analysis because it lacks data on the Resources. August 28, 2008. System. GSI/LB/F/A/2, pp 1–94. exact location of vessels and their Carbery, K., Owen, R., Frickers, T., Otero, E., Great Ships Initiative (GSI). (2014). Technical associated discharges, the proposed rule and J. Readman. (2006). Mar. Pollut. Report Land Based Performance Bull., 52, 635–644. Evaluation in Ambient and Augmented will increase the level of environmental ClearBallast. (2012). Overview of Hitachi Duluth-Superior Harbor Water of Eight protection for all affected populations Ballast Water Purification System- Commercially Available Ballast Water without having any disproportionately ClearBallast. Treatment System Filter Units. GSI/LB/ high and adverse human health or COWI A/S. (2012). Ballast Water Treatment QAQC/TR/FLTR, pp 1–67. environmental effects on any in Ports—Feasibility Study. Prepared for Great Ships Initiative (GSI). (2015). Technical the Danish Shipowners’ Association. Report Land-Based Status Test of the JFE population, including any minority or ® low-income population. Overall, the November 2012. BallastAce Ballast Water Management Cruise Lines International Association. System and Components at the GSI proposed rule would reduce the amount (2019). 2019 Environmental Testing Facility. GSI/LB/QAQC/TR/JFE, of pollution entering waterbodies from Technologies and Practices Report. pp 1–146. vessels, which will yield health benefits Retrieved from https://cruising.org/en/ Great Ships Initiative (GSI). (2016). Briefing and improve the recreational utility of news-and-research/research/2019/ Paper for the Great Lakes Commission waterbodies where vessels are subject to september/2019-environment- Great Lakes and St. Lawrence Ballast the proposed standards. technologies-and-practices-table--- Water Workshop, November 16–17, cruise-industry-report. 2016. XIII. References Damen. (2017). Damen’s InvaSave Port-Based Hewitt, C. and M. Campbell. (2010). The Ballast Water Management System Has relative contribution of vectors to the Alaska Department of Environmental World Premiere. (marketing sheet). May introduction and translocation of marine Conservation (ADEC). (2007). Large Commercial Passenger Vessel 2, 2017. invasive species. Wastewater Discharge: General Permit DiGangi, J., Schettler, T., Cobbing, M., & Hewitt, C.L, Gollasch, S., and D. Minchin. Information Sheet. Retrieved from http:// Rossi, M. (2002). Aggregate exposures to (2009). Chapter 6: The Vessel as a www.dec.state.ak.us/water/cruise_ships/ phthalate in humans. Vector—Biofouling, Ballast Water and gp/2008_GP_Info2.pdf. DNV GL. (2019). Global Sulphur Cap 2020 Sediments. Biological Invasions in Alfa Laval. (2017). Personal communication Update, External Webinar (presented on Marine Ecosystems, Springer-Verlag between Peter Sahlen and Frida Norlen, May 23, 2019), Kristian Johnsen, Fabian Berlin Heidelberg. Alfa Laval and Jack Faulk, USEPA. April Kock, Alexander Strom, and Christos Hilliard, R.W. and Kazansky, O. (2006). 1 and April 3, 2017. Chryssakis. Assessment of Shipping Traffic and American Bureau of Shipping (ABS). (2019). Drake, J.M. and D.M. Lodge. (2007). Hull Ballast Water Movements to and From Best Practices for Operations of Ballast fouling is a risk factor for Caspian Region, and Preliminary Water Management Systems Report. intercontinental species exchange in Appraisal of Possible Ballast Water Available at https://safety4sea.com/wp- aquatic ecosystems. Aquat. Invasions, 2 Management Options. IMO/UNOPS/CEP content/uploads/2019/04/ABS-2019- (2), 121–131. Project Technical Report IMO RER/03/ best-practices-for-operations-of-BWMS- Drake, L.A., Tamburri, M.N., First, M.R., G31. November 5, 2006. report-2019_04.pdf. Smith, G.J., and Johengen, T.H. (2014). Hilliard, R.W. and Matheickal, J.T. (2010). Bailey, S.A., Chan, F., Ellis, S.M., How Many Organisms Are in Ballast Alternative Ballast Water Management Bronnenhuber, J.E., Badie, J.N., Simard, Water Discharge? A Framework for Options for Caspian Region Shipping: N. (2012). Risk Assessment for Ship- Validating and Selecting Compliance Outcomes of a Recent CEP/IMO/UNOPS Mediated Introductions of Aquatic Monitoring Tools. Mar Pollut Bull. 86: Project. In: Emerging Ballast Water Nonindigenous Species to the Great 122–128. Management Systems, Proceedings of the Lakes and Freshwater St. Lawrence Dupuis, A., and Ucan-Marin, F. (2015). A IMO–WMU Research and Development River. Canadian Science Advisory literature review on the aquatic Forum (Malmo, Sweden). January 26–29, Secretariat. toxicology of petroleum oil: An overview 2010. Ballast Water Equipment Manufacturers of oil properties and effects to aquatic Hull and Associates, Inc. (2017). Preliminary Association (BEMA). 2020. Compilation biota. DFO Can. Sci. Advis. Sec. Res. Cost Estimate for the Shoreside Ballast of BWMS Type Approval Testing Doc. 2015/007. vi + 52 p. Treatment and Supply for the U.S. Great Biological Efficacy Data. February 13, Etkin, D.S. (2010). Worldwide analysis of in- Lakes. Prepared by Hull & Associates, 2020. port vessel operational lubricant Inc. for Lake Carriers’ Association (LCA), Bawat. A. (2016). Bawat Ballast Water discharges and leaks. Proc. 33rd Arctic Rocky River, OH. February 2017. Treatment. Available at http:// and Marine Oilspill Program Technical International Maritime Organization (IMO). www.bawat.dk/images/BAWAT_ Seminar: p. 529–554. (2002). Anti-fouling systems. Retrieved PRESENTATION_AUGUST_2016_2.pdf. Glosten Associates. (2018). Feasibility Study from http://www.imo.org/en/OurWork/ Bell, A., Phillips, S., Denny, C., Georgiades, of Shore-based Ballast Water Reception Environment/Anti-foulingSystems/ E., and Kluza, D. (2011). Risk Analysis: Facilities in California, prepared for the Documents/FOULING2003.pdf. Vessel Biofouling. Wellington: Ministry California State Lands Commission by International Maritime Organization (IMO). of Agriculture and Forestry Biosecurity the Delta Stewardship Council, April 13, (2004). International Convention for the New Zealand. 2018. Control and Management of Ships’ Briski, E., Linley, R., Adams, J., and Bailey, Golden Bear Research Center (Golden Bear). Ballast Water and Sediments. BWM/ S. (2014). Evaluating Efficacy of a Ballast (2018). Test Facility Researchers CONF/36.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:58 Oct 23, 2020 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00062 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\26OCP2.SGM 26OCP2 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 207 / Monday, October 26, 2020 / Proposed Rules 67879

International Maritime Organization (IMO). Briggs, Eastern Research Group, Inc. May ballast water using conventional and (2008). Guidelines for Approval of 8, 2018. molecular methods. General Meeting of Ballast Water Management Systems (G8). Maglic, L., Zec, D. and V. Francic. (2015). the American Society for Microbiology. Annex 4 Resolution MEPC.174(58). Effectiveness of a Barge-Based Ballast Chicago, IL. International Maritime Organization (IMO). Water Treatment System for Multi- Schultz, M.P. (2007). Effects of coating (2016). Resolution MEPC.279(70), Annex Terminal Ports. Promet—Traffic & roughness and biofouling on ship 5. Available at http://www.imo.org/en/ Transportation. 27:5, 429–437. resistance and powering. Biofouling, 23 KnowledgeCentre/ Marinelog. (2016). Fednav Claims a Lakes (5), 331–341. IndexofIMOResolutions/Marine- BWTS First. Available at http:// Sekizawa, J., S. Dobson & R. Touch III. Environment-Protection-Committee- www.marinelog.com/ (2003). Diethyl Phthalate. World Health %28MEPC%29/Documents/ index.php?option=com_ Organization, Concise International MEPC.279%2870%29.pdf. k2&view=item&id=22780:fednav-claims- Chemical Assessment Document 52. International Maritime Organization (IMO). a-lakes-bwts-first&Itemid=230. Shipping Federation of Canada. (2000). Code (2016a). Marine Environmental Marr, B. (2017). IoT and Big Data at of Best Practices for Ballast Water Protection Committee (MEPC). Harmful Caterpillar: How Predictive Maintenance Management. Aquatic Organisms in Ballast Water. Saves Millions of Dollars. Forbes. Tomaszewska, M., Orecki, A., & Karakulski, Submitted by Liberia. MEPC 69/INF .22, Retrieved from https://www.forbes.com/ K. (2005). Treatment of bilge water using February 12, 2016. sites/bernardmarr/2017/02/07/iot-and- a combination of ultrafiltration and International Maritime Organization (IMO). big-data-at-caterpillar-how-predictive- reverse osmosis. Desalination, 185, 203– (2017). Consideration of an initial maintenance-saves-millions-of-dollars/ 212. proposal to amend Annex 1 to the AFS #70a82fd17240. Townsin, R.L. (2003). The Ship Hull Fouling Convention to include controls on Marubini, F. and M.J. Atkinson. (1999). Penalty. Biofouling, 19 (Supplement), 9– cybutryne. PPR 5/INF.8. Effects of lowered pH and elevated 15. International Maritime Organization (IMO). nitrate on coral calcification. Mar. Ecol. Tribou, M. and G. Swain. (2017). The effects (2018). Amendment of Annex 1 to the Prog. Ser., 188, 117–121. of grooming on a copper ablative coating: AFS Convention to include controls on Monroy, O., Linley, R., Chan, Pl, Kydd, J. A six year study. Biofouling, 33 (6), 494– cybutryne, and consequential revision of (2017). Evaluating Efficacy of Filtration + 504. relevant guidelines: Information UV–C Radiation for Ballast Water Tuthill, A., Avery, R., Lamb, S., and Kobrin, presenting scientific evidence for the Treatment at Different Temperatures. G. (1998). Effects of Chlorine on adverse effects of cybutryne to the Journal of Sea Research. Common Materials in Freshwater. environment. PPR 6/INF.7. Moser, C.S., Wier, T.P., First, M.R., Grant, Materials Performance, Vol. 37, No. 11, International Maritime Organization (IMO). J.F., Riley, S.C., Robbins-Wamsley, S.H., pp. 52–56. (2018a). Code for Approval of Ballast Tamburri, M.N., Ruiz, G.M., Miller, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE). Water Management Systems, Resolution A.W., and L.A. Drake. (2017). Biol. (2017). GL_Waterborne Harbor Transit MEPC.300(72), April 13, 2018. Invasions, 19, 1745–1759. Time Matrix. International Maritime Organization (IMO). National Ballast Information Clearinghouse U.S. Coast Guard (USCG). (2013). Ballast (2019). Lists of Type-Approved Ballast (NBIC). (2020), NBIC Reported Ballast Water Treatment, U.S. Great Lakes Bulk Water Management Systems, updated Water Discharge Ports—Dec 13 2013 Carrier Engineering and Cost Study, October 2019. Volume 1I: Analysis of On-Board International Maritime Organization (IMO). through Dec 31 2017, 2020. (2020). Status of IMO Treaties, April 7, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Treatment Methods, Alternative Ballast 2020. Administration and National Geospatial- Water Management Practices, and Johengen T.H., Reid D.F., Fahnenstiel G.L., Intelligence Agency; U.S. Chart No. 1— Implementation Costs. Acquisition MacIsaac H.J., Dobbs F., Doblin M., Ruiz Symbols, Abbreviations and Terms used Directorate. Report No. CG–D–12–13. GM & Jenkins PT (2005). Assessment of on Paper and Electronic Navigational U.S. Coast Guard (USCG). (2019). Marine transoceanic NOBOB vessels and low- Charts, 13th Edition, April 15, 2019. Safety Center BWMS Type Approval salinity ballast water as vectors for non- National Research Council. (1993). Managing Status. Available at https:// Wastewater in Coastal Urban Areas. www.dco.uscg.mil/Portals/9/MSC/ indigenous species introductions to the _ _ _ Great Lakes—Chapter 5. Final Report to United States of America: National BWMS/BWMS Approval Status Great Lakes Protection Fund. 287 pp. Academy of Sciences. 9JUL19.pdf. Keister, T., and Balog, D. (1992). Field National Research Council. (2000). Clean U.S. Coast Guard (USCG). (2019a). Ballast Evaluation of Ozone for Control of Coastal Waters: Understanding and Water Best Management Practices to Corrosion and Scale in a Zero Blowdown Reducing the Effects of Nutrient Reduce the Likelihood of Transporting Application, Association of Water Pollution. United States of America. Pathogens That May Spread Stony Coral Technologies, 5th Annual Convention, National Academy of Sciences. Tissue Loss Disease, Marine Safety San Diego, CA, (1992). Ober, H.K. (2012). Effects of Oil Spills on Information Bulletin OES–MISB King, D., and Hagan, P. (2013). Economic and Marine and Coastal Wildlife. University Number: 07–19, September 6, 2019. Logistical Feasibility of Port-Based of Florida IFAS Extension, WEC285. U.S. EPA. (2007). Framework for Metals Risk Ballast Water Treatment: A Case Study at Oyen, F.G.F., Camps, L.E.C.M.M., and S.E. Assessment. Retrieved from http:// the Port of Baltimore (USA). MERC Wedelaar Bonga. (1991). Effect of acid www.epa.gov/osa/metalsframework. Ballast Water Discussion Paper No. 6, stress on the embryonic development of U.S. EPA. (2008). Cruise ship discharge (Review Draft). UMCES Ref. No.: the common carp (Cyprinus carpio). assessment report (EPA–842–R–07–005). [UMCES]CBL 2013–011. May 2013. Aquat. Toxicol., 19, 1–12. Washington DC: U.S. Environmental Lake Carriers’ Association (LCA). (2016). List Pavlakis, P., Tarchi, D. & Sieber, A.J. (2001). Protection Agency. of Member Vessel Ballasting On the Monitoring of Illicit Vessel U.S. EPA. (2010). Generic Protocol for the Characteristics. Provided to Jack Faulk, Discharges, A Reconnaissance Study in Verification of Ballast Water Treatment USEPA via email. the Mediterranean Sea, EC DG Joint Technology. EPA/600/R–10/146. Lake Carriers’ Association (LCA). (2016a). Research Center, Institute for the U.S. EPA. (2011). Environmentally Meeting Notes for Conference Call with Protection and Security of the Citizen Acceptable Lubricants. (EPA–800–R–11– Lake Carriers Association, EPA, and EPA Humanitarian Security Unit. 002) Washington DC: U.S. contractor staff. August 2, 2016. Pereira, N.N. and Brinati, H.L. (2012). Environmental Protection Agency. Lake Carriers’ Association (LCA). (2017). Onshore Ballast Water Treatment: A U.S. EPA. (2011a). Ballast Water Self- Email from Tom Rayburn, LCA to Mark Viable Option for Major Ports. Marine Monitoring. EPA–800–R–11–003. Briggs, Eastern Research Group, Inc. Pollution Bulletin, 64(2296–2304). U.S. EPA. (2011b). Efficacy of Ballast Water March 6, 2017. Reynolds, K., Knight, I., Wells, C., Pepper, I., Treatment Systems: A Report by the EPA Lake Carriers’ Association (LCA). (2018). & Gerba, C. (1999). Detection of human Science Advisory Board. EPA–SAB–11– Email from Tom Rayburn, LCA to Mark pathogenic protozoa and viruses in 009.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:58 Oct 23, 2020 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00063 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\26OCP2.SGM 26OCP2 67880 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 207 / Monday, October 26, 2020 / Proposed Rules

U.S. EPA. (2011c). Oily Bilgewater List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 139 Subpart A—Scope Separators. (EPA–800–R–11–007) Environmental protection, § 139.1 Coverage. Washington DC: U.S. Environmental commercial vessels, coastal zone, Protection Agency. (a) Vessel discharges. Except as incidental discharges. U.S. EPA. (2015). Feasibility and Efficacy of provided in paragraph (b) of this Using Potable Water Generators as an Andrew Wheeler, section, this part applies to: Alternative Option for Meeting Ballast Administrator. (1) Any discharge incidental to the Water Discharge Limits. U.S. For the reasons set forth in the normal operation of a vessel; and Environmental Protection Agency, Office preamble, EPA proposes to amend 40 (2) Any discharge incidental to the of Wastewater Management. Washington, CFR subchapter D by adding part 139 to normal operation of a vessel (such as DC. EPA 830–R–15–002. July 2015. read as follows: most graywater) that is commingled U.S. EPA. (2016). Draft Aquatic Life Ambient with sewage, subject to the conditions Estuarine/Marine Water Quality Criteria PART 139—DISCHARGES INCIDENTAL that: for Copper—2016. (EPA–822–P–16–001) TO THE NORMAL OPERATION OF (i) Nothing in this part prevents a Washington, DC: U.S. Environmental VESSELS state from regulating sewage discharges; Protection Agency. and U.S. EPA. (2018). Copper Compounds Subpart A—Scope (ii) Any such commingled discharge Interim Registration Review Decision Sec. must comply with all applicable Case Nos. 0636, 0649, 4025, 4026. (EPA– 139.1 Coverage. requirements of: HQ–OPP–2010–0212). Washington DC: 139.2 Definitions. (A) This part; and U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 139.3 Other Federal laws. (B) Any law applicable to the U.S. EPA. (2019) U.S. EPA Ballast Water Subpart B—General Standards for discharge of sewage. Update, Jack Faulk, presented at the Discharges Incidental to the Normal (b) Exclusions. This part does not BWMTech North America Conference, Operation of a Vessel apply to any discharge: Ft. Lauderdale, FL, September 25, 2019. 139.4 General operation and maintenance. (1) Incidental to the normal operation U.S. EPA. (2020), VGP eNOI Query for 139.5 Biofouling management. of: Vessels Discharging Ballast by Time in 139.6 Oil management. (i) A vessel of the Armed Forces the United States. subject to 33 U.S.C. 1322(n); U.S. EPA. (2020a), Note to file—Summary of Subpart C—Standards for Specific Discharges Incidental to the Normal (ii) A recreational vessel subject to 33 restrictions on discharges from Exhaust Operation of a Vessel U.S.C. 1322(o); Gas Control Systems, August 11, 2020. (iii) A small vessel or fishing vessel, U.S. Geological Survey (USGS). (1999). The 139.10 Ballast tanks. except that this part applies to any 139.11 Bilges. Quality of our Nation’s Waters: Nutrients 139.12 Boilers. discharge of ballast water from a small and Pesticides. USGS Circular 1225. 139.13 Cathodic protection. vessel or fishing vessel; or Retrieved from http://pubs.usgs.gov/circ/ 139.14 Chain lockers. (iv) A floating craft that is circ1225. 139.15 Decks. permanently moored to a pier, including Valkirs, A.O., Seligman, P.F., Haslbeck, E., 139.16 Desalination and purification a floating casino, hotel, restaurant, or and J.S. Caso. (2003). Mar. Pollut. Bull., systems. bar; or 46, 763–779. 139.17 Elevator pits. (2) That results from, or contains Van Wezel, A.P. and P. Van Vlaardingen. 139.18 Exhaust gas emission control material derived from, an activity other systems. (2004). Environmental risk limits for than the normal operation of the vessel, antifouling substances. Aquat. Toxicol., 139.19 Fire protection equipment. 139.20 Gas turbines. such as material resulting from an 66, 427–444. 139.21 Graywater systems. industrial or manufacturing process Voutchkov, N. (2013). Desalination 139.22 Hulls and associated niche areas. onboard the vessel; or Engineering Planning and Design. 139.23 Inert gas systems. (3) If compliance with this part would McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc., NY, NY. 139.24 Motor gasoline and compensating compromise the safety of life at sea. Woods Hole Oceanographic Institute (WHOI). systems. (c) Area of coverage. The standards in (2007). Harmful Algae: What are Harmful 139.25 Non-oily machinery. this part apply to any vessel identified Algal Blooms (HABS). Retrieved from 139.26 Pools and spas. in paragraph (a) of this section, not 139.27 Refrigeration and air conditioning. http://www.whoi.edu/redtide. otherwise excluded in paragraph (b) of Zaniboni-Filho, E., Nun˜ er, A.P.O., Reynalte- 139.28 Seawater piping. 139.29 Sonar domes. this section, while operating in the Tataje, D.A., and R.L. Serafini. (2009) waters of the United States or the waters Fish Physiol. Biochem., 35, 151–155. Subpart D—Special Area Requirements of the contiguous zone. Zirino, A. and P.F. Seligman. (2002). Copper 139.40 Federally-protected waters. (d) Effective date. (1) The standards in Chemistry, Toxicity, and Bioavailability this part are effective beginning on the and Its Relationship to Regulation in the Subpart E—Procedures for States To Request Changes to Standards, date upon which regulations Marine Environment. Office of Naval Regulations, or Policy Promulgated by the promulgated by the Secretary governing Research Second Workshop Report, Administrator the design, construction, testing, Technical Document 3140. approval, installation, and use of marine Zo, Y., Grimm, C., Matte, M., Matte, G., 139.50 Petition by a Governor for the Administrator to establish an emergency pollution control devices as necessary to Knight, I.T., Huq, A., & Colwell, R.R. order or review a standard, regulation, or ensure compliance with the standards (1999). Detection and enumeration of policy. are final, effective, and enforceable. pathogenic bacteria in ballast Water of 139.51 Petition by a Governor for the (2) As of the effective date identified Transoceanic Vessels Entering the Great Administrator to establish enhanced in paragraph (d)(1) of this section, the Lakes and Resistance to Common Great Lakes System requirements. Antibiotics. General Meeting of the 139.52 Application by a State for the requirements of the Vessel General American Society for Microbiology. Administrator to establish a State No- Permit and all regulations promulgated Chicago, IL: American Society of Discharge Zone. by the Secretary pursuant to Section Microbiology. Appendix A to Part 139—Federally-Protected 1101 of the Nonindigenous Aquatic Waters Nuisance Prevention and Control Act of

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:58 Oct 23, 2020 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00064 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\26OCP2.SGM 26OCP2 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 207 / Monday, October 26, 2020 / Proposed Rules 67881

1990 (16 U.S.C. 4711), including the device (including all ballast water one inch in diameter. (source: Modified regulations contained in 46 CFR 162.060 treatment equipment, ballast tanks, from 33 CFR 151.66). and 33 CFR part 151 subparts C and D, pipes, pumps, and all associated control Captain of the Port (COTP) zone as in effect on December 3, 2018, shall and monitoring equipment) that means such zone as established by the be deemed repealed and have no force processes ballast water to kill, render Secretary pursuant to sections 92, 93, or effect. nonviable, or remove organisms; or to and 633 of title 14, United States Code. avoid the uptake or discharge of (source: CWA section 312(p)(1)(J)). § 139.2 Definitions. organisms. (source: CWA section Commercial vessel means, except as The following definitions apply for 312(p)(1)(E)). the term is used in § 139.10(g), any the purposes of this part. Terms not Bioaccumulative means the failure to vessel used in the business of defined in this section have the meaning meet one or more of the criteria transporting property for compensation as defined under the Clean Water Act established in the definition of Not or hire, or in transporting property in (CWA) and applicable regulations. Bioaccumulative. the business of the owner, lessee, or Administrator means the Biodegradable for the following operator of the vessel. (source: CWA Administrator of the Environmental classes of substances, means (all section 312(a)(10)). As used in Protection Agency. (source: CWA percentages are on a weight/weight § 139.10(g), the term commercial vessel section 101(d)). concentration basis): means a vessel operating between: Aquatic Nuisance Species (ANS) (1) Two ports or places of destination (1) For oils: At least 90% of the means a nonindigenous species that within the Pacific Region; or formulation (for any substances present threatens the diversity or abundance of (2) A port or place of destination above 0.1%) demonstrates, within 28 a native species; the ecological stability within the Pacific Region and a port or days, either the removal of at least 70% of waters of the United States or the place of destination on the Pacific Coast of dissolved organic carbon (DOC), waters of the contiguous zone; or a of Canada or Mexico north of parallel 20 production of at least 60% of the commercial, agricultural, aquacultural, degrees north latitude, inclusive of the theoretical carbon dioxide, or or recreational activity that is dependent Gulf of California. (source: CWA section consumption of at least 60% of the on waters of the United States or the 312(p)(10)(C)(i)). theoretical oxygen demand). Up to 5% waters of the contiguous zone. (source: Constructed in respect of a vessel of the formulation may be non- CWA section 312(p)(1)(A)). means a stage of construction when: Ballast tank means any tank or hold biodegradable but may not be (1) The keel of a vessel is laid; on a vessel used for carrying ballast bioaccumulative. The remaining 5% (2) Construction identifiable with the water, whether or not the tank or hold must be inherently biodegradable. specific vessel begins; was designed for that purpose. (source: (2) For greases: At least 75% of the (3) Assembly of the vessel has 33 CFR 151.1504). formulation (for any substances present commenced and comprises at least 50 Ballast water means any water, to above 0.1%) demonstrates, within 28 tons or 1% of the estimated mass of all include suspended matter and other days, either the removal of at least 70% structural material of the vessel, materials taken onboard a vessel, to of DOC, production of at least 60% of whichever is less; or (4) The vessel undergoes a major control or maintain trim, draught, the theoretical carbon dioxide, or conversion. (source: 33 CFR 151.1504). stability, or stresses of the vessel, consumption of at least 60% of the theoretical oxygen demand). Up to 25% Contiguous zone means the entire regardless of the means by which any zone established by the United States such water or suspended matter is of the formulation may be non- biodegradable or inherently under Article 24 of the Convention on carried; or during the cleaning, the Territorial Sea and the Contiguous maintenance, or other operation of a biodegradable but may not be bioaccumulative. Zone. (source: CWA section 502(9)). ballast tank or ballast water Discharge means ‘‘discharge management system of the vessel. The (3) For soaps, cleaners, and detergents: A product that demonstrates, incidental to the normal operation of a term does not include any substance vessel’’ as defined in this section. that is added to that water that is within 28 days, either the removal of at least 70% of DOC, production of at least Discharge incidental to the normal directly related to the operation of a operation of a vessel means a discharge, 60% of the theoretical carbon dioxide, properly functioning ballast water including— or consumption of at least 60% of the management system. (source: CWA (1) Graywater, bilge water, cooling section 312(p)(1)(B)). theoretical oxygen demand. water, weather deck runoff, ballast Ballast water exchange means the (4) For biocides: A compound or water, oil water separator effluent, and replacement of ballast water in a ballast mixture that, within 28 days, any other pollutant discharge from the tank using one of the following demonstrates removal of at least 70% of operation of a marine propulsion methods: DOC and production of at least 60% of system, shipboard maneuvering system, (1) Flow-through exchange, in which the theoretical carbon dioxide. crew habitability system, or installed ballast water is flushed out by pumping Biofouling means the accumulation of major equipment, such as an aircraft in mid-ocean water at the bottom of the aquatic organisms such as micro- carrier elevator or a catapult, or from a tank if practicable, and continuously organisms, plants, and animals on protective, preservative, or absorptive overflowing the tank from the top, until surfaces and structures immersed in or application to the hull of the vessel; and three full volumes of tank water have exposed to the aquatic environment. (2) A discharge in connection with the been changed. (source: Modified from IMO testing, maintenance, and repair of a (2) Empty and refill exchange, in MEPC.207(62)). system described in clause (1): which ballast water is pumped out until Broom clean means a condition in (i) Whenever the vessel is waterborne; the pump loses suction, after which the which care has been taken to prevent or and does not include— ballast tank is refilled with water from eliminate any visible concentration of (A) A discharge of rubbish, trash, the mid-ocean. (source: CWA section tank or cargo residues, so that any garbage, or other such material 312(p)(1)(D)). remaining tank or cargo residues consist discharged overboard; Ballast water management system only of dust, powder, or isolated and (B) An air emission resulting from the means any marine pollution control random pieces, none of which exceeds operation of a vessel propulsion system,

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:58 Oct 23, 2020 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00065 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\26OCP2.SGM 26OCP2 67882 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 207 / Monday, October 26, 2020 / Proposed Rules

motor driven equipment, or incinerator; (5) National Wilderness Areas following level: Greater than 70% or designated under the Wilderness Act of biodegraded after 28 days using OECD (3) A discharge that is not covered by 1964 (16 U.S.C. 1131–1136); and Test Guidelines 302C or greater than § 122.3 of this chapter (as in effect on (6) Any component designated under 20% but less than 60% biodegraded February 10, 1996). (source: CWA the National Wild and Scenic Rivers Act after 28 days using OECD Test section 312). of 1968, 16 U.S.C. 1273. Guidelines 301 A–F. Discharge of oil in such quantities as Fouling rating means the scale Internal Waters means: may be harmful means any discharge of developed by the U.S. Navy (Naval (1) With respect to the United States, oil, including an oily mixture, in such Ships’ Technical Manual, Chapter 81, the waters shoreward of the territorial quantities identified in 40 CFR 110.3 Waterborne Underwater Hull Cleaning sea baseline, including waters of the and excluding those discharges of Navy Ships, Revision 5, S9086–CQ– Great Lakes extending to the maritime specified in 40 CFR 110.5. STM–010, 2006) that assigns a fouling boundary with Canada, and Empty ballast tank means a tank that rating (FR) number to the 10 most (2) With respect to any other nation, has previously held ballast water that frequently encountered biofouling the waters shoreward of its territorial has been drained to the limit of the patterns. Numbers are assigned on a sea baseline, as recognized by the functional or operational capabilities of scale from 0 to 100, in 10-point United States. (source: Modified from 33 the tank (such as loss of pump suction); increments, with the lowest number CFR 2.24 as referenced in CWA section is recorded as empty on a vessel log; representing a clean hull and the higher 312(p)(1)(O)). and may contain unpumpable residual numbers representing biofouling Live or living, notwithstanding any ballast water and sediment. (source: organism populations of increasing other provision of law (including CWA section 312(p)(1)(K)). variety and severity. regulations), does not: Environmentally Acceptable Graywater means drainage from (1) Include an organism that has been Lubricant (EAL) means a lubricant, dishwater, shower, laundry, bath, and rendered nonviable; or including any oil or grease, that is washbasin drains. It does not include (2) Preclude the consideration of any ‘‘biodegradable,’’ ‘‘minimally-toxic,’’ drainage from toilets, urinals, hospitals, method of measuring the concentration and ‘‘not bioaccumulative,’’ as these animal spaces, and cargo spaces. of organisms in ballast water that are terms are defined in § 139.2. (source: 33 CFR 151.05). capable of reproduction. (source: CWA Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) Great Lakes means Lake Ontario, Lake Section 312(p)(6)(D)(i)). means the area established by Erie, Lake Huron (including Lake Saint Major conversion means a conversion Presidential Proclamation Number 5030, Clair), Lake Michigan, Lake Superior, of an existing vessel: dated March 10, 1983 which extends and the connecting channels (Saint (1) That substantially alters the from the base line of the territorial sea Mary’s River, Saint Clair River, Detroit dimensions or carrying capacity of the of the United States seaward 200 River, Niagara River, and Saint vessel; or nautical miles, and the equivalent zone Lawrence River to the Canadian border), (2) That changes the type of the of Canada. (source: 33 CFR 151.1504). and includes all other bodies of water Existing vessel means a vessel within the drainage basin of such lakes vessel; or constructed, or where construction has and connecting channels. (source: CWA (3) The intent of which, in the begun, prior to the date identified in section 118(a)(3)(B)). opinion of the government of the regulations promulgated by the Great Lakes State means any of the country under whose authority the Secretary as described in § 139.1(e). states of Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, vessel is operating, is substantially to Federally-protected waters means any Minnesota, New York, Ohio, prolong its life; or waters of the United States or the waters Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin. (source: (4) Which otherwise so alters the of the contiguous zone subject to federal CWA section 312(p)(1)(M)). vessel that, if it were a new vessel, it protection, in whole or in part, for Gross Register Tonnage (GRT) means would become subject to relevant conservation purposes, located within the gross tonnage measurement of the provisions of MARPOL not applicable to any area listed in Appendix A, as vessel under the Regulatory it as an existing vessel. (source: 33 CFR designated under: Measurement System. (source: 46 CFR 151.05). (1) National Marine Sanctuaries 69.9). Marine Growth Prevention System designated under the National Marine Gross Tonnage ITC (GT ITC) means (MGPS) means an anti-fouling system Sanctuaries Act (16 U.S.C. 1431 et seq.); the gross tonnage measurement of the used for the prevention of biofouling (2) Marine National Monuments vessel under the Convention accumulation in seawater piping designated under the Antiquities Act of Measurement System. (source: 46 CFR systems and sea chests. (source: 1906; 69.9). Modified from IMO MEPC.207(62)). (3) A unit of the National Park Impaired waterbody means a Marine Pollution Control Device System, including National Preserves waterbody identified by a state, tribe, or (MPCD) means any equipment or and National Monuments, designated by EPA pursuant to section 303(d) of the management practice (or combination of the National Park Service within the CWA as not meeting applicable state or equipment and management practice) U.S. Department of the Interior; tribal water quality standards (these for installation and use onboard a vessel (4) A unit of the National Wildlife waters are called ‘‘water quality limited that is: Designed to receive, retain, treat, Refuge System, including Wetland segments’’ under 40 CFR 130.2(j)) and control, or discharge a discharge Management Districts, Waterfowl includes both waters with approved or incidental to the normal operation of a Production Areas, National Game established Total Maximum Daily Loads vessel; and determined by the Preserves, Wildlife Management Areas, (TMDL) and those for which a TMDL Administrator and the Secretary to be and National Fish and Wildlife Refuges has not yet been approved or the most effective equipment or designated under the National Wildlife established. management practice (or combination of Refuge System Administration Act of Inherently biodegradable means the equipment and a management practice) 1966 as amended by the National property of being able to be biodegraded to reduce the environmental impacts of Wildlife Refuge System Improvement when subjected to sunlight, water, and the discharge, consistent with the Act of 1997; naturally occurring microbes to the factors considered in developing the

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:58 Oct 23, 2020 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00066 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\26OCP2.SGM 26OCP2 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 207 / Monday, October 26, 2020 / Proposed Rules 67883

standards in this part. (source: CWA Niche Areas means areas on a ship Reception facility refers to any fixed, section 312(p)(1)(P)). that may be more susceptible to floating, or mobile facility capable of Master means the officer having biofouling due to different receiving wastes and residues from command of a vessel. (source: 46 CFR hydrodynamic forces, susceptibility to ships and fit for that purpose. (source: 10.107). coating system wear or damage, or being Modified from MEPC.1/Circ.834/Rev.1). Mid-ocean means greater than 200 inadequately, or not, painted (e.g., sea Render nonviable means, with respect nautical miles (NM) from any shore, chests, bow thrusters, propeller shafts, to an organism in ballast water, the except when a ballast water exchange or inlet gratings, drydock support strips) action of a ballast water management saltwater flush outside of 50 NM is (source: MEPC.207(62)). system that renders the organism authorized in this part, then it means Not bioaccumulative means any of the permanently incapable of reproduction greater than 50 NM from any shore. For following: following treatment. (source: CWA regular maintenance of ballast tanks to (1) The partition coefficient in the section 312(p)(1)(U)). remove sediments, it means outside the marine environment is log KOW less Saltwater flush means the addition of waters of the United States or the waters than 3 or greater than 7; as much mid-ocean water into each of the contiguous zone. (2) The molecular mass is greater than empty ballast tank of a vessel as is safe Minimally-Toxic means, for lubricants 800 Daltons; for the vessel and crew; and the mixing (3) The molecular diameter is greater (all percentages are on a weight/weight of the flush water with residual ballast basis): than 1.5 nanometer; (4) The bioconcentration factor (BCF) water and sediment through the motion (1) If both the complete formulation of the vessel; and the discharge of that and the main constituents (that is or bioaccumulation factor (BAF) is less than 100 L/kg; or mixed water, such that the resultant constituents making up greater than or residual water remaining in the tank has equal to 5% of the complete (5) The polymer with molecular weight fraction below 1,000 g/mol is the highest salinity possible; and is at formulation) are evaluated, then the least 30 parts per thousand. A saltwater acute aquatic toxicity of lubricants, less than 1%. Oil means oil of any kind or in any flush may require more than one fill- other than greases and total loss form, including but not limited to any mix-empty sequence, particularly if lubricants, must be at least 100 mg/L petroleum, fuel oil, environmentally only small quantities of water can be and the LC50 of greases and total loss acceptable lubricant, sludge, oil refuse, safely taken onboard a vessel at one lubricants must be at least 1000 mg/L; and oil mixed with wastes other than time. (source: CWA section or dredged spoil. (source: CWA section 312(p)(1)(V)). (2) If each constituent is evaluated, 311(a)(1)). Scheduled drydocking means hauling rather than the complete formulation Oily mixture means a mixture, in any out of a vessel or placing a vessel in a and main constituents, then for each form, with any oil content, including, drydock or slipway for an examination constituent present above 0.1%: Up to but not limited to: of all accessible parts of the vessel’s 20% of the formulation can have an (1) Slops from bilges; underwater hull and all through-hull LC50 greater than 10 mg/L but less than (2) Slops from oil cargoes (such as fittings and does not include emergency 100 mg/L and an NOEC greater than 1 cargo tank washings, oily waste, and drydocking and emergency hull repairs. mg/L but less than 10 mg/L; up to 5% oily refuse); (source: Modified from 46 CFR 31.10– of the formulation can have an LC50 (3) Oil residue; and 21). greater than 1 mg/L but less than 10 mg/ (4) Oily ballast water from cargo or Seagoing vessel means a vessel in L and an NOEC greater than 0.1 mg/L fuel oil tanks. (source: 33 CFR 151.05). commercial service that operates but less than 1 mg/L; and up to 1% of Oil-to-Sea interface means any seal or beyond either the boundary line the formulation can have an LC50 less surface on ship-board equipment where established by 46 CFR part 7 or the St. the design is such that oil or oily than 1 mg/L and an NOEC less than 0.1 Lawrence River west of a rhumb line mixtures can escape directly into mg/L. drawn from Cap des Rosiers to Point- Minimally-toxic, phosphate-free, and surrounding waters. Oil-to-sea interfaces Sud-Oeste (West Point), Anticosti biodegradable means properties of a are found on equipment that is subject Island, and west of a line along 63′ W substance or mixture of substances that: to submersion as well as equipment that longitude from Anticosti Island to the (1) Have an acute aquatic toxicity can extend overboard. north shore of the St. Lawrence River. value corresponding to a concentration Organism means an animal, including It does not include a vessel that greater than 10 ppm; fish and fish eggs and larvae; a plant; a (2) Do not produce residuals with an pathogen; a microbe; a virus; a navigates exclusively on internal waters. LC50 less than 10 ppm; prokaryote (including any archean or (source: Modified from 33 CFR (3) Are not bioaccumulative; bacterium); a fungus; and a protist. 151.2005). (4) Do not cause the pH of the (source: CWA section 312(p)(1)(R)). Secretary means the Secretary of the receiving water to go below 6.0 or above Pacific region means any Federal or department in which the Coast Guard is 9.0; state water adjacent to the State of operating. (source: CWA section (5) Contain, by weight, 0.5% or less of Alaska, California, Hawaii, Oregon, or 312(p)(1)(W)). phosphates or derivatives of phosphate; Washington; and extending from shore. Small vessel or fishing vessel means a and The term includes the entire exclusive vessel with a vessel length that is less (6) Are biodegradable. economic zone (as defined in Section than 79 feet; or a fishing vessel, fish Minimize means to reduce or 1001 of the Oil Pollution Act of 1990 (33 processing vessel, or fish tender vessel eliminate to the extent achievable using U.S.C. 2701)) adjacent to each Pacific (as those terms are defined in Section any control measure that is Region State. (source: CWA section 2101 of title 46, United States Code), technologically available and 312(p)(1)(S)). regardless of the vessel length. (source: economically practicable and achievable Port or place of destination means a CWA section 312(p)(1)(Y)). and supported by demonstrated best port or place to which a vessel is bound Toxic or hazardous materials means management practices such that to anchor, to moor, or be otherwise any toxic pollutant as defined in 40 CFR compliance can be documented in secured. (source: CWA section 401.15 or any hazardous material as shipboard logs and plans. 312(p)(1)(T)). defined in 49 CFR 171.8.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:58 Oct 23, 2020 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00067 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\26OCP2.SGM 26OCP2 67884 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 207 / Monday, October 26, 2020 / Proposed Rules

Underway means a vessel is not at Subpart B—General Standards for compartment or tank must be in broom anchor, or made fast to the shore, or Discharges Incidental to the Normal clean condition or its equivalent, to aground. (source: 33 CFR 83.03). Operation of a Vessel minimize any remaining residue from these areas. Vessel General Permit (VGP) means § 139.4 General operation and the permit that is the subject of the maintenance. (10) Topside surfaces (e.g., exposed notice of final permit issuance entitled (a) The requirements in paragraph (b) decks, hull above waterline, and related ‘‘Final National Pollutant Discharge of this section apply to any discharge appurtenances) must be maintained to Elimination System (NPDES) General incidental to the normal operation of a minimize the discharge of cleaning Permit for Discharges Incidental to the vessel subject to regulation under this compounds, paint chips, non-skid Normal Operation of a Vessel’’ (78 FR part. material fragments, and other materials 21938 (April 12, 2013)). (source: CWA (b) Vessels must implement the associated with exterior surface section 312(p)(1)(Z)). following practices: preservation. Vessel length means the horizontal (1) Minimize discharges. (11) Painting techniques on topside (2) Discharge while underway when distance between the foremost part of a surfaces must minimize the discharge of practical and as far from shore as vessel’s stem to the aftermost part of its paint. practical. stern, excluding fittings and (3) Addition of any materials to a (12) Discharge of unused paint and attachments. (source: 33 CFR 151.05). discharge, other than for treatment of coatings is prohibited. Visible sheen means, with respect to the discharge, that is not incidental to (13) Any equipment that may release, oil and oily mixtures, a silvery or the normal operation of the vessel is drip, leak, or spill oil or oily mixtures, metallic sheen or gloss, increased prohibited. fuel, or other toxic or hazardous reflectivity, visual color, iridescence, or (4) Dilution of any discharge for the materials that may be discharged, an oil slick on the surface of the water. purpose of meeting any standard in this including to the bilge, must be part is prohibited. Voyage means any transit by a vessel maintained to minimize or eliminate the (5) Any material used onboard that discharge of pollutants. traveling from or destined for any will be subsequently discharged (e.g., United States port or place. disinfectants, cleaners, biocides, § 139.5 Biofouling management. § 139.3 Other Federal laws. coatings, sacrificial anodes) must: (a) The requirements in paragraph (b) (i) Be used only in the amount of this section apply to any vessel (a) Except as expressly provided in necessary to perform the intended subject to regulation under this part. this part, nothing in this part affects the function of that material; applicability to a vessel of any other (ii) Not contain any materials banned (b) A vessel-specific biofouling provision of Federal law, including: for use in the United States; and management plan must be developed and followed with a goal to prevent (1) Sections 311 and 312 of the (iii) If subject to FIFRA registration, be used according to the FIFRA label. macrofouling, thereby minimizing the Federal Water Pollution Control Act (33 potential for the introduction and U.S.C. 1321 et seq. and 33 U.S.C. 1322 Proper use includes labeling requirements for proper application spread of ANS. A biofouling et seq.), also known as the CWA; sites, rates, frequency of application, management plan is a holistic strategy (2) The Act to Prevent Pollution from and methods; maintenance; removal; that considers the operational profile of Ships (33 U.S.C. 1901 et seq.); and storage and disposal of wastes and the vessel, identifies the appropriate (3) Title X of the Coast Guard containers. antifouling systems, and details the Authorization Act of 2010 (33 U.S.C. (6) Any toxic or hazardous materials biofouling management practices for 3801 et seq.), also known as the Clean onboard which might wash overboard or specific areas of the vessel. The plan Hulls Act; dissolve as a result of contact with elements must prioritize procedures and precipitation or surface water spray strategies to prevent macrofouling. (4) The Federal Insecticide, must be stored in appropriately sealed, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (7 labeled, and secured containers and be § 139.6 Oil management. U.S.C. 136 et seq.); and located in areas of the vessel that (a) The requirements in paragraphs (b) (5) The National Marine Sanctuaries minimize exposure to ocean spray and through (d) of this section apply to Act (16 U.S.C. 1431 et seq.) and precipitation consistent with vessel vessel equipment and operations that implementing regulations found at 15 design, unless the master determines use or discharge oil or oily mixtures. this would interfere with essential CFR part 922 and 50 CFR part 404. (b) The following discharges are vessel operations or safety of the vessel (b) Nothing in this part affects the prohibited: or would violate any applicable authority of the Secretary of Commerce regulations that establish specifications (1) Used or spent oil no longer being or the Secretary of the Interior to for safe transportation, handling, used for its intended purpose; and administer any land or waters under the carriage, and storage of toxic or (2) Oil in such quantities as may be administrative control of the Secretary hazardous materials. harmful. of Commerce or the Secretary of the (7) Containers holding toxic or (c) During fueling, maintenance, and Interior, respectively. hazardous materials must not be other vessel operations, control and (c) Nothing in this part shall be overfilled and incompatible materials response measures must be used to construed to affect, supersede, or relieve must not be mixed in containers. (8) The overboard discharge or prevent, minimize, and contain spills the master of any otherwise applicable and overflows. requirements or prohibitions associated disposal of containers with toxic or with a vessel’s right to innocent passage hazardous materials is prohibited. (d) An environmentally acceptable as provided for under customary (9) Prior to washing the cargo lubricant (EAL) must be used in any oil- international law. compartment or tank and discharging to-sea interface unless such use is washwater overboard, any cargo technically infeasible.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:58 Oct 23, 2020 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00068 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\26OCP2.SGM 26OCP2 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 207 / Monday, October 26, 2020 / Proposed Rules 67885

Subpart C—Standards for Specific and followed to minimize the potential drawn from Cap des Rosiers to Point- Discharges Incidental to the Normal for the introduction and spread of ANS. Sud-Oeste (West Point), Anticosti Operation of a Vessel A ballast water management plan is a Island, and west of a line along 63 W. holistic strategy that considers the longitude from Anticosti Island to the § 139.10 Ballast tanks. operational profile of the vessel and the north shore of the St. Lawrence River; (a) Applicability. Except for any vessel appropriate ballast water management (vi) Is enrolled in the USCG otherwise excluded in paragraph (b) of practices and systems. Shipboard Technology Evaluation this section, the requirements in (d) Ballast Water Discharge Standard. Program (STEP); or paragraphs (b) through (h) of this Unless exempted in paragraph (d)(3) of (vii) Discharges ballast water prior to section apply to any vessel equipped this section, any ballast water discharge an applicable ballast water discharge with one or more ballast tanks. must meet the following numeric standard compliance date established in (b) Exclusions. The requirements of discharge standard: regulations promulgated by the § 139.10 do not apply to the following (1) Biological parameters (expressed Secretary as described in 139.1(d). vessels: as instantaneous maximums). (e) Ballast Water Exchange and (1) A vessel that continuously takes (i) Organisms greater than or equal to Saltwater Flushing. Except for any on and discharges ballast water in a 50 micrometers in minimum dimension: vessel identified in paragraph (e)(3), (f), flow-through system, if the Less than 10 living organisms per cubic or (g) of this section, prior to an Administrator determines that system meter. applicable ballast water discharge cannot materially contribute to the (ii) Organisms less than 50 standard compliance date established in spread or introduction of ANS; micrometers and greater than or equal to regulations promulgated by the (2) A vessel in the National Defense 10 micrometers: Less than 10 living Secretary as described in § 139.1(d), any Reserve Fleet scheduled for disposal, if organisms per milliliter (mL). vessel must meet the requirements in the vessel does not have an operable (iii) Toxicogenic Vibrio cholerae paragraphs (e)(1) and (2) of this section. BWMS; (serotypes O1 and O139): Less than 1 (1) Any vessel that carries ballast (3) A vessel that discharges ballast colony forming unit (cfu) per 100 mL. water taken on in areas less than 200 water consisting solely of water taken (iv) Escherichia coli: A concentration NM from any shore that will onboard from a public or commercial of less than 250 cfu per 100 mL. subsequently operate outside the EEZ source that, at the time the water is (v) Intestinal enterococci: A and more than 200 NM from any shore taken onboard, meets the applicable concentration of less than 100 cfu per must: requirements or permit requirements of 100 mL. (i) Conduct ballast water exchange in (2) Biocide parameters (expressed as the Safe Drinking Water Act (42 U.S.C. waters not less than 200 NM from any instantaneous maximums). 300f et seq.) or Health Canada’s shore prior to discharging that ballast (i) Chlorine dioxide: For any Guidelines for Canadian Drinking Water water; and Quality; discharge from a BWMS using chlorine (ii) Commence ballast water exchange (4) A vessel that carries all permanent dioxide, chlorine dioxide must not not less than 200 NM from any shore ballast water in sealed tanks that are not exceed 200 mg/L. and as early in the vessel voyage as subject to discharge except under (ii) Total residual oxidizers: For any practicable. emergency circumstances; or discharge from a BWMS using chlorine (5) A vessel that only discharges or ozone, total residual oxidizers must (2) For any ballast tank that is empty ballast water to a reception facility. not exceed 100 mg/L. or contains unpumpable residual water (c) Ballast Water Best Management (iii) Peracetic acid: For any discharge on a vessel bound for a port or place of Practices (BMPs). (1) Any vessel from a BWMS using peracetic acid, destination subject to the jurisdiction of equipped with ballast tanks must peracetic acid must not exceed 500 mg/ the United States, the master must, prior minimize the discharge and uptake of L. to arriving at that port or place of ANS by adhering to the following (iv) Hydrogen peroxide: For any destination, either: practices: discharge from a BWMS using peracetic (i) Seal the tank so that there is no (i) Ballast tanks must be periodically acid, hydrogen peroxide must not discharge or uptake and subsequent flushed and cleaned to remove sediment exceed 1,000 mg/L. discharge of ballast water, or and biofouling organisms; (3) Exemptions: The ballast water (ii) Conduct a saltwater flush: (ii) When practicable and available, discharge standards in paragraphs (d)(1) (A) Not less than 200 NM from any high sea suction must be used when in and (2) of this section do not apply to shore for a voyage originating outside port or where clearance to the bottom of any vessel that: the United States or Canadian EEZ; or the waterbody is less than 5 meters to (i) Is less than or equal to 3,000 GT (B) not less than 50 NM from any the lower edge of the sea chest; ITC (1,600 GRT if GT ITC is not shore for a voyage originating within the (iii) When practicable, ballast water assigned), and does not operate outside United States or Canadian EEZ. pumps must be used in port instead of of the EEZ; (3) Exceptions: Paragraphs (e)(1) and draining by gravity to empty ballast (ii) Is a non-seagoing, unmanned, (2), do not apply under any of the tanks; and unpowered barge, except any barge that following circumstances: (iv) Any sea chest screen must be is part of a dedicated vessel (i) If the unpumpable residual waters maintained and fully intact. combination such as an integrated or and sediments of an empty ballast tank (2) Discharge of any sediment or water articulated tug and barge unit; were subject to treatment, in compliance from ballast tank cleaning is prohibited. (iii) Takes on and discharges ballast with applicable requirements, through a (3) Discharge or uptake of ballast water exclusively in the contiguous BWMS approved or accepted by the water must be avoided in areas with portions of a single COTP Zone; Secretary; coral reefs; discharge and uptake should (iv) Does not travel more than 10 NM (ii) Except as otherwise required be conducted as far from coral reefs as and passes through no locks; under this part, if the unpumpable possible. (v) Is a vessel that operates residual waters and sediments of an (4) A vessel-specific ballast water exclusively in the Great Lakes and the empty ballast tank were sourced solely management plan must be developed St. Lawrence River west of a rhumb line within:

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:58 Oct 23, 2020 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00069 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\26OCP2.SGM 26OCP2 67886 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 207 / Monday, October 26, 2020 / Proposed Rules

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

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:58 Oct 23, 2020 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00070 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\26OCP2.SGM 26OCP2 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 207 / Monday, October 26, 2020 / Proposed Rules 67887

discharges from ballast tanks when a (c) The discharge of accumulated § 139.17 Elevator pits. vessel is operating in federally-protected water and sediment from any chain (a) The requirements in paragraph (b) waters are contained in § 139.40(b). locker is prohibited in port. of this section apply to the liquid that (d) For all vessels that operate beyond accumulates in, and is discharged from, § 139.11 Bilges. the waters of the contiguous zone, the sumps of elevator wells on vessels. (a) The requirements in paragraphs (b) anchors and anchor chains must be (b) The discharge of untreated through (d) of this section apply to rinsed of biofouling organisms and accumulated water and sediment from discharges from the bilge consisting of sediment prior to entering the waters of any elevator pit is prohibited. water and residue that accumulates in a the contiguous zone. lower compartment of the vessel’s hull § 139.18 Exhaust gas emission control (e) Additional standards applicable to systems. below the waterline. This includes any a discharge from chain lockers when a (a) Applicability. The requirements in water and residue from a cargo area that vessel is operating in federally-protected paragraphs (b) through (e) of this section comes into contact with oily materials waters are contained in § 139.40(e). or a below-deck parking area or other apply to discharges from the operation storage area for motor vehicles or other § 139.15 Decks. and cleaning of any exhaust gas motorized equipment. (a) The requirements in paragraphs (b) cleaning system (EGCS) and exhaust gas (b) The discharge of bilgewater from through (i) of this section apply to the recirculation (EGR) system. any vessel must not contain any overboard discharge of washdown and (b) Discharge requirements. Unless flocculants or other additives except runoff, including but not limited to excluded in paragraph (c) of this when used with an oily water separator precipitation and sea water, from decks, section, any discharge identified in or to maintain or clean equipment. The well decks, and bulkhead areas. paragraph (a) of this section must meet the following discharge requirements. use of any additives to remove the (b) Coamings or drip pans must be (1) pH. (i) The discharge must meet appearance of a visible sheen is used for machinery that is expected to prohibited. one of the following requirements: leak or otherwise release oil on the (A) The discharge must have a pH of (c) For any vessel of 400 GT ITC (400 deck; accumulated oil must be GRT if GT ITC is not assigned) and no less than 6.5 as measured at the collected. vessel’s overboard discharge point with above, the discharge of bilgewater must (c) Where required by an applicable occur when the vessel is underway. the exception that during maneuvering international treaty or convention or the and transit, the maximum difference of (d) Additional standards applicable to Secretary, the vessel must be fitted with discharges from bilges when a vessel is two pH units is allowed between inlet and use physical barriers (e.g., spill water and overboard discharge values; operating in federally-protected waters rails, scuppers and scupper plugs) to are contained in § 139.40(c). or collect runoff for treatment during any (B) The pH discharge limit is the § 139.12 Boilers. washdown. value that will achieve a minimum pH (d) Control measures must be used to (a) The requirements in paragraphs (b) of 6.5 at 4 meters from the overboard minimize the introduction of on-deck and (c) of this section apply to discharge point with the ship stationary. debris, garbage, residue, and spill into discharges resulting from boiler This overboard pH discharge limit is to deck washdown and runoff. blowdown. be determined at the overboard (b) The discharge from boiler (e) Vessel decks must be kept in discharge monitoring point and is to be blowdown must be minimized when in broom clean condition whenever the recorded as the vessel’s discharge limit. port. vessel is underway and prior to any The overboard pH can be determined (c) Additional standards applicable to deck washdown. either by means of direct measurement, discharges from boilers when a vessel is (f) Deck washdowns must be or by using a calculation-based operating in federally-protected waters minimized in port. methodology (computational fluid are contained in § 139.40(d). (g) The discharge of floating solids, dynamics or other equally scientifically visible foam, halogenated phenolic established empirical formulas). § 139.13 Cathodic protection. compounds, dispersants, surfactants, (ii) The pH numeric discharge (a) The requirements in paragraph (b) and spills must be minimized in any standard may be exceeded for up to 15 of this section apply to discharges deck washdown. minutes in any 12-hour period. resulting from a vessel’s cathodic (h) Any soap, cleaner, or detergent (2) PAHs (Polycyclic Aromatic corrosion control protection device, used for deck washdown must be Hydrocarbons). including sacrificial anodes and minimally-toxic, phosphate-free, and (i) The maximum continuous PAH impressed current cathodic protection biodegradable. concentration in the discharge must be systems. (i) Additional standards applicable to no greater than 50 mg/L PAHphe (b) Spaces between any flush-fit discharges from decks when a vessel is (phenanthrene equivalence) above the anode and backing must be filled to operating in federally-protected waters inlet water PAH concentration. The remove potential hotspots for biofouling are contained in § 139.40(f). PAH concentration in the discharge organisms. must be measured downstream of the § 139.16 Desalination and purification water treatment equipment and § 139.14 Chain lockers. systems. upstream of any dilution (or other (a) The requirements in paragraphs (b) (a) The requirements in paragraph (b) reactant dosing unit, if used). through (e) of this section apply to of this section apply to discharges from (ii) The 50 mg/L numeric discharge accumulated precipitation and seawater onboard desalination and purification standard is normalized for a discharge that is emptied from the compartment systems used to generate freshwater flow rate of 45 tons(t)/MWh where the used to store the anchor chain on a from seawater or otherwise purify water. MW refers to the Maximum Continuous vessel. (b) The discharge resulting from the Rating or 80% of the power rating of the (b) Anchors and anchor chains must cleaning of desalination and fuel oil combustion unit. This numeric be rinsed of biofouling organisms and purification systems with toxic or discharge standard is adjusted upward sediment when the anchor is retrieved. hazardous materials is prohibited. or downward for varying discharge flow

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:58 Oct 23, 2020 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00071 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\26OCP2.SGM 26OCP2 67888 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 207 / Monday, October 26, 2020 / Proposed Rules

rates, pursuant to Table 1 to paragraph (b)(2)(ii) of this section.

TABLE 1 TO PARAGRAPH (b)(2)(ii)

Numeric discharge Flow rate (t/MWh) standard Measurement (μg/L PAHphe technology equivalents)

0–1 ...... 2,250 Ultraviolet light. 2.5 ...... 900 Ultraviolet light. 5 ...... 450 Fluorescence a. 11.25 ...... 200 Fluorescence. 22.5 ...... 100 Fluorescence. 45 ...... 50 Fluorescence. 90 ...... 25 Fluorescence. a For any Flow Rate greater than 2.5 t/MWh, Fluorescence technology must be used.

(iii) The continuous PAHphe numeric § 139.19 Fire protection equipment. (1) Within 3 NM from shore that discharge standard may be exceeded by (a) The requirements in paragraphs (b) voyages at least 3 NM from shore and 100% for up to 15 minutes in any 12- through (d) of this section apply to the has remaining available graywater hour period. discharge from fire protection storage capacity, unless the discharge (3) Turbidity/suspended particulate equipment. As specified in § 139.1(b)(3), meets the standards in paragraph (f) of matter. these requirements do not apply to this section; and (i) The washwater treatment system discharges from fire protection (2) Within 1 NM from shore that must be designed to minimize equipment when used for emergencies voyages at least 1 NM from shore but suspended particulate matter, including or when compliance with such not beyond 3 NM from shore and has heavy metals and ash. requirements would compromise the remaining available graywater storage (ii) The maximum continuous safety of the vessel or life at sea. capacity, unless the discharge meets the turbidity in the discharge must be no (b) The discharge from fire protection standards in paragraph (f) of this greater than 25 FNU (formazin equipment during testing, training, section. nephlometric units) or 25 NTU maintenance, inspection, or (e) The discharge of graywater from (nephlometric turbidity units) or certification, excluding USCG-required the following vessels must meet the equivalent units above the inlet water inspection and certification, is numeric discharge standard established turbidity. However, to account for prohibited in port and must not contain in paragraph (f) of this section: periods of high inlet turbidity, readings any fluorinated firefighting foam. (1) Any new vessel of 400 GT ITC must be a rolling average over a 15- (c) Additional requirements (400 GRT if GT ITC is not assigned) and minute period to a maximum of 25 FNU applicable to discharges from fire above; with the discharge measured protection equipment when a vessel is (2) Any passenger vessel with downstream of the water treatment operating in federally-protected waters overnight accommodations for 500 or equipment and upstream of dilution (or are contained in § 139.40(g). more passengers; reactant dosing, if used). (3) Any passenger vessel with § 139.20 Gas turbines. overnight accommodations for 100–499 (iii) The continuous turbidity numeric (a) The requirements in paragraph (b) passengers unless the vessel was discharge standard may be exceeded by of this section apply to discharges from constructed before December 19, 2008, 20% for up to 15 minutes in any 12- the washing of gas turbine components. and does not voyage beyond 1 NM from hour period. (b) The discharge of untreated gas shore; and (4) Nitrates: turbine washwater is prohibited unless (4) Any new ferry authorized by the (i) The washwater treatment system infeasible. USCG to carry 250 or more people. must prevent the discharge of nitrates (f) A vessel identified in paragraph (e) beyond that associated with a 12% § 139.21 Graywater systems. of this section that is discharging removal of NOX from the exhaust, or (a) The requirements in paragraphs (b) graywater must meet the following beyond 60 mg/L normalized for a through (h) of this section apply to numeric discharge standard: discharge rate of 45 tons/MWh, discharges of graywater except for (1) Fecal coliform. whichever is greater. graywater from any commercial vessel (i) The 30-day geometric mean must (c) Applicability. The discharges of on the Great Lakes that is subject to the not exceed 20 cfu/100 mL (colony EGR bleed-off water from vessels that requirements in 40 CFR part 140 and 33 forming units/milliliter). are underway and operating on fuel that CFR part 159. (ii) Greater than 90% of samples must meets the emissions requirements for (b) The introduction of kitchen waste, not exceed 40 cfu/100 mL. sulfur starting in 2020 as specified in food, oils, and oily residues to the (2) BOD5. MARPOL Annex VI are excluded from graywater system must be minimized. (i) The 30-day average must not paragraph (b) of this section. (c) Any soaps, cleaners, and exceed 30 mg/L. (d) Prohibition. The discharge of EGR detergents discharged in graywater must (ii) The 7-day average must not bleed-off water retained onboard in a be minimally-toxic, phosphate-free, and exceed 45 mg/L. holding tank that does not meet the biodegradable. (3) Suspended solids. discharge requirements in paragraph (b) (d) The discharge of graywater is (i) The 30-day average must not of this section, is prohibited. prohibited from any vessel: exceed 30 mg/L.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:58 Oct 23, 2020 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00072 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\26OCP2.SGM 26OCP2 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 207 / Monday, October 26, 2020 / Proposed Rules 67889

(ii) The 7-day average must not coating discharged by abrasion during niche areas when a vessel is operating exceed 45 mg/L. cleaning or after contact with other hard in federally-protected waters are (4) pH. surfaces (e.g., moorings) are acceptable. contained in § 139.40(i). (i) Must be maintained between 6.0 (5) Coatings that contain cybutryne and 9.0. must not be applied on vessel hulls and § 139.23 Inert gas systems. (ii) [Reserved] niches. (a) The requirements in paragraph (b) (5) Total residual chlorine. (i) Any vessel that has previously of this section apply to the discharge of (i) Must not exceed 10.0 mg/L. applied a coating that contains washwater from an inert gas system and (ii) [Reserved] cybutryne to the vessel hull must: deck seal water when used as an (g) The discharge of graywater from (A) Apply and maintain an effective integral part of that system. any vessel operating on the Great Lakes overcoat of the vessel hull so that no (b) The discharge from inert gas that is not a commercial vessel must not cybutryne leaches from the vessel hull, systems must meet the general discharge exceed 200 fecal coliform forming units noting that incidental amounts of requirements in subpart B of this part. per 100 milliliters and contain no more coating discharged by abrasion during § 139.24 Motor gasoline and compensating than 150 milligrams per liter of cleaning or after contact with other hard systems. suspended solids. surfaces (e.g., moorings) are acceptable; (h) Additional standards applicable to (a) The requirements in paragraphs (b) or and (c) of this section apply to the discharges from graywater systems (B) Remove any cybutryne coating discharge of motor gasoline and when a vessel is operating in federally- from the vessel hull. compensating ambient water added to protected waters are contained in (6) Alternatives to copper-based keep gasoline tanks full to prevent § 139.40(h). coatings must be considered for vessels potentially explosive gasoline vapors spending 30 or more days per year in a § 139.22 Hulls and associated niche areas. from forming. copper-impaired waterbody or using (a) Applicability. The requirements in (b) The discharge of motor gasoline these waters as their home port. and compensating discharges must meet paragraphs (b) and (c) of this section (c) Cleaning. (1) Hulls and niche areas all general discharge requirements in apply to the discharge of coatings, must be cleaned regularly to minimize biofouling organisms, and other subpart B of this part. biofouling. (c) Additional standards applicable to materials from vessel hull surfaces and (2) Cleaning techniques must niche areas. discharges from motor gasoline and minimize damage to the coating. compensating systems when a vessel is (b) Coatings. (1) Coatings applied to (3) Cleaning must not result in a operating in federally-protected waters the vessel must be specific to the plume or cloud of paint. are contained in § 139.40(j). operational profile of the vessel and the (4) In-water cleaning of biofouling equipment to which it is applied, that exceeds a fouling rating of FR–20 is § 139.25 Non-oily machinery. including, for biocidal coatings, having prohibited unless one or more of the (a) The requirements in paragraph (b) appropriate effective biocide release following conditions are met: of this section apply to discharges from rates and components that are (i) The biofouling is local in origin machinery that contains no oil, biodegradable once separated from the and cleaning does not result in a plume including discharges from the operation vessel surface. or cloud of paint; or of desalination systems, water chillers, (2) Coatings must be applied, (ii) An in-water cleaning and capture valve packings, water piping, low- and maintained, and reapplied consistent (IWCC) system is designed and operated high-pressure air compressors, with manufacturer specifications, to: propulsion engine jacket coolers, fire including the thickness, the method of (A) Capture coatings and biofouling pumps, and seawater and potable water application, and the lifespan of the organisms; pumps. coating. (B) Filter biofouling organisms from (b) The discharge of untreated non- (3) Coatings on vessel hulls and the effluent; and oily machinery wastewater and packing niches must not contain tributyltin (C) Minimize the release of biocides. gland or stuffing box effluent containing (TBT) or any other organotin compound (5) The discharge of any wastes toxic or bioaccumulative additives or used as a biocide. filtered or otherwise removed from any the discharge of oil in such quantities as (i) Any vessel hull previously covered IWCC system is prohibited. may be harmful is prohibited. with a coating containing TBT (whether (6) In-water cleaning of any copper- or not used as a biocide) or any other based hull coatings is prohibited in a § 139.26 Pools and spas. organotin compound (if used as a copper-impaired waterbody within the (a) The requirements in paragraphs (b) biocide) must: first 365 days after application, unless and (c) of this section apply to (A) Maintain an effective overcoat on an IWCC system consistent with discharges from pools and spas. the vessel hull so that no TBT or other paragraph (c)(2)(ii) of this section is (b) Except for unintentional or organotin leaches from the vessel hull; used. inadvertent releases from overflows or (7) In-water cleaning must not be across the decks and into overboard (B) Remove any TBT or other conducted on any section of a biocidal drains caused by, but not limited to, organotin compound from the vessel antifouling coating that shows excessive weather, vessel traffic, marine wildlife hull. cleaning actions (e.g., brush marks) or avoidance or navigational maneuvering, (4) When an organotin compound blistering due to the internal failure of discharge of pool and spa water must: other than TBT is used as a catalyst in the paint system. (1) Occur only while the vessel is the coating (e.g., dibutyltin), the coating (8) Any soap, cleaner, or detergent underway, unless determined to be must: used on vessel surfaces, such as a scum infeasible, and; (i) Contain less than 2,500 mg total tin line of the hull, must be minimally- (2) Meet the following numeric per kilogram of dry paint; and toxic, phosphate-free, and discharge standard: (ii) Not be designed to slough or biodegradable. (i) For chlorine disinfection: Total otherwise peel from the vessel hull, (9) Additional standards applicable to residual chlorine less than 100 mg/L; noting that incidental amounts of discharges from hulls and associated and

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:58 Oct 23, 2020 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00073 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\26OCP2.SGM 26OCP2 67890 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 207 / Monday, October 26, 2020 / Proposed Rules

(ii) For bromine disinfection: Total Subpart D—Special Area (k) Pools and spas. The discharge of residual oxidant less than 25 mg/L. Requirements pool or spa water into federally- (c) Additional standards applicable to protected waters is prohibited. discharges from pools and spas when a § 139.40 Federally-protected waters. (l) Seawater piping systems. The vessel is operating in federally-protected (a) Applicability. The requirements in discharge of chemical dosing, as waters are contained in § 139.40(k). paragraphs (b) through (l) of this section described in § 139.28, into federally- are in addition to applicable standards protected waters is prohibited. § 139.27 Refrigeration and air in subparts B and C of this part and conditioning. apply when a vessel is operating in Subpart E—Procedures for States To (a) The requirements in paragraph (b) federally-protected waters. Request Changes to Standards, of this section apply to discharges of (b) Ballast tanks. The discharge or Regulations, or Policy Promulgated by condensation from refrigeration, air uptake of ballast water in federally- the Administrator conditioning, and similar chilling protected waters must be avoided § 139.50 Petition by a Governor for the equipment. except for those vessels operating (b) The direct overboard discharge of Administrator to establish an emergency within the boundaries of any national any condensate that contacts toxic or order or review a standard, regulation, or marine sanctuary that preserves hazardous materials is prohibited. policy. shipwrecks or maritime heritage in the (a) The Governor of a State (or a § 139.28 Seawater piping. Great Lakes, unless the designation designee) may submit a petition to the (a) The requirements in paragraphs (b) documents for such sanctuary do not Administrator: and (c) of this section apply to allow taking up or discharging ballast (1) To issue an emergency order under discharges from seawater piping water in such sanctuary, pursuant to the CWA section 312(p)(4)(e); or systems that provide water for other Howard Coble Coast Guard and (2) To review any standard of vessel uses (e.g., engines, hydraulic Maritime Transportation Act of 2014, as performance, regulation, or policy systems, and refrigeration), including amended by the Coast Guard promulgated by the Administrator while a vessel is in port or in layup. Reauthorization Act of 2015, Public Law under CWA section 312(p)(4) or (6), if (b) Seawater piping systems, 114–120, title VI, sec 602. there exists new information that could including sea chests, grates, and similar (c) Bilges. For any vessel of 400 GT reasonably result in a change to: appurtenances, that accumulate ITC (400 GRT if GT ITC is not assigned) (i) The standard of performance, biofouling that exceeds a fouling rating and above, the discharge of bilgewater regulation, or policy; or of FR–20 must be fitted with a Marine into federally-protected waters is (ii) A determination on which the Growth Prevention System (MGPS). prohibited. standard of performance, regulation, or (1) An MGPS must be selected to (d) Boilers. The discharge of boiler policy was based. address: blowdown into federally-protected (b) A petition under paragraph (a) of (i) The level, frequency, and type of waters is prohibited. this section shall be signed by the biofouling; and (e) Chain lockers. The discharge of Governor (or a designee) and must (ii) The design, location, and area in accumulated water and sediment from include: which the system will be used. any chain locker into federally- (1) The purpose of the petition (2) An MGPS must include one, or protected waters is prohibited. (request for emergency order or a review some combination of the following: (f) Decks. The discharge of deck of a standard, regulation, or policy); (i) Chemical injection; washdown into federally-protected (2) Any applicable scientific or (ii) Electrolysis, ultrasound, waters is prohibited. technical information that forms the ultraviolet radiation, or (g) Fire protection equipment. The basis of the petition; and electrochlorination; discharge from fire protection (3) The direct and indirect benefits if (iii) Application of an antifouling equipment during testing, training, the requested petition were to be coating; or maintenance, inspection, or certification granted by the Administrator. (iv) Use of cupro-nickel piping. into federally-protected water is (3) Upon identification of biofouling (c) The Administrator shall grant or prohibited. The discharge of non- that exceeds a fouling rating of FR–20 in deny: fluorinated firefighting foam into a seawater piping system, reactive (1) A petition under paragraph (a)(1) federally-protected waters is prohibited measures to manage the macrofouling of this section by not later than the date except by any vessel owned or under must be used. Discharges resulting from that is 180 days after the date on which contract with the United States, state, or reactive measures to remove the petition is submitted; and local government to do business macrofouling are prohibited in port. (2) A petition under paragraph (a)(2) exclusively in any federally-protected (c) Additional standards applicable to of this section by not later than the date waters. discharges from seawater piping when a that is one year after the date on which vessel is operating in federally-protected (h) Graywater system. The discharge the petition is submitted. waters are contained in § 139.40(l). of graywater into federally-protected (d) If the Administrator determines to waters from any vessel with remaining grant a petition: § 139.29 Sonar domes. available graywater storage capacity is (1) In the case of a petition under (a) The requirements in paragraphs (b) prohibited. paragraph (a)(1) of this section, the and (c) of this section apply to (i) Hulls and associated niche areas. Administrator shall immediately issue discharges from sonar domes. The discharge from in-water cleaning of the relevant emergency order under (b) The discharge of water during vessel hulls and niche areas into CWA section 312(p)(4)(E); or maintenance or repair from inside the federally-protected waters is prohibited. (2) In the case of a petition under sonar dome is prohibited. (j) Motor gasoline and compensating paragraph (a)(2) of this section, the (c) Use of bioaccumulative biocides systems. The discharge of motor Administrator shall submit a Notice of on the exterior of any sonar dome is gasoline and compensating discharges Proposed Rulemaking to the Federal prohibited when non-bioaccumulative into federally-protected waters is Register to revise the relevant standard, alternatives are available. prohibited. requirement, regulation, or policy under

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:58 Oct 23, 2020 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00074 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\26OCP2.SGM 26OCP2 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 207 / Monday, October 26, 2020 / Proposed Rules 67891

CWA section 312(p)(4) or (6), as received under paragraph (c)(2) of this treated, into such waters subject to the applicable. section; and application. (e) If the Administrator determines to (4) Shall not take into consideration (b) A prohibition by the Administrator deny a petition, the Administrator shall any preliminary assessment by the Great under paragraph (a) of this section shall submit a notice to the Federal Register, Lakes Commission or any dissenting not apply until the Administrator, in that includes a detailed explanation of opinion by a Governor of a Great Lakes concurrence with the Secretary, reviews the scientific, technical, or operational State, except to the extent that such an the state application and makes the factors that form the basis of the assessment or opinion is relevant to the applicable determinations described in determination. criteria for the applicable determination paragraph (d) of this section and under paragraph (d) of this section. publishes a regulation establishing the § 139.51 Petition by a Governor for the (f) Upon review and determination, prohibition. Administrator to establish enhanced Great (c) An application submitted by the Lakes system requirements. the Administrator, in concurrence with the Secretary, shall approve each state under paragraph (a) of this section (a) The Governors endorsing a shall be signed by the Governor (or a proposed standard or requirement under proposed standard or other requirement, unless the Administrator determines designee) and must include: CWA section 312(p)(10)(ii)(III)(bb) may (1) A certification that a prohibition of jointly submit to the Administrator for that the proposed standard or other requirement is not at least as stringent the discharge(s) would protect and approval each proposed standard of enhance the quality of the specific performance or other requirement as comparable standards and requirements under this part. waters within the state to a greater developed and endorsed pursuant to extent than the applicable Federal CWA section 312(p)(10)(ii) with respect (g) If the Administrator approves a proposed standard or other requirement, standard provides; to any discharge that is subject to (2) A detailed analysis of the direct the Administrator shall submit regulation under this part and occurs and indirect benefits of the requested notification of the determination to the within the Great Lakes System. prohibition for each individual Governor of each Great Lakes State and (b) A petition under paragraph (a) of discharge for which the state is seeking to the Federal Register. this section must include: a prohibition; (1) An explanation regarding why the (h) If the Administrator disapproves a (3) A table identifying the types and applicable standard of performance or proposed standard of performance or number of vessels operating in the other requirement is at least as stringent other requirement, the Administrator waterbody and a table identifying the as a comparable standard of shall submit a notice that must include: types and number of vessels that would performance or other requirement under (1) A description of the reasons why be subject to the prohibition; this part; the standard or requirement is, as (4) A table identifying the location, (2) Information indicating that the applicable, less stringent than a operating schedule, draught standard of performance or other comparable standard or requirement requirements, pumpout capacity, requirement is in accordance with under this part, and pumpout flow rate, and fee structure of maritime safety; and (2) Any recommendations regarding each facility capable of servicing the (3) Information indicating that the changes the Governors of the Great vessels that would be subject to the standard of performance or other Lakes States could make to conform the prohibition and available to receive the requirement is in accordance with disapproved portion of the standard or prohibited discharge; applicable maritime and navigation requirement to the requirements of (5) A map indicating the location of laws and regulations. paragraph (b) of this section. each facility identified in paragraph (5) (c) On receipt of a proposed standard (i) Disapproval of a proposed standard within the proposed waters; of performance or other requirement or requirement by the Administrator (6) A table identifying the location under paragraph (b) of this section, the under paragraph (h) of this section shall and geographic area of each proposed Administrator shall submit, after be considered to be a final agency action no-discharge zone; and consultation with USCG, a document to subject to judicial review under section (7) A detailed analysis of the impacts the Federal Register that, at minimum: 509. to vessels subject to the prohibition, (1) States that the proposed standard (j) On approval by the Administrator including a discussion of how these or requirement is publicly available; and of a proposed standard of performance vessels may feasibly collect and store (2) Provides an opportunity for public or other requirement, the Administrator the discharge, the extent to which comment regarding the proposed shall establish, by regulation, the retrofitting may be required, costs that standard or requirement. proposed standard or requirement are incurred as a result of the discharge (d) The Administrator shall within the Great Lakes System in lieu of prohibition, and any safety commence a review of each proposed any comparable standard or other implications. standard of performance or other requirement promulgated under CWA (d) On application of a State, the requirement covered by the notice to section 312(p)(4). Administrator, in concurrence with the determine whether that standard or Secretary, shall, by regulation, prohibit requirement is at least as stringent as § 139.52 Application by a State for the the discharge from a vessel of one or comparable standards and requirements Administrator to establish a State No- more discharges subject to regulation under this part. Discharge Zone. under this part, whether treated or not (e) In carrying out paragraph (d) of (a) If any state determines that the treated, into the waters covered by the this section, the Administrator: protection and enhancement of the application if the Administrator (1) Shall consult with the Secretary, quality of some or all of the waters determines that— (2) Shall consult with the Governor of within the state require greater (1) The prohibition of the discharge each Great Lakes State and environmental protection, the Governor would protect and enhance the quality representatives from the Federal and of a State (or a designee) may submit a of the specified waters within the state; provincial governments of Canada; petition to the Administrator to (2) Adequate facilities for the safe and (3) Shall take into consideration any establish a regulation prohibiting one or sanitary removal and treatment of the relevant data or public comments more discharges, whether treated or not prohibited discharge are reasonably

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:58 Oct 23, 2020 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00075 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\26OCP2.SGM 26OCP2 67892 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 207 / Monday, October 26, 2020 / Proposed Rules

available, taking costs into Channel Islands National Marine Sanctuary Sunset Crater Volcano National Monument consideration, for the water and all Cordell Bank National Marine Sanctuary Tonto National Monument vessels to which the prohibition would Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary Tumacacori National Historical Park apply. A determination of adequacy Flower Garden Banks National Marine Tuzigoot National Monument Sanctuary Walnut Canyon National Monument shall consider, at a minimum, water Gray’s Reef National Marine Sanctuary Wupatki National Monument depth, dock size, pumpout facility Greater Farallones National Marine Yuma Crossing National Heritage Area capacity and flow rate, availability of Sanctuary year-round operations, proximity to Hawaii Humpback Whale National Marine Arkansas navigation routes, and the ratio of Sanctuary Hot Springs National Park pumpout facilities to the population and Mallows Bay-Potomac River National Marine Pea Ridge National Military Park discharge capacity of vessels operating Sanctuary Trail of Tears National Historic Trail Monitor National Marine Sanctuary in those waters; California (3) The discharge can be safely Monterey Bay National Marine Sanctuary Olympic Coast National Marine Sanctuary Alcatraz Island collected and stored until a vessel Stellwagen Bank National Marine Sanctuary Cabrillo National Monument reaches an appropriate facility or Thunder Bay National Marine Sanctuary Castle Mountains National Monument location for discharge; Cesar E. Chavez National Monument (4) In the case of an application for A.2 Marine National Monuments Channel Islands National Park the prohibition of the discharge of Mariana Trench Marine National Monument Death Valley National Park ballast water in port (or in any other Northeast Canyons and Seamounts Marine Devils Postpile National Monument location where cargo, passengers, or fuel National Monument Fort Point National Historic Site Pacific Remote Islands Marine National Golden Gate National Recreation Area are loaded and unloaded): John Muir National Historic Site (i) The considerations for adequate Monument Papaha¯naumokua¯kea Marine National Joshua Tree National Park facilities described in paragraph (d)(2) Monument Lassen Volcanic National Park of this section apply; and Rose Atoll Marine National Monument Lava Beds National Monument (ii) The prohibition will not Mojave National Preserve unreasonably interfere with the safe A.3 National Parks (National Reserves and Muir Woods National Monument loading and unloading of cargo, Monuments) Pinnacles National Park passengers, or fuel. Alabama Point Reyes National Seashore Redwood National Park (e) The Administrator shall submit to Birmingham Civil Rights National Monument the Secretary a request for written Rosie the Riveter WWII Home Front National Horseshoe Bend National Military Park Historical Park concurrence on a determination made to Freedom Riders National Monument San Francisco Maritime National Historical establish a prohibition. Little River Canyon National Preserve Park (1) A failure by the Secretary to Muscle Shoals National Heritage Area Santa Monica Mountains National Recreation concur with the Administrator 60 days Russell Cave National Monument Area after the date on which the Trail of Tears National Historic Trail Sequoia & Kings Canyon National Parks Administrator submits a request for Tuskegee Airmen National Historic Site Tule Lake National Monument concurrence shall not prevent the Alaska Whiskeytown National Recreation Area Yosemite National Park Administrator from prohibiting the Aleutian World War II National Historic Area discharge or discharges, subject to the Aniakchak National Monument & Preserve Colorado condition that the Administrator shall Bering Land Bridge National Preserve Bent’s Old Fort National Historical Site include in the administrative record of Cape Krusenstern National Monument Black Canyon of The Gunnison National Park the promulgation: Denali National Park & Preserve Colorado National Monument (i) Documentation of the request for Gates of the Artic National Park & Preserve Curecanti National Recreation Area concurrence; and Glacier Bay National Park & Preserve Dinosaur National Monument (ii) The response of the Administrator Katmai National Park & Preserve Florissant Fossil Beds National Monument to any written objections received from Kenai Fjords National Park Great Sand Dunes National Park & Preserve the Secretary relating to the prohibition Klondike Gold Rush National Historical Park Hovenweep National Monument Kobuk Valley National Park Mesa Verde National Park during the 60-day period beginning on Lake Clark National Park & Preserve Rocky Mountain National Park the date of the request for concurrence. Noatak National Preserve Santa Fe National Historic Trail (f) Upon a determination by the Sitka National Historical Park Yucca House National Monument Administrator that an application meets Wrangell—St Elias National Park & Preserve the criteria in paragraph (c) of this Yukon—Charley Rivers National Preserve Connecticut Quinebaug & Shetucket Rivers Valley section, the Administrator shall approve American Samoa or disapprove an application submitted National Heritage Corridor National Park of America Samoa by a state. Delaware (g) If the Administrator approves the Arizona Captain John Smith Chesapeake National application, the Administrator shall Canyon de Chelly National Monument Historic Trail submit a notice of proposed rulemaking Casa Grande Ruins National Monument First State National Historical Park to the Federal Register. Chiricahua National Monument (h) A prohibition by the Glen Canyon National Recreation Area District of Columbia Administrator under paragraph (a) of Grand Canyon National Park Anacostia Park this section shall not apply until the Hohokam Pima National Monument Capitol Hill Parks Administrator publishes a final rule Lake Mead National Recreation Area Captain John Smith Chesapeake National establishing the prohibition. Montezuma Castle National Monument Historic Trail Navajo National Monument Chesapeake & Ohio Canal National Historical Appendix A to Part 139—Federally- Organ Pipe Cactus National Monument Park Protected Waters 1 Parashant National Monument Chesapeake Bay Gateways Network Petrified Forest National Park Kenilworth Park & Aquatic Gardens A.1 National Marine Sanctuaries Pipe Spring National Monument Meridian Hill Park American Samoa National Marine Sanctuary Saguaro National Park National Capital Parks-East

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:58 Oct 23, 2020 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00076 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\26OCP2.SGM 26OCP2 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 207 / Monday, October 26, 2020 / Proposed Rules 67893

National Mall & Memorial Parks Mammoth Cave National Park Mississippi Potomac Heritage National Scenic Trail Trail Of Tears National Historic Trail Gulf Islands National Seashore Florida Louisiana Natchez National Historical Park Natchez Trace National Scenic Trail Big Cypress National Preserve Cane River National Heritage Area Biscayne National Park Cane River Creole National Historical Park Missouri Canaveral National Seashore Jean Lafitte National Historical Park and Gateway Arch National Park Castillo De San Marcos National Monument Preserve George Washington Carver National De Soto National Memorial New Orleans Jazz National Historical Park Monument Dry Tortugas National Park Poverty Point National Monument Jefferson National Expansion Memorial Everglades National Park Maine Lewis & Clark National Historic Trail Fort Caroline National Memorial Ozark National Scenic Riverways Fort Matanzas National Monument Acadia National Park Sainte Genevieve National Historical Park Gulf Islands National Seashore Katahdin Woods and Waters National Trail Of Tears National Historic Trail Timucuan Ecological and Historical Preserve Monument Wilson’s Creek National Battlefield Georgia Roosevelt Campobello International Park Saint Croix Island International Historic Site Montana Augusta Canal National Heritage Area Bighorn Canyon National Recreation Area Chattahoochee River National Recreation Maryland Glacier National Park Area Antietam National Battlefield Lewis & Clark National Historic Trail Chickamauga & Chattanooga National Assateague Island National Seashore Little Bighorn Battlefield National Monument Military Park Captain John Smith Chesapeake National Nez Perce National Historical Park Cumberland Island National Seashore Historic Trail Yellowstone National Park Fort Frederica National Monument Catoctin Mountain Park Nebraska Fort Pulaski National Monument Chesapeake & Ohio Canal National Historical Jimmy Carter National Historic Site Park Agate Fossil Beds National Monument Martin Luther King, Jr. National Historical Chesapeake Bay Gateways Network Homestead National Monument of America Park Clara Barton National Historic Site Lewis & Clark National Historic Trail Ocmulgee National Historical Park Fort Foote Park Niobrara National Scenic River Scotts Bluff National Monument Guam Fort McHenry National Monument and Historic Shrine Nevada War in The Pacific National Historical Park Fort Washington Park Glen Echo Park Death Valley National Park Hawaii Great Basin National Park Greenbelt Park Haleakala National Park Lake Mead National Recreation Area Harmony Hall Hawai’i Volcanoes National Park Tule Springs Fossil Beds Kalaupapa National Historical Park Harpers Ferry National Historical Park Kaloko-Honokohau National Historical Park Harriet Tubman Underground Railroad New Hampshire Pu‘uhonua O Honaunau National Historical National Historical Park Saint-Gaudens National Historical Park Park Monocacy National Battlefield New Jersey Puukohola Heiau National Historical Site Oxon Cove Park & Oxon Hill Farm Piscataway Park Appalachian National Scenic Trail Idaho Potomac Heritage National Scenic Trail Delaware National Scenic River City of Rocks National Reserve Thomas Stone National Historic Site Delaware Water Gap National Recreation Craters Of The Moon National Monument Massachusetts Area and Preserve Ellis Island National Monument Hagerman Fossil Beds National Monument Adams National Historical Park Gateway National Recreation Area Lewis & Clark National Historic Trail Blackstone River Valley National Heritage Great Egg Harbor River Minidoka Internment National Monument Corridor Lower Delaware National Wild and Scenic Nez Perce National Historical Park Boston National Historical Park River Yellowstone National Park Boston African American National Historic Morristown National Historical Park Site New Jersey Pinelands National Reserve Illinois Boston Harbor Islands National Recreation Paterson Great Falls National Historical Park Lewis & Clark National Historic Trail Area Thomas Edison National Historical Park Cape Cod National Seashore Pullman National Monument New Mexico Trail Of Tears National Historic Trail Essex National Heritage Area Lowell National Historical Park Aztec Ruins National Monument Indiana Minute Man National Historic Site Bandelier National Monument George Rogers Clark National Historical Park New Bedford Whaling National Historical Capulin Volcano National Monument Indiana Dunes National Park Park Carlsbad Caverns National Park Lincoln Boyhood National Memorial Salem Maritime National Historic Site Chaco Culture National Historical Park Saugus Iron Works National Historic Site El Malpais National Monument Iowa Springfield Armory National Historic Site El Morro National Monument Effigy Mounds National Monument Fort Union National Monument Michigan Lewis & Clark National Historic Trail Gila Cliff Dwellings National Monument Isle Royale National Park Manhattan Project National Historical Park Kansas Keweenaw National Historical Park Pecos National Historical Park Lewis & Clark National Historic Trail Pictured Rocks National Lakeshore Petroglyph National Monument Tallgrass Prairie National Preserve Sleeping Bear Dunes National Lakeshore Salinas Pueblo Missions National Monument Valles Caldera National Preserve Kentucky Minnesota White Sands National Park Abraham Lincoln Birthplace National Grand Portage National Monument Historical Park Mississippi National River and Recreation New York Big South Fork National River and Recreation Area African Burial Ground National Monument Area Pipestone National Monument Castle Clinton National Monument Camp Nelson National Monument Saint Croix National Scenic Riverway Chesapeake Bay Gateways Network Cumberland Gap National Historical Park Voyageurs National Park Ellis Island National Monument

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:58 Oct 23, 2020 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00077 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\26OCP2.SGM 26OCP2 67894 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 207 / Monday, October 26, 2020 / Proposed Rules

Erie Canalway National Heritage Corridor South Carolina George Washington Birthplace National Fire Island National Seashore Congaree National Park Monument Fort Stanwix National Monument Fort Moultrie National Monument Great Falls Park Gateway National Recreation Area Fort Sumter National Historical Park Harpers Ferry National Historical Park Governors Island National Monument Historic Jamestowne Harriet Tubman National Historical Park South Dakota Lyndon Baines Johnson Memorial Grove on Hudson River Valley National Heritage Area Badlands National Park the Potomac National Parks of New York Harbor Jewel Cave National Monument Potomac Heritage National Scenic Trail Saratoga National Historical Park Lewis & Clark National Historic Trail Prince William Forest Park Statue Of Liberty National Monument Missouri Recreational River Shenandoah National Park Stonewall National Monument Wind Cave National Park Theodore Roosevelt Island Park Upper Delaware Scenic and Recreational Yorktown Battlefield River Tennessee Washington Women’s Rights National Historical Park Big South Fork National River and Recreation Ebey’s Landing National Historical Reserve North Carolina Area Cumberland Gap National Historical Park Fort Vancouver National Historic Site Blue Ridge National Heritage Area Great Smoky Mountains National Park Lake Chelan National Recreation Area Cape Hatteras National Seashore Manhattan Project National Historical Park Lake Roosevelt National Recreation Area Cape Lookout National Seashore Obed Wild and Scenic River Lewis & Clark National Historic Park Great Smoky Mountains National Park Manhattan Project National Historical Park Wright Brothers National Monument Texas Mount Rainier National Park North Dakota Alibates Flint Quarries National Monument Nez Perce National Historical Park Amistad National Recreation Area North Cascades National Park Fort Union Trading Post National Historic Big Bend National Park Olympic National Park Site Big Thicket National Preserve Ross Lake National Recreation Area Lewis & Clark National Historic Trail Chamizal National Memorial San Juan Island National Historical Park Theodore Roosevelt National Park Guadalupe Mountains National Park West Virginia Northern Mariana Islands Lake Meredith National Recreation Area Bluestone National Scenic River American Memorial Park Lyndon B Johnson National Historical Park Padre Island National Seashore Chesapeake Bay Gateways Network Ohio Rio Grande Wild and Scenic River Gauley River National Recreation Area Harpers Ferry National Historical Park Charles Young Buffalo Soldiers National San Antonio Missions National Historical New River Gorge National River Monument Park Cuyahoga Valley National Park Waco Mammoth National Monument Wisconsin Dayton Aviation Heritage National Historical Utah Apostle Islands National Lakeshore Park Saint Croix National Scenic Riverway Hopewell Culture National Historical Park Arches National Park Perry’s Victory & International Peace Bryce Canyon National Park Wyoming Memorial Canyonlands National Park Capitol Reef National Park Bighorn Canyon National Recreation Area Oklahoma Cedar Breaks National Monument Devils Tower National Monument Fossil Butte National Monument Chickasaw National Recreation Area Dinosaur National Monument Grand Teton National Park Trail Of Tears National Historic Trail Glen Canyon National Recreation Area Golden Spike National Historical Park Yellowstone National Park Oregon Hovenweep National Monument A.4 National Wildlife Refuges Crater Lake National Park Natural Bridges National Monument Refuges that have boundaries in multiple Fort Vancouver National Historic Site Rainbow Bridge National Monument states are listed only in the state where the John Day Fossil Beds National Monument Timpanogos Cave National Monument Lewis & Clark National Historic Trail Zion National Park main visitor entrance is located. Maps of Lewis and Clark National Historical Park each national wildlife refuge are available at Nez Perce National Historical Park Vermont https://www.fws.gov/refuges. Oregon Caves National Monument Marsh-Billings-Rockefeller National Alabama Historical Park Pennsylvania Bon Secour National Wildlife Refuge Chesapeake Bay Gateways Network Virgin Islands Cahaba River National Wildlife Refuge Delaware National Scenic River Buck Island Reef National Monument Choctaw National Wildlife Refuge Delaware & Lehigh National Heritage Salt River Bay National Historical Park and Eufaula National Wildlife Refuge Corridor Ecological Reserve Fern Cave National Wildlife Refuge Delaware Water Gap National Recreation Virgin Islands National Park Key Cave National Wildlife Refuge Area Virgin Islands Coral Reef National Monument Mountain Longleaf National Wildlife Refuge First State National Historical Park Sauta Cave National Wildlife Refuge Virginia Independence National Historical Park Watercress Darter National Wildlife Refuge Johnstown Flood National Memorial Appomattox Court House National Historical Wheeler National Wildlife Refuge Park Lackawanna Heritage Valley Alaska Lower Delaware National Wild and Scenic Assateague Island National Seashore River Booker T Washington National Monument Alaska Maritime National Wildlife Refuge Potomac Heritage National Scenic Trail Cape Henry Memorial Alaska Peninsula National Wildlife Refuge Rivers Of Steel National Heritage Area Captain John Smith Chesapeake National Arctic National Wildlife Refuge Schuylkill River Valley National Heritage Historic Trail Becharof National Wildlife Refuge Area Cedar Creek & Belle Grove National Innoko National Wildlife Refuge Upper Delaware Scenic and Recreational Historical Park Izembek National Wildlife Refuge River Chesapeake Bay Gateways Network Kanuti National Wildlife Refuge Valley Forge National Historical Park Colonial National Historical Park Kenai National Wildlife Refuge Cumberland Gap National Historical Park Kodiak National Wildlife Refuge Rhode Island Fort Monroe National Monument Koyukuk National Wildlife Refuge Blackstone River Valley National Historical Fredericksburg & Spotsylvania National Nowitna National Wildlife Refuge Park Military Park Selawik National Wildlife Refuge

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:58 Oct 23, 2020 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00078 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\26OCP2.SGM 26OCP2 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 207 / Monday, October 26, 2020 / Proposed Rules 67895

Tetlin National Wildlife Refuge Baca National Wildlife Refuge Idaho Togiak National Wildlife Refuge Browns Park National Wildlife Refuge Bear Lake National Wildlife Refuge Yukon Delta Flats National Wildlife Refuge Monte Vista National Wildlife Refuge Camas National Wildlife Refuge Yukon Delta National Wildlife Refuge Rocky Flats National Wildlife Refuge Deer Flat National Wildlife Refuge Rocky Mountain Arsenal National Wildlife Arizona Grays Lake National Wildlife Refuge Refuge Kootenai National Wildlife Refuge Bill Williams River National Wildlife Refuge Two Ponds National Wildlife Refuge Minidoka National Wildlife Refuge Buenos Aires National Wildlife Refuge Oxford Slough Waterfowl Production Area Cabeza Prieta National Wildlife Refuge Connecticut Cibola National Wildlife Refuge Stewart B. McKinney National Wildlife Illinois Havasu National Wildlife Refuge Refuge Chautauqua National Wildlife Refuge Imperial National Wildlife Refuge Delaware Crab Orchard National Wildlife Refuge Kofa National Wildlife Refuge Cypress Creek National Wildlife Refuge Leslie Canyon National Wildlife Refuge Bombay Hook National Wildlife Refuge San Bernardino National Wildlife Refuge Prime Hook National Wildlife Refuge Emiquon National Wildlife Refuge Hagerman National Wildlife Refuge Arkansas Florida Kankakee NWR and Conservation Area Bald Knob National Wildlife Refuge Archie Carr National Wildlife Refuge Meredosia National Wildlife Refuge Big Lake National Wildlife Refuge Arthur R. Marshall Loxahatchee National Middle Mississippi River National Wildlife Cache River National Wildlife Refuge Wildlife Refuge Refuge Felsenthal National Wildlife Refuge Caloosahatchee National Wildlife Refuge Two Rivers National Wildlife Refuge Cedar Keys National Wildlife Refuge Holla Bend National Wildlife Refuge Indiana Logan Cave National Wildlife Refuge Chassahowitzka National Wildlife Refuge Overflow National Wildlife Refuge Crocodile Lake National Wildlife Refuge Big Oaks National Wildlife Refuge Pond Creek National Wildlife Refuge Crystal River National Wildlife Refuge Muscatatuck National Wildlife Refuge Wapanocca National Wildlife Refuge Egmont Key National Wildlife Refuge Patoka River National Wildlife Refuge and White River National Wildlife Refuge Everglades Headwaters NWR and Wildlife Management Area Conservation Area Iowa California Florida Panther National Wildlife Refuge Antioch Dunes National Wildlife Refuge Great White Heron National Wildlife Refuge DeSoto National Wildlife Refuge Bitter Creek National Wildlife Refuge Hobe Sound National Wildlife Refuge Driftless Area National Wildlife Refuge Blue Ridge National Wildlife Refuge Island Bay National Wildlife Refuge Iowa Wetland Management District Butte Sink Wildlife Management Area J.N. ‘‘Ding’’ Darling National Wildlife Refuge Neal Smith National Wildlife Refuge Castle Rock National Wildlife Refuge Key West National Wildlife Refuge Port Louisa National Wildlife Refuge Clear Lake National Wildlife Refuge Lake Wales Ridge National Wildlife Refuge Union Slough National Wildlife Refuge Lake Woodruff National Wildlife Refuge Coachella Valley National Wildlife Refuge Kansas Colusa National Wildlife Refuge Lower Suwannee National Wildlife Refuge Delevan National Wildlife Refuge Matlacha Pass National Wildlife Refuge Flint Hills National Wildlife Refuge Don Edwards San Francisco Bay National Merritt Island National Wildlife Refuge Kirwin National Wildlife Refuge Wildlife Refuge National Key Deer Refuge Marais des Cygnes National Wildlife Refuge Ellicott Slough National Wildlife Refuge Passage Key National Wildlife Refuge Quivira National Wildlife Refuge Farallon Islands National Wildlife Refuge Pelican Island National Wildlife Refuge Kentucky Grasslands Wildlife Management Area Pine Island National Wildlife Refuge Grulla National Wildlife Refuge Pinellas National Wildlife Refuge Clarks River National Wildlife Refuge Hopper Mountain National Wildlife Refuge St. Johns National Wildlife Refuge Green River National Wildlife Refuge Humboldt Bay National Wildlife Refuge St. Marks National Wildlife Refuge Louisiana Kern National Wildlife Refuge St. Vincent National Wildlife Refuge Kesterton National Wildlife Refuge Ten Thousand Islands National Wildlife Atchafalaya National Wildlife Refuge Lower Klamath National Wildlife Refuge Refuge Bayou Cocodrie National Wildlife Refuge Marin Islands National Wildlife Refuge Bayou Sauvage National Wildlife Refuge Georgia Merced National Wildlife Refuge Bayou Teche National Wildlife Refuge Modoc National Wildlife Refuge Banks Lake National Wildlife Refuge Big Branch Marsh National Wildlife Refuge North Central Valley Wildlife Management Blackbeard Island National Wildlife Refuge Black Bayou Lake National Wildlife Refuge Area Bond Swamp National Wildlife Refuge Bogue Chitto National Wildlife Refuge Pixley National Wildlife Refuge Harris Neck National Wildlife Refuge Breton National Wildlife Refuge Sacramento National Wildlife Refuge Okefenokee National Wildlife Refuge Cameron Prairie National Wildlife Refuge Sacramento River National Wildlife Refuge Piedmont National Wildlife Refuge Cat Island National Wildlife Refuge Salinas River National Wildlife Refuge Wassaw National Wildlife Refuge Catahoula National Wildlife Refuge San Diego Bay National Wildlife Refuge Wolf Island National Wildlife Refuge D’Arbonne National Wildlife Refuge San Diego National Wildlife Refuge Delta National Wildlife Refuge Guam San Joaquin River National Wildlife Refuge Grand Cote National Wildlife Refuge San Luis National Wildlife Refuge Guadalupe-Nipomo Dunes National Wildlife Handy Brake National Wildlife Refuge San Pablo Bay National Wildlife Refuge Refuge Lacassine National Wildlife Refuge Lake Ophelia National Wildlife Refuge Seal Beach National Wildlife Refuge Hawaii Sonny Bono Salton Sea National Wildlife Louisiana Wetland Management District Refuge Hailstone National Wildlife Refuge Mandalay National Wildlife Refuge Stone Lakes National Wildlife Refuge Hakalau Forest National Wildlife Refuge Red River National Wildlife Refuge Sutter National Wildlife Refuge Hanalei National Wildlife Refuge Sabine National Wildlife Refuge Tijuana Slough National Wildlife Refuge Hawaiian Islands National Wildlife Refuge Shell Keys National Wildlife Refuge Tule Lake National Wildlife Refuge Hule’ia National Wildlife Refuge Tensas River National Wildlife Refuge Willow Creek-Lurline Wildlife Management James Campbell National Wildlife Refuge Upper Ouachita National Wildlife Refuge Area Kakahaia National Wildlife Refuge Maine Windom Wetland Management District Kealia Pond National Wildlife Refuge Kilauea Point National Wildlife Refuge Aroostook National Wildlife Refuge Colorado Oahu Forest National Wildlife Refuge Carlton Pond Waterfowl Production Area Alamosa National Wildlife Refuge Pearl Harbor National Wildlife Refuge Cross Island National Wildlife Refuge Arapaho National Wildlife Refuge Rose Atoll National Wildlife Refuge Franklin Island National Wildlife Refuge

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:58 Oct 23, 2020 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00079 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\26OCP2.SGM 26OCP2 67896 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 207 / Monday, October 26, 2020 / Proposed Rules

Maine Coastal Islands National Wildlife Sam D. Hamilton Noxubee National Wildlife Wallkill River National Wildlife Refuge Refuge Refuge New Mexico Moosehorn National Wildlife Refuge St. Catherine Creek National Wildlife Refuge Petit Manan National Wildlife Refuge Tallahatchie National Wildlife Refuge Bitter Lake National Wildlife Refuge Pond Island National Wildlife Refuge Theodore Roosevelt National Wildlife Refuge Bosque del Apache National Wildlife Refuge Rachel Carson National Wildlife Refuge Yazoo National Wildlife Refuge Las Vegas National Wildlife Refuge Seal Island National Wildlife Refuge Maxwell National Wildlife Refuge Missouri Sunkhaze Meadows National Wildlife Refuge Rio Mora National Wildlife Refuge and Big Muddy National Fish & Wildlife Refuge Conservation Area Maryland Clarence Cannon National Wildlife Refuge San Andres National Wildlife Refuge Blackwater National Wildlife Refuge Great River National Wildlife Refuge Sevilleta National Wildlife Refuge Eastern Neck National Wildlife Refuge Loess Bluffs National Wildlife Refuge Valle De Oro National Wildlife Refuge Glenn Martin National Wildlife Refuge Mingo National Wildlife Refuge New York Patuxent Research Refuge Ozark Cavefish National Wildlife Refuge Susquehanna River National Wildlife Refuge Pilot Knob National Wildlife Refuge Amagansett National Wildlife Refuge Swan Lake National Wildlife Refuge Conscience Point National Wildlife Refuge Massachusetts Elizabeth A. Morton National Wildlife Refuge Assabet River National Wildlife Refuge Montana Great Thicket National Wildlife Refuge Great Meadows National Wildlife Refuge Benton Lake National Wildlife Refuge Iroquois National Wildlife Refuge Mashpee National Wildlife Refuge Benton Lake Wetland Management District Montezuma National Wildlife Refuge Massasoit National Wildlife Refuge Black Coulee National Wildlife Refuge Oyster Bay National Wildlife Refuge Monomoy National Wildlife Refuge Bowdoin National Wildlife Refuge Seatuck National Wildlife Refuge Nantucket National Wildlife Refuge Bowdoin Wetland Management District Shawangunk Grasslands National Wildlife Nomans Land Island National Wildlife Charles M. Russell National Wildlife Refuge Refuge Refuge Creedman Coulee National Wildlife Refuge Target Rock National Wildlife Refuge Oxbow National Wildlife Refuge Grass Lake NWR Wallkill River National Wildlife Refuge Parker River National Wildlife Refuge Hackmatack National Wildlife Refuge Wertheim National Wildlife Refuge Silvio O. Conte National Fish & Wildlife Hewitt Lake National Wildlife Refuge North Carolina Refuge Lake Mason National Wildlife Refuge Thacher Island National Wildlife Refuge Lake Thibadeau National Wildlife Refuge Alligator River National Wildlife Refuge Lee Metcalf National Wildlife Refuge Cedar Island National Wildlife Refuge Michigan Lost Trail National Wildlife Refuge Currituck National Wildlife Refuge Detroit River International Wildlife Refuge Medicine Lake National Wildlife Refuge Mackay Island National Wildlife Refuge Harbor Island National Wildlife Refuge National Bison Range Mattamuskeet National Wildlife Refuge Huron National Wildlife Refuge Nine-pipe National Wildlife Refuge Mountain Bogs National Wildlife Refuge Kirtlands Warbler Wildlife Management Area Northeast Montana Wetland Management Pea Island National Wildlife Refuge Michigan Islands National Wildlife Refuge District Pee Dee National Wildlife Refuge Michigan Wetland Management District Northwest Montana Wetland Management Pocosin Lakes National Wildlife Refuge Seney National Wildlife Refuge District Roanoke River National Wildlife Refuge Shiawassee National Wildlife Refuge Red Rock Lakes National Wildlife Refuge Swanquarter National Wildlife Refuge Swan River National Wildlife Refuge Minnesota North Dakota UL Bend National Wildlife Refuge Agassiz National Wildlife Refuge War Horse National Wildlife Refuge Arrowwood National Wildlife Refuge Big Stone National Wildlife Refuge Arrowwood Wetland Management District Big Stone Wetland Management District Nebraska Audubon National Wildlife Refuge Crane Meadows National Wildlife Refuge Boyer Chute National Wildlife Refuge Audubon Wetland Management District Detroit Lakes Wetland Management District Crescent Lake National Wildlife Refuge Chase Lake National Wildlife Refuge Fergus Falls Wetland Management District Fort Niobrara National Wildlife Refuge Chase Lake Wetland Management District Glacial Ridge National Wildlife Refuge John W. and Louise Seier National Wildlife Crosby Wetland Management District Hamden Slough National Wildlife Refuge Refuge Dakota Tallgrass Prairie Wildlife Litchfield Wetland Management District North Platte National Wildlife Refuge Management Area Mille Lacs National Wildlife Refuge Rainwater Basin Wetland Management Des Lacs National Wildlife Refuge Minnesota Valley National Wildlife Refuge District Devils Lake Wetland Management District Minnesota Valley Wetland Management Valentine National Wildlife Refuge Florence Lake National Wildlife Refuge District J. Clark Salyer National Wildlife Refuge Morris Wetland Management District Nevada J. Clark Salyer Wetland Management District Northern Tallgrass Prairie National Wildlife Anaho Island National Wildlife Refuge Kellys Slough National Wildlife Refuge Refuge Ash Meadows National Wildlife Refuge Kulm Wetland Management District Rice Lake National Wildlife Refuge Desert National Wildlife Range Lake Alice National Wildlife Refuge Rydell National Wildlife Refuge Fallon National Wildlife Refuge Lake Ilo National Wildlife Refuge Sherburne National Wildlife Refuge Moapa Valley National Wildlife Refuge Lake Nettie National Wildlife Refuge Tamarac National Wildlife Refuge Pahranagat National Wildlife Refuge Lake Zahl National Wildlife Refuge Tamarac Wetland Management District Ruby Lake National Wildlife Refuge Long Lake National Wildlife Refuge Upper Mississippi River National Wildlife & Sheldon National Wildlife Refuge Long Lake Wetland Management District Fish Refuge Stillwater National Wildlife Refuge Lostwood National Wildlife Refuge Lostwood Wetland Management District Mississippi New Hampshire McLean National Wildlife Refuge Coldwater River National Wildlife Refuge Great Bay National Wildlife Refuge Shell Lake National Wildlife Refuge Dahomey National Wildlife Refuge John Hay National Wildlife Refuge Slade National Wildlife Refuge Grand Bay National Wildlife Refuge Umbagog National Wildlife Refuge Stewart Lake National Wildlife Refuge Hillside National Wildlife Refuge Wapack National Wildlife Refuge Sullys Hill National Game Preserve Holt Collier National Wildlife Refuge Tewaukon National Wildlife Refuge Mathews Brake National Wildlife Refuge New Jersey Tewaukon Wetland Management District Mississippi Sandhill Crane National Wildlife Cape May National Wildlife Refuge Upper Souris National Wildlife Refuge Refuge Edwin B. Forsythe National Wildlife Refuge Valley City Wetland Management District Morgan Brake National Wildlife Refuge Great Swamp National Wildlife Refuge White Horse Hill Panther Swamp National Wildlife Refuge Supawna Meadows National Wildlife Refuge White Lake National Wildlife Refuge

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:58 Oct 23, 2020 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00080 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\26OCP2.SGM 26OCP2 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 207 / Monday, October 26, 2020 / Proposed Rules 67897

Northern Mariana Islands Lacreek National Wildlife Refuge Wallops Island National Wildlife Refuge Lake Andes National Wildlife Refuge Mariana Arc of Fire National Wildlife Refuge Washington Mariana Trench Marine National Monument Madison Wetland Management District Billy Frank Jr. Nisqually National Wildlife Palmyra Atoll National Wildlife Refuge Sand Lake National Wildlife Refuge Refuge Wake Atoll National Wildlife Refuge Sand Lake Wetland Management District Waubay National Wildlife Refuge Columbia National Wildlife Refuge Ohio Conboy Lake National Wildlife Refuge Tennessee Cedar Point National Wildlife Refuge Copalis National Wildlife Refuge Ottawa National Wildlife Refuge Chickasaw National Wildlife Refuge Dungeness National Wildlife Refuge Cross Creeks National Wildlife Refuge West Sister Island National Wildlife Refuge Flattery Rocks National Wildlife Refuge Hatchie National Wildlife Refuge Franz Lake National Wildlife Refuge Oklahoma Lake Isom National Wildlife Refuge Grays Harbor National Wildlife Refuge Deep Fork National Wildlife Refuge Lower Hatchie National Wildlife Refuge Hanford Reach National Monument Little River National Wildlife Refuge Reelfoot National Wildlife Refuge Julia Butler Hansen Refuge for the Columbian Optima National Wildlife Refuge Tennessee National Wildlife Refuge White-Tailed Deer Ozark Plateau National Wildlife Refuge Texas Lewis and Clark National Wildlife Refuge Salt Plains National Wildlife Refuge Little Pend Oreille National Wildlife Refuge Anahuac National Wildlife Refuge Sequoyah National Wildlife Refuge McNary National Wildlife Refuge Aransas National Wildlife Refuge Tishomingo National Wildlife Refuge Pierce National Wildlife Refuge Attwater Prairie Chicken National Wildlife Protection Island National Wildlife Refuge Washita National Wildlife Refuge Refuge Wichita Mountains Wildlife Refuge Quillayute Needles National Wildlife Refuge Balcones Canyonlands National Wildlife Ridgefield National Wildlife Refuge Oregon Refuge Saddle Mountain National Wildlife Refuge Big Boggy National Wildlife Refuge Ankeny National Wildlife Refuge San Juan Islands National Wildlife Refuge Brazoria National Wildlife Refuge Bandon Marsh National Wildlife Refuge Steigerwald Lake National Wildlife Refuge Buffalo Lake National Wildlife Refuge Baskett Slough National Wildlife Refuge Toppenish National Wildlife Refuge Caddo Lake National Wildlife Refuge Bear Valley National Wildlife Refuge Turnbull National Wildlife Refuge Guam National Wildlife Refuge Cape Meares National Wildlife Refuge Laguna Atascosa National Wildlife Refuge Umatilla National Wildlife Refuge Cold Springs National Wildlife Refuge Lower Rio Grande Valley National Wildlife Willapa National Wildlife Refuge Hart Mountain National Antelope Refuge Refuge West Virginia Klamath Marsh National Wildlife Refuge McFaddin National Wildlife Refuge Canaan Valley National Wildlife Refuge Malheur National Wildlife Refuge Muleshoe National Wildlife Refuge McKay Creek National Wildlife Refuge Neches River National Wildlife Refuge Ohio River Islands National Wildlife Refuge Nestucca Bay National Wildlife Refuge San Bernard National Wildlife Refuge Wisconsin Oregon Islands National Wildlife Refuge Santa Ana National Wildlife Refuge Fox River National Wildlife Refuge Siletz Bay National Wildlife Refuge Texas Point National Wildlife Refuge Gravel Island National Wildlife Refuge Three Arch Rocks National Wildlife Refuge Trinity River National Wildlife Refuge Tualatin River National Wildlife Refuge Green Bay National Wildlife Refuge Upper Klamath National Wildlife Refuge United States Minor Outlying Islands Hagerman National Wildlife Refuge Wapato Lake National Wildlife Refuge Baker Island National Wildlife Refuge Horicon National Wildlife Refuge William L. Finley National Wildlife Refuge Howland Island National Wildlife Refuge Leopold Wetland Management District Necedah National Wildlife Refuge Pennsylvania Jarvis Island National Wildlife Refuge Johnston Atoll National Wildlife Refuge St. Croix Wetland Management District Cherry Valley National Wildlife Range Kingman Reef National Wildlife Refuge St. Croix Wetland Management District Erie National Wildlife Refuge Midway Atoll National Wildlife Refuge Trempealeau National Wildlife Refuge John Heinz National Wildlife Refuge at Whittlesey Creek National Wildlife Refuge Tinicum Utah Wyoming Puerto Rico Bear River Migratory Bird Refuge Fish Springs National Wildlife Refuge Bamforth National Wildlife Refuge Cabo Rojo National Wildlife Refuge Ouray National Wildlife Refuge Cokeville Meadows National Wildlife Refuge Culebra National Wildlife Refuge Hutton Lake National Wildlife Refuge Desecheo National Wildlife Refuge Vermont Mortenson Lake National Wildlife Refuge Laguna Cartagena National Wildlife Refuge Missisquoi National Wildlife Refuge National Elk Refuge National Wildlife Refuge Navassa Island National Wildlife Refuge Pathfinder National Wildlife Refuge Virgin Islands Vieques National Wildlife Refuge Seedskadee National Wildlife Refuge Buck Island National Wildlife Refuge Rhode Island Green Cay National Wildlife Refuge A.5 National Wilderness Areas Block Island National Wildlife Refuge Sandy Point National Wildlife Refuge Alabama John H. Chafee National Wildlife Refuge Ninigret National Wildlife Refuge Virginia Cheaha Wilderness Sachuest Point National Wildlife Refuge Back Bay National Wildlife Refuge Dugger Mountain Wilderness Trustom Pond National Wildlife Refuge Chincoteague National Wildlife Refuge Sipsey Wilderness Eastern Shore of Virginia National Wildlife Alaska South Carolina Refuge Cape Romain National Wildlife Refuge Elizabeth Hartwell Mason Neck National Aleutian Islands Wilderness Carolina Sandhills National Wildlife Refuge Wildlife Refuge Andreafsky Wilderness Ernest F. Hollings ACE Basin National Featherstone National Wildlife Refuge Becharof Wilderness Wildlife Refuge Fisherman Island National Wildlife Refuge Bering Sea Wilderness Pinckney Island National Wildlife Refuge Great Dismal Swamp National Wildlife Bogoslof Wilderness Santee National Wildlife Refuge Refuge Chamisso Wilderness Savannah National Wildlife Refuge James River National Wildlife Refuge Chuck River Wilderness Tybee National Wildlife Refuge Nansemond National Wildlife Refuge Coronation Island Wilderness Waccamaw National Wildlife Refuge Occoquan Bay National Wildlife Refuge Denali Wilderness Plum Tree Island National Wildlife Refuge Endicott River Wilderness South Dakota Presquile National Wildlife Refuge Forrester Island Wilderness Huron Wetland Management District Rappahannock River Valley National Gates of the Arctic Wilderness Karl E. Mundt National Wildlife Refuge Wildlife Refuge Glacier Bay Wilderness

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:58 Oct 23, 2020 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00081 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\26OCP2.SGM 26OCP2 67898 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 207 / Monday, October 26, 2020 / Proposed Rules

Hazy Islands Wilderness Kendrick Mountain Wilderness Bighorn Mountain Wilderness Innoko Wilderness Kofa Wilderness Black Mountain Wilderness Izembek Wilderness Mazatzal Wilderness Bright Star Wilderness Jay S. Hammond Wilderness Miller Peak Wilderness Bristol Mountains Wilderness Karta River Wilderness Mount Baldy Wilderness Bucks Lake Wilderness Katmai Wilderness Mount Logan Wilderness Buzzards Peak Wilderness Kenai Wilderness Mount Nutt Wilderness Cache Creek Wilderness Kobuk Valley Wilderness Mount Tipton Wilderness Cadiz Dunes Wilderness Kootznoowoo Wilderness Mount Trumbull Wilderness Cahuilla Mountain Wilderness Koyukuk Wilderness Mount Wilson Wilderness Caribou Wilderness Kuiu Wilderness Mt. Wrightson Wilderness Carrizo Gorge Wilderness Maurille Islands Wilderness Muggins Mountain Wilderness Carson-Iceberg Wilderness Misty Fjords National Monument Wilderness Munds Mountain Wilderness Castle Crags Wilderness Mollie Beattie Wilderness Needle’s Eye Wilderness Cedar Roughs Wilderness Noatak Wilderness New Water Mountains Wilderness Chanchelulla Wilderness Nunivak Wilderness North Maricopa Mountains Wilderness Chemehuevi Mountains Wilderness Petersburg Creek-Duncan Salt Chuck North Santa Teresa Wilderness Chimney Peak Wilderness Wilderness Organ Pipe Cactus Wilderness Chuckwalla Mountains Wilderness Pleasant/Lemusurier/Inian Islands Paiute Wilderness Chumash Wilderness Wilderness Pajarita Wilderness Cleghorn Lakes Wilderness Russell Fjord Wilderness Paria Canyon-Vermilion Cliffs Wilderness Clipper Mountain Wilderness Saint Lazaria Wilderness Peloncillo Mountains Wilderness Coso Range Wilderness Selawik Wilderness Petrified Forest National Wilderness Area Coyote Mountains Wilderness Semidi Wilderness Pine Mountain Wilderness Cucamonga Wilderness Simeonof Wilderness Pusch Ridge Wilderness Darwin Falls Wilderness South Baranof Wilderness Rawhide Mountains Wilderness Dead Mountains Wilderness South Etolin Wilderness Red Rock-Secret Mountain Wilderness Death Valley Wilderness South Prince of Wales Wilderness Redfield Canyon Wilderness Desolation Wilderness Stikine-LeConte Wilderness Rincon Mountain Wilderness Dick Smith Wilderness Tebenkof Bay Wilderness Saddle Mountain Wilderness Dinkey Lakes Wilderness Togiak Wilderness Saguaro Wilderness Domeland Wilderness Tracy Arm-Fords Terror Wilderness Salome Wilderness El Paso Mountains Wilderness Tuxedni Wilderness Salt River Canyon Wilderness Elkhorn Ridge Wilderness Unimak Wilderness Santa Teresa Wilderness Emigrant Wilderness Warren Island Wilderness Sierra Ancha Wilderness Farallon Wilderness West Chichagof-Yakobi Wilderness Sierra Estrella Wilderness Fish Creek Mountains Wilderness Wrangell-Saint Elias Wilderness Signal Mountain Wilderness Funeral Mountains Wilderness Garcia Wilderness Arizona South Maricopa Mountains Wilderness Strawberry Crater Wilderness Golden Trout Wilderness Apache Creek Wilderness Superstition Wilderness Golden Valley Wilderness Aravaipa Canyon Wilderness Swansea Wilderness Granite Chief Wilderness Arrastra Mountain Wilderness Sycamore Canyon Wilderness Granite Mountain Wilderness Aubrey Peak Wilderness Table Top Wilderness Grass Valley Wilderness Baboquivari Peak Wilderness Tres Alamos Wilderness Great Falls Basin Wilderness Bear Wallow Wilderness Trigo Mountain Wilderness Hain Wilderness Beaver Dam Mountains Wilderness Upper Burro Creek Wilderness Hauser Wilderness Big Horn Mountains Wilderness Wabayuma Peak Wilderness Havasu Wilderness Cabeza Prieta Wilderness Warm Springs Wilderness Hollow Hills Wilderness Castle Creek Wilderness West Clear Creek Wilderness Hoover Wilderness Cedar Bench Wilderness Wet Beaver Wilderness Ibex Wilderness Chiricahua National Monument Wilderness White Canyon Wilderness Imperial Refuge Wilderness Chiricahua Wilderness Woodchute Wilderness Indian Pass Wilderness Cottonwood Point Wilderness Woolsey Peak Wilderness Inyo Mountains Wilderness Coyote Mountains Wilderness Ishi Wilderness Dos Cabezas Mountains Wilderness Arkansas Jacumba Wilderness Eagletail Mountains Wilderness Big Lake Wilderness Jennie Lakes Wilderness East Cactus Plain Wilderness Black Fork Mountain Wilderness John Krebs Wilderness Escudilla Wilderness Buffalo National River Wilderness John Muir Wilderness Fishhooks Wilderness Caney Creek Wilderness Joshua Tree Wilderness Fossil Springs Wilderness Dry Creek Wilderness Kaiser Wilderness Four Peaks Wilderness East Fork Wilderness Kelso Dunes Wilderness Galiuro Wilderness Flatside Wilderness Kiavah Wilderness Gibraltar Mountain Wilderness Hurricane Creek Wilderness King Range Wilderness Grand Wash Cliffs Wilderness Leatherwood Wilderness Kingston Range Wilderness Granite Mountain Wilderness Poteau Mountain Wilderness Lassen Volcanic Wilderness Harcuvar Mountains Wilderness Richland Creek Wilderness Lava Beds Wilderness Harquahala Mountains Wilderness Upper Buffalo Wilderness Little Chuckwalla Mountains Wilderness Hassayampa River Canyon Wilderness Little Picacho Wilderness Havasu Wilderness California Machesna Mountain Wilderness Hells Canyon Wilderness Agua Tibia Wilderness Magic Mountain Wilderness Hellsgate Wilderness Ansel Adams Wilderness Malpais Mesa Wilderness Hummingbird Springs Wilderness Argus Range Wilderness Manly Peak Wilderness Imperial Refuge Wilderness Avawatz Mountains Wilderness Marble Mountain Wilderness Juniper Mesa Wilderness Beauty Mountain Wilderness Matilija Wilderness Kachina Peaks Wilderness Big Maria Mountains Wilderness Mecca Hills Wilderness Kanab Creek Wilderness Bigelow Cholla Garden Wilderness Mesquite Wilderness

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:58 Oct 23, 2020 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00082 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\26OCP2.SGM 26OCP2 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 207 / Monday, October 26, 2020 / Proposed Rules 67899

Milpitas Wash Wilderness Byers Peak Wilderness Hawaii Mojave Wilderness Cache La Poudre Wilderness Hawaii Haleakala Wilderness Mokelumne Wilderness Collegiate Peaks Wilderness Hawaii Volcanoes Wilderness Monarch Wilderness Comanche Peak Wilderness Mount Lassic Wilderness Dominguez Canyon Wilderness Idaho Mt. Shasta Wilderness Eagles Nest Wilderness Big Jacks Creek Wilderness Newberry Mountains Wilderness Flat Tops Wilderness Bruneau-Jarbidge Rivers Wilderness Nopah Range Wilderness Fossil Ridge Wilderness Cecil D. Andrus-White Clouds Wilderness North Algodones Dunes Wilderness Great Sand Dunes Wilderness Craters of the Moon National Wilderness North Fork Wilderness Greenhorn Mountain Wilderness Area North Mesquite Mountains Wilderness Gunnison Gorge Wilderness Frank Church-River of No Return Wilderness Old Woman Mountains Wilderness Hermosa Creek Wilderness Gospel-Hump Wilderness Orocopia Mountains Wilderness Holy Cross Wilderness Hells Canyon Wilderness Otay Mountain Wilderness Hunter-Fryingpan Wilderness Hemingway-Boulders Wilderness Owens Peak Wilderness Indian Peaks Wilderness Jim McClure-Jerry Peak Wilderness Owens River Headwaters James Peak Wilderness Little Jacks Creek Wilderness Wilderness Pahrump Valley Wilderness La Garita Wilderness North Fork Owyhee Wilderness Palen/McCoy Wilderness Lizard Head Wilderness Owyhee River Wilderness Palo Verde Mountains Wilderness Lost Creek Wilderness Pole Creek Wilderness Phillip Burton Wilderness Maroon Bells-Snowmass Wilderness Sawtooth Wilderness Picacho Peak Wilderness Mesa Verde Wilderness Selway-Bitterroot Wilderness Pine Creek Wilderness Mount Evans Wilderness Illinois Pinto Mountains Wilderness Mount Massive Wilderness Piper Mountain Wilderness Mount Sneffels Wilderness Bald Knob Wilderness Piute Mountains Wilderness Mount Zirkel Wilderness Bay Creek Wilderness Pleasant View Ridge Wilderness Neota Wilderness Burden Falls Wilderness Red Buttes Wilderness Never Summer Wilderness Clear Springs Wilderness Resting Spring Range Wilderness Platte River Wilderness Crab Orchard Wilderness Rice Valley Wilderness Powderhorn Wilderness Garden of the Gods Wilderness Riverside Mountains Wilderness Ptarmigan Peak Wilderness Lusk Creek Wilderness Rocks and Islands Wilderness Raggeds Wilderness Panther Den Wilderness Rodman Mountains Wilderness Rawah Wilderness Indiana Russian Wilderness Rocky Mountain National Park Wilderness Sacatar Trail Wilderness Sangre de Cristo Wilderness Charles C. Deam Wilderness Saddle Peak Hills Wilderness Sarvis Creek Wilderness Kentucky San Gabriel Wilderness South San Juan Wilderness Beaver Creek Wilderness San Gorgonio Wilderness Spanish Peaks Wilderness Clifty Wilderness San Jacinto Wilderness Uncompahgre Wilderness San Mateo Canyon Wilderness Vasquez Peak Wilderness Louisiana San Rafael Wilderness Weminuche Wilderness Breton Wilderness Sanhedrin Wilderness West Elk Wilderness Kisatchie Hills Wilderness Santa Lucia Wilderness Lacassine Wilderness Santa Rosa Wilderness Florida Sawtooth Mountains Wilderness Alexander Springs Wilderness Maine Sequoia-Kings Canyon Wilderness Big Gum Swamp Wilderness Caribou-Speckled Mountain Wilderness Sespe Wilderness Billies Bay Wilderness Moosehorn (Baring Unit) Wilderness Sheep Mountain Wilderness Bradwell Bay Wilderness Moosehorn Wilderness Sheephole Valley Wilderness Cedar Keys Wilderness Silver Peak Wilderness Chassahowitzka Wilderness Massachusetts Siskiyou Wilderness Florida Keys Wilderness Monomoy Wilderness Snow Mountain Wilderness Island Bay Wilderness Soda Mountains Wilderness J.N. ‘‘Ding’’ Darling Wilderness Michigan South Fork Eel River Wilderness Juniper Prairie Wilderness Beaver Basin Wilderness South Fork San Jacinto Wilderness Lake Woodruff Wilderness Big Island Lake Wilderness South Nopah Range Wilderness Little Lake George Wilderness Delirium Wilderness South Sierra Wilderness Marjory Stoneman Douglas Wilderness Horseshoe Bay Wilderness South Warner Wilderness Mud Swamp/New River Wilderness Huron Islands Wilderness Stateline Wilderness Passage Key Wilderness Isle Royale Wilderness Stepladder Mountains Wilderness Pelican Island Wilderness Mackinac Wilderness Surprise Canyon Wilderness St. Marks Wilderness McCormick Wilderness Sylvania Mountains Wilderness Michigan Islands Wilderness Georgia Thousand Lakes Wilderness Nordhouse Dunes Wilderness Trilobite Wilderness Big Frog Wilderness Rock River Canyon Wilderness Trinity Alps Wilderness Blackbeard Island Wilderness Round Island Wilderness Turtle Mountains Wilderness Blood Mountain Wilderness Seney Wilderness Ventana Wilderness Brasstown Wilderness Sleeping Bear Dunes Wilderness Whipple Mountains Wilderness Cohutta Wilderness Sturgeon River Gorge Wilderness White Mountains Wilderness Cumberland Island Wilderness Sylvania Wilderness Yolla Bolly-Middle Eel Wilderness Ellicott Rock Wilderness Yosemite Wilderness Mark Trail Wilderness Minnesota Yuki Wilderness Okefenokee Wilderness Agassiz Wilderness Raven Cliffs Wilderness Boundary Waters Canoe Area Wilderness Colorado Rich Mountain Wilderness Tamarac Wilderness Black Canyon of the Gunnison Wilderness Southern Nantahala Wilderness Black Ridge Canyons Wilderness Tray Mountain Wilderness Mississippi Buffalo Peaks Wilderness Wolf Island Wilderness Black Creek Wilderness

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:58 Oct 23, 2020 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00083 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\26OCP2.SGM 26OCP2 67900 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 207 / Monday, October 26, 2020 / Proposed Rules

Gulf Islands Wilderness Nellis Wash Wilderness White Mountain Wilderness Leaf Wilderness North Black Rock Range Wilderness Whitethorn Wilderness North Jackson Mountains Wilderness Withington Wilderness Missouri North McCullough Wilderness Bell Mountain Wilderness Pahute Peak Wilderness New York Devils Backbone Wilderness Parsnip Peak Wilderness Otis Pike Fire Island High Dune Wilderness Hercules-Glades Wilderness Pine Forest Range Wilderness North Carolina Irish Wilderness Pinto Valley Wilderness Mingo Wilderness Quinn Canyon Wilderness Birkhead Mountains Wilderness Paddy Creek Wilderness Rainbow Mountain Wilderness Catfish Lake South Wilderness Piney Creek Wilderness Red Mountain Wilderness Ellicott Rock Wilderness Rockpile Mountain Wilderness Ruby Mountains Wilderness Joyce Kilmer-Slickrock Wilderness Santa Rosa-Paradise Peak Wilderness Linville Gorge Wilderness Montana Shellback Wilderness Middle Prong Wilderness Absaroka-Beartooth Wilderness South Egan Range Wilderness Pocosin Wilderness Anaconda Pintler Wilderness South Jackson Mountains Wilderness Pond Pine Wilderness Bob Marshall Wilderness South McCullough Wilderness Sheep Ridge Wilderness Cabinet Mountains Wilderness South Pahroc Range Wilderness Shining Rock Wilderness Gates of the Mountains Wilderness Spirit Mountain Wilderness Southern Nantahala Wilderness Great Bear Wilderness Table Mountain Wilderness Swanquarter Wilderness Lee Metcalf Wilderness Tunnel Spring Wilderness North Dakota Medicine Lake Wilderness Wee Thump Joshua Tree Wilderness Mission Mountains Wilderness Weepah Spring Wilderness Chase Lake Wilderness Rattlesnake Wilderness White Pine Range Wilderness Lostwood Wilderness Red Rock Lakes Wilderness White Rock Range Wilderness Theodore Roosevelt Wilderness Scapegoat Wilderness Worthington Mountains Wilderness Ohio Selway-Bitterroot Wilderness Wovoka Wilderness UL Bend Wilderness West Sister Island Wilderness New Hampshire Oklahoma Nebraska Great Gulf Wilderness Fort Niobrara Wilderness Pemigewasset Wilderness Black Fork Mountain Wilderness Soldier Creek Wilderness Presidential Range-Dry River Wilderness Upper Kiamichi River Wilderness Sandwich Range Wilderness Wichita Mountains Wilderness Nevada Wild River Wilderness Oregon Alta Toquima Wilderness Arc Dome Wilderness New Jersey Badger Creek Wilderness Arrow Canyon Wilderness Brigantine Wilderness Black Canyon Wilderness Bald Mountain Wilderness Great Swamp National Wildlife Refuge Boulder Creek Wilderness Becky Peak Wilderness Wilderness Bridge Creek Wilderness Big Rocks Wilderness Bull of the Woods Wilderness Black Canyon Wilderness New Mexico Clackamas Wilderness Black Rock Desert Wilderness Aden Lava Flow Wilderness Copper Salmon Wilderness Boundary Peak Wilderness Ah-shi-sle-pah Wilderness Cummins Creek Wilderness Bridge Canyon Wilderness Aldo Leopold Wilderness Diamond Peak Wilderness Bristlecone Wilderness Apache Kid Wilderness Devils Staircase Wilderness Calico Mountains Wilderness Bandelier Wilderness Drift Creek Wilderness Clover Mountains Wilderness Bisti/De-Na-Zin Wilderness Eagle Cap Wilderness Currant Mountain Wilderness Blue Range Wilderness Gearhart Mountain Wilderness Death Valley Wilderness Bosque del Apache Wilderness Grassy Knob Wilderness Delamar Mountains Wilderness Broad Canyon Wilderness Hells Canyon Wilderness East Fork High Rock Canyon Wilderness Capitan Mountains Wilderness Kalmiopsis Wilderness East Humboldts Wilderness Carlsbad Caverns Wilderness Lower White River Wilderness Eldorado Wilderness Cebolla Wilderness Mark O. Hatfield Wilderness Far South Egans Wilderness Cerro del Yuta Wilderness Menagerie Wilderness Fortification Range Wilderness Chama River Canyon Wilderness Middle Santiam Wilderness Goshute Canyon Wilderness Cinder Cone Wilderness Mill Creek Wilderness Government Peak Wilderness Columbine-Hondo Wilderness Monument Rock Wilderness Grant Range Wilderness Cruces Basin Wilderness Mount Hood Wilderness High Rock Canyon Wilderness Dome Wilderness Mount Jefferson Wilderness High Rock Lake Wilderness East Potrillo Mountains Mount Thielsen Wilderness High Schells Wilderness Gila Wilderness Mount Washington Wilderness Highland Ridge Wilderness Latir Peak Wilderness Mountain Lakes Wilderness Ireteba Peaks Wilderness Manzano Mountain Wilderness North Fork John Day Wilderness Jarbidge Wilderness Mount Riley Wilderness North Fork Umatilla Wilderness Jimbilnan Wilderness Ojito Wilderness Opal Creek Wilderness Jumbo Springs Wilderness Organ Mountains Wilderness Oregon Badlands Wilderness La Madre Mountain Wilderness Pecos Wilderness Oregon Islands Wilderness Lime Canyon Wilderness Potrillo Mountains Wilderness Red Buttes Wilderness Little High Rock Canyon Wilderness Rio San Antonio Wilderness Roaring River Wilderness Meadow Valley Range Wilderness Robledo Mountains Wilderness Rock Creek Wilderness Mormon Mountains Wilderness Sabinoso Wilderness Rogue-Umpqua Divide Wilderness Mount Grafton Wilderness Salt Creek Wilderness Salmon-Huckleberry Wilderness Mt. Charleston Wilderness San Pedro Parks Wilderness Sky Lakes Wilderness Mt. Irish Wilderness Sandia Mountain Wilderness Soda Mountain Wilderness Mt. Moriah Wilderness Sierra de las Uvas Wilderness Spring Basin Wilderness Mt. Rose Wilderness West Malpais Wilderness Steens Mountain Wilderness Muddy Mountains Wilderness Wheeler Peak Wilderness Strawberry Mountain Wilderness

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:58 Oct 23, 2020 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00084 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\26OCP2.SGM 26OCP2 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 207 / Monday, October 26, 2020 / Proposed Rules 67901

Table Rock Wilderness Little Wild Horse Canyon Wilderness Mount Rainier Wilderness Three Arch Rocks Wilderness Lone Peak Wilderness Mount Skokomish Wilderness Three Sisters Wilderness Lower Last Chance Wilderness Noisy-Diobsud Wilderness Waldo Lake Wilderness Mexican Mountain Wilderness Norse Peak Wilderness Wenaha-Tucannon Wilderness Middle Wild Horse Mesa Wilderness Pasayten Wilderness Wild Rogue Wilderness Mount Naomi Wilderness Salmo-Priest Wilderness Mount Nebo Wilderness San Juan Wilderness Pennsylvania Mount Olympus Wilderness Stephen Mather Wilderness Allegheny Islands Wilderness Mount Timpanogos Wilderness Tatoosh Wilderness Hickory Creek Wilderness Muddy Creek Wilderness The Brothers Wilderness Nelson Mountain Wilderness Trapper Creek Wilderness Puerto Rico Paria Canyon-Vermilion Cliffs Wilderness Washington Islands Wilderness El Toro Wilderness Pine Valley Mountain Wilderness Wenaha-Tucannon Wilderness Red Butte Wilderness South Carolina Wild Sky Wilderness Red’s Canyon Wilderness William O. Douglas Wilderness Cape Romain Wilderness Red Mountain Wilderness Wonder Mountain Wilderness Congaree National Park Wilderness San Rafael Reef Wilderness Ellicott Rock Wilderness Sid’s Mountain Wilderness West Virginia Hell Hole Bay Wilderness Slaughter Creek Wilderness Big Draft Wilderness Little Wambaw Swamp Wilderness Taylor Creek Wilderness Cranberry Wilderness Wambaw Creek Wilderness Turtle Canyon Wilderness Dolly Sods Wilderness Wambaw Swamp Wilderness Twin Peaks Wilderness Laurel Fork North Wilderness South Dakota Wellsville Mountain Wilderness Laurel Fork South Wilderness Zion Wilderness Mountain Lake Wilderness Badlands Wilderness Roaring Plains West Wilderness Black Elk Wilderness Vermont Otter Creek Wilderness Tennessee Big Branch Wilderness Spice Run Wilderness Breadloaf Wilderness Bald River Gorge Wilderness Bristol Cliffs Wilderness Wisconsin Big Frog Wilderness George D. Aiken Wilderness Blackjack Springs Wilderness Big Laurel Branch Wilderness Glastenbury Wilderness Gaylord A. Nelson Wilderness Citico Creek Wilderness Joseph Battell Wilderness Headwaters Wilderness Cohutta Wilderness Lye Brook Wilderness Porcupine Lake Wilderness Gee Creek Wilderness Peru Peak Wilderness Rainbow Lake Wilderness Joyce Kilmer-Slickrock Wilderness Whisker Lake Wilderness Virginia Little Frog Mountain Wilderness Wisconsin Islands Wilderness Pond Mountain Wilderness Barbours Creek Wilderness Sampson Mountain Wilderness Beartown Wilderness Wyoming Unaka Mountain Wilderness Brush Mountain East Wilderness Absaroka-Beartooth Wilderness Upper Bald River Wilderness Brush Mountain Wilderness Bridger Wilderness Texas Garden Mountain Wilderness Cloud Peak Wilderness Hunting Camp Creek Wilderness Encampment River Wilderness Big Slough Wilderness James River Face Wilderness Fitzpatrick Wilderness Guadalupe Mountains Wilderness Kimberling Creek Wilderness Gros Ventre Wilderness Indian Mounds Wilderness Lewis Fork Wilderness Huston Park Wilderness Little Lake Creek Wilderness Little Dry Run Wilderness Jedediah Smith Wilderness Turkey Hill Wilderness Little Wilson Creek Wilderness North Absaroka Wilderness Upland Island Wilderness Mountain Lake Wilderness Platte River Wilderness Utah Peters Mountain Wilderness Popo Agie Wilderness Priest Wilderness Ashdown Gorge Wilderness Savage Run Wilderness Raccoon Branch Wilderness Teton Wilderness Beartrap Canyon Wilderness Ramseys Draft Wilderness Beaver Dam Mountains Wilderness Washakie Wilderness Rich Hole Wilderness Winegar Hole Wilderness Big Wild Horse Mesa Wilderness Rough Mountain Wilderness Blackridge Wilderness Saint Mary’s Wilderness A.6 National Wild and Scenic Rivers Black Ridge Canyons Wilderness Shawvers Run Wilderness Alabama Box-Death Hollow Wilderness Shenandoah Wilderness Canaan Mountain Wilderness Stone Mountain Wilderness Sipsey Fork of the West Fork River Cedar Mountain Wilderness Area Three Ridges Wilderness Alaska Cold Wash Wilderness Thunder Ridge Wilderness Cottonwood Canyon Wilderness Alagnak River Cottonwood Forest Wilderness Washington Alatna River Cougar Canyon Wilderness Alpine Lakes Wilderness Andreafsky River Dark Canyon Wilderness Boulder River Wilderness Aniakchak River Deep Creek North Wilderness Buckhorn Wilderness Beaver Creek Deep Creek Wilderness Clearwater Wilderness Birch Creek Deseret Peak Wilderness Colonel Bob Wilderness Charley River Desolation Canyon Wilderness Daniel J. Evans Wilderness Chilikadrotna River Devil’s Canyon Wilderness Glacier Peak Wilderness Delta River Doc’s Pass Wilderness Glacier View Wilderness Fortymile River Eagle Canyon Wilderness Goat Rocks Wilderness Gulkana River Goose Creek Wilderness Henry M. Jackson Wilderness Ivishak River High Uintas Wilderness Indian Heaven Wilderness John River Horse Valley Wilderness Juniper Dunes Wilderness Kobuk River Labyrinth Canyon Wilderness Lake Chelan-Sawtooth Wilderness Koyukuk River (North Fork) LaVerkin Creek Wilderness Mount Adams Wilderness Mulchatna River Little Ocean Draw Wilderness Mount Baker Wilderness Noatak River

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:58 Oct 23, 2020 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00085 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\26OCP2.SGM 26OCP2 67902 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 207 / Monday, October 26, 2020 / Proposed Rules

Nowitna River Deep Creek Delaware River (Middle) Salmon River Dickshooter Creek Great Egg Harbor River Selawik River Duncan Creek Maurice River Sheenjek River Jarbidge River Musconetcong River Tinayguk River Little Jacks Creek New Mexico Tlikakila River Owyhee River Unalakleet River Owyhee River (North Fork) Jemez River (East Fork) Wind River Owyhee River (South Fork) Pecos River Rapid River Rio Chama Arizona Red Canyon Rio Grande Fossil Creek St. Joe River New York Verde River Salmon River Salmon River (Middle Fork) Delaware River (Upper) Arkansas Sheep Creek North Carolina Big Piney Creek Snake River Buffalo River Wickahoney Creek Chattooga River Cossatot River Horsepasture River Hurricane Creek Illinois Lumber River Little Missouri River Vermilion River New River Mulberry River Wilson Creek Kentucky North Sylamore Creek Ohio Richland Creek Red River Big & Little Darby Creeks California Louisiana Little Beaver Creek Amargosa River Saline Bayou Little Miami River American River (Lower) Maine Oregon American River (North Fork) Bautista Creek Allagash Wilderness Waterway Big Marsh Creek Chetco River Big Sur River Massachusetts Black Butte River Clackamas River Cottonwood Creek Nashua, Squannacook, Nissitissit Rivers Clackamas River (South Fork) Deep Creek Sudbury, Assabet, Concord Rivers Collawash River Eel River Taunton River Crescent Creek Feather River Westfield River Crooked River Crooked River (North Fork) Fuller Mill Creek Michigan Kern River Deschutes River AuSable River Kings River Donner und Blitzen River Bear Creek Klamath River Eagle Creek (Mt. Hood National Forest) Black River Eagle Creek (Wallowa-Whitman National Merced River Carp River Owens River Headwaters Forest) Indian River Elk Creek Palm Canyon Creek Manistee River Piru Creek Elk River Ontonagon River Elkhorn Creek San Jacinto River (North Fork) Paint River Fifteenmile Creek Sespe Creek Pere Marquette River Fish Creek Sisquoc River Pine River Franklin Creek Surprise Canyon Creek Presque Isle River Grande Ronde River Smith River Sturgeon River (Hiawatha National Forest) Hood River (East Fork) Trinity River Sturgeon River (Ottawa National Forest) Hood River (Middle Fork) Tuolumne River Tahquamenon River (East Branch) Illinois River Whitewater River Whitefish River Imnaha River Colorado Yellow Dog River Jenny Creek John Day River Cache la Poudre River Minnesota John Day River (North Fork) Connecticut St. Croix River John Day River (South Fork) Eightmile River Mississippi Joseph Creek Klamath River Farmington (Lower) River & Salmon Brook Black Creek Farmington (West Branch) River Little Deschutes River Wood & Pawcatuck Rivers Missouri Lobster Creek Lostine River Delaware Eleven Point River Malheur River White Clay Creek Montana Malheur River (North Fork) McKenzie River East Rosebud Creek Florida Metolius River Flathead River Minam River Loxahatchee River Missouri River Wekiva River Molalla River Nebraska Nestucca River Georgia Missouri River North Powder River Chattooga River Niobrara River North Umpqua River Owyhee River Idaho New Hampshire Owyhee River (North Fork) Battle Creek Lamprey River Powder River Big Jacks Creek Nashua, Squannacook, Nissitissit Rivers Quartzville Creek Bruneau River Wildcat River River Styx Bruneau River (West Fork) Roaring River Clearwater River (Middle Fork) New Jersey Roaring River (South Fork) Cottonwood Creek Delaware River (Lower) Rogue River

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:58 Oct 23, 2020 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00086 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\26OCP2.SGM 26OCP2 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 207 / Monday, October 26, 2020 / Proposed Rules 67903

Rogue River (Upper) Delaware River (Upper) Vermont Salmon River White Clay Creek Missisquoi & Trout Rivers Sandy River Puerto Rico Silver Creek (North Fork) Washington Smith River (North Fork) Rio de la Mina Illabot Creek Snake River Rio Icacos Sprague River Rio Mameyes Klickitat River Pratt River Spring Creek Rhode Island Sycan River Skagit River Walker Creek Wood & Pawcatuck Rivers Snoqualmie (Middle Fork) River Wallowa River South Carolina White Salmon River Wasson Creek Chattooga River Wenaha River West Virginia West Little Owyhee River South Dakota Bluestone River Whychus Creek Missouri White River Wisconsin Wildhorse & Kiger Creeks Tennessee St. Croix River Willamette River (North Fork Middle Fork) Obed River Wolf River Zigzag River Texas Wyoming Pennsylvania Rio Grande Snake River Headwaters Allegheny River Yellowstone River (Clark’s Fork) Clarion River Utah Delaware River (Lower) Green River [FR Doc. 2020–22385 Filed 10–16–20; 4:15 pm] Delaware River (Middle) Virgin River BILLING CODE 6560–50–P

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:58 Oct 23, 2020 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00087 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 9990 E:\FR\FM\26OCP2.SGM 26OCP2