3362-WBM-1 Ariel - Ballast Water Management Plan (No Bep) PDF

M/T “ARIEL”
IMO No: 9252955
BALLAST WATER
MANAGEMENT PLAN
To meet the requirements of the
International Convention for the Control and Management

of Ships’ Ballast Water and Sediments, 2004, adopted by the International
Maritime Organization on 13th February 2004
and
Part “B” of IMO Resolution MEPC. 127 (53) “Guidelines for Ballast Water
Management and Development of Ballast Water Management Plans (G4)”
adopted on 22 July 2005
ALPHA MARINE CONSULTING LTD.

MARINE CONSULTANTS & SURVEYORS
T: +30 210 4518717, F: +30 210 4283253
mail@alphamrn.com | www.alphamrn.com
No. Revision Date
TOTAL FIFTY TWO (52) SHEETS WITH COVER (EXCL. APPENDICES)
VESSEL: M/T “ARIEL” IMO NO.: 9252955

TITLE: BALLAST WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN
ALPHA MARINE CONSULTING LTD. DWG. NO.: 3362-WBM

MARINE CONSULTANTS & SURVEYORS
T: +30 210 4518717, F: +30 210 4283253 REVISION NO.: 0
mail@alphamrn.com | www.alphamrn.com
DATE: 15/11/2013
M/T “ARIEL”
BALLAST WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN PAGE 3
CAUTION
The function of the Ballast Water Management Plan is to
assist in complying with IMO guidelines and quarantine
measures intended to minimise the risk of transplanting
harmful aquatic organisms and pathogens from ships’
ballast water and associated sediments, while
maintaining ship safety.
As part of this function the plan will provide information

to quarantine officers who wish to learn about a ship’s
ballast handling system or to confirm that ballast
management has been effectively planned.
The plan should not be used or regarded as a guide to

ballasting. Training and shipboard operational practices
should already be well established.

M/T “ARIEL”
TABLE OF CONTENTS
PAGE
1. SCOPE ....................................................................................................................... 7

2. GENERAL PARTICULARS ....................................................................................... 9
3. PURPOSE ................................................................................................................ 11
4. BALLAST WATER ARRANGEMENTS ................................................................... 14
5. BALLAST WATER SAMPLING ............................................................................... 17
6. OPERATION OF THE BALLAST WATER MANAGEMENT SYSTEM ................... 18
7. SAFETY CONSIDERATIONS FOR THE EXCHANGE OF BALLAST
WATER AT SEA ...................................................................................................... 23
8. OPERATIONAL OR SAFETY RESTRICTIONS ...................................................... 27
9. DESCRIPTION OF THE METHOD(S) USED ONBOARD FOR BALLAST
WATER MANAGEMENT ......................................................................................... 30
10. PROCEDURES FOR THE DISPOSAL OF SEDIMENTS ........................................ 37
11. METHODS OF COMMUNICATION.......................................................................... 38
12. DUTIES OF THE APPOINTED BALLAST WATER MANAGEMENT OFFICER ..... 40
13. RECORDING REQUIREMENTS .............................................................................. 41
14. CREW TRAINING AND FAMILIARISATION ........................................................... 49
15. EXEMPTIONS .......................................................................................................... 52
APPENDICES
APPENDIX A – ASSESSMENT CRITERIA FOR THE SEQUENTIAL METHOD
APPENDIX B – BALLAST EXCHANGE PLANS
APPENDIX C – SHIP’S PLANS & OTHER INFORMATION
APPENDIX D – NATIONAL OR LOCAL REQUIREMENTS FOR THE CONTROL
AND MANAGEMENT OF BALLAST WATER AND SEDIMENTS
APPENDIX E – REFERENCE DOCUMENTS

M/T “ARIEL”
RECORD OF CIRCULATION
This document is to be circulated to ship’s staff that will be responsible for Ballast Water
Management. After reading, the Ballast Water Management Plan is to be signed and
returned to the Ballast Water Management Officer.
Name Rank Date joined Date read Signature

M/T “ARIEL”
RECORD OF AMENDMENTS
When any change / amendment is made to any chapter of this document, a new “Table of
Contents” page shall also be sent together with the relevant amended chapter. The
Ballast Water Management Officer shall enter all amendments made to this document and
register such changes in this page.
Revised
No. Date Revision details / description Signature
part

M/T “ARIEL”
1. SCOPE
This plan is written in accordance with the requirements of Regulation B-1 of the
International Convention for the Control and Management of Ships’ Ballast Water and
Sediments, 2004 (the Convention) and the associated Guidelines.
The purpose of this plan is to meet the requirements for the control and management of
ship’s ballast water and sediments in accordance with the Guidelines for Ballast Water
Management and the Development of Ballast Water Management Plans, MEPC
Res.127(53) (the Guidelines). It provides standard operational guidance for the planning
and management of the ship’s ballast water and sediments and describes safe procedures
to be followed.
This plan has been approved by the vessel’s classification society and no alteration or
revision shall be made to any part of it without the prior approval of the classification
society. Changes to non mandatory information in Appendices D & E will not be required
to be approved.
It is the responsibility of the Owners/Operators or the Master to regularly review this plan
and ensure that the information contained herein is accurate and updated.
Only those options of handling ballast which are suitable and known to be safe for use on
this ship are shown in the plan.
The Master understands that the steps in the ballast exchange plan contained herein
should only be carried out within the ship’s defined operational limits and failure to observe
this restriction may result in damage to the ship’s structure.
Procedures are to be always checked by the Master for conformity with the ship’s specific
assessment criteria.
The overall responsibility for the execution of the procedures described in this plan lies
with the ship’s Master.
Crew training and familiarisation with the operational procedures and related risks will be
undertaken by the ship’s Master and the appointed Ballast Water Management Officer.
The plan is part of the ship’s operational documents and is to be kept available for
inspection upon request by Port State Control or quarantine officers.
The plan is written in English, which is the working language of the crew.

M/T “ARIEL”
Information for the compilation of this plan has been obtained from the following sources:
No. Title Dwg. No.
1. General Arrangement Plan 4B110P11CB
2. Capacity Plan & DWT scale 4B110P34CB
3. Trim & Stability Booklet 4B110B37CB
4. Hull Piping Diagram 2F241001PB
5. Hull Piping Equipment List 2F241005PB

M/T “ARIEL”
2. GENERAL PARTICULARS
Vessel’s Name: ARIEL

IMO Number: 9252955
Vessel’s Type: Crude/Oil Product Tanker
Flag: Marshal Islands
Port of Registry: Majuro
Call Sign: V7KM4
Bureau Veritas (B.V.) - I + Hull + Mach + Oil Tanker
Classification:
ESP unrestricted navigation + AUT – UMS MOM-Shaft
Gross Tonnage: 41,787
Net Tonnage: 20,845
Deadweight: 71,498
Length O.A.: 228.000 m
Length B.P.: 219.000 m
Breadth (mld.): 32.240 m
Depth to Main Deck (mld.): 20.400 m
Summer Draft (extr.): 13.800 m
Deepest Ballast Draught (Emergency): 8.69 m
(As per Loading Manual and Trim &
Stability Booklet)
Total Ballast Capacity (See Page 14): 28,404.7 m3
Ballast Water Management Method(s) - Combined sequential & flow-through

used: exchange on Master’s responsibility
Identification (Rank) of Ballast Water Management Officer: Chief Officer

M/T “ARIEL”
TANK ARRANGEMENT

M/T “ARIEL”
3. PURPOSE
3.1 BACKGROUND
Ballast water is essential to control trim, list, draught, stability or stresses of the ship.
However, ballast water may contain aquatic organisms or pathogens which, if introduced
into the sea including estuaries or into fresh water courses, may create hazards to the
environment, human health, property or resources, impair biological diversity or interfere
with other legitimate uses of such areas.
It is estimated that the world fleet transfers around ten billion tonnes of ballast water each
year and that about 7,000 different species are being transported daily in ships’ ballast
tanks around the world. Studies carried out in several countries indicated that many
species of bacteria, plants, and animals can survive in a viable form in the ballast water
and sediment carried in ships even after voyages of several months' duration.
Subsequent discharge of ballast water or sediment into the waters of port States may
result in the establishment of harmful aquatic organisms and pathogens which may pose
threats to indigenous human, animal and plant life and the marine environment. When all
factors are favourable, an introduced species by survive to establish a reproductive
population in the host environment; it may even become invasive, out-competing native
species and multiplying into pest proportions. Although other media have been identified
as being responsible for transferring organisms between geographically separated water
bodies, ballast water discharge from ships appears to have been among the most
prominent.
3.2 REQUIREMENTS
Some states have established controls on the discharge of ships’ ballast water that will
minimise the potential for colonisation of their coasts, rivers and estuaries by non-native
species. Accordingly, the countries most concerned have promulgated advice to ships for
ballast management, together with a request for their co-operation in applying the relevant
techniques. Standard procedures have been developed that will be accepted by
quarantine authorities as achieving the level of acceptability desired by the port state.
3.3 IMO INVOLVEMENT

As a result IMO has developed guidelines for the development and implementation of the
ballast water management on board ships aiming to assist governments, appropriate
authorities, ships masters, operators, owners and port authorities, as well as other
interested parties, in preventing, minimising and ultimately eliminating the risk of
introducing harmful aquatic organisms and pathogens from ships’ ballast water and
associated sediments while protecting ships’ safety.
Unless applied carefully, some of the measures being urged for ballast management can
affect a ship’s safety either by creating forces within the hull that are greater than the
design parameters or by compromising the safe navigation of the ship. It is because of
concern about this that the IMO became involved in what would otherwise be a purely
quarantine matter. It has been recognised by governments and the shipping industry that
individual countries’ needs should be harmonised with the greater need to ensure the
safety of ships, their crews and passengers.

M/T “ARIEL”
The International Convention for the Control and Management of Ships’ Ballast water and
Sediments provides regulations for ballast water management and was adopted by the
IMO on 13/02/2004. The Convention will apply to ships registered in countries which have
ratified the Convention and to foreign-flag ships when trading in waters coming under the
jurisdiction of the countries that are party to the Convention. Although the Convention has
not been ratified by a sufficient number of flag states and has not yet entered into force,
there is already and increasing demand for demonstrating compliance with the
Convention, since many states and ports request evidence that an acceptable method of
ballast water management has been implemented.
As is widely acknowledged, a currently feasible and acceptable ballast water management
technique is ballast water exchange at sea.
Eventually, ballast water exchange will be phased out as an acceptable method of
complying with the Convention, depending on ballast water capacity and date of delivery
of the vessel. Therefore, ballast water treatment will be the only remaining option for
complying with the Convention.
3.4 USAGE OF THE PLAN

Once it has been established that ballast water exchange at sea is necessary to meet the
quarantine requirements of a port state, preparation for it should be treated with the same
seriousness as preparation of a cargo plan. All concerned with the operation and safe
passage of the ship can thereby be assured that they are both protecting the marine
environment and ensuring the safety of the ship and crew.
The function of the Ballast Water Management Plan is to be used as guidance for the
exchange of ballast at sea and for the recording of this activity.
The plan provides information to port state control and other authorised officers about a
ship’s ballast handling system, sampling points and ballast water management system.
The selected methods of ballast water management take into account the need to ensure
that practices used to comply with the Convention do not cause greater harm than they
prevent to the environment, human health, property or resources of any states and the
safety of the ship.
3.5 RECORDS
To be able to demonstrate at the arrival port that the correct measures have been
completed, it will be necessary to maintain a full and accurate ballast log. A suitable
outline for such a log is provided in Section 13. Even if a ship is not trading in an area
where ballast water information is required, it may later prove worthwhile to have a history
of what water has been carried.
The appointed ballast water management officer is responsible for ensuring the
maintenance of appropriate records and that ballast water management and/or treatment
procedures are followed and recorded.
Good record keeping is critical to the success of a sound ballast water management
program.

M/T “ARIEL”
3.6 REPORTING TO PORT STATES

Several countries have become aware of the potential for the transfer into their coastal
areas of what are found to be harmful aquatic organisms through discharge of ships’
ballast water. Governments have recognised that, before imposing mandatory controls on
ships, it is necessary to know the scale of what has, until very recently, been an
unrecorded procedure.
Concerned countries have therefore introduced a requirement which, though often
differing in detail, generally calls for ships to report in advance to the national monitoring
authority how much ballast water will be on board on arrival, where it was taken on board
and whether a ballast management procedure has been followed. In most cases it is
mandatory to make the report, even though the actual ballast exchange in mid-ocean (or
other management procedure) remains voluntary.
To assist in this regard, wherever possible, the plan contains in Appendix D the format of
relevant national reporting forms.

M/T “ARIEL”
4. BALLAST WATER ARRANGEMENTS
The drawings attached in Appendix C of this plan illustrate the ballast water system
arrangements and are to be used to assist the crew in understanding and following the
Ballast Water Management Plan. Additional information about the ship’s ballast water
arrangements is presented in the following tables.
4.1 PUMPS
Rated
Pump Designation Type Location
capacity
1500 m3/h x Steam Turbine driven,
Ballast Pump No.1 BP1 P/R
25 m Vertical Centrifugal
1500 m3/h x Steam Turbine driven,
Ballast Pump No.2 BP2 P/R
Bilge, Fire & G/S 150 m3/h x Motor driven,
BP3 E/R
Pump No.1 110 m Vertical Centrifugal
Bilge, Fire & G/S 150 m3/h x Motor driven,
BP4 E/R
Pump No.2 110 m Vertical Centrifugal
72 m3/h x Motor driven,
Em’cy Fire Pump BP5 E.F.P.R
4.2 BALLAST WATER TANKS

Tank Name Frames Capacity (m3) Pumps available
Fore Peak Tank (C) 99 – F.E. 2,008.2 BP1 & BP2
No.1 W.B.T (P) 91 – 99 1,759.8 BP1 & BP2
No.1 W.B.T (S) 91 – 99 1,759.8 BP1 & BP2
No.1 D.B.W.B.T (C) 83 – 99 1,367.9 BP1 & BP2
No.2 W.B.T (P) 83 – 91 1666.2 BP1 & BP2
No.2 W.B.T (S) 83 – 91 1666.2 BP1 & BP2
No.2 D.B.W.B.T (C) 67 – 83 1380.9 BP1 & BP2
No.3 W.B.T (P) 75 – 83 1667.2 BP1 & BP2
No.3 W.B.T (S) 75 – 83 1667.2 BP1 & BP2
No.3 D.B.W.B.T (C) 49 – 67 1555.9 BP1 & BP2
No.4 W.B.T (P) 67 – 75 1667.1 BP1 & BP2
No.4 W.B.T (S) 67 – 75 1667.1 BP1 & BP2
No.5 W.B.T (P) 59 – 67 1665.2 BP1 & BP2
No.5 W.B.T (S) 59 – 67 1665.2 BP1 & BP2
No.6 W.B.T (P) 44 – 59 2161.9 BP1 & BP2
No.6 W.B.T (S) 44 – 59 2161.9 BP1 & BP2
Aft Peak Tank (C) A.E. – 12 917.0 BP3 & BP4
Total 28,404.7

M/T “ARIEL”
4.3 BALLAST TANK MANHOLE/HATCH ON UPPER DECK AND FILLING LINE DATA
Filing
Number and Filing
Overflow lines line total Ratio of
nominal line
total cross cross overflow filling
Tank diameter of nominal
sectional area sectional line total cross
overflow lines diameter
(cm2) area sectional area
(mm) (mm)
(cm2)
FORE
3 x 250 1458.51 300 674.72 > 1.25
P.T.
No.1
2 x 300 1409 300 674.72 > 1.25
W.B.T (P)
No.1
2 x 300 1409 300 674.72 > 1.25
W.B.T (S)
No.2
2 x 300 1409 300 674.72 > 1.25
W.B.T (P)
No.2
2 x 300 1409 300 674.72 > 1.25
W.B.T (S)
No.3
2 x 300 1409 300 674.72 > 1.25
W.B.T (P)
No.3
2 x 300 1409 300 674.72 > 1.25
W.B.T (S)
No.4
2 x 300 1409 300 674.72 > 1.25
W.B.T (P)
No.4
2 x 300 1409 300 674.72 > 1.25
W.B.T (S)
No.5
2 x 300 1409 300 674.72 > 1.25
W.B.T (P)
No.5
2 x 300 1409 300 674.72 > 1.25
W.B.T (S)
No.6
2 x 300 1409 300 674.72 > 1.25
W.B.T (P)
No.6
2 x 300 1409 300 674.72 > 1.25
W.B.T (S)
(Only ballast tks that flow through method is used in the proposed BEP(s) presented in Appendix B)

M/T “ARIEL”
NOTES:
The flow-through method may be used only for “L” Type ballast tanks and Fore Peak tank
to avoid over-pressurisation. The Upper Deck manholes and hatches are to be opened
prior to commencement of the ballast exchange.
It must be ensured that subject manholes/hatches are closed after termination of ballast
exchange. However, for safety reasons it is strongly recommended that, when access
openings/manhole covers on the upper deck are used for overflow discharge, a blank
flange with a seat is fitted to the access cover/manhole where a portable overflow pipe
with a 90-degrees elbow can be connected during the flow through operation.
The flow through method cannot be performed in D.B. W.B. tanks and A.P.T. due to over
pressurisation risk and due to the fact that their access manholes are located below upper
deck.
Additional use of the ballast system for ballast water exchange may result in earlier wear-
out of pipes and components. Unsuitable sea water flow velocity may particularly effect
cavitation, erosion or similar conditions, damaging the components rapidly. Therefore, this
parameter should be kept, as much as possible, within the limits for the material used in
the ballast water piping system, as per recognized standards.

M/T “ARIEL”
5. BALLAST WATER SAMPLING
Research or compliance monitoring may be undertaken by authorized officers (e.g. Port

State Control) by taking and analyzing ballast water and sediment samples from ships.
Port State Authorities should indicate to the Master or responsible officer the purpose for
which the sample is taken (i.e. monitoring, research or enforcement).
Port State Authorities may sample or require samples to analyze ballast water and
sediment before permitting a ship to discharge its ballast water.
When sampling for research or compliance monitoring, authorized officers should give as
much notice to the Master as possible that sampling will occur to assist the Master in
planning staffing and operational resources.
The Master has a general obligation to provide reasonable assistance for the above
monitoring and information pertaining to ballast arrangements and sampling points.
Where ballast water or sediment sampling for compliance or effectiveness monitoring is

being undertaken, the time required to analyze the samples shall not be used as a basis
for unduly delaying the operation movement or departure of the ship.
It is unlikely to be any need for crewmembers to take samples except at the express
request and under the supervision of a quarantine Officer.
Quarantine officers must be advised of all safety procedures to be observed when entering
enclosed spaces.
Information regarding the location of the ballast water and sediment sampling points is
contained in Appendix C.

M/T “ARIEL”
6. OPERATION OF THE BALLAST WATER MANAGEMENT SYSTEM
6.1. PRECAUTIONARY PRACTICES
6.1.1. Minimizing uptake of harmful aquatic organisms, pathogens and sediments
When loading ballast, every effort should be made to avoid the uptake of potentially
harmful aquatic organisms, pathogens and sediment that may contain such organisms.
The uptake of ballast water should be minimized or, where practicable, avoided in areas
and situations such as:
 areas identified by the port state in connection with advice relating to;
 areas with outbreaks, infestations or known populations of harmful organisms and
pathogens;
 areas with current phytoplankton blooms (algal blooms, such as red tides);
 nearby sewage outfalls;
 nearby dredging operations;
 when a tidal stream is known to be the more turbid; and
 areas where tidal flushing is known to be poor
 In darkness when bottom-dwelling organisms may rise up in the water column;
 in very shallow water; or
 where propellers may stir up sediment.
6.1.2. Avoiding unnecessary discharge of ballast water
If it is necessary to take on and discharge ballast water in the same port to facilitate safe
cargo operations, care should be taken to avoid unnecessary discharge of ballast water
that has been taken up in another port.
Managed ballast water which is mixed with unmanaged ballast water is no longer in
compliance with Reg. D-1 and D-2 of the Annex to the Convention.

M/T “ARIEL”
6.2. BALLAST WATER MANAGEMENT OPTIONS
6.2.1. Non-release or minimal release of ballast water
Minimise departure and arrival ballast quantities but always within the constraints of safe
navigation.
In cases where ballast exchange or other treatment options are not possible, ballast water
must be retained in tanks or holds. Should this not be possible, the ship should only
discharge the minimum essential amount of ballast water in accordance with port state’s
contingency strategies.
Take additional good housekeeping measures to minimise risk, such as rinse anchors and
anchor chain when retrieving to remove organisms and sediments at their place of origin,
remove fouling organisms from hull, piping and tanks on a regular basis.
6.2.2. Ballast Water Exchange
Ballast water exchange procedures in open water should be carefully examined and
prepared in advance, in a similar manner to the preparation of a cargo plan for a loaded
voyage and with the same degree of thoroughness.
The Convention requires that vessels should conduct ballast water exchange:
 at least 200 nm from the nearest land and in water at least 200 m in depth; if this is
not possible
 as far from the nearest land as possible, and in all cases at least 50 nm from the
nearest land and in water at least 200 m in depth or
 in sea areas designated by the Port State
All local and/or national regulations should be taken into consideration as they may specify
other depths and distances from land.
Because of the possibility that partial exchange may encourage re-growth of organisms,
ballast water exchange should only be commenced in any tank if there is sufficient time to
complete the exchange to the required standards and the ship can comply with the
distance from land and minimum water depth criteria.
A ship will not be required to deviate from her intended voyage or delay the voyage in
order to comply with any particular requirement as stated above. In addition, if the Master
decides reasonably that an exchange would threaten the stability or safety of the ship, her
crew or passengers because of adverse weather, ship design or stress, equipment failure
or any other extraordinary condition, he is not required to comply with the aforementioned
requirements. Details of the reasons ballast water exchange was not undertaken are to be
recorded in the Ballast Water Record Book.

M/T “ARIEL”
There are three methods of ballast water exchange which have been evaluated and
accepted by the Organization. The three methods are the “sequential “method, the “flow-
through” method and the “dilution” method. The flow-through method and the dilution
method are considered as “pump through” methods.
Sequential Method
The sequential method is a process by which a ballast tank intended for the carriage of
ballast water is first emptied and then refilled with replacement ballast water to achieve at
least a 95 per cent volumetric exchange.
In each tank, all of the ballast water should be discharged until suction of the pumps is
lost, and stripping pumps or eductors should be used if possible. This is to avoid a
possible situation, where organisms are left in the bottom part of the tank, the tank is
refilled with new water which may allow re-emergence of organisms.
The sequential method requires careful planning and monitoring by the ship’s staff to
mitigate risks to the ship in respect of:
 longitudinal strength
 dynamic loads
 excessive trim
 bottom forward slamming
 propeller emergence
 intact stability and
 bridge visibility
The ship’s staff should also take into account the ship’s position in relation to land,
navigational hazards, shipping density, current and forecast weather, machinery
performance and degree of crew fatigue before proceeding to the next pair of ballast
exchange steps. If any factors are considered unfavourable the ballast exchange should
be suspended or halted.
Flow-through Method
The flow-through method is a process by which replacement ballast water is pumped into
a ballast tank intended for the carriage of ballast water, allowing water to flow through
overflow or other arrangements to achieve at least 95 per cent volumetric exchange of
ballast water.
Research has established that it is necessary to pump through three times the volume of
the tank to achieve a 95% change of water. Pumping through only once the volume of the
tank produces a 63% exchange, twice the volume produces 86% exchange and four times
the volume produces 98% exchange.

M/T “ARIEL”
Pumping through three times the volume of each ballast water tank usually shall be
considered to meet the required standard. Pumping through less than three times the
volume may be accepted provided the ship can demonstrate that at least 95 per cent
volumetric exchange is met.
The flow-through method has the advantage that it can be used in weather conditions
which would be marginal for use of the sequential method since there is little change to the
condition of the ship and is relatively easy to follow by the ship’s staff. However, the flow-
through method introduces certain other risks and problems which must be considered
before using this procedure. Refer also to Section 7, “Safety considerations”.
The disadvantages are that not all tanks are designed with a head to the top of the
overflow. Moreover, some tank configurations can be difficult to flush through effectively, in
particular cellular double bottom spaces and peak tanks. There is a danger of over
pressurisation of tanks and there can be an accumulation of water on deck which,
particularly in sub zero temperature conditions, make the method impractical and
dangerous for the crew. In addition, pumps and piping will be subjected to an increased
workload.
Where peak tanks are partially filled, the flow-through method should be avoided unless
any inadvertent exceeding of the design partial filling levels will not result in hull girder
bending moments and shear forces exceeding the permissible values.
The above in addition to the safety aspects addressed in Sections 7 & 8 should be
carefully consulted and followed where applicable.
Dilution Method (Not applicable to this ship – For reference only)
The dilution method is a process by which replacement ballast water is filled through the
top of the ballast tank intended for the carriage of ballast water with simultaneous
discharge from the bottom at the same flow rate and maintaining a constant level in the
tank through out the ballast exchange operation to achieve at least 95 per cent volumetric
exchange of ballast water.
Pumping through three times the volume of each ballast water tank usually shall be
considered to meet the standard described above. Pumping through less than three times
the volume may be accepted provided the ship can demonstrate that at least 95 per cent
volumetric exchange is met.
Safety considerations addressed in Sections 7 & 8 should be carefully consulted and

followed where applicable.

M/T “ARIEL”
6.2.3. Discharge to ballast water reception facilities
If reception facilities for ballast water and/or sediments are provided by a port state, they
should, where appropriate, be utilized.
6.2.4. Prototype ballast water treatment technologies (Not applicable to this ship – For
reference only)
A ballast water management system (BWMS) is any system which processes ballast water
such that it meets or exceeds the ballast water performance standard in Regulation D-2 of
the convention. The BWMS includes ballast water treatment equipment, all associated
control equipment, monitoring equipment and sampling facilities.
Ballast water treatment equipment is capable of mechanically, physically, chemically or

biologically remove, render harmless, or avoid the uptake or discharge (either singularly or
in combination) of harmful aquatic organisms and pathogens within ballast water and
sediments. Ballast water treatment equipment may operate at the uptake or discharge of
ballast water, during voyage or at a combination of these events.
Ballast water management systems installed on board should ensure in addition to

compliance with the convention requirements, to be type approved and relevant
certificates to be readily available on board.
When such a system is fitted on board it should be operated in accordance with the
system design criteria and manufactures operational and maintenance instructions as
contained in the relevant booklet.
When the systems encounter failure and/or malfunctions, these are to be recorded in the
ballast record book.
Prototype ballast water treatment technologies should be used within a programme

approved by the Administration in accordance with Reg. D-4 of the Annex to the
Convention.
Ballast water treatment methods are still a subject of research and development.

M/T “ARIEL”
7. SAFETY CONSIDERATIONS FOR THE EXCHANGE OF BALLAST WATER

AT SEA
7.1. GENERAL
The exchange of ballast water in the open sea has to be distinguished from ballast
operations carried out in ports or in sheltered waters. Ballast water exchange at sea is a
comparatively new development with the potential to be more hazardous and a sense of
familiarity with the mechanics of ballasting should not be allowed to induce complacency in
this new procedure.
The ballast exchange procedures described in Appendix B indicate sequences for the
exchange of ballast water using the method(s) applicable to this ship.
A decision should be made at the completion of each sequence, taking into account
factors such as the ship’s position, weather forecast, machinery performance, stability,
strength, degree of crew fatigue, before proceeding to the next sequence. If any factors
are considered unfavourable, a decision should be made if exchange operations should be
suspended until conditions become more favourable or if they should be halted.
Contingency procedures should be established for situations which may affect ballast
water exchange at sea including deteriorating weather conditions, pump failure and loss of
power, time to complete the ballast water exchange for each tank or an appropriate
sequence thereof,
The ballast exchange operation should be continuously monitored. Monitoring should

include pumps, levels in tanks, line and pump pressures, ship’s stability and hull stresses.
7.2. POTENTIAL HAZARDS CONNECTED TO BALLAST WATER EXCHANGE AT

SEA
7.2.1. Safety Considerations
Ballast water exchange has a number of safety considerations these include but are not
limited to:
 avoidance of over and under pressurisation of ballast tanks;

 sloshing loads in tanks that may be slack at any one time;
 maintain adequate intact stability in accordance with an approved trim and stability
booklet tanking into account the free surface affects on stability;
 permissible seagoing strength limits of shear forces and bending moments in
accordance with an approved loading manual;
 torsional forces;
 forward and aft draughts and trim, with particular reference to bridge visibility;

M/T “ARIEL”
 propeller immersion;
 minimum forward draft;
 wave-induced hull vibrations when performing ballast water exchange;
 watertight closures (e.g. manholes) which may have to be opened during ballast
exchange must be re-secured; crew safety is paramount during this operation.
Provision of discharging pipe head on the manhole cover is suggested;
 maximum pumping/flow rates – to ensure the tank is not subject to a pressure greater
than that for which it has been designed;
 internal transfers of ballast;
 admissible weather conditions;
 weather routeing in areas seasonably affected by cyclones, typhoons, hurricanes, or
heavy icing conditions;
7.2.2. Sequential Method
The main hazards in connection with ballast water exchange at sea with the sequential
method are listed below:
Related to internal loads:
 Exceeding the maximum allowable limits with respect to longitudinal strength

(torsional forces, shear forces and bending moments). This could cause damage
even in good weather conditions and the stresses increase with the height of
waves. All new conditions not previously calculated should be checked on the
vessel’s approved loading instrument for each step in the exchange sequence.
 Reduction in the ship’s stability due to free surface effects resulting in a reduction
of ship’s GM, or increase in heeling angle while emptying ballast water tanks or
holds originally in a filled or partially filled condition.
 Structural damage to topside and hopper side tanks caused by inertia loading e.g.
as a result of full ballast hold with empty adjacent wing tanks.
Related to weather:
 Bottom slamming in the fore ship as a result of insufficient forward draught,

causing structural damage. This is dependent on the draught forward, the weather
and the vessel’s heading. If slamming is experienced during emptying of some of
the tanks, it may be possible to stop/reduce this by temporarily altering the vessel's
heading or by reducing speed.
 Sloshing in tanks, causing deflection/damage to internal tank structure.

M/T “ARIEL”
Related to the vessel's operation:
 Reduction of bridge visibility forward. The view of the sea surface in front of the
vessel may be temporarily obscured due to decreased fwd draught and increased
trim by stern. SOLAS-74/94, Ch.V, Reg. 22 requires that this view shall not be
obscured for more than two ship lengths, or 500 m, whichever is the less, forward
of the bow to 10 degrees on either side under all conditions of draught, trim and
deck cargo. This is applicable to all vessels constructed on or after 1 July 1998 but
should also as far as practicable be applied to older ships. It may be impossible to
fulfil requirements regarding submersion of propeller and forward visibility at the
same time during exchange of ballast water. On the open ocean where the
exchange is to take place, propeller immersion should be given priority.
 Less propeller immersion. If the draught is reduced aft, the propeller may not be
fully submerged.
 Less rudder immersion. By reducing the draught aft, the rudder will also become
less immersed which may reduce the vessel’s manoeuvring capabilities and ability
to make headway.
Related to the vessel’s pumping and piping systems:
 System failure. Failure of the system in the open sea may have greater
consequences than in harbour. Increased use of the ballast pumping system for
ballast water exchange may result in earlier than normal wear-out of components
(pumps, valves, gauges, etc.). It is therefore important to pay particular attention to
the maintenance of the various components.
 Over/under pressure of tanks, leading to structural damage. During filling/emptying
of each of the tanks, over-pumping through air pipes when tanks are being filled
should be avoided unless it has been verified that the tank design pressure is not
exceeded during such operations and corresponding filling procedures are adhered
to.
Limitations due to weather
It is not easy to give clear limitations with respect to the weather in which the vessel can
undertake exchange of ballast water. The potential hazards will increase with increasing
wave height but will also be dependent on the ship's speed and heading. Judgement of
acceptable weather conditions in connection with ballast water exchange will to a large
extent have to be based on the Master's experience with the vessel.
7.2.3. Flow-Through Method
The main hazards in connection with ballast water exchange at sea with the flow-through
method are listed below:

M/T “ARIEL”
Related to internal loads:
The ship’s ballast system has most likely not been designed for continuous overflow of
water through the air-pipes. Such overflow, especially if combined with clogging, ice-plugs
or malfunctioning air vent heads, will lead to increased pressure in the ballast tanks which
could result in structural damage. It is therefore recommended that this method is used
only for ballast tanks fitted with manholes on the open deck. These manholes should be
opened prior to commencement of the flow-through ballast exchange and closed after
termination.
Related to the vessel' s pumping and piping systems:
Increased usage of ballast system may increase general wear on system components
(pumps valves, piping, vent heads) and more frequent inspection should be considered.
Related to crew safety:
Large quantities of water cascading on to weather decks will cause serious safety risks for
crewmembers. The working environment may become difficult as spray from the
overboard flow on the windward side will lead to wet decks at unexpected times. In
extremely low temperatures, this may also lead to icing on deck. It may be advisable to
provide additional safety advice to crew when such circumstances arise.

M/T “ARIEL”
8. OPERATIONAL OR SAFETY RESTRICTIONS
8.1. PRECAUTIONARY ADVICE TO MASTERS WHEN UNDERTAKING BALLAST

WATER EXCHANGE OPERATIONS
A ballast plan for a ballast voyage should be prepared in advance, in a similar manner to the
preparation of a cargo plan for a loaded voyage, and with the same degree of thoroughness.
This pre-planning is necessary in order to maintain safety in case compliance with ballast
exchange or other ballast water treatment or control options is required.
The safety information in Section 7 should be taken into account when preparing the voyage
plan.
This section gives guidance on additional operational and safety ballast handling procedures
to be followed at sea.
Additionally, operational limits defined for specific ballast exchange conditions must be
adhered to during operation. Therefore, it is considered imperative to plan for and find the
appropriate weather window to conduct safe sequential ballast exchange operations.
Ballast exchange operations are complex procedures and may last from several hours to
several days. All personnel engaged in ballast exchange should be well trained to respond to
routine and emergency procedures.
It should always be considered that, while performing a ballast exchange at sea, failure of
the electric or steam power system or any part of ballast pumping and piping system can
take place. Such incidents should be brought immediately to the attention of the Company’s
Safety Officer and emergency procedures should be activated to bring the ship back to her
ballast seagoing condition as soon as possible. Such emergency procedures could be
ballasting by gravity and even utilisation of the general service pump. Ships enrolled with the
ship emergency response service (SERS) could, if necessary, activate the service.
The Master should take all necessary precautions when undertaking Ballast Water
Exchange sequences that involve periods when the following criteria cannot be fully met or
are found to be difficult to maintain:
 bridge visibility standards (SOLAS V/22);

 propeller immersion;
 minimum draft forward;
 emergency fire pump suction
In planning a ballast water exchange operation that includes sequences which involve
periods when the above criteria cannot be met, the following should be taken into
consideration:
 the duration(s) and time(s) during the operation that any of the criteria will not be
met;

M/T “ARIEL”
 the effect(s) on the navigational and manoeuvring capabilities of the ship; and
 the time to complete the operation.
A decision to proceed with the operation should only be taken when it is anticipated that:
 the ship will be in open water;

 the traffic density will be low;
 an enhanced navigational watch will be maintained including if necessary an
additional look out forward with adequate communication with the navigation
bridge;
 the manoeuvrability of the vessel will not be unduly impaired by the draft and trim
and/or propeller immersion during the transitory period; and
 the general weather and sea state conditions will be suitable and unlikely to
deteriorate.
8.2. CONDITIONS UNDER WHICH BALLAST WATER EXCHANGE AT SEA SHOULD

NOT BE UNDERTAKEN
It is noted that these conditions are guidelines only. It is the responsibility of the ship’s
Master to ensure the safety of his ship and crew is not jeopardised.
Additionally, operational limits defined for specific ballast exchange conditions must be
adhered to during operations. Therefore, it is considered imperative to plan for and find the
appropriate weather window to conduct safe sequential exchange operations.
The ship’s position, sea state, weather forecast, equipment performance, hull condition
and degree of crew fatigue, should be considered before proceeding with ballast
exchange. If any factors are considered unfavourable, the ballast exchange operation
should not commence or should be suspended.
Ballast water exchange at sea should not be undertaken in any weather condition that would
jeopardise the safety of crewmembers operating equipment on the upper deck. As a guide,
ballast exchange at sea should not be carried out or, if under progress, should be interrupted
under the following conditions:
 When wind strength exceeds Beaufort 4 and sea state exceeds moderate.
 When there is indication that weather and sea conditions will deteriorate prior to
completing the ballast exchange program or a step thereof. Adequate time margin
should always be allowed in such cases.
 When sailing in areas which are known to be seasonally affected by cyclones,
typhoons, hurricanes or heavy icing conditions.
 When any essential part of the power or ballast system is inoperative or gives
signs of under-performance.
 When sub-zero temperatures are encountered. Sub-zero weather, where weather
decks are icing, is generally considered to be unsuitable for ballast water exchange

M/T “ARIEL”
operations. If such operations are considered absolutely necessary, particular

attention should be paid to hazards associated with the freezing of overboard
discharge arrangements, air pipes, ballast system valves together with their means
of control and accretion of ice on deck.
 When, due to other important duties onboard, not enough trained officers and crew
are available to perform the ballast exchange safely.
 When abnormal vibrations of the vessel’s hull or equipment are experienced while
progressing on a certain step of the ballast exchange.
 When other abnormal conditions are observed which, to the judgement to the
Master, endanger the vessel’s or the crew’s safety.
Consideration must always be given to personnel safety, including precautions which may
be required when personnel are required to work on deck at night, in heavy weather, when
ballast overflows the deck, and in freezing conditions. These concerns may be related to
the risks to the personnel of falling and injury, due to the slippery wet surface of the deck
plate, when water is overflowing on deck, and to the direct contact with the ballast water,
in terms of occupational health and safety.
Where a Port Authority requires specific ballast water management procedures to be

undertaken and, due to weather, sea conditions or operational impracticability such action
cannot be taken, the ship’s Master should report this fact to the Port State Authority as
soon as possible, and where appropriate, prior to entering seas under its jurisdiction.

M/T “ARIEL”
9. DESCRIPTION OF THE METHOD(S) USED ONBOARD FOR BALLAST

WATER MANAGEMENT
9.1. GENERAL
The ballast water management system in use onboard this vessel comprises the
exchange of ballast water in open water.
This section gives ship-specific guidance on ballast water exchanging procedures to be

followed at sea.
A Ballast Exchange Plan (BEP) is a sequence of steps to be followed for the safe
exchange of the ship’s ballast water at sea. It is at the discretion of the ship’s Master to
follow one of the prepared BEPs or to prepare a new BEP for the ship’s specific condition,
taking into account the relevant assessment criteria. If in doubt, the Master should seek
assistance from the shore management.
Other BEPs may be generated using the vessel’s approved onboard loading software.
Where a new BEP is to be introduced in the ship’s ballast water management plan, the
shore management is to be advised, who in turn need to submit the new BEP to BV Class
for review and approval, as necessary.
9.2. ITEMS FOR CONSIDERATION WHEN APPLYING THE SEQUENTIAL METHOD
In order to ensure the vessel’s safe operation, the following assessment criteria should be
taken into consideration:
Item Limit value

Bending moments and shear forces less than the allowable values
Longitudinal
and preferably less than 85% for seagoing conditions according to
strength
the approved Loading Manual & approved Loading Instrument.
Compliance with stability criteria according to the approved
Stability
Loading Manual.
Greater than 50% if possible but not less than 45%.
Propeller
immersion Full propeller immersion corresponds to an index of 50% (see
calculation method in Appendix A)
Invisible length
Less than 456.0m (2xLOA), if possible
forward
A minimum draught of 5.41m should maintained at FPP in heavy
Draft Fore
weather conditions
A minimum draught of 3.25m should maintained at APP to ensure
Draft Aft
operation of the EM’CY Fire Pump

M/T “ARIEL”
It is the master’s responsibility to plan each ballast water exchange operation using and
taking into account all the safety and operational criteria and restrictions as detailed in the
ballast water management plan. It is the master’s responsibility to ensure that strength and
stability are maintained within the allowable limits stated in the ships approved loading /
trim and stability manuals and that the approved loading instrument is used to verify
compliance both during planning ballast water exchange operation and during the ballast
water exchange operations. The master is also responsible to ensure that the draft, trim
and propeller immersion are adequate for the voyage taking into account expected
weather, proximity of land, expected traffic and other navigational issues. Bridge visibility
is to be maintained in compliance with SOLAS V/22, where this is compromised then the
precautions and guidance in IMO Circular MSC/Circ.1145 are to be followed.
When applying the sequential method the original condition is restored after each step. A
positive decision should be made at that time, taking into account the ship’s position,
weather, forecast, machinery performance, degree of crew fatigue, navigational hazards,
shipping density, currents and the safety considerations in Sections 7 & 8 before
proceeding to the next step. If any factors are considered unfavourable, the ballast
exchange should be suspended or halted.
Each step shown in this plan has been checked for compliance with longitudinal strength
limitations. The Master should ensure that any actual ballast exchange sequence is to be
run on the vessel’s loading computer prior to execution.
If it is not possible to meet certain requirements during any step (e.g. draught forward,
propeller immersion, bridge visibility etc.), a note to that effect is included in the “Remarks”
column.
If during a particular step in the BEP the visibility criteria are not met, it is recommended
that this step is executed during daylight hours, in fair weather and sea conditions and with
lookouts stationed forward and in radio communication with the bridge.
In order to avoid tank over/under pressure, only one ballast pump should be used to
load/discharge a single ballast tank.
The present and forecast sea conditions must be favourable to ensure that significant
sloshing loads, which could cause structural damage to holds or tanks, cannot be
generated.
The estimated time required to empty or refill each of the vessel’s ballast tanks, using the
BP1 or BP2 Ballast Pumps or the BP3 or BP4 Fire/G.S. & Fire/Bilge/Ballast Pump
(according to the ballast tank) are given in the next table.

M/T “ARIEL”
Time to empty or Time to empty or

refill using one refill using one
Ballast, Fire or Ballast, Fire or
Tank Name
Fire/Bilge pump per Fire/Bilge pump
pair of tanks per each tank
(hours:mins) (hours:mins)
Fore Peak T. (C) 1:20' 1:20'
No.1 W.B.T (P & S) 2:20' 1:10'
No.2 W.B.T (P & S) 2:12' 1:6'
No.3 W.B.T (P & S) 2:12' 1:6'
No.4 W.B.T (P & S) 2:12' 1:6'
No.5 W.B.T (P & S) 2:12' 1:6'
No.6 W.B.T (P & S) 2:52' 1:26'
Aft. Peak T (C) 6:06' 6:06'

M/T “ARIEL”
9.3. ITEMS FOR CONSIDERATION WHEN APPLYING THE FLOW-THROUGH

METHOD
Provided their Upper Deck manholes/hatches are opened prior to commencement of

the exchange, the flow-through method may be applied for the following tanks:
 Fore Peak Tank (C)

 No 1 W.B. Tank (P/S)
(Only ballast tanks that flow through method is used in the proposed BEP(s) presented in
Appendix B)
Manholes / hatches of the subject tanks should be closed after completion of the
exchange.
The flow-through method introduces certain risks and problems which must be considered
before using this procedure. Refer also to the "Safety Considerations" given in Sections 7.
In addition, note the items listed below:
 All openings used as outflow for the water should be inspected prior to start to
make sure that water may flow out freely. Any flame screens fitted to air vent
heads should be removed.
 Upper deck manholes to relevant tanks should be opened. This could compromise
the watertight integrity of the deck and responsibility for this action rest with the
Master. Proper procedures must be used to ensure that all manholes are closed
after completion or interruption of the ballast water exchange procedure.
 The free flow of water through the openings should be visually checked at the start
of the exchange and at regular intervals.
 In order to avoid tank over/under pressure, only one ballast pump should be used
to load/discharge a single ballast tank.
 All upper deck openings used as outflow for the water should be re-secured after
completion or interruption of the ballast water exchange procedure.
 After each step a positive decision should be made, taking into account the ship's
position, weather, forecast, machinery performance, degree of crew fatigue,
navigational hazards, shipping density, currents and the safety considerations in
Sections 7 & 8 before proceeding to the next step. If any factors are considered
unfavourable, the ballast exchange should be suspended or halted.

M/T “ARIEL”
 If for some reason a tank is not full before an exchange takes place, the filling up of
the tank will change the loading condition. Prior to this the condition with a full tank
should be checked on the ship's approved loading instrument for compliance with
the strength limits refer to the approved “trim & stability booklet-loading manual”.
The estimated time required to exchange three times the volume of each of the vessel’s
ballast tanks using the BP1, BP2 ballast pumps or BP3, BP4 Fire & G/S pumps is given in
the table below:
Time for 3 exchanges using one ballast

Tank Name
pump per pair of tanks (hours:mins)
Fore Peak T. C 4:0'
No.1 W.B.T. P&S 7:2'
No.2 W.B.T. P&S 6:39'
No.3 W.B.T. P&S 6:40'
No.4 W.B.T. P&S 6:40'
No.5 W.B.T. P&S 6:39'
No.6 W.B.T. P&S 8:38'
9.4. GUIDELINES TO THE MASTER
This section is to contain guidelines in order to assist the Master in the preparation of the
Ballast Exchange Sequences that will be used on board for the management of ballast
and for sediment control.
9.4.1. Procedures for Ballast Water Exchange
The following provisions should be taken into account in conjunction with consideration
mentioned in Section 7 and 8 prior to the development of a Ballast Water Exchange
Sequence.
Ballast water exchange
Ballast water exchange in open water and the need for exchange should be carefully
examined and prepared in advance, in a similar manner to the preparation of a cargo plan
for a loaded voyage, and with the same degree of thoroughness.

M/T “ARIEL”
The ship should, according to the Convention, conduct ballast water exchange:
 at least 200 nm from the nearest land and in water at least 200 m in depth; if this is
not possible
 as far from the nearest land as possible, and in all cases at least 50 nm from the
nearest land and in water at least 200 m in depth or
 in sea areas designated by the Port State
All local and/or national regulations should be taken into consideration as they may specify
other depths and distances from land.
The ship will not be required to deviate from its intended voyage or delay the voyage in
order to comply with any particular requirement as stated above. In addition, if the Master
decides reasonably that an exchange would threaten the safety or stability of the ship, its
crew or any passengers on board because of adverse weather, ship design or stress,
equipment failure or any other extraordinary condition, he is not required to comply with
the above paragraphs.
The Master shall decide on whether and when ballast exchange may be conducted taking
into account the provisions of Sections 6 and 7 of this Manual.
Also “National Requirements” shall be available on board for review and guidance.
In deciding which method of ballast exchange is to be used, the following shall be carefully
considered:
Sequential Method
Particular attention shall be paid to the sequence planning ensuring that each step to be
followed the ship complies with the following acceptable criteria:
 longitudinal strength
 Stability
 Minimum Draught Forward
 Propeller Immersion
 Bridge visibility forward
 Ballast Inertia
 Sloshing
An appropriate Sample Form for planning the steps is attached in Appendix B for guidance
and use.
Every step of sequential exchange shall be pre-calculated and monitored by means of the
approved Loading instrument onboard the vessel, so as to ensure compliance with

M/T “ARIEL”
longitudinal strength and stability criteria, taking into account the free surface effect of the
tank(s) being considered for ballast exchange at intermediate stages.
When bridge visibility, minimum draught forward, propeller immersion criteria are not fully
met during a Ballast Exchange step, the Master shall exercise prudence to choose the
right sea state to conduct the exchange. In addition, when bridge visibility is compromised
the precautions and guidance in IMO Circular MEPC/Circ. 1145 are to be taken into
account.
Inertial and dynamic loadings resulting from ballast exchange (i.e. ballast inertia when a
hold is filled with ballast, and sloshing during the exchange process), shall be considered
in consultation with the ship’s Approved “Loading Manual” and the steps involving such
loadings shall be performed at calm sea.
Only one tank or pair of tanks shall be dealt with at a time, avoiding in this way the
possibility of human error.
Flow-through Method
When this method of ballast exchange is chosen for ballast exchange all necessary
precautions listed below shall be taken into account:
- When the ratio of the cross sectional areas of the overflow to filling lines is less
than two, tank access manhole covers shall be removed to allow overflow and to
avoid over pressurization of tanks and shall be secured tight on completion of the
flow through process. In sub-zero temperature this method becomes impractical
and dangerous for crew.
- When the tank under consideration has not been designed to a head up to the top
of the overflow, ballast exchange by flowing through shall not be undertaken, and
the sequential exchange method shall be adopted after careful planning of the
steps procedure. This usually applies to double bottom tanks, unless these are
interconnected with the Top Side Tanks.
- Only one tank or one pair of tanks shall be dealt with at a time.
- Therefore, for safety reasons it is strongly recommended that access

openings/manhole cover(s) on upper deck should not be used as overflow
discharge, unless a blank flange with a seat are fitted to the access cover so that a
portable overflow pipe with 90 degrees elbow can be connected during the flow
through operation.
- Ballast Water should not be discharged from an air pipe with float type closing
appliance, unless a blank flange with a short distance piece is fitted below the air
pipe, which should be removed during the flow-through operation.

M/T “ARIEL”
10. PROCEDURES FOR THE DISPOSAL OF SEDIMENTS
All practical steps should be taken during ballast uptake to avoid sediment accumulation,
however it is recognized that sediment will be taken on board and will settle on tank
surfaces.
The volume of sediment in a ballast tank should be monitored on a regular basis.

Sediment in ballast tanks should be removed in a timely basis and as found necessary
always taking into account safety and operational considerations addressed in this plan.
The frequency and timing of removal will also depend on factors such as sediment build
up, ship’s trading pattern, availability of reception facilities, work load of the ship’s
personnel and safety considerations.
Removal of sediment from ballast tanks should preferably be undertaken under controlled
conditions in port, at a repair facility or in dry dock. The removed sediment should be
preferably be disposed of in a sediment reception facility if available, reasonable and
practicable.
However, flushing at sea may be a useful tool on some occasions such as when a ship
changes its trading area.
Flushing by using water movement within a tank to bring sediment into suspension will
only remove part of the mud depending on the configuration of an individual tank and its
piping arrangement.
When sediment is removed from the ship’s ballast tanks and is to be disposed of by that
ship at sea, such disposal should take place in areas outside 200 nautical miles from land
and in water depths of over 200 meters. If this is not possible, sediment disposal should
take place in areas outside 50 nautical miles from land and in water depths of over 200
meters.
In that case a form similar to the one shown in Section 13 should be filled in and kept in
the relevant folder.

M/T “ARIEL”
11. METHODS OF COMMUNICATION
This section contains information to assist the Master in the procedures for co-ordinating
the discharge of ballast in waters of a coastal state, local government or other involved
parties.
The quick and effective communication between the ship and the coastal state or other
involved parties becomes vital in mitigating the effects of an unnecessary delay for ships
seeking entry to port states.
The requirements and roles of the various national and local authorities involved vary
widely from state to state and even from port to port. Approaches to the responsibility for
ballast water exchange also vary. In the majority of coastal states responsibility for
compliance with port state requirements is placed on the shipowner and the ship.
Generic reports and information can be found in Section 13 & Appendix D to assist the
Master with organising communication of a ballast water exchange and treatment plan to a
port state not having issued any specific requirements.
THE COASTAL STATE SHOULD BE CONTACTED FOR SPECIFIC BALLAST WATER

DISCHARGE REQUIREMENTS AND REPORTING PRIOR TO THE VESSEL’S
ARRIVAL IN THE STATE’S TERRITORIAL WATERS.
Therefore the Master with the responsible officer should timely obtain all necessary
information and prepare the vessel accordingly tanking into consideration the safety and
operational restrictions as described in this plan.
Information on specific port state procedures can be obtained either by referring to

Appendix D of this plan or by consulting the company and/or the local agent for latest
information/requirements.
Actions to be taken by the vessel where a coastal state has specific procedures for
the discharge of ballast water:
1. follow agreed reporting procedures

2. contact ship’s agent to ascertain the latest information/ requirements on ballast
discharge in the waters of the respective state
3. advise/communicate with the company and request any other information they
might hold on ballast water discharge
4. ensure that you timely plan for all above actions and that safety and operational
restrictions are observed.

M/T “ARIEL”
Actions to be taken by the vessel where the coastal state has no specific
procedures for the discharge of ballast water:
1. contact ship’s agent and/or company to obtain latest information on the discharge
requirements at port state territory
2. carry out discharge of ballast water as per approved ballast exchange sequence
3. take into consideration safety and operational procedures related to respective
discharge
4. keep proper records and have them readily available for possible inspection

M/T “ARIEL”
12. DUTIES OF THE APPOINTED BALLAST WATER MANAGEMENT OFFICER
The Ballast Water Management officer is responsible for implementing the procedures of
the Ballast Water Management Plan.
The duties of the appointed officer in charge of ballast water management are to:
1. ensure that the ballast water management and/or treatment procedures are
followed and recorded.
2. where ballast exchange is required, follow the applicable Ballast Exchange
Sequence (BES) prepared by the Master on the basis of ship’s assessment
criteria, condition of hull, equipment and weather forecast.
3. ensure that adequate personnel and equipment is available for the execution of the
BES and/or treatment.
4. inform the shore management on commencement, interruption and completion of
the ballast water exchange using the Notification Form.
5. maintain the Ballast Water Record Book and all other relevant/applicable
documentation.
6. prepare the appropriate national or port Ballast Water Reporting Form prior to
arrival at port.
7. assist the Port State Control or quarantine officers for any sampling that may need
to be undertaken.
8. undertake familiarisation and training of the crew in ballast water management
requirements and applicable shipboard systems and procedures.
9. Ensure that the steps/sequences of the BES are followed in the prepared order.
10. Other duties specified by the Company.
11. Ensure the safety of the ship and crew.
The Master must ensure that the Ballast Water Management Plan is clearly understood by
the appointed officer and by any other responsible officer that may be involved and that
the operations during execution strictly conform to the safety parameters at all times.
The Duty Officer must keep the Master advised on the progress of the plan from time to
time. Should there be any doubt or if the ballast management does not keep to the
schedule, the Master should be advised accordingly.

M/T “ARIEL”
13. RECORDING REQUIREMENTS
The ballast water management officer is to ensure that the Ballast Water Record Book and
any other necessary documentation/forms are completed and kept up-to-date.
Ballast Water Record Book
The Ballast Water Record Book may be an electronic record system or it may be
intergraded into another record book or system and shall at least contain the information
specified in Appendix D and as per the convention requirement.
Ballast Water Record Book entries are to be maintained on board for a minimum of two
years after the last entry has been made in order to provide port state control or other
authorised officers with information they may require concerning the ballast water on
board the ship. Thereafter entries should be maintained in the company’s control for a
minimum period of three years.
Ballast Water Reporting Form
This form has to be used when reporting to a national authority that requests information in
advance. Guidance for completing the form is also included. It should be noted that
question 3, “Total number of tanks on board” refers only to the number of segregated
ballast tanks.
Care should be taken before using this general form since the country being approached
may have its own form for reporting.
Ballast Water Handling Log
The Ballast Water Handling Log is to be maintained in order to provide quarantine officers
with historical information they may require concerning the source of the ballast water on
board the ship.
Even if the ship is not currently trading in an area where ballast water information is
required to be reported, it may later prove worthwhile to have a history of what water has
been carried.
Two forms have been created as a guide for recording the sort of information often
requested by quarantine officers.
Sediment Removal and Tank Flushing Log
The Sediment Removal and Tank Flushing Log is to be maintained in order to provide
quarantine officers with historical information they may require concerning sediment
removal and tank flushing.

M/T “ARIEL”
Ballast Exchange Notification Form
The Ballast Exchange Notification Form is to be used to notify shore management of

ballast exchange prior to arrival at destination.
Ballast Exchange Plan
The Ballast Exchange Plan (BEP) is to be prepared taking into account the relevant
assessment criteria, condition of hull and equipment. The shore management is to be
advised accordingly.

M/T “ARIEL”
BALLAST WATER REPORTING FORM

(To be provided to the Port State Authority upon request)
1. SHIP INFORMATION 2. BALLAST WATER
Ship’s Name: Type: IMO Number: Specify Units: M 3, MT, LT, ST
Owner: Gross Tonnage: Call Sign: Total Ballast Water on Board:
Flag: Arrival Date: Agent:
Last Port and Country: Arrival Port: Total Ballast Water Capacity:
Next Port and Country:
3. BALLAST WATER TANKS Ballast Water Management Plan on board? YES NO Management Plan Implemented? YES NO
Total number of ballast tanks on board: ________________ No. of tanks in ballast: ________________ IF NONE IN BALLAST GO TO No. 5.
No. of tanks exchanged: ________________ No. of tanks not exchanged: ________________
4. BALLAST WATER HISTORY: RECORD ALL TANKS THAT WILL BE DEBALLASTED IN PORT STATE OF ARRIVAL; IF NONE GO TO No. 5.
Tanks/ BALLAST WATER SOURCE BALLAST WATER EXCHANGE BALLAST WATER DISCHARGE
Holds Circle one: Empty/Refill or Flow Through
(List multiple DATE Port or Volume Temp DATE Endpoint Volume % Exch. Sea DATE Port or Volume Salinity
sources per
DDMMYY Lat/Long (units) (units) DDMMYY Lat/Long. (units) Hgt. (m) DDMMYY Lat/Long (units) (units)
tank
separately)
Ballast Water Tank Codes: Forepeak = FP, Aftpeak = AP; Double Bottom = DB; Wing = WT; Topside = TS; Cargo Hold = CH; Other = O
IF EXCHANGES WERE NOT CONDUCTED, STATE OTHER CONTROL ACTION(S) TAKEN:_________________________________________

IF NONE STATE REASON WHY NOT:___________________________________________________
5: IMO BALLAST WATER GUIDELINES ON BOARD (RES. A.868 (20))? YES NO
RESPONSIBLE OFFICER’S NAME AND TITLE (PRINTED) AND SIGNATURE: ____________________________________________________
M/T “ARIEL”
Management Plan Implemented?: Do you follow the Percentage exchanged: Percentage of ballast water
GUIDELINES FOR COMPLETING above plan? Circle Yes or No. exchanged. Calculate this by dividing the number of
THE BALLAST WATER No. of Tanks in Ballast: Number of segregated units of water exchanged by the original volume of
ballast water tanks and holds with ballast at the start of ballast water in the tank. If necessary, estimate this
REPORTING FORM the voyage to the current port. If you have no ballast based on pump rate. (Note: For effective flow-through
SECTION 1: SHIP INFORMATION water on board, go to section 5. exchange this value should be at least 300%).
No. of Tanks Exchanged: This refers only to tanks Sea Height (m): Record the sea height in metres at
Ship’s Name: Print the name of the ship. and holds with ballast at the start of the voyage to the the time of the ballast exchange (Note: this is the
Owner: The registered owners or operators of the current port. combined height of the wind seas and swell, measured
ship. No. of Tanks Not Exchanged: This refers only to from crest to trough. It does not refer to the depth).
Flag: Country of the port of registry. tanks and holds with ballast at the start of the voyage
Last port and country: Last port and country at which to the current port. BW Discharge:
the ship called before arrival in the current port - no Date: Date of ballast water discharge. Use European
abbreviations, please. SECTION 4: BALLAST WATER HISTORY format (DDMMYY).
Next port and country: Next port and country, at Port or Latitude/Longitude: Location of ballast water
BW Source: Please list all tanks and holds that you discharge, no abbreviations for ports.
which the ship will call, upon departure from the current have discharged or plan to discharge in this port.
port - no abbreviations, please. Volume: Volume of ballast water discharged, with
Carefully write out, or use codes listed below the table. units.
Type: The ship type is... Follow each tank across the page, listing all source(s),
GT: Gross tonnage. Salinity: Record salinity of ballast water at the time of
exchange events, and/or discharge events separately. discharge, with units, (i.e. specific gravity (sg) or parts
Arrival Date: Arrival date at current port. Please use If the ballast water history is identical (i.e. the same
the European date format (DDMMYY) per thousand (ppt)).
source, exchange and discharge dates and locations), If exchanges were not conducted, state other
IMO Number: Identification number of the ship used by sets of tanks can be combined (example: wing tank 1
the International Maritime Organization is... control action(s) taken: If exchanges were not made
with wing tank 2, both water from Belgium, exchanged on all tanks and holds to be discharged, what other
Call Sign: Official call sign is... 02.11.97, mid ocean). Additional pages to include the
Agent: Agent used for this voyage. actions were taken? E.g. transfer of water to a
arrival date, ship’s name and IMO number at the top. landbased holding facility, or other approved treatment.
Arrival Port: This is the current port. Date: Date of ballast water uptake. Use European
No abbreviations, please. If none, state reasons why not: List specific
format (DDMMYY). reasons why ballast exchange was not done. This
SECTION 2: BALLAST WATER Port or Latitude/Longitude: Location of ballast water applies to all tanks and holds being discharged.
(Note: Segregated ballast water = clean, non-oily uptake.
ballast) Volume: Volume of ballast water uptake, with units. SECTION 5:
Total ballast water on board: Total segregated Temperature: Water temperature at time of ballast IMO Ballast Water Guidelines On Board?: Do you
ballast water upon arrival at current port - with units. water uptake, in degrees centigrade (Celsius). have IMO Resolution A.868(20) on board your ship?
Total ballast water capacity: Total volume of all Circle Yes or No.
BW Exchange: Indicate Exchange Method: Circle Responsible Officer’s name and title (Printed) and
ballastable tanks or holds - with units. empty/refill or flow through. signature: e.g. the First Mate, Captain, or Chief
SECTION 3: BALLAST WATER TANKS Date: Date of ballast water exchange. Use European Engineer must print his name and title and sign the
format (DDMMYY). form.
Count all tanks and holds separately (e.g. port and Endpoint or Latitude/Longitude: Location of ballast
starboard tanks should be counted separately) water exchange. If it occurred over an extended
Total No. of Tanks on board: ( ) tanks and holds distance, list the end point latitude and longitude.
can carry segregated ballast water. Volume: Volume of ballast water exchanged, with
Ballast Water Management Plan on board?: Do you units.
have a ballast water management plan, specific to your
ship, onboard? Circle Yes or No.
M/T “ARIEL”
BALLAST WATER HANDLING LOG

Record of ballast water management on board
Ship’s Name ........................................ Port of Registry ............…........... IMO number .........................
TANK DATE INITIAL FINAL GEOGRAPHIC PUMPS DURATION SALINITY SIGNATURE RANK
LOCATION CONTENT CONTENT LOCATION OF USED, or OF OF OFFICER IN
(tonnes) (tonnes) SHIP GRAVITATE OPERATION CHARGE
(Port or
Lat. & Long.)

M/T “ARIEL”
BALLAST WATER HANDLING LOG

Narrative record of events related to ballast water management on board
Ship’s Name _____________ Port of Registry _____________ IMO number _____________
Record here events which are relevant to ballast management, and which will be of interest to quarantine officers, such as sediment
removal during drydock, or tank flushing at sea. Each entry should be completed with the signature and rank of the officer making the
entry.
Date Activity Comments

M/T “ARIEL”
SEDIMENT REMOVAL AND TANK FLUSHING LOG
Ship’s Name:.___________________ Port of Registry:__________________ IMO number: __________________
Signature of
Geographic location (Port
Tank Date Activity Officer in Rank
or Lat & Long)
Charge

M/T “ARIEL”
BALLAST EXCHANGE NOTIFICATION REPORT
SHIP : ____________________________ VOYAGE: ____________________________ DATE: ___________
TO____________________________________________________________________
ATTN: _________________________________________________________________
FROM: Ballast Water Management Officer ____________________________________
NOTIFICATION OF BALLAST WATER EXCHANGE PRIOR ARRIVAL DESTINATION
LOCATION FOR BALLAST WATER EXCHANGE : Latitude _________________ Longitude ____________________
BALLAST EXCHANGE METHOD: SEQUENTIAL / FLOW – THROUGH (Select one or both boxes, as appropriate)
BALLAST WATER EXCHANGE DURATION: COMMENTS WITH RESPECT TO SHIP SAFETY, IF ANY:
COMMENCED AT: _______________________________________________________________________________

INTERRUPTED AT (if applicable) ____________________________________________________________________
COMPLETED AT _________________________________________________________________________________

M/T “ARIEL”
14. CREW TRAINING AND FAMILIARISATION
It is of imperative priority to ensure that the Master, the ship’s officers and crew have a
good understanding of the need for ballast water management.
If crew members understand the reasons for the exchange or treatment of ballast water
and associated sediments they are more likely to ensure that it is carried out effectively
and efficiently.
Owners, Managers, Operators and others involved in officer and crew training for ballast
water management should consider the following:
Training for ships’ masters and crews as appropriate should include instructions on the
requirements of the Convention and the ballast water and sediment management
procedures particularly with regard to matters of ship safety, maintenance of records and
reporting requirements in accordance with the information contained in the Convention.
All new joining crew members engaged with the ballasting or de-ballasting Operations of
the ship should be trained by the designated Ballast Water Management Officer prior to
undertaking such operations. Training and familiarisation of the crew can be achieved
through the Shipboard Safety Committee Meetings.
Ship’s officers and ratings engaged in ballast water exchange at sea must be aware of
what is expected of them and should be trained in and familiarised with the following:
 The ship’s ballast pumping arrangements.

 The location of air and sounding pipes of all ballast tanks.
 The position of all ballast tank suctions and pipelines.
 The overboard discharge arrangements and openings for release of water on deck.
 The location of suitable access points for sampling purposes.
 The times and circumstances required to undertake the various ballast water
exchange operations.
 The methods for ballast water exchange at sea used, the related safety
precautions and associated hazards.
 The method of on-board ballast water record-keeping and reporting and recording
of routine soundings.
 Precautions for entering tanks for sediment removal.
 Procedures for the safe handling and packaging of sediment.
 Storage of sediment.
 Inspection and maintenance for ensuring that sounding pipes are clear and non-
return devices and air pipes are in good order.

M/T “ARIEL”
The Master and the Chief Officer should ensure that personnel assigned key
responsibilities in any ballast exchange procedures are suitable and well trained
according to the above. Special attention should be given to the safety aspects
related with the subject procedures.
Provisions for crew training and familiarisation also include the following:
 Requirements of a general nature regarding ballast water management.

 Training and information on ballast water management practices.
 Ballast water exchange.
 Ballast water treatment systems.
 General safety considerations.
 The ballast water record book and maintenance of records.
 The operation and maintenance of installed ballast water treatment systems.
 Safety aspects associated with the particular systems and procedures used onboard
the ship, which affect the safety or human health of crew and passengers and/or the
safety of the ship.
 Precautions for entering tanks for sediment removal.
 Procedures for the safe handling and packaging of sediment.
 Storage of sediment.

M/T “ARIEL”
Training Record for Ballast Water Management
Date Name Rank Signature Remarks Verified by

M/T “ARIEL”
15. EXEMPTIONS
No exemptions granted under regulation A4 of the convention.

M/T “ARIEL”
APPENDICES
APPENDIX A Assessment Criteria for the Sequential Method
APPENDIX B Ballast Exchange Procedures
APPENDIX C Ship’s plans & other information
APPENDIX D National or local requirements for the control and management of

ships’ ballast water and sediments
APPENDIX E Reference documents

APPENDIX A – ASSESSMENT CRITERIA FOR THE SEQUENTIAL METHOD
 Longitudinal strength
 Intact stability
 Minimum draught forward
 Propeller immersion
 Bridge visibility forward
 Sloshing
 Definition of sea state according to World Meteorological Organisation
Longitudinal strength
The following has been extracted from page 56 of the ship’s “Loading Manual and Trim &
Stability Booklet” approved by BV on 30 August 2013.
Intact stability
Intact stability criteria to be as per ship’s approved “Trim and Stability Booklet”.
Minimum draught forward
Minimum draught forward in rough seas: 5.410 m
The minimum draught forward in heavy weather conditions has been obtained from page 8
of the ship’s “Trim & Stability Booklet” approved by B.V. in August 2013.
For steps where this criterion is not satisfied, it is recommended that the operation is to be
performed in calm conditions of weather.
Propeller immersion
Propeller immersion is defined as the distance between propeller tip and waterline. For
reference the following have been obtained from page 28 of the ship’s “Trim & Stability
Booklet” approved by B.V. in August 2013.
Bridge visibility forward
According to Chapter V, Reg. 22 of SOLAS, the view of the sea surface forward of the bow
from the conning position is not to be obscured by more than two ship lengths or 500 m,
whichever is less. It is recognized that not all ships in service comply with this requirement.
In such cases, ships in service are expected to comply with the requirements regarding
forward view and blind sectors in so far as practicable, without structural alterations being
required.
DC
DS
TA
 TF 
KCKS
KFKS
LPP
Length overall (Loa): 228.000 m

Length between perpendiculars (Lpp): 219.000 m
Height of conning position (Dc): 34.200 m
Height of position ‘S’ (Ds): 22.600 m
Horizontal distance from conning position
to position ‘S’ (KcKs): 189.700 m
Horizontal distance from FP to position ‘S’ (KfKs): 5.100 m
Note: Where there are containers or other cargo on deck, the position ‘S’ should be
considered in respect of worst visibility. If the position ‘S’ is aft of the fore perpendicular,
then KfKs is to be taken as a negative value.
Maximum permissible invisible distance forward: 456.000 m
For steps where the bridge visibility forward criterion is not satisfied the Master is advised that
bridge visibility forward will be reduced.
Sloshing
Use of the sequential method will result in partial fillings of ballast tanks or holds which,
when contemplated for sea-going conditions, could pose a risk of significant loads due to
sloshing inducted by the ship motions.
Sloshing studies carried out indicated that the following cases should not pose a sloshing
risk:
 Double bottom tanks

 Double side tanks
Definition of sea state according to World Meteorological Organisation
Sea State Range of significant

Description
Code wave height (metres)
0 Calm (glassy) 0
1 Calm (rippled) 0 – 0.1
2 Smooth (wavelets) 0.1 – 0.5
3 Slight 0.5 – 1.25
4 Moderate 1.25 – 2.5
5 Rough 2.5 – 4.0
6 Very Rough 4.0 – 6.0
7 High 6.0 – 9.0
8 Very High 9.0 – 14.0
9 Phenomenal Over 14.0
The significant wave height can be transformed into an observed wave height using the
figure below:
10
8
Significant Wave Height (metres)
0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Observed Wave Height (metres)
APPENDIX B – BALLAST EXCHANGE PLANS
Note:
When exchanging ballast at sea, the safety and operational information and restrictions
must be taken into account at all times.
APPENDIX C – SHIP’S PLANS & OTHER INFORMATION
No. Title Dwg. No.
1. General Arrangement Plan 4B110P11CB
2. Capacity Plan & DWT scale 4B110P34CB

Table of ballast water/sediment sampling points
Location of water sampling Location of sediment

points sampling points
Tank Description
Dist. fm Dist. fm
Frame Type Frame Type
CL (m) CL (m)
Appr.
Appr. Sounding
Fore Peak Tk (C) 100 99 + 2.00 Hatch
1.00 (P) pipe
(P/S)
Appr. Appr.
Sounding
No.1 W.B. Tank (P/S) 91 + 14.00 91 + 15.00 Manhole
pipe
(P/S) (P/S)
Appr. Appr.
Sounding
pipe
(P/S) (P/S)
Appr. Appr.
Sounding
pipe
(P/S) (P/S)
Appr. Appr.
Sounding
pipe
(P/S) (P/S)
Appr. Appr.
Sounding
pipe
(P/S) (P/S)
Appr. Appr.
Sounding
No.6 W.B. Tank (P/S) 50 + 14.00 51 - 15.00 Manhole
pipe
(P/S) (P/S)
Appr. Sounding Appr.

AFT Peak Tk 10+ -5 Manhole
2.00 (P) pipe 0.40 (P)
APPENDIX D – NATIONAL OR LOCAL REQUIREMENTS FOR THE CONTROL
AND MANAGEMENT OF BALLAST WATER AND SEDIMENTS
This section should be maintained up to date by the Ballast Water Management

Officer
List of countries and/or localities with ballast water management requirements contained in
this Appendix:
Regional requirements for Antarctic

National requirements for Argentina
Single port requirements for Buenos Aires, Argentina
National requirements for Australia
National requirements for Brazil
National requirements for Canada
Single port requirements for Vancouver, Canada
National requirements for Chile
National requirements for Colombia
National requirements for Georgia
National requirements for Israel
Single port requirements for Klaipeda, Lithuania
National requirements for New Zealand
National requirements for Panama
National requirements for Peru
Single port requirements for Novorossiysk, Russia
National requirements for Ukraine
National requirements for United States of America
Regional or single port requirements for Orkney Islands, U.K.
Regional requirements for ROPME Sea Area
Regional requirements for Norway
Regional requirements for Mediterranean Sea
Regional requirements for Malaysia
Regional requirements for North East Atlantic and the
Baltic Sea
MEPC 56/23
ANNEX 4
Page 1
ANNEX 4
RESOLUTION MEPC.163(56)
Adopted on 13 July 2007
GUIDELINES FOR BALLAST WATER EXCHANGE IN THE

ANTARCTIC TREATY AREA
THE MARINE ENVIRONMENT PROTECTION COMMITTEE,
RECALLING Article 38(a) of the Convention on the International Maritime Organization

concerning the functions of the Marine Environment Protection Committee conferred upon it by
the international conventions for the prevention and control of marine pollution,
RECALLING ALSO that the International Conference on Ballast Water Management for
Ships held in February 2004 adopted the International Convention for the Control and
Management of Ships’ Ballast Water and Sediments, 2004 (Ballast Water Management
Convention),
MINDFUL of Article 13 of the Ballast Water Management Convention which provides

that in order to further the objectives of the Convention, Parties with common interests to protect
the environment, human health, property and resources in a given geographical area, in
particular, those Parties bordering enclosed and semi-enclosed seas, shall endeavour, taking into
account characteristic regional features, to enhance regional co-operation, including through the
conclusion of regional agreements consistent with the Ballast Water Management Convention,
BEING AWARE of the designation of Antarctica as a Special Conservation Area and of

the measures adopted under the Antarctic Treaty to protect the Antarctic environment and
dependent and associated ecosystems,
BEING AWARE ALSO of the requirements of Annex II to the Protocol on

Environmental Protection to the Antarctic Treaty regarding conservation of Antarctic fauna and
flora and in particular of the precautions taken to prevent the introduction of non-native species
to the Antarctic Treaty area,
NOTING that Article 18 of the Ballast Water Management Convention provides that it
shall enter into force twelve months after the date on which not less than thirty States, the
combined merchant fleets of which constitute not less than thirty-five percent of the gross
tonnage of the world’s merchant shipping, have become Parties to it in accordance with
Article 17 of the Convention and noting further that the Ballast Water Management Convention
is yet to enter into force,
CONSCIOUS of the potential for invasive marine organisms to be transported into, or

moved between biologically distinct regions within the Antarctic Treaty area by ships in their
ballast water,
MEPC 56/23
ANNEX 4
Page 2
HAVING CONSIDERED the draft Guidelines for ballast water exchange in the Antarctic
Treaty area and the recommendation made by the Sub-Committee on Bulk Liquids and Gases at
its eleventh session,
MEPC 56/23
ANNEX 4
Page 3
1. ADOPTS the Guidelines for ballast water exchange in the Antarctic Treaty area as set out
in the annex to this resolution;
2. INVITES Governments to apply the Guidelines as soon as possible, as an interim

measure for all ships entering Antarctic Treaty area before the Ballast Water Management
Convention comes into force; and
3. AGREES to keep the Guidelines under review.

MEPC 56/23
ANNEX 4
Page 4
ANNEX
GUIDELINES FOR BALLAST WATER EXCHANGE IN THE

ANTARCTIC TREATY AREA
1 The application of these Guidelines should apply to those vessels covered by Article 3 of
the International Convention for the Control and Management of Ships’ Ballast Water and
Sediments (the Ballast Water Management Convention), taking into account the exceptions in
regulation A-3 of the Convention. These Guidelines do not replace the requirements of the
Ballast Water Management Convention, but provide an interim Ballast Water Regional
Management Plan for Antarctica under Article 13(3).
2 If the safety of the ship is in any way jeopardized by a ballast exchange, it should not take
place. Additionally these guidelines do not apply to the uptake or discharge of ballast water and
sediments for ensuring the safety of the ship in emergency situations or saving life at sea in
Antarctic waters.
3 A Ballast Water Management Plan should be prepared for each vessel with ballast tanks
entering Antarctic waters, specifically taking into account the problems of ballast water exchange
in cold environments and in Antarctic conditions.
4 Each vessel entering Antarctic waters should keep a record of ballast water operations.
5 For vessels needing to discharge ballast water within the Antarctic Treaty area, ballast
water should first be exchanged before arrival in Antarctic waters (preferably north of either the
Antarctic Polar Frontal Zone or 60oS, whichever is the furthest north) and at least 200 nautical
miles from the nearest land in water at least 200 metres deep. (If this is not possible for
operational reasons then such exchange should be undertaken in waters at least 50 nautical miles
from the nearest land in waters of at least 200 metres depth).
6 Only those tanks that will be discharged in Antarctic waters would need to undergo
ballast water exchange following the procedure in paragraph 5. Ballast water exchange of all
tanks is encouraged for all vessels that have the potential/capacity to load cargo in Antarctica, as
changes in routes and planned activities are frequent during Antarctic voyages due to changing
meteorological and sea conditions.
7 If a vessel has taken on ballast water in Antarctic waters and is intending to discharge
ballast water in Arctic, sub-Arctic, or sub-Antarctic waters, it is recommended that ballast water
should be exchanged north of the Antarctic Polar Frontal Zone, and at least 200 nautical miles
from the nearest land in water at least 200 metres deep. (If this is not possible for operational
reasons then such exchange should be undertaken in waters at least 50 nautical miles from the
nearest land in waters of at least 200 metres depth.)
8 Release of sediments during the cleaning of ballast tanks should not take place in
Antarctic waters.
MEPC 56/23
ANNEX 4
Page 5
9 For vessels that have spent significant time in the Arctic, ballast water sediment should
preferably be discharged and tanks cleaned before entering Antarctic waters (south of 60oS).
If this cannot be done then sediment accumulation in ballast tanks should be monitored and
sediment should be disposed of in accordance with the ship’s Ballast Water Management Plan.
If sediments are disposed of at sea, then they should be disposed of in waters at least 200 nautical
miles from the shoreline in waters at least 200 metres deep.
10 Governments are invited to exchange information on invasive marine species or anything

that will change the perceived risk associated with ballast water.
***

!
"##$
% &' () &'(&'(% *
+ , - ! !+*- *+
. ) !
+ &'(
% % +/0 1 /
%2
1&
+ ,
- + $ )"
,3(456*#$!

7+ , 1

78 9 8+!
3 -%
!
&+ &' %+
- % %+ 1%+ )
% % !

.
8+

% . %+
% %
+
2
3 &
3 +
:2 ; ( 3 % 7
3-9
% !<
/6/=>- ??=/>' !<
/@"A> ?//=>' !<
%8 ( B

C
&

!
"##0
% In addition to national requirements above ships are required to treat ballast
water with chlorine if ballast has been taken up in a WHO listed cholera high
risk area. Chlorine dilution is specified as 50ltrs chlorine to 100tonnes of
ballast water. It is understood that if the vessel has no chlorine it can be
provided at the Racalada pilot station.

D D

! )
!

=00"
% ) : 8B%+ %
& +
'
E 8% + +
> !

% )

&+ ) *
"!28% !
=!<+ /)8
!
"! % 8 8

- - 8
- !! !

=!'
%
!
/! ) %!

) %!
%
%+
&' 2

%+
%

2 -

- D !
3 . % D * 3 D3D
3 + % +

3 % ) % 8 +
. % %
!
+ + %
11+++!!!1. 1 1 1%1 .

2 F
.
+ %
11+++! ! !!1+ 1%+ 1 !

Seaports Program
Australian Ballast Water

Management Requirements
Version 5
7 London Circuit Canberra City ACT GPO Box 858 Canberra ACT 2601 ph +61 2 6272 3933 www.daff.gov.au ABN 24 113 085 695
Contents
Contents...................................................................................................................................................................................................... 2
Introduction .............................................................................................................................................................................................. 3
Background ............................................................................................................................................................................................... 3
Mandatory Ballast Water Management Requirements ......................................................................................................... 3
High Risk Ballast Water ....................................................................................................................................................................... 3
Ballast Water Management Options .............................................................................................................................................. 4
Practical Considerations ..................................................................................................................................................................... 6
Safety Considerations ........................................................................................................................................................................... 7
Ballast Water Reporting ...................................................................................................................................................................... 7
Ballast Water Exchange Calculations ............................................................................................................................................ 8
Further Advice & Information .......................................................................................................................................................... 9
Detailed Version History ................................................................................................................................................................... 10
Attachment 1: Ballast Water Pump Test ....................................................................................................................... 11
Attachment 2: Examples of Ballast Water Exchange Calculations ..................................................................... 12
Sequential Exchange ........................................................................................................................................................................... 12
Flow-through / Dilution Calculations ......................................................................................................................................... 12
 Commonwealth of Australia
Version Date: 5-09/2013 Page 2 of 13
Introduction
On 1 July 2001, Australia introduced mandatory ballast water management requirements (the
requirements) to reduce the risk of introducing harmful aquatic organisms into Australia’s marine
environment through ballast water from international vessels.
These requirements are enforceable under the Quarantine Act 1908.
Background
The Department of Agriculture (the department) is the lead agency of the Australian Government for the
regulation of ballast water taken up by international vessels. The department is responsible for ensuring that
foreign ballast water intended for discharge inside Australia’s territorial sea (the area within 12 nautical miles
of the Australian coastal baseline) has been managed in accordance with Australia’s requirements.
Ballast water that has been exchanged at sea by an approved method is deemed to be acceptable for
discharge in Australian ports / waters.
Ballast water reporting and management verification form an integral part of the requirements.
The requirements are consistent with the International Maritime Organisation (IMO) Ballast Water Convention
that aims to minimise the translocation of harmful aquatic species in ships’ ballast water and ballast tank
sediments.
There are some practical refinements in the Australian requirements that are not identified in the IMO
guidelines. Mariners are advised to take notice of these refinements, which are under the heading ’Practical
Considerations’.
During ballast water exchanges, the safety of a vessel and its’ crew are of paramount importance. Mariners
undertaking ballast water management to comply with Australian requirements must pay primary attention to
the safety of the vessel and crew at all times.
This particularly applies to vessels using the Sequential Exchange (Empty / Refill) method. Vessel stability,
stresses and sloshing at every stage of a planned operation including the ‘half full tank’ situation must be pre-
calculated before execution of the planned operation.
Mandatory Ballast Water Management Requirements

The discharge of high-risk ballast water in Australian ports or waters is prohibited.
All internationally plying vessels intending to discharge ballast water anywhere inside the Australian territorial
sea are required to manage their ballast water in accordance with Australia’s mandatory ballast water
management requirements.
High Risk Ballast Water

Australian Government Requirements
The department deems all salt water from ports and coastal waters outside Australia’s territorial sea to be a
’high-risk’ and capable of introducing exotic marine pests into Australia.
The discharge of high-risk ballast water from ships is prohibited anywhere inside Australia’s territorial sea.
Ballast water of the following types is deemed by the department to be ‘low-risk’:
• Fresh potable water sourced from a municipal water supply, with supporting documentation -
Relative Density 1.002 or less at 15oC and 1000 hPa atmospheric pressure
• Ballast water that has been exchanged at an approved location (mid-ocean) by an approved method
• Ballast water of which at least 95 per cent was taken up in mid-ocean
• Ballast water of which at least 95 per cent was taken up inside Australia’s territorial sea.
Note: The uptake of Australian port water to dilute high risk ballast water for discharge at the same port of call
is not permitted.
Australian State/Territory Government Requirements

The department does not regulate the management of ballast water taken up within Australia’s territorial sea
and domestic ports. This is managed by the State or Territory Government agencies responsible for the port
location.
Victoria, one of seven Australian states / territories, has additional requirements for the management of
Australian sourced domestic ballast water which are enforced by the Victorian State Government Environment
Protection Authority (EPA) under the Environment Protection Act 1970.
Victoria’s requirements regulate the management of ballast water taken up within Australia’s territorial sea
and within domestic ports. The Victorian EPA requires all vessels intending to visit a Victorian port to submit a
ballast water report form and log detailing the origin of all ballast water on board. No domestic ballast water
discharge is permitted in Victorian waters unless approval has been granted by the EPA in writing.
If domestic ballast water is intended to be discharged within Victorian waters (12nm off the coast) and ports,
it must be managed in accordance with the Victorian requirements which can be viewed and downloaded
from the Victorian EPA website Victorian EPA Ballast Water.
The Victorian EPA maintains a 24 hour helpline for ballast water enquiries and can be contacted by phone on
+61 3 9695 2547.
However, AQIS retains the responsibility for the regulation of foreign sourced ballast water in Victorian ports.
For every vessel visiting Australia, it is the Master’s responsibility to ascertain what additional State / Territory
Government ballast water management requirements, over and above the AQIS requirements must be met
for each Australian port on their vessel’s itinerary.
For every vessel visiting Australia, it is the Master’s responsibility to ascertain what additional State / Territory
Government ballast water management requirements, over and above the department requirements must be
met for each Australian port on their vessel’s itinerary.
Ballast Water Management Options

The IMO Ballast Water Convention requires all vessels to have onboard a ‘Ballast Water Management Plan’
specifically for that vessel. The vessels’ ‘Ballast Water Management Plan’ must provide detailed instructions
for the ships’ crew to manage ballast water safely with due regard to weather, vessel stresses and vessel
stability and sloshing*. The management of all ballast water must be undertaken in accordance with that plan.
The Convention also requires vessels to maintain a ‘Ballast Water Record Book’ to record the management of
all ballast water taken up and discharged by the vessel.
Mariners may use any of the following ballast water management options which have been approved by the
department.
Non-discharge of ‘high-risk’ ballast water in Australian ports or waters

Vessels that do not intend to discharge any ballast water in Australian waters are not legally required to carry
out any management of foreign ballast water. The carriage of high-risk ballast water into the territorial sea is
strongly discouraged by the department.
Mariners are cautioned that the department will only grant permission to discharge high-risk ballast inside
Australian waters where there is a clear and immediate safety risk to the vessel and crew, and it is not possible
for the vessel to be safely diverted beyond Australia’s territorial sea to conduct a ballast water exchange. The
department will assess such circumstances on a case by case basis.
Vessel Masters are advised to manage all ballast water on board a vessel as if it will have to be discharged in
Australian waters. In the event of unforeseen circumstances, whereby it becomes necessary to discharge
some ballast water, Masters must obtain written permission from the department prior to discharging any
ballast water. Permission may be granted, provided the ballast water in question has been properly managed
prior to arrival in Australian waters.
Vessels that repeatedly fail to manage all ballast water prior to entering the territorial sea may be required, at
their own expense, to employ independent marine surveyors on arrival and departure, from every Australian
port of call to formally certify that no high-risk ballast water has been discharged during the vessel’s visit to
Australia.
Tank-to-tank transfers
While the carriage of high risk ballast water into the Australian territorial sea is legal, the department strongly
discourages vessel Masters from doing so. It is also permissible to move high-risk ballast water around
between tanks within a vessel inside the territorial sea.
Masters of vessels who undertake tank to tank transfers of ballast water must be vigilant to ensure that the
risk of unauthorised ballast discharging during the transfer operation is assessed and managed appropriately.
Severe penalties apply under s78 of the Quarantine Act 1908 for the unauthorised discharge of ballast water
in Australian waters. Additional penalties may also apply under State Government EPA legislation.
Car Carriers
Australia recognises that purpose built car carriers and other specialist vessels may have difficulty in
conducting exchanges of all ballast water due to stability / stress considerations. In recognition that car
carriers would not usually need to discharge ballast water in Australian ports / waters, the department
recommends that this type of vessel exchanges ballast water in the following types of tank:
• Tanks that need to be discharged inside Australia’s territorial sea

• Tanks that may need to be transferred within the vessel to compensate for changes to trim or list
caused by cargo operations. Both source and target tanks intended to be used for transfers must
contain only low risk ballast water so that in the event of accidental overflows, only low-risk ballast
water will escape into the Australian marine environment.
Full Ballast Water Exchange at Sea
 Sequential exchange (empty/refill) method

 Flow-through exchange method
 Dilution exchange method.
Each of the above methods have been tested and results demonstrate that if carried out correctly, are capable
of achieving the necessary 95% (or better) volumetric exchange of high-risk ballast water. Ballast water
exchanges must be conducted outside the Australian territorial sea. It is also recommended that ballast
exchanges be conducted as far away as possible from any land mass and in water 200m deep.
Sequential Exchange (empty / refill) Method

This method involves emptying tanks (one or two or a few at a time) of high-risk ballast water at sea before
refilling them with clean water from the deep ocean. It is important to ensure that the ballast mix achieved by
this method contains no more than 5% of high-risk ballast water.
Not all ships are able to empty ballast tanks at sea due to considerations of stability, stress and sloshing ¹.
Masters should verify that their ships’ design parameters for stress, stability and sloshing will not be
compromised at any stage of a planned sequential exchange operation.
The reduction in positive stability caused by free surface effect in slack tanks during sequential exchanges
must be taken into account by mariners using this method.
Flow-through Exchange Method

At least 300% of a tank’s maximum capacity² of clean water from the deep ocean must be pumped into each
tank to achieve an acceptable 95% volumetric exchange.
Even when, at the start of a flow through operation, a tank is only partially filled with high-risk ballast water, at
least 300% of the tank’s maximum capacity* must still be pumped into the tank to comply with Australian
requirements. The 300% capacity is measured from when water begins to flow into a tank. In the case of a
tank that is not completely full at the commencement of a flow through operation, 300% of the tank’s full
capacity still starts to be measured from when pumping starts, not from when the tank starts to overflow.
 *Sloshing – the official term for the movement of water in a slack tank. Such movement can be so
violent as to cause damage to structural steelwork inside a vessels’ tank.
 *Maximum Capacity – the volume contained by a tank when it is completely full. The IMO Convention
refers to ‘tank volume’ and states that three times a tank’s ’volume’ must be flushed through. This
has led to ambiguity and some vessels have only pumped in three times the ‘contents’ of a tank which
is not acceptable.
Dilution Exchange Method

Some vessels, mainly tankers are fitted with extra piping / pumping arrangements. On some of these vessels,
ballast may be pumped in through one side of a tank and out through the other side simultaneously (pumping
in / pumping out, as opposed to pumping in / simply overflowing out).
This type of flushing using two pumps is acceptable. As for ‘flow-through’, at least 300% of each tank’s
maximum capacity must be flushed through for an acceptable exchange.
The department will verify that ballast exchanges have been carried out correctly in accordance with the
law. The verification process involves an examination of real-time records about ballast exchange
operations, which must be kept by the vessel.
Practical Considerations
Masters must pay attention to the following when conducting Sequential Exchanges
Soundings of tanks must be taken at the end of the ‘empty phase’ of the empty refill exchanges and
corresponding residual volumes must be recorded in a vessels official log book or ballast log so that the
make-up of the ballast mixture to be discharged in Australian waters can be verified by the department on
arrival at an Australian port. The acceptable criterion for ballast water discharge is at least 95% managed
water to a maximum of 5% unmanaged water in any mixture to be discharged.
Masters must pay attention to the following when conducting Flow-through Exchanges
Tanks may be flushed one at a time or in similar pairs. For example: Double Bottom Tanks 1 Port and
Starboard may be pumped simultaneously using a single pressure source.
It is not acceptable to flush dissimilar pairs of tanks (e.g. DBT1 P and DBT 2S) together (see examples
below).
The reason for this is that dissimilar tanks being flushed together using a single pressure source receive
unequal quantities of water from the pump. Under these circumstances it is difficult to determine the
volume of water supplied to each tank.
Flushing dissimilar tanks together does not comply with Australian requirements
Mariners should note that the use of two or more pumps simultaneously into common lines still
constitutes a single pressure source
Estimating the quantity of water flushed through each tank involves estimating the delivery rate of ballast
pumps and timing the hours of running of those pumps. It should be noted that pumps do not deliver their
rated capacity.
The actual delivery rate of a ship’s ballast pump depends on the following factors:
• Wear and tear on pumps / pipes etc.
• Depth underwater of sea inlet (ship’s draught)
• Horizontal and vertical distance of each tank from the pump (friction / gravity)
• Vessel trim (trim by stern = pump uphill = gravity to overcome)
• Variations in ballast main diameter.
To ensure that sufficient water has been flushed through a tank to satisfy Australian requirements, the
department strongly recommend mariners test and record their ballast pumps’ delivery rates as follows:
The Fore Peak Tank (FPT) is the most distant tank from the ballast pumps on most vessels. Most FPTs have a
portion above the waterline. Most ballast mains (pipes) incorporate a series of reductions in diameter and
changes in direction between the pump and the FPT.
The combination of all of these factors leads to a particular pump on a particular vessel delivering less water
per hour to the FPT than it would to any other tank on that vessel.
It is therefore recommended that mariners test their ballast pumps by filling the forepeak from empty (as
proven by a manual sounding) until it overflows, and timing the operation.
If more than one ballast pump is fitted, each pump should be tested s ep ar at ely . If two pumps are
intended to be used together in flow through operations, a separate test using both pumps together should
be conducted. The quantity delivered by two pumps operating together into a common line would usually
be less than the sum of each pump’s individual delivery rate. Since it would be unusual to use two
pumps to fill up a FPT, the test of combined tanks would be acceptable if it is carried out on two other
forward tanks, ideally above the waterline eg TSTs 1P and S.
A template for documenting ballast pump tests is available at Attachment 1.
Safety Considerations
Where full ballast water exchange has not been undertaken due to safety reasons (weather, sea conditions or
operational impracticability), the Master should report this to the department as soon as possible prior to
entering Australia’s territorial sea. Under no circumstances should this information be sent to the department
any later than the submission of the Quarantine Pre-Arrival Report (QPAR). The QPAR must be forwarded to
the department between 96 and 12 hours prior to arrival from an overseas place at an Australian port. The
QPAR is usually sent to the department via ships’ local Australian agents.
Alternative Ballast Water Management Methods

Vessels wishing to use alternative methods for ballast water management that are not specified above should
apply in writing to the department before the event. Vessels that cannot comply with the requirements due to
design considerations should contact the department in writing before arrival in the territorial sea to seek
further advice from the National Seaports Program Canberra.
Vessels arriving in Australian ports without having managed their ballast water by an approved method will be
refused permission to discharge their ballast water in Australian ports or waters.
Ballast Water Reporting

All vessels arriving in Australia from international waters are required to submit a Quarantine Pre- Arrival
Report (QPAR) to the department between 12-96 hours prior to entering Australian waters. The QPAR may be
submitted electronically which is the department preferred method of submission (eQPAR), or by email or fax
(QPAR).
Masters / agents who do not submit the QPAR to the department will not be given formal the department
clearance to enter port. This will cause delays to the vessel and additional the department charges will be
incurred by the vessel.
The QPAR also requires Masters to declare whether or not they have complied with Australia’s mandatory
ballast water management requirements. All vessels require the department permission to discharge ballast
water in Australian waters.
Masters must also complete the ‘Ballast Water Management Summary’ (form 26) with details about ballast
water uptake ports, ocean exchanges. The details on the Ballast Water Management Summary form should
be a duplication of the vessels own ballast water recordings from the vessels log book or ballast log.
The department Ballast Water Management Summary (ABWMS) is intended to summarise the real- time
records of ballast water management conducted at sea. This form is required to be sent to the department
pre-arrival with the QPAR if the vessel plans to discharge ballast water. Although not mandatory, the
department prefers that ABWMS forms are also submitted with the QPAR to the Maritime National
Coordination Centre (MNCC).
If details / intentions about the discharge of foreign sourced ballast water (as originally submitted to the
department) changes for any reason, a revised BWMS must be sent to the MNCC for verification prior to the
vessel discharging any ballast water.
Once the BWMS is received the MNCC will verify the ballast management of the vessel, and if compliant
written permission to discharge will be granted by the department.
If the vessel Master / agent do not submit a completed BWMS with the QPAR prior to arrival the vessel will
not be permitted to discharge ballast in Australian waters until a physical inspection has occurred and written
permission is given
Completed originals of these forms including any comments by the department on the back of the form, must
be retained on the vessel for a period of two years and provided to the department on request.
Verification Inspections
The department officers will conduct ballast water verification inspections onboard vessels to ensure
compliance with Australia’s ballast water management requirements.
The department officers will use the QPAR, the BWMS and the vessel’s deck, engineering and ballast water
management logs to verify that the information supplied to the department is correct.
The verification inspection will take around 30 minutes to complete and in most cases will be conducted at the
same time as a routine vessel inspection.
Tank stripping
Sediments from ballast tanks must not be discharged in Australian waters.
Ballast tank stripping using pumps that are permanent fixtures on a vessel is acceptable. The use of portable
pumps to strip out ballast tanks is not permitted.
If ballast tank sediment is manually removed from tanks, the sedimentary material must not be dumped in
Australian ports / waters. Sedimentary material from ballast tanks may be landed as biosecurity waste in some
Australian ports, or it can be dumped back into the sea in deep water, which is at least 200m deep and
outside the 12nm limit but preferably beyond 200nm from land.
Ballast Water Exchange Calculations

Acceptable ballast water exchanges must achieve at least a 95% dilution of high-risk ballast water with clean
seawater from the deep ocean:
1. Sequential Exchange (Empty / Refill) Operations

 At least 95% of the water in a given tank must have been drawn from the deep ocean on arrival
in Australia. Residual high-risk ballast that remains in a tank at the end of the ‘emptying phase’ of
an exchange operation must be less than 5% of the total volume contained in the tank on arrival
in Australian waters.
 Masters/Chief Officers must record t h e soundings and corresponding volume of residual
water at the end of the ‘emptying phase’ of sequential exchange operations in the vessels
official log book or ballast log book. Masters must also record times, dates, locations and
methods used (gravity / pumps / combination of gravity and pumps) to empty and refill all
tanks managed by this method.
2. Flow-through and Dilution Operations

 300% of the full capacity of every tank exchanged by either of these methods must be pumped
into the relevant tank using clean seawater from the deep ocean. Critical to the efficiency of this
method are the following:
- Only one similar pair of tanks may be flushed through simultaneously at any time
- Pumping hours to achieve the required 300% exchange should be calculated using the
measured pumping rate of ballast pumps (as per the pump test described above) rather
than the ‘rated’ pumping capacity of the new pumps as stated in manufacturers
specifications. A pump’s / piping system’s efficiency usually decreases with age.
If a tank initially contains more than 5% of its full capacity of high-risk ballast water, 300% of the tanks full
capacity must be pumped in to achieve the required 95% volumetric exchange.
Mariners are advised that 300% flushing is the minimum pumping requirement for ships using the flow-
through or dilution methods. It is advisable to exceed the minimum requirement of 300% to be sure of
achieving compliance with the requirements.
Further Advice & Information

Further information can be obtained by contacting the department.
Log on to our web site

Home page address: www.daff.gov.au/shipping
Contact us
For further information on the process to manage ballast water in Australian waters please contact your local
Department of Agriculture office.
Disclaimer
By accessing the information presented through this media, each user waives and releases the Commonwealth
of Australia to the full extent permitted by law from any and all claims relating to the usage of material or
information made available through the system. In no event shall the Commonwealth of Australia be liable for
any incidental or consequential damages resulting from use of the material. In particular and without limit to the
generality of the above, information provided in publications of the Commonwealth Government is considered to
be true and correct at the time of publication. Changes in circumstances after time of publication may impact on
the accuracy of this information and the Commonwealth Government gives no assurance as to the accuracy of
any information or advice contained.
Detailed Version History
The version information shown on the cover of this document relates to this version only.
Previous document versions are outlined below:
ELECTRONIC LOCATION: INSERT FILE PATH TO ELECTRONIC LOCATION

VERSION DATE REASON FOR ISSUE AUTHOR
5.3 1 August Review and update of document to reflect new BW management Seaports Program
2011 requirements.
5.4 29 Update ‘Contact us’ details Seaports Program

November
2011
5.5 18 April Review and update to demonstrate record start times of flow through Seaports Program
2013 operations on partially filled tanks and reflect the department
organizational name change
5.6 23 Update branding details Seaports Program

October
2013
Attachment 1: Ballast Water Pump Test
Vessel Name:………………………………………………………………………..
Lloyds Number: Port of Registry: Date Launched: ………………………………………………………………
ID of Ballast Pump(s) tested:………………………………………………………………………………………………..
Original Rated Capacity of Pump(s) tested:
Details of Tank(s) used in test: ……………………………………………………………………………………………

(Fore peak tank preferred for single pump tests, forward upper wing tanks preferred for
testing combined pumps)
a) Maximum Tank Capacity (m3): …………………………………………

b) Initial contents (m3): ………………………………………………………..
c) Time start pumping: ………………………………………………………….
d) Time tank overflowed: e) Hours Pumping (d – c): f) Volume pumped (a – b):
g) Pump’s delivery rate: (f ÷ e) per Hour …………………………………………………………………..
Master’s Signature: ………………………………………………………………………….
Chief Officer’s Signature: …………………………………………………………………
Ship’s Stamp:
NOTE: It is strongly recommended that pumps are tested at least every twelve
months
Attachment 2: Examples of Ballast Water Exchange Calculations
Sequential Exchange
Calculation Example 1
A vessel has a Fore Peak ballast tank with full capacity 2000 m³. The vessel’s Master wishes to arrive in an
Australian port with the Fore Peak only half full (1000 m³). Regardless of how much ’high-risk’ water is in
the tank before the exchange, the water in the tank must be exchanged so that after refilling, not more
than 5% of the resulting mixture in the tank is ’high-risk’ water. After pumping out (when suction on the
pump is lost), a sounding of the tank is taken and this shows that only 5 m³ remains.
In this situation, provided at least 95 m ³ of deep ocean water is added to the FPT, the resultant mixture
will be acceptable for discharge in Australian waters. The Master may fill the tank only to his desired volume
of 1000 m³ and the ballast water in the tank requires no further management.
A vessel has a centre line, double bottom tank beneath No.1 Cargo Hold (DB1C) with full capacity 6000 m³. The
vessel’s Master wishes to arrive in an Australian port with DB1C only filled to one third of its capacity (2000
m³).
After pumping out (when suction on the pump is lost), a sounding of the tank is taken and this shows that 250
m³ remains in the tank.
To achieve a 95% volumetric exchange in this tank, the Master has two options:
i) Fill the tank up to 5000 m³ and then pump out water until his desired level of 2000 m³ is reached.
ii) Strip the tank until only 100 m³ remains before refilling the tank to 2000 m³.
Flow-through / Dilution Calculations

A cape sized vessel (100,000 DWT) with nine cargo holds, has the following dedicated ballast tanks:
Tank / Hold Capacity Contents

3 3
Fore Peak 2000 m 1000 m
WBT 1P 3000 m
3 Full
WBT 1S 3000 m
3 Full
WBT 2P 4200 m
3 Full
WBT 2S 4200 m
3 Full
WBT 3P 3000 m
3
1200 m
3
WBT 3S 3000 m
3 Full
WBT 4P 4200 m
3 Full
WBT 4S 4200 m
3 Full
3 3
After Peak 1200 m 800 m
3
The ten-year-old vessel is fitted with two main ballast pumps each with a rated capacity of 2500 m /hr
when the vessel was new. From pump tests, the Chief Officer is aware that each of these pumps now
3 3
delivers about 2000 m /hr when used by itself or a total of 3700 m /hr when the pumps are used together.
Fore peak tank (capacity 2000 m³) initially contains 1000 m³ of high-risk ballast water. Master wishes to
exchange the tank’s contents in mid-ocean using the flow through method.
300% of the tank’s full capacity (i.e. 3 x 2000 m³) = 6000 m³.
Using only one pump, the Master must pump clean seawater into the tank for 3 hours. Using two pumps
together, the required pumping time would be 6000 ÷ 3700 = 1.62hrs (1h 37mins)
1 Pump delivers 2000 m³/hr = 6000 m³ in 3 hrs = 300% of tank’s FULL capacity.
2 Pumps deliver 3700 m³/hr = 6000 m³ in 1.62 hrs = 300% of tank’s FULL capacity.
Master wishes to use flow through method on WBT 1P, WBT 1S, WBT 2P and WBT 2S.
a) Acceptable
Using both ballast pumps together the master simultaneously flushes WBT 1P and 1S simultaneously for at
least 4.86 hours (combined capacity of 1P&S = 6000 m³, 4.86 hours pumping @ 3700 m³/hr = 18000 m³ =
300% of each tank’s full capacity).
After the ballast exchange in WBT 1P and S, those tanks are closed off and a new exchange begins on WBT 2P
and S simultaneously. No.2s, with combined capacity of
8,400 m³ require a further 6.81 hrs flushing with both pumps simultaneously
b) Unacceptable
Master uses both pumps to flush WBT 1P&S and WBT 2P&S (combined capacity = 14,400) simultaneously for
11.68 hrs. The pumps deliver the same quantity of water in total but it is impossible to say how much water
each tank received if this procedure is used. It is clear though that No.1s, being further from the pumps, will
receive less than No.2s.
Advice to Ships Masters on Ballast Water Record Keeping
In order to comply with Australian Ballast Water management requirements,
ships’ Masters must record the following ballast water information in the ship's
deck, engine room and/or dedicated ship's ballast water logbook. AQIS will seek
to verify reported ballast water management during the routine inspection that is
usually conducted at every vessel’s first port of arrival in Australia. Properly kept
ships’ records of ballast water management greatly assist vessels to avoid
disruption to their schedules in Australian ports / waters.
The required records of ballast water management must be produced for

inspection at any Australian port of call when requested by a Quarantine Officer.
The records are to be maintained in a clear and concise manner. All AQIS
reporting forms must be completed in English and be held on board the ship for a
period of no less than two years.
Approved ballast water exchange methods are described in the document:

‘Australian Ballast Water management requirements’.
INFORMATION TO RECORD ABOUT BALLAST OPERATIONS:
BW uptakes overseas:
• record start and finish dates, times and locations (24 hour clock, local
time, locations recorded either as a port of uptake or in latitude and
longitude co-ordinates)
• record the volume of all BW taken on board.
BW exchanges in the deep ocean:
All Methods:
• record start and finish dates, times and locations (24-hour clock, local
time, locations recorded as latitude and longitude co-ordinates).
Exchanges must be conducted outside the Australian 12 nm limit. AQIS
recommends that ocean exchanges should be conducted well away from
any land mass and in water of minimum depth 200m.
• method of exchange: acceptable methods at time of publication are:
Empty / Refill; Flow-Through and; Dilution.
• depth of water where BW exchanges were conducted (recommended
minimum depth 200 metres)
• BW pump/s used during each ballast operation
• records of BW pumps’ performance to demonstrate experiential pumping
capacity)
• amperage or kilowattage of the ships generators before, after and during
the ballast operation
• BW exchange percentage
• date when the BW sea suction strainers were last inspected. Are they in
good order and repair?
• record damage / repairs made to the BW equipment (including ballast
pumps, tanks, piping etc)
• full capacity and actual volume of the BW tank being exchanged .
For Empty / Refill method:
Record tank soundings / residual volume at end of emptying cycle
For Flow-Through and Dilution Methods:
Calculate and record total volume of water pumped for every tank and
determine percentage flushed through (must be at least 300% of each tank’s
FULL capacity).
AQIS DOCUMENTATION TO BE MAINTAINED AND HELD ON BOARD THE

SHIP FOR A PERIOD TWO YEARS:
• all Quarantine Pre-Arrival Reports

• all ships ballasting information entered into the Australian Ballast Water
Decision Support System (including lodgements sent by e-mail and
Inmarsat-C)
• AQIS Ballast Water Log
• AQIS documents releasing ballast water from quarantine when in
Australian waters and any quarantine directions issued by a quarantine
officer (where applicable).
• details of any ballast water treatment/exchange performed prior to entering
Australian ports or waters and any other information relating to the ships
current BW arrangements (for the purpose of AQIS compliance
verification)
• details of any unusual events regarding ballasting operations en-route to
Australia.
Ballast Water Management Plans (BWMP):
While it is not an AQIS requirement for ships to have a Ballast Water

Management Plan (BWMP) when entering Australian ports or waters, AQIS
recommends that vessels develop BWMPs in accordance with IMO guidelines.
The recommended methodology for vessels wishing to develop a BWMP is the
International Marine Organisation (IMO) ‘Model Ballast Water Management Plan’
as per IMO Resolution A.868 (20).
Guide to AQIS
forms for
vessel clearance
Edmund Barton Building Barton ACT GPO Box 858 Canberra ACT 2601 ph +61 2 6272 3933 www.aqis.gov.au ABN 24 113 085 695
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FORESTRY

Guide to AQIS forms for vessel clearance
Contents
GUIDE TO COMPLETING THE QUARANTINE PRE-ARRIVAL REPORT FORM (QPAR)................... 3
Section: 1 – Ship’s particulars for vessels’ first port of call in Australia.......................................................... 3
Section: 2 – Quarantine pre-arrival information............................................................................................... 5
Section: 3 – Ballast water management............................................................................................................. 8
Section: 4 – Declaration .................................................................................................................................. 11
COMPLETING THE QUARANTINE PRE-ARRIVAL REPORT FORM (QPAR) - TELEX VERSION ...... 12
Section: 1 – Ship’s particulars for vessels’ first port of call in Australia........................................................ 12
Section: 2 – Quarantine pre-arrival information............................................................................................. 13
Section: 3– Ballast water management............................................................................................................ 15
GUIDE TO COMPLETING THE AQIS BALLAST WATER LOG.................................................................. 17

General ............................................................................................................................................................ 17
Special Instructions for Masters ...................................................................................................................... 17
Completing the AQIS Ballast Water Log ......................................................................................................... 18
Top Section - Vessel details......................................................................................................................... 18
Column A - Ballast water tanks/cargo holds............................................................................................... 18
Column B - Ballast water source ................................................................................................................ 18
Column C - Exchange ................................................................................................................................. 18
Column D - Intended Australian Discharge Port for Ballast Water........................................................... 19
Bottom section............................................................................................................................................. 19
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION........................................................................................................................ 20
Page 2 of 20
GUIDE TO COMPLETING THE QUARANTINE PRE-ARRIVAL

REPORT FORM (QPAR)
The Quarantine Pre-Arrival Report form (QPAR) is divided into four sections:
1. ship’s particulars for vessels’ first port of call in Australia

2. quarantine Pre-arrival information
3. ballast water management
4. declaration.
Ships’ Agents or Masters are required to fill out each section according to the instructions in
this guide.
Section: 1 – Ship’s particulars for vessels’ first port of call in

Australia
In Section: 1, you must enter your vessel’s details in order to obtain Quarantine Clearance to
berth and discharge ballast water in Australian waters.
Ship’s particulars for vessels first port of call in Australia
1. Vessel Name: enter the current name of the vessel
2. Voyage Number: enter the current voyage number of the vessel
3. IMO/Lloyds Number: enter the vessel’s IMO/Lloyd’s number
4. Radio Call Sign: enter the current call sign of the vessel
5. Last Port of Call: enter the vessel’s last port of call
6. ETA Anchorage at First Port of Call: if the vessel intends to anchor prior to berthing at the
first Australian port, provide the vessel’s expected time
at anchorage, using the 24hr clock
7. ETA Berth at First Port of Call: using the 24hr clock, provide the vessel’s expected
berthing time at the first Australian port.
8. First Australian Port: enter the vessel’s first Australian port of call.
9. Berth: if known, provide name and/or number of berth - an

‘Unknown’ answer will be accepted.
10. ETD First Port of Call: enter the expected time and date of departure from the
first Australian port of call.
11. Next Port of Call: enter the vessel’s next port of call. If for any reason,
the next port is unknown at time of reporting, an
‘Unknown’ answer will be accepted.
12. Net Tonnage: enter the net tonnage of the vessel.
13. Number of Cargo Holds/Tanks/Decks: indicate the number of cargo holds, tanks or decks
within the vessel.
14. Vessel Type: describe the type of vessel (eg. bulk carrier,
passenger, livestock, etc).
Page 3 of 20
15. Country of Registry: enter the country where the vessel is registered.
16. De-ratting / Exemption Cert. Issue Date: enter the date the certificate was issued.
17. Port of Issue: enter the port the Deratting / Deratting Exemption
Certificate was issued.
Please indicate if any details relating to your vessel (eg. name, call-sign) have changed since its last
voyage to Australia. Failure to do so may result in unnecessary delays in processing the QPAR form.
If information, such as berthing details, is unknown at the time of reporting, please state ‘Unknown’.
Any changes to arrival or departure times must be reported to AQIS
Page 4 of 20
Section: 2 – Quarantine pre-arrival information

This section is designed to assist AQIS in understanding the present quarantine condition of
your vessel.
Quarantine condition includes human, animal and plant health, sanitation and waste. Details
relating to these aspects are used to determine the potential quarantine risk of your vessel.
Questions 18 & 19 – reporting human health by exception
Questions 18 & 19 require details of the health of the crew and/or passengers only if there have been
incidences of illness of an infectious nature, or if deaths have occurred. If there is a change in the health
status after quarantine clearance has been granted and prior to berthing, AQIS must be notified
immediately.
18. Have there been any deaths amongst the crew or passengers during the current voyage?
YES ‫ ڤ‬NO ‫ٱ‬
If YES, please state number of deaths ( ) and cause:
Should a death or illness have occurred on the current voyage, enter the number of deaths / illnesses and
cause as determined / suspected by the vessel’s medical officer or Master.
19. Is there any person on the vessel during the voyage suffering from an illness that may have been
caused by an infectious disease?
If YES, please state number of people with illness ( ) and cause:
Question 20 – animals on board

Question 20 requires details of any animals on board, including birds, fish, cats, dogs and monkeys.
20. Are there any animals on board the vessel? (Including birds & fish)
If YES, please give a description of the animal/s:
Details about the type, number and location of animal/s should be provided in the space under question 20. All
animals will be subject to inspection at the vessel’s first Australian port of call.
Questions 21, 22 & 23 – Asian gypsy moth

Questions 21, 22 & 23, require details relating to visits to Russian Far East Ports and Asian gypsy moth
clearance.
21. In the past two years has your vessel been in any Russian Far East Port/s between 40° N, 60° N
and west of 147° E during any period between July and September?
(If NO, go to Question 24).
Page 5 of 20
22. If YES, since your last visit to the port/s, has your vessel been inspected and cleared as being
free of ASIAN GYPSY MOTH by agricultural authorities in Australia, Canada, New Zealand or the
USA?
(If YES, please forward relevant certificate to AQIS).
23. If NO, do you have a certificate on board the vessel issued by Russian Agricultural Authorities
during your last visit to a Russian Far East Port, certifying that they had inspected the vessel and
found it free of ASIAN GYPSY MOTH egg masses?
(If YES, please forward relevant certificate to AQIS).
If your vessel has been issued certificates by agricultural authorities in Australia, Canada, New Zealand,
USA or Russia indicating that it has been inspected and declared free of Asian gypsy moth, please ensure
that a copy of the certificate is sent to AQIS with the QPAR form. AQIS will assess the validity of the
certificate and indicate what procedures need to be taken. Vessels without valid certificates will be inspected
on arrival at relevant Australian ports.
Questions 24 & 25 – livestock, grain and meal

Questions 24 & 25 require advice about whether your vessel has carried livestock, grain or meal in the
last ten cargoes.
24. Have you carried livestock, grain or meal in the last 10 cargoes?
(If NO, go to question 26).
25. If YES, list below the type of cargoes, the loading port/s, the discharge port/s and cleaning
performed since the livestock, grain or meal cargo was discharged. Livestock/Grain/Meal (Delete
whichever inapplicable).
If your vessel has carried livestock (live animals as cargo, not ship’s pets - which are covered in question 20);
grain (including seeds) or meal (organic fertiliser, stock feed or meal that contains processed animal, plant or fish
products) in its last ten cargoes, you are required to provide details of the product, the loading and discharging
ports and the cleaning procedures that have been performed. Please forward any cleaning certificates to AQIS
with this form. These three commodities are of quarantine concern due to potential contamination risks.
Question 26 – bees
Question 26 requires advice about whether you are confident there are no bees on board.
26. After the examination of the vessel and its cargo since leaving the last port of call, did you
discover any BEES on board?
AQIS relies on vessel crews to examine their vessel and its cargo soon after it has left its last port of call.
Incursions of exotic bees in Australia have been attributed to ‘hitch-hikers’ on commercial vessels. If bees are
found on board, their discovery must be recorded on the QPAR form.
Page 6 of 20
Question 27 & 28 – crew changes and passengers disembarking

27. Will there be any crew changes or disembarking passengers while the vessel is in any Australian
port of call?
YES‫ ڤ‬NO ‫ٱ‬
Indicate whether crew or passengers will be permanently leaving the vessel while in any Australian
port.
28. If YES, specify the port/s and the number of crew/passengers that will be signing
off/disembarking.
Indicate at which port/s crew will be signing off or passenger will be disembarking the vessel.
Page 7 of 20
Section: 3 – Ballast water management
In this section, you are required to provide details about the ship’s intended ballast water discharge
and to advise AQIS whether or not the ship has performed any ballast water treatment / exchanges at
sea prior to entering Australian ports or waters. This section also indicates whether or not the ship
has performed a risk assessment using the AQIS Ballast Water Decision Support System (BWDSS)
prior to arrival in Australian ports or waters.
Enter the name and IMO/Lloyd’s number of the vessel in the first section at the top of the page.
Name of Vessel: IMO/Lloyd’s No:
You must answer the ballast water management questions and follow the instructions that relate to
the response provided.
Question 29 & 30 – Intention to discharge ballast water

29. Do you intend discharging any ballast water in Australian ports or waters?
(If NO, go to Declaration).
If the answer to this question is YES, the vessel must have performed an approved treatment on all high-risk
ballast water prior to discharge in Australian ports or waters. If the answer to this question is NO, you may
proceed directly to the Declaration. Mariners are advised to manage all ballast water as though it will need
to be discharged in Australian waters so that in the event of unforeseen circumstances, permission to
discharge the ballast water may be given. Refer also to relevant section in ‘Australian Ballast Water
management requirements’.
30. If YES, indicate all ports / locations of intended ballast water discharge in Australia.
1st port; 2nd port; 3rd port; 4th port; 5th port; 6th port; etc.
Question 30 requires information on all ports of intended ballast water discharge. Please list all ports of call
in sequential order of visit. If discharge is not intended in any Australian ports or waters this question does
not need to be answered.
Question 31 – ballast water exchanges

Question 31 relates to ballast water exchange undertaken by the vessel en-route to Australia. Vessels
that have undertaken full ballast water exchange at sea (without having performed an AQIS BWDSS risk
assessment) prior to entering Australian ports or waters should answer YES to this question.
31. Have you undertaken a full ballast water exchange at sea (independent of an AQIS BWDSS
report) in a manner consistent with IMO guidelines, before arrival in Australian ports or waters?
YES‫ ڤ‬NO ‫ٱ‬
(If YES, go to question 37).
Questions 32 and 33– Compliance Agreements
32. Does your vessel have a current Compliance Agreement with AQIS?
(If NO, go to question 34).
Page 8 of 20
At the time of printing, there are no current compliance agreements for ballast water management between
any vessels / fleets and AQIS. At this stage, AQIS attends and inspects 100% of vessels arriving in Australia
from overseas. Compliance agreements may be reintroduced in the future. All vessels should answer No to
this question in the meantime.
33. If YES, are you operating in accordance with this Compliance Agreement during the current
voyage to Australia?
(If YES, go to Declaration).
(See notes for Q32).
Questions 34 and 35 – Ballast Water Decision Support System (BWDSS)
Refer also to the attached document ‘The Ballast Water Decision Support System’.
The BWDSS is an automated computer application that allows vessels to submit information about foreign ballast
water uptakes and intended Australian discharge locations. The BWDSS automatically performs risk
assessments based on data submitted and assigns a unique risk assessment number for each submission. The
risk assessment numbers are specific to the voyage for which the data was submitted. A new submission must
be made for every new voyage – even between the same ports because some of the factors that determine risk
are linked to seasonal variations of salinity, sea temperature etc.
Mariners are advised that almost all, foreign-sourced, ballast water is deemed to be ‘high-risk’ to the Australian
marine environment by the BWDSS. Mariners are further advised that if they are not confident about the use of
the BWDSS, they can ensure their vessels’ ballast water will be deemed to be ‘low risk’ by AQIS if they conduct
full exchanges at sea without recourse to the BWDSS at all.
Refer also to the attached document ‘Australian Ballast Water management requirements’.
Questions 34 & 35 require information about data submitted if you accessed the BWDSS to obtain a risk
assessment for foreign ballast water intended for discharge in Australian ports or waters.
34. Have you entered ballast tank information into the AQIS BWDSS to have a risk assessment
performed on the ballast water currently in those tanks to be discharged in Australian ports or
waters?
(If NO, go to Declaration).
Australian law prohibits the discharge of high-risk ballast water in Australian waters. Refer to ‘Australian
Ballast Water Management Requirements’ for definitions of high and low risk ballast water.
Unless you have fully exchanged foreign ballast at sea by an approved method, you must submit details of
ballast water uptake and intended discharge data to the BWDSS and receive a low-risk assessment, if you
intend to discharge foreign ballast water in Australian waters. If you have received a low-risk assessment
from the BWDSS this voyage, you should answer YES to this question. If you have not exchanged foreign
ballast water at sea and you answer NO to this question, you will not be given permission to discharge
ballast water in Australian ports or waters.
35. If YES, what is the Risk Assessment Number assigned to your vessel by the AQIS BWDSS?
RAN:
After ballasting data has been submitted to the AQIS BWDSS, a unique Risk Assessment Number (RAN) will
be assigned to your vessel. The BWDSS may be accessed either through the Internet or through E-mail.
The BWDSS automatically responds to lodgements by sending RANs via E-mail. Enter the RAN in the
space provided at Q35. The RAN will indicate a low or high risk rating for the intended ballast water
discharge. If your vessel is assigned a low risk rating on some or all tanks, permission will be given to
discharge ballast water from those tanks but only in the ports specified by the low-risk RAN.
Page 9 of 20
Question 36 – Ballast Water treatment on tanks assessed as ‘high-risk’

Question 36 requires information on whether a treatment has been undertaken on all high-risk tanks.
36. If your AQIS BWDSS result was HIGH have you undertaken a ballast water treatment/exchange
at sea before arrival in Australian ports or waters? YES‫ ڤ‬NO ‫ٱ‬
If your vessel is assigned a high-risk rating for any tanks, treatment (ocean exchange) of the ballast water in
those tanks will be required prior to discharge in Australian ports or waters. Where an approved ballast water
treatment cannot be undertaken prior to arrival in Australian ports or waters, you must contact AQIS as soon
as possible to discuss the situation. Such communications may be either direct or via your ship’s Agent. It is
strongly recommended that if you are unable to manage your ballast water in accordance with Australian
requirements, you communicate with AQIS prior to entering Australian waters and not later than sending in
the QPAR under any circumstances.
37. If YES indicate below what ballast water treatment/exchange method you used?
Sequential [empty/refill] / Flow Through / Dilution Method / Other
If other, please specify:
Ballast water treatment/exchange must be performed in line with the Australian ballast water management
guidelines. For further information on these guidelines, please refer to the Australian Ballast Water
requirements document. Mariners are advised that at the time of printing, the only acceptable method for
ballast water management is ocean exchange by one of the methods specified in ‘Australian Ballast Water
management requirements’.
38. If treatment was not conducted fully in any of the tanks/holds intended for discharge in Australian
ports or waters, please state reason:
If an approved treatment has not been conducted on all high-risk tanks, the reason must be provided in
Question 38.
Note: ship and crew safety is of paramount importance when undertaking ballasting
operations. Masters should undertake ballasting operations in accordance with the
International Maritime Organisation guidelines.
Page 10 of 20
Section: 4 – Declaration
Shipping Agents / Masters are required to complete and sign the declaration to confirm that the
information provided is correct. Shipping Agent contact details are also required.
Declaration:
I declare that the Master of the above-mentioned vessel has provided the information within this AQIS
form. Declarations are to be held on board the ship for a minimum of two years and must be
presented for inspection by a Quarantine Officer at any Australian port.
Declaration made by:
Printed Name:
Signature:
Rank/Position:
Date: / /
Shipping Agency Name:
Shipping Agency Phone No:
Shipping Agency Fax No:
Shipping Agency E-mail Address: (if applicable):
Correct completion of the QPAR form will ensure prompt processing by AQIS.
Note: granting quarantine clearance to a vessel does not release its cargo from being
subject to quarantine. Goods require separate clearance.
It should also be noted that AQIS might reply by facsimile unless you state otherwise,
in accordance with the Electronic Transactions Act 1999.
Page 11 of 20
COMPLETING THE QUARANTINE PRE-ARRIVAL REPORT

FORM (QPAR) - TELEX VERSION
Information may only be provided by Telex in the following order and under the specified numbered
headings.
Section: 1 – Ship’s particulars for vessels’ first port of call in

Australia
1. Vessel Name:
2. Voyage Number:
3. IMO/Lloyd’s Number:
4. Radio Call Sign:
5. Last Port of Call:
6. ETA First Port of Call (as 24hr hh:mm dd/mm/yy):
7. ETA Berth First Port of Call (as 24hr hh:mm dd/mm/yy):
8. First Australian Port:
9. Berth: 8
10. ETD First Port of Call (as 24hr hh:mm dd/mm/yy):
11. Next Port of Call:
12. Net Tonnage:
13. Number of Cargo Holds/Tanks/Decks:
14. Vessel Type:
15. Country of Registry:
16. De-ratting /De-ratting Exemption Certificate Issue Date (dd/mm/yy):
17. Port of Issue:
Page 12 of 20
Section: 2 – Quarantine pre-arrival information

18. Have there been any deaths among the crew or passengers during the current voyage?
YES/NO
If YES, please state number of deaths ( ) and cause:
19. Is there any person on the vessel during the voyage suffering from an illness that may have been
caused by an infectious disease?
YES/NO
If YES, please state number of people with illness ( ) and cause:
20. Are there any animal/s on board the vessel? (including birds & fish)
YES/NO
If YES, please give a description of the animal/s:
21. In the past 2 years has your vessel been in any Russian Far East Port/s between 40°N and 60°N
and west of 147° during any period between July and September?
YES/NO
If NO, go to Question 24.
22. If YES, since your last visit to the port/s, has your vessel been inspected and cleared as being
free of ASIAN GYPSY MOTH by agricultural authorities in Australia, Canada, New Zealand or the
USA?
YES/NO
If YES, please forward relevant certificate to AQIS.
23. If NO, do you have a certificate on board the vessel issued by Russian Agricultural Authorities
during your last visit to a Russian Far East Port, certifying that they had inspected the vessel and
found it free of ASIAN GYPSY MOTH egg masses?
YES/NO
If YES, please forward relevant certificate to AQIS.
24. Have you carried livestock, grain or meal in the last 10 cargoes?
YES/NO
If NO, go to question 26.
25. If YES, list below the type of cargoes, the loading port/s, the discharge port/s and cleaning
performed since the livestock, grain or meal cargo was discharged. Livestock/Grain/Meal
(Delete whichever inapplicable)
If in the last 10 cargoes, list the type, the loading port/s, the discharge port/s and cleaning
performed since the cargo was discharged
26. After the examination of the vessel and its cargo since leaving the last port of call, did you
discover any BEES on board?
YES/NO
Page 13 of 20
27. Will there be any crew changes or disembarking passengers while the vessel is in any Australian
port of call?
YES/NO
28. If YES, specify the port/s and number of crew/passengers that will be signing off/disembarking:
Page 14 of 20
Section: 3– Ballast water management
29. Do you intend discharging any ballast water in Australian ports or waters?
YES/NO
If NO, go to Declaration.
30. If YES, indicate all ports/locations of intended ballast water discharge in Australian ports or waters
1st port; 2nd port; 3rd port; 4th port; 5th port; 6th port
31. Have you undertaken a full ballast water exchange at sea (independent of an AQIS BWDSS
report) in a manner consistent with the IMO guidelines, before arrival in Australian ports or
waters?
YES/NO
If YES, go to question 37.
32. Does your vessel have a current Compliance Agreement with AQIS?
YES/NO
If NO, go to question 34.
33. If YES, are you operating in accordance with this Compliance Agreement during the current
voyage to Australia?
YES/NO
If YES, go to Declaration.
34. Have you entered ballast tank information into the AQIS BWDSS to have a risk assessment
performed on the ballast water currently in those tanks to be discharged in Australian ports or
waters?
YES/NO
If NO, go to Declaration.
35. If YES, what is the Risk Assessment Number assigned to your vessel by the AQIS BWDSS?
RAN:
36. If your AQIS BWDSS result was HIGH, have you undertaken a ballast water treatment/exchange
at sea before arrival in Australian ports or waters?
YES/NO
37. If YES, indicate which ballast water treatment/exchange method you used:
Sequential [empty/refill] / Flow Through / Dilution Method / Other. If other, please specify:
38. If treatment was not conducted fully in any of the tanks / holds intended for discharge in Australian
ports or waters, please state reason:
Note: Ship and crew safety is of paramount importance when undertaking ballasting
operations, therefore, Masters should undertake ballasting operations in accordance
with the International Maritime Organisation guidelines.
Page 15 of 20
Agents Note: The telex version is to be transcribed on to the official Quarantine Pre-
Arrival Report form (QPAR) if it is to be sent to AQIS. AQIS cannot accept QPAR
information in telex form.
Page 16 of 20
GUIDE TO COMPLETING THE AQIS BALLAST WATER LOG

General
All international vessels arriving at Australian ports or waters are required to manage their ballast
water en-route to Australia. High-risk ballast water must not be discharged in Australian ports or
waters.
AQIS has approved the following ballast water management options for the treatment of high-risk
ballast water:
• Non-discharge of ballast water in Australian ports or waters – high-risk ballast water may be
transferred from tank-to-tank on board
• Full ballast water exchange at sea by an approved method prior to arrival in Australian ports or
waters.
Vessel Masters are required to complete a new AQIS Ballast Water Log for every voyage to Australia.
The AQIS Ballast Water Log must be retained on board the vessel for a period of two years and
produced to AQIS upon request at any time during that period. Masters completing this log must also
keep records of ballast water management in the ship’s deck, engineering and / or dedicated ballast
water handling logbook.
Special Instructions for Masters

Non-Discharge of High-Risk Ballast Water:
Mariners are strongly advised to manage all ballast water on board as though it may need to be
discharged in Australian ports / waters. Vessels arriving in Australian ports with high-risk ballast
water on board may be required to engage independent marine surveyors to certify quantity and
location on board of high-risk ballast water to demonstrate non-discharge.
Fresh Water:
Fresh water from any source (including upriver ports) is deemed by AQIS to be low-risk. If some or
all ballast water tanks intended for discharge are carrying water from a freshwater source (eg. potable
water), write ‘FRESH WATER ONLY', on the 'AQIS Ballast Water Log' in columns in sections ‘C’
(Exchange details). Tanks containing fresh water intended for discharge do not need to be entered
into the AQIS BWDSS. You must answer question 36 on the 'Quarantine Pre-Arrival Report' stating
'FRESH WATER ONLY' is contained in the ballast water tanks intended for discharge.
Page 17 of 20
Completing the AQIS Ballast Water Log
Top Section - Vessel details
Ship’s Name: enter the name of the ship.

Year Built: enter the year in which the ship was constructed.
IMO/(Lloyd’s) No: enter the ship’s unique identification number, as used by the IMO.
Call sign: enter the ship’s call sign.
Master’s signature: Master of the ship to sign name in space provided.
Date: enter the date you are making the declaration
Page Number: enter both the number of this page and how many pages in total
Column A - Ballast water tanks/cargo holds

Tank: List all ballast tanks (including cargo holds used for ballast water) on board.
Full Capacity: Record the maximum capacity of each tank in cubic metres
Column B - Ballast water source

Name of ballast water uptake port: enter the port where ballast water was taken up for the voyage. If
ballast water was taken up at sea, please record the location of uptake using latitude and longitude coordinates.
Uptake Date: enter the dates of ballast water uptakes. Please use DD/MM/YY notation – as in the example on
the form.
Volume of ballast water taken up (m3): enter the relevant volume, in cubic meters, of ballast water taken
up at the place / date / time in question - as in the example on the form.
Column C - Exchange
Pump Identification
Identify pumps for ballasting and state CURRENT delivery rate. How much water per hour do the pumps
currently deliver – from experience – not what they used to deliver when they were new. If you don’t know how
the pumps are performing, time the filling of a few tanks from empty to full to find out and keep records in the
ballast water logbook or the deck logbook to show to AQIS.
Exchange Location (Latitude/Longitude)
Record start and end locations of deep sea ballast water exchange for each tank in Lat / Long coordinates as in
the example on the form
Exchange Date & Time
Record start and end date and time for each tank – please use DD/MM/YY and 24 HR hh:mm (local time) formats
as in the example on the form
List Pumps Used (Pump Number)
Record pump(s) used in exchange for each tank as in the example on the form
Empty / Refill Only – Residual volume when empty (m3)
Only when using the empty refill method – record what volume was left in the tank at the end of the emptying
cycle before refilling the tank – resultant mix of ballast water in each tank must contain no more than 5% of high-
risk water.
Page 18 of 20
Flow-Through or Dilution Only - Volume pumped (m3)
Only when using the flow–through or Dilution methods, record the Volume of water pumped. That volume is
calculated as follows:
Experiential Capacity of pump(s) used in this exchange (m3 / hour) x Hours the pump(s) was run
Percentage Exchanged:
Record the percentage of the tank’s FULL capacity that was exchanged at sea. The percentage must be at least
95% in the case of Empty / Refill method exchanges and at least 300% in the case of Flow-through or Dilution
method exchanges.
Column D - Intended Australian Discharge Port for Ballast Water
BW Discharge Port
Record name of intended Australian port at which this tank’s contents will be discharged as in the example on the
form
Discharge Date
Record date of intended discharge, in DD/MM/YY format, from this tank at this port as in the example on the form
Volume for Discharge (m3)
Record volume intended to be discharged from this tank, in cubic metres, as in the example on the form.
Bottom Section
Ballast Water Tank Codes
The codes provided are suggested abbreviations for use in identifying ballast water tanks on board
Note: If there are insufficient rows on the form for all tanks, attach an additional form(s)
It is not necessary to send this form to AQIS prior to arrival unless you are specifically requested to do
so.
Page 19 of 20
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION
For more information, contact AQIS:
Internet
Home page: www.aqis.gov.au/shipping

Ballast Water Decision Support System (BWDSS): www.aqis.gov.au/shipping, then follow the link to
enter the BWDSS.
Email
Seaports Program: seaports@aqis.gov.au

Ballast Water Decision Support System (BWDSS): dssadmin@aqis.gov.au
Phone
+61 1800 551 011 (free call from within Australia)
Fax
+61 2 6272 3276
Your local AQIS office
Adelaide (08) 8305 9700

Melbourne (03) 8387 0100
Brisbane (07) 3246 8755
Perth (08) 9311 5333
Cairns (07) 4030 7800
Sydney (02) 8334 7444
Darwin (08) 8920 7040
Tasmania (03) 6233 3352
Disclaimer
By accessing the information presented through this media, each user waives and releases the Commonwealth of Australia to
the full extent permitted by law from any and all claims relating to the usage of material or information made available through
the system. In no event shall the Commonwealth of Australia be liable for any incidental or consequential damages resulting
from use of the material. In particular and without limit to the generality of the above, information provided in publications of the
Commonwealth Government is considered to be true and correct at the time of publication. Changes in circumstances after
time of publication may impact on the accuracy of this information and the Commonwealth Government gives no assurance as
to the accuracy of any information or advice contained.
Page 20 of 20
PLEASE PHOTOCOPY AS REQUIRED
AQIS BALLAST WATER LOG
Commonwealth of Australia Quarantine Act 1908 Section 27A
Ship's Name: ___________________________ Year Built__________ IMO/Lloyd’s No: _______________ Call Sign ______________
Master's Signature: ___________________________ Date: ________/________/________ PAGE _______ of _______
1) Did you use the Ballast Water Decision Support System (BWDSS)? Instructions for Exchange:
Exchange must be carried out to 95% volumetric exchange for empty/refill method and 300% for flow-
Yes, If Yes, enter 7-digit Risk Assessment Number (RAN): __________________________ through or dilution method. Please fill in either the Empty/Refill column or the Flow-Through column
For tanks assessed as LOW risk: complete columns A, B and D depending on which method you used for each tank (only one method per tank is acceptable)
For tanks assessed as HIGH risk: complete columns A, B C and D
Record ocean depth at which exchanges occurred (metres): Min: ___________Max: ___________
No, If NO, complete columns A, B, C and D
(A) (C) (D)

(B) Exchange
Ballast Water Intended Australian Discharge Port for
Ballast Water
Tanks or Identify the pumps used for ballasting and their estimated current delivery capacity per hour (m3/hr): Ballast Water
Source
Cargo Holds Pump 1:______________ Pump2: _______________ Pump3: _______________
Volume of Exchange Location Exchange List Empty/Refill Flow-through or
ballast (Latitude/Longitude) Date & Time Pumps ONLY Dilution ONLY
Full Uptake Discharge Volume for
Tank BW uptake PORT
Date
water Used Residual Volume BW Discharge Port
Date discharge
Capacity taken up Start (S) Start (S) (Pump Percentage
(m3) volume when pumped (m3)
(m3) End (E) End (E) Number) Exchanged
empty (m3) (m3)
Eg FPT 1342 Osaka 21/2/03 1342 S: 08°18’N 137°24’E S: 28/02/03 1600 1 & 23 N/A 4050 302% Brisbane 05/03/03 1342
E: 03°15’N 140°36’E E: 28/02/03 2030 @450m /hr
S: S:
E: E:
S: S:
E: E:
S: S:
E: E:
S: S:
E: E:
S: S:
E: E:
S: S:
E: E:
S: S:
E: E:
S: S:
E: E:
BALLAST WATER TANK CODES: Forepeak = FPT Aftpeak = APT Double bottom = DB Bottom tank = BT Bottom side tank = BST Deep tank = DT Wing tank = WT Top side tank = TST Cargo hold = CH
Heeling tank = HT Water ballast tank = WBT Port = P Starboard = S Centre = C Bilge = BGT Other = O (specify) Form 026 - Date of Effect 01 March 2004
Ships completing this AQIS BW log must also enter the ballast water information into the ship's deck and engineering logbooks. A ship's logbook must be made available for inspection by a Quarantine Officer at any Australian
port or any location within the Australian 12nm limit.

(9

&; + .
;3 !
) !

=00@
% .
&'
<+

!
2 ) 8 + )
=00
+ =00
! % )
8 ?0
+ =00 !
; 3

. 8 + +
% ) +! 2 ) %
%
+ %
% + % =0 G! ' %
?000% + % H !
) + %

8
!
3

. 8 ++ %
) 2 ) %
) % % + 60
C 9IF .
' % ) + % - %
+ % %-%
+
+
!2 +
J
+

!
) %!
% %
+
&' & ' % % %
%

2 -
-
3 %+ E%
%
K =A
!,
+ % %
%

' % 11+++!! ! !%1

2

Brazilian Ballast Water Requirements
(courtesy of Lloyd’s Register, London)
Normam 20/DPC
Introduction
1. History
2. Purpose
To Establish the requirements regarding the Water Ballast Management system in order to prevent
the pollution in Brazilian Waters. The system will be based on the water exchange methods as per
IMO A 868(20) (1997) and the Ballast Water Management Convention that was adopted on February
2004 and signed by Brazil on 25/01/2005.
3. General Considerations
a) It is fundamental that the procedures of the WBM are effective and viable either from the technical
and environmental aspects
b) The implementation of the WBM is the solution found to reduce to the minimum the introduction of
harmful and exotic aquatic organisms in Brazilian waters.
c) The system for the WBM will have to be safe for the ship, equipments, crew and passengers and
do not cause more environmental impact than its absence.
d) Since the water exchange may not be fully satisfactory new methods may be accepted as an
alternative provided they give the same level of protection and are approved by the MEPC.
e) Environmental information of seasonal and local conditions will have to be included in the WBM
plan prepared for the ports and this will include the areas where ballast can be uptake.
4. Local Legislation
Laws 6.938/1981, 9.537/1997, 9.605/1998, and resolution RDC 217(21/11/2001)
5. Definitions
6. Bibliography References
Chapter 1
1.1 Application
This shall apply to all ships, nationals or of foreign flag, using the Brazilian Ports and Terminals
1.2 Exceptions
Exceptions are the particular cases or emergency situations as follows:
a) Cases of force majeure or of emergency in order to protect the safety of the persons and/or or the
ship.
b) When it is necessary to uptake or discharge ballast and sediments for the purpose of ensuring the
safety of the ship or persons on board in emergency situations or saving lives at sea.
c) When there is an accidental discharge of water ballast and sediments resulting from a damage to a
ship or equipment. provided all reasonable precautions have been taken before and after the
occurrence in order to minimize the discharge.
d) When the uptake and discharge of WB and sediments are for the purpose of avoiding or
minimizing pollution incidents from the ship
e) The uptake and discharge of the total amount of ballast water and sediments, without any mixture,
is made in the same area.
1.3 Exemptions
All ships exempted from this Norm will have to operate in a such a way to minimize the environmental
contamination caused by the discharge of water ballast and its sediments.
The following ships will be exempted:
a) War ships, naval auxiliary or other ship operated and used by the State only , on non commercial
service.
b) Ships with sealed tanks containing permanent water ballast not subject to any discharge.
c) Ships of offshore and port support.
d) Ships that due to it's construction and project does not permit water ballast exchange. In these
cases they will have to obtain the DPC approval for this exemption.
e) Recreational and sport boats used only for recreational/competition and the ships used for search
and rescue provided they are less than 50m in length and has less than 8 cubic metres or water
ballast capacity.
Chapter 2
2.1 Dissemination of the information:
This Norm will be disseminated by the Maritime Authority, Maritime Agents, Navigation Companies,
Unions and any other bodies engaged in the ship's operation.
2.2 Water Ballast Management Plan
2.2.1 Implementation
Every ship that uses water ballast is required to have a WBM plan establishing safety and efficient
procedures for that purpose. This plan is to be specific for the ship and shall at least:
a) detail the safety procedures for the ship and the crew associated with the ballast water
management
b) provide a detailed description of the actions to be taken to implement the water ballast
management.
c) indicate where the representative water ballast sampling points are located.
d) designate the officer in charge of ensuring that the plan is properly implemented.
e) be written in the ship's working language . If this language is not English, French or Spanish a
translation into one of these languages will have to be included.
2.2.2 Documentation
The Documentation related to the Water Ballast Management Plan of the Brazilian Ships and of the
ships chartered to Brazil will have to be made by a Classification Society recognized by DPC.
2.3 Water Ballast Management
2.3.1 Inspection
Ships arriving in Brazilian ports and terminals, for loading discharging or any other reason will be
Inspected in order to determine if they are in compliance with this requirement.
2.3.2 Ballast Water Reporting Form
The form in annexes A or B will have to be send to the Harbour Masters or their Agencies by the
ship's masters or its Agents 24 hours prior arrival in Port. One copy of this report will have to be
maintained on board for possible presentation to the any other authorities, as may be required.
2.3.3 Guidelines for the water ballast exchange
When exchanging water ballast the safety of the crew and ship must be observed and this will
include favourable weather conditions. The following measures must be taken:
a) Ships must be at least 200 nautical miles from coast at a water depth of 200 metres when
exchanging ballast. The sequential, continuous flux or dilution methods as described in annex C will
be accepted.
b) When it is not possible to exchange the water ballast as above, this will have to be made as far as
possible from the coast but not less than 50 nautical miles and with a water depth of 200 metres.
c) It will not be required that the ship deviates it's course or delay it's voyage in order to comply with
the above items. In this case the ship will have to justify.
d) it will not be required that a ship that is engaged in the water ballast exchange complies with the
requirements in a and b above if the master considers that this may impair the ship's safety and
stability or the safety for the crew and passengers on board. due to adverse weather conditions,
excessive stress to the hull , failure of any essential equipment or any other extraordinary
circumstances.
e) when the ship uses the continuous flux method or the dilution method for the water ballast
exchange she will have to pump in the minimum of 3 times the volume of the tank.
f) The ship, when undertaking the water ballast exchange method will have to provide a 95%
efficiency in terms volumetric water ballast exchange.
g) only the tanks that had been subject to a water ballast exchange may be discharged in port.
h) Ships that does not discharge the ballast in port will also have to present the water ballast report
form.
I) The maritime authority will maintain updated information regarding alternative areas for the uptake
and discharge of water ballast. This information will be consolidated in a future Port Water
Management Plan.
j) It is forbidden to discharge any water ballast in the areas that are ecologically sensitive or are
marked as conservation areas, when these are indicated in the charts.
k) when it is not possible to exchange the water ballast at sea, the ballast will have to be retained on
board, being accepted a minimum discharge with the authorisation of the Maritime Authority that will
have to record this occurrence. The master will have to formally justify with the necessary
anticipation.
2.3.4 Sediments
The water ballast sediments can only be discharged at sea in the same conditions as per items 2.3.3
a and b or to reception facilities.
2.3.5 Platforms
a) the rigs will have to comply with the procedures for water ballast exchange on the occasion of the
first arrival in Brazil from another port or from international waters.
b) the rigs operating in Brazil will then be exempted from the WB exchange requirements from the
moment of its installation until the end of its operation in that location.
c) The drilling rigs will be exempted of the WB exchange when operating in territorial waters or within
the Brazilian Economical Exclusive Zone.
2.3.6 New technologies
When new technologies or systems are developed and approved by the Maritime Authority the DPC
will issue the appropriate instructions accordingly.
Chapter 3
3.1 When it is not possible to attend the general guidelines for the WB exchange the following will
apply
3.2 Emergency Situations
This norm will not apply to cases when is necessary to protect the safety of persons or ships or in
cases of force majeure due to the bad weather or if the discharge of water ballast is the unique mean
to avoid or minimize other more serious pollution circumstances.
3.3 Coastal Navigation
3.3.1 Ships from abroad when needing to discharge ballast in Brazil will have to exchange all water
ballast prior to arrival in Brazil.
3.3.2 Transportation between hydrographical regions
Ships engaged in navigation between different hydrographical regions or between sea and river ports
will have to exchange the water ballast
The water ballast exchange will have to comply with the 2.3.3 above.
3.4 Two water ballast exchanges
3.4.1 Amazon River

Ships entering the Amazon River from international voyages or from other hydrographical region will
have to undertake two water ballast exchanges. the first as per 2.3.3 a, b , e and f and the second to
reduce the salinity of the water ballast between the isobaric of 20 metres and Macapá. When the
ballast volume is less then 5000 cubic metres the limit will be the Jari river. In this second exchange it
will be necessary only to pump the tank volume once.
3.4.2 Para River
The procedure for the Para river will be the same as for the Amazon river . The second exchange
must be between 70 nautical miles from Salinópolis until the Light of the Ponta do Chapéu Virado (
Ilha do Mosqueiro)
Chapter 4
Port State Control.
This chapter gives the instructions to the PSC officers on how to proceed with their verifications on
board and issue the penalties if any.
Annexes
A Ballast water reporting form in Portuguese

B Ballast water reporting form in English ( this is the same contained in the IMO resolution A.868(20)
C Methods of water ballast Exchange
C.1 Sequential method : Tanks are emptied and filled up again with ocean water
C.2 Continuous flux : Tanks are continuously and simultaneously pumped in and out with ocean
water
C 3 Brazilian dilution method : Loading ballast water from top and discharging from bottom at the
same rate in order to maintain the same tank level all times.
D List of the main Brazilian Ports
E Map with the main Brazilian Ports
F Form for the environmental infraction ( Penalties)
G Port State Control flowchart
20 October 2005
Our Ref.: TIM-29194/1000271

29

=000
% a) Ballast Water Exchange(sequential, flow through or dilution
&' method ). Note that an onboard inspection may be undertaken to
verify whether BWE has been conducted. If BWE has not been
undertaken, clear proof as to why it could not be performed must
be provided.
b) b) Treatment System/Ballast Discharge Standard: The treatment
standard is the same as that contained in the IMO Convention,
Regulation D-2.

Should a vessel be unable to exchange or treat its ballast it may be
% requested to conduct exchange in the Scotian Shelf of the Gulf of
) Maine. Please refer to the text of the regulations and its guidance notes
%+ (linked below) for exact details.
&' &' % %

3 Ballast Water Reporting Requirements: A Reporting Form should be
submitted, via email, prior to entry into Canadian waters. Email
addresses are as follows:
for ships proceeding to ports on the West Coast: rmic-
pacific@pac.dfo-mpo.gc.ca or ships proceeding to ports in
Eastern Canada North of 60 degrees North Latitude:
atlanticballastwater@tc.gc.ca
for ships proceeding to ports on the East Coast, in Quebec or in
Ontario (Great Lakes): atlanticballastwater@tc.gc.ca

11+++!!!1
1 1 1%+ 1 !

TP 13617E
(11/2007)
A GUIDE TO CANADA’S BALLAST

WATER CONTROL AND
MANAGEMENT REGULATIONS
EDITION 7
19 NOVEMBER 2007
TC-1002399
*TC-1002399*
Responsible Authority Approval
The Director Operations and Environmental

Programs is responsible for this document,
including any change, correction, or update. Director Operations and Environmental Programs
Marine Safety
Original Date Issued: January 1, 2000 Date Revised: November 19, 2007
© Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Canada, as represented by the Minister of Transport, 2000.
Permission is granted, by Transport Canada, to copy this TP 13617E as required. While use of this
material has been authorized, Transport Canada shall not be responsible for the manner in which the
information is presented, nor for any interpretations thereof. This TP 13617E may not be updated to
reflect amendments made to the original content. For up-to-date information, contact Transport Canada.
TP 13617E
(11/2007)
TC-1002399
DOCUMENT INFORMATION
Title A GUIDE TO CANADA’S BALLAST WATER CONTROL AND MANAGEMENT REGULATIONS
TP No. 13617E Edition
Originator Environmental Protection (AMSEE) Telephone 613-991-3170
Tower C, Place de Ville Fax 613-993-8196
330 Sparks Street, 11th Floor
E-mail MarineSafety@tc.gc.ca
Ottawa, Ontario K1A 0N8
URL http://www.tc.gc.ca/MarineSafety
REVISIONS
Last Review January 2007
Next Review January 2008
Revision No. Date of Issue Affected Pages Author(s) Brief Description of Change
1 March 9, 2001 1.2 and 1.3 of Revised contact for submitting forms
Annex V
2 June 8, 2001 4.1 and 9.1.2 T. Morris Application section amended to make clearer.
Correction made to 9.1.2
3 June 28, 2006 All T. Morris Document rewritten as a Guide to the new
Ballast Water Control and
Management Regulations
4 March 30, Sections: 1, 3, D. Yard Updates made to various sections and the
2007 5, 7, 9, 10, and reporting form. A Ballast Water Management
Schedules 4, 5, Inspection Report was added.
and 6.
5 August 3, 2007 Sections: 2.2, D. Yard CSA 2001 Update
5.5, and 9.3.
6 November 19, Section 5.3 D. Yard New Pacific Region email address to submit
2007 the BWRF.
7 January 15, Changes in the template.

2008
i
TABLE OF CONTENTS
PREFACE ............................................................................................................................1
1. INTERPRETATION ....................................................................................................2
2. BALLAST WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN...........................................................2
3. BALLAST WATER EXCHANGE..............................................................................3
4. BALLAST WATER TREATMENT ...........................................................................5
5. REPORTING REQUIREMENTS ..............................................................................6
6. PLEASURE CRAFT AND SEARCH AND RESCUE VESSELS............................7
7. LOADED VESSELS WITH TANKS CONTAINING RESIDUAL
BALLAST WATER......................................................................................................7
8. VESSELS OPERATING ONLY IN WATERS UNDER CANADIAN
JURISDICTION SUBSEQUENT TO OPERATING OUTSIDE WATERS
UNDER CANADIAN JURISDICTION .....................................................................8
9. COMPLIANCE AND ENFORCEMENT...................................................................9
10. RESEARCH ..................................................................................................................9
SCHEDULE 1 – GUIDELINES FOR BALLAST WATER MANAGEMENT AND
DEVELOPMENT OF BALLAST WATER MANAGEMENT PLANS (G4) ..............10
ANNEX – GUIDELINES FOR BALLAST WATER MANAGEMENT AND
DEVELOPMENT OF BALLAST WATER MANAGEMENT PLANS.......................11
1. INTRODUCTION ......................................................................................................11
2. DEFINITIONS ............................................................................................................11
3. APPLICATION ..........................................................................................................11
PART A – GUIDELINES FOR BALLAST WATER MANAGEMENT .....................12
1. VESSEL OPERATIONAL PROCEDURES............................................................12
1.1 PRECAUTIONARY PRACTICES ................................................................................12
1.2 BALLAST WATER MANAGEMENT OPTIONS........................................................12
1.3 SEDIMENT MANAGEMENT ......................................................................................13
1.4 ADDITIONAL MEASURES .........................................................................................14
1.5 EXEMPTIONS...............................................................................................................14
2. RECORDING PROCEDURES .................................................................................14
2.1 PROCEDURES FOR VESSELS....................................................................................14
2.2 PROCEDURES FOR PORT STATES...........................................................................14
3. TRAINING AND EDUCATION ...............................................................................15
PART B – GUIDELINES FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF BALLAST WATER
MANAGEMENT PLANS .................................................................................................16
1. INTRODUCTION ......................................................................................................16
2. GENERAL...................................................................................................................16
2.1 CONCEPT OF THE GUIDELINES...............................................................................16
2.2 CONCEPT OF THE PLAN............................................................................................16
2.3 EXEMPTIONS...............................................................................................................17
2.4 ADDITIONAL MEASURES .........................................................................................17
ii
2.5 REVIEW OF THE PLAN ..............................................................................................17
3. MANDATORY PROVISIONS..................................................................................17
4. NON-MANDATORY INFORMATION...................................................................20
APPENDIX – STANDARD FORMAT FOR THE BALLAST WATER
MANAGEMENT PLAN ...................................................................................................21
SCHEDULE 2 – GUIDELINES FOR BALLAST WATER EXCHANGE (G6)..........24
ANNEX – GUIDELINES FOR BALLAST WATER EXCHANGE (G6)....................25
1. INTRODUCTION ......................................................................................................25
2. DEFINITIONS ............................................................................................................25
3. RESPONSIBILITIES.................................................................................................25
4. BALLAST WATER EXCHANGE REQUIREMENTS..........................................26
5. SAFETY PRECAUTIONS ASSOCIATED WITH BALLAST
WATER EXCHANGE ...............................................................................................26
6. CREW TRAINING AND FAMILIARIZATION ....................................................29
7. FUTURE CONSIDERATIONS IN RELATION TO BALLAST
WATER EXCHANGE ...............................................................................................29
SCHEDULE 3 – GUIDELINES FOR BALLAST WATER MANAGEMENT
EQUIVALENT COMPLIANCE (G3) .............................................................................30
ANNEX – GUIDELINES FOR BALLAST WATER MANAGEMENT
EQUIVALENT COMPLIANCE (G3) .............................................................................31
PRECAUTIONARY PRACTICES TO MINIMIZE THE UPTAKE OR TRANSFER
OF HARMFUL AQUATIC ORGANISMS AND PATHOGENS...................................32
SCHEDULE 4 – BALLAST WATER MANAGEMENT
INSPECTION REPORT ...................................................................................................33
SCHEDULE 5 – ST. LAWRENCE SEAWAY BALLAST WATER
REPORTING FORM ........................................................................................................38
SCHEDULE 6 – CANADIAN BALLAST WATER REPORTING FORM.................40
SCHEDULE 7 – INSTRUCTIONS FOR BALLAST WATER
REPORTING FORM ........................................................................................................43
GENERAL .........................................................................................................................43
AMENDED FORMS.........................................................................................................43
SECTION 1 – VESSEL INFORMATION .................................................................................43
SECTION 2 – VOYAGE INFORMATION ...............................................................................43
SECTION 3 – BALLAST WATER............................................................................................44
SECTION 4 – BALLAST WATER MANAGEMENT ..............................................................44
SECTION 5 – BALLAST WATER HISTORY..........................................................................45
BALLAST WATER SOURCE...................................................................................................45
BALLAST WATER MANAGEMENT PRACTICES ...............................................................45
PROPOSED BALLAST WATER DISCHARGE ......................................................................46
SECTION 6 – RESIDUAL BALLAST AND SEDIMENT........................................................46
SECTION 7 – IF THE ANSWER TO #6 IS YES ......................................................................46
TITLE AND SIGNATURE ........................................................................................................46
iii
A GUIDE TO CANADA’S BALLAST WATER CONTROL AND TP 13617E
MANAGEMENT REGULATIONS 1 of 46
PREFACE
The purpose of this guide is to provide information on the application of the Ballast Water Control
and Management Regulations (the Regulations) made pursuant to the Canada Shipping Act, 2001. The
purpose of the Regulations is to protect waters under Canadian jurisdiction from non-indigenous
aquatic organisms and pathogens that can be harmful to ecosystems. When a new organism is
introduced to an ecosystem, negative and irreversible changes may result including a change in
biodiversity. Ballast water may have been associated with the unintentional introduction of a number
of organisms into Canadian waters; several of which may have been extremely harmful to both the
ecosystem and the economic well being of the nation. The Ballast Water Control and Management
Regulations are intended to minimize the probability of future introductions of harmful aquatic
organisms and pathogens from vessels’ ballast water while protecting the safety of vessels. This guide
is to be used as a companion document to the Regulations and should not be seen as adding to or
detracting from existing statutory or regulatory requirements that will prevail in the case of conflict
with this guide.
Voluntary provisions for ballast water exchange were first introduced in Canada in 1989 for vessels
traveling to the Great Lakes. Since that time, a number of significant developments have been made,
including the following:
x in 1991 ballast exchange guidelines were introduced by the International Maritime
Organization (IMO) – these were revised in 1997 as resolution A.868(20), Guidelines for the
Control and Management of Ships Ballast Water to Minimize the Transfer of Harmful Aquatic
Organisms and Pathogens;
x in 1993 the US Coast Guard introduced mandatory regulations that required ballast exchange
for vessels traveling to the Great Lakes – these were amended in 2004 to make reporting
mandatory for all US waters and again in 2005 to make ballast water management mandatory
in all US waters;
x in 2000 the application of the Canadian guidelines was expanded to cover all waters under
Canadian jurisdiction and they were renamed to the Guidelines for the Control of Ballast Water
Discharge from Ships in Waters under Canadian Jurisdiction, TP 13617;
x in 2002 the St. Lawrence Seaway Management Corp., under agreement with the St. Lawrence
Seaway Development Corp., amended their joint Practices and Procedures, to make compliance
with best management practices a mandatory prerequisite for transit of the Seaway system; and
x in 2004 the IMO finalized the International Convention for the Control and Management of
Ships’ Ballast Water and Sediments, 2004 – this new Convention introduced a performance
standard for ballast water treatment and calls for the eventual phasing out of ballast water
exchange, but is not yet in force.
The new Ballast Water Control and Management Regulations are harmonized to the maximum extent
possible with current U.S. and international provisions, including the International Convention for the
Control and Management of Ships’ Ballast Water and Sediments, 2004.
1. INTERPRETATION
1.1 For the purposes of this Guide:
“exclusive economic zone” consists of an area of the sea beyond and adjacent to the territorial
sea of Canada that has as its inner limit the outer limit of the territorial sea of Canada and as its
outer limit the line every point of which is at a distance of 200 nautical miles from the nearest
point of the baselines of the territorial sea of Canada or as specified in the Oceans Act.
“IMO” means the International Maritime Organization.
“residual ballast” means ballast water, including sediments that are unable to be pumped out of
a ballast tank under a vessel’s normal operational procedures.
2. BALLAST WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN

2.1 Recognizing the importance of pre-planning in order to conduct any ballast water management
procedure in a safe and effective manner, sections 11 and 12 of the Regulations outline the
requirement for the preparation and carriage of a ballast water management plan.
2.2 A Canadian vessel registered under the Canada Shipping Act, 2001 is required to submit
four copies of its ballast water management plan to a Regional Marine Safety Office.
2.3 Plans carried on Canadian and non-Canadian vessels should be reviewed by the national
Administration, but do not have to be approved.
2.4 Ballast water management plans must include the information listed in section 11 of the Regulations.
The following documents may be useful in preparing a ballast water management plan:
x IMO Resolution A.868(20), Guidelines for the Control and Management of
Ships Ballast Water to Minimize the Transfer of Harmful Aquatic Organisms
and Pathogens, in particular section 7.1.
x the Model Ballast Water Management Plan developed by the International
Chamber of Shipping (ICS) and the International Association of Independent
Tanker Owners (INTERTANKO).
x Regulation B-1 of the IMO’s Regulations for the Control and Management of
Ships’ Ballast Water and Sediments (not yet in force).
x Part B of the Annex to Resolution MEPC.127(53), Guidelines for Ballast Water
Management and Development of Ballast Water Management Plans which is
included as Schedule 1 of this Guide.
2.5 Vessels that conduct best management practices in accordance with section 5 of the
Regulations and section 7 of this Guide should incorporate these practices into their
ballast water management plan.
3. BALLAST WATER EXCHANGE

3.1 With the exception of vessels specifically exempted from the provision of the Regulations,
all vessels are expected to exchange or treat their ballast prior to discharge in waters under
Canadian jurisdiction.
3.2 When conducting ballast water exchange in order to meet the provisions of the Regulations,
Part A of the IMO Guidelines For Ballast Water Management and Development of Ballast
Water Management Plans and the IMO Guidelines for Ballast Water Exchange should be
followed. The IMO Guidelines are included as Schedule 1 and 2 to this Guide.
3.3 The Regulations specify the procedures that must be followed for vessels on transoceanic and
non-transoceanic voyages, including the recognition that under certain circumstances, for reasons
of safety, equipment failure or practicality, the preferred option for management of ballast
water may not always be possible. In these cases, those alternatives that are acceptable have
been identified, particular to specific voyages. Cases where exchanging ballast would be
impractical, such as where the voyage was not of sufficient length in waters suitable for
exchange, shall be considered exceptional circumstances and the Minister shall be notified in
accordance with section 13 of the Regulations.
3.4 In cases where the preferred option or alternatives are not complied with, the Master should
be able to provide clear proof of why compliance was not possible.
3.5 In dealing with the exceptional circumstance where a vessel cannot comply with the
specific provisions of the Regulations, the vessel will be required to implement one or
more of the measures listed in subsection 13(5) of the Regulations. At a minimum, vessels
would be required to discharge only the amount of ballast water operationally necessary
for cargo operations. The Master may wish to suggest suitable measures to Transport
Canada for consideration.
3.6 If, when verifying compliance through an onboard inspection, it is determined that the vessel
does not comply with the Regulations (for example the salinity of the ballast is found to be
below 30 parts per thousand as required in paragraph 8(2)(b) of the Regulations) or it is
determined that the reasons provided for not complying were unjustified, then Transport
Canada will treat the vessel the same as an exceptional circumstance and require the vessel to
comply with one or more of the measures listed in subsection 13(5) of the Regulations.
3.7 A vessel shall not be required to deviate from its intended voyage, or delay the voyage, in order
to conduct an exchange beyond 200 nautical miles from shore or beyond 50 nautical miles from
shore as referred to in sections 6(1), 6(2), 6(4)(b), 7(1), 7(2) and 7(3)(b) of the Regulations.
A vessel may however be required to deviate from its intended voyage or delay its voyage in
order to conduct an exchange within waters under Canadian jurisdiction, as referred to in sections
6(3), 6(4)(a), 6(4)(c), 6(4)(d), 6(5), 7(3)(c) and 7(3)(d) of the Regulations.
3.8 In addition to the mandatory provisions in the Regulations, for vessels traveling to and from
ports in the Bay of Fundy, it is recommended that exchange occur in the Gulf of Maine in
waters greater than 100 metres deep, as indicated in Figure 1. It is also recommended that
vessel traffic crossing the Gulf of Maine and using a coastal route along the Scotian Shelf
should exchange in the Gulf of Maine in waters deeper than 100 metres.
3.9 Figure 1 also indicates the alternate exchange zone for transoceanic voyages to east coast
ports referred to in paragraph 6(4)(a) of the Regulations and for non-transoceanic voyages
along the east coast of North America referred to in paragraph 7(3)(a) of the Regulations.
Traffic
to/from
the Bay
of
Traffic Fundy
crossing
the Gulf of
Maine
Traffic heading to/from Nova

Scotia
Figure 1. Recommended ballast water exchange zones on the Scotian Shelf and Gulf of Maine.
The magenta zone indicates that traffic transiting to/from the Bay of Fundy should exchange
in the Gulf of Maine, in water deeper than 100 m. The yellow zone indicates that traffic
crossing the Gulf of Maine and using a coastal route on the Scotia Shelf should exchange in
the Gulf of Maine, in water deeper than 100 m. The green zone is the exchange zone for on-
shelf traffic heading to/from Nova Scotia, plus vessels following a shelfbreak path. Vessels
should exchange in waters deeper than 1,000 m, west of Sable Island and the Gully and away
from the entrance to N.E. Channel.
Please note that the coordinates for the Yellow and Magenta zones are not to be considered
as strict geographical boundaries, but rather to illustrate the advice regarding exchanging
in waters greater than 100 m in the Gulf of Maine.
Vessels are therefore strongly recommended to ensure that exchanges occur in depths greater than 100 m.
Yellow Zone – Traffic crossing the Gulf of Maine

Lat North Long West Remarks
42.70 070.10 To
42.20 070.00 To
42.70 066.40 To
43.10 066.45 To
42.70 070.10
Magenta Zone – Traffic to/from the Bay of Fundy

41.55 069.25 To
41.30 068.80 To
44.10 066.90 To
44.30 067.50 To
41.55 069.25
The Green Zone is the exchange zone for on-shelf traffic heading to/from Nova Scotia, plus
vessels following a shelf-break path. Vessels are strongly recommended to exchange in
waters deeper than 1,000 m, west of Sable Island and the gully and away from the entrance
to the Northeast Channel.
Green Zone – Traffic heading to/from Nova Scotia

43.00 060.00 To
43.40 060.25 Following along the 1,000 m line to
42.75 062.90 To
41.25 066.00 Following along the 1,000 m line to
39.90 069.25 To
39.38 068.75 To
43.00 060.00
3.10 Notices to Mariners #995/1982 has imposed ballast water discharge restrictions for the Grande Entrée
Lagoon of the Iles-de-la-Madeleine or within 10 miles of the Iles-de-la-Madeleine archipelago, to
reduce the threat of introduction of toxic phytoplankton to local mussel farming industries.
Under this notice discharging of ballast water within 10 nautical miles of the Islands is prohibited
unless the ballast water were pumped on board in a designated area off Canada’s east coast at
minimum distance of 5 miles from the shore.
All vessels planning to deballast in the protected waters defined above shall, at least three days
in advance, notify the area Manager, DFO, in Cap-aux-Meules, telephone (418) 986-2095.
4. BALLAST WATER TREATMENT

4.1 For vessels choosing to use a treatment method other than ballast water exchange, the
method will be acceptable if the ballast water, after treatment, meets the standard specified in
section 9 of the Regulations. This standard is the same as the Ballast Water Performance
Standard specified in Regulation D-2 of the IMO’s Regulations for the Control and
Management of Vessels’ Ballast Water and Sediments. It should be pointed out that the
purpose of section 9 of the Regulations is to acknowledge that the use of IMO treatment
systems is acceptable for vessels coming to Canada, but there is no obligation at this time for
any vessel to fit such systems.
4.2 Treatment systems shall be installed and certified in accordance with the IMO Guidelines for
Approval of Ballast Water Management Systems (Resolution MEPC.125(53)) and, in the case
of systems that use an active substance, the IMO Procedure for Approval of Ballast Water
Management Systems that make use of Active Substances (Resolution MEPC.126(53)).
4.3 In the case of prototype systems being tested and evaluated, this should be done in
accordance with the procedures in the IMO Guidelines for Approval and Oversight of
Prototype Ballast Water Treatment Technology Programmes (Resolution MEPC.140(54).
4.4 The use of a treatment system that does not meet the standard specified in section 9 of
the Regulations may also be acceptable if it is at least equivalent to ballast water
exchange, but such systems would have to be evaluated and accepted by Transport
Canada on a case by case basis.
5. REPORTING REQUIREMENTS
5.1 If a vessel is unable to manage its ballast water as required under section 4 or 5 of the
Regulations, subsection 13(1) requires them to notify the Minister of Transport at least 96
hours before entry into the territorial sea of Canada. Where this is not possible because the
vessel is not aware that it is unable to manage its ballast water, notification should be made
as soon as possible. Notification should be made to the appropriate Centre listed below and
should provide the following information:
a) An explanation as to the inability to carry out exchange, and
b) What equivalent process the vessel intends to carry out to minimize the threat of
introduction of aquatic invasive species potentially entrained in the ballast water
prior to entry into waters under Canadian jurisdiction.
For vessels proceeding to areas situated on the East Coast, in Quebec or in Ontario
(Great Lakes Basin):
x to Marine Communications and Traffic Services (ECAREG)
by facsimile: (902) 426-4483, telex: 019 22510, or telephone: (902) 426-4956.
For vessels proceeding to areas situated north of 60º N, including all the waters of Hudson Bay,
Ungava Bay, and James Bay:
x to Marine Communications and Traffic Services (NORDREG)
by facsimile: (867) 979-4236, telex: 063 15529, or telephone: (867) 979-5724.
For vessels proceeding to areas situated on the West Coast:
x to Marine Communications and Traffic Services, by Email to: offshore@rmic.gc.ca,
by facsimile: (604) 666-8453 or telephone: (604) 666-6011.
5.2 As required by subsection 14(1) of the Regulations, the Master of a vessel destined for a
Canadian port, shall provide as soon as possible after a management process is performed or a
measure determined by the Minister is implemented, a fully completed ballast water reporting
form. Vessels entering the Great Lakes are requested to use the St. Lawrence Seaway form set
out in Schedule 5 of this Guide and for all other destinations in Canada, the Canadian form set
out in Schedule 6 is to be used. Once the form is completed it must be submitted by e-mail
transmission, or by other means described in section 5.3. It is requested that whenever possible
the form be submitted prior to entry into waters under Canadian jurisdiction.
5.3 The Master of the vessel shall provide the completed ballast water reporting form as follows:
For vessels proceeding to areas situated on the East Coast, in Quebec or in Ontario
(Great Lakes Basin):
x by Email to atlanticballastwater@tc.gc.ca, or by facsimile: (902) 426-6657
For vessels proceeding to areas situated north of 60º N, including all the waters of Hudsons Bay,
Ungava Bay, and James Bay:
x by Email to atlanticballastwater@tc.gc.ca, or by facsimile: (902) 426-6657
For vessels proceeding to areas situated on the West Coast:
x by Email to: pacballastwater@tc.gc.ca, or by facsimile: (604) 666-9177
5.4 Vessels subject to the Regulations that have not submitted a fully completed form in
accordance with section 14 of the Regulation will be requested to provide the appropriate
Marine Communication and Traffic Services Centre with the following information as part
of the MCTS interrogative:
a) Whether a ballast water reporting form signed by the Master has been provided by
facsimile to the appropriate agency (i.e. Transport Canada Marine Safety, port
authorities or the U.S. Coast Guard) or has been submitted by electronic or other
acceptable means.
b) Whether ballast water is being carried.
c) If the answer to (b) is affirmative:
d) Whether the vessel has a Ballast Water Management Plan appropriate to that vessel.
e) Whether the Ballast Water Management Plan has been reviewed by a classification
society or flag administration.
f) Whether ballast water management procedures have been performed prior to entering
Canada’s exclusive economic zone
g) If the answer to (f) is negative:
h) What is the reason for non-performance?
i) What procedures, are proposed to protect Canada’s waters prior to discharge of ballast?
5.5 Under section 191 of the Canada Shipping Act, 2001 it is an offence to contravene any provision
of the regulations.
6. PLEASURE CRAFT AND SEARCH AND RESCUE VESSELS

6.1 Under subsection 2 (2) of the Regulations vessels used for search and rescue operations or
pleasure craft that are less than 50 m in overall length and that have a maximum ballast water
capacity of 8 m3 are exempted from the application of the Regulations.
6.2 If carrying ballast, these vessels should, insofar as practicable, either comply with the
requirements of the Regulations or meet the provisions of the IMO Guidelines for Ballast
Water Management Equivalent Compliance contained in Resolution MEPC.123(53). The
IMO Guidelines are included as Schedule 3 to this Guide.
7. LOADED VESSELS WITH TANKS CONTAINING RESIDUAL

BALLAST WATER
7.1 Loaded vessels coming from outside waters under Canadian jurisdiction normally carry some
residual ballast water onboard. Any vessel intending to take on ballast in tanks containing
residual ballast water and subsequently discharge it in waters under Canadian jurisdiction,
must ensure that proper management procedures have been followed.
Vessels must ensure that the residual ballast water has been exposed to salinity conditions
equivalent to ballast exchange by complying with one of the following options:
1) the residual ballast came from ballast that was properly exchanged at sea;
2) the residual ballast meets the international standard for treated ballast water;
3) the vessel complies with sections 1, 2, 6 and 7 of the Code of Best Practices for
Ballast Water Management, published by the Shipping Federation of Canada; or
4) the vessel conducted a saltwater flushing at least 200 nautical miles from shore.
The vessel shall conduct mid-ocean ballast water exchange during ballast-laden voyages in
an area 200 nautical miles from any shore and in water 2,000 meters deep whenever
possible, prior to entering waters under Canadian jurisdiction. Vessels unable to conduct
mid-ocean ballast water exchange during ballast laden voyages shall conduct saltwater
flushing of their empty ballast water tanks in an area 200 nautical miles from any shore,
whenever possible. Saltwater flushing is defined as the addition of mid-ocean water to
empty ballast water tanks; the mixing of the flush water with residual water and sediment
through the motion of the vessel; and the discharge of the mixed water, such that the
resultant residual water remaining in the tank has as high a salinity as possible, and
preferably is greater than 30 parts per thousand (ppt). The vessel should take on as much
mid-ocean water into each tank as is safe (for the vessel and crew) in order to conduct
saltwater flushing. The master of the vessel is responsible for ensuring the safety of the
vessel, crew, and passengers. Vessels reporting only residual ballast water onboard should
take particular care to conduct saltwater flushing on the transit to the Great Lakes so as to
eliminate fresh and or brackish water residuals in ballast tanks.
The St Lawrence Seaway Authorities’ mandatory requirement contained in subsection
30(2) of the Seaway Practices and Procedures (http://www.greatlakes-
seaway.com/en/navigation/handbook.html) which indicates that to obtain clearance to
transit the Seaway every vessel entering the Seaway after operating beyond the exclusive
economic zone must agree to comply with the “Code of Best Practices for Ballast Water
Management” of the Shipping Federation of Canada (see Seaway Notice No. 6 – 2002 at
http://www.greatlakes-seaway.com/en/navigation/notice20020322e.html).
7.2 Vessels unable to comply with section 7.1 above, shall notify the Minister of Transport,
who may, if found that the vessel did not comply with best management practices, in
consultation with the Master, request that the any ballast water taken aboard in the St
Lawrence River or Great Lakes, be retained on board, treated on board or discharged to a
reception facility and the vessel may be subject to inspection and detention if found to
have detainable deficiencies.
7.3 Vessels that operate within the Great Lakes and St. Lawrence River should comply with
the “Voluntary Management Practices to Reduce the Transfer of Aquatic Nuisance
Species Within the Great Lakes by U.S. and Canadian Domestic Shipping” of the Lake
Carriers Association and the Canadian Shipowners Association while operating
anywhere within the Great Lakes and the Seaway (see Seaway Notice No. 6 – 2002 at
http://www.greatlakes-seaway.com/en/navigation/notice20020322e.html).
8. VESSELS OPERATING ONLY IN WATERS UNDER CANADIAN

JURISDICTION SUBSEQUENT TO OPERATING OUTSIDE
WATERS UNDER CANADIAN JURISDICTION
8.1 Subsection 2(1) of the Regulations provides an exemption for vessels operating exclusively in
waters under Canadian jurisdiction or certain adjacent waters. Since vessels that have operated
outside these waters may carry harmful aquatic organisms or pathogens in their residual ballast,
the exemption is not applicable to any vessel that has made a voyage outside these waters.
8.2 Where a vessel that has operated outside the waters mentioned in subsection 2(1) of the
Regulations and subsequently operates only in these waters (for example an existing vessel
brought into Canadian registry, a vessel on the coasting trade or a Canadian vessel employed
elsewhere and returning to the Canadian trade) and carries residual ballast that might be
discharged directly or after being mixed with other waters, Transport Canada will initially treat
the vessel the same as an exceptional circumstance and require the vessel to comply with one
or more of the provisions listed in subsection 13(5) of the Regulations. Transport Canada will
determine how long these provisions must be complied with before it can be considered that
the vessel is no longer discharging ballast taken on board the vessel outside of waters under
Canadian jurisdiction – at this point the requirements of sections 6 and 7 of the Regulations
would no longer be applicable and ballast water management would no longer be necessary.
9. COMPLIANCE AND ENFORCEMENT

9.1 A vessel may be subject to inspection by Transport Canada inspectors for the purpose of
determining whether the vessel is in compliance with the Regulations. Such inspection
may include inspection of the ballast water record book, ballast water management plan,
sampling of the vessels ballast water, and any other documentation or assistance as
required by the inspector.
9.2 When Transport Canada receives a report that a vessel is not able to comply with the
provisions of the Regulations, the situation is treated as an “exceptional circumstance” in
accordance with section 13 of the Regulations. Transport Canada inspectors will, in
consultation with the master, determine the measures that will need to be taken to reduce
as much as practicable the likelihood of the introduction of harmful aquatic organisms or
pathogens into waters under Canadian jurisdiction. In such cases, masters should be
prepared to provide information respecting the nature of the ballast water being carried and
possible operations that the vessel could take.
9.3 In cases where Transport Canada determines that a vessel did not comply with the
Regulations and / or the “Code of Best Practices for Ballast Water Management”
published by the Shipping Federation of Canada, as applicable, the vessel may be
subject to inspection and detention in accordance with subsection 222(1) of the
Canada Shipping Act, 2001.
9.4 An example of the inspection form used by Transport Canada is attached as Schedule 4 of
this Guide.
10. RESEARCH
10.1 In addition to any inspections to verify compliance with the provisions of the Regulations,
vessels may be boarded and samples of ballast water may be collected for scientific
analysis in order to further research the effectiveness of ballast water management.
10.2 Masters and owners are requested to provide as much assistance as possible to those
persons involved with the scientific analysis.
SCHEDULE 1 – GUIDELINES FOR BALLAST WATER

MANAGEMENT AND DEVELOPMENT OF BALLAST WATER
MANAGEMENT PLANS (G4)
ADOPTED ON 22 JULY 2005
THE MARINE ENVIRONMENT PROTECTION COMMITTEE

RECALLING Article 38(a) of the Convention on the International Maritime Organization concerning the
functions of the Marine Environment Protection Committee conferred upon it by the international conventions
for the prevention and control of marine pollution,
RECALLING ALSO that the International Conference on Ballast Water Management for Vessels held
in February 2004 adopted the International Convention for the Control and Management of Ships’
Ballast Water and Sediments, 2004 (the Ballast Water Management Convention) together with four
Conference resolutions,
NOTING that Regulation A-2 of the Ballast Water Management Convention requires that discharge of
ballast water shall only be conducted through Ballast Water Management in accordance with the provisions
of the Annex to the Convention,
NOTING FURTHER that Regulation B-1 of the Annex to the Ballast Water Management Convention
provides that each vessel shall have on board and implement a ballast water management plan approved
by the Administration, taking into account Guidelines developed by the Organization,
NOTING ALSO that resolution 1 adopted by the International Conference on Ballast Water Management
for Ships invites the Organization to develop these Guidelines as a matter of urgency,
HAVING CONSIDERED the draft Guidelines for ballast water management and development of ballast
water management plans developed by the Ballast Water Working Group and the recommendation made by
the Sub-Committee on Bulk Liquids and Gases at its ninth session,
1. ADOPTS the Guidelines for ballast water management and development of ballast water management
plans, as set out in the Annex to this resolution;
2. INVITES Governments to apply the Guidelines as soon as possible, or when the Convention
becomes applicable to them; and
ANNEX – GUIDELINES FOR BALLAST WATER

MANAGEMENT AND DEVELOPMENT OF BALLAST WATER
MANAGEMENT PLANS
1. INTRODUCTION
1.1 Ballast water is essential to control trim, list, draught, stability, or stresses of the vessel.
However, ballast water may contain aquatic organisms or pathogens which, if introduced
into the sea including estuaries, or into fresh water courses, may create hazards to the
environment, human health, property or resources, impair biological diversity or interfere
with other legitimate uses of such areas.
1.2 The selection of appropriate methods of ballast water management should take into
account the need ensure that Ballast Water Management practices used to comply
with this Convention do not cause greater harm than they prevent to the environment,
human health, property or resources of any States and the safety of vessels.
1.3 The objectives of these Guidelines are to assist Governments, appropriate authorities,
vessels masters, operators and owners, and port authorities, as well as other interested
parties, in preventing, minimizing and ultimately eliminating the risk of introducing
harmful aquatic organisms and pathogens from vessels' ballast water and associated
sediments while protecting vessels’ safety in applying the International Convention
for the Control and Management of Ships’ Ballast Water and Sediments
(hereinafter referred to as the “Convention”).
1.4 These guidelines consist of two parts:
Part A: “Guidelines for Ballast Water Management”, which contains guidance on
the general principles of Ballast Water Management; and
Part B: “Guidelines for the development of Ballast Water Management Plans,”
which contains guidance on the structure and content of Ballast Water
Management Plans required by Regulation B-1 of the Convention.
2. DEFINITIONS
2.1 For the purposes of these Guidelines, the definitions in the Convention apply.
2.2 Ballast Water Tank means any tank, hold, or space used for the carriage of ballast water.
3. APPLICATION
3.1 The Guidelines apply to all vessels and to Flag Administrations, port States, coastal States,
vessel owners, vessel operators, vessels’ personnel involved in Ballast Water Management,
vessel designers, vessel builders, classification societies as well as other interested parties.
PART A – GUIDELINES FOR BALLAST WATER MANAGEMENT
1. VESSEL OPERATIONAL PROCEDURES

1.1 PRECAUTIONARY PRACTICES
AVOIDING UNNECESSARY DISCHARGE OF BALLAST WATER

1.1.1 If it is necessary to take on and discharge ballast water in the same port to facilitate
safe cargo operations, care should be taken to avoid unnecessary discharge of
ballast water that has been taken up in another port.
1.1.2 Managed ballast water which is mixed with unmanaged ballast water is no longer
in compliance with Regulations D-1 and D-2 of the Annex to the Convention.
MINIMIZING THE UPTAKE OF HARMFUL AQUATIC ORGANISMS,

PATHOGENS AND SEDIMENTS
1.1.3 When loading ballast, every effort should be made to avoid the uptake of
potentially harmful aquatic organisms, pathogens, and sediment that may
contain such organisms. The uptake of ballast water should be minimized
or, where practicable, avoided in areas and situations such as:
1.1.3.1 in areas identified by the port State in connection with advice provided
by ports under paragraph 2.2.2;
1.1.3.2 in darkness when organisms may rise up in the water column;
1.1.3.3 in very shallow water;
1.1.3.4 where propellers may stir up sediment; or
1.1.3.5 where dredging is or recently has been carried out.
1.2 BALLAST WATER MANAGEMENT OPTIONS

1.2.1 BALLAST WATER EXCHANGE
1.2.1.1 Ballast water exchange is to be conducted in accordance with
Regulation B-4 of the Convention and in accordance with the
Guidelines for Ballast Water Exchange.
1.2.1.2 The voyage should be planned taking into account when ballast water
exchange in accordance with Regulation B–4 of the Convention can be
carried out.
1.2.1.3 Because of the possibility that partially exchange may encourage re-growth
of organisms, ballast water exchange should only be commenced in any tank
if there is sufficient time to complete the exchange to comply with the
standard in Regulation D-1 and the vessel can comply with the distance from
land and minimum water depth criteria in Regulation B-4.
As many complete tanks should be exchanged to the standard in Regulation D-1 as
the time allows, if for any tank the standard in Regulation D-1 can not be fully met
the exchange should not be commenced for that tank.
1.2.1.4 If ballast water exchange is not undertaken for the reasons in Regulation
B-4.4, i.e. if the master reasonably decides that such exchange would
threaten the safety or stability of the vessel, its crew, or its passengers
because of adverse weather, vessel design or stress, equipment failure,
or any other extraordinary condition, then details of the reasons ballast
water exchange was not undertaken are to be recorded in the
Ballast Water Record Book.
1.2.1.5 A port State may designate areas in which exchange may be conducted
taking into account the Guidelines on designation of areas for ballast
water exchange. Designated areas should only be used for those ballast
water tanks that are intended to be discharged in the port of that State
and that could not be exchanged in accordance with Regulation B-4.1 of
the Convention.
1.2.2 BALLAST WATER MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS
1.2.2.1 Ballast Water Management Systems installed for compliance with
Regulation B-3 are to be approved in accordance with Regulation D-3.
Such systems are to be operated in accordance with the system design
criteria and the manufacture’s operational and maintenance instructions.
The use of such systems should be detailed in the vessel’s Ballast Water
Management Plan. All failures and malfunctions of the system are to be
recorded in the Ballast Water Record Book.
1.2.3 DISCHARGE TO BALLAST WATER RECEPTION FACILITIES
1.2.3.1 If ballast water reception facilities provided by a port State are utilized,
Regulation B-3.6 applies.
1.2.4 PROTOTYPE BALLAST WATER TREATMENT TECHNOLOGIES
1.2.4.1 Prototype ballast water treatment technologies should be used within a
programme approved by the Administration in accordance with Regulation D-4.
1.3 SEDIMENT MANAGEMENT

1.3.1 Regulation B-5 requires that all vessels shall remove and dispose of sediments
from spaces designated to carry ballast water in accordance with the ballast water
management plan.
1.3.2 All practical steps should be taken during ballast uptake to avoid sediment
accumulation, however, it is recognized that sediment will be taken on board and
will settle on tank surfaces. When sediment has accumulated, consideration
should be given to flushing tank bottoms and other surfaces when in suitable
areas, i.e. areas complying with the minimum depth and distance described by
Regulations B-4.1.1 and B-4.1.2.
1.3.3 The volume of sediment in a ballast tank should be monitored on a regular basis.
1.3.4 Sediment in ballast tanks should be removed in a timely basis in accordance with
the Ballast Water Management Plan and as found necessary. The frequency and
timing of removal will depend on factors such as sediment build up, vessel’s
trading pattern, availability of reception facilities, work load of the vessel’s
personnel and safety considerations.
1.3.5 Removal of sediment from ballast tanks should preferably be undertaken under
controlled conditions in port, at a repair facility or in dry dock. The removed
sediment should preferably be disposed of in a sediment reception facility if
available, reasonable and practicable.
1.3.6 When sediment is removed from the vessel’s ballast tanks and is to be disposed of
by that vessel at sea, such disposal should only take place in areas outside 200 nm
from land and in water depths of over 200 m.
1.3.7 Regulation B-5 requires that vessels constructed in or after 2009 should, without
compromising safety or operational efficiency, be designed and constructed with
a view to minimize the uptake and undesirable entrapment of sediments,
facilitate removal of sediments, and provide safe access to allow for sediment
removal and sampling, taking into account the Guidelines for sediment control
on vessels (G12). This also applies to vessels constructed prior to 2009, to the
extent practicable.
1.4 ADDITIONAL MEASURES

1.4.1 Vessels to which additional measures apply, under Regulation C-1, should take
them into account in the vessels voyage planning. Actions taken to comply with
any additional measures should be recorded in the Ballast Water Record Book.
1.5 EXEMPTIONS
1.5.1 Regulation A-4 provides that an exemption may be granted from the requirements of
Regulations B-3 or C-1 by a Party or Parties to a vessel in specific circumstances.
Applications for and the granting of such exemptions should be completed in
accordance with the Guidelines for risk assessment under Regulation A-4 (G7).
1.5.2 Vessels granted an exemption referred to in paragraph 1.5.1 above should record
the exemption in the Ballast Water Record Book and what actions have been
taken with regards to the vessels ballast water.
2. RECORDING PROCEDURES
2.1 PROCEDURES FOR VESSELS

2.1.1 To facilitate the administration of ballast water management and treatment procedures
on board each vessel, a responsible officer is to be designated in accordance with
Regulation B-1 to ensure the maintenance of appropriate records and to ensure that
ballast water management and/or treatment procedures are followed and recorded.
2.1.2 When carrying out any ballast water operation the details are to be recorded in the
Ballast Water Record Book together with any exemptions granted in accordance
with Regulation B-3 or C-1.
2.1.3 Where a port State requires information on vessels ballast operations, relevant
documentation, which takes account of the information requirements of the
Convention, should be made available to the port State.
2.2 PROCEDURES FOR PORT STATES

2.2.1 Port States should provide vessels with details of their requirements concerning
ballast water management including:
2.2.1.1 the location and terms of use of areas designated for ballast water exchange
under Regulation B-4.2 of the Convention;
2.2.1.2 any additional measures determined under Regulation C-1 of the Convention;
2.2.1.3 warnings concerning ballast uptake and any other port contingency
arrangements in the event of emergency situations; and
2.2.1.4 the availability, location, capacities of reception facilities that are provided
for the environmentally safe disposal of ballast water and/or sediments,
under Article 5 and Regulation B-3.6.
2.2.2 To assist vessels in applying the precautionary practices described in section 1.1 of
Part A, port States are required by Regulation C-2 of the Convention to endeavour
to notify mariners of area(s), where vessels should not uptake Ballast Water due to
known conditions. Similar notification should be given for areas where the uptake
of ballast water should be minimized, such as:
2.2.2.1 areas with outbreaks, infestations or known populations of harmful
organisms and pathogens;
2.2.2.2 areas with current phytoplankton blooms (algal blooms, such as red tides);
2.2.2.3 nearby sewage outfalls;
2.2.2.4 areas where a tidal stream is known to be the more turbid;
2.2.2.5 areas where tidal flushing is known to be poor;
2.2.2.6 nearby dredging operations; and
2.2.2.7 nearby or in sensitive or estuarine sea areas.
3. TRAINING AND EDUCATION

3.1 Regulation B-6 requires that officers and crew shall be familiar with their duties in the
implementation of Ballast Water Management particular to the vessel on which they serve.
Owners, managers, operators, and others involved in officer and crew training for ballast
water management should consider the following:
3.2 Training for vessels’ masters and crews as appropriate should include instructions on the
requirements of the Convention, the ballast water and sediment management procedures and
the Ballast Water Record Book particularly having regard to matters of vessel safety and
maintenance of records in accordance with the information contained in these Guidelines.
3.3 The Ballast Water Management Plan should include training and education on ballast water
management practices and the systems and procedures used on board the vessel.
PART B – GUIDELINES FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF BALLAST

WATER MANAGEMENT PLANS
1. INTRODUCTION
1.1 These Guidelines have been developed to assist with the preparation of a vessel’s Ballast
Water Management Plan (hereafter referred to as the “Plan”). The Plan must be approved
by the Administration in accordance with Regulation B-1 of the Convention.
1.2 This Part is comprised of three primary sections:
1.2.1 General: this section provides the objectives and a general overview of the subject
matter and introduces the reader to the basic concept of the Guidelines and the Plan
that is expected to be developed from them. This section also contains guidance on
updating and use of the Plan.
1.2.2 Mandatory provisions: this section provides guidance to ensure that the mandatory
provisions of Regulation B-1 of the Annex to the Convention are met.
1.2.3 Non-mandatory provisions: this section provides guidance concerning the inclusion
of other information in the Plan. This information, although not required under
Regulation B-1 of the Convention, may be found useful by local authorities in ports
visited by the vessel, or may provide additional assistance to the vessel’s master.
1.3 The format for a Ballast Water Management Plan is given in the Appendix.
2. GENERAL
2.1 CONCEPT OF THE GUIDELINES
2.1.1 These Guidelines are intended to provide a basis for the preparation of the Plans for
individual vessels.
The broad spectrum of vessels for which Plans are required makes it impractical to
provide specific guidelines for each vessel type. For a Plan to be effective and to
comply with Regulation B-1 of the Annex of the Convention, it must be carefully
tailored to the particular vessel for which it is intended. Properly used, the Guidelines
will ensure that all appropriate issues that may be applicable to a particular vessel are
considered in developing the Plan.
2.1.2 The issues that may require consideration include but are not limited to: type and size of
vessel, volume of ballast carried and total capacity of tanks used for ballast, ballast
pumping capacity, vessel and crew safety issues, voyage type and length, the vessel’s
typical operational requirements, and ballast water management techniques used on board.
2.2 CONCEPT OF THE PLAN

2.2.1 The Plan is required to be onboard the vessel and available to guide personnel in safe
operation of the Ballast Water Management system employed on a particular vessel.
Effective planning ensures that the necessary actions are taken in a structured, logical,
and safe manner.
2.2.2 For the Plan to accomplish its purpose, it must be:
2.2.2.1 realistic, practical, and easy to use;
2.2.2.2 understood by vessel’s personnel engaged in ballast water management, both
on board and ashore;
2.2.2.3 evaluated, reviewed, and updated as necessary; and
2.2.2.4 consistent with the operational ballasting requirements of the vessel.
2.2.3 The Plan envisioned by Regulation B-1 of the Annex to the Convention is intended
to be a simple document. Inclusion of extensive background information on the
vessel, its structure, etc., should be avoided, as this is generally available elsewhere.
If such information is relevant, it should be kept in annexes, or an existing
document or manual reference should be made to the location of the information.
2.2.4 The Plan is a document to be used on board by the vessel’s personnel engaged in
ballast water management. The Plan must therefore be available in a working
language of the vessel’s personnel. A change in the personnel and or the, working
language or would require the issuance of the Plan in the new language(s).
2.2.5 The Plan should be readily available for inspection by officers authorized by a
Party to the Convention.
2.3 EXEMPTIONS
2.3.1 Regulation A-4 allows that exemption may be granted to a vessel from
Regulation B-3 or C 1.
2.3.2 Details of exemptions should be retained with the Plan.
2.3.3 Any exemption granted is to be recorded in the Ballast Water Record Book.
2.4 ADDITIONAL MEASURES

2.4.1 The Convention, in Regulation C-1 Additional Measures, gives a Party individually
or jointly with other Parties, the right to introduce measures in addition to those in
Section B. Such Additional Measures are to be communicated to the Organization
at least 6 months prior to the projected date of implementation.
2.4.2 The Plan should be accompanied by a most recent list of Additional measures, as
communicated by the Organization relevant to the vessel’s trade. The Plan should
contain details and advice on the actions a vessel must take to comply with any
additional measures that may be required in accordance with Regulation C-1 and
for any emergency or epidemic situations.
2.5 REVIEW OF THE PLAN

2.5.1 Regular review of the Plan by the owner, operator, or master should be conducted to
ensure that the information contained is accurate and updated. A feedback system
should be employed which will allow quick capture of changing information and
incorporation of it into the Plan.
2.5.2 Changes to the provisions of this Plan will need Administration approval.
3. MANDATORY PROVISIONS
3.1 This section provides individual guidelines for the seven mandatory provisions of
Regulation B-1 of the Annex to the Convention. In addition, it provides information to assist
vessels personnel in managing ballast water and sediments.
3.2 Regulation B-1 of the Annex to the Convention provides that the Plan shall be specific to
each vessel and shall at least:
3.2.1 detail safety procedures for the vessel and the crew associated with Ballast Water
Management as required by the Convention;
3.2.2 provide a detailed description of the actions to be taken to implement the Ballast
Water Management practices required by the Convention;
3.2.3 detail the procedures for the disposal of sediments at sea and to shore;
3.2.4 include the procedures for co-ordinating shipboard Ballast Water Management that
involves discharge to the sea with the authorities of the State into whose waters
such discharge will take place;
3.2.5 designates the officer on board in charge of ensuring that the Plan is properly implemented;
3.2.6 contain the reporting requirements for vessels provided for under the Convention; and
3.2.7 be written in the working language of the vessel. If the language used is not English,
French or Spanish, a translation into one of these languages should be provided.
3.3 The Ballast Water Management Plan should give guidance on the ballast handling
procedures to be followed, including:
3.3.1 uptake of ballast water;
3.3.2 step-by-step procedures and sequences for the Ballast Water Management System
used; and
3.3.3 any operational or safety restrictions including those associated with the Ballast
Water Management System used. This will also assist vessel’s personnel when
responding to enquiries from inspection officers authorized by a Party.
3.4 Safety aspects of the Ballast Water Management system used should include, as applicable,
guidance on:
3.4.1 stability to be maintained at all times to values not less than those recommended by
the Organization (or required by the Administration);
3.4.2 approved longitudinal stress and, where applicable, torsional stress values are to be
maintained within permitted values;
3.4.3 transfer or exchange of ballast that can generate significant structural loads by
sloshing action in partially-filled tanks. If these operations include partially-filled
tanks, consideration should be given to carrying out the operation in favourable sea
and swell conditions such that the risk of structural damage is minimized;
3.4.4 wave-induced hull vibrations when carrying out ballast water exchange;
3.4.5 forward and aft draughts and trim, with particular reference to bridge visibility,
slamming and minimum forward draft;
3.4.6 the effects of any potential hazards and occupational health that may affect vessel’s
personnel shall also be identified together with any safety precautions that need to
be taken; and
3.4.7 the possible effects of tank over pressurization.
3.5 If a vessel is able to complete at least 95 per cent volumatic exchange in less than three pumped
volumes, documentation indicating that this ballast water exchange process has been approved
under Regulation D-1.2 should be provided in the Plan.
3.6 The Plan should also include procedures for the disposal of sediments and in particular:
3.6.1 on the sediment removal or reduction at sea, and when cleaning of the ballast tanks
to remove sediments;
3.6.2 regarding the safety consideration to be taken if tank entry is required to remove
sediments; and
3.6.3 regarding the use of port reception facilities for sediments.
3.7 The Plan should clearly identify the officer in charge of ballast water management and
outline his/her duties which should include:
3.7.1 ensuring that the Ballast Water Management performed follows the procedures in the Plan;
3.7.2 ensuring that the Ballast Water Record Book and any other necessary documentation
are maintained; and
3.7.3 being available to assist the inspection officers authorized by a Party for any sampling
that may need to be undertaken.
3.8 The Plan should contain guidance on the recording requirements according to vessel’s Ballast
Water Record Book provided for under this Convention including details of exemptions
granted to the vessel.
3.9 In addition to the above, the Plan should include the following:
a) A foreword which should provide the vessel’s crew with explanations on the need
for ballast water management and for record keeping. The foreword should include
a statement that, “This Plan must be kept available for inspection on request by an
authorized authority.”
b) Vessel particulars including at least:
i) vessels’ name, flag, port of registry, Gross Tonnage, IMO number*, length (BP),
beam, international call sign; deepest ballast drafts (normal and heavy weather);
ii) the total ballast capacity of the vessel in cubic meters and other units if
applicable to the vessel;
iii) a brief description of the main ballast water management method(s) used on
the vessel; and
iv) identification (rank) of the officer in charge for implementing the Plan.
c) Information on Ballast Water Management System used on board, including:
i) ballast tank arrangement;
ii) ballast capacity plan;
iii) a ballast water piping and pumping arrangement, including air pipes and
sounding arrangements;
iv) ballast water pump capacities;
v) the Ballast Water Management System used on board, with references to
operational and maintenance manuals held on board;
vi) installed ballast water treatment systems; and
vii) a plan and profile of the vessel, or a schematic drawing of the ballast arrangement.
d) Information on the ballast water sampling points, including:
i) A list or diagrams indicating the location of sampling and access points in
pipelines and ballast water tanks, to enable crew members to assist the
authorized officers of a Party that have reason to obtain samples.
ii) This section should make clear that sampling of ballast water is primarily a
matter for the authorized inspection officers, and there is unlikely to be any
need for crew members to take samples except at the express request, and
under the supervision, of the authorized inspection officers.
iii) The authorized inspection officers should be advised of all safety procedures
to be observed when entering enclosed spaces.
e) Provisions for crew training and familiarization, including:
i) requirements of a general nature regarding Ballast Water Management;
ii) training and information on ballast water management practices;
iii) ballast water exchange;
iv) ballast water treatment systems;

v) general safety considerations;
vi) the Ballast Water Record Book and maintenance of records;
vii) the operation and maintenance of installed ballast water treatment systems;
viii) safety aspects associated with the particular systems and procedures used
onboard the vessel which affect the safety or human health of crew and
passengers and/or the safety of the vessel;
ix) precautions for entering tanks for sediment removal;
x) procedures for the safe handling and packaging of sediment; and
xi) storage of sediment.
4. NON-MANDATORY INFORMATION
4.1 In addition to the provisions required by Articles and regulations of the Convention, the
owner/operator may include in the Plan, as appendices, additional information such as:
provision of additional diagrams and drawings, shipboard equipment and reference
materials. National or regional requirements that differ from the Convention may also be
recorded for reference.
4.2 Non-mandatory information may also include manufactures manuals
(either as extracts or complete) or reference to the location on board of such manuals and
other relevant material.
APPENDIX – STANDARD FORMAT FOR THE BALLAST WATER

MANAGEMENT PLAN
PREAMBLE
The ballast water management plan should contain the information required by Regulation B-1 of the Convention.
For guidance in preparing the plan the following information is to be included. The plan should be specific
to each vessel.
INTRODUCTION
At the beginning of each plan, wording should be included to reflect the intent of the following text.
1. This Plan is written in accordance with the requirements of Regulation B-1 of the International
Convention for the Control and Management of Ships’ Ballast Water and Sediments, 2004
(the Convention) and the associated Guidelines.
2. The purpose of the Plan is to meet the requirements for the control and management of ship’s ballast
water and sediments in accordance with the Guidelines for Ballast Water Management and the
Development of Ballast Water Management Plans resolution MEPC XX(YY) (The Guidelines).
It provides standard operational guidance for the planning and management of vessels’ ballast water
and sediments and describes safe procedures to be followed.
3. This Plan has been approved by the Administration and no alteration or revision shall be made to
any part of it without the prior approval of the Administration.
4. This Plan may be inspected on request by an authorized authority.
Note: The Plan is to be written in the working language of the crew, if the text is not in English,
French, or Spanish, the plan is to include a translation into one of these languages.
VESSEL PARTICULARS
At least the following details should be included:
x Vessels’ name;
x Flag;
x Port of registry;
x Gross Tonnage;
x IMO number*;
_______________________________________
* In accordance with resolution A.600(15), IMO Ship Identification Number Scheme.
x Length (BP);
x Beam;
x International call sign;
x Deepest ballast drafts (normal and heavy weather);
Total ballast capacity of the vessel in cubic meters and other units if applicable to the vessel;
A brief description of the main ballast water management method(s) used on the vessel; and
Identification (rank) of the appointed ballast water management officer.
INDEX
An index of sections should be included to reference the content of the Plan.
PURPOSE
Should contain a brief introduction for the vessel’s crew, explaining the need for ballast water management,
and the importance of accurate record keeping.
PLANS/DRAWINGS OF THE BALLAST SYSTEM

Plans or drawings of the ballast system,for example:
1) ballast tank arrangement;
2) ballast capacity plan;
3) a ballast water piping and pumping arrangement, including air pipes and sounding arrangements;
4) ballast water pump capacities;
5) the ballast water management system used onboard, with references to detailed operational and
maintenance manuals held on board;
6) installed ballast water treatment systems; and
7) a plan and profile of the vessel, or a schematic drawing of the ballast arrangement.
DESCRIPTION OF THE BALLAST SYSTEM

A description of the ballast system.
BALLAST WATER SAMPLING POINTS

Lists and/or diagrams indicating the location of sampling and access points in pipelines and ballast
water tanks.
A note that sampling of ballast water is primarily a matter for the authorized authority, and there is unlikely
to be any need for crew members to take samples except at the express request, and under the supervision,
of the authorized authority.
OPERATION OF THE BALLAST WATER MANAGEMENT SYSTEM

A detailed description of the operation of the Ballast Water Management System(s) used on board.
Information on general ballast water management precautionary practices.
SAFETY PROCEDURES FOR THE VESSEL AND THE CREW

Details of specific safety aspects of the ballast water management system used.
OPERATIONAL OR SAFETY RESTRICTIONS

Details of specific operational or safety restrictions including those associated with the management system
which affects the vessel and or the crew including reference to procedures for safe tank entry.
DESCRIPTION OF THE METHOD(S) USED ON BOARD FOR BALLAST WATER

MANAGEMENT AND SEDIMENT CONTROL
Details of the method(s) used on board for the management of ballast and for sediment control including
step-by-step operational procedures.
PROCEDURES FOR THE DISPOSAL OF SEDIMENTS

Procedures for the disposal of sediments at sea and to shore.
METHODS OF COMMUNICATION
Details of the procedures for co-ordinating the discharge of ballast in waters of a coastal State.
DUTIES OF THE BALLAST WATER MANAGEMENT OFFICER

Outline of the duties of the designated officer.
RECORDING REQUIREMENTS
Details of the record-keeping requirements of the Convention.
CREW TRAINING AND FAMILIARIZATION

Information on the provision of crew training and familiarization.
EXEMPTIONS
Details of any exemptions granted to the vessel under Regulation A-4.
APPROVING AUTHORITY
Details and stamp of approving authority.
SCHEDULE 2 – GUIDELINES FOR BALLAST WATER

EXCHANGE (G6)

functions of the Marine Environment Protection Committee conferred upon it by the international
conventions for the prevention and control of marine pollution,
RECALLING ALSO that the International Conference on Ballast Water Management for Vessels held
in February 2004 adopted the International Convention for the Control and Management of Ships’
Ballast Water and Sediments, 2004 (the Ballast Water Management Convention) together with four
Conference resolutions,
NOTING FURTHER that Regulation B-4 of the Annex to the Ballast Water Management Convention
addresses the conditions under which ballast water exchange should be conducted, taking into account
Guidelines developed by the Organization,
NOTING ALSO that resolution 1 adopted by the International Conference on Ballast Water Management
for Ships invites the Organization to develop these Guidelines as a matter of urgency,
HAVING CONSIDERED the draft Guidelines for ballast water exchange developed by the Ballast Water
Working Group and the recommendation made by the Sub-Committee on Bulk Liquids and Gases at its
ninth session,
1. ADOPTS the Guidelines for ballast water exchange, as set out in the Annex to this resolution;
2. INVITES Governments to apply the Guidelines as soon as possible, or when the Convention
becomes applicable to them; and
ANNEX – GUIDELINES FOR BALLAST WATER EXCHANGE (G6)
1. INTRODUCTION
1.1 The purpose of these Guidelines is to provide shipowners and operators with general
guidance on the development of vessel specific procedures for conducting ballast water
exchange. Whenever possible vessel owner and operators should enlist the assistance of
classification societies or qualified marine surveyors in tailoring ballast exchange practices
for various conditions of weather, cargo and stability. The application of processes and
procedures concerning ballast water management are at the core of the solution to prevent,
minimize and ultimately eliminate the introduction of harmful aquatic organisms and
pathogens. Ballast water exchange offers a means, when used in conjunction with good
ballast water management practices, to assist in achieving this solution.
1.2 Ballast water exchange introduces a number of safety issues, which affect both the vessel
and its crew. These Guidelines are intended to provide guidance on the safety and
operational aspects of ballast water exchange at sea.
1.3 Given that there are different types of vessels, which may be required to undertake ballast
water exchange at sea, it is impractical to provide specific guidelines for each vessel type.
Shipowners are cautioned that they should consider the many variables that apply to their
vessels. Some of these variables include type and size of vessel, ballast tank configurations
and associated pumping systems, trading routes and associated weather conditions, port
State requirements and manning.
APPLICATION
1.4 The Guidelines apply to all those involved with ballast water exchange including,
shipowners and operators, designers, classification societies and shipbuilders. Operational
procedures and guidance reflecting the issues rose in these Guidelines should be reflected
in the vessels ballast water management plan.
2. DEFINITIONS
2.1 For the purposes of these Guidelines, the definitions in the International Convention for the
Control and Management of Ships’ Ballast Water and Sediments (the Convention) apply and:
2.1.1 “Ballast Water Tank” – means any tank, hold, or space used for the carriage of
ballast water.
3. RESPONSIBILITIES
3.1 Shipowners and operators should ensure, prior to undertaking ballast water exchange, that
all the safety aspects associated with the ballast water exchange method or methods used
onboard have been considered and that suitably trained personnel are onboard. A review of
the safety aspects, the suitability of the exchange methods being used and the aspects of
crew training should be undertaken at regular intervals.
3.2 The Ballast Water Management Plan is to include the duties of key shipboard control personnel
undertaking ballast water exchange at sea. Such personnel should be fully conversant with the
safety aspects of ballast water exchange and in particular the method of exchange used on
board their vessel and the particular safety aspects associated with the method used.
3.3 In accordance with Regulation B-4.4 of the Convention if the master reasonably decides
that to perform ballast water exchange would threaten the safety or stability of the
vessel, its crew or its passengers, because of adverse weather, the vessel’s design, stress,
equipment failure, or any other extraordinary condition a vessel shall not be required to
comply with Regulations B-4.1 and B-4.2.
3.3.1 When a vessel does not undertake ballast water exchange for the reasons stated in
paragraph above, the reasons shall be entered in the Ballast Water Record Book.
3.3.2 The port or coastal State concerned may require that the discharge of ballast water
must be in accordance with procedures determined by them taking into account the
Guidelines for additional measures including emergency situations (G13).
4. BALLAST WATER EXCHANGE REQUIREMENTS

4.1 Exchange of ballast water in deep ocean areas or open seas offers a means of limiting the
probability that harmful aquatic organisms and pathogens be transferred in vessels ballast water.
4.2 Regulation D-1 of the Convention requires that:
4.2.1 vessels performing ballast water exchange in accordance with this regulation shall do
so with an efficiency of at least 95 per cent volumetric exchange of ballast water; and
4.2.2 for vessels exchanging ballast water by the pumping-through method, pumping
through three times the volume of each ballast water tank shall be considered to
meet the standard described in paragraph 1. Pumping through less than three
times the volume may be accepted provided the vessel can demonstrate that at
least 95 per cent volumetric exchange is met.
4.3 There are three methods of Ballast Water exchange which have been evaluated and accepted
by the Organization. The three methods are the sequential method, the flow-through method
and the dilution method. The flow-through method and the dilution method are considered as
“pump through” methods.
4.4 The three accepted methods can be described as follows:
x Sequential method – a process by which a ballast tank intended for the carriage of
ballast water is first emptied and then refilled with replacement ballast water to
achieve at least a 95 per cent volumetric exchange.
x Flow-through method – a process by which replacement ballast water is pumped
into a ballast tank intended for the carriage of ballast water, allowing water to flow
through overflow or other arrangements.
x Dilution method – a process by which replacement ballast water is filled through the
top of the ballast tank intended for the carriage of ballast water with simultaneous
discharge from the bottom at the same flow rate and maintaining a constant level in
the tank through out the ballast exchange operation.
5. SAFETY PRECAUTIONS ASSOCIATED WITH BALLAST

WATER EXCHANGE
5.1 Three methods of carrying out ballast water exchange at sea have been identified as
acceptable by the Organization. Each has particular safety aspects associated with it that
should be considered when selecting the method(s) to be used on a particular vessel.
5.2 When identifying the ballast water exchange method(s) for the first time for a particular
vessel, an evaluation should be made which should include:
5.2.1 the safety margins for stability and strength contained in allowable seagoing conditions,
as specified in the approved trim and stability booklet and the loading manual relevant
to individual types of vessels. Account should also be taken of the loading conditions
and the envisaged ballast water exchange method or methods to be used;
5.2.2 the ballast pumping and piping system taking account of the number of ballast pumps
and their capacities, size and arrangements of ballast water tanks; and
5.2.3 the availability and capacity of tank vents and overflow arrangements, for the flow
through method, the availability and capacity of tank overflow points, prevention of
under and over pressurization of the ballast tanks.
5.3 Particular account should be taken of the following:
5.3.1 stability which is to be maintained at all times and not less than those values
recommended by the Organization or required by the Administration;
5.3.2 longitudinal stress, and where applicable torsional stress values, not to exceed
permitted values with regard to prevailing sea conditions;
5.3.3 exchange of ballast in tanks where significant structural loads may be generated by
sloshing action in the partially filled tank to be carried out in favourable sea and swell
conditions such that the risk of structural damage is minimized;
5.3.4 wave-induced hull vibrations when carrying out ballast water exchange;
5.3.5 limitations of the available methods of ballast water exchange in respect of sea and
weather conditions;
5.3.6 forward and aft draughts and trim, with particular reference to bridge visibility,
slamming, propeller immersion and minimum forward draft; and
5.3.7 additional work loads on the master and crew.
5.4 Having undertaken an evaluation for a particular vessel and the exchange method or methods to
be used, the vessel should be provided with procedures, advice and information appropriate
to the exchange method(s) identified and vessel type in the Ballast Water Management Plan.
The procedures, advice, and information in the Ballast Water Management Plan, may include
but is not limited to the following:
5.4.1 avoidance of over and under-pressurization of ballast tanks;
5.4.2 free surface effects on stability and sloshing loads in tanks that may be slack at any
one time;
5.4.3 maintain adequate intact stability in accordance with an approved trim and stability booklet;
5.4.4 permissible seagoing strength limits of shear forces and bending moments in
5.4.5 torsional forces;
5.4.6 forward and aft draughts and trim, with particular reference to bridge visibility, propeller
immersion and minimum forward draft;
5.4.7 wave-induced hull vibrations when performing ballast water exchange;
5.4.8 watertight and weathertight closures (e.g. manholes) which may have to be opened
during ballast exchange must be re-secured;
5.4.9 maximum pumping/flow rates – to ensure the tank is not subjected to a pressure greater
than that for which it has been designed;
5.4.10 internal transfers of ballast;
5.4.11 admissible weather conditions;
5.4.12 weather routeing in areas seasonably affected by cyclones, typhoons, hurricanes, or
heavy icing conditions;
5.4.13 documented records of ballasting and/or de-ballasting and/or internal transfers of ballast;
5.4.14 contingency procedures for situations which may affect ballast water exchange at sea,
including deteriorating weather conditions, pump failure and loss of power;
5.4.15 time to complete the ballast water exchange for each tank or an appropriate sequence thereof;
5.4.16 continual monitoring of the ballast water operation; monitoring should include
pumps, levels in tanks, line and pump pressures, stability and stresses;
5.4.17 a list of circumstances in which ballast water exchange should not be undertaken.
These circumstances may result from critical situations of an exceptional nature or
force majeure due to stress of weather, known equipment failures or defects, or any
other circumstances in which human life or safety of the vessel is threatened;
5.4.18 ballast water exchange at sea should be avoided in freezing weather conditions. However,
when it is deemed absolutely necessary, particular attention should be paid to the hazards
associated with the freezing of overboard discharge arrangements, air pipes, ballast system
valves together with their means of control, and the build up of ice on deck; and
5.4.19 personnel safety, including precautions which may be required when personnel are
required to work on deck at night, in heavy weather, when ballast water overflows the
deck, and in freezing conditions. These concerns may be related to the risks to the
personnel of falling and injury, due to the slippery wet surface of the deck plate, when
water is overflowing on deck, and to the direct contact with the ballast water, in terms
of occupational health and safety.
5.5 During ballast water exchange sequences there may be times when, for a transitory period, one
or more of the following criteria cannot be fully met or are found to be difficult to maintain:
5.5.1 bridge visibility standards (SOLAS V/22);
5.5.2 propeller immersion; and
5.5.3 minimum draft forward.
5.6 As the choice of acceptable ballast water exchange sequences is limited for most vessels, it is not
always practicable to dismiss from consideration those sequences where transitory noncompliance
may occur. The practical alternative would be to accept such sequences provided an appropriate
note is placed in the Ballast Water Management Plan to alert the vessel’s master. The note would
advise the master of the nature of the transitory non-compliance, that additional planning may be
required and that adequate precautions need to be taken when using such sequences.
5.7 In planning a ballast water exchange operation that includes sequences which involve periods
when the criteria for propeller immersion, minimum draft and / or trim and bridge visibility
cannot be met, the Master should assess:
5.7.1 the duration(s) and time(s) during the operation that any of the criteria will not be met;
5.7.2 the effect(s) on the navigational and manoeuvring capabilities of the vessel; and
5.7.3 the time to complete the operation.
5.8 A decision to proceed with the operation should only be taken when it is anticipated that:
5.8.1 the vessel will be in open water;
5.8.2 the traffic density will be low;
5.8.3 an enhanced navigational watch will be maintained including if necessary an additional
look out forward with adequate communications with the navigation bridge;
5.8.4 the manoeuvrability of the vessel will not be unduly impaired by the draft and trim
and or propeller immersion during the transitory period; and
5.8.5 the general weather and sea state conditions will be suitable and unlikely to deteriorate.
5.9 On oil tankers, segregated ballast and clean ballast may be discharged below the water line at
sea by pumps if the ballast water exchange is performed under the provisions of Regulation D-
1.1 of the International Convention for the Control and Management of Ships’ Ballast Water
and Sediments, provided that the surface of the ballast water has been examined either visually
or by other means immediately before the discharge to ensure that no contamination with oil
has taken place.
6. CREW TRAINING AND FAMILIARIZATION

6.1 Appropriate training for vessels’ masters and crews should include instructions on the safety
issues associated with ballast water exchange based upon the information contained in these
Guidelines. Instruction should be provided on the vessels’ Ballast Water Management Plan
including the completion of required records.
6.2 Vessels’ officers and crew engaged in ballast water exchange at sea should be trained in
and be familiar with the following as appropriate:
6.2.1 the vessel’s ballast pumping and piping arrangements, positions of associated air and
sounding pipes, positions of all compartment and tank suctions and pipelines connecting
them to vessel's ballast pumps and, in the case of use of the flow through method of
ballast water exchange, the openings used for release of water from the top of the tank
together with overboard discharge arrangements;
6.2.2 the method of ensuring that sounding pipes are clear, and that air pipes and their
non-return devices are in good order;
6.2.3 the different times required to undertake the various ballast water exchange operations
including the time to complete individual tanks;
6.2.4 the method(s) in use for ballast water exchange at sea if applicable with particular
reference to required safety precautions; and
6.2.5 the need to continually monitor ballast water exchange operations.
7. FUTURE CONSIDERATIONS IN RELATION TO BALLAST

WATER EXCHANGE
7.1 These Guidelines may be revised and updated in the light of possible technical evolutions with
the ballast water exchange methods and of new ballast water management options.
SCHEDULE 3 – GUIDELINES FOR BALLAST WATER MANAGEMENT

EQUIVALENT COMPLIANCE (G3)

functions of the Marine Environment Protection Committee conferred upon it by the international
conventions for the prevention and control of marine pollution,
RECALLING ALSO that the International Conference on Ballast Water Management for Ships held in
February 2004 adopted the International Convention for the Control and Management of Ships’ Ballast Water
and Sediments, 2004 (the Ballast Water Management Convention) together with four Conference resolutions,
NOTING FURTHER that Regulation A-5 of the Annex to the Ballast Water Management Convention
provides that equivalent compliance with its provisions for pleasure craft used solely for recreation or
competition or craft used primarily for search and rescue, less than 50 metres in length overall, and with a
maximum Ballast Water capacity of 8 cubic metres, shall be determined by the Administration taking into
account Guidelines developed by the Organization,
NOTING ALSO that resolution 1 adopted by the International Conference on Ballast Water
Management for Ships invites the Organization to develop these Guidelines as a matter of urgency,
HAVING CONSIDERED the draft Guidelines for ballast water management equivalent compliance
developed by the Ballast Water Working Group and the recommendation made by the Sub-Committee
on Bulk Liquids and Gases at its ninth session,
1. ADOPTS the Guidelines for ballast water management equivalent compliance, as set out in the annex
to this resolution;
2. INVITES Governments to apply the Guidelines as soon as possible, or when the Convention becomes
applicable to them; and
ANNEX – GUIDELINES FOR BALLAST WATER MANAGEMENT

EQUIVALENT COMPLIANCE (G3)
1. Administrations shall take these Guidelines into account in determining whether vessels satisfy
the requirements of Regulation A-5, Equivalent compliance of the International Convention for the
Control and Management of Ships’ Ballast Water and Sediments, 2004. Vessels subject to these
Guidelines should, insofar as practicable, comply with the Convention, and if that is not practicable,
shall achieve equivalent compliance in accordance with Regulation A-5 and these Guidelines.
DEFINITIONS
2. For the purpose of these Guidelines the definitions in the Convention apply.
APPLICATION
3. These Guidelines apply to pleasure craft used solely for recreation or competition or craft used
primarily for search and rescue less than 50 metres in overall length and with a maximum ballast
water capacity of eight cubic metres. Overall length means the length of the hull excluding
bowsprits, booms, bumpkins, pulpits, etc.
EXCEPTIONS
4. These Guidelines do not apply to the uptake or discharge of ballast water and sediments:
4.1 necessary for the purpose of ensuring the safety of a vessel in emergency situations or saving
life at sea;
4.2 when being used for the purpose of avoiding or minimizing pollution incidents from the
vessel; and
4.3 on the high seas of the same ballast water and sediments.
5. In addition, these Guidelines do not apply to:
5.1 the accidental discharge or ingress of ballast water and sediments resulting from damage to
a vessel or its equipment provided that all reasonable precautions have been taken before
and after the occurrence of the damage or discovery of the damage or discharge for the
purpose of preventing or minimizing the discharge and the owner or the person in charge
did not willfully cause such damage;
5.2 the discharge of ballast water and sediments from a vessel at the same location where the
whole of that ballast water and those sediments originated provided that no mixing with
unmanaged ballast water from other areas has occurred. In the context of these Guidelines,
“same location” shall be taken to mean the same harbour, mooring or anchorage; and
5.3 the discharge of ballast water and sediments if the master reasonably decides that compliance
with these Guidelines would threaten the safety or stability of the vessel, its crew, or its
passengers because of adverse weather, vessel design or stress, equipment failure, or any
other extraordinary condition.
PRECAUTIONARY PRACTICES TO MINIMIZE THE UPTAKE OR

TRANSFER OF HARMFUL AQUATIC ORGANISMS AND PATHOGENS
UPTAKE OF BALLAST WATER
6. Wherever possible, ballast water should be taken up outside of port waters and as far from the
coast as practicable. In addition, consideration should be given to the use of dockside water
supplies (e.g. water not taken directly from the harbour; such as fresh water, potable water, etc.)
as the source for ballast water.
7. When loading ballast water, every effort should be made to avoid the uptake of potentially harmful
aquatic organisms, pathogens and sediments that may contain such organisms. The uptake of ballast
water should be minimized or, where practicable, avoided in areas and situations such as:
7.1 in areas identified by the port State in connection with warnings provided by ports
concerning ballast uptake and any other port contingency arrangements in the event of
emergency situations;
7.2 in darkness when organisms may rise up in the water column;
7.3 in very shallow water;
7.4 where propellers may stir up sediment;
7.5 areas with current large phytoplankton blooms (algal blooms, such as red tides);
7.6 nearby sewage outfalls;
7.7 where a tidal stream is known to be more turbid;
7.8 where tidal flushing is known to be poor; or
7.9 in areas close to aquaculture.
8. If it is necessary to take on and discharge ballast water in the same location, care should be taken
to avoid unnecessary discharge of ballast water that has been taken up in another location.
DISCHARGE OF BALLAST WATER

9. To prevent, minimize and ultimately eliminate the transfer of harmful aquatic organisms and
pathogens to the maximum extent practicable taking into account the nature of the vessel Ballast Water
should either be exchanged prior to discharge in accordance with Regulation B-4 or otherwise managed
in accordance with the requirements of the Administration. Any chemical treatment shall only use
Active Substances approved by the Organization pursuant to Regulation D-3 of the Convention.
SEDIMENT CONTROL
10. Where practicable, routine cleaning of the ballast tank to remove sediments should be carried out
under controlled arrangements, and suitable arrangements made for the environmentally sound
disposal of any resulting sediments.
COMPLIANCE WITH OTHER GUIDELINES

11. Nothing in these Guidelines shall prevent a vessel to which these Guidelines apply from using any
method of Ballast Water Management approved under any other Guidelines issued by the Organization.
If suitable new and emergent treatments and technologies prove viable, these should be evaluated with a
view to be incorporated, as appropriate, into these Guidelines.
SCHEDULE 4 – BALLAST WATER MANAGEMENT

INSPECTION REPORT
A GUIDE TO CANADA’S BALLAST WATER CONTROL AND MANAGEMENT REGULATIONS TP 13617E
38 of 46
SCHEDULE 5 – ST. LAWRENCE SEAWAY BALLAST WATER REPORTING FORM

39 of 46
40 of 46
SCHEDULE 6 – CANADIAN BALLAST WATER REPORTING FORM

41 of 46
42 of 46
A GUIDE TO CANADA’S BALLAST WATER CONTROL TP 13617E
AND MANAGEMENT REGULATIONS 43 of 46
SCHEDULE 7 – INSTRUCTIONS FOR BALLAST WATER

REPORTING FORM
GENERAL
All entries should be typed or printed clearly and follow the guidance as laid out in these instructions.
Upon completion, the ballast water reporting form must be submitted as per the requirements of section 5.0
of TP 13617.
It is requested that whenever possible, the ballast water reporting form be submitted prior to entry into waters
under Canadian jurisdiction.
AMENDED FORMS
Check “Yes” if this is an amended reporting form or “No” if it is not. Amendments should be submitted if
there are any differences between actual ballast discharges and discharge information or changes to the
“Arrival Port” or “Next Port(s)” reported in a prior form.
SECTION 1 – VESSEL INFORMATION

1) Vessel Name: Enter the name of the vessel clearly.
2) IMO Number: Fill in the identification number of the vessel used by the International
Maritime Organization.
3) Owner: Enter the name of the registered owner(s) of the vessel. If under charter, enter the
name of the operator.
4) Type: List specific vessel type using the following: Bulker, RoRo, Container, Passenger,
Chemical Carrier, General Cargo, Reefer, Combo, Tanker etc. Write out any additional
vessel types.
5) GT: Enter the Gross Tonnage of the vessel.
6) Date/Time of Submission: Enter the date (DD/MM/YYYY) and time of submission
(24 hour clock UTC).
7) Flag: Fill in the full name of the country under whose authority the ship is operating.
No abbreviations please.
SECTION 2 – VOYAGE INFORMATION

1) Arrival Port: Enter in the name of your port of destination for this voyage.
2) Arrival Date: Fill in the scheduled arrival date to the above port.
Please use the format (DD/MM/YYYY).
3) Agent: Enter the agent used for the “Arrival Port”.
4) Last Port: Fill in the last port at which the vessel called. No abbreviations please.
5) Country of Last Port: Fill in the country of the last port at which the vessel called.
6) Next Port: Fill in the port at which the vessel will call immediately after departing the
“Arrival Port”. If next port is unknown, enter “Unknown”. No abbreviations please.
7) Country of Next Port: Fill in the country of the “Next Port” at which the vessel will call.
8) Next Port (2): Fill in the port at which the vessel will call immediately after departing the
“Next Port”. If the next port is unknown, enter “Unknown”. No abbreviations please.
9) Country of Next Port (2): Fill in the country of the “Next Port (2)” at which the vessel
will call. No abbreviations please.
10) Next Port (3): Fill in the port at which the vessel will call immediately after departing the
“Next Port (2)”. If the next port is unknown, enter “Unknown”. No abbreviations please.
11) Country of Next Port (3): Fill in the country of the “Next Port (3)” at which the vessel
will call. No abbreviations please.
SECTION 3 – BALLAST WATER

TOTAL BALLAST WATER ON BOARD:
1) Volume: What was the total volume of ballast water on board upon arrival into the
“Arrival Port” listed in Section 2. Do not count potable water.
2) Units: Please include units, cubic meters (m3), metric tonnes (mt), long tons (LT),
short tons (ST), or gallons (GAL).
3) Number of Tanks in Ballast: Count the number of ballast tanks and holds with ballast
when the vessel arrives at the “Arrival Port” listed in Section 2. Do not include tanks
carrying only residual ballast water or sediment.
TOTAL BALLAST WATER CAPACITY:
1) Volume: What is the maximum volume of ballast water carried when no cargo is on board?
2) Units: Please include units, cubic meters (m3), metric tonnes (mt), long tons (LT),
short tons (ST), or gallons (GAL).
3) Total Number of Tanks on Ship: Count all the tanks and holds used to carry ballast water.
Do not include tanks that carry potable water.
SECTION 4 – BALLAST WATER MANAGEMENT

1) Total Number of tanks to be discharged: Count only tanks and holds with ballast to
be discharged into waters under Canadian jurisdiction or into an approved reception
facility. Count all tanks and holds separately (e.g. port and starboard tanks should be
counted separately). Include tanks with residual ballast only if these will be ballasted
locally and the contents of the tank will subsequently be discharged into waters under
Canadian jurisdiction.
2) Of tanks to be discharged, how many: Underwent exchange? Count all tanks that have
underwent exchange and will be discharged into waters under Canadian jurisdiction or into
an approved reception facility.
3) Of tanks to be discharged, how many: Underwent Alternative Management: Count all
tanks that have underwent alternative management to exchange, and will be discharged into
waters under Canadian jurisdiction or into an approved reception facility.
4) Please specify alternative method(s) used, if any: Specifically, describe methods other than
“Empty/Refill” or “Flow-Though” used for ballast management. (i.e. “Salt Water Flushing”).
5) If no ballast treatment conducted, state reason why not: This applies to all unexchanged
tanks and holds intended to be discharged into waters under Canadian jurisdiction or into an
approved reception facility.
6) Ballast water management plan on board? Is there a written document on board, specific to
your vessel, describing the procedure for ballast management? This should include safety and
exchange procedures (usually provided by vessel’s owner or operator). Check Yes or No.
7) Management Plan implemented? Did you follow the above management plan? Check
Yes or No. Where yes is checked, shipboard personnel should be able to demonstrate their
familiarity with the plan during any inspection by Canadian officials.
8) IMO ballast water guidelines on board: Is there a copy of the International Maritime
Organization (IMO) Ballast Water Guidelines on board this vessel (i.e. “Guidelines for the
Control and Management of Ship’s Ballast Water to Minimize the Transfer Aquatic
Organisms and Pathogens”, [Resolution A.868(20)])? Check Yes or No.
SECTION 5 – BALLAST WATER HISTORY

1) Report on all tanks that are to be discharged into waters under Canadian jurisdiction or
into an approved reception facility.
2) Follow each tank across the page listing the original source(s) of the ballast under
‘Ballast Water Source’, all management events under ‘Ballast Water Management
Practices’, and all discharge events under ‘Proposed Ballast Water Discharge’ separately.
BALLAST WATER SOURCE

1) Tanks/Holds: Please list all tanks and holds that you plan to discharge into waters under
Canadian jurisdiction, or into an approved reception facility in Canada (write out, or use
codes listed below table). List multiple BW sources in tanks separately.
2) Current Volume: Select the volume units (m3, MT, LT, ST, gal). Record the total volume
of ballast water uptake.
3) Port or latitude/longitude: Record the location of ballast water uptake.
No abbreviations for ports.
4) Date: Record the date of ballast water uptake. Use the format (DD/MM/YYYY).
5) Salinity: Indicate the salinity of the ballast water at the time of uptake, with units
(parts per thousand (ppt)) or specific gravity (sg)).
BALLAST WATER MANAGEMENT PRACTICES

1) Date: Record the date of ballast water management. Use the format (DD/MM/YYYY).
If the exchange occurred over several days, enter the day when the ballast water
management was completed.
2) Start point or latitude/longitude: Report location or starting point of the ballast water
management practice.
3) Volume: Select volume units (m3, MT, LT, ST, gal). Report volume of ballast water managed.
% Exchange: (Note: for effective flow through exchange, this value should be at least 300%).
Total Volume Added by Empty/Refill or by Flow-Though
%Exchange = ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Capacity of Ballast Tank or Hold
4) Method: Indicate the management method using the appropriate code
(ER = empty/refill, FT = flow through, ALT = alternative method).
5) Wave Height (m): Estimate the sea height in meters at the time of the ballast water
exchange, if this method was used. (Note: this is the combined height of the wind-sea
and swell, and does not refer to water depth).
PROPOSED BALLAST WATER DISCHARGE

1) Date: Record the date of the proposed ballast water discharge. Use the format (DD/MM/YYYY).
2) Port or latitude/longitude: Report the location of the proposed ballast water discharge.
No abbreviations for ports.
3) Volume: Select units (m3, MT, LT, ST, gal). Report the expected volume of ballast water
to be discharged. Do not enter “Depends on cargo operations” or similar statement. If the
proposed ballast water discharge is significantly different from the actual amount
discharged then an amended form must be submitted.
4) Salinity: Indicate the salinity of the ballast water at the time of discharge, with units
(parts per thousand (ppt)) or specific gravity (sg)).
SECTION 6 – RESIDUAL BALLAST AND SEDIMENT

1) Will water be added to any tanks containing only residual ballast and sediment, and then
subsequently discharged into waters under Canadian jurisdiction? Check Yes or No.
SECTION 7 – IF THE ANSWER TO #6 IS YES

1) If the answer to #6 is YES:
a) Has the ship complied with best management practices, in particular for ships on a
voyage to the Great Lakes Basin the Code of Best Practices for Ballast Water
Management, published by the Shipping Federation of Canada? Check Yes or No.
b) Has the residual ballast water been exposed to salinity conditions equivalent to
ballast exchange? Check Yes or No.
2) If the answer to #7(b) is NO then:
Please be advised that ballast water taken on board the ship in waters under Canadian
jurisdiction, in the US waters of the Great Lakes Basin or in the French waters of the
islands of St. Pierre and Miquelon and then mixed with ballast water (including residual
ballast water and sediments) taken from waters outside of Canadian jurisdiction that has
not been treated or exposed to salinity conditions equivalent to ballast exchange must be
exchanged or treated before it may be discharged in waters under Canadian jurisdiction as
per subsection 4(3) of the “Ballast Water Control and Management Regulations”.
TITLE AND SIGNATURE

1) Enter the responsible officer’s name and title (printed) and signature. A signature is not
necessary on electronic forms.

F 9
F -9
F % !

"H
"##$!
% &+ ) 9 + !
&'
%+ % % %
8
%
% > !
()
L + "000
L ' 97-98
%+ % + !
L +
L%

3 %- ) %
% % H <-+
+ 3 38
&' 3 .

!

3 % > + .

( %8-% %8
-

!2
+ %+8 - )
- %%-%
8 + ) !
F 9 - "0< %
"##6-
E% %
M"@0A@@@=A0?-
M"@0A@@@"06=(* %*
N !

9
O 2

-
,

%-% + + ! )
! ; %
%

!

"##?
% &+ ) + !
&'
*8 ! "00
+
-"A +
%
- %+ - ) -
+ =A% % %!
%+
% %

&' 3 .

.
3 3 ( % %8-+
* - + %

!
9 P2!!,3!,!"=@001==$F3!
, 2 E
, ( %
&' !"0"##?

E
4 ALBERT EMBANKMENT
LONDON SE1 7SR
Telephone: +44 (0)20 7735 7611 Fax: +44 (0)20 7587 3210
BWM.2/Circ.41
5 March 2013
English/Spanish
INTERNATIONAL CONVENTION FOR THE CONTROL AND MANAGEMENT

OF SHIPS' BALLAST WATER AND SEDIMENTS, 2004
Communication received from the Administration of Colombia
1 A communication has been received from the Administration of Colombia concerning

resolution No. 0477/2012, which adopts measures and control procedures for ballast water and
sediment management in waters under the jurisdiction of Colombia.
2 At the request of the Administration of Colombia, the above-mentioned

communication annexed hereto is circulated to Member States for their information and future
action as appropriate.
***
I:\CIRC\BWM\02\41.doc
BWM.2/Circ.41
Annex, page 1
ANNEX
RESOLUTION RECEIVED FROM THE REPUBLIC OF COLOMBIA ON MEASURES

AND CONTROL PROCEDURES FOR BALLAST WATER AND SEDIMENT
MANAGEMENT IN WATERS UNDER THEIR JURISDICTION
Translation from Spanish
MINISTRY OF DEFENCE
DIRECTORATE-GENERAL FOR MARITIME AFFAIRS
Resolution 0477/2012 of 6 September 2012,
Adopting and establishing measures and a control procedure for verifying the management
of ballast water and sediments on board domestic and foreign ships and maritime craft
in Colombian jurisdictional waters.
THE DIRECTOR-GENERAL FOR MARITIME AFFAIRS,
in exercise of his legal powers granted under paragraphs 5 and 19 of article 5 of Decree Law
No. 2324 of 1984, in accordance with paragraphs 2, 4 and 5 of article 2 of Decree No. 5057
of 2009, and
WHEREAS
Paragraphs 5 and 19 of article 5 of Decree Law No. 2324 of 1984 identify the functions and
powers of the Directorate-General for Maritime Affairs as the regulation, management and
monitoring of activities related to the safety of navigation in general and the safety of life
at sea, and the application, coordination, supervision and enforcement of domestic and
international standards aimed at preserving and protecting the marine environment,
respectively;
Paragraphs 2, 4 and 5 of article 2 of Decree No. 5057 of 2009 provide that

the Director-General for Maritime Affairs is responsible for the following:
"2. (…) signing decisions, resolutions, rulings and other documents for which he/she
is responsible in accordance with his/her functions. (…)
4. Issuing technical regulations on maritime activities, the safety of life at sea

and prevention of marine pollution from ships, as well as identifying the
internal procedures necessary for fulfilling the objectives and functions of
the Directorate-General for Maritime Affairs.
5. Planning, managing, coordinating and evaluating the regulations necessary to

undertake, monitor and supervise maritime activities." (Italics inserted);
The introduction of invasive marine species into different ecosystems, through ships' ballast
water and sediments or attached to their hulls or by other means, has been identified by
the United Nations as one of the four greatest threats currently facing the oceans of the world
together with overexploitation of marine resources, destruction of habitat and marine
pollution produced by land-based sources;
BWM.2/Circ.41
Annex, page 2
The Marine Environment Protection Committee (MEPC 42) of the International Maritime
Organization, as of July 1999, developed technical guidelines for action to control and
manage ships' ballast water with a view to minimizing the impact caused by the transfer of
harmful aquatic organisms and pathogens, which led to the adoption of the International
Convention for the Control and Management of Ships' Ballast Water and Sediments in 2004;
Through resolution 5 of the Sixth Meeting of the Regional Network on Co-operation among
Maritime Authorities (ROCRAM) of South America, Cuba, Mexico and Panama, held
in Viña del Mar from 2 to 6 November 1992, the Latin American Agreement on Port State
Control of Vessels (Viña del Mar Agreement) was created, of which section 3 establishes
procedures for the inspection, rectification and detention of ships by port State control
officers in each maritime authority of the region;
It has become necessary to establish administrative and operational procedures for the
verification and control of ballast water and sediments on board ships and maritime craft
in Colombian jurisdictional waters;
RESOLVES THE FOLLOWING:
CHAPTER I
GENERAL
Article 1 – Aim: To adopt and establish measures and a procedure for verification and
monitoring of the management of ballast water and sediments on board domestic and foreign
ships and maritime craft in Colombian jurisdictional waters, and for the receipt, handling and
disposal of sediments in shipyards and ship repair workshops under the jurisdiction of
the National Maritime Authority, so as to minimize the risk of introducing or transferring
harmful aquatic organisms and pathogens.
Article 2 – Definitions: For the purposes of defining the scope and application of the
present resolution, the following definitions shall apply:
Ballast water: Water with its suspended matter taken on board a ship or maritime craft to
control its trim, list, draught, stability or structural stresses.
Document of compliance in the management of ballast water and sediments: Authorizes

the onboard management of ballast water and sediments, conducted by the crew.
Management of ballast water and sediments: Mechanical (including replacement through

dilution, sequentially or with a continuous flow), physical, chemical and biological processes
used individually or in combination to remove or neutralize harmful aquatic organisms and
pathogens within ballast water and sediments, or to prevent their uptake or discharge.
Harmful aquatic organisms and pathogens: Those whose introduction into the sea, into
estuaries or into fresh water courses may damage the environment, human health, property
or resources, impair biological diversity or interfere with other legitimate uses of such areas.
Sediment: Matter which settles at the bottom of tanks, contained in the ballast water that is
placed in them.
Colony forming unit (cfu): The numerical value indicating the level of microbiological
pollution of the environment, and which is used to measure the growth of a colony over a
specific period.
BWM.2/Circ.41
Annex, page 3
Article 3 – Scope of application: The present resolution applies to domestic or foreign

ships and maritime craft arriving at or leaving domestic ports or transiting jurisdictional
waters, and that are fitted with tanks or holds for carrying ballast water continuously or
occasionally.
Article 4 – Exceptions: Ships and maritime craft of less than 50 gross registered tonnage
are exempt from compliance with the present resolution, as are the following:
1. Colombian warships and naval auxiliaries: or any other ship or maritime craft
owned by the State or operated by it temporarily for official, non-commercial service.
2. Ships with permanently sealed ballast water tanks: the shipowner shall request
this exception in advance from the Directorate-General for Maritime Affairs.
3. Port services: exclusively under the terms defined in resolution No. 220 of 2012,
National Regulation on Cataloguing, Survey and Certification of Colombian-Flagged Ships
and Maritime Craft, issued by the National Maritime Authority, or any other regulations that
may amend it.
4. Ships in the process of construction whose characteristics do not permit

ballast exchange: the shipowner shall request and justify this exception in advance from
the Directorate-General for Maritime Affairs.
5. Semi-submersible or floating platforms: this exception applies from the time of

installation at their place of operation for as long as they remain there.
CHAPTER II
STANDARDS APPLICABLE TO BALLAST WATER MANAGEMENT
Article 5 – Ballast water exchange: Ships and maritime craft conducting ballast
water exchange in accordance with these standards shall do so with an efficiency of at
least 95 per cent volumetric exchange of water.
For ships exchanging ballast water by the pumping-through method, pumping through three
times the volume of each ballast water tank shall be considered to meet the provisions of the
previous paragraph. It may be acceptable to pump through less, provided that the ship or
maritime craft can demonstrate that at least 95 per cent volumetric exchange is achieved.
Article 6 – Ballast water performance standard: Ballast water performance shall be

determined according to the following standard:
1. Ships and maritime craft conducting ballast water exchange in accordance with this
standard shall discharge fewer than 10 viable organisms per cubic metre whose minimum
dimension is greater than or equal to 50 micrometres, and fewer than 10 viable organisms
per millilitre whose minimum dimension is less than 50 micrometres and greater than or
equal to 10 micrometres; discharge of the indicator microbes shall not exceed the
concentrations specified in the next paragraph.
2. Indicator microbes, as a human health standard, shall include:
i. Toxicogenic Vibrio cholerae (O1 and O139): less than 1 colony-forming unit
(cfu) per 100 millilitres or less than 1 cfu per 1 gram (wet weight)
zooplankton samples;
BWM.2/Circ.41
Annex, page 4
ii. Escherichia coli: less than 250 cfu per 100 millilitres;
iii. Intestinal Enterococci: less than 100 cfu per 100 millilitres.
Article 7 – Ballast water management systems: Systems used to comply with this
resolution must be approved by the Directorate-General for Maritime Affairs to verify that
they are safe for the ship or maritime craft, its equipment and the crew.
Article 8 – Control of ballast water management: Ships and maritime craft that arrive
in Colombian jurisdictional waters are subject to survey by the National Maritime Authority to
ensure that they duly comply with the present resolution.
The National Maritime Authority may install safety seals to prevent the use or manipulation of
systems (valves) for discharging ballast water, until it is established whether there is a
contravention of the standards stipulated in the present resolution.
CHAPTER III
BALLAST WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN
Article 9 – Ballast water management plan: Colombian-flagged ships and maritime craft to
which these provisions apply shall, implement a ballast water management plan approved by
the Directorate-General for Maritime Affairs, for the purpose of ensuring safe and efficient
procedures.
This plan must be included in the documentation of the ship or maritime craft, be specific to
each vessel and contain the following elements:
a. Detailed safety procedures for the ship or maritime craft and crew involved
in the management.
b. A detailed description of the management procedures.
c. An indication of the sampling points for the ballast water, showing the
ballast being transported by the ship.
d. Designation of an officer on board in charge of ensuring that the plan is

properly implemented.
1) For foreign-flagged ships and maritime craft, the ballast water management plan
shall be written in the working language. If the language used is not English or Spanish, a
translation into one of these languages shall be included.
2) Ships and maritime craft operating alone in Colombian jurisdictional waters must
carry a management plan in Spanish.
CHAPTER IV
OBLIGATIONS RELATING TO BALLAST WATER MANAGEMENT
Article 10 – Obligations relating to Ballast Water Management: Masters, owners and

operators of domestically- or foreign-flagged ships and maritime craft in Colombian
jurisdictional waters or inland waterways carrying ballast water and sediments shall comply
with the following:
BWM.2/Circ.41
Annex, page 5
1. Ships and maritime craft engaged in international navigation from a foreign port and
intending to deballast in Colombian waters or ports must either do so or conduct a total
exchange of ballast water in oceanic waters at a distance of not less than 200 nautical miles
and at a depth of not less than 200 metres, except when coming from the Caribbean Sea, in
which case the distance shall be not less than 50 nautical miles and the depth not less
than 200 metres.
2. The master of the ship or maritime craft shall provide the harbour master's office
with the "Ballast Water Reporting" form together with the arrival notice, before discharging
the ballast water in accordance with Annex A, which shall form an integral part of the present
resolution.
3. Ships and maritime craft carrying ballast water and sediments must establish safe
and effective procedures for their exchange, without risking the safety of the crew or the ship
or craft, so as to help minimize the transfer of harmful aquatic organisms and pathogens.
4. Shipyards, repair workshops or dry docks, the nature of whose activities involves
them in the handling of sediments or mud deposited in the ballast tanks of the ships and
maritime craft that they receive and assist, shall have reception facilities and submit a
management plan, which shall have the prior approval of the National Maritime Authority.
5. The National Maritime Authority shall verify the existence on board ships and
maritime craft of the corresponding ballast water management plan as well as the sailing
plan for the voyage and the corresponding entries in the "Ballast Water Reporting" form.
6. The National Maritime Authority shall not allow deballasting activities in areas other
than those established by administrative act or in areas which have been declared or may be
declared as particularly sensitive, except for reasons of safety and safeguarding of life at sea
or in the face of an imminent proven risk of major harm.
7. Ships and maritime craft that cannot or choose not to comply with the
above-mentioned conditions relating to deballasting operations shall retain their ballast water
on board and seal the ballast-water discharge valves until they have travelled beyond the
limits indicated in paragraph 1 of the present article.
8. In order to discharge ballast water at ports with reception facilities, the owner or
master of the ship or maritime craft may, directly or through the shipping agency, request
authorization from a harbour master's office - either that of the destination port or that with
responsibility for the area - stating the following in its initial request:
(a) Place of origin of the ballast to be discharged;
(b) Type of treatment applied to the ballast water and the authority which
approved that system;
(c) Identification and capacity (volume) of all the tanks involved in the
operation, in cubic metres or tonnes;
(d) Identification of all tanks that will hold ballast water and the quantity held in
each, in cubic metres or tonnes;
(e) Position of the ship or maritime craft, in latitude and longitude, at the time of
submission of the request;
BWM.2/Circ.41
Annex, page 6
(f) Estimated date and time of arrival in port (ETA);
(g) Method used to exchange ballast water during the voyage previous to that
on which the request is being submitted, and the treatment applied, if
applicable;
(h) Whether sediments were removed during the previous operation;
(i) Ships and maritime craft bound for a Colombian port shall inform the
relevant harbour master's office of the condition of the ballast on board,
through the shipping agency representing them, by sending the "Ballast
Water Reporting" form together with the arrival notice.
Deballasting shall begin once it has been authorized by the National Maritime Authority
through the harbour master's office. Performing it without authorization shall be subject to
investigation and shall be punishable under Decree Law No. 2324 of 1984 and any other
regulations that may amend it.
If a ship suffers an accident or a fault is discovered that seriously affects its ability to
undertake ballast water management in accordance with the present resolution, the owner,
operator or person in charge of the ship shall as soon as possible inform
the Directorate-General for Maritime Affairs and/or the recognized organization responsible
for issuing the relevant document of compliance.
Article 11 – Functions of officers and crew members: Officers and crew members must
be familiarized with their ballast water management functions and with the management plan
of the ship or maritime craft on which they are serving.
Article 12 – Submission of reports: The master of a ship or maritime craft bound

for Colombian jurisdictional waters shall submit to the Directorate-General for Maritime
Affairs the "Ballast Water Reporting" form — which must contain the information indicated in
the attached model form, which forms an integral part of the present resolution — together
with the arrival notice. A copy of each form must be kept on board for 24 months following its
submission.
Article 13 – Removal of sediments: The ship or maritime craft shall not discharge
into Colombian jurisdictional waters any sediments arising from ballast water management
involving the daily cleaning of ballast tanks. However, such discharge shall be permitted
where reception facilities exist.
CHAPTER V
BALLAST WATER MANAGEMENT SURVEY
Article 14 – Surveys: Ships and maritime craft shall be subject to surveys as specified
below.
1. An initial survey is conducted when a ship or maritime craft is first certified with
the Directorate-General for Maritime Affairs and shall consist of a general survey of the
structure, equipment and systems, their arrangement and materials used, to verify that they
comply with the requirements of the present resolution.
2. A renewal survey is conducted before a new certificate is issued, reviewing the state
of the structure, equipment and systems, their arrangement and materials used, on the basis
of the requirements established by the Directorate-General for Maritime Affairs for the
BWM.2/Circ.41
Annex, page 7
purpose of ensuring that the condition of a ship or maritime craft is adequate and that it is fit
to continue providing the service for which it was intended. This survey involves the issuing
of a new certificate after the expiry of the previous one and may be brought forward to within
three months before its expiry date.
3. An annual survey comprises a general review of the state of the structure,

equipment and systems, their arrangement and materials used, on the basis of the
requirements established by the Directorate-General for Maritime Affairs, in order to ensure
that they have been maintained in accordance with the relevant requirements. It must be
conducted within three months before or after the anniversary date, in order to ensure that
the state of the ship or maritime craft and its equipment is being maintained, and that they
are fit to sail without presenting any risk to the marine environment.
4. An intermediate survey takes the place of one of the annual surveys between the
second and third anniversary dates of the issue of the relevant certificate. This survey shall
ensure that the equipment and associated systems and procedures for ballast water
management comply fully with the applicable requirements of this article and are in good
working order. The surveys shall be endorsed in the document of compliance.
5. An occasional survey for follow-up or technical purposes shall be conducted as

ordered by the Directorate-General for Maritime Affairs for the purposes of verifying the
technical condition of domestic or foreign ships or maritime craft before they set sail,
an emergency stop owing to damage to any of the systems or safety status after a period
of inactivity longer than 60 days, when there is clear evidence of deficiencies in the hull,
structure, machines or equipment, or for any other reasons determined by
the Directorate-General for Maritime Affairs or at the request of the shipowner.
Any modification to the structure, equipment, fittings, arrangements and materials on ships
and maritime craft pursuant to this article shall be authorized in advance by the Office of
the Director-General for Maritime Affairs.
CHAPTER VI
CERTIFICATION OF COMPLIANCE
Article 15 – Document of compliance in ballast water management: The National

Maritime Authority shall issue a document of compliance in ballast water management, with a
maximum validity of five years, to domestically-flagged ships and maritime craft that it has
surveyed and that comply with the provisions of the present resolution.
It must be presented to the Maritime Authority when the ship or maritime craft is surveyed or
when its certificates are required to be shown.
Article 16 – Issue or endorsement: The document of compliance shall be issued in

Spanish with an English translation, as established in Annex B, which forms an integral part
of the present resolution.
Article 17 – Onboard documents: Once it has been verified that the ship is satisfactorily
managing the ballast water on board, it must carry the following documents and information
as testimony:
1. Certificate or document of compliance in ballast water management;
2. Ballast water management plan;
BWM.2/Circ.41
Annex, page 8
3. Ballast water record book;
4. Sailing plan for the voyage under way;
5. "Ballast Water Reporting" form with the corresponding records.
CHAPTER VII
SUPPLEMENTARY PROVISIONS
Article 18 – Exceptions in emergencies: The following emergency situations exempt those

concerned from applying the general guidelines identified in the present resolution, provided
that the National Maritime Authority is informed immediately:
1. When the uptake or discharge of ballast water and sediments is necessary to

ensure the safety of the ship or maritime craft or the persons on board or to safeguard life at
sea.
2. When there is an accidental discharge of ballast water and sediments resulting from
damage to the ship or maritime craft that is not caused by negligence on the part of the
operator or responsible officer on board, provided that all reasonable precautions are taken
before and afterwards to minimize or prevent the discharge.
3. When the uptake or discharge of ballast water and sediments is intended to

minimize pollution incidents caused directly by the ship or maritime craft.
4. When the discharge of ballast water and sediments is conducted at the same
location from where it was taken (harbour, mooring or anchorage), provided that no mixing
occurs with unmanaged ballast water and sediments from other areas.
1) Ships and maritime craft coming from abroad and planning to deballast
in Colombian jurisdictional waters shall, before arriving at the first Colombian port,
conduct a total exchange of ballast water in oceanic waters, at a distance of not less
than 200 nautical miles and at a depth of not less than 200 metres, except when
coming from the Caribbean Sea, in which case the distance shall be not less
than 50 nautical miles and the depth not less than 200 metres.
2) An exception to the general rules also applies to ships and maritime craft
transiting between the two coasts – Pacific and Atlantic – or on the same coastline
where there are two or more areas whose environmental conditions differ from each
other.
Article 19 – Transition period: The owners of domestically-flagged ships and maritime craft
shall have a period of six months from the date of publication of this resolution in the Official
Journal to comply with all of its provisions.
Article 20 – Power of sanction: Failure or refusal to comply with the provisions of the
present resolution shall be considered to be a violation of merchant marine regulations,
leading to the application, following administrative proceedings as established in the new
Code of Administrative Procedure, of the corresponding sanctions in accordance with
article 80 et seq. of Decree Law No. 2324 of 1984 and other regulations that may amend it,
in particular resolution No. 220 of 2012, National Regulation on Cataloguing, Survey and
Certification of Colombian-Flagged Ships and Maritime Craft, issued by the National Maritime
Authority in relation to ballast water management.
BWM.2/Circ.41
Annex, page 9
FOR PUBLICATION AND COMPLIANCE

Done in Bogotá, 6 September 2012
[Signed]
Rear Admiral ERNESTO DURÁN GONZÁLEZ
Director-General for Maritime Affairs
ANNEXES:
Annex A: "Ballast Water Notification" form

Annex B: Ballast water management Document of Compliance
BWM.2/Circ.41
Annex, page 10
RESOLUCIÓN No ANEXO "A"
BWM.2/Circ.41
Annex, page 11
BWM.2/Circ.41
Annex, page 12
BWM.2/Circ.41
Annex, page 13
BWM.2/Circ.41
Annex, page 14
___________

P (

P

78+
% &' () &'(&'( % &8
&' !

&+
% + +
+

%
%+
% %

&' 3 .

3 3

2- !

-+ %+
+ + !
) !

"##A
% &+ % 8 - %
&' ) -%

+
!
+ % . > +
%+ ) !
%( ) 3 -+
% !
% )
, + % !
3 %

3 %
% %
+
!
3 3 %!

Q
2-

!A1#@ "# "##@- %

!

Israel
Ballast Water Exchange
VESSEL NAME PORT OF REGISTRY OFFICIAL

NUMBER
OVERALL BEAM MOULDED PRESENT DRAFT

LENGTH DEPTH
FWD________________
AFT_______________
OWNERS AGENTS
CARGO LOADING PORT(S) (WITH

TONNAGES)
DATES
WILL VESSEL DEBALLAST DURING THIS CALL

IN ISRAELI PORTS Y / N
IF YES SPECIFY UNITS M3/MT/LT/ST/

_______________________________________________________
FULL BALLAST CAPACITY DISTRIBUTION (TANK NO. AND

(TONNES): CAPACITY)
WHERE WAS BALLAST TAKEN ON? (INCLUDE DATE)
LOCATION____________________________________________
DATE__________________________________ 19_________
LOCATION____________________________________________
DATE__________________________________ 19_________
WAS BALLAST EXCHANGED DURING VOYAGE

YES_______
NO_______
IF YES PLEASE INDICATE DATE AND LOCATION
LOCATION____________________________________________
DATE__________________________________ 19_________
LOCATION____________________________________________
DATE__________________________________ 19_________
MASTER’S NAME (PRINT) MASTER’S SIGNATURE
PLACE: SHIP’S STAMP
DATE______________________
19___________________

!"

R & , 2

& %

78+
% &' () &'(&'(%
&' & 1R &
+ !

,P E(C9,
!

% %
+
&

3 3 '

+ E(C9,
+ . ,

%+ ! -
E(C9,
%%+ !
< ) E(C9,3 %
+ 8!< %
E(C9,

#

National Authority: New Zealand Ministry of Fisheries
Ports Affected: All
Ships Affected: All ships entering New Zealand territorial seas carrying ballast water
loaded within the territorial water of another country.
No exceptions are listed.
Implementation: Mandatory
Date of Start: 1998 and updated 2005
Acceptable Methods:
, " %+ % )
+4 - %
=00
+ =00 !
.
%81
+
#?S )
8+ . 8

!28% + -
+8 -
%

8
!
, = %+ +
=!? !
, /&+ % %

%
<!
, A&

%
<!
Unwanted Organisms / Not defined

Pathogens:
Uptake Control: None specified. However, masters are expected to use their
discretion and care when loading ballast water, avoiding where
possible, taking ballast in shallow water, in areas where there are
known to be active algal blooms or an outbreak of any disease
communicable through ballast water, and in the vicinity of dredging
operations.
Sampling: Not defined.
Records and reporting:
A log must be kept of all ballast operations to include:
• location and volume of ballast water loaded in other port

• location, volume, method and duration of exchange at sea
• location, volume and date of discharge in New Zealand
A ballast water declaration must be completed see web site below

Alternatives to en route Until other treatment options are available, discharge will be permitted
management if it can be shown that weather conditions and/or vessel design
procedures: precluded safe exchange, and the ballast water for discharge was not
loaded in an area listed in Annex 1 of the Import Health Standard
(currently Tasmania and Port Philip Bay, Australia).
Procedure for Not Applicable

unacceptable ballast

water:
Detailed information: New Zealand Import Health Standard for Ballast Water from All
Countries.
New Zealand Ballast Water and Ships Hull De-fouling: a Government
Strategy January 1998.
Notes: Further information can be found on
http://www.biosecurity.govt.nz/enter/ships/ballast

BALLAST WATER DECLARATION: PART 1
TO BE COMPLETED FOR ALL VESSELS ARRIVING IN NEW ZEALAND
Vessel's Name: Arrival Date: Arrival Port: Inspector's Name:

BALLAST WATER
YES
1 Are you carrying ballast water? NO
If NO go to question 5
List Each Tank Number and Type (see codes below):
2 List any tanks loaded with ballast water in Port Phillip Bay, Victoria or Tasmania.
How will you comply with NZ’s ballast water controls. (See NZ Import Health Standard for (A, B or C) below.
3 Ballast Water from all Countries.) Check the box indicating how you will comply
A. Not discharging any ballast water in New Zealand waters.
Flow-through or Empty/refill
B. Exchanging the ballast water mid-ocean in all tanks that are to be discharged in New Zealand
waters. Indicate whether flow-through or empty/refill technique was used. Note: Flow-though
requires 3 times the tank capacity to be pumped through the tank.
C. Discharging only fresh water. State when and where the water was loaded. Date loaded: Port or Position:
4 If you cannot comply, check the box (A &/or B) indicating the reason(s). Give details.
A. Vessel is not physically capable of either empty/refill or flow-through exchange Specify Details:
B. Exchange would have caused unacceptable risk to crew or vessel due to weather conditions Specify Details:
CLEANING: SEDIMENTS
Do you intend to discharge sediment or other debris from ballast tanks/holds (excluding
YES
5 normal deballasting), anchors, chains or chain lockers in New Zealand waters? If YES, state NO
Date: Port or Position:
when and where.
Please note that sediments must be discharged into an approved landfill.
CLEANING: HULL FOULING
6 When and where was the vessel last dry-docked and cleaned? Date: Port or Position:
Has the vessel been laid-up for 3 months or more since it was last dry-docked and cleaned? If YES Date: Started:
7 YES, state when and where. NO Date: Finished:
Port or Position:
YES
8 Do you intend to clean the hull of the vessel in New Zealand? If YES, state when and where. NO
Date: Port or Position:
Ballast tank codes: Upper=U, Lower=L, Forepeak=FP, Aftpeak=AP, Double Bottom=DB, Deep Tank=DT, Wing Tank=WT, Topside=TS, Cargo Hold=CH, Other (specify), Port=P, Starboard=S, (eg 3UWTP):.
MASTER'S NAME AND SIGNATURE: Inspector’s directions to vessel:- INSPECTOR'S SIGNATURE:
Vessel not discharging Discharge of ballast Discharge of ballast denied Exemption granted
(Contact MPI if intentions change) permitted (Contact MPI to discuss options) (This voyage only)
New Zealand Government. Pursuant to section 22 of the Biosecurity Act 1993. Revised April 2013
BALLAST WATER DECLARATION: PART 2
TO BE COMPLETED FOR ALL VESSELS DISCHARGING BALLAST WATER IN NEW ZEALAND
1. VESSEL INFORMATION Vessel's Name: IMO Number: Vessel's Call Sign:
Flag: Vessel's Owner: Vessel's Agent: Gross Tonnage (MT):
Type of Vessel: Bulk Container Tanker RORO/Cars Fishing Other(specify) Date Built: Ballast pumping Pump A
Total Number of Ballast Tanks On Board Vessel: Total Ballast Capacity (specify units): capacity : Pump B
2. THIS VOYAGE Date of Arrival in New Zealand: Arrival Port: Last Overseas Port:
Date of Departure from New Zealand: Departure Port: Next Overseas Port:
Total Number of Tanks in Ballast on Arrival in New Zealand: Total Ballast Volume on Arrival in NZ (specify units; m3, MT):
3. BALLAST WATER DISCHARGED IN NEW ZEALAND (If none, go to bottom of page) TICK HERE IF THIS SECTION IS A CONTINUATION OF ANOTHER FORM
IMPORTANT:
List the original BALLAST WATER SOURCE(s) for ballast taken on in countries other than New Zealand.
All tanks discharged in New Zealand that contained any ballast from another country prior to any exchange must be listed. Detail each ballast management operation for tanks listed.
TANK BALLAST WATER SOURCE AT COMMENCEMENT BALLAST WATER EXCHANGED BALLAST WATER DISCHARGED
NO. and OF VOYAGE
TYPE
(see E/R = Empty then Refill F/T = Flow Through
codes FINAL VOLUME FLOWED VOLUME
DATE PORT VOLUME E/R START DATE START TIME PORT
VOLUME IN START LAT. LONG THROUGH or being DATE DISCHARGE
LOADED or LOADED or FINISH DATE FINISH TIME or
below) (DD/MM/YY LAT./LONG. (specify units)
TANK
F/T (DD/MM/YY) (HH:MM)
FINISH LAT. LONG. EXCHANGED DISCHARGED
LAT./LONG.
D
(specify units) (specify units) (specify units)
Ballast tank codes: Upper=U, Lower=L, Forepeak=FP, Aftpeak=AP, Double Bottom=DB, Deep Tank=DT, Wing Tank=WT, Topside=TS, Cargo Hold=CH, Other (specify), Port=P, Starboard=S, (eg 3UWTP).
MASTER’S NAME AND SIGNATURE:
New Zealand Government. Pursuant to section 22 of the Biosecurity Act 1993. Revised April 2013
$ %

9

9

"###
% %%
7+ , 1

78 9

3 3

% %
+

$

P 9 9

=00@
% &' () &'(&'( % 8 "=
%8 !
%2
1&
&' ' T&
' 3 &8> -
.&' .
. % %!
7+ , 1

78 9

3 3 T&' >% %

!
&'(+ 8 - % % !,
E%

% ) + +
8 &'(!

% %
+
C % %
) ;

,

Novorossiysk Port Authority
Novorossiysk

=00@
% Ballast Water Exchange (BWE): de-ballasting will only be
permitted if the ballast water has been taken (exchanged in) the
Black Sea.
8+
3 3 8+
8+

Odessa and Yuzhnyy

8+%
% All ships must exchange ballast with Black Sea water or
Treatment System/Ballast Discharge Standard: Discharge

standard is based on chemical properties with the following
maximum limits specified:
Iron 0.05mg/l
Suspended Matter 1.75mg/l
&
%

There is no requirement for a Ballast Water Management Plan
however the authorities will require an entry in the oil record book
and the log book detailing the exchange procedure
The ships agent must be informed as to the amount of ballast

water to be discharged in the port. Ships must then await approval
of their ballast before discharging.

National Authority US Coast Guard

Ports Affected: All
Ships Affected: All ships carrying ballast and arriving from outside the US exclusive
economic zone (EEZ). Except:
1. Passenger ships equipped with systems that can kill aquatic
organisms in ballast water.
2. Crude oil tankers engaged in US coastwise trade.
Implementation: Mandatory.
Date of Start: 2004
Acceptable Methods:
1. Ballast water exchange at sea, outside US EEZ.
2. Ballast water exchange in designated sea area within US EEZ.
3. Environmentally sound alternative ballast water management
methods that can include modifications to a ship.
Unwanted Organisms / Not defined

Pathogens:
Uptake Control: • Avoid ballast operations in or near marine sanctuaries, marine
preserves, marine parks, or coral reefs.
• Avoid or minimize ballast water uptake:
Where infestation, harmful organisms and pathogens are
located.
Near sewage outfalls.
Near dredging operations.
Where tidal flushing is poor or when a tidal stream is known
to be more turbid.
In darkness when organisms may rise up in the water
column.
o In shallow water or where propellers may stir up the
sediment.
Areas with pods of whales, convergence zones and
boundaries of major currents
• Clean ballast tanks to remove sediment regularly.
• Only discharge minimal amounts of ballast water in coastal and
internal waters.
• Rinse anchors and anchor chains during retrieval to remove
organisms and sediments at their place of origin.
• Remove fouling organisms from hull, piping, and tanks on a regular
basis and dispose of any removed substances in accordance with
local, state and federal regulations.
• Maintain a vessel specific ballast water management plan.
Train vessel personnel in ballast water and sediment management
and treatment procedures.
Sampling: Not defined.

Reporting and Records: The master, owner, operator, person in charge, or vessel agent of
any vessel equipped with ballast water tanks that is bound for ports or
places of the United States, must ensure complete and accurate
Ballast Water reporting Forms are submitted in accordance with 33
CFR 151.2041, and signed ballast water records the kept on board
the vessel for a minimum of two years in accordance with 33 CFR
151.2045.
Note - Different reporting requirements apply for the Great Lakes,
Hudson River and all other US ports.
The US has issued a format for recording the status of ballast. A copy
can be obtained from http://www.uscg.mil/hq/g-
m/mso/estandards.htm
Alternatives to en route Not known

management
procedures:
Procedure for The master of a vessel will not be prohibited from discharging
unacceptable ballast unexchanged ballast, in areas other than the Great Lakes and the
water: Hudson River, if the master decides the practices would be a threat to
safety, stability, or security due to adverse weather, vessel design
equipment failure, or any other extraordinary condition. All vessels,
however, must discharge only the minimal amount of ballast water
operationally necessary and ensure ballast water records accurately
reflect any reasons for not complying with the mandatory
requirements.
Detailed information: For text of 33 CFR 151.2035(a) see http://www.gpoaccess.gov/ecfr/

Also see
http://www.uscg.mil/hq/g-m/mso/estandards.htm

OMB Control Number 1625-0069
Exp. Date: 31-May-2015
BALLAST WATER REPORTING FORM
IS THIS AN AMENDED BALLAST REPORTING FORM? YES NO
1. VESSEL INFORMATION 2. VOYAGE INFORMATION 3. BALLAST WATER USAGE AND CAPACITY
Vessel Name: Arrival Port: Specify Units Below (m3, MT, LT, ST)
IMO Number: Arrival Date: Total Ballast Water on Board:
Owner: Agent: Volume Units No. of Tanks in Ballast
Type: Last Port: Country of Last Port:
GT: Total Ballast Water Capacity:
Call Sign: Next Port: Country of Next Port: Volume Units Total No. of Tanks on Ship
Flag:
4. BALLAST WATER MANAGEMENT Total No. Ballast Water Tanks to be discharged:
Of tanks to be discharged, how many: Underwent Exchange: Underwent Alternative Management:
Please specify alternative method(s) used, if any:
If no ballast treatment conducted, state reason why not:
Ballast management plan on board? YES NO Management plan implemented? YES NO
IMO ballast water guidelines on board [res. A.868(20)]? YES NO
5. BALLAST WATER HISTORY: Record all tanks to be deballasted in port state of arrival; IF NONE, GO TO #6 (Use additional sheets as needed)
Tanks/ BW SOURCE BW MANAGEMENT PRACTICES BW DISCHARGE
Holds
List multiple DATE PORT or VOLUME TEMP DATE ENDPOINT VOLUME % METHOD SEA DATE PORT or VOLUME SALINITY
sources/tanks D/M/YYYY LAT. LONG. (units) (units) D/M/YYYY LAT. LONG. (units) Exch (ER/FT/ HT. D/M/YYYY LAT. LONG. (units) (units)
separately ALT) (m)
C sg
C sg
C sg
C sg
C sg
C sg
C sg
Ballast Water Tank Codes: Forepeak = FP, Aftpeak = AP, Double Bottom = DB, Wing = WT, Topside = TS, Cargo Hold = CH, Other = O
6. RESPONSIBLE OFFICER’S NAME AND TITLE, PRINTED AND SIGNATURE:
Released 08-June-2004
Completion Instructions For Ballast Water Reporting Form
(Please write in English and PRINT legibly.)
Is this an Amended Ballast Reporting Form?: Check Yes or No. Amendments should be submitted if there
are any differences between actual ballast discharges and discharge information reported in a prior form. Please
mark "Yes" if this form amends a previously submitted ballast reporting form.
SECTION 1. VESSEL INFORMATION
Vessel Name: Print the name of the vessel clearly.
IMO Number: Fill in identification number of the vessel used by the International Maritime Organization.
Owner: Write in the name of the registered owner(s) of the vessel. If under charter, enter Operator name.
Type: List specific vessel type. Use the following abbreviations: bulk (bc), roro (rr), container (cs), tanker (ts),
passenger (pa), oil/bulk ore (ob), general cargo (gc), reefer (rf). Write out any additional vessel types.
GT: What is the Gross Tonnage of the vessel?
Call Sign: Write in the official call sign.
Flag: Fill in the full name of the country under whose authority the ship is operating. No abbreviations please.
SECTION 2. VOYAGE INFORMATION
Arrival Port: Write in the name of your first port of call after entering the U.S. EEZ or St. Lawrence Seaway.
Arrival Date: Fill in the arrival date to the above port. Please use European date format (D/M/YYYY).
Agent: List agent used for current port.
Last Port: Fill in the last port at which the vessel called immediately before entering the U.S. EEZ. No
abbreviations please.
Country of Last Port: Fill in the last country at which the vessel called immediately before entering the U.S.
EEZ. No abbreviations please.
Next Port: Fill in the port at which the vessel will call immediately after departing the current port ("Current
Port"="Arrival Port" above). No abbreviations please.
Country of Next Port: Fill in the country of "Next Port" at which the vessel will call immediately after current
port. No abbreviations please.
SECTION 3. BALLAST WATER
Total Ballast Water on Board:
Volume: What was the total volume of ballast water on board upon arrival into the waters of U.S. EEZ? Do
not count potable water.
Units: Please include volume units (m3, MT, LT, ST).
Number of Tanks in Ballast: Count the number of ballast tanks and holds with ballast as vessel enters
waters inside the United States EEZ.
Total Ballast Water Capacity:
Volume: What is the maximum volume of ballast water used when no cargo is on board?
Units: Please include volume units (m3, MT, LT, ST).
Total Number of Tanks on Ship: Count all tanks and holds that can carry ballast water (do not include tanks
that carry potable water).
SECTION 4. BALLAST WATER MANAGEMENT
Total No. of tanks to be discharged: Count only tanks and holds with ballast to be discharged into waters
inside the United States EEZ or into an approved reception facility. Count all tanks and holds separately (e.g.,
port and starboard tanks should be counted separately).
Of tanks to be discharged, how many Underwent Exchange: Count all tanks that are to be discharged into
waters of the United States or into an approved reception facility.
Of tanks to be discharged, how many Underwent Alternative Management: Count all tanks that are to be
discharged into waters of the United States or an approved reception facility.
Please specify alternative method(s) used, if any: Specifically, describe methods other than Empty/Refill or
Flow-Through used for ballast management.
If no ballast treatment conducted, state reason why not: This applies to all unexchanged tanks and holds
being discharged into waters of the United States or into an approved reception facility.
Ballast Management Plan on board?: Is there a written document on board, specific to your vessel, describing
the procedure for ballast management? This should include safety and exchange procedures (usually provided
by vessel’s owner or operator). Check Yes or No.
Management Plan implemented?: Do you follow the above management plan? Check Yes or No.
IMO Ballast Water Guidelines on board?: Is there a copy of the International Maritime Organization (IMO)
Ballast Water Guidelines on board this vessel (i.e. "Guidelines for the Control and Management of Ship’s
Ballast Water to Minimize the Transfer Aquatic Organisms and Pathogens", [Res. A.868(20)])? Check Yes or
No.
SECTION 5. BALLAST WATER HISTORY
(Record all tanks to be deballasted in port state of arrival: If none, go to #6)
Tanks/Holds: Please list all tanks and holds that you have discharged or plan to discharge into waters of the
United States or into an approved reception facility (write out, or use codes listed below table). Follow each tank
across the page listing all source(s), exchange events, and/or discharge events separately. List each tank on a
separate line. Port and starboard tanks with identical ballast water histories may be included on same line. Please
use an additional page if necessary, being careful to include ship name, date, and IMO number at the top of
each. For tanks with multiple sources: list 3 largest sources from last 30 days on separate lines. If more than 3
sources, include a 4th line for the respective tank(s) that indicated "Multiple" in port column and list the
remaining tank volume not included in the 3 largest sources (i.e., total tank volume minus volume of the 3
largest sources). See example #1 on sample ballast reporting form.
-BW SOURCES-
Date: Record date of ballast water uptake. Use European format (D/M/YYYY).
Port or latitude/longitude: Record location of ballast water uptake. No abbreviations for ports.
Volume: Record total volume of ballast water uptake, with volume units.
Temp: Record water temperature at time of ballast water uptake, in degrees Celsius (include units).
-BW MANAGEMENT PRACTICES-
Date: Date of ballast water management practice. If exchanges occurred over multiple days, list the day when
exchanges were completed. Use European format (D/M/YYYY).
Endpoint or latitude/longitude: Report location of ballast water management practice. If an exchange occurred
over an extended distance, list the end point latitude and longitude.
Volume: Report total volume of ballast water moved (i.e., gravitated and pumped into tanks, discharged to
reception facility) during management practice , with units.
% Exch.: (Note: for effective flow through exchange, this value should be at least 300%).
% Exchange =
Method: Indicate management method using code (ER = empty/refill, FT = flow through, ALT = alternative
method).
Sea Ht . (m): Estimate the sea height in meters at the time of the ballast water exchange if this method was
used. (Note: this is the combined height of the wind-seas and swell, and does not refer to water depth).
-BW DISCHARGES-
Date: Date of ballast water discharge. Use European format (D/M/YYYY).
Port or latitude/longitude: Report location of ballast water discharge. No abbreviations for ports.
Volume: Report volume of ballast water discharged, with units.
Salinity: Document salinity of ballast water at the time of discharge, with units (i.e., specific gravity (sg) or
parts per thousand (ppt)).
SECTION 6. TITLE AND SIGNATURE
Responsible officer’s name and title (printed) and signature: Print name and title, include signature.
(Signature not necessary on electronic forms.)
WHERE TO SEND THIS FORM
Vessels bound for the Great Lakes
United States or Canadian Flag vessel bound for the Great Lakes
Fax the form to the COTP Buffalo, Massena Detachment 315-769-5032

at least 24 hours before the vessel arrives in Montreal, Quebec.
Any other Flag vessel bound for the Great Lakes
Fax the form to the COTP Buffalo, Massena Detachment 315-769-5032

at least 24 hours before the vessel arrives in Montreal, Quebec, or;
Vessels bound for the Hudson River North of George

Washington Bridge
Fax the form to the COTP New York at 718-354-4249 before the vessel
enters the waters of the United States (12 miles from the baseline).
Vessels bound for all other United States Ports
Vessel bound for all ports within the waters of the United States other than the Great Lakes or Hudson
River north of the George Washington Bridge.
Before the vessel arrives at the first port of call in the waters of the
United States send the form by one of the three following methods:
· Mail the form to the U.S. Coast Guard, c/o Smithsonian Environmental Research Center (SERC),
P.O. Box 28, Edgewater, MD 21037-0028;
· Transmit the form electronically to the National Ballast Information Clearinghouse (NBIC) at
http://invasions.si.edu/ballast.html or e-mail it to ballast@si.edu;
· FAX the form to the Commandant, U.S. Coast Guard, c/o the NBIC at 301-261-4319.
If any information changes, send an amended form before the vessel

departs the waters of the United States.
An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to a collection of information
unless it displays a valid OMB control number. The Coast Guard estimates that the average burden for this
report is 35 minutes. You may submit any comments concerning the accuracy of this burden estimate or any
suggestions for reducing the burden to: Commandant (G-MSO), U.S. Coast Guard, 2100 Second St. SW,
Washington, DC 20593-0001, or Office of Management and Budget, Paperwork Reduction Project (2115-0598),
Washington, DC 20503.
Marked as “No” indicating that information for this
All dates are listed in voyage has never been submitted before. The box would
DD/MM/YYYY format. This date be marked “Yes” only if the Form contained amendments
is interpreted as 03 May 2004. (updates) to previously submitted information. Total Ballast On Board
volume should always
be greater-than or equal
to the sum of the
dischargevolumes
NBIC RELIANT BALTIMORE
0000000 03/05/2004 listed in Section 5.
Lion Shipping, LLC Gray Ship Management
Bulk Carrier 20229 m3 6
40124 Bremerhaven Germany
123ABC This value should match
Two paired tanks USA New York USA 30000 m3 17 the number of tanks
treated identically 6
(same Source Date, 5 0
listed in Section 5.
same Source
Location, same Operational time constraints These values should be
Management less-than or equal to the
Information) can be Total No. Ballast Water
listed on one line. Tanks to be discharged.
These values represent
the number of
DB P&S 21/04/04 54°46N 006°23E 4432 m3 10 29/04/04 47°23N 032°16W 4500 m3 100 ER 1.0 03/05/04 Baltimore 4432 m3 1.025 discharged tanks that
DB 20/04/04 Bremerhaven 2467 m3 10 29/04/04 47°21N 032°18W 2467 m3 98 ER 1.5 03/05/04 Baltimore 2467 m3 1.025 were exchanged
Germany
or managed.
This volume is the DB 20/04/04 Bremerhaven 2500 m3 10 29/04/04 47°21N 032°22W 2500 m3 100 ER 1.5 03/05/04 Baltimore 2510 m3 1.025
Germany
sum of the two AP 15/02/04 Klaipeda 647 m3 5 29/04/04 47°18N 032°25W 1975 m3 304 FT 1.0 03/05/04 Baltimore 647 m3 1.0007
paired tanksʼ
Lithuania
CH 20/04/04 Bremerhaven 10173 m3 10 03/05/04 Baltimore 10173 m3 1.025
volumes. Germany
All tanks listed must

Chief Officer John Doe include Discharge
information and Source
Percent Exchange values are calculated using the following equation: information. They must
also include any
Total Volume Added by Refill or Flow Through applicable Management
% Exch = × 100
Capacity of Tank or Hold information.
National ballast water management requirements – May 2012
2.18 United States – valid from 21 June, 2012

Authority US Coast Guard
Ports affected: All
Ships affected: All non- recreational vessels, U.S. and foreign, that are equipped with ballast
tanks and operate in the waters of the United States
Start date: 21 June, 2012
Acceptable methods: Ballast water exchange: perform complete ballast water exchange in an area 200
nautical miles from any shore before discharging ballast water and in waters 200
metres deep. Exchange is permitted until treatment is required by the time table
below.
Treatment system/ballast discharge standard: ships calling at US ports and

intending to discharge ballast will be required to use an approved ballast water
treatment system that meets the US discharge standard (which is the same as the
IMO D-2 standard) in accordance with the following timetable.
Vessel’s ballast Vessel’s

Date constructed
water capacity compliance date
New On or after 1
All On delivery
vessels December, 2013
First scheduled
Less than Before 1
drydocking after 1
1,500 m3 December, 2013
January, 2016
First scheduled
Existing Before 1
1,500-5,000 m3 drydocking after 1
vessels December, 2013
January, 2014
First scheduled
Greater than Before 1
drydocking after 1
5,000 m3 December, 2013
January, 2016
The regulations will also require all ships to:

clean ballast tanks to remove sediments
rinse anchors and chains when an anchor is retrieved
remove fouling from the hull, piping and tanks on a regular basis
maintain a Ballast Water Management Plan that includes procedures for
fouling and sediment removal as well as ballast water management – there is
no requirement for the plan to be approved
submit a report form 24 hours before arrival.
The USCG will review the practicability of implementing a higher ballast water
discharge standard and publish the results no later than 1 January, 2016.
Uptake control: Avoid the discharge or uptake of ballast water in areas within, or that may
directly affect, marine sanctuaries, marine preserves, marine parks, or coral reefs.
Minimise or avoid uptake of ballast water in the following areas and situations:
areas known to have infestations or populations of harmful organisms and
pathogens (e.g., toxic algal blooms)
areas near sewage outfalls
areas near dredging operations
21
areas where tidal flushing is known to be poor or times when a tidal stream
is known to be turbid
in darkness, when bottom dwelling organisms may rise up in the water column
where propellers may stir up the sediment
areas with pods of whales, convergence zones, and boundaries of major currents.
Clean the ballast tanks regularly to remove sediments. Sediments must be

disposed of in accordance with local, state, and federal regulations.
Discharge only the minimal amount of ballast water essential for vessel
operations while in the waters of the United States.
Rinse anchors and anchor chains when the anchor is retrieved to remove
organisms and sediments at their places of origin.
Remove fouling organisms from the vessel’s hull, piping, and tanks on a regular
basis and dispose of any removed substances in accordance with local, state and
federal regulations.
Discharge standards: Treatment systems must be approved by the USCG and must be able to meet the
following standards:
1. For organisms greater than or equal to 50 micrometers in minimum
dimension discharge must include fewer than 10 organisms per cubic meter
of ballast water.
2. For organisms less than 50 micrometers and greater than or equal to 10
micrometers discharge must include fewer than 10 organisms per millilitre
(mL) of ballast water.
3. Indicator micro-organisms must not exceed:
I. for toxicogenic vibrio cholerae (serotypes O1 and O139), a
concentration of less than 1 colony forming unit (cfu) per 100 mL
II. for escherichia coli, a concentration of fewer than 250 cfu per 100 mL
III. for intestinal enterococci, a concentration of fewer than 100 cfu per
100 mL.
Sampling: No information
Records and reporting: A ship must maintain records of ballast and fouling management and submit a
report form 24 hours before arrival
Alternatives to en route The Coast Guard will allow the master, owner, operator, agent, or person in
management procedures: charge of a vessel that cannot practicably meet the requirements of ballast water
exchange because its voyage does not take it into waters 200 nautical miles or
greater from any shore for a sufficient length of time and the vessel retains
ballast water on board or because the master of the vessel has identified safety or
stability concerns, to discharge ballast water in areas other than the Great Lakes
and the Hudson River north of the George Washington Bridge.
The Coast Guard will not allow such a discharge if the vessel is required to have a
Coast Guard-approved ballast water treatment system in accordance with the
implementation schedule above. If the treatment system stops work for any
reason the ships is required to report the fact to the nearest Coast Guard
commander as soon as possible.
Procedure for The Coast Guard may allow discharge in specified areas
unacceptable ballast water:
Further information: www.uscg.mil/hq/cg5/cg522/cg5224/bwm.asp
22
17254 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 57 / Friday, March 23, 2012 / Rules and Regulations
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND VII.D of this final rule, you must send A. Regulatory Planning and Review
SECURITY comments to the Office of Information B. Small Entities
and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA), OMB. To C. Assistance for Small Entities
Coast Guard D. Collection of Information
ensure that OIRA receives your
E. Federalism
comments on time, you should submit F. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
33 CFR Part 151 your comments through the preferred G. Taking of Private Property
methods of email to H. Civil Justice Reform
46 CFR Part 162 oira_submission@omb.eop.gov (include I. Protection of Children
the docket number and ‘‘Attention: Desk J. Indian Tribal Governments
[Docket No. USCG–2001–10486]
Officer for Coast Guard, DHS’’ in the K. Energy Effects
RIN 1625–AA32 subject line of the email) or fax at 202– L. Technical Standards
M. Environment
395–6566. An alternate, though slower,
Standards for Living Organisms in method is by U.S. mail to the OIRA, I. Abbreviations
Ships’ Ballast Water Discharged in OMB, 725 17th Street NW., Washington,
U.S. Waters APA Administrative Procedure Act
DC 20503, Attn: Desk Officer, U.S. Coast APHIS U.S. Department of Agriculture’s
AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS. Guard. Animal and Plant Health Inspection
ACTION: Final rule. Viewing incorporation by reference Service
material. You may inspect the material AMS alternate management system
SUMMARY: The Coast Guard is amending incorporated by reference at U.S. Coast BWDS ballast water discharge standard(s)
its regulations on ballast water Guard Headquarters, 2100 2nd St. SW., BWE ballast water exchange
management by establishing a standard Washington, DC 20593 between 9 a.m. BWM ballast water management
for the allowable concentration of living and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, BWMS ballast water management system(s)
cfu colony forming unit(s)
organisms in ships’ ballast water except Federal holidays. The telephone COTP Captain of the Port
discharged in waters of the United number is 202–372–1433. Copies of the CSLC California State Lands Commission
States. The Coast Guard is also material are available as indicated in the DPEIS Draft Programmatic Environmental
amending its regulations for engineering ‘‘Incorporation by Reference’’ section of Impact Statement
equipment by establishing an approval this preamble. DSA Danish Shipowners’ Association
process for ballast water management FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If EEZ U.S. Exclusive Economic Zone
systems. These new regulations will aid EIS Environmental Impact Statement
you have questions on this rule, call or
in controlling the introduction and EPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
email Mr. John Morris, Project Manager, ESA Endangered Species Act
spread of nonindigenous species from U.S. Coast Guard; telephone 202–372– ETV Environmental Technology
ships’ ballast water in waters of the 1433, email John.C.Morris@uscg.mil. If Verification
United States. you have questions on viewing or FIFRA Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and
DATES: This final rule is effective June submitting material to the docket, call Rodenticide Act
21, 2012 except for 33 CFR 151.1513 Renee V. Wright, Program Manager, FPEIS Final Programmatic Environmental
and 151.2036 which contains Docket Operations, telephone 202–366– Impact Statement
information collection requirements that FR final rule
9826.
GRT gross register tons
OMB has not approved. The Coast SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: GSI Great Ships Initiative
Guard will publish a document in the GT gross tons
Federal Register announcing the Table of Contents for Preamble
IEC International Electrotechnical
effective date. Comments sent to the I. Abbreviations Commission
Office of Management and Budget II. Regulatory History IL Independent Laboratory
(OMB) on collection of information III. Basis and Purpose IMO International Maritime Organization
must reach OMB on or before May 22, IV. Background IRFA Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis
2012. The incorporation by reference of V. Discussion of Comments and Changes ISO International Organization for
A. Summary of Changes From the NPRM Standardization
certain publications listed in the rule is
1. Deferral of Phase-Two Standard ITC International Convention on Tonnage
approved by the Director of the Federal 2. Practicability Reviews Measurement of Ships, 1969
Register on June 21, 2012. 3. Applicability MSC Marine Safety Center
ADDRESSES: Comments and material 4. COTP Zone Exemption NANPCA Nonindigenous Aquatic Nuisance
received from the public, as well as 5. Removal of Ballast Water Reporting Prevention and Control Act of 1990
documents mentioned in this preamble Form From CFR NARA National Archives and Records
as being available in the docket, are part 6. Adoption of ETV Protocol Administration
of docket USCG–2001–10486 and are 7. Alternate Management Systems and NBIC National Ballast Information
Foreign Approvals Clearinghouse
available for inspection or copying at NEPA National Environmental Policy Act
8. Delay of Compliance Date for New
the Docket Management Facility (M–30), Vessels NFPA National Fire Protection Association
U.S. Department of Transportation, 9. Other Changes NIS nonindigenous species
West Building Ground Floor, Room B. Discussion of Comments NISA National Invasive Species Act of 1996
W12–140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., 1. Applicability NPDES National Pollutant Discharge
Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. 2. Ballast Water Discharge Standard Elimination System
and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, 3. Ballast Water Management Systems NPRM notice of proposed rulemaking
except Federal holidays. You may also 4. Type-Approval Protocols NRC National Research Council
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES4
find this docket on the Internet by going 5. Legal OPA Oil Pollution Act of 1990, as amended
6. Regulatory Analysis and Initial OMB Office of Management and Budget
to http://www.regulations.gov, inserting PEIS Programmatic Environmental Impact
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis
USCG–2001–10486 in the ‘‘Keyword’’ 7. Draft Programmatic Environmental Statement
box, and then clicking ‘‘Search.’’ Impact Statement PVA population viability analysis
Collection of Information Comments. 8. Beyond the Scope PSU practical salinity unit
If you have comments on the collection VI. Incorporation by Reference PWS RCAC Prince William Sound Regional
of information discussed in section VII. Regulatory Analyses Citizens’ Advisory Council
VerDate Mar<15>2010 19:08 Mar 22, 2012 Jkt 226001 PO 00000 Frm 00002 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\23MRR4.SGM 23MRR4
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 57 / Friday, March 23, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 17255
RA Regulatory Analysis Coast Guard carries out these functions We have further concluded, through
ROS reduced operating status and authorities for the Secretary analysis of BWMS on vessels enrolled or
SAB Science Advisory Board pursuant to a delegation of authority being reviewed for the Coast Guard
SBA Small Business Administration
charging the Coast Guard with Shipboard Technology Evaluation
SNPRM supplemental notice of proposed
rulemaking establishing and enforcing regulations to Program (STEP) and other information
STEP Shipboard Technology Evaluation prevent the introduction and spread of before the Coast Guard which is in the
Program aquatic nuisance species in the waters docket for this rulemaking, in
UV ultraviolet radiation of the United States through the ballast accordance with the factors set forth in
VGP Vessel General Permit water of vessels. Department of 151.1511(c) and 151.2030(c) of this final
VHS Viral Hemorrhagic Septicemia Homeland Security Delegation No. rule, that the specific ballast water
II. Regulatory History 0170.1(II.)(57). discharge standard (BWDS) set forth in
Determining whether an alternative this rule is practicable.
On August 28, 2009, the Coast Guard method of BWM is as effective as BWE
published a notice of proposed is not an easy task. Results from several Setting a BWDS promotes the
rulemaking (NPRM) entitled ‘‘Standards studies have shown the effectiveness of development of innovative BWM
for Living Organisms in Ships’ Ballast BWE varies considerably and is technologies, facilitates enforcement of
Water Discharged in U.S. Waters’’ in the dependent on vessel type (design), the BWM regulations, and assists in
Federal Register (74 FR 44632). In exchange method, ballasting system evaluating the effectiveness of the BWM
response, we received 662 letters to the configuration, exchange location, and program. Therefore, in this rule, we
docket for the rulemaking, which method of study. These variables make amend 33 CFR part 151 by establishing
contained 2,214 individual comments comparing the effectiveness of an a BWDS. We also amend 46 CFR part
on the NPRM. We summarize these alternative BWM method to the 162 by adding an approval process for
comments in the preamble of this final effectiveness of BWE extremely BWMS intended for use onboard vessels
rule (see V.B. Discussion of Comments). difficult. Some studies suggest that the to meet the BWDS.
We held six public meetings on the efficacy of BWE in reducing organism As part of that approval process, the
NPRM in the following locations: concentration is 80 to 99 percent per Coast Guard will require the use of
Seattle, WA; New Orleans, LA; Chicago, event (Hines and Ruiz 2000; Rigby and Independent Laboratories (ILs) to
IL; Washington, DC; Oakland, CA; and Hallegraeff 1993; Smith et al. 1996; perform the testing to be used to support
New York, NY. Comments received at Taylor and Bruce 2000; Zhang and applications for approval. The Coast
those meetings, both written and oral, Dickman 1999) although lower Guard has a long history of recognizing
are also summarized in this preamble efficacies have been reported (e.g., the qualifications of ILs working under
(see V.B. Discussion of Comments). Dickman and Zhang 1999). Other our oversight. In 1979, the Coast Guard
III. Basis and Purpose studies demonstrate that the volumetric promulgated 46 CFR part 159,
efficiency of BWE ranges from 50 to 90 establishing procedures and standards
The Nonindigenous Aquatic Nuisance percent (Battelle 2003; USCG 2001;
Prevention and Control Act of 1990 for accepting ILs for witnessing or
Zhang and Dickman 1999).1 Thus, performing certain tests and conducting
(NANPCA), as amended by the National vessels with very large starting
Invasive Species Act of 1996 (NISA), inspections for certain equipment and
concentrations of organisms in their
requires the Secretary of Homeland materials requiring Coast Guard
ballast tanks might still have large
Security to ensure to the maximum approval. 44 FR 73038 (December 17,
concentrations of organisms after BWE.
extent practicable that aquatic nuisance 1979). The Coast Guard promulgated 46
In addition, a significant number of
species are not discharged into waters of CFR part 159 under the authority in 46
vessels are constrained by design or
the United States from vessels. 16 U.S.C. U.S.C. 391a (1976) (Vessels carrying
route from conducting BWE in
4711(c)(2)(A). The statutes further compliance with existing regulations certain cargoes in bulk).2 In 1983,
stipulate that the Secretary may approve prior to their arrival into waters of the Congress revised and recodified the
the use of certain alternative ballast United States. maritime laws of the United States and
water management (BWM) methods if For these reasons, BWE is not well- moved the relevant authority for 46 CFR
she determines that those alternative suited as the basis for the protective
methods are at least as effective as BWM programmatic regimen envisioned 2 46 U.S.C. 391a stated ‘‘(3) Rules and
ballast water exchange (BWE) in regulations[.] In order to secure effective provision

by NISA, even though it has been a (A) for vessel safety, and (B) for protection of the
preventing and controlling infestations useful interim management practice and marine environment, the Secretary of the
of aquatic nuisance species. 16 U.S.C. was a logical place to start. We have department in which the Coast Guard is operating
4711(c)(2)(D)(iii). The Secretary is concluded that, as an alternative * * * shall establish for the vessels to which this
further required to direct vessels to method to using BWE as the benchmark, section applies such additional rules and
regulations as may be necessary with respect to the
carry out management practices establishing a standard for the design and construction, alteration, repair, and
necessary to reduce the probability of concentration of living organisms that maintenance of such vessels, including, * * *
unintentional discharges resulting from can be discharged in ballast water will equipment * * * .’’ The Coast Guard determined
ship operations other than ballast water advance the protective intent of NISA that the use of ILs for witnessing or performing
certain tests was ‘‘necessary’’ to carry out its
discharge. 16 U.S.C. 4711(c)(2)(E). and simplify the process for Coast responsibilities under this statutory section. In the
NISA also requires the Secretary to Guard approval of ballast water NPRM proposing 46 CFR part 159, the Coast Guard
assess and, if dictated by that management systems (BWMS). We have explained that ‘‘the Coast Guard’s marine
assessment, to revise the Department’s found no other reasonable inspection responsibilities increased while the
number of personnel available to perform these

BWM regulations not less than every 3 benchmarking approach. inspections has not increased at a comparable rate.’’
years based on the best scientific (43 FR 49440, Oct. 23, 1978). The Coast Guard
information available to her at the time 1 Copies of these studies are available in Docket promulgated part 159 to ‘‘free some of the Coast
of that review, and potentially to the No. USCG–2001–10486, and were available during Guard’s limited field personnel for other duties
the comment period following publication of the with no change in the quality of the approved
exclusion of some of the BWM methods NPRM for this rulemaking. Please see ADDRESSES equipment or material.’’ Id.; see also 44 FR 73038
listed at 16 U.S.C. 4711(c)(2)(D). 16 section of this rulemaking for accessibility (December 17, 1979) (Final rule document
U.S.C. 4711(e). The Commandant of the information. promulgating part 159).
part 159 to new 46 U.S.C. 3306.3 Public applicability, require additional be interpreted as a sign that the Coast
Law 98–89 Partial Revision of Title 45, management requirements, and require Guard is not committed to its statutory
U.S.C. ‘‘Shipping’’; House Report No. differing monitoring or other quality responsibility to continually review the
98–338 (August 1, 1983), 1983 control requirements from today’s BWDS to increase the protectiveness of
U.S.C.C.A.N. 924, 952–53. rulemaking. The 2008 VGP applied the BWDS.
The authority for current 46 CFR part requirements to tankers in the coastwise Significantly, after this final rule was
159 is 46 U.S.C. 3306, which ‘‘contains trade and required ballast water drafted, the EPA requested its Science
broad authority to prescribe regulations exchange for vessels engaged in Pacific Advisory Board (SAB) to review and
for proper inspection and certification nearshore voyages, among other ballast provide advice regarding whether
of vessels,’’ (House Report No. 98–338 water requirements that differed from existing shipboard treatment
(August 1, 1983), 1983 U.S.C.C.A.N. the Coast Guard regulation in effect in technologies can reach specified
924, 954–53), including the specific 2008. The Coast Guard notes that EPA concentrations of organisms in vessel
requirement to prescribe regulations to must consider the information in its ballast water, how these technologies
carry out the statutory requirements ‘‘in record, as well as the requirements of might be improved in the future, and
the most effective manner,’’ (46 U.S.C. the Clean Water Act, as it finalizes the how to overcome limitations in existing
3306(a)). The Coast Guard still finds the VGP. Therefore, it is possible that the data (EPA SAB 2011). Information was
use of ILs in the Coast Guard’s approval final VGP will contain requirements that identified on 51 existing or
process to be ‘‘the most effective differ from those found in our developmental ballast water treatment
manner’’ of executing and carrying out rulemaking today. technologies, although detailed data
its obligations under section 3306. For more information on EPA’s were available for only 15 specific
current VGP or its next draft VGP, visit BWMS. The SAB used this information
IV. Background as the source material for its assessment
the EPA’s Web site at: http://
A full discussion of the legislative and www.epa.gov/npdes/vessels. Nothing in of ballast water treatment performance
regulatory history of the Coast Guard’s this final rule is intended to limit, in and, as requested by the EPA, used
actions to implement both NANPCA any way, actions the EPA may take in proposed ballast water discharge
and NISA may be found in the NPRM the future with respect to regulation of standards as the performance
for this rule, published on August 28, ballast water discharge in the EPA VGP benchmarks. Based on its evaluation of
2009. 74 FR 44632, 44633. under its Clean Water Act authorities. the available data, the SAB concluded
Vessels subject to today’s final rule See, e.g., 16 U.S.C. 4711(b)(2)(C) and that the performance standards for
are also subject to the U.S. 4711(c)(2)(J). discharge quality proposed by IMO and
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) the Coast Guard are currently
Vessel General Permit (VGP) issued V. Discussion of Comments and measurable, based on data from land-
under section 402 of the Clean Water Changes based and shipboard testing. However,
Act. The Coast Guard and EPA continue A. Summary of Changes From the current methods (and associated
to work closely together in the NPRM detection limits) prevent testing of
development of ballast water discharge BWMS to any standard more stringent
standards and to harmonize This final rule contains a number of than D–2/Phase 1 and make it
requirements, to the extent feasible and changes from the rule proposed by the impracticable for verifying a standard
appropriate, under their respective NPRM (74 FR 44632 (August 28, 2009)). 100 or 1,000 times more stringent. New
statutory mandates. Under the CWA, While we list in this section all changes or improved methods will be required to
EPA proposed the new draft VGP for made to the rule since the NPRM, we increase detection limits sufficiently to
public comment on November 30, 2011, are highlighting several of these changes statistically evaluate a standard 10 times
with a proposed effective date of not only because they are important, but more stringent than IMO D–2/Phase 1;
December 2013. also because a vast majority of the such methods may be available in the
The draft EPA VGP contains discharge comments received in the docket near future. The SAB concluded that
limits for a number of discharges addressed at least one of these topics. establishment of a ballast water
incidental to the normal operation of Most of the changes discussed below discharge limit at the proposed Coast
vessels operating in a capacity as a were made directly in response to those Guard Phase I/IMO discharge standard
means of transportation, including comments. A full discussion of will result in a substantial reduction in
numeric limits for ballast water comments and Coast Guard responses is the concentration of living organisms in
discharges. The Coast Guard notes that found in section V.B. Discussion of the vast majority of ballast water
the draft VGP proposes to apply Comments. discharges, compared to discharges of
numeric treatment limits for ballast 1. Deferral of Phase-Two Standard ballast water managed by mid-ocean
water discharges to a broader class of exchange or discharges of unexchanged
Most notably, this final rule does not ballast water. The numeric limitations
vessels than this final rule. Like the
include the NPRM’s proposed phase- in today’s final rule represent the most
2008 VGP, the draft 2013 VGP proposes
two standard. This reflects a decision to stringent standards that BWMS
some requirements that are broader in
move forward with the phase-one currently safely, effectively, credibly,
3 Section 3306 directs ‘‘the Secretary shall standard while the Coast Guard and reliably meet (US EPA SAB, 2011.)
prescribe necessary regulations to ensure proper continues to assess the practicability of The cost, benefit, and environmental
execution of, and to carry out, this part [addressing implementing a phase-two standard, impact analyses included in the NPRM
inspection and regulation of vessels] in the most gathers additional data on technology could not specifically assess all impacts
effective manner for (1) The design, construction,

alteration, repair, and operation of those vessels
available to meet the phase-two related to the phase-two standard
[subject to inspection] * * *; (2) lifesaving standard for various vessel types, and (although the analyses did include an
equipment and its use; (3) firefighting equipment, develops a subsequent rule with an evaluation of standards that are more
its use, and precautionary measures to guard against economic and environmental analysis to stringent than the standard proposed
fire; (4) inspections and tests related to paragraphs
(1), (2), and (3) of this subsection; and (5) the use
support a phase-two standard. The herein as practicable). Many
of vessel stores and other supplies of a dangerous decision to remove this more stringent commenters addressed this issue, noting
nature * * *.’’ standard from this final rule should not that the lack of analyses made it
impossible for them to comment on the a significant component of its of the Port (COTP) Zone, and are greater
phase-two standard in any meaningful information from the BWMS approval than 1,600 gross register tons (GRT)
manner. application packages that the Coast (3,000 gross tons (GT) International
To provide the public with as much Guard expects to evaluate between the Tonnage Convention (ITC)).
information as possible on which to publication date of this final rule and The Coast Guard fully intends to
base comments, the Coast Guard will the initial implementation date. The expand the applicability of the BWDS to
develop additional analyses regarding Coast Guard’s practicability review will all vessels not legislatively exempted
the potential costs, benefits, and look at a variety of factors, including but that operate in U.S. navigable waters or
environmental impacts of the proposed not limited to economic factors and the territorial sea, as we proposed in the
phase-two standard or any standard efficacy and environmental safety of NPRM, but we have determined that
higher than phase-one. When these available BWMS technology. While we additional analysis is necessary to
analyses are completed, the Coast Guard have listed a number of these factors in support this expansion. We also intend
will make them available for public this final rule, we have also included a to conduct additional research as
comment, either via a notice of provision allowing us to consider necessary. We expect that this
availability or in conjunction with a additional factors. This is to ensure that expansion will be part of the notice or
subsequent rulemaking published in the the Coast Guard is not foreclosed from other rulemaking document that
Federal Register. considering any unforeseen issues. addresses the phase-two standard, and
The Coast Guard still fully intends to Some commenters argued against that vessels covered by the expanded
issue a later rule that will establish a considering any factor other than best applicability will be required to install
more stringent phase-two discharge available technology. Whether the a BWMS that meets at least the phase-
standard once the additional research commenters meant ‘‘best available one standard.
and analysis necessary to support this technology’’ as a term of art under the In addition to the comments on
more stringent standard has been Clean Water Act or merely the best applicability mentioned above, we also
completed. To demonstrate our technology available in the marketplace, received comments questioning why we
commitment, in the final rule text we the Coast Guard acknowledges the proposed using the presence of ballast
are reserving the regulatory provisions importance of technology. However, the tanks as the main applicability factor for
where the phase-two standard will be Coast Guard’s authority does not limit BWMS installation, instead of the actual
found, to show that the Coast Guard the matters of concern to technology. discharge of ballast water. We agree an
does not view publication of this rule as Congress established a practicability important factor in deciding whether a
completing the agency’s work in standard in NISA; that standard requires vessel is required to have a BWMS
controlling the introduction and spread that the Coast Guard consider more than onboard should be the threat that vessel
of NIS from ships’ ballast water. just technology. A standard based solely presents to contributing to the threat of
on technology would be inconsistent aquatic NIS. Vessels that pose a low
2. Practicability Reviews
with the statute. level of risk, either because they do not
The NPRM proposed an initial discharge ballast water at all, discharge
practicability review to be published at 3. Applicability only to shoreside facilities, or discharge
least 3 years prior to the first In the NPRM, we proposed requiring only water that presents little threat
compliance date under the BWDS vessels discharging ballast water into (public drinking water), should not be
implementation schedule, with a waters of the United States to comply required to install a BWMS. For this
subsequent review no later than 2 years with the BWDS. This included vessels reason, we revised 33 CFR 151.1510 and
after the initial review. Because we have operating solely in coastwise trade and 151.2025 to (1) clarify that discharge of
removed the phase-two standard from on the internal waters of the United ballast water into waters of the U.S. is
this final rule, we have also removed the States. Those vessels are not required to a threshold requirement for installation
recurring practicability reviews that conduct a BWE under the existing Coast of a BWMS, and (2) include an
were included in the NPRM. This final Guard regulations, and, as such, the additional BWM option for use of water
rule establishes clearer guidelines and proposal was seen as an expansion of from a U.S. public water supply meeting
criteria considered for the practicability those regulations. A large number of certain EPA drinking water standards.
review. Additionally, because the final commenters questioned this expansion. We have also slightly revised the
rule defers establishing a phase-two Commenters raised a number of issues applicability section in 33 CFR part 151
standard, we wanted to prevent the regarding the applicability of the NPRM. subpart C (Ballast Water Management
scenario in which a finalized phase-two These issues included uncertainty as to for Control of Nonindigenous Species in
standard believed to be practicable whether any of the currently available the Great Lakes and Hudson River). We
when established should not be BWMS could be successfully installed inserted a provision to clearly state that
implemented according to the on non-seagoing vessels, the cost of all vessels subject to subpart C are also
established timelines, either because it installation of BWMS on these subject to 33 CFR part 151 subpart D
can be implemented sooner or because industries, and the benefit of requiring (Ballast Water Management for Control
it cannot be implemented by the these vessels to install a BWMS. of Nonindigenous Species in Waters of
deadline established. To accomplish As a result of these comments, this the United States). This does not reflect
this, NISA requires regular reviews and final rule applies to two groups of an actual change to the regulations, as
strengthening of standards when vessels discharging ballast water into the general applicability provision in
determined practicable, so completing a waters of the United States. The first subpart D already applies to vessels
review will be part of any future group is comprised of those vessels subject to subpart C. Subpart D requires
rulemaking. See 16 U.S.C. 4711(e). currently required to conduct BWE. The that these vessels comply with
This final rule does include one second group, which previously was not additional NIS reduction practices and
practicability review provision, which required to conduct BWE, is comprised the reporting and recordkeeping
requires the Coast Guard to complete of seagoing vessels that do not operate requirements. We are adding the
and publish the results of its beyond the U.S. Exclusive Economic clarifying statement to subpart C in
practicability review no later than Zone (EEZ), that take on and discharge order to ensure there is no confusion
January 1, 2016. This review will draw ballast water in more than one Captain about the applicability of subparts C and
D. We made other slight modifications suggestions from commenters and our been our intention to incorporate the
to align the applicability section of Federal agency partners. final ETV Protocol into our BWMS
subpart C with that of subpart D, but We are also keeping intact the current approval process, which we are doing
these revisions do not change the exemption from recordkeeping and via this final rule.
substantive requirements of either reporting requirements for these vessels While this incorporation was not part
subpart. which operate exclusively in one COTP of the proposal included in the NPRM,
Zone. We will, in the future, begin a we noted that the procedures in the
4. COTP Zone Exemption
separate rulemaking project addressing NPRM were based on a preliminary
Existing BWM regulations include a BWM recordkeeping and reporting version of the ETV Protocol (74 FR
provision that exempts owners and requirements, and any changes to this 44634, 44640). While the final ETV
operators of vessels operating in only exemption will be addressed in that Protocol differs from earlier versions,
one COTP Zone from reporting and project. the differences are due both to
recordkeeping requirements. 33 CFR
5. Removal of Ballast Water Reporting consensus revisions during finalization
151.2010(b)(1). In the NPRM, we
Form From CFR of the protocol, and to subsequent peer
intended to remove this exemption from
review and public comments. Some of
the reporting and recordkeeping We have removed the Ballast Water the comments we received on the NPRM
requirements, but include an exemption Reporting Form (Office of Management specifically suggested that we use the
from the BWDS for owners and and Budget (OMB) Control No. 1625– final ETV Protocol.
operators of these vessels (those 0069) from the appendix to 33 CFR part
operating in only one COTP Zone). We 151 subpart D. This form is still the For all of these reasons, the Coast
explained this exemption by stating that proper form to satisfy the reporting Guard has determined that
‘‘it is unlikely that vessels operating in requirements in 33 CFR 151.2070. We incorporating the final ETV Protocol
only one COTP Zone would introduce have revised § 151.2070 to reference the into this final rule is a logical outgrowth
invasive species (from outside of that National Ballast Information of what was proposed in the NPRM, and
COTP Zone) into the waters of the COTP Clearinghouse (NBIC) Web site as the that further notice and comment on
Zone.’’ 74 FR 44634. form’s location. This change will not incorporating it by reference is not
Unfortunately, the proposed have any effect on the public, as the required.5 We have revised the approval
regulatory text included erroneous cross form will still be available and the process regulations to incorporate the
references, did not actually exempt requirement for filing the form is not final ETV Protocol, and have removed
these vessels from the intended being revised. those portions of the regulation that
provisions, and did not remove the We have removed this form from the were made redundant by this
current reporting and recordkeeping CFR in order to streamline future incorporation.
exemption. This error confused many changes to the form. Any changes would 7. Alternate Management System(s)
commenters. Other commenters based need to comply with provisions of the (AMS) and Foreign Approvals
their comments on our intentions as Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C.
stated in the preamble, and noted that 3501 et seq.), which include providing The NPRM included a provision to
COTP Zones are purely administrative notice to the public and opportunity for allow foreign type-approved BWMS to
in nature, not established based on any comment. Additionally, the form is part receive U.S. type approval subject to an
ecological or biological bases, and of an OMB-approved collection of equivalency determination. We have
therefore are not appropriate boundaries information that must be renewed on a removed that provision in this final
to be used when addressing invasive regular basis. These renewals also rule; however, we still allow
species. include an opportunity for public notice manufacturers to use testing done to
Because we have revised the obtain type approval from a foreign
and comment on the form and the
applicability of this final rule, as administration, and the data from that
associated collection of information.
discussed above, the BWDS will not testing, to satisfy the U.S. type-approval
apply to vessels operating within only 6. Adoption of Environmental testing and application requirements if
one COTP Zone. However, we do intend Technology Verification (ETV) Protocol the Coast Guard determines the testing
to expand the applicability of the BWM In the NPRM, we noted that our to be equivalent to what is required by
requirement to include all vessels proposed BWMS approval process was our regulation. The language in 46 CFR
operating in waters of the United States based, in part, on the draft Generic 162.060–12 was revised; we have
that are not legislatively exempted, but Protocol for the Verification of Ballast included more detail as to what a
have determined that additional Water Treatment Technologies manufacturer with a foreign-approved
analysis is necessary to support such an developed under EPA’s ETV Program. BWMS must show in order to use their
expansion. We also intend to conduct 74 FR 44640 (Aug. 28, 2009). Since the prior testing to satisfy our approval
additional research as necessary. The publication of the NPRM, EPA has requirements, rather than vaguely
issue of whether there are distinct zones completed its development of this calling for the manufacturer to show
or areas where it might be appropriate protocol, a process that included equivalency. Despite these revisions, the
to include an exemption for vessels that laboratory testing, stakeholder reviews, intent and effect of the changes are
do not leave that zone or area is still and public comment. The protocol may substantially similar to what appeared
open to consideration as part of a be found on the EPA Web site, under in the NPRM. As such, we view these
subsequent notice or other rulemaking Research and Development, Risk changes as logical outgrowths of the
document.
Management Research Publications.4

Many commenters supported the
The Coast Guard and EPA have been 5 See Int’l Union, United Mine Workers of Amer.
concept of geographic exemptions; v. Mine Safety and Health Admin., 626 F.3d 84, 95
formal partners in the process of
however, some objected to using COTP (D.C. Cir. 2010) (‘‘a final rule will be deemed to be
developing this protocol. It has always the logical outgrowth of a proposed rule if a new
Zones as the basis for the exemption.
round of notice and comment would not provide
For this reason, the Coast Guard will 4 EPA/600/R–10/146, version 5.1 (September commenters with their first occasion to offer new
investigate other possible ways to create 2010). Available at http://www.epa.gov/nrmrl/pubs/ and different criticisms which the agency might
an exemption like this, using 600r10146/600r10146.pdf. find convincing.’’) (internal citations omitted).
NPRM, and thus further notice and policy laws. However, we expect the First, we are adding a requirement to
comment is not required. AMS process will require less time than 33 CFR 151.2075 for sampling ports on
Despite the provision discussed in the the more extensive type approval each of the vessel’s overboard ballast
previous paragraph, we are aware that process, which will allow vessel owners water discharge pipes. This change is a
many foreign-approved BWMS will to install BWMS prior to the response to commenters who requested
require additional testing in addition to implementation dates contained in the stronger enforcement and commenters
analysis under applicable U.S. regulation. These earlier installations who asked how enforcement would be
environmental laws, such as the should result, at the earliest possible achieved. Without the inclusion of
National Environmental Policy Act date, in a reduction of the risk of ballast sampling ports, Coast Guard inspectors
(NEPA) and the Endangered Species Act water introducing or spreading NIS, as would not be able to sample a vessel’s
(ESA). This is due to differences those vessels currently unable to ballast water without potentially
between the international approval conduct BWE due to safety concerns or delaying the vessel for significant
regime and the approval protocol voyage constraints will instead be periods of time. Sampling is necessary
adopted in the final rule. This will subjecting their ballast water to some in order to determine if the BWMS is
extend the amount of time required for type of treatment before discharging it operating properly to produce ballast
foreign-approved systems to gain U.S. into the waters of the United States. water that meets the BWDS. The
approval, although the process to secure Use of an AMS will be allowed for up inclusion of sampling ports is logical
U.S. approval should still be shorter to 5 years after the vessel is required to outgrowth of the NPRM because the
than if the manufacturer were required comply with the BWDS. The 5-year Coast Guard must have means to ensure
to repeat all testing already completed period should provide the manufacturer compliance, and the NPRM included a
for obtaining type approval from a or vendor with sufficient time to obtain provision requiring vessel owners and
foreign administration. U.S. approval, either using the data from operators to provide access to the Coast
Implementing the U.S. approval the tests already completed, or by Guard for sampling. Also, commenters
process will likely take at least 3 years. undergoing new tests designed asked how enforcement would be
We do not anticipate having U.S. specifically to comply with 46 CFR part achieved. Inclusion of this requirement
approved systems that have satisfied the 162.060. improves Coast Guard enforcement and
testing protocols required in 46 CFR responds to both groups of these
subpart 162.060 prior to 2015. 8. Delay of Compliance Date for New
Vessels commenters.
To ensure there are BWMS available Secondly, we received questions from
for vessel installation and use without Even with the provision for commenters asking who should operate
having to delay the implementation acceptance of foreign type approvals, a the BWMS during the shipboard testing.
schedule, and also to provide an process that is expected to be quicker We have clarified in 46 CFR 162.060–28
incentive for the early installation and than completing the full schedule of that it should be the vessel crew
use of BWMS instead of relying land-based and shipboard tests, we operating the BWMS. This is most
exclusively on BWE, we have added a anticipate there will not be an adequate appropriate because the crewmembers
provision to 33 CFR 151.1510(a)(1), number of approved BWMS to allow are the ones who will need to operate
151.2025(a)(3), and included a new vessel owners to meet the NPRM’s the BWMS after it receives U.S. type
provision (§ 151.2026) and definition proposed compliance date for new approval. Additionally, having the crew
(§ 151.1504) to allow for the temporary vessels. For this reason, we have pushed operate the BWMS ensures that vendors
acceptance of foreign-approved BWMS, back the compliance date for new and manufacturers, who have a stake in
providing the Coast Guard determines vessels to install Coast Guard-approved the success of the BWMS, are not able
that the BWMS is at least as effective as BWMS from January 1, 2012, to to influence the test results. This
BWE. These alternate management December 1, 2013. Additionally, the provision is a logical outgrowth of the
systems (AMS) must be approved by December 1st date will align the NPRM because the NPRM listed the
foreign governments under the compliance date with the proposed vessel crew as one of two groups that
standards set forth in the International effective date for the 2013 EPA VGP. We should operate the BWMS during
Convention for the Control and estimate this deferral could delay the testing. This change is a clarification to
Management of Ships Ballast Water and compliance date for up to 600 newly show which of those listed entities
Sediments (IMO BWM Convention), constructed vessels. should operate the BWMS during land-
after it enters into force, or consistent We have also added a provision to based testing, and which should operate
with relevant guidelines developed by both 33 CFR part 151 subparts C and D the BWMS during shipboard testing.
the IMO. This provision for AMS will that will allow individual vessel owners Finally, in response to comments, we
also allow vessels with BWMS installed to request that the Coast Guard extend reduced the time period required for
to meet requirements of other their compliance date if, despite the shipboard testing from 12 months to 6
administrations and/or the standards set owner’s efforts, he or she cannot meet months, removed the requirement for
forth in the IMO BWM Convention to the published compliance dates. This testing to be in three distinct geographic
use such BWMS while operating in change is in response to commenters regions, and reduced the number of
waters of the United States. We further who argued that the compliance required, valid test cycles. Several
note that pursuant to § 151.2025(e) of timelines included in the NPRM were commenters requested these changes,
this final rule, any vessel using an AMS too aggressive. noting that our proposed requirements
must comply with the terms and were unnecessary and too burdensome.
conditions of the VGP when operating 9. Other Changes We agree that the suggested changes
in U.S. waters, including any applicable The Coast Guard made additional will still provide for adequate shipboard
discharge limitations. changes in response to comments, and testing of BWMS, therefore, we have
As with the process for U.S. approval some of those changes warrant a made these changes to reduce the
of foreign-approved BWMS, these summary here. The remaining changes burden associated with shipboard
temporary acceptance determinations are listed at the end of this section and testing.
will be subjected to reviews under discussed further in section V.B. The remaining changes made in
NEPA, ESA, and other environmental Discussion of Comments. response to comments were replacing
the term ‘‘build date’’ with these changes improve the readability of to vessels operating on international
‘‘constructed’’, in order to better align the regulation, and clarify requirements. routes are also required to comply. The
with the IMO BWM Convention and We also revised the regulatory text that Coast Guard, however, intends to
updating the civil penalty amounts to was proposed in 46 CFR 162.060–40. In expand this applicability in the near
reflect their adjustment in a recent Coast the NPRM, that section included all future after further study and will keep
Guard final rule. requirements for ILs. In this final rule, these commenters’ requests in mind. We
The Coast Guard made several we have split those requirements into have also added, as discussed above, a
changes during the drafting of this final two sections (46 CFR 162.060–40 and provision for vessel owners who are
rule to eliminate redundancy and 162.060–42). The first section includes required to comply with the BWDS but
streamline the regulatory text. We requirements for ILs applying for Coast cannot do so for good reason (such as
revised the definitions section in 33 Guard designation; the second section design and operating conditions or
CFR part 151 subpart D by removing now contains the responsibilities unavailability of systems) to request a
those definitions that are already imposed on ILs once they are designated delay in their compliance date.
defined in part 151 subpart C, as well by the Coast Guard.
as definitions for terms not used in part These changes result in more easily Vessels Operating Solely in the Great
151 subpart D. We added definitions for understandable regulations, but do not Lakes
several terms that were used in 46 CFR make substantive changes. For this Twenty one commenters asked that
subpart 162.060, and we updated the reason, the Coast Guard has determined vessels operating solely in the Great
incorporation by reference section in that further notice and comment on the Lakes be treated differently from
that subpart to more clearly indicate changes is unnecessary, pursuant to seagoing vessels due to the constraints
those standards being incorporated into 5 U.S.C. 553(b). cited above. Those commenters also
this regulation. requested that they be allowed to
We deleted 33 CFR 151.2075(c), B. Discussion of Comments continue the best management practices
which referred to an assessment of We received 662 comment letters on currently in place instead of being
vessel compliance with the now our NPRM, which contained 2,214 required to install BWMS.
obsolete voluntary national program. individual comments. We have divided Conversely, 35 commenters urged the
That assessment has been completed for our discussion of these comments into Coast Guard to regulate vessels
several years; therefore, it is no longer subject matter topics, and our responses operating solely in the Great Lakes. Five
necessary to refer to it in the are laid out in the following sections. commenters asked the Coast Guard to
regulations. hold vessels operating solely in the
1. Applicability
We revised § 151.1510(a)(1) to clarify Great Lakes to the most stringent BWDS
when BWE must be conducted. We also One hundred and thirty four possible. One of these commenters
revised paragraphs (a)(3) and (d) of that commenters addressed the applicability submitted a petition with 8,905
section to improve readability and of the proposed regulations. Of these, 39 individual signatures in support of
clarify requirements. Similar revisions requested an exemption based on the stronger regulation of vessels that
were made in § 151.2025, also to segment of industry in which their operate exclusively in the Great Lakes.
improve readability and clarify vessel is engaged. These industry One commenter supported regulating
requirements. segments include: towing vessels and vessels operating solely in the Great
We corrected the BWDS in both barges; offshore energy services support Lakes but felt the regulatory priority
subparts C and D to align with the IMO vessels; commercial fishing vessels; should be on preventing introductions
BWM Convention. passenger vessels; offshore floating of aquatic NIS by oceangoing vessels.
We removed proposed 33 CFR platforms; and vessels operating solely Two commenters supported expanded
151.2045 ‘‘Safety exceptions,’’ as we in the Great Lakes. regulation of vessels operating solely in
determined that those provisions were Many commenters generally criticized the Great Lakes, but asked that the
largely repetitive to what was proposed the application of the BWDS to their regulations take into account the unique
in 33 CFR 151.2040, entitled ‘‘Discharge specific type of vessel. Forty eight design and operating characteristics of
of ballast water in extraordinary commenters stated that various aspects these vessels. Twenty seven additional
circumstances.’’ We moved the one non- of the design or operation of their commenters supported regulating this
repetitive provision to § 151.2040. As a vessels make it infeasible for them to vessel population without providing a
result, § 151.2040 now includes the practicably install a BWMS. The cited specific reason.
provision noting that nothing in the constraints include lack of space, lack of For the reasons we have discussed in
regulations relieves the master, owner, ballast piping, insufficient power this preamble, we are not requiring
agent, or person in charge of the vessel available onboard, independent pumps vessels that operate exclusively in the
from any responsibility, including the and piping for each tank, insufficient Great Lakes to comply with the BWDS
safety and stability of the vessel and the BW holding times and pumping in this final rule (see V.B. Summary of
safety of the crew and passengers. capacities in excess of current BWMS Changes from the NPRM). The Coast
Throughout the regulatory text, we capabilities. Guard intends to re-examine this
updated addresses for the Coast Guard As we have discussed in this decision in the near future, and will
Marine Safety Center, also adding in an preamble, we have revised the keep these commenters’ requests in
email address option. We updated cross- applicability of this final rule so that the mind when developing subsequent
references where necessary, and made BWM requirements primarily apply to rulemakings.
changes to remove passive tense from vessels with ballast tanks operating in
the requirements. These changes waters of the United States after having Municipal Water as Ballast
improve the readability of the operated outside of the EEZ (see V.B. Twenty commenters urged the Coast
regulation, and clarify requirements. Summary of Changes from the NPRM). Guard to exempt vessels from having to
We made a number of non-substantive Certain other vessels that operate treat their ballast water if the water was
changes to the approval procedures exclusively in the EEZ and in more than obtained from a municipal water
found in 46 CFR subpart 162.060. Like one COTP Zone, and that meet certain supply, as they believe this poses little
many of the changes we are making, size thresholds that make them similar risk of introducing or spreading NIS in
waters of the United States. The to the BWM requirements (33 CFR operations to those waters from
commenters stated that this is a 151.2025), consistent with the installing BWMS.
common practice for inland towing description of this provision in the Ten commenters suggested that
vessels and/or barges, offshore energy preamble to the NPRM. One commenter vessels operating exclusively in the Gulf
services, and small business interests, called for the Coast Guard to continue of Mexico be exempt from BWM
and is authorized under existing Coast to exclude vessels operating exclusively requirements. In support of this
Guard policy. within one COTP Zone from the position, the commenters noted a high
Fifteen commenters proposed that requirement to meet the BWDS. level of connectedness between
vessels should be allowed to use For the reasons discussed earlier in different areas of the Gulf of Mexico and
municipal or potable water for ballast this preamble, the BWM provisions of the fact that the National Oceanic and
water. These commenters also proposed this final rule will not apply to vessels Atmospheric Administration considers
that vessels should be permitted to operating exclusively in a single COTP the Gulf of Mexico to be a single ‘‘Large
discharge that water into waters of the Zone (see V.A. Summary of Changes Marine Ecosystem’’ based on ecological
United States without having to use a from the NPRM). The issue of whether criteria.
Coast Guard-approved BWMS or to meet there are distinct zones or areas other The Coast Guard acknowledges the
the BWDS. than COTP Zones where it might be issues raised in these comments and
The Coast Guard agrees that, in some appropriate to include an exemption for will continue to work with the scientific
situations, ballast water does not pose a vessels that do not leave that zone or community and regulatory agencies to
significant threat of introducing or area remains open to consideration. The investigate the bases for establishing
spreading NIS. We have some concerns Coast Guard will investigate other more ecologically meaningful
about the variable quality of municipal possible ways to craft a geographic geographic zones for regulating ballast
water sources, but believe that water exemption, using suggestions from water operations.
that satisfies the standards of the Safe commenters and our Federal agency
Drinking Water Act (42 U.S.C. 300f– partners. The Coast Guard has Other Applicability
300j) should be acceptable for use as determined that, for now, this is the best Two commenters urged the Coast
ballast water without posing a applicability delineation for the Guard to consider the use of land-based
significant threat of introducing or regulation based upon the available or vessel/barge-based reception/
spreading NIS. As a result, we have information and the Coast Guard’s treatment facilities. The Coast Guard
revised the regulation to allow for use needs in effectively administering the agrees that use of shore-based or barge-
of water from a U.S. public water system ballast water program. The Coast Guard based treatment might become a valid
(PWS) meeting the requirements of the intends to re-examine this decision in option for some vessels and has
Safe Drinking Water Act as an the near future, and we will keep these
provided for this in the final rule. We
alternative to installing a BWMS commenters’ requests in mind as we
have done so by revising the language
meeting the BWDS. We note, however, develop subsequent rules.
This rulemaking project has in the regulations to make it clear that
that with the exception of PWS water
highlighted the need for additional the BWDS only applies to those vessels
used under extraordinary circumstances
research and analysis for ballast water falling within the rule’s applicability
in accordance with 33 CFR 151.1515, a
regulatory efforts. A primary source of thresholds (vessels that also discharge
vessel must exclusively use PWS water
data for this research and analysis is the ballast water into waters of the United
as ballast. Any mixture of water
Ballast Water Reporting Form (available States). Those vessels discharging to
obtained from a source other than a
on the NBIC Web site at http:// land-based or vessel/barge-based
facility meeting the requirements of the
invasions.si.edu/nbic/submit.html), reception/treatment facilities would not
Safe Drinking Water Act will negate
which vessels operating exclusively fall within this defined group, and
acceptability of water from a PWS as
within a single COTP Zone are currently therefore would not be required to
discharged ballast water. This change is
exempted from completing. In the install a BWMS that meets the BWDS.
found in 33 CFR 151.1510(a)(4) and
future, the Coast Guard may initiate a Any reception/treatment facilities used
151.2025(a)(2).
separate rulemaking to expand the under this option would be subject to
COTP Zones number of vessels submitting ballast applicable state and local laws, as well
Seven commenters urged the Coast water reports so that we can meet the as NPDES permitting if the treated water
Guard to not grant regulatory statutory requirements for maintaining a is discharged to waters of U.S.
exemptions for vessels operating clearinghouse on national ballast water Four commenters requested that the
exclusively in a single COTP Zone. data, and to collect additional data for Coast Guard exempt any vessel that
They noted that these zones are not use both in future regulations, and in does not discharge ballast water in
ecologically meaningful subdivisions future practicability reviews. waters of the United States. Three
and asked that any boundaries be based additional commenters argued that
Great Lakes and Gulf of Mexico vessels not discharging ballast water
on scientific analysis of the risk of
Ecosystems into the waters of the United States
transferring invasive NIS.
Conversely, 17 commenters urged the Twenty two commenters urged the should not be subject to the requirement
Coast Guard to provide exemptions for Coast Guard to designate the waters of to install BWMS.
vessels that operate exclusively in a the Ninth Coast Guard District as a It was never the intention of the Coast
single COTP Zone or conduct all ballast single COTP Zone and exempt vessels Guard to require vessels to install a
operations in a single COTP Zone. They operating exclusively in that zone from BWMS if they do not discharge ballast
argued that these practices would pose BWM requirements. In support of this water into waters of the United States.
minimal environmental risk. position, the commenters noted that a We have clarified in this final rule that
Four commenters requested a ballast water bill passed by the U.S. vessels not discharging ballast water
correction to the regulatory text to House of Representatives in 2008 into the waters of the United States are
ensure that the proposed exemption for determined that the Great Lakes were an not required to install a BWMS.
vessels operating exclusively in one ‘‘enclosed aquatic ecosystem’’ and However, unless exempted, vessels are
COTP Zone (33 CFR 151.2015) extends exempted vessels that confine their still required to report their BWM
practices on their Ballast Water including but not limited to the IMO Six commenters supported
Reporting Form. BWM Convention (which has not yet establishing a discharge standard that is
One commenter suggested that entered into force). We will continue to more stringent than the proposed phase-
applicability be based on a vessel’s develop our regulations and work with one standard, two of which also said the
ballast water capacity. The Coast Guard other countries to protect our implementation schedule would not be
notes that applicability of the rule is environment. protective as quickly as needed. Six
based, in part, on vessel ballast water commenters supported the proposed
capacity. While the discharge standard 2. BWDS
phase-two standard that is equivalent to
does not vary by vessel type, the dates General Concern the most stringent State standards,
at which vessels must meet the ballast Eighteen commenters submitted currently 1,000 times more stringent
water discharge standard if using a general concerns on the BWDS. Seven than the IMO discharge standard. One
BWMS are based on vessel ballast water commenters stated their general commenter said that the standard
capacity. opposition to the NPRM and three should be alternative 5 of the Draft
As we move forward with expanding commenters stated their general Programmatic Environmental Impact
the applicability of this rule, however, support. Two commenters believed Statement (DPEIS), which is essentially
we will continue to consider multiple there was insufficient scientific and sterilization of ballast water.
factors, including ballast water capacity. technical support in the record for the One commenter stated that they did
One commenter recommended proposed regulation. not support the adoption of a standard
exempting offshore floating platforms Four commenters stated that the more stringent than the IMO discharge
from the regulations, as these facilities BWDS and implementation schedule standard due to the impracticability of
rarely move. The Coast Guard does not must be protective of the Great Lakes performing the necessary measurements
believe that a categorical exemption is and one commenter expressed this to approve BWMS and test compliance.
warranted. Under this final rule, an concern for all waters of the United One commenter stated that no
offshore floating platform would be States. One commenter requested that technology developers with whom they
exempted as long as it conducts ballast the final regulations reflect reasonable have discussed treatment efficacy have
operations exclusively within a single and balanced programs that harmonize been willing to provide assurances that
COTP Zone. Additionally, we believe the commercial importance and their BWMS could reliably meet the
there are operational practices (e.g., environmental value of the Great Lakes. phase-two standard, which is 1,000
offload to a reception vessel) that will The Coast Guard acknowledges these times more stringent than the IMO
allow an offshore floating platform to general concerns. Many of these discharge standard. This commenter
comply with the BWM regulations concerns are echoed in more specific further disagreed with the California
without having to install a BWMS. comments that we received, and those State Lands Commission’s (CSLC)
One commenter suggested exempting are summarized and addressed conclusion that several BWMS have
reduced operating status (ROS) vessels previously in this preamble and in the demonstrated the potential to comply
that spend the majority of their time in text that follows. with California’s performance standards
layup or reduced crew status and are for the discharge of ballast water, and
activated for short times (Maritime Support Concept called for the Federal Government to
Administration Ready Reserve or Twelve commenters supported the perform its own analysis when
Military Sealift Command vessels). The concept of a numeric, concentration- conducting the practicability review
Coast Guard believes that if a vessel is based BWDS, and three commenters prior to full implementation of the
not operating, it should not be said that such a BWDS will create the phase-two standard.
discharging ballast water and there necessary market conditions to One commenter noted that the Great
would be no requirements to meet when encourage investment in and Lakes are a drinking water source and
in ROS. In addition, in the event an ROS development of technologies capable of an irreplaceable freshwater natural
vessel meets the definition of a vessel of achieving the objective of this rule. The resource. This commenter stressed the
the Armed Forces under Section 312 of Coast Guard agrees with these importance of implementing strong
the Federal Water Pollution Control Act comments, and believes that setting a environmental regulations to protect
(33 U.S.C. 1322), it would be exempt numeric, concentration-based BWDS in such waters from the introduction of
from this final rule by section this final rule is the best approach to new NIS as well as from the
151.2015(a)(191). reducing the threat of the introduction establishment of new populations of
One commenter asked that and spread of NIS into the waters of the NIS that currently exist within these
exemptions and exceptions in the rule United States. waters.
be consistent with the IMO BWM Two commenters noted what they
Convention. The Coast Guard believes Stringency of Standard
termed a lack of sufficient scientific and
that the commenter was referring to One commenter supported the idea of technical support in the record for the
exemptions to the requirement to meet a U.S. BWDS that at least meets the IMO proposed regulation.
a BWDS that nation states could grant BWM Convention Regulation D–2 As we have noted in this preamble,
under the IMO BWM Convention once discharge standard (IMO discharge this final rule is implementing the
it enters into force. It is the Coast standard) and any subsequent standard phase-one standard, which is equivalent
Guard’s position that all vessels should improvements. Another commenter to the IMO discharge standard, and
take all practicable measures to ensure stated that although they support the deferring action on the phase-two
NIS are not discharged into the waters development of a BWDS like the phase- standard until we can complete more
of the United States from vessels two standard, they also believe that analyses and research into practicability
through ballast water; however, we note starting with the achievable, (see V.A. Summary of Changes from the
that we have included exemptions and measurable, and protective phase-one NPRM).
exceptions in this final rule that are standard poses a much lower risk to the The EPA SAB study (EPA SAB 2010),
consistent with both our statutory environment than starting with a stricter issued after publication of the NPRM for
mandate under NANPCA, as amended standard that is unachievable and this rulemaking, provides support for
by NISA, and international law, immeasurable. our conclusion that technology to
achieve the IMO discharge standard NISA requires the Coast Guard to stringent than the IMO discharge
represents the limit of current establish such a zero-discharge standard, 5 commenters proposed that
practicability. The SAB found that standard. the phase-one standard be set at 100
‘‘* * * five of 34 categories of assessed Conversely, three commenters times more stringent than the IMO
BWMS achieved reductions in organism opposed setting a zero-discharge discharge standard, and 4 commenters
concentrations sufficient to comply with standard, which they claimed would be proposed that the phase-one standard be
the first standard proposed by the USCG operationally and practically set at 1,000 times more stringent than
(i.e., the ‘Phase 1’ standard).’’ Further, unachievable. One commenter stated the IMO discharge standard, which
the SAB also concluded that ‘‘ * * * that the current knowledge of invasion would be the equivalent of the proposed
current test methods and detection biology seems to be insufficient to phase-two standard.
limits preclude a complete statistical define no-risk discharge criteria. One commenter suggested dropping
assessment of whether a BWMS meets Two commenters stated that the long- the phase-one standard and
any standard more stringent than Phase term goal should be zero discharge of immediately undertaking a
1’’ (U.S. EPA SAB, 2011). We agree with live organisms. practicability review of the phase-two
the commenter who stated that The Coast Guard disagrees that NISA standard, which the commenter
implementing a less stringent, attainable requires a zero-discharge standard. believed would result in an indefinite
standard that provides at least as much NISA requires the Coast Guard to deferral of the phase-two standard as
protection as BWE as soon as possible develop regulations that prevent the non-practicable. One commenter
provides more protection than introduction and spread of NIS to the opposed the phase-one standard
establishing a stricter standard and maximum extent practicable, and we proposed in the NPRM without giving
continually postponing it or deferring have no data that support setting a zero- specific reasons.
enforcement until it is achievable. We discharge standard as being practicable. The Coast Guard has found, based on
note the findings and recommendations However, the Coast Guard is committed the best scientific information available
of the National Research Council’s to implementing the most stringent to the Coast Guard (including the
(NRC) Committee on Assessing Numeric BWDS that can practicably be achieved. previously referenced EPA SAB study
Limits for Living Organisms, which As evidence of this, the Coast Guard has on technologies and systems to
concluded that ‘‘The current state of already indicated in this preamble that minimize the impacts of invasive
science does not allow a quantitative in a subsequent publication, after species in vessel ballast water discharge
evaluation of the relative merits of additional analysis and research, we (EPA SAB 2011)), that there are
various discharge standards in terms of intend to finalize the proposed phase- currently no BWMS that have
invasion probability.’’ The Committee two standard or any standard higher demonstrated the capability to meet a
further recommended that ‘‘(a)s a logical than phase-one, as well as the recurring standard more stringent than the phase-
first step, a benchmark discharge practicability reviews that were one standard. Additionally, there are no
standard should be established that included in the NPRM, with the goal of available, standardized testing protocols
clearly reduces concentrations of coastal determining and achieving the most that can be used to demonstrate that a
organisms below current levels resulting protective BWDS practicable (see V.A. BWMS can meet a standard 100 or 1,000
from ballast water exchange (such as the Summary of Changes From the NPRM). times more stringent than the phase-one
IMO D–2 standard).’’ standard.
Phase-One Standard Implementing both the phase-one and
While the Coast Guard agrees that it
is necessary to have a protective Fourteen commenters stated their a more stringent but unachievable
standard in place as quickly as possible, support for the phase-one standard that standard in a single rulemaking would
we have delayed the initial is equivalent to the IMO discharge result in foregoing the near-term
implementation dates for newly standard. One commenter requested that protection this rulemaking provides.
constructed vessels to allow for the the phase-one standard become the The Coast Guard believes ensuring this
implementation of the U.S. type- permanent standard for the United near-term protection now is in line with
approval process. The Coast Guard does States. our statutory mandate from NANPCA,
not believe that it is possible to The Coast Guard agrees with the as amended by NISA. As we explained
implement this process any faster, and commenters who supported the phase- in this preamble, we are not abandoning
that such a deferral is inevitable. one standard, as we believe this the phase-two standard (see V.A.
The Coast Guard disagrees with the standard is practicable, achievable, and Summary of Changes from the NPRM).
commenters who stated there was an provides a level of protection that is at We are committed to implementing a
insufficient record for the NPRM as a least as effective as BWE. However, the standard that provides the most
whole. While we have already Coast Guard also believes that future protection that can practicably be
acknowledged that more analysis on the work, such as that suggested by the EPA achieved.
impacts of the phase-two standard SAB (EPA SAB 2011) and the NRC One commenter opposed the phase-
should be completed, both the economic Committee (NAS 2011), may result in a one standard on the grounds that it
and environmental analyses that better understanding of the need for would be difficult to assess and
accompanied the NPRM contained more stringent standards and the therefore enforce. The Coast Guard
information that, when combined with development of improved technologies disagrees. The EPA has already issued
our discussion of the proposed rule in for treating ballast water on vessels, and its ETV Protocol, which is incorporated
the NPRM preamble, provided will continue to work toward improving by reference into this final rule and will
reasonable justification for the NPRM. protective requirements in accordance be used to assess a BWMS’ success in
with the directions and authorities in meeting the BWDS. The Coast Guard’s
Zero Discharge NANPCA 90. type-approval process provides a strong
Fifteen commenters advocated for the Thirteen commenters opposed the means of verifying whether a BWMS
establishment of a zero-discharge phase-one standard on the grounds that can likely achieve the BWDS when
standard, and said there should be no it was not sufficiently protective. One installed and operating. Finally, Coast
living organisms allowed in ships’ commenter proposed that the phase-one Guard port-state control officers will
ballast water. Four commenters said that standard be set at 10 times more provide the final enforcement check to
ensure that a BWMS is operating as it inactive virus-like particles, which One of these commenters requested that
should to meet the BWDS. would make it impossible to measure best available technology be required at
One commenter requested a the efficacy of BWMS in achieving the all times, which would eliminate the
modification to the phase-one standard proposed phase-two standard for use of a grandfather period.
to account for organisms less than 10 viruses. One commenter stated that the
micrometers in size. The Coast Guard Two commenters said that the phase- grandfather period should be decreased
disagrees that this is necessary for the two standard should only allow for use from 5 to 3 years, whereas two
phase-one standard, as the IMO of less stringent standards under commenters argued that 5 years was an
discharge standard did not include this temporary special exemption cases (e.g., appropriate grandfather period.
size category. We may consider vessel types or discharge characteristics) Fifteen commenters stated that 5 years
additional size categories for the phase- as determined by a technology review. was not long enough for a grandfather
two standard. One commenter suggested an interim period. Twelve commenters stated that
Two commenters requested that the measure like Michigan’s BWM an installed BWMS should be
phase-one standard be aligned with the regulation, which identified specific grandfathered for the useful life of the
IMO discharge standard and other treatment processes. The commenter vessel, and 10 commenters stated that
provisions of the IMO BWM believed that such an approach could be BWMS should be grandfathered for the
Convention. The Coast Guard believes implemented across the Great Lakes effective life of the system. Fourteen
that we have made the phase-one more quickly than the proposed commenters stated that an installed
standard as consistent as possible with standards. BWMS should be grandfathered for the
the IMO discharge standard. We have Three commenters stated that the life of either the vessel or BWMS,
made a slight adjustment in our phase-two standard should be delayed whichever ends first.
implementation schedule to allow for until instrumentation and methods are One commenter stated that the
practical realities involved in available to measure the capability of grandfather period should be increased
implementing a U.S. type-approval BWMS to meet the standard. One from 5 years to 10 years or the lifetime
program, but we have also included a commenter stated that the phase-two of the vessel, one commenter stated that
provision to allow for BWMS that have standard is unnecessarily stringent for it should be increased to 15 years, two
been approved by foreign vessels that operate in the Great Lakes. commenters stated that it should be
administrations under the IMO BWM One commenter stated that the phase- increased to 15 years or the life of the
Convention to be accepted on an interim two standard should not have a defined vessel, and one commenter stated that
basis (see discussion in V.A. Summary value before the results of the vessels should be given a specific date
of Changes from the NPRM). practicability review are known. by which to upgrade once a phase-two
One commenter opposed the phase- standard is established.
Phase-Two Standard As discussed in this preamble in V.A.
two standard for vessels that operate
Thirteen commenters supported the solely on the Great Lakes, arguing that Summary of Changes from the NPRM,
phase-two standard as proposed in the the large volumes of treated water being the Coast Guard is not including the
NPRM. One commenter stated that discharged would essentially distill the phase-two standard in this final rule.
vessels would benefit by having to Great Lakes of essential organisms Because the final rule only includes the
install a BWMS only once at a necessary for aquatic health. phase-one standard, we have omitted
potentially more protective standard. One commenter stated that one the grandfather provision that we
One commented that adopting the BWMS could meet multiple stringency proposed in the NPRM. We expect to
phase-two standard would encourage standards by adjustment of its reconsider the grandfather provision
manufacturers to modify existing operational parameters, although this when we address the proposed phase-
BWMS components and develop new may depend on the treatment two standard or any standard higher
technologies that could meet multiple methodology of a particular system. than phase-one in a notice or other
stringency standards. One commenter recommended that rulemaking document. We will keep
Conversely, 47 commenters opposed phase-two technologies should be based these comments in mind as we develop
the phase-two standard as being on conversions of the existing phase-one that proposal.
counterproductive on the grounds that platforms.
there are no accepted test protocols or As we have discussed in this Practicability Review
BWMS that have been proven to meet preamble, this final rule only contains Thirty nine commenters supported a
any limits more stringent than phase- implementation requirements for the practicability review that is sufficiently
one. Two commenters opposed the phase-one standard (see V.A. Summary robust and comprehensive to determine
phase-two standard because BWMS of Changes from the NPRM). We are whether a BWDS more stringent than
manufacturers have focused their taking all of the comments we received the phase-one standard is achievable.
research, development, and certification on the phase-two standard into One of these commenters said that the
efforts on the IMO discharge standard, consideration as we begin the process of review should be limited to the testing
and may not have the resources to start completing economic and and certification requirements of the
over. environmental analyses for the phase- IMO BWM convention and guidelines.
One commenter requested that a size two standard, and will continue to Six commenters recommended that the
category for organisms less than 10 consider these comments as we draft a practicability review ensure that any
micrometers be added to the phase-two notice or other rulemaking document phase-two standard is effective,
standard. Two commenters requested addressing the phase-two standard. measurable, technologically feasible,
removing the phase-two standard for commercially available, safe, and cost-
viruses due to the impracticability of Grandfather Period effective for use with the characteristics
treating for viruses and the difficulty of Seven commenters opposed any of the vessel.
testing virus viability. One commenter grandfather period. Two of these One commenter said the regulation
stated there are no technologies, commenters argued that vessels that should contain an express statement
scientific methods, or protocols to install a phase-one system should not be that the Coast Guard will not make
differentiate between active versus exempt from the phase-two standard. upward revisions of the treatment
standard unless it is economically because we have removed the phase-two Implementation Schedule
reasonable to do so, and that we should standard from this final rule, we have One commenter was opposed to
include criteria for that determination. also removed the recurring extending the phase-two deadline
Another commenter said that if and practicability reviews that were unless a future public comment period
when a BWMS can achieve the phase- included in the NPRM. We expect that establishes that such an extension is
two standard of 1,000 times more regular assessments, per NISA’s necessary to allow for practicable
stringent than the IMO discharge ‘‘[p]eriodic review and revision’’ implementation of the phase-two
standard, no further practicability provisions, codified at 16 U.S.C. standard. Four commenters agreed with
reviews should be conducted with 4711(e), will be part of any future the proposed schedule for
regard to achieving even higher rulemaking process. This will address implementation of both the phase-one
standards. the scenario in which a finalized phase-
and the phase-two standards.
Ten commenters said that a two standard either cannot be Eighty one commenters requested that
practicability review should be implemented according to the the implementation schedule be
conducted for the phase-one standard as established timelines, or can be changed in some way. Eleven
well. Twenty three commenters said implemented more quickly than the
commenters stated that a BWDS should
that the reviews must verify there are established timeline.
take effect immediately, and one
BWMS that are suited to the volumes, There is one practicability review
flow rates, and engine room provision included in this final rule that commenter said it should be
specifications of Great Lakes vessels requires the Coast Guard to complete implemented in 1 year. One commenter
before imposing the phase-one standard and publically publish the results of a said the phase-two standard should take
on these vessels. practicability review no later than effect immediately, while another said
Six commenters agreed with the January 1, 2016. This review will draw that 3 to 5 years is plenty of time. Three
proposed 3-year cycle for practicability a significant component of its commenters stated that the phase-two
reviews, seven recommended that the information from the type-approval standard should take effect by 2012 and
reviews be conducted on a continuous application packages that the Coast one said it should take effect by 2016.
basis, three recommended that the Guard expects to evaluate between this Three commenters opposed reliance on
reviews be conducted every year, one final rule’s publication date and the drydocking schedules in favor of hard
suggested a 3- to 5-year cycle, and three initial implementation date. Further, the deadlines for compliance, unless
recommended a 5-year cycle. findings and recommendations of the justified by vessel-specific engineering
Six commenters wanted a firm EPA SAB study (EPA SAB 2011) will constraints or lack of availability.
deadline for practicability reviews. Six usefully inform the development of the One commenter stated that existing
others stated that the timing and scope practicability review. The Coast Guard vessels should be required to schedule
should be accelerated from 2010 to 2012 will look at a variety of factors, their first drydocking by 2012, and to
to inform both the phase-two standard including but not limited to the efficacy comply with the phase-one standard by
and the 2013 renewal of the EPA VGP. and environmental safety of available 2014 unless the practicability review
Conversely, 19 commenters opposed technology, and economic factors. deems that deadline unattainable. One
any practicability review that could While we have listed a number of these commenter suggested installation at the
indefinitely delay implementation of the factors in the rule, there is a provision first dry dock after 2014. Two others
final standard, calling it a ‘‘loophole.’’ allowing for consideration of additional suggested that a more appropriate
Eight of these commenters requested an factors. We included this provision timeline for all new and existing vessels
electronic docket and public comment because of the possibility that the Coast would be 2012 or 2014, respectively.
period before any final determinations Guard may discover additional factors Thirty three commenters said that the
based on practicability reviews are that would be relevant to a decision on phase-one standard should be
made. One commenter stated that whether or not it is practicable to implemented by 2012 and the phase-
moving the practicability review would increase the stringency of the BWDS. two standard by 2016. Another
not allow time for vessels with a 2014 These changes address some of the commenter agreed with this schedule
compliance date to implement comments summarized previously. We but with a more stringent phase-one
technology that meets the phase-two will continue to keep comments related standard. One commenter supported a
standard. Two commenters said there is to the recurring practicability reviews in phase-one standard 100 times more
no evidence presented in the NPRM or mind as we develop a notice or other stringent than the Coast Guard’s
DPEIS to justify claims that the phase- rulemaking document implementing the proposal by 2012 and a phase-two
two standard is not currently phase-two standard. While we have not standard 1,000 times more stringent
achievable, and therefore the included a practicability review prior to than phase one by 2016.
practicability review is not necessary. the implementation of the phase-one Two commenters considered the
Three commenters requested a standard, we have included a provision schedule for implementation of the
definition for ‘‘practicability’’ and for to allow vessel owners and operators to proposed regulations to be too
the inclusion of specific content and request an extension of their compliance protracted, and called for
format of the review. One commenter date if they cannot practicably comply implementation of the phase-two
said the rule should place an upper with the compliance date otherwise standard at an earlier date than
limit on how long the implementation applicable to their vessel. Summary proposed. These organizations did not
date can be extended at any given time. information concerning all extension support allowing shipowners so much
One commenter stated that there should decisions, including the name of the time between the implementation date
be a practicability review for vessels vessel and vessel owner, the term of the and their first scheduled drydock.
based on the type of vessel and the extension, and the basis for the Conversely, 26 commenters requested
geographic route(s) it serves, (i.e., ocean- extension will be promptly posted on that the implementation schedule be
going service, inland waters, Great the U.S. Coast Guard Maritime lengthened or allow more flexibility for
Lakes, near coastal, etc.). Information Exchange Web site vessel types or specific geographic
As discussed in this preamble in V.A. (CGMIX), currently located at [http:// areas. Thirteen commenters said that the
Summary of Changes from the NPRM, cgmix.uscg.mil/Default.aspx]. dates should be delayed until
compatible BWMS are commercially schedule are not addressed in this final their ballast tanks regularly to remove
available for their vessels and to rule. As discussed in the ‘‘Summary of sediments and to remove fouling
accommodate standard drydocking Changes from the NPRM’’ section above, organisms from hull, piping, and tanks
cycles of twice in 5 years. One the Coast Guard will develop additional on a regular basis. The Coast Guard
commenter said that vessels traveling to analyses regarding the potential costs, disagrees, and believes that there should
specific areas such as the Great Lakes benefits, and environmental impacts of be some flexibility to schedule these
could comply with the 2014 date, but the proposed phase-two standard or any activities according to a vessel’s specific
did not think this was a realistic option standard higher than phase-one and circumstances.
to apply to vessels in all waters of the intends to address the issue in One commenter believes that portions
United States. subsequent rulemaking document. of 33 CFR 151.2050 (additional
One commenter stated that the requirements) are intended to be
proposed schedule does not allow Language Clarification/Technical discretionary rather than mandatory,
enough time for vendors to develop Change and should be separate categories. The
BWMS capable of meeting the phase- One commenter requested that the Coast Guard disagrees. The Coast Guard
two standard, particularly since proposed BWDS include language included the term ‘‘minimize or avoid’’
methods and facilities capable of testing necessary for differentiation between in 33 CFR 151.2050(b) to ensure that
to the phase-two standard will need to living and nonliving organisms. Another vessel owners and operators always
be available in order to develop such said that the standard should allow for consider these additional requirements,
systems. the presence of nonliving organisms while allowing some flexibility
One commenter stated that vessels since some treatment technologies act to according to a vessel’s specific
confined to the Great Lakes will not kill living organisms without circumstances.
have sufficient shipyard availability to necessarily removing them from the One commenter suggested adding a
install equipment to meet the BWDS on ballast water. definition for ‘‘test report’’ at 46 CFR
the proposed schedule. Four The Coast Guard acknowledges that 162.060–3, as the term is used in
commenters stated that some vessels the proposed BWDS is slightly different multiple places. The Coast Guard
operating in the Great Lakes have very in this respect from the IMO discharge disagrees, as the Test Report is
short voyages (on the order of hours). If standard, which uses the term ‘‘viable’’ described in 46 CFR 162.060–34.
BWMS available for such vessels are instead of ‘‘living.’’ It is important to One commenter suggested revising
limited to chemical systems with note that, while the text of the IMO the proposed definition for ‘‘hazardous
required minimum treatment times BWM Convention refers to ‘‘viable’’ location’’ found in 46 CFR 162.060–3.
longer than the voyages, then significant organisms, the G8 guidelines define The Coast Guard agrees and revised the
delays will occur in the transportation ‘‘viable’’ as ‘‘living.’’ Therefore, the definition.
chain. Two industry associations Coast Guard has decided that this issue One commenter suggested requiring
commented that the proposed schedule is best addressed in the BWMS approval contact information, in addition to
was not feasible due to a lack of process, and will not alter the standard manufacturer’s name, in 46 CFR
available BWMS and a shortage of as suggested by these commenters. We 162.060–10(a)(1). This commenter also
shipyard capacity for installation. note that the standard and approval suggested that the phrase ‘‘Name and
The Coast Guard considered these process do allow for the presence of type of BWMS’’ in 46 CFR 162.060–
comments. First, to accommodate the nonliving organisms. Additionally, we 10(a)(3) be revised to also require the
implementation of the final rule in corrected a technical error present in the mode of action or other information.
relation to delays encountered in the NPRM, which mistakenly omitted the The Coast Guard partially agrees; we
rulemaking process, the Coast Guard has term ‘‘living’’ from the proposed 33 CFR have added a requirement for point of
revised the implementation schedule for 151.1511(a). This final rule corrects that contact information for the
the phase-one standard at 33 CFR omission. manufacturer to 46 CFR 162.060–10.
151.1512(b) and 151.2035(b) to provide One commenter requested an addition However, we have not made the
new vessels the 2 years for to the BWM requirements in 33 CFR requested change to 46 CFR 162.060–
implementation as presented in the 151.2025(a)(1) that would read ‘‘(i) 10(a)(3), as we believe this is already
2009 proposed rule. Addressing Unless 151.2040(b) allows otherwise, reflected in the existing text.
concerns with the schedule more the BWMS must be used prior to any One commenter asked that the phrase
generally, while we agree with those discharge of ballast water to waters of ‘‘novel processes’’ in 46 CFR 162.060–
commenters who would like to see a the U.S. (ii) All treatment must be 10(e) be defined. The Coast Guard
requirement that BWMS be installed on conducted in accordance with the disagrees, because it does not wish to
vessels as soon as possible, it is BWMS manufacturer’s instructions and preclude any innovative approaches in
important to consider several factors standard of performance approved by BWMS.
that impact the timeline during which the Coast Guard.’’ One commenter asked whether the IL
approved BWMS can be expected to be The Coast Guard disagrees that this or manufacturer is required to submit
installed. These include the time addition is necessary. Vessel owners/ the Test Report to the Coast Guard
required for the United States to operators must comply with the BWDS Marine Safety Center (MSC) as part of
implement a BWMS approval process, for all ballast water discharged the approval process. The Coast Guard
for manufacturers to establish following treatment with a BWMS, and approval process places responsibility
production capacity, and for vessel follow the manufacturer’s Operation, on the manufacturer to submit all
owners to acquire and install BWMS Maintenance, and Safety Manual to necessary materials to the MSC,
within their vessels’ normal operational maintain their systems in proper however, it is acceptable if the IL
and maintenance schedules. As a result, working order. submits the report directly to the MSC.
there will likely not be an adequate One commenter asked that a One commenter was unsure what
number of approved BWMS to allow for definition be provided for ‘‘regular’’ and types of approvals are required under 46
acceleration of the implementation ‘‘regularly,’’ as those terms are used in CFR 162.060–14(a)(7), such as those
schedule in the 2009 proposed rule. 33 CFR 151.2050, which requires from U.S. agencies, foreign
Phase-two and its implementation vessels owners or operators to clean administrations, classification societies,
and other organizations. The Coast prevents untreated ballast water from standard, BWE will no longer be an
Guard’s response is that 46 CFR being discharged into waters of the U.S. acceptable routine management method.
162.060–14(a)(7) pertains to approval of Once Ballast water is pumped to an One commenter noted the U.S.
BWMS using active substances, and that on shore treatment facility or a Administration’s goal of expanding
manufacturers are responsible for treatment vessel it would not be subject coastwise or short-sea shipping, and
obtaining all required approvals to 33 CFR part 151 subpart C or D. requested that BWE be added as a
external to the Coast Guard’s approval However, under the CWA any resulting management option for these vessels.
process. We anticipate issuing guidance discharges from these on-shore The Coast Guard notes that its existing
documents to aid manufacturers in treatment facilities or treatment vessels regulations do not require coastwise
complying with the approval process. are subject to the National Pollutant vessels to conduct BWE unless their
One commenter noted what appeared Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) voyage takes them more than 200
to be conflicting information as to program. Companies that intend to nautical miles from any shore. For the
exactly which vessels this rule would provide these services will be final rule, we have revised 33 CFR
apply to and whether all vessels would responsible for complying with these 151.2015 to exempt certain vessels from
be required to install BWMS. The Coast and other local, state, and Federal laws the BWM requirements and 33 CFR
Guard responds that these are separate and regulations. 151.2025 to provide additional BWM
but related questions. First, 33 CFR One commenter suggested requiring options besides installing BWMS. These
151.1502 in the existing regulations and BWMS in addition to, rather than changes are discussed above under the
33 CFR 151.2010 (Applicability) of this instead of, existing BWE requirements heading ‘‘Applicability.’’
final rule describe which vessels will be for ocean going vessels entering the One commenter suggested retaining
required to comply with 33 CFR part Great Lakes-St. Lawrence Seaway BWE for all vessels when practicable,
151 subparts C and D, or subsections of requiring a combination of best
system. The Coast Guard disagrees.
available technology and BWE to
them. This is a broad description, as Requiring both BWE and BWMS for
improve BWMS performance, and
many vessels not required to install a oceangoing vessels entering the Great
requiring BWE as a minimal treatment
BWMS will need to comply with other Lakes was not proposed in the NPRM
in case the BWMS fails. Another
requirements in 33 CFR part 151 subpart and therefore beyond the scope of this
suggested the addition of rules requiring
D, such as recordkeeping requirements. rulemaking.
BWE 50 nautical miles outside the
Several groups of vessels are exempted One commenter stated that the continental baseline for vessels
from BWM requirements under allowance of BWE under the phase-one conducting coastal voyages,
§ 151.2015. standard is inconsistent with the goal of implementation of a BWE verification
Secondly, 33 CFR 151.2025 (BWM minimizing NIS introductions and system, and allowance of BWE within
requirements) of the final rule identifies should be eliminated as an option. The 200 nautical miles when a safety
which vessels must install a BWMS that Coast Guard agrees that BWE should be exemption would otherwise allow un-
complies with the BWDS, or manage eliminated as an option as soon as exchanged water to be discharged at a
their ballast water in another one of the possible. The primary purpose of State port. The Coast Guard disagrees,
methods listed in that section. NANPCA, as amended by NISA, is to and believes that phasing out BWE in
One commenter requested ‘‘prevent the unintentional introduction favor of the BWM requirements in this
clarification of the requirement and dispersal of nonindigenous species final rule will be at least as effective as
‘‘Records any bypass of the BWMS’’ at into waters of the United States through BWE to prevent the introduction of NIS
46 CFR 162.060–20(b)(5). The ballast water management and other into the waters of the United States. The
commenter noted that not all BWMS requirements.’’ 16 U.S.C. 4701(b). Coast Guard notes that under 33 CFR
will be able to do this, as some bypasses Permitting BWE to remain as a 151.2040(b), the COTP may allow the
may be achievable using systems or permissible management technique in vessel to conduct BWE as a management
components that are outside of the light of other, more protective methods, option if the BWMS fails to operate or
BWMS. The Coast Guard agrees and has would frustrate this clearly articulated the vessel’s BWM method is
removed this provision. statutory purpose and lead to an absurd unexpectedly unavailable.
result. See Griffin v. Oceanic
Management Requirements Contractors, Inc., 458 U.S. 564, 575, 102 Preamble Text
Two commenters suggested that the S.Ct. 3245 (1982) (statutory One commenter disagreed with the
practicability of on-shore or vessel/ interpretations ‘‘which would produce statement in the NPRM that ‘‘The
barge-based ballast water treatment be absurd results are to be avoided if effectiveness of BWE is highly variable,
explored. The Coast Guard encourages alternative interpretations consistent largely depending on the specific vessel
the development of alternative with the legislative purpose are and voyage’’ (74 FR 44663). The
treatment methods that would allow available.’’) The Coast Guard is thus commenter added that the Great Lakes
some vessels to manage their ballast phasing out BWE as a BWM method in Seaway Ballast Water Working Group’s
water without having to install a favor of more protective methods to best strict enforcement of BWE requirements
BWMS. The phase-one standard in this prevent the introduction and spread of in the St. Lawrence Seaway is the main
final rule will only apply to vessels that NIS into waters of the U.S. consistent reason that there have been no reports
discharge ballast water into waters of with this statutory purpose. of the establishment of invasive species
the United States. Vessel owner/ We also believe that existing vessels on the Great Lakes since 2006.
operators discharging ballast water to a should be given a reasonable period of The Coast Guard acknowledges the bi-
facility onshore or to another vessel time to come into compliance with the national success in achieving high rates
must ensure that all vessel piping and phase-one standard, and that BWE of regulatory compliance with existing
supporting infrastructure up to the last should continue as a viable BWM BWE requirements. However, we do not
manifold or valve immediately before alternative for a vessel until the phase- have evidence that this successful
the dock manifold connection of the one standard applies to that vessel. enforcement necessarily proves the
receiving facility or similar However, we note that once a vessel is effectiveness of BWE, as there are also
appurtenance on a reception vessel required to comply with the phase-one other regulations and requirements
being enforced for vessels entering the Four commenters asked about port commenter recommended that ‘‘vessel
St. Lawrence Seaway. state control requirements. One design limitations’’ should not be
commenter requested that a limit of considered an ‘‘extraordinary
Enforcement
once in any calendar year must be condition’’ under which a master or
Seventeen submitters commented on imposed on the number of times that a person in charge of a vessel would be
how the Coast Guard intends to enforce vessel can be tested to determine exempt from the requirement to use a
the BWDS. whether its BWMS is working properly, BWM practice, including BWE, under
Three commenters said there should and that onboard sensor data or the certain circumstances. The second
be significant financial penalties to captain’s signed and sworn certification commenter supported the inclusion of
provide incentives for industry to meet transmitted to the port state authority the exception and interpreted it as
implementation deadlines. The Coast should be sufficient. Another allowing the discharge of ballast water
Guard notes that the existing civil and commenter said that vessel-based that fails to meet the BWDS under
criminal penalties for 33 CFR part 151 BWMS would not enable the port state emergency circumstances.
subparts C and D are established by authority to monitor ballast water. Two The Coast Guard believes that they
statute and were not changed in the commenters stated that proper and may have misunderstood this provision.
NPRM. They may now be found at 33 effective sampling and test protocols, as Under NISA, masters or persons in
CFR 151.2080 of the final rule. After well as required facilities and charge of vessels are not required to
publication of the NPRM, in a separate proficiency, still need to be established. conduct BWE if the practice would be
action, the Coast Guard made an One commenter requested specific unsafe due to weather or vessel design.
adjustment to the civil penalty tables information indicating how the BWDS 16 U.S.C. 4701(k)(1). We have included
found at 33 CFR 27.3. (75 FR 36273, will be enforced after implementation. this provision in the regulation, and it
36278 (June 25, 2010)). The Coast Guard believes that the is an allowable exception to BWE only
Five commenters stated that the as long as a vessel is allowed to use
approval process for BWMS, found in
numeric discharge standard would BWE. Additionally, we have removed
46 CFR part 162.060 of this final rule,
impose significant problems for proposed 33 CFR 151.2045 Safety
compliance enforcement, particularly will provide a strong basis from which
enforcement actions can proceed based exceptions, as we determined that it was
when results need to be legally largely repetitive to what was proposed
acceptable, because sufficient on review of the records required to be
kept on the vessel. These reviews will in 33 CFR 151.2040 Discharge of ballast
techniques or equipment are not water in extraordinary circumstances.
currently available to test ballast water occur during port and flag state control
exams. We acknowledge that We moved the one non-repetitive
on the spot. The Coast Guard disagrees, provision to § 151.2040. As a result,
and believes that setting a practicable, compliance exam procedures for BWMS
will be an important component of § 151.2040 now includes the provision
numeric BWDS such as this final rule’s noting that nothing in the regulations
BWDS, combined with type approval of enforcement, and such procedures are
under development. As discussed in the relieves the master, owner, agent, or
BWMS, will facilitate compliance person in charge of the vessel from any
enforcement. Summary of Changes section above, we
have added a provision requiring responsibility, including the safety and
Another commenter said that a phase- stability of the vessel and the safety of
two standard 1,000 times more stringent sampling ports in order to facilitate
enforcement of the BWDS. the crew and passengers.
than the phase-one standard will be Once a vessel is required to meet the
virtually impossible to enforce, and will Reporting and Recordkeeping BWDS, the general safety provision in
significantly increase enforcement costs, § 151.2040 no longer applies. If the
and possibly increase downtime for One commenter requested that the
master or person in charge of the vessel
inspected vessels. The Coast Guard Ballast Water Reporting Form and
determines that operation of the BWMS
agrees that implementation of the phase- reporting and recordkeeping
would endanger the vessel for some
two standard at this time could be requirements be revised to
reason, the master or person in charge
impracticable for several reasons, accommodate all of the proposed BWM
must inform the COTP, prior to the
including enforcement, as suggested by methods in advance of the phase-one
vessel’s arrival, that BWM has not been
the commenter. standard taking effect. The Coast Guard
conducted due to safety reasons. The
Two commenters requested that a agrees, and will propose revisions to the
COTP will evaluate the situation and
rigorous enforcement, inspection, and Ballast Water Reporting Form and
direct the vessel accordingly.
monitoring program be developed to instructions either through a separate One commenter considered the
determine compliance, similar to that rulemaking project or in conjunction BWMS design and construction
currently being performed by the bi- with the next scheduled renewal of the requirements to be onerous and likely to
national Great Lakes Seaway Ballast collection by OMB. result in systems being overly
Water Working Group for all vessels One commenter said the NBIC should complicated and expensive. The
entering the St. Lawrence Seaway. be given regular dates for reporting commenter called for the Coast Guard to
Three commenters requested routine or information that they obtain from approve the use of very simple
random testing of the contents of a submitted reports. The Coast Guard approaches, such as manually pouring
vessel’s ballast tanks and ballast water notes that the NBIC already provides additives into tanks. The Coast Guard
discharge. One commenter said this database information to the public disagrees, and believes that all BWMS
testing would be especially important through its Web site. As more vessels must be carefully designed, constructed,
for oceangoing vessels that would use electronic reporting, the NBIC is and approved to protect the vessel, the
discharge treated ballast water into reducing delays in updating that Web crew and passengers, and the
freshwater. Two commenters suggested site. environment. With respect to the
testing for total residual oxidants in 3. BWMS example, treatment of ballast water
ballast water as a way to determine the using chemicals designed to kill
completion of chemical treatment, and General organisms has the potential to adversely
installing onboard sensors in vessels’ Two commenters addressed the safety affect the safety of the vessel, the crew
ballast tanks to measure chemical levels. exception in 33 CFR 151.2045. The first and passengers, and the environment if
the chemicals and the manner of their commenters asserted that BWE is fact, we note that foreign type-approved
use are not carefully evaluated in sufficiently protective in preventing systems are available.
advance and controlled and managed invasive species introductions to the One commenter questioned whether
during use of the system. Great Lakes. These commenters further onboard systems were the best approach
Seven commenters stated that there suggested that BWE should be an for preventing the discharge of
were serious constraints on the acceptable method of BWM for vessels organisms and noted that, unless a
feasibility of installing BWMS that entering the Great Lakes. vessel is fitted with a backup system,
require electrical service on tank barges The Coast Guard disagrees that BWE the failure of the onboard treatment
and tank ships. Several commenters is sufficiently protective against system could result in the discharge of
cited Coast Guard regulations for introductions of invasive species. untreated ballast. The Coast Guard notes
electrical equipment as an impediment Vessels are not always able to conduct that the rule has been revised to clarify
to such installation (46 CFR 111.105– BWE. While BWE has undoubtedly that vessel owners and operators have a
31(1)). Likewise, six vessel owners reduced the risk of introductions range of options for BWM, including use
asserted that safety and regulatory compared to no BWM at all, the of BWMS, retention onboard, discharge
requirements prohibit the installation inherent variability in the efficacy of to a shoreside treatment facility, or use
on tank barges of BWMS that use BWE among vessels and even within of a U.S. PWS meeting Safe Drinking
electricity. vessels argues for the consistent Water Act standards. We also note that
The Coast Guard agrees that electrical application of more effective BWM the regulation requires BWMS to signal
requirements included in 46 CFR practices. Additionally, as vessels on an alert if there is a failure and for vessel
subpart 162.060 may make installation coastwise voyages are not required to owners to report failures of the BWMS
of BWMS more complicated on certain conduct BWE under Coast Guard to the COTP at their place of
vessels. However, if these requirements regulations, a BWMS is also necessary destination. In such a situation, the
make it impossible for a vessel owner to to ensure the prevention of the spread, COTP may require the vessel to perform
safely install a BWMS, they should and not just the introduction, of NIS. alternative BWM practices before
qualify for an extension of the One commenter questioned whether allowing the discharge of the ballast
compliance date, per 33 CFR 151.1513 BWMS will effectively remove all water.
or 151.2036. An extension would contaminants in ballast water and
provide additional time to determine asserted that onboard treatment will not Active Substances or Chemicals
how BWMS can be safely installed. An be a viable option until that is the case. One commenter asserted that many
extension would postpone installation The commenter suggested that, as an currently available BWMS use
costs for affected vessels. Data is alternative, vessels could use multiple chemicals, and that these BWMS may
unavailable on the number of vessels systems to address all contaminants. result in contamination of ballasted fish
that would require extensions. We have The Coast Guard appreciates the holds. The commenter further stated
not estimated the quantitative impacts commenter’s concerns, but disagrees that the proposed regulation must
of extensions. that a BWMS required under this rule include exemptions for this
One commenter proposed that the will have to remove all potential circumstance. The Coast Guard agrees
Coast Guard should require best contaminants in ballast water. that chemical contamination of
available technology and BWE as an NANPCA, as amended by NISA, ballasted fish holds may be a problem
interim measure if compliant BWMS are requires the Coast Guard to ensure, to with the use of a chemically-based
not available by the implementation the maximum extent practicable, BWMS. However, the Coast Guard is
dates. The Coast Guard disagrees that introductions of NIS are not discharged aware of several systems that do not use
best available technology and BWE into the waters of the United States from chemicals, and believes that owners and
together should be considered the de vessels, and does not pertain to vessel operators of fishing vessels will have
facto acceptable method of compliance. discharges outside of that threat. The sufficient options for meeting the BWDS
The Coast Guard considers establishing statute also requires that certain (e.g., ultraviolet/filtration). For those
a practicable and protective BWDS to be methods of BWM used instead of BWE fishing vessels that cannot install a
the best approach for preventing the must be environmentally sound. By BWMS onboard, we have provided a
introduction of NIS by the wide array of requiring such systems to meet provision in the regulation that allows
vessels that must discharge ballast water applicable EPA requirements related to a master, owner, operator, agent, or
for safe operation. treatment chemicals and their person in charge of a vessel to apply for
The Coast Guard believes that BWMS disinfection by-products prior to an extension of the compliance date if
meeting the phase-one BWDS will discharge, the Coast Guard will help they can document that, despite all
generally be available in time for vessel ensure that treatment of ballast water efforts to meet the BWDS requirements,
owners and operators to comply with does not result in adverse compliance by that deadline is not
the implementation schedule in this environmental consequences. The issue possible.
final rule. For those cases where this is of non-organism contaminants in ballast Three commenters called for
not so, we have provided a provision in water is also addressed under the EPA clarification as to how the regulations
the regulation that allows a master, VGP. By requiring BWMS to meet all proposed in the NPRM would prevent
owner, operator, agent, or person in applicable EPA requirements prior to the discharge of harmful active
charge of a vessel to apply for an type approval, the Coast Guard will help substances resulting from the use of
extension of the compliance date. ensure that treatment of ballast water BWMS. The Coast Guard agrees that the
One commenter asserted that BWE is does not create adverse consequences. use of chemicals such as biocides to
sufficiently protective in preventing One commenter questioned whether treat ballast water creates the potential
introductions of invasive species. This onboard treatment is the best approach, for unwanted discharges of such
commenter also suggested that BWE given that IMO approval of BWMS is chemicals. All systems using chemicals
should be an acceptable method of proceeding slowly. The Coast Guard must be registered by EPA under the
BWM if a vessel can demonstrate disagrees that the pace of BWMS type Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and
through sampling and analysis that approval under the IMO BWM Rodenticide Act (FIFRA), as applicable,
BWE can meet the BWDS. Two Convention is proceeding slowly. In prior to consideration by the Coast
Guard for type approval. Discharges Guard disagrees that vessels should be practices, to determine whether the
from vessels with systems using non- required to discharge to a shore-side performance assessment conducted by
pesticide chemicals (or pesticides that facility. The Coast Guard believes it is the foreign administration is equivalent
are generated solely by the use of a important that vessels have the to that of the Coast Guard and complies
device onboard the same vessel as the flexibility to select the BWM practice with applicable U.S. domestic laws. We
ballast water to be treated) will be that makes the most sense for their will evaluate, in accordance with the
covered under the EPA VGP, which specific circumstances. If vessel owners standards in the revised 46 CFR
contains requirements to meet discharge and operators want to have the option 162.060, the data and supporting
limits established by EPA for residuals of discharging to shore and sufficient information in approval applications
and by-products of chemicals used in market exists for such an option, then it submitted by manufacturers whose
ballast water treatment. All chemicals is likely that such facilities will be BWMS have received foreign type
used in BWMS requiring FIFRA created. approval. We will not grant U.S. type
registration will be registered with EPA One commenter stated that it may not approval to BWMS approved by foreign
prior to applying for Coast Guard type- be technically or economically feasible administrations based on approval
approval of the BWMS. One commenter for a vessel owner to retrofit existing procedures that are substantively less
encouraged the Coast Guard to allow vessels with an approved BWMS, and rigorous than the U.S. approval testing
treatment of ballast water with biocides recommended that the Coast Guard without additional testing as necessary
to address specific species on specific allow other BWM options under such and appropriate for the specific
routes within the Great Lakes as an circumstances. As described in 33 CFR circumstance.
alternative method of compliance. The 151.2025 and 151.2026, ballast water The Coast Guard recognizes some
Coast Guard appreciates this management practices other than use of time will elapse between the
commenter’s input, but disagrees with a Coast Guard-approved BWMS will be publication of this final rule and the
the proposed approach. The allowed. availability of U.S. approved BWMS.
identification, with appropriate Additionally, vessels will have the The Coast Guard believes that ballast
specificity, of the location and identity options of discharging to a shoreside water discharged into waters of the
of every infestation within the Great treatment facility or receiving vessel, if United States should undergo some type
Lakes is not feasible, nor is the available, or retaining ballast water of treatment designed to reduce the risk
identification of the appropriate biocide onboard. The Coast Guard will evaluate of ballast water spreading NIS at the
for each specific species. The Coast claims that BWMS and other allowed earliest possible date, particularly for
Guard has determined that the most BWM practices are not available for those vessels currently unable to
protective approach is to require the specific vessels and potentially extend conduct BWE, as we believe this will
uniform treatment of ballast water to the compliance date for those vessels. provide greater reduction in the risk of
reduce concentrations of all organisms Foreign Type Approvals NIS being introduced or spread via
prior to discharge. ballast water. Therefore, we have added
Eleven commenters discussed the a provision to the final rule to allow for
Alternatives to BWMS Coast Guard’s proposed provision for a temporary acceptance of a foreign
Thirteen commenters disagreed with the acceptance of foreign type approvals administration’s approval if it can be
the requirement for all applicable of BWMS. Four of the commenters shown that the foreign-approved BWMS
vessels to install BWMS, and called for supported the Coast Guard’s proposal is at least as effective as BWE. This
the Coast Guard to allow vessels the that such acceptance should be granted temporary acceptance will be granted
flexibility to use other approaches, such only when the foreign procedures are for 5 years from the date when the
as discharging to receiving vessels or to equivalent to those of the Coast Guard. vessel on which the BWMS is installed
shoreside facilities. The Coast Guard Conversely, six of the commenters is required to comply with the BWDS.
agrees. As discussed previously stated that the Coast Guard should Two commenters requested that the
regarding the comments dealing with accept foreign type-approvals without rule include more details about the
applicability, we have revised our verifying equivalency of testing procedures the Coast Guard will follow
regulation to clarify that only vessels protocols. to make determinations regarding the
discharging ballast water into waters of The Coast Guard’s approval process is acceptance of foreign type approvals.
the United States are required to comply intended to provide a level of assurance The Coast Guard agrees and has made
with the BWDS requirements at 33 CFR that a BWMS is likely to work changes to 46 CFR 162.060–12, which
151.1510 and 151.2025 of this final rule. consistently, effectively (i.e., meet the are discussed in the Summary of
However, the dependence of the vessel BWDS), and safely under shipboard Changes section above. The Coast Guard
on the availability of appropriate conditions. Testing conducted with expects to examine each foreign
reception facilities must be identified in insufficient rigor or under substantially administration’s type-approval report,
the vessel’s BWM plan, along with the less challenging conditions will not which should include the testing
alternative management practices that provide that assurance. The Coast Guard protocols used and the testing results,
will be used if and when discharge to retains the prerogative to verify the and then make a determination as to
a reception facility is not possible. equivalency of foreign type-approval whether the procedures and criteria
Further, the lack of availability of procedures before accepting such used were essentially equivalent in rigor
adequate reception facilities is not an approvals. and challenge to those of the Coast
acceptable reason for discharge of One commenter stated that since the Guard. Additionally, in order to grant
ballast water that does not meet the phase-one BWDS is equivalent to the U.S. type approval or the temporary
BWDS into the waters of the United IMO discharge standard, the Coast acceptance (as an AMS), the Coast
States, and such a discharge will Guard must consider the protocol in the Guard must comply with NEPA and
constitute a violation of this regulation. G8 guidelines to be sufficiently strict. other applicable environmental laws.
One commenter stated that vessels The Coast Guard disagrees, and will One of the commenters suggested that
should be required to discharge to a assess each foreign administration’s the Coast Guard use an advisory panel
shore-side treatment facility prior to type-approval procedures, including test of independent scientists and agency
entering the Great Lakes. The Coast protocols and quality assurance representatives to conduct the
equivalency determinations for foreign however, agree that there is a currently Ballast Water Treatment Technology
administration’s type-approval available BWMS that has been shown to Technical Advisory Panel, which
programs. The Coast Guard will make meet the phase-two BWDS. recommended that the best option for
use of appropriate expertise in In response to the Coast Guard’s California was to maintain the ‘‘no
reviewing proposals for acceptance of question, ‘‘Are there technology systems detectable organisms’’ standard for
foreign type approvals, including, when that can be scalable or modified to meet larger organisms, and develop and adopt
necessary, consultation with other multiple stringency standards after compliance verification protocols. At
agencies and outside experts. being installed?’’ one commenter stated this point, it is not known what those
One commenter referenced the text in that technology is available, pending protocols, or their detection limits, will
the NPRM preamble that states: ‘‘Under adjustments, for ‘‘Lakers,’’ vessels be, but is instructive that the EPA SAB
today’s proposal, foreign vessels operating solely on the Great Lakes. The concluded that ‘‘* * * current test
equipped with and operating a BWMS Coast Guard notes that our question methods and detection limits preclude a
that has been approved by a foreign specifically asked for quantitative complete statistical assessment of
administration would be allowed to use information on technologies, necessary whether a BWMS meets any standard
the BWMS for discharging ballast water modifications, costs, and sources of more stringent than Phase 1.’’
into U.S. waters if the Coast Guard such information. The comment did not One commenter questioned whether a
determines that the foreign include quantitative information. BWMS will be available to allow the
administration’s approval process is Therefore, we are unable to validate this industry to meet the BWM requirements
equivalent to the Coast Guard’s approval claim. on the schedule proposed in the NPRM.
process, the BWMS otherwise meets the One State government agency stated As discussed elsewhere in this
requirements of this proposed rule, and that the availability of technology that preamble, the Coast Guard has made
the resulting discharge into waters of meets the phase-two standard is changes to the applicability in order to
the U.S. meets the applicable (i.e., demonstrated by the findings of the address this very question. We have also
phase-one or phase-two) proposed CSLC report on BWM technologies. This delayed the initial compliance date for
discharge standard.’’ The commenter report concluded that at least seven new vessels by 2 years to provide time
suggested that this text be changed to commercially available BWMS had for the U.S. type-approval process to be
replace ‘‘foreign vessel’’ with ‘‘vessel,’’ demonstrated the capability to comply implemented. It is our belief that there
so that U.S.-flagged ships which with California’s performance will be suitable BWMS on the market
currently have installed BWMS that standards. for those vessels required to comply
have been type approved by a foreign The Coast Guard disagrees. In the with the BWDS in this final rule. The
administration under the specified CSLC 2010 report on the availability of companies bringing BWMS to the
conditions would be acceptable. technology to meet California market include many with international
The Coast Guard has clarified the requirements, the State Lands supply and service networks. Further,
procedures in 46 CFR 162.060–12 which Commission acknowledged the existing information indicates that not
allow manufacturers of foreign type- limitations of testing data and clarified all BWMS will need to be installed in
approved BWMS to submit data that the Commission’s analysis drydock or even while the vessel is out
developed during the foreign type- determines whether or not systems have of service. However, to address the
approval testing to support the demonstrated the potential to comply situation where, through no fault of
submission of an application pursuant with California’s standards. (CSLC Sept their own, a vessel owner cannot install
to 46 CFR 162.060–14. The Coast Guard 2010). The ‘‘potential to comply’’ a BWMS on time, we have also included
will evaluate the application and determination was based on whether the a provision allowing the Coast Guard to
determine if U.S. type approval will be reported efficacy data for the systems extend that particular vessel’s
granted. If U.S. type approval is granted, examined indicated that at least one test compliance date.
the BWMS can be installed and used on (averaged across replicates) met One commenter stated that treatment
U.S. and foreign flagged vessels. California’s standards for every testable technology is not available for barges
organism size class during either land- with large ballast water capacity. The
Availability of BWMS based or shipboard testing. Coast Guard neither agrees nor disagrees
One commenter stated that it is It is important to recognize that with this comment. We recognize that
unlikely that any systems have California’s phase 2 discharge standard some vessels will present challenges
documented test results to demonstrate for organisms greater than 50 due to the specific nature of their design
compliance with a standard that is 100 micrometers (one millionth of a meter, and operations. We have made
or 1,000 times stricter than phase-one. mm) is ‘‘no detectable living organisms,’’ adjustments to this final rule’s
The Coast Guard agrees that no and is not defined by a specific applicability and implementation
sufficiently credible documentation volumetric concentration (i.e., timeline to allow the Coast Guard to
exists of BWMS able to meet California’s phase 2 discharge standard deal with these challenges either on a
concentrations 100 or 1,000 times more is not equivalent to a concentration one-on-one basis (as with a request for
stringent than the proposed phase-one 1,000 times smaller than the IMO an extension of compliance) or up front
standard. The Coast Guard notes that standard, or to any other standard en masse (as with the removal of certain
the EPA SAB came to the same expressed as a concentration). In its vessels from the BWDS applicability).
conclusion in its recent report (EPA report, the Commission concluded One commenter stated that the design
SAB 2011). ‘‘Thus, California’s standard for this of some vessels is not appropriate for
Two commenters stated that BWMS organism size class is not directly current approaches to BWM and
that can meet the Coast Guard’s comparable to the IMO or standards proposed that technical feasibility be
proposed BWDS are available now. The proposed by other entities evaluated by taken into account. The commenter
Coast Guard agrees that technologies these reports.’’ specifically referenced the lack of
capable of meeting the phase-one BWDS Because of the difficulties of testing electrical power and personnel available
will be available for installation on treatment technologies to meet to operate BWMS onboard unmanned,
applicable vessels on the required standards more stringent than the unpowered barges. The Coast Guard
implementation schedule. We do not, IMO’s, the Commission convened its agrees that technical feasibility is an
important consideration, and has Funding Issues of business decisions by the

included it as one of many factors that manufacturer.
must be considered during the Coast One commenter stated that it is One commenter stated the use of an
Guard’s practicability review. Two incumbent on the Coast Guard and operational, type-approved BWMS
commenters asserted that the Canadian agencies to cooperatively should be sufficient for compliance, and
installation of BWMS on their vessels assist companies to design and market that vessel masters should not be held
would not be economically feasible, but BWMS that may need to be unique to to discharge standards that they cannot
did not provide any additional data. the Great Lakes. The Coast Guard themselves measure or understand
Given the issues raised by these and disagrees that the government of the without specialized scientific or
other commenters, the Coast Guard has United States, either alone or in engineering training. The Coast Guard
revised the applicability of the BWDS cooperation with Canada, must assist disagrees with the commenter. The
rule. The Coast Guard is publishing this companies to design and market BWMS intent of NANPCA, as amended by
final rule to apply the phase-one BWDS beyond encouraging such actions NISA, is to prevent the introduction and
only to the following vessels through the establishment a BWDS. spread of unwanted organisms in
discharging ballast water into water of Two commenters asserted that vessels’ ballast water. For this reason,
the United States: vessels entering provision of adequate funding is the Coast Guard has proposed a BWDS
waters of the United States from outside necessary to facilitate the development that we believe is practicable to
the EEZ, and those seagoing vessels that of technology for treating ballast water implement. Type approval alone cannot
operate in more than one COTP Zone and for implementation of the proposed ensure that vessel discharges meet the
and are greater than 1,600 GRT (3,000 regulation. The availability of funding BWDS; it can only increase the
GT (ITC)). The Coast Guard has for either development of technology or probability that systems used to meet
determined that additional analysis is implementation of this final rule is the BWDS will be effective. It is the
needed before expanding the outside the scope of this rule. vessel owner or operator’s responsibility
applicability in this final rule. Four commenters stated that this to meet the discharge requirement.
regulation should include provisions for One commenter stated that failure to
Additionally, the Coast Guard has
BWMS testing and application fees to use an approved BWMS as required
decided the BWM requirements will not
support testing and review processes should be a violation, even when
include vessels that operate solely in
within Federal agencies and ILs. One another allowable practice is used. The
inland waters. The Coast Guard fully
submitter commented that there is a Coast Guard believes that the
intends to expand the BWDS rule to all
need for increased research and regulations as drafted in the final rule
vessels, as noted in the final rule
development funding for testing and clarify as to whether a violation has in
preamble section V.A. Summary of
development of BWM technologies. The fact occurred would depend on the
Changes from the NPRM, but has
Coast Guard disagrees that the rule particular circumstances. Vessels with
determined that additional analysis is
should specify fees for testing and an inoperable BWMS will be required to
necessary to support this expansion. We inform the appropriate COTP prior to
also intend to conduct additional application review. Costs of testing will
be determined by the ILs. arrival. The COTP will evaluate the
research as necessary. circumstances and inform the vessel of
Eight commenters stated that they Specific BWMS Requirements required alternatives, as well any
were unaware of any available BWMS finding of a violation that would result
designed for vessels operating One commenter stated that the
in an enforcement action.
exclusively in freshwater. The Coast requirement for the BWMS to retain
Guard disagrees, as there are several records of operation for 24 months is Independent Laboratories (IL)
BWMS currently on the market or excessive and will result in significant Three commenters questioned
advancing through approval procedures additional costs. The commenter whether sufficient numbers of ILs will
in other countries that are based on proposed instead that the period of exist that can perform the required
treatment processes that function record retention in the BWMS be testing of BWMS for type approval. The
independently of salinity, such as reduced to 6 months, and that data older Coast Guard acknowledges the key role
filtration and ultraviolet radiation (UV). than that be acceptable if retained on that ILs will play in the type-approval
Many BWMS using active substances, disks. The Coast Guard agrees this process. The Coast Guard is aware of
particularly electrolytic chlorination, would be more efficient and has several organizations in the United
can work effectively in freshwater if clarified requirements for record States and abroad that have stated their
provided an appropriate source of ions retention to allow for electronic data intention to serve as ILs and that have
such as seawater or brine held in a tank. collection in lieu of a hard copy by taken steps to create the infrastructure
While it still remains for these systems revising 46 CFR 162.060–20(b)(5) and and organizational capacities to perform
to be approved by the Coast Guard, the (b)(6), and added 33 CFR 151.2070(d). the functions. The Coast Guard will not
fact that they are being approved by One commenter stated the Coast know definitively whether enough
other countries in accordance with the Guard should not automatically organizations capable of conducting the
standards set forth in the IMO BWM decertify a formerly approved BWMS test procedures exist until such time as
Convention for use in meeting a when the manufacturer goes out of organizations apply for designation by
standard equivalent to the phase-one business or ceases to support a type- the Coast Guard and are determined to
standard indicates there are likely to be approved system. The Coast Guard meet the requirements for ILs testing
BWMS that will be effective when used agrees with the commenter that the BWMS. The Coast Guard will move
on vessels that operate exclusively in issue of concern should be whether or quickly to announce its availability to
freshwater. not the BWMS is capable of being accept applications for designation.
One commenter stated that BWMS are operated properly and effectively. The Five commenters discussed the
available that are capable of treating provision for de-certification is included importance of having a sufficient
small volumes and flow rates and would to allow the Coast Guard to suspend availability of qualified ILs for effective
fit in vessels with low space availability. approval of BWMS that cannot be and timely implementation of the
The Coast Guard notes this information. properly maintained as a consequence proposed rule. The Coast Guard agrees
that, as with other installed vessel The Coast Guard disagrees with the Changes to Specific Sections
equipment, ILs will play a critical role recommendation. Listing specific Two commenters stated that all uses
in ensuring that marketed technologies entities in the regulation could serve as of ‘‘should’’ in 33 CFR 151.2050 need to
are highly likely to meet the regulatory a disincentive to other entities who be changed to ‘‘must’’ to reflect the fact
requirements for which they are could also meet all of the requirements that the previously voluntary provisions
intended. It is our belief that the to become an IL. The Coast Guard will are now requirements. The Coast Guard
publication of this final rule, as well as make publicly available a list of agrees. We have revised 33 CFR
our stated intent to follow up with a accepted ILs on the Coast Guard 151.2050 accordingly.
subsequent rule implementing a more Maritime Information Exchange One commenter requested that the
stringent standard after additional (CGMIX) Web site, http:// definition of ‘‘major conversion’’ be
analysis and research, will provide cgmix.uscg.mil/. consistent with the definition of the
incentive for the creation of additional Three commenters recommended that term in the IMO BWM Convention. The
ILs. the Coast Guard include provisions for Coast Guard disagrees; we did not
Two commenters stated that the Coast
adequate funding for its Federal propose any changes to the ‘‘major
Guard should audit ILs to ensure the
activities and the activities of the ILs in conversion’’ definition in the NPRM,
integrity of the testing process. The
this regulation. Two of the commenters and do not believe any change is
Coast Guard agrees; audits are a
specifically suggested setting fees for necessary at this time.
standard component of the Coast
application review and testing. The One commenter recommended
Guard’s oversight of ILs (46 CFR subpart
Coast Guard clarifies that type-approval changing the text in 33 CFR 151.2005(b)
159.010).
Four commenters discussed ILs in applicants must handle all IL testing to revise the definition of ‘‘empty/refill
reference to existing test facilities. Three costs through individual contracts for exchange’’ to replace the word ‘‘should’’
advised that existing facilities that services with ILs. The Coast Guard with the word ‘‘must.’’ The Coast Guard
conduct tests of BWMS, particularly the currently does not have express agrees that the wording needs to reflect
Great Ships Initiative (GSI), should be authority to charge fees for the mandatory nature of the
utilized as ILs. One commenter advised implementing these BWM requirements. requirement, thus we have revised the
the Coast Guard to work closely with Two commenters urged the Coast text accordingly.
established programs and other Guard to presumptively accept certified One commenter called for the Coast
appropriate experts to develop testing IL test results without conducting Guard to revise the text of 33 CFR
procedures. The Coast Guard is aware of substantial additional reviews, in the 151.2040(a) to read that a vessel retains
most, if not all, existing test facilities in interest of streamlining the type- ‘‘all of its ballast water,’’ instead of ‘‘its
the United States and internationally, approval process and avoiding ballast water,’’ as currently written. The
including GSI, and would welcome IL unnecessary delays in making approved Coast Guard disagrees that the change is
applications from any qualified systems available. The Coast Guard necessary, as the existing text is already
organization once the procedures for agrees that delays should be minimized. inclusive.
certification of ILs are implemented. The point of designation and regular Two commenters requested that the
The Coast Guard has worked with most oversight of ILs via audits is to avoid the text in 33 CFR 151.2040 and 151.2045
of the existing test facilities in the need for time-consuming reviews of clearly state that the responsibility to
United States in the development of individual test reports. However, the meet the legal requirements of the
standard test procedures for BWMS Coast Guard must assess each regulation still applies to vessels that
under the EPA ETV Protocol and will individual test report for the BWMS claim extraordinary circumstances or
continue to do so. being tested, and make an independent invoke the safety exemption. The
One commenter stated that the determination of the BWMS. This commenters presumed that while the
timeframe for designation of ILs should obligation cannot be delegated to the infraction would exist, fines or penalties
be specified. The Coast Guard disagrees ILs. Additionally, the Coast Guard’s would be mitigated to reflect the
that specification of the time frame for type-approval determination is a circumstances. The Coast Guard agrees
designation of ILs should be part of the Federal agency action that must be with the commenters’ presumption.
regulation. There are too many analyzed under NEPA and other Vessels unable to meet the BWM
unknowns prior to receiving the applicable U.S. environmental laws. requirements will be required to inform
applications to be able to set a deadline. the COTP prior to arrival. The COTP
Two commenters specifically will evaluate the circumstances and
Additionally, there should be no limit
supported the Coast Guard’s proposed direct the vessel accordingly, which
on a facility’s opportunity to apply to
use of ILs to conduct testing associated may include the imposition of fines or
become an IL after the initial round of
with type-approval determinations. penalties.
applications and approvals are
completed. One commenter recommended that a One commenter recommended that
Three commenters requested, manufacturer or vendor should be the introductory paragraphs of the
respectively, that academic institutions, allowed to use multiple ILs as necessary appendix to subpart D of 33 CFR part
classification societies, and agencies of and efficient during the different phases 151—Ballast Water Reporting Form and
foreign governments be eligible for of approval testing. The Coast Guard Instructions for Ballast Water Reporting
consideration as ILs. The Coast Guard agrees that a BWMS vendor may use the Form introductory paragraph be revised
agrees with the commenters. We services of more than one entity to most to change the word ‘‘should’’ to the
consider the existing specifications for effectively conduct the required tests, word ‘‘must.’’ The Coast Guard does not
ILs in 46 CFR 162.060–3 and 162.060– and there are provisions in this final believe this change is necessary, as the
40 to be inclusive of the types of rule that allow for this. However, in the legal requirement to submit
organizations identified by these interest of organizational and amendments is clearly laid out in 33
commenters. administrative efficiency, the Coast CFR 151.2060(c). Additionally, as
Three commenters called for the Coast Guard requires that one IL coordinates discussed earlier in this preamble, we
Guard to approve a specific list of and oversees all testing and reporting are removing the Ballast Water
entities that could be accepted as ILs. for each type-approval application. Reporting Form from the CFR (see V.A.
Summary of Changes from the NPRM). quality assurance, and quality control Guard disagrees with this comment. To
We will keep the comment in mind, procedures relevant to the particular date, there are no ILs (as defined in this
however, and reevaluate it when we site. We have not included a definition rule), nor to the knowledge of the Coast
update the OMB approved collection as of Test Plan, but we have detailed the Guard are there test facilities or vendors
part of our next regularly scheduled necessary requirements in 46 CFR that have demonstrated their readiness
renewal package. 162.060–24. These details were to implement the phase-two standard in
One commenter recommended included in the NPRM, as well. 2014. We again note the conclusion of
revising 46 CFR 162.060–32 by changing One commenter asked the Coast the EPA SAB that test methods are not
‘‘appropriate dosages’’ to ‘‘appropriate Guard to clarify the definition of available to determine whether a BWMS
dosages over all applicable ‘‘change in design’’ in 46 CFR 162.060– meets any standard more stringent than
temperatures’’ to reflect the fact that 16(a), and recommended following the the IMO’s.
chemical and biological processes are same approach we used in defining
temperature dependent. The Coast ‘‘major conversion’’ as applied to a 4. Approval Protocols
Guard agrees and has included the vessel. Another commenter stated the General
clarifying language in the final rule text. Coast Guard should better define what
Two commenters said that they would
One commenter stated that because is meant by a ‘‘design change’’ in 46
some types of treatment processes, such accept a greater chance of type two
CFR 162.060–16.
as UV, may act to make organisms The Coast Guard disagrees that statistical errors in determining whether
unviable or unable to reproduce rather additional explanation is necessary. The BWMS were working effectively. The
than killing them outright, the Coast language is the same as for other Coast Guard disagrees. A type two
Guard should include viability as a pollution prevention equipment subject statistical error is when one accepts a
criterion for determination of BWMS to Coast Guard-approval. With the null hypothesis (a hypothesis that is
efficacy. The Coast Guard disagrees. language as it is written, any change in false) as true. In the case of approving
This issue has been the point of much the design of an approved BWMS must BWMS, this would mean increasing the
discussion both in the United States and be submitted to the Coast Guard for probability of approving a BWMS when
internationally in association with the review. it does not actually meet the BWDS.
IMO BWM Convention. The Coast One commenter stated that the Five submitters commented on the
Guard has decided to use live/dead wording in 46 CFR 162.060–20(h) is too make-up of test organisms in challenge
rather than viable/unviable, because the inflexible, and that the paragraph’s goals water, and on the use of cultured
latter designations would require could be achieved through assessments organisms. Two commenters
culturing potentially large numbers of of individual systems. The Coast Guard recommended that specific
different kinds of organisms to disagrees. The requirements in 46 CFR concentrations of organisms be required
determine whether they were capable of 162.060–20(h) are important for the safe in challenge conditions. One advocated
reproduction. This would be made even and effective operation of BWMS. If a requiring challenge water to have 100
more problematic by the fact that developer considers that the times the threshold concentrations in
scientists are not able to culture many requirements may be best met through the BWDS (for example, 1,000
of the organisms in question. Finally, it other than ‘‘equipped with a means to organisms larger than 50 micrometers
is more conservative, and thus more * * *’’, then the developer may discuss per m3 for phase one and 1 organism
protective, to base efficacy decision on alternatives with the Coast Guard. larger than 50 micrometers per m3 for
the basis of live/dead, rather than the phase-two standard). The other
viable/unviable. Responses to Questions Posed in NPRM commenter stated that the Coast Guard
One commenter stated, in reference to One commenter stated, in response to should establish minimum test
46 CFR 162.060–20(b)(5), that a BWMS the NPRM preamble question on costs, conditions of 50,000 organisms larger
should not have to record all by-passes that it is not possible to estimate costs than 50 micrometers per m3 of water for
of the BWMS. Rather, the commenter for BWMS capable of meeting higher all trials, with at least three trials having
thought that such recording should be stringency standards because such more than 100,000 organisms per m3 of
allowable either through electronic or systems do not exist. The Coast Guard water; 1,000 organisms per m3 of water
hand entry in the logbook. The Coast is currently undertaking additional for organisms between 10 and 50
Guard agrees and has revised the studies to estimate the costs of BWMS micrometers in all replicate trials, with
provision accordingly. capable of meeting more stringent at least three trials having more than
One commenter stated that a strong, standards. 2,000 organisms per m3 of water; 10,000
environmentally protective, One commenter stated, in response to colony forming units (cfu) of
concentration-based, numerical, another NPRM preamble question, that heterotrophic bacteria per mL of water;
national BWDS is a critical and it is not feasible to assess whether total suspended solids of 25 mg per L;
necessary component of the nation’s BWMS are sufficiently scalable to be dissolved organic carbon of 5 mg per L,
invasive species program. The Coast able to meet multiple stringency and particulate organic carbon of 5 mg
Guard agrees. standards until methods and facilities per L.
One commenter requested a definition capable of testing to the more stringent The Coast Guard disagrees and will
of the term ‘‘Test Plan’’ as it is used in standards are available. The Coast not make these specific changes. The
the approval text in 46 CFR 162.060– Guard agrees that more exacting Coast Guard based the approval
10(d). The Test Plan is a document that methods and improved facilities are challenge conditions on those in the
describes the procedures for conducting needed to test to the more stringent ETV Protocol, which is the product of
a test or study according to protocol standards. a consensus process based on input

requirements for a specific BWMS at a One commenter responded to a from numerous experts from a wide
particular test site. At a minimum, the specific question on industry readiness range of scientific and engineering
Test Plan includes detailed instructions to implement the phase-two standard by disciplines. As such, the ETV Protocol
for test procedures, sample and data stating that ILs and vendors are ready to constitutes the best available validated
collection, sample handling and implement the phase-two standard in procedure for evaluating BWMS. The
preservation, precision, accuracy, goals, 2014 (in place of phase-one). The Coast issues raised by the commenters were
considered in the development of the interpretation by individual the ETV Protocol to be used in the U.S.
ETV Protocol. administrations, and do not wholly approval process.
Two commenters called for reflect advances in ballast water science Two commenters called for the Coast
publication of the testing protocols and and technology that have occurred since Guard to define protocols and methods
procedures used by ILs prior to the adoption of the G8 guidelines in for approval testing that are clear and
implementation of the phase-one 2005. The G9 procedure addresses the practicable. One commenter requested
standard in order to ensure acceptability of chemicals used to treat that Coast Guard do this prior to the
transparency. The Coast Guard agrees ballast water. The closest parallel to the implementation of the approval process.
with this comment. This final rule, as G9 procedure in the United States is the In this final rule, the Coast Guard has
well as the NPRM before it, describes, registration of biocides under FIFRA, established procedures to be followed
in detail, the procedures and protocols which is administered by the EPA, not for shipboard testing as well as adopting
for use by ILs in testing BWMS for the Coast Guard. the ETV Protocol. We believe these
purposes of type approval (see 46 CFR Three submitters addressed the need regulations are clear, but also anticipate
part 162.060). for the Coast Guard’s approval issuing guidance to help manufacturers
One commenter stated the Coast application review process to be and vendors work their way through the
Guard should review and revise the completed in a timely fashion. Two of U.S. approval process.
protocols for assessing biological and these three called for the Coast Guard to One commenter considered the
operational performance and specify, in the regulations, the proposed requirements for type
environmental soundness of systems timeframes for review and approval of approval to be thorough and well done.
annually. The commenter further stated BWMS. The Coast Guard disagrees that The Coast Guard notes their submission
the reviews should be based on findings the timeframe for review and decision and endorsement of the protocols.
from type approvals, compliance tests, should be specified in the regulation. A
and independent research, and that Land-Based Testing
number of the components of the
these findings should be made publicly approval process, including One commenter stated that the land-
available in a database maintained by environmental reviews and reviews to based test protocols should include a
the Coast Guard and the EPA. be completed by other Federal agencies, requirement that the concentration of
The Coast Guard agrees that the are inherently not amenable to pre-set organisms in the discharge from control
protocols should be reviewed regularly timeframes. The Coast Guard tanks be at least ten times the discharge
and that the performance data for appreciates the importance of limit set by the BWDS.
BWMS should be publicly available, minimizing the time required for review One commenter recommended the
consistent with applicable privileges of applications, and will make efforts to Coast Guard should consider requiring
covering commercially sensitive do so. three short-term tests (18–24 hrs) and
information. five 3–5 day tests at each of the required
The Coast Guard disagrees that review EPA ETV Protocol test facilities to enhance certainty that
and revision should occur annually and Six commenters urged the Coast treatment systems will be effective over
that performance data should Guard to release a final version of the a range of voyage durations.
necessarily be made available through a EPA ETV Protocol for verification of One commenter stated that required
database. Under NISA, the Coast Guard BWMS. We agree that the final ETV holding times for land-based tests
must assess and as appropriate revise Protocol is a key component to this rule should be 5 days, but that longer or
our ballast water regulations at least and, as discussed previously, we have shorter periods should be added as
every 3 years. It remains to be seen what incorporated it by reference into our warranted by specific BWMS.
the most efficient and practicable final rule at 46 CFR 162.060–5. We note The Coast Guard disagrees and will
method will be for making performance that EPA released the ETV protocol in not make these specific changes. The
data available to the public. As the U.S. September 2010, and that it is available Coast Guard based the approval
approval process evolves, we will on the ETV web page (http:// requirements for land-based testing on
evaluate the most efficient means for www.epa.gov/nrmrl/std/etv/ those in the ETV Protocol, which is the
making information available to the vp.html#wqpc). product of a consensus process based on
public, as well as the appropriate time Two commenters urged the Coast input from numerous experts from a
frame for conducting reviews. Guard to use the EPA ETV Protocol as wide range of scientific and engineering
Two commenters stated that the Coast the basis for the approval tests to assess disciplines. As such, the ETV Protocol
Guard should base the approval testing performance of BWMS in meeting the constitutes the best available validated
and certification procedures on those BWDS. Conversely, one commenter did procedure for evaluating BWMS. The
laid out in the G8 guidelines and not support the use of the revised ETV issues raised were considered in the
Procedure for Approval of Ballast Water Protocol as the basis of the approval test development of the ETV Protocol.
Management Systems that make use of procedures. The Coast Guard has One commenter stated that test tanks
Active Substances (G9) (G9 procedure), adopted the ETV Protocol. The ETV should be the unit of replication and
which were developed to assist Protocol is the product of a consensus that inline integrated samples of at least
implementation of the IMO BWM process based on input from numerous 5 m3 for organisms larger than 50
Convention. The Coast Guard agrees experts from a wide range of scientific micrometers, 5 L for both organisms 10–
with these commenters to a certain and engineering disciplines. As such, 50 micrometers and bacteria, and
extent. The Coast Guard attempted to the ETV Protocol constitutes the best indicator microbes should be collected
harmonize our type-approval available validated procedure for for analysis. The Coast Guard disagrees
procedures with these references to the evaluating BWMS. that test tanks should be the unit of
extent practicable, and the proposed The Coast Guard will work with EPA replication. Requiring multiple
type-approval procedures do not and other stakeholders to update the operations of the BWMS provides a
conflict with those under the IMO BWM ETV Protocol as necessary and useful test of the system’s ability to
Convention. However, the G8 guidelines appropriate in the future. If future work consistently. The Coast Guard also
in particular are very unspecific on updates are made, we would update our disagrees that the recommended
important details, subject to rules and policies as necessary to reflect minimum volumes for sample sizes
should be established in the regulation. than specific changes in abundance and hold treated water for specific periods of
The ETV Protocol addresses how to composition. time.
determine the necessary sample One commenter stated that the Coast One commenter stated that the Coast
volumes for a test. Guard should require five consecutive Guard should rely entirely on shipboard
One commenter disagreed with the successful trials during land-based testing for BWMS type approval rather
proposed requirements for testing in- testing. The commenter specified that than requiring land-based testing. The
tank (batch) treatments, and specifically such successes must demonstrate Coast Guard disagrees. Land-based tests
proposed that a maximum of 10 m3 of below-threshold concentrations of living provide an important degree of control
water would be sufficient. The Coast organisms, acceptable discharge that is not possible under shipboard
Guard disagrees. The requirement for a toxicity, and absence of mechanical conditions. A comprehensive test
minimum of 200 m3 of water reflects the failures. The commenter added that regime that integrates land-based and
importance of testing BWMS at a scale more than two failures of any kind shipboard testing provides the best
relevant to their intended use. Testing a during testing should result in the Coast evidence that a BWMS will likely
BWMS intended for use on vessels Guard requiring the BWMS to be perform satisfactorily once it is installed
using hundreds, if not tens of removed from the test facility for on a wide range of ships and operated
thousands, of cubic meters of ballast refinement. under a wide range of challenging
water by only using the BWMS to treat The Coast Guard notes that the NPRM conditions.
a few cubic meters would not did require five consecutive successful Eleven commenters stated the
adequately allow a determination of trials, a requirement that is retained in proposed duration for shipboard testing
whether the system would work this final rule. The issue of when to (12 months, ten test cycles, or both)
effectively to provide the necessary dose cease testing on the basis of failures is would be onerous and unnecessary.
to the entire volume requiring a contractual issue between the Three of the commenters specifically
treatment. manufacturer and the IL. It is important recommended the Coast Guard use the
to note that the Coast Guard type- 6 month requirement of the G8
Three commenters discussed the
approval procedures require the results guidelines. The Coast Guard agrees with
difficulties of making determinations of
of all testing, including failures, be these comments and has revised the
live/dead status of organisms as part of
included in the Test Report. regulation accordingly.
approval testing, particularly for One commenter stated that land-based Six commenters stated that the
organisms in the 10–50 micrometers test protocols should be updated shipboard testing requirement of three
size range. The Coast Guard regularly, and that approval results geographic regions is too difficult to
acknowledges the identified difficulties. should be correlated with subsequent achieve on many vessels. Two
The Coast Guard points out that the ETV performance on vessels (as revealed by commenters further recommended the
Protocol, incorporated by reference in compliance assessments). The Coast Coast Guard follow the IMO or
this final rule, on which the approval Guard agrees with the commenter. Shipboard Technology Evaluation
testing requirements are based, includes Testing protocols used for type approval Program (STEP) approaches for
a multi-stain process because of these will be reviewed regularly, based on shipboard testing. The Coast Guard
difficulties. information developed by ILs, agrees and the shipboard testing
One commenter stated that methods researchers, and the Coast Guard during protocols have been revised
for testing to the phase-two standard are enforcement actions. However, the accordingly.
not necessary, and that ‘‘interim Coast Guard has no plans to establish a One commenter recommended that
enforcement standards’’ such as the use specific review period or process within shipboard testing procedures
of a system approved as achieving some this rule. incorporate sampling and analysis
measurable concentration, would procedures similar to those used for
suffice. Shipboard Testing
land-based testing, to the degree
As discussed in this preamble, this One commenter stated that BWMS possible and appropriate. The Coast
final rule only contains requirements for should demonstrate that they are Guard agrees with the general point.
the phase-one standard (see V.A. capable of meeting the discharge The shipboard testing procedures have
Summary of Changes from the NPRM). standard under a range of ballast flow been developed to make use of the same
We will consider all of the comments rates, as a vessel would experience procedures as land-based to the degree
that we received on the phase-two during cargo operations. The Coast appropriate.
standard as we draft a notice or other Guard agrees. Shipboard testing is One commenter recommended the
rulemaking document that addresses the included as part of the approval Coast Guard allow systems to be tested
phase-two standard. requirements, and was included in the on multiple vessels. The Coast Guard
Two commenters stated that NPRM, to evaluate system efficacy neither prohibits nor requires testing on
simultaneous filling of treatment and under a range of operating conditions, multiple vessels.
control tanks during land-based testing including variable flow rates. Two commenters stated that
should be required to assure One commenter asked how long the shipboard testing should focus on
comparability between the two, saying ballast water must be held onboard operational performance parameters,
that sequential fills could result in vessels during shipboard testing. The rather than repeating the experimental
different compositions and Coast Guard has revised the shipboard testing performed on land. The Coast
concentrations. The Coast Guard testing protocol to clearly state that hold Guard notes that the shipboard testing
disagrees with the recommendation. times are to be at least for the minimum requirements include assessing
Either simultaneous or sequential filling time necessary to achieve full treatment operational parameters as well as testing
is allowed. The purpose of the control and an acceptable discharge water system efficacy in meeting the BWDS,
tanks is not to compare directly with quality, and for the time necessary for but do not require the same level of
treatment tanks, but to control for the vessel to conduct its normal BWM experimental control as for the land-
unexplained sources of mortality. One procedures from uptake to discharge. based testing.
may accomplish this through The Coast Guard has not required Two submitters commented generally
comparisons of relative change rather vessels conducting approval tests to on the inclusion of a requirement for
shipboard testing. One considered the class(es) they will test their BWMS. The extremely complicated and difficult,
requirement to be unnecessary, given U.S. type approval will only apply to result in the risk of NIS introductions.
land-based testing is also required, the salinity class for which the BWMS One commenter asked why the Coast
while the other considered the passed testing. This will allow some Guard does not provide a list of specific
requirement for shipboard testing to be manufacturers to forego the cost of test microbes for use in testing the
completely appropriate. The Coast testing in freshwater, for example, if efficacy of BWMS. The Coast Guard
Guard agrees with the commenter who they do not expect to find a market in notes that, while standard test
supported the inclusion of shipboard that salinity class. organisms are widely used in drinking
testing. Shipboard tests are intended to Six submitters commented on the and wastewater regulations, several
assess system performance under requirements for BWMS approved for constraints prevent them from being
operational conditions, over a period of freshwater use, and stated that such deemed appropriate for testing BWMS.
extended use. As such, shipboard tests systems should be required to undergo First, there is no agreed list of organisms
are not repetitions of land-based tests testing in a land-based facility with that would adequately represent all of
and are necessary for effective approval natural freshwater challenge water. One the different kinds of organisms found
evaluation. of these commenters also stated that in ballast water. Secondly, even for
One commenter recommended that BWMS approved for use in the Great those organisms that have been
safety and operational reliability aspects Lakes should be tested in the Great identified as potential candidates for
of approval testing should be dropped. Lakes. such use, there are concerns about
The commenter believed that vessel The Coast Guard agrees that systems difficulties associated with culturing the
owners and their consultants are type approved for use in freshwater numbers needed for full-scale testing.
capable of assessing these issues on should be tested in freshwater, and has Another concern is the potential for
their own. The Coast Guard disagrees; clarified the requirements accordingly. release of such organisms into the
assessment of the suitability of environment, given that the specific
The Coast Guard disagrees that we
equipment for shipboard circumstances organisms would not be native in many
should require such freshwater BWMS
is a fundamental aspect of the approval places where testing would occur.
testing in the Great Lakes. In many One commenter recommended that
process. cases, BWMS treating ballast water that the Coast Guard develop a list of the
Phase-Two Testing will be discharged in the Great Lakes conditions necessary for each BWMS to
Seven commenters involved in will be doing so with water taken on kill or inactivate the most resistant
developing or testing BWM technologies outside the Great Lakes. organisms representative of ballast
stated that no methods appropriate for Sampling water composition. The commenter
measuring BWMS’ capability to meet cited work by NSF International, Old
the phase-two standard are currently One commenter stated that Dominion University, and University of
available. The Coast Guard agrees that approaches for statistically-sound Washington that identifies several
more developed methods and improved sampling to identify with confidence candidate organisms for such use. The
facilities are needed to more effectively when a BWMS can meet phase-one Coast Guard is aware of the cited work,
test to the more stringent standards. limits in land-based and shipboard which was conducted in support of the
This is one of the reasons we have testing still require some refinement. joint Coast Guard and EPA ETV Protocol
deferred issuance of a more stringent The commenter identified number and efforts to identify appropriate standard
phase-two standard. volume of samples as two specific areas test organisms for land-based BWMS
One State commenter asserted that of concern. The Coast Guard agrees, and tests. The Coast Guard disagrees that
initial data from technology developers has incorporated additional these organisms should be used as part
indicate that laboratories can test requirements on sampling design in the of shipboard testing. We do not believe
BWMS’ ability to meet the phase-two testing protocol. that using these organisms as part of
standard. The Coast Guard disagrees One commenter requested a different shipboard testing would be practicable
with this interpretation of the available definition of ‘‘representativeness’’ in 46 to develop a comprehensive
data. The Coast Guard has not seen CFR 162.060–3. The Coast Guard agrees understanding of the conditions
quantitative validation that any that this definition needed refining, and necessary for each BWMS to kill or
laboratories can currently measure the we have replaced it with the term remove organisms.
ability of BWMS to meet the phase-two ‘‘representative sample,’’ which has a
new definition. With respect to samples Acceptance of Already-Tested BWMS
standard.
obtained in testing, a representative Two commenters proposed, as a way
Salinity Classes sample is a random sample in which to avoid delays in the availability of
One commenter stated that BWMS every individual of interest in the larger approved BWMS, that the Coast Guard
should be tested for type approval in at population (organisms, molecules, etc.) grant type approval to BWMS that have
least two of three salinity classes, but has an unbiased chance of appearing in undergone prior testing by a variety of
that the proposed 10 practical salinity the sample. U.S. government-sponsored research
unit (PSU) difference between salinity programs or by independent
Test Organisms
classes should not be required. Two researchers. The Coast Guard partly
commenters stated that the Coast Guard One commenter stated the Coast agrees. The Coast Guard shares the
should require land-based testing of Guard should identify a list of microbes commenters’ concerns about avoiding
BWMS at three locations with different and appropriate microbial delays. We have included a provision
salinities. concentrations in challenge water for under which U.S. type approval can be
The Coast Guard agrees that BWMS use in BWMS approval tests and then based on testing performed under
should be approved for the salinity authorize vendors to add these protocols other than those specified in
regimes in which they will be used, and organisms into the vessels’ ballast water this final rule, provided that the testing
we have written the approval during shipboard tests. The Coast Guard determined to be equivalent to the U.S.
procedures to allow the manufacturer or disagrees. The use of added organisms type approval procedures. If BWMS
vendor to determine in which salinity in shipboard tests could, besides being developers have conducted substantive
testing prior to the availability of ILs, BWMS to treat all ballast water appropriate when conducting the
the developers can request a review and discharged to waters of the U.S. required assessments. We also conduct
determination of equivalency by the One commenter proposed that programmatic assessments, when
Coast Guard. This review will be information submitted for acceptance appropriate, to avoid redundancies. The
conducted in the same fashion as the into STEP should be considered to meet Coast Guard and EPA will seek to
assessment of foreign approval the requirements for an approval integrate or harmonize the analysis
programs. application, saying that an applicant for conducted under their separate statutory
Two commenters stated that the Coast type approval should be able to simply requirements to the maximum extent
Guard should accept any testing reference information previously practicable. The Coast Guard and EPA
protocol or procedure established or submitted in a STEP application. The are coordinating closely to identify
accepted by a number of different U.S. Coast Guard disagrees. Applicants for opportunities to avoid or limit
and foreign entities as equivalent to the approval may submit copies of materials redundancies in our respective
proposed approval testing. The Coast previously submitted for acceptance to programs.
Guard disagrees. The Coast Guard will STEP, providing that the approval One commenter, a Federal agency,
evaluate the degree to which other application adequately references the recommended that the Coast Guard
testing protocols are equivalent to those pertinent sections of the STEP explicitly state that national-level
implemented under this rule on a case- application materials. To do this, the environmental analyses, including U.S.
by-case basis, and will make decisions applicant must include copies of any Fish and Wildlife and National Marine
about equivalencies accordingly. referenced STEP materials in the Fisheries Service review and response
One commenter asserted that the approval application. The applicant is times, will most likely take months or
Coast Guard should not require retesting responsible for submitting a complete years. The Coast Guard agrees that these
of previously approved BWMS when approval application to the specified reviews could take a significant amount
new test methods are established. The Coast Guard office. of time, but we are working closely with
One commenter proposed that a safety our Federal agency partners to
Coast Guard agrees that retesting should
certification by any recognized ship streamline these review and approval
not be automatically required of all
classification society or flag state processes.
BWMS approved under previous testing
member of IMO should be considered
requirements. However, the Coast Guard Miscellaneous Comments on the
conclusive proof that the so-certified
will retain the right to require retesting Approval Process
BWMS is safe for use in vessels at sea.
of specific BWMS if subsequent Two BWMS developers stated that the
The Coast Guard disagrees. The Coast
information indicates the previously Coast Guard must clarify that type
Guard has proposed a provision for
approved systems may not, in fact, acceptance of type approvals by foreign approval will apply to a specific BWMS,
effectively reduce the concentrations of administrations, and will evaluate the not to a specific manufacturer, and
organisms in vessels’ ballast water. procedures and criteria used in such further stated that it should be the
One commenter stated that vessels approvals prior to accepting them as approval holder’s responsibility to
enrolled in STEP should be equivalent to Coast Guard requirements. ensure that BWMS production units
grandfathered and not subjected to Importantly, biocides may also require meet quality control specifications. The
further equivalency evaluations under registration by the EPA under FIFRA Coast Guard agrees that type approval
the approval process, since a BWMS and other statutes and must meet applies to a specific BWMS rather than
accepted into STEP has been vigorously discharge limits established under manufacturers, and reviewed the
reviewed by the Coast Guard and will EPA’s Vessel General Permit. regulatory text to ensure it was clear on
continue to be evaluated through the this point. We did not see a need to
period of STEP participation. The Environmental Analyses of BWMS make any changes to the regulation in
commenter offered the opinion that Four commenters expressed concern order to clarify this. The Coast Guard
requiring companies that have gone that Coast Guard NEPA and ESA disagrees that type approval should not
through the STEP process to meet evaluations and EPA FIFRA evaluations include examination of BWMS
additional requirements will constitute will significantly delay the approval production unit manufacturers. The
a punishment for acting proactively. process, and hence the rate at which Coast Guard’s approval procedures for
The Coast Guard agrees that vessels type-approved technologies can be other marine equipment include
accepted into STEP should not be brought to the market. The commenters examinations of a manufacturers’ ability
subjected to additional requirements made specific recommendations to to fabricate production units that
associated with the use of type minimize delays, including taking a conform to the design and specifications
approved BWMS. However, the Coast programmatic approach to NEPA of the type-approved unit. This will be
Guard clarifies that STEP applies to assessments for approval decisions, a fundamental component of the Coast
vessels, not to BWMS. Thus, a vessel starting NEPA assessments at the time a Guard’s BWMS approval process.
with a specific BWMS accepted into developer first approaches the Coast One commenter stated that
STEP is allowed to use that system as Guard, maintaining a publicly available classification societies, such as the
long as the vessel remains in good database of releasable NEPA assessment American Bureau of Shipping or Bureau
standing within STEP, regardless of information that can be used in Veritas, should be able to review
whether the BWMS is granted type subsequent assessments, and integrating changes to approved BWMS and
approval. Under this provision, it is use Coast Guard and EPA data and analysis determine whether or not re-
of the BWMS that constitutes meeting requirements that stem from different certification is necessary. The Coast
BWM requirements, not meeting the programs. Guard disagrees. Under the existing
BWDS. The Coast Guard considers a The Coast Guard agrees that the process for type approvals, all changes
vessel in STEP to be in Good Standing analyses identified by the commenters to the design or construction of type-
if the vessel has met reporting could take a significant amount of time approved equipment must be submitted
requirements, has or is engaged in to complete. The Coast Guard already to the Coast Guard for review.
testing the system in accordance with makes use of existing NEPA One commenter recommended that
the accepted test plan, and is using the documentation to the degree documentation submitted for type
approval in accordance with the IMO One commenter stated that the 5. Legal
BWM Convention should be accepted as approval procedures should incorporate Preemption of State Action
meeting the requirements for Test BWMS type approval for a rated
Reports in 46 CFR 162.060–34(b)–(f). capacity range, similar to that contained Twelve commenters directly
The Coast Guard agrees that documents in the G8 guidelines. The Coast Guard requested that the Coast Guard preempt
prepared in accordance with approval agrees with the recommendation, and all State ballast water treatment
requirements under the IMO BWM standards and requirements in favor of
has revised the approval procedure
Convention may be used in an a uniform, national, water quality-based
accordingly.
application for type approval under the treatment standard. One commenter
One commenter disagreed with the argued that numerous States are already
Coast Guard’s regulation. However,
these documents must demonstrate that Coast Guard’s proposal in 46 CFR unconstitutionally burdening interstate
the tested BWMS meets the BWDS and 162.060–18 that type approval could be commerce with conflicting State BWM
that the test protocols used are suspended or withdrawn if the BWMS regulations. The commenter noted that
equivalent to the U.S. approval process. is no longer manufactured or supported interstate shipping will quickly become
Such documents must be included in by the manufacturer. The commenter impossible if the Coast Guard fails to
the approval application package and all stated their belief that this would be preempt all State treatment regulations
references to data or other information unreasonably punitive to shipowners, and likened the patchwork of State
in the documents submitted for IMO and that properly maintained and regulations to a ‘‘destructive economic
approval must refer to specific sections operating systems should be acceptable balkanization.’’ Another commenter
and pages. regardless of the manufacturer’s status. agreed with this sentiment, stating that
One commenter asserted that the without preemption, BWM regulations
The Coast Guard takes this
proposed approval procedures will on a State-by-State basis create the
opportunity to clarify that a type-
guarantee a government-created, potential to restrict trade and severely
approved system no longer
shortage of available technology. The impact the economies of ‘‘nearly every
manufactured or supported by the
Coast Guard disagrees with this State which relies on waterborne
manufacturer would not automatically
perspective. By type approving commerce.’’
lose its type approval. However, use of Another of the commenters requesting
treatment technologies in accordance parts or materials not specified for the
with rigorous and credible test Federal preemption of BWM regulation
originally type-approved system may noted that different rules for different
procedures and requirements, the Coast
trigger a design change review under 46 States or regions within the United
Guard will create a class of treatment
CFR 162.060–16. States will create confusion and delays
options in which vessel owners and
operators can have a high degree of One commenter stated that the in the primary objective of eliminating
confidence. Without sufficient testing proposed requirements for testing and aquatic NIS invasions. Two of the
requirements, vessel owners and approving BWMS were excessively commenters quoted a resolution passed
operators would have no means beyond complex, expensive, unnecessary for the by the Great Lakes Commission in May
vendors’ claims of assessing whether a purpose of proving effectiveness or of 2007 which urged a Federal ballast
BWMS on the market is likely to be vessel safety, and likely to delay water treatment regime that would
effective or not. installation of certified equipment. The preempt States. One commenter called
One commenter requested that the Coast Guard disagrees. The general the idea of preemption by the Coast
Coast Guard clarify whether BWMS process of land-based and shipboard Guard ‘‘a very positive step.’’
undergoing type approval will need to testing for approval of BWMS has been One of the commenters requesting
demonstrate efficacy in meeting both widely discussed and accepted Federal preemption noted that Federal
the phase-one and phase-two standards. internationally. The Coast Guard has standardization of the methodology and
The Coast Guard clarifies that type reconsidered alternatives to specific technological requirements of BWM is
approval under the final rule will focus sections of the approval process and the integral to the future success of any
on assessing the efficacy of the BWMS determinations and resolutions of these ballast water treatment regime. Another
in meeting the phase one standard. The considerations are described in this commenter argued that the varying State
data generated from these tests may or preamble in section V.B. Discussion of standards have already created a
may not provide information on the Comments. patchwork of requirements that are
ability of the BWMS to meet more economically inefficient, highly
stringent standards. One commenter called for IL Test cumbersome to implement, and
One commenter recommended that Reports submitted in association with a unproven in regards to prevention of
the Coast Guard require that BWMS request for approval of a BWMS to be aquatic NIS invasions.
approval testing involve full-production made electronically available to the Three commenters approved of and
units with full installation, operation, public immediately after they are agreed with our determination to not
and maintenance manuals, and be submitted to the Coast Guard. The Coast preempt State BWM standards. One of
operated by test facility staff or the Guard disagrees that test data should be these commenters noted that the Federal
vessel crew during tests to ensure that made publicly available immediately regulations should set a minimum
generally installed systems have a high upon application, as such data may compliance standard applicable to all
probability of working effectively. The include confidential business waters of the United States but allow the
Coast Guard agrees. The approval information and other privileged States to enact stronger water quality
requirements have been revised to information, which is not subject to standards applicable to their own
clarify that tests must be conducted on public release under the Freedom of waters. Another noted that States only
production units installed in the Information Act (5 U.S.C. 522). Test began implementing their own
manner intended for normal shipboard Reports, or appropriate portions thereof, standards after what they called
operation and that systems must be will be made public as part of the ‘‘decades of delay and inaction at the
operated by ILs during land-based approval procedure when the Coast Federal level.’’
testing and vessel crews during Guard announces a proposed decision One commenter agreed that lack of
shipboard testing. on an application. Federal action in regard to
implementing a BWDS caused States to The Coast Guard agrees that, to the Two commenters argued that legal
step in and begin regulating. This extent possible and appropriate, there precedent interpreting the phrase
commenter, however, also urged for should be consistency between Coast ‘‘maximum extent practicable’’ limits
Federal preemption of even those Guard and EPA ballast water the proposed practicability review to
already implemented State standards. requirements. We maintain a very close considering one factor: Technological
One commenter urged the Coast working relationship with EPA. We feasibility. These commenters cited
Guard to seek passage of a single consulted with them on matters relating several Federal court cases to bolster
Federal law which would preempt all to the EPA VGP and we also sought their argument. (Biodiversity Legal
State and any other Federal laws. their comments on both the NPRM and Foundation v. Babbit, 146 F.3d 1249
Another commenter urged the Coast this final rule. NANPCA, as amended by (10th Cir. 1998); Fund for Animals v.
Guard to advocate to Congress the need NISA, and the Clean Water Act provide Babbitt, 903 F. Supp. 96, D.D.C. 1995);
to preempt States’ BWM laws and to both the Coast Guard and EPA, Wyoming v. United States, 279 F.3d
coordinate U.S. standards with respectively, with the authority to 1214 (10th Cir. 2002)).
international standards. regulate discharge of ballast water from The Coast Guard disagrees with the
As we noted in the NPRM and again vessels. However, these statutes contain commenters’ interpretation of the cited
in section VII.E. Federalism of this different language and we will continue cases. In each of these cases, the
preamble, NANPCA, as amended by to work with the EPA to ensure that, to deciding court noted that the phrase ‘‘to
NISA, contains a ‘‘savings provision’’ the greatest extent possible, given our the maximum extent practicable’’
that saves to the States their authority to separate statutory authorities, each certainly limits agency discretion.
‘‘adopt or enforce control measures for agency’s actions are consistent and do However, the United States Court of
aquatic nuisance species, [and nothing not work at cross-purposes to the other Appeals for the Tenth Circuit noted in
in the Act would] diminish or affect the agency’s actions. the Biodiversity decision that the phrase
jurisdiction of any States over species of We note that the NPRM preamble did itself is ‘‘facially ambiguous.’’
fish and wildlife.’’ 16 U.S.C. 4725. In briefly discuss the EPA’s 2008 VGP (74 (Biodiversity, 146 F.3d 1249 at 1254.) In
light of this provision, the Coast Guard FR 44634), including the address for an such a scenario, where the statutory
cannot legally preempt State action to EPA Web site where the reader could mandate is ambiguous, courts must
regulate discharges of ballast water find more information. As we move defer to an agency’s interpretation so
within State waters. forward and implement today’s final long as that interpretation is
One commenter noted the statutory rule, we will work closely with EPA to permissible. See Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v.
restriction, but urged the Coast Guard to try and provide a type of ‘‘crosswalk’’ Natural Resources Defense Council,
work with States to harmonize BWDS, guidance between Coast Guard Inc., 467 U.S. 837, 842–43 (1984).
noting that regulatory consistency regulations on ballast water discharge Interpreting ‘‘maximum extent
between State, Federal, and and EPA’s VGP. practicable’’ to include factors other
international requirements is a critical Thirty-one commenters supported than technological feasibility is
component to moving forward in the establishing a uniform, protective, permissible. If Congress had wanted to
field of BWM. Two other commenters national standard for ballast water limit the Coast Guard’s review to
also urged the Coast Guard to work with discharge from vessels calling at U.S. technological feasibility alone, it
individual States, but argued for Federal ports. Six commenters also said that it certainly could have done so but did
preemption as well. is vital that international shipping not.
The Coast Guard agrees that we must regulations, including those for ballast ‘‘Practicable’’ is defined as ‘‘that
work with the States, as our statutory water, are standardized globally. which is performable, feasible, [or]
authority clearly envisions a Federal/ However, both NANPCA, as amended possible.’’ Biodiversity at 1254, citing
State partnership. We have been in by NISA, and the Clean Water Act allow Black’s Law Dictionary 1172 (6th ed.
frequent contact with representatives for concurrent State regulatory action 1991). In order to determine whether a
from all of the States which have with regard to ballast water discharge. proposed phase-two standard or any
already implemented their own BWDS. standard higher than phase-one is
Compliance With NISA performable, feasible, and/or possible, it
We will continue to work with these
contacts in an attempt to harmonize One commenter argued that the will be necessary to look at more than
BWDS as much as we can. proposed phase-one BWDS would just technological feasibility. Whether a
violate NISA, as it would not be at least standard is practicable could also
Unified Federal Action as effective as BWE at preventing or require, among other factors, a
Two commenters urged the reducing the introduction of NIS into determination as to whether the
Administration to assert that these waters of the United States. The technology is effective, can be
regulations supersede any action by the commenter cited 16 U.S.C. implemented by vessels required to
EPA or by States under any provision of 4711(c)(D)(iii). The Coast Guard meet the BWDS, which necessarily
the Clean Water Act. Another disagrees. As we noted in both the includes a review of whether that
questioned whether these regulations NPRM and the DPEIS, the effectiveness technology can be produced in large
would be consistent with the existing of BWE varies widely, not only from enough quantities to be installed on
EPA VGP, and sought clarification. This vessel to vessel but also on individual those vessels, the probable duration of
commenter noted that the Coast Guard vessels from voyage to voyage. Given that installation period, whether vessel
and EPA must be in accord in regards the wide range of effectiveness of BWE owners can afford to install the
to the proper standard to apply to the moving from a scheme where you might technologies, and, if they cannot, what
treatment of ballast water. One get a poor BWE or none at all, if the the potential ramification on the
commenter requested that the preamble vessel faced safety hazards, to one national transportation system might be
to the NPRM be revised to include a where all technologies would be tested if vessel owners opt to go out of
discussion of the EPA VGP, and also and certified as meeting the BWDS, business instead.
urged the Coast Guard to ‘‘outline and provides a level of protectiveness that is Two commenters argued that the
cross-reference’’ the regulations with the not only at least as effective as BWE, but language from NANPCA directing
EPA VGP. in many cases much better than BWE. regulation of vessels entering the Great
Lakes from outside of the EEZ (16 U.S.C. of Harmful Aquatic Organisms and Four commenters stated that the
4711(b)) does not allow for the proposed Pathogens through the control and phase-two standard was not properly
practicability review because this management of ships’ Ballast Water and promulgated for appropriate scrutiny
paragraph of NANPCA does not contain Sediments, consistent with international within the regulatory process and also
the same ‘‘maximum extent practicable’’ law’’. requested the necessary economic and
language later added by NISA for Three commenters argued that the environmental analyses for other
vessels entering waters of the United regulation, particularly the alternatives as part of a separate
States in general. The Coast Guard practicability reviews, should include rulemaking that would give
disagrees. NISA was enacted to build more detail in order to prevent legal stakeholders an opportunity to provide
upon the requirements of NANPCA; challenges. The Coast Guard agrees that meaningful comments.
therefore it is proper to apply the the regulations must not be overly vague As noted in preamble section V.A.
practicability review to the Great Lakes in order to avoid a finding that they are Summary of Changes from the NPRM,
as well. arbitrary and capricious under the APA. we are only moving forward with the
One commenter requested that we We drafted the NPRM and have drafted phase-one BWDS at this time. We fully
revise the preamble to the NPRM to this rule in a manner that is intended to intend to issue regulations in the future
explicitly state that NISA establishes the eliminate vagueness. In regards to the that will include a more stringent
objective of a zero-discharge standard. practicability review, we have included standard, after completing additional
We agree that the objective of NISA is more specific details of what the Coast research and analysis. Those future
to prevent the introduction and spread Guard will consider; however, the regulations will be supported by all
of NIS in waters of the United States, regulation does allow for the legally required environmental and
with caveats for doing so to the consideration of additional criteria not economic analyses, which will be made
maximum extent practicable. We listed. This is to ensure that the Coast available to the public for comment as
believe this response is consistent with Guard is not foreclosed from required by applicable laws related to
the Coast Guard’s legal requirements considering an issue that cannot be Federal rulemaking. We will keep the
and should satisfy the commenter’s foreseen today. commenters’ concerns in mind as we
concern. Eight commenters argued that the
draft those regulations and analyses.
NPRM violated the APA by not
APA Concerns explaining the rationale for including Authority To Issue Regulations
One commenter argued that the vessels that are not currently required to
NPRM violated the APA because while Twenty-one commenters argued that
conduct BWE in the requirement to
the IMO Treaty (presumably the the Coast Guard does not have the
comply with the BWDS in the NPRM.
commenter intended to reference the authority to require vessels to comply
They argued that the NPRM is based on
IMO BWM Convention) allows ratifying ‘‘inaccurate assumptions’’ and with a BWDS if those vessels do not
countries to impose more stringent ‘‘incomplete research’’ and also that the enter the waters of the United States
treatment standards if they find it a DPEIS and NPRM RA lacked sufficient from outside the EEZ. These
necessity for public health or the rationale to justify applying the NPRM’s commenters all cited the provision in 16
environment, the NPRM made no such proposed requirements to vessels U.S.C. 4711(c)(2)(D) which specifically
finding. The Coast Guard disagrees with operating only on the Great Lakes or to allows the Coast Guard to direct a vessel
this comment. First, the Coast Guard is barges and towing vessels operating in to conduct a BWE or alternative BWM
implementing NISA and not the IMO the U.S. domestic trade. method if that vessel operated beyond
BWM Convention. While the Coast As we have noted in this preamble, the EEZ. They argued that this specific
Guard supports international efforts for we have revised the applicability of this authority must be read to limit the
the prevention and control of NIS from rule such that most vessels operating in broader grants of authority in 16 U.S.C.
ships’ ballast water, the Coast Guard is the waters of the United States without (c)(1), (c)(2)(A), (e), and (f).
not under an obligation at this time to having entered waters of the United The Coast Guard disagrees that we do
implement the IMO BWM Convention States from outside the EEZ will not be not have the statutory authority under
as the United States is not a Party to the required to comply with the BWDS in NISA to regulate ballast water on vessels
IMO BWM Convention and there is no this rule (see V.A. Summary of Changes that do not operate outside of the EEZ.
enacted domestic legislation from the NPRM). In the future, and after NISA requires that the Coast Guard
implementing the IMO BWM further analysis, we do intend to extend ‘‘ensure to the maximum extent
Convention. Thus, the Coast Guard must this applicability to vessels operating in practicable that aquatic nuisance
comply with its mandate under NISA waters of the United States, whether or species are not discharged into waters of
and applicable U.S. laws on issuing not they ever operate outside of the EEZ. the United States from vessels * * *.’’
regulations, which we have done. We also intend to conduct additional 16 U.S.C. 4711(c)(2)(A). This mandate
Moreover, the BWM Convention has not research on this issue as necessary. We includes promulgating standards for
entered into force at this time for any will reconsider the commenters’ vessels that do not operate outside of
countries, even those that have ratified arguments at that time and ensure that the EEZ, as 16 U.S.C. 4711(c)(2)(B)
it. The Coast Guard also disagrees with the public is allowed to comment on our makes NISA applicable to ‘‘all vessels
the commenter’s characterization of the information, rationale, and data before equipped with ballast water tanks that
IMO BWM Convention’s provisions that extension is implemented. operate in waters of the United States’’
regarding Parties’ implementation of Seven commenters argued that the without regard to whether those vessels
more stringent measures than those inclusion of a phase-two standard ever operate outside of the EEZ. This is
contained in the IMO BWM Convention. violated the APA, as it was arbitrary and supported by other language in NISA,
The IMO BWM Convention clearly capricious ‘‘on its face’’. They cited the which is clear that ‘‘discharge,’’ in this
states that: ‘‘Nothing in this Convention lack of any factual or scientific rationale context, is not limited to the
shall be interpreted as preventing a for its inclusion, as well as the lack of introduction of NIS into waters of the
Party from taking * * * more stringent any discussion relevant to the phase- United States from waters outside of the
measures with respect to the prevention, two standard in either the NPRM RA or EEZ but also covers the internal spread
reduction or elimination of the transfer the DPEIS. of NIS.
The Coast Guard disagrees with the We do not disagree with this reference to a section (33 CFR 151.1514)
commenters’ reading of NISA, including assessment. We are issuing this rule in that does not exist. We believe the
their arguments that the statutory order to prevent NIS invasions, and the commenter was confused; 33 CFR
authority found in subparagraphs very hardships that the commenter 151.1514 does exist in the CFR, but we
(c)(2)(A) and (c)(2)(B) of 16 U.S.C. 4711 relays. did not propose any amendments to that
are ‘‘broad’’ grants limited by ‘‘specific’’ section, therefore it did not appear in
Technical Issues
grants of other subparagraphs of 16 the NPRM. We have not made any
U.S.C. 4711(c). The mandate included Two commenters questioned our use revisions in response to this comment.
in 16 U.S.C. 4711(c)(2)(A) is also a of the term ‘‘U.S. waters’’ in several One commenter argued that penalty
‘‘specific’’ requirement and cannot be sections, instead of the term ‘‘waters of provisions were too low. The penalty
deemed a nullity by the existence of 16 the United States,’’ which we explicitly provisions included in proposed 33 CFR
U.S.C. 4711(c)(2)(D). Subparagraph (D) defined in the NPRM. We agree that the 151.2080 have been adjusted for
of 16 U.S.C. 4711(c)(2) merely sets forth proper term should be ‘‘waters of the inflation per the civil penalty
the initial ballast water requirements for United States’’ and have revised 33 CFR adjustment table in 33 CFR 27.3. See
a certain subset of vessels. Ultimately, 151.1512, 151.2005, 151.2025, and 75 FR 36278 (June 25, 2010). Our
the Coast Guard must read the statute as 151.2035 to use this term. statutory authority sets the maximum
a whole and follow all of the paragraphs One commenter suggested that the penalty that we may levy, with the
and subparagraphs of 16 U.S.C. 4711 definition for the term ‘‘ballast water’’ allowance that penalties may be
when we promulgate our BWDS under be revised to state explicitly that it does readjusted for inflation.
NISA. not include water sealed in ballast Two commenters urged that the Coast
Two additional commenters noted tanks, water permanently ballasted and Guard assign accountability for BWDS
that NISA requires the Coast Guard to changed only in connection with compliance to the vessel owner of
take into account a variety of factors, drydocking, and water taken into ballast record, instead of to ‘‘the owner,
including vessel types and differing tanks from commercial or municipal operator, agent, or person in charge,’’ as
operating conditions, when issuing freshwater sources. we proposed. We disagree with this
regulations. The commenters cited 16 The Coast Guard agrees with the suggestion. Persons at every level of
U.S.C. 4711(c)(2)(H). They argued that commenter and believes the final rule authority, whether owner, lessee, or
by proposing a ‘‘one size fits all’’ BWDS, addresses the concern. The regulation, operator, may be held responsible for
the Coast Guard violated the authority as written, already accomplishes the the failure of a vessel to follow the
to regulate provided within NISA. requested relief for the first two BWM practices required by this
The Coast Guard disagrees with the categories by allowing vessels subject to regulation, including use of an approved
allegation that its BWDS violates NISA, the requirements of 33 CFR subpart C to BWMS.
but agrees that it must comply with 16 ‘‘retain the ballast water onboard the One commenter agreed with our
U.S.C. 4711(c)(2)(H), just as it must vessel’’ (33 CFR 151.1510(a)(2)). For proposal to keep ballast water
comply with the other subparagraphs in vessels subject to the requirements of 33 regulations for the Great Lakes separate
16 U.S.C. 4711. A ‘‘one size fits all’’ CFR subpart D, we have clarified 33 from ballast water regulations for waters
BWDS would not take into proper CFR 151.2025(a) to require only those of the United States in general, citing
consideration all of the elements of 16 vessels discharging ballast water into the distinction also found in NISA. This
U.S.C. 4711(c)(2)(H), including the the waters of the United States to final rule carries that distinction
possibility that BWMS may not employ one of the required ballast water forward.
currently be available for all vessel management methods. The suggestions One commenter noted that we define
types in all operating conditions. As pertaining to ballast water purchased the term ‘‘build date’’ in proposed
such, the NPRM included exceptions from commercial or municipal sources 33 CFR 151.2005, but never use the
and alternatives to using a BWMS for have also been incorporated into 33 CFR term. Instead, proposed 33 CFR
extraordinary circumstances, such as 151.1510(a)(4) and 151.2025(a)(2), by 151.2035 used the term ‘‘vessel’s
heavy weather or BWMS failure, and allowing for the use of water meeting construction date.’’ The commenter
those exceptions and alternatives are Safe Drinking Water Act requirements recommended that we use the latter,
retained in the final rule. We have also as an alternative to requiring installation and add a definition for it to replace the
revised 33 CFR 151.1510 and 151.2025 of a BWMS. one for ‘‘build date.’’ Other commenters
to include alternatives to using a One commenter questioned whether recommended that we use the same
BWMS. revisions made to the proposed phase- definition for ‘‘build date’’ as the IMO
two standard, after the practicability used for ‘‘constructed’’ in the IMO BWM
Tribal Impacts review from proposed 33 CFR Convention.
We received one comment that cited 151.1511(c), would include an We agree that the term used in the
tribal concerns, however, the opportunity for public comment. While regulation should be the same as that
commenter did not raise any issues that neither those revisions nor the phase- defined. We have revised 33 CFR
would require consultation under two standard are included in this final 151.2005 to define the term
Executive Order 13175, Consultation rule, we had always anticipated that any ‘‘constructed,’’ and have revised the
and Coordination with Indian Tribal changes to an effective rulemaking tables in 33 CFR 151.1512 and 151.2035
Governments. Rather, the commenter would be subject to the notice and to use this term. We chose the term
noted that invasions of aquatic NIS into comment provisions of the APA unless ‘‘constructed,’’ as suggested by the
the waters of certain Great Lakes could the change fell within one of the narrow second commenter, because this is the
cause substantial hardships to tribal exemptions included within the APA. term used in the IMO BWM Convention.
commercial and subsistence fisheries, See 5 U.S.C. 553(b). Likewise, any Thus, we have also revised the actual
which might in turn require a changes made to this rule, including definition for ‘‘constructed’’ to mirror
reconsideration of a Federal court- reinsertion of a phase-two standard, will the definition from the IMO BWM
ordered Consent Decree between several need to comply with the APA. Convention. This change in terminology
tribes, the Federal Government, and the One commenter argued that proposed does not reflect a substantive change
State of Michigan. 33 CFR 151.2045(b)(1) contained a cross from the NPRM.
One commenter requested that we regulation, the Coast Guard notes that The Coast Guard has corrected this
remove the word ‘‘foreign’’ from NISA’s statutory exemption precludes problem in this final rule.
proposed 33 CFR 151.2020, which such action at this time (16 U.S.C. One commenter requested we either
provides an exemption for vessels in 4711(c)(3)(L)). The Coast Guard notes, add definitions for the following terms
‘‘innocent passage.’’ They argued that it however, that the statutory exemption or change the terms used to clarify their
is possible, if rare, for a U.S. vessel to for crude oil tankers engaged in meaning. The terms (and locations in
operate in waters of the United States on Coastwise trade found in NISA is not the proposed regulation) were:
a route where it does not call on a U.S. found in the CWA; therefore, these ‘‘discharge port’’ (as used in 33 CFR
port. The Coast Guard disagrees that the vessels must comply with all CWA 151.1516), ‘‘crew’’ (as used in 33 CFR
‘‘innocent passage’’ exclusion should requirements. 151.2050), and ‘‘jurisdiction of the
apply to U.S. vessels, as this concept One commenter requested that we United States’’ (as used in 33 CFR
concerns foreign-flagged vessels include the specific zone demarcations 151.2070).
operating in a coastal state’s territorial in our definition of COTP. The Coast The Coast Guard agrees, in part. These
sea, and therefore has retained the Guard has not made the requested terms are used but not defined in the
‘‘foreign’’ vessel distinction in 33 CFR change; the definition points to 33 CFR referenced sections; however, they are
151.2020. part 3, which already contains the terms that have existed in regulation for
One commenter asked for an specific delineations requested by the many years. The Coast Guard has not
explanation of proposed 33 CFR commenter. received any indication that the use of
151.1505 and 151.2013 (Severability). One commenter questioned the these terms is confusing to the regulated
These provisions are included in order exemption for warships, naval industry or public in general. In light of
to protect as much of the regulations as auxiliaries, or other government vessels this fact, we are not adding the
possible, in the event that their found in proposed 33 CFR 151.2015(a) requested definitions.
promulgation is subjected to a legal and requested more information as to
challenge. In short, they direct a Other Legal Issues
why that exemption was added.
reviewing court, upon a determination Our regulation is designed to be One commenter requested
that portions of the regulations are consistent with international law and consultation with the Prince William
invalid, to invalidate only those practice, and international agreements Sound Regional Citizens’ Advisory
portions and leave the remaining Council (PWS RCAC), citing the Oil
relating to the protection and
provisions intact. Pollution Act of 1990 (OPA)
preservation of the marine environment
One commenter requested we add a
routinely state expressly that they do requirement to do so. However, the
reference to 33 CFR 151.2015
not apply to any warship, naval applicable portion of OPA reads ‘‘[E]ach
(Exemptions) in 33 CFR 151.2010
auxiliary, or other vessels owned or Federal department, agency, or other
(Applicability). The Coast Guard agrees
operated by a nation and used, for the instrumentality shall, with respect to all
with this suggestion and has made the
time being, only on government non- permits, site-specific regulations, and
requested edit.
One commenter requested that we commercial service. However, this does other matters governing the activities of
add a reference in 33 CFR 151.2015(b) not exonerate such vessels from and actions of the terminal facilities
(Exemptions) to the statutory exemption implementing environmentally sound which affect or may affect the vicinity
for crude oil tankers found at 16 U.S.C. practices. Under such agreements, of the terminal facilities, consult with
4711(c)(3)(L). The Coast Guard has not nations generally must ensure that such the [PWS RCAC] prior to taking
made this change; the authority citation vessels act in a manner consistent, so far substantive action.’’ OPA sec. 5002(g).
for 33 CFR part 151 subpart D already as reasonable and practicable, with the This final rule is not site-specific, nor is
lists 16 U.S.C. 4711, therefore, adding a provisions of the agreements. it governing activities of a terminal
specific citation into the regulatory One commenter requested that we facility. It is regulating vessel activity.
section would be redundant. specifically note that the Snell and As such, the OPA consultation
One commenter requested that we Eisenhower Locks fall within the requirement does not apply to this rule.
amend the NPRM preamble to add a definition of ‘‘ports or places in the One commenter noted that the Great
discussion of additional provisions of United States.’’ Another commenter Lakes States have repeatedly urged
NANPCA and NISA exempting crude oil requested the addition of a definition of Congress to pass comprehensive
tankers in the coastwise trade from the phrase ‘‘port or place of the United legislation to prevent the introduction
complying with BWM, specifically States.’’ The Coast Guard has not made and spread of NIS from all sources. This
citing provisions regarding the these changes; the current definitions is beyond the scope of this rule, as it
statutorily required ‘‘Crude oil Tanker for ‘‘port or place of destination,’’ concerns a request for legislative relief
Ballast Facility Study’’ (16 U.S.C. ‘‘United States,’’ and ‘‘waters of the and is not a comment on the NPRM.
4711(k)(3)). The commenter also United States,’’ when read together, One commenter requested that the
requested that a discussion of the provide a definition for the phrase ‘‘port NPRM be revised to remove what the
referenced study be added to the or place of the United States,’’ which commenter called a ‘‘presumption’’ in
preamble of the NPRM. would include the specified Locks. the proposed practicability review
The Coast Guard has added the Adding a specific reference to only which the commenter felt favored delay
referenced report to the docket for this these two Locks into the regulation of the phase-two compliance date. As
rule, as the commenter noted their would inevitably lead to questions as to we have noted in this preamble, we
inability to locate it. However, the Coast whether other Locks, waterways, or have removed the phase-two standard,
Guard disagrees with including a other places were also meant to be as well as its compliance dates, from
discussion of the study in the preamble included in the regulation, adding this final rule (see V.A. Summary of
to this final rule, as the report is not unnecessary ambiguity. Changes from the NPRM). We will keep
pertinent to the BWDS. To address the One commenter pointed out that the the commenter’s concern in mind as we
commenter’s recommendation to headers in the tables in 33 CFR work to issue a subsequent rule that
remove the exemption for crude oil 151.1512 were improperly aligned with addresses a phase-two standard, as that
tankers in the coastwise trade from the the information presented in the table. rulemaking would most likely include a
recurring practicability review 6. Regulatory Assessment (RA) and vessels, and issues pertaining to the
provision. Initial Regulatory Flexibility Act (IRFA) Great Lakes vessels and operations.
Given the issues raised by these and
One commenter stated that the Affected Population
other commenters, the Coast Guard has
applicability of the rule is confusing and
Two commenters noted that the revised the applicability of the BWDS
needs to be specifically defined and rule. The Coast Guard is publishing this
NPRM RA addressed only the impact on
consistent. As noted in preamble section U.S.-flagged vessels. One of these final rule to apply the phase-one BWDS
V.A. Summary of Changes from the commenters stated that it is illogical and only to the following vessels intending
NPRM, the applicability of the final rule incorrect to ignore the costs that this to discharge ballast water into waters of
has changed from what was included in rule would impose on foreign-flagged the United States: vessels entering
the NPRM. We have carefully vessels calling at U.S. ports. waters of the United States from outside
constructed the applicability section in The Coast Guard estimated cost the EEZ, and those seagoing vessels that
order to make it less confusing. impacts for foreign-flagged vessels in operate in waters of the United States in
One commenter urged that the the NPRM RA (see Appendix C) and the more than one COTP Zone and are
implementation of the proposed rule be final rule RA (see Appendix D). As greater than 1,600 GRT (3,000 GT (ITC)).
delayed in order to allow time for previously discussed, we have also The Coast Guard is conducting
further research, which could then be made the phase-one standard as additional feasibility analysis needed
used to encourage the development of consistent as possible with the IMO before expanding the applicability in
BWM Convention’s discharge standard. this final rule.
one uniform, nationwide BWDS. The Additionally as noted above, the
Coast Guard fully supports all research We assume foreign governments that
become a party to the IMO BWM Coast Guard has decided at this time to
efforts into the subject of BWM and exempt vessels that operate solely in
treatment; however, it would not be Convention and the foreign-flagged
vessels they administer to be inland waters from the phase-one
prudent to delay implementation of the BWDS. The Coast Guard fully intends to
phase-one standard at this time. As responsible for the implementation and
compliance with the IMO BWM expand the BWDS rule to such vessels,
noted earlier in this section, the as noted in the final rule preamble
Convention once it comes into force. We
legislative authority for this rule does section V.A. Summary of Changes from
assume these foreign government
not allow the Coast Guard to preempt the NPRM, but has determined that
administrations and the foreign-flagged
State actions to implement a more vessels they administer to be additional analysis is necessary to
stringent BWDS. responsible for the costs associated with support this expansion. We also intend
the implementation and compliance of to conduct additional research as
Additional BWM Requirements necessary.
the IMO BWM Convention.
Nine commenters asked that the Regarding the comments about
Therefore, in the analyses of the
regulations be more specific in how underestimation of affected population,
NPRM and this final rule, our primary
the Coast Guard acknowledges that
other vessel-related vectors for invasive cost estimate of the phase-one standard
some inland vessels, towing vessels, and
NIS movements (anchors, anchor rule includes costs to U.S. flagged-
crew boats were not included in the
chains, hulls) would be managed and vessels only. Historically, Coast Guard’s
NPRM RA due to their lack of ballasting
enforced. assessment of impacts from regulations
operations or non-traditional ballast
The Coast Guard agrees that related to international conventions
water operations. Detailed justification
protecting the environment from have taken into account the costs
for not including these vessels is
invasive NIS requires addressing these incurred by U.S. vessels and owners and
presented on chapter 2, page 37 of the
operators only (e.g., regulations related
other vessel-related vectors and will NPRM RA (available in the docket).
to The Standards of Training,
continue to explore how to accomplish Phase-Two Standard
Certification & Watchkeeping
this. Aside from clarifying where Convention (STCW) and regulations
cleaning of ballast tanks should take Four commenters expressed concern
related to the International Convention that the cost estimates for the proposed
place, the final rule continues the for the Prevention of Pollution From
applicable requirements from 33 CFR phase-two standard were not included
Ships (MARPOL)). in any of the supporting documentation
151.2035 and moves them to 33 CFR The Coast Guard received a total of 98 or analysis.
151.2050. The Coast Guard is acting comments related to inland, Great One commenter argued that skipping
under the legislative mandate in Lakes, and coastwise industries. The phase-one in favor of adopting phase-
NANPCA, as amended by NISA to direct breakdown of the comments was 35 two is unrealistic for many reasons,
vessels to carry out management comments related to the Great Lakes and including: (a) An onerous cost of
practices necessary to reduce the 63 related to inland and coastwise research and development would result
probability of unintentional discharges vessels. The inland and coastwise to the technology industry, which has
resulting from ship operations other industry comments mentioned the already borne the expense of
than ballast water discharge. 16 U.S.C. following vessel types: towing vessels, development to the international
4711(c)(2)(E). barges, and offshore supply vessels. The standards with no appreciable return on
One commenter urged the Coast commenters raised many different investment due to the slow pace of
Guard to expand the language in 33 CFR issues related to the ballast water implementation; and (b) the maritime
operations from these industries, such industry would be asked to invest, at a
151.2050 to specifically address

ballasting activities that could affect as the use of municipal/potable water, higher cost, in technology that does not
technology cost and its potential impact have a validated environmental benefit
units of the National Park Service.
on the industry, size limitations, and over that resulting from use of systems
The Coast Guard believes the existing benefits. The majority of the comments compliant with other standards.
regulatory language appropriately were related to the underestimation of The Coast Guard acknowledges the
captures the units of the National Park the affected population in the NPRM comments which stated that the
Service. RA, which did not account for inland analyses included in the NPRM did not
address the phase-two standard expected to be considerably higher than which an installation cost of another 25
specifically. The Coast Guard has for the currently available systems. to 75 percent has to be added depending
determined that additional analysis is The Coast Guard acknowledges these on whether the vessel is a new build or
needed, and has already begun comments and has incorporated retrofitted.
development of these analyses. The additional data provided by the The Coast Guard disagrees with the
Coast Guard has decided to move commenters in the cost analysis of the argument that the cost estimates for
forward with the phase-one standard final rule RA. The Coast Guard notes BWMS in the NPRM RA were based on
with the publication of this final rule that these additional data are within the the smallest BWMS cost. The Coast
that does not include the phase-two range of estimates presented in the Guard developed low and high
standard. The Coast Guard will work on NPRM RA available on the docket. In installation cost estimates for BWMS to
developing the economic and the NPRM RA, chapter 3 (table 3.4) various vessel types and ballast water
environmental analyses to support the presents costs for installation of the capacities. The Coast Guard estimated
evaluation of the phase-two standard. BWMS ranging from $250,000 to the BWMS installation costs based on
approximately $2,500,000, depending the average costs for each available
Phase-One Cost on the type of the system and the ballast BWMS. The low costs are related to the
Five commenters provided statements water pumping capacity. Commenters least expensive treatment available for
on the costs of BWMS. One commenter provided estimates ranging from different types of vessel with different
provided cost information for $250,000 to $2,300,000. Thus, the Coast ballast water pump capacities. The
purchasing BWMS ranging between Guard disagrees with the comment that Coast Guard recognizes that not all
$400,000 and $580,000. Based on this the costs in the NPRM are very systems are appropriate for all vessel
information, this commenter argued that optimistic, as the cost ranges provided types. Chapters 3 and 4 of the NPRM
the installation BWMS costs presented by the commenters are within the range RA, available on the docket, present a
in the NPRM are very optimistic. of the Coast Guard estimates. detailed description on costs estimates.
Another commenter provided costs Because this type of specialized
comparisons with the 2009 CSLC equipment cannot be independently Benefits
Report, ‘‘Assessment of Efficacy, priced, the cost estimated in the NPRM One commenter proposed that the
Availability and Environmental Impacts relied largely on manufacturer-provided Coast Guard should represent the
of Ballast Water Treatment Systems for data. Manufacturers supplied data for invasive species’ environmental harm in
Use in California Waters,’’ and a study acquisition, installation, operation, and addition to economic harm estimates
from the Danish Shipowners’ maintenance costs of BWMS. The Coast presented in table 8 of the NPRM.
Association (DSA) from June 2009. The Guard’s cost estimates are based on the Table 8 of the NPRM presents
commenter noted that the reports best data available at the time of the estimates of the number of NIS that may
present the following acquisition costs analysis. The Coast Guard’s estimates cause severe economic damages. The
ranges: from $150,000 to $2,300,000 and are consistent with other notable cost derivation of these estimates is more
$640,000 to $1,670,000 per system, from estimates such as those made by Lloyds’ fully detailed in chapter 5, section 5.5
the CSLC and the DSA reports, Register ($145,000 to $2,000,000) and of the NPRM RA available on the
respectively. This commenter also the Congressional Budget Office docket. The purpose of chapter 5 of the
argued that cost to industry could be ($300,000 to $1,000,000). NPRM RA is to estimate the value of the
higher for the phase-two standard, The Coast Guard is continuously economic harm caused by NIS in order
depending on the practicability review. monitoring BWMS technologies for new to estimate monetary benefits from the
One commenter also cited the 2009 developments and changes in costs. proposed rule to compare against cost
CSLC report presenting estimates of Contrary to the assertion made by a estimates. Chapter 5 presents the total
BWMS of 1 to 2 percent of the total cost commenter, the Coast Guard has not number of NIS invasions due to ballast
of a vessel. estimated the BWMS costs based on water in table 5.6, which includes all
Another commenter provided vessel values. The Coast Guard invasions that cause environmental
acquisition and installation costs for acknowledges the comment that harm, economic harm or cause no harm.
systems currently being tested from achieving higher standards might The Coast Guard then limits the further
$250,000 to over $2,000,000, depending represent higher BWMS cost. The Coast analysis of benefits to those invasions
on the methods used to treat the ballast Guard is working with the industry to that cause economic damage that can be
water. This commenter argued that, identify the potential costs of more expressed in monetary terms. The Coast
although a number of vendors have stringent standards. Guard believes that this approach was
provided cost estimates to potential One commenter argued that the appropriate for use in the NPRM RA.
customers, these estimates are not based installation costs for phase-one The Coast Guard recognizes that some
on actual shipboard installations and approved systems were underestimated NIS invasions may cause environmental
consequently do not reflect real world in the NPRM RA by three to four times harm that cannot be easily monetized.
issues. This commenter also argued that due to the fact that the cost estimates for The Final Programmatic EIS (FPEIS),
costs associated with systems which BWMS uses the smallest system size available in the docket for this rule,
could meet the more stringent standards (system flow) as an average system size. further describes the potential
are expected to be significantly higher. The commenter also provided data environmental harm of invasive NIS.
Another commenter argued that there based on Shipbuilding Market Forecast. One commenter suggested that the
are insufficient data available related to According to the commenter, the data costs associated with introduced
the actual operation/maintenance costs show that the average system size invasive NIS considered during
for use of any system due to the fact that processes between 1,200 m3 and 1,500 practicability reviews should not be
many systems are yet only at the stage m3 of water per hour, depending on limited to a 10-year time frame but
of testing to determine efficacy. This assumptions regarding relation between should, instead, be considered
commenter also stated that anticipated dead weight tonnage, total ballast water permanent costs, since NIS
acquisition and installation costs for capacity, and flow. The commenter introductions are difficult to fully
systems designed to meet the more argued that the cost for such a system eradicate and long-term control or
stringent phase-two standard are could easily be $600,000–$700,000, to containment is often necessary. The
commenter argued that projected costs statutory requirements, we did not consideration in the IRFA. The IRFA is
would likely outweigh the costs of consider the cumulative impact of other in chapter 7 of the NPRM RA available
technology development, installation, Coast Guard regulations on small on the docket. The IRFA’s goal is to
and maintenance over the long run. businesses or affected passenger vessel assess the proposed rule’s impact on
The Coast Guard recognizes that the operations. The Coast Guard small entities. Company revenue and
rule will continue to accrue benefits acknowledges that other Coast Guard number of employees (as well as
beyond the time-frame of the NPRM RA. regulations have imposed additional number of vessels) are variables used in
The Coast Guard has added analysis of costs on vessel owners and operators the estimation of potential economic
additional timeframes to the final rule subject to this rule, which contains impacts to small businesses.
RA representing potential benefits of the revised applicability that excludes most
rule beyond the 10-year period. Small Business Administration (SBA)—
vessels operating solely in coastwise
One commenter asked what the Office of Advocacy
trade as previously discussed.
additional avoided environmental and Many of these published regulations The Coast Guard received comments
social damages and economic benefits of implement international agreements from the SBA Office of Advocacy
a BWDS would be at more stringent such as the International Convention for regarding the impact that the proposed
standards. the Prevention of Pollution from Ships rule would have on small entities. The
The Coast Guard included the (MARPOL) and the International comments provided by the SBA focused
evaluation of potential benefits from Convention for the Safety of Life at Sea on small businesses within the tugboat,
standards that are more stringent than (SOLAS). The United States is obligated towing vessel, and supply barge
the phase-one standard in the NPRM to implement and comply with these industries. According to the SBA letter,
RA, section 5.7 (available on the international agreements to which the these small businesses are concerned
docket). The benefits evaluation was United States is a party, and to do so, that the Coast Guard’s economic
based on the mathematical model under U.S. law the Coast Guard usually analysis does not account for a
developed for the DPEIS, which must promulgate regulations that are significant number of vessels operated
estimated the reduction in the mean rate consistent with these agreements. If U.S. by small businesses. These businesses
of successful introductions of various vessels on foreign voyages are not in also contend that installing the required
alternatives standards. The mid-range of compliance with applicable BWMS will not be economically feasible
benefits for more stringent standards international law, it could reduce their for the large number of vessels that
varies from $286 million to $447 ability to engage in commerce and trade. discharge relatively small amounts of
million. This rule generally aligns with the ballast water. The SBA also expressed
One commenter argued that ‘‘while standards adopted in the International concern about the cumulative effect of
the initial costs to implement the Convention for the Control and the proposed regulations should the
proposed standard would likely be Management of Ships Ballast Water and phase-two standard be implemented
several million dollars annually for the Sediments, 2004 (IMO BWM without a longer grandfather period
first five years, subsequent costs would Convention), which has not entered into than the 5-year period proposed.
be significantly lower, likely by an order force at this time and which seeks to The SBA made the following
of magnitude. Vessel owners can establish global minimum ballast water suggestions to improve the Coast Guard
generally choose whether/how to spread discharge standards. small entities analysis:
out such costs over time, since Additionally, for this rule, the Coast (a) Expand the scope of regulatory
installation costs are usually capital Guard is acting under the legislative flexibility analysis to include more
costs that can be amortized over several mandates in NANPCA, as amended by vessels (vessels less than 100 feet in
years. The actual cost for an individual NISA, to authorize the use of any length, tugboats, towing and supply
vessel to install and maintain alternative methods of BWM that are vessels).
appropriate technology would vary used in lieu of mid-ocean BWE. As (b) Consider additional regulatory
depending on vessel type and size. previously discussed, these mandates alternatives to increase flexibility for
Therefore, a cost benefit comparison require the Secretary of Homeland small business (such as exemption for
reveals the potential for a significant Security to ensure to the maximum vessels with relatively low-volume
economic benefit resulting from the extent practicable that aquatic nuisance ballast tanks).
relatively small investment by vessel species are not discharged into waters of (c) Include a grandfather provision in
owners.’’ the United States from vessels. 16 U.S.C. the phase-two standard.
The Coast Guard agrees that there are 4711(c)(2)(A). In addition, NISA The Coast Guard acknowledges the
potential significant economic and requires the Secretary to assess and SBA concerns related to the vessels
environmental benefits from this final revise the Department’s BWM mentioned previously and is studying
rule. regulations not less than every 3 years the BWM options for small vessels and
based on the best scientific information vessels less than 1,600 GT that operate
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis available to her at the time of that solely in coastwise trade and inland
One commenter noted that the Coast review, and potentially to the exclusion waters of the United States. The Coast
Guard did not take into account the of some of the BWM methods listed at Guard has received numerous
cumulative impact of other Coast Guard 16 U.S.C. 4711(c)(2)(D). 16 U.S.C. comments from these industries and has
regulations on small businesses. The 4711(e). The Coast Guard is publishing revised the applicability of the rule. As
commenter argued that the BWDS rule this final rule based on these mandates. noted earlier in this preamble, the
will impose more costs on top of the Two commenters argued that, as a BWDS in this final rule applies only to
other regulations for affected passenger part of the financial burden, it is vessels entering waters of the United
vessel operations. important for vessel companies to note States from outside the EEZ, to
For the proposed rule, the Coast the amount of employees/mariners they coastwise vessels that are more than
Guard completed an Initial Regulatory have. 1,600 GT, and to certain other seagoing
Flexibility Analysis (IRFA). The specific The Coast Guard agrees with the vessels meeting specific size thresholds
statutory requirements of an IRFA can commenters and would like to note that (see V.A. Summary of Changes from the
be found at 5 U.S.C. 603(b). Under these the number of employees is taken into NPRM). The Coast Guard fully intends
to expand the BWDS rule to all vessels, commenter suggested that a study be intended to verify the composition or
as proposed in the NPRM, but has done on the environmental benefits of abundance of other potential invasive
determined that additional analysis is marine transportation, especially in microbes in the ballast water but, rather,
necessary to support this expansion and terms of higher energy efficiency. The their purpose is to indicate their
to consider issues related to requested study on the benefits of presence.
grandfathering for the phase-two marine transportation is beyond the One commenter stated that the DPEIS
standard. We also intend to conduct scope of this rule. requires further refinement at all levels
additional research as necessary. because some information is out-of-date,
7. DPEIS that many of the existing data are not
Other properly cited, and that there are issues
Adequacy of Document
One commenter stated that our use of with grammar, punctuation, and clarity.
One commenter stated that the DPEIS
certain terms such as ‘‘uncertain’’ and The Coast Guard disagrees with this
does not provide scientific data to show
‘‘potential’’ does not ‘‘inspire comment. The DPEIS was reviewed by
that alternatives 2 through 4 will ensure
confidence in your justification for the scientific experts and cooperating
that the residual NIS population will
broad scope of the proposed rule.’’ agencies, and is sufficiently current to
The Coast Guard notes that within the not survive, persist, spread, or
describe the affected environment and
regulatory assessment process, the proliferate in the receiving waters. The
evaluate the impacts of the discharge
presence of uncertainty is common as Coast Guard agrees with this
standard alternatives. In order to ensure
information and data are sometimes assessment, but notes that our
future environmental analysis
only partially available or not available scientifically-based analytical approach
documents are of the highest quality,
at all due to a variety of factors, such as is not intended to show that any of these
the Coast Guard made typographical
the stages of technologies in research alternatives will specifically ensure that
changes in the Final PEIS (FPEIS), as
and development. The language used in the residual NIS population will not appropriate.
the NPRM RA correctly reflects the survive, persist, spread, or proliferate, One commenter requested that the
uncertainty inherent in the state of but rather to evaluate the probabilities phase-one and phase-two standards
available information and technology. of decreased introductions and listed in the proposed rule should
The Coast Guard is monitoring the spreading of NIS among the different clearly refer back to the alternatives
development of technology and alternatives. The NRC report ‘‘Assessing analyzed in the DPEIS. The Coast Guard
analyzing papers on aquatic NIS for the Relationship Between Propagule identified alternative 2 of the DPEIS as
additional data. Pressure and Invasion Risk in Ballast its preferred alternative, and this is now
Water’’ states that ‘‘The available the phase-one standard. The phase-two
Economic Comments Raised in the methods for determining a numeric standard was removed from the final
Context of the DPEIS discharge standard for ballast water are rule and will be part of a supplemental
The Coast Guard received several limited by a profound lack of data and environmental analysis, which will be
comments on the BWDS DPEIS that information to develop and validate issued either with a notice or other
concerned issues related to economics. models of risk-release relationship. rulemaking document.
One commenter stated that the range Therefore, it was not possible with any One commenter suggested changing
of quantified benefits and annual costs certainty to determine the risk of DPEIS page breaks so table and figures
needs to be presented for alternatives 3 nonindigenous species establishment are not broken up, and not confusing the
to 5 to allow comparison among the under existing discharge limits [* * *]’’ labeling between tables and figures. The
alternatives. Another commenter asked Chapter 4 of the NRC report discusses Coast Guard agrees that this can make
if the benefits of ballast water treatment in detail the risk-release relationship comprehension of a document difficult,
were only evaluated for alternative 2 and a wide range of models related to and made changes in the FPEIS, as
and further adds that there are few invasion risk as a function of the appropriate.
details provided on these cost-benefit probability of a species establishment. One commenter suggested defining
numbers and methods. One commenter The NRC recommendations included: the term ‘‘microorganism,’’ updating the
stated that further discussion and ‘‘In short-term, mechanistic single- IMO BWM Convention status and data
analysis of costs vs. benefits, addressing species models are recommended to on States’ expenditures for bioinvasion
all of the alternatives considered, would examine risk-release relationships for mitigation and NIS management, adding
be useful. best case (for invasion)-scenario a cited reference to Literature Cited,
In the NPRM RA (available on the species.’’ correcting other cites, and providing
docket), chapter 5 (table 5.12), the Coast One commenter stated that the DPEIS additional references. The Coast Guard
Guard presents the total potential alternatives rely on indicator reviewed the indicated DPEIS sections
benefit from different proposed microorganisms to prevent bacterial and made changes in the FPEIS, as
alternatives. The values presented in invasion, yet the selection of Vibrio appropriate.
this table enable the comparison of the cholera, E. coli, and Enterococci for this One commenter stated that a sentence
benefits of alternatives 2, 3, and 4. Data purpose is not well supported and the in a discussion of the crab Hemigrapsus
to support the analysis of alternative 5 presence or abundance of these bacteria sanguineus in the DPEIS was incorrectly
is not yet available. In addition, the does not verify the composition or attributed to the United States
Coast Guard is further investigating abundance of other potential invasive Geological Survey and gave an alternate
costs and benefits of more stringent microbes in the ballast water. citation. The Coast Guard verified the
standards. The Coast Guard disagrees with this citation in the DPEIS is correct and the
One commenter inquired as to what comment. We developed the DPEIS Coast Guard was not able to readily
are the additional avoided alternatives through a rigorous process locate the relevant information in the
environmental and social damages and including three separate expert panel alternate citation provided by the
economic benefits of BWDSs at more workshops, public scoping meetings, commenter.
stringent standards and asked that the and cooperating agency participation. One commenter stated that the DPEIS
Coast Guard provide quantitative data The presence or abundance of the fails to make the case for applying
and sources for all information. The selected indicator organisms is not requirements that may be appropriate
for oceangoing vessels to Great Lakes by NIS is not a function of organism is promising and there is a reason to be
vessels. As we have discussed in this size. optimistic that current BWM methods
preamble, the Coast Guard has the The Coast Guard disagrees with this are having an effect, there are
authority to regulate Great Lakes vessels comment. The goal of a BWDS, as stated continuing reasons to be concerned and
in this way, and is charged with in the DPEIS, is reduction or prevention not to accept these findings as
minimizing introduction and spread of of NIS introductions and associated definitive. For instance, the lack of
NIS in waters of the United States to the impacts. We developed the DPEIS comprehensive sampling may mean that
maximum extent practicable (see V.B.5 alternatives through a rigorous process some events have not been detected.
Discussion of Comments: Legal). We including three separate expert panel Other possibilities are that there have
note, however, that this final rule does workshops, public scoping meetings, been introductions, but that there have
not require Great Lakes vessels to and cooperating agency participation. been lags in species establishment. Also,
comply with the BWDS at this time, and The Coast Guard based the resulting we note that the practicability review
we must take into consideration the standards on an allowable concentration process referenced by the commenter
factors identified in 16 U.S.C. of organisms larger than a specified size was designed to ensure that any bypass
4711(c)(2)(H). We will keep this criterion, providing a balance between of phase one to phase two would only
comment in mind in our evaluation of protection and practicability and taking occur if it could be practicably
the practicability of expanding the into account the expected capabilities of achieved.
BWDS applicability to all vessels technology. The BWDS alternatives do
not represent the minimum viable Consideration of Treatment Method
discharging ballast water in waters of
populations for all taxonomic groups. Impacts
the U.S.
One commenter stated concern that One commenter stated that the Two commenters pointed out that the
current Coast Guard staffing levels will proposed E. coli and intestinal DPEIS does not address the impacts of
not be adequate to enforce the criteria enterococci standards are not strong specific BWMS.
during land-based and shipboard enough in that they are less stringent Another commenter said that the
reviews of independent certification than the EPA’s criteria for recreational statement in the DPEIS that alternatives
facilities, or ILs, and that needs to be water contact. The Coast Guard 2 through 5 would not have additional
discussed in the FPEIS. Staffing acknowledges that the standards in the adverse impacts on environmental and
decisions and needs of Federal agencies BWDS may appear to be less stringent socioeconomic resources might not be
are beyond the scope of this rule. than EPA standards for water quality. an acceptable assumption for some
However, we note that the Coast Guard However, the water quality standards treatment options (such as chemical
has been conducting oversight of ILs for are for ambient conditions, not disinfectants).
several decades. discharge standards. Two commenters recommended that
The PWS RCAC requested that a copy One commenter pointed out that the the Coast Guard explicitly consider the
of the Crude Oil Tanker Ballast Facility concept of indicator organisms as environmental impacts of approaches to
Study be included in the FPEIS for this surrogates for pathogens has served the meet BWDS. The first commenter
rule and that the 1997 analysis for drinking water supply industry well focused on methods that could involve
technology available for current onshore since its establishment of presence/ active substances at high concentrations
water treatment be updated to 2009 absence testing that is now routinely that could be persistent, toxic, or both.
data. PWS RCAC further stated that the used. The Coast Guard agrees with this The second commenter recommended
proposed rule and DPEIS should be comment, and notes that the DPEIS that the Coast Guard assess treatment
revised and reissued for a second public included indicator organisms in some of technologies in coordination with the
comment review to ensure that the alternatives. EPA by conducting a FPEIS in
comments and concerns were accurately One commenter stated that, based on conjunction with the practicability
reflected and included to improve both scientific reports from both the United review and include the impacts of both
products. States and Canada, the current BWM biocide residuals and treatment
The Coast Guard acknowledges this measures in place in the St. Lawrence byproducts, cumulative impacts
comment. The Crude Oil Tanker Ballast Seaway and the Great Lakes (BWE and (multiple discharging ships and
Facility Study is now available to the salt-water flushing for no ballast multiple types of active substances), and
public in the docket for this rule. onboard vessels) protect the waters of to ensure that discharges are consistent
Finally, while we are not subjecting the the Great Lakes, making the proposed with Clean Water Act requirements.
NPRM and DPEIS to a second round of BWDS unnecessary. The commenter One commenter stated that the DPEIS
comments, we anticipate that we will further stated that the proposed phase- does not analyze the effects of potential
open another comment period when one BWDS, according to available technologies and methods for achieving
addressing the phase-two standard and science, will ensure that aquatic NIS are BWDS, including chemical residuals,
an expanded applicability. not discharged into waters of the United reaction by-products, thermal pollution,
States from vessels. The commenter energy use, and dockside impacts, and
Adequacy of Standard added that the approach discussed in that until those are evaluated, impacts
One commenter stated that the FPEIS the NPRM that would bypass phase one on ESA listed species cannot be
must provide a sound scientific basis to and go directly to the phase-two assessed. The commenter stated that the
support alternative 2 thresholds as standard is not practicable and it is agency understands that the ‘‘action’’ is
means for eliminating or substantially doubtful that it would provide greater establishing standards, and continues to
mitigating NIS invasion, not just simply protection of the aquatic environment. support the process for establishing the
selecting NIS reduction thresholds that The Coast Guard acknowledges that standards.
are two or three orders of magnitude there have been no new reports of The Coast Guard acknowledges these
lower than what arrives in ballast water introductions of invasive NIS into the comments and clarifies that ballast
today. The commenter further stated Great Lakes since implementation of the water treatment systems were not
that the DPEIS does not provide a sound BWM measures mentioned by the included in the DPEIS. However
scientific basis for its size distinction commenter. While the lack of reports of Appendix F of the FPEIS does include
and that, empirically, the threat posed new introductions into the Great Lakes an analysis of ballast water treatment
technologies in use by vessels enrolled NEPA is the ability to conduct a cost/ information available on aquatic NIS is
or being reviewed by STEP as a means benefit assessment, but that it cannot be not ideal, the Coast Guard conducted a
to show the practicability of the BWDS done because there is no way to predict scientifically-based analysis to predict
set forth in this rule. This information or quantify the environmental benefit the relative probability of NIS
is not meant to be detailed or all- (measurement of invasions which did establishment for the BWDS alternatives
inclusive. Methods to achieve the not occur) of the treatment alternatives. in the DPEIS. New information on the
standard will be evaluated in separate The commenter explained that a probability of aquatic NIS establishment
environmental analyses as part of the reasonable cost/efficacy ratio and will be considered for future evaluation
approval process. All appropriate measurable reduction of introduced of discharge standards.
actions, resources, and impacts will be organisms are needed, and without a Two commenters stated that the Coast
taken into account. reasonable, scientifically-based metric Guard argues convincingly that
One commenter inquired about a to show continual improvement, the population viability analysis (PVA) is
statement in the DPEIS under the perceived benefit may not meet the most suitable analytical
description of chlorine as a biocide that measured benefit, leading to more methodology to use for the NEPA
impact to ships’ ballast tanks from the stringent regulation and additional analysis, and that we should consider
corrosion is a concern, asking whether implementation costs. revisiting the approach if new
it is a Coast Guard or a maritime The Coast Guard disagrees with these information becomes available in
industry concern, and why. The Coast comments. As we have discussed, intervening years. The Coast Guard
Guard is concerned with any potential specific BWMS were not included in the agrees with the comment. New
corrosion issues that could affect the DPEIS, but the FPEIS does include an information on the probability of
safety or life of a vessel. Any BWMS analysis of STEP vessels with ballast aquatic NIS establishment will be
that is going to require additional water treatment technologies as a means considered for future evaluation of
maintenance or shorten the life of the to show the practicability of the BWDS discharge standards.
vessel has the potential to cause ripple set forth in this rule. Methods to achieve One commenter asked whether there
effects through the maritime the BWDS will be evaluated in separate is precedent for using PVA for the type
transportation system. environmental analyses during the of NIS application that the DPEIS
One commenter stated that it is very approval process for each BWMS. addresses. Another commenter
difficult, given the current stage of Additionally, the Coast Guard did expressed concern that the Coast Guard
scientific evidence and BWMS, to conduct a scientifically based analysis has not provided sufficient
discuss the merits of more stringent to predict the relative probability of NIS documentation to support the use of
standards than those imposed by IMO, establishment for the discharge standard PVA ‘‘in a marine or aquatic situation
especially as extreme an alternative as alternatives in the DPEIS. For purposes with invertebrates and/or
sterilization. The commenter further of complying with NEPA, the Council microorganisms.’’
stated that sterilization of ballast water on Environmental Quality regulations As the Coast Guard noted in the
would task the maritime industry with state that weighing of the merits and DPEIS, the application of PVA to marine
an unwarranted standard and would drawbacks of the various alternatives and aquatic invertebrates and
probably be impossible to achieve. The need not be displayed in a monetary microorganisms is novel. However, this
Coast Guard agrees that the total cost-benefit analysis and should not be does not affect the underlying scientific
sterilization of ballast water, specifically when there are important qualitative logic of this approach (e.g., Andersen
in regards to microbiological organisms, considerations. 2005). PVA has been applied to
is challenging, if not impossible to terrestrial invertebrates (e.g., Schultz
achieve. The preferred alternative was DPEIS Modeling Comments and Hammond 2003). The diffusion
developed taking into consideration One commenter stated that treating a model on which the PVA in the report
environmental protection and lack of current science as meeting the is based has been applied to microbial
practicability, including the economic ‘‘best available science’’ requirement of populations (e.g., Ponciano et al 2005).
and technical aspects of implementing NISA may be a practical necessity in One commenter stated that an
BWDSs. order to adopt an environmentally evaluation of extinction probability
One commenter stated that protective and economically rational needs to consider cumulative ballast
destruction of spore-like phases of standard in the near future. The discharges from multiple ships rather
marine life may be impracticable commenter did not think it is reasonable than just individual discharges from
without actually distilling ballast water to assess in advance the biological single ships, and examine the
and, even so, any residue may well have effectiveness of this ‘‘first established assumption that an initial population
to be treated as toxic waste. Another standard,’’ as there would be no other released from an individual ship is
commenter stated that BWM will numeric standard to compare to. The completely separate and isolated from
prevent organisms from reproducing commenter also stated that the other organisms released in the same
and releasing larvae into the relationship between the frequency and area, since several discharges in the
environment. magnitude of introductions and the same area may build a population to
The Coast Guard does not agree or probability of successful NIS viability before extinction can occur.
disagree with these comments, as they establishment should be a priority for The Coast Guard acknowledges this
relate to specific types of BWMS. As future research to establish a baseline comment and will take this opportunity
noted earlier, specific BWMS were not for future adjustments to discharge to clarify. Based on available data, the
included in the DPEIS. These specific standards. analysis focused explicitly on a single
BWMS will be evaluated in separate The Coast Guard disagrees with this discharge. In order to address the
environmental analysis as part of the comment. First, the statutory broader question of the effect of the
approval process. All appropriate requirement from NANPCA, as proposed BWM measures on the rate of
actions, resources, and impacts will be amended by NISA, is that we use ‘‘best species introductions from multiple
taken into account in that process. scientific information available,’’ not discharges, the Coast Guard would
Two commenters stated that the ‘‘best available science.’’ Second, require information about the number,
foundation for setting any BWDS under although the amount of scientific magnitude, and timing of the multiple
discharges and about the species present discharge containing infected organisms species’’ was necessitated by the
in each discharge. As identified in the could transmit the pathogens, whether problem at hand: namely, to evaluate
NRC report, there are data gaps (‘‘a the host is alive or dead. alternative national standards for BWM.
profound lack of data and information’’) The Coast Guard agrees with this The diffusion model used here is quite
and therefore, there is no presently comment. Microorganisms and general and applicable to different
available information on multiple pathogens were considered throughout populations. The values of the
discharges. As recommended by NRC, development of the BWDS alternatives parameters of this model are likely to
models need to be developed to assess and are included in the standards vary from species to species and
these risks and to link to new themselves in the form of indicator environment to environment. To
information as they become available. species. The analysis’ technical account for this, the analysis considered
The Coast Guard will consider models approach addressed the two larger size a reasonable range of parameter values.
that may be available during their classes of organisms in alternatives 2 As discussed in the NRC report, the
practicability review under NISA. This through 4, not microorganisms, given PVA model is acknowledged as one of
may provide additional information to that for smaller organisms, the lower a group of models that can assess the
address the risk associated with bound of the mean density range is relationship between invasion risk and
multiple ballast discharges. already below the limits of alternatives propagule pressure. The NRC report
One commenter claimed that the 2 through 4. The Coast Guard was not goes on to conclude that ‘‘models of any
analysis assumes that ‘‘a percentage aware of any basis for a scientific, kind are only as informative as their
reduction in abundance is directly and defensible, and enforceable discharge input data. In the case of ballast water,
linearly related to reduction in standard for microorganisms. both invasion risk and organisms
successful invasion probability.’’ The One commenter stated that the DPEIS density discharged from ballast water
Coast Guard disagrees with this assumption for the PVA model, that N(t) are characterized by considerable and
comment. The relationship between a follows geometric Brownian Motion, largely unquantified, uncertainty.’’
percentage reduction in abundance and should be better clarified and defined, One commenter stated that there are
the probability of successful invasion is and is probably inappropriate for larger gaps in the knowledge of invasion
not assumed, it is based on the organisms than the smaller than 50 biology required to assess the impacts of
underlying diffusion model for micrometer class, since larger organisms a treatment standard and the relative
population growth. Furthermore, the move based on several variables such as degree of added benefit as compared to
relationship is not specifically linear for habitat and water temperature (which BWE. The Coast Guard acknowledges
this model; reducing initial abundance could also affect motion of organisms this comment. Although the abundance
by a factor f increases the probability of smaller than 50 micrometers). of scientific information on aquatic NIS
extinction (i.e., unsuccessful invasion) The Coast Guard disagrees with the is not ideal, the Coast Guard conducted
by a factor f¥c where the parameter c comment. The diffusion model does not a scientifically based analysis to predict
depends on the parameters of the assume that individuals do not move in the relative probability of NIS
population model. response to environmental factors. It is establishment for the discharge standard
A commenter stated that it would be possible that the commenter confused alternatives in the DPEIS.
helpful for the DPEIS to give at least the population model—which is called One commenter suggested that the
some consideration to organisms 10 Brownian motion—with a model of the statement from DPEIS Appendix A that
micrometers and smaller, given the same name of the movement of ‘‘considerable uncertainty attaches to
potential for pathogenic microorganisms individuals. the estimate of the extinction
to be transported in ballast water, using One commenter stated that the probability factor and the mean rate of
the framework adopted in Appendix A complexity of predicting the successful introductions relative to the
for larger organisms. Another introduction and establishment of NIS baseline’’ needs to be included as a
commenter was concerned that the and the lack of the necessary detailed disclaimer in the main body of the PEIS.
technical approach in the DPEIS does information do not justify the Coast The Coast Guard agrees and made that
not adequately consider pathogens in Guard’s use of a ‘‘generic data-poor addition in the FPEIS.
the analysis. The Coast Guard disagrees approach’’ to analysis. The commenter One commenter stated that separate
with these comments. Microorganisms also questioned whether PVA is risk analysis and assumptions are
and pathogens were considered appropriate or useful for an unknown, needed for the freshwater environment
throughout development of the BWDS large number of different species with on the Great Lakes and offered general
alternatives and are included in the differing characteristics and dynamics information and references on salinity
BWDS in the form of indicator species. that may be present within a ballast toxicity effects, expected number of
The PVA analysis in Appendix A was tank, since the Coast Guard states ‘‘PVA future invasions, and BWE
not applied to microorganisms because, is typically used to assess the status of effectiveness. The Coast Guard disagrees
for smaller organisms, the lower bound a particular population and therefore with this comment. Given that the PEIS
of the mean density range is already typically involves the development of a is programmatic to apply to the wide
below the limits of alternatives 2 model of each population of interest variety of ecosystems in the affected
through 4 and that the Coast Guard was separately,’’ and is ‘‘a routine tool for environment and the generic nature of
not aware of any basis for a scientific, assessing the dynamics and extinction the PVA diffusion model, the analysis is
defensible, and enforceable discharge properties of a single population.’’ applicable over the range of the
standard for microorganisms. The Coast Guard notes that the impacted area.
One commenter stated that the commenter’s acknowledgment of the Two commenters questioned the
technical approach to justify the lack of detailed information implies that assumed range of 0.001 to 0.1 of for the
proposed standards needs to include the any approach will be ‘‘data-poor.’’ The values of c, the biological population
transportation of bacterial and viral NIS diffusion model PVA approach used in parameter. The first commenter stated
pathogens, including the fish-killing the DPEIS is the best available to that the instantaneous growth rates for
Viral Hemorrhagic Septicemia (VHS) science that is appropriate for this many planktonic organisms are well-
virus, by larger NIS that are infected. purpose. The application of PVA to ‘‘an known and others can easily be
The commenter said that ballast water unknown (but large) number of different determined experimentally. The second
commenter stated that there is no non-species-specific model that, in The Coast Guard disagrees with the
justification for the selection of this conjunction with other information, was comment. We provided the rationale for
range, and no discussion of whether used to provide insight into the these default values in Appendix A of
populations might typically tend potential relative impacts of the the DPEIS. The commenter’s own
towards either end. The first commenter alternatives, based on probability of NIS calculation of the effect of doubling the
further stated that the values for the establishment. default of the total number of organisms
statistical representation of the One commenter stated that there in a discharge event shows that these
estimated total initial number of should be more consistent use of lower results are not highly sensitive to
organisms released in a single ballast and upper case letters for variables/ changes in the default values.
water discharge is extremely variable parameters in the DPEIS, and that the One commenter stated that the
and questioned how the values can give clarity of the extinction probability modeling results for multiple species
a good representation of the number of equation would be improved by support the conclusion that more
organisms discharged from a typical indicating the baseline extinction stringent treatment alternatives will
ballast tank. probability with a different term/ substantially reduce the likelihood of
The Coast Guard neither agrees nor subscript, providing more information new NIS introductions via ballast water.
disagrees with these comments. As we on its derivation, and correcting the The Coast Guard acknowledges this
explained in Appendix A of the DPEIS, relationship to read fe = f¥c fe = f¥c. The comment, but notes that the correctness
we chose this range to reflect the best commenter also suggested that q(m) (the of this statement depends on the
available estimates of the extinction probability that at least one species is definition of ‘‘substantially.’’
probability for species introduced successfully introduced) should be One commenter responded to a
through ballast water discharge. The defined in the DPEIS body text and that question in the NPRM asking for any
paper by Calbet and Landry (2004) Ne (the percent increase in q(m) over studies on the effects of propagule
provides daily growth rates for the baseline scenarios) should be pressure on successful establishment of
planktonic organisms in their native defined. a NIS in aquatic ecosystems by referring
habitats. A central issue regarding NIS to the research being performed by the
The Coast Guard disagrees with the
is the fate of organisms introduced into Canadian Aquatic Invasive Species
comment regarding the extinction
habitats that are not their native ones. Network in relation to shipping mode
probability equation. The equation
Furthermore, the critical parameter c and route, and factors affecting
follows from simple algebraic
depends not only on the growth rate of establishment success. The Coast Guard
substitution and no further details
a population, but also on its variability. may use this information in a future
should be needed. On the notation for
The values characterizing the initial evaluation of discharge standards. The
baseline extinction probability, Coast Guard will continue to follow the
number of organisms are based on the
Appendix A already distinguishes relevant literature in this area.
work of Minton et al. (2005) and provide
between baseline extinction probability One commenter stated that it seems,
the best available representation of
and extinction probability when initial from the relative effectiveness results of
variability in the number of organisms
abundance is reduced by a factor f. The the analysis of BWDS alternatives, that
released in a single ballast water
Coast Guard agrees the correct the approach assumes that discharges in
discharge.
One commenter stated that the relationship is fe = f¥c fe = f¥c and compliance with the different
assumptions that the ballast water of a changed the FPEIS from ‘‘extinction alternatives contain the stated number
single vessel contains 12 ‘‘new’’ species, probability factor fe = f¥c fe = f¥c’’ to of organisms in the respective groups,
that the most abundant is 50 percent of ‘‘extinction probability factor fe = f¥c fe and that the proposed phase-one
the total abundance, and that the = f¥c’’, as in Equation (7). The Coast standard is equivalent to the IMO
ordered relative abundances follow the Guard acknowledges the comment discharge standard. The Coast Guard
geometric model is an ‘‘extremely huge’’ regarding the terms q(m) and Ne and agrees with the comment.
set of assumptions to make and there is made changes in the FPEIS, as One commenter cited an error in
lack of reasoning behind them. appropriate. Appendix A, table 5–8. For the scenario
Furthermore, the commenter was One commenter stated that there is no with Ne = 100, c = 0.00008 and
concerned that a large number of sensitivity analysis or quantification of alternative 3, q(m) should be 0.00025,
species may have been missed, since the model error with which to evaluate the not 0.0025. The Coast Guard agrees with
12 value comes from a study evaluating PVA model used in the DPEIS. The this comment and made this correction
organisms of a different size class than Coast Guard disagrees with this in the FPEIS. Ne is the percent increase
the alternatives, and was concerned that comment. Throughout the DPEIS, in q(m) over the baseline scenarios, q(m)
there is no presentation of variation results are given for alternative values of is the probability that at least one
around the mean for 12 new species. key parameters. species is successfully introduced, and
The Coast Guard disagrees with this One commenter stated that discussion c is the biological population parameter.
comment. We provided the rationale for in the DPEIS on the importance of One commenter stated there is no
each assumption in Appendix A of the default values for multiple species is evidence to suggest that the standards
DPEIS, which states that the assumed incomplete, and that examples of outlined in alternatives 1 through 4 are
values were based on the paper by predictions for probability of at least biological thresholds that represent
Smith, et al. (1999). Despite its one introduction in multiple species minimum viable populations for all
limitations, this study reflects the best scenarios could convey a false sense of taxonomic groups. The Coast Guard
available information on the species security. The commenter also stated that agrees with this comment, however, this
composition of ballast water. The using a default value of only twice the is not relevant to the analysis. The
application of the PVA diffusion model median number of organisms released BWDS alternatives do not represent the
was conducted by experts in the results in a nonzero, albeit small, minimum viable populations for all
biological and statistical fields and probability of at least one species being taxonomic groups. We developed these
reviewed by others, including introduced in the alternative 4 scenario alternatives through a rigorous process
cooperating agencies. The PVA and that this sensitivity issue should be including three separate expert panel
diffusion model provided a generic, discussed in the DPEIS. workshops, public scoping meetings,
and cooperating agency participation, under-inclusive. These changes are however, that 33 CFR 151.2050 requires
and the Coast Guard based the BWDS summarized in this preamble in V.A. vessel owners to avoid ballast water
alternatives on an allowable Summary of Changes from the NPRM. discharge in marine sanctuaries, marine
concentration of organisms larger than a One commenter explained that the preserves, marine parks, or coral reefs.
specified size criterion, providing a physical environment of the Great Lakes One commenter stated that habitat
balance between protection and is more susceptible to ecosystem destruction and loss should be included
practicability and taking into account damage due to isolation and slow as a stressor impacting marine,
the expected capabilities of technology. flushing rates as compared with estuarine, and freshwater environments,
estuarine and ocean coastal areas. The being that it has been implicated as the
DPEIS Affected Environment Comments Coast Guard notes this comment, but greatest threat to imperiled species and
One commenter suggested that the did not include Great Lakes flushing gave a reference. The commenter also
Coast Guard expand the scope of the rates in the FPEIS because it analyzed stated that the other stressors and
DPEIS to encompass the ‘‘big picture’’ the BWDS alternatives from a examples in the DPEIS need to have
by including other adjacent, nationwide scope, not by specific citations for the references used. The
interconnected water bodies, such as the geographic area. Coast Guard disagrees with the
Canadian waters of the Great Lakes, and One commenter stated that since the comment. Habitat destruction and loss
including other interacting programs Great Lakes are one of the primary already are mentioned and cited in
such as U.S. Department of freshwater resources affected by BWDS, several places in the DPEIS.
Agriculture’s Animal and Plant Health the DPEIS could include additional One commenter stated that the DPEIS
Inspection Service (APHIS). The Great Lakes-specific information and doesn’t quantify some of the worst NIS,
commenter also suggested including references. The commenter further such as zebra mussels. The commenter
information in the DPEIS from an suggested that it may be useful to also takes issue with the apparent focus
authority on VHS and Federal agency highlight Lake Superior as a less on populated aquatic environments that
publications on treatment methods. stressed system than the other Great are already compromised by NIS at the
The Coast Guard disagrees with this Lakes and discuss the Great Lakes expense of protecting all aquatic
comment. The DPEIS is a programmatic Fishery Commission’s fishery environments, from the pristine to the
document, and areas were addressed at management objectives pertaining to heavily used. The commenter said that
the national and ecosystem level, habitat in the Great Lakes. The Coast when all the economic benefits of
including a freshwater ecosystems Guard disagrees with this comment. The protecting environments from NIS are
section. APHIS participated in the Great Lakes were addressed as a whole evaluated, a preventative mode is more
preparation of the DPEIS as a in the DPEIS, not individually. cost effective than mitigating undesired
cooperating agency in accordance with Two commenters stated that the Coast effects.
40 CFR 1501.6. BWMS were not Guard recognizes the environmental The Coast Guard disagrees with this
included in the DPEIS and methods to damage caused by NIS, and they comment. The effects of zebra mussels
achieve the standard will be evaluated explained that the rapid spread of and other NIS are mentioned in several
in separate environmental analysis as freshwater invaders from the Great places in the DPEIS. A BWDS under
part of the approval process. Vessels Lakes illustrates that protecting the NANPCA/NISA is intended as a
with BWMS enrolled in STEP are Great Lakes from ballast-mediated practicable standard that significantly
included in the FPEIS as a means invasions protects freshwater reduces the risk of invasions in all
evidence the practicability of the BWDS ecosystems across North America. The aquatic environments.
proposed in this rule. Coast Guard acknowledges these One commenter suggested that the
Another commenter suggested comments. Coast Guard define ‘‘dead zones,’’ or use
including a major western freshwater One commenter suggested adding the terms ‘‘anoxia’’ or ‘‘hypoxia’’ to
system under the DPEIS section on Asian clams to the DPEIS discussion of better describe the situation. The Coast
freshwater ecosystems and cited the the round goby and updating the Guard agrees with this comment, and
Columbia River and its watershed as analysis to include costs of the second made the changes in the FPEIS to clarify
very significant. The Coast Guard agrees underwater electric barrier. The same that there will be fewer introductions
with this comment, and added the commenter suggested modifying the and spreading of NIS in comparison to
Columbia River as an additional statement about the abundance of a scenario without a BWDS.
example in the FPEIS. Diporeia in Lakes Michigan and Huron One commenter pointed out an
One commenter suggested separating from non-existent to vastly declined, apparent inconsistency where the DPEIS
public health and shipping safety, and and highlighting additional examples of states two different numbers of NIS
expanding the latter in the Affected food web changes related to NIS. The reportedly established in San Francisco
Environment chapter of the DPEIS. The Coast Guard disagrees with the first Bay. The Coast Guard made the changes
Coast Guard agrees and made these comment. The round goby was cited as in the FPEIS.
changes in the FPEIS. an example and does not need One commenter suggested that the
One commenter stated that the elaboration. The remaining changes Coast Guard explain what is meant by
proposed rule and DPEIS are both over- were made, as appropriate. ‘‘increased competition’’ in the DPEIS
inclusive (too many vessels and areas) One commenter suggested that waters description of impacts on bird health.
and under-inclusive (some remedies not within many National Park units may The Coast Guard made the changes in
considered, such as using other water or represent the best available examples of the FPEIS.
other ballasting methods). The Coast healthy marine ecosystems, and should One commenter suggested that the
Guard made changes to the final rule, be recognized explicitly in the DPEIS Coast Guard update all of the economic
including revised applicability to and NPRM via a clear prohibition of information in the DPEIS Economic
include additional exemptions and ballast water discharge within their Status section to reflect the recent
clarification of other water and boundaries. The Coast Guard disagrees downturn in the economy. The
ballasting methods, which address the with the recommendation for a blanket commenter specified that they believed
examples given as evidence that the prohibition of ballast water discharge the statement that tourism and
NPRM and DPEIS were both over- and within National Park waters. We note, recreation have provided all of the job
growth to the U.S. ocean economy measurement is done and to use One commenter stated that it is
within the last decade was outdated and organism taxa in the categorization. The confusing to include ballast water
not accurately cited. The Coast Guard commenter also recommended treatment under the no-action
disagrees with this comment, as the clarification on whether chain forming alternative, and wondered if the Coast
socioeconomic information in the DPEIS algae should be classified by size of Guard intended to state that treatment
is intended to represent a longer term, individual cells or size of colonies. The that is equal to or better than BWE,
e.g., a decade or more. We verified the commenter stressed that the Coast without the development of a BWDS, is
citation and the statement is accurately Guard must keep in mind the ultimate part of the no-action alternative. The
cited. goals of reducing or eliminating the risk Coast Guard disagrees with this
One commenter pointed out that of invasive species when classifying comment. The no-action alternative
billions of dollars are spent and organisms by size. The Coast Guard reflects the baseline of current BWM
anticipated for dealing with NIS. The reviewed the information provided but requirements, which includes the
commenter also felt that the value of did not make changes in the FPEIS, as option of using an approved treatment
Michigan’s extensive water resources we believe there is sufficient that is equal to or better than BWE. The
and their uses must be taken into information in the FPEIS as it stands. no-action alternative is intended to
account, and that the cost of not One commenter stated that he or she reflect a set of options, any of which a
pursuing a more rigorous standard for does not support a no-action alternative. vessel may use or not use, due to
the Great Lakes is billions of dollars The Coast Guard appreciates the preferences or capabilities.
annually and will result in incalculable commenter’s input, however, the no- A commenter stated that the DPEIS
natural resource losses. The Coast Guard action alternative is used as a baseline overstates the difficulty of achieving
neither agrees nor disagrees with this in the environmental analysis, not as an alternative 5 because a number of
comment, however, the PEIS is a action alternative. Council on sterilization options listed in Appendix
programmatic document, and areas, Environmental Quality regulations F, including gaseous chlorine, which is
including socioeconomic impacts such require the Coast Guard to evaluate the widely used at municipal water
as water resources, were addressed at no-action alternative. 40 CFR treatment facilities, essentially sterilize
the national and ecosystem level not the 1502.14(d). drinking water. This commenter also
State level. One commenter stated that the said that the DPEIS further overstates
discussion of the no-action alternative alternative 5’s difficulty by asserting
PEIS Alternatives Comments
that alternative 5 is the same as
One commenter expressed general should include that a vessel-by-vessel
elimination of ballast water discharge.
support of the DPEIS, stating their approach is not practical, and that using
The Coast Guard disagrees with this
appreciation of the use of the best BWE as the benchmark for system
comment. Specific BWMS were not
available science and models to justify effectiveness is not sufficiently
included in the DPEIS and the BWMS
the numeric discharge standard. The protective of the waters of the United
analyzed in Appendix F of the FPEIS is
Coast Guard notes that the standard States. The Coast Guard disagrees with
limited to providing a rational basis of
from NANPCA, as amended by NISA, is this comment. Council on
the practicability of a proposed
for the Coast Guard to use ‘‘best Environmental Quality regulations
alternative. Methods to achieve the
scientific information available,’’ not require the Coast Guard to evaluate the
standard will be evaluated in separate
‘‘best available science.’’ no-action alternative; it is used as a environmental analysis. The DPEIS did
One commenter stated that the sizes baseline in the environmental analysis, not state that alternative 5 is the same
range for the alternative standards not as an action alternative. Id. as elimination of ballast water discharge
should extend to below 0.01 One commenter stated that ballast but, rather, that the most feasible
micrometers, to incorporate most water retention, part of the no-action approach for achieving it is through the
pathogenic viruses, including the VHS alternative, would eliminate the elimination of ballast water discharge.
fish virus. The commenter also said that introduction of species via ballast water Two commenters stated that, in 1997,
the possibility of man-made pathogens discharge, thus it is not appropriate for Congress required the Coast Guard to
or fragments of viruses which could be the DPEIS to state that the no-action examine the feasibility of modifying the
used to contaminate freshwater city alternative will not eliminate the Valdez Marine Terminal to prevent the
water supplies on the Great Lakes and introduction and spread of NIS. The introduction of NIS, and suggested that
deserve special treatment due to their commenter further stated that the DPEIS such a study be included in the docket
risk of adversely affecting most native should make it clear that, while a BWDS and examined in the PEIS. They further
fisheries in the Great Lakes and adjacent is more protective than BWE, ballast suggested that the PEIS should include
waters. water retention is more protective than an alternative that examines whether a
The Coast Guard disagrees with this a BWDS, and that many vessels do not NIS treatment option can be accelerated
comment. Three separate expert panel have to take any BWM actions under at the Valdez Marine Terminal ahead of
workshops, public scoping meetings, current regulations and can release the proposed phase-one and phase-two
and cooperating agency participation untreated coastal ballast water. schedules. The commenters also stated
contributed to progressive development The Coast Guard disagrees with the there are onshore treatment solutions for
of the BWDS alternatives. As a result, comment. The no-action alternative is vessels, including crude oil carriers.
the Coast Guard decided that pathogenic intended to reflect a set of options, any The Coast Guard disagrees with this
microorganisms, which include viruses, of which a vessel may use or not use, comment. Vessels discharging ballast
would be represented in terms of due to preferences or capabilities. Thus water to shore or vessel/barge-based
indicator bacteria. The BWDS the no-action alternative as a whole will treatment facilities essentially achieve
alternatives do not apply by specific not eliminate the introduction and alternative 5 (near sterilization) by not
area. spread of NIS. The Coast Guard discharging to the waters of the United
One commenter recommended that acknowledges in the DPEIS that some States. It would not be practicable to
the PEIS define organism size classes for vessels may not be able to conduct BWE develop a PEIS alternative involving
BWDS alternatives in more detail by depending on vessel design, age, load, shoreside facilities, as there are not
specifying where on the organism the sea conditions, and safety concerns. currently any available that are designed
to remove living organisms from ballast onshore facilities into account during enforceable to any degree of accuracy.
water. They can be viewed as one of the practicability reviews. The purpose of This comment is beyond the scope of
potential options available to vessels. the practicability review is not to the DPEIS. We note, however, that the
One commenter stated that ballast establish that there are alternatives to Coast Guard enforces the BWE
water treatment must ensure that ballast shipboard BWMS capable of meeting requirement during both port state
does not contain NIS of sufficient the applicable BWDS, but to determine control boardings and annual
quantity to allow survival and specifically whether such shipboard inspections of vessels, and that there
inoculation, and that DPEIS alternatives BWMS are practicably available. The have been a variety of civil penalty
2 through 4 do not assure this standard presence of onshore facilities will not actions which directly contradict the
can be met, but that alterative 5 does. factor into that analysis. commenter’s assertion.
This commenter and one other stated One commenter requested that the One commenter stated that since
that the alternative 2 standard is not DPEIS be revised to provide a complete alternative 2 is not the most
appropriate for the entire United States, quantitative analysis of alternative 5, as environmentally protective one, the
because site-specific treatment options required by NEPA. The Coast Guard Coast Guard must further discuss why
may be able to achieve treatment that disagrees with this comment. NEPA this alternative is preferred. The Coast
exceeds the alternative 2 standard. The does not require a quantitative analysis Guard’s environmental and
first commenter stated that alternative 5 of each alternative, but rather ‘‘to socioeconomic rationale for selecting
should be the goal, with reduced document and define changes in the alternative 2 as the preferred alternative
standards allowed only when it is natural environment, including the is stated in the FPEIS.
proven technically infeasible to meet plant and animal systems, and to One commenter pointed out that the
this goal. accumulate necessary data and other DPEIS states that a 2001 workshop in
The Coast Guard disagrees with these information for a continuing analysis of Oakland, CA recommended, as a long-
comments. The DPEIS evaluated the these changes or trends and an term proposal, the complete removal or
BWDS alternatives, not the means of interpretation of their underlying inactivity in ballast water for the first
meeting them. Any methods to achieve causes.’’ Since alternative 5 is the only two functional groups (coastal
the standard, including ballast water alternative that assures that no living holoplankton-meroplankton-demersals
treatment, will be evaluated in a organisms larger than 0.1 micrometer and phytoplankton-cysts-algal
separate environmental analysis as part are released via ballast water the propagules). The commenter wanted to
of the approval process. However, as impacts on environmental resources are know why this is not considered as a
stated previously, the FPEIS does expected to be minimal. long term goal, even if it were to be a
analyze STEP vessels with BWMS to One commenter stated that the Coast protracted implementation.
determine the practicability of the Guard’s preferred alternative does not The Coast Guard used information
BWDS set forth in this rule. The goal of achieve a sufficient reduction in the from the 2001 workshop and from other
a BWDS, as stated in the DPEIS, is the predicted mean rate of successful NIS expert panel workshops, public scoping
reduction of NIS introductions and introductions. The Coast Guard meetings, cooperating agency
spread and associated impacts. disagrees with this comment. Under participation, and other sources in
One commenter stated that the Coast NISA, Congress authorized the use of developing the proposed BWDS. The
Guard should attempt to implement the environmentally sound alternative goal of a BWDS is prevention of NIS
most protective alternative available in BWM methods that are at least as introductions and spread and associated
the absence of detailed environmental effective as BWE in preventing and impacts. The phase-two standard
data to determine the population level controlling infestations of aquatic NIS. proposed in the NPRM was based on the
at which an introduced species will The preferred alternative achieves that most stringent quantitative standards
survive. The commenter also noted the requirement. currently in place in a state. However,
difficulty in comparing the effectiveness One commenter provided the under NANPCA/NISA, any proposal of
of alternatives 1 through 4, and information that over 80 percent of a standard must consider practicability,
acknowledged that alternative 5 will not vessels arriving in California retain all which accounts for the non-inclusion of
remove the risk of all NIS introductions. ballast onboard, to refute the DPEIS a no living organism standard.
The commenter further recommended statement that few vessels have the
that alternative treatment systems, such ability to retain ballast onboard. The PEIS Environmental Consequences
as onshore facilities, be considered in commenter further stated that vessels One commenter stated that the phase-
more detail during the practicability may conduct internal ballast transfers or one standard is less effective than BWE.
review. alter cargo handling operations to The Coast Guard disagrees with this
The Coast Guard disagrees with this reduce the need to de-ballast. comment. Chapter 4 and appendix A of
comment. NEPA does not require a The Coast Guard disagrees with the the PEIS show that alternatives 2 and 3
Federal agency to select the most comment. The Coast Guard does not are more effective than the no-action
environmentally protective alternative. believe that such retention percentages alternative.
Currently, there are no U.S. type- are applicable to many vessels calling at One commenter stated that nektonic
approved BWMS intended for use U.S. ports. Ballasting operations depend organisms were not included in chapter
onboard vessels that can practicably and on whether vessels are offloading or 4 of the DPEIS. The Coast Guard
safely achieve complete sterilization of loading cargo, on vessels’ ability to carry disagrees with this comment. Nektonic
ballast water. Although difficult, the near-maximum cargo loads on all legs of organisms (e.g. fish), though not directly
Coast Guard made a scientifically- a voyage, and on the design and addressed as a group, are indirectly
founded evaluation of the alternatives. configuration of the vessel (e.g., bulk addressed throughout the FPEIS.
The preferred alternative was developed carriers cannot retain ballast water, One commenter suggested that ballast
taking into consideration environmental whereas container vessels may have the water discharge is one of the key vectors
protection and practicability, including physical capacity to do so). for viral transmission, especially VHS.
economic and technical aspects. One commenter stated that the PEIS The commenter said that, with no
The Coast Guard also disagrees with should note that the existing BWM special regulation for Great Lakes
the commenter’s suggestion to take strategy (mid-ocean BWE) is not vessels, viruses (such as VHS) could
spread through Lake Superior and between the economics of development implementation of a federal BWDS’’ into
possibly move into other waterways. of a BWDS and an increase in hull page 4–23, line 34, of the DPEIS, where
The Coast Guard has not identified fouling. The Coast Guard has reviewed it states, ‘‘Thus, if the volume of
any studies that directly identify ballast the use of this author’s work and shipping remains at the same level,
water as a documented VHS vector in removed that text from the FPEIS. ballast-mediated invasions are likely to
the Great Lakes. There is a need for One commenter noted that the threat be reduced.’’ The Coast Guard disagrees
further information on possible vectors, of species introductions comes not only with this comment. The sentence in the
including ballast water, vessel fouling, from foreign vessels, but also from Cumulative Impacts section that the
and live and dead fish. The Coast Guard vessels operating in the coastal waters of commenter referred to, as well as the
notes that the BWDS alternatives do not the United States. The Coast Guard following sentence, set the context for
generally apply by specific geographic agrees with this statement, and notes the last sentence in that paragraph,
area, but rather are nationwide in scope. that the NPRM proposed requiring all ‘‘Thus, a BWDS would be expected to
However, we will keep this comment in vessels to comply with the BWDS. For decrease NIS introductions from distinct
mind as we conduct more research into reasons discussed elsewhere in this [ballast water] discharge events, but the
the effects of implementing a BWDS in document, some of those requirements total number of introductions could still
the Great Lakes, as well as nationwide. are being reevaluated. The PEIS does increase due to increases in global
One commenter stated that impacts of not intend to imply that NIS trade.’’ The commenter’s suggested
a BWDS need to be clarified as far as it introductions come only from foreign change would alter the intended
would affect ecology, the economy, vessels. meaning.
industry, and society, among other One commenter pointed out that the One commenter noted that if
aspects. The Coast Guard believes that impacts of seawater should be alternatives 2 through 4 can provide
the DPEIS addressed those issues at the considered regarding ballast water minor to major reductions, then
programmatic level. discharge. This comment is beyond the alternative 5 should provide at least
One commenter suggested that the scope of this rule, which evaluates the moderate to major reductions. The Coast
sentence ‘‘Economic sectors dependent impacts of NIS, but not the seawater in Guard agrees with this comment. The
on the health of aquatic and coastal the discharge. DPEIS states that the impacts of NIS on
resources would benefit from overall One commenter observed that the the environment under alternative 5
healthier ecosystems with fewer analyses of BWDS efficacy relative to would likely be greatly reduced
invasive species’’ in chapter 4 was BWE fails to account for the differences compared to the other alternatives.
misleading because a BWDS will not in potential risk associated with species One commenter stated that there was
result in fewer existing invasive NIS, that are sourced from different vague language in specific sentences in
but fewer introductions in the future. biogeographical habitats. The Coast the section on impacts of alternatives on
The Coast Guard agrees with this Guard disagrees with this comment. The listed species and habitat and in the
comment and changed the sentence in impacts of NIS invasions necessarily cumulative impacts section of the
the FPEIS to clarify that there will be evaluate species that are transferred Environmental Consequences, chapter 4
fewer introductions and spreading of from one biogeographical area to a of the DPEIS. The Coast Guard reviewed
NIS in comparison to a scenario without different one, and the effects, including and corrected the cited sentences and
a BWDS. risk, are described in the DPEIS. made changes in the FPEIS, as
One commenter stated that vessels One commenter stated that the Coast appropriate.
may be able to meet the preferred Guard should fully consider the One commenter observed that the 8
alternative for organisms larger than 50 economic input required for the percent reduction of NIS between 10
micrometers without BWE or treatment. alternatives. The Coast Guard agrees and 50 micrometers noted in the
The Coast Guard neither agrees nor with this comment, and notes that the preferred alternative was not
disagrees with this statement, but notes preferred alternative was developed worthwhile given the effort. The Coast
that the BWDS is to be used for taking into consideration environmental Guard disagrees with this comment. The
measuring the effectiveness of BWMS protection and practicability, including preferred alternative was developed
during the approval process in addition but not limited to economic and taking into consideration environmental
to measuring compliance from vessels at technical considerations. protection and practicability, including
the point of discharge. It is not intended One commenter stated that the economic and technical aspects.
that vessels be allowed to assert their evaluation of extinction probability One commenter stated that the Coast
non-BWMS method of dealing with applies only to individual ballast Guard must send a consistency
ballast water meets the BWDS. discharges from single ships without determination to the State of New York.
One commenter stated that considering cumulative discharges from The Coast Guard agrees with this
heterotrophic bacteria may also bloom multiple ships, which could comment. We submitted Initial Coastal
within a ballast tank as a result of the substantially increase the initial Zone Management Consistency
increased substrate. The Coast Guard population of released organisms. The determinations to the 34 coastal states
agrees with this comment, but saw no Coast Guard acknowledges that the PVA and territories, including New York, in
need to make changes to the FPEIS. diffusion model provided a generic, non March 2010.
One commenter suggested that hull species-specific model that we used, in One commenter noted that the DPEIS
fouling is a larger factor than ballast conjunction with other information, to failed to account for the differences in
water for NIS introductions from provide insight into the potential potential risk associated with species
vessels. The Coast Guard acknowledges relative impacts of the alternatives, i.e., that are sourced from, and discharged
that biofouling is mentioned in the the focus was on relative comparison of into, low salinity habitats. The
DPEIS, however, this comment is alternatives in terms of probability of commenter also stated that Washington
beyond the scope of this rule. We note NIS establishment. Cumulative impacts and Oregon will require a higher BWDS.
that 33 CFR 151.2050 does include some at the macro level are addressed in the The Coast Guard prepared a PEIS
provisions for preventing hull fouling. FPEIS. because a BWDS would impact a large
One commenter stated that a cited One commenter suggested that the geographic area and a wide variety of
author never intended to create a link Coast Guard insert the phrase ‘‘with the U.S. ecosystems. The PEIS does not
evaluate specific areas or ecosystems. implementing any BWDS to these locations, the traffic between them, and
Additionally, we note that the final rule vessels. We also intend to conduct the introduction of new species by
does not preempt the States from setting additional research, as necessary. The vessels and multiple non-ship vectors.
more stringent standards. results of which will be included in a One commenter stated that onshore
Two commenters stated that the Coast notice or other rulemaking document. ballast water treatment facility options
Guard’s own modeling in the NPRM and must be examined by the Coast Guard
associated DPEIS shows that only the Miscellaneous Comments on the DPEIS in the PEIS since there are proven,
degree of NIS infestation of the Great Six commenters pointed out that the technically-feasible onshore treatment
Lakes from ballast water discharge DPEIS contains no evidence to suggest solutions for vessels with dedicated
changes with the various scenarios of that ballast water discharged by towing trade routes. They suggested that the
implementation dates for the phased vessels and barges operating only on the Valdez Marine Terminal could be
BWDS. The Coast Guard acknowledges U.S. inland waterways has resulted in or retrofitted with NIS control to treat
this comment, but does not feel that any contributed to the introduction or crude oil vessels engaged in foreign
action is necessary. spread of NIS. Five of these commenters trade regulated under the proposed rule
One commenter stated that the Coast further stated that the same comment and crude oil vessels engaged in
Guard should perform additional also applies to towing vessels and coastwise trade regulated under the
scientific research to assess the barges operating within the same coastal Clean Water Act.
effectiveness of current BWM efforts for ecosystem, and that they are not aware The Coast Guard disagrees with this
coastal waters. The Coast Guard of a Coast Guard effort to analyze NBIC comment. The scope of the PEIS
disagrees. The DPEIS sufficiently data to determine the role of vessels, encompasses the standard for discharges
analyzed this issue for purposes of the particularly domestic towing vessels, in from vessels, not an analysis of the
rule. the introduction and spread of invasive means to achieve the standard. While
One commenter stated that the Coast NIS. discharge to shore is an option for
Guard did not discuss details of An additional commenter pointed out vessels under the NPRM, provided there
enforcement or compare the that there is no evidence of NIS are facilities available, it is beyond the
enforceability of different alternatives in introduction or spread by towing vessels Coast Guard’s authority to require
the DPEIS. The Coast Guard does not and barges operating primarily in U.S. shoreside facilities in all ports.
believe that the PEIS is the appropriate coastal zones. Two commenters stated NANPCA, as amended by NISA, grants
place to discuss enforcement details. that it is unfair to regulate domestic Coast Guard the authority to regulate
One commenter stated that the Coast towing vessels and barges with much vessel BWM practices, and this
Guard should conduct a phase-one smaller ballast water capacity than authority does not extend to onshore
practicability review of the technical crude oil tankers in the U.S. coastwise ballast water treatment facilities. 16
and economic barriers related to trade which NISA exempts from BWM U.S.C 4711. Ballast water discharged to
implementation of a BWDS for vessels requirements. a shore-side facility is not subject to the
operating primarily in the Great Lakes One commenter stated that requiring Coast Guard’s proposed BWDS as it
and St. Lawrence Seaway system. the installation of very expensive would not be a discharge into waters of
Another commenter stated that the BWMS on thousands of towing vessels the United States from a vessel.
precise risk of NIS introductions by and barges with very limited ballast Discharges to waters of the United
domestic commercial vessels, water capacity is cost-prohibitive or not States from such shoreside treatment
particularly the domestic Great Lakes cost-effective. The commenter argued facilities would be subject to regulation
trade, requires further research. The that costs must be considered both in under the CWA NPDES permit program.
commenter said that, therefore, absolute terms and against lack of One commenter stated that the
application of the proposed rule to the evidence that towing vessels or barges proposed phase-one standard is
ships in the domestic Great Lakes trade operating primarily in U.S. coastal biologically inadequate and inconsistent
is inappropriate. zones have contributed to the with the United States’ initial position
The Coast Guard agrees with the introduction or spread of invasive in discussions during the development
intent of these comments. We note that, species, their smaller volumes of ballast of the IMO discharge standard. This
in general, a phase-one practicability water, and technological and initial U.S. position was for a more
review is effectively taking place operational impediments to the stringent standard (less than 0.01 per m3
through the type approval of systems to installation of BWMS. of water as the concentration standard
meet the IMO discharge standard, which These comments are not directly for Zooplankton and less than 0.01 per
is indicative of BWMS being available. relevant to the DPEIS; they are instead mL for smaller organisms).
However, as discussed in this preamble comments on the NPRM itself. The The Coast Guard disagrees that the
in V.A. Summary of Changes from the Coast Guard has addressed the issue of phase-one standard is ‘‘biologically
NPRM, we have revised the applicability to towing vessels in our inadequate’’. As described in the DPEIS,
applicability in this final rule such that responses in this preamble in V.B.1 the standard will be more effective than
non-seagoing vessels; vessels that take Discussion of Comments: Applicability. BWE. The initial U.S. negotiating
on and discharge ballast exclusively in One commenter recommended a position on the IMO ballast water
one COTP Zone; and seagoing vessels study of species-by-species NIS risk discharge standard in 2004 is beyond
that operate in more than one COTP analysis on the Great Lakes to focus the the scope of this rulemaking; however,
Zone and do not operate outside of the need for regulatory efforts on specific as stated in section V.A.1 of the
Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ), and are routes, where reducing the risk of preamble, it is our intention to work
less than or equal to 1,600 gross register species transfer would have the greatest toward a more stringent standard.
tons or less than or equal to 3,000 gross benefit. The Coast Guard disagrees with One commenter stated that
tons (International Convention on this recommendation. It would not be information about the resulting damages
Tonnage Measurement of Ships, 1969) practicable to develop risk profiles of avoided by implementing alternatives 3
will not need to comply with the BWDS specific routes, because risk profiles through 5 needs to be presented in the
at this time. We are continuing to change as functions of the DPEIS on page H–10, paragraph 3, so
analyze the practicability of environmental characteristics of the that all alternatives can be compared on
equal footing. The NPRM RA (available with IMO BWM Convention two to four times the cost of using mid-
on the docket for this rule) presents the (Alternative 2) BWD Standard ($Mil)’’— ocean BWE.
total potential benefit from different are for U.S. vessels only. Appendix C of In Chapter 3 of the NPRM RA
proposed BWDS alternatives in chapter the NPRM RA (available in the docket), (available on the docket), the Coast
5 (table 5.12). The values presented in presents cost estimates for the foreign- Guard presented the data sources and
this table enable the comparison of the flagged vessels. timeframe used for the cost data. In
benefits of alternatives 2, 3, and 4. One commenter stated that the Chapter 1 of the NPRM RA, the Coast
One commenter stated that the argument that capital and operation Guard also mentioned the timeframe
production and retrofitting of any heavy costs will double and quadruple for used for the estimates. The Coast
equipment onboard the world fleet alternative 3 and alternative 4, Guard’s cost estimates in the NPRM and
would add not only cost, but also respectively, is not accurate based on DPEIS relied on manufacturer-provided
additional energy requirements and data presented in Lloyd’s Register data. Manufacturers supplied costs for
emissions. One commenter stated that (2008) and Dobroski et al. (2009). A equipment and installation. Data
in addition to the economic burden second commenter requested that the collection started in 2005/2006 and
imposed by the additional power and Coast Guard provide some basis for why costs were updated in 2007/2008.
gear requirements to operate BWMS, it believes that the costs for alternative The Coast Guard’s estimates are
there will also be an associated increase 3 would double those of alternative 2 consistent with other notable cost
in air pollutants and greenhouse gas and that the costs for alternative 4 estimates such as those made by Lloyds’
emissions from additional fuel would quadruple those for alternative 2. Register (2008) ($145,000 to $2,000,000)
combustion. This commenter echoed the belief that and the Congressional Budget Office
We expect that our environmental cost data presented in recent reports by ($300,000 to $1,000,000). The Coast
analysis of individual BWMS, as part of Lloyd’s Register (2008) and the CSLC Guard is continuously monitoring
the approval process, would indicate (Dobroski et al. 2009) do not agree with BWMS technologies for new
whether that specific BWMS might Coast Guard estimates. The commenter developments and changes in costs.
increase vessel energy requirements and added that up-to-date facts and figures Section 6.3 and Appendix B of the
emissions, which would be taken into are needed to clearly demonstrate that NPRM RA provided a comparison of
consideration before U.S. type approval such an increase in costs will be BWDS and BWE. The BWE cost was
is granted. observed in the event that these based on the framework used in the
One commenter stated that the DPEIS alternatives are implemented. 2004 BWM RA adjusted for recently
fails to provide a set of criteria or rubric As the Coast Guard noted previously collected NBIC data. We did not find the
for how the Coast Guard compared each in our discussion of the comments BWMS cost to be two to four times the
of the alternatives in order to arrive at received on the NPRM RA, cost cost of using mid-ocean BWE. We
alternative 2 as the preferred alternative. estimates presented in Lloyd’s Report estimated the annualized costs for BWE
The commenter also stated that there is and in the CLSC ‘‘Assessment of to be less than .01 percent of the
a lack of references for key facts and Efficacy, Availability and annualized costs of the phase-one
insufficient cost data to support the Environmental Impacts of Ballast Water standard.
argument that alternatives 3 and 4 are Treatment Systems for Use in California One commenter asked whether the
prohibitively expensive. Waters’’ (Dobroski, Scianni, Gehringer conclusions presented in page H–7,
The Coast Guard acknowledges the and Falkner, 2009) are related to paragraph 1 of the DPEIS still hold,
comment that the analyses included in systems that meet the current IMO given the recent economic downturn,
the DPEIS (and NPRM) did not present discharge standard only and are and if there is any evidence to show that
a detailed cost analysis of more consistent with the Coast Guard’s cost costs won’t be passed on to consumers.
stringent BWDS. There are very limited estimates ($258,000 to $2,525,000) and The Coast Guard did not analyze the
cost data available for technologies that the Congressional Budget Office impact of the recent economic
would meet more stringent standards. ($300,000 to $1,000,000). downturn and the potential impact on
The Coast Guard used the best Nevertheless, the Coast Guard the consumers. We did include a
information available at the time of the acknowledges that the NPRM, DPEIS, discussion on the uncertainties related
analysis to evaluate alternatives 3 and 4. and the NPRM RA did not present a to the cost estimates (NPRM RA, section
Therefore, we have determined that detailed cost analysis of more stringent 3.6) and compared the costs of
additional analysis is needed, and have standards. There are very limited cost implementing Alternative 2 for BWDS
already begun its development. As data available for technologies that (the alternative proposed in the NPRM)
noted in this preamble in V.A. Summary would meet more stringent standards. to shipping revenues and consumer
of Changes from the NPRM, as we Therefore, the Coast Guard has retail prices for goods typically
complete this work, the Coast Guard has determined that additional analysis is transported by vessels. We compared
decided to move forward with the needed, and has already begun its amortized installation costs to long-term
proposed phase-one standard (or development. Noted in preamble section charter rates (NPRM RA, section 4.5).
alternative 2) with this final rule, which V.A. Summary of Changes from the The NPRM costs typically represent less
does not include a more stringent NPRM, as we complete this work, the than one percent of charter rates
BWDS. Coast Guard has decided to move suggesting reduced impact on
One commenter asked whether the forward with the proposed phase-one consumers. Costs to the consumer are
costs that appear in Appendix H of the standard (or alternative 2) with this final further reduced because maritime
DPEIS are based on installation of rule, which does not include a more transportation costs generally represent
treatment systems on U.S.-flagged stringent standard. only one to two percent of the retail cost
vessels only or if it includes all vessels One commenter requested that of goods.
that will be discharging in the waters of sources and dates be provided for the One commenter stated that the
the United States. The costs of cost estimate data for installation and calculations to determine the number of
installation that the Coast Guard operation of the BWMS. One commenter invasions and amount of economic
presented in Appendix H—table H–3, requested the Coast Guard provide a damage that would be reduced seem
‘‘Costs to the U.S. vessels to comply source for the estimate that BWMS cost excessively convoluted and
inappropriate. The commenter also grossly underestimated in chapters 3 paragraph 6(a)(3)(c) of Executive Order
stated that the shipping-based invasion and 4 of the DPEIS. The commenter 12866, ‘‘Regulatory Planning and
rates of invertebrates are projected into recommended that, if it is determined Review,’’ also the Regulatory Right-to-
the future and are used to estimate the that additional work on the cost/benefit Know Act, and a variety of related
number of plant and fish invasions analysis is warranted, the Coast Guard authorities. According to OMB Circular
based on historical relationships should work closely with the States to A–4 (page 34), the RA should provide
between the three groups (even though gather the latest economic information costs and benefits estimates using both
there is no mention whether the on the actual and potential impacts NIS 3 and 7 percent discount rates. For more
relationships used take into account that have on our water resources. detailed explanation on the use of
the shipping-based invertebrate The Coast Guard used the best data discount rates for regulatory analysis see
invasions are only a portion of the available at the time of the research; we OMB Circular A–4, pages 31 to 34.
overall invertebrate invasions). The reviewed peer-reviewed papers on One commenter stated that the
commenter added that these values are invasion-related costs and benefits. proposed rule and the DPEIS are
then adjusted back to account for only These papers included some local deficient in providing accurate costs,
those invasions that are attributable to (regional) data as well as national. The and thus justification on a cost/benefit
ballast water (even though this type of Coast Guard will continue to monitor basis for implementation of the rule as
data involve a great deal of uncertainty, peer-reviewed literature to incorporate proposed. The commenter also states
see Fofonoff et al., 2003) and that these new studies and estimates as they that NPRM provides much information
values are then adjusted again to become available. relative to the compliance costs for U.S.-
account for those invasions that cause One commenter stated that it was flagged vessels but little more than a
economic harm. unclear in the DPEIS whether the cost passing comment on compliance costs
The Coast Guard acknowledges that associated with failure to achieve the for foreign-flagged vessels (74 FR
the calculations to determine the objectives (e.g., habitat loss or 22643).
number of invasions and economic modification, lost productivity of The Coast Guard estimated cost
damage that could be reduced by the commercially viable native species, lost impacts for foreign-flagged vessels in
proposed BWMS are complicated and value of existing mitigation/restoration the NPRM RA (see Appendix C) and the
subject to uncertainty. However, the actions) was addressed for each of the final rule RA (see Appendix D). As
Coast Guard believes that each of the alternatives. The commenter further previously discussed, we have also
steps is appropriate and necessary in states that the true cost of implementing made the phase-one standard as
order to narrow the number of invasions an alternative should include the cost to consistent as possible with the IMO
considered to only those that could be the environment associated with NIS BWM Convention’s discharge standard.
reduced specifically by BWMS. In introductions under that alternative. We assume foreign government
addition, as these calculations were The Coast Guard acknowledges that administrations that adopt the IMO
used to develop monetized estimates of some environmental costs of invasions BWM Convention and the foreign-
benefits, we also needed to limit the cannot be easily monetized. The Coast flagged vessels they administer to be
analysis to those invasions that cause Guard used the best data available at the responsible for the implementation and
economic harm. time of the research; we reviewed peer compliance with the IMO BWM
One commenter asked what damages reviewed papers on invasion-related Convention once it comes into force. We
are likely to result from the costs and benefits. In addition to the assume these foreign government
implementation of alternatives 3 DPEIS, chapter 5 of the NPRM RA administrations and the foreign-flagged
through 5. In the NPRM RA (available presents an estimate of the value of the vessels they administer to be
on the docket), chapter 5 (table 5.12), economic harm caused by invasive NIS. responsible for the costs associated with
the Coast Guard presents the total We calculated these values in order to the implementation and compliance of
potential benefit from different estimate the range of monetary benefits the IMO BWM Convention. Therefore,
proposed BWDS alternatives. The from the proposed rule to compare in the analyses of the NPRM and this
values presented in this table enable the against cost estimates. final rule, our primary cost estimate of
comparison of the benefits of One commenter stated that the the phase-one standard rule includes
alternatives 2, 3, and 4. As stated in the benefits presented for alternative 2 costs to U.S. flagged-vessels only. This
DPEIS, it is assumed that the should also be presented for alternatives is similar to Coast Guard’s assessment of
implementation of alternatives 2 3 through 5. In the NPRM RA (available impacts from regulations related to
through 5 would not have additional on the docket), chapter 5 (table 5.12), other international conventions, which
adverse impacts on environmental and the Coast Guard presents the total take into account the costs incurred by
socioeconomic resources. Based on this potential benefits from different U.S. vessels and owners and operators
assumption, the alternatives considered proposed alternatives. The values only (e.g., regulations related to The
in the DPEIS differ only in their presented in this table enable the Standards of Training, Certification &
potential to reduce the probability of comparison of the benefits of Watchkeeping Convention (STCW) and
NIS threatening the ecological stability alternatives 2, 3, and 4. In addition, the regulations related to the International
of infested waters or other resources Coast Guard is now further investigating Convention for the Prevention of
dependent on such waters. The impact costs and benefits of more stringent Pollution From Ships (MARPOL)).
of implementing the BWDS defined standards. Nonetheless, the Coast Guard
under each alternative is determined by One commenter requested that the 3 estimated the foreign vessel costs of this
the respective reduction in the number and 7 percent discount rates be rule in order to illustrate the potential
of living organisms that are introduced. explained in the DPEIS, as they are not economic impact to foreign-flagged
One commenter stated their concern commonly understood by individuals vessel owners operating in the waters of
about the completeness and accuracy of outside of finance. The Coast Guard the United States. The detailed
the information used in the DPEIS. The followed the guidelines from OMB description of the economic impact on
commenter added that the economic Circular A–4, which provides guidance foreign vessels is presented in the
and environmental benefits of effective to Federal agencies on the development NPRM RA (Appendix C), available on
controls on ballast water discharge are of regulatory analysis as required under the docket.
One commenter suggested adding a the cost will have minimal impact on commenter expressed concerns about
column to the DPEIS’ ‘‘Estimated the costs of goods and services. In the Coast Guard directing sufficient
Number of Ballast Water Invasions that addition, there are only a few funding to the implementation of the
Cause Harm’’ table for diseases, viruses, substitutes for the maritime regulations. One commenter
etc., and an ‘‘Other’’ column for fish, transportation of goods from overseas recommended that the Coast Guard
plants, and invertebrates. The and producers. The Coast Guard did not revise 33 CFR 151.2050(c) to more
commenter cited VHS in particular, find information or data indicating that accurately reflect when local, State, or
stating that while it is uncertain that there will be large modal shifts. Federal regulations apply to sediment
ballast water was the mechanism for disposal, such as under controlled
Phase-Two Comments
introduction of VHS, it is the likely arrangements at port or drydock. These
cause, and that State and Federal agency Twenty commenters addressed the comments are beyond the scope of this
costs to address VHS infection will phase-two standard in one way or rule.
continue to rise as the disease spreads another. Additionally, nine commenters One commenter suggested the Coast
throughout the Great Lakes and inland stated that the NPRM and DPEIS do not Guard enter into a Memorandum of
waters. The Coast Guard disagrees with evaluate the phase-two standard and Understanding with the Department of
this comment and believes there is that they are incomplete without an the Interior to address invasive species
sufficient information in the FPEIS as it assessment of the environmental concerns.
stands. impacts of this standard. One of these The Coast Guard strives to work
One commenter stated that while the commenters also stated that the DPEIS closely and collaboratively with all
proposed rule uses the words should clarify that alternative 5 Federal agencies on matters of mutual
‘‘introduction’’ and ‘‘spread’’ in relation (elimination of all living organisms interest. More formal arrangements will
to ballast water, the solution makes no larger than 0.1 micrometer) does not be pursued when necessary.
distinction between these vastly correspond to the proposed phase-two One commenter recommended that
different issues. The commenter said standard. STEP permit the enrollment of vessel
that the DPEIS fails to calculate the As we discussed in this preamble in
fleets as an incentive for participation.
costs and benefits of BWMS regarding V.A. Summary of Changes from the
Another commenter recommended
the introduction to or spread within an NPRM, the Coast Guard has removed
providing incentives to companies that
ecosystem separately which the the proposed phase-two standard from
could lead to the development of
commenter believes is counter to the this final rule. However, after additional
freshwater BWDS.
conclusions of the Great Lakes Regional analysis and research we intend to issue
The STEP processes and development
Collaboration that the most appropriate a rule addressing the proposed phase-
of ballast water treatment technologies
response to NIS was to require BWMS two standard or any standard higher
are beyond the scope of this rule. The
on ocean-going vessels and Best than phase-one, and will keep these
comments will be forwarded to the
Management Practices on Great Lakes comments in mind as we develop that
STEP managers and appropriate Coast
vessels. The Coast Guard disagrees with rule.
One commenter recommended that Guard office for consideration.
this comment, as we believe the BWDS
the standard 1,000 times more stringent One commenter questioned whether
must be used to combat both the
than phase one be included in the PEIS, treated ballast water would be subject to
introduction and spread of NIS in
waters of the United States. as well as a zero-discharge alternative the EPA VGP or be considered an
that also restricts ocean vessel access to industrial discharge and therefore
Modal Shift Comments on the DPEIS the Great Lakes. The Coast Guard partly require a separate NPDES permit.
Two commenters stated that it is agrees with this comment. We We consulted EPA and confirmed that
important to consider the potentially acknowledge that the PEIS must include ballast water treated and discharged in
devastating environmental impacts of a the proposed phase-two standard. We waters of the United States, as that term
large-scale modal shift in their region, have already begun this process, and is defined in the Clean Water Act, by a
which already has a high volume of expect to issue a revised PEIS when we vessel under this regulation would be
truck traffic to facilitate border trade address the proposed phase-two subject to the EPA VGP.
and the North American Free Trade standard or any standard higher than One commenter stated that a rapid
Agreement corridor. Another phase-one. However, the PEIS evaluates response program to mitigate
commenter raised the possibility that a BWDS that applies to the entire infestations of invasive NIS should be a
the cost of retrofitting vessels for BWMS United States, and not by individual guiding principle of the regulations.
could result in a modal shift of cargoes geographic areas. Rapid response to invasions is beyond
to surface transportation, resulting in the scope of the rule, which focuses on
the ‘‘unintended consequences’’ of less 8. Beyond the Scope preventing the introduction of new
carbon-efficient transportation, We received many comments that invasions. However, as a member of the
increased air emissions, more severely were beyond the scope of this rule. Aquatic Nuisance Species Task Force,
crowded roadways and increased Below, we summarize these comments, the Coast Guard works with other
infrastructure costs. and respond to those that though Federal and State agencies to improve
As previously discussed in the NPRM beyond the scope, do have some the nation’s invasive species response
RA, we compared the costs of relevance to this rule. capabilities.
implementing the BWDS to shipping Two commenters encouraged the Fifty-four commenters urged the Coast
revenues and consumer retail prices for United States to ratify the IMO BWM Guard to work closely with the EPA, the
good typically transported by vessels. Convention. One commenter States, Canada and the IMO in
We have also compared amortized recommended conducting a developing a coordinated Federal ballast
installation costs to long-term charter multinational risk assessment of vessel- water program. One commenter urged
rates. These costs typically represent mediated invasions of Arctic areas. One the administration to consider NISA as
less than one percent of long-term commenter suggested methods of the sole standard for ballast water
charter rates. Although the overall cost funding the eradication of existing discharge by ocean-going vessels.
of implementing this rule is significant, aquatic nuisance species. Another Conversely, one commenter asked that
ballast water regulation of vessels in the be subject to all other applicable U.S. supplemented by Executive Order
offshore energy services be left to States. laws, such as the CWA, which does not 13563, Improving Regulation and
These comments are beyond the scope contain an exemption. Regulatory Review. OMB has reviewed
of this rule, however, we note that we it under those Orders. It requires an
have worked and will continue to work VI. Incorporation by Reference
assessment of potential costs and
closely with Federal, international, and The Director of the Federal Register benefits under section 6(a)(3) of
State partners to develop a consistent, has approved the material in 46 CFR Executive Order 12866. We have revised
coordinated ballast water program. 162.060–5 for incorporation by the estimates from the NPRM
Four commenters provided reference under 5 U.S.C. 552 and 1 CFR Preliminary Regulatory Analysis
suggestions on implementation and part 51. You may inspect this material (‘‘NPRM RA’’) to reflect the changes
enforcement of the BWM program and at U.S. Coast Guard Headquarters where described in this preamble under V.
information sharing among indicated under ADDRESSES. Copies of Discussion of Comments and Changes.
governmental agencies and the public. the material are available from the A final rule Regulatory Analysis (‘‘Final
While they did not address any sources listed in 46 CFR 162.060–5. Rule RA’’) with revised impact
proposals from the NPRM, these estimates of the phase-one BWDS is
comments had merit and will be kept in VII. Regulatory Analyses
available in the docket as indicated
mind as the Coast Guard continues to We developed this final rule after under ADDRESSES. A summary of the
refine its BWM program. considering numerous statutes and findings follows.
Seven commenters urged the removal executive orders related to rulemaking.
of the exemption for crude oil tankers Below we summarize our analyses The final rule RA provides an
engaged in coastwise trade under NISA. based on 14 of these statutes or evaluation of the economic impacts
While we appreciate the commenters’ executive orders. associated with this final rule, which is
intent, the Coast Guard lacks the the implementation of the phase-one
authority for the requested action, A. Regulatory Planning and Review BWDS.
therefore this request is outside of the This final rule is an economically Table 1 provides a comparison of
scope of this rule. 16 U.S.C. significant regulatory action under regulatory impacts resulting from
4711(c)(2)(L). However, crude oil section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866, changes between the NPRM and the
tankers engaged in coastwise trade will Regulatory Planning and Review, as final rule.
TABLE 1—COMPARISON OF REGULATORY IMPACTS RESULTING FROM CHANGES BETWEEN THE NPRM AND FINAL RULE
Category NPRM Final rule
Applicability ......................................................... All vessels discharging ballast water into U.S. Oceangoing vessels and some coastwise ves-
waters. sels (>1,600 GT) discharging ballast water
in U.S. waters.
Compliance Start Date ....................................... Beginning 2012 ................................................ Revised, beginning 2013.
Number of BWMS Installations on Vessels (10- 4,758 ................................................................ 3,046.
year period of analysis).
Costs ($ millions,7 percent discount rate) .......... $167 (annualized) ............................................ $92 (annualized).
$1,176 (10-year). $649 (10-year).
Benefits ($ millions,7 percent discount rate) ...... $165–$282 (annualized) .................................. $141–$240 (annualized)
$1,161–$1,977 (10-year). $989–$1,684 (10-year).
Note: The Regulatory Analysis in the docket for this rulemaking presents additional discussion of calculations and ranges for costs and
benefits.
Based on data from the Marine Costs Benefits

Information for Safety and Law
Enforcement system and the NBIC, we The primary cost drivers of this rule NIS introductions contribute to the
estimate that approximately 3,046 are installation related costs. We loss of marine biodiversity and have
existing and new U.S. vessels will estimate operation and maintenance significant social, economic, and
potentially be required to install and costs to be substantially less. Costs vary environmental impacts. Avoided costs
operate approved BWMS over a 10-year by year based on the implementation associated with future initial NIS
period of analysis.6 As originally schedule of this rule. Over a 10-year invasions and secondary spread of
discussed in the NPRM, we consider the period of analysis, the total discounted invasions (which may result from the
phase-one BWDS regulatory costs of this present value cost for U.S. vessels is initial invasion) represent the primary
rule to involve U.S. vessels, as foreign- approximately $649 million at a 7 benefits of BWM. Economic costs
flagged vessels are expected to comply percent discount rate (rounded primary (damages) from invasions of NIS range
pursuant to the IMO BWM Convention, estimate).8 We estimate the annualized in the billions of dollars annually. The
which is the phase-one BWDS.7 cost over the same period of analysis to most extensive review to date on the
be about $92 million at a 7 percent economic costs of introduced species in
6 This 10-year period of analysis was used to discount rate. Our cost assessment the United States includes estimates for
estimate costs and benefits in the NPRM. See the includes existing and new vessels.
NPRM RA and the final rule RA for additional many types of NIS and is summarized
discussion and detail on costs and benefits over in Table 2.
various periods of time. cost estimates for foreign-flagged vessels projected
7 Foreign government administrations signing on to call in waters of the United States.
to the IMO Convention and the foreign-flagged 8 Cost and benefit estimates discussed in this final
vessels they administer will be responsible for rule are based on a 7 percent discount rate. See the
compliance with the IMO Convention once it comes final rule RA in the docket for additional discussion
into force. The final rule RA presents supplemental and estimates using other discount rates.
TABLE 2—ESTIMATED ANNUAL COSTS the mean rate of successful significant economic impact (more than
ASSOCIATED WITH AQUATIC NIS IN- introductions for the phase-one 1 percent impact on revenue) during
TRODUCTION IN THE UNITED STATES standard. In comparison with the installation. After installation, however,
existing practice of BWE, the proposed we found most small businesses would
[$ in 2007]
phase-one BWDS is between 37 percent not incur a significant economic impact
Species Costs and 63 percent more effective in from annual recurring operating costs.
preventing invasions when fully We have determined that this final rule
Fish ..................................... $5.7 billion. implemented (see the FPEIS for further will have a significant economic impact
Zebra and Quagga Mussels $1.06 billion. details on effectiveness). We use these on a substantial number of small
Asiatic Clam ........................ $1.06 billion. estimates of the reduction in the rate of entities.
Aquatic Weeds ................... $117 million. invasions to estimate the economic costs
Green Crab ......................... $47 million. avoided (or benefits) as a result of a C. Assistance for Small Entities
Source: Pimentel, D. et al., 2005. ‘‘Update BWDS. Under section 213(a) of the Small
on the environmental and economic costs as- Over a 10-year period of analysis, we Business Regulatory Enforcement
sociated with alien-invasive species in the estimate the total discounted present Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104–121),
United States,’’ Ecological Economics. we want to assist small entities in
52:273–288. value benefits of the phase-one BWDS to
be $0.989 billion to $1.684 billion understanding the rule so that they can
Though a particular invasion may (rounded primary estimate).9 We better evaluate its effects on them and
have small direct economic impacts, the estimate the annualized benefits over participate in the rulemaking. If the rule
accumulation of these events may cost the same period of analysis to be $141 would affect your small business,
in the billions of dollars every year. million to $240 million per year. organization, or governmental
Only a few invasions to date have led jurisdiction and you have questions
As previously discussed, the
to quantified cost estimates in the concerning its provisions or options for
annualized cost for domestic vessels
billions of dollars per year. compliance, please call or email Mr.
The benefits of BWDS are difficult to over the period of analysis for the
phase-one BWDS is estimated at about John Morris, Project Manager, U.S. Coast
quantify because of the complexity of Guard, telephone 202–372–1433, email
ecosystems and a lack of information to $92 million. Thus, quantified average
benefits exceed quantified average costs John.C.Morris@uscg.mil. The Coast
estimate the probabilities of invasions Guard will not retaliate against small
based on prescribed levels of organisms for the phase-one BWDS. We also expect entities that question or complain about
in ballast water. However, evaluation of quantified benefits to increase as this final rule or any policy or action of
costs associated with previous invasions technology is developed to achieve the Coast Guard.
(described previously) allows a more stringent discharge standards than Small businesses may send comments
comparison of the costs of BWDS versus the phase-one BWDS. on the actions of Federal employees
the costs of avoided damages. B. Small Entities who enforce, or otherwise determine
The primary benefit of this rule comes compliance with, Federal regulations to
from a reduction in the concentration of Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act
the Small Business and Agriculture
all organisms, leading to lower numbers (5 U.S.C. 601–612), we have considered
Regulatory Enforcement Ombudsman
of these organisms being introduced per whether this final rule would have a
and the Regional Small Business
discharge. This further reduces the significant economic impact on a
Regulatory Fairness Boards. The
number of new invasions because the substantial number of small entities.
Ombudsman evaluates these actions
likelihood of establishment decreases The term ‘‘small entities’’ comprises
annually and rates each agency’s
with reduced numbers of organisms small businesses, not-for-profit
responsiveness to small business. If you
introduced per discharge. organizations that are independently
wish to comment on actions by
The quantified benefits have owned and operated and are not
employees of the Coast Guard, call 1–
decreased between the NPRM and the dominant in their fields, and
888–REG–FAIR (1–888–734–3247).
final rule due to the longer phase-in governmental jurisdictions with
period (see Table 1 this section). We use populations of less than 50,000. D. Collection of Information
the same benefits model for the final A Final Regulatory Flexibility This final rule calls for new collection
rule as we did for the NPRM. This Analysis discussing the impact of this of information under the Paperwork
model quantifies benefits resulting from final rule on small entities is available Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995 (44 U.S.C.
the reduction in ‘‘initial invasions’’ from in the docket where indicated under 3501–3520). As defined in 5 CFR
vessels engaged in ocean-going trade. ADDRESSES. 1320.3(c), ‘‘collection of information’’
We have not found complete data or Based on available data, we estimate comprises reporting, recordkeeping,
identified appropriate models to that about 29 percent of entities affected monitoring, posting, labeling, and other,
quantify the possible benefits associated by the final rule requirements are small similar actions. The title and
with reducing the secondary spread of under the Regulatory Flexibility Act and description of the information
invasions. Therefore, we do not expect the SBA size standards (compared to the collections, a description of those who
the exemption of inland vessels to 57 percent of entities affected by the must collect the information, and an
reduce the estimate of quantified NPRM provisions). This is due to the estimate of the total annual burden
benefits given data and modeling changes in the applicability (detailed follow. The estimate covers the time for
limitations. See the Benefits chapter of explanation of applicability changes on reviewing instructions, searching
the final rule RA for more discussion on section V.B.3 of this final rule). Based existing sources of data, gathering and
the data and modeling framework used on our assessment of the impacts from maintaining the data needed, and
for this rulemaking. the phase-one BWDS, we determined completing and reviewing the
We calculate potential benefits of the that small entities would incur a collection. This new collection of
phase-one BWDS by estimating the information is due to the final rule
number of initial invasions reduced and on aEstimates discussed in this final rule are based
9
7 percent discount rate. See the final rule RA

provision that allows vessel owners and
the range of economic damage avoided. in the docket for additional discussion and operators to request a compliance
The FPEIS estimates the reduction in estimates using other discount rates. extension.
In the NPRM, we found that there was possible, giving flexibility to vessel request compliance extensions for the
no new collection of information for owners and operators to comply with reasons listed above. We estimate the
BWMS approval. This finding was this final rule. total average number of vessels that will
based on the fact that our research Extension evaluations will be on a submit a request for extension to be 292.
indicated that there are 25–30 per-vessel basis. Summary information Frequency of the Response: Vessel
manufacturers developing BWMS for concerning all extension decisions, owners and operators will submit a
installation onboard vessels.10 We including the name of the vessel and compliance extension request once.
expect to receive less than 10 BWMS vessel owner, the term of the extension, Burden of Response: We estimate that
approval requests per year. This figure and the basis for the extension will be there could be an average of 292 existing
is less than the threshold of 10 per 12- promptly posted on the Internet. vessels that could request an extension
month period for collection of Extensions will be for no longer than the for installing a BWMS. The 292 is the
information reporting purposes under minimum time needed, as determined total number of vessels estimated to
the PRA of 1995. by the Coast Guard, for the vessel to request the extension. We estimate that
The final rule’s new collection of comply with the requirements of the average time burden to prepare and
information is a result of public § 151.2030. submit a request is approximately 8
comments received in the NPRM. In this Any extension request must be made hours (6 hours management and 2 hours
final rule, we have included a no later than 12 months before the clerical) 11 but burden may vary
paperwork provision to allow vessel scheduled implementation date listed in depending on type of vessel and reason
owners and operators to request an § 151.1512(b) of this subpart and for the extension request. The total
extension of their compliance date if submitted in writing to the average burden hours of vessels
they cannot practicably comply with the Commandant (CG–522), U.S. Coast requesting an extension is
compliance date otherwise applicable to Guard Office of Operating and approximately 2,336 hours (292 vessels
their vessel. This extension provision Environmental Standards, 2100 2nd St. × 8 hours for completing and submitting
will give flexibility to vessel owners and SW., Stop 7126, Washington, DC 20593– the extension documentation). The total
operators to comply with this rule. 7126. burden cost is $141,328, calculated by
Summary information concerning all Proposed Use of Information: The
(a) + (b):
extension decisions, including the name Coast Guard will use the information
provided in the extension request to (a) Assuming someone at a management
of the vessel and vessel owner, the term level (equivalent to GS–12 (out-of-
of the extension, and the basis for the evaluate whether to grant extension and
for what period of time, and to keep government rate)) prepares the submission to
extension will be promptly posted on the Coast Guard, the applicable wage rate is
the U.S. Coast Guard Maritime records of vessels not meeting the $69/hour.12 Therefore, the total management
Information Exchange Web site established compliance date. The cost for preparing the extension request is
(CGMIX), currently located at [http:// compliance extension provides $69 × 6 hrs × 292 vessels = $120,888.
cgmix.uscg.mil/Default.aspx]. additional time to determine how (b) Assuming someone at the clerical level
The Coast Guard is amending the BWMS can be safely installed. An (equivalent to GS–5 (out-of-government rate))
existing collection of information (OMB extension postpones installation costs files the copies, then the applicable wage rate
Control Number: 1625–0069) to add the for affected vessels. is $35/hour.13 Therefore, the total
Description of the Respondents: management cost for preparing the extension
above mentioned requests for extension. request is $35 × 2hrs × 292 vessels = $20,440.
Title: Ballast Water Management for Vessel owners and operators subject to
Vessels with Ballast Tanks Entering U.S. the requirements of this final rule (see The estimated cost per vessel is $484
Waters. section V.A.3. Applicability). ($141,328/292 vessels). The final cost of
Summary of the Collection of Number of Respondents: We do not the final rule does not change given the
Information: The information is needed have information on the potential amount of this paperwork requirement.
to carry out the requirements of 16 number of vessel owners and operators Estimate of Total Annual Burden: At
U.S.C. 4711 regarding the management that will take advantage of the this time, we do not have information
of ballast water, to prevent the compliance extension at this time. We on how many vessel owners and
introduction and spread of aquatic estimate that between 10 and 30 percent operators will be requesting compliance
nuisance species into U.S. waters. of owners and operators of U.S. vessels extension per year. We expect to obtain
Respondents are owners and operators affected by this final rule might request this information as we process the
of certain vessels. The Coast Guard is the extension based on preliminary requests. If we assume that 10 percent
amending the existing collection of information from industry, BWMS of the estimated owners of 292 vessels
information to include application for vendors and Coast Guard experts. We (see ‘‘Burden of Response,’’ above) will
extensions as established in this final anticipate that extension requests will be applying to an extension every year,
rule (33 CFR 151.1513 or 151.2036). be based on issues related to safety and then the annual burden will be equal to
Need for Information: The Coast regulatory requirements of electrical approximately 234 hours (29.2 vessels ×
Guard may grant an extension to the equipment, vessel capacity to 8 hrs or 10 percent of 2,336 hours). The
implementation schedule only in those accommodate BWMS, vessel age,
cases where the master, owner, operator, shipyard availability, and other reasons. 11 This estimate is based on an existing collection
agent, or person in charge of a vessel At this time, we do not have the data to of information (OMB Control Number 1625–0095)
subject to this subpart can document determine the potential number of for requests of exemption and alternatives for Oil
requests for extension. We expect to and Hazardous Materials Pollution and Safety
that, despite all efforts, compliance with Records Equivalent.
obtain this information as we process
the requirements of this final rule is not 12 Wage rate obtained from Enclosure (2) to
the requests. We will revise this COMDTINST 7310.1M and validated based on the
10 Sources: Lloyds Register Report, Ballast Water collection of information as we post the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) subcategory
Treatment Technology-Current Status, September requests on the Web site or as needed. Managers (Occupation Code 11–9199).
2008; and California State Lands Commission We estimate that owners and 13 Wage rate obtained from Enclosure (2) to
Report, Assessment of the Efficacy, Availability, COMDTINST 7310.1M and validated based on the
and Environmental Impacts of Ballast Water
operators of approximately 146 to 438 Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) subcategory First-
Treatment Systems in California Waters, January vessels (estimated total U.S. vessel line Supervisor of office and Administrative
2009. affected by this rule is 1,459) might Support Worker (Occupation Code 43–1011).
annual cost will be approximately We received a number of comments, I. Protection of Children

$14,132 (10 percent of $141,328). from organizations, individuals, and We have analyzed this rule under
As required by the Paperwork States, on the issue of preemption. Executive Order 13045, Protection of
Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. These comments are summarized and Children from Environmental Health
3507(d)), we will submit a copy of this addressed in this preamble in V.B.6. Risks and Safety Risks. Though this rule
rule to the Office of Management and Legal. is economically significant, it does not
Budget (OMB) for its review of the create an environmental risk to health or
collection of information. F. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
risk to safety that may
We ask for public comment on the The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act disproportionately affect children.
proposed collection of information to of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531–1538) requires
help us determine how useful the Federal agencies to assess the effects of J. Indian Tribal Governments
information is; whether it can help us their discretionary regulatory actions. In This rule does not have tribal
perform our functions better; whether it particular, the Act addresses actions implications under Executive Order
is readily available elsewhere; how that may result in the expenditure by a 13175, Consultation and Coordination
accurate our estimate of the burden of State, local, or tribal government, in the with Indian Tribal Governments,
collection is; how valid our methods for aggregate or by the private sector, of because it does not have a substantial
determining burden are; how we can $100,000,000 (adjusted for inflation direct effect on one or more Indian
improve the quality, usefulness, and with a base year of 1995) or more in any tribes, on the relationship between the
clarity of the information; and how we 1 year (2 U.S.C. 1532). The Coast Guard Federal Government and Indian tribes,
can minimize the burden of collection. currently uses an inflation-adjusted or on the distribution of power and
If you submit comments on the value of about $140.8 million in lieu of responsibilities between the Federal
collection of information, submit them $100 million.14 The private sector will Government and Indian tribes.
both to OMB and to the Docket incur costs exceeding the $140.8 million
Management Facility where indicated K. Energy Effects
threshold during the third and fourth
under ADDRESSES, by the date under years of the rule implementation period We have analyzed this rule under
DATES. (see Regulatory Analysis in the docket Executive Order 13211, Actions
You need not respond to a collection for additional details). Concerning Regulations That
of information unless it displays a Significantly Affect Energy Supply,
In accordance with 2 U.S.C.
currently valid control number from Distribution, or Use. We have
1532(a)(1), this rule generally would be
OMB. Before the Coast Guard could determined that it is not a ‘‘significant
promulgated under the authority of 46
enforce the collection of information energy action’’ under that order. Though
U.S.C. Chapter 45 and also under the
requirements in this rule, OMB would it is a ‘‘significant regulatory action’’
authority of the statutes, Executive
need to approve the Coast Guard’s under Executive Order 12866, it is not
Orders, and delegations cited in the
request to collect this information. likely to have a significant adverse effect
‘‘Authority’’ lines of the specific Code of
E. Federalism Federal Regulations parts we propose to on the supply, distribution, or use of
amend. We include the assessments and energy. The Administrator of the Office
A rule has implications for federalism of Information and Regulatory Affairs
estimates that would be required by 2
under Executive Order 13132, has not designated it as a significant
U.S.C. 1532(a)(2) through (a)(4) in the
Federalism, if it has a substantial direct energy action. Therefore, it does not
Regulatory Analysis report available in
effect on State or local governments and require a Statement of Energy Effects
the docket as indicated under the
would either preempt State law or under Executive Order 13211.
ADDRESSES section of this preamble.
impose a substantial direct cost of
compliance on them. L. Technical Standards
G. Taking of Private Property
We have analyzed this rule under that The National Technology Transfer
Order and have determined that it does This rule will not cause a taking of and Advancement Act (15 U.S.C. 272
not have implications for federalism. private property or otherwise have note) directs agencies to use voluntary
NANPCA, as amended by NISA, taking implications under Executive consensus standards in their regulatory
contains a ‘‘savings provision’’ that Order 12630, Governmental Actions and activities unless the agency provides
saves to the States their authority to Interference with Constitutionally Congress, through OMB, with an
‘‘adopt or enforce control measures for Protected Property Rights. explanation of why using these
aquatic nuisance species, [and nothing H. Civil Justice Reform standards would be inconsistent with
in the Act would] diminish or affect the applicable law or otherwise impractical.
jurisdiction of any State over species of This rule meets applicable standards Voluntary consensus standards are
fish and wildlife.’’ 16 U.S.C. 4725. It in sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of Executive technical standards (e.g., specifications
also requires that ‘‘[a]ll actions taken by Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform, to of materials, performance, design, or
Federal agencies in implementing the minimize litigation, eliminate operation; test methods; sampling
provisions of [the Act] be consistent ambiguity, and reduce burden. procedures; and related management
with all applicable Federal, State and systems practices) that are developed or
local environmental laws.’’ Thus, the 14 The value equivalent to $100,000,000 in adopted by voluntary consensus
congressional mandate is clearly for a calendar year 1995 adjusted for inflation to calendar standards bodies.
Federal-State cooperative regime in year 2009 is about $140,800,000 (rounded to the This rule uses a number of technical
nearest 100,000) using the Consumer Price Index for

combating the introduction and spread All Urban Consumers (CPI–U) as published by the
standards, all of which are voluntary
of NIS into the waters of the United Bureau of Labor Statistics, series CUUR0000SA0, consensus standards. These may be
States from ships’ ballast water. This http://www.bls.gov/data/top20.htm (accessed 4/26/ found in the technology approval
makes it unlikely that preemption, 2010). Calendar year 2009 is the latest complete program amendments to 46 CFR part
year for the annual CPI–U data series. This
which would necessitate consultation adjustment is based on recent Department of
162 and are listed below.
with the States under Executive Order Transportation guidance on adjustments to the The voluntary consensus standards
13132, would occur. annual threshold (see http://regs.dot.gov/). used by this rule are:
(1) International Electrotechnical ■ 2. Revise § 151.1502 to read as include the territorial sea as extended to
Commission (IEC), 529, Degrees of follows: 12 nautical miles from the baseline,
Protection Provided by Enclosures, pursuant to Presidential Proclamation
1989; § 151.1502 Applicability. No. 5928 of December 27, 1988.
(2) International Organization for This subpart applies to all non- * * * * *
Standardization (ISO) and the IEC, ISO/ recreational vessels, U.S. and foreign,
■ 4. Add new § 151.1505 to read as
IEC 17025, General Requirements for the that are equipped with ballast tanks
that, after operating on the waters follows:
Competence of Calibration and Testing
Laboratories, 2005; and beyond the Exclusive Economic Zone § 151.1505 Severability.
(4) Environmental Protection during any part of its voyage, enter the If a court finds any portion of this
Agency’s Environmental Technology Snell Lock at Massena, New York, or subpart to have been promulgated
Verification (ETV) Program Generic navigates north of the George without proper authority, the remainder
Protocol for the Verification of Ballast Washington Bridge on the Hudson of this subpart will remain in full effect.
Water Treatment Technologies. River, regardless of other port calls in
■ 5. In § 151.1510—
M. Environment the United States or Canada during that
■ a. Revise the section heading; b.
voyage, except as expressly provided in
We have analyzed this rule under 33 CFR 151.2015(a). All vessels subject Revise paragraphs (a)(1) and (a)(3) and
Department of Homeland Security to this subpart are also required to add new paragraph (a)(4); c. Add new
Management Directive 023–01 and comply with the applicable paragraph (d).
Commandant Instruction M16475.lD, requirements of 33 CFR 151.2050, The revisions and additions read as
which guide the Coast Guard in 151.2060, and 151.2070. follows:
complying with NEPA (42 U.S.C. 4321–
■ 3. In § 151.1504, add, in alphabetical § 151.1510 Ballast water management
4370f), and have concluded that this requirements.
order, definitions for the terms
action may have a significant effect on
‘‘Alternate management system (AMS)’’, (a) * * *
the human environment. A Final
‘‘Ballast water management system (1) Carry out an exchange of ballast
Programmatic Environmental Impact
(BWMS)’’, ‘‘Constructed’’, and ‘‘Waters water on the waters beyond the U.S.
Statement and Record of Decision are
of the United States’’ to read as follows: Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ), from
available in the docket where indicated
under ADDRESSES, and include a an area more than 200 nautical miles
§ 151.1504 Definitions.
summary of our actions to comply with from any shore, and in waters more than
* * * * * 2,000 meters (6,560 feet, 1,093 fathoms)
NEPA. Alternate management system (AMS) deep, such that, at the conclusion of the
List of Subjects means a ballast water management exchange, any tank from which ballast
system approved by a foreign water will be discharged contains water
33 CFR Part 151 administration pursuant to the with a minimum salinity level of 30
Administrative practice and standards set forth in the International parts per thousand, unless the vessel is
procedure, Ballast water management, Maritime Organization’s International required to employ an approved ballast
Oil pollution, Penalties, Reporting and BWM Convention, and meeting all water management system (BWMS) per
recordkeeping requirements, Water applicable requirements of U.S. law, the schedule in § 151.1512(b) of this
pollution control. and which is used in lieu of ballast subpart. This exchange must occur prior
46 CFR Part 162 water exchange. to entry into the Snell Lock at Massena,
* * * * * NY, or navigating on the Hudson River,
Ballast water management, Fire
Ballast water management system north of the George Washington Bridge.
prevention, Incorporation by reference,
(BWMS) means any system which An alternative management system
Marine safety, Oil pollution, Reporting
processes ballast water to kill, render (AMS) that meets the requirements of 33
and recordkeeping requirements.
harmless, or remove organisms. The CFR 151.2026 may also be used, so long
For the reasons discussed in the BWMS includes all ballast water as it was installed on the vessel prior to
preamble, the Coast Guard amends 33 treatment equipment and all associated the date that the vessel is required to
CFR part 151 and 46 CFR part 162 as control and monitoring equipment. comply with the ballast water discharge
follows:
* * * * * standard in accordance with
Title 33—Navigation and Navigable Constructed in respect to a vessel § 151.1512(b) of this subpart. If using an
Waters means a stage of construction when— AMS, the master, owner, operator,
CHAPTER I—COAST GUARD (1) The keel of a vessel is laid; agent, or person in charge of the vessel
(2) Construction identifiable with the subject to this subpart may employ the
Subchapter O—Pollution specific vessel begins; AMS for no longer than 5 years from the
(3) Assembly of the vessel has date they would otherwise be required
PART 151—VESSELS CARRYING OIL,
commenced and comprises at least 50 to comply with the ballast water
NOXIOUS LIQUID SUBSTANCES,
tons or 1 percent of the estimated mass discharge standard in accordance with
GARBAGE, MUNICIPAL OR
of all structural material, whichever is § 151.1512(b) of this subpart.
COMMERCIAL WASTE, AND BALLAST
less; or * * * * *
WATER
(4) The vessel undergoes a major (3) Install and operate a BWMS that
Subpart C—Ballast Water Management conversion. has been approved by the Coast Guard
for Control of Nonindigenous Species * * * * * under 46 CFR part 162, in accordance

in the Great Lakes and Hudson River Waters of the United States means with § 151.1512(b) of this subpart.
waters subject to the jurisdiction of the Following installation of a BWMS, the
■ 1. The authority citation for subpart C United States as defined in 33 CFR 2.38, master, owner, operator, agent, or
continues to read as follows: including the navigable waters of the person in charge of the vessel must
Authority: 16 U.S.C. 4711; Department of United States. For 33 CFR part 151, maintain the BWMS in accordance with
Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1. subparts C and D, the navigable waters all manufacturer specifications.
(i) Requirements for approval of (i) For Toxicogenic Vibrio cholerae (iv) The safety of any identified
BWMS are found in 46 CFR part (serotypes O1 and O139): a technology;
162.060. concentration of less than 1 colony (v) Whether the use of any identified
(ii) Requests for approval of BWMS forming unit (cfu) per 100 mL. technology may have an adverse impact
must be submitted to the Commanding (ii) For Escherichia coli: a on the environment;
Officer (Marine Safety Center), U.S. concentration of fewer than 250 cfu per (vi) The cost of any identified
Coast Guard Marine Safety Center, 2100 100 mL. technology;
2nd St. SW., Stop 7102, Washington, DC (iii) For intestinal enterococci: a (vii) The economic impact of any
20593–7102, or by email to concentration of fewer than 100 cfu per identified technology, including the
msc@uscg.mil. 100 mL. impact on shipping, small businesses,
(4) Use only water from a U.S. public (b) [Reserved] and other uses of the aquatic
water system (PWS), as defined in 40 (c) The Coast Guard will conduct a environment;
CFR 141.2 and that meets the practicability review as follows: (viii) The availability, accuracy,
requirements of 40 CFR parts 141 and (1) No later than January 1, 2016, the precision, and cost of methods and
143, as ballast water. Vessels using Coast Guard will publish the results of technologies for measuring the
water from a PWS as ballast must a practicability review to determine— concentrations of organisms, treatment
maintain a record of which PWS they (i) Whether technology to comply chemicals, or other pertinent parameters
received the water and a receipt, with a performance standard more in treated ballast water as would be
invoice, or other documentation from stringent than that required by required under any alternative discharge
the PWS indicating that water came paragraph (a) of this section can be standards;
from that system. Furthermore, they practicably implemented, in whole or in (ix) Any requirements for the
must certify that they have met the part, and, if so, the Coast Guard will management of ballast water included
conditions in paragraphs (a)(4)(i) or (ii) schedule a rulemaking to implement the in the most current version of the U.S.
of this section, as applicable. Vessels more stringent standard; and Environmental Protection Agency’s
using water from a PWS must use such (ii) Whether testing protocols that can Vessel General Permit and any
water exclusively for all ballast water accurately measure efficacy of treatment documentation available from the EPA
unless the usage is in accordance with against a performance standard more regarding the basis for these
§ 151.1515 of this subpart. Vessels using stringent than that required by requirements; and
PWS water as ballast must have either— paragraph (a) of this section can be (x) Any other factor that the Coast
(i) Previously cleaned the ballast practicably implemented. Guard considers appropriate that is
tanks (including removing all residual related to the determination of whether
(2) If the Coast Guard determines on
sediments) and not subsequently identified technology is performable,
the basis of a practicability review
introduced ambient water; or practicable, and/or may possibly
conducted under paragraph (c)(1) of this
(ii) Never introduced ambient water to prevent the introduction and spread of
section that technology to achieve a
those tanks and supply lines. non-indigenous aquatic invasive
significant improvement in ballast water
* * * * * species.
treatment efficacy could be practicably
(d) Unless otherwise expressly implemented, the Coast Guard will § 151.1512 and 151.1514 [Redesignated as
provided for in this subpart, the master, report this finding and will, no later §§ 151.1514 and 151.1515]
owner, operator, agent, or person in than January 1, 2017, initiate a
charge of vessels employing a Coast ■ 7. Redesignate §§ 151.1512 and
rulemaking that would establish 151.1514 as §§ 151.1514 and 151.1515,
Guard-approved BWMS must meet the performance standards and other
applicable ballast water discharge respectively.
requirements or conditions to ensure to
standard, found in § 151.1511 of this ■ 8. Add a new § 151.1512 to read as
the maximum extent practicable that
subpart, at all times of ballast water follows:
aquatic nuisance species are not
discharge into the waters of the United discharged into waters of the United § 151.1512 Implementation schedule for
States. States from vessels. If the Coast Guard approved ballast water management
■ 6. Add new § 151.1511 to read as subsequently finds that it is not able to methods.
follows: meet this schedule, the Coast Guard will (a) In order to discharge ballast water
§ 151.1511 Ballast water discharge publish a notice in the Federal Register into the waters of the United States, the
standard (BWDS). so informing the public, along with an master, owner, operator, agent, or
(a) Vessels employing a Coast Guard- explanation of the reason for the delay, person in charge of a vessel subject to
approved ballast water management and a revised schedule for rule making § 151.1510 of this subpart must either
system (BWMS) must meet the that shall be as expeditious as ensure that the ballast water meets the
following BWDS by the date in practicable. ballast water discharge standard as
§ 151.1512(b) of this subpart: (3) When conducting the defined in § 151.1511(a), use an AMS as
(1) For organisms greater than or practicability review as required by provided for under § 151.1510(a)(1) or
equal to 50 micrometers in minimum paragraph (c)(1) of this section, the ballast exclusively with water from a
dimension: discharge must include Coast Guard will consider— U.S. public water system, as described
fewer than 10 living organisms per (i) The capability of any identified in § 151.1510(a)(4), according to the
cubic meter of ballast water. technology to achieve a more stringent schedule in paragraph (b) of this
(2) For organisms less than 50 ballast water discharge standard, in section.
micrometers and greater than or equal to whole or in part; (b) Implementation Schedule for the
10 micrometers: discharge must include (ii) The effectiveness of any identified Ballast Water Management Discharge
fewer than 10 living organisms per technology in the shipboard Standard for vessels using a Coast
milliliter (mL) of ballast water. environment; Guard approved BWMS to manage
(3) Indicator microorganisms must not (iii) The compatibility of any ballast water discharged to U.S. waters.
exceed: identified technology with vessel design After the dates listed in Table
and operation; 151.1512(b), vessels may use a USCG-
approved BWMS and comply with the management method per

discharge standard, or employ an § 151.1510(a)(1) and (4).
approved alternative ballast water
TABLE 151.1512(b)—IMPLEMENTATION SCHEDULE FOR BALLAST WATER MANAGEMENT DISCHARGE STANDARDS FOR
VESSELS USING COAST GUARD APPROVED BALLAST WATER MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS
Vessel’s ballast Date constructed Vessel’s compliance date
water capacity
New vessels ........................ All ....................................... On or after December 1, On delivery.

2013.
Existing vessels ................... Less than 1500 m3 ............ Before December 1, 2013 First scheduled drydocking after January 1, 2016.
1500–5000 m3 ................... Before December 1, 2013 First scheduled drydocking after January 1, 2014.
Greater than 5000 m3 ....... Before December 1, 2013 First scheduled drydocking after January 1, 2016.
■ 9. Add new § 151.1513 to read as then discharge the vessel’s ballast water 151.2055 Deviation from planned voyage.
follows: within that designated area. 151.2060 Reporting requirements.
(b) Once BWE is no longer an option 151.2065 Equivalent reporting methods for
§ 151.1513 Extension of Compliance Date. under the schedule in § 151.1512(b) of vessels other than those entering the
The Coast Guard may grant an this subpart, if the ballast water Great Lakes or Hudson River after
extension to the implementation operating outside the U.S. Exclusive
management system required by this Economic Zone or Canadian equivalent.
schedule in § 151.1512(b) of this subpart subpart stops operating properly during 151.2070 Recordkeeping requirements.
only in those cases where the master, a voyage or the vessel’s BWM method is 151.2075 Enforcement and compliance.
owner, operator, agent, or person in unexpectedly unavailable, the master, 151.2080 Penalties.
charge of a vessel subject to this subpart owner, operator, agent, or person in
can document that, despite all efforts, Authority: 16 U.S.C. 4711; Department of
charge of the vessel must ensure that the Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1.
compliance with the requirement under problem is reported to the COTP as soon
§ 151.1510 is not possible. Any as practicable. The vessel may continue Subpart D—Ballast Water Management
extension request must be made no later to the next port of call, subject to the for Control of Nonindigenous Species
than 12 months before the scheduled directions of the COTP or the Ninth in Waters of the United States
implementation date listed in District Commander, as provided by 33
§ 151.1512(b) of this subpart and CFR part 160. § 151.2000 Purpose and scope.
submitted in writing to the This subpart implements the
■ 11. Revise § 151.1516(a) to read as
Commandant (CG–522), U.S. Coast provisions of the Nonindigenous
follows:
Guard Office of Operating and Aquatic Nuisance Prevention and
Environmental Standards, 2100 2nd St. § 151.1516 Compliance Monitoring. Control Act of 1990 (16 U.S.C. 4701–
SW., Stop 7126, Washington, DC 20593– (a) The master of each vessel 4751), as amended by the National
7126. Summary information concerning equipped with ballast tanks must Invasive Species Act of 1996.
all extension decisions, including the provide, as detailed in § 151.2070 of this
name of the vessel and vessel owner, the part, the following information, in § 151.2005 Definitions.
term of the extension, and the basis for written form, to the Captain of the Port (a) Unless otherwise stated in this
the extension will be promptly posted (COTP): section, the definitions in 33 CFR
on the Internet. Extensions will be for * * * * * 151.1504, 33 CFR 160.204, and the
no longer than the minimum time United Nations Convention on the Law
■ 12. Revise subpart D of part 151 to
needed, as determined by the Coast of the Sea apply to this subpart.
Guard, for the vessel to comply with the read as follows: (b) As used in this subpart:
requirements of § 151.1510. Subpart D—Ballast Water Management for Captain of the Port (COTP) means the
■ 10. Revise newly redesignated Control of Nonindigenous Species in Coast Guard officer designated by the
§ 151.1515 as follows: Waters of the United States Commandant to command a COTP Zone
Sec. as described in part 3 of this chapter.
§ 151.1515 Ballast water management 151.2000 Purpose and scope. Constructed in respect of a vessel
alternatives under extraordinary conditions. 151.2005 Definitions. means a stage of construction when—
(a) As long as ballast water exchange 151.2010 Applicability. (1) The keel of a vessel is laid;
(BWE) remains an option under the 151.2013 Severability. (2) Construction identifiable with the
schedule in § 151.1512(b) of this 151.2015 Exemptions. specific vessel begins;
151.2020 Vessels in innocent passage.
subpart, the master of any vessel subject (3) Assembly of the vessel has
151.2025 Ballast water management
to this subpart who uses BWE to meet requirements. commenced and comprises at least 50
the requirements of this subpart and, 151.2026 Alternate management systems. tons or 1 percent of the estimated mass
due to weather, equipment failure, or 151.2030 Ballast water discharge standard of all structural material, whichever is
other extraordinary conditions, is (BWDS). less; or
unable to effect a BWE before entering 151.2035 Implementation schedule for (4) The vessel undergoes a major
the U.S. Exclusive Economic Zone, and approved ballast water management conversion.
intends to discharge ballast water into methods. Exchange means to replace the water
151.2036 Extension of compliance date.
the waters of the United States, must in a ballast tank using one of the
151.2040 Discharge of ballast water in
request permission from the Captain of extraordinary circumstances. following methods:
the Port (COTP) to exchange the vessel’s 151.2050 Additional requirements— (1) Flow-through exchange means to
ballast water within an area agreed to by nonindigenous species reduction flush out ballast water by pumping in
the COTP at the time of the request and practices. mid-ocean water at the bottom of the
tank and continuously overflowing the without proper authority, the remainder waters of the United States must employ
tank from the top until three full of this subpart will remain in full effect. one of the following ballast water
volumes of water has been changed to management methods:
minimize the number of original § 151.2015 Exemptions. (1) Install and operate a ballast water
organisms remaining in the tank. (a) The following vessels are exempt management system (BWMS) that has
(2) Empty/refill exchange means to from all of the requirements of this been approved by the Coast Guard
pump out the ballast water taken on in subpart: under 46 CFR part 162. The BWMS
ports, estuarine, or territorial waters (1) Any Department of Defense or must be installed in accordance with
until the pump(s) lose suction, then Coast Guard vessel subject to the § 151.2035(b) of this subpart. Following
refilling it with mid-ocean water. requirements of section 1103 of the installation, the master, owner, operator,
International Maritime Organization Nonindigenous Aquatic Nuisance agent, or person in charge of the vessel
(IMO) ballast water management Prevention and Control Act, as amended subject to this subpart must properly
guidelines mean the Guidelines for the by the National Invasive Species Act; or maintain the BWMS in accordance with
Control and Management of Ships’ any vessel of the Armed Forces, as all manufacturer specifications. Unless
Ballast Water to Minimize the Transfer defined in the Federal Water Pollution otherwise expressly provided for in this
of Harmful Aquatic Organisms and Control Act (33 U.S.C. 1322(a)), that is subpart, the master, owner, operator,
Pathogens (IMO Resolution A.868 (20), subject to the ‘‘Uniform National agent, or person in charge of vessels
adopted November 1997). Discharge Standards for Vessels of the employing a Coast Guard-approved
National Ballast Information Armed Forces’’ (33 U.S.C. 1322(n)). BWMS must meet the applicable ballast
Clearinghouse (NBIC) means the (2) Any warship, naval auxiliary, or water discharge standard (BWDS),
National Ballast Information other vessel owned or operated by a found in § 151.2030 of this subpart, at
Clearinghouse operated by the Coast foreign state and used, for the time all times of discharge into the waters of
Guard and the Smithsonian being, only on government non- the United States.
Environmental Research Center as commercial service. However, such (2) Use only water from a U.S. public
mandated under the National Invasive vessels should act in a manner water system (PWS), as defined in 40
Species Act of 1996. consistent, so far as is reasonable and CFR 141.2, that meets the requirements
Port or place of departure means any practicable, with this subpart. of 40 CFR parts 141 and 143 as ballast
port or place in which a vessel is (b) The following vessels are exempt water. Vessels using water from a PWS
anchored or moored. from the requirements of §§ 151.2025 as ballast must maintain a record of
Port or place of destination means any (ballast water management (BWM) which PWS they received the water
port or place to which a vessel is bound requirements), 151.2060 (reporting), and from as well as a receipt, invoice, or
to anchor or moor. 151.2070 (recordkeeping) of this other documentation from the PWS
Seagoing vessel means a vessel in subpart: indicating that water came from that
commercial service that operates (1) Crude oil tankers engaged in system. Furthermore, they must certify
beyond the boundary line established by coastwise trade. that they have met the conditions in
46 CFR part 7. It does not include a (2) Vessels that operate exclusively paragraphs (a)(2)(i) or (ii) of this section,
vessel that navigates exclusively on within one Captain of the Port (COTP) as applicable, and describe in the BWM
inland waters. Zone. plan the procedures to be used to ensure
Shipboard Technology Evaluation (c) The following vessels are exempt compliance with those conditions, and
Program (STEP) means a Coast Guard only from the requirements of thereafter document such compliance in
research program intended to facilitate § 151.2025 (BWM requirements) of this the BW record book. Vessels using water
research, development, and shipboard subpart: from a PWS must use such water
testing of effective BWMS. STEP (1) Seagoing vessels that operate in exclusively unless the usage is in
requirements are located at: http:// more than one COTP Zone, do not accordance with § 151.2040 of this
www.uscg.mil/ operate outside of the Exclusive subpart. Vessels using PWS water as
environmental_standards/. Economic Zone (EEZ), and are less than ballast must have either—
United States means the States, the or equal to 1,600 gross register tons or (i) Previously cleaned the ballast
District of Columbia, Guam, American less than or equal to 3,000 gross tons tanks (including removing all residual
Samoa, the Virgin Islands, the (International Convention on Tonnage sediments) and not subsequently
Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, the Measurement of Ships, 1969). introduced ambient water; or
Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana (2) Non-seagoing vessels. (ii) Never introduced ambient water to
Islands, and any other territory or (3) Vessels that take on and discharge those tanks and supply lines.
(3) Perform complete ballast water
possession over which the United States ballast water exclusively in one COTP
exchange in an area 200 nautical miles
exercises sovereignty. Zone.
from any shore prior to discharging
Voyage means any transit by a vessel
§ 151.2020 Vessels in innocent passage. ballast water, unless the vessel is
destined for any United States port or
A foreign vessel that is merely required to employ an approved BWMS
place.
traversing the territorial sea of the per the schedule found in § 151.2035(b)
§ 151.2010 Applicability. United States (unless bound for, of this subpart. An alternate
This subpart applies to all non- entering or departing a U.S. port or management system (AMS) that meets
recreational vessels, U.S. and foreign, navigating the internal waters of the the requirements of § 151.2026 of this
subpart may also be used, so long as it
that are equipped with ballast tanks and U.S.) does not fall within the
operate in the waters of the United applicability of this subpart. was installed on the vessel prior to the
States, except as expressly provided in date that the vessel is required to
§§ 151.2015 or 151.2020 of this subpart. § 151.2025 Ballast water management comply with the BWDS in accordance
requirements. with § 151.2035(b) of this subpart. If
§ 151.2013 Severability. (a) The master, owner, operator, agent, using an AMS, the master, owner,
If a court finds any portion of this or person in charge of a vessel equipped operator, agent, or person in charge of
subpart to have been promulgated with ballast tanks that operates in the the vessel subject to this subpart may
employ the AMS for no longer than 5 § 151.2026 Alternate management withdrawn, or terminated in accordance
years from the date they would systems. with the procedures contained in 46
otherwise be required to comply with (a) A manufacturer whose ballast CFR 162.060–18.
the BWDS in accordance with water management system (BWMS) has
§ 151.2035(b) of this subpart; been approved by a foreign § 151.2030 Ballast water discharge
(4) Do not discharge ballast water into standard (BWDS).
administration pursuant to the
waters of the United States. standards set forth in the International (a) Vessels employing a Coast Guard-
(5) Discharge to a facility onshore or Convention for the Control and approved ballast water management
to another vessel for purposes of Management of Ships’ Ballast Water and system (BWMS) must meet the
treatment. Any vessel owner/operator Sediments, 2004, may request in following BWDS by the date listed in
discharging ballast water to a facility writing, for the Coast Guard to make a § 151.2035(b) of this subpart:
onshore or to another vessel must determination that their BWMS is an (1) For organisms greater than or
ensure that all vessel piping and alternate management system (AMS). equal to 50 micrometers in minimum
supporting infrastructure up to the last Requests for determinations under this dimension: Discharge must include
manifold or valve immediately before section must include: fewer than 10 organisms per cubic meter
the dock manifold connection of the (1) The type-approval certificate for of ballast water.
receiving facility or similar the BWMS. (2) For organisms less than 50
appurtenance on a reception vessel (2) Name, point of contact, address, micrometers and greater than or equal to
prevents untreated ballast water from and phone number of the authority 10 micrometers: Discharge must include
being discharged into waters of the overseeing the program; fewer than 10 organisms per milliliter
United States. (3) Final test results and findings, (mL) of ballast water.
(b) Requests for approval of BWMS including the full analytical procedures (3) Indicator microorganisms must not
must be submitted to the Commanding and methods, results, interpretations of exceed:
Officer (Marine Safety Center), U.S. the results, and full description and (i) For toxicogenic Vibrio cholerae
Coast Guard Marine Safety Center, 2100 documentation of the Quality Assurance (serotypes O1 and O139): A
2nd St. SW., Stop 7102, Washington, DC procedures (i.e., sample chain of concentration of less than 1 colony
20593–7102, or by email to custody forms, calibration records, etc.); forming unit (cfu) per 100 mL.
msc@uscg.mil, in accordance with 46 (4) A description of any modifications (ii) For Escherichia coli: a
CFR part 162. made to the system after completion of concentration of fewer than 250 cfu per
(c) A vessel engaged in the foreign the testing for which a determination is 100 mL.
export of Alaskan North Slope Crude requested; and (iii) For intestinal enterococci: A
Oil must comply with §§ 151.2060 and (5) A type approval application as concentration of fewer than 100 cfu per
151.2070 of this subpart, as well as with described under 46 CFR 162.060–12. 100 mL.
the provisions of 15 CFR 754.2(j)(1)(iii). (i) Once ballast water management (b) [Reserved]
Section 15 CFR 754.2(j)(1)(iii) requires a systems are type approved by the Coast (c) The Coast Guard will conduct a
mandatory program of deep water Guard and available for a given class, practicability review as follows:
ballast exchange unless doing so would type of vessels, or specific vessel, those (1) No later than January 1, 2016, the
endanger the safety of the vessel or vessels will no longer be able to install Coast Guard will publish the results of
crew. AMS in lieu of type approved systems. a practicability review to determine—
(d) This subpart does not authorize (ii) [Reserved] (i) Whether technology to comply
the discharge of oil or noxious liquid (b) Requests for determinations must with a performance standard more
substances (NLS) in a manner be submitted in writing to the stringent than that required by
prohibited by United States or Commanding Officer, U.S. Coast Guard paragraph (a) of this section can be
international laws or regulations. Ballast Marine Safety Center, 2100 2nd St. SW., practicably implemented, in whole or in
water carried in any tank containing a Stop 7102, Washington, DC 20593– part, and, if so, the Coast Guard will
residue of oil, NLS, or any other 7102. schedule a rulemaking to implement the
pollutant must be discharged in (c) If using an AMS that was installed more stringent standard; and
accordance with applicable laws and on the vessel prior to the date that the (ii) Whether testing protocols that can
regulations. vessel is required to comply with the assure accurate measurement of
(e) This subpart does not affect or ballast water discharge standard in compliance with a performance
supersede any requirement or accordance with § 151.2035(b), the standard more stringent than that
prohibition pertaining to the discharge master, owner, operator, agent, or required by paragraph (a) of this section
of ballast water into the waters of the person in charge of the vessel subject to can be practicably implemented.
United States under the Federal Water this subpart may employ such AMS for (2) If the Coast Guard determines on
Pollution Control Act (33 U.S.C. 1251 to no longer than 5 years from the date the basis of a practicability review
1376). they would otherwise be required to conducted under paragraph (c)(1) of this
(f) This subpart does not affect or comply with the ballast water discharge section that technology to achieve a
supersede any requirement or standard in accordance with the significant improvement in ballast water
prohibition pertaining to the discharge implementation schedule in § 151.2035 treatment efficacy could be practicably
of ballast water into the waters of the (b) of this subpart. To ensure the safe implemented, the Coast Guard will
United States under the National Marine and effective management and operation report this finding and will, no later
Sanctuaries Act (16 U.S.C. 1431 et seq.). of the AMS equipment, the master, than January 1, 2017, initiate a
(g) Vessels with installed BWMS for owner, operator, agent or person in rulemaking that would establish
testing and evaluation by an charge of the vessel must ensure the performance standards and other
Independent Laboratory in accordance AMS is maintained and operated in requirements or conditions to ensure to
with the requirements of 46 CFR conformity with the system the maximum extent practicable that
162.060–10 and 46 CFR 162.060–28 will specifications. aquatic nuisance species are not
be deemed to be in compliance with (d) An AMS determination issued discharged into waters of the United
paragraph (a)(1) of this section. under this section may be suspended, States from vessels. If the Coast Guard
subsequently finds that it is not able to (vii) The economic impact of any § 151.2035 Implementation schedule for
meet this schedule, the Coast Guard will identified technology, including the approved ballast water management
publish a notice in the Federal Register impact on shipping, small businesses, methods.
so informing the public, along with an and other uses of the aquatic (a) To discharge ballast water into
explanation of the reason for the delay, environment; waters of the United States, the master,
and a revised schedule for rule making (viii) The availability, accuracy,
owner, operator, agent, or person in
that shall be as expeditious as precision, and cost of methods and
technologies for measuring the charge of a vessel subject to § 151.2025
practicable.
concentrations of organisms, treatment of this subpart must either ensure that
(3) When conducting the the ballast water meets the ballast water
practicability review as described in chemicals, or other pertinent parameters
in treated ballast water as would be discharge standard as defined in
paragraph (c)(1) of this section, the
required under any alternative discharge § 151.2030(a), use an AMS as described
Coast Guard will consider—
standards; in § 151.2025(a)(3) or ballast with water
(i) The capability of any identified
(ix) Any requirements for the from a U.S. public water system, as
technology to achieve a more stringent
management of ballast water included described in § 151.2025(a)(2), according
BWDS, in whole or in part;
in the most current version of the to the schedule in paragraph (b) of this
(ii) The effectiveness of any identified
Environmental Protection Agency’s section.
technology in the shipboard Vessel General Permit and any
environment; (b) Implementation Schedule for the
documentation available from the EPA
(iii) The compatibility of any Ballast Water Management Discharge
regarding the basis for these
identified technology with vessel design Standard for vessels using a Coast
requirements; and
and operation; (x) Any other factor that the Coast Guard approved BWMS to manage
(iv) The safety of any identified Guard considers appropriate that is ballast water discharged to waters of the
technology; related to the determination of whether U.S. After the dates listed in Table
(v) Whether the use of any identified identified technology is performable, 151.2035(b), vessels may use a USCG-
technology may have an adverse impact practicable, and/or may possibly approved BWMS and comply with the
on the environment; prevent the introduction and spread of discharge standard, use PWS per
(vi) The cost of any identified non-indigenous aquatic invasive § 151.2025(a)(2), or use a previously
technology; species. installed AMS per § 151.2025(a)(3).
TABLE 151.2035(b)—IMPLEMENTATION SCHEDULE FOR APPROVED BALLAST WATER MANAGEMENT METHODS

Vessel’s ballast Date constructed Vessel’s compliance date
water capacity
New vessels ........................ All ....................................... On or after December 1, 2013 ................ On delivery.
Existing vessels ................... Less than 1500 m3 ............ Before December 1, 2013 ....................... First scheduled drydocking after January
1, 2016.
1500–5000 m3 ................... Before December 1, 2013 ....................... First scheduled drydocking after January
1, 2014.
Greater than 5000 m3 ....... Before December 1, 2013 ....................... First scheduled drydocking after January
1, 2016.
§ 151.2036 Extension of compliance date. on the Internet. Extensions will be for water management system (BWMS) per
The Coast Guard may grant an no longer than the minimum time the implementation schedule found in
extension to the implementation needed, as determined by the Coast § 151.2035(b) of this subpart.
Guard, for the vessel to comply with the (2) If the Coast Guard allows the
schedule listed in § 151.2035(b) of this
requirements of § 151.2030. discharge of ballast water as described
subpart only in those cases where the in paragraph (a) of this section, the
master, owner, operator, agent, or § 151.2040 Discharge of ballast water in master, owner, operator, agent, or
person in charge of a vessel subject to extraordinary circumstances.
person in charge of the vessel must
this subpart can document that despite (a) The Coast Guard will allow the discharge only that amount of ballast
all efforts to meet the ballast water master, owner, operator, agent, or water operationally necessary to ensure
discharge standard requirements in person in charge of a vessel that cannot the safety of the vessel for cargo
§ 151.2030 of this subpart, compliance practicably meet the requirements of operations.
is not possible. Any extension request § 151.2025(a) of this subpart, either (3) Ballast water records must be
must be made no later than 12 months because its voyage does not take it into made available to the local Captain of
before the scheduled implementation waters 200 nautical miles or greater the Port (COTP) upon request.
date listed in § 151.2035(b) of this from any shore for a sufficient length of (4) Vessels on a voyage to the Great
subpart and submitted in writing to the time and the vessel retains ballast water Lakes or the Hudson River north of the
Commandant (CG–522), U.S. Coast onboard or because the master of the George Washington Bridge must comply
Guard Office of Operating and vessel has identified safety or stability with the requirements of 33 CFR
Environmental Standards, 2100 2nd St. concerns, to discharge ballast water in 151.1515.
SW., Stop 7126, Washington, DC 20593– areas other than the Great Lakes and the (b) If the installed BWMS required by
7126. Summary information concerning Hudson River north of the George this subpart stops operating properly
all extension decisions, including the Washington Bridge. during a voyage, or the vessel’s BWM
name of the vessel and vessel owner, the (1) The Coast Guard will not allow method is unexpectedly unavailable, the
term of the extension, and the basis for such a discharge if the vessel is required person directing the movement of the
the extension will be promptly posted to have a Coast Guard-approved ballast vessel must ensure that the problem is
reported to the nearest COTP or District (7) Areas with pods of whales, pursuant to § 151.2040(b) of this
Commander as soon as practicable. The convergence zones, and boundaries of subpart.
vessel may continue to the next port of major currents.
call, subject to the directions of the (c) Clean the ballast tanks regularly to § 151.2060 Reporting requirements.
COTP or District Commander, as remove sediments. Sediments must be (a) Ballast water reporting
provided by part 160 of this chapter. disposed of in accordance with local, requirements exist for each vessel
(1) The Coast Guard will normally State, and Federal regulations. subject to this subpart bound for ports
allow a vessel that cannot practicably (d) Discharge only the minimal or places of the United States regardless
meet the requirements of amount of ballast water essential for of whether a vessel operated outside of
§ 151.2025(a)(1) of this subpart because vessel operations while in the waters of the Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ),
its installed BWMS is inoperable, or the the United States. unless exempted in § 151.2015 of this
vessel’s BWM method is unexpectedly (e) Rinse anchors and anchor chains subpart.
unavailable, to employ one of the other when the anchor is retrieved to remove (b) The master, owner, operator,
ballast water management (BWM) organisms and sediments at their places agent, or person in charge of a vessel
methods listed in § 151.2025(a) of this of origin. subject to this subpart and this section
subpart. (f) Remove fouling organisms from the must provide the information required
(2) If the master of the vessel vessel’s hull, piping, and tanks on a by § 151.2070 of this subpart in
determines that the vessel cannot regular basis and dispose of any electronic or written form to the
employ other BWM methods due to the removed substances in accordance with Commandant, U.S. Coast Guard or the
voyage or safety concerns listed in local, State and Federal regulations. appropriate Captain of the Port (COTP).
paragraph (a) of this section, the Coast (g) Maintain a ballast water The Ballast Water Reporting Form
Guard will normally allow the vessel to management (BWM) plan that has been (Office of Management and Budget form
discharge ballast water in areas other developed specifically for the vessel and Control No. 1625–0069) and the
than the Great Lakes and the Hudson that will allow those responsible for the instructions for completing it are
River north of the George Washington plan’s implementation to understand available on the National Ballast
Bridge. and follow the vessel’s BWM strategy Information Clearinghouse’s Web site at
(3) If the Coast Guard approves such and comply with the requirements of http://invasions.si.edu/nbic/
an allowance, the vessel must discharge this subpart. The plan must include— submit.html. Information must be
only that amount of ballast water (1) Detailed safety procedures; submitted as follows:
operationally necessary to ensure the (2) Actions for implementing the (1) For any vessel bound for the Great
safety and stability of the vessel for mandatory BWM requirements and Lakes from outside the EEZ:
cargo operations. Ballast water records practices; (i) Fax the required information at
must be made available to the local (3) Detailed fouling maintenance and least 24 hours before the vessel arrives
COTP upon request. sediment removal procedures; in Montreal, Quebec to the U.S. Coast
(c) Nothing in this subpart relieves the (4) Procedures for coordinating the Guard (USCG) COTP, Buffalo, Massena
master, owner, operator, agent, or shipboard BWM strategy with Coast Detachment (315–769–5032).
person in charge of a vessel of any Guard authorities; (ii) Non-U.S. and non-Canadian flag
responsibility, including ensuring the (5) Identification of the designated vessels may complete the ballast water
safety and stability of the vessel and the officer(s) in charge of ensuring that the information section of the form required
safety of the crew and passengers. plan is properly implemented; by the St. Lawrence Seaway, ‘‘Pre-entry
(6) Detailed reporting requirements Information from Foreign Flagged
§ 151.2050 Additional requirements— and procedures for ports and places in Vessels Form,’’ and submit it in
nonindigenous species reduction practices. the United States where the vessel may accordance with the applicable Seaway
The master, owner, operator, agent, or visit; and notice as an alternative to this
person in charge of any vessel equipped (7) A translation of the plan into requirement.
with ballast water tanks that operates in English, French, or Spanish if the (2) For any vessel bound for the
the waters of the United States must vessel’s working language is another Hudson River north of the George
follow these practices: language. Washington Bridge entering from
(a) Avoid the discharge or uptake of (h) Train the master, operator, person outside the EEZ: Fax the required
ballast water in areas within, or that in charge, and crew on the application information to the USCG COTP, New
may directly affect, marine sanctuaries, of ballast water and sediment York (718–354–4249) at least 24 hours
marine preserves, marine parks, or coral management and treatment procedures. before the vessel enters New York, NY.
reefs. (i) When discharging ballast water to (3) For any vessel that is equipped
(b) Minimize or avoid uptake of a reception facility in the United States, with ballast water tanks and bound for
ballast water in the following areas and discharge only to reception facilities ports or places in the United States and
situations: that have an NPDES permit to discharge not addressed in paragraphs (b)(1) and
(1) Areas known to have infestations ballast water. (b)(2) of this section: If a vessel’s voyage
or populations of harmful organisms is less than 24 hours, report the required
and pathogens (e.g., toxic algal blooms). § 151.2055 Deviation from planned voyage. information before departing the port or
(2) Areas near sewage outfalls. As long as ballast water exchange place of departure. If a voyage exceeds
(3) Areas near dredging operations. (BWE) is an allowable ballast water 24 hours, report the required
(4) Areas where tidal flushing is management option under §§ 151.2025 information at least 24 hours before
known to be poor or times when a tidal and 151.2035 of this subpart, the Coast arrival at the port or place of
stream is known to be turbid. Guard will not require a vessel to destination. The information must be
(5) In darkness, when bottom- deviate from its voyage or delay the sent to the National Ballast Information
dwelling organisms may rise up in the voyage in order to conduct BWE. A Clearinghouse using only one of the
water column. vessel may be required to deviate from following means:
(6) Where propellers may stir up the its voyage or delay the voyage if BWE (i) Via the Internet at http://
sediment. is directed by a Captain of the Port invasions.si.edu/nbic/submit.html.
(ii) Email to NBIC@BallastReport.org. tanks/holds that are to be discharged (e) The information required by this
(iii) Fax to 301–261–4319. into the waters of the United States or subpart may be used to satisfy the
(iv) Mail to U.S. Coast Guard, c/o to a reception facility. ballast water recordkeeping
Smithsonian Environmental Research (i) If the vessel uses an alternative requirements for vessels subject to
Center, P.O. Box 28, Edgewater, MD BWM method, note the number of tanks § 151.2025(c) of this subpart and 33 CFR
21037–0028. that are managed using an alternative part 151 subpart C.
(c) If the information submitted in method, as well as the type of method
accordance with this section changes, § 151.2075 Enforcement and compliance.
used.
the master, owner, operator, agent, or (ii) Indicate whether the vessel has a (a) The master, owner, operator, agent,
person in charge of the vessel must BWM plan and IMO ballast water or person in charge of a vessel must
submit an amended report before the management guidelines onboard, and provide the Captain of the Port (COTP)
vessel departs the waters of the United whether the BWM plan is used. with access to the vessel in order to take
States. (5) Information on ballast water tanks samples of ballast water and sediment,
that are to be discharged into the waters examine documents, and make other
§ 151.2065 Equivalent reporting methods
for vessels other than those entering the of the United States or to a reception appropriate inquiries to assess the
Great Lakes or Hudson River after facility. Include the following: compliance of any vessel subject to this
operating outside the U.S. Exclusive (i) The origin of ballast water. This subpart.
Economic Zone or Canadian equivalent. includes date(s), location(s), volume(s) (b) The master, owner, operator,
For vessels required to report under and temperature(s). If a tank has agent, or person in charge of a vessel
§ 151.2060(b)(3) of this subpart, the undergone ballast water exchange subject to this section must provide the
Chief, Environmental Standards (BWE), list the loading port of the records to the COTP upon request, as
Division (CG–5224), acting for the ballast water that was discharged during required by § 151.2070 of this subpart.
Assistant Commandant for Marine the exchange. (c) Vessels with installed ballast water
Safety, Security, and Stewardship (CG– (ii) The date(s), location(s), volume(s), management systems are subject to
5), may, upon receipt of a written method, thoroughness (percentage Coast Guard inspection. Every vessel
request, consider and approve exchanged, if BWE conducted), and sea must have a sampling port(s) designed
alternative methods of reporting if— height at time of exchange of any ballast and installed in accordance with 46 CFR
(a) Such methods are at least as water exchanged or otherwise managed. 162.060–28(f) and (f)(2) at each
effective as those required by § 151.2060 (iii) The expected date, location, overboard discharge point.
of this subpart; and volume, and salinity of any ballast water (d) In this subpart, wherever multiple
(b) Compliance with § 151.2060 of to be discharged into the waters of the entities are responsible for compliance
this subpart is economically or United States or to a reception facility. with any requirement of the rule, each
physically impractical. The Chief, (6) Discharge of sediment. Include the entity is jointly liable for a violation of
Environmental Standards Division (CG– name and location of the facility where such requirement.
5224), will approve or disapprove a sediment disposal will take place, if § 151.2080 Penalties.
request submitted in accordance with sediment is to be discharged within the
this section within 30 days of receipt of (a) A person who violates this subpart
jurisdiction of the United States. is liable for a civil penalty not to exceed
the request. (7) Certification of accurate $35,000. Each day of a continuing
§ 151.2070 Recordkeeping requirements. information. Include the master, owner, violation constitutes a separate
(a) The master, owner, operator, agent, operator, agent, person in charge, or violation. A vessel operated in violation
or person in charge of a vessel bound for responsible officer’s printed name, title, of the regulations is liable in rem for any
a port or place in the United States, and signature attesting to the accuracy civil penalty assessed under this subpart
unless specifically exempted by of the information provided and for that violation.
§ 151.2015 of this subpart, must ensure certifying compliance with the (b) A person who knowingly violates
the maintenance of written records that requirements of this subpart. the regulations of this subpart is guilty
include the following information: (b) The master, owner, operator, of a class C felony.
(1) Vessel information. This includes agent, or person in charge of a vessel
the name, International Maritime subject to this section must retain a Appendix to Subpart D of Part 151
Organization (IMO) number (official signed copy of this information onboard [Removed]
number if IMO number is not issued), the vessel for 2 years. Appendix to Subpart D [Removed]
vessel type, owner or operator, gross (c) Two alternative ways to meet the
tonnage, call sign, and State of registry requirements of this section are— ■ 13. Remove the Appendix to subpart
(flag). (1) Completing and retaining the D of part 151.
(2) Voyage information. This includes Ballast Water Reporting Form contained Title 46—Shipping
the date and port of arrival, vessel agent, in the IMO ballast water management
guidelines; or CHAPTER I—COAST GUARD
last port and country of call, and next
port and country of call. (2) Completing the ballast water Subchapter Q—Equipment, Construction,
(3) Total ballast water information. information section of the form required and Materials: Specifications and Approval
This includes the total ballast water by the St. Lawrence Seaway Pre-entry
capacity, total volume of ballast water Information from Foreign Flagged PART 162—ENGINEERING
onboard, total number of ballast water Vessels. EQUIPMENT
tanks, and total number of ballast water (d) The master, owner, operator,
agent, or person in charge of a vessel ■ 14. Add subpart 162.060 to part 162
tanks in ballast. Use units of
subject to this section must retain the to read as follows:
measurements such as metric tons (MT),
cubic meters (m3), long tons (LT), and monitoring records required in 46 CFR Subpart 162.060—Ballast Water
short tons (ST). 162.060–20(b) for 2 years. These records Management Systems
(4) Ballast water management (BWM). may be stored on digital media but must Sec.
This includes the total number of ballast be viewable for Coast Guard inspection. 162.060–1 Purpose and scope.
162.060–3 Definitions. any other associated equipment that the Pesticide means any substance or
162.060–5 Incorporation by reference. vessel uses for the purposes of mixture of substances intended for
162.060–10 Approval procedures. ballasting. preventing, destroying, repelling, or
162.060–12 Use and acceptance of existing
test data. Ballast water treatment equipment mitigating any pest as defined under the
162.060–14 Information requirements for means that part of the BWMS that Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and
the ballast water management system mechanically, physically, chemically, or Rodenticide Act (7 U.S.C. 136 et.seq.)
(BWMS) application. biologically processes ballast water, and 40 CFR 152.3.
162.060–16 Changes to an approved ballast either singularly or in combination, to Preparation means any commercial
water management system (BWMS). kill, render harmless, or remove formulation containing one or more
162.060–18 Suspension, withdrawal or organisms within ballast water and active substances, including any
termination of approval. sediments. additives. This definition also includes
162.060–20 Design and construction any active substances generated onboard
requirements. Challenge water means water just
162.060–22 Marking requirements. prior to treatment. In land-based tests, a vessel for the purpose of ballast water
162.060–24 Test Plan requirements. source water may be augmented to management to comply with the ballast
162.060–26 Land-based testing achieve required challenge water water discharge standard codified in 33
requirements. conditions. CFR part 151 subpart C or D.
162.060–28 Shipboard testing requirements. Control and monitoring equipment Quality Assurance Project Plan
162.060–30 Testing requirements for ballast means that part of the BWMS required (QAPP) means a project-specific
water management system (BWMS) technical document reflecting the
components.
to operate, control, and assess the
effective operation of the ballast water implementation of Quality Assurance
162.060–32 Testing and evaluation
treatment equipment. and Quality Control activities, including
requirements for active substances,
preparations, and relevant chemicals. Hazardous location means areas specifics of the BWMS to be tested, the
162.060–34 Test Report requirements. where fire or explosion hazards may independent laboratory, and other
162.060–36 Quality Assurance Project Plan exist due to the presence of flammable conditions affecting the actual design
(QAPP) requirements. gases/vapors, flammable liquids, and implementation of the required
162.060–38 Operation, Maintenance, and combustible dust, or ignitable fibers, as tests and evaluations.
Safety Manual (OMSM). Relevant chemical means any
162.060–40 Requirements for independent
determined in accordance with the
standards of construction applicable to transformation or reaction product that
laboratories (ILs). is produced during the treatment
162.060–42 Responsibilities for the vessel on which the BWMS is to be
installed. process or in the receiving environment
independent laboratories (ILs).
Hazardous materials means and which may be of concern to the
Authority: 16 U.S.C. 4711; Department of aquatic environment and human health
Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1. hazardous materials as defined in 49
CFR 171.8; hazardous substances when discharged.
Representative sample means a
Subpart 162.060—Ballast Water designated under 40 CFR part 116.4;
random sample, in which every item of
Management Systems reportable quantities as defined under
interest (organisms, molecules, etc.) in
40 CFR 117.1; materials that meet the
§ 162.060–1 Purpose and scope. the larger population has an unbiased
criteria for hazard classes and divisions
This subpart contains procedures and chance of appearing.
in 49 CFR part 173; materials under 46
requirements for approval of complete Sampling port means the equipment
CFR 153.40 determined by the Coast
ballast water management systems to be installed in the ballast water piping
Guard to be hazardous when
installed onboard vessels for the through which representative samples
transported in bulk; flammable liquids
purpose of complying with the ballast of the ballast water being discharged are
defined in 46 CFR 30.10–22;
water discharge standard of 33 CFR part extracted. This is equivalent to the term
combustible liquids as defined in 46
151, subparts C and D. ‘‘sampling facility’’ under the
CFR 30.10–15; materials listed in Table
International Maritime Organization
§ 162.060–3 Definitions. 46 CFR 151.05, Table 1 of 46 CFR 153,
(IMO) Guidelines for Ballast Water
or Table 4 of 46 CFR part 154; or any
As used in this subpart— Sampling (G2), published as IMO
Active substance means a chemical or liquid, liquefied gas, or compressed gas
Resolution MEPC.173(58) on October
an organism, including a virus or a listed in 49 CFR 172.101.
10, 2008.
fungus, that has a general or specific Independent laboratory means an Source water means the body of water
action on or against nonindigenous organization that meets the from which water is drawn for either
species. requirements in 46 CFR 159.010–3. In land-based or shipboard testing.
Administration means the addition to commercial testing Test facility means the location where
government of the nation/State under laboratories, which may include not-for- the independent laboratory conducts
whose authority a vessel is operating. profit organizations, the Commandant land-based, component, active
Ballast water means any water and may also accept classification societies substance, and relevant chemical testing
suspended matter taken onboard a and agencies of governments (including and evaluations, as required by this
vessel to control or maintain trim, State and Federal agencies of the United subpart.
draught, stability, or stresses of the States) that are involved in the
vessel, regardless of how it is carried. evaluation, inspection, and testing of § 162.060–5 Incorporation by reference.
Ballast water management system BWMS. (a) Certain material is incorporated by
(BWMS) means any system which In-line treatment means a treatment reference into this part with the
processes ballast water to kill, render system or technology used to treat approval of the Director of the Federal
harmless, or remove organisms. The ballast water during normal flow of Register under 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1
BWMS includes all ballast water ballast uptake, discharge, or both. CFR part 51. To enforce any edition
treatment equipment and all associated In-tank treatment means a treatment other than that specified in this section,
control and monitoring equipment. system or technology used to treat the Coast Guard must publish notice of
Ballast water system means the tanks, ballast water during the time that it change in the Federal Register and the
piping, valves, pumps, sea chests, and resides in the ballast tanks. material must be available to the public.
All approved material is available for 20593–7102, or by email to significantly longer reviews during
inspection at the National Archives and msc@uscg.mil: these environmental evaluations.
Records Administration (NARA). For (1) Manufacturer’s name, address, and (f) A BWMS is eligible for approval
information on the availability of this point of contact, with telephone number if—
material at NARA, call 202–741–6030 or or email address. (1) It meets the design and
go to http://www.archives.gov/federal_ (2) Name and location of independent construction requirements in § 162.060–
register/code_of_federal_regulations/ laboratory and associated test facilities 20 of this subpart;
ibr_locations.html. Also, it is available and subcontractors, plus expected dates (2) It is evaluated, inspected, and
for inspection from the Commandant and locations for actual testing. tested under land-based and shipboard
(CG–52), Commercial Regulations and (3) Model name, model number, and conditions in accordance with
Standards Directorate, U.S. Coast Guard, type of BWMS. §§ 162.060–26 and 162.060–28 of this
2100 2nd St. SW., Stop 7126, (4) Expected date of submission of full subpart, respectively, and thereby
Washington, DC 20593–7126, and is application package to the Coast Guard. demonstrates that it consistently meets
available from the sources listed below. (5) Name, type of vessel, and expected the ballast water discharge standard in
(b) International Electrotechnical geographic locations for shipboard 33 CFR part 151, subparts C and D;
Commission (IEC), 3 rue Varembe, P.O. testing. (3) All applicable components of the
(b) The manufacturer must ensure BWMS meet the component testing
Box 131, 1211 Geneva 20, Switzerland.
evaluation, inspection, and testing of requirements of § 162.060–30 of this
(1) IEC 60529, Classification of
the BWMS is conducted by an subpart;
Degrees of Protection by Enclosures (IP
independent laboratory, accepted by the (4) The BWMS meets the
Code), Edition 2.1 consolidated with
Coast Guard, in accordance with requirements of § 162.060–32 of this
amendment 1:1999 (dated February,
§§ 162.060–20 through 162.060–40 of subpart if the BWMS uses an active
2001), IBR approved for § 162.060–30.
this subpart. Testing may begin 30 days substance or preparation; and
(2) [Reserved] after submission of the LOI unless (5) The ballast water discharge,
(c) International Organization for otherwise directed by the Coast Guard. preparation, active substance, or
Standardization (ISO), ISO Central (1) If an evaluation, inspection, or test relevant chemical are not found to be
Secretariat, 1, ch. de la Voie-Creuse, required by this section is not persistent, bioaccumulative, or toxic
Case postale 56 CH–1211 Geneva 20, practicable or applicable, a when discharged.
Switzerland. manufacturer may submit a written (g) After evaluation of an application,
(1) ISO/IEC 17025:2005(E), General request to the Commanding Officer, U.S. the Coast Guard will advise the
Requirements for the Competence of Coast Guard MSC, 2100 2nd St. SW., applicant in accordance with 46 CFR
Calibration and Testing Laboratories, Stop 7102, Washington, DC 20593– 159.005–13 whether the BWMS is
Second Edition (dated May 15, 2005), 7102, or by email to msc@uscg.mil, for approved. If the BWMS is approved, a
IBR approved for § 162.060–36. approval of alternatives as equivalent to certification number will be issued and
(2) ISO/IEC 17025:2005/Cor.1:2006(E), the requirements in this section. The an approval certificate sent to the
General Requirements for the request must include the manufacturer’s applicant in accordance with 46 CFR
Competence of Testing and Calibration justification for any proposed changes 2.75–5. The approval certificate will list
Laboratories, Technical Corrigendum 1, and contain full descriptions of any conditions of approval applicable to the
(dated August 15, 2006), IBR approved proposed alternative tests. BWMS.
for § 162.060–36. (2) The Coast Guard will notify the
(d) U.S. Environmental Protection manufacturer of its determination under § 162.060–12 Use and acceptance of
Agency (EPA), Environmental paragraph (b)(1) of this section. Any existing test data.
Technology Verification Program, limitations imposed by the BWMS on (a) A manufacturer whose ballast
National Risk Management Research testing procedures and all approved water management system (BWMS) has
Laboratory Office of Research and deviations from any evaluation, completed approval testing for a foreign
Development, U.S. Environmental inspection, or testing required by this administration in accordance with the
Protection Agency, 2890 Woodbridge subpart must be duly noted in the International Maritime Organization’s
Avenue (MS–104), Edison, New Jersey Experimental Design section of the Test Guidelines for Approval of Ballast
08837. Plan. Water Management Systems (G8) may
(1) EPA/600/R–10/146, Generic (c) The manufacturer must submit an use the data and information developed
Protocol for the Verification of Ballast application for approval in accordance during such approval testing to support
Water Treatment Technologies, version with § 162.060–14 of this subpart. the submission of an application
5.1, (dated September 2010), IBR (d) Upon receipt of an application pursuant to § 162.060–14 of this
approved for §§ 162.060–26 and completed in compliance with subpart. The applicant must submit the
162.060–28 (ETV Protocol). § 162.060–14 of this subpart, the MSC data and other information developed
(2) [Reserved] will evaluate the application and either during approval testing and evaluation
approve, disapprove, or return it to the for another administration, and include
§ 162.060–10 Approval procedures. manufacturer for further revision. a concise but thorough explanation of
(a) Not less than 30 days before (e) In addition to tests and evaluations how the submission meets or exceeds
initiating any testing of a ballast water required by this subpart, the Coast the requirements of this subpart in
management system (BWMS), the Guard will independently conduct respect to design, material and
results of which are intended for use in environmental analyses of each system manufacture, and ability to meet the
an application for type approval, the in accordance with the National BWDS requirements.
manufacturer must submit a Letter of Environmental Policy Act, the (b) Applications under paragraph (a)
Intent (LOI) providing as much of the Endangered Species Act, and/or other of this section will not need to comply
following information as possible to the environmental statutes. The Coast with the requirements for advance
Commanding Officer, U.S. Coast Guard Guard advises applicants that notice under § 162.060–10(a) of this
Marine Safety Center (MSC), 2100 2nd applications containing novel processes subpart for testing that has already
St. SW., Stop 7102, Washington, DC or active substances may encounter occurred; or with the requirements that
all evaluation, inspection, and testing of exchangers, evaporators, and similar modification is required. The
the BWMS is conducted by an appurtenances. manufacturer may appeal this
independent laboratory, previously (7) Documentation of all necessary determination to the Commandant (CG–
accepted by the Coast Guard, under approvals, registrations, and other 52), Commercial Regulations and
§ 162.060–10(b) of this subpart. documents or certifications required for Standards Directorate, U.S. Coast Guard,
However— any active substances, preparations, or 2100 2nd St. SW., Stop 7126,
(1) If the applicant determines, prior relevant chemicals used by the BWMS. Washington, DC 20593–7126.
to submission of an application, that The documentation must include the
one or more aspects of the Coast Guard’s following: § 162.060–18 Suspension, withdrawal, or
termination of approval.
requirements for approval of a BWMS (i) A list of any active substances,
are not satisfied by the data and preparations, or relevant chemicals that The Coast Guard may suspend an
information developed for approval by are used, produced, generated as a approval issued under this subpart or
another administration, and that byproduct, and/or discharged in alternate management system (AMS)
additional testing and evaluation is association with the operation of the determination issued under 33 CFR
required, the applicant will notify the BWMS. 151.2026(d) of a ballast water
Coast Guard of the intent to conduct the (ii) A list of all limitations or management system (BWMS) in
new testing in accordance with the restrictions that must be complied with accordance with 46 CFR 2.75–40,
requirements of § 162.060–10(a) and during the approval testing and withdraw an approval or AMS
(b)(1) of this subpart. evaluations, including any water quality determination in accordance with 46
(2) While laboratories and test limits established by the Environmental CFR 2.75–50(a), or terminate an
facilities that conducted the test and Protection Agency, States, or tribes, approval or AMS determination in
evaluation for approval by another under the Clean Water Act. accordance with 46 CFR 2.75–50(b) if
administration are not required to have (8) A detailed description of Quality the BWMS or AMS, as manufactured—
been designated as independent Control procedures, in-process and final (a) Is found non-compliant with the
laboratories under the requirements of inspections, tests followed in conditions of approval;
this subpart at the time of such work, as manufacturing the item, and (b) Is unsuitable for the purpose
would otherwise be required under construction and sales record keeping intended by the manufacturer;
§ 162.060–10(b) of this subpart, all systems. (c) Does not meet the requirements of
laboratories and test facilities must have (9) The completed Test Report applicable laws, rules, and regulations,
met the requirements under 46 CFR required by § 162.060–34 of this subpart and other Federal requirements when
159.010–3 and 159.010–5(a) at the time prepared and submitted by the IL. installed and operated as intended by
of such work. It is the responsibility of (b) The completed application must the manufacturer; or
the applicant to ensure that the be sent by the manufacturer to the (d) Cannot be maintained to operate
satisfaction of this requirement is Commanding Officer, U.S. Coast Guard as designed, due to lack of parts or
adequately documented in the Marine Safety Center, 2100 2nd St. SW., necessary support services.
application. Stop 7102, Washington, DC 20593– § 162.060–20 Design and construction
7102. requirements.
§ 162.060–14 Information requirements for (c) If examination of the application
the ballast water management system reveals that it is incomplete, the Coast (a) Unless otherwise authorized by the
(BWMS) application.
Guard will return it to the applicant Commandant, each ballast water
(a) A complete BWMS application with an explanation. management system (BWMS) must be
must contain all of the following (d) Additional information, including designed and constructed in a manner
information: electronic submission criteria, is that—
(1) The name and location of the available at http://homeport.uscg.mil/ (1) Ensures simple and effective
independent laboratory conducting msc. means for its operation;
approval tests and evaluations. (2) Allows operation to be initiated,
(2) Two sets of plans describing the § 162.060–16 Changes to an approved controlled, and monitored by a single
BWMS, as specified in 46 CFR 159.005– ballast water management system (BWMS). individual, with minimal interaction or
12. (a) The manufacturer of a BWMS that attention once normal operation is
(3) An Operation, Maintenance, and is approved by the Coast Guard must initiated;
Safety Manual for the BWMS that meets notify the Commanding Officer, U.S. (3) Is robust and suitable for working
the requirements in § 162.060–38 of this Coast Guard Marine Safety Center in the shipboard environment and
subpart. (MSC), in writing of any change in adequate for its intended service;
(4) A bill of materials showing all design or intended operational (4) Meets recognized national or
components and specifications of the conditions of the BWMS. international standards for all related
BWMS. (b) The notification required by marine engineering and electrical
(5) A list of any systems or paragraph (a) of this section must engineering applications; and
components of the BWMS that may include— (5) Operates when the vessel is
require certification as marine portable (1) A description of the change and its upright, inclined under static conditions
tanks. advantages; and at any angle of list up to and including
(6) A list of any pressure vessels used (2) An indication of whether or not 15°, and when the vessel is inclined
as a part of the BWMS, along with a the original BWMS will be under dynamic, rolling conditions at
description of the pressure vessel discontinued. any angle of list up to and including
building standard, or code, or why the (c) After receipt of the notice and 22.5° and, simultaneously, at any angle
pressure vessel should be considered information, the Coast Guard will notify of trim (pitching) up to and including
exempt from any requirements. the manufacturer, in writing, of any 7.5° by bow or stern. The Coast Guard
Manufacturers must also submit tests or evaluations that must be may permit deviations from these angles
detailed pressure vessel plans if they conducted, and then determine if of inclination by considering the type,
intend to fabricate pressure vessels, heat BWMS recertification and/or size, and service of intended vessels and
considering how the BWMS is to be BWMS must be installed in a non- (5) A means to ensure that any
operated. These deviations must be hazardous location unless certified as maximum dosage or maximum
included on the certificate issued in safe for use in a hazardous location. Any allowable discharge concentration of
accordance with § 162.060–10(g) of this moving parts which are fitted in active substances and preparations is
subpart. hazardous locations must be arranged in not exceeded at any time.
(b) Each BWMS must have control a manner that avoids the formation of (6) Proper storage of each chemical
and monitoring equipment that— static electricity. Certificates issued defined as a hazardous material in 49
(1) Automatically monitors and under § 162.060–10(g) for systems CFR 171.8 that is specified or provided
adjusts necessary treatment dosages, approved for installation in hazardous by the manufacturer for use in the
intensities, or other aspects required for locations must be so noted. operation of a BWMS. Each such
proper operation; (e) To ensure continued operational chemical that is stowed onboard must
(2) Incorporates a continuous self- performance of the BWMS without be labeled and stowed in accordance
monitoring function during the period interference, the following conditions with the procedures in 46 CFR part 147.
in which the BWMS is in operation; must be incorporated into the design:
(3) Records proper functioning and (1) Each part of the BWMS that the § 162.060–22 Marking requirements.
failures of the BWMS; manufacturer’s instructions require to (a) Each ballast water management
(4) Records all events in which an be serviced routinely or that is liable to system (BWMS) manufactured for Coast
alarm is activated for the purposes of wear or damage must be readily Guard approval must have a nameplate
cleaning, calibration, or repair; accessible in the installed position(s) which is securely fastened to the BWMS
(5) Is able to store data for at least 6 recommended by the manufacturer. and plainly marked by the manufacturer
months and to display or print a record (2) To avoid interference with the with the information listed in paragraph
for official inspections as required; and BWMS, every access of the BWMS (b) of this section.
(6) In the event that the control and beyond the essential requirements, as (b) Each nameplate must include the
monitoring equipment is replaced, determined by the manufacturer, must following information:
actions must be taken to ensure the data require the breaking of a seal, and, (1) Coast Guard approval number
recorded prior to replacement remain where possible for the purpose of assigned to the BWMS in the certificate
available onboard for a minimum of 24 maintenance, activate an alarm. of approval.
months. (3) Simple means must be provided (2) Name of the manufacturer.
(c) Each BWMS must be designed and aboard the vessel to identify drift and (3) Name and model number of the
constructed with the following repeatability fluctuations and re-zero BWMS.
operating and emergency controls: measuring devices that are part of the (4) The manufacturer’s serial number
(1) Visual means of indicating (both control and monitoring equipment. for the BWMS.
on the BWMS and in a normally (f) Each BWMS must be designed so (5) The month and year of
manned space) when the BWMS is that it does not rely in whole or in part manufacture completion.
operating, including a visual alarm on dilution of ballast water as a means (6) The maximum allowable working
activated whenever the BWMS is in of achieving the ballast water discharge pressure for the BWMS.
operation for the purpose of cleaning, standard as required in 33 CFR part 151, (c) The information required by
calibration, or repair. subparts C or D. paragraph (b) of this section must
(2) Audio and visual alarm signals in (g) Adequate arrangements for storage, appear on a nameplate attached to, or in
all stations from which ballast water application, mitigation, monitoring lettering on, the BWMS. The nameplate
operations are controlled in case of any (including alarms), and safe handling or lettering must be capable of
failure(s) compromising the proper must be made for all BWMS that withstanding the combined effects of
operation of the BWMS. incorporate the use of, produce, normal wear and tear and exposure to
(3) Means to activate stop valves, as generate, or discharge a hazardous water, salt spray, direct sunlight, heat,
applicable, if the BWMS fails. material, active substance, preparation cold, and any substance used in the
(4) Suitable manual by-passes or and/or pesticide in accordance with normal operation and maintenance of
overrides to protect the safety of the Coast Guard regulations on handling/ the BWMS without loss of readability.
vessel and personnel in the event of an storage of hazardous materials (33 CFR The nameplate must not be obscured by
emergency. part 126) and any other applicable paint, corrosion, or other materials that
(5) Means that compensate for a Federal, State, and local requirements. would hinder readability.
momentary loss of power during (h) For any BWMS that incorporates
operation of the BWMS so that § 162.060–24 Test Plan requirements.
the use of or generates active
unintentional discharges do not occur. substances, preparations, or chemicals, (a) The Coast Guard requires Test
(6) Means of automatic operation for the BWMS must be equipped with each Plans for land-based, shipboard, and
BWMS installed in unoccupied of the following, as applicable: component testing conducted to meet
machinery spaces, from the time placed (1) A means of indicating the amount the requirements of §§ 162.060–26,
on-line until the time secured. and concentration of any chemical in 162.060–28 and 162.060–30 of this
(7) Adequate alarms for the the BWMS that is necessary for its subpart, respectively. Test Plans must
unintentional release of active effective operation. include an examination of all the
substances, preparations, relevant (2) A means of indicating when manufacturer’s stated requirements and
chemicals, or hazardous materials used chemicals must be added for the proper procedures for installation, calibration,
in or produced by the BWMS. continued operation of the BWMS. maintenance, and operations that will
(d) A BWMS must comply with the (3) Sensors and alarms in all spaces be used by the ballast water
relevant requirements for use in a that may be impacted by a malfunction management system (BWMS) during
hazardous location, as defined in 46 of the BWMS. each test, as appropriate for the specific
CFR subpart 111.105, or its foreign (4) A means of monitoring all active test.
equivalent, if it is intended to be fitted substances and preparations and (b) Test Plans must also include
in a hazardous location. Any electrical relevant chemicals in the treated potential environmental, health, and
equipment that is a component of the discharge. safety issues; unusual operating
requirements; and any issues related to (c) Each valid test cycle must testing, in accordance with paragraph
the disposal of treated ballast water, by- include— (f)(1)(iv) of this section, that greater
products, or waste streams. (1) Uptake of source water by scaling and lower flow rates will not
(c) For land-based testing, a Test Plan pumping at a minimum of 200 m3/hr; adversely affect the testing’s ability to
prepared under the ETV Protocol may (2) Treatment of a minimum of 200 predict full-scale compliance with the
be submitted (ETV Protocol m3 of challenge water with the BWMS; BWDS. The procedures of § 162.060–
incorporated by reference, see (3) Pumping of a minimum of 200 m3 10(b)(1) of this subpart must be followed
§ 162.060–5). Otherwise, each Test Plan of control water through the test facility before scaling of flow rates other than
must be in the following format: in a manner that is in all ways identical those provided in paragraph (f)(1) of this
(1) Title page, including all project to paragraph (c)(2) of this section, section may be used.
participants. except that the BWMS is not used to (g) The test set-up, TRC, and scaling
(2) Table of contents. treat the water; of all tests (including mathematical and
(3) Project description and treatment (4) Retention of the treated and computational fluid dynamics
performance objectives. control water in separate tanks for a modeling) must be clearly identified in
(4) Project organization and personnel minimum of 24 hours; and the Experimental Design section of the
responsibilities. (5) Discharge of the treated and Test Plan.
(5) Description of the independent control water by pumping.
laboratory and all test facilities and (d) The BWMS must be tested in § 162.060–28 Shipboard testing
subcontractors. water conditions for which it will be requirements.
(6) BWMS description. approved. For each set of test cycles, a (a) The ballast water management
(7) Experimental design (including salinity range must be chosen. With system (BWMS) manufacturer is
installation/start-up plan for tested respect to the salinity of water bodies responsible for making all arrangements
equipment). where the BWMS is intended to be for a vessel on which to conduct
(8) Challenge conditions and used, the challenge water used in the shipboard tests, including the provision
preparation (including the test facility’s test set-up must have dissolved and and installation of a BWMS.
standard operating procedures for particulate content as described in the (b) Shipboard tests must be conducted
achieving such conditions). ETV Protocol. throughout a period of operation of at
(9) Sampling, data acquisition, and (e) The approval certificate issued in least 6 months. During the period of
analysis plan, including all necessary accordance with § 162.060–10(g) will testing, all ballast water discharged to
procedures. list the salinity ranges for which the waters of the United States must be
(10) Data management, analysis, and BWMS is approved. treated by the BWMS.
reporting. (f) The BWMS must be tested at its (c) BWMS approved under this
(11) Quality Assurance Project Plan, rated capacity or as specified in subpart must undergo shipboard tests
in accordance with the requirements of paragraph (f)(1) of this section for each and evaluations that meet the
§ 162.060–36 of this subpart. test cycle and must function to the requirements of this section. The
(12) Environmental, health, and safety manufacturer’s specifications during the shipboard testing will verify—
plans. test.
(1) That the BWMS under
(13) Applicable references. (1) Treatment equipment may be
consideration for approval, when
downsized for land-based testing, but
§ 162.060–26 Land-based testing installed and operated in the vessel in
only when the following criteria are
requirements. a location and configuration consistent
met:
(a) Each ballast water management (i) Treatment equipment with a with its final intended use on operating
system (BWMS) must undergo land- treatment rated capacity (TRC) equal to vessels (e.g., in the engine room or
based tests and evaluations that meet or less than 200 m3/h must not be pump room), consistently results in the
the requirements of the ETV Protocol downscaled. routine discharge of ballast water that
(incorporated by reference, see (ii) Treatment equipment with a TRC meets the ballast water discharge
§ 162.060–5). The land-based testing greater than 200 m3/h but less than standard (BWDS) requirements of 33
will determine if the biological efficacy 1,000 m3/h may be downscaled to a CFR part 151, subparts C and D; and
of the BWMS under consideration for maximum of 1:5 scale, but must not be (2) That the operating and
approval is sufficient to meet the less than 200 m3/h. maintenance parameters identified by
applicable ballast water discharge (iii) Treatment equipment with a TRC the manufacturer in the Operation,
standard (BWDS) and validate those equal to or greater than 1,000 m3/h may Maintenance, and Safety Manual
aspects of the operating and be downscaled to a maximum of 1:100 (OMSM) are consistently achieved.
maintenance parameters presented by scale, but must not be less than 200 m3/ (d) The BWMS to be tested must be
the manufacturer that are appropriate h. installed and operated in the vessel in
for assessment under the relatively (iv) The manufacturer of the BWMS a location and configuration consistent
short-term, but well-controlled, must demonstrate by using with its final intended use on operating
circumstances of a land-based test. mathematical modeling, computational vessels. Vessel crew must operate the
(b) The test set up must operate as fluid dynamics modeling, and/or by BWMS during testing.
described in the ETV Protocol Test Plan calculations, that any downscaling will (e) The vessel used as a platform for
requirements during at least five not affect the ultimate functioning and shipboard testing under this section
consecutive, valid, and successful effectiveness onboard a vessel of the must be selected to meet the following
replicate test cycles. No adjustments to type and size for which the BWMS will criteria:
the BWMS are permitted unless be approved. (1) The volumes and rates of ballast
specifically detailed in the Operation, (2) Greater scaling may be applied and water used and treated are
Maintenance and Safety Manual. The lower flow rates used other than those representative of the upper end of the
BWMS must be operated by described in paragraph (f)(1) of this treatment rated capacity for which the
independent laboratory or independent section if the manufacturer can provide BWMS is intended to be used. Vessel
laboratory subcontractor personnel. evidence from full-scale shipboard tank size and flow rates must be equal
to or exceed those used during land- (3) All test cycles must include (h) Samples of ballast water must be
based tests. discharge tests and quantification of the collected from in-line sampling ports in
(2) The circumstances of the vessel’s concentration of living organisms in the accordance with the sampling
operation during the period of treated ballast water on discharge. specifications in the ETV Protocol.
shipboard testing provide an acceptable Sampling and analysis for living (i) The following information must be
range of geographic and seasonal organisms will be in accordance with documented during the entire period of
variability conditions. the ETV Protocol. BWMS testing operations conducted on
(i) The source water used for testing (4) A test cycle must meet the the vessel:
is representative of harbor or coastal following criteria in order to be (1) All ballast water operations,
waters. Testing must include temperate, considered valid: including volumes and locations of
semi-tropical, or tropical locations with (i) The uptake of the source water uptake and discharge.
ambient organism concentrations that must be conducted in accordance with (2) All test cycles, even those in
will provide a significant challenge to paragraph (e)(2)(i) of this section. which the BWMS failed to meet the
the efficacy of the BWMS. (ii) Source waters must be analyzed BWDS, must be documented. The
(ii) Concentrations of organisms for organisms greater than or equal to 50 possible reasons for an unsuccessful test
greater than or equal to 50 micrometers, micrometers and organisms less than 50 cycle must be investigated and included
and organisms less than 50 micrometers micrometers and greater than or equal to in the Test Report.
and greater than or equal to 10 10 micrometers. To simplify the testing (3) All weather conditions and
micrometers in the source water must program, these source water samples resultant effects on vessel orientation
exceed 10 times the maximum need only be collected and properly and vibration.
permitted values in the BWDS. preserved and transported for counting (4) Scheduled maintenance performed
(3) The ports that the vessel visits by trained microscopists in land-based on the BWMS.
provide adequate availability of laboratories. The reported data by taxa (5) Unscheduled maintenance and
transportation and scientific support (to the lowest reasonably identifiable repair performed on the BWMS.
needed to accomplish the necessary taxonomic grouping) will be used to (6) Data for all engineering parameters
sampling and analytical procedures characterize the source water biological monitored as appropriate to the specific
during the shipboard tests. test conditions. BWMS.
(f) The vessel’s ballast water system (iii) The BWMS must operate (7) Consumption of all solutions,
must be provided with sampling ports successfully as designed, maintaining preparations, or other consumables
arranged in order to collect control of all set points and treatment necessary for the effective operation of
representative samples of the vessel’s processes, including any pre-discharge the BWMS.
ballast water. In addition to the conditioning to remove or neutralize (8) All parameters necessary for
sampling ports designed and installed residual treatment chemicals or by- tracking the functioning of the control
in accordance with the specifications in products. and monitoring equipment.
the ETV Protocol (incorporated by (iv) All design or required water (9) All instrument calibration
reference, see § 162.060–5), sampling quality parameters must be met for the methods and frequency of calibration.
ports must be located— (j) All measurements for numbers and
discharged water.
(1) As close as practicable to the viability of organisms, water quality
(v) Whole effluent toxicity testing
BWMS prior to treatment to determine parameters, engineering performance
must be conducted in accordance with
concentrations of living organisms upon parameters, and environmental
the December 2008 Environmental
uptake; conditions must be conducted in
Protection Agency (EPA) Vessel General
(2) As close as practicable to the accordance with the ETV Protocol.
Permit (VGP) requirements (VGP
BWMS overboard outlet prior to the Where alternative methods are
Section 5.8; available at http://
discharge point to determine necessary, given constraints of the
www.epa.gov/npdes/pubs/
concentrations of living organisms prior BWMS and/or the vessel, standard
vessel_vgp_permit.pdf).
to discharge; and methods from recognized bodies such as
(3) Elsewhere as necessary to (5) The source water for all test cycles
EPA (in 40 CFR part 136), the
ascertain the proper functioning of the must be characterized by measurement
International Standards Organization, or
BWMS. of water quality parameters as follows:
others accepted by the scientific
(g) All test results must be reported in (i) For all BWMS tests, salinity,
community must be used, and must be
accordance with paragraph (i) of this temperature, and turbidity must be
accepted in advance by the Coast Guard.
section. The efficacy of the BWMS must measured either continuously during or (k) Test vessels discharging treated
be confirmed during at least five at the beginning, middle, and end of the ballast water into the waters of the
consecutive valid test cycles. period of ballast water uptake, as United States must be enrolled in the
(1) A test cycle entails— appropriate and practicable for the U.S. Coast Guard’s Shipboard
(i) The uptake of ballast water by the parameters to be measured. Technology Evaluation Program. Test
vessel; (ii) Water quality parameters (e.g., vessels discharging treated ballast water
(ii) The storage of ballast water on the dissolved and particulate organic into waters of other countries must
vessel; material, pH, etc.) that may affect the secure all necessary approvals and
(iii) Treatment of the ballast water by efficacy of BWMS that make use of permits required for discharges of
the BWMS, except in control tanks, if active substances or other processes, or treated ballast water.
used, with no fine-tuning or adjustment water quality parameters identified by
of the system except as specifically the manufacturer and/or the § 162.060–30 Testing requirements for
detailed in the OMSM; and independent laboratory as being critical, ballast water management system (BWMS)
(iv) The discharge of ballast water must be measured either continuously components.
from the vessel. during or at the beginning, middle, and (a) The electrical and electronic
(2) All test cycles must include end of the period of ballast water components, including each alarm and
quantification of the water quality uptake, as appropriate and practicable control and monitoring device of the
parameters on uptake. for the parameters to be measured. BWMS, must be subjected to the
following environmental tests when in (9) The components of a BWMS must § 162.060–34 Test Report requirements.
the standard production configuration: be designed to operate when the vessel The Test Report prepared and
(1) A resonance search vertically up is upright and inclined at any angle of submitted by an independent laboratory
and down, horizontally from side to list up to and including 15° either way must be formatted as set out below. The
side, and horizontally from end to end, under static conditions and 22.5° under Test Report must include, in addition to
at a rate sufficiently low as to permit dynamic, rolling conditions either way the information required by 46 CFR
resonance detection made over the and simultaneously inclined 159.005–11, information as follows:
following ranges of oscillation dynamically (pitching) 7.5° by bow or (a) Summary statement with the
frequency and amplitude: stern. Deviation from these angles may following information:
(i) At 2 to 13.3 Hz with a vibration be permitted only upon approval of a (1) Name of the independent
amplitude of +/¥1 mm. written waiver submitted to the Coast laboratory (IL) and all test facilities,
(ii) At 13.2 to 80 Hz with an Guard in accordance with § 162.060– subcontractors, and test organizations
acceleration amplitude of +/¥ 0.7 g. 10(b)(1) of this subpart, taking into involved in testing the ballast water
(2) The components must be vibrated consideration the type, size, and service management system (BWMS).
in the planes specified in paragraph conditions and locations of the vessels (2) Name of manufacturer.
(a)(1) of this section at each major and operational functioning of the (3) BWMS model name.
resonant frequency for a period of 4 equipment for where the system will be (4) The IL’s assessment that the
hours. used. Any deviation permitted must be BWMS—
(3) In the absence of any resonant documented in the type-approval (i) Has demonstrated, under the
frequency, the components must be certificate. procedures and conditions specified in
vibrated in each of the planes specified (10) The same component(s) must be this subpart for both land-based and
in paragraph (a)(1) of this section at 30 used for each test required by this shipboard testing, that it meets the
Hz with an acceleration of +/¥ 0.7 g for section and testing must be conducted ballast water discharge standard
a period of 4 hours. in the order in which the tests are requirements of 33 CFR part 151,
(4) Components that may be installed described, unless otherwise authorized subparts C and D;
in exposed areas on the open deck or in by the Coast Guard. (ii) Is designed and constructed
enclosed spaces not environmentally (b) There must be no cracking, according to the requirements of
controlled must be subjected to a low softening, deterioration, displacement, § 162.060–20 of this subpart;
temperature test of ¥25° C and a high breakage, leakage, or damage of (iii) Is in compliance with all
temperature test of 55° C for a period of components or materials that affect the applicable U.S. Environmental
2 hours at each temperature. At the end operation or safety of the BWMS after Protection Agency (EPA) requirements;
of each test, the components are to be each test. The components must remain (iv) Operates at the rated capacity,
switched on and must function operable after all tests. performance, and reliability as specified
normally under the test conditions. by the manufacturer;
§ 162.060–32 Testing and evaluation (v) Contains control and monitoring
(5) Components that may be installed requirements for active substances,
equipment that operates correctly;
in enclosed spaces that are preparations, and relevant chemicals.
(vi) Was installed in accordance with
environmentally controlled, including (a) A ballast water management the technical installation specification
an engine room, must be subjected to a system (BWMS) may not use an active of the manufacturer for all tests; and
low temperature test at 0° C and a high substance or preparation that is a (vii) Was used to treat volumes and
temperature test at 55° C, for a period pesticide unless the sale and flow rates of ballast water during the
of 2 hours at each temperature. At the distribution of such pesticide is shipboard tests consistent with the
end of each test, the components are to authorized under the Federal normal ballast operations of the vessel.
be switched on and must function Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide (b) Executive summary.
normally under the test conditions. Act (FIFRA) for use in ballast water (c) Introduction and background.
(6) Components must be switched off treatment prior to submission to the (d) Description of the BWMS.
for a period of 2 hours at a temperature Coast Guard for approval of the BWMS. (e) For each test conducted, summary
of 55° C in an atmosphere with a This requirement does not apply to the descriptions of—
relative humidity of 90 percent. At the use of active substances or preparations (1) Test conditions;
end of this period, the components must generated solely by the use of a device (2) Experimental design;
be switched on and must operate (as defined under FIFRA) onboard the (3) Methods and procedures; and
satisfactorily for 1 hour under the test same vessel as the ballast water to be (4) Results and discussion.
conditions. treated. (f) Appendices, including—
(7) Components that may be installed (b) The manufacturer of a BWMS that (1) Complete Test Plans for land-
in exposed areas on the open deck must uses an active substance or preparation based, shipboard, and component tests,
be subjected to tests for protection that is not a pesticide, or that uses a for which an EPA Environmental
against heavy seas in accordance with IP pesticide that is generated solely by the Technology Verification (ETV)
56 of publication IEC 60529 use of a device (as defined under Verification Report produced in
(incorporated by reference, see FIFRA) onboard the same vessel as the accordance with the ETV Protocol can
§ 162.060–5) or its equivalent. ballast water to be treated, must prepare substitute for the land-based test plan;
(8) Components must operate an assessment demonstrating the (2) Manufacturer supplied Operation,
satisfactorily with a voltage variation of effectiveness of the BWMS for its Maintenance, and Safety Manual that
+/¥ 10 percent together with a intended use, appropriate dosages over meets the requirements of § 162.060–38
simultaneous frequency variation of +/ all applicable temperatures, hazards of of this subpart;
¥ 5 percent, and a transient voltage of the BWMS, and means for protection of (3) Data generated during testing and
+/¥ 20 percent together with a the environment, and public health. evaluations;
simultaneous transient frequency of +/ This assessment must accompany the (4) Quality Assurance and Quality
¥ 10 percent and transient recovery application package submitted to the Control records;
time of 3 seconds. Coast Guard. (5) Maintenance logs;
(6) Relevant records and tests results (ii) The theory of the BWMS’ (6) A description of the BWMS’s
maintained or created during testing; operation; control and monitoring equipment and
(7) Information on hazardous (iii) Any process or technology how it will be integrated with the
materials, active substances, relevant limitations of the BWMS; existing shipboard ballast system,
chemicals, and pesticides as detailed in (iv) Performance ranges and including—
paragraph (g) of this section; and expectations of the system; and (i) Power demand;
(8) Permits, registrations, restrictions, (v) A description of the locations and (ii) Main and local control panels;
and regulatory limitations on use. conditions for which the BWMS is (iii) Power distribution system;
(g) The Test Report for a BWMS that intended. (iv) Power quality equipment;
may incorporate, use, produce, generate (4) Major system components and (v) Instrumentation and control
as a by-product and/or discharge shipboard application, including— system architecture;
hazardous materials, active substances, (i) A general description of the
(vi) Process control description;
relevant chemicals and/or pesticides materials used for construction and
(vii) Operational set points, control
during its operation must include the installation of the BWMS;
(ii) A list of each major component loops, control algorithms, and alarm
following information in the appendix settings for routine maintenance, and
that may be fitted differently in different
of the Test Report: emergency operations; and
vessels with a general description of the
(1) A list of each active substance or (viii) All devices required for
different arrangements schemes;
preparation used in the BWMS. For (iii) Any vessel type(s), services, or measuring appropriate parameters, such
each active substance or preparation locations where the BWMS is not as pressure, temperature, flow rate,
that is a pesticide and is not generated intended to be used; water quality, power, and chemical
solely by the use of a device onboard the (iv) Maximum and minimum flow residuals.
same vessel as the ballast water to be and volume capacities of the BWMS; (7) A description of all relevant
treated, the appendix must also include (v) The dimensions and weight of the standard operating procedures
documentation that the sale or complete BWMS and required including, but not limited to—
distribution of the pesticide is connection and flange sizes for all major (i) BWMS start-up and shutdown
authorized under the Federal components; procedures and times;
Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide (vi) A description of all actual or (ii) Emergency shutdown and system
Act for use for ballast water treatment. potential effects of the BWMS on the by-pass procedures;
For all other active substances or vessel’s ballast water, ballast water (iii) Requirements to achieve
preparations, the appendix must tanks, and ballast water piping and treatment objectives (e. g., time
include documentation of the pumping systems; following initial treatment, critical
assessment specified in § 162.060–32(b) (vii) A list of all active substances, dosages, residual concentrations, etc);
of this subpart. relevant chemicals, and pesticides (iv) Operating, safety, and emergency
(2) A list of all hazardous materials, generated or stored onboard the vessel procedures;
including the applicable hazard classes, to be used by the BWMS; and (v) BWMS limitations, precautions,
proper shipping names, reportable (viii) Information on whether the and set points;
quantities as designated by 40 CFR BWMS is designed to be used in (vi) Detailed instructions on
117.1, and chemical names of all hazardous locations. operation, calibration and zeroing of
components. (5) System and major system each monitoring device used with the
component drawings as applicable, BWMS; and
§ 162.060–36 Quality Assurance Project including—
Plan (QAPP) requirements. (vii) Personnel requirements for the
(i) Process flow diagram(s) of the BWMS, including number and types of
The approval testing and evaluation BWMS showing the main treatment
process must contain a rigorous Quality personnel needed, labor burden, and
processes, chemicals, and monitoring operator training or specialty
Assurance and Quality Control program and control devices for the BWMS;
consisting of a QAPP developed in certification requirements.
(ii) Footprint(s), drawings, and system
accordance with ISO/IEC 17025:2005(E), (8) A description of the preventive
schematics showing all major
as amended ISO/IEC 17025:2005/ and corrective maintenance
components and arrangements;
Cor.1:2006(E) (incorporated by (iii) Drawings, containing a bill of requirements of the BWMS, including—
reference, see § 162.060–5). The materials, for the pumping and piping (i) Inspection and adjustment
independent laboratory performing arrangements, and all related equipment procedures;
approval tests and evaluations is provided with the BWMS; (ii) Troubleshooting procedures;
responsible for ensuring the appropriate (iv) All treatment application points, (iii) An illustrated list of parts and
Quality Assurance and Quality Control waste or recycling streams, and all spare parts;
procedures are implemented. sampling points integral to the BWMS; (iv) A list of recommended spare parts
(v) All locations and the sizes of all to have during installation and
§ 162.060–38 Operation, Maintenance, and piping and utility connections for operation of the BWMS;
Safety Manual (OMSM). power, water, compressed air or other (v) Use of tools and test equipment in
(a) Each OMSM must include the utilities as required by the BWMS; accordance with the maintenance
following sections: (vi) Electrical wiring diagrams that procedures; and
(1) Table of contents. include the location and electrical rating (vi) Point(s) of contact for technical
(2) Manufacturer’s information. of power supply panels and BWMS assistance.
(3) Principles of ballast water control and monitoring equipment; (9) A description of the health and
management system (BWMS) operation, (vii) Unit(s), construction materials, safety risks to the personnel associated
including— standards, and labels on all drawings of with the installation, operation, and
(i) A complete description of the equipment, piping, instruments, and maintenance of the BWMS including,
BWMS, methods and type(s) of appurtenances; and but not limited to—
technologies used in each treatment (viii) An index of all drawings and (i) The storage, handling, and disposal
stage of the BWMS; diagrams. of any hazardous wastes;
(ii) Any health and safety (1) The readiness evaluation will approval test to be completed, in
certification/training requirements for examine the design and construction of accordance with § 162.060–24 of this
personnel operating the BWMS; and the BWMS to determine whether there subpart.
(iii) All material safety data sheets for are any fundamental problems that (c) Prior to land-based testing, the
hazardous or relevant chemicals used, might constrain the ability of the BWMS independent laboratory must ensure
stored, or generated by or for the system. to manage ballast water as proposed by that the BWMS supplied by the
(b) If any information in the OMSM the manufacturer or to operate it safely manufacturer is set up in accordance
changes as a result of approval testing onboard vessels. This evaluation must with the BWMS’ Operation,
and evaluations, a new OMSM must be determine that the BWMS— Maintenance, and Safety Manual
submitted. (i) Is designed and constructed (OMSM).
according to the requirements of (d) Prior to shipboard testing, the
§ 162.060–40 Requirements for § 162.060–20 of this subpart; independent laboratory must ensure
Independent Laboratories (ILs). (ii) Meets all existing safety and that the BWMS supplied by the
(a) For designation by the Coast Guard environmental regulatory requirements manufacturer is installed in a vessel in
as an independent laboratory for the for all locations and conditions where accordance with the OMSM and the
evaluation, inspection, and testing of the system will be operated during the vessel’s administration’s requirements
BWMS, an independent laboratory must testing and evaluation period; and and can be tested in accordance with
demonstrate compliance with 46 CFR (iii) Meets the definition of a complete § 162.060–28 of this subpart.
159.010–3, 46 CFR 159.010–5, and 46 BWMS, as defined in this subpart, to (e) Prior to commencing land-based or
CFR 159.010–11 through 159.010–19. include both ballast water treatment shipboard testing required under this
(b) Each request for designation as an equipment and control and monitoring subpart, the independent laboratory
independent laboratory authorized equipment. Only complete systems in must require the BWMS manufacturer to
under paragraph (a) of this section must the configurations in which they are sign a written statement to attest that the
be delivered to the Commandant (CG– intended for sale and use will be system was properly assembled and
521), Office of Design and Engineering accepted for type-approval testing. installed at the test facility or onboard
Standards, U.S. Coast Guard, 2nd St. (2) The independent laboratory has the test vessel.
SW., Stop 7126, Washington, DC 20593– the right to reject a proposed BWMS for (f) The independent laboratory or its
7126, in a written or electronic format. type-approval testing if it does not subcontractor(s) must conduct all
(c) A list of independent laboratories satisfy the requirements in paragraph (b) approval testing and evaluations in
designated by the Coast Guard under of this section, is not deemed ready for accordance with testing requirements of
paragraph (b) of this section may be approval testing or if, for technical or this subpart and within the range or
found at http://cgmix.uscg.mil/, or may logistical reasons, that independent rated capacity of the BWMS.
be obtained by contacting the laboratory does not have the capability (g) Upon completion of all approval
Commandant (CG–521), Office of Design to accommodate the BWMS for testing tests and evaluations, the independent
and Engineering Standards, U.S. Coast or evaluation. laboratory must follow the requirements
Guard, 2100 2nd St. SW., Stop 7126, (3) Upon determination that the of § 162.060–34 of this subpart and
Washington, DC 20593–7126. BWMS is ready for testing, the forward a complete Test Report to the
independent laboratory will notify the Commanding Officer, U.S. Coast Guard
§ 162.060–42 Responsibilities for Commandant (CG–52), Commercial Marine Safety Center, 2100 2nd St. SW.,
Independent Laboratories (ILs). Regulations and Standards Directorate, Stop 7102, Washington, DC 20593–
(a) Upon receipt of a request from a 2100 2nd St. SW., Stop 7126, 7102, or by email to msc@uscg.mil.
manufacturer for approval testing of a Washington, DC 20593–7126, and
ballast water management system Dated: March 9, 2012.
provide the estimated date for
(BWMS), the independent laboratory commencement of type-approval Robert J. Papp Jr.,
will conduct a readiness evaluation and testing. Admiral, U.S. Coast Guard, Commandant.
determine the acceptability of the (b) The independent laboratory must [FR Doc. 2012–6579 Filed 3–16–12; 11:15 am]
BWMS for testing. prepare a written Test Plan for each BILLING CODE 9110–04–P
US ADDITIONAL PROCEDURES FOR FOULING MAINTENANCE AND SEDIMENT
REMOVAL AS PER 33 CFR 151.2050(g)(3)
1 OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE OF THE ANTI-FOULING SYSTEMS
1.1 ANTI-FOULING SYSTEMS
Anti-fouling systems and operational practices are the primary means of biofouling
prevention and control for existing ships' submerged surfaces, including the hull and niche
areas. An anti-fouling system can be a coating system applied to exposed surfaces,
biofouling resistant materials used for piping and other unpainted components, marine
growth prevention systems (MGPSs) for sea chests and internal seawater cooling systems,
or other innovative measures to control biofouling.
Different anti-fouling systems are designed for different ship operating profiles so it
is essential that ship operators, designers and builders obtain appropriate technical advice to
ensure an appropriate system is applied or installed. If an appropriate anti-fouling system is
not applied, biofouling accumulation increases.
1.2 ANTI-FOULING HULL COATINGS
Underwater inspections
A visual inspection should be carried out at least once per year with the aim of checking – to the
extent possible- the condition/effectiveness of antifouling paints (no extensive fouling/attached
living organisms, no flaking antifouling paints, no exposed TBT/organotin surfaces). The results
of this visual inspection should be documented in relevant annual inspection forms (see SMSM).
Dry-docking recoating works

The condition of the anti-fouling paint is inspected during dry-docking and TBT-free/organotin-
free paints are re-applied, as necessary. The vessel is surveyed by the Classification Society
and such survey is endorsed on the International Antifouling System Certificate. The vessel
must keep the following records of any antifouling paint applied to the vessel: Dates of paint
application, materials used, application process, etc.
Dry-docking support strips: Positions of dry-docking blocks and supports should be varied at
each dry-docking, or alternative arrangements made to ensure that areas under blocks are
painted with anti-fouling, at least at alternate dry-dockings. These areas should receive a major
refurbishment type of surface preparation and be coated at each dry-docking that they are
accessible. Where it is not possible to alternate the position of dry-docking support strips, e.g.,
in critical weight bearing areas such as under the engine-room, these areas should be specially
considered and managed by other means, e.g., the application of specialized coatings or
procedures.
1.3 MGPS (where applicable)
Weekly records of MGPS inspections are logged in the relevant MGPS log and forwarded to the
office as necessary.
2 IN-WATER INSPECTION, CLEANING AND MAINTENANCE PROCEDURES
Despite the use of effective anti-fouling systems and operational practices, undesirable amounts
of biofouling may still accumulate during the intended lifetime of the anti-fouling system. To
maintain a ship as free of biofouling as practical, it might be a need for the ship to undertake in-
water inspection, cleaning and maintenance.
2.1 IN-WATER INSPECTION OF SHIPS
In-water inspection can be a useful and flexible means to inspect the condition of anti-fouling
systems and the biofouling status of the ship. In-water inspections should be undertaken
periodically as a general means of routine surveillance, augmented by specific inspections as
necessary to address any situations of elevated risk. Specific occasions when an in-water
inspection may be appropriate, include the following:
Specific occasions when an additional in-water inspection may be appropriate, include the
following:
1. before and after any planned period of inactivity or significant or unforeseen

change to the ship's operating profile;
2. prior to undertaking in-water cleaning to determine the presence of known or
suspected invasive aquatic species or other species of concern on the ship;
3. after a known or suspected marine pest or other species of concern is discovered
in a ship's internal seawater cooling systems; and
4. following damage to, or premature failure of, the anti-fouling system.
During in-water inspections particular attention should be given to the niche areas on the ship,
such as:
1. dry-docking support strips;

2. propellers and propulsion units;
3. sea chests;
4. rudder stock and hinge;
5. rope guards, stern tube seals and propeller shafts;
6. cathodic protection anodes;
7. anchor chain and chain lockers;
8. free flood spaces inherent to the ship’s design;
9. echo sounders and velocity probes;
10. overboard discharge outlets and sea inlets; and
11. areas prone to anti-fouling coating system damage or grounding (e.g., areas of
the hull damaged by fenders when alongside);
12. stabilizer fin apertures; (where applicable)
13. bow and/or stern thrusters; (where applicable)
14. thruster tunnel grates; (where applicable)
In-water surveys should be undertaken by persons who are suitably qualified and experienced
and familiar with biofouling and associated invasive aquatic species risks and the safety risks
relating to in-water surveys. Regulatory authorities may have recommended or accredited
biofouling inspection divers.
2.2 IN-WATER CLEANING AND MAINTENANCE
In-water cleaning can be an important part of biofouling management. In-water cleaning can
also introduce different degrees of environmental risk, depending on the nature of biofouling (i.e.
microfouling versus macrofouling), the amount of anti-fouling coating system residue released
and the biocidal content of the anti-fouling coating system. Relative to macrofouling,
microfouling can be removed with gentler techniques that minimize degradation of the anti-
fouling coating system and/or biocide release. Microfouling removal may enhance a ship's hull
efficiency, reducing fuel consumption and greenhouse gas emissions. It is, therefore,
recommended that the ship's hull is cleaned when practical by soft methods if significant
microfouling occurs. In-water cleaning can also reduce the risk of spreading invasive aquatic
species by preventing macrofouling accumulation.
Personnel proposing to undertake in-water cleaning should be aware of any regulations or

requirements for the conduct of in-water cleaning, including any regulations regarding the
discharge of chemicals into the marine environment and the location of sensitive areas (such as
marine protected areas and ballast water exchange areas). Where significant macrofouling
growth is detected, it should be removed or treated (if this can be done without damaging the
anti-fouling system) in accordance with such regulations. Where available, appropriate
technology should be used to minimize the release of both anti-fouling coating or paint debris,
and viable adult, juvenile, or reproductive stages of macrofouling organisms. The collected
material should be disposed of in a manner which does not pose a risk to the aquatic
environment.
For immersed areas coated with biocidal anti-fouling coatings, cleaning techniques
should be used that minimize release of biocide into the environment. Cleaning heavily
fouled anti-fouling coating systems can not only generate biofouling debris, but prematurely
depletes the anti-fouling coating system and may create a pulse of biocide that can harm the
local environment and may impact on future applications by the port authority for the disposal of
dredge spoil. Depleted anti-fouling coating systems on hulls will rapidly re-foul. In-water cleaning
or scrubbing of hulls for the purpose of delaying dry-dockings beyond the specified service life
of the coating is, therefore, not recommended.
Immersed areas coated with biocide-free anti-fouling coating systems may require
regular in-water cleaning as part of planned maintenance to maintain hull efficiency and
minimize the risk of transferring invasive aquatic species. Cleaning techniques should be
used which do not damage the coating and impair its function.
Any maintenance or repair activities should take care not to impede future in-service
cleaning and/or maintenance, e.g., care should be taken to ensure sea chest grates do not
become welded shut during repair work.
2.3 IN-WATER INSPECTION / CLEANING REPORTS
Divers’ reports (including photographic/video material) should be kept both in the Company and
onboard.
3 SAFETY PROCEDURES FOR THE SHIP AND THE CREW
During the implementation of the biofouling management procedures outlined in this Manual, all
applicable safety procedures contained in the Company’s Safety Management System Manual
(SMSM) must be strictly implemented.
Particular attention should be given to the safety procedures (refer to SMS Manual) for:
 Divers’ underwater inspection and repairs, for the in-water hull inspections and cleanings
 Electrical work, for the maintenance of the MGPS (where applicable)
 Entry into enclosed space, for the inspection of chain locker
4 DISPOSAL OF BIOLOGICAL WASTE
Maintenance waste, including any fouling organisms, from the cleaning of sea chest strainers or
other seawater piping must:
(a) not be discharged within 50 n.miles from shore; and
(b) be handled in accordance with MARPOL Annex V requirements.
Biological materials (marine biota) removed from anti-fouled hulls, should be disposed by the
dry-docking yard of as solid waste in compliance with local requirements.
5 DISPOSAL OF SEDIMENTS
Where practicable, routine cleaning of the ballast tank to remove sediments should be carried
out in mid-ocean or under controlled arrangements in port or dry dock.
When sediment has accumulated consideration should be given to flushing tank bottoms and
other surfaces when in suitable areas, i.e. outside 200 nautical miles from land and in water
depths of over 200 meters.
The volume of sediment in a ballast tank should be monitored on a regular basis.
Sediment in ballast tanks should be removed in a timely basis and as found necessary, always
taking into account safety and operational considerations addressed in this manual. The
frequency and timing of removal will also depend on factors such as sediment build up, ship's
trading pattern, availability of reception facilities, work load of the ship's personnel and safety
considerations.
Removal of sediment from ballast tank should preferably be undertaken under controlled
conditions in port, at a repair facility or in dry dock. The removed sediment should be preferably
be disposed of in a sediment reception facility if available, reasonable and practicable.
Flushing by using water movement within a tank to bring sediment into suspension, will only
remove a part of the mud, depending on the configuration of an individual tank and its piping
arrangement Removal may be more appropriate on a routine basis during scheduled dry
dockings. This is often needed for other reasons anyway.
However, flushing at sea may be a useful tool on some occasions such as when a ship changes
its trading area.
When sediment is removed from the ship's ballast tanks and is to be disposed of by that ship at
sea such disposal should only take place in areas outside 200 nautical miles from land and in
water depths of over 200 meters.
Sediment control and removal methods
Tank Bottom Flush Water Jet De-Mucking

Fore Peak
Topsides/SBT
Double Bottom
Aft Peak
% &

,8
9
<+-?$U?0>=/BO0/U0@>=?B'!
+ % < 2 ! () *
C .
8

"##$
% !&+

A0-000%
7+ .

78

.
3 .
%

%
% %
+ %
%

< <2 &8- %
(() 7R!

& .
8
%
<+ % 8 %+ =A- "=
!2 E%
+
- % + + %
+ -.
%8 +
!& + % 8 %
%

!

National Ballast Water Management Requirements – May 2012
4.2 Persian Gulf area

Authority: Regional Organization for the Protection of the Marine Environment (ROMPE)
Ports affected: All
Ships affected: All
Start date: 1 November, 2009
Acceptable methods: a) Ballast water exchange: in waters at least 200 metres deep and 200 nautical
miles from the nearest land. If this is not possible, ballast may be exchanged in
waters 200 metres deep and not less than 50 nautical miles from land. Ships are
not required to deviate from their intended voyage to meet this requirement
b) Treat with an IMO-approved system

Unwanted organisms No information
and pathogens:
Uptake control: All ballast water taken up outside the ROPME Sea Area, defined as: extending
between the following geographic latitudes and longitudes, respectively: 16°39'N,
53°3'30''E; 16°00'N, 53°25'E; 17°00'N, 56°30'E; 20°30'N, 60°00'E; 25°04'N,
61°25'E
Ballast Water Ships must have a Ballast Water Management Plan approved in accordance with the
Management Plan: IMO Resolution MEPC.127(53) – Guidelines for Ballast Water Management and
Development of Ballast Water Management Plans (G4), adopted on 22, July 2005
Records and reporting: Ships must have a ballast water log book or record ballasting operations in the deck
log book
Alternatives to en No information
route management
procedures:
Procedure for No information
water:
INTERNATIONAL MARITIME ORGANIZATION
E
IMO
MARINE ENVIRONMENT PROTECTION MEPC 59/INF.3

COMMITTEE 2 February 2009
59th session ENGLISH ONLY
Agenda item 2
HARMFUL AQUATIC ORGANISMS IN BALLAST WATER
Second Regional Steering Committee Meeting on Ballast Water

Management – Identification of ballast water exchange area outside the ROPME Sea Area
Submitted by ROPME/MEMAC
SUMMARY
Executive summary: This document provides information on the Second ROPME
Sea Area Regional Steering Committee Meeting on Ballast
Water Management held in the Kingdom of Bahrain
on 4 and 5 November 2008, in which the requirements of mandatory
ballast water exchange outside the ROPME Sea Area was discussed
Strategic direction: 3.1
High-level action: 3.1.1
Planned output: 3.1.1.1
Action to be taken: Paragraph 10
Related document: MEPC 58/INF.4
Background
1 In continuation of the efforts for responding to the need for a regional approach to ballast
water issue in the ROPME Sea Area (RSA), the Second Regional Steering Committee Meeting
was convened in the Kingdom of Bahrain on 4 and 5 November 2008. This regional meeting
discussed several aspects related to ballast water management in the ROPME Sea Area.
Considering the semi-enclosed nature of the Persian Gulf, the sensitivity of the ecosystem to
marine bio-invasions and the very large volume of ballast water being discharged into the sea,
in April 2008, the ROPME Council decided to identify ballast water exchange area(s) outside
the ROPME Sea Area as a matter of priority, to efficiently address the issue of harmful aquatic
organisms in ships’ ballast water and sediments. In light of the Ballast Water Management
Convention and in accordance with the requirements of regulation B-4 of the this Convention,
the Regional Steering Committee Meeting discussed this issue extensively and identified the
need for ballast exchange outside the ROPME Sea Area and recommended that ballast water
exchange, if any, should be conducted outside the ROPME Sea Area.
For reasons of economy, this document is printed in a limited number. Delegates are
kindly asked to bring their copies to meetings and not to request additional copies.
I:\MEPC\59\INF-3.doc
MEPC 59/INF.3 -2-
Introduction
2 In light of the Ballast Water Management Convention that replaced the voluntary
guidelines and considering the specific provisions of the Convention, it is desired to take
the necessary steps to mitigate the risk of introduction of unwanted species and also to
harmonize National and Regional policies to address the issue of ballast water in
the RSA. The ROPME Sea Area is the largest recipient of ships’ ballast water. Annually, more
than 45,000 vessels visit this area and discharge a large amount of ballast water. The RSA is
a semi-enclosed water body with intensely hot summers and short cool winters, extensive air and
water temperature fluctuation and relatively high salinity. It is also characterized by high
turbidity and low exchange of water with open sea. Taking into account the environmental
sensitivity of the RSA, the IMO resolution MEPC.168(56) recognized and designated the RSA as
a “Special Area” as of 1 August 2008 for the purpose of Annexes I and V of MARPOL 73/78
Convention. Therefore, there is a need also to manage and control the spread of the harmful aquatic
species in ships’ ballast water by implementing a set of measures such as ballast water exchange
outside the ROPME Sea Area.
Environmental conditions in the ROPME Sea Area (RSA)
3 The RSA is one of the major oil and gas producing areas in the world, with more
than 20,000 oil tankers visiting the region every year and steadily growing dry cargo transportation.
A very significant amount of oil is spilled into the sea every year as a result of discharges from
ships and the region’s many offshore oil and gas platforms. Tanker and cargo vessel traffic
generates a substantial amount of ballast water discharged in the RSA.
4 With a certain approximation, the RSA can be divided into three parts.
The Inner RSA
5 This is the area from the Strait of Hormuz to the northern coast with a length of
about 550 nautical miles and surrounded by high mountains on the Iranian side and low-lying
land on the Arabian side. It is a shallow embayment having a mean depth of about 35 metres
with a maximum depth of an average of 70 metres connecting to the Gulf of Oman and
the Indian Ocean. The Strait of Hormuz is only 30 nautical miles wide at its narrowest point.
The maximum width of the inner part of the region is about 150 nautical miles. It takes about
three to five years to exchange the water in the inner RSA.
The Middle RSA
6 This area comprises of the Gulf of Oman and the east coast of the United Arab Emirates,
which is a deep basin with depths exceeding 2,500 metres. It has free access to the Arabian Sea
and the Indian Ocean.
The Outer RSA
7 This is the area extending from Ras Al-Hadd to the southwestern border of Oman. The
area features well developed sandy shores with a large continental shelf to rocky highlands with
a narrow continental shelf.
-3- MEPC 59/INF.3
Outcome of the meeting
8 As a conclusion of two days of extensive discussions, the Steering Committee Meeting

recognized the need for the establishment of the mandatory ballast water management
requirements to address the issue of harmful aquatic organisms and pathogens in ships’ ballast
water and sediments in line with the ROPME Council decisions in identifying ballast water
management as the most appropriate way to improve the regional marine environment.
9 Taking into consideration the provisions of the regulation B-4 of the Ballast Water
Management Convention, the Steering Committee decided as follows:
.1 Vessels arriving from outside the ROPME Sea Area should undertake ballast
water exchange en route in water over 200 nautical miles from the nearest land
and in water at least 200 metres depth.
.2 If this is not possible for safety reasons, then vessels should be expected to make
minor deviations to areas within the 200 nautical miles limit that can be identified
as discharge area, so long as such areas are more than 50 nautical miles from the
nearest land in waters at least 200 metres depth.
.3 If this is not achievable, then the ship shall provide the respective authority with
the reason why she has not done so, and further ballast water management
measures may be required, consistent with the Ballast Water Management
Convention and other international laws.
.4 These requirements shall take effect from 1 November 2009.
Action requested of the Committee
10 The Committee is invited to note the information contained in this document.
***
MEPC 59/INF.3
ANNEX
ROPME SEA AREA
_______________
2.12 Norway
Authority: Norwegian Maritime Directorate
Ports affected: All
Ships affected: All
Start date: 1 July, 2010
Acceptable methods: a) Ballast water exchange: ballast is to be exchanged in waters at least 200 metres
deep and 200 nautical miles from the nearest land. If this is not possible, ballast
may be exchanged in waters 200 metres deep and not less than 50 nautical
miles from land. Ships are not required to deviate from their intended voyage to
meet this requirement.
b) Treat with an IMO approved system.
c) Deliver to a shore reception facility.
The Norwegian Maritime Directorate may, in individual cases and upon written
application, grant exemption from these requirements. There must be special reasons
that make the exemption necessary and it must be justifiable in terms of safety.
Unwanted organisms No information
and pathogens:
Uptake control: All ballast water is to be taken up outside the following areas: the Barents Sea, the
Norwegian Sea, the North Sea, the Irish Sea, the Bay of Biscay and surrounding
Iberian peninsular, and the northern part of the Atlantic Ocean
Sampling: Not defined
Ballast Water Ships must have a Ballast Water Management Plan approved in accordance with IMO
Management Plan: Resolution (MEPC.127(53) - Guidelines for Ballast Water Management and
Development of Ballast Water Management Plans (G4), adopted on 22 July, 2005.
Records and reporting: Ships must have a ballast water log book or record ballasting operations in the deck
log book.
Alternatives to en If a ship cannot exchange ballast in the specified depth of water or at the required
route management distance from land, it must be exchanged in one of three designated exchange zones
procedures: off the Norwegian coast.
For details of these control areas please see ‘Further information’.

Procedure for No information
water:
Further information: Regulation of 7 July 2009 No. 992 concerning the prevention of transfer of alien
organisms via ballast water and sediments from ships (the Ballast Water Regulation)
can be downloaded from:
www.sjofartsdir.no/en/legislation/regulations/regulation-of-7-july-2009-no-
992-concerning-the-prevention-of-transfer-of-alien-organisms-via-ballast-
water-and-sediments-from-ships-the-ballast-water-regulation/
14
Regulation of 7 July 2009 No. 992 concerning the prevention of transfer of alien organisms
via ballast water and sediments from ships (the Ballast Water Regulation)
Laid down by the Ministry of the Environment on 7 July 2009 pursuant to the Act of 16 February
2007 No. 9 relating to Ship Safety and Security (the Ship Safety and Security Act) Sections 2, 6,
31, 32 and 33 and Act 19 June 2009 No. 100 relating to the management of biological, geological
and landscape diversity (Nature Diversity Act) Section 28 fourth paragraph. Amended by
Regulations of 27 November 2009 No. 1415, 10 June 2010 No. 795.
Chapter 1
General provisions
§1
Scope of application
This Regulation shall apply in Norwegian territorial waters, including the territorial waters
surrounding Svalbard and Jan Mayen, and in the Norwegian economic zone for all ships
constructed to carry ballast water. Submersible vessels and mobile offshore units under transport
are also regarded as ships.
This Regulation does not apply to:
a) ships trading exclusively in Norwegian territorial waters and in the Norwegian
economic zone,
b) ships with permanent ballast water in sealed tanks, and
c) craft of less than 50 metres in length overall and with maximum ballast water capacity
of 8 cubic metres, which is used solely for recreation, competition or craft used primarily for
search and rescue. However, such crafts shall exchange ballast water outside port waters and as
far from the coast as practically possible.
Enters into force on 1 July 2010.
§2
Definitions
For the purpose of this Regulation, the following definitions shall apply:
a) Ballast water: Water with its suspended matter taken on board a ship to control trim, list,
draught, stability, or stresses of a ship.
b) Ballast water capacity: The total volumetric capacity of any tanks, spaces or
compartments on a ship used for carrying, loading or discharging ballast water, including any
multi-use tank, space or compartment designed to allow carriage of ballast water.
c) Sediments: Matter settled out of ballast water.
§3
Exceptions
This Regulation shall not apply in the event of an accidental discharge or ingress of
ballast water and sediments resulting from damage to a ship or its equipment, provided
that all reasonable precautions have been taken for the purpose of preventing or
minimizing the discharge before and after the occurrence of the damage, or after the
discovery of the damage.
The ballast water and sediments management requirements of this Regulation shall
not apply in the event of emergencies when the uptake and discharge of ballast water and
sediments is necessary with respect to the safety of the ship, the health of those on board or
to save life at sea.
The Norwegian Maritime Directorate may under special circumstances with an
increased risk of introduction of alien species, for instance in the event of algal blooms,
impose more stringent ballast water and sediments management requirements than those
laid down in this Regulation.
§4
Exemptions
The Norwegian Maritime Directorate may, in individual cases and upon written
application, grant exemption from the requirements of this Regulation. There must be special
reasons that make the exemption necessary and it must be justifiable in terms of safety.
Exemptions can only be granted where they do not contravene international agreements to which
Norway has acceded.
Chapter 2
Requirements for ballast water management
§5
Ballast water management
Ships which are to discharge ballast water, and which have taken on board ballast water
from areas outside the region in point 1.1 of Annex 1, or from another area within the region than
the area in which it is to be discharged, shall manage ballast water by employing exchange,
treatment or delivery to reception facilities pursuant to this chapter.
§6
Exchange of untreated ballast water
When exchanging ballast water, at least 95 percent of the volume in all ballast tanks to be
used for port calls shall be exchanged. Pumping through three times the volume of each ballast
water tank shall be considered equal to this requirement.
Ballast water exchange shall only be conducted at least 200 nautical miles from the nearest
land and in water at least 200 metres in depth. If this is not possible, such ballast water exchange
can be conducted in water at least 200 metres in depth at least 50 nautical miles from the nearest
land. The nearest land is measured from the baseline from which the territorial water is
established.
In sea areas where the distance from the nearest land or the depth does not meet the criteria
of the second paragraph, ballast water exchange shall be conducted in exchange areas as
contained in point 1.2 of Annex 1 to this Regulation. If this is not possible, ballast water exchange
shall be conducted before the ship arrives in Norwegian territorial waters.
The requirements for ballast water exchange shall not apply if the ship must deviate from
its intended voyage or is unnecessary delayed. Exchange of ballast water shall still be conducted
as far from the coast as possible
The requirements for exchange of ballast water shall not apply if the master reasonably
decides that such exchange would threaten the safety or stability of the ship, its crew or its
passengers because of adverse weather, ship design or stress, equipment failure, or any other
extraordinary condition.
Enters into force on 1 July 2010. Amended by Regulation of 10 June 2010 No. 795.
§7
Ballast water treatment
Ballast water shall be treated with technology approved in accordance with the IMO
Guidelines before it is discharged.
Treated ballast water that is discharged, shall contain less than 10 viable organisms
per cubic metre greater than or equal to 50 micrometres in minimum dimension, and less than 10
viable organisms per millimetre less than 50 micrometres in minimum dimension and greater than
or equal to 10 micrometres in minimum dimension.
The discharge of indicator microbes shall not exceed the following concentrations:
a) Vibrio cholerae O1 and O139 (toxicogenic cholera bacteria): less than 1 colony forming
unit (cfu) per 100 millilitres or less than 1 cfu per 1 gram (wet weight) zooplankton
samples
b) Escherichia coli (E. coli; intestinal bacteria): less than 250 cfu per 100 millilitres
c) Intestinal Enterococci (intestinal bacteria): less than 100 cfu per 100 millilitres
The requirements of the first to third paragraphs shall not apply to ships that participate in
a programme to test new ballast water technology the first five years after the ship has installed
such technology or should have installed approved ballast water technology. The programme must
be approved in accordance with the IMO Guidelines.
§8
Ballast water discharge to reception facilities
Ballast water shall be discharged to reception facilities in compliance with Chapter 20 of

the Regulations of 1 June 2004 No. 931 relating to pollution control (Pollution Regulations).
§9
Ballast water and sediments management plan
Each ship shall have on board a ballast water and sediments management plan.
The plan shall be specific to each ship and shall provide a detailed description of the
actions to be taken and the routines to be utilised to implement the ballast water and sediments
management requirements as set forth in this Regulation.
The plan shall include an identification of the officers on board who are in charge of
ensuring that the plan is properly implemented.
The plan shall be written in the working language of the ship. If the language used is not
English, French or Spanish, a translation into one of these languages shall be included.
The programme must be approved in accordance with the IMO Guidelines.
§ 10
Ballast water record book
For Norwegian ships the ballast water record book shall be kept in accordance with the
Regulation of 15 September 1992 No. 693 concerning the Form and Keeping of Log Books for
Ships and Mobile Offshore Units.
For foreign ships, entries shall be made in the Ballast Water record book or in the deck log
book in accordance with the following requirements:
a) The Ballast Water record book shall contain the information specified in Annex 2.
b) The entries in the Ballast Water record book shall be in a working language of the ship.
If that language is not English, the entries shall contain a translation into English.
c) In the event of the discharge of Ballast Water to a reception facility or in the event of
other accidental or exceptional discharge of Ballast Water, an entry shall be made in the Ballast
Water record book describing the circumstances of, and the reason for, the discharge.
d) Each operation concerning Ballast Water shall be fully recorded without delay in the
Ballast Water record book Each entry shall be signed by the officer in charge of the operation
concerned and each completed page shall be signed by the master.
e) When a ship is required to conduct Ballast Water exchange and does not do so in
accordance with § 6, the reasons shall be entered in the Ballast Water record book.
f) Except on unmanned ships under tow, log books shall be safe-kept on board so as to be
readily available for inspection at all reasonable times. Ballast Water record book entries shall be
maintained on board the ship for a minimum period of two years after the last entry has been
made and thereafter in the company‘s control for a minimum period of three years If the ship is
sold, the ship’s owner (the seller) shall retain the log books ashore.
§ 11
Survey and certification
Norwegian ships utilising ballast water treatment technologies and with a gross tonnage of
400 or above, shall be surveyed and certified by the Norwegian Maritime Directorate. This
requirement shall not apply to mobile offshore units.
Chapter 3
Concluding provisions
§ 12
Entry into force
This Regulation enters into force on 1 July 2010.
Amended by Regulation of 27 November 2009 No. 1415.
ANNEX 1
1.1 Region for uptake of ballast water:
The region consists of the following areas;

I: The Barents Sea, the Norwegian Sea
II: The North Sea
Coordinates of the region and the areas;
Area: Northern Eastern Southern border Western
border border border
Area I The North 51°E from the From the Norwegian coast South of
The Barents Pole North Pole to westwards along 62°N to 59ͼ N: 42°W
Sea the Russian 05°W North of 59°N
The coast, further From 62°N 05°W : 44ͼ W and
Norwegian south along the southwards along 05°W to Greenland's
Sea Russian and 60°N coastline
Norwegian From 60°N 05°W
coast to 62°N westwards along 60°N to
08°W
From 60°N 08°W north-
westwards to 62°N to 10°W
From 62°N to 10°W
westwards to 62°N to 30°W
From 62°N 30°W : draw a
line to St. John's
Newfoundland
The line will cross 42ͼ W
close to 55ͼ N
From 59°N 42°W to 59°N
44°W
Area II 62°N In the Kattegat, 48ͼ N from the coast of 05ͼ W and
The North northwards by Brittany to 48ͼ N 05ͼ W the British
Sea a line drawn coastline
from Hasenore
Hoved (DK) to
Gniben Spids
and from
Giljberg Hoved
(DK) to Kullen
(S)
Moreover, the
Norwegian,
Danish,
German,
Dutch, Belgian
and French
coastline
1.2 Ballast water exchange areas
Areas for untreated ballast water exchange:
Map
1. Røst – Tromsø: The area is delimited southwards of area 2. Towards the coast the
boundary lies along the territorial border (12 nm). Westwards the area is delimited 50 nm
from the coast. The northern border lies by Tromsøflaket.
Coordinates for exchange area 1:
North East North East
66°53' 010° 04 ' 69° 52 ' 016° 47 '
67° 25 ' 009° 40 ' 69° 41 ' 016° 44 '
67° 51 ' 009° 52 ' 69° 31 ' 015° 43 '
68° 13 ' 010° 43 ' 69° 14 ' 014° 46 '
68° 45 ' 011° 22 ' 68° 51 ' 013° 53 '
68° 54 ' 011° 58 ' 68° 28 ' 013° 15 '
69° 16 ' 012° 32 ' 68° 18 ' 012° 41 '
69° 38 ' 013° 24 ' 68° 01 ' 012° 17 '
69° 59 ' 014° 29 ' 67° 49 ' 012° 9 '
70° 12 ' 015° 36 ' 67° 35 ' 011° 25 '
70° 54 ' 017° 11 ' 67° 24 ' 011° 18 '
70° 12 ' 017° 24 ' 66° 49 ' 011° 51 '

2. The Norwegian Sea: The exchange area is delimited southwards of the Møreplatået.
Towards the coast the boundary lies along 20 nm, while it is delimited 50 nm towards the
west.
North East
62° 35 ' 004° 13 '
62° 41 ' 003° 34 '
63° 16 ' 004° 40 '
63° 43 ' 005° 55 '
64° 28 ' 006° 59 '
64° 43 ' 007° 43 '
65° 12 ' 008° 41 '
66° 53 ' 010° 04 '
66° 50 ' 011° 29 '
66° 26 ' 010° 56 '
65° 43 ' 010° 28 '
64° 59 ' 009° 43 '
64° 28 ' 008° 45 '
64° 10 ' 007° 49 '
63° 29 ' 006° 48 '
63° 18 ' 006° 26 '
63° 17 ' 005° 26 '

3. The West Coast: The area is delimited southwards and westwards of the offshore
facilities. Towards the coast the boundary lies along 12 nm. In the north, the boundary is
set where the Møreplatået begins.
North East
57° 44 ' 002° 53 '
60° 27 ' 003° 6 '
60° 59 ' 002° 46 '
61° 47 ' 002° 51 '
62° 41 ' 003° 35 '
62° 28 ' 004° 55 '
62° 16 ' 004° 40 '
61° 41 ' 004° 09 '
61° 01 ' 004° 05'
60° 16 ' 004° 30'
59° 40 ' 004° 40 '
59° 16 ' 004° 27 '
59° 09 ' 004° 32'
58° 55 ' 005° 00 '
58° 34 ' 005° 12'
58° 14 ' 005° 40 '
57° 49 ' 004° 49 '

New Annex 2 should read:
ANNEX 2
Form of ballast water record book
International convention for the control and

management of ships‘ ballast water and sediments
Period: From …...................... to...................................
Name of Ship................................................................
IMO number..............................................................
Gross tonnage............................................................
Flag...........................................................................
Total Ballast Water capacity (in cubic metres) ...............
The ship is provided with a Ballast Water Management plan
Diagram of ship indicating ballast tanks:
1. Introduction
In accordance with xxxxxxxxxxxxxx regulation B-2 of the Annex to the International Convention
for the Control and Management of Ships‘ Ballast Water and Sediments, a record is to be kept of
each Ballast Water operation. This includes discharges at sea and to reception facilities.
2. Ballast Water and Ballast Water Management

«Ballast Water» means water with its suspended matter taken on board a ship to control trim, list,
draught, stability, or stresses of a ship. Management of Ballast Water shall be in accordance with
an approved Ballast Water Management plan and taking into account guidelines developed by the
Organization.
3. Entries in the Ballast Water Record Book

Entries in the Ballast Water record book shall be made on each of the following occasions:
When Ballast Water is taken on board:

Date, time and location port or facility of uptake (port or lat/long), depth if outside port
Estimated volume of uptake in cubic metres
Signature of the officer in charge of the operation.
Whenever Ballast Water is circulated or treated:

Date and time of operation
Estimated volume circulated or treated (in cubic metres)
Whether conducted in accordance with the Ballast Water Management plan
Signature of the officer in charge of the operation
When Ballast Water is discharged into the sea:

Date, time and location port or facility of discharge (port or lat/long)
Estimated volume discharged in cubic metres plus remaining volume in cubic metres
Whether approved Ballast Water Management plan had been implemented prior to
discharge
When Ballast Water is discharged to a reception facility:

Date, time, and location of uptake
Date, time, and location of discharge
Port or facility, estimated volume discharged or taken up, in cubic metres
discharge
Accidental or other exceptional uptake or discharges of Ballast Water:

Date and time of occurrence
Port or position of the ship at time of occurrence
Estimated volume of Ballast Water discharged
Circumstances of uptake, discharge, escape or loss, the reason therefore and general
remarks
discharge
Additional operational procedure and general remarks may be entered here:
4 Volume of Ballast Water

The volume of Ballast Water onboard should be estimated in cubic metres. The Ballast Water
record book contains many references to estimated volume of Ballast Water. It is recognized that
the accuracy of estimating volumes of ballast is left to interpretation.
RECORD OF BALLAST WATER OPERATIONS
Sample ballast water record book page
Name of Ship: ..............................................................
Distinctive number or letters...........................

Date Item (number) Record of operations/signature of officers in charge
Signature of master ...........................................

National Ballast Water Management Requirements – May 2012
4. Regional ballast water requirements
4.1 Mediterranean
Authority: Regional Marine Pollution Emergency Response Centre for the Mediterranean
Sea (REMPEC)
Ports affected: All
Ships affected: All
Implementation: Voluntary
Start date: 1 January, 2012
Acceptable methods: a) Ballast water exchange: exchange ballast water before entering the
Mediterranean Sea or after leaving the Mediterranean Sea to meet the
regulation D-1 standard of the Ballast Water Convention. Exchange should
be carried out at least 200 nautical miles from land and in waters at least
200 metres deep. The sequential, flow-through or dilution methods of
ballast water exchange are accepted as meeting the D-1 standard.
When engaged in traffic between the ports and areas listed below, ships
should undertake ballast water exchange in waters at least 50 nautical miles
from the nearest land and at least 200 metres deep or in an area designated by
a port state:
ports located within the Mediterranean Sea area

a port located in the Black Sea area and a port located in the Red Sea area
a port located in the Black Sea and a port located in the Mediterranean
Sea area
a port located in the Red Sea area and a port located in the
Mediterranean Sea area.
Sediments collected during cleaning or repair of ballast tanks should be

delivered to sediment reception facilities or be discharged to sea beyond
200 nautical miles from the nearest coastline when the ship is sailing in the
Mediterranean Sea area.
b) An IMO-approved ballast water treatment system.

Uptake control: No information
Ballast Water Required
Management Plan:
Records and reporting: Ballast water record book
Alternatives to en route In situations where this is not possible (because the ship will have to deviate
management procedures: from its intended voyage; because exchange will delay the ship; or for safety
reasons) exchange should be undertaken before entering the Mediterranean
Sea area, or after leaving the Mediterranean Sea area, as far from the nearest
land as possible, and in all cases in waters at least 50 nautical miles from the
nearest land and at least 200 metres deep.
Procedure for unacceptable No information
ballast water:
Further information: IMO circular BWM.2/Circ.35 15 August 2011
Notes: No information
E
BWM.2/Circ.35
15 August 2011
INTERNATIONAL CONVENTION FOR THE CONTROL AND

MANAGEMENT OF SHIPS' BALLAST WATER AND
SEDIMENTS, 2004
Communication received from the Regional Marine Pollution Emergency

Response Centre for the Mediterranean Sea (REMPEC)
1 A communication has been received from the Regional Marine Pollution Emergency
Response Centre for the Mediterranean Sea (REMPEC) on behalf of the following
Contracting Parties to the Convention for the Protection of the Marine Environment and the
Coastal Region of the Mediterranean (Barcelona Convention): Albania, Algeria, Croatia,
Cyprus, Egypt, France, Greece, Israel, Italy, Lebanon, the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, Malta,
Monaco, Montenegro, Morocco, Slovenia, Spain, Syria, Tunisia and Turkey.
2 The communication contains the Harmonized Voluntary Arrangements for Ballast

Water Management in the Mediterranean Region (in English and French) adopted by the
abovementioned Contracting Parties, which provide guidance for voluntary ballast water
exchange and management options to vessels transiting the Mediterranean Sea area. The
arrangements are of voluntary interim nature and will be applicable from 1 January 2012 until
the time that the Ballast Water Management Convention enters into force.
3 At the request of the Administrations of the abovementioned Contracting Parties, the

communication annexed hereto is circulated to Member States for their information and
future action as appropriate.
***
BWM.2/Circ.35
Annex 1, page 1
ANNEX 1
HARMONIZED VOLUNTARY ARRANGEMENTS FOR BALLAST WATER

MANAGEMENT IN THE MEDITERRANEAN REGION
(ENGLISH VERSION)
Introduction
The harmonised voluntary interim regime is being submitted under paragraph 3 of Article 13
of the International Convention for the Control and Management of Ships' Ballast Water and
Sediments (Ballast Water Management Convention) whereby Parties with common interest
to protect the environment, human health, property and resources, particularly those
bordering enclosed or semi-enclosed seas, shall endeavour to enhance regional
cooperation, including through the conclusion of regional agreements consistent with the
Convention. The proposed arrangements take into account other adopted regional policies
on ship's ballast water exchange.
The regime forms also part of a regional strategy on ships' ballast water management,
developed within the Mediterranean Action Plan1, with the technical support of the GloBallast
Partnerships Project2. It is based on the requirements of the Ballast Water Management
Convention and is being proposed as an interim regime. The regime is voluntary; therefore,
ships entering the Mediterranean Sea area are encouraged to apply these guidelines on a
voluntary basis as from 1st January 2012.
This regime will no longer apply when a ship meets the ballast water performance standard
contained in regulation D-2 of the Convention, or when the Convention comes into force and
a ship has to apply the D-2 standard in accordance with the application dates set out in
regulation B-3 of the Convention.
Definitions
Convention means the International Convention for the Control and Management of Ships'
Ballast Water and Sediments; and is hereunder referred to as "Ballast Water Management
Convention";
Mediterranean Sea area means the Mediterranean Sea proper including the Gulfs and seas
therein with the boundary between the Mediterranean and the Black Sea constituted by
the 41° N parallel and bounded to the west by the Straits of Gibraltar at the meridian
of 005°36' W;
Black Sea area means the Black Sea proper with the boundary between the Mediterranean
and the Black Sea constituted by the parallel 41°;
Red Sea area means the Red Sea proper including the Gulfs of Suez and Aqaba bounded at
the south by the rhumb line between Ras si Ane (12°28'.5 N, 043°19'.6 E) and Husn Murad
(12°40'.4 N, 043°30'.2 E).
1
The Contracting Parties to the Convention for the Protection of the Marine Environment and the Coastal
Region of the Mediterranean (Barcelona Convention) are the following: Albania, Algeria, Bosnia and
Herzegovina, Croatia, Cyprus, Egypt, The European Community, France, Greece, Israel, Italy, Lebanon,
Libya, Malta, Morocco, Montenegro, Slovenia, Spain, Syria, Tunisia and Turkey.
2
GEF/UNDP/IMO project "Building partnerships to assist developing countries to reduce the transfer of
harmful aquatic organisms in ship's ballast water (Globallast Partnerships)".
BWM.2/Circ.35
Annex 1, page 2
1 Ships entering the waters of Mediterranean Sea area from the Atlantic Ocean
(Straits of Gibraltar), or from the Indian Ocean through the Red Sea (Suez Canal) or leaving
the waters of the Mediterranean Sea area to the Atlantic Ocean (Strait of Gibraltar) or to the
Indian Ocean through the Red Sea (Suez Canal), should:
(a) undertake ballast water exchange before entering the Mediterranean Sea
area, or after leaving the Mediterranean Sea area, as applicable, according to
the standard set out in the D-1 Standard of the Ballast Water Management
Convention, and at least 200 nautical miles from the nearest land and in
waters at least 200 meters in depth3;
(b) in situations where this is not possible, either due to deviating the ship from its
intended voyage or delaying the ship, or for safety reasons, such exchange
should be undertaken before entering the Mediterranean Sea area, or after
leaving the Mediterranean Sea area, as applicable, according to the standard
set out in the D-1 Standard of the Ballast Water Management Convention, as
far from the nearest land as possible, and in all cases in waters at least 50
nautical miles from the nearest land and in waters of at least 200 meters
depth4.
2 Ships should, when engaged in traffic between:
i. ports located within the Mediterranean Sea area; or

ii. a port located in the Black Sea area and a port located in the Red Sea area; or
iii. a port located in the Black Sea and a port located in the Mediterranean Sea
area; or
iv. a port located in the Red Sea area and a port located in the Mediterranean Sea
area.
(a) undertake ballast water exchange as far from the nearest land as possible,
and in all cases in waters at least 50 nautical miles from the nearest land and
in waters of at least 200 meters depth. The areas, one of which being unfit for
ballast water exchange due its size, where such requirements are met in the
Mediterranean Sea area, appear in the map provided in the appendix;
(b) in situation where this is not possible either due to deviating the ship from its
intended voyage or delaying the ship, or for safety reasons, exchange of
ballast water should be undertaken in areas designated by the port State for
that purpose5;
and, if a port State decides to designate a ballast water exchange areas,
(c) such areas shall be assessed in accordance with the Guidelines on

designation of ballast water areas for ballast water exchange developed by the
International Maritime Organization6, and in consultation with adjacent States
and all interested States.
3
These geographical parameters are those set by Regulation B-4.1.1 of the Ballast Water Management
Convention.
4
These geographical parameters are those set by Regulation B-4.1.2 of the Ballast Water Management
Convention.
5
Regulation B-4.2 of the Ballast Water Management Convention.
6
Guidelines on Designation of Ballast Water Areas for Ballast Water Exchange (G14), adopted
on 13 October 2006. Resolution MEPC.151(55).
BWM.2/Circ.35
Annex 1, page 3
3 Sediments collected during the cleaning or repairing operations of ballast tanks

should be delivered in sediment reception facilities in ports and terminals, according to
Article 5 of the Ballast Water Management Convention, or be discharged
beyond 200 nautical miles from the nearest land of the coastline when the ship is sailing in
the Mediterranean Sea area.
4 Exemptions can be granted to a ship on a voyage between specified ports or

locations within the Mediterranean Sea area, or to a ship operating exclusively between
specified ports or locations within the Mediterranean Sea area. These exemptions are to be
granted according to Regulation A-4 1 of the Ballast Water Management Convention and
based on the Guidelines for risk assessment under regulation A-4 of the BWM Convention
developed by the International Maritime Organization7.
5 As per Regulation B-4 of the Ballast Water Management Convention, if the safety or
stability of the ship is threatened by a ballast water exchange operation, this operation should
not be undertaken. The reasons should be entered in the ballast water record book and
a Report should be submitted to the maritime authorities of the Port of destination.
6 Each vessel calling at a port within the Mediterranean Sea area is required to have
on board a Ballast Water Management Plan complying with requirements of the Guidelines
for Ballast Water Management and Development of Ballast water Management Plans
developed by the International Maritime Organization8 and to keep a record of all ballast
water operations carried out.
***
7
Guidelines for Risk Assessment under Regulation A-4 of the BWM Convention (G7), adopted
on 13 July 2007. Resolution MEPC.162(56).
8
Guidelines for Ballast Water Management and Development of Ballast Water Management Plans (G4),
adopted on 22 July 2005. Resolution MEPC.127(53).
BWM.2/Circ.35
Annex 1, page 4
APPENDIX
Areas in the Mediterranean Sea meeting the requirements set out

in Regulation B-4.1.2 of the Ballast Water Management Convention
(at least 50 nautical miles from the nearest land in waters of at least 200 meters depth)
***
BWM.2/Circ.35
Annex 2, page 1
ANNEX 2
DISPOSITIONS HARMONISEES APPLIQUEES SUR UNE BASE VOLONTAIRE POUR

LE RENOUVELLEMENT DES EAUX DE BALLAST EN MER MEDITERRANEE
(FRENCH VERSION)
Introduction
Le présent régime volontaire transitoire harmonisé est présentée aux termes de l'alinéa 2 de
l'Article 13 de la Convention internationale pour le contrôle et la gestion des eaux de ballast
et sédiments des navires (Convention internationale pour la gestion des eaux de ballast) qui
dispose que « les Parties ayant un intérêt commun à protéger l'environnement, la santé
humaine, les biens et les ressources d'une région géographique donnée et, en particulier, les
Parties riveraines de mers fermées ou semi-fermées, s'efforcent (…) de renforcer la
coopération régionale, notamment en concluant des accords régionaux compatibles avec la
présente Convention ». Le dispositif proposé tient également compte d'autres politiques
régionales sur le renouvellement des eaux de ballast des navires.
Le régime entre dans le cadre d'une stratégie régionale de gestion des eaux de ballast des
navires, élaborée dans le cadre du Plan d'Action pour la Méditerranée, avec le soutien
technique du Projet de partenariat GloBallast9. Le régime est basé sur les règles de la
Convention internationale pour la gestion des eaux de ballast et s'applique à titre de régime
transitoire et volontaire. Ainsi, les navires entrant en Méditerranée sont appelés à appliquer
ces lignes directrices sur une base volontaire à partir du 1er janvier 2012.
Ce régime cessera de s'appliquer dès qu'un navire aura satisfait la norme de performance
pour l'eau de ballast prévue à la Règle D-2 de la Convention ou lorsque la Convention
entrera en vigueur et que le navire doit appliquer la Règle D-2 suivant les dates indiquées à
la Règle B-3 de la même Convention.
Définitions
Convention : la Convention internationale pour le contrôle et la gestion des eaux de ballast

et sédiments des navires (ci-après « Convention internationale pour la gestion des eaux de
ballast »);
Mer Méditerranée (zone de la): la mer Méditerranée proprement dite, avec les golfes et les
mers qu'elle comprend, limitée du côté de la Mer Noire par le parallèle 41° N, et limitée à
l'ouest, dans le Détroit de Gibraltar, par le méridien 005°36' W;
Mer Noire (zone de la): la Mer Noire proprement dite ainsi que la mer d'Azov, limitée du
coté de la Méditerranée par le parallèle 41°;
Mer Rouge (zone de la): la Mer Rouge proprement dite ainsi que les golfes de Suez et
d'Aqaba, limitée au sud par la loxodromie reliant Ras Siyan (12°28'.5 N, 043°19'.6 E) et Husn
Murad (12°40'.4 N, 043°30'.2 E).
9
Projet FEM/PNUD/OMI « Construire un partenariat pour aider les pays en développement à réduire le
transfert des organismes aquatiques nocifs dans l'eau de ballast des navires » (Partenariat GloBallast)".
BWM.2/Circ.35
Annex 2, page 2
1 Les navires entrant dans les eaux de la Méditerranée, à partir de l'océan atlantique
(Détroit de Gibraltar) ou de l'océan indien à travers la Mer Rouge (Canal de Suez) ou qui
quittent la Méditerranée en direction de l'océan atlantique (Détroit de Gibraltar) ou de l'océan
indien passant par la Mer Rouge (Canal de Suez), doivent:
(a) procéder au renouvellement de leurs eaux de ballast avant d'entrer en

Méditerranée, ou après avoir quitté celle-ci, selon le cas, conformément à la
procédure prévue à la Règle D-1 de la Convention internationale pour la
gestion des eaux de ballast, et à au moins 200 miles nautiques de la terre la
plus proche et dans des eaux d'une profondeur d'au moins 200 mètres10;
(b) si cela n'est pas possible, parce que cela impliquerait que le navire s'écarte de
sa route ou qu'il retarde son voyage ou pour des raisons de sécurité, le
renouvellement des eaux de ballast doit se faire avant d'entrer en
Méditerranée ou après l'avoir quittée, selon le cas, conformément à la
procédure prévue à la Règle D-1 de la Convention internationale pour la
gestion des eaux de ballast ; le renouvellement doit se faire le plus loin
possible de la terre ferme et, dans tous les cas, dans des eaux situées à au
moins 50 miles nautiques de la terre la plus proche et à une profondeur
minimum de 200 mètres11.
2 Les navires doivent, lorsqu'ils naviguent entre:
i. des ports situés en Méditerranée, ou

ii. un port situé en Mer Noire et un autre en Mer Rouge, ou
iii. un port situé en Mer Noire et un autre en Mer Méditerranée, ou
iv. un port situé en Mer Rouge et un autre en Mer Méditerranée
(a) procéder au renouvellement de leurs eaux de ballast dans un lieu aussi

éloigné de la terre ferme que possible et, dans tous les cas, dans des eaux se
trouvant à au moins 50 miles nautiques de la terre la plus proche, à une
profondeur d'au moins 200 mètres. Les zones, dont l'une ne se prête pas au
renouvellement des eaux de ballast en raison de sa taille, qui satisfont ces
conditions en Mer Méditerranée sont identifiées sur la carte reproduite en
appendice;
(b) si cela n'est pas possible, parce que cela impliquerait que le navire s'écarte de
sa route ou qu'il retarde son voyage, ou pour des raisons de sécurité, le navire
doit échanger ses eaux de ballast dans les zones que les autorités de l'Etat du
port auront désignés à cette fin12,
et si l'Etat du port décide de désigner une zone pour le renouvellement des eaux de
ballast:
10
Coordonnées géographiques fixées à la Règle B-4.1.1 de la Convention internationale pour la gestion des
eaux de ballast.
11
Coordonnées géographiques fixées à la Règle B-4.1.2 de la Convention internationale pour la gestion des
eaux de ballast.
12
Règle B-4.2 de la Convention internationale pour la gestion des eaux de ballast.
BWM.2/Circ.35
Annex 2, page 3
(c) ces zones doivent faire l'objet d'une évaluation conformément aux Lignes
directrices sur la désignation des lieux d'échange des eaux de ballast des
navires de l'Organisation maritime internationale13, et en consultation avec les
Etats adjacents et tout autre Etat intéressé.
3 Les sédiments récupérés durant le nettoyage ou les réparations des citernes de

ballast doivent être délivrés dans des installations de réception des sédiments dans les ports
et terminaux, conformément à l'article 5 de la Convention internationale pour la gestion des
eaux de ballast, ou à une distance d'au moins 200 miles de la côte la plus proche lorsque le
navire navigue en mer Méditerranée.
4. Des dérogations aux règles sur la gestion des eaux de ballast par les navires
peuvent être accordées à un navire effectuant une ou plusieurs traversées entre des ports
ou des lieux spécifiques ou s'il dessert exclusivement des ports ou des lieux spécifiques en
Méditerranée. Ces dérogations sont accordées conformément à la Règle A-4 1 de la
Convention internationale pour la gestion des eaux de ballast et aux Lignes directrices sur la
désignation des lieux d'échange des eaux de ballast des navires de l'Organisation maritime
internationale 14.
5 Aux termes de la Règle B-4, de la Convention internationale pour la gestion des

eaux de ballast, si une opération de renouvellement des eaux de ballast est de nature à
menacer la sécurité ou la stabilité d'un navire, l'opération ne doit pas être effectuée. Ces
raisons doivent être consignées dans le registre des eaux de ballast et un rapport doit être
remis aux autorités portuaires compétentes du port de destination.
6 Tout navire entrant un port de la Méditerranée doit avoir à son bord un Plan de
gestion des eaux de ballast conforme aux Lignes directrices sur la gestion des eaux de
ballast et l'élaboration de plans de gestion des eaux de ballast, élaborées par l'Organisation
maritime internationale15. Le navire doit également tenir un registre de toutes les opérations
de renouvellement des eaux de ballast effectuées.
***
13
Lignes directrices sur la désignation des lieux d'échange des eaux de ballast des navires (G14), adoptées
le 13 octobre 2006. Résolution MEPC.151(55).
14
Lignes directrices pour l'évaluation des risques, voir la Règle A-4 de la Convention internationale pour la
gestion des eaux de ballast(G7), adoptée le 13 juillet 2007. Résolution MEPC.162(56).
15
Lignes directrices sur la gestion des eaux de ballast et l'élaboration de plans de gestion des eaux de
ballast (G4), adoptées le 22 juillet 2005. Résolution MEPC.127(53).
BWM.2/Circ.35
Annex 2, page 4
APPENDICE
Zones en mer Méditerranée qui satisfont aux conditions prévues à la Règle B-4.1.2
de la Convention internationale sur la gestion des eaux de ballast
(50 miles nautiques au moins de la terre la plus proche et
profondeur d'au moins 200 mètres)
__________
NOTIS PERKAPALAN MALAYSIA
MALAYSIA SHIPPING NOTICE
JABATAN LAUT MALAYSIA MSN 04/2012

MARINE DEPARTMENT MALAYSIA
Ibu Pejabat Laut Semenanjung Malaysia, Peti Surat 12, 42007 Pelabuhan Klang
Tel : 03-33467777, Fax : 03-31685289, E-mail : kpgr@marine.gov.my
Webpage : http://www.marine.gov.my
Notis kepada pemilik kapal, agen perkapalan, Nakhoda, pelaut, pengusaha pelabuhan dan industri maritim
Notice to shipowners, ship agents, Masters, seafarers, port operators and the maritime industry
INSTALLATION OF BALLAST WATER TREATMENT SYSTEM.
1. This is to inform the Maritime Community the requirement for a ship constructed in or after
1st June 2012 with a ballast water capacity of 5,000 cubic meters or more shall conduct
ballast water management that at least meet the standard described in Regulation D-2.
2. Even though the implementation of the International Convention for the Control and
Management of Ship’s Ballast Water and Sediments 2004 (BWM 2004) was suspended until
further notice, the above requirement still applied.
Ketua Pengarah Laut/Director General of Marine

Tarikh/Date : 15th March 2012

APPENDIX E – REFERENCE DOCUMENTS
 The International Convention for the Control and Management of Ships’ Ballast
Water and Sediments, 2004
 Resolution MEPC.124(53) “Guidelines for Ballast Water Exchange”
 Resolution MEPC.127(53) “Guidelines for Ballast Water Management and the
Development of Ballast Management Plans”
 MSC Circ.1145 “Precautionary Advice to Masters when undertaking Ballast Water
Exchange Operations”
E
IMO
INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE ON BWM/CONF/37

BALLAST WATER MANAGEMENT FOR 16 February 2004
SHIPS Original: ENGLISH
Agenda item 8
ADOPTION OF THE FINAL ACT AND ANY INSTRUMENTS, RECOMMENDATIONS

AND RESOLUTIONS RESULTING FROM THE WORK OF THE CONFERENCE
FINAL ACT OF THE INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE ON BALLAST WATER

MANAGEMENT FOR SHIPS, 2004
Text adopted by the Conference
1 In accordance with Article 2(b) of the Convention on the International Maritime

Organization, the Council of the Organization, at its eighty-sixth session in June 2001, agreed in
principle to convene a diplomatic conference in 2003 to consider the adoption of a draft
Sediments. This decision was endorsed by the Assembly of the Organization at its twenty-second
regular session by resolution A.906(22) in November 2001 on the Work Programme and Budget
for the Twenty-Second Financial Period 2002-2003. The Council of the Organization, at its
eighty-ninth session in November 2002, reconsidered that matter in view of the preparations
made by the Marine Environment Protection Committee and approved the convening of the
diplomatic conference in early 2004 instead of in 2003, and the decision of the Council was
endorsed by the twenty-third session of the Assembly in December 2003.
2 The Conference was held at the Headquarters of the International Maritime Organization
in London from 9 to 13 February 2004.
3 Representatives of seventy-four States participated in the Conference, namely the

representatives of:
ALGERIA CROATIA
ARGENTINA CUBA
AUSTRALIA CYPRUS
BAHAMAS DEMOCRATIC PEOPLE'S
BAHRAIN REPUBLIC OF KOREA
BANGLADESH DENMARK
BARBADOS ECUADOR
BELGIUM EGYPT
BOSNIA AND HERZEGOVINA ESTONIA
BRAZIL FINLAND
CANADA FRANCE
CHILE GERMANY
CHINA GHANA
COLOMBIA GREECE
COTE D’IVOIRE GUATEMALA
For reasons of economy, this document is printed in a limited number. Delegates are
I:\CONF\BWM\37.doc kindly asked to bring their copies to meetings and not to request additional copies.
BWM/CONF/37 -2-
INDIA POLAND
INDONESIA PORTUGAL
IRAN (ISLAMIC REPUBLIC OF) QATAR
IRELAND REPUBLIC OF KOREA
ISRAEL ROMANIA
ITALY RUSSIAN FEDERATION
JAPAN SAUDI ARABIA
KENYA SINGAPORE
KUWAIT SLOVENIA
LATVIA SOUTH AFRICA
LIBERIA SPAIN
MALTA SWEDEN
MARSHALL ISLANDS TRINIDAD AND TOBAGO
MEXICO TURKEY
MOROCCO UKRAINE
NETHERLANDS UNITED KINGDOM
NEW ZEALAND UNITED STATES
NIGERIA URUGUAY
NORWAY VANUATU
OMAN VENEZUELA
PANAMA VIETNAM
PERU YEMEN
PHILIPPINES
4 The following Associate Member of the Organization sent observers to the Conference:
HONG KONG, CHINA
5 The following intergovernmental organizations sent observers to the Conference:
EUROPEAN COMMISSION (EC)

PORT MANAGEMENT ASSOCIATION OF EASTERN AND SOUTHERN AFRICA
(PMAESA)
6 The following non-governmental international organizations sent observers to the

Conference:
INTERNATIONAL CHAMBER OF SHIPPING (ICS)

INTERNATIONAL CONFEDERATION OF FREE TRADE UNIONS (ICFTU)
INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF PORTS AND HARBORS (IAPH)
BIMCO
INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF CLASSIFICATION SOCIETIES (IACS)
EUROPEAN CHEMICAL INDUSTRY COUNCIL (CEFIC)
OIL COMPANIES INTERNATIONAL MARINE FORUM (OCIMF)
FRIENDS OF THE EARTH INTERNATIONAL (FOEI)
INTERNATIONAL FEDERATION OF SHIPMASTERS' ASSOCIATIONS (IFSMA)
ASSOCIATION OF EUROPEAN SHIPBUILDERS AND SHIPREPAIRERS (AWES)
INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF INDEPENDENT TANKER OWNERS
(INTERTANKO)
I:\CONF\BWM\37.doc
-3- BWM/CONF/37
INTERNATIONAL TANKER OWNERS POLLUTION FEDERATION LIMITED

(ITOPF)
WORLD CONSERVATION UNION (IUCN)
INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF DRY CARGO SHIPOWNERS
(INTERCARGO)
WORLD WIDE FUND FOR NATURE (WWF)
INTERNATIONAL PARCEL TANKERS ASSOCIATION (IPTA)
INTERNATIONAL SAILING FEDERATION (ISAF)
WORLD NUCLEAR TRANSPORT INSTITUTE (WNTI)
7 The Conference was opened by Mr. E.E. Mitropoulos, Secretary-General of the

International Maritime Organization.
8 Mr. Daniel T. Joseph (India) was elected President of the Conference.
9 The Vice-Presidents elected by the Conference were:
Admiral Sergio Chagasteles (Brazil)

Ms. Khibi Mabuse Manana (South Africa)
H.E. Mr. Ihor O. Mitiukov (Ukraine)
10 The Secretariat of the Conference consisted of the following officers:
Secretary-General: Mr. E.E. Mitropoulos

Secretary-General of the Organization
Executive Secretary: Mr. J.-C. Sainlos

Director, Marine Environment Division
Deputy Executive Secretaries: Mr. Du Dachang

Senior Deputy Director, Marine Environment
Division
Mr. R. Coenen
Head, Office for the London Convention 1972,
Marine Environment Division
11 The Conference established a Committee of the Whole with the mandate to consider the
draft International Convention for the Control and Management of Ships’ Ballast Water and
Sediments and draft Conference resolutions.
12 The Conference also established a Drafting Committee with the mandate to finalize the
text of the Final Act of the Conference, the International Convention for the Control and
Management of Ships’ Ballast Water and Sediments and the Conference resolutions. The
Drafting Committee was composed of representatives of the following States:
AUSTRALIA PANAMA
CHINA RUSSIAN FEDERATION
EGYPT SPAIN
FRANCE UNITED STATES
IRAN (ISLAMIC REPUBLIC OF)
I:\CONF\BWM\37.doc
BWM/CONF/37 -4-
13 A Credential Committee was appointed to examine credentials of representatives

attending the Conference. The Credential Committee was composed of representatives of the
following States:
ALGERIA MEXICO
GREECE VENEZUELA
MARSHALL ISLANDS
14 The officers elected for the Committees were as follows:
Committee of the Whole:
Chairman: Mr. Mike Hunter (United Kingdom)

Vice-Chairmen: Mr. Michael Wilson (Australia)
Mr. Richard O. Alleyne (Barbados)
Drafting Committee:
Chairman: Captain Frederick J. Kenney, Jr. (United States)

Vice-Chairman Mr. Gérard Gasc (France)
Credentials Committee:
Chairman: Captain Benito Pulido (Venezuela)
15 The Conference used as the basis of its work the following document prepared by the
Marine Environment Protection Committee:
Draft text of the International Convention for the Control and Management of Ships’
Ballast Water and Sediments.
16 Also before the Conference were a number of documents containing proposals and
comments submitted by Governments and interested organizations.
17 As a result of its deliberations the Conference adopted the following instrument:
INTERNATIONAL CONVENTION FOR THE CONTROL AND MANAGEMENT OF

SHIPS’ BALLAST WATER AND SEDIMENTS
18 The Conference also adopted the following resolutions, which are contained in the
Attachment to this Final Act:
Resolution 1: Future work by the Organization pertaining to the International

Convention for the Control and Management of Ships’ Ballast Water and
Sediments
Resolution 2: The use of decision-making tools when reviewing the standards pursuant
to regulation D-5
Resolution 3: Promotion of technical co-operation and assistance
I:\CONF\BWM\37.doc
-5- BWM/CONF/37
Resolution 4: Review of the Annex to the International Convention for the Control and
Management of Ships’ Ballast Water and Sediments
19 This Final Act is established in a single original text in the Arabic, Chinese, English,
French, Russian and Spanish languages that is to be deposited with the Secretary-General of the
Organization.
20 The Secretary-General shall send certified copies of this Final Act with its Attachment,
and certified copies of the authentic text of the Convention referred to in paragraph 17 above to
the Governments of the States invited to be represented at the Conference in accordance with the
wishes of those Governments.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF the undersigned have affixed their signatures to this Final Act.
DONE IN LONDON this thirteenth day of February, two thousand and four.
***
I:\CONF\BWM\37.doc
BWM/CONF/37 -6-
ATTACHMENT
RESOLUTIONS ADOPTED BY THE CONFERENCE
RESOLUTION 1
FUTURE WORK BY THE ORGANIZATION PERTAINING TO THE

SHIPS’ BALLAST WATER AND SEDIMENTS
THE CONFERENCE,
HAVING ADOPTED the International Convention for the Control and Management of Ships’
Ballast Water and Sediments (Convention),
NOTING that Articles 5 and 9 and regulations A-4, A-5, B-1, B-3, B-4, B-5, C-1, D-3 and D-4 of
the Annex to the Convention refer to guidelines or procedures to be developed by the
Organization for the specific purposes identified therein,
RECOGNIZING the need for the development of these Guidelines in order to ensure global and
uniform application of the relevant requirements of the Convention,
INVITES the Organization to develop as a matter of urgency:
.1 Guidelines for sediment reception facilities under Article 5 and regulation B-5;
.2 Guidelines for sampling of ballast water under Article 9;
.3 Guidelines on ballast water management equivalent compliance for pleasure and

search and rescue craft under regulation A-5;
.4 Ballast water management plan guidelines under regulation B-1;
.5 Guidelines for ballast water reception facilities under regulation B-3;
.6 Guidelines for ballast water exchange under regulation B-4;
.7 Guidelines for additional measures under regulation C-1 and for risk assessment
under regulation A-4;
.8 Guidelines for approval of ballast water management systems under

regulation D-3.1;
.9 Procedure for approval of active substances under regulation D-3.2; and
.10 Guidelines for prototype ballast water treatment technologies under

regulation D-4,
and adopt them, as soon as practicable, and in any case before the entry into force of the
Convention with a view to facilitating global and uniform implementation of the Convention.
***
I:\CONF\BWM\37.doc
-7- BWM/CONF/37
RESOLUTION 2
THE USE OF DECISION MAKING TOOLS WHEN REVIEWING

THE STANDARDS PURSUANT TO REGULATION D-5
THE CONFERENCE,
NOTING that regulation D-5 of the Convention requires that, at a meeting of the Marine
Environment Protection Committee held no later than three years before the earliest effective
date of the standard set forth in regulation D-2, the Committee shall undertake a review which
includes a determination of whether appropriate technologies are available to achieve the
standard, an assessment of the criteria in paragraph 2 of regulation D-5, and an assessment of the
socio-economic effect(s) specifically in relation to the developmental needs of developing
countries, particularly small island developing States,
RECOGNIZING the value of decision-making tools when preparing complex assessments,
RECOMMENDS the Organization to apply suitable decision-making tools when conducting the
review of standards in accordance with regulation D-5 of the Convention; and
INVITES the Member States to advise the Organization on any relevant, robust decision-making
tools to assist it in the conduct of such review.
***
I:\CONF\BWM\37.doc
BWM/CONF/37 -8-
RESOLUTION 3
PROMOTION OF TECHNICAL CO-OPERATION AND ASSISTANCE
THE CONFERENCE,
BEING AWARE that Parties to the Convention will be called upon to give full and complete
effect to its provisions, in order to prevent, minimize and ultimately eliminate the transfer of
harmful aquatic organisms and pathogens through the control and management of ships´ ballast
water and sediments,
NOTING that the Convention provides in Articles 13.1 and 13.2 for Parties, inter alia, to provide
support for those Parties that request technical assistance in respect of the control and
management of ships’ ballast water and sediments,
RECOGNIZING the valuable technical co-operation activities undertaken in partnership with

developing countries on ballast water management issues under the GEF/UNDP/IMO Global
Ballast Water Management Programme (GloBallast) since 2000,
BEING CONVINCED that the promotion of technical co-operation will expedite the acceptance,
uniform interpretation and enforcement of the Convention by States,
NOTING WITH APPRECIATION that, through the adoption of resolution A.901(21), the
Assembly of the International Maritime Organization (IMO):
(a) affirmed that IMO’s work in developing global maritime standards and in
providing technical co-operation for their effective implementation and
enforcement can and does contribute to sustainable development; and
(b) decided that IMO’s mission statement, in relation to technical co-operation in the
2000s, is to help developing countries improve their ability to comply with
international rules and standards relating to maritime safety and the prevention
and control of marine pollution, giving priority to technical assistance
programmes that focus on human resource development, particularly through
training, and institutional capacity building;
1 REQUESTS Member States, in co-operation with IMO, other interested States and
international bodies, competent international or regional organizations, and industry programmes,
to promote and provide directly, or through IMO, support to States that request technical
assistance for:
(a) the assessment of the implications of ratifying, accepting, approving, or acceding

to, as well as implementing and enforcing the Convention;
(b) the development of national legislation and institutional arrangements to give

effect to the Convention;
I:\CONF\BWM\37.doc
-9- BWM/CONF/37
(c) the training of scientific and technical personnel for research, monitoring and
enforcement (e.g., ballast water risk assessments, invasive marine species surveys,
monitoring and early warning systems, ballast water sampling and analysis),
including as appropriate the supply of necessary equipment and facilities, with a
view to strengthening national capabilities;
(d) exchange of information and technical co-operation relating to minimization of

risks to the environment and human health from transfer of harmful aquatic
organisms and pathogens through the control and management of ships’ ballast
water and sediments;
(e) research and development of improved ballast water management and treatment
methods; and
(f) establishment of special requirements in certain areas in accordance with

Section C of the regulations of the Convention;
2 REQUESTS FURTHER international development agencies and organizations to

support, including through the provision of necessary resources, technical co-operation
programmes in the field of ballast water control and management, consistent with the
Convention;
3 INVITES the Technical Co-operation Committee of IMO to continue providing for

capacity-building activities on the control and management of ships’ ballast water and sediments,
within the Organization's Integrated Technical Co-operation Programme, in order to support the
effective implementation and enforcement of the Convention by developing countries; and
4 URGES all States to initiate action in connection with the abovementioned technical
co-operation measures without awaiting the entry into force of the Convention.
***
I:\CONF\BWM\37.doc
BWM/CONF/37 - 10 -
RESOLUTION 4
REVIEW OF THE ANNEX TO THE INTERNATIONAL CONVENTION FOR THE

CONTROL AND MANAGEMENT OF SHIPS’ BALLAST WATER AND SEDIMENTS
THE CONFERENCE,
RECOGNIZING that review of the Annex to the Convention, and in particular but not restricted
to regulations A-4, A-5, B-1, B-3, B-4, C-1, D-1, D-2, D-3 and D-5, may have to be considered
prior to entry into force of the Convention, for instance, because of perceived impediments to
entry into force or to address the standards set forth in regulation D-2 of the Annex to the
Convention,
RECOMMENDS that the Marine Environment Protection Committee review the regulations of
the Annex to the Convention as it considers appropriate, but not later than three years before the
earliest effective date of the standards set forth in regulation D-2 of the Annex to the Convention,
i.e., 2006.
__________
I:\CONF\BWM\37.doc
BWM/CONF/36
ANNEX
SHIPS' BALLAST WATER AND SEDIMENTS, 2004
THE PARTIES TO THIS CONVENTION,
RECALLING Article 196(1) of the 1982 United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea
(UNCLOS), which provides that —States shall take all measures necessary to prevent, reduce and
control pollution of the marine environment resulting from the use of technologies under their
jurisdiction or control, or the intentional or accidental introduction of species, alien or new, to a
particular part of the marine environment, which may cause significant and harmful changes
thereto,“
NOTING the objectives of the 1992 Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) and that the
transfer and introduction of Harmful Aquatic Organisms and Pathogens via ships‘ ballast water
threatens the conservation and sustainable use of biological diversity as well as decision IV/5 of
the 1998 Conference of the Parties (COP 4) to the CBD concerning the conservation and
sustainable use of marine and coastal ecosystems, as well as decision VI/23 of the 2002
Conference of the Parties (COP 6) to the CBD on alien species that threaten ecosystems, habitats
or species, including guiding principles on invasive species,
NOTING FURTHER that the 1992 United Nations Conference on Environment and
Development (UNCED) requested the International Maritime Organization (the Organization) to
consider the adoption of appropriate rules on ballast water discharge,
MINDFUL of the precautionary approach set out in Principle 15 of the Rio Declaration on
Environment and Development and referred to in resolution MEPC.67(37), adopted by the
Organization‘s Marine Environment Protection Committee on 15 September 1995,
ALSO MINDFUL that the 2002 World Summit on Sustainable Development, in

paragraph 34(b) of its Plan of Implementation, calls for action at all levels to accelerate the
development of measures to address invasive alien species in ballast water,
CONSCIOUS that the uncontrolled discharge of Ballast Water and Sediments from ships has
led to the transfer of Harmful Aquatic Organisms and Pathogens, causing injury or damage to the
environment, human health, property and resources,
RECOGNIZING the importance placed on this issue by the Organization through Assembly
resolutions A.774(18) in 1993 and A.868(20) in 1997, adopted for the purpose of addressing the
transfer of Harmful Aquatic Organisms and Pathogens,
RECOGNIZING FURTHER that several States have taken individual action with a view to
prevent, minimize and ultimately eliminate the risks of introduction of Harmful Aquatic
Organisms and Pathogens through ships entering their ports, and also that this issue, being of
worldwide concern, demands action based on globally applicable regulations together with
guidelines for their effective implementation and uniform interpretation,
I:\CONF\BWM\36.DOC
BWM/CONF/36
ANNEX
Page 2
DESIRING to continue the development of safer and more effective Ballast Water Management
options that will result in continued prevention, minimization and ultimate elimination of the
transfer of Harmful Aquatic Organisms and Pathogens,
RESOLVED to prevent, minimize and ultimately eliminate the risks to the environment, human
health, property and resources arising from the transfer of Harmful Aquatic Organisms and
Pathogens through the control and management of ships‘ Ballast Water and Sediments, as well as
to avoid unwanted side-effects from that control and to encourage developments in related
knowledge and technology,
CONSIDERING that these objectives may best be achieved by the conclusion of an

International Convention for the Control and Management of Ships‘ Ballast Water and
Sediments,
HAVE AGREED as follows:
Article 1 Definitions
For the purpose of this Convention, unless expressly provided otherwise:
1 "Administration" means the Government of the State under whose authority the ship is
operating. With respect to a ship entitled to fly a flag of any State, the Administration is the
Government of that State. With respect to floating platforms engaged in exploration and
exploitation of the sea-bed and subsoil thereof adjacent to the coast over which the coastal State
exercises sovereign rights for the purposes of exploration and exploitation of its natural
resources, including Floating Storage Units (FSUs) and Floating Production Storage and
Offloading Units (FPSOs), the Administration is the Government of the coastal State concerned.
2 —Ballast Water“ means water with its suspended matter taken on board a ship to control
trim, list, draught, stability or stresses of the ship.
3 —Ballast Water Management“ means mechanical, physical, chemical, and biological

processes, either singularly or in combination, to remove, render harmless, or avoid the uptake or
discharge of Harmful Aquatic Organisms and Pathogens within Ballast Water and Sediments.
4 —Certificate“ means the International Ballast Water Management Certificate.
5 —Committee“ means the Marine Environment Protection Committee of the Organization.
6 —Convention“ means the International Convention for the Control and Management of
Ships‘ Ballast Water and Sediments.
7 —Gross tonnage“ means the gross tonnage calculated in accordance with the tonnage
measurement regulations contained in Annex I to the International Convention on Tonnage
Measurement of Ships, 1969 or any successor Convention.
I:\CONF\BWM\36.DOC
BWM/CONF/36
ANNEX
Page 3
8 —Harmful Aquatic Organisms and Pathogens“ means aquatic organisms or pathogens

which, if introduced into the sea including estuaries, or into fresh water courses, may create
hazards to the environment, human health, property or resources, impair biological diversity or
interfere with other legitimate uses of such areas.
9 —Organization“ means the International Maritime Organization.
10 —Secretary-General“ means the Secretary-General of the Organization.
11 —Sediments“ means matter settled out of Ballast Water within a ship.
12 —Ship“ means a vessel of any type whatsoever operating in the aquatic environment and
includes submersibles, floating craft, floating platforms, FSUs and FPSOs.
Article 2 General Obligations
1 Parties undertake to give full and complete effect to the provisions of this Convention and
the Annex thereto in order to prevent, minimize and ultimately eliminate the transfer of Harmful
Aquatic Organisms and Pathogens through the control and management of ships‘ Ballast Water
and Sediments.
2 The Annex forms an integral part of this Convention. Unless expressly provided
otherwise, a reference to this Convention constitutes at the same time a reference to the Annex.
3 Nothing in this Convention shall be interpreted as preventing a Party from taking,

individually or jointly with other Parties, more stringent measures with respect to the prevention,
reduction or elimination of the transfer of Harmful Aquatic Organisms and Pathogens through
the control and management of ships‘ Ballast Water and Sediments, consistent with international
law.
4 Parties shall endeavour to co-operate for the purpose of effective implementation,

compliance and enforcement of this Convention.
5 Parties undertake to encourage the continued development of Ballast Water Management

and standards to prevent, minimize and ultimately eliminate the transfer of Harmful Aquatic
Organisms and Pathogens through the control and management of ships‘ Ballast Water and
Sediments.
6 Parties taking action pursuant to this Convention shall endeavour not to impair or damage
their environment, human health, property or resources, or those of other States.
7 Parties should ensure that Ballast Water Management practices used to comply with this
Convention do not cause greater harm than they prevent to their environment, human health,
property or resources, or those of other States.
8 Parties shall encourage ships entitled to fly their flag, and to which this Convention
applies, to avoid, as far as practicable, the uptake of Ballast Water with potentially Harmful
Aquatic Organisms and Pathogens, as well as Sediments that may contain such organisms,
including promoting the adequate implementation of recommendations developed by the
Organization.
I:\CONF\BWM\36.DOC
BWM/CONF/36
ANNEX
Page 4
9 Parties shall endeavour to co-operate under the auspices of the Organization to address
threats and risks to sensitive, vulnerable or threatened marine ecosystems and biodiversity in
areas beyond the limits of national jurisdiction in relation to Ballast Water Management.
Article 3 Application
1 Except as expressly provided otherwise in this Convention, this Convention shall apply
to:
(a) ships entitled to fly the flag of a Party; and
(b) ships not entitled to fly the flag of a Party but which operate under the authority of
a Party.
2 This Convention shall not apply to:
(a) ships not designed or constructed to carry Ballast Water;
(b) ships of a Party which only operate in waters under the jurisdiction of that Party,
unless the Party determines that the discharge of Ballast Water from such ships
would impair or damage their environment, human health, property or resources,
or those of adjacent or other States;
(c) ships of a Party which only operate in waters under the jurisdiction of another
Party, subject to the authorization of the latter Party for such exclusion. No Party
shall grant such authorization if doing so would impair or damage their
environment, human health, property or resources, or those of adjacent or other
States. Any Party not granting such authorization shall notify the Administration
of the ship concerned that this Convention applies to such ship;
(d) ships which only operate in waters under the jurisdiction of one Party and on the
high seas, except for ships not granted an authorization pursuant to sub-paragraph
(c), unless such Party determines that the discharge of Ballast Water from such
ships would impair or damage their environment, human health, property or
resources, or those of adjacent of other States;
(e) any warship, naval auxiliary or other ship owned or operated by a State and used,
for the time being, only on government non-commercial service. However, each
Party shall ensure, by the adoption of appropriate measures not impairing
operations or operational capabilities of such ships owned or operated by it, that
such ships act in a manner consistent, so far as is reasonable and practicable, with
this Convention; and
(f) permanent Ballast Water in sealed tanks on ships, that is not subject to discharge.
3 With respect to ships of non-Parties to this Convention, Parties shall apply the
requirements of this Convention as may be necessary to ensure that no more favourable treatment
is given to such ships.
I:\CONF\BWM\36.DOC
BWM/CONF/36
ANNEX
Page 5
Article 4 Control of the Transfer of Harmful Aquatic Organisms and Pathogens Through
Ships‘ Ballast Water and Sediments
1 Each Party shall require that ships to which this Convention applies and which are
entitled to fly its flag or operating under its authority comply with the requirements set forth in
this Convention, including the applicable standards and requirements in the Annex, and shall take
effective measures to ensure that those ships comply with those requirements.
2 Each Party shall, with due regard to its particular conditions and capabilities, develop
national policies, strategies or programmes for Ballast Water Management in its ports and waters
under its jurisdiction that accord with, and promote the attainment of the objectives of this
Convention.
Article 5 Sediment Reception Facilities
1 Each Party undertakes to ensure that, in ports and terminals designated by that Party
where cleaning or repair of ballast tanks occurs, adequate facilities are provided for the reception
of Sediments, taking into account the Guidelines developed by the Organization. Such reception
facilities shall operate without causing undue delay to ships and shall provide for the safe
disposal of such Sediments that does not impair or damage their environment, human health,
property or resources or those of other States.
2 Each Party shall notify the Organization for transmission to the other Parties concerned of
all cases where the facilities provided under paragraph 1 are alleged to be inadequate.
Article 6 Scientific and Technical Research and Monitoring
1 Parties shall endeavour, individually or jointly, to:
(a) promote and facilitate scientific and technical research on Ballast Water
Management; and
(b) monitor the effects of Ballast Water Management in waters under their
jurisdiction.
Such research and monitoring should include observation, measurement, sampling, evaluation
and analysis of the effectiveness and adverse impacts of any technology or methodology as well
as any adverse impacts caused by such organisms and pathogens that have been identified to
have been transferred through ships‘ Ballast Water.
2 Each Party shall, to further the objectives of this Convention, promote the availability of
relevant information to other Parties who request it on:
(a) scientific and technology programmes and technical measures undertaken with
respect to Ballast Water Management; and
(b) the effectiveness of Ballast Water Management deduced from any monitoring and
assessment programmes.
I:\CONF\BWM\36.DOC
BWM/CONF/36
ANNEX
Page 6
Article 7 Survey and certification
1 Each Party shall ensure that ships flying its flag or operating under its authority and
subject to survey and certification are so surveyed and certified in accordance with the
regulations in the Annex.
2 A Party implementing measures pursuant to Article 2.3 and Section C of the Annex shall
not require additional survey and certification of a ship of another Party, nor shall the
Administration of the ship be obligated to survey and certify additional measures imposed by
another Party. Verification of such additional measures shall be the responsibility of the Party
implementing such measures and shall not cause undue delay to the ship.
Article 8 Violations
1 Any violation of the requirements of this Convention shall be prohibited and sanctions
shall be established under the law of the Administration of the ship concerned, wherever the
violation occurs. If the Administration is informed of such a violation, it shall investigate the
matter and may request the reporting Party to furnish additional evidence of the alleged violation.
If the Administration is satisfied that sufficient evidence is available to enable proceedings to be
brought in respect of the alleged violation, it shall cause such proceedings to be taken as soon as
possible, in accordance with its law. The Administration shall promptly inform the Party that
reported the alleged violation, as well as the Organization, of any action taken. If the
Administration has not taken any action within 1 year after receiving the information, it shall so
inform the Party which reported the alleged violation.
2 Any violation of the requirements of this Convention within the jurisdiction of any Party
shall be prohibited and sanctions shall be established under the law of that Party. Whenever such
a violation occurs, that Party shall either:
(a) cause proceedings to be taken in accordance with its law; or
(b) furnish to the Administration of the ship such information and evidence as may be
in its possession that a violation has occurred.
3 The sanctions provided for by the laws of a Party pursuant to this Article shall be
adequate in severity to discourage violations of this Convention wherever they occur.
Article 9 Inspection of Ships
1 A ship to which this Convention applies may, in any port or offshore terminal of another
Party, be subject to inspection by officers duly authorized by that Party for the purpose of
determining whether the ship is in compliance with this Convention. Except as provided in
paragraph 2 of this Article, any such inspection is limited to:
(a) verifying that there is onboard a valid Certificate, which, if valid shall be
accepted; and
(b) inspection of the Ballast Water record book, and/or
I:\CONF\BWM\36.DOC
BWM/CONF/36
ANNEX
Page 7
(c) a sampling of the ship‘s Ballast Water, carried out in accordance with the
guidelines to be developed by the Organization. However, the time required to
analyse the samples shall not be used as a basis for unduly delaying the operation,
movement or departure of the ship.
2 Where a ship does not carry a valid Certificate or there are clear grounds for believing
that:
(a) the condition of the ship or its equipment does not correspond substantially with
the particulars of the Certificate; or
(b) the master or the crew are not familiar with essential shipboard procedures
relating to Ballast Water Management, or have not implemented such procedures;
a detailed inspection may be carried out.
3 In the circumstances given in paragraph 2 of this Article, the Party carrying out the
inspection shall take such steps as will ensure that the ship shall not discharge Ballast Water until
it can do so without presenting a threat of harm to the environment, human health, property or
resources.
Article 10 Detection of Violations and Control of Ships
1 Parties shall co-operate in the detection of violations and the enforcement of the
provisions of this Convention.
2 If a ship is detected to have violated this Convention, the Party whose flag the ship is
entitled to fly, and/or the Party in whose port or offshore terminal the ship is operating, may, in
addition to any sanctions described in Article 8 or any action described in Article 9, take steps to
warn, detain, or exclude the ship. The Party in whose port or offshore terminal the ship is
operating, however, may grant such a ship permission to leave the port or offshore terminal for
the purpose of discharging Ballast Water or proceeding to the nearest appropriate repair yard or
reception facility available, provided doing so does not present a threat of harm to the
environment, human health, property or resources.
3 If the sampling described in Article 9.1(c) leads to a result, or supports information

received from another port or offshore terminal, indicating that the ship poses a threat to the
environment, human health, property or resources, the Party in whose waters the ship is operating
shall prohibit such ship from discharging Ballast Water until the threat is removed.
4 A Party may also inspect a ship when it enters the ports or offshore terminals under its
jurisdiction, if a request for an investigation is received from any Party, together with sufficient
evidence that a ship is operating or has operated in violation of a provision in this Convention.
The report of such investigation shall be sent to the Party requesting it and to the competent
authority of the Administration of the ship concerned so that appropriate action may be taken.
I:\CONF\BWM\36.DOC
BWM/CONF/36
ANNEX
Page 8
Article 11 Notification of Control Actions
1 If an inspection conducted pursuant to Article 9 or 10 indicates a violation of this

Convention, the ship shall be notified. A report shall be forwarded to the Administration,
including any evidence of the violation.
2 In the event that any action is taken pursuant to Article 9.3, 10.2 or 10.3, the officer
carrying out such action shall forthwith inform, in writing, the Administration of the ship
concerned, or if this is not possible, the consul or diplomatic representative of the ship concerned,
of all the circumstances in which the action was deemed necessary. In addition, the recognized
organization responsible for the issue of certificates shall be notified.
3 The port State authority concerned shall, in addition to parties mentioned in paragraph 2,
notify the next port of call of all relevant information about the violation, if it is unable to take
action as specified in Article 9.3, 10.2 or 10.3 or if the ship has been allowed to proceed to the
next port of call.
Article 12 Undue Delay to Ships
1 All possible efforts shall be made to avoid a ship being unduly detained or delayed under
Article 7.2, 8, 9 or 10.
2 When a ship is unduly detained or delayed under Article 7.2, 8, 9 or 10, it shall be entitled
to compensation for any loss or damage suffered.
Article 13 Technical Assistance, Co-operation and Regional Co-operation
1 Parties undertake, directly or through the Organization and other international bodies, as
appropriate, in respect of the control and management of ships' Ballast Water and Sediments, to
provide support for those Parties which request technical assistance:
(a) to train personnel;
(b) to ensure the availability of relevant technology, equipment and facilities;
(c) to initiate joint research and development programmes; and
(d) to undertake other action aimed at the effective implementation of this Convention
and of guidance developed by the Organization related thereto.
2 Parties undertake to co-operate actively, subject to their national laws, regulations and
policies, in the transfer of technology in respect of the control and management of ships' Ballast
Water and Sediments.
3 In order to further the objectives of this Convention, Parties with common interests to
protect the environment, human health, property and resources in a given geographical area, in
particular, those Parties bordering enclosed and semi-enclosed seas, shall endeavour, taking into
account characteristic regional features, to enhance regional co-operation, including through the
conclusion of regional agreements consistent with this Convention. Parties shall seek to
co-operate with the Parties to regional agreements to develop harmonized procedures.
I:\CONF\BWM\36.DOC
BWM/CONF/36
ANNEX
Page 9
Article 14 Communication of information
1 Each Party shall report to the Organization and, where appropriate, make available to
other Parties the following information:
(a) any requirements and procedures relating to Ballast Water Management, including
its laws, regulations, and guidelines for implementation of this Convention;
(b) the availability and location of any reception facilities for the environmentally
safe disposal of Ballast Water and Sediments; and
(c) any requirements for information from a ship which is unable to comply with the
provisions of this Convention for reasons specified in regulations A-3 and B-4 of
the Annex.
2 The Organization shall notify Parties of the receipt of any communications under the
present Article and circulate to all Parties any information communicated to it under
subparagraphs 1(b) and (c) of this Article.
Article 15 Dispute Settlement
Parties shall settle any dispute between them concerning the interpretation or application of this
Convention by negotiation, enquiry, mediation, conciliation, arbitration, judicial settlement,
resort to regional agencies or arrangements or other peaceful means of their own choice.
Article 16 Relationship to International Law and Other Agreements
Nothing in this Convention shall prejudice the rights and obligations of any State under
customary international law as reflected in the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea.
Article 17 Signature, Ratification, Acceptance, Approval and Accession
1 This Convention shall be open for signature by any State at the Headquarters of the
Organization from 1 June 2004 to 31 May 2005 and shall thereafter remain open for accession by
any State.
2 States may become Parties to the Convention by:
(a) signature not subject to ratification, acceptance, or approval; or
(b) signature subject to ratification, acceptance, or approval, followed by ratification,

acceptance or approval; or
(c) a ccession.
3 Ratification, acceptance, approval or accession shall be effected by the deposit of an

instrument to that effect with the Secretary-General.
I:\CONF\BWM\36.DOC
BWM/CONF/36
ANNEX
Page 10
4 If a State comprises two or more territorial units in which different systems of law are
applicable in relation to matters dealt with in this Convention, it may at the time of signature,
ratification, acceptance, approval, or accession declare that this Convention shall extend to all its
territorial units or only to one or more of them and may modify this declaration by submitting
another declaration at any time.
5 Any such declaration shall be notified to the Depositary in writing and shall state
expressly the territorial unit or units to which this Convention applies.
Article 18 Entry into Force
1 This Convention shall enter into force twelve months after the date on which not less than
thirty States, the combined merchant fleets of which constitute not less than thirty-five percent of
the gross tonnage of the world‘s merchant shipping, have either signed it without reservation as
to ratification, acceptance or approval, or have deposited the requisite instrument of ratification,
acceptance, approval or accession in accordance with Article 17.
2 For States which have deposited an instrument of ratification, acceptance, approval or

accession in respect of this Convention after the requirements for entry into force thereof have
been met, but prior to the date of entry in force, the ratification, acceptance, approval or
accession shall take effect on the date of entry into force of this Convention or three months after
the date of deposit of instrument, whichever is the later date.
3 Any instrument of ratification, acceptance, approval or accession deposited after the date
on which this Convention enters into force shall take effect three months after the date of deposit.
4 After the date on which an amendment to this Convention is deemed to have been
accepted under Article 19, any instrument of ratification, acceptance, approval or accession
deposited shall apply to this Convention as amended.
Article 19 Amendments
1 This Convention may be amended by either of the procedures specified in the following
paragraphs.
2 Amendments after consideration within the Organization:
(a) Any Party may propose an amendment to this Convention. A proposed

amendment shall be submitted to the Secretary-General, who shall then circulate it
to the Parties and Members of the Organization at least six months prior to its
consideration.
(b) An amendment proposed and circulated as above shall be referred to the

Committee for consideration. Parties, whether or not Members of the
Organization, shall be entitled to participate in the proceedings of the Committee
for consideration and adoption of the amendment.
I:\CONF\BWM\36.DOC
BWM/CONF/36
ANNEX
Page 11
(c) Amendments shall be adopted by a two-thirds majority of the Parties present and
voting in the Committee, on condition that at least one-third of the Parties shall be
present at the time of voting.
(d) Amendments adopted in accordance with subparagraph (c) shall be communicated

by the Secretary-General to the Parties for acceptance.
(e) An amendment shall be deemed to have been accepted in the following

circumstances:
(i) An amendment to an article of this Convention shall be deemed to have

been accepted on the date on which two-thirds of the Parties have notified
the Secretary-General of their acceptance of it.
(ii) An amendment to the Annex shall be deemed to have been accepted at the
end of twelve months after the date of adoption or such other date as
determined by the Committee. However, if by that date more than
one-third of the Parties notify the Secretary-General that they object to the
amendment, it shall be deemed not to have been accepted.
(f) An amendment shall enter into force under the following conditions:
(i) An amendment to an article of this Convention shall enter into force for
those Parties that have declared that they have accepted it six months after
the date on which it is deemed to have been accepted in accordance with
subparagraph (e)(i).
(ii) An amendment to the Annex shall enter into force with respect to all
Parties six months after the date on which it is deemed to have been
accepted, except for any Party that has:
(1) notified its objection to the amendment in accordance with

subparagraph (e)(ii) and that has not withdrawn such objection; or
(2) notified the Secretary-General, prior to the entry into force of such
amendment, that the amendment shall enter into force for it only
after a subsequent notification of its acceptance.
(g) (i) A Party that has notified an objection under subparagraph (f)(ii)(1) may
subsequently notify the Secretary-General that it accepts the amendment.
Such amendment shall enter into force for such Party six months after the
date of its notification of acceptance, or the date on which the amendment
enters into force, whichever is the later date.
(ii) If a Party that has made a notification referred to in subparagraph (f)(ii)(2)

notifies the Secretary-General of its acceptance with respect to an
amendment, such amendment shall enter into force for such Party six
months after the date of its notification of acceptance, or the date on which
the amendment enters into force, whichever is the later date.
I:\CONF\BWM\36.DOC
BWM/CONF/36
ANNEX
Page 12
3 Amendment by a Conference:
(a) Upon the request of a Party concurred in by at least one-third of the Parties, the
Organization shall convene a Conference of Parties to consider amendments to
this Convention.
(b) An amendment adopted by such a Conference by a two-thirds majority of the

Parties present and voting shall be communicated by the Secretary-General to all
Parties for acceptance.
(c) Unless the Conference decides otherwise, the amendment shall be deemed to have
been accepted and shall enter into force in accordance with the procedures
specified in paragraphs 2(e) and (f) respectively.
4 Any Party that has declined to accept an amendment to the Annex shall be treated as a
non-Party only for the purpose of application of that amendment.
5 Any notification under this Article shall be made in writing to the Secretary-General.
6 The Secretary-General shall inform the Parties and Members of the Organization of:
(a) any amendment that enters into force and the date of its entry into force generally
and for each Party; and
(b) any notification made under this Article.
Article 20 Denunciation
1 This Convention may be denounced by any Party at any time after the expiry of two years
from the date on which this Convention enters into force for that Party.
2 Denunciation shall be effected by written notification to the Depositary, to take effect one
year after receipt or such longer period as may be specified in that notification.
Article 21 Depositary
1 This Convention shall be deposited with the Secretary-General, who shall transmit
certified copies of this Convention to all States which have signed this Convention or acceded
thereto.
2 In addition to the functions specified elsewhere in this Convention, the Secretary-General

shall:
(a) inform all States that have signed this Convention, or acceded thereto, of:
(i) each new signature or deposit of an instrument of ratification, acceptance,

approval or accession, together with the date thereof;
(ii) the date of entry into force of this Convention; and
I:\CONF\BWM\36.DOC
BWM/CONF/36
ANNEX
Page 13
(iii) the deposit of any instrument of denunciation from the Convention,

together with the date on which it was received and the date on which the
denunciation takes effect; and
(b) as soon as this Convention enters into force, transmit the text thereof to the
Secretariat of the United Nations for registration and publication in accordance
with Article 102 of the Charter of the United Nations.
Article 22 Languages
This Convention is established in a single original in the Arabic, Chinese, English, French,
Russian and Spanish languages, each text being equally authentic.
DONE AT LONDON this thirteenth day of February, two thousand and four.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF the undersigned, being duly authorised by their respective

Governments for that purpose, have signed this Convention.
I:\CONF\BWM\36.DOC
BWM/CONF/36
ANNEX
Page 14
ANNEX
REGULATIONS FOR THE CONTROL AND MANAGEMENT OF SHIPS'
BALLAST WATER AND SEDIMENTS
SECTION A - GENERAL PROVISIONS
Regulation A-1 Definitions
For the purposes of this Annex:
1 —Anniversary date“ means the day and the month of each year corresponding to the date
of expiry of the Certificate.
2 —Ballast Water Capacity“ means the total volumetric capacity of any tanks, spaces or
compartments on a ship used for carrying, loading or discharging Ballast Water, including any
multi-use tank, space or compartment designed to allow carriage of Ballast Water.
3 —Company“ means the owner of the ship or any other organization or person such as the
manager, or the bareboat charterer, who has assumed the responsibility for operation of the ship
from the owner of the ship and who on assuming such responsibility has agreed to take over all
the duties and responsibilities imposed by the International Safety Management Code1.
4 —Constructed“ in respect of a ship means a stage of construction where:
.1 the keel is laid; or
.2 construction identifiable with the specific ship begins;
.3 assembly of the ship has commenced comprising at least 50 tonnes or 1 percent of

the estimated mass of all structural material, whichever is less; or
.4 the ship undergoes a major conversion.
5 —Major conversion“ means a conversion of a ship:
.1 which changes its ballast water carrying capacity by 15 percent or greater, or
.2 which changes the ship type, or
.3 which, in the opinion of the Administration, is projected to prolong its life by ten
years or more, or
.4 which results in modifications to its ballast water system other than component
replacement-in-kind. Conversion of a ship to meet the provisions of
regulation D-1 shall not be deemed to constitute a major conversion for the
purpose of this Annex.
1
Refer to the ISM Code adopted by the Organization by resolution A.741(18), as amended.
I:\CONF\BWM\36.DOC
BWM/CONF/36
ANNEX
Page 15
6 —From the nearest land“ means from the baseline from which the territorial sea of the
territory in question is established in accordance with international law except that, for the
purposes of the Convention, —from the nearest land“ off the north-eastern coast of
Australia shall mean from a line drawn from a point on the coast of Australia in
latitude 11°00´ S, longitude 142°08´ E
to a point in latitude 10°35´ S, longitude 141°55´ E
thence to a point latitude 10°00´ S, longitude 142°00´ E
thence to a point on the coast of Australia
in latitude 24°42´ S, longitude 153°15´ E.
7 —Active Substance“ means a substance or organism, including a virus or a fungus, that has
a general or specific action on or against Harmful Aquatic Organisms and Pathogens.
Regulation A-2 General Applicability
Except where expressly provided otherwise, the discharge of Ballast Water shall only be
conducted through Ballast Water Management in accordance with the provisions of this Annex.
Regulation A-3 Exceptions
The requirements of regulation B-3, or any measures adopted by a Party pursuant to Article 2.3
and Section C, shall not apply to:
1 the uptake or discharge of Ballast Water and Sediments necessary for the purpose
of ensuring the safety of a ship in emergency situations or saving life at sea; or
2 the accidental discharge or ingress of Ballast Water and Sediments resulting from
damage to a ship or its equipment:
.1 provided that all reasonable precautions have been taken before and after
the occurrence of the damage or discovery of the damage or discharge for
the purpose of preventing or minimizing the discharge; and
.2 unless the owner, Company or officer in charge wilfully or recklessly

caused damage; or
3 the uptake and discharge of Ballast Water and Sediments when being used for the
purpose of avoiding or minimizing pollution incidents from the ship; or
I:\CONF\BWM\36.DOC
BWM/CONF/36
ANNEX
Page 16
4 the uptake and subsequent discharge on the high seas of the same Ballast Water
and Sediments; or
5 the discharge of Ballast Water and Sediments from a ship at the same location
where the whole of that Ballast Water and those Sediments originated and
provided that no mixing with unmanaged Ballast Water and Sediments from other
areas has occurred. If mixing has occurred, the Ballast Water taken from other
areas is subject to Ballast Water Management in accordance with this Annex.
Regulation A-4 Exemptions
1 A Party or Parties, in waters under their jurisdiction, may grant exemptions to any
requirements to apply regulations B-3 or C-1, in addition to those exemptions contained
elsewhere in this Convention, but only when they are:
.1 granted to a ship or ships on a voyage or voyages between specified ports or

locations; or to a ship which operates exclusively between specified ports or
locations;
.2 effective for a period of no more than five years subject to intermediate review;
.3 granted to ships that do not mix Ballast Water or Sediments other than between
the ports or locations specified in paragraph 1.1; and
.4 granted based on the Guidelines on risk assessment developed by the

Organization.
2 Exemptions granted pursuant to paragraph 1 shall not be effective until after

communication to the Organization and circulation of relevant information to the Parties.
3 Any exemptions granted under this regulation shall not impair or damage the
environment, human health, property or resources of adjacent or other States. Any State that the
Party determines may be adversely affected shall be consulted, with a view to resolving any
identified concerns.
4 Any exemptions granted under this regulation shall be recorded in the Ballast Water
record book.
Regulation A-5 Equivalent compliance
Equivalent compliance with this Annex for pleasure craft used solely for recreation or
competition or craft used primarily for search and rescue, less than 50 metres in length overall,
and with a maximum Ballast Water capacity of 8 cubic metres, shall be determined by the
Administration taking into account Guidelines developed by the Organization.
I:\CONF\BWM\36.DOC
BWM/CONF/36
ANNEX
Page 17
SECTION B œ MANAGEMENT AND CONTROL REQUIREMENTS FOR SHIPS
Regulation B-1 Ballast Water Management Plan
Each ship shall have on board and implement a Ballast Water Management plan. Such a
plan shall be approved by the Administration taking into account Guidelines developed by the
Organization. The Ballast Water Management plan shall be specific to each ship and shall at
least:
1 detail safety procedures for the ship and the crew associated with Ballast Water
Management as required by this Convention;
2 provide a detailed description of the actions to be taken to implement the Ballast

Water Management requirements and supplemental Ballast Water Management
practices as set forth in this Convention;
3 detail the procedures for the disposal of Sediments:
.1 at sea; and
.2 to shore;
4 include the procedures for coordinating shipboard Ballast Water Management that
involves discharge to the sea with the authorities of the State into whose waters
such discharge will take place;
5 designate the officer on board in charge of ensuring that the plan is properly
implemented;
6 contain the reporting requirements for ships provided for under this Convention;
and
7 be written in the working language of the ship. If the language used is not
English, French or Spanish, a translation into one of these languages shall be
included.
Regulation B-2 Ballast Water Record Book
1 Each ship shall have on board a Ballast Water record book that may be an electronic
record system, or that may be integrated into another record book or system and, which shall at
least contain the information specified in Appendix II.
2 Ballast Water record book entries shall be maintained on board the ship for a minimum
period of two years after the last entry has been made and thereafter in the Company‘s control for
a minimum period of three years.
I:\CONF\BWM\36.DOC
BWM/CONF/36
ANNEX
Page 18
3 In the event of the discharge of Ballast Water pursuant to regulations A-3, A-4 or B-3.6
or in the event of other accidental or exceptional discharge of Ballast Water not otherwise
exempted by this Convention, an entry shall be made in the Ballast Water record book describing
the circumstances of, and the reason for, the discharge.
4 The Ballast Water record book shall be kept readily available for inspection at all
reasonable times and, in the case of an unmanned ship under tow, may be kept on the towing
ship.
5 Each operation concerning Ballast Water shall be fully recorded without delay in the
Ballast Water record book. Each entry shall be signed by the officer in charge of the operation
concerned and each completed page shall be signed by the master. The entries in the Ballast
Water record book shall be in a working language of the ship. If that language is not English,
French or Spanish the entries shall contain a translation into one of those languages. When
entries in an official national language of the State whose flag the ship is entitled to fly are also
used, these shall prevail in case of a dispute or discrepancy.
6 Officers duly authorized by a Party may inspect the Ballast Water record book on board
any ship to which this regulation applies while the ship is in its port or offshore terminal, and
may make a copy of any entry, and require the master to certify that the copy is a true copy. Any
copy so certified shall be admissible in any judicial proceeding as evidence of the facts stated in
the entry. The inspection of a Ballast Water record book and the taking of a certified copy shall
be performed as expeditiously as possible without causing the ship to be unduly delayed.
Regulation B-3 Ballast Water Management for Ships
1 A ship constructed before 2009:
.1 with a Ballast Water Capacity of between 1,500 and 5,000 cubic metres, inclusive,
shall conduct Ballast Water Management that at least meets the standard described
in regulation D-1 or regulation D-2 until 2014, after which time it shall at least
meet the standard described in regulation D-2;
.2 with a Ballast Water Capacity of less than 1,500 or greater than 5,000 cubic
metres shall conduct Ballast Water Management that at least meets the standard
described in regulation D-1 or regulation D-2 until 2016, after which time it shall
at least meet the standard described in regulation D-2.
2 A ship to which paragraph 1 applies shall comply with paragraph 1 not later than the first
intermediate or renewal survey, whichever occurs first, after the anniversary date of delivery of
the ship in the year of compliance with the standard applicable to the ship.
3 A ship constructed in or after 2009 with a Ballast Water Capacity of less than 5,000 cubic
metres shall conduct Ballast Water Management that at least meets the standard described in
regulation D-2.
4 A ship constructed in or after 2009, but before 2012, with a Ballast Water Capacity of
5,000 cubic metres or more shall conduct Ballast Water Management in accordance with
paragraph 1.2.
I:\CONF\BWM\36.DOC
BWM/CONF/36
ANNEX
Page 19
5 A ship constructed in or after 2012 with a Ballast Water Capacity of 5000 cubic metres or
more shall conduct Ballast Water Management that at least meets the standard described in
regulation D-2.
6 The requirements of this regulation do not apply to ships that discharge Ballast Water to a
reception facility designed taking into account the Guidelines developed by the Organization for
such facilities.
7 Other methods of Ballast Water Management may also be accepted as alternatives to the
requirements described in paragraphs 1 to 5, provided that such methods ensure at least the same
level of protection to the environment, human health, property or resources, and are approved in
principle by the Committee.
Regulation B-4 Ballast Water Exchange
1 A ship conducting Ballast Water exchange to meet the standard in regulation D-1 shall:
.1 whenever possible, conduct such Ballast Water exchange at least 200 nautical
miles from the nearest land and in water at least 200 metres in depth, taking into
account the Guidelines developed by the Organization;
.2 in cases where the ship is unable to conduct Ballast Water exchange in accordance
with paragraph 1.1, such Ballast Water exchange shall be conducted taking into
account the Guidelines described in paragraph 1.1 and as far from the nearest land
as possible, and in all cases at least 50 nautical miles from the nearest land and in
water at least 200 metres in depth.
2 In sea areas where the distance from the nearest land or the depth does not meet the
parameters described in paragraph 1.1 or 1.2, the port State may designate areas, in consultation
with adjacent or other States, as appropriate, where a ship may conduct Ballast Water exchange,
taking into account the Guidelines described in paragraph 1.1.
3 A ship shall not be required to deviate from its intended voyage, or delay the voyage, in
order to comply with any particular requirement of paragraph 1.
4 A ship conducting Ballast Water exchange shall not be required to comply with
paragraphs 1 or 2, as appropriate, if the master reasonably decides that such exchange would
threaten the safety or stability of the ship, its crew, or its passengers because of adverse weather,
ship design or stress, equipment failure, or any other extraordinary condition.
5 When a ship is required to conduct Ballast Water exchange and does not do so in
accordance with this regulation, the reasons shall be entered in the Ballast Water record book.
Regulation B-5 Sediment Management for Ships
1 All ships shall remove and dispose of Sediments from spaces designated to carry Ballast
Water in accordance with the provisions of the ship‘s Ballast Water Management plan.
I:\CONF\BWM\36.DOC
BWM/CONF/36
ANNEX
Page 20
2 Ships described in regulation B-3.3 to B-3.5 should, without compromising safety or

operational efficiency, be designed and constructed with a view to minimize the uptake and
undesirable entrapment of Sediments, facilitate removal of Sediments, and provide safe access to
allow for Sediment removal and sampling, taking into account guidelines developed by the
Organization. Ships described in regulation B-3.1 should, to the extent practicable, comply with
this paragraph.
Regulation B-6 Duties of Officers and Crew
Officers and crew shall be familiar with their duties in the implementation of Ballast Water
Management particular to the ship on which they serve and shall, appropriate to their duties, be
familiar with the ship‘s Ballast Water Management plan.
SECTION C œ SPECIAL REQUIREMENTS IN CERTAIN AREAS
Regulation C-1 Additional Measures
1 If a Party, individually or jointly with other Parties, determines that measures in addition
to those in Section B are necessary to prevent, reduce, or eliminate the transfer of Harmful
Aquatic Organisms and Pathogens through ships‘ Ballast Water and Sediments, such Party or
Parties may, consistent with international law, require ships to meet a specified standard or
requirement.
2 Prior to establishing standards or requirements under paragraph 1, a Party or Parties

should consult with adjacent or other States that may be affected by such standards or
requirements.
3 A Party or Parties intending to introduce additional measures in accordance with

paragraph 1 shall:
.1 take into account the Guidelines developed by the Organization.
.2 communicate their intention to establish additional measure(s) to the Organization

at least 6 months, except in emergency or epidemic situations, prior to the
projected date of implementation of the measure(s). Such communication shall
include:
.1 the precise co-ordinates where additional measure(s) is/are applicable;
.2 the need and reasoning for the application of the additional measure(s),
including, whenever possible, benefits;
.3 a description of the additional measure(s); and
.4 any arrangements that may be provided to facilitate ships‘ compliance with

the additional measure(s).
I:\CONF\BWM\36.DOC
BWM/CONF/36
ANNEX
Page 21
.3 to the extent required by customary international law as reflected in the United

Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, as appropriate, obtain the approval of
the Organization.
4 A Party or Parties, in introducing such additional measures, shall endeavour to make

available all appropriate services, which may include but are not limited to notification to
mariners of areas, available and alternative routes or ports, as far as practicable, in order to ease
the burden on the ship.
5 Any additional measures adopted by a Party or Parties shall not compromise the safety
and security of the ship and in any circumstances not conflict with any other convention with
which the ship must comply.
6 A Party or Parties introducing additional measures may waive these measures for a period
of time or in specific circumstances as they deem fit.
Regulation C-2 Warnings Concerning Ballast Water Uptake in Certain Areas and Related
Flag State Measures
1 A Party shall endeavour to notify mariners of areas under their jurisdiction where ships
should not uptake Ballast Water due to known conditions. The Party shall include in such
notices the precise coordinates of the area or areas, and, where possible, the location of any
alternative area or areas for the uptake of Ballast Water. Warnings may be issued for areas:
.1 known to contain outbreaks, infestations, or populations of Harmful Aquatic

Organisms and Pathogens (e.g., toxic algal blooms) which are likely to be of
relevance to Ballast Water uptake or discharge;
.2 near sewage outfalls; or
.3 where tidal flushing is poor or times during which a tidal stream is known to be
more turbid.
2 In addition to notifying mariners of areas in accordance with the provisions of

paragraph 1, a Party shall notify the Organization and any potentially affected coastal States of
any areas identified in paragraph 1 and the time period such warning is likely to be in effect. The
notice to the Organization and any potentially affected coastal States shall include the precise
coordinates of the area or areas, and, where possible, the location of any alternative area or areas
for the uptake of Ballast Water. The notice shall include advice to ships needing to uptake
Ballast Water in the area, describing arrangements made for alternative supplies. The Party shall
also notify mariners, the Organization, and any potentially affected coastal States when a given
warning is no longer applicable.
Regulation C-3 Communication of Information
The Organization shall make available, through any appropriate means, information
communicated to it under regulations C-1 and C-2.
I:\CONF\BWM\36.DOC
BWM/CONF/36
ANNEX
Page 22
SECTION D - STANDARDS FOR BALLAST WATER MANAGEMENT
Regulation D-1 Ballast Water Exchange Standard
1 Ships performing Ballast Water exchange in accordance with this regulation shall do so
with an efficiency of at least 95 percent volumetric exchange of Ballast Water.
2 For ships exchanging Ballast Water by the pumping-through method, pumping through
three times the volume of each Ballast Water tank shall be considered to meet the standard
described in paragraph 1. Pumping through less than three times the volume may be accepted
provided the ship can demonstrate that at least 95 percent volumetric exchange is met.
Regulation D-2 Ballast Water Performance Standard
1 Ships conducting Ballast Water Management in accordance with this regulation shall
discharge less than 10 viable organisms per cubic metre greater than or equal to 50 micrometres
in minimum dimension and less than 10 viable organisms per millilitre less than 50 micrometres
in minimum dimension and greater than or equal to 10 micrometres in minimum dimension; and
discharge of the indicator microbes shall not exceed the specified concentrations described in
paragraph 2.
2 Indicator microbes, as a human health standard, shall include:
.1 Toxicogenic Vibrio cholerae (O1 and O139) with less than 1 colony forming unit
(cfu) per 100 millilitres or less than 1 cfu per 1 gram (wet weight) zooplankton
samples ;
.2 Escherichia coli less than 250 cfu per 100 millilitres;
.3 Intestinal Enterococci less than 100 cfu per 100 milliliters.
Regulation D-3 Approval requirements for Ballast Water Management systems
1 Except as specified in paragraph 2, Ballast Water Management systems used to comply

with this Convention must be approved by the Administration taking into account Guidelines
developed by the Organization.
2 Ballast Water Management systems which make use of Active Substances or preparations
containing one or more Active Substances to comply with this Convention shall be approved by
the Organization, based on a procedure developed by the Organization. This procedure shall
describe the approval and withdrawal of approval of Active Substances and their proposed
manner of application. At withdrawal of approval, the use of the relevant Active Substance or
Substances shall be prohibited within 1 year after the date of such withdrawal.
3 Ballast Water Management systems used to comply with this Convention must be safe in
terms of the ship, its equipment and the crew.
I:\CONF\BWM\36.DOC
BWM/CONF/36
ANNEX
Page 23
Regulation D-4 Prototype Ballast Water Treatment Technologies
1 For any ship that, prior to the date that the standard in regulation D-2 would otherwise
become effective for it, participates in a programme approved by the Administration to test and
evaluate promising Ballast Water treatment technologies, the standard in regulation D-2 shall not
apply to that ship until five years from the date on which the ship would otherwise be required to
comply with such standard.
2 For any ship that, after the date on which the standard in regulation D-2 has become
effective for it, participates in a programme approved by the Administration, taking into account
Guidelines developed by the Organization, to test and evaluate promising Ballast Water
technologies with the potential to result in treatment technologies achieving a standard higher
than that in regulation D-2, the standard in regulation D-2 shall cease to apply to that ship for five
years from the date of installation of such technology.
3 In establishing and carrying out any programme to test and evaluate promising Ballast
Water technologies, Parties shall:
.1 take into account Guidelines developed by the Organization, and
.2 allow participation only by the minimum number of ships necessary to effectively

test such technologies.
4 Throughout the test and evaluation period, the treatment system must be operated
consistently and as designed.
Regulation D-5 Review of Standards by the Organization
1 At a meeting of the Committee held no later than three years before the earliest effective
date of the standard set forth in regulation D-2, the Committee shall undertake a review which
includes a determination of whether appropriate technologies are available to achieve the
standard, an assessment of the criteria in paragraph 2, and an assessment of the socio-economic
effect(s) specifically in relation to the developmental needs of developing countries, particularly
small island developing States. The Committee shall also undertake periodic reviews, as
appropriate, to examine the applicable requirements for ships described in regulation B-3.1 as
well as any other aspect of Ballast Water Management addressed in this Annex, including any
Guidelines developed by the Organization.
2 Such reviews of appropriate technologies shall also take into account:
.1 safety considerations relating to the ship and the crew;
.2 environmental acceptability, i.e., not causing more or greater environmental

impacts than they solve;
.3 practicability, i.e., compatibility with ship design and operations;
.4 cost effectiveness, i.e., economics; and
I:\CONF\BWM\36.DOC
BWM/CONF/36
ANNEX
Page 24
.5 biological effectiveness in terms of removing, or otherwise rendering not viable,

Harmful Aquatic Organisms and Pathogens in Ballast Water.
3 The Committee may form a group or groups to conduct the review(s) described in
paragraph 1. The Committee shall determine the composition, terms of reference and specific
issues to be addressed by any such group formed. Such groups may develop and recommend
proposals for amendment of this Annex for consideration by the Parties. Only Parties may
participate in the formulation of recommendations and amendment decisions taken by the
Committee.
4 If, based on the reviews described in this regulation, the Parties decide to adopt
amendments to this Annex, such amendments shall be adopted and enter into force in accordance
with the procedures contained in Article 19 of this Convention.
SECTION E - SURVEY AND CERTIFICATION REQUIREMENTS FOR BALLAST

WATER MANAGEMENT
Regulation E-1 Surveys
1 Ships of 400 gross tonnage and above to which this Convention applies, excluding
floating platforms, FSUs and FPSOs, shall be subject to surveys specified below:
.1 An initial survey before the ship is put in service or before the Certificate required
under regulation E-2 or E-3 is issued for the first time. This survey shall verify
that the Ballast Water Management plan required by regulation B-1 and any
associated structure, equipment, systems, fitting, arrangements and material or
processes comply fully with the requirements of this Convention.
.2 A renewal survey at intervals specified by the Administration, but not exceeding

five years, except where regulation E-5.2, E-5.5, E-5.6, or E-5.7 is applicable.
This survey shall verify that the Ballast Water Management plan required by
regulation B-1 and any associated structure, equipment, systems, fitting,
arrangements and material or processes comply fully with the applicable
requirements of this Convention.
.3 An intermediate survey within three months before or after the second

Anniversary date or within three months before or after the third Anniversary date
of the Certificate, which shall take the place of one of the annual surveys specified
in paragraph 1.4. The intermediate surveys shall ensure that the equipment,
associated systems and processes for Ballast Water Management fully comply
with the applicable requirements of this Annex and are in good working order.
Such intermediate surveys shall be endorsed on the Certificate issued under
regulation E-2 or E-3.
.4 An annual survey within three months before or after each Anniversary date,
including a general inspection of the structure, any equipment, systems, fittings,
arrangements and material or processes associated with the Ballast Water
Management plan required by regulation B-1 to ensure that they have been
maintained in accordance with paragraph 9 and remain satisfactory for the service
I:\CONF\BWM\36.DOC
BWM/CONF/36
ANNEX
Page 25
for which the ship is intended. Such annual surveys shall be endorsed on the
Certificate issued under regulation E-2 or E-3.
.5 An additional survey either general or partial, according to the circumstances,

shall be made after a change, replacement, or significant repair of the structure,
equipment, systems, fittings, arrangements and material necessary to achieve full
compliance with this Convention. The survey shall be such as to ensure that any
such change, replacement, or significant repair has been effectively made, so that
the ship complies with the requirements of this Convention. Such surveys shall be
endorsed on the Certificate issued under regulation E-2 or E-3.
2 The Administration shall establish appropriate measures for ships that are not subject to
the provisions of paragraph 1 in order to ensure that the applicable provisions of this Convention
are complied with.
3 Surveys of ships for the purpose of enforcement of the provisions of this Convention shall
be carried out by officers of the Administration. The Administration may, however, entrust the
surveys either to surveyors nominated for the purpose or to organizations recognized by it.
4 An Administration nominating surveyors or recognizing organizations to conduct

surveys, as described in paragraph 3 shall, as a minimum, empower such nominated surveyors or
recognized organizations2 to:
.1 require a ship that they survey to comply with the provisions of this Convention;
and
.2 carry out surveys and inspections if requested by the appropriate authorities of a

port State that is a Party.
5 The Administration shall notify the Organization of the specific responsibilities and
conditions of the authority delegated to the nominated surveyors or recognized organizations, for
circulation to Parties for the information of their officers.
6 When the Administration, a nominated surveyor, or a recognized organization determines

that the ship‘s Ballast Water Management does not conform to the particulars of the Certificate
required under regulation E-2 or E-3 or is such that the ship is not fit to proceed to sea without
presenting a threat of harm to the environment, human health, property or resources such
surveyor or organization shall immediately ensure that corrective action is taken to bring the ship
into compliance. A surveyor or organization shall be notified immediately, and it shall ensure
that the Certificate is not issued or is withdrawn as appropriate. If the ship is in the port of
another Party, the appropriate authorities of the port State shall be notified immediately. When
an officer of the Administration, a nominated surveyor, or a recognized organization has notified
the appropriate authorities of the port State, the Government of the port State concerned shall
give such officer, surveyor or organization any necessary assistance to carry out their obligations
under this regulation, including any action described in Article 9.
2
Refer to the guidelines adopted by the Organization by resolution A.739(18), as may be amended by the
Organization, and the specifications adopted by the Organization by resolution A.789(19), as may be amended by
the Organization.
I:\CONF\BWM\36.DOC
BWM/CONF/36
ANNEX
Page 26
7 Whenever an accident occurs to a ship or a defect is discovered which substantially

affects the ability of the ship to conduct Ballast Water Management in accordance with this
Convention, the owner, operator or other person in charge of the ship shall report at the earliest
opportunity to the Administration, the recognized organization or the nominated surveyor
responsible for issuing the relevant Certificate, who shall cause investigations to be initiated to
determine whether a survey as required by paragraph 1 is necessary. If the ship is in a port of
another Party, the owner, operator or other person in charge shall also report immediately to the
appropriate authorities of the port State and the nominated surveyor or recognized organization
shall ascertain that such report has been made.
8 In every case, the Administration concerned shall fully guarantee the completeness and
efficiency of the survey and shall undertake to ensure the necessary arrangements to satisfy this
obligation.
9 The condition of the ship and its equipment, systems and processes shall be maintained to
conform with the provisions of this Convention to ensure that the ship in all respects will remain
fit to proceed to sea without presenting a threat of harm to the environment, human health,
property or resources.
10 After any survey of the ship under paragraph 1 has been completed, no change shall be
made in the structure, any equipment, fittings, arrangements or material associated with the
Ballast Water Management plan required by regulation B-1 and covered by the survey without
the sanction of the Administration, except the direct replacement of such equipment or fittings.
Regulation E-2 Issuance or Endorsement of a Certificate
1 The Administration shall ensure that a ship to which regulation E-1 applies is issued a
Certificate after successful completion of a survey conducted in accordance with regulation E-1.
A Certificate issued under the authority of a Party shall be accepted by the other Parties and
regarded for all purposes covered by this Convention as having the same validity as a Certificate
issued by them.
2 Certificates shall be issued or endorsed either by the Administration or by any person or

organization duly authorized by it. In every case, the Administration assumes full responsibility
for the Certificate.
Regulation E-3 Issuance or Endorsement of a Certificate by Another Party
1 At the request of the Administration, another Party may cause a ship to be surveyed and,
if satisfied that the provisions of this Convention are complied with, shall issue or authorize the
issuance of a Certificate to the ship, and where appropriate, endorse or authorize the endorsement
of that Certificate on the ship, in accordance with this Annex.
2 A copy of the Certificate and a copy of the survey report shall be transmitted as soon as
possible to the requesting Administration.
3 A Certificate so issued shall contain a statement to the effect that it has been issued at the
request of the Administration and it shall have the same force and receive the same recognition as
a Certificate issued by the Administration.
I:\CONF\BWM\36.DOC
BWM/CONF/36
ANNEX
Page 27
4 No Certificate shall be issued to a ship entitled to fly the flag of a State which is not a
Party.
Regulation E-4 Form of the Certificate
The Certificate shall be drawn up in the official language of the issuing Party, in the form set
forth in Appendix I. If the language used is neither English, French nor Spanish, the text shall
include a translation into one of these languages.
Regulation E-5 Duration and Validity of the Certificate
1 A Certificate shall be issued for a period specified by the Administration that shall not
exceed five years.
2 For renewal surveys:
.1 Notwithstanding the requirements of paragraph 1, when the renewal survey is

completed within three months before the expiry date of the existing Certificate,
the new Certificate shall be valid from the date of completion of the renewal
survey to a date not exceeding five years from the date of expiry of the existing
Certificate.
.2 When the renewal survey is completed after the expiry date of the existing
Certificate, the new Certificate shall be valid from the date of completion of the
renewal survey to a date not exceeding five years from the date of expiry of the
existing Certificate.
.3 When the renewal survey is completed more than three months before the expiry
date of the existing Certificate, the new Certificate shall be valid from the date of
completion of the renewal survey to a date not exceeding five years from the date
of completion of the renewal survey.
3 If a Certificate is issued for a period of less than five years, the Administration may
extend the validity of the Certificate beyond the expiry date to the maximum period specified in
paragraph 1, provided that the surveys referred to in regulation E-1.1.3 applicable when a
Certificate is issued for a period of five years are carried out as appropriate.
4 If a renewal survey has been completed and a new Certificate cannot be issued or placed
on board the ship before the expiry date of the existing Certificate, the person or organization
authorized by the Administration may endorse the existing Certificate and such a Certificate shall
be accepted as valid for a further period which shall not exceed five months from the expiry date.
5 If a ship at the time when the Certificate expires is not in a port in which it is to be
surveyed, the Administration may extend the period of validity of the Certificate but this
extension shall be granted only for the purpose of allowing the ship to complete its voyage to the
port in which it is to be surveyed, and then only in cases where it appears proper and reasonable
to do so. No Certificate shall be extended for a period longer than three months, and a ship to
which such extension is granted shall not, on its arrival in the port in which it is to be surveyed,
be entitled by virtue of such extension to leave that port without having a new Certificate. When
I:\CONF\BWM\36.DOC
BWM/CONF/36
ANNEX
Page 28
the renewal survey is completed, the new Certificate shall be valid to a date not exceeding five
years from the date of expiry of the existing Certificate before the extension was granted.
6 A Certificate issued to a ship engaged on short voyages which has not been extended
under the foregoing provisions of this regulation may be extended by the Administration for a
period of grace of up to one month from the date of expiry stated on it. When the renewal survey
is completed, the new Certificate shall be valid to a date not exceeding five years from the date of
expiry of the existing Certificate before the extension was granted.
7 In special circumstances, as determined by the Administration, a new Certificate need not

be dated from the date of expiry of the existing Certificate as required by paragraph 2.2, 5 or 6 of
this regulation. In these special circumstances, the new Certificate shall be valid to a date not
exceeding five years from the date of completion of the renewal survey.
8 If an annual survey is completed before the period specified in regulation E-1, then:
.1 the Anniversary date shown on the Certificate shall be amended by endorsement

to a date which shall not be more than three months later than the date on which
the survey was completed;
.2 the subsequent annual or intermediate survey required by regulation E-1 shall be

completed at the intervals prescribed by that regulation using the new Anniversary
date;
.3 the expiry date may remain unchanged provided one or more annual surveys, as
appropriate, are carried out so that the maximum intervals between the surveys
prescribed by regulation E-1 are not exceeded.
9 A Certificate issued under regulation E-2 or E-3 shall cease to be valid in any of the
following cases:
.1 if the structure, equipment, systems, fittings, arrangements and material necessary

to comply fully with this Convention is changed, replaced or significantly repaired
and the Certificate is not endorsed in accordance with this Annex;
.2 upon transfer of the ship to the flag of another State. A new Certificate shall only
be issued when the Party issuing the new Certificate is fully satisfied that the ship
is in compliance with the requirements of regulation E-1. In the case of a transfer
between Parties, if requested within three months after the transfer has taken
place, the Party whose flag the ship was formerly entitled to fly shall, as soon as
possible, transmit to the Administration copies of the Certificates carried by the
ship before the transfer and, if available, copies of the relevant survey reports;
.3 if the relevant surveys are not completed within the periods specified under
regulation E-1.1; or
.4 if the Certificate is not endorsed in accordance with regulation E-1.1.
I:\CONF\BWM\36.DOC
BWM/CONF/36
ANNEX
Page 29
APPENDIX I
FORM OF INTERNATIONAL BALLAST WATER MANAGEMENT CERTIFICATE
INTERNATIONAL BALLAST WATER MANAGEMENT CERTIFICATE
Issued under the provisions of the International Convention for the Control and Management of
Ships‘ Ballast Water and Sediments (hereinafter referred to as "the Convention") under the
authority of the Government of
………………………………………………………………………………………………
(full designation of the country)
by ……………………………………….…………………………………………………
(full designation of the competent person or
organization authorized under the provisions
of the Convention)
Particulars of ship1
Name of ship ...........................................................................................................
Distinctive number or letters ...................................................................................
Port of registry ........................................................................................................
Gross Tonnage ........................................................................................................
IMO number2 ..........................................................................................................
Date of Construction ………………………………………………………………
Ballast Water Capacity (in cubic metres) ...............................................................
Details of Ballast Water Management Method(s) Used
Method of Ballast Water Management used ……………………………………………...
Date installed (if applicable) ...................................................................................
Name of manufacturer (if applicable) ....................................................................
1
Alternatively, the particulars of the ship may be placed horizontally in boxes.
2
IMO Ship Identification Number Scheme adopted by the Organization by resolution A.600(15).
I:\CONF\BWM\36.DOC
BWM/CONF/36
ANNEX
Page 30
The principal Ballast Water Management method(s) employed on this ship is/are:
in accordance with regulation D-1
in accordance with regulation D-2

(describe) .....................................................................................................
the ship is subject to regulation D-4
THIS IS TO CERTIFY:
1 That the ship has been surveyed in accordance with regulation E-1 of the Annex to the
Convention; and
2 That the survey shows that Ballast Water Management on the ship complies with the
Annex to the Convention.
This certificate is valid until …………………………… subject to surveys in accordance with
regulation E-1 of the Annex to the Convention.
Completion date of the survey on which this certificate is based: dd/mm/yyyy
Issued at ..........................................................................................................................................
(Place of issue of certificate)
............................ .............................................................................................................
(Date of issue) Signature of authorized official issuing the certificate)
(Seal or stamp of the authority, as appropriate)
I:\CONF\BWM\36.DOC
BWM/CONF/36
ANNEX
Page 31
ENDORSEMENT FOR ANNUAL AND INTERMEDIATE SURVEY(S)
THIS IS TO CERTIFY that a survey required by regulation E-1 of the Annex to the Convention
the ship was found to comply with the relevant provisions of the Convention:
Annual survey: Signed ...........................
(Signature of duly authorized official)
Place ............................
Date...........................…
Annual*/Intermediate survey*: Signed ...........................
Place ............................
Date...........................…
Annual*/Intermediate survey*: Signed ...........................
Place ............................
Date...........................…
Annual survey: Signed ...........................
Place ............................
Date...........................…
_____________
* Delete as appropriate.
I:\CONF\BWM\36.DOC
BWM/CONF/36
ANNEX
Page 32
ANNUAL/INTERMEDIATE SURVEY
IN ACCORDANCE WITH REGULATION E-5.8.3
THIS IS TO CERTIFY that, at an annual/intermediate* survey in accordance with

regulation E-5.8.3 of the Annex to the Convention, the ship was found to comply with the
relevant provisions of the Convention:
Signed ..........................
(Signature of authorized official)
Place ............................
Date........................…...
ENDORSEMENT TO EXTEND THE CERTIFICATE IF VALID
FOR LESS THAN 5 YEARS WHERE REGULATION E-5.3 APPLIES
The ship complies with the relevant provisions of the Convention, and this Certificate shall, in
accordance with regulation E-5.3 of the Annex to the Convention, be accepted as valid
until………………………
Signed ...........................
Place ............................
Date.........................….
ENDORSEMENT WHERE THE RENEWAL SURVEY HAS BEEN
COMPLETED AND REGULATION E-5.4 APPLIES
The ship complies with the relevant provisions of the Convention and this Certificate shall, in
accordance with regulation E-5.4 of the Annex to the Convention, be accepted as valid until
…………………
Signed ...........................
Place ............................
Date...........................…
*
Delete as appropriate
I:\CONF\BWM\36.DOC
BWM/CONF/36
ANNEX
Page 33
ENDORSEMENT TO EXTEND THE VALIDITY OF THE CERTIFICATE UNTIL
REACHING THE PORT OF SURVEY OR FOR A PERIOD OF GRACE
WHERE REGULATION E-5.5 OR E-5.6 APPLIES
This Certificate shall, in accordance with regulation E-5.5 or E-5.6* of the Annex to the
Convention, be accepted as valid until …………………..
Signed ...........................
Place ............................
Date...........................…
ENDORSEMENT FOR ADVANCEMENT OF ANNIVERSARY DATE
WHERE REGULATION E-5.8 APPLIES
In accordance with regulation E-5.8 of the Annex to the Convention the new Anniversary date is
…………….
Signed ...........................
Place ............................
Date...........................…
In accordance with regulation E-5.8 of the Annex to the Convention the new Anniversary date is
…………….
Signed ...........................
Place ............................
Date...........................…
*
Delete as appropriate
I:\CONF\BWM\36.DOC
BWM/CONF/36
ANNEX
Page 34
APPENDIX II
FORM OF BALLAST WATER RECORD BOOK
INTERNATIONAL CONVENTION FOR THE CONTROL AND
MANAGEMENT OF SHIPS‘ BALLAST WATER AND SEDIMENTS
Period From: ….…… To: ………..
Name of Ship ……………………………………..………………...
IMO number …………….…………………………………..…….….
Gross tonnage ………………………………………………………
Flag …………………………………………………………………
Total Ballast Water capacity (in cubic metres) ………………….….
The ship is provided with a Ballast Water Management plan
Diagram of ship indicating ballast tanks:
1 Introduction
In accordance with regulation B-2 of the Annex to the International Convention for the Control
and Management of Ships‘ Ballast Water and Sediments, a record is to be kept of each Ballast
Water operation. This includes discharges at sea and to reception facilities.
2 Ballast Water and Ballast Water Management
—Ballast Water“ means water with its suspended matter taken on board a ship to control trim, list,
draught, stability, or stresses of a ship. Management of Ballast Water shall be in accordance with
an approved Ballast Water Management plan and taking into account Guidelines3 developed by
the Organization.
3 Entries in the Ballast Water Record Book
Entries in the Ballast Water record book shall be made on each of the following occasions:
3.1 When Ballast Water is taken on board:
3
Refer to the Guidelines for the control and management of ships‘ ballast water to minimize the transfer of harmful
aquatic organisms and pathogens adopted by the Organization by resolution A.868(20).
I:\CONF\BWM\36.DOC
BWM/CONF/36
ANNEX
Page 35
.1 Date, time and location port or facility of uptake (port or lat/long), depth if outside
port
.2 Estimated volume of uptake in cubic metres
.3 Signature of the officer in charge of the operation.
3.2 Whenever Ballast Water is circulated or treated for Ballast Water Management purposes:
.1 Date and time of operation
.2 Estimated volume circulated or treated (in cubic metres)
.3 Whether conducted in accordance with the Ballast Water Management plan
.4 Signature of the officer in charge of the operation
3.3 When Ballast Water is discharged into the sea:
.1 Date, time and location port or facility of discharge (port or lat/long)
.2 Estimated volume discharged in cubic metres plus remaining volume in cubic
metres
.3 Whether approved Ballast Water Management plan had been implemented prior to
discharge
.4 Signature of the officer in charge of the operation.
3.4 When Ballast Water is discharged to a reception facility:
.1 Date, time, and location of uptake
.2 Date, time, and location of discharge
.3 Port or facility
.4 Estimated volume discharged or taken up, in cubic metres
discharge
.6 Signature of officer in charge of the operation
3.5 Accidental or other exceptional uptake or discharges of Ballast Water:
.1 Date and time of occurrence
.2 Port or position of the ship at time of occurrence
I:\CONF\BWM\36.DOC
BWM/CONF/36
ANNEX
Page 36
.3 Estimated volume of Ballast Water discharged
.4 Circumstances of uptake, discharge, escape or loss, the reason therefore and

general remarks.
discharge
.6 Signature of officer in charge of the operation
3.6 Additional operational procedure and general remarks
4 Volume of Ballast Water
The volume of Ballast Water onboard should be estimated in cubic metres. The Ballast Water
record book contains many references to estimated volume of Ballast Water. It is recognized that
the accuracy of estimating volumes of ballast is left to interpretation.
RECORD OF BALLAST WATER OPERATIONS
SAMPLE BALLAST WATER RECORD BOOK PAGE
Name of Ship: ………………………………………………
Distinctive number or letters ……………………………….
Date Item Record of operations/signature of officers in charge

(number)
Signature of master ………………………………..
___________
I:\CONF\BWM\36.DOC
MEPC 53/24/Add.1
ANNEX 2
GUIDELINES FOR BALLAST WATER EXCHANGE (G6)

Management of Ships’ Ballast Water and Sediments, 2004 (the Ballast Water Management
Convention) together with four Conference resolutions,
NOTING that Regulation A-2 of the Ballast Water Management Convention requires that
discharge of ballast water shall only be conducted through Ballast Water Management in
accordance with the provisions of the Annex to the Convention,
NOTING FURTHER that Regulation B-4 of the Annex to the Ballast Water Management
Convention addresses the conditions under which ballast water exchange should be conducted,
taking into account Guidelines developed by the Organization,
NOTING ALSO that resolution 1 adopted by the International Conference on Ballast

Water Management for Ships invites the Organization to develop these Guidelines as a matter of
urgency,
HAVING CONSIDERED the draft Guidelines for ballast water exchange developed by
the Ballast Water Working Group and the recommendation made by the Sub-Committee on Bulk
Liquids and Gases at its ninth session,
1. ADOPTS the Guidelines for ballast water exchange, as set out in the Annex to this
resolution;
2. INVITES Governments to apply the Guidelines as soon as possible, or when the

Convention becomes applicable to them; and
I:\MEPC\53\24-ADD-1.DOC
MEPC 53/24/Add.1
ANNEX 2
Page 2
ANNEX
GUIDELINES FOR BALLAST WATER EXCHANGE (G6)
1 INTRODUCTION
1.1 The purpose of these Guidelines is to provide shipowners and operators with general
guidance on the development of ship specific procedures for conducting ballast water exchange.
Whenever possible ship owner and operators should enlist the assistance of classification
societies or qualified marine surveyors in tailoring ballast exchange practices for various
conditions of weather, cargo and stability. The application of processes and procedures
concerning ballast water management are at the core of the solution to prevent, minimize and
ultimately eliminate the introduction of harmful aquatic organisms and pathogens. Ballast water
exchange offers a means, when used in conjunction with good ballast water management
practices, to assist in achieving this solution.
1.2 Ballast water exchange introduces a number of safety issues, which affect both the ship
and its crew. These Guidelines are intended to provide guidance on the safety and operational
aspects of ballast water exchange at sea.
1.3 Given that there are different types of ships, which may be required to undertake ballast
water exchange at sea, it is impractical to provide specific guidelines for each ship type.
Shipowners are cautioned that they should consider the many variables that apply to their ships.
Some of these variables include type and size of ship, ballast tank configurations and associated
pumping systems, trading routes and associated weather conditions, port State requirements and
manning.
Application
1.4 The Guidelines apply to all those involved with ballast water exchange including,
shipowners and operators, designers, classification societies and shipbuilders. Operational
procedures and guidance reflecting the issues rose in these Guidelines should be reflected in the
ships ballast water management plan.
2 DEFINITIONS
2.1 For the purposes of these Guidelines, the definitions in the International Convention for
the Control and Management of Ships’ Ballast Water and Sediments (the Convention) apply and:
.1 “Ballast Water Tank” – means any tank, hold, or space used for the carriage of
ballast water.
3 RESPONSIBILITIES
3.1 Shipowners and operators should ensure, prior to undertaking ballast water exchange, that
all the safety aspects associated with the ballast water exchange method or methods used onboard
have been considered and that suitably trained personnel are onboard. A review of the safety
aspects, the suitability of the exchange methods being used and the aspects of crew training
should be undertaken at regular intervals.
MEPC 53/24/Add.1
ANNEX 2
Page 3
3.2 The Ballast Water Management Plan is to include the duties of key shipboard control
personnel undertaking ballast water exchange at sea. Such personnel should be fully conversant
with the safety aspects of ballast water exchange and in particular the method of exchange used
on board their ship and the particular safety aspects associated with the method used.
3.3 In accordance with Regulation B-4.4 of the Convention if the master reasonably decides
that to perform ballast water exchange would threaten the safety or stability of the ship, its crew
or its passengers, because of adverse weather, the ship’s design, stress, equipment failure, or any
other extraordinary condition a ship shall not be required to comply with Regulations B-4.1
and B-4.2.
.1 When a ship does not undertake ballast water exchange for the reasons stated in
paragraph above, the reasons shall be entered in the Ballast Water Record Book.
.2 The port or coastal State concerned may require that the discharge of ballast water
must be in accordance with procedures determined by them taking into account
the Guidelines for additional measures including emergency situations (G13).
4 BALLAST WATER EXCHANGE REQUIREMENTS
4.1 Exchange of ballast water in deep ocean areas or open seas offers a means of limiting the
probability that harmful aquatic organisms and pathogens be transferred in ships ballast water.
4.2 Regulation D-1 of the Convention requires that:
.1 ships performing ballast water exchange in accordance with this regulation shall
do so with an efficiency of at least 95 per cent volumetric exchange of ballast
water; and
.2 for ships exchanging ballast water by the pumping-through method, pumping

through three times the volume of each ballast water tank shall be considered to
meet the standard described in paragraph 1. Pumping through less than three
times the volume may be accepted provided the ship can demonstrate that at
least 95 per cent volumetric exchange is met.
4.3 There are three methods of Ballast Water exchange which have been evaluated and
accepted by the Organization. The three methods are the sequential method, the flow-through
method and the dilution method. The flow-through method and the dilution method are
considered as “pump through” methods.
4.4 The three accepted methods can be described as follows:
Sequential method – a process by which a ballast tank intended for the carriage of
ballast water is first emptied and then refilled with replacement ballast water to achieve at
least a 95 per cent volumetric exchange.
Flow-through method – a process by which replacement ballast water is pumped into a

ballast tank intended for the carriage of ballast water, allowing water to flow through
overflow or other arrangements.
MEPC 53/24/Add.1
ANNEX 2
Page 4
Dilution method – a process by which replacement ballast water is filled through the top
of the ballast tank intended for the carriage of ballast water with simultaneous discharge
from the bottom at the same flow rate and maintaining a constant level in the tank through
out the ballast exchange operation.
5 SAFETY PRECAUTIONS ASSOCIATED WITH BALLAST WATER

EXCHANGE
5.1 Three methods of carrying out ballast water exchange at sea have been identified as
acceptable by the Organization. Each has particular safety aspects associated with it that should
be considered when selecting the method(s) to be used on a particular ship.
5.2 When identifying the ballast water exchange method(s) for the first time for a particular
ship, an evaluation should be made which should include:
.1 the safety margins for stability and strength contained in allowable seagoing
conditions, as specified in the approved trim and stability booklet and the loading
manual relevant to individual types of ships. Account should also be taken of the
loading conditions and the envisaged ballast water exchange method or methods
to be used;
.2 the ballast pumping and piping system taking account of the number of ballast
pumps and their capacities, size and arrangements of ballast water tanks; and
.3 the availability and capacity of tank vents and overflow arrangements, for the flow
through method, the availability and capacity of tank overflow points, prevention
of under and over pressurization of the ballast tanks.
5.3 Particular account should be taken of the following:
.1 stability which is to be maintained at all times and not less than those values
recommended by the Organization or required by the Administration;
.2 longitudinal stress, and where applicable torsional stress values, not to exceed
permitted values with regard to prevailing sea conditions;
.3 exchange of ballast in tanks where significant structural loads may be generated

by sloshing action in the partially filled tank to be carried out in favourable sea
and swell conditions such that the risk of structural damage is minimized;
.4 wave-induced hull vibrations when carrying out ballast water exchange;
.5 limitations of the available methods of ballast water exchange in respect of sea

and weather conditions;
.6 forward and aft draughts and trim, with particular reference to bridge visibility,
slamming, propeller immersion and minimum forward draft; and
.7 additional work loads on the master and crew.
MEPC 53/24/Add.1
ANNEX 2
Page 5
5.4 Having undertaken an evaluation for a particular ship and the exchange method or
methods to be used, the ship should be provided with procedures, advice and information
appropriate to the exchange method(s) identified and ship type in the Ballast Water
Management Plan. The procedures, advice, and information in the Ballast Water Management
Plan, may include but is not limited to the following:
.1 avoidance of over and under-pressurization of ballast tanks;
.2 free surface effects on stability and sloshing loads in tanks that may be slack at
any one time;
.3 maintain adequate intact stability in accordance with an approved trim and

stability booklet;
.4 permissible seagoing strength limits of shear forces and bending moments in

.5 torsional forces;
propeller immersion and minimum forward draft;
.7 wave-induced hull vibrations when performing ballast water exchange;
.8 watertight and weathertight closures (e.g. manholes) which may have to be

opened during ballast exchange must be re-secured;
.9 maximum pumping/flow rates – to ensure the tank is not subjected to a pressure

greater than that for which it has been designed;
.10 internal transfers of ballast;
.11 admissible weather conditions;
.12 weather routeing in areas seasonably affected by cyclones, typhoons, hurricanes,

or heavy icing conditions;
.13 documented records of ballasting and/or de-ballasting and/or internal transfers of

ballast;
.14 contingency procedures for situations which may affect ballast water exchange at
sea, including deteriorating weather conditions, pump failure and loss of power;
.15 time to complete the ballast water exchange for each tank or an appropriate
sequence thereof;
.16 continual monitoring of the ballast water operation; monitoring should include
pumps, levels in tanks, line and pump pressures, stability and stresses;
.17 a list of circumstances in which ballast water exchange should not be undertaken.
These circumstances may result from critical situations of an exceptional nature or
MEPC 53/24/Add.1
ANNEX 2
Page 6
force majeure due to stress of weather, known equipment failures or defects, or

any other circumstances in which human life or safety of the ship is threatened;
.18 ballast water exchange at sea should be avoided in freezing weather conditions.
However, when it is deemed absolutely necessary, particular attention should be
paid to the hazards associated with the freezing of overboard discharge
arrangements, air pipes, ballast system valves together with their means of control,
and the build up of ice on deck; and
.19 personnel safety, including precautions which may be required when personnel
are required to work on deck at night, in heavy weather, when ballast water
overflows the deck, and in freezing conditions. These concerns may be related to
the risks to the personnel of falling and injury, due to the slippery wet surface of
the deck plate, when water is overflowing on deck, and to the direct contact with
the ballast water, in terms of occupational health and safety.
5.5 During ballast water exchange sequences there may be times when, for a transitory
period, one or more of the following criteria cannot be fully met or are found to be difficult to
maintain:
.1 bridge visibility standards (SOLAS V/22);
.2 propeller immersion; and
.3 minimum draft forward.
5.6 As the choice of acceptable ballast water exchange sequences is limited for most ships, it
is not always practicable to dismiss from consideration those sequences where transitory non-
compliance may occur. The practical alternative would be to accept such sequences provided an
appropriate note is placed in the Ballast Water Management Plan to alert the ship’s master. The
note would advise the master of the nature of the transitory non-compliance, that additional
planning may be required and that adequate precautions need to be taken when using such
sequences.
5.7 In planning a ballast water exchange operation that includes sequences which involve
periods when the criteria for propeller immersion, minimum draft and / or trim and bridge
visibility cannot be met, the Master should assess:
.1 the duration(s) and time(s) during the operation that any of the criteria will not be
met;
.2 the effect(s) on the navigational and manoeuvring capabilities of the ship; and
.3 the time to complete the operation.
5.8 A decision to proceed with the operation should only be taken when it is anticipated that:
.1 the ship will be in open water;
.2 the traffic density will be low;
MEPC 53/24/Add.1
ANNEX 2
Page 7
.3 an enhanced navigational watch will be maintained including if necessary an

additional look out forward with adequate communications with the navigation
bridge;
.4 the manoeuvrability of the vessel will not be unduly impaired by the draft and trim
.5 the general weather and sea state conditions will be suitable and unlikely to
deteriorate.
5.9 On oil tankers, segregated ballast and clean ballast may be discharged below the water
line at sea by pumps if the ballast water exchange is performed under the provisions of
Regulation D-1.1 of the International Convention for the Control and Management of Ships’
Ballast Water and Sediments, provided that the surface of the ballast water has been examined
either visually or by other means immediately before the discharge to ensure that no
contamination with oil has taken place.
6 CREW TRAINING AND FAMILIARIZATION
6.1 Appropriate training for ships’ masters and crews should include instructions on the
safety issues associated with ballast water exchange based upon the information contained in
these Guidelines. Instruction should be provided on the ships’ Ballast Water Management Plan
including the completion of required records.
6.2 Ships’ officers and crew engaged in ballast water exchange at sea should be trained in and
be familiar with the following as appropriate:
.1 the ship’s ballast pumping and piping arrangements, positions of associated air
and sounding pipes, positions of all compartment and tank suctions and pipelines
connecting them to ship's ballast pumps and, in the case of use of the flow through
method of ballast water exchange, the openings used for release of water from the
top of the tank together with overboard discharge arrangements;
.2 the method of ensuring that sounding pipes are clear, and that air pipes and their
non-return devices are in good order;
.3 the different times required to undertake the various ballast water exchange
operations including the time to complete individual tanks;
.4 the method(s) in use for ballast water exchange at sea if applicable with particular
reference to required safety precautions; and
.5 the need to continually monitor ballast water exchange operations.
7 FUTURE CONSIDERATIONS IN RELATION TO BALLAST WATER

EXCHANGE
7.1 These Guidelines may be revised and updated in the light of possible technical evolutions
with the ballast water exchange methods and of new ballast water management options.
***
MEPC 53/24/Add.1
ANNEX 5
GUIDELINES FOR BALLAST WATER MANAGEMENT AND DEVELOPMENT

OF BALLAST WATER MANAGEMENT PLANS (G4)

Management of Ships’ Ballast Water and Sediments, 2004 (the Ballast Water Management
Convention) together with four Conference resolutions,
NOTING that Regulation A-2 of the Ballast Water Management Convention requires that
discharge of ballast water shall only be conducted through Ballast Water Management in
accordance with the provisions of the Annex to the Convention,
NOTING FURTHER that Regulation B-1 of the Annex to the Ballast Water Management
Convention provides that each ship shall have on board and implement a ballast water
management plan approved by the Administration, taking into account Guidelines developed by
the Organization,
NOTING ALSO that resolution 1 adopted by the International Conference on Ballast

Water Management for Ships invites the Organization to develop these Guidelines as a matter of
urgency,
HAVING CONSIDERED the draft Guidelines for ballast water management and
development of ballast water management plans developed by the Ballast Water Working Group
and the recommendation made by the Sub-Committee on Bulk Liquids and Gases at its
ninth session,
1. ADOPTS the Guidelines for ballast water management and development of ballast water
management plans, as set out in the Annex to this resolution;
2. INVITES Governments to apply the Guidelines as soon as possible, or when the

Convention becomes applicable to them; and
I:\MEPC\53\24-Add-1.doc
MEPC 53/24/Add.1
ANNEX 5
Page 2
ANNEX
DRAFT GUIDELINES FOR BALLAST WATER MANAGEMENT AND

THE DEVELOPMENT OF BALLAST WATER MANAGEMENT PLANS (G4)
1 INTRODUCTION
1.1 Ballast water is essential to control trim, list, draught, stability, or stresses of the ship.
However, ballast water may contain aquatic organisms or pathogens which, if introduced into the
sea including estuaries, or into fresh water courses, may create hazards to the environment,
human health, property or resources, impair biological diversity or interfere with other legitimate
uses of such areas.
1.2 The selection of appropriate methods of ballast water management should take into
account the need ensure that Ballast Water Management practices used to comply with this
Convention do not cause greater harm than they prevent to the environment, human health,
property or resources of any States and the safety of ships.
1.3 The objectives of these Guidelines are to assist Governments, appropriate authorities,
ships masters, operators and owners, and port authorities, as well as other interested parties, in
preventing, minimizing and ultimately eliminating the risk of introducing harmful aquatic
organisms and pathogens from ships' ballast water and associated sediments while protecting
ships’ safety in applying the International Convention for the Control and Management of Ships’
Ballast Water and Sediments (hereinafter referred to as the “Convention”).
1.4 These guidelines consist of two parts:
Part A – “Guidelines for Ballast Water Management”, which contains guidance on

the general principles of Ballast Water Management; and
Part B – “Guidelines for the development of Ballast Water Management Plans”,

which contains guidance on the structure and content of Ballast Water
Management Plans required by Regulation B-1 of the Convention.
2 DEFINITIONS
2.1 For the purposes of these Guidelines, the definitions in the Convention apply.
2.2 Ballast Water Tank means any tank, hold, or space used for the carriage of ballast water.
3 APPLICATION
3.1 The Guidelines apply to all ships and to Flag Administrations, port States, coastal States,
ship owners, ship operators, ships’ personnel involved in Ballast Water Management, ship
designers, ship builders, classification societies as well as other interested parties.
MEPC 53/24/Add.1
ANNEX 5
Page 3
PART A – GUIDELINES FOR BALLAST WATER MANAGEMENT
1 SHIP OPERATIONAL PROCEDURES
1.1 Precautionary practices
Avoiding unnecessary discharge of ballast water
1.1.1 If it is necessary to take on and discharge ballast water in the same port to facilitate safe
cargo operations, care should be taken to avoid unnecessary discharge of ballast water that has
been taken up in another port.
1.1.2 Managed ballast water which is mixed with unmanaged ballast water is no longer in
compliance is no longer in compliance with Regulations D-1 and D-2 of the Annex to the
Convention.
Minimizing the uptake of harmful aquatic organisms, pathogens and sediments
1.1.3 When loading ballast, every effort should be made to avoid the uptake of potentially
harmful aquatic organisms, pathogens, and sediment that may contain such organisms. The
uptake of ballast water should be minimized or, where practicable, avoided in areas and
situations such as:
.1 in areas identified by the port State in connection with advice provided by ports
under paragraph 2.2.2;
.2 in darkness when organisms may rise up in the water column;
.3 in very shallow water;
.4 where propellers may stir up sediment; or
.5 where dredging is or recently has been carried out.
1.2 Ballast water management options
1.2.1 Ballast Water Exchange
1.2.1.1 Ballast water exchange is to be conducted in accordance with Regulation B-4 of the
Convention and in accordance with the Guidelines for Ballast Water Exchange.
1.2.1.2 The voyage should be planned taking into account when ballast water exchange in
accordance with Regulation B–4 of the Convention can be carried out.
1.2.1.3 Because of the possibility that partially exchange may encourage re-growth of
organisms, ballast water exchange should only be commenced in any tank if there is sufficient
time to complete the exchange to comply with the standard in Regulation D-1 and the ship can
comply with the distance from land and minimum water depth criteria in Regulation B-4. As
many complete tanks should be exchanged to the standard in Regulation D-1 as the time allows,
MEPC 53/24/Add.1
ANNEX 5
Page 4
if for any tank the standard in Regulation D-1 can not be fully met the exchange should not be
commenced for that tank.
1.2.1.4 If ballast water exchange is not undertaken for the reasons in Regulation B-4.4, i.e. if the
master reasonably decides that such exchange would threaten the safety or stability of the ship,
its crew, or its passengers because of adverse weather, ship design or stress, equipment failure, or
any other extraordinary condition, then details of the reasons ballast water exchange was not
undertaken are to be recorded in the Ballast Water Record Book.
1.2.1.5 A port State may designate areas in which exchange may be conducted taking into
account the Guidelines on designation of areas for ballast water exchange. Designated areas
should only be used for those ballast water tanks that are intended to be discharged in the port of
that State and that could not be exchanged in accordance with Regulation B-4.1 of the
Convention.
1.2.2 Ballast Water Management Systems
1.2.2.1 Ballast Water Management Systems installed for compliance with Regulation B-3 are to
be approved in accordance with Regulation D-3. Such systems are to be operated in accordance
with the system design criteria and the manufacture’s operational and maintenance instructions.
The use of such systems should be detailed in the ship’s Ballast Water Management Plan. All
failures and malfunctions of the system are to be recorded in the Ballast Water Record Book.
1.2.3 Discharge to ballast water reception facilities
1.2.3.1 If ballast water reception facilities provided by a port State are utilized,
Regulation B-3.6 applies.
1.2.4 Prototype ballast water treatment technologies
1.2.4.1 Prototype ballast water treatment technologies should be used within a programme
approved by the Administration in accordance with Regulation D-4.
1.3 Sediment management
1.3.1 Regulation B-5 requires that all ships shall remove and dispose of sediments from spaces
designated to carry ballast water in accordance with the ballast water management plan.
1.3.2 All practical steps should be taken during ballast uptake to avoid sediment accumulation,
however, it is recognized that sediment will be taken on board and will settle on tank surfaces.
When sediment has accumulated, consideration should be given to flushing tank bottoms and
other surfaces when in suitable areas, i.e. areas complying with the minimum depth and distance
described by Regulations B-4.1.1 and B-4.1.2.
1.3.3 The volume of sediment in a ballast tank should be monitored on a regular basis.
1.3.4 Sediment in ballast tanks should be removed in a timely basis in accordance with the
Ballast Water Management Plan and as found necessary. The frequency and timing of removal
MEPC 53/24/Add.1
ANNEX 5
Page 5
will depend on factors such as sediment build up, ship’s trading pattern, availability of reception
facilities, work load of the ship’s personnel and safety considerations.
1.3.5 Removal of sediment from ballast tanks should preferably be undertaken under controlled
conditions in port, at a repair facility or in dry dock. The removed sediment should preferably be
disposed of in a sediment reception facility if available, reasonable and practicable.
1.3.6 When sediment is removed from the ship’s ballast tanks and is to be disposed of by that
ship at sea, such disposal should only take place in areas outside 200 nm from land and in water
depths of over 200 m.
1.3.7 Regulation B-5 requires that ships constructed in or after 2009 should, without
compromising safety or operational efficiency, be designed and constructed with a view to
minimize the uptake and undesirable entrapment of sediments, facilitate removal of sediments,
and provide safe access to allow for sediment removal and sampling, taking into account the
Guidelines for sediments control on ships (G12). This also applies to ships constructed prior
to 2009, to the extent practicable.
1.4 Additional Measures
1.4.1 Ships to which additional measures apply, under Regulation C-1, should take them into
account in the ships voyage planning. Actions taken to comply with any additional measures
should be recorded in the Ballast Water Record Book.
1.5 Exemptions
1.5.1 Regulation A-4 provides that an exemption may be granted from the requirements of
Regulations B-3 or C-1 by a Party or Parties to a ship in specific circumstances. Applications for
and the granting of such exemptions should be completed in accordance with the Guidelines for
risk assessment (G7).
1.5.2 Ships granted an exemption referred to in paragraph 1.5.1 above should record the
exemption in the Ballast Water Record Book and what actions have been taken with regards to
the ships ballast water.
2 RECORDING PROCEDURES
2.1 Procedures for ships
2.1.1 To facilitate the administration of ballast water management and treatment procedures on
board each ship, a responsible officer is to be designated in accordance with Regulation B-1 to
ensure the maintenance of appropriate records and to ensure that ballast water management
and/or treatment procedures are followed and recorded.
2.1.2 When carrying out any ballast water operation the details are to be recorded in the
Ballast Water Record Book together with any exemptions granted in accordance with
Regulation B-3 or C-1.
MEPC 53/24/Add.1
ANNEX 5
Page 6
2.1.3 Where a port State requires information on ships ballast operations, relevant
documentation, which takes account of the information requirements of the Convention, should
be made available to the port State.
2.2 Procedures for port States
2.2.1 Port States should provide ships with details of their requirements concerning ballast
water management including:
.1 the location and terms of use of areas designated for ballast water exchange under
Regulation B-4.2 of the Convention;
.2 any additional measures determined under Regulation C-1 of the Convention;
.3 warnings concerning ballast uptake and any other port contingency arrangements
in the event of emergency situations; and
.4 the availability, location, capacities of reception facilities that are provided for the
environmentally safe disposal of ballast water and/or sediments, under Article 5
and Regulation B-3.6.
2.2.2 To assist ships in applying the precautionary practices described in section 1.1 of Part A,
port States are required by Regulation C-2 of the Convention to endeavour to notify mariners of
area(s), where ships should not uptake Ballast Water due to known conditions. Similar
notification should be given for areas where the uptake of ballast water should be minimized,
such as:
.1 areas with outbreaks, infestations or known populations of harmful organisms and

pathogens;
.2 areas with current phytoplankton blooms (algal blooms, such as red tides);
.3 nearby sewage outfalls;
.4 areas where a tidal stream is known to be the more turbid;
.5 areas where tidal flushing is known to be poor;
.6 nearby dredging operations; and
.7 nearby or in sensitive or estuarine sea areas.
3 TRAINING AND EDUCATION
3.1 Regulation B-6 requires that officers and crew shall be familiar with their duties in the
implementation of Ballast Water Management particular to the ship on which they serve.
Owners, managers, operators, and others involved in officer and crew training for ballast water
management should consider the following:
MEPC 53/24/Add.1
ANNEX 5
Page 7
3.2 Training for ships’ masters and crews as appropriate should include instructions on the
requirements of the Convention, the ballast water and sediment management procedures and the
Ballast Water Record Book particularly having regard to matters of ship safety and maintenance
of records in accordance with the information contained in these Guidelines.
3.3 The Ballast Water Management Plan should include training and education on ballast
water management practices and the systems and procedures used on board the ship.
PART B – GUIDELINES FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF BALLAST WATER

MANAGEMENT PLANS
1 INTRODUCTION
1.1 These Guidelines have been developed to assist with the preparation of a ship’s Ballast
Water Management Plan (hereafter referred to as the “Plan”). The Plan must be approved by the
Administration in accordance with Regulation B-1 of the Convention.
1.2 This Part is comprised of three primary sections:
.1 General: this section provides the objectives and a general overview of the
subject matter and introduces the reader to the basic concept of the Guidelines and
the Plan that is expected to be developed from them. This section also contains
guidance on updating and use of the Plan.
.2 Mandatory provisions: this section provides guidance to ensure that the

mandatory provisions of Regulation B-1 of the Annex to the Convention are met.
.3 Non-mandatory provisions: this section provides guidance concerning the

inclusion of other information in the Plan. This information, although not
required under Regulation B-1 of the Convention, may be found useful by local
authorities in ports visited by the ship, or may provide additional assistance to the
ship’s master.
1.3 The format for a Ballast Water Management Plan is given in Appendix 1.
2 GENERAL
2.1 Concept of the Guidelines
2.1.1 These Guidelines are intended to provide a basis for the preparation of the Plans for
individual ships. The broad spectrum of ships for which Plans are required makes it impractical
to provide specific guidelines for each ship type. For a Plan to be effective and to comply with
Regulation B-1 of the Annex of the Convention, it must be carefully tailored to the particular
ship for which it is intended. Properly used, the Guidelines will ensure that all appropriate issues
that may be applicable to a particular ship are considered in developing the Plan.
2.1.2 The issues that may require consideration include but are not limited to: type and size of
ship, volume of ballast carried and total capacity of tanks used for ballast, ballast pumping
MEPC 53/24/Add.1
ANNEX 5
Page 8
capacity, ship and crew safety issues, voyage type and length, the ship’s typical operational
requirements, and ballast water management techniques used on board.
2.2 Concept of the Plan
2.2.1 The Plan is required to be onboard the ship and available to guide personnel in safe
operation of the Ballast Water Management system employed on a particular ship. Effective
planning ensures that the necessary actions are taken in a structured, logical, and safe manner.
2.2.2 For the Plan to accomplish its purpose, it must be:
.1 realistic, practical, and easy to use;
.2 understood by ship’s personnel engaged in ballast water management, both on

board and ashore;
.3 evaluated, reviewed, and updated as necessary; and
.4 consistent with the operational ballasting requirements of the ship.
2.2.3 The Plan envisioned by Regulation B-1 of the Annex to the Convention is intended to be
a simple document. Inclusion of extensive background information on the ship, its structure, etc.,
should be avoided, as this is generally available elsewhere. If such information is relevant, it
should be kept in annexes, or an existing document or manual reference should be made to the
location of the information.
2.2.4 The Plan is a document to be used on board by the ship’s personnel engaged in ballast
water management. The Plan must therefore be available in a working language of the ship’s
personnel. A change in the personnel and or the, working language or would require the issuance
of the Plan in the new language(s).
2.2.5 The Plan should be readily available for inspection by officers authorized by a Party to
the Convention.
2.3 Exemptions
2.3.1 Regulation A-4 allows that exemption may be granted to a ship from Regulation B-3
or C-1.
2.3.2 Details of exemptions should be retained with the Plan.
2.3.3 Any exemption granted is to be recorded in the Ballast Water Record Book.
2.4 Additional Measures
2.4.1 The Convention, in Regulation C-1 Additional Measures, gives a Party individually or
jointly with other Parties, the right to introduce measures in addition to those in Section B. Such
Additional Measures are to be communicated to the Organization at least 6 months prior to the
projected date of implementation.
MEPC 53/24/Add.1
ANNEX 5
Page 9
2.4.2 The Plan should be accompanied by a most recent list of Additional measures, as
communicated by the Organization relevant to the ship’s trade. The Plan should contain details
and advice on the actions a ship must take to comply with any additional measures that may be
required in accordance with Regulation C-1 and for any emergency or epidemic situations.
2.5 Review of the Plan
2.5.1 Regular review of the Plan by the owner, operator, or master should be conducted to
ensure that the information contained is accurate and updated. A feedback system should be
employed which will allow quick capture of changing information and incorporation of it into
the Plan.
2.5.2 Changes to the provisions of this Plan will need Administration approval.
3 MANDATORY PROVISIONS
3.1 This section provides individual guidelines for the seven mandatory provisions of
Regulation B-1 of the Annex to the Convention. In addition, it provides information to assist
ships personnel in managing ballast water and sediments.
3.2 Regulation B-1 of the Annex to the Convention provides that the Plan shall be specific to
each ship and shall at least:
.1 detail safety procedures for the ship and the crew associated with Ballast Water
Management as required by the Convention;
.2 provide a detailed description of the actions to be taken to implement the Ballast

Water Management practices required by the Convention;
.3 detail the procedures for the disposal of sediments at sea and to shore;
.4 include the procedures for co-ordinating shipboard Ballast Water Management

that involves discharge to the sea with the authorities of the State into whose
waters such discharge will take place;
.5 designates the officer on board in charge of ensuring that the Plan is properly
implemented;
.6 contain the reporting requirements for ships provided for under the Convention;
and
.7 be written in the working language of the ship. If the language used is not
English, French or Spanish, a translation into one of these languages should be
provided.
3.3 The Ballast Water Management Plan should give guidance on the ballast handling
procedures to be followed, including:
.1 uptake of ballast water;
MEPC 53/24/Add.1
ANNEX 5
Page 10
.2 step-by-step procedures and sequences for the Ballast Water Management System
used; and
.3 any operational or safety restrictions including those associated with the Ballast
Water Management System used. This will also assist ship’s personnel when
responding to enquiries from inspection officers authorized by a Party.
3.4 Safety aspects of the Ballast Water Management system used should include, as
applicable, guidance on:
.1 stability to be maintained at all times to values not less than those recommended
by the Organization (or required by the Administration);
.2 approved longitudinal stress and, where applicable, torsional stress values are to
be maintained within permitted values;
.3 transfer or exchange of ballast that can generate significant structural loads by

sloshing action in partially-filled tanks. If these operations include partially-filled
tanks, consideration should be given to carrying out the operation in favourable
sea and swell conditions such that the risk of structural damage is minimized;
.4 wave-induced hull vibrations when carrying out ballast water exchange;
slamming and minimum forward draft;
.6 the effects of any potential hazards and occupational health that may affect ship’s
personnel shall also be identified together with any safety precautions that need to
be taken; and
.7 the possible effects of tank over pressurization.
3.5 If a ship is able to complete at least 95 per cent volumatic exchange in less than three
pumped volumes, documentation indicating that this ballast water exchange process has been
approved under Regulation D-1.2 should be provided in the Plan.
3.6 The Plan should also include procedures for the disposal of sediments and in particular:
.1 on the sediment removal or reduction at sea, and when cleaning of the ballast
tanks to remove sediments;
.2 regarding the safety consideration to be taken if tank entry is required to remove

sediments; and
.3 regarding the use of port reception facilities for sediments.
3.7 The Plan should clearly identify the officer in charge of ballast water management and
outline his/her duties which should include:
MEPC 53/24/Add.1
ANNEX 5
Page 11
.1 ensuring that the Ballast Water Management performed follows the procedures in
the Plan;
.2 ensuring that the Ballast Water Record Book and any other necessary
documentation are maintained; and
.3 being available to assist the inspection officers authorized by a Party for any
sampling that may need to be undertaken.
3.8 The Plan should contain guidance on the recording requirements according to ship’s
Ballast Water Record Book provided for under this Convention including details of exemptions
granted to the ship.
3.9 In addition to the above, the Plan should include the following:
.1 A foreword which should provide the ship’s crew with explanations on the need
for ballast water management and for record keeping. The foreword should
include a statement that, “This Plan must be kept available for inspection on
request by an authorized authority”.
.2 Ship particulars including at least:
.1 ships’ name, flag, port of registry, Gross Tonnage, IMO number*, length
(BP), beam, international call sign; deepest ballast drafts (normal and
heavy weather);
.2 the total ballast capacity of the ship in cubic meters and other units if
applicable to the ship;
.3 a brief description of the main ballast water management method(s) used

on the ship; and
.4 identification (rank) of the officer in charge for implementing the Plan.
.3 Information on Ballast Water Management System used on board, including:
.1 ballast tank arrangement;
.2 ballast capacity plan;
.3 a ballast water piping and pumping arrangement, including air pipes and
sounding arrangements;
.4 ballast water pump capacities;
* In accordance with resolution A.600(15) IMO Ship Identification Number Scheme.
MEPC 53/24/Add.1
ANNEX 5
Page 12
.5 the Ballast Water Management System used on board, with references to

.6 installed ballast water treatment systems; and
.7 a plan and profile of the ship, or a schematic drawing of the ballast

arrangement.
.4 Information on the ballast water sampling points, including:
.1 A list or diagrams indicating the location of sampling and access points in

pipelines and ballast water tanks, to enable crew members to assist the
authorized officers of a Party that have reason to obtain samples.
.2 This section should make clear that sampling of ballast water is primarily a
matter for the authorized inspection officers, and there is unlikely to be
any need for crew members to take samples except at the express request,
and under the supervision, of the authorized inspection officers.
.3 The authorized inspection officers should be advised of all safety

procedures to be observed when entering enclosed spaces.
.5 Provisions for crew training and familiarization, including:
.1 requirements of a general nature regarding Ballast Water Management;
.2 training and information on ballast water management practices;
.3 ballast water exchange;
.4 ballast water treatment systems;
.5 general safety considerations;
.6 the Ballast Water Record Book and maintenance of records;
.7 the operation and maintenance of installed ballast water treatment systems;
.8 safety aspects associated with the particular systems and procedures used
onboard the ship which affect the safety or human health of crew and
passengers and/or the safety of the ship;
.9 precautions for entering tanks for sediment removal;
.10 procedures for the safe handling and packaging of sediment; and
.11 storage of sediment.
MEPC 53/24/Add.1
ANNEX 5
Page 13
4 NON-MANDATORY INFORMATION
4.1 In addition to the provisions required by Articles and regulations of the Convention, the
owner/operator may include in the Plan, as appendices, additional information such as: provision
of additional diagrams and drawings, shipboard equipment and reference materials. National or
regional requirements that differ from the Convention may also be recorded for reference.
4.2 Non-mandatory information may also include manufactures manuals (either as extracts or
complete) or reference to the location on board of such manuals and other relevant material.
MEPC 53/24/Add.1
ANNEX 5
Page 14
APPENDIX
STANDARD FORMAT FOR THE BALLAST WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN
PREAMBLE
The ballast water management plan should contain the information required by Regulation B-1
of the Convention.
For guidance in preparing the plan the following information is to be included. The plan should
be specific to each ship.
INTRODUCTION
At the beginning of each plan, wording should be included to reflect the intent of the following
text.
1 This Plan is written in accordance with the requirements of Regulation B-1 of the
Sediments, 2004 (the Convention) and the associated Guidelines.
2 The purpose of the Plan is to meet the requirements for the control and management of
ship’s ballast water and sediments in accordance with the Guidelines for Ballast Water
Management and the Development of Ballast Water Management Plans
resolution MEPC XX(YY) (The Guidelines). It provides standard operational guidance for the
planning and management of ships’ ballast water and sediments and describes safe procedures to
be followed.
3 This Plan has been approved by the Administration and no alteration or revision shall be
made to any part of it without the prior approval of the Administration.
4 This Plan may be inspected on request by an authorized authority.
Note: The Plan is to be written in the working language of the crew, if the text is not in
English, French, or Spanish, the plan is to include a translation into one of these languages.
SHIP PARTICULARS
At least the following details should be included:
Ships’ name;
Flag;
Port of registry;
Gross Tonnage;
IMO number*;
*
In accordance with resolution A.600(15), IMO Ship Identification Number Scheme.
MEPC 53/24/Add.1
ANNEX 5
Page 15
Length (BP);
Beam;
International call sign;
Deepest ballast drafts (normal and heavy weather);
Total ballast capacity of the ship in cubic meters and other units if applicable to the ship;
A brief description of the main ballast water management method(s) used on the ship; and
Identification (rank) of the appointed ballast water management officer.
INDEX
An index of sections should be included to reference the content of the Plan.
PURPOSE
Should contain a brief introduction for the ship’s crew, explaining the need for ballast water
management, and the importance of accurate record keeping.
PLANS/DRAWINGS OF THE BALLAST SYSTEM
Plans or drawings of the ballast system for example:
1) ballast tank arrangement;

2) ballast capacity plan;
3) a ballast water piping and pumping arrangement, including air pipes and sounding
arrangements;
4) ballast water pump capacities;
5) the ballast water management system used onboard, with references to detailed
6) installed ballast water treatment systems; and
7) a plan and profile of the ship, or a schematic drawing of the ballast arrangement.
DESCRIPTION OF THE BALLAST SYSTEM
A description of the ballast system.
BALLAST WATER SAMPLING POINTS
Lists and/or diagrams indicating the location of sampling and access points in pipelines and
ballast water tanks.
A note that sampling of ballast water is primarily a matter for the authorized authority, and there
is unlikely to be any need for crew members to take samples except at the express request, and
under the supervision, of the authorized authority.
MEPC 53/24/Add.1
ANNEX 5
Page 16
OPERATION OF THE BALLAST WATER MANAGEMENT SYSTEM
A detailed description of the operation of the Ballast Water Management System(s) used
on board.
Information on general ballast water management precautionary practices.
SAFETY PROCEDURES FOR THE SHIP AND THE CREW
Details of specific safety aspects of the ballast water management system used.
OPERATIONAL OR SAFETY RESTRICTIONS
Details of specific operational or safety restrictions including those associated with the
management system which affects the ship and or the crew including reference to procedures for
safe tank entry.
DESCRIPTION OF THE METHOD(S) USED ON BOARD FOR BALLAST WATER

MANAGEMENT AND SEDIMENT CONTROL
Details of the method(s) used on board for the management of ballast and for sediment control
including step-by-step operational procedures.
PROCEDURES FOR THE DISPOSAL OF SEDIMENTS
Procedures for the disposal of sediments at sea and to shore.
METHODS OF COMMUNICATION
Details of the procedures for co-ordinating the discharge of ballast in waters of a coastal State.
DUTIES OF THE BALLAST WATER MANAGEMENT OFFICER
Outline of the duties of the designated officer.
RECORDING REQUIREMENTS
Details of the record-keeping requirements of the Convention.
CREW TRAINING AND FAMILIARIZATION
Information on the provision of crew training and familiarization.
EXEMPTIONS
Details of any exemptions granted to the ship under Regulation A-4.
APPROVING AUTHORITY
Details and stamp of approving authority.
***
4 ALBERT EMBANKMENT
LONDON SE1 7SR E
Telephone: 020 7735 7611
Fax: 020 7587 3210
IMO
Ref. T2-OSS/2.7.1 MSC/Circ.1145

13 December 2004
PRECAUTIONARY ADVICE TO MASTERS WHEN UNDERTAKING

BALLAST WATER EXCHANGE OPERATIONS
1 The Maritime Safety Committee, at its seventy-ninth session (1 to 10 December 2004),

approved the attached precautionary advice to Masters when undertaking Ballast Water Exchange
operations, which should, at an appropriate time, be included in the Guidelines for Ballast Water
Exchange, under development by the Organization.
2 In the interim, for ships flying their flag, Administrations are invited to consider the issue of
compliance with the requirements of SOLAS regulation V/22, while such ships are conducting
Ballast Water Exchange operations, taking into account the annexed precautionary advice.
3 Member Governments are invited to bring this precautionary advice to the attention of
shipping companies, shipowners, ship operators, equipment manufacturers, classification societies,
shipmasters and all parties concerned.
***
I:\CIRC\MSC\1145.DOC
MSC/Circ.1145
ANNEX
PRECAUTIONARY ADVICE TO MASTERS WHEN UNDERTAKING

BALLAST WATER EXCHANGE OPERATIONS
The Guidelines for Ballast Water Exchange, under development by the Organization, are
expected to include, at an appropriate time, the following precautionary advice to Masters when
undertaking Ballast Water Exchange sequences that involve periods when the criteria for propeller
immersion, minimum draft and or trim and bridge visibility cannot be met:
1 During ballast water exchange sequences there may be times when, for a transitory period,
one or more of the following criteria cannot be fully met or are found to be difficult to maintain:
.1 bridge visibility standards (SOLAS V/22);
.2 propeller immersion; and
.3 minimum draft forward.
2 As the choice of acceptable Ballast Water Exchange sequences is limited for most ships, it is
not always practicable to dismiss from consideration those sequences where transitory
non-compliance may occur. The practical alternative would be to accept such sequences provided an
appropriate note is placed in the Ballast Water Management Plan to alert the ship’s master. The note
would advise the master of the nature of the transitory non-compliance, that additional planning may
be required and that adequate precautions need to be taken when using such sequences.
3 In planning a Ballast Water Exchange operation that includes sequences which involve
periods when the criteria for propeller immersion, minimum draft and or trim and bridge visibility
cannot be met, the Master should assess:
.1 the duration(s) and time(s) during the operation that any of the criteria will not be
met;
.2 the effect(s) on the navigational and manoeuvring capabilities of the ship; and
.3 the time to complete the operation.
4 A decision to proceed with the operation should only be taken when it is anticipated that:
.1 the ship will be in open water;
.2 the traffic density will be low;
.3 an enhanced navigational watch will be maintained including if necessary an

additional look out forward with adequate communications with the navigation
bridge;
MSC/Circ.1145
ANNEX
Page 2
.4 the manoeuvrability of the vessel will not be unduly impaired by the draft and trim
.5 the general weather and sea state conditions will be suitable and unlikely to
deteriorate.
__________

3362-WBM-1 Ariel - Ballast Water Management Plan (No Bep) PDF

Caricato da

Informazioni sul documento

Titolo originale

Copyright

Formati disponibili

Condividi questo documento

Condividi o incorpora il documento

Opzioni di condivisione

Hai trovato utile questo documento?

Questo contenuto è inappropriato?

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

3362-WBM-1 Ariel - Ballast Water Management Plan (No Bep) PDF

Caricato da

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

M/T “ARIEL”

IMO No: 9252955

To meet the requirements of the

International Convention for the Control and Management

ALPHA MARINE CONSULTING LTD.

TOTAL FIFTY TWO (52) SHEETS WITH COVER (EXCL. APPENDICES)

VESSEL: M/T “ARIEL” IMO NO.: 9252955

ALPHA MARINE CONSULTING LTD. DWG. NO.: 3362-WBM

As part of this function the plan will provide information

The plan should not be used or regarded as a guide to

ALPHA MARINE CONSULTING LTD.

1. SCOPE ....................................................................................................................... 7

ALPHA MARINE CONSULTING LTD.

Name Rank Date joined Date read Signature

ALPHA MARINE CONSULTING LTD.

ALPHA MARINE CONSULTING LTD.

ALPHA MARINE CONSULTING LTD.

No. Title Dwg. No.

1. General Arrangement Plan 4B110P11CB

2. Capacity Plan & DWT scale 4B110P34CB

3. Trim & Stability Booklet 4B110B37CB

4. Hull Piping Diagram 2F241001PB

5. Hull Piping Equipment List 2F241005PB

ALPHA MARINE CONSULTING LTD.

Vessel’s Name: ARIEL

Ballast Water Management Method(s) - Combined sequential & flow-through

Identification (Rank) of Ballast Water Management Officer: Chief Officer

ALPHA MARINE CONSULTING LTD.

ALPHA MARINE CONSULTING LTD.

3.3 IMO INVOLVEMENT

ALPHA MARINE CONSULTING LTD.

3.4 USAGE OF THE PLAN

ALPHA MARINE CONSULTING LTD.

3.6 REPORTING TO PORT STATES

ALPHA MARINE CONSULTING LTD.

4. BALLAST WATER ARRANGEMENTS

4.2 BALLAST WATER TANKS

ALPHA MARINE CONSULTING LTD.

ALPHA MARINE CONSULTING LTD.

ALPHA MARINE CONSULTING LTD.

5. BALLAST WATER SAMPLING

Research or compliance monitoring may be undertaken by authorized officers (e.g. Port

Where ballast water or sediment sampling for compliance or effectiveness monitoring is

ALPHA MARINE CONSULTING LTD.

6. OPERATION OF THE BALLAST WATER MANAGEMENT SYSTEM

6.1. PRECAUTIONARY PRACTICES

6.1.1. Minimizing uptake of harmful aquatic organisms, pathogens and sediments

6.1.2. Avoiding unnecessary discharge of ballast water

ALPHA MARINE CONSULTING LTD.

6.2. BALLAST WATER MANAGEMENT OPTIONS

6.2.1. Non-release or minimal release of ballast water

6.2.2. Ballast Water Exchange

ALPHA MARINE CONSULTING LTD.

ALPHA MARINE CONSULTING LTD.

Dilution Method (Not applicable to this ship – For reference only)

Safety considerations addressed in Sections 7 & 8 should be carefully consulted and

ALPHA MARINE CONSULTING LTD.

6.2.3. Discharge to ballast water reception facilities

Ballast water treatment equipment is capable of mechanically, physically, chemically or

Ballast water management systems installed on board should ensure in addition to

Prototype ballast water treatment technologies should be used within a programme

ALPHA MARINE CONSULTING LTD.

7. SAFETY CONSIDERATIONS FOR THE EXCHANGE OF BALLAST WATER