{ "id": "R45050", "type": "CRS Report", "typeId": "REPORTS", "number": "R45050", "active": true, "source": "EveryCRSReport.com", "versions": [ { "source": "EveryCRSReport.com", "id": 577930, "date": "2018-01-26", "retrieved": "2018-05-10T11:39:03.355290", "title": "Vessel Incidental Discharge Legislation in the 115th Congress: Background and Issues", "summary": "Stakeholders broadly agree on the need to control vessel discharges\u2014particularly ballast water discharges, which can introduce numerous contaminants into U.S. and international waters. Ballast water discharge from ships is one significant pathway for introduction of aquatic nuisance species (ANS)\u2014that is, invasive species\u2014that can harm aquatic ecosystems. Federal requirements for ballast water and other incidental discharges from vessels in the United States flow from two laws\u2014the Nonindigenous Aquatic Nuisance Prevention and Control Act of 1990, as amended by the National Invasive Species Act of 1996, and the Clean Water Act (CWA)\u2014and related Coast Guard and U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) regulations. Further, individual state requirements apply in approximately half of the states. Vessels are also subject to a number of international agreements, treaties, and conventions. \nThe current regulatory scheme presents several complex policy issues. \nOverlapping Federal Requirements. The maritime industry has argued for harmonization of what it views as duplicative rules for vessel discharges, especially ballast water discharges, through a single set of requirements. Shipping and other industry groups have raised concerns that EPA and Coast Guard requirements overlap, needlessly increasing cost and complexity. Some have called for centralizing responsibilities with the Coast Guard; others assert that EPA should be responsible if regulation is centralized.\nState Role and Federal Preemption. Shipping and other industry groups have objected to conditions that states attach to EPA\u2019s permit for vessels. They argue this creates a patchwork of inconsistent requirements that are hard to implement. However, many states oppose federal preemption of state action in this area. \nBallast Water Discharge Standards. Current Coast Guard and EPA requirements for ballast water contain identical discharge standards. Some states, environmental groups, and others favor more stringent standards to eliminate ANS invasions. EPA and the Coast Guard believe that technology to meet more stringent standards is not currently technically or economically achievable. \nApproval of Ballast Water Management Systems. Some groups have expressed frustration over the Coast Guard\u2019s approval process for systems that can achieve ballast water discharge standards. Although vessels were to comply with the standards by January 2016, the Coast Guard did not approve any systems until December 2016. The testing protocol the Coast Guard uses in approving systems differs from the International Maritime Organization\u2019s protocol. Some have argued the Coast Guard\u2019s protocol is too restrictive; others argue it is more reliable for ensuring ANS prevention. \n\u201cLakers.\u201d \u201cLakers\u201d are vessels that operate exclusively in the Laurentian Great Lakes. Some argue that such vessels do not introduce ANS and should not need to treat their ballast water. Others argue that Lakers spread ANS in the Great Lakes more quickly and widely than would otherwise occur and should be subject to the same regulations as other vessels. \nExtending the Moratorium for Small Vessels. The moratorium on CWA permitting for certain incidental discharges (not including ballast water) from commercial fishing vessels of all sizes and nonrecreational vessels less than 79 feet in length expired January 19, 2018. Many believe these vessels should be permanently excluded from CWA permitting while others believe it is important to regulate them.\nIn the 115th Congress, several bills have been introduced to address issues with the regulatory system for ballast water and other discharges incidental to normal vessel operations. Except for one potentially significant exception, H.R. 1154 and S. 168, both titled the \u201cVessel Incidental Discharge Act,\u201d are the same. In March 2017, the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation reported S. 168. In June 2017, the committee reported S. 1129, the Coast Guard Authorization Act of 2017. As reported, S. 1129 includes the text of S. 168. On January 3, 2018, President Trump signed S. 2273 (P.L. 115-100), extending through January 19, 2018, the moratorium on CWA permitting for certain incidental discharges (excluding ballast water) from commercial fishing vessels and nonrecreational vessels less than 79 feet in length. S. 2194 and H.R. 4656 would extend the moratorium through December 18, 2020. S. 2331 would extend it through March 23, 2018.", "type": "CRS Report", "typeId": "REPORTS", "active": true, "formats": [ { "format": "HTML", "encoding": "utf-8", "url": "http://www.crs.gov/Reports/R45050", "sha1": "1beb3af7f205c8f61b382b91f3a7d398723f5add", "filename": "files/20180126_R45050_1beb3af7f205c8f61b382b91f3a7d398723f5add.html", "images": {} }, { "format": "PDF", "encoding": null, "url": "http://www.crs.gov/Reports/pdf/R45050", "sha1": "fb68fde48d90abeb05bed26e2909cec1f1d82f88", "filename": "files/20180126_R45050_fb68fde48d90abeb05bed26e2909cec1f1d82f88.pdf", "images": {} } ], "topics": [ { "source": "IBCList", "id": 4929, "name": "Water Quality" } ] }, { "source": "EveryCRSReport.com", "id": 577403, "date": "2018-01-08", "retrieved": "2018-01-08T14:14:38.898477", "title": "Vessel Incidental Discharge Legislation in the 115th Congress: Background and Issues", "summary": "Stakeholders broadly agree on the need to control vessel discharges\u2014particularly ballast water discharges, which can introduce numerous contaminants into U.S. and international waters. Ballast water discharge from ships is one significant pathway for introduction of aquatic nuisance species (ANS)\u2014that is, invasive species\u2014that can harm aquatic ecosystems. Federal requirements for ballast water and other incidental discharges from vessels in the United States flow from two laws\u2014the Nonindigenous Aquatic Nuisance Prevention and Control Act of 1990, as amended by the National Invasive Species Act of 1996, and the Clean Water Act (CWA)\u2014and related Coast Guard and U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) regulations. Further, individual state requirements apply in approximately half of the states. Vessels are also subject to a number of international agreements, treaties, and conventions. \nThe current regulatory scheme presents several complex policy issues. \nOverlapping Federal Requirements. The maritime industry has argued for harmonization of what it views as duplicative rules for vessel discharges, especially ballast water discharges, through a single set of requirements. Shipping and other industry groups have raised concerns that EPA and Coast Guard requirements overlap, needlessly increasing cost and complexity. Some have called for centralizing responsibilities with the Coast Guard; others assert that EPA should be responsible if regulation is centralized.\nState Role and Federal Preemption. Shipping and other industry groups have objected to conditions that states attach to EPA\u2019s permit for vessels. They argue this creates a patchwork of inconsistent requirements that are hard to implement. However, many states oppose federal preemption of state action in this area. \nBallast Water Discharge Standards. Current Coast Guard and EPA requirements for ballast water contain identical discharge standards. Some states, environmental groups, and others favor more stringent standards to eliminate ANS invasions. EPA and the Coast Guard believe that technology to meet more stringent standards is not currently technically or economically achievable. \nApproval of Ballast Water Management Systems. Some groups have expressed frustration over the Coast Guard\u2019s approval process for systems that can achieve ballast water discharge standards. Although vessels were to comply with the standards by January 2016, the Coast Guard did not approve any systems until December 2016. The testing protocol the Coast Guard uses in approving systems differs from the International Maritime Organization\u2019s protocol. Some have argued the Coast Guard\u2019s protocol is too restrictive; others argue it is more reliable for ensuring ANS prevention. \n\u201cLakers.\u201d \u201cLakers\u201d are vessels that operate exclusively in the Laurentian Great Lakes. Some argue that such vessels do not introduce ANS and should not need to treat their ballast water. Others argue that Lakers spread ANS in the Great Lakes more quickly and widely than would otherwise occur and should be subject to the same regulations as other vessels. \nExtending the Moratorium for Small Vessels. The moratorium on CWA permitting for certain incidental discharges (not including ballast water) from commercial fishing vessels of all sizes and nonrecreational vessels less than 79 feet in length expired December 18, 2017. Many believe these vessels should be permanently excluded from CWA permitting while others believe it is important to regulate them.\nIn the 115th Congress, several bills have been introduced to address issues with the regulatory system for ballast water and other discharges incidental to normal vessel operations. Except for one potentially significant exception, H.R. 1154 and S. 168, both titled the \u201cVessel Incidental Discharge Act,\u201d are the same. In March 2017, the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation reported S. 168. In June 2017, the committee reported S. 1129, the Coast Guard Authorization Act of 2017. As reported, S. 1129 includes the text of S. 168. On January 3, 2018, President Trump signed S. 2273 (P.L. 115-100), extending through January 19, 2018, the moratorium on CWA permitting for certain incidental discharges (excluding ballast water) from commercial fishing vessels and nonrecreational vessels less than 79 feet in length. S. 2194 and H.R. 4656 would extend the moratorium through December 18, 2020.", "type": "CRS Report", "typeId": "REPORTS", "active": true, "formats": [ { "format": "HTML", "encoding": "utf-8", "url": "http://www.crs.gov/Reports/R45050", "sha1": "58793ec110ef9b67c4eec298ad55efa0d1a40160", "filename": "files/20180108_R45050_58793ec110ef9b67c4eec298ad55efa0d1a40160.html", "images": {} }, { "format": "PDF", "encoding": null, "url": "http://www.crs.gov/Reports/pdf/R45050", "sha1": "286cbccb3890d3811935f4ff0b2f08e5996cf6fa", "filename": "files/20180108_R45050_286cbccb3890d3811935f4ff0b2f08e5996cf6fa.pdf", "images": {} } ], "topics": [ { "source": "IBCList", "id": 4929, "name": "Water Quality" } ] }, { "source": "EveryCRSReport.com", "id": 577344, "date": "2018-01-02", "retrieved": "2018-01-05T14:22:53.586107", "title": "Vessel Incidental Discharge Legislation in the 115th Congress: Background and Issues", "summary": "Stakeholders broadly agree on the need to control vessel discharges\u2014particularly ballast water discharges, which can introduce numerous contaminants into U.S. and international waters. Ballast water discharge from ships is one significant pathway for introduction of aquatic nuisance species (ANS)\u2014that is, invasive species\u2014that can harm aquatic ecosystems. Federal requirements for ballast water and other incidental discharges from vessels in the United States flow from two laws\u2014the Nonindigenous Aquatic Nuisance Prevention and Control Act of 1990, as amended by the National Invasive Species Act of 1996, and the Clean Water Act (CWA)\u2014and related Coast Guard and U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) regulations. Further, individual state requirements apply in approximately half of the states. Vessels are also subject to a number of international agreements, treaties, and conventions. \nThe current regulatory scheme presents several complex policy issues. \nOverlapping Federal Requirements. The maritime industry has argued for harmonization of what it views as duplicative rules for vessel discharges, especially ballast water discharges, through a single set of requirements. Shipping and other industry groups have raised concerns that EPA and Coast Guard requirements overlap, needlessly increasing cost and complexity. Some have called for centralizing responsibilities with the Coast Guard; others assert that EPA should be responsible if regulation is centralized.\nState Role and Federal Preemption. Shipping and other industry groups have objected to conditions that states attach to EPA\u2019s permit for vessels. They argue this creates a patchwork of inconsistent requirements that are hard to implement. However, many states oppose federal preemption of state action in this area. \nBallast Water Discharge Standards. Current Coast Guard and EPA requirements for ballast water contain identical discharge standards. Some states, environmental groups, and others favor more stringent standards to eliminate ANS invasions. EPA and the Coast Guard believe that technology to meet more stringent standards is not currently technically or economically achievable. \nApproval of Ballast Water Management Systems. Some groups have expressed frustration over the Coast Guard\u2019s approval process for systems that can achieve ballast water discharge standards. Although vessels were to comply with the standards by January 2016, the Coast Guard did not approve any systems until December 2016. The testing protocol the Coast Guard uses in approving systems differs from the International Maritime Organization\u2019s protocol. Some have argued the Coast Guard\u2019s protocol is too restrictive; others argue it is more reliable for ensuring ANS prevention. \n\u201cLakers.\u201d \u201cLakers\u201d are vessels that operate exclusively in the Laurentian Great Lakes. Some argue that such vessels do not introduce ANS and should not need to treat their ballast water. Others argue that Lakers spread ANS in the Great Lakes more quickly and widely than would otherwise occur and should be subject to the same regulations as other vessels. \nExtending the Moratorium for Small Vessels. The moratorium on CWA permitting for certain incidental discharges (not including ballast water) from commercial fishing vessels of all sizes and nonrecreational vessels less than 79 feet in length expired December 18, 2017. Many believe these vessels should be permanently excluded from CWA permitting while others believe it is important to regulate them.\nIn the 115th Congress, several bills have been introduced to address issues with the regulatory system for ballast water and other discharges incidental to normal vessel operations. Except for one potentially significant exception, H.R. 1154 and S. 168, both titled the \u201cVessel Incidental Discharge Act,\u201d are the same. In March 2017, the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation reported S. 168. In June 2017, the committee reported S. 1129, the Coast Guard Authorization Act of 2017. As reported, S. 1129 includes the text of S. 168. S. 2194 and H.R. 4656 would extend the moratorium on CWA permitting for certain incidental discharges (excluding ballast water) from commercial fishing vessels and nonrecreational vessels less than 79 feet in length through December 18, 2020. S. 2273, which the Senate and House passed on December 21 and December 22, 2017, respectively, would extend the moratorium through January 19, 2018.", "type": "CRS Report", "typeId": "REPORTS", "active": true, "formats": [ { "format": "HTML", "encoding": "utf-8", "url": "http://www.crs.gov/Reports/R45050", "sha1": "8aeab3854fbcc59c7067889d91daf6325777ce61", "filename": "files/20180102_R45050_8aeab3854fbcc59c7067889d91daf6325777ce61.html", "images": {} }, { "format": "PDF", "encoding": null, "url": "http://www.crs.gov/Reports/pdf/R45050", "sha1": "1c345b36000bd82ce35975312f6b6aab42655279", "filename": "files/20180102_R45050_1c345b36000bd82ce35975312f6b6aab42655279.pdf", "images": {} } ], "topics": [ { "source": "IBCList", "id": 4929, "name": "Water Quality" } ] }, { "source": "EveryCRSReport.com", "id": 576964, "date": "2017-12-21", "retrieved": "2017-12-22T14:17:48.785949", "title": "Vessel Incidental Discharge Legislation in the 115th Congress: Background and Issues", "summary": "Stakeholders broadly agree on the need to control vessel discharges\u2014particularly ballast water discharges, which can introduce numerous contaminants into U.S. and international waters. Ballast water discharge from ships is one significant pathway for introduction of aquatic nuisance species (ANS)\u2014i.e., invasive species\u2014that can harm aquatic ecosystems. Federal requirements for ballast water and other incidental discharges from vessels in the United States flow from two laws\u2014the Nonindigenous Aquatic Nuisance Prevention and Control Act of 1990, as amended by the National Invasive Species Act of 1996, and the Clean Water Act (CWA)\u2014and related Coast Guard and U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) regulations. Further, individual state requirements apply in approximately half of the states. Vessels are also subject to a number of international agreements, treaties, and conventions. \nThe current regulatory scheme presents several complex policy issues. \nOverlapping Federal Requirements. The maritime industry has argued for harmonization of what it views as duplicative rules for vessel discharges, especially ballast water discharges, through a single set of requirements. Shipping and other industry groups have raised concerns that EPA and Coast Guard requirements overlap, needlessly increasing cost and complexity. Some have called for centralizing responsibilities with the Coast Guard; others assert that EPA should be responsible if regulation is centralized.\nState Role and Federal Preemption. Shipping and other industry groups have objected to conditions that states attach to EPA\u2019s permit for vessels. They argue this creates a patchwork of inconsistent requirements that are hard to implement. However, many states oppose federal preemption of state action in this area. \nBallast Water Discharge Standards. Current Coast Guard and EPA requirements for ballast water contain identical discharge standards. Some states, environmental groups, and others favor more stringent standards to eliminate ANS invasions. EPA and the Coast Guard believe that technology to meet more stringent standards is not currently technically or economically achievable. \nApproval of Ballast Water Management Systems. Some groups have expressed frustration over the Coast Guard\u2019s approval process for systems that can achieve ballast water discharge standards. Although vessels were to comply with the standards by January 2016, the Coast Guard did not approve any systems until December 2016. The testing protocol the Coast Guard uses in approving systems differs from the International Maritime Organization\u2019s protocol. Some have argued the Coast Guard\u2019s protocol is too restrictive; others argue it is more reliable for ensuring ANS prevention. \n\u201cLakers.\u201d \u201cLakers\u201d are vessels that operate exclusively in the Laurentian Great Lakes. Some argue that such vessels, which are confined to a geographically limited area, do not introduce ANS and should not need to treat their ballast water. Others argue that Lakers spread ANS in the Great Lakes more quickly and widely than would otherwise occur and should be subject to the same regulations as other vessels. \nExtending the Moratorium for Small Vessels. The moratorium on CWA permitting for certain incidental discharges (not including ballast water) from commercial fishing vessels of all sizes and non-recreational vessels less than 79 feet in length expired December 18, 2017. Many believe these vessels should be permanently excluded from CWA permitting while others believe it is important to regulate them.\nIn the 115th Congress, several bills have been introduced to address issues with the regulatory system for ballast water and other discharges incidental to normal vessel operations. Except for one potentially significant exception, H.R. 1154 and S. 168, both titled the \u201cVessel Incidental Discharge Act,\u201d are the same. In March 2017, the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation reported S. 168. In June 2017, the Committee reported S. 1129, Coast Guard Authorization Act of 2017. As reported, S. 1129 includes the text of S. 168. These bills are similar to those introduced in previous Congresses, but differ in some respects. S. 2194 would extend the moratorium on CWA permitting for certain incidental discharges (excluding ballast water) from commercial fishing vessels and non-recreational vessels less than 79 feet in length until December 2020.", "type": "CRS Report", "typeId": "REPORTS", "active": true, "formats": [ { "format": "HTML", "encoding": "utf-8", "url": "http://www.crs.gov/Reports/R45050", "sha1": "1b199c77f3e69104725baea177724d1ae1ca931f", "filename": "files/20171221_R45050_1b199c77f3e69104725baea177724d1ae1ca931f.html", "images": {} }, { "format": "PDF", "encoding": null, "url": "http://www.crs.gov/Reports/pdf/R45050", "sha1": "3b6bf6cd8b951efffbe57e05809cac97efe0b9d2", "filename": "files/20171221_R45050_3b6bf6cd8b951efffbe57e05809cac97efe0b9d2.pdf", "images": {} } ], "topics": [] } ], "topics": [ "Environmental Policy" ] }