1. U.S. Ballast Water Regulations
ABSTRACT FOR CONFERENCES, ETC:
A rule published by the U.S. Coast Guard in March 2012, and effective as of June 21, 2012, established a standard for the allowable concentration of living organisms in ships' ballast water discharged into waters of the U.S. The rule also established Coast Guard requirements for type approval of ballast water management systems, or BWMS for short.
The U.S. ballast water discharge standard aligns with the International Maritime Organization's Ballast Water Management Convention adopted in A 2011 report by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Science Advisory Board concluded the standard specified in the final rule is the most stringent standard that vessels can practicably implement and the Coast Guard can enforce at this time.
As technologies advance and as treatment efficacies improve, the Coast Guard plans to revisit the standard to determine if more stringent requirements are practicable and enforceable.
U.S. Coast Guard Headquarters
Office of Operating and Environmental Standards

2. U.S. and IMO Milestones 1988: Zebra mussels discovered in Great Lakes
1990/96: Non-indigenous Aquatic Nuisance Prevention and Control Act, as amended by National Invasive Species Act (NISA)
1990’s: Coast Guard mandated BW exchange in Great Lakes and voluntary trial national-wide, IMO issued BWM guidelines
2004: Coast Guard mandates BW exchange in all waters of the U.S., IMO adopts Convention
The Coast Guard has been delegated the authority to establish and enforce regulations designed to prevent the introduction and spread of Aquatic Nuisance Species, or ANS, in waters of the United States through the discharge of ballast water from vessels. This authority was granted under the Nonindigenous Aquatic Nuisance Prevention and Control Act of 1990, as amended by the National Invasive Species Act of 1996, or NISA.

3. U.S. and IMO Milestones
2009: EPA publishes 1st Vessel General Permit, Coast Guard proposes BW discharge standard
2012: Coast Guard issues final rule, and partners with Independent Labs to evaluate BWMS
2013: EPA publishes 2nd Vessel General Permit
2016: Coast Guard type-approves three BWMS, IMO Convention ratified by enough countries (U.S. has not ratified)
2017: Coast Guard tightens compliance options, prepares for Convention to enter into force
For years, ballast water exchange at sea was an acceptable interim management practice and a logical way to reduce the risk of harmful invasions of ANS. For many reasons, however, ballast water exchange is not well-suited as the basis for the protective ballast water programmatic regimen envisioned by NISA.
Therefore, in response to Congressional mandate, the Coast Guard amended its regulations on ballast water management in March of 2012 by establishing an achievable ballast water discharge standard for the allowable concentration of living organisms in ballast water discharged from ships into waters of the United States. The rule includes requirements under both Title 33 and Title 46 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR).

4. Complex Problem Biology Engineering Vessel operations
Ballast Water Management is very complicated. The trick here is…..the source of this water is not a ballast tank…with transient dynamic living organisms in different salinity, temperatures, with different characteristics ..…so this is a real challenge.
It’s complicated for a number of reasons, which I think you all know, but they’re worth repeating:
the regulations are leading technology…
the issue is biology, not chemistry….biology is infinitely more complex then the chemical issues we’re dealing with on oil and air pollution.
there are a variety of stakeholders with diverse interests.

5. Actually really complex
Biology of organisms and habitat
Naval architecture
Mechanical/electrical Engineering
Global vessel operations

6. Actually really, really complex
Invasion biology
Naval engineering
Fleet operations and management
Compliance strategies
Port operations and facilities
Installation requirements
Volume/frequency of discharge
Regulations leading technology
Cost

7. USCG BWMS Program Overview
Coast Guard Offices Involved
BWM Regulations (and who regulates)
Compliance Options for Ship Owners
Coast Guard Type Approval & Independent Labs
Alternate Management Systems (AMS)
Extensions
Compliance and Enforcement
Next steps

8. USCG Program Offices Office of Operating & Environmental Standards
Regulation & policy program manager
Office of Design & Engineering Standards
3rd Party Independent Lab manager
Marine Safety Center
Type approval manager
Office of Commercial Vessel Compliance
Compliance manager

9. IMO BWM Convention Adopted in 2004
14 guidelines for BWMS development, testing
Received enough ratifications by member States in 2016, entry into force o.o.a September 8, 2017
BWM Convention will not preempt Coast Guard, EPA, or U.S. state requirements
Coast Guard offers Statement of Voluntary Compliance to U.S.-flagged vessels visiting foreign ports
The Convention will require all ships to implement a ballast water management Plan. All ships will have to carry a Ballast Water Record Book and will be required to carry out ballast water management procedures to a given standard. Parties to the Convention are given the option to take additional measures which are subject to criteria set out in the Convention and to IMO guidelines.​
USCG regulations are based on domestic statutes. The U.S. is not a signatory to the IMO Convention, and our requirements or implementation dates will not change as a result of the Convention coming into force.

10. EPA Requirements
EPA authority to regulate ballast water, among 27 discharges, incidental to vessel operations comes from Clean Water Act rather than NISA
Current VGP has same BW discharge standard metrics as Coast Guard, but still independent
U.S. states may add on requirements for their jurisdictions by section 401 certification letters
Vessel General Permit is renewed every 5 years
3rd VGP comes into force December 18, 2018
The Clean Water Act gives EPA authority out to 3 nautical miles, compared to Coast Guard’s 12 nautical miles under NISA.
The CWA requires that all regulated discharges must meet effluent limitations representing
applicable levels of technology-based control. Regulated discharges are diverse, including among other pollutants non-native aquatic nuisance species (ANS), nutrients, pathogens, oil and grease, metals, and toxic chemical compounds that can have a broad array of effects on aquatic species and human health, many of which can be harmful.
CWA permits are either individual permits issued to specific facilities or general permits. Both types of permit are issued for a specific period of time (not to exceed five years), after which the permit must be renewed. A general permit covers multiple facilities within a specific category having common elements, such as similar types of operations that discharge the same types of wastes. Because of the large number of potential sources of vessels, EPA believed that it made administrative sense to use general permits, rather than individual permits. The 2013 VGP general relies on best management practices to control most discharges from vessels. However, the 2013 VGP includes numeric ballast water discharge limits, which are consistent with standards in the March 2012 Coast Guard rule and the IMO Convention.

11. Applicability/Requirements
Regulation
Requirement
Jurisdiction
U.S. territorial sea – 12 nautical miles
Applicability/Exemptions
Vessels equipped with BW tanks and operate in waters of U.S. Does not apply to: Crude oil tankers in coastwise trade; non-seagoing vessels; sea-going vessels that do not operate outside EEZ and are less than 1,600 Gross Register Tons or 3,000 ITC; and, vessels that operate exclusively in 1 COTP Zone.
Implementation Schedule Dates are January 1 unless specified
(First regularly scheduled drydocking after a vessel’s compliance date)
New Vessels (Dec 1, 2013 keel laying):
On delivery Existing Vessels (BW capacity in cubic meters):
<1,500: , ,000: >5,000:
Great Lakes
Applies to sea-going vessels over 1,600 GRT that depart the Great Lakes, transit beyond Anticosti Island, return and pass upstream of Snell Lock, aka “Salties.”
Jurisdiction applies to the U.S. territorial sea, or out to 12 nautical miles. (THIS MEANS IF YOU DISCHARGE BALLAST WATER OUTSIDE OF 12 NM IT IS NOT COVERED BY THE REGULATIONS)
Applies to vessels equipped with ballast water tanks and operate in waters of U.S. (BALLAST WATER TANKS ARE TANKS THAT HOLD BW = WATER FOR DRAFT, TRIM, STABILITY ETC, REGARDLESS OF WHAT THE TANK IS CALLED ON A DRAWING)
Does not apply to:
non-seagoing vessels;
sea-going vessels that do not operate outside EEZ and are less than 1,600 Gross Register Tons or 3,000 ITC; and,
vessels that operate exclusively in 1 COTP Zone.
Implementation Schedule will phase in vessels over time:
“New vessels” have a keel laid date on/after Dec 1, The Coast Guard will validate compliance by verifying that a type approved BW Management System, or AMS, is installed on the vessels first visit to the U.S.
“Existing vessels” have a keel laid date before Dec 1, The first scheduled drydocking after Jan 1, either 2014 or 2016, will be its compliance date. Underwater surveys/UWILD or emergency drydocking would not trigger this requirement.
Great Lakes requirements:
Sea-going vessels over 1,600 GRT that depart the Great Lakes, transit beyond Anticosti Island, return and pass upstream of Snell Lock.
This subpart applies to all non-recreational vessels, U.S. and foreign, that are equipped with ballast tanks and operate in the waters of the United States, except

12. Options for Compliance
Two Temporary Compliance Alternatives
1. No BW Discharge
2. Coast Guard Approved Ballast Water Management System
1. Alternate Management System (AMS) – Temporary Designation for up to 5 years
It is important to know that a vessel does NOT need to install a Ballast Water Management System to meet the U.S. discharge standard.
The Final Rule has several options to meet the discharge standard:
Retain ballast water on board while in waters of the U.S. (i.e., within 12 nm),
Install a Coast Guard-approved Ballast Water Management System,
Discharge to a facility onshore or to another vessel for purpose of treatment, or
Use ONLY water from a U.S. Public Water System (PWS).
There are also two temporary compliance options:
Use an Alternate Management System, or AMS. (This is a foreign-approved BW treatment system reviewed and accepted by the Coast Guard.) Or,
A vessel may receive an extension to its compliance date from Coast Guard.
3. Discharge to Facility Onshore or to
Another Vessel for Purpose of Treatment
2. Receive an Extension to Vessel’s Compliance Date - extension period will vary depending upon TA system availability
4. Use only water from a U.S. Public Water System

13. Temporary Compliance: Alternate Management Systems
A BWMS is accepted for use as an AMS based on its type approval by a foreign administration.
AMS may be used for 5 years after expiry of the vessel’s extended compliance date
AMS is a bridging program for vessels that installed foreign type-approved systems:
Prior to publication of the US regulation
Prior to availability of US type approved BWMSs
The manufacturer must work with the Coast Guard to update its AMS acceptance letter to reflect any changes to its foreign type approval, including renewals, revisions, restrictions, and additional equipment or configurations approved.
AMS supports the development of a healthy marketplace for these new treatment technologies.

14. Options for Compliance
Two Temporary Compliance Alternatives
1. No BW Discharge
2. Coast Guard Approved Ballast Water Management System
1. Alternate Management System (AMS) – Temporary Designation for up to 5 years
It is important to know that a vessel does NOT need to install a Ballast Water Management System to meet the discharge standard.
The Final Rule has several options to meet the discharge standard:
Retain ballast water on board while in waters of the U.S. (i.e., within 12 nm),
Install a Coast Guard-approved Ballast Water Management System,
Discharge to a facility onshore or to another vessel for purpose of treatment, or
Use ONLY water from a U.S. Public Water System (PWS).
There are also two temporary compliance options:
Use an Alternate Management System, or AMS. (This is a foreign-approved BW treatment system reviewed and accepted by the Coast Guard.) Or,
A vessel may receive an extension to its compliance date from Coast Guard.
3. Discharge to Facility Onshore or to
Another Vessel for Purpose of Treatment
2. Receive an Extension to Vessel’s Compliance Date - extension period will vary depending upon TA system availability
4. Use only water from a U.S. Public Water System

15. Temporary Compliance: Extensions
The regulation allows the CG to grant compliance date extensions on a temporary basis.
Vessel owners/operators must apply at least 12 months prior to the vessel’s compliance date, or the extension request may be denied.
Failure to plan ahead may result in ship delays or lapse in eligibility to trade in U.S. waters.
The Extension Program is a temporary strategy available to owners/operators until type approved BWMS, or other approved BW management methods, become available for a ship.
To ensure consistency, an extension, once granted, will be honored until it expires.

16. Options for Compliance
Two Temporary Compliance Alternatives
1. No BW Discharge
2. Coast Guard Approved Ballast Water Management System
1. Alternate Management System (AMS) – Temporary Designation for up to 5 years
It is important to know that a vessel does NOT need to install a Ballast Water Management System to meet the discharge standard.
The Final Rule has several options to meet the discharge standard:
Retain ballast water on board while in waters of the U.S. (i.e., within 12 nm),
Install a Coast Guard-approved Ballast Water Management System,
Discharge to a facility onshore or to another vessel for purpose of treatment, or
Use ONLY water from a U.S. Public Water System (PWS).
There are also two temporary compliance options:
Use an Alternate Management System, or AMS. (This is a foreign-approved BW treatment system reviewed and accepted by the Coast Guard.) Or,
A vessel may receive an extension to its compliance date from Coast Guard.
3. Discharge to Facility Onshore or to
Another Vessel for Purpose of Treatment
2. Receive an Extension to Vessel’s Compliance Date - extension period will vary depending upon TA system availability
4. Use only water from a U.S. Public Water System

17. Type Approval Review Process
Six-step application review process:
Application screening
Engineering review
Land-based test review
Shipboard test review
Component test review
Scaling review
Engineering Review:
IL assess BWMS compliance with design and construction of §
Bill of Materials and drawing to verify
46 CFR Subchapter F- Mechanical Engineering
46 CFR Subchapter J- Electrical Engineering
USCG recognized class society rules
ATEX certification
Not accepted by CG as equivalent to Subchapter J
May not be installed on US flagged vessels in hazardous locations
Biological efficacy testing is conducted at land based test facilities to ensure treatment systems do in fact kill organisms.
Shipboard testing takes place for 6-month trials aboard commercial ships to verify systems work as designed.
Component testing is performed on electrical and electronic parts to prove long term marine use.
Ships come in many types and sizes, and so must treatment systems. This is problematic because testing durations and costs make it impractical to test all versions of the system. Most manufacturers plan to offer multiple sizes and variations of their base unit. Filters are key components that vary with different size models. Manufacturers want to offer many sizes of treatment systems with filter options without having to test each variation. Scaling may be used to assess the system adequacy.

18. How Type Approval Works
Two options to follow (in accordance with 46 CFR):
1. Evaluation of some/all existing test data and information from type approval testing for a foreign administration.
Applicant must include:
Data and information;
Explanation of how submission meets or exceeds Coast Guard type approval requirements.
Data and information must be reviewed by independent laboratory (IL).
Additional testing and evaluation by an IL may be required.
2. Evaluation of test data and information produced and submitted by an IL.

19. Independent Lab Program
USCG is working with ILs to ensure quality results, including regular teleconferences to discuss technical issues, certification reviews, and laboratory oversight. The IL program focuses on:
In order for a laboratory to test BWMS for US type approval, it must be accepted as an Independent Lab by the Coast Guard.
Consistency in testing
Best practices
Lessons learned

20. Accepted Independent Labs
NSF International (Ann Arbor, MI)
Det Norske Veritas-Germanischer Lloyd (DNV-GL; Norway)
Korean Register of Shipping (ROK)
Control Union Certifications (Netherlands)
Lloyd’s Register EMEA (UK)
Coast Guard is in contact with other test organizations interested in acceptance as IL for BWMS testing.
NSF International in Ann Arbor, MI includes:
For biological testing – the Great Ships Initiative (GSI) in Superior, WI, and Maritime Environmental Resource Center (MERC) in Baltimore, MD.
For environmental testing – Retlif Labs, which has locations in the eastern U.S.
DNV GL in Hovik, Norway (merger of Det Norske Veritas and Germanischer Lloyd in 2013) includes:
Danish Hydraulic Institute (DHI) in Denmark
California Maritime Academy’s training ship GOLDEN BEAR.
Korean Register of Shipping, which includes:
Korea Marine Equipment Research Institute (KOMERI), Busan Techno Park (BTP), Korea Testing Laboratory (KTL), SDS Korea, Korea Testing and Research Institute (KTR), Lab Frontier (LF), Marine Eco-Technology Institute (MEI), and NLP Co.
Control Union Certifications, includes ?
Lloyd’s Register EMEA (Europe – Middle East – Africa), includes DHI (Denmark), DHI Singapore, and Delta (Denmark).

21. Type Approval Process USCG v IMO
Discharge standards are similar but not exactly the same - Viable (IMO) v. Living (USCG) organisms
Differences between IMO and U.S. type approval testing (G8 revised in 2016, still non-mandatory)
Varying Flag Administration interpretations
Shipboard testing cycles (IMO: 3, USCG: 5)
O&M endurance test (IMO: No, USCG: Yes)
Many challenges remain: system scaling, and acceptance of alternate components
USCG regulations are based on domestic statutes. The U.S. is not a signatory to the IMO Convention, and our requirements or implementation dates will not change as a result of the Convention coming into force.
IMO’s revised “G-8 Guidelines for approval of BWMS” were adopted by MEPC 70, as Resolution MEPC.279(70). G8 will be issued as a mandatory Code once the Convention enters into force.
There is no direct comparability between USCG and IMO with regard to evaluation and approval of active substances. USCG does NOT approve active substances for use in BWMS; instead, BWMS must comply with several other EPA requirements under the Vessel General Permit.

22. Type Approval IMO G8 –v– US Type Approval Similarities
Administrative Differences
Technical Differences
The International Maritime Organization (IMO) has announced that the International Convention for the Control and Management of Ships' Ballast Water and Sediments (BWM Convention) has been ratified and will now enter into force in September As we have mentioned in previous blogs and in several articles, the U.S. Ballast Water regulations remain the same and will not change following entry-into-force of the convention. Ships operating in U.S. waters will have to comply with U.S. requirements, including using one of the ballast water management practices described in 33 CFR Part and 2050.
In the meantime, the Coast Guard continues to participate in the IMO effort to revise the G8 guidelines, with a view to aligning the US and IMO procedures to the greatest extent possible. Revised IMO type-approval guidelines were approved by the Marine Environmental Protection Committee in October (In the view of the US, the key priorities for this revision are to reduce the vagueness that leads to variability among administrations, increase the quality assurance measures; harmonize with the US requirements to the degree possible)
Ultimately, the BWM Convention is not a treaty of the United States, and the Coast Guard has a mandate to implement U.S. laws as written. As promulgated, the 2012 Coast Guard ballast water discharge standard is reasonable, achievable and necessary to protect our ports and waterways against the threat of invasive species. The Coast Guard is committed to protecting our waters from invasive species and supports a strong national and international solution that does not disrupt the continuous flow of maritime trade which drives the global economy. We will continue to work with all stakeholders to encourage and facilitate Coast Guard approval of Ballast Water Management Systems.

23. Type Approval Similarities
Readiness evaluation
Land-based testing
Shipboard testing
Environmental/ Component testing
Treatment system scaling
In these areas, the G8 Guidelines and U.S. testing requirements are similar.

24. Administrative Differences
Flag Administrations interpret IMO guidelines
USCG uses third-party Independent Labs (IL)
USCG authorizes Independent Lab
BWMS manufacturer contracts with Independent Lab
Independent Lab conducts testing
Independent Lab submits test report to USCG
USCG evaluates Independent Lab performance
There are some differences in how the standards are interpreted and implemented. While the G8 Guidelines and US standard have similar testing requirements, interpretation of the G8 standards is left up to the Administrations. This results in disparity in how each system is tested. The Coast Guard has observed different interpretations while reviewing AMS applications. In the US, there is one interpretation of the type approval standard, which is communicated to our approved independent labs.
The Coast Guard administers the type approval process through independent 3rd party organizations. These independent labs are approved to carry out type approval testing on the Coast Guard’s behalf. We currently have 5 approved independent labs.
This figure shows the feedback loop of how the Coast Guard administers the type approval process with approved independent labs.

25. Technical Differences
1. Discharge Standard 2. Shipboard Testing 3. Hold Time 4. Component / Environmental Testing
There are 4 key technical differences in the type approval process, including discharge standard, shipboard testing, hold time, and component or environmental testing.
This picture shows a treatment system component undergoing inclination testing at a test lab.

26. 1. Discharge Standard IMO G8 US Difference Independent Lab Observation
< 10 Viable Organisms
< 10 Living Organisms
The discharge standard is the maximum amount of organisms that can be allowed in the ballast water discharge after treatment.
The language in the current G8 sets the limit for viable organisms, while the US standard is living organisms. The original G8 incorporated the term ‘living’ in its definition of viable, but it did not specify how Administrations should test treatment systems to this standard. New G8 guidelines accept viable as “render harmless or unable to reproduce”, but there is no IMO accepted testing method for establishing viability.
Different Administrations have approved systems using methods that measure organism viability instead of whether they are living or dead.
The difference has been simplified to the standard by which Administrations allow for of discharge of living organisms that are unable to reproduce.
The independent labs have been testing systems that already have IMO type approval, which are unable to meet the threshold of 10 living organisms. This challenge generally applies to the micron class.
Difference
Consideration of organisms that are rendered unable to reproduce
Independent Lab Observation
Some systems able to meet viable standard but not living standard

27. 2. Shipboard Testing IMO G8 US Differences Independent Lab Observation
3 Test Cycles
5 Test Cycles
Shipboard testing is conducted in the type approval process to verify operating & maintenance parameters in the manufacturer’s manual, and to validate treatment performance in real-life operating conditions.
While both standards require a minimum of 6 months of shipboard operation, the G8 guidelines require 3 consecutive successful tests while the US requires 5.
Additionally, the US standard requires the systems to be controlled by ship crews during testing. G8 is silent on who controls the system during shipboard testing. The control by ship crews validates the performance requirement that it must be designed simply for operation by a single person. This requirement also ensures unbiased observation of performance on the ship.
The independent labs have observed systems meeting 3 tests, but have failed on the 4th or 5th tests. This higher standard of repeatability has caused delays in the test program, but has also led to technological improvements.
Differences
Varying number of required consecutive successful test cycles
Control of treatment system during testing
Independent Lab Observation
Some systems able to log 3 tests but fail on 4th or 5th cycle

28. 3. Hold Time IMO G8 US Difference Independent Lab Observation
> 5 Days
> 24 Hours
Hold time is the minimum amount of time required to keep the water in the test tanks before discharge and sampling. This test parameter is intended to evaluate a system’s performance after considering the possibility of repopulation. Although organisms may be generally treated initially on ballast water uptake, if one survives, it may re-colonize in the tank. The hold time requirement verifies that the treatment system meets the discharge standard after some opportunity for repopulation.
The minimum hold time under the IMO standard is 5 days, while the US standard is 24 hours.
The independent labs have not seen challenges in meeting either standard, but must customize a test program for systems that are seeking concurrent IMO and US type approval. Some treatment systems use hold time in the tank as a key parameter for treatment efficacy. If these in tank treatment systems want US approval for shorter hold times, then they must undergo additional testing.
Difference
Time required to hold water in tanks before discharge & sampling
Independent Lab Observation
Extended test program for systems where hold time is key parameter

29. 4. Component/ Environmental Testing
IMO G8 US
Component /
Environmental Testing
2 Hour Endurance Test
4 Hour Endurance Test
Component or Environmental testing is the testing of electrical and electronic components to ensure long term performance in the marine environment. The G8 guidelines refer to the concept as environmental testing, while the US term is component testing. They are used interchangeably in the ballast water management industry.
The key difference is the minimum time needed for vibration endurance testing. The IMO standard is 2 hours, which is consistent with other international standards for component testing. The US standard is 4 hours.
The independent labs have observed failures in components that were able to meet the 2 hour test, but couldn’t pass the 4 hour test. This has led to manufacturers making design changes.
Difference
Length of time required for vibration endurance test
Independent Lab Observation
Some components able to meet 2 hour test but fail 4 hour test

30. Summary of Technical Differences
IMO G8 US
Discharge Standard
< 10 Viable Organisms
< 10 Living Organisms
Shipboard Testing
3 Test Cycles
5 Test Cycles
Hold Time
> 5 Days
> 24 Hours
Component /
Environmental Testing
2 Hour Endurance Test
4 Hour Endurance Test

31. Compliance and Enforcement
Assess compliance during regular vessel inspections
BWM exams on foreign vessels: 9,300/year
Follow existing compliance approach
Documentation and crew knowledge
Equipment condition and operation
Sample discharge, if warranted
USCG R&D - Sampling and analysis method and tools in development
The Coast Guard assesses compliance as part of regular vessel inspections.
This compliance approach will follow a similar regime in place for all other CG equipment inspection (OWS, MSD, etc.) A Coast Guard inspector will review documentation including the type approval certificate, AMS acceptance letter. The inspector will verify the crew’s knowledge regarding use of the equipment and also verify the equipment’s condition.
If an inspector is not satisfied by these results, he or she can take samples of the ballast water discharge.

32. Resources
Coast Guard Internet portal:
Approved Labs and BWMS:
Coast Guard Maritime Information Exchange (CGMIX):
QUESTIONS?
Compliance: to the Office of Commercial Vessel Compliance:
Extensions:
In general, the Coast Guard's Office of Commercial Vessel Compliance (CG-CVC) is the appropriate point of contact for questions about current USCG requirements:
Extension letters and other BWM program guidance are available at the USCG public Internet portal
Extension requests for compliance dates under Ballast Water Management regulations should be directed to
The USCG Marine Safety Center manages the U.S. Type Approval process, and applicants should send questions to
Questions about testing facilities and acceptance as Independent Labs for the purpose of evaluating Ballast Water Management Systems should be sent to
Details regarding USCG approved equipment can be found at the Coast Guard Maritime Information Exchange (CGMIX) at
NOTE:
The Coast Guard does not administer the Vessel General Permit (VGP) program. Please visit the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's website for more information at or