November 2015
INTERTANKO Guidance and Revised Model Extension Request (MER) for
US Coast Guard Ballast Water Management
Introduction
33 CFR 151.2036 of the US Coast Guard’s (USCG) Ballast Water Management (BWM) regulations
allows owners and operators to apply for an extension to the implementation schedule for vessels
using a USCG approved BWM system.
To assist INTERTANKO members who wish to apply for this extension, INTERTANKO has developed a
revised Model Extension Request (MER) application which incorporates the latest USCG guidance on
extension requests. Annex I provides a revised MER which may be used when INTERTANKO
members require the use of this extension clause and in requesting such an extension from the
USCG.
The revised MER has been drafted in accordance with the USCG’s Policy Letter No.13-01 Revision 2,
dated 16th November which is provided below. As such, those intending to submit an extension
request must be familiar with the revised USCG Policy Letter and its guidance.
USCG Policy Letter
13-01 Revision 2
Please refer to the below Decision Tree for guidance on the applicability of the USCG requirements
to the vessels in your fleet.
INTERTANKO USCG
Ballast Water Decision Tree
There is no guarantee that the USCG will grant an extension following the guidance provided in this
MER, but it should assist INTERTANKO members in preparing such requests. As much additional
documentation and evidence should be provided by the owner as necessary to assist the USCG in its
decision making process.
Note on EPA 2013 VGP on Ballast Water Technology requirements
As noted in both the USCG Policy Letter and in the guidance provided below in paragraph 9, the US
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) in its 2013 Vessel General Permit (VGP) also has ballast
water treatment technology requirements.
The EPA’s 2013 VGP does not require a USCG approved BWMS on board new or existing ships.
Instead they only require a BWMS “which has been shown to be effective by testing conducted by an
1
November 2015
independent third party laboratory, test facility or test organization.” As the BWMS under the VGP
does not have to be approved, the EPA did not include an extension provision in the 2013 VGP.
Thus, for the time being, for new ships (keel laid after December 1, 2013) if they want to discharge
ballast water in US waters, they will need to install a BWMS to comply with the VGP. The
assumption is that these ships would have installed an AMS to meet this requirement, but that
would only be good for five years and after that they would have to install a USCG approved BWMS
which would meet both USCG and 2013 VGP requirements.
INTERTANKO will continue its dialogue with the EPA on this matter and advise members if there is
any change in their policy.
Completing the Extension Request application
Annex I provides a Model Extension Request application. The text in the MER can be used by
INTERTANKO members to file an extension request. In the MER however, there are options for the
company and notes of guidance. These are distinguished as follows:

Text in standard Times New Roman is proposed for use in the MER application.

Text in [italics and yellow] require the user to consider the options provided and complete as
necessary.
Due consideration should be given to the following points when completing an filing the extension
request:
1. An Extension Request must be filed 12 months before the original compliance date for the
vessel. In certain circumstances, a party may be unable to meet the 12 month requirement (e.g.,
establishing new ownership of the vessel). In such cases, the extension request should be
submitted as early as possible with supporting documentation justifying the party’s reason for
not meeting the regulatory deadline.
2. The USCG determines original compliance date by the following implementation schedule as
listed in 33 CFR 151.1512(b) or 33 CFR 151.2035(b):
a. For vessels constructed on or after December 1, 2013: the date of vessel delivery.
b. For vessels constructed before December 1, 2013, and
i. having less than 1500 m3 ballast water capacity: the date of the first scheduled
drydocking after January 1, 2016; or
ii. having 1500-5000 m3 ballast water capacity: the date of the first scheduled drydocking
after January 1, 2014; or
iii. having greater than 5000 m3 ballast water capacity: the date of the first scheduled
drydocking after January 1, 2016.
3. The revised Policy Letter states that a vessel’s extended compliance date will now be the next
scheduled drydocking after the vessel’s original compliance date which will be reflected in a
2
November 2015
revised approval letter. However, the application of this Policy is not automatic and an extension
request must be submitted to the USCG. The USCG add that existing extension letters will not be
re-issued, but the change in terms will be made when a vessel applies for a supplemental
extension.
4. Extension requests must be written in English and submitted electronically as an e-mail, with an
application spreadsheet (see Annex III for the format for the application spreadsheet) to:
environmental_standards@uscg.mil
5. The header to the email must include the term ‘Extension Request’, e.g. “Extension Request
Application – Vessel / Company Name”.
6. Extension requests may be submitted as a batch for vessels with same calendar year of original
compliance date, and same reasons why they cannot comply with requirement, so the Coast
Guard can process similar company vessels at the same time. In this case, complete one
spreadsheet for all vessels in the batch with the file name, "BWM extension application – vessel
or company name".
7. The details and information on the vessels should be submitted using the USCG application
spreadsheet as can be found on the USCG website: http://homeport.uscg.mil/ballastwater The
same document is provided below:
Enclosure Template
for Vessel Details and Information
8. Section 6(a) on procedures for extension application explains what circumstances may merit an
extension request. This specifically states the limited availability (or no availability) of USCG typeapproved BWMS (including constrained shipyard capability and capacity to install the system
prior to the deadline) and lack of availability of, or ability to use exclusively, water from a U.S.
public water system. With no USCG type-approved BWMS currently available then this forms the
basis for requesting an extension.
9. Once a USCG Approved BWMS has been made available then the USCG will require more
extensive documentation to support the case for not installing the BWMS on a particular vessel.
This is particularly relevant in relation to shipyard capability and capacity to install a BWMS, as
noted, however, an owner/operator is also advised to assess the USCG type-approved BWMS’s
applicability to the vessel in question, for example, by reviewing the flow rates at which the
BWMS has been approved and tested as well as its applicability to tankers in regards to
explosion proof certification.
10. INTERTANKO will endeavour to advise members of any developments relating to the progress of
the USCG in type-approving a BWMS. However, members are advised to keep track of
developments in relation to USCG type-approved BWMS by periodically reviewing the USCG
Homeport website: http://homeport.uscg.mil/ballastwater
3
November 2015
11. Any additional documentation to support the argument provided in the MER should also be
submitted. For example, the shipyard may be able to provide written confirmation that it is
unable to install a USCG Approved BWMS.
12. Extension request applications will not receive an automatic email to acknowledge receipt. The
USCG staff will send each applicant a receipt message in the order received, but the volume of
requests for 2016 vessels and beyond prohibits timely acknowledgement of receipt.
13. Once processed by the USCG, extension requests will be answered with a letter from the USCG
granting the extension, as necessary. A copy of the USCG’s decision must be kept on board the
applicable vessel. The USCG decision letter should be made available upon request to USCG
vessel inspectors and port state control officers etc.
14. The USCG have reminded owners and operators that the Environmental Protection Agency’s
(EPA) 2013 Vessel General Permit (VGP) also contains ballast water treatment technology
requirements. The USCG note that the EPA advise, “where the US Coast Guard has granted or
denied an extension request pursuant to 33 CFR 151.2036, that information will be considered by
EPA, but is not binding on EPA”. The USCG encourage owners and operators to contact the EPA
at the earliest opportunity. As such, INTERTANKO recommends that the Extension Request
application, the accompanying documentation as well as the response from the USCG are
referenced within the 2013 VGP compliance documentation on board and within the vessel’s
Ballast Water Management Plan.
15. If an owner has already received an extension letter issued prior to the publication of the revised
Policy Letter, the new terms will be applied when the owner applies for a supplemental
extension. Section 6(b) of the revised Policy Letter provides guidance on when to submit a
supplemental extension application and the relevant information that is required in such an
application. The MER may be used for a supplemental extension by using the second text option
provided in the first paragraph of Annex I.
4
Annex I
Model Extension Request application (MER)
[Date]
From:
[Insert name of company, individual contact filing the request and email address]
To:
environmental_standards@uscg.mil
Subject:
Extension Request Application – [insert name of vessel or in case of a batch application
insert company name]
As [master/owner/operator/agent/person in charge] of the vessel(s) detailed in the enclosure to this email, the
undersigned submits this email to request [Option for new extension applications: “an extension of the
original compliance date(s) in the implementation schedule for approved Ballast Water Management Methods
as per 33 CFR 151.2036” or Option for supplemental extension applications: “a supplemental extension to the
extended compliance date that the vessel has already been granted in USCG letter dated …….”].
In accordance with the guidance provided in Policy Letter CG-OES No. 13-01 Revision 2 (Nov 16 2015) and
despite all efforts, compliance with the requirement under 33 CFR 151.1510 or 33 CFR 151.2025 is not
possible for the vessels(s) in the enclosure for the following reasons:
1. According to the information on the public Coast Guard Maritime Information Exchange (CGMIX) at
http://cgmix.uscg.mil/Equipment/Default.aspx, there are currently no US Coast Guard type-approved
BWMS suitable for the vessel(s);
2. Owing to the non-availability of a USCG type-approved BWMS, shipyards are unable to install such
systems;
3. There are no suitable onshore facilities or vessels to receive untreated ballast water at the ports and
terminals visited by the vessel(s); and,
4. Access to water from a U.S. public water system is not available in the ports and terminals visited by the
vessel(s).
Subject to a review of points 1 to 4 above, the vessel(s) in the enclosure will install a Coast Guard typeapproved BWMS at the next scheduled drydocking after the approval of a USCG BWMS adequate to meet the
needs of this vessel becomes available. The enclosure to this email provides the vessel’s specific information
as per section 6(a) of the Policy Letter.
The vessel(s) in the enclosure each have a BWM plan that will be followed for discharges that take place in
waters of the U.S.. The BWM plan(s) state that the vessel will [conduct ballast water exchange/use an AMS]
during the extension period. In situations where the vessel uses ballast water exchange, the vessel will conduct
a complete ballast water exchange in an area 200 nautical miles from any shore prior to discharging ballast
5
Annex I
water into waters of the U.S., unless the provisions of 33 CFR 151.2040 apply, or otherwise if so required by a
U.S. state.
[Insert name of company] has monitored closely the development and approval of BWMS both at an
international (through the International Maritime Organization – IMO) and at a US level. In terms of the latter,
we note the US Coast Guard’s ongoing approval of BWMS through its Alternate Management Systems
(AMS) scheme and the increasing number of manufacturers undertaking tests at Independent Laboratoies.
Using external resources such as our member association INTERTANKO, we have also been able to review
and monitor the type of BWMS entering the market and considered as either US Coast Guard AMS or Type
Approved according to IMO G8 Standards. However, we remain concerned that the BWMSs being approved
through the use of the IMO G8 standard and which are generally those that are approved as AMS will not
allow the vessel to consistently and reliably discharge ballast water treated in compliance with the USCG
discharge standard.
Notwithstanding these concerns, [insert name of company] remains committed to the protection of the marine
environment and will [continue in its endeavours to find a safe, reliable and compliant BWMS suitable for the
vessel(s) in our fleet / ensure the manufacturer of the installed AMS attains CG type-approval].
The undersigned is available for any further information or clarification in relating to this application, the
documentation provided and the vessels listed.
Yours sincerely,
[Insert company representative’s:
Contact Name
Company Name
Company Mailing address
Contact Phone number
Contact email address
Company e-mail address]
Enclosure(s):
BWM extension application – [vessel or company name]
Insert any additional documentation, e.g. from the ship yard and classification society, as necessary.
6