Some proposed federal legislation attempts to preempt state authority to administer ballast water management requirements for commercial vessels operating in state waters, while other versions of the legislation may grandfather state regulations that are already established before enactment of the new (hypothetical) federal policies.  Our intended rule revisions could be challenged if federal legislative attempts are successful and our rules are not yet adopted. false false false false false false false false false false false false 2015 2016 Start Adv Comm Pub Notice Hearing EQC The intent to coordinate rulemaking schedule with corresponding rulemaking efforts in Washington State may be a potential obstacle to the timeline, but not the ultimate objective.  N/A Medium Medium Medium Medium Medium Low N/A Low N/A Low Low Medium N/A Low N/A Low N/A N/A Low false false Permanent Ballast Water 2016 ballast2016 Rian Hooff Bruce Gilles Lydia Emer 2015-08-28 2015-09-03 2015-09-08 Some of the desired policy developments were considered for prescriptive changes under ORS 783.620, but stakeholders and legislators ultimately decided that the issues would be best handled under administrative rules.  HB 2207 provided adequate rulemaking authority to achieve the desired changes. SIP Fees Penalties Permits Land use rules Compliance Regulated community Business and industry Environmental groups Public State legislators Federal regulators State/Local government Tribal nations Small businesses Large businesses Government Individuals Foreign Large Businesses (Shipping Companies) Yes false false false false false false false false false false false false false false false false false false false false EPA Vessel General Permit (2013) contains management provisions that may be adopted - wholly, or in part - to address some of the identified high-risk ballast water discharge concerns. Rule development will also be in coordination with efforts being undertaken by the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife Ballast Water Program. false false false false false false false false false false false false false false false false false false false false false false false false false false false false false false false false false false false false false false false false 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 false false false false false false false false false false false false false false false false false false false false false false false false false false false false false false false false false false false 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 false false false false false false false false false false false false false false false false false false false false false false false false false false false false false false false false false false false false false false false false 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 false false false false false false false false false false false false false false false false false false false false false false false false false false false false false false false false false false false 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 false false false false false false false false false false false false false false false Choose one 1 Yes Yes Yes N/A Yes N/A N/A N/A 0 Rian Hooff 2015-08-28 Bruce Gilles 2015-09-03 Lydia Emer 2015-09-08 false false false false false false false Ballast Water 2016 Some of the desired policy developments were considered for prescriptive changes under ORS 783.620, but stakeholders and legislators ultimately decided that the issues would be best handled under administrative rules.  HB 2207 provided adequate rulemaking authority to achieve the desired changes. ballast2016 Permanent 340-143 Revise 340-143-0010, as necessary, to prevent the discharge of ballast water that represents a high-risk for the transport and release of aquatic invasive species.

Revise 340-143-0050, as necessary, to specify management requirements for vessels using shipboard ballast water treatment systems. Respond to changes in Federal regulations.

Address gaps in aquatic invasive species prevention practices. Foreign Large Businesses (Shipping Companies) false false false false false false false false false false false false 0 0 0 10's 0 0 0 false false false 100's 3 2 2 1 2 1 Low 1 2 0 Medium false false false false false false Select true true true true true true false false Reconvene Existing Members appointed to the Task Force on Shipping Transport of Aquatic Invasive Species will serve as a rulemaking advisory committee. The committee will play a strong role in crafting the rule language. 2-5 false false 1 false 0 0 0 1 Yes Ballast Water Management Program Land Increased risk to the environment false true true true false false false Medium One of the primary issues that we aim to address with rulemaking revisions has been met with moderate resistance from a minority opinion of our stakeholder advisory group during preliminary discussions.  However, these members, who represent local maritime industry groups, did agree to support 2015 legislation that clarified EQC authority to pursue this issue via rulemaking.  We have already secured unanimous support for the second issue that aim to address with rule revisions. 1 Medium false false false false true false If Washington DFW rulemaking efforts are compromised it could cause increased challenges for us to achieve our desired outcome. High Medium false false true false false Failure to adapt existing Oregon regulations to new Federal policies and emerging science could increase threats to Oregon waters from aquatic invasive species. 4 false true false false false false false false false Medium false true false false false true false 2015 2016 Start Adv Comm Pub Notice Hearing EQC false false false Protect the environment.

Coordinate rulemaking activities with WA concern shipping activities on shared waterbody. false true false Low false false false false false false Low Ballast water management program (50/50 fees and GF) Ballast water management program (50/50 fees and GF) N/A N/A ORS 783.636 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Custom item 0 0 N/A false false false Enter custom item here false false false false false false Enter custom item N/A false false false false false Enter custom item here false Low false false false Low false true false true false false Our rules need to be adapted in response to new technology that is being deployed in response to federal regulations.  There is significant uncertainty regarding the efficacy of the new systems, as well as uncertainty regarding the level of protectiveness necessary to prevent new introductions of non-indigenous species. false false false Medium Maritime shipping industry representatives are resistant to any state-level management requirements that are above and beyond federal (or international) norms.  The policies we are considering will require significant coordination on a regional level. false true false false false false Low The state legislature has endorsed the need for these changes and there are multiple legislative champions for the issue that continue to serve on our Task Force and Advisory Committee. false false false Low Significant outreach may be necessary to global commercial shipping operators, however, we can rely on local shipping agents to be a conduit for any new changes to Oregon policies/requirements. false false false false Low Some proposed federal legislation attempts to preempt state authority to administer ballast water management requirements for commercial vessels operating in state waters, while other versions of the legislation may grandfather state regulations that are already established before enactment of the new (hypothetical) federal policies.  Our intended rule revisions could be challenged if federal legislative attempts are successful and our rules are not yet adopted. The intent to coordinate rulemaking schedule with corresponding rulemaking efforts in Washington State may be a potential obstacle to the timeline, but not the ultimate objective.  false false true true true true true true true true true true true true true Ballast Water 2016 7 1 Ballast water policies were last updated in 2010, however, technology advances and significant changes to the regulatory landscape require that Division 143 rules be revised in order to protect Oregon waters from aquatic invasive species threats.  Rule development activities may involve: Adopting management requirements for vessels entering Oregon waters in a 'no ballast on board' status, but with residual ballast water and sediments that could pose a risk for AIS introductions if ballasting and subsequent de-ballasting operations are performed while in port.  Our ballast water management program has gathered data in recent years documenting the occurrence of such high-risk operations.  Management requirements to reduce this risk may be adopted from already existing regulations under the EPA Vessel General Permit.  Adopting the federal requirements into state rules would allow our staff to inspect and enforce for this issue.

Adapting our state ballast water management requirements in response to recently established ballast water discharge standards adopted by the US Coast Guard and the EPA Vessel General Permit.  The standards adopted at the federal level are not as stringent as those adopted in California.  Under current Oregon rules, vessels may discharge ballast water meeting the federal standard in place of meeting our state specified management requirements (i.e. mid-ocean ballast water exchange).  Recent studies suggest replacing ballast water exchange with shipboard ballast treatment systems certified to meet the federal discharge standard may not be an improvement in AIS prevention, and under some circumstances could increase risks.  We will be working with our advisory group to establish rules that require high-risk vessels to continue to conduct ballast water exchange in addition to meeting the federal discharge standard.

General housekeeping and clarity of existing rules.

These policy changes have been deliberated by the Task Force on Shipping Transport of Aquatic Invasive Species and discussed in association with HB 2207 (2015).  Based on the Task Force recommendations, the 2015 Legislature amended and enacted HB 2207 in order to facilitate EQC rule adoption regarding the above issues. There is no urgent need to complete this rulemaking within the next 3 months. While there is not an immediate urgency, rapid changes have already begun to be observed in commercial ships calling upon Oregon ports.  The changes are needed in order to reduce the risk of establishing new AIS in our waters.  Rulemaking activities - including stakeholder advisory group participation - is being planned for 2015/16 in order to correspond with rulemaking activities being planned by the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife Ballast water program.  Some of the issues we are attempting to address will be easier to accomplish if the two states are coordinated and working in-step to adopt compatible policies with similar implementation timelines. In order to meet our commitments to stakeholders and legislative advisors - and to be on track with corresponding rulemaking efforts in Washington State - it is necessary to complete this rulemaking process within approximately 12 months. 3 5