Environmental Compliance Archives

IMO Net-Zero Shipping Framework: A Crossroads for Global Shipping Regulations

Jeanne M. Grasso and Holli B. Packer ●

Introduction: A New Era for Maritime Decarbonization

The International Maritime Organization’s (“IMO”) Marine Environment Protection Committee approved a sweeping package of draft regulations known as the “IMO Net-Zero Shipping Framework” (the “Framework”) in April 2025. This Framework will be voted on in October 2025 and, if adopted, will enter into force by March 2027. It marks an ambitious and comprehensive global effort to align the maritime sector with international climate goals. However, the Framework has also sparked significant debate among IMO member states, most notably the United States, which has voiced strong opposition to the proposed measures. This article provides an overview of the proposed regulations and broader industry implications, while also highlighting the United States’ position and the Framework’s potential impact on the future of maritime decarbonization.

The IMO Net-Zero Framework: Scope and Ambition

The Framework is the centerpiece of the IMO’s mid-term greenhouse gas (“GHG”) reduction measures, intended to be formalized as a new Chapter 5 of MARPOL Annex VI. Its primary objective is to achieve net-zero GHG emissions from international shipping by 2050, in line with the 2023 IMO Strategy on GHG Emissions. The Framework applies to all vessels of 5,000 gross tons and above on international voyages, with limited exceptions for vessels operating solely within national waters, non-mechanically propelled vessels, and certain offshore platforms.

Navigating Emission Control Areas: Operational, Legal, and U.S. Enforcement Risks of MARPOL Annex VI’s Low Sulphur Fuel Requirements

Luke M. Reid, Jeanne M. Grasso, and Holli B. Packer ●

The North American Emissions Control Area (“ECA”), which has been in force well over a decade, is one of four existing ECAs around the world. Effective May 1, 2025, the Mediterranean Sea ECA will become the fifth. In March 2026, pursuant to MARPOL Annex VI, Regulation 13, the Canadian Arctic and Norwegian Sea will also be designated as ECAs, increasing the global total to seven. These two ECAs will become enforceable on March 1, 2027. In addition to these ECAs, other port States around the world have separately implemented domestic emissions control regulations in their territorial seas, with China being a prominent example.

The establishment of these new ECAs and similar emissions control regimes throughout the world will result in an increasing number of vessels crossing ECA boundaries—sometimes multiple times on a single voyage—and on a more frequent basis. The use of different fuel types has in more and more cases led to operational and safety challenges, which has inevitably translated into heightened legal and enforcement risks. Given this expansion of ECAs worldwide, and the growing patchwork of other related port State emissions requirements, it is more important than ever to revisit the various legal and operational risks that have emerged over time, particularly those in the United States, to ensure compliance and mitigate potential risks.

USCG Requests Information on Ballast Water Management Procedures Under the Vessel General Permit and USCG Regulations

Jeanne M. Grasso, Dana S. Merkel, and Holli B. Packer ●

The U.S. Coast Guard (“USCG”) published a Request for Information (“Request”) on June 7 in the Federal Register (89 Fed. Reg. 48515) seeking information on the monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting procedures under the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s (“EPA”) Vessel General Permit (“VGP”) and the USCG’s ballast water management requirements. With the USCG’s inquiry focused on the resources devoted per vessel to compliance requirements, the USCG plans to use the information provided to “evaluate new and updated solutions that inform data-driven policymaking, reduce the reporting and record-keeping burden on industry, and confirm environmental compliance.” While not stated explicitly, the Request is clearly a precursor to the USCG’s development of a proposed rule pursuant to the Vessel Incidental Discharge Act (“VIDA”). Comments are due by July 22, 2024.

Interested parties are encouraged to review the Request carefully and provide their insights, either individually or through trade associations, prior to the July 22, 2024, deadline as this Request is a critical precursor to implementation of VIDA.

Background

2013 Vessel General Permit. The VGP was issued under the Clean Water Act’s (“CWA”) National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System program and provides permit coverage nationwide for discharges incidental to the normal operation of commercial vessels more than 79 feet in length. EPA issued the first version of the VGP in 2008 and then another, more stringent, version in 2013. The VGP set effluent limits and mandated Best Management Practices to control certain types of incidental discharges. It also required vessels to conduct routine and annual inspections and imposed numerous recordkeeping obligations, as well as monitoring and reporting requirements.

USCG Ballast Water Management. The USCG published a final rule addressing ballast water management, which became effective in June 2012. These regulations, codified in 33 C.F.R. Part 151, mandate ballast water management requirements, including type-approved ballast water management systems. They further outline required Best Management Practices and monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting requirements.

Vessel Incidental Discharge Act. In December 2018, VIDA was signed into law and intended to replace the VGP to bring uniformity, consistency, and certainty to the regulation of incidental discharges from U.S. and foreign-flag vessels. VIDA amended the CWA and will substantially alter how EPA and the USCG regulate vessel discharges. VIDA required EPA to finalize uniform performance standards for each type of incidental discharge by December 2020, a deadline that the EPA has missed by more than three years, and requires the USCG to implement EPA’s final standards within two years thereafter.

Please click here for the full client alert.

Finally—A Path Forward for Implementation of the Vessel Incidental Discharge Act

Jeanne M. Grasso and Dana S. Merkel

Background

In December 2018, the Vessel Incidental Discharge Act (“VIDA”) was signed into law and intended to replace the Environmental Protection Agency’s (“EPA”) 2013 Vessel General Permit (which has been in place for nearly ten years) to bring uniformity, consistency, and certainty to the regulation of incidental discharges from U.S. and foreign-flag vessels. VIDA amended the Clean Water Act and will substantially alter how EPA and the United States Coast Guard (“USCG”) regulate vessel discharges. VIDA required EPA to finalize uniform performance standards for each type of incidental discharge by December 2020, a deadline that the EPA has missed by nearly three years, and requires the USCG to implement EPA’s final standards within two years thereafter.

In October 2020, EPA published a proposed rule titled Vessel Incidental Discharge National Standards of Performance to implement VIDA, but the proposal languished with the change from the Trump Administration to the Biden Administration. In January 2023, more than two years later, EPA announced its plans to issue a Supplemental Notice of Proposed Rulemaking in the Fall of 2023. EPA indicated that the Supplemental Notice was intended to clarify its proposed rule, share ballast water data compiled by the USCG, and propose additional regulatory options.

A Practical Approach to Reduce MARPOL Enforcement Risks in the United States

Kierstan L. Carlson and Jeanne M. Grasso

Readers of Mainbrace know well that the United States has been aggressively enforcing compliance with MARPOL for decades. Often referred to as “magic pipe” cases, the U.S. Department of Justice (“DOJ”) has brought criminal MARPOL prosecutions against owners and operators of ships running the gamut from fishing vessels to bulkers, tankers, container ships, and cruise ships. These prosecutions have involved underlying violations of MARPOL Annex I (oil), but also Annex V (garbage) and more recently Annex VI (air emissions).

Criminal MARPOL cases are extraordinarily costly and disruptive to vessel owners/operators. Not only are significant fines levied against violators, but companies convicted of MARPOL violations suffer attendant reputational damage that can impact charter hire prospects and incur significant costs for paying wages, housing, and per diem to the crew members whom the government requires to remain in the United States for the duration of the criminal case. On top of that are the costs associated with a comprehensive Environmental Compliance Plan for the fleet, along with costs associated with a Third-Party Auditor and a Court-Appointed Monitor.

Unlike other areas of U.S. criminal enforcement, MARPOL prosecutions have continued at a steady pace, across administrations led by different political parties. This is due, in part, to the fact that the Act to Prevent Pollution from Ships (“APPS”), the U.S. statute that implemented MARPOL, is enforced by the U.S. Coast Guard (“USCG”), which is typically less affected by political change than other executive agencies responsible for criminal enforcement. Perhaps more importantly, APPS includes a whistleblower provision pursuant to which anyone who provides information to the USCG that leads to a conviction may be awarded up to 50 percent of the criminal penalty imposed under APPS. Potential awards incentivize seafarers to report misconduct to the USCG instead of to the company, even in cases where there is an open-reporting program. It also gives the USCG and DOJ a significant advantage, as they often receive photos and videos of the alleged improper conduct before their investigation even begins.

Transfer of Offshore Wind Safety and Environmental Responsibilities

Dana S. Merkel and Jonathan K. Waldron

The Department of the Interior (“DOI”) transferred safety and environmental oversight for the Outer Continental Shelf (“OCS”) renewable energy program from the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management (“BOEM”) to the Bureau of Safety and Environmental Enforcement (“BSEE”) on January 31, 2023. Importantly, the transfer does not affect current regulatory requirements for offshore wind development, but merely the agency responsible for oversight and enforcement.

Background

A number of reorganizations have occurred over the years since the Energy Policy Act of 2005 authorized the Secretary of Interior to grant OCS leases for renewable energy activities. When the Minerals Management Service was divided in 2011 following the Deepwater Horizon incident, the Secretary of Interior highlighted the importance of separating the lease planning and management functions and safety and environmental enforcement functions into two separate entities, creating BOEM and BSEE, respectively. A third entity was also created to manage the royalty and revenue management functions.

The renewable energy program, however, remained with BOEM entirely as the program was still in early development. It was noted that the renewable energy program would be split between the entities when it is determined that “an increase in activity justifies transferring the inspection and enforcement functions” to BSEE.

Compliance, Enforcement Risks, and Emerging Issues Regarding EPA’s Vessel General Permit

Jeanne M. Grasso and Dana S. Merkel

About a year ago, we wrote about a rise in enforcement of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s (“EPA”) Vessel General Permit (“VGP”). In the words of one EPA attorney, that was “just the beginning” and we have continued to see more aggressive reviews of VGP compliance and penalty demands, particularly on the U.S. West Coast. Since then, EPA has continued demanding significant penalties for alleged violations, sometimes citing interpretations of the VGP that are not outlined in any guidance documents. Additionally, in January 2023, EPA published an Enforcement Alert, EPA Reminder About Clean Water Act Vessel General Permit Requirements, reminding the maritime industry of the VGP requirements and impacts of non-compliance, and citing recent enforcement examples.

The VGP and VIDA Implementation

The VGP was issued under the Clean Water Act’s (“CWA”) National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (“NPDES”) program and provides permit coverage nationwide for discharges incidental to the normal operation of commercial vessels more than 79 feet in length. EPA issued the first version of the VGP in 2008 and then another, more stringent version in 2013. The VGP set effluent limits and mandated Best Management Practices to control certain types of incidental discharges. It also required vessels to conduct routine and annual inspections and imposed numerous recordkeeping obligations, as well as monitoring and reporting requirements.

EPA Ramps-Up VGP Inspections and Enforcement

Jeanne M. Grasso and Kierstan L. Carlson

We are just over one year into the Biden administration and environmental enforcement is on the rise. Although enforcement dropped dramatically under the Trump administration, the current administration has been clear about its intent to use environmental enforcement tools to “encourage and incentivize compliance by private sector entities,” quoting Assistant Attorney General Todd Kim, head of the Environment and Natural Resources Division of the Department of Justice. This focus has borne out in several ways, including what seems to be an increase in inspections and enforcement of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s (“EPA”) Vessel General Permit (“VGP”) in several EPA regions around the country. The risk of getting caught in the EPA’s crosshairs for a VGP violation is real and should be front-of-mind for companies across the shipping sector.

History of the VGP and Implementation of the Vessel Incidental Discharge Act

The VGP originated from a lawsuit challenging the EPA’s exemption of discharges “incidental to the normal operation of a vessel” from permitting requirements under the Clean Water Act’s (“CWA”) National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (“NPDES”), an exemption that had been in place for about 30 years. In 2005, a federal court found that the EPA’s vessel exemption was illegal and required the agency to develop a permitting program for incidental discharges. From there the VGP was born.

Mainbrace Live: U.S. Maritime Regulatory Update

Blank Rome’s internationally recognized Maritime & International Trade practice group presents a new series of informative webinars covering hot topics in the shipping industry and key insights into 2021 and beyond. Sessions will cover:

- Sanctions and international trade
- Offshore wind developments
- Shipping litigation
- Maritime regulation
- Ship finance
- And more!

For the fourth webinar in our Mainbrace Live series, Blank Rome LLP attorneys Jeanne M. Grasso, Dana S. Merkel, and Stefanos N. Roulakis presented “U.S. Maritime Regulatory Update” on Tuesday, June 22, 2021.

Jeanne, Dana, and Stefanos discussed:

- The conundrum in ballast water management: VIDA, VGP, and the IMO
- Ongoing industry challenges as COVID-19 continues
- Emerging greenhouse gas regulation and shipping

MODERATOR

- Jeanne M. Grasso, Partner and Co-Chair, Maritime & International Trade Practice Group

PRESENTERS

- Dana S. Merkel, Associate, Maritime Practice Group
- Stefanos N. Roulakis, Associate, Maritime Practice Group

To watch a recording of this webinar, please go to the webinar on-demand registration page here.

Mainbrace Live: U.S. Maritime Litigation Trends

- Sanctions and international trade
- Offshore wind developments
- Shipping litigation
- Maritime regulation
- Ship finance
- And more!

For the third webinar in our Mainbrace Live series, Blank Rome LLP attorneys William R. Bennett, III, Lauren B. Wilgus, Jeremy A. Herschaft, Zachary J. Wyatte, and Noe S. Hamra presented “U.S. Maritime Litigation Trends” on Tuesday, May 18, 2021.

Bill, Lauren, Jeremy, Zach, and Noe discussed:

- 1782: Purpose and criteria
- Judgment enforcement: Arrest, attachment, and more
- Timeline of a federal case: From complaint to trial, discovery, etc.
- Spill investigations: Practical “boots on the ground” information

MODERATOR

- William R. Bennett, III, Partner & Co-Chair, Maritime & International Trade Practice Group

PRESENTERS

- Lauren B. Wilgus, Partner, Maritime Practice Group
- Jeremy A. Herschaft, Partner, Maritime Practice Group
- Zachary J. Wyatte, Associate, Maritime Practice Group
- Noe S. Hamra, Associate, Maritime Practice Group

To watch a recording of this webinar, please go to the webinar on-demand registration page here.

Share this:

Share this:

Background

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this: