To clarify the circumstances during which the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency and applicable States may require permits for discharges from certain vessels, and to require the Administrator to conduct a study of discharges incidental to the normal operation of vessels.
For Further Action See P.L. 110-229 (S. 3298).
Congressional Research Service
Official summary
Version 00 · Introduced in House · Jul 21, 2008
Prohibits the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), or a state with an approved National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit program under the Federal Water Pollution Control Act, from requiring an NPDES permit for a covered vessel for the next two years for any discharge: (1) of effluent from properly functioning marine engines; (2) of laundry, shower, and galley sink wastes; or (3) that is incidental to the normal operation of a covered vessel. Defines "covered vessel" to mean a vessel that is less than 79 feet in length or a fishing vessel.
Requires the Administrator to evaluate the impacts of such discharges, excluding discharges: (1) from a vessel of the Armed Forces; (2) of sewage from a vessel, other than the discharge of graywater from a vessel operating on the Great Lakes; and (3) of ballast water.
Provides that such prohibition does not apply with respect to: (1) rubbish, trash, garbage, or other such materials discharged overboard; (2) other discharges when the vessel is operating in a capacity other than as a means of transportation; (3) ballast water discharges; or (4) any discharge that contributes to a violation of a water quality standard or poses an unacceptable risk to human health or the environment.
Source last updated: Dec 5, 2025. Consult Congress.gov for the current record.
AI Conversation Starters
Explore the bill from different angles
Choose a perspective, copy a prompt, and paste it into your preferred AI. Each prompt includes the bill version and available official source links, and asks for counterarguments as well as supporting evidence.
Neutral evidence review
Objective
Analyze H.R.6556 as objectively as possible. Explain its main provisions, who would be affected, possible benefits and harms, implementation, exceptions, and uncertainties. Present the strongest arguments for and against it, and identify evidence needed to assess its public impact.
View full prompt & sources
Fairness and public impact
Progressive lens
Examine H.R.6556 through a progressive lens, focusing on fairness, access, economic inequality, and effects on vulnerable communities. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and distinguish stated goals from demonstrated outcomes.
View full prompt & sources
Institutions and government scope
Conservative lens
Examine H.R.6556 through a conservative lens, focusing on fiscal responsibility, institutional stability, federalism, and the scope of government. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and any provisions that challenge this perspective.
View full prompt & sources
Individual rights and government power
Liberty lens
Examine H.R.6556 through a civil-liberties and limited-government lens. Consider individual rights, privacy, voluntary choice, accountability, and government power. Explain tradeoffs, possible safeguards, and the strongest counterarguments without assuming the proposal is beneficial or harmful.