Comment submitted by C. Hart

As a recreational boater, I would like to see the protection of the environment and the prevention of non indigenous species from taking over native ecosystems. As a taxpayer, I would like to see my tax dollars spent on things that actually make a measurable difference to the above. Towards this, I would like to see recreational private boating excluded from the need for an EPA permit to operate on a controlled body of water. Here is why: Recreational boating is usually transient and the amount of any "normal operation" discharge would not be measurable. So don't spend a lot of money setting up a process that will only find "no significant difference" in water quality. The only "ballast tank" that I am familiar with in recreational boating is one designed to increase a boat's wake for wakeboarding. These tanks generally have to be drained back into the same body of water as they filled from because keeping that weight would make impossible to trailer the boat. Non indigenous cross contamination risk is minimal. Recreational small boaters rarely go outside of the aquatic ecosystem that they start within. This make the transportation of invasive non indigenous species unlikely. Areas of the country that do have different ecosystems accessible to a boat have already enacted state legislation to prevent cross contamination ( not only ballast tank water but also bilge water). We do not need to duplicate good state regulations at the federal level. Purchasing an EPA permit would not address any of the potential concerns and would create a hardship on the general private citizen boating public. Permit the big commercial boats if you want but leave the private boaters out of it. The lack of environmental impact and shear number to people that would be effected by requiring EPA permits makes this a poor use of my tax dollars. Thank you Charles Hart Chattanooga, TN