Id. at 629-30,632. Indeed, according to the SAB Report, the Ecochlor, BalPure, and PeraClean systems can meet 100 times IMO for medium organisms, and Ecochlor can meet 10 times IMO for large organisms. EPA should not have adhered to the IMO Standard without explanation when technologies could have exceeded IMO. Indeed, seeking to find systems that are capable of doing better than the current standard is in keeping with the technology-forcing aspect of the CWA. See NRDC, 822 F.2d at 124. EPA should have first looked at the available ballast water technologies as identified by the SAB Report. Then, finding that those technologies could exceed the IMO Standard, EPA should have adjusted its standard accordingly, or explained why it would not. See Islander E. Pipeline, 525 F.3d at 151 (<HOLDING>). EPA’s counterargument that no more was
holding that agency must examine  the relevant data and articulate  a satisfactory explanation for its action quoting state farm 463 us at 43 103 sct 2856alterations omitted holding that final agency action under the apa 5 usc  704 must be the consummation of the agencys decisionmaking process must not be of a merely tentative or interlocutory nature and must be one by which rights or obligations have been determined or from which legal consequences will flow  first quoting chi  s air lines inc v waterman ss corp 333 us 103 113 68 sct 431 92 led 568 1948 and then quoting port of bos marine terminal assn v rederiaktiebolaget transatlantic 400 us 62 71 91 sct 203 27 led2d 203 1970 holding that in order to present a federal question a right or immunity created by the constitution or laws of the united states must be an element and an essential one of the plaintiffs cause of action quoting franchise tax bd v constr laborers vacation trust 463 us 1 1011 103 sct 2841 77 led2d 420 1983 holding that an attorneys fee award must be reasonable in relation to the success achieved quoting hensley v eckerhart 461 us 424 436 103 sct 1933 76 led2d 40 1983 holding that the state police is a state agency