Ballast Water Management for Vessels Entering the Great Lakes That Declare No Ballast Onboard, 51831-51836 [05-17426]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 168 / Wednesday, August 31, 2005 / Notices
would constitute a clearly unwarranted
invasion of personal privacy.
Name of Committee: Center for Scientific
Review Special Emphasis Panel, PAR–04–
023; Bioengineering Research Partnership.
Date: September 15, 2005.
Time: 2 p.m. to 3 p.m.
Agenda: To review and evaluate grant
applications.
Place: National Institutes of Health, 6701
Rockledge Drive, Bethesda, MD 20892,
(Telephone Conference Call).
Contact Person: Syed M. Quadri, PhD,
Scientific Review Administrator, Center for
Scientific Review, National Institutes of
Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Room 6210,
MSC 7804, Bethesda, MD 20892, (301) 435–
1211, quadris@csr.nih.gov.
Name of Committee: Center for Scientific
Review Special Emphasis Panel, Genes,
Genomics, Genetics.
Date: September 16, 2005.
Time: 10 a.m. to 11 a.m.
Agenda: To review and evaluate grant
applications.
Place: National Institutes of Health, 6701
Rockledge Drive, Bethesda, MD 20892,
(Telephone Conference Call).
Contact Person: Mary P. McCormick, PhD,
Scientific Review Administrator, Center for
Scientific Review, National Institutes of
Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Room 2208,
MSC 7890, Bethesda, MD 20892, (301) 435–
1047, mccormim@csr.nih.gov.
Name of Committee: Center for Scientific
Review Special Emphasis Panel, PAR–04–
023 Bioengineering Research Partnership.
Date: September 22, 2005.
Time: 2 p.m. to 4 p.m.
Agenda: To review and evaluate grant
applications.
Place: National Institutes of Health, 6701
Rockledge Drive, Bethesda, MD 20892,
(Telephone Conference Call).
Contact Person: Syed M. Quadri, PhD,
Scientific Review Administrator, Center for
Scientific Review, National Institutes of
Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Room 6210,
MSC 7804, Bethesda, MD 20892, (301) 435–
1211, quadris@csr.nih.gov.
Name of Committee: Center for Scientific
Review Special Emphasis Panel, Software
Development and Maintenance.
Date: September 23, 2005.
Time: 8 a.m. to 4 p.m.
Agenda: To review and evaluate grant
applications.
Place: Hyatt Regency Bethesda, One
Bethesda Metro Center, 7400 Wisconsin
Avenue, Bethesda, MD 20814.
Contact Person: Zhenya Li, PhD, Scientific
Review Administrator, Center for Scientific
Review, National Institutes of Health, 6701
Rockledge Drive, Room 3022B, MSC 7849,
Bethesda, MD 20892, (301) 435–2417,
lizhenya@csr.nih.gov.
(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance
Program Nos. 93.306, Comparative Medicine;
93.333, Clinical Research, 93.306, 93.333,
93.337, 93.393–93.396, 93.837–93.844,
93.846–93.878, 93.892, 93.893, National
Institutes of Health, HHS)
VerDate Aug<18>2005
16:33 Aug 30, 2005
Jkt 205001
Dated: August 24, 2005.
Anthony M. Coelho, Jr.,
Acting Director, Office of Federal Advisory
Committee Policy.
[FR Doc. 05–17249 Filed 8–30–05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4140–01–M
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND
SECURITY
Coast Guard
[USCG–2004–19842]
Ballast Water Management for Vessels
Entering the Great Lakes That Declare
No Ballast Onboard
Coast Guard, DHS.
Notice of policy; availability of
draft environmental assessment.
AGENCY:
ACTION:
To prevent the introductions
of aquatic nonindigenous species from
vessels entering the Great Lakes
declaring no ballast onboard (NOBOB),
the Coast Guard establishes best
management practices for residual
ballast water and sediment management
to be followed by NOBOB vessels. Coast
Guard also requests comments on the
draft environmental assessment
prepared for the policy.
DATES: This policy is effective on the
date of publication in the Federal
Register. Comments and related
material regarding the draft
Environmental Assessment must reach
the Docket Management System on or
before September 30, 2005.
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments
identified by Coast Guard docket
number USCG–2004–19842 to the
Docket management facility at the U.S.
Department of Transportation. To avoid
duplication, please use only one of the
following methods: (1) By mail to the
Docket Management Facility (USCG–
2004–19842), U.S. Department of
Transportation, Room PL–401, 400
Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC
20593–0001. (2) By delivery to Room
PL–401 on the Plaza Level of the Nassif
Building, 400 Seventh Street, SW.,
Washington DC between 9 a.m. and 5
p.m., Monday through Friday, except
Federal holidays. The telephone number
is (202) 366–9329. (3) By fax to the
Docket Management Facility at (202)
493–2251. (4) Electronically through the
Web site for the Docket Management
System at https://dms.dot.gov. The
Docket Management Facility maintains
the public docket for this notice.
Comments will become part of this
docket and will be available for
inspection or copying in Room PL–401,
located on the Plaza Level of the Nassif
SUMMARY:
PO 00000
Frm 00085
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
51831
Building at the above address between
9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through
Friday, except for Federal holidays. You
may also view this docket, including
this notice and comments, on the
Internet at https://dms.dot.gov.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For
information concerning this policy, call
Mr. Bivan Patnaik, Project Manager,
Environmental Standards Division, U.S.
Coast Guard, telephone 202–267–1744
or via e-mail bpatnaik@comdt.uscg.mil.
If you have any questions on viewing or
submitting material to the docket, call
Ms. Andrea M. Jenkins, Program
Manager, Docket Operations,
Department of Transportation,
telephone 202–366–0271.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Regulatory History
The Nonindigenous Aquatic Nuisance
Prevention and Control Act of 1990, as
reauthorized and amended by the
National Invasive Species Act of 1996,
authorizes the Coast Guard to develop
guidelines and regulations to prevent
the introduction of nonindigenous
species (NIS) via ballast water
discharges. The Coast Guard
promulgated regulations in the Federal
Register on June 14, 2004, entitled,
‘‘Penalties for Non-submission of Ballast
Water Management Reports’’ (68 FR
32864) and on July 28, 2004, entitled
‘‘Mandatory Ballast Water Management
for U.S. Waters’’ (69 FR 44952). In doing
so, the Great Lakes Ballast Water
Management Program that became
effective on May 10, 1993 (58 FR
18330), has remained unchanged, with
the exception that all vessels equipped
with ballast water tanks that enter and
operate between ports in the Great Lakes
must now submit their ballast water
reporting forms to the National Ballast
Information Clearinghouse as of August
13, 2004 (69 FR 32864).
On July 14, 2004, the Coast Guard
received a petition for rulemaking
requesting that we take specific
regulatory action to prevent NIS
introductions via NOBOB vessels. In
response, on January 7, 2005, the Coast
Guard published a notice of public
meeting; request for comments, entitled,
‘‘Ballast Water Management for Vessels
Entering the Great Lakes that Declare No
Ballast Onboard’’ (70 FR 1448) asking
the public to assist us in developing
ballast water management practices for
NOBOBs that are effective and
practicable. Additionally on May 9,
2005, we held a public meeting where
we further engaged the public on this
issue. There were 35 people in
attendance including representatives
from: Congressional staff, federal
E:\FR\FM\31AUN1.SGM
31AUN1
51832
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 168 / Wednesday, August 31, 2005 / Notices
agencies, state agencies, international
organizations, the shipping industry,
maritime equipment manufacturers,
non-governmental organizations, and
concerned citizens. From the notice and
the public meeting, we received 25
letters on the issue.
Background and Purpose
Vessels carrying ballast water that
enter the Great Lakes after operating
outside the U.S. Exclusive Economic
Zone (EEZ) are required to comply with
the Great Lakes ballast water
management requirements found in 33
CFR Part 151, Subpart C. Ballast water
means any water and suspended matter
taken on board a vessel to control or
maintain, trim, draught, stability, or
stresses of the vessel, regardless of how
it is carried. NOBOB vessels are those
vessels that have discharged ballast
water in order to carry cargo, and as a
result, have only unpumpable residual
water and sediment remaining in tanks.
A large number of vessels that call on
the Great Lakes are NOBOBs fully
loaded with cargo that consequently
cannot conduct a full mid-ocean
exchange enroute to the Great Lakes.
However, NOBOBs have the potential to
carry NIS in their empty tanks via
residual ballast water and/or
accumulated sediment. Once NOBOBs
enter the Great Lakes, discharge some or
all of their cargo and take on ballast
water, this water mixes with the
residual water and sediment, and if this
mixed ballast water is subsequently
discharged into the Great Lakes, may
provide a mechanism for NIS to enter
the Great Lakes. Therefore, the Coast
Guard is issuing best management
practices for vessels with ballast tanks
with residual ballast water and
sediment. While this policy targets
vessels declaring NOBOB entering the
Great Lakes, the recommended
management practices are applicable to
all vessels that enter the Great Lakes
with empty ballast tanks that may be
filled with ballast water and discharged
within the Great Lakes.
Discussion of Comments
From the notice and the public
meeting, we received 25 letters on the
issue. Most letters contained more than
one comment. These included general
comments as well as specific comments.
We address the general comments first
and then the specific comments.
General Comments
We received 3 comments that support
the Coast Guard as the lead agency to
regulate ballast water discharge. One
commenter further stated that the Coast
Guard should develop a regulatory
VerDate Aug<18>2005
16:33 Aug 30, 2005
Jkt 205001
regime based on the long-term goal of
eliminating NIS from NOBOBs.
The Coast Guard agrees with these
comments and preventing NIS
introductions via NOBOBs for the
interim is the intent of this notice. Once
we establish the ballast water discharge
(BWD) standard and use it to approve
ballast water treatment methods, we
will greatly reduce the number of NIS
introductions via vessels in general,
including NOBOBs.
Five commenters stated that a federal
approach to preventing invasions in the
Great Lakes is needed whereas a Stateby-State piece-meal approach is not.
The Coast Guard agrees that a federal
approach is more amenable than a
patch-work of state NOBOB
management programs, where each state
may have different ballast water
management requirements that could
confuse the shipping industry and not
necessarily prevent NIS introductions.
However, NISA does allow for states to
develop their own NIS prevention
measures.
One commenter stated their opinion
that misinformation is being sent to the
public by ‘‘one or two individuals or
organizations’’ regarding NIS invasions
and NOBOBs.
The Coast Guard notes this comment
without endorsing its validity. We
reviewed and analyzed the National
Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration’s Great Lakes
Environmental Research Laboratory
(NOAA/GLERL) Report and Coast Guard
monitoring data (Coast Guard
unpublished data) and these analyses
show that NOBOB vessels are carrying
hundreds of tons of ballast water. Of the
103 foreign flag ships NOAA/GLERL
boarded from December 2000 to
December 2002, residual water surveyed
ranged from negligible to 200 tons, and
sediment accumulation ranged from
negligible to 100 tons, with sixty
percent of vessels estimated to have less
than 10 tons. The Coast Guard inspected
36 vessels from May 2005 to July 2005
and the average amount of residual
water and sediment per vessel was
estimated at only 41.4 cubic meters.
Also, of the 36 NOBOB vessels we
sampled, approximately 45% of ballast
water tanks were dry. Meaning these
tanks were so dry that we could not get
even a few drops of water needed to
measure salinity.
The NOAA/GLERL NOBOB Project
Report noted the majority of the NIS
introduction risk is associated with
fresh and brackish residual waters due
to compatibility of the organisms native
to these environments and the Great
Lakes. Of the 36 vessels we inspected,
approximately 30% of the tanks
PO 00000
Frm 00086
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
contained residual ballast water with a
salinity of 30 ppt or greater, and only
16% of the tanks with residual ballast
water contained fresh or brackish
residual water.
The Coast Guard received 10
comments stating that we should
require saltwater flushing for vessels
carrying residual ballast water that enter
the Great Lakes.
The Coast Guard agrees with this
comment and through this notice we
strongly recommend that vessels
carrying residual ballast water conduct
saltwater flushing prior to entering the
Great Lakes. A more detailed discussion
of this practice takes place further in
this notice in the Best Management
Practices Section.
Three commenters stated that the
Coast Guard should set BWD standards
for NOBOBs that are developed through
regional collaboration and are based on
federally defined ballast water
management standards and consistent
among all the Great Lakes states and
provinces. Additionally, five
commenters stated that the Coast Guard
should implement the BWD standard for
all vessels.
As stated previously, the Coast Guard
is already developing a BWD standard
for all vessels, which includes NOBOB
vessels. We expect the standard to be
environmentally protective,
scientifically sound, and enforceable so
that when vessels use Coast Guard
approved ballast water treatment
systems, NIS introductions will be
greatly reduced from all vessels
generally, including NOBOBs. The
standard will be used to approve ballast
water treatment systems. However,
NISA allows for ballast water treatment
as an option along with ballast water
exchange, and therefore, those vessels
able to conduct an exchange prior to
entering the Great Lakes will be able to
do so even after the ballast water
discharge standard is issued.
Five commenters asked the Coast
Guard to close the NOBOB loophole;
that is, to change the applicability of the
Great Lakes Ballast Water Management
Program from vessels carrying ballast
water to vessels equipped with ballast
water tanks. One commenter stated that
this change should occur for the
interim, until a ballast water discharge
standard is set.
The Coast Guard disagrees with this
comment. The Coast Guard believes that
developing effective and practicable
ballast water management strategies for
NOBOBs is the best way to address the
risk of NIS introductions by these
vessels. Requiring NOBOB vessels to
comply with current ballast water
management regulations for vessels
E:\FR\FM\31AUN1.SGM
31AUN1
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 168 / Wednesday, August 31, 2005 / Notices
entering the Great Lakes will not
adequately prevent NIS introductions
from NOBOBs since they cannot
complete a mid-ocean ballast water
exchange enroute to the Great Lakes.
The Coast Guard believes that the
separate, interim, management approach
described in this notice is the best way
to address the risk of NIS introductions
from NOBOBs until the BWD standard
is in place.
Eight commenters said that the Coast
Guard should implement ballast water
management requirements for NOBOBs
that provide them with the following
options:
• Conduct open ocean ballast water
exchange, if such practices are found to
be safe, or can be made safe, for NOBOB
vessels;
• Retain their residual ballast water;
or
• Employ an alternative treatment.
The Coast Guard finds implementing
the suggested comments difficult at this
time. NOBOBs cannot conduct midocean exchange because they are
carrying cargo and do not have
sufficient freeboard to safely add sea
water to their ballast tanks sufficient to
complete an exchange. Adding ballast
water to a vessel when it is fully loaded
with cargo can be unsafe to the crew
and to the vessel due to loss of stability
and freeboard. The risk of NIS
introduction from NOBOB vessels
occurs when these vessels, while
discharging cargo in a Great Lakes port,
take on Great Lakes water as ballast
water, and this ballast water mixes with
residual ballast water and sediment and
is subsequently discharged into the
Great Lakes when the vessel loads cargo
destined for ports outside the Great
Lakes. Requiring the vessel to retain
their ballast water or residual would
impair the vessel’s ability to carry cargo
out of the Great Lakes. NOBOB vessels
cannot employ an alternative treatment
without approval by the Coast Guard.
To date, there are no vessels that have
requested approval of alternative
treatment methods.
Two commenters stated that residual
ballast water should be exchanged
whenever possible. One commenter
further elaborated by saying residual
water should be exchanged in a saline
environment of low turbidity at every
opportunity.
The Coast Guard agrees with the
commenters and through this notice of
policy, we will be requesting vessels
with residual ballast water to conduct a
saltwater flush whenever possible, prior
to entering the U.S. EEZ.
One commenter stated that future
ballast water management regulations
from international or national efforts
VerDate Aug<18>2005
16:33 Aug 30, 2005
Jkt 205001
should equally apply to NOBOBs and to
vessels carrying ballast water.
The Coast Guard believes that once
the ballast water discharge standard is
in place, vessel owners will be able to
treat ballast water prior to discharging it
regardless of whether or not they carry
ballast water or declare NOBOB.
Seven commenters stated that for the
remainder of the 2005 shipping season
and/or beyond, NOBOB vessels should
be required to retain their untreated
ballast onboard or barred from entering
the Great Lakes. Further two
commenters stated that retention should
take place when these NOBOB vessels
take on Great Lakes water as ballast
water.
The Coast Guard disagrees with these
comments. It is unreasonable to require
all NOBOBs to retain untreated residual
ballast water or residual ballast water
that has been mixed with Great Lakes
water or prevent vessels carrying cargo
and no ballast from entering the Great
Lakes. The suggested requirements
would severely restrict the movement of
cargo into and out of the Great Lakes.
The Coast Guard believes a risk-based
approach focused on NOBOB vessels
with fresh and/or brackish residual
waters is the best way forward.
Three commenters said that the Coast
Guard should require NOBOB vessels to
have BWM plans.
The Coast Guard agrees and since
September 27, 2004, all vessels entering
and operating in U.S. waters have been
required to have a BWM plan onboard,
including NOBOBs. This plan must
show the specific vessel’s ballast water
management strategy as well as
document those responsible for the
plan’s implementation have been
trained and understand the plan.
One commenter suggested that we
should also look at other vectors for NIS
introductions such as hull fouling, heat
exchangers, and bilge water.
The Coast Guard appreciates this
comment and recognizes that there are
other mechanisms for introductions of
NIS via the vector of commercial
shipping. The Coast Guard is currently
focusing its regulatory efforts on
preventing NIS introductions via ballast
water and specifically from NOBOBs.
Therefore, this comment is beyond the
scope of the original request for
comments.
One commenter suggested that
arrangements be made to involve and
encourage Canadian participation in a
Great Lakes NOBOB rulemaking.
The Coast Guard notes this comment.
Canada has recently announced their
first proposed regulations for vessels
entering the Great Lakes. Also, the U.S.
and Canada are discussing cooperative
PO 00000
Frm 00087
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
51833
approaches to ballast water management
on the Great Lakes, within current
regulatory authority and under the
International Maritime Organization’s
(IMO) Ballast Water Management
Convention of 2004.
Three commenters said that the Coast
Guard should require all oceangoing
ships to clean and remove sediment.
The Coast Guard already requires
vessels equipped with ballast water
tanks that operate in U.S. waters to
regularly clean their ballast water tanks
to remove sediment (33 CFR
151.2035(a)(3)).
One commenter suggested that the
Coast Guard should forward the NOAA/
GLERL NOBOB Report to IMO.
The Coast Guard notes this comment
and is one of several co-sponsors of the
NOAA/GLERL report. We will present a
summary of this report at a future IMO
Marine Environmental Protection
Committee meeting if we have the
opportunity.
One commenter said that the Coast
Guard should use a risk-based approach
for NOBOBs.
The Coast Guard agrees with this
comment. The Best Management
Practices discussed below do use a riskbased approach and are targeted at
eliminating the residual water with the
highest risk of introducing NIS from
fresh and brackish water ecosystems
into the Great Lakes.
One commenter asked the Coast
Guard to develop a system to track and
identify ships that pose the greatest risk.
The Coast Guard disagrees with this
comment. We know from the work
performed by NOAA/GLERL, the
highest risk NOBOB tanks carry fresh or
brackish residual water. Because of the
ways cargo and ballast water are
managed on ships, the risk of NIS
introduction can vary significantly
across individual tanks in a single ship.
In addition, the risk can be dramatically
reduced through the regular use of the
Best Management Practices described
further in this notice. This will result in
a reduction of high-risk NIS
introductions through the elimination of
fresh and brackish residual ballast
water.
Two commenters stated that the Coast
Guard should require cargo be
transferred at the entrance of the Great
Lakes. Further, one commenter said we
should review the option of shutting
down the Saint Lawrence Seaway until
NOBOB management strategies are in
place.
The Coast Guard disagrees with this
comment. We do not have the authority
under NISA to require vessels to lighten
their load, to transfer their cargo to other
modes at the entrance of the Great
E:\FR\FM\31AUN1.SGM
31AUN1
51834
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 168 / Wednesday, August 31, 2005 / Notices
Lakes, or shutdown the St. Lawrence
Seaway. Also, the suggested
requirements would severely restrict the
movement of cargo into and out of the
Great Lakes.
One commenter suggested that the
Coast Guard require ships to have
tamper-proof meters that document
volumes, salinity, time and Global
Positioning System (GPS) locations of
ballast water taken on and discharged
all over the world and submit this data
to the Coast Guard prior to entry into
U.S. waters and monthly while in U.S.
waters.
The Coast Guard disagrees with this
comment. The Coast Guard already
requires ships that enter and/or operate
in U.S. waters to submit their ballast
water reporting forms. These reports
already provide us with the locations
(latitude and longitude) of where ballast
water was taken on and discharged as
well as the dates that these activities
took place. Coast Guard compliance
evaluation activities involve validating
the information provided on these forms
with information in vessel logs without
the need for additional specialized
equipment to be installed on the vessel.
Two commenters asked the Coast
Guard to develop education and
outreach initiatives for the shipping
industry to assist the industry with
complying with BWM regulations.
The Coast Guard agrees and will
provide additional guidance and
training to the shipping industry so they
can be better equipped to comply with
our BWM regulations and policies.
Comments Regarding Research and
Treatment
Five commenters stated that the Coast
Guard should work with vessel owners,
operators and other maritime industry
stakeholders and provide incentives to
continue research and development on
ballast water management technologies,
notably NOBOB vessels. Furthermore,
one commenter stated we should review
and analyze technologies.
The Coast Guard already provides
incentives to ship owners to further the
development of ballast water treatment
technologies through the Shipboard
Technology Evaluation Program (STEP).
This program was established in January
2004, through a Navigation and
Inspection Circular (NVIC 01–04), and
announced in a Notice of Availability
published in the Federal Register on
January 7, 2004 (69 FR 1082).
Information on STEP can be found at:
https://www.uscg.mil/hq/g-m/mso/
step.htm. The Coast Guard also has
ongoing efforts to review the
development of technologies.
VerDate Aug<18>2005
16:33 Aug 30, 2005
Jkt 205001
One commenter recommended the
use of a ‘‘closed-loop’’ ballast water
treatment process of ultraviolet
radiation and filtration to address NIS
introductions via NOBOBs.
The Coast Guard appreciates this
comment and suggests the commenter
work with a ship owner to submit an
application to STEP so that we may
further determine the efficacy and
operational capability of this treatment
system.
Two commenters stated that the Coast
Guard should analyze the use of the
following options to manage NOBOBs:
ferrate, filtration, UV, ozonation,
washdown-pumpout with scavenger
pumps w/caustic soda, and/or chemical
biocides.
The Coast Guard appreciates this
comment and is tracking the
development of these options; however,
the Coast Guard will not require specific
treatment options at this time. Vessels
fitted with these treatment methods
must apply to the Coast Guard for their
approval for use in meeting the ballast
water management regulations. Until a
BWD standard is promulgated, ballast
water management systems on vessels
would be approved on a vessel-byvessel basis. In addition, vessels using
treatment systems must comply with all
state water quality discharge limits for
chemicals.
Seven commenters said that the Coast
Guard’s long-term goal should be zero
discharge of living organisms from
vessels entering the Great Lakes. One
commenter further stated this could be
achieved by such management options
as filtration, ultraviolet radiation, and/or
chemical biocides.
The Coast Guard disagrees that the
long-term goal should be zero discharge
of living organisms in the Great Lakes.
According to our current authority
under NISA, the long term goal is to
prevent NIS introductions into the
waters of the U.S. from ballast water,
and this goal may be achieved without
a zero discharge requirement. Once the
BWD standard is developed, we will
approve those technologies that meet
the standard in an effort to prevent the
introduction of NIS into the Great Lakes.
Two commenters suggested that the
Coast Guard consider shore-side
treatment options especially for a
centralized facility in the Saint
Lawrence Seaway, which seem
reasonable and are cost effective.
Although the Coast Guard appreciates
this comment, the Coast Guard is not
involved in the regulatory or approval
process for land-based ballast water
treatment facilities. Anyone wishing to
establish a ballast water reception
facility that would discharge to waters
PO 00000
Frm 00088
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
of the United States would need to
obtain a National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System (NPDES) permit
under the Clean Water Act. In addition,
all appropriate Federal, State, and local
permits would need to be obtained.
One commenter stated that techniques
to enhance flow-through or empty-refill
exchange of NOBOBs should be the
outcome of the Coast Guard technical
workshop that was held immediately
after the NOBOB public meeting.
The Coast Guard agrees that
techniques to enhance flow-through and
empty-refill exchange for NOBOBs
should be evaluated. Ballast water
exchange and other management
options for NOBOBs were discussed
during the technical workshop.
One commenter said that in cases
where ballast water must be discharged
into the Great Lakes, ships should use
best available treatment technologies to
be installed by 2006 in combination
with mandatory ballast water
management practices.
The Coast Guard notes this comment.
Prior to Coast Guard approval,
alternative treatment technologies must
be reviewed to determine the efficacy
and operational capabilities of the
treatment systems, as well as the need
to address the operational requirements
of placing systems onboard ships.
Alternative ballast water management
practices for vessels must be approved
by the Coast Guard, which is also timeintensive.
Comments Regarding Enforcement and
Compliance
One commenter stated that the Coast
Guard should conduct random
inspections with fines of $5 million and
seizure of each vessel that was not in
compliance.
The Coast Guard disagrees with this
comment. Every vessel entering the
Great Lakes is subject to an inspection
upon entering the Saint Lawrence
Seaway. We conduct ballast water
examinations for vessels carrying ballast
water, and examinations for vessels that
are NOBOBs. The Coast Guard verifies
that the information reported is
accurate, and sampling is carried out to
determine compliance. If vessels are not
in compliance with the ballast water
exchange requirements, vessels are
required to retain their ballast onboard
for their entire voyage in the Great Lakes
or they must go out 200 nautical miles
from land and to water 2000 meters in
depth to conduct ballast water
exchange. Dollar value limits on civil
penalties are provided by NISA and
adjusted for inflation.
Three commenters recommended that
the Coast Guard require strict
E:\FR\FM\31AUN1.SGM
31AUN1
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 168 / Wednesday, August 31, 2005 / Notices
compliance with the current Great Lakes
Ballast Water Management regulations
for NOBOBs, and require retention or
the use of an effective treatment system
prior to discharging ballast water.
Once the Coast Guard establishes a
BWD standard, we will be able to
approve effective ballast water treatment
systems to be used prior to discharge for
those vessels unable to conduct ballast
water exchange, including NOBOB
vessels. Until then, the Coast Guard
believes implementation of the best
management practices is the better
option for NOBOB vessels.
Eight commenters stated that the
Coast Guard should have an
enforcement and compliance program in
place for NOBOBs. One commenter
further stated that this program should
be as stringent as those for ballasted
vessels, including restriction from
entering the Great Lakes.
The Coast Guard disagrees with this
comment. As the NOBOB policy will
ask vessels to conduct saltwater flushing
and other practices to maintain high
salinity residual waters in ballast tanks,
we cannot enforce vessel compliance
with a voluntary program. However, we
will be conducting a monitoring
program to determine the efficacy of this
practice in reducing fresh and brackish
residual water carried by NOBOB
vessels into the Great Lakes.
Best Management Practices for Vessels
Declaring No Ballast Onboard That
Enter the Great Lakes
The masters, owners, operators, or
persons-in-charge of vessels equipped
with ballast water tanks and voyage
plans including transits to ports or
places in the Great Lakes (including the
Hudson River, North of the George
Washington Bridge), should do the
following:
• Conduct mid-ocean ballast water
exchange during ballast-laden voyages
in an area 200 nautical miles from any
shore and in water 2000 meters deep
whenever possible, prior to entering the
U.S. EEZ.
• For vessels unable to conduct midocean ballast water exchange, conduct
saltwater flushing of their empty ballast
water tanks in an area 200 nautical
miles from any shore, whenever
possible. For the purposes of this policy,
saltwater flushing is defined as the
addition of mid-ocean water to empty
ballast water tanks; the mixing of the
flush water with residual water and
sediment through the motion of the
vessel; and the discharge of the mixed
water, such that the resultant residual
water remaining in the tank has as high
a salinity as possible, and preferably is
greater than 30 parts per thousand (ppt).
VerDate Aug<18>2005
16:33 Aug 30, 2005
Jkt 205001
The vessel should take on as much midocean water into each tank as is safe (for
the vessel and crew) in order to conduct
saltwater flushing. The master of the
vessel is responsible for ensuring the
safety of the vessel, crew, and
passengers.
The masters, owners, operators, or
persons-in-charge of vessels equipped
with ballast water tanks, declaring
NOBOB and bound for ports or places
in the Great Lakes (including the
Hudson River, North of the George
Washington Bridge) should take
particular care to conduct saltwater
flushing on the transit to the Great Lakes
so as to eliminate fresh and or brackish
water residuals in ballast tanks.
NOBOB vessels that conduct these
best management practices should
incorporate them into their required
ballast water management plan onboard
their vessels. The requirements for
ballast water management plans are
found in 33 CFR 151.2035(a)(7). Also,
NOBOB vessels are reminded that there
are required ballast water management
practices for vessels equipped with
ballast water tanks that operate in U.S.
waters, regarding avoiding ballasting
operations in certain situations,
sediment removal, and the cleaning of
ballast tanks. These requirements are
found in 33 CFR 151.2035(a).
Monitoring Program
The Coast Guard will monitor NOBOB
vessels engaging in the best
management practices during normal
pre-arrival processing (or when updated
ballast water reporting forms are
obtained) and note the results in the
U.S. Coast Guard’s Marine Safety
Detachment Massena’s Vessel Matrix.
NOBOB vessels that conducted midocean exchange the last time the tanks
contained ballast water should indicate
that they have done so when submitting
their Ballast Water Reporting Form
(OMB Control No. 1625–0069) by filling
out the appropriate information in
Section 4. Ballast Water Management
and in Section 5. Ballast Water History.
NOBOB vessels that conduct saltwater
flushing should indicate that they have
done so in the Ballast Water Reporting
Form in Section 4. Ballast Water
Management, by checking off the
‘‘Underwent Alternative Management’’
box and indicating that the vessel
underwent saltwater flushing in the
‘‘specify alternative method’’ line.
NOBOB vessels that conducted
saltwater flushing should also fill out
Section 5. Ballast Water History.
NOBOB vessels that use a U.S. Coast
Guard approved alternative method
(treatment) to ballast water exchange,
should indicate they have done so in the
PO 00000
Frm 00089
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
51835
Ballast Water Reporting Form in Section
4. Ballast Water Management, by
checking off the ‘‘Underwent
Alternative Management’’ box and
indicating that the vessel underwent the
specific alternative method in the
‘‘specify alternative method’’ line.
NOBOB vessels that use a U.S. Coast
Guard approved alternative method
should also fill out Section 5. Ballast
Water History.
For more information and examples
on how to correctly fill out a ballast
water reporting form, please visit the
following Web site at: https://
invasions.si.edu/nbic/instructions.html.
The Coast Guard will take samples of
residual water from the ballast tanks of
NOBOB vessels in order to determine
the efficacy of this program. If we
determine that this program is not
effective in preventing the introduction
of NIS into the Great Lakes, the Coast
Guard may consider other alternatives.
Environment
In accordance with the National
Environmental Policy Act of 1969
(Section 102(2)(c)), as implemented by
the Council of Environment Quality
regulations (40 CFR parts 1500–1508)
and Coast Guard Policy for Considering
Environmental Impacts (COMDTINST
M16475.1D), the Coast Guard has
prepared a draft Environmental
Assessment (EA) to consider the
environmental impacts of implementing
the best management practices for
NOBOB vessels. The draft EA identifies
and examines those reasonable
alternatives needed to effectively reduce
NIS introductions into the Great Lakes
via NOBOB vessels. The draft EA
analyzed the no action alternative and
one action alternative that could fulfill
the purpose and need of establishing
best management practices for NOBOB
vessels to reduce NIS introductions into
the Great Lakes. Specifically, the draft
EA considered potential effects to the
natural and human environments by
incorporating environmental analyses
previously conducted for establishing
ballast water management regulations
for U.S. waters. These analyses are
available in the docket. Therefore, we
are requesting your comments on
environmental concerns you may have
related to the draft EA. This includes
methodologies for use in the draft EA or
possible sources of data or information
not included in the draft EA. Your
comments will be considered in
preparing a Finding of No Significant
Impact (FONSI) and final PEA.
E:\FR\FM\31AUN1.SGM
31AUN1
51836
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 168 / Wednesday, August 31, 2005 / Notices
Dated: August 19, 2005.
T.H. Gilmour,
Rear Admiral, U.S. Coast Guard, Assistant
Commandant for Marine Safety, Security and
Environmental Protection.
[FR Doc. 05–17426 Filed 8–29–05; 12:21 pm]
BILLING CODE 4910–15–P
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND
SECURITY
Customs and Border Protection
Quarterly IRS Interest Rates Used in
Calculating Interest on Overdue
Accounts and Refunds on Customs
Duties
Customs and Border Protection,
Department of Homeland Security.
ACTION: General notice.
AGENCY:
SUMMARY: This notice advises the public
of the quarterly Internal Revenue
Service interest rates used to calculate
interest on overdue accounts
(underpayments) and refunds
(overpayments) of customs duties. For
the calendar quarter beginning July 1,
2005, the interest rates for overpayments
will be 5 percent for corporations and 6
percent for non-corporations, and the
interest rate for underpayments will be
6 percent. This notice is published for
the convenience of the importing public
and Customs and Border Protection
personnel.
EFFECTIVE DATE: July 1, 2005.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Trong Quan, National Finance Center,
Collections Section, 6026 Lakeside
Boulevard, Indianapolis, Indiana 46278;
telephone (317) 614–4516.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
Pursuant to 19 U.S.C. 1505 and
Treasury Decision 85–93, published in
the Federal Register on May 29, 1985
(50 FR 21832), the interest rate paid on
applicable overpayments or
underpayments of customs duties must
be in accordance with the Internal
Revenue Code rate established under 26
U.S.C. 6621 and 6622. Section 6621 was
amended (at paragraph (a)(1)(B) by the
Internal Revenue Service Restructuring
and Reform Act of 1998, Pub. L. 105–
206, 112 Stat. 685) to provide different
interest rates applicable to
overpayments: one for corporations and
one for non-corporations.
The interest rates are based on the
Federal short-term rate and determined
by the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) on
behalf of the Secretary of the Treasury
Beginning
date
070174
070175
020176
020178
020180
020182
010183
070183
010185
070185
010186
070186
010187
100187
010188
040188
100188
040189
100189
040191
010192
040192
100192
070194
100194
040195
070195
040196
070196
040198
010199
040199
040100
040101
Ending
date
......................................................
......................................................
......................................................
......................................................
......................................................
......................................................
......................................................
......................................................
......................................................
......................................................
......................................................
......................................................
......................................................
......................................................
......................................................
......................................................
......................................................
......................................................
......................................................
......................................................
......................................................
......................................................
......................................................
......................................................
......................................................
......................................................
......................................................
......................................................
......................................................
......................................................
......................................................
......................................................
......................................................
......................................................
VerDate Aug<18>2005
16:33 Aug 30, 2005
Jkt 205001
063075
013176
013178
013180
013182
123182
063083
123184
063085
123185
063086
123186
093087
123187
033188
093088
033189
093089
033191
123191
033192
093092
063094
093094
033195
063095
033196
063096
033198
123198
033199
033100
033101
063001
PO 00000
Under payments
(percent)
......................................................
......................................................
......................................................
......................................................
......................................................
......................................................
......................................................
......................................................
......................................................
......................................................
......................................................
......................................................
......................................................
......................................................
......................................................
......................................................
......................................................
......................................................
......................................................
......................................................
......................................................
......................................................
......................................................
......................................................
......................................................
......................................................
......................................................
......................................................
......................................................
......................................................
......................................................
......................................................
......................................................
......................................................
Frm 00090
Fmt 4703
on a quarterly basis. The rates effective
for a quarter are determined during the
first-month period of the previous
quarter.
In Revenue Ruling 2005–35, the IRS
determined the rates of interest for the
calendar quarter beginning July 1, 2005,
and ending September 30, 2005. The
interest rate paid to the Treasury for
underpayments will be the Federal
short-term rate (3%) plus three
percentage points (3%) for a total of six
percent (6%). For corporate
overpayments, the rate is the Federal
short-term rate (3%) plus two
percentage points (2%) for a total of five
percent (5%). For overpayments made
by non-corporations, the rate is the
Federal short-term rate (3%) plus three
percentage points (3%) for a total of six
percent (6%). These interest rates are
subject to change for the calendar
quarter beginning October 1, 2005, and
ending December 31, 2005.
For the convenience of the importing
public and Customs and Border
Protection personnel the following list
of IRS interest rates used, covering the
period from before July of 1974 to date,
to calculate interest on overdue
accounts and refunds of customs duties,
is published in summary format.
Sfmt 4703
Over payments
(percent)
6
9
7
6
12
20
16
11
13
11
10
9
9
10
11
10
11
12
11
10
9
8
7
8
9
10
9
8
9
8
7
8
9
8
E:\FR\FM\31AUN1.SGM
6
9
7
6
12
20
16
11
13
11
10
9
8
9
10
9
10
11
10
9
8
7
6
7
8
9
8
7
8
7
7
8
9
8
31AUN1
Corporate
overpayments
(Eff. 1–1–99)
(percent)
............................
............................
............................
............................
............................
............................
............................
............................
............................
............................
............................
............................
............................
............................
............................
............................
............................
............................
............................
............................
............................
............................
............................
............................
............................
............................
............................
............................
............................
............................
6
7
8
7
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 70, Number 168 (Wednesday, August 31, 2005)]
[Notices]
[Pages 51831-51836]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 05-17426]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY
Coast Guard
[USCG-2004-19842]
Ballast Water Management for Vessels Entering the Great Lakes
That Declare No Ballast Onboard
AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.
ACTION: Notice of policy; availability of draft environmental
assessment.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: To prevent the introductions of aquatic nonindigenous species
from vessels entering the Great Lakes declaring no ballast onboard
(NOBOB), the Coast Guard establishes best management practices for
residual ballast water and sediment management to be followed by NOBOB
vessels. Coast Guard also requests comments on the draft environmental
assessment prepared for the policy.
DATES: This policy is effective on the date of publication in the
Federal Register. Comments and related material regarding the draft
Environmental Assessment must reach the Docket Management System on or
before September 30, 2005.
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments identified by Coast Guard docket
number USCG-2004-19842 to the Docket management facility at the U.S.
Department of Transportation. To avoid duplication, please use only one
of the following methods: (1) By mail to the Docket Management Facility
(USCG-2004-19842), U.S. Department of Transportation, Room PL-401, 400
Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC 20593-0001. (2) By delivery to Room
PL-401 on the Plaza Level of the Nassif Building, 400 Seventh Street,
SW., Washington DC between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday,
except Federal holidays. The telephone number is (202) 366-9329. (3) By
fax to the Docket Management Facility at (202) 493-2251. (4)
Electronically through the Web site for the Docket Management System at
https://dms.dot.gov. The Docket Management Facility maintains the public
docket for this notice. Comments will become part of this docket and
will be available for inspection or copying in Room PL-401, located on
the Plaza Level of the Nassif Building at the above address between 9
a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except for Federal holidays.
You may also view this docket, including this notice and comments, on
the Internet at https://dms.dot.gov.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For information concerning this
policy, call Mr. Bivan Patnaik, Project Manager, Environmental
Standards Division, U.S. Coast Guard, telephone 202-267-1744 or via e-
mail bpatnaik@comdt.uscg.mil. If you have any questions on viewing or
submitting material to the docket, call Ms. Andrea M. Jenkins, Program
Manager, Docket Operations, Department of Transportation, telephone
202-366-0271.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Regulatory History
The Nonindigenous Aquatic Nuisance Prevention and Control Act of
1990, as reauthorized and amended by the National Invasive Species Act
of 1996, authorizes the Coast Guard to develop guidelines and
regulations to prevent the introduction of nonindigenous species (NIS)
via ballast water discharges. The Coast Guard promulgated regulations
in the Federal Register on June 14, 2004, entitled, ``Penalties for
Non-submission of Ballast Water Management Reports'' (68 FR 32864) and
on July 28, 2004, entitled ``Mandatory Ballast Water Management for
U.S. Waters'' (69 FR 44952). In doing so, the Great Lakes Ballast Water
Management Program that became effective on May 10, 1993 (58 FR 18330),
has remained unchanged, with the exception that all vessels equipped
with ballast water tanks that enter and operate between ports in the
Great Lakes must now submit their ballast water reporting forms to the
National Ballast Information Clearinghouse as of August 13, 2004 (69 FR
32864).
On July 14, 2004, the Coast Guard received a petition for
rulemaking requesting that we take specific regulatory action to
prevent NIS introductions via NOBOB vessels. In response, on January 7,
2005, the Coast Guard published a notice of public meeting; request for
comments, entitled, ``Ballast Water Management for Vessels Entering the
Great Lakes that Declare No Ballast Onboard'' (70 FR 1448) asking the
public to assist us in developing ballast water management practices
for NOBOBs that are effective and practicable. Additionally on May 9,
2005, we held a public meeting where we further engaged the public on
this issue. There were 35 people in attendance including
representatives from: Congressional staff, federal
[[Page 51832]]
agencies, state agencies, international organizations, the shipping
industry, maritime equipment manufacturers, non-governmental
organizations, and concerned citizens. From the notice and the public
meeting, we received 25 letters on the issue.
Background and Purpose
Vessels carrying ballast water that enter the Great Lakes after
operating outside the U.S. Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) are required
to comply with the Great Lakes ballast water management requirements
found in 33 CFR Part 151, Subpart C. Ballast water means any water and
suspended matter taken on board a vessel to control or maintain, trim,
draught, stability, or stresses of the vessel, regardless of how it is
carried. NOBOB vessels are those vessels that have discharged ballast
water in order to carry cargo, and as a result, have only unpumpable
residual water and sediment remaining in tanks. A large number of
vessels that call on the Great Lakes are NOBOBs fully loaded with cargo
that consequently cannot conduct a full mid-ocean exchange enroute to
the Great Lakes. However, NOBOBs have the potential to carry NIS in
their empty tanks via residual ballast water and/or accumulated
sediment. Once NOBOBs enter the Great Lakes, discharge some or all of
their cargo and take on ballast water, this water mixes with the
residual water and sediment, and if this mixed ballast water is
subsequently discharged into the Great Lakes, may provide a mechanism
for NIS to enter the Great Lakes. Therefore, the Coast Guard is issuing
best management practices for vessels with ballast tanks with residual
ballast water and sediment. While this policy targets vessels declaring
NOBOB entering the Great Lakes, the recommended management practices
are applicable to all vessels that enter the Great Lakes with empty
ballast tanks that may be filled with ballast water and discharged
within the Great Lakes.
Discussion of Comments
From the notice and the public meeting, we received 25 letters on
the issue. Most letters contained more than one comment. These included
general comments as well as specific comments. We address the general
comments first and then the specific comments.
General Comments
We received 3 comments that support the Coast Guard as the lead
agency to regulate ballast water discharge. One commenter further
stated that the Coast Guard should develop a regulatory regime based on
the long-term goal of eliminating NIS from NOBOBs.
The Coast Guard agrees with these comments and preventing NIS
introductions via NOBOBs for the interim is the intent of this notice.
Once we establish the ballast water discharge (BWD) standard and use it
to approve ballast water treatment methods, we will greatly reduce the
number of NIS introductions via vessels in general, including NOBOBs.
Five commenters stated that a federal approach to preventing
invasions in the Great Lakes is needed whereas a State-by-State piece-
meal approach is not.
The Coast Guard agrees that a federal approach is more amenable
than a patch-work of state NOBOB management programs, where each state
may have different ballast water management requirements that could
confuse the shipping industry and not necessarily prevent NIS
introductions. However, NISA does allow for states to develop their own
NIS prevention measures.
One commenter stated their opinion that misinformation is being
sent to the public by ``one or two individuals or organizations''
regarding NIS invasions and NOBOBs.
The Coast Guard notes this comment without endorsing its validity.
We reviewed and analyzed the National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration's Great Lakes Environmental Research Laboratory (NOAA/
GLERL) Report and Coast Guard monitoring data (Coast Guard unpublished
data) and these analyses show that NOBOB vessels are carrying hundreds
of tons of ballast water. Of the 103 foreign flag ships NOAA/GLERL
boarded from December 2000 to December 2002, residual water surveyed
ranged from negligible to 200 tons, and sediment accumulation ranged
from negligible to 100 tons, with sixty percent of vessels estimated to
have less than 10 tons. The Coast Guard inspected 36 vessels from May
2005 to July 2005 and the average amount of residual water and sediment
per vessel was estimated at only 41.4 cubic meters. Also, of the 36
NOBOB vessels we sampled, approximately 45% of ballast water tanks were
dry. Meaning these tanks were so dry that we could not get even a few
drops of water needed to measure salinity.
The NOAA/GLERL NOBOB Project Report noted the majority of the NIS
introduction risk is associated with fresh and brackish residual waters
due to compatibility of the organisms native to these environments and
the Great Lakes. Of the 36 vessels we inspected, approximately 30% of
the tanks contained residual ballast water with a salinity of 30 ppt or
greater, and only 16% of the tanks with residual ballast water
contained fresh or brackish residual water.
The Coast Guard received 10 comments stating that we should require
saltwater flushing for vessels carrying residual ballast water that
enter the Great Lakes.
The Coast Guard agrees with this comment and through this notice we
strongly recommend that vessels carrying residual ballast water conduct
saltwater flushing prior to entering the Great Lakes. A more detailed
discussion of this practice takes place further in this notice in the
Best Management Practices Section.
Three commenters stated that the Coast Guard should set BWD
standards for NOBOBs that are developed through regional collaboration
and are based on federally defined ballast water management standards
and consistent among all the Great Lakes states and provinces.
Additionally, five commenters stated that the Coast Guard should
implement the BWD standard for all vessels.
As stated previously, the Coast Guard is already developing a BWD
standard for all vessels, which includes NOBOB vessels. We expect the
standard to be environmentally protective, scientifically sound, and
enforceable so that when vessels use Coast Guard approved ballast water
treatment systems, NIS introductions will be greatly reduced from all
vessels generally, including NOBOBs. The standard will be used to
approve ballast water treatment systems. However, NISA allows for
ballast water treatment as an option along with ballast water exchange,
and therefore, those vessels able to conduct an exchange prior to
entering the Great Lakes will be able to do so even after the ballast
water discharge standard is issued.
Five commenters asked the Coast Guard to close the NOBOB loophole;
that is, to change the applicability of the Great Lakes Ballast Water
Management Program from vessels carrying ballast water to vessels
equipped with ballast water tanks. One commenter stated that this
change should occur for the interim, until a ballast water discharge
standard is set.
The Coast Guard disagrees with this comment. The Coast Guard
believes that developing effective and practicable ballast water
management strategies for NOBOBs is the best way to address the risk of
NIS introductions by these vessels. Requiring NOBOB vessels to comply
with current ballast water management regulations for vessels
[[Page 51833]]
entering the Great Lakes will not adequately prevent NIS introductions
from NOBOBs since they cannot complete a mid-ocean ballast water
exchange enroute to the Great Lakes. The Coast Guard believes that the
separate, interim, management approach described in this notice is the
best way to address the risk of NIS introductions from NOBOBs until the
BWD standard is in place.
Eight commenters said that the Coast Guard should implement ballast
water management requirements for NOBOBs that provide them with the
following options:
Conduct open ocean ballast water exchange, if such
practices are found to be safe, or can be made safe, for NOBOB vessels;
Retain their residual ballast water; or
Employ an alternative treatment.
The Coast Guard finds implementing the suggested comments difficult
at this time. NOBOBs cannot conduct mid-ocean exchange because they are
carrying cargo and do not have sufficient freeboard to safely add sea
water to their ballast tanks sufficient to complete an exchange. Adding
ballast water to a vessel when it is fully loaded with cargo can be
unsafe to the crew and to the vessel due to loss of stability and
freeboard. The risk of NIS introduction from NOBOB vessels occurs when
these vessels, while discharging cargo in a Great Lakes port, take on
Great Lakes water as ballast water, and this ballast water mixes with
residual ballast water and sediment and is subsequently discharged into
the Great Lakes when the vessel loads cargo destined for ports outside
the Great Lakes. Requiring the vessel to retain their ballast water or
residual would impair the vessel's ability to carry cargo out of the
Great Lakes. NOBOB vessels cannot employ an alternative treatment
without approval by the Coast Guard. To date, there are no vessels that
have requested approval of alternative treatment methods.
Two commenters stated that residual ballast water should be
exchanged whenever possible. One commenter further elaborated by saying
residual water should be exchanged in a saline environment of low
turbidity at every opportunity.
The Coast Guard agrees with the commenters and through this notice
of policy, we will be requesting vessels with residual ballast water to
conduct a saltwater flush whenever possible, prior to entering the U.S.
EEZ.
One commenter stated that future ballast water management
regulations from international or national efforts should equally apply
to NOBOBs and to vessels carrying ballast water.
The Coast Guard believes that once the ballast water discharge
standard is in place, vessel owners will be able to treat ballast water
prior to discharging it regardless of whether or not they carry ballast
water or declare NOBOB.
Seven commenters stated that for the remainder of the 2005 shipping
season and/or beyond, NOBOB vessels should be required to retain their
untreated ballast onboard or barred from entering the Great Lakes.
Further two commenters stated that retention should take place when
these NOBOB vessels take on Great Lakes water as ballast water.
The Coast Guard disagrees with these comments. It is unreasonable
to require all NOBOBs to retain untreated residual ballast water or
residual ballast water that has been mixed with Great Lakes water or
prevent vessels carrying cargo and no ballast from entering the Great
Lakes. The suggested requirements would severely restrict the movement
of cargo into and out of the Great Lakes. The Coast Guard believes a
risk-based approach focused on NOBOB vessels with fresh and/or brackish
residual waters is the best way forward.
Three commenters said that the Coast Guard should require NOBOB
vessels to have BWM plans.
The Coast Guard agrees and since September 27, 2004, all vessels
entering and operating in U.S. waters have been required to have a BWM
plan onboard, including NOBOBs. This plan must show the specific
vessel's ballast water management strategy as well as document those
responsible for the plan's implementation have been trained and
understand the plan.
One commenter suggested that we should also look at other vectors
for NIS introductions such as hull fouling, heat exchangers, and bilge
water.
The Coast Guard appreciates this comment and recognizes that there
are other mechanisms for introductions of NIS via the vector of
commercial shipping. The Coast Guard is currently focusing its
regulatory efforts on preventing NIS introductions via ballast water
and specifically from NOBOBs. Therefore, this comment is beyond the
scope of the original request for comments.
One commenter suggested that arrangements be made to involve and
encourage Canadian participation in a Great Lakes NOBOB rulemaking.
The Coast Guard notes this comment. Canada has recently announced
their first proposed regulations for vessels entering the Great Lakes.
Also, the U.S. and Canada are discussing cooperative approaches to
ballast water management on the Great Lakes, within current regulatory
authority and under the International Maritime Organization's (IMO)
Ballast Water Management Convention of 2004.
Three commenters said that the Coast Guard should require all
oceangoing ships to clean and remove sediment.
The Coast Guard already requires vessels equipped with ballast
water tanks that operate in U.S. waters to regularly clean their
ballast water tanks to remove sediment (33 CFR 151.2035(a)(3)).
One commenter suggested that the Coast Guard should forward the
NOAA/GLERL NOBOB Report to IMO.
The Coast Guard notes this comment and is one of several co-
sponsors of the NOAA/GLERL report. We will present a summary of this
report at a future IMO Marine Environmental Protection Committee
meeting if we have the opportunity.
One commenter said that the Coast Guard should use a risk-based
approach for NOBOBs.
The Coast Guard agrees with this comment. The Best Management
Practices discussed below do use a risk-based approach and are targeted
at eliminating the residual water with the highest risk of introducing
NIS from fresh and brackish water ecosystems into the Great Lakes.
One commenter asked the Coast Guard to develop a system to track
and identify ships that pose the greatest risk.
The Coast Guard disagrees with this comment. We know from the work
performed by NOAA/GLERL, the highest risk NOBOB tanks carry fresh or
brackish residual water. Because of the ways cargo and ballast water
are managed on ships, the risk of NIS introduction can vary
significantly across individual tanks in a single ship. In addition,
the risk can be dramatically reduced through the regular use of the
Best Management Practices described further in this notice. This will
result in a reduction of high-risk NIS introductions through the
elimination of fresh and brackish residual ballast water.
Two commenters stated that the Coast Guard should require cargo be
transferred at the entrance of the Great Lakes. Further, one commenter
said we should review the option of shutting down the Saint Lawrence
Seaway until NOBOB management strategies are in place.
The Coast Guard disagrees with this comment. We do not have the
authority under NISA to require vessels to lighten their load, to
transfer their cargo to other modes at the entrance of the Great
[[Page 51834]]
Lakes, or shutdown the St. Lawrence Seaway. Also, the suggested
requirements would severely restrict the movement of cargo into and out
of the Great Lakes.
One commenter suggested that the Coast Guard require ships to have
tamper-proof meters that document volumes, salinity, time and Global
Positioning System (GPS) locations of ballast water taken on and
discharged all over the world and submit this data to the Coast Guard
prior to entry into U.S. waters and monthly while in U.S. waters.
The Coast Guard disagrees with this comment. The Coast Guard
already requires ships that enter and/or operate in U.S. waters to
submit their ballast water reporting forms. These reports already
provide us with the locations (latitude and longitude) of where ballast
water was taken on and discharged as well as the dates that these
activities took place. Coast Guard compliance evaluation activities
involve validating the information provided on these forms with
information in vessel logs without the need for additional specialized
equipment to be installed on the vessel.
Two commenters asked the Coast Guard to develop education and
outreach initiatives for the shipping industry to assist the industry
with complying with BWM regulations.
The Coast Guard agrees and will provide additional guidance and
training to the shipping industry so they can be better equipped to
comply with our BWM regulations and policies.
Comments Regarding Research and Treatment
Five commenters stated that the Coast Guard should work with vessel
owners, operators and other maritime industry stakeholders and provide
incentives to continue research and development on ballast water
management technologies, notably NOBOB vessels. Furthermore, one
commenter stated we should review and analyze technologies.
The Coast Guard already provides incentives to ship owners to
further the development of ballast water treatment technologies through
the Shipboard Technology Evaluation Program (STEP). This program was
established in January 2004, through a Navigation and Inspection
Circular (NVIC 01-04), and announced in a Notice of Availability
published in the Federal Register on January 7, 2004 (69 FR 1082).
Information on STEP can be found at: https://www.uscg.mil/hq/g-m/mso/
step.htm. The Coast Guard also has ongoing efforts to review the
development of technologies.
One commenter recommended the use of a ``closed-loop'' ballast
water treatment process of ultraviolet radiation and filtration to
address NIS introductions via NOBOBs.
The Coast Guard appreciates this comment and suggests the commenter
work with a ship owner to submit an application to STEP so that we may
further determine the efficacy and operational capability of this
treatment system.
Two commenters stated that the Coast Guard should analyze the use
of the following options to manage NOBOBs: ferrate, filtration, UV,
ozonation, washdown-pumpout with scavenger pumps w/caustic soda, and/or
chemical biocides.
The Coast Guard appreciates this comment and is tracking the
development of these options; however, the Coast Guard will not require
specific treatment options at this time. Vessels fitted with these
treatment methods must apply to the Coast Guard for their approval for
use in meeting the ballast water management regulations. Until a BWD
standard is promulgated, ballast water management systems on vessels
would be approved on a vessel-by-vessel basis. In addition, vessels
using treatment systems must comply with all state water quality
discharge limits for chemicals.
Seven commenters said that the Coast Guard's long-term goal should
be zero discharge of living organisms from vessels entering the Great
Lakes. One commenter further stated this could be achieved by such
management options as filtration, ultraviolet radiation, and/or
chemical biocides.
The Coast Guard disagrees that the long-term goal should be zero
discharge of living organisms in the Great Lakes. According to our
current authority under NISA, the long term goal is to prevent NIS
introductions into the waters of the U.S. from ballast water, and this
goal may be achieved without a zero discharge requirement. Once the BWD
standard is developed, we will approve those technologies that meet the
standard in an effort to prevent the introduction of NIS into the Great
Lakes.
Two commenters suggested that the Coast Guard consider shore-side
treatment options especially for a centralized facility in the Saint
Lawrence Seaway, which seem reasonable and are cost effective.
Although the Coast Guard appreciates this comment, the Coast Guard
is not involved in the regulatory or approval process for land-based
ballast water treatment facilities. Anyone wishing to establish a
ballast water reception facility that would discharge to waters of the
United States would need to obtain a National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System (NPDES) permit under the Clean Water Act. In
addition, all appropriate Federal, State, and local permits would need
to be obtained.
One commenter stated that techniques to enhance flow-through or
empty-refill exchange of NOBOBs should be the outcome of the Coast
Guard technical workshop that was held immediately after the NOBOB
public meeting.
The Coast Guard agrees that techniques to enhance flow-through and
empty-refill exchange for NOBOBs should be evaluated. Ballast water
exchange and other management options for NOBOBs were discussed during
the technical workshop.
One commenter said that in cases where ballast water must be
discharged into the Great Lakes, ships should use best available
treatment technologies to be installed by 2006 in combination with
mandatory ballast water management practices.
The Coast Guard notes this comment. Prior to Coast Guard approval,
alternative treatment technologies must be reviewed to determine the
efficacy and operational capabilities of the treatment systems, as well
as the need to address the operational requirements of placing systems
onboard ships. Alternative ballast water management practices for
vessels must be approved by the Coast Guard, which is also time-
intensive.
Comments Regarding Enforcement and Compliance
One commenter stated that the Coast Guard should conduct random
inspections with fines of $5 million and seizure of each vessel that
was not in compliance.
The Coast Guard disagrees with this comment. Every vessel entering
the Great Lakes is subject to an inspection upon entering the Saint
Lawrence Seaway. We conduct ballast water examinations for vessels
carrying ballast water, and examinations for vessels that are NOBOBs.
The Coast Guard verifies that the information reported is accurate, and
sampling is carried out to determine compliance. If vessels are not in
compliance with the ballast water exchange requirements, vessels are
required to retain their ballast onboard for their entire voyage in the
Great Lakes or they must go out 200 nautical miles from land and to
water 2000 meters in depth to conduct ballast water exchange. Dollar
value limits on civil penalties are provided by NISA and adjusted for
inflation.
Three commenters recommended that the Coast Guard require strict
[[Page 51835]]
compliance with the current Great Lakes Ballast Water Management
regulations for NOBOBs, and require retention or the use of an
effective treatment system prior to discharging ballast water.
Once the Coast Guard establishes a BWD standard, we will be able to
approve effective ballast water treatment systems to be used prior to
discharge for those vessels unable to conduct ballast water exchange,
including NOBOB vessels. Until then, the Coast Guard believes
implementation of the best management practices is the better option
for NOBOB vessels.
Eight commenters stated that the Coast Guard should have an
enforcement and compliance program in place for NOBOBs. One commenter
further stated that this program should be as stringent as those for
ballasted vessels, including restriction from entering the Great Lakes.
The Coast Guard disagrees with this comment. As the NOBOB policy
will ask vessels to conduct saltwater flushing and other practices to
maintain high salinity residual waters in ballast tanks, we cannot
enforce vessel compliance with a voluntary program. However, we will be
conducting a monitoring program to determine the efficacy of this
practice in reducing fresh and brackish residual water carried by NOBOB
vessels into the Great Lakes.
Best Management Practices for Vessels Declaring No Ballast Onboard That
Enter the Great Lakes
The masters, owners, operators, or persons-in-charge of vessels
equipped with ballast water tanks and voyage plans including transits
to ports or places in the Great Lakes (including the Hudson River,
North of the George Washington Bridge), should do the following:
Conduct mid-ocean ballast water exchange during ballast-
laden voyages in an area 200 nautical miles from any shore and in water
2000 meters deep whenever possible, prior to entering the U.S. EEZ.
For vessels unable to conduct mid-ocean ballast water
exchange, conduct saltwater flushing of their empty ballast water tanks
in an area 200 nautical miles from any shore, whenever possible. For
the purposes of this policy, saltwater flushing is defined as the
addition of mid-ocean water to empty ballast water tanks; the mixing of
the flush water with residual water and sediment through the motion of
the vessel; and the discharge of the mixed water, such that the
resultant residual water remaining in the tank has as high a salinity
as possible, and preferably is greater than 30 parts per thousand
(ppt). The vessel should take on as much mid-ocean water into each tank
as is safe (for the vessel and crew) in order to conduct saltwater
flushing. The master of the vessel is responsible for ensuring the
safety of the vessel, crew, and passengers.
The masters, owners, operators, or persons-in-charge of vessels
equipped with ballast water tanks, declaring NOBOB and bound for ports
or places in the Great Lakes (including the Hudson River, North of the
George Washington Bridge) should take particular care to conduct
saltwater flushing on the transit to the Great Lakes so as to eliminate
fresh and or brackish water residuals in ballast tanks.
NOBOB vessels that conduct these best management practices should
incorporate them into their required ballast water management plan
onboard their vessels. The requirements for ballast water management
plans are found in 33 CFR 151.2035(a)(7). Also, NOBOB vessels are
reminded that there are required ballast water management practices for
vessels equipped with ballast water tanks that operate in U.S. waters,
regarding avoiding ballasting operations in certain situations,
sediment removal, and the cleaning of ballast tanks. These requirements
are found in 33 CFR 151.2035(a).
Monitoring Program
The Coast Guard will monitor NOBOB vessels engaging in the best
management practices during normal pre-arrival processing (or when
updated ballast water reporting forms are obtained) and note the
results in the U.S. Coast Guard's Marine Safety Detachment Massena's
Vessel Matrix. NOBOB vessels that conducted mid-ocean exchange the last
time the tanks contained ballast water should indicate that they have
done so when submitting their Ballast Water Reporting Form (OMB Control
No. 1625-0069) by filling out the appropriate information in Section 4.
Ballast Water Management and in Section 5. Ballast Water History.
NOBOB vessels that conduct saltwater flushing should indicate that
they have done so in the Ballast Water Reporting Form in Section 4.
Ballast Water Management, by checking off the ``Underwent Alternative
Management'' box and indicating that the vessel underwent saltwater
flushing in the ``specify alternative method'' line. NOBOB vessels that
conducted saltwater flushing should also fill out Section 5. Ballast
Water History.
NOBOB vessels that use a U.S. Coast Guard approved alternative
method (treatment) to ballast water exchange, should indicate they have
done so in the Ballast Water Reporting Form in Section 4. Ballast Water
Management, by checking off the ``Underwent Alternative Management''
box and indicating that the vessel underwent the specific alternative
method in the ``specify alternative method'' line. NOBOB vessels that
use a U.S. Coast Guard approved alternative method should also fill out
Section 5. Ballast Water History.
For more information and examples on how to correctly fill out a
ballast water reporting form, please visit the following Web site at:
https://invasions.si.edu/nbic/instructions.html.
The Coast Guard will take samples of residual water from the
ballast tanks of NOBOB vessels in order to determine the efficacy of
this program. If we determine that this program is not effective in
preventing the introduction of NIS into the Great Lakes, the Coast
Guard may consider other alternatives.
Environment
In accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969
(Section 102(2)(c)), as implemented by the Council of Environment
Quality regulations (40 CFR parts 1500-1508) and Coast Guard Policy for
Considering Environmental Impacts (COMDTINST M16475.1D), the Coast
Guard has prepared a draft Environmental Assessment (EA) to consider
the environmental impacts of implementing the best management practices
for NOBOB vessels. The draft EA identifies and examines those
reasonable alternatives needed to effectively reduce NIS introductions
into the Great Lakes via NOBOB vessels. The draft EA analyzed the no
action alternative and one action alternative that could fulfill the
purpose and need of establishing best management practices for NOBOB
vessels to reduce NIS introductions into the Great Lakes. Specifically,
the draft EA considered potential effects to the natural and human
environments by incorporating environmental analyses previously
conducted for establishing ballast water management regulations for
U.S. waters. These analyses are available in the docket. Therefore, we
are requesting your comments on environmental concerns you may have
related to the draft EA. This includes methodologies for use in the
draft EA or possible sources of data or information not included in the
draft EA. Your comments will be considered in preparing a Finding of No
Significant Impact (FONSI) and final PEA.
[[Page 51836]]
Dated: August 19, 2005.
T.H. Gilmour,
Rear Admiral, U.S. Coast Guard, Assistant Commandant for Marine Safety,
Security and Environmental Protection.
[FR Doc. 05-17426 Filed 8-29-05; 12:21 pm]
BILLING CODE 4910-15-P
