[Federal Register Volume 63, Number 69 (Friday, April 10, 1998)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 17782-17792]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 98-9429]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Coast Guard
33 CFR Part 151
[USCG-98-3423]
RIN 2115-AD98
Implementation of the National Invasive Species Act of 1996
(NISA)
AGENCY: Coast Guard, DOT.
ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: To comply with the National Invasive Species Act of 1996
(NISA), the Coast Guard proposes both regulations and voluntary
guidelines to control the invasion of aquatic nuisance species (ANS).
Ballast water from ships is the largest pathway for the
intercontinental introduction and spread of ANS. This rulemaking would
amend existing regulations for the Great Lakes ecosystem, establish
voluntary ballast water exchange guidelines for all other waters of the
United States, and
[[Page 17783]]
establish mandatory reporting and sampling procedures for nearly all
vessels entering U.S. waters. Under this proposed rule, a self-policing
program would be established where ballast water exchange is initially
voluntary outside of the Great Lakes ecosystem. However, if the rate of
compliance is found to be inadequate, or if vessel operators fail to
submit mandatory ballast water reports to the U.S. Coast Guard, the
voluntary guidelines will become mandatory and will carry civil and
criminal penalties. Also, the requirements of subpart C of 33 CFR part
151, which implements the provisions of NISA, would be rewritten in a
question and answer format and narrative text would be reformatted into
a more user-friendly table to help owners, operators, and others find
out which requirements of subpart C apply to them.
DATES: Comments must reach the Coast Guard on or before June 9, 1998.
Comments sent to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) on
collection of information must reach OMB on or before June 9, 1998.
ADDRESSES: You may mail comments to the Docket Management Facility,
[USCG-98-3423], U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT), room PL-401,
400 Seventh Street SW., Washington DC 20590-0001, or deliver them to
room PL-401, located on the Plaza Level of the Nassif Building at the
same address between 10 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except
Federal holidays. The telephone number is 202-366-9329. You may also E-
mail comments using the Marine Safety and Environmental Protection
Regulations Web Page at http://www.uscg.mil/hq/g-m/gmhome.htm. You must
also mail comments on collection of information to the Office of
Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget,
725 17th Street, NW., Washington, DC 20593, ATTN: Desk Officer, U.S.
Coast Guard.
The Docket Management Facility maintains the public docket for this
rulemaking. Comments, and documents as indicated in this preamble, will
become part of this docket and will be available for inspection or
copying at room PL-401, located on the Plaza Level of the Nassif
Building at the same address between 10 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through
Friday, except Federal holidays. You may electronically access the
public docket on the Internet at http://dms.dot.gov. You can get the
International Maritime Organization publications and documents referred
to in this preamble from the International Maritime Organization,
Publications Section, 4 Albert Embankment, London SE1 7SR, England.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For information on the public docket,
contact Carol Kelley, Coast Guard Dockets Team Leader, or Paulette
Twine, Chief, Documentary Services Division, U.S. Department of
Transportation, telephone 202-366-9329. For information on the notice
of proposed rulemaking provisions, contact Lieutenant Larry Greene,
Project Manager, U.S. Coast Guard Headquarters, Office of Response (G-
MOR), telephone 202-267-0500.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Request for Comments
The Coast Guard encourages you to submit written data, views, or
arguments. If you submit comments, you should include your name and
address, identify this notice [USCG-98-3423] and the specific section
or question in this document to which your comments apply, and give the
reason for each comment. Please submit one copy of all comments and
attachments in an unbound format, no larger than 8\1/2\ by 11 inches,
suitable for copying and electronic filing to the DOT Docket Management
Facility at the address under ADDRESSES. If you want us to acknowledge
receiving your comments, please enclose a stamped, self-addressed
postcard or envelope.
The Coast Guard will consider all comments received during the
comment period. It may change this proposed rule in view of the
comments.
The Coast Guard may schedule a public meeting depending on input
received in response to this notice. You may request a public meeting
by submitting a request to the Marine Safety Council where listed under
ADDRESSES. The request should include the reasons why a meeting would
be beneficial. If the Coast Guard determines that a public meeting
should be held, it will hold the meeting at a time and place announced
by a later notice in the Federal Register.
Background and Purpose
The Problem
Nonindigenous or exotic aquatic nuisance species (ANS) are invading
U.S. waters at a significant and increasing rate, causing serious
environmental impacts, economic losses, and threats to public health.
Although many nonindigenous species are benign, others have displaced
or threatened the existence of native species, devastated commercial
and recreational fish stocks, disrupted nutrient balances, and opened
new pathways for the spread of pathogens and the bioaccumulation of
toxic chemicals.
Invasions of ANS are a form of biological pollution that is
qualitatively different from any other form of pollution because ANS
invaders can never be cleaned up or completely removed from an invaded
ecosystem. Once established, the biological invaders continue to spread
into new areas and cause further harm to native ecosystems. Every
successful invasion constitutes an irretrievable loss to our biological
heritage. The nature and seriousness of the problem is well-documented
by several scientific studies, including two conducted in North
American aquatic ecosystems--the fresh water system of the Great Lakes,
and the salt and brackish water system of San Francisco Bay.
Aquatic nuisance species invasions through ballast water are now
recognized as a serious problem threatening global biological diversity
and human health. Limited control measures similar to these regulations
and guidelines have been adopted in Canada, Australia, New Zealand,
Israel, Chile, the United Kingdom, Germany, Sweden, Brazil, and Japan.
The International Maritime Organization (IMO) Marine Environmental
Protection Committee (MEPC) has issued the following voluntary
guidelines which it recommended be adopted by all maritime nations of
the world:
IMO MEPC Resolution 50(31), adopted at the 31st Session,
on July 1991;
IMO Resolution A.774(18), adopted at the 18th Assembly, on
November 1993;
IMO Assembly Resolution A.868(20), approved at the 20th
Assembly, on November 1997.
According to a recent review of the scientific literature conducted by
the Marine Board of the National Research Council (NRC),--
It has been estimated that in the 1990s ballast water may
transport over 3,000 species of animals and plants a day around the
world * * * and there is evidence that the number of ballast-
mediated introductions is steadily growing. More than 40 species
have appeared in the Great Lakes since 1960; more than 50 have
appeared in San Francisco Bay since 1970.
Other studies indicate that hundreds of ANS have successfully invaded
North America. Some of these invaders which have made the most dramatic
impacts in recent years include the following:
Zebra mussel. Invaded the U.S. in 1986 and is found in 19
States and 2 Canadian Provinces; expected to cost
[[Page 17784]]
the Great Lakes region alone over $500 million by the year 2000.
Asian clam. Filters the entire volume of northern San
Francisco Bay more that once per day, severely disrupting the food
chain.
Aquatic plant--hydrilla. Clogs waterways in 14 States and
costs Florida alone over $14 million per year to control.
Aquatic plant--purple loosestrife. Has invaded 40 states
where it displaces native vegetation and disrupts ecosystems.
These are only a few of the ANS that have recently invaded North
America. It is also important to consider the wide range of invading
microscopic organisms, which include viruses, bacteria, protozoan
(single-celled organisms), and fungi, which may be pathogenic or
parasitic to humans or fish. In 1991, the presence of the human
pathogenic strain of cholera was documented in ballast tanks of ships
in Mobile Bay, AL, threatening the food supply and forcing a temporary
closure of local shellfish beds. A 1995 study conducted for the
Canadian Coast Guard on ships entering the Great Lakes confirmed the
presence of a wide range of invertebrates and bacteria. Most of the
bacterial species detected can cause illness in aquatic life or humans
under certain conditions.
Ships discharge ballast in the United States from all over the
world, including many ports with untreated sewage and other
contaminants. The NRC review concluded that the whole range of ANS
invasions--
[M]ay have critical economic, industrial, human health, and
ecological consequences. Thus, there are compelling arguments for
reducing the role of ships as a vector of nonindigenous species,
particularly through ballast water.
U.S. Legislation
In response to this increasing threat to the United States,
Congress enacted the Nonindigenous Aquatic Nuisance Prevention and
Control Act of 1990 (NANPCA), Pub. L. 101-646 of November 29, 1990, and
the National Invasive Species Act of 1996 (NISA), Pub. L. 104-332 of
October 26, 1996, both of which are codified at 16 U.S.C. 4701-4751.
Under the authority of NANPCA, the U.S. Coast Guard promulgated
mandatory regulations for ballast water entering the Great Lakes in
1993. (58 FR 18334 of April 8, 1993 and 33 CFR part 151, subpart C.)
These regulations were expanded in 1994 to include portions of the
Hudson River, which connects to the Great Lakes ecosystem. (59 FR 31959
of June 21, 1994). Generally, the Great Lakes and Hudson River
regulations in 33 CFR part 151 required vessels entering the Great
Lakes ecosystem with ballast water from outside the U.S. 200 nautical
mile exclusive economic zone (EEZ) to exchange that ballast in the open
ocean at a depth of at least 2,000 meters (6,560 feet) before crossing
into the U.S. EEZ and discharging ballast. The regulations also allow
approval of alternative methods of ballast water management. To date,
the Coast Guard has yet to receive a formal request for approval of any
alternative method. To strengthen the existing authority for the Great
Lakes and Hudson River regulatory regime, NISA makes minor amendments
to NANPCA, and it directs the Coast Guard to develop a new nation-wide
program modeled on the existing Great Lakes and Hudson River regime. To
comply with this mandate, the Coast Guard must, among other things,
develop and issue voluntary ballast water exchange guidelines
applicable to all vessels entering U.S. waters, and establish reporting
and sampling procedures to monitor compliance with the voluntary
guidelines.
It is critical that the Coast Guard receives information from
vessels on their ballast water management practices in order to
determine if the voluntary guidelines need to become mandatory
regulations. In the absence of mandatory reporting requirements, the
Coast Guard would be forced to assume that all reports that are not
received correspond to vessels that failed to follow the voluntary
guidelines. This would artificially bias the data collected and make
mandatory regulations much more likely in the future. By requiring
vessel reporting, the Coast Guard will attempt to gather the most
accurate information possible so as not to unfairly burden the industry
with additional regulations if voluntary guidelines will suffice.
Consequently, the Coast Guard has interpreted NISA as mandating the
reporting requirements proposed with this rulemaking.
To fulfill the original mandate of NANPCA, the Coast Guard is also
making revisions to the mandatory Great Lakes and Hudson River regime
based on the 4 years of experience with it, as well as continuing
scientific study. The major changes to the existing standards are--
Clarification of the ``open ocean exchange'' requirement,
and revision of the depth requirement from more than 2,000 meters
(6,560 feet) to more than 500 meters (1,640 feet); and
Modification of the standard for compliance with the
exchange requirement. Previously stated in terms of the indicator of 30
parts per thousand salinity, now a performance standard of 90 percent
exchange with open ocean water by volume is proposed.
To encourage development of improvements in methods of exchanging or
treating ballast water, the Coast Guard is also setting a consistent
benchmark standard of 90 percent exchange or kill, as a basis for
evaluating and comparing alternate methods. These methods must also be
environmentally sound.
Discussion of Proposed Rule
Overview
The Coast Guard proposes to amend its pollution regulations to
implement the requirements of NISA. Specifically, subpart C of 33 CFR
part 151 would be revised to incorporate the new requirements. These
regulations would mandate reporting and recordkeeping so the Coast
Guard can determine the level of participation in the voluntary ballast
water exchange program. The mandatory ballast water management
regulations in the Great Lakes and Hudson River remain mostly
unchanged, but will be revised to reflect a more appropriate
performance standard for compliance, based on operational experience
and scientific study during the first 4 years. We propose two major
additions to the current regulations.
First, a voluntary ballast water management program is added for
all vessels entering U.S. waters from outside of the EEZ (other than
those bound for the Great Lakes or Hudson River). This voluntary
program would ask the masters of all vessels with ballast tanks to
perform complete ballast water exchange at sea (outside the EEZ) prior
to entering U.S. waters.
The second addition would be a mandatory reporting requirement for
all vessels with ballast tanks entering U.S. waters from outside of the
EEZ, if their voyage included a port or place (e.g., foreign harbor or
nearshore waters) beyond the EEZ. For the purpose of this rule, this
would also include transits between Alaska or Hawaii and any other port
in the United States. These reports would be used to monitor compliance
with the voluntary program and to collect other information that must
be provided to Congress on a regular basis.
If the rate of compliance is found to be inadequate, or if vessel
operators fail to submit mandatory ballast water reports to the Coast
Guard, the voluntary guidelines will become mandatory and will carry
civil and criminal penalties (16 U.S.C. 4711).
[[Page 17785]]
Performance Standard for Compliance
The central issue, for both the mandatory reporting requirements
and the voluntary guidelines, is the performance standard. How complete
must an exchange or other treatment method be in order to be considered
reasonably effective and environmentally sound? It is important to
clearly explain the logic of the performance standard. In doing so, the
Coast Guard hopes the marine industry will participate in the voluntary
nationwide regime and the development of improved ballast water
management systems. We also expect that industry will continue to
comply with the Great Lakes and Hudson River regime. A complete or 100
percent removal of the biologically dangerous water is the goal
because--
We cannot predict the level of concentration of particular
organisms sufficient to constitute an invasion threat; and
Any successful invasion is irreversible.
However, because existing ballast tank and piping systems in the
worldwide shipping fleet were not designed to deal with this need, the
economic costs of requiring complete retrofitting of those systems
makes a 100 percent standard unrealistic at this time. With future
development of alternative methods and improvement in ship designs, a
standard of 100 percent removal or kill should be our long-term goal.
The Coast Guard has sought, since the development of this new
regulatory regime in 1993, to set a standard which encourages vessel
operators to conduct as near to a 100 percent exchange as is practical
and safe, while not penalizing them for the current limitations in
ballast tank and piping system designs. The two currently feasible
methods of conducting an exchange are--
An empty/refill exchange. The tank or a pair of tanks are
pumped down to the point where the pumps lose suction, and then the
tank is pumped back up to the original levels; or
A flow-through exchange. New water is pumped in a full
tank while the old water is pumped or pushed out through another
opening.
Through either method, almost all vessels should be able to obtain
at least a 95 percent exchange of water volume. In the case of an
empty/refill exchange, the pumps should be run until losing suction. At
that point, depending on the specific vessel size and design there may
be anywhere between ten to a few hundred metric tons of un-pumpable
slop in the bottom of the tanks or trapped in internal structure for
the whole vessel. Typical ballast tank capacities for the whole vessel
vary in the range of a few thousand to forty thousand metric tons.
Clearly, a reasonable effort can remove more than 95 percent of the
original water. (Refilling tanks containing 100 metric tons of slop
with 10,000 metric tons of ballast would result in an exchange ratio of
99 percent.). Where the total amount of reballasting is limited because
of ship loading or design, or where there is an unusual amount of
unpumpable slop due to peculiar tank configurations (after and peak
tanks or other tanks with irregular configurations), a high level of
exchange should still be feasible by simply repeating the procedure
once or twice. In the case of a flow-through exchange, it is clear that
more than one times the original water volume will be required,
especially when the flow-through is accomplished from the bottom of the
tank (via the normal ballast system) and out the top of the tank (via
vent pipes or hatch covers). However, both actual experiments conducted
on a typical ocean-going vessel by the Australian Quarantine and
Inspection Service, and computer simulations conducted by the Petrobras
Research Center in Brazil, indicate that it is feasible to obtain an 89
to 95 percent exchange with the use of three times the total volume of
the tank. Again, ships, tanks, and ballasting systems will vary in
design. Some vessels will need to use more than three times the volume
of the water to accomplish 90 percent exchange, and some vessels may
not be able to conduct that level of exchange because of safety
limitations. But 90 percent is a reasonable standard to set, which is
of minimal cost to the industry in that it does not require any changes
to current ship designs, subject to the clearly stated exemption for
vessels that cannot safely conduct an exchange.
The existing regulations for the Great Lakes and Hudson River
require an exchange which results in a discharge of water with a
minimum salinity level of 30 parts per thousand (ppt). However,
salinity is only one indicator that a reasonably effective exchange has
been conducted, and is not reliable as the sole indicator. If a vessel
begins with completely fresh water from the mouth of a river in another
continent and exchanges that water with open ocean water from the
central part of the North Atlantic, at about 36 ppt salinity, a
resulting level of 30 ppt indicates an exchange by volume of only 83.33
percent of the water. However, the water typically does not begin as
fresh water, and the 30 ppt level in fact may relate to a much lower
level of exchange. This has been clearly demonstrated by a recent
review of salinity readings on vessels reporting exchanges that were
tested by the Coast Guard upon entry into the Great Lakes during the
1997 navigation season. The data show that salinity cannot be relied
upon alone as an indicator of an effective exchange, and it should only
be one factor in providing evidence that a performance standard has
been met. It is also clear from these data that the lower cut-off
point, at which it is fair to presume that an effective exchange has
not occurred, should be raised to at least the level of 32.4 ppt. This
would indicate a nominal exchange of 90 percent, if the tank began with
completely fresh water, and it is a level that is already obtained in
the great majority of the tanks in which a good exchange has been
conducted. In other words, meeting the nominal indicator of a 90
percent exchange only requires improving the exchange on the worst of
the poorly exchanged tanks. The need for this minimal raising of the
nominal level of exchange is reinforced by a recent scientific study of
ballast tanks on ships entering the Great Lakes, which indicates that a
large variety of live organisms are continuing to enter the Great
Lakes. When framing an appropriate enforcement policy for vessels which
are able to document the reasons for a good faith difficulty in meeting
the new standard, the Coast Guard will take into consideration the fact
that the salinity level has been raised slightly from the old
regulatory salinity standard.
Finally, the Coast Guard hopes that a clear statement of a 90
percent removal or kill standard will encourage the development of
improvements in exchange and alternative ballast water treatment
systems in the near future. Up to this point, there has been no clear
benchmark for comparing the leading alternatives set out in the NRC
Marine Board Report discussed previously, which include--
Improvement of the current exchange mechanisms;
Filtering;
Heat; and
Biocides.
Although a ``90 percent solution'' is most emphatically not the final
goal of this regulatory program, it may be a useful goal by which to
prompt the development of some short-term interim measures that are
needed. To that end, the Coast Guard encourages owners and operators to
experiment with alternative ballast water management methods (which
have been approved by the Commandant, U.S. Coast Guard) and
[[Page 17786]]
will consider that emerging technologies require some time to fully
develop when framing appropriate enforcement policies.
``Plain English'' Revision of Subpart C
The Coast Guard would also rewrite subpart C to make the
requirements of NISA clearer and easier to understand. Each provision
or section would be written as a question that you, as a typical reader
of these regulations, might ask about the rule. This question is then
followed by an answer that tells you what is required. For example, you
might ask, ``what are the mandatory ballast water management
requirements?'' This question, now posed in Sec. 152.1508, is followed
by the answer, which is a description of the specific water management
practices that the master must follow to comply with subpart C.
In addition to the question and answer format, the Coast Guard
would reformat the current and proposed text of Sec. 151.1502. The
Coast Guard proposes to replace the text with a table that is more
user-friendly, and would help owners, operators, and others who use
subpart C determine which requirements apply to them.
Clear, more readable regulations are essential for the success of
our government's reinvention initiative. We encourage your comments on
this new way of writing regulations.
Regulatory Evaluation
This proposed rule is not a significant regulatory action under
section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866 and does not require an
assessment of potential costs and benefits under section 6(a)(3) of
that Order. It has not been reviewed by the Office of Management and
Budget under that Order. It is not significant under the regulatory
policies and procedures of the Department of Transportation (DOT) (44
FR 11040; February 26, 1979). The proposed rule would not have an
annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more. It would not
adversely affect the economy, a sector of the economy, productivity,
competition, jobs, the environment, public health or safety, or State,
local or tribal governments or communities, and it would not initiate a
substantial new regulatory program for the Coast Guard. A draft
Regulatory Evaluation under paragraph 10e of the regulatory policies
and procedures of DOT is available in the docket for inspection or
copying where indicated under ADDRESSES. A summary of the Evaluation
follows:
Summary of Costs
Mandatory paperwork requirements would generate all of the costs
associated with this proposed rule. The Coast Guard proposes to use
this information to--
Ensure that vessels have complied with mandatory ballast
water management regulations, where applicable, prior to allowing
vessels to enter U.S. ports; and
Assess the effectiveness of the voluntary guidelines in
this proposed rule.
Coast Guard Headquarters staff and researchers from private and other
government agencies would conduct the assessment for vessels (with
ballast tanks) entering U.S. waters after operating outside the EEZ.
The Coast Guard will report this information to Congress on a regular
basis as required by the National Invasive Species Act of 1996 (NISA).
Based on typical pay (including overtime) for a third mate on a modern
U.S. merchant vessel and administrative costs of up to $9, $35 was
calculated as the cost per report ($81,840/year/2,080 hours/year x 40
minutes + $9). The Coast Guard used figures from the U.S. Coast Guard
Marine Safety Management System (MSMS) to determine that 10,305 vessel
transits were subject to this proposed rule (including the Great Lakes)
with a cost of $35 per vessel arrival ($35 x 10,305 = $360,675) for a
total annual cost of $360,675. However, vessels operating on the Great
Lakes already file reports, so they would incur no additional cost
(even though they are included in the total industry-cost figure).
Owners or operators would not be required to install new equipment on
the vessel to comply with either the mandatory requirements on the
Great Lakes or Hudson River, or the voluntary exchange requirements in
this proposed rule. This proposed rule requires only minor changes in
operational procedures that are not expected to incur new costs. Costs
to the Federal Government will come from reviewing and reporting
ballast water management record information. To collect, collate, and
file this information to the responsible research center will cost the
Coast Guard about $5,000 annually.
Summary of Benefits
This proposed rule, which provides for reporting and recordkeeping
on ballast water exchanges, is the next step in an ongoing effort to
prevent non-indigenous species from being introduced into U.S. waters.
Ultimately, this effort is expected to provide significant benefit to
the U.S. economy, environment, and public health. For example, the
fishing industry, the general public, and the marine environment would
benefit from protecting native fish and shellfish from certain invading
species. According to the U.S. Congress Office of Technology
Assessment, the economic impact on the United States from introductions
of non-indigenous species has exceeded several billion dollars
through--
Efforts to prevent and reduce further infestation;
Repairs of damage to various infrastructures; and
Lost revenues.
The Aquatic Nuisance Species Task Force found the nationwide potential
costs averted from non-indigenous species invasions could exceed $30
billion (1997 dollars) over the next 5 years. However, as international
maritime trade continues to expand, the economic impact of non-
indigenous species invasions may result in more extensive and costly
long-term control efforts, including cost associated with improving
ballast water management.
Small Entities
Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601-612), the Coast
Guard considers whether this proposed rulemaking, if adopted, will have
a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small
entities. ``Small entities'' include small businesses, not-for-profit
organizations that are independently owned and operated and are not
dominant in their fields, and governmental jurisdictions with
populations of less than 50,000. This proposed rule applies to any
vessel with ballast tanks, which operates on the waters beyond the
Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ), during any part of its voyage, and then
enters the waters of the United States (except those vessels that are
expressly exempted in this proposed rule). However, data records
indicate that no small businesses have been identified that are
involved in U.S. trade and arriving from outside the Exclusive Economic
Zone (EEZ). Therefore, the Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b)
that this proposed rule, if adopted, will not have a significant
economic impact on small entities. If, however, you think that your
business or organization qualifies as a small entity and that this
proposed rule will have a significant economic impact on your business
or organization, please submit a comment (see ADDRESSES) explaining why
you think it qualifies and in what way and to what degree this proposed
rule will economically affect it. This proposed rule might economically
affect recreational vessels
[[Page 17787]]
with ballast tanks. We encourage owners and operators of these vessels
to comment on this proposed rule.
Assistance for Small Entities
In accordance with section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory
Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), the Coast Guard
wants to assist small entities in understanding this proposed rule so
that they can better evaluate its effects on them and participate in
the rulemaking process. If your small business or organization is
affected by this rule and you have questions concerning its provisions
or options for compliance, please contact Lieutenant Larry Greene,
Project Manager, Office of Response (G-MOR), at 202-267-0500.
Collection of Information
This proposed rule provides for a collection of information under
the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520). As defined
in 5 CFR 1320.3(c), ``collection of information'' includes reporting,
recordkeeping, monitoring, posting, labeling, and other, similar
actions. The title and description of the information collections, a
description of the respondents, and an estimate of the total annual
burden follow. Included in the estimate is the time for reviewing
instructions, searching existing sources of data, gathering and
maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing the
collection.
Title: Implementation of the National Invasive Species Act of 1996
(NISA).
Summary of Collection of Information: This proposed rule contains
collection-of-information requirements in the following section:
Sec. 151.1514.
Need for Information: This proposed rule would require owners or
operators of each vessel with ballast water tanks, who enter the United
States after operating outside the EEZ, to provide to the U.S. Coast
Guard information regarding ballast water management practices.
Proposed Use of Information: The proposed use of this information
is to ensure that the mandatory ballast water management regulations
have been complied with prior to allowing the vessel to enter U.S.
ports, and to assess the effectiveness of the voluntary guidelines. The
information will be used by the Coast Guard Headquarters staff and
researchers from both private and other governmental agencies to assess
the effectiveness of voluntary ballast water management guidelines for
vessels with ballast tanks which enter U.S. waters after operating
outside the EEZ. The information will be provided to Congress on a
regular basis as required by NISA.
Description of the Respondents: A vessel owner or operator who
enters the United States after operating outside the EEZ.
Number of Respondents: 10,305 vessel entries.
Frequency of Response: Whenever a vessel with ballast tanks enters
the United States after operating outside the EEZ.
Burden of Response: 40 minutes (0.67 hours) per respondent.
Estimated Total Annual Burden: 6,904 hours.
As required by section 3507(d) of the Paperwork Reduction Act of
1995, the Coast Guard has submitted a copy of this proposed rule to the
Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for its review of the collection
of information.
The Coast Guard solicits public comment on the proposed collection
of information to (1) evaluate whether the information is necessary for
the proper performance of the functions of the Coast Guard, including
whether the information would have practical utility; (2) evaluate the
accuracy of the Coast Guard's estimate of the burden of the collection,
including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (3)
enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be
collected; and (4) minimize the burden of the collection on those who
are to respond, as by allowing the submittal of responses by electronic
means or the use of other forms of information technology.
If you are submitting comments on the collection of information,
you should submit your comments both to OMB and to the Coast Guard
where indicated under ADDRESSES by the date under DATES.
No one is required to respond to a collection of information unless
it displays a currently valid OMB control number. Before the
requirements for this collection of information become effective, the
Coast Guard will publish notice in the Federal Register of OMB's
decision to approve, modify, or disapprove the collection.
Federalism
The Coast Guard has analyzed this proposed rule under the
principles and criteria contained in Executive Order 12612 and has
determined that this proposed rule does not have sufficient federalism
implications to warrant the preparation of a Federalism Assessment.
Environment
The Coast Guard considered the environmental impact of this
proposed rule and concluded that preparation of an Environmental Impact
Statement is not necessary. An Environmental Assessment and draft
Finding of No Significant Impact are available in the docket for
inspection or copying where indicated under ADDRESSES.
The Coast Guard is establishing ballast water exchange guidelines
for all vessels with ballast water tanks entering U.S. waters, as well
as mandatory reporting for monitoring participation levels. If
participation levels in this program are lacking, the National Invasive
Species Act of 1996 (NISA) requires the Secretary of Transportation to
mandate the ballast water exchange guidelines. Once reported, the
information will be used to develop and maintain a ballast water
information clearinghouse, which will monitor the effectiveness of the
program and identify future needs for better protecting domestic waters
from the introduction of invasive species.
The effectiveness of this recommended alternative substantiates the
baseline for creating compliance in incremental stages. The solution to
this problem is long-term and the most promising technology to resolve
the ANS issue is in the foreseeable future. Therefore, the proposed
regulations to implement provisions of NISA concerning ballast water
control, when using voluntary guidelines for ballast water exchange as
the control method, would not have a significant impact on the
environment.
List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 151
Administrative practice and procedure, Oil Pollution, Penalties,
Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Water pollution control.
For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard proposes
to amend 33 CFR part 151 as follows:
PART 151--VESSELS CARRYING OIL, NOXIOUS LIQUID SUBSTANCES, GARBAGE,
MUNICIPAL OR COMMERCIAL WASTE, AND BALLAST WATER
1. Revise subpart C, consisting of Secs. 151.1500 through 151.1516,
to read as follows:
Subpart C--Ballast Water Management for Control of Nonindigenous
Species
Sec.
151.1500 What is the purpose of this subpart?
151.1502 What vessels does this subpart apply to?
[[Page 17788]]
151.1504 What definitions apply to this subpart?
151.1506 Why must I meet the requirements of the regulations in
this subpart and what are the penalty provisions?
151.1508 What are the mandatory ballast water management
requirements?
151.1510 Is the master still responsible for the safety of the
vessel?
151.1512 When must the master employ ballast water management
alternatives?
151.1514 What are the mandatory reporting and recordkeeping
requirements?
151.1516 What are the voluntary ballast water management
guidelines?
151.1518 Are there methods to monitor compliance with this subpart?
Appendix to Subpart C of Part 151--Guidelines for Filling Out Ballast
Water Reporting Form
Authority: 16 U.S.C. 4711; 49 CFR 1.46.
Subpart C--Ballast Water Management for Control of Nonindigenous
Species
Sec. 151.1500 What is the purpose of this subpart?
This subpart implements the provisions of the Nonindigenous Aquatic
Nuisance Prevention and Control Act of 1990 (16 U.S.C. 4701-4751), as
amended by the National Invasive Species Act of 1996 (NISA).
Sec. 151.1502 What vessels does this subpart apply to?
(a) This subpart applies to all vessels (except those specifically
exempted below) equipped with ballast water tanks which operate in both
waters outside the Exclusive Economic Zone of the United States (the
EEZ, within 200 nautical miles of the baseline) and waters of the
United States (within 12 miles of the baseline). Vessels bound for
different parts of the United States are subject to different
requirements:
(1) Vessels with ballast tanks which enter the Great Lakes or the
Hudson River north of the George Washington Bridge after operating
beyond the EEZ are subject to the mandatory ballast water management
requirements in Sec. 151.1508 and the reporting requirements in
Sec. 151.1514, regardless of other ports of call during their voyage to
the Great Lakes or Hudson River. Vessels not conducting a ballast water
exchange after operating beyond the EEZ and prior to entering U.S. or
Canadian waters, that--
(i) Take on new ballast in a North American port, and
(ii) Plan to discharge ballast water in the Great Lakes or the
Hudson River north of the George Washington Bridge, must--
(A) Conduct an exchange outside the EEZ in accordance with
Sec. 151.1508, or
(B) Obtain permission from the Captain of the Port (COTP) for use
of an alternate exchange zone.
(2) Vessels with ballast tanks which enter other waters of the
United States (within 12 miles from the baseline) after operating
beyond the EEZ during any part of a voyage are requested but not
required to comply with the voluntary ballast water management
guidelines in Sec. 151.1516, and are still required to comply with the
mandatory reporting requirements in Sec. 151.1514 whether or not they
comply with the voluntary management guidelines.
(b) Two categories of vessels are exempt from this subpart:
(1) Crude oil tankers engaged in the coastwise trade, unless
paragraph (c) of this section applies. Coastwise trade is conducted
exclusively between U.S. ports.
(2) Passenger vessels equipped with treatment systems designed to
kill aquatic organisms in their ballast water, and which operate those
systems as designed, unless the Coast Guard determines that such
treatment systems are less effective than ballast water exchange.
(c) Crude oil tankers engaged in the export of Alaskan North Slope
Crude Oil may be subject to separate requirements to conduct an
exchange of ballast water in 2000 meters of depth under the terms and
conditions stated in Presidential Memorandum of April 28, 1996 (61 FR
19507). These vessels are also subject to the mandatory reporting
requirements in Sec. 151.1514 under the authority of NISA.
(d) Use the table 151.1502 as a guide to which sections of this
regulation apply to you:
Table 151.1502.--Who Does This Subpart Apply To?
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
And if during any part
If you operate a-- And you-- of your voyage you Then you are subject to--
enter--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Vessel with ballast water tanks. Operate on waters beyond The Snell Lock at The mandatory ballast
See Sec. 151.1502(a)(1). the EEZ (within 200 Massena, NY, or the water management
miles of the baseline). Hudson River north of requirements in Sec.
the George Washington 151.1508 and the
Bridge, regardless of mandatory reporting
other port calls. requirements in Sec.
151.1514.
Vessel with ballast water tanks. Operate on waters beyond U.S. waters (within 12 The voluntary ballast
See Sec. 151.1502(a)(2). the EEZ (within 200 miles of the baseline) water management
miles of the baseline). other than those listed guidelines in Sec.
above. 151.1516 and the
mandatory reporting
requirements in Sec.
151.1514.
Crude oil tanker. See Sec. Engage in coastwise trade N/A..................... No requirements.
151.1502(b)(1). (trade exclusively
between U.S. ports).
Crude oil tanker. See Sec. Engage in the export of U.S. waters, for the The requirements of
151.1502(c). Alaskan North Slope purpose of exporting Presidential Memorandum
crude oil. Alaska North Slope of April 28, 1996 and
crude oil. the mandatory reporting
requirements in Sec.
151.1514.
Passenger vessel. See Sec. Use an operating N/A..................... No requirements.
151.1502(b)(2). treatment system
designed to kill aquatic
organisms in ballast
water which has not been
determined to be
ineffective.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sec. 151.1504 What definitions apply to this subpart?
As used in this subpart--
Ballast tank means any tank or hold on a vessel used for carrying
ballast, whether or not designed for that purpose.
Ballast water means any water used to manipulate the draft, trim,
or stability of a vessel, regardless of how it is carried
[[Page 17789]]
on the vessel, including any slop or sediment remaining from such
water.
Captain of the Port (COTP) means the Coast Guard officer designated
as the COTP, or a person designated by that officer, for the COTP Zone
covering the first U.S. port of destination. These COTP Zones are
listed in 33 CFR part 3. For any vessel bound for the Great Lakes,
regardless of the first commercial port of call inside the Great Lakes,
the COTP is COTP Buffalo.
Commandant means the Commandant of the U.S. Coast Guard or an
authorized representative.
Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) means the area established by
Presidential Proclamation No. 5030 of March 10, 1983, which extends
from the baseline of the territorial sea of the United States seaward
200 nautical miles, and the equivalent zone of Canada.
Environmentally sound method means methods, efforts, actions, or
programs, either to prevent introductions or to control infestations of
aquatic nuisance species, that minimize adverse impacts on non-target
organisms and ecosystems and that emphasize integrated pest management
techniques and non-chemical measures. With respect to alternative
ballast water treatment methods, chemical treatment of the ballast
water will not be considered environmentally sound if it results, or is
likely to result, in the release of harmful concentrations of chemicals
or by-products into the environment outside the ballast tank.
Great Lakes means Lake Ontario, Lake Erie, Lake Huron (including
Lake Saint Clair), Lake Michigan, Lake Superior, and the connecting
channels (Saint Mary's River, Saint Clair River, Detroit River, Niagara
River, and Saint Lawrence River to the Canadian border), and includes
all other bodies of water within the drainage basin of such lakes and
connecting channels.
Open ocean means waters of the Atlantic, Pacific, Arctic,
Antarctic, or Indian Oceans which are beyond the EEZ of the United
States (beyond 200 nautical miles), beyond 200 miles from the baseline
of other countries, and with a depth of more than 500 meters. It does
not include the Gulf of Mexico, the Baltic Sea, the Mediterranean Sea,
or other Seas.
Port means a terminal or group of terminals or any place or
facility that has been designated as a port by the COTP.
Reasonably complete ballast water exchange means an exchange which
results in replacement of at least 90 percent of the original water by
volume with water from the open ocean or other waters approved in
advance by the COTP.
Reasonably effective ballast water management system means a system
determined by the Coast Guard to be effective in removing or killing at
least 90 percent of the organisms in the ballast water, in terms of
both individual organisms and range of species, and which is otherwise
practical, safe, and environmentally acceptable.
Voyage means any transit by a vessel destined for any United States
port from a port or place outside of the EEZ, including intermediate
stops at a port or place within the EEZ. For the purpose of this rule,
a transit by a vessel from a port in Hawaii or Alaska to any other
United States port, or vice versa, is also considered a voyage.
Waters of the United States means the navigable waters and
territorial sea of the United States, including the territorial sea
extended to 12 nautical miles from the baseline established by
Presidential Proclamation No. 5928 of December 27, 1988.
Sec. 151.1506 Why must I meet the requirements of the regulations in
this subpart and what are the penalty provisions?
(a) To operate unrestricted. A vessel subject to the requirements
of this subpart may not operate in the Great Lakes or the Hudson River,
north of the George Washington Bridge, unless the master of the vessel
has certified, in accordance with Sec. 151.1514, that the requirements
of this subpart have been met.
(b) To maintain the required clearance. If you are the owner or
operator of a vessel not in compliance with this subpart, a COTP may
request the District Director of Customs to withhold or revoke the
clearance required by 46 U.S.C. app. 91.
(c) To avoid civil penalties. Failure to comply with these
regulations may result in civil penalties up to $25,000 per day.
(d) To avoid criminal prosecution. Any person who knowingly
violates these regulations is guilty of a class C felony.
Sec. 151.1508 What are the mandatory ballast water management
requirements?
(a) The master of each vessel subject to this subpart must employ
one of the following ballast water management practices:
(1) Carry out a reasonably complete ballast water exchange in the
open ocean or in other waters approved in advance by the COTP, prior to
entering the Snell Lock, at Massena, NY, or the Hudson River north of
the George Washington Bridge. A level of salinity below 32.4 parts per
thousand is a basis for presuming that a reasonably complete exchange
has not occurred. However, a salinity of 32.4 parts per thousand or
above is not a basis for presuming that a reasonably complete exchange
has occurred unless supported by other evidence that the original water
in the tank was fresh. The existence or non-existence of a reasonably
complete exchange may be evidenced by any logical combination of
salinity, other chemical or biological indicators, the voyage and
ballasting history of the vessel, and shipboard records.
(2) Retain the ballast water on board the vessel. If this method of
ballast water management is employed, the COTP may seal any tank or
hold containing ballast water for the duration of the voyage upon the
Great Lakes, or the Hudson River north of the George Washington Bridge.
(3) Use a reasonably effective ballast water management system
which is consistent with an environmentally sound method, and which has
been approved by the Commandant prior to the voyage. Requests for
approval of alternative ballast water management methods must be
submitted to the Commandant (G-M), U.S. Coast Guard Headquarters, 2100
Second Street SW., Washington, DC 20593-0001.
(b) The master of a vessel subject to this section may not
separately discharge sediment from tanks or holds containing ballast
water, unless it is disposed of ashore in accordance with local
requirements.
(c) Nothing in this subpart authorizes the discharge of oil or
noxious liquid substances (NLS) in a manner prohibited by United States
or international laws or regulations. Ballast water carried in any tank
containing a residue of oil, NLS, or any other pollutant must be
discharged in accordance with the applicable regulations. Nothing in
this subpart affects or supersedes any requirement or prohibition
pertaining to the discharge of ballast water into the waters of the
United States under the Federal Water Pollution Control Act (33 U.S.C.
1251 to 1376).
Sec. 151.1510 Is the master still responsible for the safety of the
vessel?
Nothing in this subpart relieves the master of the responsibility
for ensuring the safety and stability of the vessel or the safety of
the crew and passengers, or any other responsibility.
[[Page 17790]]
Sec. 151.1512 When must the master employ ballast water management
alternatives?
The master of any vessel subject to this subpart who, due to
weather, vessel architectural design, equipment failure, or other
extraordinary conditions, is unable to effect a ballast water exchange
before entering the EEZ, must--
(a) Employ another method of ballast water management listed in
Sec. 151.1508; or
(b) Request permission from the COTP to exchange the vessel's
ballast water within an area agreed to by the COTP. The master must
discharge the vessel's ballast water within that designated area after
permission is granted by the COTP.
Sec. 151.1514 What are the mandatory reporting and recordkeeping
requirements?
(a) The master of each vessel subject to this subpart must provide
the following information to the Commandant, U.S. Coast Guard or the
COTP as described in paragraph (b) of this section (Note: A sample form
and guidelines for completing it appear in the Appendix to this
subpart):
(1) The vessel's: Name, type, International Maritime Organization
(IMO) number, owner, gross tonnage, call sign, flag, agent, current
location, date of arrival, last port and country of call, and next port
and country of call.
(2) The total amount of ballast water being carried, and total
ballast water capacity (with units).
(3) Whether or not there is a ballast water management plan on
board and in use on the vessel, the total number of ballast tanks and
holds on board, total number of tanks and holds in ballast, total
number of tanks and holds that were exchanged, and the total number of
tanks and holds that were not exchanged.
(4) The original date(s) of uptake, location(s), volumes(s) and
temperature(s) of any ballast water (taken on prior to an exchange)
that will be discharged into U.S. waters.
(5) The dates(s), location(s), volumes(s), thoroughness (percentage
exchanged) of any ballast water exchanged, and the combined sea height
(sea+swell) in meters (m) at the time of the ballast water exchange.
(6) The proposed date, location, volume, and salinity of any
ballast water to be discharged into the territorial waters of the
United States.
(7) The location for disposal of sediment carried upon entry into
the territorial waters of the United States, if sediment is to be
discharged.
(8) If ballast water was not exchanged, state other control
action(s) taken. If none, state reason why not.
(9) Whether or not there is a copy of the IMO voluntary ballast
water management guidelines on board (IMO Resolution A.868(20), adopted
November 1997).
(10) The master's or responsible officer's printed name, title, and
signature attesting to the accuracy of the information provided and
certifying compliance with the requirements of this subpart.
(b) This information must be transmitted to the Coast Guard as
follows:
(1) The master of a vessel bound for the Great Lakes must telefax
the information to the COTP Buffalo at (315) 764-3283 before passing
through the Cabot Strait at the entrance to the Gulf of Saint Lawrence.
(2) The master of a vessel bound for the Hudson River north of the
George Washington Bridge must telefax the information to the COTP New
York at (718) 354-4249 before entering the waters of the United States
(12 miles from the baseline).
(3) Masters of other vessels subject to this section must telefax
the information to the Commandant, U.S. Coast Guard at (301) 261-4319,
or mail to U.S. Coast Guard, c/o Smithsonian, PO Box 28, Edgewater, MD
21037-0028, before departing the first port of call in the United
States.
(c) The master or owner of the vessel must retain a copy of the
information on the vessel for 2 years.
Sec. 151.1516 What are the voluntary ballast water management
guidelines?
Masters of all vessels with ballast tanks, except those
specifically exempted under Sec. 151.1502(b), are requested to adopt
and carry out the ballast water management practices described in this
subpart when operating on the waters beyond the EEZ during any part of
a voyage.
Sec. 151.1518 Are there methods to monitor compliance with this
subpart?
The COTP may take samples of ballast water and sediment, examine
documents, and make other appropriate inquires to assess the compliance
with, and the effectiveness of, this subpart.
Appendix to Subpart C of Part 151--Guidelines for Filling out Ballast
Water Reporting Form
Please fill out in English and make every effort to PRINT legibly!
SECTION 1. VESSEL INFORMATION--
Vessel Name: Print the name of the vessel clearly.
Owner: The registered owner(s) or operator(s) of the vessel.
Flag: Country under which the ship normally operates, write out,
no abbreviations please!
Last Port and Country: Last port and country at which the vessel
called before arrival in the current port, no abbreviations please!
Next Port and Country: Next port and country at which the vessel
will call, upon departure from current port, no abbreviations
please!
Type: List specific vessel type, write out or use the following
abbreviations: bulk (bc), roro (rr), container (cs), tanker (ts),
passenger (pa), oil/bulk ore (ob), general cargo (gc). Write out any
additional vessel types.
GT: Gross tonnage.
Arrival Date: Arrival date to current port (i.e., the first U.S.
port of arrival after entering the U.S. exclusive economic zone
(EEZ)). Please use European date format (DDMMYY).
IMO Number: Identification number of the vessel used by the
International Maritime Organization.
Call Sign: Official call sign.
Agent: Agent used for this voyage.
Arrival Port: This is the current port (i.e., the first U.S.
port of arrival). No abbreviations please!
SECTION 2. BALLAST WATER--(Note: Segregated ballast water =
clean, non-oily ballast).
Total Ballast Water On Board: Total segregated ballast water
upon arrival to current port, with units.
Total Ballast Water Capacity: Total volume of all ballastable,
tanks or holds, with units!
SECTION 3. BALLAST WATER TANKS--Count all tanks and holds
separately (e.g., port and starboard tanks should be counted
separately).
Total No. of Tanks On Board: Count all tanks and holds that can
carry segregated ballast water.
Ballast Water Management Plan On Board? Do you have a ballast
water management plan specific to your vessel on board? Check yes or
no.
Management Plan Implemented? Do you follow the above management
plan? Check yes or no.
No. of Tanks in Ballast: Number of segregated ballast water
tanks and holds with ballast at the onset of the voyage to the
current port. If you have no ballast water on board, go to section
5.
No. of Tanks Exchanged: This refers only to tanks and holds with
ballast at the onset of the voyage to the current port.
No. of Tanks Not Exchanged: This refers only to tanks and holds
with ballast at the onset of the voyage to the current port.
SECTION 4. BALLAST WATER HISTORY--BW SOURCE
Please list all tanks and holds that you have discharged or plan
to discharge in U.S. waters (carefully write out, or use codes
listed below table). Follow each tank across the page listing all
source(s), exchange events, and/or discharge events separately. If
the ballast water history is identical (i.e. same source, exchange,
and discharge dates and locations), like tanks can be combined
(example: wing tank 1 with wing tank 2 both with water from Belgium,
exchanged Oct. 3, mid-ocean--can be combined. See first line of the
table in the sample form). Please use an additional page if you need
it, being careful to include ship name, date, and IMO number at the
top.
[[Page 17791]]
Date: Date of ballast water uptake. Use European format
(DDMMYY).
Port or Latitude/Longitude: Location of ballast water uptake, no
abbreviations for ports!
Volume: Volume of ballast water uptake, with units.
Temperature: Water temperature at time of ballast water uptake,
in degrees Centigrade, with units.
BW EXCHANGE Indicate Exchange Method: By circling empty/refill
or flow through.
Date: Date of ballast water exchange. Use European format
(DDMMYY).
Endpoint or Latitude/Longitude: Location of ballast water
exchange. If it occurred over an extended distance, list the end
point latitude and longitude.
Volume: Volume of ballast water exchanged, with units.
Percentage Exchanged: Percentage of ballast water exchanged.
Calculate this by dividing the number of units of water exchanged by
the original volume of ballast water in the tank. If necessary,
estimate based on pump rate. (NOTE: For effective flow through
exchange, this value should be at least 300%.)
Sea Height (m): Document the sea height in meters at the time of
the ballast water exchange (Note: this is the combined height of the
wind-seas, and swell, and does not refer to depth).
BW DISCHARGE
Date: Date of ballast water discharge. Use European format
(DDMMYY).
Port or latitude/longitude: Location of ballast water discharge,
no abbreviations for ports.
Volume: Volume of ballast water discharged, with units.
Salinity: Document salinity of ballast water at the time of
discharge, with units (i.e., specific gravity (sg) or parts per
thousand (ppt)).
If exchanges were not conducted, state other control actions(s)
taken: If exchanges were not made on all tanks and holds to be
discharged in U.S. waters, what other actions were taken? (i.e.,
transfer of water to a land based holding facility or other approved
treatment).
If none, state reason why not: List specific reasons why ballast
water exchange was not done. This applies to all tanks and holds
being discharged in U.S. waters.
SECTION 5--IMO BALLAST WATER GUIDELINES ON BOARD? Check yes or
no.
Responsible officers name and title (printed) and signature:
e.g., the first mate, Captain, or Chief Engineer must print their
name and title and sign the form.
THIS INFORMATION MUST BE TRANSMITTED TO THE U.S. COAST GUARD AS
FOLLOWS:
(1) The master of a vessel bound for the Great Lakes must
telefax the information to the:
COTP Buffalo at (315) 764-3283
Before passing through the Cabot Strait at the entrance to the
Gulf of Saint Lawrence.
(2) The master of a vessel bound for the Hudson River, north of
the George Washington Bridge must telefax the information to the:
COTP New York at (718) 354-4249
Before entering the waters of the United States (12 miles from
the baseline).
(3) Masters of other vessels subject to this section must
telefax the information to the:
Commandant, U.S. Coast Guard at (301) 261-4319 or mail to: U.S.
Coast Guard, c/o Smithsonian, P.O. Box 28, Edgewater, MD 21037-0028
before departing the first port of call in the United States.
An agency may not conduct or sponsor and a person is not
required to respond to a collection of information unless it
displays a valid OMB control number.
The Coast Guard estimates that the average burden for this
report is 40 minutes. You may submit any comments concerning the
accuracy of this burden estimate or any suggestions for reducing the
burden to: Commandant (G-MOR), U.S. Coast Guard, Washington, DC
20593-0001 or Office of Management and Budget, Paperwork Reduction
Project (2115-0598), Washington, DC 20503.
BILLING CODE 4910-15-P
[[Page 17792]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP10AP98.000
Dated: April 6, 1998.
R.C. North,
Rear Admiral, U.S. Coast Guard, Assistant Commandant for Marine Safety
and Environmental Protection.
[FR Doc. 98-9429 Filed 4-09-98; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-15-C