[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