[Federal Register Volume 66, Number 84 (Tuesday, May 1, 2001)]
[Notices]
[Pages 21807-21809]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 01-10837]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Coast Guard

[USCG-2001-8737]


Potential Approaches To Setting Ballast Water Treatment Standards

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DOT.

ACTION: Notice and request for public comments.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: To reduce the potential of introducing nonindigenous species 
(NIS) to the waters of the United States, the Coast Guard seeks 
comments on four approaches to setting standards for Ballast Water 
Treatment and on several specific questions related to setting, 
implementing, and enforcing such standards. NIS can alter the 
fundamental characteristics and processes of ecosystems in which they 
become established, with subsequent adverse impacts to biodiversity, 
the economy, and human health. Therefore, the Coast Guard is currently 
gathering information on four potential approaches to setting ballast 
water treatment (BWT) standards. The Coast Guard, and other relevant 
Federal agencies, will use information obtained from this notice to 
develop a comprehensive program of standards and regulations to protect 
U.S. waters from introductions of NIS due to ballast water discharges 
and other ship-related mechanisms.

DATES: Comments and related material must reach the Docket Management 
Facility on or before July 2, 2001.

ADDRESSES: To make sure your comments and related material are not 
entered more than once in the docket, please submit them by only one of 
the following means:
    (1) By mail to the Docket Management Facility, (USCG-2001-8737) 
U.S. Department of Transportation, room PL-401, 400 Seventh Street SW., 
Washington, DC 20590-0001.
    (2) By hand delivery to room PL-401 on the Plaza level of the 
Nassif Building, 400 Seventh Street SW., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. 
and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The 
telephone number is 202-366-9329.
    (3) By fax to the Docket Management Facility at 202-493-2251.
    (4) Electronically through the Web Site for the Docket Management 
System at http://dms.dot.gov.
    The Docket Management Facility maintains the public docket for this 
notice. Comments and material received from the public will become part 
of this docket and will be available for inspection or copying at room 
PL-401 on the Plaza level of the Nassif Building, 400 Seventh Street 
SW., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, 
except Federal holidays. You may also find this docket on the Internet 
at http://dms.dot.gov.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For questions on this notice, call Dr. 
Richard Everett, Project Manager, Office of Operating and Environmental 
Standards (G-MSO), Coast Guard, telephone 202-267-0214. For questions 
on viewing or submitting material to the docket, call Dorothy Beard, 
Chief, Dockets, Department of Transportation, telephone 202-366-9329.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Coast Guard is in the process of 
developing standards for the treatment of water discharged from ships' 
ballast tanks. One venue for this activity has been the Ballast Water 
and Shipping Committee (BWSC) of the Federal Aquatic Nuisance Species 
Task Force. The members of the BWSC represent Federal, state, industry, 
academic and non-governmental interests. It was originally hoped that 
the BWSC would be able to develop a draft standard, but during the 
committee's deliberations it became clear that this would not be 
possible without additional information. To further the process of 
reaching a standard, the BWSC identified four approaches to setting BWT 
standards and several issues related to such standards that require 
further discussion. As the federal agency with authority to approve 
ballast water treatment technology and practices, and as a member of 
the BWSC, the Coast Guard seeks comments on four potential approaches 
(outlined in this notice) to setting standards for Ballast Water 
Treatment and on several specific questions related to setting, 
implementing, and enforcing such standards.

How May I Comment on the Optional Approaches to Setting BWT 
Standards?

    You may submit comments and related material on the options and 
questions to the Docket Management Facility as indicated previously in 
the ADDRESSES section of this notice. If you submit written comments 
please include--
     Your name and address;
     The docket number for this notice (USCG-2001-8737);
     The specific section of this notice to which each comment 
applies; and
     The reason for each comment.
    We invite you to provide your views on the various options and 
questions presented, possible approaches not

[[Page 21808]]

identified in this publication, the potential impacts of the various 
options (including possible unintended or unanticipated consequences), 
and any supporting or relevant data or information that you would like 
the Coast Guard to consider during the development of standards and an 
associated regulatory program. Please explain your views as clearly as 
possible; describe any assumptions used; and provide copies of data or 
technical information used to support your views.
    You may mail, hand deliver, fax, or electronically submit your 
comments and attachments to the Docket Management Facility, using the 
address or fax number listed in the ADDRESSES section of this notice. 
Please do not submit the same comment or attachment more than once. Do 
not submit any information electronically that you consider 
confidential business information (CBI). You may claim information that 
you submit to the Coast Guard in response to this notice as CBI by 
marking ``CBI'' on any or all of that information. If you mail or hand 
deliver your comments, they must be on 8\1/2\ by 11 inch paper, and the 
quality of the copy should be clear enough for copying and scanning. If 
you mail your comments and would like to know if the Docket Management 
Facility received them, please enclose a stamped, self-addressed 
postcard or envelope. The Coast Guard will consider all comments and 
material received during the comment period.

Why Is the Coast Guard Soliciting Comments on the Optional 
Approaches to Setting BWT Standards?

    The problem of how to reduce the threat of introducing foreign 
organisms to U.S. waters via ballast water discharged from ships is 
complex. A number of factors contribute to the complexity of this 
issue, including: the relative volumes and pumping rates involved in 
ballasting operations; the great variability in voyage durations and 
routes; and the great variability in the physical, chemical, and 
biological characteristics of the ballast water carried by the vessels 
that operate in U.S. waters.
    Under Section 1101 of the Nonindigenous Aquatic Nuisance Prevention 
and Control Act, as amended by the National Invasive Species Act of 
1996 (NISA), Congress directed the Coast Guard to issue regulations and 
guidelines on ballast water management practices to prevent the 
introduction of NIS to U.S. waters via the discharge of foreign water 
from ships' ballast tanks. Under these regulations, mid-ocean ballast 
water exchange (BWE) or environmentally sound alternative BWT methods, 
determined by the U.S. Coast Guard to be as effective as BWE in 
preventing and controlling infestations of aquatic nuisance species, 
are required for the Great Lakes and Hudson River north of the George 
Washington Bridge, and recommended for the remainder of U.S. waters.
    Therefore, a need exists to develop standards for BWT technology 
and a regulatory process by which proposed alternative BWT technologies 
can be evaluated and approved. NISA explicitly directs that such 
alternative technologies must be ``as effective as BWE.'' Currently, 
the actual ``effectiveness'' of BWE in reducing the threat of 
introductions is not well resolved. Furthermore, concerns have been 
voiced that mid-ocean BWE as a practice will be inherently difficult to 
quantify, can not be safely performed on all transoceanic voyages, and 
is not possible during coastal voyages. Because current understanding 
of BWE is limited and a range of opinions exists concerning the basis 
for BWT standards, further discussion is necessary.
    We will use the information and perspectives provided in response 
to this notice to further define the technical and policy issues that 
will be incorporated in the eventual standards and regulations.
    The options and questions in this notice were drafted by the BWSC 
of the Aquatic Nuisance Species Task Force. The ``Summary and 
Recommendations * * *'' developed by the BWSC are available in the 
docket and may be accessed on the Internet at
http://dms.dot.gov.

Proposed Options for Ballast Water Treatment Standards

    Following discussions within the BWSC, the following options (in no 
order of preference) were identified:
    Approaches based on BWE as currently specified by Congress under 
NISA:
    (a) Standard based on the theoretical effectiveness of BWE in 
replacing water [100 percent for empty-refill exchange (ERE) and 95 
percent for flow-through exchange (FTE)].
    (b) Standard set as equivalent to the measured effectiveness of 
BWE. This effectiveness could be expressed as an average across all 
vessel types and all taxa, as a specific profile across taxonomic 
groups within vessel types, or as some intermediate combination of 
these.
    Approaches not related to BWE but used in other standard-setting 
efforts:
    (c) Standard based on the measured capabilities of the best 
available technology. As in (b), this level of treatment could be 
determined as an overall average, or within discrete groupings of 
vessels and taxa.
    (d) Standard based on the biological requirements, as empirically 
estimated or modeled, of receiving systems.

Quantification of the Standard

    Basing a BWT standard on the theoretical effectiveness of BWE in 
replacing the water in ballast tanks allows an immediate determination 
of the quantitative level of treatment: 95 percent reduction in 
abundance, as theoretically possible using the flow-through process to 
exchange three full-tank volumes, and assuming that organisms are 
uniformly distributed and behave in the same fashion as water 
molecules. The other options would require varying amounts of 
additional effort to determine the quantitative degree of treatment.
    For standards based on the measured effectiveness of BWE, the use 
of a coarse average could conceivably be accomplished using existing 
data and the results of a limited number of studies now in progress. 
The more finely resolved approach based on effectiveness profiles 
across taxonomic groups for major types of vessels would require an as 
yet undeveloped data set on BWE effectiveness across major ship classes 
and biotic groups. This approach would require a focused research 
effort to identify the data gaps and conduct the necessary experiments. 
This work would generate an operative percent removal profile for BWE 
in each ship class and characterize effectiveness in terms of major 
taxonomic groupings and life stages (i.e., viruses, bacteria, 
unicellular heterotrophicand autotrophic organisms, and 
macrozooplankton). A hypothetical example of such a profile could be as 
follows: For oil tankers, exchange (as defined operationally by 
regulations) achieves a minimum removal of 85 percent of original 
zooplankton, 75 percent of original phytoplankton, 25 percent of toxic 
dinoflagellate cysts, and 25 percent of original bacteria. Standards 
based on the capabilities of the best available technology will also 
require a significant amount of additional work, as most existing 
systems are still in preliminary phases of development. Significantly, 
for standards based on either BWE or best available technology, 
important decisions will need to be made concerning the specifics of 
standardized testing protocols.

[[Page 21809]]

Questions Related To Setting and Implementing Standards for BWT

    The range of potential options indicates a significant need for 
further discussion about the basis upon which to formulate a standard 
or set of standards for use in evaluating BWT technologies intended to 
reduce the introduction of organisms in ballast water discharges. 
Further, a regulatory program will be required to enforce the eventual 
BWT standard. Selection of a specific option for a standard will 
influence or even determine many aspects of the program. Important 
components of the regulatory program will include (but are not 
restricted to): The criteria to determine the performance of BWT 
technology, the timing and details of phase-in periods and 
grandfathering provisions, the nature of exemptions, and provisions for 
the review and revision of the standard.
    In addition to general views on the approach used to set standards 
for BWT, the Coast Guard is also interested in viewpoints on the 
following specific questions:
    a. Questions related to setting the standard are as follows:
    1. Should a standard be based on BWE, best available technology, or 
the biological capacity of the receiving ecosystem? What are the 
arguments for, or against, each option?
    2. If BWE is the basis for a standard, what criterion should be 
used to quantify effectiveness: the theoretical effectiveness of 
exchange, the water volume exchanged (as estimated with physical/
chemical markers), the effectiveness in removing or killing all or 
specific groups of organisms, or something else; and why?
    3. How specifically should the effectiveness of either BWE or best 
available technology be determined (i.e., for each vessel, vessel 
class, or across all vessels) before setting a standard based on the 
capabilities of these processes?
    4. What are the advantages and disadvantages of considering the 
probability of conducting a safe and effective BWE on every voyage when 
estimating the overall effectiveness of BWE?
    5. What are the advantages and disadvantages of expressing a BWT 
standard in terms of absolute concentrations of organisms versus the 
percent of inactivation or removal of organisms?
    b. Issues related to implementing the standard are as follows:
    1. Should there be different initial standards or regulatory 
requirements for existing and yet-to-be-built vessels, and what might 
be the nature of such differences? Should there be incremental 
refinements (quantitative level or taxonomic breadth) in the standard 
over time, and if so, what should be the period of approvals and the 
timing of revisions?
    2. If best available technology is the basis for standards, how 
should ``best'' and ``available'' be defined?
    3. Should indicators be used to characterize or monitor 
effectiveness, and if so, what indicators should be used? Some possible 
indicators are:
--A single organism type (like dinoflagellate cysts) that serves as a 
lone indicator of effectiveness.
--A limited set of indicators representative of near-coastal 
zooplankton, phytoplankton, and bacteria that provide a profile of 
effectiveness across broad taxonomic groupings.
--Physical surrogates for organisms, such as microspheres, that mimic 
the passive entrainment of organisms in water.
--The percent of reduction in all organisms regardless of type (as 
measured through ATP [Adenosine Triphosphate] reduction, for example), 
providing a blanket estimate of system effectiveness.
--Other methods for characterizing the effectiveness of BWT measures 
that could be alternatives to the above list.

    Dated: January 19, 2001.
R.C. North,
Rear Admiral, U. S. Coast Guard, Assistant Commandant for Marine Safety 
and Environmental Protection.
[FR Doc. 01-10837 Filed 4-30-01; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-15-P