Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 84 / Tuesday, May 1, 2001 / Notices 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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Coast Guard

[USCG–2001–9526]

Chemical Transportation Advisory

Committee

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DOT.

ACTION: Notice of meeting.

SUMMARY: The Hazardous Substances

Response Standards Subcommittee of

the Chemical Transportation Advisory

Committee (CTAC) will meet to review

the draft document for national marine

emergency chemical response guidance.

This document addresses safety

protocols for personnel, training

requirements, and equipment specifics.

It also categorizes response teams based

on their ability to bring equipment to

the scene of a hazardous substance

incident. As a result of this meeting, and

subsequent meetings as deemed

necessary by the Chairman, this

Subcommittee will develop

recommendations for a national

standard that will provide direction to

the chemical response industry. This

meeting will be open to the public.

DATES: The Subcommittee will meet on

Thursday, May 17, 2001, from 8:30 a.m.

to 5 p.m. and on Friday, May 18, 2001,

from 8:30 a.m. to 12 p.m. This meeting

may close early if all business is

finished. Written material and requests

to make oral presentations should reach

the Coast Guard on or before May 15,

2001. Requests to have a copy of your

material distributed to each member of

the Subcommittee should reach the

Coast Guard on or before May 15, 2001.

ADDRESSES: The Subcommittee will

meet at the Marathon Ashland

Headquarters, 5500 San Felipe St.,

Houston, Texas. Send written material

and requests to make oral presentations

to Lieutenant Susan Klein, Coast Guard

Technical Representative for the

Subcommittee, Commandant (G–MOR–

2), U.S. Coast Guard Headquarters, 2100

Second Street SW, Washington, DC

20593–0001.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Lieutenant Susan Klein, Coast Guard

Technical Representative for the

Subcommittee, telephone 202–267–

0417, fax 202–267–4065.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Notice of

this meeting is given under the Federal

Advisory Committee Act, 5 U.S.C. App.

2.

Agenda of Meeting

The agenda of the CTAC

Subcommittee on Hazardous Substance

Response Standards includes the

following:

(1) Introduction of Subcommittee

members and attendees.

(2) Brief overview of Subcommittee

tasking and desired outcome.

(3) Review of current status of draft

document.

(4) Open discussion of further

document improvements.

(5) Discussion of final product format

and plan for future work.

Procedural

The meeting is open to the public.

Please note that the meeting may close

early if all business is finished. All

attendees at the meeting are encouraged

to fully review the Subcommittee’s task

statement prior to the meeting. Copies of

the Subcommittee’s task statement can

be obtained from Lieutenant Susan

Klein, telephone 202–267–0417, fax

202–267–4065. It is also available from

the CTAC Internet Website at:

www.uscg.mil/hq/g-m/advisory/ctac. At

21810 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 84 / Tuesday, May 1, 2001 / Notices

the discretion of the Subcommittee

Chair, members of the public may make

oral presentations during the meeting. If

you would like to make an oral

presentation at the meeting, please

notify the Coast Guard Technical

Representative to the Subcommittee and

submit written material on or before

May 15, 2001. If you would like a copy

of your material distributed to each

member of the Subcommittee in

advance of a meeting, please submit 25

copies to the Coast Guard Technical

Representative to the Subcommittee no

later than May 15, 2001.

Information on Services for Individuals

with Disabilities

For information on facilities or

services for individuals with

disabilities, or to request special

assistance at the meeting, contact the

Coast Guard Technical Representative to

the Subcommittee as soon as possible.

Dated: April 25, 2001.

Howard L. Hime,

Acting Director of Standards, Marine Safety

and Environmental Protection.

[FR Doc. 01–10836 Filed 4–30–01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910–15–P

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

Notice Before Waiver With Respect to

Land at Manassas Regional Airport,

Manassas, VA

AGENCY: Federal Aviation

Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of intent of waiver with

respect to land.

SUMMARY: The FAA is publishing notice

of proposed release of 12.27 acres of

excess land at the Manassas Regional

Airport; Manassas, Virginia. There are

no impacts to the Airport and the land

is not needed for airport development as

shown on the Airport Layout Plan. The

excess surplus property is located

beyond the Runway Protection Zone for

Runway 16L and appropriate

restrictions will encumber the released

property to ensure compatible land use.

DATES: Comments must be received on

or before May 31, 2001.

ADDRESSES: Comments on this

application may be mailed or delivered

in triplicate to the FAA at the following

address: Terry J. Page, Manager, FAA

Washington Airports District Office,

23723 Air Freight Lane, Suite 210,

Dulles, VA 20166.

In addition, one copy of any

comments submitted to the FAA must

be mailed or delivered to Mr. Juan E.

Rivera, Airport Director, Manassas

Regional Airport, at the following

address; Mr. Juan E. Rivera, Airport

Director, P.O. Box 560, Manassas

Regional Airport, Manassas, Virginia

20108.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr.

Terry Page, Manager, Washington

Airports District Office, 23723 Air

Freight Lane, Suite 210, Dulles, VA

20166; telephone (703) 661–1354, fax

(703) 661–1370, email

Terry.Page@faa.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On April

5, 2000, new authorizing legislation

became effective. That bill, the Wendell

H. Ford Aviation investment and

Reform Act for the 21st Century, Public

Law 10–181 (Apr. 5, 2000; 114 Stat. 61)

(AIR 21) requires that a 30-day public

notice must be provided before the

Secretary may waive any condition

imposed on an interest in surplus

property.

Issued in Chantilly, Virginia on April 23,

2001.

Terry J. Page,

Manager, Washington Airports District Office,

Eastern Region.

[FR Doc. 01–10843 Filed 4–30–01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910–13–M

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

Noise Exposure Map Notice; Receipt of

Noise Compatibility Program and

Request for Review, Orlando

International Airport, Orlando, FL

AGENCY: Federal Aviation

Administration, DOT.

ACTION: Notice.

SUMMARY: The Federal Aviation

Administration (FAA) announces its

determination that the noise exposure

maps submitted by the Greater Orlando

Aviation Authority for Orlando

International Airport under the

provisions of Title I of the Aviation

Safety and Noise Abatement Act of 1979

(Pub. L. 96–193) and 14 CFR part 150

are in compliance with applicable

requirements. The FAA also announces

that it is reviewing a proposed noise

compatibility program that was

submitted for Orlando International

Airport under part 150 in conjunction

with the noise exposure maps, and that

this program will be approved or

disapproved on or before October 22,

2001.

EFFECTIVE DATE: The effective date of the

FAA’s determination on the noise

exposure maps and of the start of its

review of the associated noise

compatibility program is April 23, 2001.

The public comment period ends June

22, 2001.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr.

John W. Reynolds, Jr., Federal Aviation

Administration, Orlando Airports

District Office, 5950 Hazeltine National

Dr., Suite 400, Orlando, Florida 32822,

(407) 812–6331, Extension 16.

Comments on the proposed noise

compatibility program should also be

submitted to the above office.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This

notice announces that the FAA finds

that the noise exposure maps submitted

for Orlando International Airport are in

compliance with applicable

requirements of part 150, effective April

23, 2001. Further, FAA is reviewing a

proposed noise compatibility program

for that airport which will be approved

or disapproved on or before October 22,

2001. This notice also announces the

availability of this program for public

review and comment.

Under section 103 of Title I of the

Aviation Safety and Noise Abatement

Act of 1979 (hereinafter referred as ‘‘the

Act’’), an airport operator may submit to

the FAA noise exposure maps which

meet applicable regulations and which

depict noncompatible land uses as of

the date of submission of such maps, a

description of projected aircraft

operations, and the ways in which such

operations will affect such maps. The

Act requires such maps to be developed

in consultation with interested and

affected parties in the local community,

government agencies, and persons using

the airport.

An airport operator who has

submitted noise exposure maps that are

found by FAA to be in compliance with

the requirements of Federal Aviation

Regulations (FAR) part 150,

promulgated pursuant to Title I of the

Act, may submit a noise compatibility

program for FAA approval which sets

forth the measures the operator has

taken or proposes for the reduction of

existing noncompatible uses and for the

prevention of the introduction of

additional noncompatible uses.

The Greater Orlando Aviation

Authority submitted to the FAA on

April 3, 2001 noise exposure maps,

descriptions and other documentation

which were produced during the

Orlando International Airport FAR part

150 Study, Noise Exposure Maps and

Compatibility Plan conducted between

July 7, 1997 and March 30, 2001. It was

requested that the FAA review this

material as the noise exposure maps, as

described in section 103(a)(1) of the Act,

and that the noise mitigation measures,