Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 84 / Tuesday, May 1, 2001 / Notices 21807

RETENTION AND DISPOSAL:

These records will be maintained

until they become inactive, at which

time they will be retired or destroyed in

accordance with published records

schedules of the Department of State

and as approved by the

NationalArchives and Records

Administration. More specific

information may be obtained by writing

to the Director; Office of IRM Programs

and Services; SA–2; Department of

State; 515 22nd Street, NW;

Washington, DC 20522–6001.

SYSTEM MANAGER AND ADDRESS:

Project Officer for WMEAT; Bureau of

Verification and Compliance;

Department of State; 2201 C Street, NW;

Washington, DC 20520.

NOTIFICATION PROCEDURE:

Individuals wanting to request

information about themselves and

having reason to believe that the Bureau

of Verification and Compliance might

have records pertaining to them should

write to the Director; Office of

IRMPrograms and Services; SA–2;

Department of State; 515 22ndStreet,

NW; Washington, DC 20522–6001. The

individual must specify that he/she

wishes the ‘‘World Military

Expenditures and Arms Transfers’’

Mailing List to be checked. At a

minimum, the individual should

include: name; date and place of birth;

current mailing address and zip code;

signature and preferably his/her social

security number.

RECORD ACCESS AND AMENDMENT PROCEDURES:

Individuals who wish to gain access

to or amend records pertaining to

themselves should write to the Director,

Office of IRM Programs and Services

(address above).

RECORD SOURCE CATEGORIES:

These records contain information

obtained primarily from the individual

who is the subject of these records.

SYSTEMS EXEMPTED FROM CERTAIN PROVISIONS

OF THE ACT:

None.

Dated: April 23, 2001.

Patrick F. Kennedy,

Assistant Secretary for the Bureau of

Administration, Department of State.

[FR Doc. 01–10831 Filed 4–30–01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4710–24–P

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

21808 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 84 / Tuesday, May 1, 2001 / Notices

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 81⁄2 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, selfaddressed 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 flowthrough process to exchange three fulltank 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.

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