Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 99 / Tuesday, May 22, 2001 / Notices 28213

The TCC 50 meeting will be held at

IMO Headquarters on 21 June 2001 and

will focus on the following items:

—Technical Co-operation Programme

(ITCP) for 2002–2003;

—Regional Co-ordination and Delivery

including a review of IMO’s pilot project on

regional presence;

—IMO Women in Development

Programme;

—Institutional Development and

Fellowships;

—Report on the status of funding for the

translation of model courses; and

—Election of the Chairman and ViceChairman of TCC for 2002.

The 86th Session of the Council is

scheduled for 18–22 June 2001, at the

IMO Headquarters in London. Items of

interest include:

—Committees reports;

—Report on the International Conference

on Liability and Compensation for Bunker

Oil Pollution Damage;

—Work Program and Budget for 2002–

2003;

—Review of the Organization’s financial

framework in accordance with Assembly

resolution A.877(21);

—Report on the status of conventions and

other multilateral instruments in respect of

which the Organization performs its

function;

—World Maritime University;

—IMO International Maritime Law

Institute;

—Relations with intergovernmental and

non-governmental organizations; and

—Assembly matters.

Members of the public may attend

these meetings up to the seating

capacity of the room. Interested persons

may seek information by writing:

Director, International Affairs, U.S.

Coast Guard Headquarters,

Commandant (G–CI), Room 2114, 2100

Second Street, SW., Washington, DC

20593–0001 or by calling: (202) 267–

2280.

Dated: May 11, 2001.

Stephen M. Miller,

Executive Secretary, Shipping Coordinating

Committee, Department of State.

[FR Doc. 01–12850 Filed 5–21–01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4710–01–P

DEPARTMENT OF STATE

[Notice Number 3667]

Shipping Coordinating Committee;

International Maritime Organization

Legal Committee; Notice of Meetings

The Shipping Coordinating

Committee (SHC) will conduct open

meetings between June and October,

2001, to assist in formulating the United

States position on International

Maritime Organization (IMO) Legal

Committee negotiations of a draft

protocol to the Athens Convention

Relating to the Carriage of Passengers

and Their Luggage by Sea, 1974 (draft

Athens protocol), and also to prepare for

other items on the agenda of the eightythird session of the Legal Committee

(LEG 83). LEG 83 will meet from 8 to 12

October 2001.

The U.S. delegation to LEG 83 will

consider views on issues raised by the

draft Athens protocol as indicated

below, but will also allow time for

discussion of other topics raised at the

meetings. To submit views on the draft

Athens protocol in advance of the

scheduled meetings, please send them

either electronically to

dgoettle@comdt.uscg.mil or by fax to the

attention of LT Daniel J. Goettle at (202)

267–4496 or by mail to Commandant

(G–LMI), U.S. Coast Guard, 2100 Second

St. SW., Washington, D.C., 20593–0001,

attention LT Daniel J. Goettle. Any

written submissions may be posted at

http://afls14.jag.af.mil/dscgi/ds.py/

View/Collection-2640. Additionally,

changes to the below schedule of SHC

meetings will be posted on this site as

well as published in the Federal

Register. The current text of the draft

Athens protocol can be found at: http:/

/www.uio.no/∼erikro/WWW/corrgr/

index.html.

The following meeting schedule has

been established to allow time for the

preparation of U.S. submissions, if

deemed necessary, for consideration of

LEG 83. The IMO requires submissions

of six or more pages to be sent no later

than August 6, 2001, and submissions of

less than six pages to be sent no later

than September 10, 2001. Each meeting

will be held at U.S. Coast Guard

Headquarters, 2100 Second Street SW.,

Washington, DC 20593–0001. The

meetings will be held in room 2415 at

10:00 a.m. The SHC meeting dates and

issues for discussion are as follows:

June 14, 2001: The U.S. delegation

will consider views on the draft Athens

protocol liability scheme. This topic

will include consideration of views on:

liability of the carrier (Article 3); the

performing carrier (Article 4);

contributory fault (Article 6); limit of

liability for personal injury (Article 7);

and the loss of right to limit liability

(Article 13). All article references are to

the Athens Convention as modified by

the draft Athens protocol.

July 10, 2001: The U.S. delegation will

consider views on: the draft Athens

protocol compulsory insurance

provisions (Article 4bis); the time-bar

(Article 16); the jurisdictional

provisions (Article 17); recognition and

enforcement (Article 17bis); invalidity

of contractual provisions (Article 18);

and other conventions on limitation of

liability (Article 19).

August 7, 2001: The U.S. delegation

will consider views on all other articles

and any other issue raised through a

written submission to the Coast Guard

after July 10 or raised at this meeting.

September 11, 2001: This meeting is

reserved and will be held if necessary to

discuss any further views on the draft

Athens protocol.

October 2, 2001: In addition to the

draft Athens protocol, this meeting will

consider views on the remainder of the

LEG 83 agenda items. The other issues

on the agenda are expected to include:

development of a draft convention on

wreck removal; the implementation of

the International Convention on

Liability and Compensation for Damage

in Connection With the Carriage of

Hazardous and Noxious Substances by

Sea; and consideration of two draft

resolutions submitted to the Legal

Committee by the Joint International

Maritime Organization/International

Labor Organization Ad Hoc Expert

Working Group on Liability and

Compensation Regarding Claims for

Death, Personal Injury and

Abandonment of Seafarers, which met

from 30 April through 4 May 2001. The

first resolution provides guidelines for

member states to ensure that

shipowners have the financial means to

cover liability for the abandonment of

seafarers, and the second resolution

provides such guidelines for the death

or injury of seafarers.

Members of the public are invited to

attend the SHC meetings up to the

seating capacity of the room. For further

information, please contact Captain

Joseph F. Ahern or Lieutenant Daniel J.

Goettle, U.S. Coast Guard, Office of

Maritime and International Law (G–

LMI), 2100 Second Street, SW.,

Washington, DC 20593–0001; telephone

(202) 267–1527; fax (202) 267–4496.

Dated: May 16, 2001.

Stephen M. Miller,

Executive Secretary, Shipping Coordinating

Committee, Department of State.

[FR Doc. 01–12852 Filed 5–21–01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4710–07–P

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Coast Guard

[USCG–2001–9267]

Approval for Experimental Shipboard

Installations of Ballast Water

Treatment Systems

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DOT.

ACTION: Request for comments.

28214 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 99 / Tuesday, May 22, 2001 / Notices

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard is requesting

comments about how to provide

incentives to further develop ballast

water treatment (BWT) technologies and

reduce the potential for introducing

nonindigenous species (NIS) to the

waters of the United States via

discharged ballast water. Ideally, vessel

owners and operators given approval to

install prototype BWT systems would be

considered to be in compliance with the

first set of future BWT requirements,

when they are implemented. Depending

on the information received, we may

begin developing the type of incentives

outlined in this notice.

DATES: Comments and related material

must reach the Docket Management

Facility on or before July 23, 2001.

ADDRESSES: To make sure your

comments and related material are not

entered in the docket more than once,

please submit them by only one of the

following means:

(1) By mail to the Docket Management

Facility, (USCG–2001–9267) U.S.

Department of Transportation, room PL–

401, 400 Seventh Street SW.,

Washington, DC 20590–0001.

(2) By 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) By electronic means 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 202–366–5149.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Request for Comments

We invite you to provide your views

on: The program described in this

notice; new and other approaches not

identified in this notice; the potential

impacts of such a program (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 an approval

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. If you submit

comments and related material, please

include your name and address, identify

the docket number for this notice

(USCG–2001–9267), indicate the

specific section of this document to

which each comment applies, and give

the reason for each comment. You may

submit your comments and material by

mail, hand delivery, fax, or electronic

means to the Docket Management

Facility as indicated under ADDRESSES.

Please submit your comments and

material by only one means. If you

submit them by mail or hand delivery,

submit them in an unbound format, no

larger than 81⁄2 by 11 inches, suitable for

copying and electronic filing. If you

submit them by mail and would like to

know they reached the Facility, please

enclose a stamped, self-addressed

postcard or envelope. The Coast Guard

will consider all comments received

during the comment period.

Why Is the Coast Guard Asking for

Comments?

The problem of how to reduce the

threat of introducing foreign organisms

to the waters of the U.S. via ballast

water discharged from vessels 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 make up of the

ballast water carried by the vessels that

operate in U.S. waters.

Under paragraphs (a) and (b) in

section 1101 of the Nonindigenous

Aquatic Nuisance Prevention and

Control Act (Pub. L. 101–646), as

amended by the National Invasive

Species Act of 1996 (NISA) (Pub. L.

104–332), 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 ballast tanks of ships.

Specifically, these regulations are to

identify mid-ocean ballast water

exchange (BWE), or environmentally

sound alternative ballast water

treatment (BWT) methods determined

by the Coast Guard to be as effective as

BWE in preventing and controlling

infestations of aquatic nuisance species,

as acceptable BWT technologies. These

regulations are contained in 33 CFR part

151, subparts C and D; we issued these

regulations on May 17, 1999 (64 FR

26672).

The development of effective BWT

technologies, capable of significantly

reducing the probability of introducing

foreign organisms via ballast water

discharges, is essential. The NISA

explicitly directs that such technologies

must be ‘‘as effective as (BWE).’’

Currently, the actual ‘‘effectiveness’’ of

BWE in reducing the threat of

introductions is not well resolved.

Concerns have been voiced that

exchange as a practice will be

inherently difficult to quantify.

Furthermore, because safe exchange

using existing ballast water systems is

not practicable on all voyages, exchange

is not capable of providing a sufficient

level of protection against the

introduction of unwanted foreign

organisms. An increasing number of

alternative BWT technologies are being

developed and tested at small, benchtop, or dockside scales. However,

complete evaluation and refinement of

the capabilities of such systems requires

ship-scale installations that are tested

for longer periods of time under a wide

range of conditions.

As on-board installation and testing

costs are likely to be significant, vessel

owners are understandably reluctant to

participate in on-board testing projects

without assurances that installed

experimental systems will be accepted

for some specified time should

regulations come into effect during the

testing period.

The Coast Guard is considering

developing a program that would allow

vessel owners to apply for advance,

conditional approval of experimental

BWT systems installed and tested on

board their operating vessels. Even

though only a limited number of the

experimental systems would be

approved, the program would help

nurture the establishment of

collaborative partnerships between

technology developers and vessel

owners while standards and

requirements are being developed. If we

approve an experimental BWT system

under the terms of the program, it

would be considered to meet the

requirements of the first set of future

regulations regarding BWT.

Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 99 / Tuesday, May 22, 2001 / Notices 28215

Are There Any Particular Questions the

Coast Guard Is Interested in Having

Answered?

While we welcome comments on

every aspect on this approval program,

to help us ensure that studies are

conducted according to well-established

principles of experimental design and

analysis, we encourage opinions on

what specific protocols should be

included in the studies associated with

the program.

What Are the Details Being Considered

for This Program for Approval of

Experimental Shipboard Installations

of BWT Systems?

The basic procedures and conditions

envisioned for the approval program are

as follows:

Approval Process

Applications for approval of

experimental BWT systems would be

accepted and reviewed as follows:

• Applications for advance approval

of experimental ballast water treatment

systems would be accepted at any time.

• Within 10 working days of

receiving an application, applicants

would be sent (via surface mail, e-mail,

or facsimile transmission) a notice of the

completeness of the application

package. Applicants with incomplete

submissions would be sent an

explanation of deficiencies. Incomplete

application packages would be returned

(provided a self-addressed label and

sufficient postage are included), or if

deficiencies are minimal, held for 30

days in order to allow the applicant to

correct the deficiencies.

• Formal, full reviews of supporting

data and proposed study plans would be

completed within 45 days of receipt of

the application.

• Formal reviews would be

conducted by panels of biologists and

engineers with expertise in

experimental investigations of biota

associated with ballast water, water

treatment technology, naval

architecture, and marine engineering.

• The review panels would provide

recommendations to the Coast Guard on

the acceptability of the supporting

evidence and study plans submitted

with each application.

• The Coast Guard would accept or

reject each application on the basis of

reviews by Coast Guard staff and the

recommendations of the review panel.

Criteria for Review

Applications for approval of

experimental ballast water treatment

systems would be evaluated on the

completeness of the following

information:

• A letter of commitment from the

owner of the specified vessel, the

manufacturer or developer of the

treatment system, and the principle

investigators conducting the tests,

stating their intents to carry out all

components of the study plan for which

they are responsible.

• Documentation stating that the

residual concentrations of any primary

treatment chemicals or chemicals that

occur as disinfection by-products meet

all applicable local, state, federal, and

tribal requirements.

• Documentation from preliminary,

smaller scale, experiments that

demonstrates the potential of the system

to significantly reduce the threat of

introducing nonindigenous species via

ballast water discharges. The results

would demonstrate a taxonomic breadth

of effectiveness across a suite of

organisms such as bacteria,

phytoplankton (including

dinoflagellates and diatoms),

heterotrophic protists, rotifers,

copepods (cyclopoid and harpacticoid;

larval, post-larval, and adult life stages),

mollusc larvae, polychaete larvae,

mysids, decapod crustaceans (crabs and

shrimp; larval, post-larval; and adult),

and fish.

• Preliminary and proposed testing

experiments would control for

confounding factors and include

statistical analyses that include formal

power analyses (a determination of the

ability of a particular statistical test to

actually detect a difference among the

data) for each statistical test.

• A statement with explanations of

the scalability of preliminary

experiments.

• A detailed study plan that:

1. Is organized according to a

standardized format (to be developed).

2. Experimentally compares the

effectiveness of the treatment system to

the effectiveness of a specified mode of

ballast water exchange.

3. Evaluates the effectiveness of the

treatment system over a range of

operational (including the cumulative

hours of operation, volumes treated, and

time since the experimental tanks were

last cleaned of sediment) and

environmental (including abundance of

organisms, organic and inorganic

‘‘load’’, temperature and salinity of

water, sea surface characteristics)

conditions during operations.

4. Identifies explicit hypotheses about

limiting conditions of the specified ship

and route.

5. Assures that samples would be

representative of the flow or volume

from which they are taken.

6. Contains a detailed quality

assurance and/or quality control plan.

Conditions of Approval

• Experimental systems would be

approved for use on specified ships

operating on specified routes.

• Approval of an experimental system

would lapse after 1 year if the system

was not installed or the testing begun as

proposed.

• Experimental systems would be

approved for use in all U.S. waters,

including the Great Lakes and the

Hudson River upstream of the George

Washington Bridge.

• Systems approved under the

experimental approval program would

be considered to meet all BWT

requirements promulgated by the Coast

Guard for a period of 5 years, or until

the first BWT standard is revised,

whichever date is earlier. However, in

the event that subsequent work reveals

adverse effects on ecology or human

health, the tests will be discontinued

and the approval will lapse.

• Systems approved under the

experimental approval program would

be subject to all subsequent standards

and regulations upon the expiration of

the experimental approval period.

• Experimental approval would be

contingent on adherence to a detailed

study plan designed to test the

effectiveness of the treatment system

over a specified period of time. The

study plan would be described

completely in the application and

agreed upon by the applicant and the

U.S. Coast Guard.

• The experimental team would be

required to submit quarterly status

reports identifying tasks completed and

unanticipated problems. An annual

report documenting the work and

results to date would be required after

every 12 months of testing. A final

report documenting the study findings

and conclusions would be required no

later than six months after the on-board

testing is completed.

• Vessels receiving approval for

experimental BWT systems would be

subject to inspections by Coast Guard

personnel to verify the presence and

condition of experimental systems.

• The principle scientists and

engineers responsible for conducting

and analyzing the tests would attend

and participate in a technical workshop

during which the results of the study,

along with other similar studies, would

be presented and discussed. The

workshops would be organized by the

Coast Guard but travel costs and salary

would be the responsibility of the

participants.

28216 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 99 / Tuesday, May 22, 2001 / Notices

Sample Timeline for Advance Approval

Process

Following is an example of a timeline

for the approval of an experimental

ballast water treatment system. For

illustrative purposes, the timeline

incorporates the development of a

standard and regulations during the test

period.

Date Action

Submit (S) ................. Application package submitted and reviewed for completeness.

S + 10 days ............... Application package accepted or rejected for submission to review panel. If complete, application package submitted to

independent review panel.

S + 45 days ............... Application approved or denied. Final approval pends agreement on study plan.

S + 90 days (A) ......... Study plan negotiated and agreed-upon by Coast Guard and applicant. This date is considered the Approval Date (A).

Treatment system considered meeting regulatory requirements for 5 years from this date.

Install (I) ..................... Experimental system installed and adjusted; preliminary organization for study completed. Experimental work begins.

I + 3 months .............. First progress report submitted to USCG.

I + 6 months .............. Second progress report submitted to USCG.

I + 9 months .............. Third Progress report submitted to USCG.

I + 12 months ............ Annual Report submitted to USCG. Study continues according to schedule, with quarterly and annual reports submitted

to the USCG.

Standard/Reg ............ First U.S. standard and regulations established for ballast water treatment. Operation of experimental system continues

under study plan.

A + 5 years ................ Vessel must meet existing standard and regulations, regardless of date standard and regulations are promulgated.

What Is the Coast Guard’s Authority for

Taking This Action?

Under 16 U.S.C. 4711, the Coast

Guard (acting on behalf of the Secretary

of Transportation) is authorized to take

this action.

Dated: March 30, 2001.

R.C. North,

Rear Admiral, U.S. Coast Guard, Assistant

Commandant for Marine, Safety and

Environmental Protection.

[FR Doc. 01–12719 Filed 5–21–01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910–15–U

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

Approval of Noise Compatibility

Program Camarillo Airport, Camarillo,

CA

AGENCY: Federal Aviation

Administration, DOT.

ACTION: Notice.

SUMMARY: The Federal Aviation

Administration (FAA) announces its

findings on the Noise Compatibility

Program submitted by the county of

Ventura, Camarillo, California, under

the provisions of Title I of the Aviation

Safety and Noise Abatement Act of 1979

(Public Law 96–193) and Title 14, Code

of Federal Regulations, Part 150 (FAR

Part 150). These findings are made in

recognition of the description of Federal

and nonfederal responsibilities in

Senate Report No. 96–52 (1980). On

September 10, 1998, the FAA

determined that the noise exposure

maps submitted by the county of

Ventura under FAR Part 150 were in

compliance with applicable

requirements. On May 4, 2001, the

Acting Associate Administrator for

Airports approved the Camarillo Airport

Noise Compatibility Program. All

twenty-three of the program measures

have been approved. Fourteen measures

were approved as voluntary measures

and nine measures were approved

outright.

EFFECTIVE DATE: The effective date of the

FAA’s approval of the Camarillo Airport

Noise Compatibility Program is May 4,

2001.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Brian Armstrong, Airport Planner,

Airports Division, AWP–611.1, Federal

Aviation Administration, WesternPacific Region. Mailing address: P.O.

Box 92007, Los Angeles, California

90009–2007. Telephone: (310) 725–

3614. Street address: 15000 Aviation

Boulevard, Hawthorne, California

90261. Documents reflecting this FAA

action may be reviewed at this location.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This

notice announces that the FAA has

given its overall approval to the Noise

Compatibility Program for the Camarillo

Airport, effective May 4, 2001. Under

section 104(a) of the Aviation Safety and

Noise Abatement Act of 1979

(hereinafter referred to as ‘‘the Act’’), an

airport operator who has previously

submitted a Noise Exposure Map, may

submit to the FAA, a Noise

Compatibility Program which sets forth

the measures taken or proposed by the

airport operator for the reduction of

existing noncompatible land uses and

prevention of additional noncompatible

land uses within the area covered by the

Noise Exposure Maps. The Act requires

such programs to be developed in

consultation with interested and

affected parties including local

communities, government agencies,

airport users, and FAA personnel.

Each airport Noise Compatibility

Program developed in accordance with

FAR Part 150 is a local program, not a

federal program. The FAA does not

substitute its judgment for that of the

airport proprietor with respect to which

measures should be recommended for

action. The FAA’s approval or

disapproval of FAR Part 150 program

recommendations is measured

according to the standards expressed in

FAR Part 150 and is limited to the

following determinations:

a. The Noise Compatibility Program

was developed in accordance with the

provisions and procedures of FAR Part

150;

b. Program measures are reasonably

consistent with achieving the goals of

reducing existing noncompatible land

uses around the airport and preventing

the introduction of additional

noncompatible land uses;

c. Program measures would not create

an undue burden on interstate or foreign

commerce, unjustly discriminate against

types or classes of aeronautical uses,

violate the terms of airport grant

agreements, or intrude into areas

preempted by the Federal Government;

and

d. Program measures relating to the

use of flight procedures can be

implemented within the period covered

by the program without derogating

safety, adversely affecting the efficient

use and management of the navigable

airspace and air traffic control systems,

or adversely affecting other powers and

responsibilities of the Administrator

prescribed by law.

Specific limitations with respect to

FAA’s approval of an airport Noise

Compatibility Program are delineated in