Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 168 / Wednesday, August 31, 2005 / Notices 51831 

would constitute a clearly unwarranted 

invasion of personal privacy. 

Name of Committee: Center for Scientific 

Review Special Emphasis Panel, PAR–04–

023; Bioengineering Research Partnership. 

Date: September 15, 2005. 

Time: 2 p.m. to 3 p.m. 

Agenda: To review and evaluate grant 

applications. 

Place: National Institutes of Health, 6701 

Rockledge Drive, Bethesda, MD 20892, 

(Telephone Conference Call). 

Contact Person: Syed M. Quadri, PhD, 

Scientific Review Administrator, Center for 

Scientific Review, National Institutes of 

Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Room 6210, 

MSC 7804, Bethesda, MD 20892, (301) 435–

1211, quadris@csr.nih.gov. 

Name of Committee: Center for Scientific 

Review Special Emphasis Panel, Genes, 

Genomics, Genetics. 

Date: September 16, 2005. 

Time: 10 a.m. to 11 a.m. 

Agenda: To review and evaluate grant 

applications. 

Place: National Institutes of Health, 6701 

Rockledge Drive, Bethesda, MD 20892, 

(Telephone Conference Call). 

Contact Person: Mary P. McCormick, PhD, 

Scientific Review Administrator, Center for 

Scientific Review, National Institutes of 

Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Room 2208, 

MSC 7890, Bethesda, MD 20892, (301) 435–

1047, mccormim@csr.nih.gov. 

Name of Committee: Center for Scientific 

Review Special Emphasis Panel, PAR–04–

023 Bioengineering Research Partnership. 

Date: September 22, 2005. 

Time: 2 p.m. to 4 p.m. 

Agenda: To review and evaluate grant 

applications. 

Place: National Institutes of Health, 6701 

Rockledge Drive, Bethesda, MD 20892, 

(Telephone Conference Call). 

Contact Person: Syed M. Quadri, PhD, 

Scientific Review Administrator, Center for 

Scientific Review, National Institutes of 

Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Room 6210, 

MSC 7804, Bethesda, MD 20892, (301) 435–

1211, quadris@csr.nih.gov. 

Name of Committee: Center for Scientific 

Review Special Emphasis Panel, Software 

Development and Maintenance. 

Date: September 23, 2005. 

Time: 8 a.m. to 4 p.m. 

Agenda: To review and evaluate grant 

applications. 

Place: Hyatt Regency Bethesda, One 

Bethesda Metro Center, 7400 Wisconsin 

Avenue, Bethesda, MD 20814. 

Contact Person: Zhenya Li, PhD, Scientific 

Review Administrator, Center for Scientific 

Review, National Institutes of Health, 6701 

Rockledge Drive, Room 3022B, MSC 7849, 

Bethesda, MD 20892, (301) 435–2417, 

lizhenya@csr.nih.gov. 

(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance 

Program Nos. 93.306, Comparative Medicine; 

93.333, Clinical Research, 93.306, 93.333, 

93.337, 93.393–93.396, 93.837–93.844, 

93.846–93.878, 93.892, 93.893, National 

Institutes of Health, HHS) 

Dated: August 24, 2005. 

Anthony M. Coelho, Jr., 

Acting Director, Office of Federal Advisory 

Committee Policy. 

[FR Doc. 05–17249 Filed 8–30–05; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4140–01–M 

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND 

SECURITY 

Coast Guard 

[USCG–2004–19842] 

Ballast Water Management for Vessels 

Entering the Great Lakes That Declare 

No Ballast Onboard 

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS. 

ACTION: Notice of policy; availability of 

draft environmental assessment. 

SUMMARY: To prevent the introductions 

of aquatic nonindigenous species from 

vessels entering the Great Lakes 

declaring no ballast onboard (NOBOB), 

the Coast Guard establishes best 

management practices for residual 

ballast water and sediment management 

to be followed by NOBOB vessels. Coast 

Guard also requests comments on the 

draft environmental assessment 

prepared for the policy. 

DATES: This policy is effective on the 

date of publication in the Federal 

Register. Comments and related 

material regarding the draft 

Environmental Assessment must reach 

the Docket Management System on or 

before September 30, 2005. 

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments 

identified by Coast Guard docket 

number USCG–2004–19842 to the 

Docket management facility at the U.S. 

Department of Transportation. To avoid 

duplication, please use only one of the 

following methods: (1) By mail to the 

Docket Management Facility (USCG–

2004–19842), U.S. Department of 

Transportation, Room PL–401, 400 

Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC 

20593–0001. (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) 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 will become part of this 

docket and will be available for 

inspection or copying in Room PL–401, 

located on the Plaza Level of the Nassif 

Building at the above address between 

9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through 

Friday, except for Federal holidays. You 

may also view this docket, including 

this notice and comments, on the 

Internet at http://dms.dot.gov. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For 

information concerning this policy, call 

Mr. Bivan Patnaik, Project Manager, 

Environmental Standards Division, U.S. 

Coast Guard, telephone 202–267–1744 

or via e-mail bpatnaik@comdt.uscg.mil. 

If you have any questions on viewing or 

submitting material to the docket, call 

Ms. Andrea M. Jenkins, Program 

Manager, Docket Operations, 

Department of Transportation, 

telephone 202–366–0271. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Regulatory History 

The Nonindigenous Aquatic Nuisance 

Prevention and Control Act of 1990, as 

reauthorized and amended by the 

National Invasive Species Act of 1996, 

authorizes the Coast Guard to develop 

guidelines and regulations to prevent 

the introduction of nonindigenous 

species (NIS) via ballast water 

discharges. The Coast Guard 

promulgated regulations in the Federal 

Register on June 14, 2004, entitled, 

‘‘Penalties for Non-submission of Ballast 

Water Management Reports’’ (68 FR 

32864) and on July 28, 2004, entitled 

‘‘Mandatory Ballast Water Management 

for U.S. Waters’’ (69 FR 44952). In doing 

so, the Great Lakes Ballast Water 

Management Program that became 

effective on May 10, 1993 (58 FR 

18330), has remained unchanged, with 

the exception that all vessels equipped 

with ballast water tanks that enter and 

operate between ports in the Great Lakes 

must now submit their ballast water 

reporting forms to the National Ballast 

Information Clearinghouse as of August 

13, 2004 (69 FR 32864). 

On July 14, 2004, the Coast Guard 

received a petition for rulemaking 

requesting that we take specific 

regulatory action to prevent NIS 

introductions via NOBOB vessels. In 

response, on January 7, 2005, the Coast 

Guard published a notice of public 

meeting; request for comments, entitled, 

‘‘Ballast Water Management for Vessels 

Entering the Great Lakes that Declare No 

Ballast Onboard’’ (70 FR 1448) asking 

the public to assist us in developing 

ballast water management practices for 

NOBOBs that are effective and 

practicable. Additionally on May 9, 

2005, we held a public meeting where 

we further engaged the public on this 

issue. There were 35 people in 

attendance including representatives 

from: Congressional staff, federal 

51832 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 168 / Wednesday, August 31, 2005 / Notices 

agencies, state agencies, international 

organizations, the shipping industry, 

maritime equipment manufacturers, 

non-governmental organizations, and 

concerned citizens. From the notice and 

the public meeting, we received 25 

letters on the issue. 

Background and Purpose 

Vessels carrying ballast water that 

enter the Great Lakes after operating 

outside the U.S. Exclusive Economic 

Zone (EEZ) are required to comply with 

the Great Lakes ballast water 

management requirements found in 33 

CFR Part 151, Subpart C. Ballast water 

means any water and suspended matter 

taken on board a vessel to control or 

maintain, trim, draught, stability, or 

stresses of the vessel, regardless of how 

it is carried. NOBOB vessels are those 

vessels that have discharged ballast 

water in order to carry cargo, and as a 

result, have only unpumpable residual 

water and sediment remaining in tanks. 

A large number of vessels that call on 

the Great Lakes are NOBOBs fully 

loaded with cargo that consequently 

cannot conduct a full mid-ocean 

exchange enroute to the Great Lakes. 

However, NOBOBs have the potential to 

carry NIS in their empty tanks via 

residual ballast water and/or 

accumulated sediment. Once NOBOBs 

enter the Great Lakes, discharge some or 

all of their cargo and take on ballast 

water, this water mixes with the 

residual water and sediment, and if this 

mixed ballast water is subsequently 

discharged into the Great Lakes, may 

provide a mechanism for NIS to enter 

the Great Lakes. Therefore, the Coast 

Guard is issuing best management 

practices for vessels with ballast tanks 

with residual ballast water and 

sediment. While this policy targets 

vessels declaring NOBOB entering the 

Great Lakes, the recommended 

management practices are applicable to 

all vessels that enter the Great Lakes 

with empty ballast tanks that may be 

filled with ballast water and discharged 

within the Great Lakes. 

Discussion of Comments 

From the notice and the public 

meeting, we received 25 letters on the 

issue. Most letters contained more than 

one comment. These included general 

comments as well as specific comments. 

We address the general comments first 

and then the specific comments. 

General Comments 

We received 3 comments that support 

the Coast Guard as the lead agency to 

regulate ballast water discharge. One 

commenter further stated that the Coast 

Guard should develop a regulatory 

regime based on the long-term goal of 

eliminating NIS from NOBOBs. 

The Coast Guard agrees with these 

comments and preventing NIS 

introductions via NOBOBs for the 

interim is the intent of this notice. Once 

we establish the ballast water discharge 

(BWD) standard and use it to approve 

ballast water treatment methods, we 

will greatly reduce the number of NIS 

introductions via vessels in general, 

including NOBOBs. 

Five commenters stated that a federal 

approach to preventing invasions in the 

Great Lakes is needed whereas a Stateby-State piece-meal approach is not. 

The Coast Guard agrees that a federal 

approach is more amenable than a 

patch-work of state NOBOB 

management programs, where each state 

may have different ballast water 

management requirements that could 

confuse the shipping industry and not 

necessarily prevent NIS introductions. 

However, NISA does allow for states to 

develop their own NIS prevention 

measures. 

One commenter stated their opinion 

that misinformation is being sent to the 

public by ‘‘one or two individuals or 

organizations’’ regarding NIS invasions 

and NOBOBs. 

The Coast Guard notes this comment 

without endorsing its validity. We 

reviewed and analyzed the National 

Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration’s Great Lakes 

Environmental Research Laboratory 

(NOAA/GLERL) Report and Coast Guard 

monitoring data (Coast Guard 

unpublished data) and these analyses 

show that NOBOB vessels are carrying 

hundreds of tons of ballast water. Of the 

103 foreign flag ships NOAA/GLERL 

boarded from December 2000 to 

December 2002, residual water surveyed 

ranged from negligible to 200 tons, and 

sediment accumulation ranged from 

negligible to 100 tons, with sixty 

percent of vessels estimated to have less 

than 10 tons. The Coast Guard inspected 

36 vessels from May 2005 to July 2005 

and the average amount of residual 

water and sediment per vessel was 

estimated at only 41.4 cubic meters. 

Also, of the 36 NOBOB vessels we 

sampled, approximately 45% of ballast 

water tanks were dry. Meaning these 

tanks were so dry that we could not get 

even a few drops of water needed to 

measure salinity. 

The NOAA/GLERL NOBOB Project 

Report noted the majority of the NIS 

introduction risk is associated with 

fresh and brackish residual waters due 

to compatibility of the organisms native 

to these environments and the Great 

Lakes. Of the 36 vessels we inspected, 

approximately 30% of the tanks 

contained residual ballast water with a 

salinity of 30 ppt or greater, and only 

16% of the tanks with residual ballast 

water contained fresh or brackish 

residual water. 

The Coast Guard received 10 

comments stating that we should 

require saltwater flushing for vessels 

carrying residual ballast water that enter 

the Great Lakes. 

The Coast Guard agrees with this 

comment and through this notice we 

strongly recommend that vessels 

carrying residual ballast water conduct 

saltwater flushing prior to entering the 

Great Lakes. A more detailed discussion 

of this practice takes place further in 

this notice in the Best Management 

Practices Section. 

Three commenters stated that the 

Coast Guard should set BWD standards 

for NOBOBs that are developed through 

regional collaboration and are based on 

federally defined ballast water 

management standards and consistent 

among all the Great Lakes states and 

provinces. Additionally, five 

commenters stated that the Coast Guard 

should implement the BWD standard for 

all vessels. 

As stated previously, the Coast Guard 

is already developing a BWD standard 

for all vessels, which includes NOBOB 

vessels. We expect the standard to be 

environmentally protective, 

scientifically sound, and enforceable so 

that when vessels use Coast Guard 

approved ballast water treatment 

systems, NIS introductions will be 

greatly reduced from all vessels 

generally, including NOBOBs. The 

standard will be used to approve ballast 

water treatment systems. However, 

NISA allows for ballast water treatment 

as an option along with ballast water 

exchange, and therefore, those vessels 

able to conduct an exchange prior to 

entering the Great Lakes will be able to 

do so even after the ballast water 

discharge standard is issued. 

Five commenters asked the Coast 

Guard to close the NOBOB loophole; 

that is, to change the applicability of the 

Great Lakes Ballast Water Management 

Program from vessels carrying ballast 

water to vessels equipped with ballast 

water tanks. One commenter stated that 

this change should occur for the 

interim, until a ballast water discharge 

standard is set. 

The Coast Guard disagrees with this 

comment. The Coast Guard believes that 

developing effective and practicable 

ballast water management strategies for 

NOBOBs is the best way to address the 

risk of NIS introductions by these 

vessels. Requiring NOBOB vessels to 

comply with current ballast water 

management regulations for vessels 

Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 168 / Wednesday, August 31, 2005 / Notices 51833 

entering the Great Lakes will not 

adequately prevent NIS introductions 

from NOBOBs since they cannot 

complete a mid-ocean ballast water 

exchange enroute to the Great Lakes. 

The Coast Guard believes that the 

separate, interim, management approach 

described in this notice is the best way 

to address the risk of NIS introductions 

from NOBOBs until the BWD standard 

is in place. 

Eight commenters said that the Coast 

Guard should implement ballast water 

management requirements for NOBOBs 

that provide them with the following 

options: 

• Conduct open ocean ballast water 

exchange, if such practices are found to 

be safe, or can be made safe, for NOBOB 

vessels; 

• Retain their residual ballast water; 

or 

• Employ an alternative treatment. 

The Coast Guard finds implementing 

the suggested comments difficult at this 

time. NOBOBs cannot conduct midocean exchange because they are 

carrying cargo and do not have 

sufficient freeboard to safely add sea 

water to their ballast tanks sufficient to 

complete an exchange. Adding ballast 

water to a vessel when it is fully loaded 

with cargo can be unsafe to the crew 

and to the vessel due to loss of stability 

and freeboard. The risk of NIS 

introduction from NOBOB vessels 

occurs when these vessels, while 

discharging cargo in a Great Lakes port, 

take on Great Lakes water as ballast 

water, and this ballast water mixes with 

residual ballast water and sediment and 

is subsequently discharged into the 

Great Lakes when the vessel loads cargo 

destined for ports outside the Great 

Lakes. Requiring the vessel to retain 

their ballast water or residual would 

impair the vessel’s ability to carry cargo 

out of the Great Lakes. NOBOB vessels 

cannot employ an alternative treatment 

without approval by the Coast Guard. 

To date, there are no vessels that have 

requested approval of alternative 

treatment methods. 

Two commenters stated that residual 

ballast water should be exchanged 

whenever possible. One commenter 

further elaborated by saying residual 

water should be exchanged in a saline 

environment of low turbidity at every 

opportunity. 

The Coast Guard agrees with the 

commenters and through this notice of 

policy, we will be requesting vessels 

with residual ballast water to conduct a 

saltwater flush whenever possible, prior 

to entering the U.S. EEZ. 

One commenter stated that future 

ballast water management regulations 

from international or national efforts 

should equally apply to NOBOBs and to 

vessels carrying ballast water. 

The Coast Guard believes that once 

the ballast water discharge standard is 

in place, vessel owners will be able to 

treat ballast water prior to discharging it 

regardless of whether or not they carry 

ballast water or declare NOBOB. 

Seven commenters stated that for the 

remainder of the 2005 shipping season 

and/or beyond, NOBOB vessels should 

be required to retain their untreated 

ballast onboard or barred from entering 

the Great Lakes. Further two 

commenters stated that retention should 

take place when these NOBOB vessels 

take on Great Lakes water as ballast 

water. 

The Coast Guard disagrees with these 

comments. It is unreasonable to require 

all NOBOBs to retain untreated residual 

ballast water or residual ballast water 

that has been mixed with Great Lakes 

water or prevent vessels carrying cargo 

and no ballast from entering the Great 

Lakes. The suggested requirements 

would severely restrict the movement of 

cargo into and out of the Great Lakes. 

The Coast Guard believes a risk-based 

approach focused on NOBOB vessels 

with fresh and/or brackish residual 

waters is the best way forward. 

Three commenters said that the Coast 

Guard should require NOBOB vessels to 

have BWM plans. 

The Coast Guard agrees and since 

September 27, 2004, all vessels entering 

and operating in U.S. waters have been 

required to have a BWM plan onboard, 

including NOBOBs. This plan must 

show the specific vessel’s ballast water 

management strategy as well as 

document those responsible for the 

plan’s implementation have been 

trained and understand the plan. 

One commenter suggested that we 

should also look at other vectors for NIS 

introductions such as hull fouling, heat 

exchangers, and bilge water. 

The Coast Guard appreciates this 

comment and recognizes that there are 

other mechanisms for introductions of 

NIS via the vector of commercial 

shipping. The Coast Guard is currently 

focusing its regulatory efforts on 

preventing NIS introductions via ballast 

water and specifically from NOBOBs. 

Therefore, this comment is beyond the 

scope of the original request for 

comments. 

One commenter suggested that 

arrangements be made to involve and 

encourage Canadian participation in a 

Great Lakes NOBOB rulemaking. 

The Coast Guard notes this comment. 

Canada has recently announced their 

first proposed regulations for vessels 

entering the Great Lakes. Also, the U.S. 

and Canada are discussing cooperative 

approaches to ballast water management 

on the Great Lakes, within current 

regulatory authority and under the 

International Maritime Organization’s 

(IMO) Ballast Water Management 

Convention of 2004. 

Three commenters said that the Coast 

Guard should require all oceangoing 

ships to clean and remove sediment. 

The Coast Guard already requires 

vessels equipped with ballast water 

tanks that operate in U.S. waters to 

regularly clean their ballast water tanks 

to remove sediment (33 CFR 

151.2035(a)(3)). 

One commenter suggested that the 

Coast Guard should forward the NOAA/ 

GLERL NOBOB Report to IMO. 

The Coast Guard notes this comment 

and is one of several co-sponsors of the 

NOAA/GLERL report. We will present a 

summary of this report at a future IMO 

Marine Environmental Protection 

Committee meeting if we have the 

opportunity. 

One commenter said that the Coast 

Guard should use a risk-based approach 

for NOBOBs. 

The Coast Guard agrees with this 

comment. The Best Management 

Practices discussed below do use a riskbased approach and are targeted at 

eliminating the residual water with the 

highest risk of introducing NIS from 

fresh and brackish water ecosystems 

into the Great Lakes. 

One commenter asked the Coast 

Guard to develop a system to track and 

identify ships that pose the greatest risk. 

The Coast Guard disagrees with this 

comment. We know from the work 

performed by NOAA/GLERL, the 

highest risk NOBOB tanks carry fresh or 

brackish residual water. Because of the 

ways cargo and ballast water are 

managed on ships, the risk of NIS 

introduction can vary significantly 

across individual tanks in a single ship. 

In addition, the risk can be dramatically 

reduced through the regular use of the 

Best Management Practices described 

further in this notice. This will result in 

a reduction of high-risk NIS 

introductions through the elimination of 

fresh and brackish residual ballast 

water. 

Two commenters stated that the Coast 

Guard should require cargo be 

transferred at the entrance of the Great 

Lakes. Further, one commenter said we 

should review the option of shutting 

down the Saint Lawrence Seaway until 

NOBOB management strategies are in 

place. 

The Coast Guard disagrees with this 

comment. We do not have the authority 

under NISA to require vessels to lighten 

their load, to transfer their cargo to other 

modes at the entrance of the Great 

51834 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 168 / Wednesday, August 31, 2005 / Notices 

Lakes, or shutdown the St. Lawrence 

Seaway. Also, the suggested 

requirements would severely restrict the 

movement of cargo into and out of the 

Great Lakes. 

One commenter suggested that the 

Coast Guard require ships to have 

tamper-proof meters that document 

volumes, salinity, time and Global 

Positioning System (GPS) locations of 

ballast water taken on and discharged 

all over the world and submit this data 

to the Coast Guard prior to entry into 

U.S. waters and monthly while in U.S. 

waters. 

The Coast Guard disagrees with this 

comment. The Coast Guard already 

requires ships that enter and/or operate 

in U.S. waters to submit their ballast 

water reporting forms. These reports 

already provide us with the locations 

(latitude and longitude) of where ballast 

water was taken on and discharged as 

well as the dates that these activities 

took place. Coast Guard compliance 

evaluation activities involve validating 

the information provided on these forms 

with information in vessel logs without 

the need for additional specialized 

equipment to be installed on the vessel. 

Two commenters asked the Coast 

Guard to develop education and 

outreach initiatives for the shipping 

industry to assist the industry with 

complying with BWM regulations. 

The Coast Guard agrees and will 

provide additional guidance and 

training to the shipping industry so they 

can be better equipped to comply with 

our BWM regulations and policies. 

Comments Regarding Research and 

Treatment 

Five commenters stated that the Coast 

Guard should work with vessel owners, 

operators and other maritime industry 

stakeholders and provide incentives to 

continue research and development on 

ballast water management technologies, 

notably NOBOB vessels. Furthermore, 

one commenter stated we should review 

and analyze technologies. 

The Coast Guard already provides 

incentives to ship owners to further the 

development of ballast water treatment 

technologies through the Shipboard 

Technology Evaluation Program (STEP). 

This program was established in January 

2004, through a Navigation and 

Inspection Circular (NVIC 01–04), and 

announced in a Notice of Availability 

published in the Federal Register on 

January 7, 2004 (69 FR 1082). 

Information on STEP can be found at: 

http://www.uscg.mil/hq/g-m/mso/ 

step.htm. The Coast Guard also has 

ongoing efforts to review the 

development of technologies. 

One commenter recommended the 

use of a ‘‘closed-loop’’ ballast water 

treatment process of ultraviolet 

radiation and filtration to address NIS 

introductions via NOBOBs. 

The Coast Guard appreciates this 

comment and suggests the commenter 

work with a ship owner to submit an 

application to STEP so that we may 

further determine the efficacy and 

operational capability of this treatment 

system. 

Two commenters stated that the Coast 

Guard should analyze the use of the 

following options to manage NOBOBs: 

ferrate, filtration, UV, ozonation, 

washdown-pumpout with scavenger 

pumps w/caustic soda, and/or chemical 

biocides. 

The Coast Guard appreciates this 

comment and is tracking the 

development of these options; however, 

the Coast Guard will not require specific 

treatment options at this time. Vessels 

fitted with these treatment methods 

must apply to the Coast Guard for their 

approval for use in meeting the ballast 

water management regulations. Until a 

BWD standard is promulgated, ballast 

water management systems on vessels 

would be approved on a vessel-byvessel basis. In addition, vessels using 

treatment systems must comply with all 

state water quality discharge limits for 

chemicals. 

Seven commenters said that the Coast 

Guard’s long-term goal should be zero 

discharge of living organisms from 

vessels entering the Great Lakes. One 

commenter further stated this could be 

achieved by such management options 

as filtration, ultraviolet radiation, and/or 

chemical biocides. 

The Coast Guard disagrees that the 

long-term goal should be zero discharge 

of living organisms in the Great Lakes. 

According to our current authority 

under NISA, the long term goal is to 

prevent NIS introductions into the 

waters of the U.S. from ballast water, 

and this goal may be achieved without 

a zero discharge requirement. Once the 

BWD standard is developed, we will 

approve those technologies that meet 

the standard in an effort to prevent the 

introduction of NIS into the Great Lakes. 

Two commenters suggested that the 

Coast Guard consider shore-side 

treatment options especially for a 

centralized facility in the Saint 

Lawrence Seaway, which seem 

reasonable and are cost effective. 

Although the Coast Guard appreciates 

this comment, the Coast Guard is not 

involved in the regulatory or approval 

process for land-based ballast water 

treatment facilities. Anyone wishing to 

establish a ballast water reception 

facility that would discharge to waters 

of the United States would need to 

obtain a National Pollutant Discharge 

Elimination System (NPDES) permit 

under the Clean Water Act. In addition, 

all appropriate Federal, State, and local 

permits would need to be obtained. 

One commenter stated that techniques 

to enhance flow-through or empty-refill 

exchange of NOBOBs should be the 

outcome of the Coast Guard technical 

workshop that was held immediately 

after the NOBOB public meeting. 

The Coast Guard agrees that 

techniques to enhance flow-through and 

empty-refill exchange for NOBOBs 

should be evaluated. Ballast water 

exchange and other management 

options for NOBOBs were discussed 

during the technical workshop. 

One commenter said that in cases 

where ballast water must be discharged 

into the Great Lakes, ships should use 

best available treatment technologies to 

be installed by 2006 in combination 

with mandatory ballast water 

management practices. 

The Coast Guard notes this comment. 

Prior to Coast Guard approval, 

alternative treatment technologies must 

be reviewed to determine the efficacy 

and operational capabilities of the 

treatment systems, as well as the need 

to address the operational requirements 

of placing systems onboard ships. 

Alternative ballast water management 

practices for vessels must be approved 

by the Coast Guard, which is also timeintensive. 

Comments Regarding Enforcement and 

Compliance 

One commenter stated that the Coast 

Guard should conduct random 

inspections with fines of $5 million and 

seizure of each vessel that was not in 

compliance. 

The Coast Guard disagrees with this 

comment. Every vessel entering the 

Great Lakes is subject to an inspection 

upon entering the Saint Lawrence 

Seaway. We conduct ballast water 

examinations for vessels carrying ballast 

water, and examinations for vessels that 

are NOBOBs. The Coast Guard verifies 

that the information reported is 

accurate, and sampling is carried out to 

determine compliance. If vessels are not 

in compliance with the ballast water 

exchange requirements, vessels are 

required to retain their ballast onboard 

for their entire voyage in the Great Lakes 

or they must go out 200 nautical miles 

from land and to water 2000 meters in 

depth to conduct ballast water 

exchange. Dollar value limits on civil 

penalties are provided by NISA and 

adjusted for inflation. 

Three commenters recommended that 

the Coast Guard require strict 

Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 168 / Wednesday, August 31, 2005 / Notices 51835 

compliance with the current Great Lakes 

Ballast Water Management regulations 

for NOBOBs, and require retention or 

the use of an effective treatment system 

prior to discharging ballast water. 

Once the Coast Guard establishes a 

BWD standard, we will be able to 

approve effective ballast water treatment 

systems to be used prior to discharge for 

those vessels unable to conduct ballast 

water exchange, including NOBOB 

vessels. Until then, the Coast Guard 

believes implementation of the best 

management practices is the better 

option for NOBOB vessels. 

Eight commenters stated that the 

Coast Guard should have an 

enforcement and compliance program in 

place for NOBOBs. One commenter 

further stated that this program should 

be as stringent as those for ballasted 

vessels, including restriction from 

entering the Great Lakes. 

The Coast Guard disagrees with this 

comment. As the NOBOB policy will 

ask vessels to conduct saltwater flushing 

and other practices to maintain high 

salinity residual waters in ballast tanks, 

we cannot enforce vessel compliance 

with a voluntary program. However, we 

will be conducting a monitoring 

program to determine the efficacy of this 

practice in reducing fresh and brackish 

residual water carried by NOBOB 

vessels into the Great Lakes. 

Best Management Practices for Vessels 

Declaring No Ballast Onboard That 

Enter the Great Lakes 

The masters, owners, operators, or 

persons-in-charge of vessels equipped 

with ballast water tanks and voyage 

plans including transits to ports or 

places in the Great Lakes (including the 

Hudson River, North of the George 

Washington Bridge), should do the 

following: 

• Conduct mid-ocean ballast water 

exchange during ballast-laden voyages 

in an area 200 nautical miles from any 

shore and in water 2000 meters deep 

whenever possible, prior to entering the 

U.S. EEZ. 

• For vessels unable to conduct midocean ballast water exchange, conduct 

saltwater flushing of their empty ballast 

water tanks in an area 200 nautical 

miles from any shore, whenever 

possible. For the purposes of this policy, 

saltwater flushing is defined as the 

addition of mid-ocean water to empty 

ballast water tanks; the mixing of the 

flush water with residual water and 

sediment through the motion of the 

vessel; and the discharge of the mixed 

water, such that the resultant residual 

water remaining in the tank has as high 

a salinity as possible, and preferably is 

greater than 30 parts per thousand (ppt). 

The vessel should take on as much midocean water into each tank as is safe (for 

the vessel and crew) in order to conduct 

saltwater flushing. The master of the 

vessel is responsible for ensuring the 

safety of the vessel, crew, and 

passengers. 

The masters, owners, operators, or 

persons-in-charge of vessels equipped 

with ballast water tanks, declaring 

NOBOB and bound for ports or places 

in the Great Lakes (including the 

Hudson River, North of the George 

Washington Bridge) should take 

particular care to conduct saltwater 

flushing on the transit to the Great Lakes 

so as to eliminate fresh and or brackish 

water residuals in ballast tanks. 

NOBOB vessels that conduct these 

best management practices should 

incorporate them into their required 

ballast water management plan onboard 

their vessels. The requirements for 

ballast water management plans are 

found in 33 CFR 151.2035(a)(7). Also, 

NOBOB vessels are reminded that there 

are required ballast water management 

practices for vessels equipped with 

ballast water tanks that operate in U.S. 

waters, regarding avoiding ballasting 

operations in certain situations, 

sediment removal, and the cleaning of 

ballast tanks. These requirements are 

found in 33 CFR 151.2035(a). 

Monitoring Program 

The Coast Guard will monitor NOBOB 

vessels engaging in the best 

management practices during normal 

pre-arrival processing (or when updated 

ballast water reporting forms are 

obtained) and note the results in the 

U.S. Coast Guard’s Marine Safety 

Detachment Massena’s Vessel Matrix. 

NOBOB vessels that conducted midocean exchange the last time the tanks 

contained ballast water should indicate 

that they have done so when submitting 

their Ballast Water Reporting Form 

(OMB Control No. 1625–0069) by filling 

out the appropriate information in 

Section 4. Ballast Water Management 

and in Section 5. Ballast Water History. 

NOBOB vessels that conduct saltwater 

flushing should indicate that they have 

done so in the Ballast Water Reporting 

Form in Section 4. Ballast Water 

Management, by checking off the 

‘‘Underwent Alternative Management’’

box and indicating that the vessel 

underwent saltwater flushing in the 

‘‘specify alternative method’’ line. 

NOBOB vessels that conducted 

saltwater flushing should also fill out 

Section 5. Ballast Water History. 

NOBOB vessels that use a U.S. Coast 

Guard approved alternative method 

(treatment) to ballast water exchange, 

should indicate they have done so in the 

Ballast Water Reporting Form in Section 

4. Ballast Water Management, by 

checking off the ‘‘Underwent 

Alternative Management’’ box and 

indicating that the vessel underwent the 

specific alternative method in the 

‘‘specify alternative method’’ line. 

NOBOB vessels that use a U.S. Coast 

Guard approved alternative method 

should also fill out Section 5. Ballast 

Water History. 

For more information and examples 

on how to correctly fill out a ballast 

water reporting form, please visit the 

following Web site at: http:// 

invasions.si.edu/nbic/instructions.html. 

The Coast Guard will take samples of 

residual water from the ballast tanks of 

NOBOB vessels in order to determine 

the efficacy of this program. If we 

determine that this program is not 

effective in preventing the introduction 

of NIS into the Great Lakes, the Coast 

Guard may consider other alternatives. 

Environment 

In accordance with the National 

Environmental Policy Act of 1969 

(Section 102(2)(c)), as implemented by 

the Council of Environment Quality 

regulations (40 CFR parts 1500–1508) 

and Coast Guard Policy for Considering 

Environmental Impacts (COMDTINST 

M16475.1D), the Coast Guard has 

prepared a draft Environmental 

Assessment (EA) to consider the 

environmental impacts of implementing 

the best management practices for 

NOBOB vessels. The draft EA identifies 

and examines those reasonable 

alternatives needed to effectively reduce 

NIS introductions into the Great Lakes 

via NOBOB vessels. The draft EA 

analyzed the no action alternative and 

one action alternative that could fulfill 

the purpose and need of establishing 

best management practices for NOBOB 

vessels to reduce NIS introductions into 

the Great Lakes. Specifically, the draft 

EA considered potential effects to the 

natural and human environments by 

incorporating environmental analyses 

previously conducted for establishing 

ballast water management regulations 

for U.S. waters. These analyses are 

available in the docket. Therefore, we 

are requesting your comments on 

environmental concerns you may have 

related to the draft EA. This includes 

methodologies for use in the draft EA or 

possible sources of data or information 

not included in the draft EA. Your 

comments will be considered in 

preparing a Finding of No Significant 

Impact (FONSI) and final PEA. 

51836 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 168 / Wednesday, August 31, 2005 / Notices 

Dated: August 19, 2005. 

T.H. Gilmour, 

Rear Admiral, U.S. Coast Guard, Assistant 

Commandant for Marine Safety, Security and 

Environmental Protection. 

[FR Doc. 05–17426 Filed 8–29–05; 12:21 pm] 

BILLING CODE 4910–15–P 

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND 

SECURITY 

Customs and Border Protection 

Quarterly IRS Interest Rates Used in 

Calculating Interest on Overdue 

Accounts and Refunds on Customs 

Duties 

AGENCY: Customs and Border Protection, 

Department of Homeland Security. 

ACTION: General notice. 

SUMMARY: This notice advises the public 

of the quarterly Internal Revenue 

Service interest rates used to calculate 

interest on overdue accounts 

(underpayments) and refunds 

(overpayments) of customs duties. For 

the calendar quarter beginning July 1, 

2005, the interest rates for overpayments 

will be 5 percent for corporations and 6 

percent for non-corporations, and the 

interest rate for underpayments will be 

6 percent. This notice is published for 

the convenience of the importing public 

and Customs and Border Protection 

personnel. 

EFFECTIVE DATE: July 1, 2005. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Trong Quan, National Finance Center, 

Collections Section, 6026 Lakeside 

Boulevard, Indianapolis, Indiana 46278; 

telephone (317) 614–4516. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

Pursuant to 19 U.S.C. 1505 and 

Treasury Decision 85–93, published in 

the Federal Register on May 29, 1985 

(50 FR 21832), the interest rate paid on 

applicable overpayments or 

underpayments of customs duties must 

be in accordance with the Internal 

Revenue Code rate established under 26 

U.S.C. 6621 and 6622. Section 6621 was 

amended (at paragraph (a)(1)(B) by the 

Internal Revenue Service Restructuring 

and Reform Act of 1998, Pub. L. 105–

206, 112 Stat. 685) to provide different 

interest rates applicable to 

overpayments: one for corporations and 

one for non-corporations. 

The interest rates are based on the 

Federal short-term rate and determined 

by the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) on 

behalf of the Secretary of the Treasury 

on a quarterly basis. The rates effective 

for a quarter are determined during the 

first-month period of the previous 

quarter. 

In Revenue Ruling 2005–35, the IRS 

determined the rates of interest for the 

calendar quarter beginning July 1, 2005, 

and ending September 30, 2005. The 

interest rate paid to the Treasury for 

underpayments will be the Federal 

short-term rate (3%) plus three 

percentage points (3%) for a total of six 

percent (6%). For corporate 

overpayments, the rate is the Federal 

short-term rate (3%) plus two 

percentage points (2%) for a total of five 

percent (5%). For overpayments made 

by non-corporations, the rate is the 

Federal short-term rate (3%) plus three 

percentage points (3%) for a total of six 

percent (6%). These interest rates are 

subject to change for the calendar 

quarter beginning October 1, 2005, and 

ending December 31, 2005. 

For the convenience of the importing 

public and Customs and Border 

Protection personnel the following list 

of IRS interest rates used, covering the 

period from before July of 1974 to date, 

to calculate interest on overdue 

accounts and refunds of customs duties, 

is published in summary format. 

Beginning 

date 

Ending 

date 

Under payments 

(percent) 

Over payments 

(percent) 

Corporate 

overpayments 

(Eff. 1–1–99) 

(percent) 

070174 ...................................................... 063075 ...................................................... 6 6 ............................

070175 ...................................................... 013176 ...................................................... 9 9 ............................

020176 ...................................................... 013178 ...................................................... 7 7 ............................

020178 ...................................................... 013180 ...................................................... 6 6 ............................

020180 ...................................................... 013182 ...................................................... 12 12 ............................

020182 ...................................................... 123182 ...................................................... 20 20 ............................

010183 ...................................................... 063083 ...................................................... 16 16 ............................

070183 ...................................................... 123184 ...................................................... 11 11 ............................

010185 ...................................................... 063085 ...................................................... 13 13 ............................

070185 ...................................................... 123185 ...................................................... 11 11 ............................

010186 ...................................................... 063086 ...................................................... 10 10 ............................

070186 ...................................................... 123186 ...................................................... 9 9 ............................

010187 ...................................................... 093087 ...................................................... 9 8 ............................

100187 ...................................................... 123187 ...................................................... 10 9 ............................

010188 ...................................................... 033188 ...................................................... 11 10 ............................

040188 ...................................................... 093088 ...................................................... 10 9 ............................

100188 ...................................................... 033189 ...................................................... 11 10 ............................

040189 ...................................................... 093089 ...................................................... 12 11 ............................

100189 ...................................................... 033191 ...................................................... 11 10 ............................

040191 ...................................................... 123191 ...................................................... 10 9 ............................

010192 ...................................................... 033192 ...................................................... 9 8 ............................

040192 ...................................................... 093092 ...................................................... 8 7 ............................

100192 ...................................................... 063094 ...................................................... 7 6 ............................

070194 ...................................................... 093094 ...................................................... 8 7 ............................

100194 ...................................................... 033195 ...................................................... 9 8 ............................

040195 ...................................................... 063095 ...................................................... 10 9 ............................

070195 ...................................................... 033196 ...................................................... 9 8 ............................

040196 ...................................................... 063096 ...................................................... 8 7 ............................

070196 ...................................................... 033198 ...................................................... 9 8 ............................

040198 ...................................................... 123198 ...................................................... 8 7 ............................

010199 ...................................................... 033199 ...................................................... 7 7 6 

040199 ...................................................... 033100 ...................................................... 8 8 7 

040100 ...................................................... 033101 ...................................................... 9 9 8 

040101 ...................................................... 063001 ...................................................... 8 8 7