[Federal Register Volume 67, Number 42 (Monday, March 4, 2002)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 9632-9638]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 02-5187]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Coast Guard
33 CFR Part 151
[USCG-2001-10486]
RIN 2115-AG21
Standards for Living Organisms in Ship's Ballast Water Discharged
in U.S. Waters
AGENCY: Coast Guard, DOT.
ACTION: Advance notice of proposed rulemaking; request for comments.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Coast Guard seeks comments on the development of a ballast
water treatment goal, and an interim ballast water treatment standard.
The Nonindigenous Aquatic Nuisance Prevention and Control Act of 1990
and the National Invasive Species Act of 1996 require the Coast Guard
to regulate ballast water management practices to prevent the discharge
of shipborne ballast water from releasing harmful nonindigenous species
into U.S. waters of the Great Lakes, and to issue voluntary guidelines
to prevent the introduction of such species through ballast water
operations in other waters of the U.S. These Acts further provide that
the Coast Guard must assess compliance with the voluntary guidelines
and if compliance is inadequate must issue regulations that make the
guidelines mandatory. These guidelines and regulations must be based on
open ocean ballast water exchange and/or environmentally sound
alternatives that the Coast Guard determines to be at least as
``effective'' as ballast water exchange in preventing and controlling
infestations of aquatic nuisance species (ANS). The Coast Guard will
use the public's comments to help define a ballast water treatment goal
and standard, both of which are essential parts of determining whether
alternative ballast water management methods are environmentally sound
and at least as effective as open ocean ballast water exchange (BWE) in
preventing and controlling infestations of ANS.
DATES: Comments and related material must reach the Coast Guard on or
before June 3, 2002.
ADDRESSES: To make sure that 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-2001-10486),
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) 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
rulemaking. Comments and material received from the public, as well as
documents mentioned in this preamble as being available in the docket,
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: If you have questions about this
notice, call Dr. Richard Everett, Project Manager, Office of Operating
and Environmental Standards (G-MSO), Coast Guard, telephone 202-267-
0214. If you have questions on viewing or submitting material to the
docket, call Dorothy Beard, Chief, Dockets, Department of
Transportation, telephone 202-366-5149.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Other NISA Rulemaking to Date
This rulemaking follows the publication of the Final Rule (USCG-
1998-3423) on November 21, 2001 (66 FR 58381), for the Implementation
of the National Invasive Species Act of 1996, that finalizes
regulations for the Great Lakes ecosystems and voluntary ballast water
management guidelines for all other waters of the United States,
including reporting for nearly all vessels entering waters of the
United States. Both rules follow the publication of the notice and
request for comments for Potential Approaches To Setting Ballast Water
Treatment Standards (USCG-2001-8737) on May 1, 2001, notice and request
for comments on Approval for Experimental Shipboard Installations of
Ballast Water Treatment Systems (USCG-2001-9267) on May 22, 2001, and
the publication of notice of meetings; request for comments on The
Ballast Water Management Program (USCG-2001-10062) on July 11, 2001.
Request for Comments
The Coast Guard encourages interested persons to participate in
this
[[Page 9633]]
rulemaking by submitting written data, views or arguments. Persons
submitting comments should include their name and address, identify the
docket number for this rulemaking (USCG-2001-10486), and the specific
section of this proposal to which each comment applies, and give the
reason for each comment. Please submit all comments and related
material in an unbound format, no larger than 8\1/2\ by 11 inches,
suitable for copying. Persons wanting acknowledgement of receipt of
comments should enclose a stamped, self-addressed postcard or envelope.
Don't submit the same comment or attachment more than once. Don't
submit anything you consider to be confidential business information,
as all comments are placed in the docket and are thus open to public
inspection and duplication. The Coast Guard will consider all comments
and material received during the comment period. We may change this
proposed rule in view of them.
Public Meeting
We have no plans for any public meetings, unless you request one.
Some of the information that helped us prepare this notice came from
the following meetings that have already been held: meetings of the
Ballast Water and Shipping Committee (BWSC) of the Federal Aquatic
Nuisance Species Task Force; the workshop on ballast water treatment
standards sponsored by the Global Ballast Water Program (Globallast) of
the International Maritime Organization (IMO) in March 2001; and two
technical workshops we held in April and May 2001. If you want a
meeting, you may request one by writing to the Docket Management
Facility at the address under ADDRESSES. Explain why you think a
meeting would be useful. If we determine that oral presentations would
aid this rulemaking, we will hold a public hearing at a time, date, and
place announced by later notice in the Federal Register.
Background and Purpose
Congress, in the Nonindigenous Aquatic Nuisance Prevention and
Control Act of 1990 (NANPCA), as amended by the National Invasive
Species Act of 1996 (NISA), directs the Coast Guard to issue
regulations and guidelines for ballast water management (BWM). The goal
of BWM is to prevent discharged ballast water from introducing harmful
nonindigenous species (NIS) to U.S. waters.
Responding to NANPCA's directive, we published a final rule (58 FR
18330, April 8, 1993). It mandated ballast water treatment (BWT) for
the Great Lakes. These requirements appear in 33 CFR part 151, subpart
C, and were later extended to include the Hudson River north of the
George Washington Bridge (59 FR 67632, December 30, 1994), as required
by the statute. In 1999, responding to NISA's directive, we published
an interim rule (64 FR 26672, May 17, 1999) that sets voluntary BWM
guidelines for all other U.S. waters, and BWM reporting requirements
for most ships entering U.S. waters.
NANPCA and NISA require BWT to be executed by mid-ocean ballast
water exchange (BWE), or by a Coast Guard-approved alternative BWT
method. The alternative BWT must be at least as effective as BWE in
preventing and controlling infestations of aquatic nuisance species
(ANS). Therefore, in order to evaluate the effectiveness of alternative
BWT methods, the Coast Guard must first define for programmatic
purposes what ``as effective as [BWE]'' means. The purpose of this
notice, in part, is to present for public comment various approaches to
clarifying this term.
On May 1, 2001, we published a notice and request for public
comments (66 FR 21807) that invited comment on four conceptual
approaches to BWT standards for assessing relative effectiveness to
BWE, and posed questions, all of which were developed in meetings of
the BWSC. The comments we received revealed a wide range of opinion
(see ``Comments on the May 1, 2001, Notice'' below), indicating the
need for more discussion.
The present notice reflects comments received in response to the
May 1, 2001 notice. It also draws on information taken from the
Globallast workshop (March 2001). Finally, it draws on discussions of
the four conceptual BWT approaches by participants invited to the April
and May 2001 Coast Guard workshops. (The report of the Globallast
workshop is available at http://globallast.imo.org. Reports from the
Coast Guard workshops, when completed, will be available at http://dms.dot.gov.)
Comments on the May 1, 2001, Notice
We received 22 written responses to our May 1, 2001 request for
comments, which set out 4 optional approaches for BWT standards, posed
5 questions related to setting the standard, and posed 3 questions
relating to implementation issues. We will summarize responses to the
implementation questions when we propose a specific implementation
approach and testing protocol at a later date. Here are the questions
we asked about setting standards, along with a summary of the comments
we received, and our response.
1. Should a standard be based on BWE, best available technology
[BAT], or the biological capacity of the receiving ecosystem? What are
the arguments for, or against, each option? Thirteen respondents
specifically addressed this question. Five commenters, all associated
with the shipping industry, recommended that a quantification of the
effectiveness of BWE be used to set the standard. All five also stated
that the language of NISA dictates this approach. Four commenters
favored a BAT approach. Four commenters favored a biological capacity
approach.
Participants in both the Globallast and Coast Guard workshops
recommended against basing a ballast water treatment standard on the
effectiveness, either theoretical or measured, of BWE. The Globallast
report on the findings of the workshop stated: ``It is not appropriate
to use equivalency to ballast water exchange as an effectiveness
standard for evaluating and approving/accepting new ballast water
treatment technologies, as the relationship between volumetric exchange
and real biological effectiveness achieved by ballast water exchange is
extremely poorly defined. This relationship cannot be established
without extremely expensive empirical testing.'' Participants in the
two Coast Guard workshops recommended that standards be based on the
level of protection needed to prevent biological invasions. The
recommendations are neither endorsed nor discredited by the Coast
Guard.
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? Twelve
commenters specifically addressed this question. None of the 12 thought
that theoretical efficacy should be used. Three recommended using
volumetric effectiveness, and five considered measured effectiveness in
killing/removing organisms to be the most appropriate measure. One
commenter thought that all three metrics should be used, and four
commenters re-expressed their opinion that exchange should not be the
basis for the standard.
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
[[Page 9634]]
vessels) before setting a standard based on the capabilities of these
processes? Ten respondents specifically addressed this question. One
commenter recommended determining the effectiveness of exchange on a
ship-by-ship basis, two thought effectiveness should be calculated for
different ``risk classes'' of vessels or sectors of the shipping
industry, one recommended that exchange be evaluated with hydrodynamic
models before being evaluated on test vessels, and six advocated the
use of a broad average effectiveness calculated across many types of
vessels and trading patterns.
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? Eleven respondents
specifically addressed this question. Six comments came from vendors of
ballast water treatment systems or from public and private resource
protection entities. Five of these said the probability of conducting
an exchange must be considered at some level, in order to better
represent BWE's ``real world'' capability. The sixth said we should
take only completed exchanges into account, because class societies
could not attest to the effectiveness of systems when safety exemptions
were considered. All five shipping industry commenters also advocated
looking only at completed exchanges, because too many variables affect
whether or not a full exchange can be conducted. The Coast Guard
considers the feasibility of conducting a mid-ocean exchange to be one
of the significant issues in evaluating 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? Twelve respondents
specifically addressed this question. Several expressed concern that if
ballast water were taken on in a location with a very low
concentration, the vessel might not have to use any treatment to meet a
concentration standard. Conversely, several commenters argued that a
high percentage reduction in organisms, when the initial concentration
was very high, could still result in the discharge of a high
concentration of organisms. These concerns should be kept in mind when
commenting on the alternative standards presented below. It is
important to note that, for purposes of testing the theoretical
effectiveness of a technology, if testing is conducted using the
highest expected natural concentrations of organisms as the
concentrations in the test medium (as recommended by participants in
the Globallast and the USCG workshops), the percent reduction approach
effectively becomes a concentration approach. This is because the
standard percent reduction (for example, 95%) of an absolute
concentration produces an absolute concentration of remaining
organisms. On the other hand, for purposes of assessing compliance with
the standard at the level of an individual vessel, the two approaches
could have very different results.
Further Comments Needed
We seek more comments because the discussion of BWT standards has
focused, until now, on the suitability of basing standards on existing
technology, rather than on developing new technology that better meets
the congressional intent of eliminating ballast water discharge as a
source of harmful NIS.
As we noted above, the governing statutes (NANCPA and NISA) specify
the use of BWE and provide that any alternative form of BWT be at least
as effective as BWE in preventing and controlling the spread of ANS. At
present, no alternatives have been approved, in part, perhaps, because
the effectiveness of the BWE benchmark itself is not well defined.
Furthermore, concerns have been voiced that mid-ocean BWE is difficult
to quantify in practice, cannot be safely performed on all transoceanic
voyages, and by current definition cannot be conducted on voyages that
take place within 200 miles of shore and in waters shallower than 2000
meters deep.
There are only limited scientific data on the effectiveness of BWE.
A few empirical studies (see references: 5, 13, 14, 15, 18) listed in
this notice, indicate that BWE results in the actual exchange of 88% to
99% of the water carried in a ballast tank. The average result is quite
close to the theoretical 95% efficiency of Flow-Through Exchange.
However, knowing that we exchanged 88-99% of the water does not
necessarily tell us we eliminated 88-99% of the danger of ANS remaining
in the ballast tank. Some of the empirical studies (see references: 5,
13, 14, 15, 18) also looked at that aspect of BWE. They found that BWE
resulted in reducing the number of organisms by varying degrees, from
39% to 99.9%, depending on the taxonomic groups and ships studied.
The variability in this data reflects the fact that the studies
involved different ships under experimentally uncontrolled conditions,
used different methods of calculating the percentage of water
exchanged, and used different taxonomic groups to evaluate BWE's
effectiveness in reducing the presence of ANS.
Technical experts at the Coast Guard and IMO workshops, and
comments by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, agree
that scientifically determining even the quantitative effectiveness of
BWE (leaving aside its qualitative effectiveness) will be challenging.
We think Congress viewed BWE as a practical but imperfect tool for
treating ballast water, and wanted to ensure that approved alternatives
would not be less effective than BWE is known to be. As currently
practiced, BWE produces varying results and sometimes may remove as few
as 39% of the possible harmful organisms from the ballast tank. BWE is
affected by a number of variables, cannot be used on coastal voyages
(as currently defined), and often cannot be used by a ship on any of
it's voyages due to safety concerns.
The Coast Guard is currently considering an approach in which an
alternative BWT method would be judged to be at least as effective as
BWE if it:
Produces predictable results,
Removes or inactivates a high proportion of organisms,
Functions effectively under most operating conditions, and
Moves toward a goal that expresses the congressional
intent to eliminate ballast water discharge as a source of harmful NIS.
In this notice, we are seeking comments that will help us define
the standards and goals that would meet these criteria.
Issues for further comment
Your comments are welcome on any aspect of this notice, including
the submission of alternative goals or standards that were not
presented in today's notice. The possible goals and standards presented
here are intended to stimulate discussion that will ultimately lead to
a standard for assessing BWT effectiveness that will have broad
scientific and public support. We particularly seek your input on the
``Questions'' we raise below. The Questions (Q1-Q6) refer to the
following possible Goals (G1-G3) and Standards (S1-S4).
Possible Goals
G1. No discharge of zooplankton and photosynthetic organisms
(including holoplanktonic, meroplanktonic, and demersal zooplankton,
phytoplankton and propagules of macroalgae and
[[Page 9635]]
aquatic angiosperms), inclusive of all life-stages. For bacteria,
Enterococci and Escherichia coli will not exceed 35 per 100 ml and 126
per 100 ml of treated water, respectively.
G2. Treat for living organisms at least to the same extent as
drinking water.
G3. Ballast water treatment technologies would demonstrate, through
direct comparison with ballast water exchange, that they are at least
as effective as ballast water exchange in preventing and controlling
infestations of aquatic nuisance species for the vessel's design and
route.
Possible Standards
S1. Achieve at least 95% removal, kill or inactivation of a
representative species from each of six representative taxonomic
groups: vertebrates, invertebrates (hard-shelled, soft shelled, soft-
bodied), phytoplankton, macro-algae. This level would be measured
against ballast water intake for a defined set of standard biological,
physical and chemical intake conditions. For each representative
species, those conditions are:
The highest expected natural concentration of organisms in
the world as derived from available literature and
A range of values for salinity, turbidity, temperature,
pH, dissolved oxygen, particulate organic matter, and dissolved organic
matter. (GLOBALLAST PROPOSAL ``A''.)
S2. Remove, kill or inactivate all organisms larger than 100
microns in size. (GLOBALLAST PROPOSAL ``B''.)
S3. Remove 99% of all coastal holoplanktonic, meroplanktonic, and
demersal zooplankton, inclusive of all life-stages (eggs, larvae,
juveniles, and adults). Remove 95% of all photosynthetic organisms,
including phytoplankton and propagules of macroalgae and aquatic
angiosperms, inclusive of all life stages. Enterococci and Escherichia
coli will not exceed 35 per 100 ml and 126 per 100 ml of treated water,
respectively. (COAST GUARD WORKSHOP PROPOSAL ``A''.)
S4. Discharge no organisms greater than 50 microns in size, and
treat to meet federal criteria for contact recreation (currently 35
Enterococci/ 100 ml for marine waters and 126 E. coli /100 ml for
freshwaters). (COAST GUARD WORKSHOP PROPOSAL ``B''.)
Note: The capability of current technology to remove or kill
95%-99% of the zooplankton or phytoplankton, or to remove 100% of
organisms larger than 50 or 100 microns, under the operational flow
and volume conditions characteristic of most commercial ocean-going
vessels, is not well established. Workshop participants felt these
removal efficiencies are practical and realistic initial targets.
BWT to these levels would provide increased protection compared to
no BWT at all, or to BWE carried out only when vessel design and
operating conditions permit.
Questions
In answering the questions, please refer to Questions, Goals, and
Standards by their designations (for example: Q1, G2, S3).
The following questions refer to the goals (G1-G3) and standards
(S1-S4) set out in ``Issues for Further Comment,'' above.
Q1. Should the Coast Guard adopt G1, G2, G3, or some other goal
(please specify) for BWT?
Q2. Should the Coast Guard adopt any of the standards, S1-S4 as an
interim BWT standard? (You also may propose alternative quantitative or
qualitative standards.)
Q3. Please provide information on the effectiveness of current
technologies to meet any of the possible standards. Please comment,
with supporting technical information if possible, on the workshop
participants' assessment that these standards are ``practical and
realistic initial targets''.
Q4. General comments on how to structure any cost-benefit or cost-
effectiveness analysis that evaluates the above four possible
standards. We are requesting comments on how the Coast Guard should
measure the benefits to society of the above possible standards in
either qualitative or quantitative terms. How would the benefits be
measured considering each possible standard would continue to allow the
introduction of invasive species, but at different rates? What would
the costs be to industry in each of the four proposals? How would the
cost to industry differ by possible standard?
Q5. What impact would the above four standards have on small
businesses that own and operate vessels?
Q6. What potential environmental impacts would the goals or
standards carry?
Issues for Future Consideration
The possible goals and standards in today's notice set out basic
biological parameters for the discharge of aquatic organisms ranging
from bacteria to higher taxonomic groups and are intended to provide a
starting point for discussion. If the framework for addressing BWT
effectiveness that is discussed in this notice were adopted, the final
standards would be derived from a process that incorporates the
expertise of the scientific community.
We know that many practical problems will need to be addressed in
setting up a program for testing and approving BWT alternatives. We
think it is premature to ask for comments on these issues until an
approach (or at least an interim approach) for assessing BWT
effectiveness is chosen, because many procedural aspects of the testing
process will be dependent on the specific nature of the selected
approach. However, we may ultimately need to address issues such as
using standard indicators as evaluation tools, as participants in both
Globallast and the Coast Guard workshops recommended. This would depend
on:
Identifying and validating species or physical/chemical
metrics that can be used as practical and efficient standard
indicators. This in turn would depend on:
Improving sampling and analytic techniques by:
Setting detection limits and degrees of statistical
uncertainty for methods and protocols used to enumerate the abundance
of organisms in treated ballast water, and on
Setting standard testing conditions for the concentrations
of indicators and a suite of physical and chemical parameters. For
example, testing might be based on what the available literature shows
to be the highest expected natural concentration in the world for each
indicator species or variable under a range of conditions for other
parameters. (This approach was recommended by participants in both the
Globallast and USCG workshops.) The suite of parameters would include
turbidity, dissolved and particulate organic material, salinity, pH,
and temperature.
Preliminary Regulatory Evaluation
At this early stage in the process, the Coast Guard cannot
anticipate whether any proposed or final rules will be considered
significant, economically or otherwise, under Executive Order 12866 or
under the Department of Transportation regulatory policies and
procedures [44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979]. At this time, the economic
impact of any regulations that may result from this notice cannot be
accurately determined. The Coast Guard plans to use comments received
on this advance notice of proposed rulemaking to assess these economic
impacts. We will then prepare either a regulatory assessment or a
detailed regulatory evaluation as appropriate, which will be placed in
the docket.
To facilitate the comment process on this notice, Table 1 below
presents cost information compiled from recent technical literature on
ballast water technologies. Several points should be noted when
reviewing this information.
[[Page 9636]]
First, these cost estimates are not all expressed in a constant unit.
Comparisons of estimates across studies, therefore, should be conducted
with caution. Second, cost estimates from the Cawthron (1998) and
Agriculture, Fisheries, and Forestry--Australia (2001) reports are
converted from Australian dollars based on exchange rates published
October 16, 2001 ($0.5136 AUD = $1.00 US Dollar). Third, these cost
estimates are not expressed in constant dollars; they have not been
adjusted for inflation. Finally, these costs are derived primarily
through experimental and pilot projects, not actual application in the
field.
At this time, the Coast Guard does not endorse any of these studies
in any way; we have not yet conducted detailed cost-benefit analysis on
this subject. We are making this information available to facilitate
public discussion of the questions that we are posing above. We also
welcome any comments and supporting documentation, pertaining to the
cost estimates summarized below.
Table 1.--Cost Estimates for Ballast Water Alternative Technologies From the Recent Literature
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ref. Technology Cost Remark
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1.............. Ballast water exchange.............. $4.79-$7.28 per cubic Costs are reduced approximately
meter. 50 percent if gravity
ballasting can be accomplished.
4.............. Ballast water exchange.............. $4,500 fuel cost per 56,000 tons of ballast water
exchange. flow through 3 volumes; time
for exchange about 3 days.
4.............. Ballast water exchange.............. $3,100-$8,800 for fuel Estimates for conditions on
and pump maintenance container ships, bulk carriers,
per exchange. and two types of tankers; 3
dilutions; time for exchange
ranged from 33 to 55 hours.
4.............. Ballast water exchange.............. $16,000-$80,000 total Estimates for conditions on VLCC
cost of exchange. and Suezmax bulker.
9.............. Ballast water exchange.............. Qualitative discussion Time lost during transit.
of cost implications.
16............. Ballast water exchange.............. $0.02-$0.10 per metric Estimates based on study of
ton of ballast water. California ports.
1.............. Onshore treatment facility.......... $0.66-$27.00 per cubic Cost estimates driven by
meter. additional infrastructure
required in ports.
6.............. Onshore treatment facility.......... $1.4 billion for entire Facility in Valdez, Alaska; only
treatment facility. ballast water treatment
facility currently in use in
U.S.; covers 1,000 acres of
land, processes about 16m
gallons of ballast water daily.
6.............. Onshore treatment facility.......... $9m-19m for Estimate based on port-based
infrastructure; $0.09- facility located on land or a
$0.41 per metric ton floating platform.
of ballast water
treated.
9.............. Onshore treatment facility.......... Qualitative discussion Costs minimized in onshore
of cost implications. facility located where vessels
are already required to stop
for customs and quarantine
inspection; time delay for
docking and deballasting.
16............. Onshore treatment facility.......... $7.6m-$49.7m for Estimates based on study of
infrastructure; California ports.
$142,000-$223,000 for
annual maintenance;
$1.40-$8.30 per metric
ton of ballast water
treated.
1.............. Thermal treatment................... $10.83-$17.52 per cubic Heating/flushing process.
meter.
6.............. Thermal treatment................... Qualitative discussion Very expensive labor and
of cost implications. materials cost to retrofit
heating coils in ballast tanks;
if additional heat generation
required then fuel consumption
increases.
11............. Thermal treatment................... $75,000-$275,000 per Most cost effective in warmer
system. waters.
1.............. UV treatment........................ $31.66-$186.53 per Low cost estimate represents UV
cubic meter. used alone; high cost estimate
reflects combination with
hydrocyclone.
2.............. UV treatment........................ $10,200-$545,000 per Cost estimates for 1,200 GPM and
system for 8,000 GPM systems.
infrastructure; $2,200-
$11,000 per system for
annual maintenance.
7.............. UV treatment........................ $250,000-$1m life-cycle Study part of technology
per treatment system. demonstration project.
9.............. UV treatment........................ Qualitative discussion Capital investment very high;
of cost implications. cost for installation and pipe
modifications.
1.............. Chemical treatment.................. $0.47-$77.88 per cubic Estimate based only on operating
meter. cost.
7.............. Chemical treatment.................. $2m-$4m life-cycle per Study part of technology
treatment system. demonstration project.
9.............. Chemical treatment.................. Qualitative discussion Installation and engineering of
of cost implications. chemical dosing system is
expensive; low cost
effectiveness; large capital
investment.
9.............. Filtration.......................... Qualitative discussion Large capital investment; cost
of cost implications. of disposal of concentrated
filtrate.
8.............. Rapid response...................... $1.5m per strike....... Australia, method involved
quarantine of the port and
destruction of organisms when
detected on a vessel in port.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
As with the cost information provided above, the Coast Guard does
not currently endorse any of these studies in any way; we have not yet
conducted our own detailed assessment of their methodologies and
results. Rather, we are making this information available to facilitate
public discussion of the questions that we are posing above. We
[[Page 9637]]
also welcome any comments, and supporting documentation pertaining to
the damage estimates summarized below.
Aquatic Nuisance Species
Adverse environmental and economic effects of some ANS have been
documented in a number of studies. As with the cost information
provided above, the Coast Guard does not currently endorse any of these
studies in any way; we have not yet conducted our own detailed
assessment of their methodologies and results. Rather, we are making
this information available to facilitate public discussion of the
questions that we are posing above. We also welcome any comments, and
supporting documentation pertaining to the damage estimates summarized
below.
The most studied species, the zebra mussel, has affected the
ecology and economy of the Great Lakes since introduction in the late
1980s. Some scientists believe the mussel is responsible for ``profound
changes in the lower food web of the Great Lakes'' and massive algal
blooms (see reference: 3). Zebra mussels may clog intake pipes for
industrial and municipal plants, and may cause extended shut downs in
order to chemically treat the pipes. In the Great Lakes basin, the
annual cost of zebra mussel control has been estimated at from $100 to
$400 million. Dramatically altering the Great Lakes ecosystems, zebra
mussels have now spread throughout the Mississippi River drainage
basin, thousands of inland lakes, and are threatening the West Coast
(see reference: 3). There is evidence that The San Francisco and
Chesapeake Bays, Gulf of Mexico, and Hawaiian coral reef may be
threatened by other non-indigenous fish, mollusks, crustaceans, and
aquatic plants (see reference: 3). A 1999 report (see reference: 12)
estimates that the environmental damage caused by non-indigenous
species in the United States (both land and water) is $138 billion per
year. The report further states that there are approximately 50,000
foreign species and the number is increasing. It is estimated that
about 42% of the species on the Threatened or Endangered species lists
are at risk primarily because of non-indigenous species.
The above damage estimate pertains to all non-indigenous species,
both land and water. Table 2 below, adapted from the report (see
reference: 12), presents estimates of the annual damages and costs of
aquatic species in the United States.
Table 2.--One Estimate of the Total Annual Cost of Aquatic Invasive
Species in Billions of Dollars
[See reference: 12]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Species Total \1\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Aquatic weeds............................................... $0.110
Fish........................................................ 1.000
Green crab.................................................. 0.044
Zebra mussel................................................ 5.000
Asian clam.................................................. 1.000
Shipworm.................................................... 0.205
-----------
Total................................................... 7.359
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Total annual cost of species.
Small Entities
We are unable, at this time, to determine whether, under the
Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601-612), any regulations
resulting from this ANPRM would have a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities. The term ``small entities''
comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations that are
independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their fields,
and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than 50,000.
If you think your business, organization, or governmental
jurisdiction qualifies as a small entity and that a rule establishing
standards for evaluating the effectiveness of BWT would have a
significant economic impact on it, please submit a comment (see
ADDRESSES) explaining why you think it qualifies and how and to what
degree this rule would economically affect it.
Assistance for Small Entities
Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement
Fairness Act of 1996 (Public Law 104-121), we want to assist small
entities in understanding this ANPRM so that they can better evaluate
its potential effects on them and participate in the rulemaking. If you
believe that this ANPRM could lead to a final regulation that would
affect your small business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction
and you have questions concerning its provisions, please contact Dr.
Richard Everett where listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT,
above.
Collection of Information
Any final rule resulting from this ANPRM could call for a new
collection of information under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44
U.S.C. 3501-3520.). At this time we are unable, however, to estimate
the number of responders or the burden of responding on each responder.
We will include our estimates of this information in a later notice of
proposed rulemaking and allow for comments on those estimates before
issuing a final rule. As always, you are not required to respond to an
information collection unless it displays a valid OMB approval number.
Federalism
A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132,
Federalism, if it has a substantial direct effect on State or local
governments and would either preempt State law or impose a substantial
direct cost of compliance on them. We have not yet analyzed whether any
rule resulting from this ANPRM would have implications for federalism,
but we are aware of efforts by various states to stem invasive species
in their waters. We will continue to consult with the states through
the Ballast Water Working Group.
Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538)
requires Federal agencies to assess the effects of their discretionary
regulatory actions. In particular, the Act addresses actions that may
result in the expenditure by a State, local, or tribal government, in
the aggregate, or by the private sector of $100,000,000 or more in any
one year. As stated above, we do not yet know the costs that would be
associated with any rule resulting from this ANPRM. The Coast Guard
will publish information regarding costs using the comments received on
this ANPRM in a future publication.
Taking of Private Property
We anticipate that any proposed rule would not effect a taking of
private property or otherwise have taking implications under Executive
Order 12630, Governmental Actions and Interference with
Constitutionally Protected Property Rights.
Civil Justice Reform
We anticipate that any proposed rule would meet the applicable
standards in sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of Executive Order 12988, Civil
Justice Reform, to minimize litigation, eliminate ambiguity, and reduce
burden.
Protection of Children
We anticipate that any proposed rule will be analyzed under
Executive Order 13045, Protection of Children from Environmental Health
Risks and Safety Risks, and any such rule would not create an
environmental risk to health or
[[Page 9638]]
risk to safety that might disproportionately affect children.
Indian Tribal Governments
We anticipate that any proposed rule would not have tribal
implications under Executive Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination
with Indian Tribal Governments, because it would likely not have a
substantial direct effect on one or more Indian tribes, on the
relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or on
the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal
Government and Indian tribes. However, we recognize that ANS may pose
significant concerns for some tribal governments and are committed to
working with tribes as we proceed with this rulemaking.
To help the Coast Guard establish regular and meaningful
consultation and collaboration with Indian and Alaskan Native tribes,
we published a notice in the Federal Register (66 FR 36361, July 11,
2001) requesting comments on how to best carry out the Order. We invite
your comments on how any rule resulting from this ANPRM might impact
tribal governments, even if that impact may not constitute a ``tribal
implication'' under the Order, and how best to address the ANS concerns
of the tribal governments.
Energy Effects
We have not analyzed this ANPRM under Executive Order 13211,
Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply,
Distribution, or Use. We have not determined whether it is a
``significant energy action'' under that order because we do not know
whether any resulting rule would be a ``significant regulatory action''
under Executive Order 12866. Once we determine the economic
significance of any rule stemming from this ANPRM, we will determine
whether a Statement of Energy Effects is required.
Environment
The Coast Guard will consider the environmental impact of any
proposed rule that results from this advance notice of proposed
rulemaking. We will include either Environmental Assessment or
Environmental Impact Statement in the docket for any such rulemaking as
appropriate.
References
1. Agriculture, Fisheries, and Forestry-Australia (AFFA). 2001.
``Ballast Water Treatment to Minimize the Risks of Introducing
Nonindigenous Marine Organisms into Australian Ports.'' Ballast Water
Research Series, Report No. 13, January 2001.
2. Battelle. 1998. ``Ballast Water Secondary Treatment Technology
Review.'' Northeast Midwest Institute, August 24, 1998.
3. Stephen B. Brandt, Director of the Great Lakes Environmental
Research Laboratory. Testimony before the Committee on Science, U.S.
House of Representatives, July 26, 2001. http://www.house.gov.science.ets/jul26/brandt/htm (September 18, 2001).
4. Cawthron. 1998. ``Mid Ocean Ballast Water Exchange: Procedures,
Effectiveness and Verification.'' Cawthron Report No. 468, December
1998.
5. Dickman, M. and F. Zhang, 1999. Mid-ocean exchange of container
vessel ballast water. 2: effects of vessel type in the transport of
diatoms and dinoflagellates from Manzanillo, Mexico, to Hong Kong,
China. Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser. 176: 253-262.
6. Greenman, D., K. Mullen, and S. Parmar. 1997. ``Ballast Water
Treatment Systems: A Feasibility Study.'' ANS Task Force Reports and
Publications, December 17, 1997.
7. Hurley, W.L., S.S. Schilling, and T.P. Mackey. Undated.
``Contract Designs for Ballast Water Treatment Systems on Containership
R.J. Pfeiffer and Tanker Polar Endeavor.'' Great Lakes Ballast
Technology Demonstration Project. Undated.
8. Kaiser, Jocelyn. 1999. ``Stemming the Tide of Invading
Species.'' Science: 285:5435, September 17, 1999.
9. Laughton, R., T. Moran, and G. Brown. 1992. ``A Review and
Evaluation of Ballast Water Management and Treatment Option to Reduce
the Potential for the Introduction of Non-native Species to the Great
Lakes.'' www.pollutech.com/papers/p22.htm
10. Locke, A. D., M. Reid, H. C. Van Leeuwen, W. G. Sprules, and J.
T. Carlton, 1993. Ballast water exchange as a means of controlling
dispersal of freshwater organisms by ships. Can. J. Fish. Aquatic Sci.
50: 2086-2093.
11. Maddox, T.L. 1998. ``The Thermal Treatment Methodology for
Zebra Mussel Elimination.'' Abstract from the Eighth International
Zebra Mussel and Other Nuisance Species Conference, March 1998.
12. Pimental, David, Lori Lach, Rodolfo Zuniga, Doug Morrison.
``Environmental and Economic Costs Associated with Non-Indigenous
Species in the United States.'' June 12, 1999. http://
www.news.cornell.edu/releases/Jan99/species--costs.html (August 6,
2001).
13. Rigby, G. R. and G. M. Hallegraeff, 1994. The transfer and
control of harmful marine organisms in shipping ballast water: Behavior
of marine plankton and ballast water exchange trials on the MV ``Iron
Whyalla''. J. Mar. Environ. Engineering 1: 91-110.
14. Smith, L. D., M. J. Wonham, L. D. McCann, D. M. Reid, G. R.
Ruiz, and J. T. Carlton, 1996. Shipping study II: Biological invasions
by nonindigenous species in United States waters: Quantifying the role
of ballast water and sediments, parts I and II. The National Sea Grant
College Program/Connecticut Sea Grant Project R/ES-6, Report No. CG-D-
02-97, Government Accession No. AD-A321543. Department of
Transportation, United States Coast Guard, Washington, DC, and Groton,
Connecticut, 137 pp.
15. Taylor, M. D. and E. J. Bruce, 2000. Mid Ocean Ballast Water
Exchange: Shipboard Trials of Methods for Verifying Efficiency.
Cawthron Report No. 524, Nelson, 59 pp.
16. URS/Dames & Moore. 2000. ``Feasibility of Onshore Ballast Water
Treatment at California Ports.'' California Association of Port
Authorities, September 2000.
17. Williams, R. J., F. B. Griffiths, E. J. Van der Wal, and J.
Kelly, 1988. Cargo vessel ballast water as a vector for the transport
of nonindigenous marine species. Estuar., Coastal & Shelf Sci. 26: 409-
420.
18. Zhang, F. and M. Dickman, 1999. Mid-ocean exchange of container
vessel ballast water. 1: Seasonal factors affecting the transport of
harmful diatoms and dinoflagellates. Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser. 176: 243-25.
Dated: August 27, 2001.
Paul J. Pluta,
Rear Admiral, U.S. Coast Guard, Assistant Commandant for Marine Safety
and Environmental Protection.
Editorial Note: This document was received at the Office of the
Federal Register on February 28, 2002.
[FR Doc. 02-5187 Filed 2-28-02; 1:36 pm]
BILLING CODE 4910-15-P