Implementation of the National Invasive Species Act of 1996 (NISA)

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 151

[USCG-98-3423]

RIN 2115-AD98

Implementation of the National Invasive Species Act of 1996

(NISA)

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: To comply with the National Invasive Species Act of 1996

(NISA), the Coast Guard proposes both regulations and voluntary

guidelines to control the invasion of aquatic nuisance species (ANS).

Ballast water from ships is the largest pathway for the

intercontinental introduction and spread of ANS. This rulemaking would

amend existing regulations for the Great Lakes ecosystem, establish

voluntary ballast water exchange guidelines for all other waters of the

United States, and

[[Page 17783]]

establish mandatory reporting and sampling procedures for nearly all

vessels entering U.S. waters. Under this proposed rule, a self-policing

program would be established where ballast water exchange is initially

voluntary outside of the Great Lakes ecosystem. However, if the rate of

compliance is found to be inadequate, or if vessel operators fail to

submit mandatory ballast water reports to the U.S. Coast Guard, the

voluntary guidelines will become mandatory and will carry civil and

criminal penalties. Also, the requirements of subpart C of 33 CFR part

151, which implements the provisions of NISA, would be rewritten in a

question and answer format and narrative text would be reformatted into

a more user-friendly table to help owners, operators, and others find

out which requirements of subpart C apply to them.

DATES: Comments must reach the Coast Guard on or before June 9, 1998.

Comments sent to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) on

collection of information must reach OMB on or before June 9, 1998.

ADDRESSES: You may mail comments to the Docket Management Facility,

[USCG-98-3423], U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT), room PL-401,

400 Seventh Street SW., Washington DC 20590-0001, or deliver them to

room PL-401, located on the Plaza Level of the Nassif Building at the

same address between 10 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except

Federal holidays. The telephone number is 202-366-9329. You may also E-

mail comments using the Marine Safety and Environmental Protection

Regulations Web Page at http://www.uscg.mil/hq/g-m/gmhome.htm. You must

also mail comments on collection of information to the Office of

Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget,

725 17th Street, NW., Washington, DC 20593, ATTN: Desk Officer, U.S.

Coast Guard.

The Docket Management Facility maintains the public docket for this

rulemaking. Comments, and documents as indicated in this preamble, will

become part of this docket and will be available for inspection or

copying at room PL-401, located on the Plaza Level of the Nassif

Building at the same address between 10 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through

Friday, except Federal holidays. You may electronically access the

public docket on the Internet at http://dms.dot.gov. You can get the

International Maritime Organization publications and documents referred

to in this preamble from the International Maritime Organization,

Publications Section, 4 Albert Embankment, London SE1 7SR, England.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For information on the public docket,

contact Carol Kelley, Coast Guard Dockets Team Leader, or Paulette

Twine, Chief, Documentary Services Division, U.S. Department of

Transportation, telephone 202-366-9329. For information on the notice

of proposed rulemaking provisions, contact Lieutenant Larry Greene,

Project Manager, U.S. Coast Guard Headquarters, Office of Response (G-

MOR), telephone 202-267-0500.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Request for Comments

The Coast Guard encourages you to submit written data, views, or

arguments. If you submit comments, you should include your name and

address, identify this notice [USCG-98-3423] and the specific section

or question in this document to which your comments apply, and give the

reason for each comment. Please submit one copy of all comments and

attachments in an unbound format, no larger than 8\1/2\ by 11 inches,

suitable for copying and electronic filing to the DOT Docket Management

Facility at the address under ADDRESSES. If you want us to acknowledge

receiving your comments, please enclose a stamped, self-addressed

postcard or envelope.

The Coast Guard will consider all comments received during the

comment period. It may change this proposed rule in view of the

comments.

The Coast Guard may schedule a public meeting depending on input

received in response to this notice. You may request a public meeting

by submitting a request to the Marine Safety Council where listed under

ADDRESSES. The request should include the reasons why a meeting would

be beneficial. If the Coast Guard determines that a public meeting

should be held, it will hold the meeting at a time and place announced

by a later notice in the Federal Register.

Background and Purpose

The Problem

Nonindigenous or exotic aquatic nuisance species (ANS) are invading

U.S. waters at a significant and increasing rate, causing serious

environmental impacts, economic losses, and threats to public health.

Although many nonindigenous species are benign, others have displaced

or threatened the existence of native species, devastated commercial

and recreational fish stocks, disrupted nutrient balances, and opened

new pathways for the spread of pathogens and the bioaccumulation of

toxic chemicals.

Invasions of ANS are a form of biological pollution that is

qualitatively different from any other form of pollution because ANS

invaders can never be cleaned up or completely removed from an invaded

ecosystem. Once established, the biological invaders continue to spread

into new areas and cause further harm to native ecosystems. Every

successful invasion constitutes an irretrievable loss to our biological

heritage. The nature and seriousness of the problem is well-documented

by several scientific studies, including two conducted in North

American aquatic ecosystems--the fresh water system of the Great Lakes,

and the salt and brackish water system of San Francisco Bay.

Aquatic nuisance species invasions through ballast water are now

recognized as a serious problem threatening global biological diversity

and human health. Limited control measures similar to these regulations

and guidelines have been adopted in Canada, Australia, New Zealand,

Israel, Chile, the United Kingdom, Germany, Sweden, Brazil, and Japan.

The International Maritime Organization (IMO) Marine Environmental

Protection Committee (MEPC) has issued the following voluntary

guidelines which it recommended be adopted by all maritime nations of

the world:

IMO MEPC Resolution 50(31), adopted at the 31st Session,

on July 1991;

IMO Resolution A.774(18), adopted at the 18th Assembly, on

November 1993;

IMO Assembly Resolution A.868(20), approved at the 20th

Assembly, on November 1997.

According to a recent review of the scientific literature conducted by

the Marine Board of the National Research Council (NRC),--

It has been estimated that in the 1990s ballast water may

transport over 3,000 species of animals and plants a day around the

world * * * and there is evidence that the number of ballast-

mediated introductions is steadily growing. More than 40 species

have appeared in the Great Lakes since 1960; more than 50 have

appeared in San Francisco Bay since 1970.

Other studies indicate that hundreds of ANS have successfully invaded

North America. Some of these invaders which have made the most dramatic

impacts in recent years include the following:

Zebra mussel. Invaded the U.S. in 1986 and is found in 19

States and 2 Canadian Provinces; expected to cost

[[Page 17784]]

the Great Lakes region alone over $500 million by the year 2000.

Asian clam. Filters the entire volume of northern San

Francisco Bay more that once per day, severely disrupting the food

chain.

Aquatic plant--hydrilla. Clogs waterways in 14 States and

costs Florida alone over $14 million per year to control.

Aquatic plant--purple loosestrife. Has invaded 40 states

where it displaces native vegetation and disrupts ecosystems.

These are only a few of the ANS that have recently invaded North

America. It is also important to consider the wide range of invading

microscopic organisms, which include viruses, bacteria, protozoan

(single-celled organisms), and fungi, which may be pathogenic or

parasitic to humans or fish. In 1991, the presence of the human

pathogenic strain of cholera was documented in ballast tanks of ships

in Mobile Bay, AL, threatening the food supply and forcing a temporary

closure of local shellfish beds. A 1995 study conducted for the

Canadian Coast Guard on ships entering the Great Lakes confirmed the

presence of a wide range of invertebrates and bacteria. Most of the

bacterial species detected can cause illness in aquatic life or humans

under certain conditions.

Ships discharge ballast in the United States from all over the

world, including many ports with untreated sewage and other

contaminants. The NRC review concluded that the whole range of ANS

invasions--

[M]ay have critical economic, industrial, human health, and

ecological consequences. Thus, there are compelling arguments for

reducing the role of ships as a vector of nonindigenous species,

particularly through ballast water.

U.S. Legislation

In response to this increasing threat to the United States,

Congress enacted the Nonindigenous Aquatic Nuisance Prevention and

Control Act of 1990 (NANPCA), Pub. L. 101-646 of November 29, 1990, and

the National Invasive Species Act of 1996 (NISA), Pub. L. 104-332 of

October 26, 1996, both of which are codified at 16 U.S.C. 4701-4751.

Under the authority of NANPCA, the U.S. Coast Guard promulgated

mandatory regulations for ballast water entering the Great Lakes in

1993. (58 FR 18334 of April 8, 1993 and 33 CFR part 151, subpart C.)

These regulations were expanded in 1994 to include portions of the

Hudson River, which connects to the Great Lakes ecosystem. (59 FR 31959

of June 21, 1994). Generally, the Great Lakes and Hudson River

regulations in 33 CFR part 151 required vessels entering the Great

Lakes ecosystem with ballast water from outside the U.S. 200 nautical

mile exclusive economic zone (EEZ) to exchange that ballast in the open

ocean at a depth of at least 2,000 meters (6,560 feet) before crossing

into the U.S. EEZ and discharging ballast. The regulations also allow

approval of alternative methods of ballast water management. To date,

the Coast Guard has yet to receive a formal request for approval of any

alternative method. To strengthen the existing authority for the Great

Lakes and Hudson River regulatory regime, NISA makes minor amendments

to NANPCA, and it directs the Coast Guard to develop a new nation-wide

program modeled on the existing Great Lakes and Hudson River regime. To

comply with this mandate, the Coast Guard must, among other things,

develop and issue voluntary ballast water exchange guidelines

applicable to all vessels entering U.S. waters, and establish reporting

and sampling procedures to monitor compliance with the voluntary

guidelines.

It is critical that the Coast Guard receives information from

vessels on their ballast water management practices in order to

determine if the voluntary guidelines need to become mandatory

regulations. In the absence of mandatory reporting requirements, the

Coast Guard would be forced to assume that all reports that are not

received correspond to vessels that failed to follow the voluntary

guidelines. This would artificially bias the data collected and make

mandatory regulations much more likely in the future. By requiring

vessel reporting, the Coast Guard will attempt to gather the most

accurate information possible so as not to unfairly burden the industry

with additional regulations if voluntary guidelines will suffice.

Consequently, the Coast Guard has interpreted NISA as mandating the

reporting requirements proposed with this rulemaking.

To fulfill the original mandate of NANPCA, the Coast Guard is also

making revisions to the mandatory Great Lakes and Hudson River regime

based on the 4 years of experience with it, as well as continuing

scientific study. The major changes to the existing standards are--

Clarification of the ``open ocean exchange'' requirement,

and revision of the depth requirement from more than 2,000 meters

(6,560 feet) to more than 500 meters (1,640 feet); and

Modification of the standard for compliance with the

exchange requirement. Previously stated in terms of the indicator of 30

parts per thousand salinity, now a performance standard of 90 percent

exchange with open ocean water by volume is proposed.

To encourage development of improvements in methods of exchanging or

treating ballast water, the Coast Guard is also setting a consistent

benchmark standard of 90 percent exchange or kill, as a basis for

evaluating and comparing alternate methods. These methods must also be

environmentally sound.

Discussion of Proposed Rule

Overview

The Coast Guard proposes to amend its pollution regulations to

implement the requirements of NISA. Specifically, subpart C of 33 CFR

part 151 would be revised to incorporate the new requirements. These

regulations would mandate reporting and recordkeeping so the Coast

Guard can determine the level of participation in the voluntary ballast

water exchange program. The mandatory ballast water management

regulations in the Great Lakes and Hudson River remain mostly

unchanged, but will be revised to reflect a more appropriate

performance standard for compliance, based on operational experience

and scientific study during the first 4 years. We propose two major

additions to the current regulations.

First, a voluntary ballast water management program is added for

all vessels entering U.S. waters from outside of the EEZ (other than

those bound for the Great Lakes or Hudson River). This voluntary

program would ask the masters of all vessels with ballast tanks to

perform complete ballast water exchange at sea (outside the EEZ) prior

to entering U.S. waters.

The second addition would be a mandatory reporting requirement for

all vessels with ballast tanks entering U.S. waters from outside of the

EEZ, if their voyage included a port or place (e.g., foreign harbor or

nearshore waters) beyond the EEZ. For the purpose of this rule, this

would also include transits between Alaska or Hawaii and any other port

in the United States. These reports would be used to monitor compliance

with the voluntary program and to collect other information that must

be provided to Congress on a regular basis.

If the rate of compliance is found to be inadequate, or if vessel

operators fail to submit mandatory ballast water reports to the Coast

Guard, the voluntary guidelines will become mandatory and will carry

civil and criminal penalties (16 U.S.C. 4711).

[[Page 17785]]

Performance Standard for Compliance

The central issue, for both the mandatory reporting requirements

and the voluntary guidelines, is the performance standard. How complete

must an exchange or other treatment method be in order to be considered

reasonably effective and environmentally sound? It is important to

clearly explain the logic of the performance standard. In doing so, the

Coast Guard hopes the marine industry will participate in the voluntary

nationwide regime and the development of improved ballast water

management systems. We also expect that industry will continue to

comply with the Great Lakes and Hudson River regime. A complete or 100

percent removal of the biologically dangerous water is the goal

because--

We cannot predict the level of concentration of particular

organisms sufficient to constitute an invasion threat; and

Any successful invasion is irreversible.

However, because existing ballast tank and piping systems in the

worldwide shipping fleet were not designed to deal with this need, the

economic costs of requiring complete retrofitting of those systems

makes a 100 percent standard unrealistic at this time. With future

development of alternative methods and improvement in ship designs, a

standard of 100 percent removal or kill should be our long-term goal.

The Coast Guard has sought, since the development of this new

regulatory regime in 1993, to set a standard which encourages vessel

operators to conduct as near to a 100 percent exchange as is practical

and safe, while not penalizing them for the current limitations in

ballast tank and piping system designs. The two currently feasible

methods of conducting an exchange are--

An empty/refill exchange. The tank or a pair of tanks are

pumped down to the point where the pumps lose suction, and then the

tank is pumped back up to the original levels; or

A flow-through exchange. New water is pumped in a full

tank while the old water is pumped or pushed out through another

opening.

Through either method, almost all vessels should be able to obtain

at least a 95 percent exchange of water volume. In the case of an

empty/refill exchange, the pumps should be run until losing suction. At

that point, depending on the specific vessel size and design there may

be anywhere between ten to a few hundred metric tons of un-pumpable

slop in the bottom of the tanks or trapped in internal structure for

the whole vessel. Typical ballast tank capacities for the whole vessel

vary in the range of a few thousand to forty thousand metric tons.

Clearly, a reasonable effort can remove more than 95 percent of the

original water. (Refilling tanks containing 100 metric tons of slop

with 10,000 metric tons of ballast would result in an exchange ratio of

99 percent.). Where the total amount of reballasting is limited because

of ship loading or design, or where there is an unusual amount of

unpumpable slop due to peculiar tank configurations (after and peak

tanks or other tanks with irregular configurations), a high level of

exchange should still be feasible by simply repeating the procedure

once or twice. In the case of a flow-through exchange, it is clear that

more than one times the original water volume will be required,

especially when the flow-through is accomplished from the bottom of the

tank (via the normal ballast system) and out the top of the tank (via

vent pipes or hatch covers). However, both actual experiments conducted

on a typical ocean-going vessel by the Australian Quarantine and

Inspection Service, and computer simulations conducted by the Petrobras

Research Center in Brazil, indicate that it is feasible to obtain an 89

to 95 percent exchange with the use of three times the total volume of

the tank. Again, ships, tanks, and ballasting systems will vary in

design. Some vessels will need to use more than three times the volume

of the water to accomplish 90 percent exchange, and some vessels may

not be able to conduct that level of exchange because of safety

limitations. But 90 percent is a reasonable standard to set, which is

of minimal cost to the industry in that it does not require any changes

to current ship designs, subject to the clearly stated exemption for

vessels that cannot safely conduct an exchange.

The existing regulations for the Great Lakes and Hudson River

require an exchange which results in a discharge of water with a

minimum salinity level of 30 parts per thousand (ppt). However,

salinity is only one indicator that a reasonably effective exchange has

been conducted, and is not reliable as the sole indicator. If a vessel

begins with completely fresh water from the mouth of a river in another

continent and exchanges that water with open ocean water from the

central part of the North Atlantic, at about 36 ppt salinity, a

resulting level of 30 ppt indicates an exchange by volume of only 83.33

percent of the water. However, the water typically does not begin as

fresh water, and the 30 ppt level in fact may relate to a much lower

level of exchange. This has been clearly demonstrated by a recent

review of salinity readings on vessels reporting exchanges that were

tested by the Coast Guard upon entry into the Great Lakes during the

1997 navigation season. The data show that salinity cannot be relied

upon alone as an indicator of an effective exchange, and it should only

be one factor in providing evidence that a performance standard has

been met. It is also clear from these data that the lower cut-off

point, at which it is fair to presume that an effective exchange has

not occurred, should be raised to at least the level of 32.4 ppt. This

would indicate a nominal exchange of 90 percent, if the tank began with

completely fresh water, and it is a level that is already obtained in

the great majority of the tanks in which a good exchange has been

conducted. In other words, meeting the nominal indicator of a 90

percent exchange only requires improving the exchange on the worst of

the poorly exchanged tanks. The need for this minimal raising of the

nominal level of exchange is reinforced by a recent scientific study of

ballast tanks on ships entering the Great Lakes, which indicates that a

large variety of live organisms are continuing to enter the Great

Lakes. When framing an appropriate enforcement policy for vessels which

are able to document the reasons for a good faith difficulty in meeting

the new standard, the Coast Guard will take into consideration the fact

that the salinity level has been raised slightly from the old

regulatory salinity standard.

Finally, the Coast Guard hopes that a clear statement of a 90

percent removal or kill standard will encourage the development of

improvements in exchange and alternative ballast water treatment

systems in the near future. Up to this point, there has been no clear

benchmark for comparing the leading alternatives set out in the NRC

Marine Board Report discussed previously, which include--

Improvement of the current exchange mechanisms;

Filtering;

Heat; and

Biocides.

Although a ``90 percent solution'' is most emphatically not the final

goal of this regulatory program, it may be a useful goal by which to

prompt the development of some short-term interim measures that are

needed. To that end, the Coast Guard encourages owners and operators to

experiment with alternative ballast water management methods (which

have been approved by the Commandant, U.S. Coast Guard) and

[[Page 17786]]

will consider that emerging technologies require some time to fully

develop when framing appropriate enforcement policies.

``Plain English'' Revision of Subpart C

The Coast Guard would also rewrite subpart C to make the

requirements of NISA clearer and easier to understand. Each provision

or section would be written as a question that you, as a typical reader

of these regulations, might ask about the rule. This question is then

followed by an answer that tells you what is required. For example, you

might ask, ``what are the mandatory ballast water management

requirements?'' This question, now posed in Sec. 152.1508, is followed

by the answer, which is a description of the specific water management

practices that the master must follow to comply with subpart C.

In addition to the question and answer format, the Coast Guard

would reformat the current and proposed text of Sec. 151.1502. The

Coast Guard proposes to replace the text with a table that is more

user-friendly, and would help owners, operators, and others who use

subpart C determine which requirements apply to them.

Clear, more readable regulations are essential for the success of

our government's reinvention initiative. We encourage your comments on

this new way of writing regulations.

Regulatory Evaluation

This proposed rule is not a significant regulatory action under

section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866 and does not require an

assessment of potential costs and benefits under section 6(a)(3) of

that Order. It has not been reviewed by the Office of Management and

Budget under that Order. It is not significant under the regulatory

policies and procedures of the Department of Transportation (DOT) (44

FR 11040; February 26, 1979). The proposed rule would not have an

annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more. It would not

adversely affect the economy, a sector of the economy, productivity,

competition, jobs, the environment, public health or safety, or State,

local or tribal governments or communities, and it would not initiate a

substantial new regulatory program for the Coast Guard. A draft

Regulatory Evaluation under paragraph 10e of the regulatory policies

and procedures of DOT is available in the docket for inspection or

copying where indicated under ADDRESSES. A summary of the Evaluation

follows:

Summary of Costs

Mandatory paperwork requirements would generate all of the costs

associated with this proposed rule. The Coast Guard proposes to use

this information to--

Ensure that vessels have complied with mandatory ballast

water management regulations, where applicable, prior to allowing

vessels to enter U.S. ports; and

Assess the effectiveness of the voluntary guidelines in

this proposed rule.

Coast Guard Headquarters staff and researchers from private and other

government agencies would conduct the assessment for vessels (with

ballast tanks) entering U.S. waters after operating outside the EEZ.

The Coast Guard will report this information to Congress on a regular

basis as required by the National Invasive Species Act of 1996 (NISA).

Based on typical pay (including overtime) for a third mate on a modern

U.S. merchant vessel and administrative costs of up to $9, $35 was

calculated as the cost per report ($81,840/year/2,080 hours/year x 40

minutes + $9). The Coast Guard used figures from the U.S. Coast Guard

Marine Safety Management System (MSMS) to determine that 10,305 vessel

transits were subject to this proposed rule (including the Great Lakes)

with a cost of $35 per vessel arrival ($35 x 10,305 = $360,675) for a

total annual cost of $360,675. However, vessels operating on the Great

Lakes already file reports, so they would incur no additional cost

(even though they are included in the total industry-cost figure).

Owners or operators would not be required to install new equipment on

the vessel to comply with either the mandatory requirements on the

Great Lakes or Hudson River, or the voluntary exchange requirements in

this proposed rule. This proposed rule requires only minor changes in

operational procedures that are not expected to incur new costs. Costs

to the Federal Government will come from reviewing and reporting

ballast water management record information. To collect, collate, and

file this information to the responsible research center will cost the

Coast Guard about $5,000 annually.

Summary of Benefits

This proposed rule, which provides for reporting and recordkeeping

on ballast water exchanges, is the next step in an ongoing effort to

prevent non-indigenous species from being introduced into U.S. waters.

Ultimately, this effort is expected to provide significant benefit to

the U.S. economy, environment, and public health. For example, the

fishing industry, the general public, and the marine environment would

benefit from protecting native fish and shellfish from certain invading

species. According to the U.S. Congress Office of Technology

Assessment, the economic impact on the United States from introductions

of non-indigenous species has exceeded several billion dollars

through--

Efforts to prevent and reduce further infestation;

Repairs of damage to various infrastructures; and

Lost revenues.

The Aquatic Nuisance Species Task Force found the nationwide potential

costs averted from non-indigenous species invasions could exceed $30

billion (1997 dollars) over the next 5 years. However, as international

maritime trade continues to expand, the economic impact of non-

indigenous species invasions may result in more extensive and costly

long-term control efforts, including cost associated with improving

ballast water management.

Small Entities

Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601-612), the Coast

Guard considers whether this proposed rulemaking, if adopted, will have

a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small

entities. ``Small entities'' include 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. This proposed rule applies to any

vessel with ballast tanks, which operates on the waters beyond the

Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ), during any part of its voyage, and then

enters the waters of the United States (except those vessels that are

expressly exempted in this proposed rule). However, data records

indicate that no small businesses have been identified that are

involved in U.S. trade and arriving from outside the Exclusive Economic

Zone (EEZ). Therefore, the Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b)

that this proposed rule, if adopted, will not have a significant

economic impact on small entities. If, however, you think that your

business or organization qualifies as a small entity and that this

proposed rule will have a significant economic impact on your business

or organization, please submit a comment (see ADDRESSES) explaining why

you think it qualifies and in what way and to what degree this proposed

rule will economically affect it. This proposed rule might economically

affect recreational vessels

[[Page 17787]]

with ballast tanks. We encourage owners and operators of these vessels

to comment on this proposed rule.

Assistance for Small Entities

In accordance with section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory

Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), the Coast Guard

wants to assist small entities in understanding this proposed rule so

that they can better evaluate its effects on them and participate in

the rulemaking process. If your small business or organization is

affected by this rule and you have questions concerning its provisions

or options for compliance, please contact Lieutenant Larry Greene,

Project Manager, Office of Response (G-MOR), at 202-267-0500.

Collection of Information

This proposed rule provides for a collection of information under

the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520). As defined

in 5 CFR 1320.3(c), ``collection of information'' includes reporting,

recordkeeping, monitoring, posting, labeling, and other, similar

actions. The title and description of the information collections, a

description of the respondents, and an estimate of the total annual

burden follow. Included in the estimate is the time for reviewing

instructions, searching existing sources of data, gathering and

maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing the

collection.

Title: Implementation of the National Invasive Species Act of 1996

(NISA).

Summary of Collection of Information: This proposed rule contains

collection-of-information requirements in the following section:

Sec. 151.1514.

Need for Information: This proposed rule would require owners or

operators of each vessel with ballast water tanks, who enter the United

States after operating outside the EEZ, to provide to the U.S. Coast

Guard information regarding ballast water management practices.

Proposed Use of Information: The proposed use of this information

is to ensure that the mandatory ballast water management regulations

have been complied with prior to allowing the vessel to enter U.S.

ports, and to assess the effectiveness of the voluntary guidelines. The

information will be used by the Coast Guard Headquarters staff and

researchers from both private and other governmental agencies to assess

the effectiveness of voluntary ballast water management guidelines for

vessels with ballast tanks which enter U.S. waters after operating

outside the EEZ. The information will be provided to Congress on a

regular basis as required by NISA.

Description of the Respondents: A vessel owner or operator who

enters the United States after operating outside the EEZ.

Number of Respondents: 10,305 vessel entries.

Frequency of Response: Whenever a vessel with ballast tanks enters

the United States after operating outside the EEZ.

Burden of Response: 40 minutes (0.67 hours) per respondent.

Estimated Total Annual Burden: 6,904 hours.

As required by section 3507(d) of the Paperwork Reduction Act of

1995, the Coast Guard has submitted a copy of this proposed rule to the

Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for its review of the collection

of information.

The Coast Guard solicits public comment on the proposed collection

of information to (1) evaluate whether the information is necessary for

the proper performance of the functions of the Coast Guard, including

whether the information would have practical utility; (2) evaluate the

accuracy of the Coast Guard's estimate of the burden of the collection,

including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (3)

enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be

collected; and (4) minimize the burden of the collection on those who

are to respond, as by allowing the submittal of responses by electronic

means or the use of other forms of information technology.

If you are submitting comments on the collection of information,

you should submit your comments both to OMB and to the Coast Guard

where indicated under ADDRESSES by the date under DATES.

No one is required to respond to a collection of information unless

it displays a currently valid OMB control number. Before the

requirements for this collection of information become effective, the

Coast Guard will publish notice in the Federal Register of OMB's

decision to approve, modify, or disapprove the collection.

Federalism

The Coast Guard has analyzed this proposed rule under the

principles and criteria contained in Executive Order 12612 and has

determined that this proposed rule does not have sufficient federalism

implications to warrant the preparation of a Federalism Assessment.

Environment

The Coast Guard considered the environmental impact of this

proposed rule and concluded that preparation of an Environmental Impact

Statement is not necessary. An Environmental Assessment and draft

Finding of No Significant Impact are available in the docket for

inspection or copying where indicated under ADDRESSES.

The Coast Guard is establishing ballast water exchange guidelines

for all vessels with ballast water tanks entering U.S. waters, as well

as mandatory reporting for monitoring participation levels. If

participation levels in this program are lacking, the National Invasive

Species Act of 1996 (NISA) requires the Secretary of Transportation to

mandate the ballast water exchange guidelines. Once reported, the

information will be used to develop and maintain a ballast water

information clearinghouse, which will monitor the effectiveness of the

program and identify future needs for better protecting domestic waters

from the introduction of invasive species.

The effectiveness of this recommended alternative substantiates the

baseline for creating compliance in incremental stages. The solution to

this problem is long-term and the most promising technology to resolve

the ANS issue is in the foreseeable future. Therefore, the proposed

regulations to implement provisions of NISA concerning ballast water

control, when using voluntary guidelines for ballast water exchange as

the control method, would not have a significant impact on the

environment.

List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 151

Administrative practice and procedure, Oil Pollution, Penalties,

Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Water pollution control.

For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard proposes

to amend 33 CFR part 151 as follows:

PART 151--VESSELS CARRYING OIL, NOXIOUS LIQUID SUBSTANCES, GARBAGE,

MUNICIPAL OR COMMERCIAL WASTE, AND BALLAST WATER

1. Revise subpart C, consisting of Secs. 151.1500 through 151.1516,

to read as follows:

Subpart C--Ballast Water Management for Control of Nonindigenous

Species

Sec.

151.1500 What is the purpose of this subpart?

151.1502 What vessels does this subpart apply to?

[[Page 17788]]

151.1504 What definitions apply to this subpart?

151.1506 Why must I meet the requirements of the regulations in

this subpart and what are the penalty provisions?

151.1508 What are the mandatory ballast water management

requirements?

151.1510 Is the master still responsible for the safety of the

vessel?

151.1512 When must the master employ ballast water management

alternatives?

151.1514 What are the mandatory reporting and recordkeeping

requirements?

151.1516 What are the voluntary ballast water management

guidelines?

151.1518 Are there methods to monitor compliance with this subpart?

Appendix to Subpart C of Part 151--Guidelines for Filling Out Ballast

Water Reporting Form

Authority: 16 U.S.C. 4711; 49 CFR 1.46.

Subpart C--Ballast Water Management for Control of Nonindigenous

Species

Sec. 151.1500 What is the purpose of this subpart?

This subpart implements the provisions of the Nonindigenous Aquatic

Nuisance Prevention and Control Act of 1990 (16 U.S.C. 4701-4751), as

amended by the National Invasive Species Act of 1996 (NISA).

Sec. 151.1502 What vessels does this subpart apply to?

(a) This subpart applies to all vessels (except those specifically

exempted below) equipped with ballast water tanks which operate in both

waters outside the Exclusive Economic Zone of the United States (the

EEZ, within 200 nautical miles of the baseline) and waters of the

United States (within 12 miles of the baseline). Vessels bound for

different parts of the United States are subject to different

requirements:

(1) Vessels with ballast tanks which enter the Great Lakes or the

Hudson River north of the George Washington Bridge after operating

beyond the EEZ are subject to the mandatory ballast water management

requirements in Sec. 151.1508 and the reporting requirements in

Sec. 151.1514, regardless of other ports of call during their voyage to

the Great Lakes or Hudson River. Vessels not conducting a ballast water

exchange after operating beyond the EEZ and prior to entering U.S. or

Canadian waters, that--

(i) Take on new ballast in a North American port, and

(ii) Plan to discharge ballast water in the Great Lakes or the

Hudson River north of the George Washington Bridge, must--

(A) Conduct an exchange outside the EEZ in accordance with

Sec. 151.1508, or

(B) Obtain permission from the Captain of the Port (COTP) for use

of an alternate exchange zone.

(2) Vessels with ballast tanks which enter other waters of the

United States (within 12 miles from the baseline) after operating

beyond the EEZ during any part of a voyage are requested but not

required to comply with the voluntary ballast water management

guidelines in Sec. 151.1516, and are still required to comply with the

mandatory reporting requirements in Sec. 151.1514 whether or not they

comply with the voluntary management guidelines.

(b) Two categories of vessels are exempt from this subpart:

(1) Crude oil tankers engaged in the coastwise trade, unless

paragraph (c) of this section applies. Coastwise trade is conducted

exclusively between U.S. ports.

(2) Passenger vessels equipped with treatment systems designed to

kill aquatic organisms in their ballast water, and which operate those

systems as designed, unless the Coast Guard determines that such

treatment systems are less effective than ballast water exchange.

(c) Crude oil tankers engaged in the export of Alaskan North Slope

Crude Oil may be subject to separate requirements to conduct an

exchange of ballast water in 2000 meters of depth under the terms and

conditions stated in Presidential Memorandum of April 28, 1996 (61 FR

19507). These vessels are also subject to the mandatory reporting

requirements in Sec. 151.1514 under the authority of NISA.

(d) Use the table 151.1502 as a guide to which sections of this

regulation apply to you:

Table 151.1502.--Who Does This Subpart Apply To?

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

And if during any part

If you operate a-- And you-- of your voyage you Then you are subject to--

enter--

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Vessel with ballast water tanks. Operate on waters beyond The Snell Lock at The mandatory ballast

See Sec. 151.1502(a)(1). the EEZ (within 200 Massena, NY, or the water management

miles of the baseline). Hudson River north of requirements in Sec.

the George Washington 151.1508 and the

Bridge, regardless of mandatory reporting

other port calls. requirements in Sec.

151.1514.

Vessel with ballast water tanks. Operate on waters beyond U.S. waters (within 12 The voluntary ballast

See Sec. 151.1502(a)(2). the EEZ (within 200 miles of the baseline) water management

miles of the baseline). other than those listed guidelines in Sec.

above. 151.1516 and the

mandatory reporting

requirements in Sec.

151.1514.

Crude oil tanker. See Sec. Engage in coastwise trade N/A..................... No requirements.

151.1502(b)(1). (trade exclusively

between U.S. ports).

Crude oil tanker. See Sec. Engage in the export of U.S. waters, for the The requirements of

151.1502(c). Alaskan North Slope purpose of exporting Presidential Memorandum

crude oil. Alaska North Slope of April 28, 1996 and

crude oil. the mandatory reporting

requirements in Sec.

151.1514.

Passenger vessel. See Sec. Use an operating N/A..................... No requirements.

151.1502(b)(2). treatment system

designed to kill aquatic

organisms in ballast

water which has not been

determined to be

ineffective.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec. 151.1504 What definitions apply to this subpart?

As used in this subpart--

Ballast tank means any tank or hold on a vessel used for carrying

ballast, whether or not designed for that purpose.

Ballast water means any water used to manipulate the draft, trim,

or stability of a vessel, regardless of how it is carried

[[Page 17789]]

on the vessel, including any slop or sediment remaining from such

water.

Captain of the Port (COTP) means the Coast Guard officer designated

as the COTP, or a person designated by that officer, for the COTP Zone

covering the first U.S. port of destination. These COTP Zones are

listed in 33 CFR part 3. For any vessel bound for the Great Lakes,

regardless of the first commercial port of call inside the Great Lakes,

the COTP is COTP Buffalo.

Commandant means the Commandant of the U.S. Coast Guard or an

authorized representative.

Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) means the area established by

Presidential Proclamation No. 5030 of March 10, 1983, which extends

from the baseline of the territorial sea of the United States seaward

200 nautical miles, and the equivalent zone of Canada.

Environmentally sound method means methods, efforts, actions, or

programs, either to prevent introductions or to control infestations of

aquatic nuisance species, that minimize adverse impacts on non-target

organisms and ecosystems and that emphasize integrated pest management

techniques and non-chemical measures. With respect to alternative

ballast water treatment methods, chemical treatment of the ballast

water will not be considered environmentally sound if it results, or is

likely to result, in the release of harmful concentrations of chemicals

or by-products into the environment outside the ballast tank.

Great Lakes means Lake Ontario, Lake Erie, Lake Huron (including

Lake Saint Clair), Lake Michigan, Lake Superior, and the connecting

channels (Saint Mary's River, Saint Clair River, Detroit River, Niagara

River, and Saint Lawrence River to the Canadian border), and includes

all other bodies of water within the drainage basin of such lakes and

connecting channels.

Open ocean means waters of the Atlantic, Pacific, Arctic,

Antarctic, or Indian Oceans which are beyond the EEZ of the United

States (beyond 200 nautical miles), beyond 200 miles from the baseline

of other countries, and with a depth of more than 500 meters. It does

not include the Gulf of Mexico, the Baltic Sea, the Mediterranean Sea,

or other Seas.

Port means a terminal or group of terminals or any place or

facility that has been designated as a port by the COTP.

Reasonably complete ballast water exchange means an exchange which

results in replacement of at least 90 percent of the original water by

volume with water from the open ocean or other waters approved in

advance by the COTP.

Reasonably effective ballast water management system means a system

determined by the Coast Guard to be effective in removing or killing at

least 90 percent of the organisms in the ballast water, in terms of

both individual organisms and range of species, and which is otherwise

practical, safe, and environmentally acceptable.

Voyage means any transit by a vessel destined for any United States

port from a port or place outside of the EEZ, including intermediate

stops at a port or place within the EEZ. For the purpose of this rule,

a transit by a vessel from a port in Hawaii or Alaska to any other

United States port, or vice versa, is also considered a voyage.

Waters of the United States means the navigable waters and

territorial sea of the United States, including the territorial sea

extended to 12 nautical miles from the baseline established by

Presidential Proclamation No. 5928 of December 27, 1988.

Sec. 151.1506 Why must I meet the requirements of the regulations in

this subpart and what are the penalty provisions?

(a) To operate unrestricted. A vessel subject to the requirements

of this subpart may not operate in the Great Lakes or the Hudson River,

north of the George Washington Bridge, unless the master of the vessel

has certified, in accordance with Sec. 151.1514, that the requirements

of this subpart have been met.

(b) To maintain the required clearance. If you are the owner or

operator of a vessel not in compliance with this subpart, a COTP may

request the District Director of Customs to withhold or revoke the

clearance required by 46 U.S.C. app. 91.

(c) To avoid civil penalties. Failure to comply with these

regulations may result in civil penalties up to $25,000 per day.

(d) To avoid criminal prosecution. Any person who knowingly

violates these regulations is guilty of a class C felony.

Sec. 151.1508 What are the mandatory ballast water management

requirements?

(a) The master of each vessel subject to this subpart must employ

one of the following ballast water management practices:

(1) Carry out a reasonably complete ballast water exchange in the

open ocean or in other waters approved in advance by the COTP, prior to

entering the Snell Lock, at Massena, NY, or the Hudson River north of

the George Washington Bridge. A level of salinity below 32.4 parts per

thousand is a basis for presuming that a reasonably complete exchange

has not occurred. However, a salinity of 32.4 parts per thousand or

above is not a basis for presuming that a reasonably complete exchange

has occurred unless supported by other evidence that the original water

in the tank was fresh. The existence or non-existence of a reasonably

complete exchange may be evidenced by any logical combination of

salinity, other chemical or biological indicators, the voyage and

ballasting history of the vessel, and shipboard records.

(2) Retain the ballast water on board the vessel. If this method of

ballast water management is employed, the COTP may seal any tank or

hold containing ballast water for the duration of the voyage upon the

Great Lakes, or the Hudson River north of the George Washington Bridge.

(3) Use a reasonably effective ballast water management system

which is consistent with an environmentally sound method, and which has

been approved by the Commandant prior to the voyage. Requests for

approval of alternative ballast water management methods must be

submitted to the Commandant (G-M), U.S. Coast Guard Headquarters, 2100

Second Street SW., Washington, DC 20593-0001.

(b) The master of a vessel subject to this section may not

separately discharge sediment from tanks or holds containing ballast

water, unless it is disposed of ashore in accordance with local

requirements.

(c) Nothing in this subpart authorizes the discharge of oil or

noxious liquid substances (NLS) in a manner prohibited by United States

or international laws or regulations. Ballast water carried in any tank

containing a residue of oil, NLS, or any other pollutant must be

discharged in accordance with the applicable regulations. Nothing in

this subpart affects or supersedes any requirement or prohibition

pertaining to the discharge of ballast water into the waters of the

United States under the Federal Water Pollution Control Act (33 U.S.C.

1251 to 1376).

Sec. 151.1510 Is the master still responsible for the safety of the

vessel?

Nothing in this subpart relieves the master of the responsibility

for ensuring the safety and stability of the vessel or the safety of

the crew and passengers, or any other responsibility.

[[Page 17790]]

Sec. 151.1512 When must the master employ ballast water management

alternatives?

The master of any vessel subject to this subpart who, due to

weather, vessel architectural design, equipment failure, or other

extraordinary conditions, is unable to effect a ballast water exchange

before entering the EEZ, must--

(a) Employ another method of ballast water management listed in

Sec. 151.1508; or

(b) Request permission from the COTP to exchange the vessel's

ballast water within an area agreed to by the COTP. The master must

discharge the vessel's ballast water within that designated area after

permission is granted by the COTP.

Sec. 151.1514 What are the mandatory reporting and recordkeeping

requirements?

(a) The master of each vessel subject to this subpart must provide

the following information to the Commandant, U.S. Coast Guard or the

COTP as described in paragraph (b) of this section (Note: A sample form

and guidelines for completing it appear in the Appendix to this

subpart):

(1) The vessel's: Name, type, International Maritime Organization

(IMO) number, owner, gross tonnage, call sign, flag, agent, current

location, date of arrival, last port and country of call, and next port

and country of call.

(2) The total amount of ballast water being carried, and total

ballast water capacity (with units).

(3) Whether or not there is a ballast water management plan on

board and in use on the vessel, the total number of ballast tanks and

holds on board, total number of tanks and holds in ballast, total

number of tanks and holds that were exchanged, and the total number of

tanks and holds that were not exchanged.

(4) The original date(s) of uptake, location(s), volumes(s) and

temperature(s) of any ballast water (taken on prior to an exchange)

that will be discharged into U.S. waters.

(5) The dates(s), location(s), volumes(s), thoroughness (percentage

exchanged) of any ballast water exchanged, and the combined sea height

(sea+swell) in meters (m) at the time of the ballast water exchange.

(6) The proposed date, location, volume, and salinity of any

ballast water to be discharged into the territorial waters of the

United States.

(7) The location for disposal of sediment carried upon entry into

the territorial waters of the United States, if sediment is to be

discharged.

(8) If ballast water was not exchanged, state other control

action(s) taken. If none, state reason why not.

(9) Whether or not there is a copy of the IMO voluntary ballast

water management guidelines on board (IMO Resolution A.868(20), adopted

November 1997).

(10) The master's or responsible officer's printed name, title, and

signature attesting to the accuracy of the information provided and

certifying compliance with the requirements of this subpart.

(b) This information must be transmitted to the Coast Guard as

follows:

(1) The master of a vessel bound for the Great Lakes must telefax

the information to the COTP Buffalo at (315) 764-3283 before passing

through the Cabot Strait at the entrance to the Gulf of Saint Lawrence.

(2) The master of a vessel bound for the Hudson River north of the

George Washington Bridge must telefax the information to the COTP New

York at (718) 354-4249 before entering the waters of the United States

(12 miles from the baseline).

(3) Masters of other vessels subject to this section must telefax

the information to the Commandant, U.S. Coast Guard at (301) 261-4319,

or mail to U.S. Coast Guard, c/o Smithsonian, PO Box 28, Edgewater, MD

21037-0028, before departing the first port of call in the United

States.

(c) The master or owner of the vessel must retain a copy of the

information on the vessel for 2 years.

Sec. 151.1516 What are the voluntary ballast water management

guidelines?

Masters of all vessels with ballast tanks, except those

specifically exempted under Sec. 151.1502(b), are requested to adopt

and carry out the ballast water management practices described in this

subpart when operating on the waters beyond the EEZ during any part of

a voyage.

Sec. 151.1518 Are there methods to monitor compliance with this

subpart?

The COTP may take samples of ballast water and sediment, examine

documents, and make other appropriate inquires to assess the compliance

with, and the effectiveness of, this subpart.

Appendix to Subpart C of Part 151--Guidelines for Filling out Ballast

Water Reporting Form

Please fill out in English and make every effort to PRINT legibly!

SECTION 1. VESSEL INFORMATION--

Vessel Name: Print the name of the vessel clearly.

Owner: The registered owner(s) or operator(s) of the vessel.

Flag: Country under which the ship normally operates, write out,

no abbreviations please!

Last Port and Country: Last port and country at which the vessel

called before arrival in the current port, no abbreviations please!

Next Port and Country: Next port and country at which the vessel

will call, upon departure from current port, no abbreviations

please!

Type: List specific vessel type, write out or use the following

abbreviations: bulk (bc), roro (rr), container (cs), tanker (ts),

passenger (pa), oil/bulk ore (ob), general cargo (gc). Write out any

additional vessel types.

GT: Gross tonnage.

Arrival Date: Arrival date to current port (i.e., the first U.S.

port of arrival after entering the U.S. exclusive economic zone

(EEZ)). Please use European date format (DDMMYY).

IMO Number: Identification number of the vessel used by the

International Maritime Organization.

Call Sign: Official call sign.

Agent: Agent used for this voyage.

Arrival Port: This is the current port (i.e., the first U.S.

port of arrival). No abbreviations please!

SECTION 2. BALLAST WATER--(Note: Segregated ballast water =

clean, non-oily ballast).

Total Ballast Water On Board: Total segregated ballast water

upon arrival to current port, with units.

Total Ballast Water Capacity: Total volume of all ballastable,

tanks or holds, with units!

SECTION 3. BALLAST WATER TANKS--Count all tanks and holds

separately (e.g., port and starboard tanks should be counted

separately).

Total No. of Tanks On Board: Count all tanks and holds that can

carry segregated ballast water.

Ballast Water Management Plan On Board? Do you have a ballast

water management plan specific to your vessel on board? Check yes or

no.

Management Plan Implemented? Do you follow the above management

plan? Check yes or no.

No. of Tanks in Ballast: Number of segregated ballast water

tanks and holds with ballast at the onset of the voyage to the

current port. If you have no ballast water on board, go to section

5.

No. of Tanks Exchanged: This refers only to tanks and holds with

ballast at the onset of the voyage to the current port.

No. of Tanks Not Exchanged: This refers only to tanks and holds

with ballast at the onset of the voyage to the current port.

SECTION 4. BALLAST WATER HISTORY--BW SOURCE

Please list all tanks and holds that you have discharged or plan

to discharge in U.S. waters (carefully write out, or use codes

listed below table). Follow each tank across the page listing all

source(s), exchange events, and/or discharge events separately. If

the ballast water history is identical (i.e. same source, exchange,

and discharge dates and locations), like tanks can be combined

(example: wing tank 1 with wing tank 2 both with water from Belgium,

exchanged Oct. 3, mid-ocean--can be combined. See first line of the

table in the sample form). Please use an additional page if you need

it, being careful to include ship name, date, and IMO number at the

top.

[[Page 17791]]

Date: Date of ballast water uptake. Use European format

(DDMMYY).

Port or Latitude/Longitude: Location of ballast water uptake, no

abbreviations for ports!

Volume: Volume of ballast water uptake, with units.

Temperature: Water temperature at time of ballast water uptake,

in degrees Centigrade, with units.

BW EXCHANGE Indicate Exchange Method: By circling empty/refill

or flow through.

Date: Date of ballast water exchange. Use European format

(DDMMYY).

Endpoint or Latitude/Longitude: Location of ballast water

exchange. If it occurred over an extended distance, list the end

point latitude and longitude.

Volume: Volume of ballast water exchanged, with units.

Percentage Exchanged: Percentage of ballast water exchanged.

Calculate this by dividing the number of units of water exchanged by

the original volume of ballast water in the tank. If necessary,

estimate based on pump rate. (NOTE: For effective flow through

exchange, this value should be at least 300%.)

Sea Height (m): Document the sea height in meters at the time of

the ballast water exchange (Note: this is the combined height of the

wind-seas, and swell, and does not refer to depth).

BW DISCHARGE

Date: Date of ballast water discharge. Use European format

(DDMMYY).

Port or latitude/longitude: Location of ballast water discharge,

no abbreviations for ports.

Volume: Volume of ballast water discharged, with units.

Salinity: Document salinity of ballast water at the time of

discharge, with units (i.e., specific gravity (sg) or parts per

thousand (ppt)).

If exchanges were not conducted, state other control actions(s)

taken: If exchanges were not made on all tanks and holds to be

discharged in U.S. waters, what other actions were taken? (i.e.,

transfer of water to a land based holding facility or other approved

treatment).

If none, state reason why not: List specific reasons why ballast

water exchange was not done. This applies to all tanks and holds

being discharged in U.S. waters.

SECTION 5--IMO BALLAST WATER GUIDELINES ON BOARD? Check yes or

no.

Responsible officers name and title (printed) and signature:

e.g., the first mate, Captain, or Chief Engineer must print their

name and title and sign the form.

THIS INFORMATION MUST BE TRANSMITTED TO THE U.S. COAST GUARD AS

FOLLOWS:

(1) The master of a vessel bound for the Great Lakes must

telefax the information to the:

COTP Buffalo at (315) 764-3283

Before passing through the Cabot Strait at the entrance to the

Gulf of Saint Lawrence.

(2) The master of a vessel bound for the Hudson River, north of

the George Washington Bridge must telefax the information to the:

COTP New York at (718) 354-4249

Before entering the waters of the United States (12 miles from

the baseline).

(3) Masters of other vessels subject to this section must

telefax the information to the:

Commandant, U.S. Coast Guard at (301) 261-4319 or mail to: U.S.

Coast Guard, c/o Smithsonian, P.O. Box 28, Edgewater, MD 21037-0028

before departing the first port of call in the United States.

An agency may not conduct or sponsor and a person is not

required to respond to a collection of information unless it

displays a valid OMB control number.

The Coast Guard estimates that the average burden for this

report is 40 minutes. You may submit any comments concerning the

accuracy of this burden estimate or any suggestions for reducing the

burden to: Commandant (G-MOR), U.S. Coast Guard, Washington, DC

20593-0001 or Office of Management and Budget, Paperwork Reduction

Project (2115-0598), Washington, DC 20503.

BILLING CODE 4910-15-P

[[Page 17792]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP10AP98.000

Dated: April 6, 1998.

R.C. North,

Rear Admiral, U.S. Coast Guard, Assistant Commandant for Marine Safety

and Environmental Protection.

[FR Doc. 98-9429 Filed 4-09-98; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910-15-C