[Federal Register: December 1, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 231)]
[Notices]
[Page 72819-72825]
[DOCID:fr01de08-85]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

[Docket No. USCG-2007-0041]

Application for the Integrated Tug and Barge MOKU PAHU, Review
for Inclusion in the Shipboard Technology Evaluation Program; Final
Environmental Assessment and Finding of No Significant Impact

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Notice of availability.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard announces the availability of the Final
Environmental Assessment (FEA) and Finding of No Significant Impact
(FONSI) that evaluated the potential environmental impacts resulting
from accepting the integrated tug and barge MOKU PAHU into the
Shipboard Technology Evaluation Program (STEP). Under the STEP, the
MOKU PAHU will be using, and testing, the Ecochlor\TM\ Inc. Ballast
Water Treatment System (BWTS) as the vessel operates in U.S. waters.

ADDRESSES: Comments and material received from the public, as well as
documents mentioned in this notice as being available in the docket,
are part of the docket USCG-2007-0041. These documents are available
for inspection or copying at the Docket Management Facility (M-30),
U.S. Department of Transportation, West Building Ground Floor, Room
W12-140, 1200 New Jersey

Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590-0001, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m.,
Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. You can also find all
docketed documents on the Federal Document Management System at http://
www.regulations.gov, United States Coast Guard docket number USCG-2007-
0041.
    You may submit comments identified by docket number USCG-2007-0041
using any one of the following methods:
    (1) Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov.
    (2) Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    (3) Mail: Docket Management Facility (M-30), U.S. Department of
Transportation, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590-0001.
    (4) Hand delivery: Same as mail address above, between 9 a.m. and 5
p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The telephone
number is<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    To avoid duplication, please use only one of these methods.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions on this
assessment please contact LCDR Brian Moore at<PHONE_NUMBER> or e-mail:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>If you have questions on viewing or submitting
material to the docket, call Renee V. Wright, Program Manager, Docket
Operations, telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This document has been tiered off the
Programmatic Environmental Assessment (PEA) for the STEP dated December
8, 2004 (69 FR 71068, Dec. 8, 2004), and was prepared in accordance
with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (Section 102(2)(c)),
as implemented by the Council of Environmental Quality regulations (40
CFR parts 1500-1508) and Coast Guard Commandant Instruction M16475.1D.
From these documents, the Coast Guard has prepared a FEA and FONSI for
accepting the MOKU PAHU into the STEP.
     Response to Comments: The Coast Guard requested comments on the
Draft Environmental Assessment (DEA) when the Notice of Availability
and Request for Public Comments was published in the Federal Register
on April 4, 2008 (73 FR 18545, Apr. 4, 2008). The Coast Guard received
57 substantive comments from 5 agencies. The Coast Guard has responded
to all of the comments that were within the scope of the DEA.
    One commenter asked for clarification regarding the statement ``* *
* treatment system is expected to have no impact on water quality,
biological resources * * * ''. The commenter asked how there could be
no impacts when older residuals (biocides) will be released. The
commenter suggested replacing the word ``no'' impacts with either
``minimal'' or ``negligible'' impacts.
    The Coast Guard disagrees with the suggestion the phrase ``no
impact'' should be changed. This section deals with coastal barrier
systems and is only focused on the effects use of the BWT system may
have on coastal barrier systems. The Coast Guard recommends the
commenter to section 4.2, Water Quality, of the FEA for discussion of
the water quality impacts.
    One commenter stated that section 2 should state that if the
Ecochlor\TM\ system is denied acceptance into the STEP, the vessel will
continue to manage ballast water (BW) through exchange, as safety
allows, and species will continue to be discharged.
    The Coast Guard disagrees. The PEA and this FEA clearly state that
if the Ecochlor\TM\ system is denied acceptance into the STEP the
applicant will be subject to all applicable ballast water management
regulations.
    One commenter asked if a vessel would be free to discharge ballast
treated by the experimental system (exchange would not be required),
and if this would be in compliance with all Coast Guard ballast water
management requirements.
    The Coast Guard disagrees that further change is needed. Both in
the PEA and in this FEA, under Alternative two, it is clearly stated
that STEP acceptance for vessels' ballast operations means under this
alternative the regulations provide that the vessel is free to
discharge ballast water treated by the experimental treatment system
into U.S. waters as operations dictated. The discharge of ballast
treated by the system would be in compliance with all Coast Guard
ballast management requirements.
    One commenter requested a basic diagram displaying the location of
the treatment system and/or a diagram of the treatment system.
    The Coast Guard agrees that a diagram is helpful for describing the
system, and has added one to the FEA.
    One commenter asked how much ``sufficient flow'' would be necessary
to activate the treatment system. The commenter also asked how long
this would take during uptake, and how much ballast water will pass by
untreated before treatment begins.
    The Coast Guard has determined that specific description of the
Ballast Water Management System (BWMS) flow rates and times are not
necessary. To address the concern that some water will pass by the
treatment cell prior to activation of the chlorine dioxide
(ClO2) dosing system, the system dosage is designed to
produce an initial killing action when it is injected into the uptake
stream. However, it is also designed to provide a residual biocide
effect in the ballast water while it is stored on board in the tanks.
As the ClO2, chlorite, and chlorate degrade during the
ballast voyage, continued biocidal effects should be realized.
According to lab tests, a period of up to five days is usual before
reaching the non-detect level for ClO2. This residual is
believed to be adequate to treat the initial volume of water taken
aboard prior to full activation of the treatment system. Verification
of this residual efficacy is a primary component of the testing plan.
It should also be noted that untreated BW will be discharged. A
requirement of the STEP is that the system be used to manage all BW. If
the system is inoperable for any reason then compliance with current
regulations is required.
    One commenter requested examples of the accuracy and precision
related to the target final concentration of the automated system
(i.e., does it produce a 5.0 ppm concentration every time or is there
some variation involved).
    The Coast Guard has determined that the initial dosage values that
have been proposed by the applicant are based solely upon laboratory
results using validated Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) methods.
The STEP program is intended to provide the sort of detailed
information requested by the commenter. As of now only laboratory
values have been established. Physical and chemical analysis of the
treated ballast water, as well as gathering actual shipboard data of
dosing parameters are primary goals of the STEP. As discussed in the
PEA and this FEA, one of the uses of this data collection and analysis
effort will be to inform a regulatory framework for a Ballast Water
Discharge Standard, which is the subject of a separate rulemaking. At
that time, the data from the STEP will be made available in the
associated environmental impact statement (EIS).
    One commenter asked if salinity contributed to the degradation of
ClO2. The commenter also asked if the salinity levels in the
Carquinez Strait are similar to the water in Oakland Harbor.
    The Coast Guard has determined that salinity is an inconsequential
factor in the ClO2 degradation process. Data show that the
degradation reaction is driven by available oxidation reaction
materials--organic compounds such as

cell walls of microorganisms, are highly favored for this reaction.
Since salinity is not relevant to the performance of the system under
evaluation, the data requested are outside the scope of this project.
    One commenter requested experimental support or actual
measurements, to support the assumption that any remaining
ClO2 discharged would likely decay quickly, due to the
temperature of the receiving waters. The commenter also requested that
the definition of ``decay to extinction quickly'' be provided.
    The Coast Guard has determined that laboratory and field test
results have been presented by the applicant, and were part of the
technical review for establishing that the system has a reasonable
chance of meeting STEP efficacy requirements. The degradation of
ClO2 to its ultimate fate as chloride is driven largely by
the availability of organic matter, but additional degradation energy
comes from the ultraviolet component of light as well as heat
(available from the receiving seawater). The applicant has provided
data which demonstrate the impact of water temperature upon the
degradation rates of the treatment chemicals. In most cases, the
laboratory data show a decay to the non-detect level of the treatment
chemicals to occur within five days. While dilution values can be
determined, actual degradation rates for the remaining residuals are
not known. However, since none of the biocide residuals are considered
to be persistent in the environment, the Coast Guard is confident that
their impact once discharged from the vessel will be negligible.
    One commenter asked if data was collected to determine chlorite
half life for source water or Hawaii receiving water.
    The applicant has provided the Coast Guard with treatment efficacy
and residual degradation rate data that was collected using source
waters from San Francisco Bay. The data show degradation properties
similar to those for East Coast waters. The applicant has not proposed,
and the Coast Guard is not authorizing, the uptake of Hawaiian water
for treatment with the experimental system. Therefore, the effects of
treating Hawaiian waters are beyond the scope of this project.
    One commenter requested an explanation as to why chlorite
dissipates at different rates for Newark and Baltimore at similar
temperatures. The commenter also asked if there were EPA standards for
chlorite in discharged waters, and if chlorite impacts organisms in a
similar manner to chlorine.
    The Coast Guard does not have the information requested by the
commenter regarding dissipation rates for Newark and Baltimore;
however, we do not believe it is necessary for making a decision about
STEP acceptance. There are no specific standards for discharge of
ClO2 or its degradation products in marine waters. While
both chlorite and chlorine are biocides, chlorite has distinctly
different properties than chlorine. Ample information on the toxicity
of chlorine is readily available, but is not discussed in this FEA
since it is outside the scope of the process under evaluation.
    One commenter requested data to demonstrate compliance with
applicable discharge standards. The commenter asked if either EPA or
the State of Hawaii had established discharge standards for
ClO2 or its degradation products in marine waters. The
commenter also asked if there are any lab/land-based tests that show
residual concentrations from the Carquinez Strait source water.
    The Coast Guard has determined that there are no known state or
Federal standards for discharge of ClO2, or its degradation
products into marine waters. There are laboratory data for the
degradation rate of ClO2 in water from Carquinez Straits. These results
are in line with the values cited from East Coast port water samples.
    One commenter asked how much sodium sulfate is produced in the
chemical reaction and what kind of impacts (if any) the chemical has on
receiving environments.
    The Coast Guard has received sulfate concentration data from the
applicant. The Ecochlor\TM\ system is expected to introduce ~5 ppm
sulfate into the environment. Sulfate is a common constituent of
seawater with typical concentrations of ~2600 ppm. The impact of this
additional load is expected to be negligible.
    One commenter stated that the description of San Francisco Bay's
wetlands and wildlife was confusing. They stated that the section on
``Plants and Wetlands'' does not cover any of the information about the
bay's wetlands, and that it was unclear why a detailed coverage of the
bay's bird species is included. The commenter also asked for a range of
water depths in Carquinez Strait.
    The Coast Guard disagrees with the commenter's statement that the
description for San Francisco Bay is inadequate. The scope of the FEA
is to determine potential impacts from use of the BWMS. Since ballast
water will be taken onboard, as cargo is off loaded in Crockett,
California, regardless of the decision on STEP acceptance, the only
possible impact in the San Francisco Bay area is the potential for
additional air emission as a result of using the system. Since air
emissions were the focus of potential impacts, this FEA placed an
emphasis on bird species in the area. The air emissions associated with
the use of this system have been thoroughly researched and as a result
air quality was dismissed from further consideration. No ballast water,
treated or untreated, is carried to or discharged in California. Since
this vessel will be taking on ballast water from the dock in Crockett,
California, regardless of STEP enrollment, the Coast Guard disagrees
that detailed descriptions of water depths in the Carquinez Strait can
provide any additional useful information to decisionmakers about the
impact of accepting the vessel into the STEP.
    One commenter stated that the delta smelt is endangered, not
threatened.
    The Coast Guard disagrees with this comment. Information provided
by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) indicates the species is
listed as threatened, and that the service has been petitioned to
reclassify the species as endangered, but this process is not complete.
    One commenter asked if there was any Essential Fish Habitat (EFH)
specific to the Carquinez Strait area.
    The Coast Guard refers the commenter to section 3.1.1 of the DEA
where the EFH of the greater San Francisco Bay was identified. Because
of other formatting changes however, this information is now in Section
3.2.1 of the FEA.
    One commenter asked if there were any other important invertebrates
not associated with coral reefs.
    There are other important invertebrates not associated with coral
reefs. The Coast Guard has taken into account in the FEA potential
impacts on numerous organisms. The STEP is designed to protect all
organisms from threats posed by nonindigenous species (NIS) introduced
via BW.
    One commenter asked how many of the FWS listed species are aquatic,
and how many are marine.
    The Coast Guard has updated the section in question. Of the known
introduced species, 343 are marine aquatic. Further, three threatened
and endangered listed organisms are marine aquatic species.
    One commenter asked how many native macroalgal species there are in
Hawaii in comparison to the 19 NIS listed in this document. The
commenter

also asked what native benthic species are being out-competed.
    The Coast Guard acknowledges these questions, but disagrees that
the requested information is necessary to make a decision about STEP
acceptance. The purpose of the National Invasive Species Act (NISA),
and by extension STEP, is to protect indigenous species from the
threats posed by NIS.
    One commenter asked if there was additional information available
from the San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board for the
water quality description section of the FEA.
    Absent a specific concern, the Coast Guard disagrees that further
description of the San Francisco Bay area is necessary to make a
decision about STEP acceptance. However, the commenter is directed to
the Web site for the San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control
Board for additional information: http://www.swrcb.ca.gov/rwqcb2.
    One commenter requested the salinity range of the Carquinez Strait.
The commenter also asked if there were any outfalls near the C&H
refinery that could affect water drawn into ballast tanks.
    While it is unclear what specific concern is being addressed by the
comment, the Coast Guard does not believe that the requested
information is necessary to make a decision about STEP acceptance. Data
provided by the applicant indicate that salinity values do not
influence the biocide characteristics, which are of interest to the
STEP. Data on specific outfalls near the dock used by the vessel were
not provided. However, if the concern is that the vessel could be
moving poor quality water from California to another location, the
vessel will do that regardless of STEP acceptance. If the concern is
that the poor quality water may have a detrimental effect upon the
treatment efficacy, answering that question is precisely the purpose of
the STEP.
    One commenter stated that the first two sentences in section 3.2.2
``Hawaii'', contradict each other. The commenter asked for
determination if surface runoff affects the quality of coastal water.
    The Coast Guard disagrees that the paragraph is inconsistent. While
water quality is deemed good by the cited source, the Coast Guard
agrees with the State of Hawaii's statement acknowledging that threats
to maintaining coastal water quality include polluted surface runoff.
    One commenter asked what the chlorophyll (Chl) concentrations were.
The commenter also asked what the standard Chl concentrations were.
    The requested information is beyond the scope of the FEA. The
questions address the characterization of the environment by the State
of Hawaii and the requested increased detail is not necessary for
evaluating the potential effects of operating the BWMS on the vessel.
    One commenter asked for clarification regarding the statement ``* *
* chlorine dioxide quickly breaks down in air * * *''. The commenter
asked what the chlorine gas breaks down into, and what the effects of
these breakdown products were. The commenter also asked what effects
might be expected to the crew, especially in enclosed areas exposed to
these gases repeatedly over time.
    None of the degradation pathways for chlorine dioxide include
formation of elemental chlorine (Cl2, a gas at normal
temperature); the end product of degradation is chloride ion (Cl-), a
harmless and ubiquitous component of seawater. Safety of the crew is
paramount and has been addressed in section 4.3.2. of the FEA. Further,
the safety aspects of the BWMS have been thoroughly vetted by
appropriate authorities, to include, Coast Guard, Class society, and
corporate management.
    One commenter stated that the potential impact of chlorite appears
underestimated in the DEA, and the toxicity of chlorite was not
mentioned in the document. The commenter stated that according to
http://www.pesticideinfo.org chlorite causes serious sublethal effects
including carcinogenicity, and reproductive, developmental, and
neurological toxicity. The commenter suggested that it is inadequate to
only examine the LC50 of chlorite, because LC50 is too extreme of an
endpoint to determine whether or not the biological resources will be
impacted. The commenter also suggested that the EPA compiled toxicity
data does not adequately represent the target.
    Based on the extended residence times that the biocide will be
stored in the vessel ballast tanks, the Coast Guard believes that all
treatment residues will have degraded to levels sufficiently safe for
discharge for the purposes of making a decision about STEP acceptance.
Physical and chemical analysis of the treated ballast water, as well as
gathering actual shipboard data, are primary goals of the STEP.
    One commenter stated that the link for the EPA Aquire (Addendum F)
was broken, and that these previous studies need to be properly
referenced. The commenter also stated the table is not reader friendly,
and it is unclear whether the algae species tested were not affected by
chlorite exposure because chlorite is not toxic to algae, or because
the concentrations administered were too low. The commenter recommended
that the table should be amended to include the administered
concentrations, so concentrations can be compared to the other listed
studies.
    The Coast Guard was not able to replicate the difficulty locating
or opening the EPA Aquire database. As users of the data the Coast
Guard is not the appropriate agents for making changes to an EPA work
product. The determination to include the vessel with the proposed
treatment system is supported by the data showing that ambient algae
are not likely to be affected by chlorite residuals in the
concentrations presented by the applicant. At planned dosing
concentrations chlorite is toxic to algae and that is why it is used to
sterilize the ship's ballast water. However, based on the degradation
rates shown from the laboratory studies, the chlorite concentration
levels expected at time of discharge are believed to be too low to have
an adverse affect on ambient algae. Since the evaluated dosages include
the expected maximum discharge concentrations, the negligible impact
conclusion is supported. The administered concentrations are in section
4 of the FEA and Appendix E. The values presented there can be compared
with the values listed in the EPA table (Appendix F).
    One commenter requested clarification regarding the statement ``* *
* highly organic environments * * *''. The commenter suggested that it
was unclear whether dissolved organic material or particulate, organic
material or both is being referenced.
    The Coast Guard has reviewed the data provided by the applicant
regarding the source water quality, the characterization of which is
summarized in the FEA. Whether organic material is dissolved or
particulate, it plays a role in the degradation of the biocide.
    One commenter stated that both of these semi-closed harbors
(especially Kahului in Hawaii), are likely to have long residency
periods. The commenter asked if there was any information available
regarding the residency times of the water in these harbors.
    The system manufacturer has not provided the Coast Guard with any
information about harbor water residency times (for the chemical
residuals associated with this system). However, the Coast Guard
believes that based on the non-persistent nature of the ClO2 and the
long residence time

associated with this vessel's voyages, that the amount of residual
available for discharge is negligible and should not present an
accumulation hazard.
    One commenter requested further information regarding the local
planktonic communities. The commenter also asked which of the
planktivorous species belong to this group and if there were any
important fish that would be impacted.
    The Coast Guard agrees with this comment and has expanded the
environmental characterization of Hawaii to include more discussion of
plankton in the two cited harbors.
    One commenter stated that the discharges can potentially have
chlorite concentrations (1-3ppm) six times greater than the LC50 for
two of the test organisms, Daphnia and Americamysis (>0.5 ppm). The
commenter also stated that the Daphnia is a freshwater organism, but
could the results of the Americamysis tests represent potential impacts
of local organisms in these harbors.
    The Coast Guard has determined that characterization of actual
discharge concentrations of treatment residuals is a primary component
of the STEP. If actual values exceed what has been provided from the
laboratory test results, a further evaluation of use of the system will
be undertaken and revision or disenrollment in the STEP may be
necessary.
    One commenter asked if the two species Daphnia and Americamysis
could be representative of a larger group of animals that may be
negatively impacted by chlorite, if those species happened to be
present at the point of discharge.
    The Coast Guard has used the EPA data to make the negligible impact
decision based upon the lack of toxicity on the most sensitive plankton
species once a dilution value of 12 percent (whole effluent toxicity)
is achieved. This value is expected to be reached virtually
instantaneously upon discharge of the water from the vessel regardless
of what the residual concentration value was.
    One commenter stated that whether the BWTS is used or not, the
total organic content of the San Francisco Bay's water would be much
greater than that of open ocean water (if an exchange were conducted
instead). The commenter also asked how the killing of the organisms
removes the organic content of the water.
    Absent a specific request for further detail, the Coast Guard
believes that the document is sufficient for the intended purpose. The
settling of killed organisms to the bottom of the ballast tanks, as
stated in section 4.2.2, may result in less organic material being
discharged than would occur if the untreated organisms were still
swimming about in the water column.
    One commenter asked what the difference in pH was between the
typical Carquinez Strait water and the water found in the two Hawaiian
harbors. The commenter also asked what causes the drop in pH (by <0.6
units) and why is it said to happen ``sometimes'' and not all of the
time?
    The specific detail requested in both questions is not known by the
Coast Guard and was deemed unnecessary based on the type of activity
involved and the de minimis volume of seawater being transferred and
discharged into the harbor. The effects of using the experimental
system onboard a ship and the potential for fostering corrosion in the
ballast tanks is of specific interest to the applicant and will be
closely monitored. Further, the vessel would be discharging water whose
origin was outside the harbor regardless of the method of ballast water
management used.
    One commenter stated that the sentence `` * * * the discharge pH
will still generally be near neutrality * * * not likely pose a
significant negative impact.'', was misleading. The commenter stated
that the discharged water would still be neutral, does not mean that it
will not likely pose a negative impact. The commenter stated that the
neutrality of the water has nothing to do with whether a particular
organism adapted to a specific pH range will be affected; the relative
change of the pH is what is important, especially when dealing with
corals.
    The Coast Guard disagrees that this sentence is misleading. The
discharge of the small quantities of water is not likely to have any
impacts on those organisms even in the most immediate vicinity of the
vessels discharge outlet during ballast water discharge. The dilution
effects of mixing ballast water with ambient seawater will be nearly
instantaneous. The vessel will only be discharging adjacent to a man-
made shipping pier within the confines of a dredged and maintained
shipping channel. Any potential impacts associated with the proposed
action will be vastly overwhelmed by these regular maintenance
practices, which are described in section 3.2.2.
    One commenter asked that a citation be included for the phrase
``existing research indicates levels of chemicals are negligible * * *
''.
    The applicant's initial laboratory testing provided with their
application, shows that the chemical levels will be negligible
(Nautilus 2007). Physical and chemical analysis of the treated ballast
water, as well as gathering actual shipboard function data, are primary
goals of the STEP.
    One commenter asked if chlorine dioxide breaks down in air into
chlorine gas.
    The Coast Guard has determined that none of the breakdown pathways
for chlorine dioxide in air result in formation of elemental chlorine
(Nautilus 2007).
    One commenter stated that there was no prior explanation of the
term ``type-approval'' and that the word should either be explained or
altered.
    The Coast Guard has clarified the meaning of the phrase.
    One commenter stated that it would be useful to have a description
of how experimental trials during the voyage will be evaluated and
compared to laboratory efficacy trials. The commenter recommended
including a more detailed description of what will be collected and how
efficacy will be measured in the FEA.
    The Coast Guard disagrees with this comment. The request is outside
of the scope of the FEA. A brief synopsis of the PEA has been added to
the introduction section of this FEA. However, in the interest of
keeping the FEA readable and of use for Federal decisionmakers in
evaluating the action of accepting or denying the application into the
STEP, the Coast Guard has left the goals and process of testing in the
referenced documents. Further discussion of the test plan is available
in the USCG Navigation and Vessel Inspection Circular 01-04.
    One commenter stated that nutrients may affect efficacy of the
treatment technology. The commenter recommended that the FEA include a
more thorough description of the methodology that will be used for
monitoring efficacy of the treatment technology across gradients of
organic matter load within the ballast tanks. The commenter also
recommended adding a section that will address evaluating technology
performance under increasing levels of organic matter.
    The Coast Guard has determined that the test plan is designed to
``challenge'' the treatment system as aggressively as possible, with
the thought being that all other values of organic content would then
be below this challenge level. The manufacturer is acutely interested
in determining feedback mechanisms for regulating dose control and
setting target dosage for the production version of this prototype
system. That is beyond the scope of the STEP, but would be a primary
element of a system type

approval evaluation should the company decide to move forward with this
system.
    One commenter stated that Appendix F provided species and life
stages that were included in chlorine dioxide toxicity testing;
however, it was not clear if these species are residents of the
Carquinez, San Pablo Bay, or the greater San Francisco Bay. The
commenter recommended updating the appendices with more current
toxicology results on species that will be encountered at source water
locations.
    The Coast Guard agrees that a source specific evaluation is the
ideal data to move forward with the evaluation of this prototype. The
manufacturer was contacted to provide laboratory data of
ClO2 efficacy on water samples from water taken at Crockett,
California, and that data has been incorporated into the FEA. Appendix
F is from the EPA and it is not the Coast Guard's place to update it.
Shipboard Technology Evaluation Program testing will determine
toxicology results for species that will be encountered in the source
water.
    One commenter requested greater detail regarding the manual shut
down process for the Ecochlor TM Inc. systems. The commenter
stated that there was no remote control for the system, so providing
more detail on how the system will be shut down if there is a
mechanical failure would be useful.
    These elements are a standard part of Coast Guard oversight of
commercial vessels and their installed machinery. The system is
designed and installed in accordance with all applicable regulations
for electrical, hazardous materials handling, and storage and piping
safety. Additionally, it has been inspected by USCG inspectors for
compliance with safety regulations as well as inspectors for the
company's classification society for conformance with class safety
rules. Further detail in this document is considered beyond the scope
of the FEA.
    One commenter requested more detail regarding the proven shipboard
practices for the use and safe handling procedures for ClO2,
especially in light of spill protocols in the case of a full discharge.
    The system does not store any ClO2 at any time.
Therefore, no spill of the chemical is possible. The ClO2 is
only generated at the immediate time of treatment within the reactor
compartment of the treatment system. It is produced in small quantities
and at low concentration so there is little risk of harm even in the
event of a failure of the reactor. The system has been evaluated by
independent safety oversight experts at the USCG and the ship's
classification society for just such contingencies.
    One commenter stated that there was no reference in the document
regarding the possibility of taking up source water in Hawaii and then
discharging it in California waters. The commenter felt that it was
necessary to test the Ecochlor\TM\ system on Hawaiian organisms that
could be taken into the ballast tanks.
    The Coast Guard disagrees with this expansion of the scope of the
assessment. The STEP applicant has applied under the established and
dedicated shipping pattern of hauling sugar from Hawaii to California
and returning in ballast to Hawaii. If the applicant desires to utilize
the vessel in modified service, they must submit a revised application
to the Coast Guard for review and supplemental assessment.
    One commenter asked how the concentration of the ``dilute chlorine
dioxide (ClO2) solution'' is derived. The commenter noted
that previous studies indicated that this level was sufficient to
achieve the desired treatment in Hawaiian waters, without adverse
effects to marine fauna. The commenter also stated that the water
quality should be cited.
    The Coast Guard disagrees with this comment. The review of the
scientific basis of the applicant's test plan is outside the scope of
this FEA. However, the studies used to determine the dosage were
reviewed and the basis for at least a starting dosage is agreed with by
water treatment and marine biological and botanical experts.
    One commenter asked if any attempts were made to monitor the
ballast water once it left the ship, in order to assess water quality
and potential impacts on marine fauna.
    The Coast Guard has determined that the test plan does not call for
monitoring outside the ship. Ballast water will be sampled immediately
before discharge and treatment efficacy and residual levels of
disinfectant will be quantified.
    One commenter stated to minimize environmental impacts this
material [ClO2] should be flushed out in mid-ocean away from
coastal environments. The commenter also stated that the complete
exchange of ballast water in mid-ocean will further avoid likelihood of
any transport of invasive/non-indigenous species into sensitive coastal
harbors.
    The Coast Guard disagrees with this comment. The use of a treatment
system is meant as an improvement upon the efficacy of mid ocean
exchange. The replacement of Ballast Water Exchange with use of a BWMS
is the primary incentive for ships to participate in the STEP.
Requiring BWE after treatment is contrary to the purposes of the STEP
as defined in the PEA.
    One commenter stated that studies, completed or currently underway,
to document the number and quantity of invasive species that are being
transported to Hawaii should be documented. The commenter stated that
the key baseline information should be included in the FEA.
    The Coast Guard has determined that this comment is outside the
scope of the FEA. Since the MOKU PAHU is only one of several vessels
calling on these Hawaiian ports, a determination has been made that the
effects of the use of a BWMS on any one ship in reducing the overall
introduction of NIS via BW will be negligible. Therefore, comparing
total rates of introductions before and after this single STEP project
is unlikely to detect any significant differences. The creation of a
State of Hawaii baseline would not be appropriate to this STEP
application because the purpose of the STEP is to determine the
efficacy of a single BWMS on a single vessel. The Coast Guard supports
other protective agencies' efforts to combat the threats to U.S. waters
posed by NIS.
    One commenter stated that the limited diversity of corals is better
explained by the geographic remoteness of the islands and lack of
direct current flow from the Indo-Pacific hub.
    The Coast Guard appreciates the expertise of the local agency and
has amended the text to more accurately reflect the origin of Hawaiian
corals.
    One commenter stated that in the main Hawaiian Islands most of the
coral reefs lie in State waters, not Federal. The commenter also asked
that the statement ``* * * The main Hawaiian Islands contain * * *'' be
omitted or revised.
    The Coast Guard appreciates the expertise of the local agency and
has amended the text to more accurately reflect the characterization of
Hawaiian coral.
    One commenter stated that the un-referenced description of coral
reefs along Maui's north coast (at the bottom of page 3-3), is
incorrect. The commenter stated that monitoring sites within 5-6 km of
Kahului Harbor may not be well developed in terms of geomorphologocal
structure, but they do have extensive coral cover which is two times
higher than state average (Jokiel, P.L., Brown, E.K., Friedlander,
A.M., Rodgers, S.K., Smith, W.R., 2004. Hawaii coral reef assessment
and monitoring program: Spatial patterns

and temporal dynamics in coral reef communities. Pac Sci 58, 159-174).
    The Coast Guard appreciates the expertise of the local agency and
has amended the text to more accurately reflect the characterization of
Hawaiian coral.
    One commenter asked what fisheries and migratory seabirds (and
their current status) occur in the two harbors that might be impacted
on page 3-4 and 3-5.
    Based on the logic noted in the Consequences section, there will be
at most an indirect negligible impact to birds as a result of the use
of this system. The Coast Guard disagrees that further detail than that
which is provided is necessary for making a STEP enrollment decision.
    One commenter stated that the text regarding test results in
section 2.2.1 of the FEA should read, ``Laboratory studies have
revealed that chlorite has a half-life of up to 30.3 days at 20 [deg]C
in Newark, and 10.5 days at 20 [deg]C in Baltimore waters.'' The
commenter stated that by these numbers, it would take approximately 200
days in Newark to achieve a 99 percent decomposition of chlorite, and
it could take up to 70 days in Baltimore waters for chlorite to
decompose by 99 percent.
    The Coast Guard agrees with this comment and thanks the commenter
for their input. The language in the section has been changed to make
it clear that the section is referring to laboratory tests. Further, we
have included data from the fate and effect study, also provided by the
technology vendor into the environmental considerations in this FEA.
    All of the commenters stated their support and approval for the
MOKU PAHU acceptance into the STEP, and recommended that the
application should be granted.
    The Coast Guard appreciates all of the comments and support for
including the MOKU PAHU into the STEP.
    Final Environmental Assessment: The PEA for STEP identified and
examined the reasonable alternatives available to evaluate novel
ballast water management systems for effectiveness against NIS
transportation by ships' ballast water.
    This FEA for acceptance of the MOKU PAHU into the STEP and the
subsequent operation of the experimental treatment system analyzed the
no action alternative and one action alternative that could fulfill the
purpose, and need of identifying suitable technologies capable of
preventing the transportation of NIS in ships ballast water.
Specifically, the FEA for the MOKU PAHU acceptance into the STEP is
tiered off of the PEA for the STEP, and considers the potential impacts
to the environment from the operation of the treatment system on the
MOKU PAHU, by examining the functioning of the system, the operational
practices of the vessel, and the potential affects on discharge water
quality.
    This notice is issued under authority of the National Environmental
Policy Act of 1969 (Section 102(2)(c)), as implemented by the Council
of Environmental Quality regulations (40 CFR parts 1500-1508) and Coast
Guard Commandant Instruction M16475.1D.

    Dated: November 21, 2008.
Brian M. Salerno,
Rear Admiral, U.S. Coast Guard, Assistant Commandant for Marine Safety,
Security and Stewardship.
 [FR Doc. E8-28474 Filed 11-28-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910-15-P


[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 238 (Wednesday, December 12, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Pages 63953-63955]
[FR Doc No: 2018-26831]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-84734; File No. SR-MIAX-2018-37]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Miami International Securities
Exchange, LLC; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a
Proposed Rule Change To Amend Exchange Rule 510, Minimum Price
Variations and Minimum Trading Increments, To Adopt Interpretations and
Policies .03

December 6, 2018.
    Pursuant to the provisions of Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 (``Act''),\1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice
is hereby given that on November 28, 2018, Miami International
Securities Exchange, LLC (``MIAX Options'' or ``Exchange'') filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission (``Commission'') a proposed rule
change as described in Items I and II below, which Items have been
prepared by the Exchange. The Commission is publishing this notice to
solicit comments on the proposed rule change from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

I. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Terms of Substance
of the Proposed Rule Change

    The Exchange is filing a proposal to relocate Rule 404,
Interpretations and Policies .11 (``SPIKES Index Options'') to Rule
510, Minimum Price Variations and Minimum Trading Increments, new
Interpretations and Policies .03, and to make a non-substantive
conforming change to a cross-reference in the rule.
    The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's
website at http://www.miaxoptions.com/rule-filings/ at MIAX Options'
principal office, and at the Commission's Public Reference Room.

II. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Purpose of, and
Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change

    In its filing with the Commission, the Exchange included statements
concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and
discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The
text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in
Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in
sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such
statements.

A. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Purpose of, and
Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change

1. Purpose
    The Exchange proposes to relocate existing Exchange Rule 404,
Interpretations and Policies .11, SPIKES Index Options, to Rule 510
(``Minimum Price Variations and Minimum Trading Increments''),
Interpretations and Policies .03. This proposal seeks to better
organize the rules of the Exchange in order to make the rules easier to
read and to ensure that this rule is located in the appropriate
chapter. The Exchange also proposes to make a non-substantive
conforming change to a cross-reference in the rule, in order to reflect
the relocation of the rule to a more suitable chapter in the Exchange's
rulebook. Specifically, the Exchange proposes to change the current
language which states that ``[n]otwithstanding any other provision of
this Rule 404, the minimum trading increment for options on the SPIKES
Index shall be as follows: (1) If the options series is trading at less
than $3.00, five (5) cents; and (2) if the options series is trading at
$3.00 or higher, ten (10) cents,'' to now read ``[n]otwithstanding any
other provision of this Rule 510, the minimum trading increment for
options on the SPIKES Index shall be as follows: (1) If the options
series is trading at less than $3.00, five (5) cents; and (2) if the
options series is trading at $3.00 or higher, ten (10) cents,'' in
order to update the cross-reference in the rule.
    The Exchange notes that the changes proposed herein are non-
substantive rule changes, and do not modify the application of the rule
which the Exchange proposes to relocate. The Exchange believes that by
now relocating this rule, and making a non-substantive conforming
change to a cross-reference within the rule, it will relocate the rule
into a more appropriate chapter in the Exchange's rulebook.
2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that its proposed rule change is consistent
with Section 6(b) of the Act \3\ in general, and furthers the
objectives of Section 6(b)(5) of the Act \4\ in particular, in that it
is designed to prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts and practices,
to promote just and equitable principles of trade, to foster
cooperation and coordination with persons engaged in facilitating
transactions in securities, to remove impediments to and perfect the
mechanisms of a free and open market and a national market system and,
in general, to protect investors and the public interest.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \4\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes the proposed change promotes just and
equitable principles of trade and removes impediments to and perfects
the mechanism of a free and open market and a national market system
because the proposed rule change improves the way the Exchange's
rulebook is organized, making it easier to read, and avoids confusion
by relocating a rule which is more appropriately located in another
chapter of the Exchange's rulebook; and makes a non-substantive
conforming change to a cross-reference in the rule, in order to reflect
the relocation of the rule to a more suitable chapter in the Exchange's
rulebook, therefore, helping market participants to better understand
the rules of the Exchange. The Exchange notes that the proposed change
does not alter the application of the rule. As such, the proposed
amendment would foster cooperation and coordination with persons
engaged in facilitating transactions in securities and would remove
impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and
a national exchange system. In particular, the Exchange believes that
the proposed change will provide greater clarity to Members \5\ and the
public regarding the Exchange's Rules. It is in the public interest for
rules to be accurate and concise so as to eliminate the potential for
confusion.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ The term ``Member'' means an individual or organization
approved to exercise the trading rights associated with a Trading
Permit. Members are deemed ``members'' under the Exchange Act. See
Exchange Rule 100.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Burden on Competition

    MIAX Options does not believe that the proposed rule change will
impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate
in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. The proposed rule change
will have no impact on competition as it is not designed to address any
competitive issues but rather is designed to add additional clarity to
existing rules by making a non-substantive change to relocate the rule
to a different chapter in the Exchange's rulebook, and by making a
conforming change to an existing cross-reference in the rule, in order
to reflect the relocation of the rule to a more suitable chapter in the
Exchange's rulebook.
    The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will
impose any burden on intermarket competition as the Rules apply equally
to all Exchange Members.

C. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Comments on the Proposed
Rule Change Received From Members, Participants, or Others

    Written comments were neither solicited nor received.

III. Date of Effectiveness of the Proposed Rule Change and Timing for
Commission Action

    Because the foregoing proposed rule change does not: (i)
Significantly affect the protection of investors or the public
interest; (ii) impose any significant burden on competition; and (iii)
become operative for 30 days from the date on which it was filed, or
such shorter time as the Commission may designate, it has become
effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A)(iii) of the Act \6\ and
subparagraph (f)(6) of Rule 19b-4 thereunder.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(iii).
    \7\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6). In addition, Rule 19b-4(f)(6)(iii)
requires a self-regulatory organization to give the Commission
written notice of its intent to file the proposed rule change, along
with a brief description and the text of the proposed rule change,
at least five business days prior to the date of filing of the
proposed rule change, or such shorter time as designated by the
Commission. The Exchange has satisfied this requirement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    A proposed rule change filed under Rule 19b-4(f)(6) \8\ normally
does not become operative prior to 30 days after the date of the
filing. However, Rule 19b-4(f)(6)(iii) \9\ permits the Commission to
designate a shorter time if such action is consistent with the
protection of investors and the public interest. The Exchange has asked
the Commission to waive the 30-day operative delay so that the proposal
may become operative immediately upon filing. The Exchange states that
the waiver will allow the Exchange to immediately improve the
organization of its rulebook and avoid confusion for market
participants reading the rules of

the Exchange. The Commission believes that waiver of the 30-day
operative delay is consistent with the protection of investors and the
public interest. Accordingly, the Commission hereby waives the
operative delay and designates the proposed rule change as operative
upon filing.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6).
    \9\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6)(iii).
    \10\ For purposes only of waiving the 30-day operative delay,
the Commission has also considered the proposed rule's impact on
efficiency, competition, and capital formation. See 15 U.S.C.
78c(f).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule
change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule
change if it appears to the Commission that such action is: (i)
Necessary or appropriate in the public interest; (ii) for the
protection of investors; or (iii) otherwise in furtherance of the
purposes of the Act. If the Commission takes such action, the
Commission shall institute proceedings to determine whether the
proposed rule should be approved or disapproved.

IV. Solicitation of Comments

    Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and
arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule
change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of
the following methods:

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-MIAX-2018-37 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

     Send paper comments in triplicate to Secretary, Securities
and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549-1090.

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-MIAX-2018-37. This file
number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To help
the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's internet website (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml).
Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all written
statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are filed with
the Commission, and all written communications relating to the proposed
rule change between the Commission and any person, other than those
that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the provisions
of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for website viewing and printing in
the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC
20549, on official business days between the hours of 10:00 a.m. and
3:00 p.m. Copies of the filing also will be available for inspection
and copying at the principal office of the Exchange. All comments
received will be posted without change. Persons submitting comments are
cautioned that we do not redact or edit personal identifying
information from comment submissions. You should submit only
information that you wish to make available publicly. All submissions
should refer to File Number SR-MIAX-2018-37 and should be submitted on
or before January 2, 2019.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Eduardo A. Aleman,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2018-26831 Filed 12-11-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 8011-01-P