of CWA section 312(p) authorizes the Agency to regulate passive
discharge of biofouling as a discharge incidental to the normal
operation of a vessel under the VIDA. This interpretation is based on
the plain language of the statute, as well as the statutory context and
regulatory history. EPA understands the statutory definition of
``discharge incidental to the normal operation of a vessel'' at CWA
section 312(a)(12)(A), to include any incidental discharge (including
passive discharge) of biofouling organisms from vessel equipment and
systems for several reasons. First, passive biofouling releases are an
ordinary accompanying circumstance of vessel operation and transit.
Based on a plain reading of the CWA-defined term ``discharge incidental
to the normal operation of a vessel,'' EPA interprets passive
biofouling to be genuinely incidental to the normal operation of a
vessel. Second, the statute does not limit what can be considered an
incidental discharge to specific named discharges. Instead, CWA section
312(a)(12)(A) explicitly uses the word ``including'' before introducing
a list of discharges, which indicates that the list is illustrative and
not exhaustive. See, e.g., In re Vill. Apothecary, Inc., 45 F.4th 940,
947 (6th Cir. 2022) (``Although context matters, most courts read the
word `include' to introduce a nonexhaustive list.'').
    Third, CWA section 312(a)(12)(A)(i) states that a discharge
incidental to the normal operation of a vessel includes ``any other
pollutant discharge from the operation of a marine propulsion system,
shipboard maneuvering system, crew habitability system, or installed
major equipment. . . .'' This language is best read to encompass
passive biofouling discharges from the hull of a vessel because all
such discharges are connected to operation of the listed equipment. For
example, the shipboard maneuvering systems cannot ``operate'' without
the hull. The CWA section 312(a)(12)(A)(i) definition also includes
``any other pollutant discharge . . . from a protective, preservative,
or absorptive application to the hull of the vessel.'' The same
definition at subsection (A)(ii) includes ``a discharge in connection
with the testing, maintenance, and repair of a system described in
clause (i) whenever the vessel is waterborne.'' Read together, these
provisions define a discharge incidental to the normal operation of a
vessel, for the purposes of CWA section 312, to include ``a discharge
in connection with the . . . maintenance[ ] and repair'' of any
``protective, preservative, or absorptive application to the hull.''
The accumulation, growth, and discharge of biofouling organisms is
intimately ``connected'' to the maintenance of ``protective'' and
``preservative'' applications to the hull. Improper or inadequate
maintenance of these applications (or coatings) leads to excessive
growth of biofouling organisms and the attendant discharge of such
organisms. A vessel is more likely to accumulate and discharge
biofouling organisms if the hull coatings are not properly maintained
and, even in a properly maintained vessel, biofouling organisms are
ultimately discharged from the hull coatings as much as the hull
itself.
    The statutory context and purpose further support the
interpretation that passive biofouling is an incidental discharge. The
VIDA was enacted to provide ``uniform national standards'' for vessel
discharges, and EPA regulating passive biofouling under the VIDA would
further that purpose by avoiding state-by-state variation. This is
particularly appropriate for biofouling because EPA and the USCG
participated in the Correspondence Group on Review of the Biofouling
Guidelines (currently the 2011 Guidelines for the Control and
Management of Ships' Biofouling to Minimize the Transfer of Aquatic
Species (Resolution MEPC.207(62))), and thus possess the expertise to
regulate this discharge. Only a handful of states have any programs to
regulate biofouling, so excluding the passive discharge of biofouling
from the rule risks leaving most states without any program to control
such discharges. Additionally, the VIDA has a particular focus on ANS,
as evidenced by the numerous specific references and provisions
relating to ANS in the statutory text. See, e.g., CWA sections
312(p)(1)(A), (2)(B), (4)(B)(i), (4)(E), & 6(E); 33 U.S.C.
1322(p)(1)(A), (2)(B), (4)(B)(i), (4)(E), & 6(E). Because passive
biofouling is a significant vector for the spread of ANS, it is likely
that Congress would have expected the VIDA to control this discharge.
    With respect to the regulatory history, the VGP drew no distinction
between active and passive discharges of biofouling. Thus, EPA
regulated biofouling under the VGP by including management requirements
to minimize the transport of biofouling organisms from vessel equipment
and systems, primarily by requiring use and maintenance of an
appropriate anti-fouling management system, including inspection,
cleaning, and maintenance of the hull and associated niche areas. With
limited exceptions, the VIDA requires that the standards be at least as
stringent as the 2013 VGP requirements established under CWA section
402. See CWA section 312(p)(4)(B)(iii), 33 U.S.C. 1322(p)(4)(B)(iii)
(EPA standards); id. (5)(A)(ii) (USCG requirements). EPA's
consideration of a supplemental option clarifying inclusion of the
regulation of passive biofouling is consistent with the VGP and this
VIDA requirement.
    For the above reasons, EPA is considering whether to regulate the
passive discharge of biofouling from vessel equipment and systems as an
incidental discharge in the final rule.
2. Application of Requirements to Cleaning of Macrofouling and
Microfouling
    EPA received comments on the proposed rule that the Agency should
promulgate biofouling standards that are as specific as possible to
ensure compliance and enforcement. Commenters also requested that EPA
make a distinction between macroscopic and microscopic biofouling and
include definitions based on scientific literature.

Commenters also stated that the U.S. Navy's FR scale was inappropriate
for assessing risk of introducing ANS, recommending that the terms
``macrofouling'' and ``microfouling'' be used instead to delineate
applicable requirements. In consideration of these comments, EPA is
considering defining and using the terms ``macrofouling'' and
``microfouling'' and dispensing with use of the U.S. Navy's FR scale as
a tool for assigning level and extent of vessel biofouling.
3. Applicability of Regulations to In-Water Cleaning Discharges
    In the proposed rule, EPA did not discuss in detail the differences
between in-water cleaning without capture and IWCC as it related to the
proposed standards for the discharge of biofouling from vessels. Based
on comments received, EPA is considering: (a) prohibiting any discharge
from in-water cleaning of macrofouling without capture; and (b)
establishing discharge requirements for in-water cleaning of
microfouling of vessel hulls and associated niche areas. Also, EPA is
considering requiring that hulls and associated niche areas be managed
to minimize macrofouling, such as through cleaning of microfouling, and
that any hull and associated niche area cleaning must minimize damage
to the anti-fouling coating and follow applicable cleaning requirements
found on the coating manufacturers' instructions and any applicable
Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act label. To
facilitate these new options, EPA is considering several new and
revised definitions for inclusion in the final rule. New definitions
include ``active discharge of biofouling,'' ``anti-fouling coating,''
``anti-fouling system,'' and ``passive discharge of biofouling.'' New
definitions for ``biofouling,'' ``macrofouling,'' ``microfouling,'' and
``niche areas'' are also being considered and are based largely on
definitions in the IMO's 2023 ``Revised Guidelines for the Control and
Management of Ships' Biofouling to Minimize the Transfer of Invasive
Aquatic Species.''
4. Discharges From In-Water Cleaning and Capture (IWCC) Systems
    IWCC discharges are the result of the use and operation of systems
that are designed to capture coatings and biofouling organisms, filter
biofouling organisms from the effluent, and minimize the release of
biocides. These systems produce waste streams of captured debris that
is transported topside by umbilical and pumped to an adjacent barge or
dockside. The waste stream is then typically processed by a commercial
in-water cleaning system service provider and then discharged into the
receiving water or collected for disposal.
    EPA received comments on the proposed rule arguing that IWCC
discharges did not fall within the scope of the VIDA definition of
discharge incidental to the normal operation of a vessel, and therefore
should not be included in the final standard. Specifically, commenters
argued that discharges associated with IWCC came from sources
associated with the third-party cleaning service rather than from the
vessel itself, and that IWCC thus more resembled the shore-side
discharge of treated ballast water that is exempted from the VIDA.
These commenters urged that IWCC discharges should instead be regulated
through appropriate National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
(NPDES) permitting authorities (e.g., state regulatory agencies),
consistent with how the VIDA excludes discharges of ballast water to a
reception facility from the uniform national standards of performance.
Additionally, the VIDA instructed EPA to be generally consistent with
the VGP in promulgating new standards (CWA section 312(p)(4)(B)(iii)),
and the VGP did not interpret an IWCC discharge to be a discharge
incidental to the normal operation of a vessel. This new approach being
considered is analogous to the approach used for ballast water
discharges to a reception facility, which EPA is explicitly instructed
not to regulate under the VIDA. As such, EPA is now considering not
including the discharge of effluent from IWCC systems as an incidental
discharge in the final rule.
    Additionally, EPA acknowledges that this approach would differ from
how IWCC discharges from vessels of the Armed Forces are regulated
under the Uniform National Discharge Standards (UNDS; see 40 CFR
1700.37). However, such differences are to be expected where there are
different legal and factual circumstances attending the vessels
regulated under each authority. Indeed, there are additional
inconsistences that exist across the UNDS, the VGP, and the proposed
rule for other discharges.
    Based on the comments and EPA's understanding that there are no
permanent onboard IWCC systems commercially available for use, EPA is
considering not including the discharge of treated effluent from IWCC
technologies as a discharge incidental to the normal operation of a
vessel. As such, these discharges would not be exempt from regulation
under CWA section 312(p)(9)(C) and, therefore would require NPDES
permit coverage akin to the discharge of treated ballast water from a
barge-based or shore-based treatment facility. This would include any
materials not captured and discharged as part of IWCC usage. Also,
consistent with the proposal to exclude discharges from IWCC systems
from these standards, EPA is considering removing the reference to IWCC
systems from the prohibition of in-water cleaning of any copper-based
hull coatings in any copper-impaired waterbody within the first 365
days after application of that coating. Rather, the revision would
prohibit any discharge from in-water cleaning without capture of any
copper-based hull coatings in a copper-impaired waterbody within the
first 365 days after application of that coating.
    Given that the approach considered here to exclude IWCC discharges
from the final standard differs from what was initially proposed, EPA
is seeking additional input to inform the final rule. Specifically, EPA
is interested in feedback regarding the State-level technical,
administrative, and resource capacity to implement such a NPDES
permitting program for discharges or additional state regulatory
options associated with IWCC systems.
5. Terms To Describe Cleaning
    EPA received comments that the terms ``frequent,'' ``gentle,''
``minimal,'' ``local in origin,'' ``plume or cloud of paint,'' and
``minimize release of biocides'' with regards to hull and associated
niche area cleaning are not well-defined and open for broad
interpretation. Along these same lines, EPA received comments that the
standards for cleaning in the proposed rule were vague, and as such,
not protective against the discharge of organisms and water quality
impacts. EPA considers the approach used in the proposed rule (i.e.,
describing cleaning as frequent and gentle with a goal of minimizing
impacts to the coating) to be consistent with how cleaning is regulated
in the VGP, and a best practice that would ensure the longevity and
effectiveness of the coating while minimizing pollutant loading into
the surrounding environment. EPA understands, however, that use of the
terms ``local in origin'' and ``plume or cloud of paint'' may be
challenging to implement and enforce, and as such, EPA is considering
removing these concepts.

D. Graywater Systems

    Graywater is water drained or collected from showers, baths, sinks,

and laundry facilities. Graywater discharges can contain bacteria,
pathogens, oil and grease, detergent and soap residue, metals (e.g.,
cadmium, chromium, lead, copper, zinc, silver, nickel, mercury),
solids, and nutrients. To the extent that graywater is commingled with
sewage, the VIDA subjects such discharge to all applicable requirements
for both graywater and sewage. See CWA section 312(p)(2)(A)(ii), 33
U.S.C. 1322(p)(2)(A)(ii).
1. Summary of Proposed Rule and Relevant Comments Received on Graywater
Systems
    Among other graywater system requirements, EPA proposed that
graywater discharges from certain vessels, including any new vessel of
400 gross tons as measured under the Convention Measurement System of
the International Convention on Tonnage Measurement of Ships (GT ITC)
(400 GRT if GT ITC is not assigned) and above, would be prohibited
unless the discharge meets numeric discharge standards for fecal
coliform, biochemical oxygen demand, suspended solids, pH, and residual
chlorine. EPA received comments from several industry stakeholders
(American Petroleum Institute, American Waterways Operators, Crowley
Maritime Corporation, and Offshore Marine Services Association)
requesting that EPA consider exempting vessels that carry only a
relatively small number of persons. Commenters reasoned that such
vessels produce small volumes of graywater discharge and that the
pollution reductions would be too negligible to justify the costs of
treating graywater discharge. Commenters also asserted that requiring
such vessels to comply with the numeric discharge standard is not
supported by VGP data and that the requirement should be based on total
personnel rather than tonnage, similar to the graywater monitoring
requirements found in Section <IP_ADDRESS> of the 2013 VGP. Specifically,
commenters argued that vessels that have a maximum crew capacity and
overnight accommodations for fewer than 15 persons should be exempt
from the rule's numeric discharge standard for graywater. Commenters
also argued that the pollution reductions to be achieved from storage
and pump out of graywater were negligible in comparison to the other
environmental impacts that would result from the installation,
maintenance, and operation of such systems, including increased energy
usage and increased carbon emissions from burning fuel. Commenters also
noted that the installation and use of graywater storage tanks could
increase the need for ballasting operations, thereby increasing the
discharge of pollutants through ballast water.
    EPA understands that vessels that carry fewer than 15 persons,
regardless of vessel tonnage, would produce a lower volume of graywater
discharges. The proposed rule noted that the volume of graywater
generated and discharged by a vessel depends on the number of persons
onboard and several proposed requirements are tied directly to that
number. For example, under the proposed rule, the discharge of
graywater from any new ferry authorized by the USCG to carry 250 or
more persons would be required to meet the numeric discharge
requirements. Additionally, graywater generation rates vary based on
the types of activities onboard the vessel. For example, cruise ship
passengers and crew are expected to generate higher volumes of
graywater than the crew onboard cargo ships, towing vessels, or similar
vessels. This is because passengers on cruise ships engaged in leisure
activities tend to use galleys and accommodations (sinks and showers)
to a greater extent for bathing, food preparation, and other such
activities.
2. Supplemental Regulatory Option for Graywater Systems
    Due to the comments received, EPA is considering a supplemental
option that changes the eligibility criteria to track the number of
persons onboard a vessel more closely, in line with commenters'
recommendation to limit the applicability only to new vessels of 400 GT
and above that have a maximum capacity of 15 or more persons and
provide overnight accommodations to those persons. Based on an assumed
production rate of 30 to 85 gallons of graywater per person per day,
the largest commercial vessels with 14 persons would produce between
420 and 1,190 gallons of graywater per day. EPA expects that 400 GT
vessels that have a maximum capacity and overnight accommodations for
fewer than 15 persons, such as towing vessels, are likely generating
graywater on the lower end of this estimate. Based on the comments
received, EPA is considering whether exempting graywater discharges
from these less populated vessels without overnight accommodations from
meeting the otherwise applicable standard would be reasonable
considering the relevant statutory factors for a technology-based
standard. EPA projects that this exemption would result in increased
cost savings to the vessel community compared to the initial Regulatory
Impact Analysis of the proposed rule.
    EPA is aware of two technologies for reducing the discharge of
pollutants through graywater: treatment and storage. As explained in
the proposed rule, EPA recognizes that the option to install advanced
wastewater treatment systems (AWTS) or sufficient storage may be
unavailable for certain vessels for such reasons as cost, stability of
the vessel, or space constraints. Additionally, treatment systems
require a minimum number of persons onboard, as identified by the
manufacturer, to generate a sufficient volume of wastewater for proper
operation. As such, vessels carrying fewer persons may have fewer
device options available. In the process of developing a 2011 EPA
report titled ``Graywater Discharges from Vessels'' (Docket No. EPA-HQ-
OW-2019-0482-0368), contractors acting on EPA's behalf contacted
several vessel operators representing a range of vessel classes to
understand current graywater handling practices. Only the operator with
the largest vessel--a medium cruise ship typically carrying 740
passengers--reported treatment of graywater using an AWTS. In
considering these factors, EPA did not propose that all vessels be
required to treat graywater discharges according to the numeric
discharge standards. Information on current graywater handling
practices, device availability, and minimum number of persons required
for operation is also available in the ``Graywater Discharges from
Vessels'' report.
    Given the apparent unavailability of technologically practicable
treatment options, EPA is considering whether it would be reasonable to
require vessels of this type to install holding tanks (as needed) to
store graywater. Commenters expressed concerns regarding the
operational and logistical challenges associated with equipping holding
tanks onboard minimally crewed vessels greater than 400 GT, such as
towing vessels. Specific concerns included impacts to vessel stability,
inadequate space for installation, and the need to regularly pump out
the tanks despite limited availability of suitable facilities for
offloading wastewater from commercial vessels. EPA understands that for
vessels with multi-day voyages that primarily operate in nearshore
waters, the required holding tanks would be large. Assuming a towing
vessel with an average crew of six, generating 30 gallons per person
per day, with a 14-day pumpout interval, a 2,520-gallon tank would be
required. In the proposed rule, EPA solicited data and comments on the
availability of

pumpout facilities for graywater. While few specifics were provided,
commenters identified general deficiencies in the availability of
suitable facilities for non-recreational vessels.
    Several commenters argued that installing holding capacity, with
the ongoing costs of pumping out, could be economically burdensome.
EPA's recent analysis of a mandatory sewage storage requirement for
tugboats and similar vessels in Puget Sound amounted to an estimated
6.8 percent increase in annual baseline operating costs for such
vessels, not including the additional costs to purchase and install the
tanks. This increase is due to the costs associated with facility use
(pumpout fees), travel to access facilities (lost revenue and fuel
costs), and time to pump out (lost revenue). Because graywater is
generated in greater volumes on a per person per day basis than sewage,
EPA would expect a greater increase in operating costs should tugboats
and similar vessels be required to equip storage capacity to prevent
overboard discharges.
    As part of this supplemental regulatory option, EPA modified the
applicability criteria from ``400 GT ITC (400 GRT if GT ITC is not
assigned)'' to ``400 GT.'' This modification is intended to align the
language with existing regulations and the IMO.

V. Solicitation of Comments

    In this document, EPA solicits public comment on new data received
since the proposed rule and a small number of supplemental options for
specific discharges and/or systems.
    For the numeric ballast water discharge standard, EPA is not
proposing a different standard than that in the proposed rule; however,
EPA is seeking input on this issue and on the analysis of the new data.
    For ballast water uptake, EPA is considering a supplemental option
to require vessel operators to address and identify their uptake
practices as part of their ballast water management plan.
    For ballast water discharges from Lakers, EPA is considering a
supplemental option to require an equipment standard for New Lakers.
These vessels would be required to install and operate a BWMS that has
been type-approved by the USCG. EPA proposes to define a New Laker as a
bulk carrier that operates exclusively on the Great Lakes and that is
constructed after the effective date of USCG regulations promulgated
pursuit to CWA section 312(p)(5)(A)(i).
    For hulls and associated niche areas, EPA is considering whether
to: (a) define the terms ``active discharge of biofouling,''
``microfouling,'' ``macrofouling,'' and ``passive discharge of
biofouling;'' (b) prohibit any discharges from in-water cleaning
without capture of macrofouling; (c) exclude discharges from IWCC
activities from these regulations; and (d) eliminate use of terms such
as ``local in origin'' and ``plume or cloud of paint'' when referring
to cleaning activities and ``fouling rating'' to identify applicable
cleaning requirements. Of note, a number of the revisions under
consideration align with the recently adopted (July 2023) ``Revised
Guidelines for the Control and Management of Ships' Biofouling to
Minimize the Transfer of Invasive Aquatic Species.''
    For graywater systems, EPA is considering a supplemental option to
limit the applicability of the requirement that discharges of graywater
meet the numeric discharge standard to only those new vessels of 400 GT
and above that have a maximum capacity of 15 or more persons and
provide overnight accommodations to those persons, instead of all new
vessels of 400 GT and above.
    EPA solicits public comments exclusively on the topics raised in
this document and not on any other provisions of the proposed rule.

VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Additional information about these statutes and Executive Orders
can be found at https://www.epa.gov/laws-regulations/laws-and-executive-orders.

A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review and Executive
Order 14094: Modernizing Regulatory Review

    This action is a ``significant regulatory action'' as defined in
Executive Order 12866, as amended by Executive Order 14094.
Accordingly, EPA submitted this action to the Office of Management and
Budget (OMB) for Executive Order 12866 review. Documentation of any
changes made in response to Executive Order 12866 review is available
in the docket. EPA prepared an analysis of the potential costs and
benefits associated with this action. This analysis, ``Regulatory
Impact Analysis of the Proposed Rulemaking'' (EPA-HQ-OW-2019-0482-
0589), is available in the docket. For each section of this
supplemental notice of proposed rulemaking, EPA forecasted the
anticipated effect on cost to the regulatory community, as compared to
that identified in the Regulatory Impact Analysis and based on the
supplemental regulatory option presented. The Regulatory Impact
Analysis will be updated and finalized alongside the final rule.

B. Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA)

    This supplemental notice of proposed rulemaking does not impose any
new information collection burden under the PRA. The information
collection activities associated with EPA's 2020 notice of proposed
rulemaking (85 FR 67818) were submitted for approval to the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) under the PRA and assigned OMB control
number 2040-0303. You can find a copy of the Information Collection
Request (ICR) in the docket for this rule. This supplemental notice of
proposed rulemaking does not address the previously identified
information collection activities nor would it result in changes to the
previously submitted ICR.

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)

    I certify that this action will not have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small entities under the RFA.
Although this action will impose requirements on any small entity that
operates a vessel subject to the standards, EPA determined that the
projected cost burden would not be significant. As described in this
document, EPA has determined that, when compared to the Regulatory
Impact Analysis of the 2020 proposed rule (EPA-OW-2019-0482-0589), the
supplemental regulatory options being considered would result in no
cost impact or a cost savings to the regulated community with the
exception of the ballast water standard being considered for New
Lakers. For New Lakers, EPA determined that the majority of companies
potentially subject to the ballast water requirement qualify as small
entities; however, EPA cannot predict under whose ownership a New Laker
might be constructed or converted and subject to these requirements.
However, the cost to comply with this new requirement is relatively
small compared to the cost of building/converting and operating a New
Laker. Details of the screening analysis for the new ballast water
discharge standard being considered for New Lakers are presented in the
``Economic Analysis of New Lakers for the Supplemental Notice of
Proposed Rulemaking for the Vessel Incidental National Standards of
Performance'' available in the public docket for this rulemaking.

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA)

    This action does not contain any unfunded mandate as described in
UMRA, 2 U.S.C. 1531-1538, and does not significantly or uniquely affect
small governments. The action imposes no enforceable duty on any state,
local or tribal governments or the private sector.

E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism

    EPA has concluded that this action has federalism implications
because it preempts state law. The VIDA added a new CWA section
312(p)(9)(A) that specifies that, beginning on the effective date of
the requirements promulgated by the Secretary established under CWA
section 312(p)(5), no state, political subdivision of a state, or
interstate agency may adopt or enforce any law, regulation, or other
requirement with respect to an incidental discharge subject to
regulation under the VIDA except insofar as such law, regulation, or
other requirement is identical to or less stringent than the Federal
regulations under the VIDA. Accordingly, EPA and the USCG conducted a
Federalism consultation briefing on July 9, 2019, in Washington, DC to
allow states and local officials to have meaningful and timely input
into the development of the rulemaking (85 FR 67818).
    EPA provided an overview of the VIDA, described the interim
requirements and the framework of future regulations, identified state
provisions associated with the VIDA, and received comments and
questions. The briefing was attended by representatives from the
National Governors Association, the National Conference of State
Legislatures, the U.S. Conference of Mayors, the County Executives of
America, the National Association of Counties, the National League of
Cities, Environmental Council of the States, the Association of Clean
Water Administrators, the National Water Resources Association, the
Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies, the National Association of
State Boating Law Administrators, the Western Governors Association,
and the Western States Water Council. Pre-proposal comments were
accepted from July 9, 2019 to September 9, 2019 and are described in
conjunction with the Governors' Consultation comments. After the public
comment period concluded for the proposed rule, EPA met with state
representatives to discuss topics of interest between June and October
2021 to inform this supplemental notice of proposed rulemaking.
    Additionally, pursuant to the terms of Executive Order 13132 and
Agency policy, a federalism summary impact statement is required in the
final rule. This will summarize not only the issues and concerns raised
by state and local government commenters during the proposed rule's
development, but also describe how and the extent to which the agency
addressed those concerns. Further, as required by Section 8(a) of
Executive Order 13132, EPA in the final rule will include a
certification from its Federalism Official stating that EPA met the
Executive Order's requirements in a meaningful and timely manner. A
copy of this certification will be included in the public version of
the official record once the action is finalized.

F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With Indian
Tribal Governments

    This action has tribal implications. However, it will neither
impose substantial direct compliance costs on federally recognized
tribal governments, nor preempt tribal law. Tribes may be interested in
this action because commercial vessels may operate in or near tribal
waters. Additionally, EPA may be authorized to treat eligible federally
recognized Tribes as a state (TAS) under section 309 of the CWA.
    EPA consulted with tribal officials under the EPA Policy on
Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribes early in the process
of developing this regulation to permit them to have meaningful and
timely input into its development. A summary of that consultation and
coordination follows.
    EPA initiated a tribal consultation and coordination process for
EPA's 2020 notice of proposed rulemaking (85 FR 67818) by sending a
``Notice of Consultation and Coordination'' letter on June 18, 2019, to
all 573 tribes that were federally recognized at the time.\11\ The
letter invited tribal leaders and designated consultation
representatives to participate in the tribal consultation and
coordination process that lasted from July 11 to September 11, 2019.
EPA held an informational webinar for tribal representatives on July
11, 2019, to obtain meaningful and timely input during the development
of the proposed rule. During the webinar, EPA provided an overview of
the VIDA, described the interim requirements and the framework of
future regulations, and identified tribal provisions associated with
the VIDA. A total of nine tribal representatives participated in the
webinar. EPA also provided an informational presentation on the VIDA
during the Region 10 Regional Tribal Operations Committee (RTOC) call
on July 18, 2019, as requested by the RTOC. During the consultation
period, tribes and tribal organizations sent two pre-proposal comment
letters to EPA as part of the consultation process. In addition, EPA
held one consultation meeting with the leadership of a tribe, at the
tribe's request, to obtain pre-proposal input and answer questions
regarding the forthcoming rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ In December 2019, the Little Shell Tribe of Chippewa
Indians became the 574th federally recognized tribe.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    EPA incorporated the feedback it received from tribal
representatives in the proposed rule. Records of the tribal
informational webinar, and a consultation summary of the written and
verbal comments submitted by tribes are included in the public docket
for this proposed rule. Several tribes requested additional
consultation in comments submitted during the public comment period of
the proposed rule. EPA offered additional consultation opportunities
and met with tribal representatives of the Gun Lake Tribe and Chippewa
Ottawa Resource Authority in September and October 2021, respectively.

G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From Environmental
Health and Safety Risks

    EPA interprets Executive Order 13045 as applying only to those
regulatory actions that concern environmental health or safety risks
that EPA has reason to believe may disproportionately affect children,
per the definition of ``covered regulatory action'' in section 2-202 of
the Executive Order.
    Therefore, this action is not subject to Executive Order 13045
because it does not concern an environmental health risk or safety
risk. Since this action does not concern human health, EPA's Policy on
Children's Health also does not apply.

H. Executive Order 13211: Actions That Concern Regulations That
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, and Use

    This action is not a ``significant energy action'' because it is
not likely to have a significant adverse effect on the supply,
distribution or use of energy. EPA believes that any additional energy
usage would be insignificant compared to the total energy usage of
vessels and the total annual U.S. energy consumption.

I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act

    This rulemaking does not involve technical standards.

J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions To Address Environmental
Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations and
Executive Order 14096: Revitalizing our Nation's Commitment to
Environmental Justice for All

    EPA believes that it is not practicable to assess whether the human
health or environmental conditions that exist prior to this action
result in disproportionate and adverse effects on communities with
environmental justice concerns. While EPA was unable to perform a
detailed environmental justice analysis because it lacks data on the
exact location of vessels and their associated discharges, the
rulemaking would increase the level of environmental protection for all
affected populations without having any disproportionately high and
adverse human health or environmental effects on any population,
including any minority or low-income population. The Agency recognizes
that the burdens of environmental pollution disproportionately fall on
certain communities with environmental justice concerns. Overall, the
Agency believes this rule would reduce the amount of pollution entering
waterbodies from vessels through the minimization and control of
discharges entering the waters of the U.S. and the contiguous zone that
may contain pollutants such as aquatic nuisance species, nutrients,
bacteria or pathogens, oil and grease, metals, as well as other toxic,
nonconventional, and conventional pollutants (e.g., organic matter,
bicarbonate, and suspended solids). This would yield human health
benefits due to decreased exposure to these pollutants and improve the
recreational utility of waterbodies where vessels would be subject to
the proposed standards.

VII. References

Choice Ballast Solutions (CBS). (2017). Technical Engineering
Analysis & Economic Feasibility for Ballast Water Management System
(BWMS) Installation and Operation on board U.S. Flag Great Lakes
Fleet (Lakers). Project Number 014766.
Bailey, S. A., Casas-Monroy, O., Kydd, J., Ogilvie, D., Rozon, R.
M., and Yardley, S. (2023). Efficacy of ballast water management
systems operating within the Great Lakes and St. Lawrence River
(2017-2022). Can. Data Rep. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 1376: vi + 24 p.
First MR, Robbins-Wamsley SH, Riley SC, Grant JF, Molina V and Wier
TP. (2022). None detected: What ``zero'' indicates in direct counts
of aquatic microorganisms in treated ballast water. Front. Mar. Sci.
9:1034386. doi: 10.3389/fmars.2022.1034386.
Great Ships Initiative (GSI). (2011). Final Report of the Land-
Based, Freshwater Testing of the Alfa Laval AB PureBallast[supreg]
Ballast Water Treatment System. GSI/LB/F/A/2, pp 1-94.
Great Ships Initiative (GSI). (2015). Technical Report Land-Based
Status Test of the JFE BallastAce [supreg] Ballast Water Management
System and Components at the GSI Testing Facility. GSI/LB/QAQC/TR/
JFE, pp 1--146.
International Maritime Organization (IMO). (2004). International
Convention for the Control and Management of Ships' Ballast Water
and Sediments. BWM/CONF/36.
International Maritime Organization (IMO). (2018). Code for Approval
of Ballast Water Management Systems, Resolution MEPC.300(72), April
13, 2018.
King, D.M., M. Riggio, and P.T. Hagan. (2009). Preliminary Cost
Analysis of Ballast Water Treatment Systems. Maritime Environmental
Resource Center.
Kuznetsova, A., P.B. Brockhoff, and R.H.B. Christensen. (2017). R
package, version 3.1-3. ``lmerTest Package: Tests in Linear Mixed
Effects Models.'' Journal of Statistical Software 82.13:1-26.
doi:10.18637/jss.v082.i13 https://doi.org/10.18637/jss.v082.i13.
MARAD. (2013). Status of the U.S.-Flag Great Lakes Water
Transportation Industry.
National Research Council (NRC). (2011). Assessing the Relationship
Between Propagule Pressure and Invasion Risk in Ballast Water.
Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. https://doi.org/10.17226/13184.
R Core Team. (2023). R: A language and environment for statistical
computing. Version 4.3.0. R Foundation for Statistical Computing,
Vienna, Austria. https://www.R-project.org/.
Stasinopoulos, M.D., R.A. Rigby, and N. Mortan. (2018).
``gamlss.cens: Fitting an interval response variable using
`gamlss.family' distributions.'' R package version 5.0-1. https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=gamlss.cens.
Stasinopoulos, M.D. and R.A. Rigby. (2022). ``gamlss.dist:
Distributions for generalized additive models for location scale and
shape.'' R package version 6.0-5. https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=gamlss.dist.
StataCorp. (2021). Stata Statistical Software: Release 17. College
Station, TX: StataCorp LLC.
U.S. Coast Guard (USCG). (2012). Standards for Living Organisms in
Ships' Ballast Water Discharged in U.S. Waters. 36 CFR part 151 and
46 CFR part 162 Docket No. USCG-2001-10486. RIN 1625-AA32. Final
Rule Regulatory Analysis and Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis.
U.S. Coast Guard (USCG). (2013a). Ballast Water Treatment, U.S.
Great Lakes Bulk Carrier Engineering and Cost Study, Volume II:
Analysis of On-Board Treatment Methods, Alternative Ballast Water
Management Practices, and Implementation Costs. Acquisition
Directorate. Report No. CG-D-12-13.
U.S. Coast Guard (USCG). (2013b). Investigation of Ballast Water
Treatment's Effect on Corrosion. Acquisition Directorate. Report No.
CG-D-03-15.
U.S. EPA. (2000). Development document for effluent limitations
guidelines and standards for the centralized waste treatment
industry. EPA-821-R-00-020. Washington, DC (August). https://www.epa.gov/sites/default/files/2015-06/documents/cwt_dd_2000.pdf.
U.S. EPA. (2002). Development document for final effluent imitations
guidelines and standards for the iron and steel manufacturing point
source category. EPA-821-R-02-004. Washington, DC (April). https://www.epa.gov/sites/default/files/2015-10/documents/ironsteel_dd_2002.pdf.
U.S. EPA. (2010). Generic protocol for the verification of ballast
water treatment technology. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Washington, DC EPA-600-R-10-146.
U.S. EPA. (2011). Efficacy of Ballast Water Treatment Systems: A
Report by the EPA Science Advisory Board. EPA-SAB-11-009.
U.S. EPA. (2013). Enforcement Response Policy for EPA's 2013 Vessel
General Permit: Ballast Water Discharges and U.S. Coast Guard
Extensions under 33 CFR part 151. https://www.epa.gov/sites/default/files/2015-08/documents/vesselgeneralpermit-erp.pdf.
U.S. EPA. (2015). Technical development document for the effluent
limitations guidelines and standards for the steam electric power
generating point source category. EPA-821-R-15-007. Washington, DC
(September). https://www.epa.gov/sites/default/files/2015-10/documents/steam-electric-tdd_10-21-15.pdf.
U.S. EPA. (2023). Ballast Water BAT Data Analysis: Analysis of Newly
Acquired U.S. Coast Guard Ballast Water Management System Type-
Approval Data to Assess System Performance. U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Washington, DC. August 2023.
U.S. Navy. (2006). Naval Ships' Technical Manual. Chapter 81.
Waterborne Underwater Hull Cleaning of Navy Ships, Revision 5.
S9086-CQ-STM-010.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 139

    Environmental protection, Commercial vessels, Coastal zone,
Incidental discharges

Michael S. Regan,
Administrator.
    For the reasons set forth in the preamble, 40 CFR part 139, as
proposed to be added at 85 FR 67818 (October 26, 2020), is proposed to
be amended as follows:

PART 139--DISCHARGES INCIDENTAL TO THE NORMAL OPERATION OF VESSELS

0
1. The authority citation for part 139 is added to read as follows:

    Authority: 33 U.S.C. 1322, as amended.

0
2. Amend Sec.  139.2 by:
0
a. Adding the definitions for ``Active discharge of biofouling'',
``Anti-fouling coating'', and ``Anti-fouling system'' in alphabetical
order;
0
b. Revising the definitions for ``Biofouling'', and ``Constructed'';
0
c. Adding the definitions for ``Macrofouling'', ``Microfouling'', and
``New Laker'';
0
d. Revising the definition for ``Niche areas''; and
0
e. Adding the definition for ``Passive discharge of biofouling'' in
alphabetical order.
    The additions and revisions read as follows:

Sec.  139.2  Definitions.

    Active discharge of biofouling means the discharge of biofouling
from a vessel resulting from in-water cleaning activities.
* * * * *
    Anti-fouling coating means a coating or paint designed to prevent,
repel, or facilitate the detachment of biofouling from hull and niche
areas that are typically or occasionally submerged.
    Anti-fouling system means a coating, paint, surface treatment,
surface, or device that is used on a vessel to control or prevent
attachment of organisms.
* * * * *
    Biofouling means the accumulation of aquatic organisms, such as
microorganisms, plants, and animals on surfaces and structures immersed
in or exposed to the aquatic environment. Biofouling can include
pathogens in addition to microfouling and macrofouling.
* * * * *
    Constructed with respect to a vessel has the same meaning as
defined at 33 CFR 151.2005 and means a stage of construction when one
of the following occurs:
    (1) The keel of a vessel is laid;
    (2) Construction identifiable with the specific vessel begins;
    (3) Assembly of the vessel has commenced and comprises at least 50
tons or 1 percent of the estimated mass of all structural material,
whichever is less; or
    (4) The vessel undergoes a major conversion.
* * * * *
    Macrofouling means biofouling caused by the attachment and
subsequent growth of visible plants and animals on structures and
vessels immersed in or exposed to water. Macrofouling is large,
distinct multicellular individual or colonial organisms visible to the
human eye such as barnacles, tubeworms, mussels, fronds/filaments of
algae, bryozoans, sea squirts and other large attached, encrusting, or
mobile organisms.
* * * * *
    Microfouling means biofouling caused by bacteria, fungi,
microalgae, protozoans, and other microscopic organisms that creates a
biofilm, also called a slime layer.
* * * * *
    New Laker means a vessel that is 3,000 GT and above and that
operates exclusively in the Great Lakes and the St. Lawrence River west
of a rhumb line drawn from Cap des Rosiers to Point-Sud-Oeste (West
Point), Anticosti Island, and west of a line along 63 W. longitude from
Anticosti Island to the north shore of the St. Lawrence River and that
is constructed after the effective date of USCG regulations promulgated
pursuant to CWA section 312(p)(5)(A)(i).
    Niche areas means a subset of the submerged surface area on a
vessel that may be more susceptible to biofouling than the main hull
due to structural complexity, different or variable hydrodynamic
forces, susceptibility to anti-fouling coating wear or damage, or
inadequate or no protection by an anti-fouling system.
* * * * *
    Passive discharge of biofouling means the discharge of biofouling
from a vessel (for example, sloughing) during a period in which the
vessel is not undergoing active cleaning activities.
* * * * *
0
3. Amend Sec.  139.10 by revising paragraph (c)(4) and by adding
paragraph (c)(5) to read as follows:

Sec.  139.10  Ballast tanks.

* * * * *
    (c) * * *
    (4) A ballast water management plan must be developed and followed
to minimize the uptake and discharge of harmful aquatic organisms and
pathogens. The plan must describe the vessel-specific ballast water
management systems and practices necessary to comply with requirements
in this section.
    (5) A New Laker that discharges ballast water must install,
operate, and maintain a ballast water management system (BWMS) that has
been type-approved by the USCG.
* * * * *
0
4. Amend Sec.  139.21 by revising paragraph (e)(1) to read as follows:

Sec.  139.21  Graywater systems.

* * * * *
    (e) * * *
    (1) Any new vessel of 400 GT and above that is certificated to
carry 15 or more persons and provides overnight accommodations to those
persons;
* * * * *
0
5. Amend Sec.  139.22 by:
0
a. Revising paragraph (a);
0
b. Redesignating paragraphs (b) and (c) as paragraphs (c) and (d);
0
c. Adding a new paragraph (b); and
0
d. Revising newly designated paragraph (d).
    The revisions and additions read as follows:

Sec.  139.22  Hulls and associated niche areas.

    (a) Applicability. The requirements in paragraphs (b) through (d)
of this section apply to the discharge of anti-fouling coatings,
biofouling organisms, and other materials from vessel hull surfaces and
niche areas. Propeller cleaning or polishing is excluded from the
requirements.
    (b) Transport and passive discharge. The transport of attached
living organisms and passive discharge of biofouling must be minimized
when traveling into waters of the U.S. or waters of the contiguous zone
from outside the EEZ or between COTP zones. Management measures to
minimize the transport of attached living organisms and the passive
discharge of biofouling are described in paragraphs (c) and (d) of this
section.
* * * * *
    (d) In-water cleaning. (1) Hulls and niche areas must be managed to
minimize macrofouling, such as through cleaning of microfouling.
    (2) Any hull and niche area cleaning must minimize damage to the
anti-fouling coating, minimize release of biocides, and follow
applicable cleaning requirements found on the coating manufacturers'
instructions and any applicable Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and
Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) label.
    (3) Any discharge from in-water cleaning without capture of
macrofouling is prohibited.
    (4) Any discharge from in-water cleaning without capture of any
copper-based hull coating in a copper-impaired water body within the
first 365 days after application of that coating is prohibited.
    (5) In-water cleaning must not be conducted on any section of an
anti-fouling coating that shows excessive cleaning actions (e.g., brush
marks) or

blistering due to the internal failure of the paint system.
    (6) Any soap, cleaner, or detergent used on vessel surfaces, such
as a scum line of the hull, must be minimally toxic, phosphate-free,
and biodegradable.
    (7) Additional standards applicable to discharges from hulls and
associated niche areas when a vessel is operating in federally
protected waters are contained in Sec.  139.40(i).

[FR Doc. 2023-22879 Filed 10-17-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


4/ 7/ 04 1 A Varying Volume Water Body Model with Daily Parameter Variations Dirk F. Young Environmental Fate and Effects Division Office of Pesticides 4/ 7/ 04 2 Model Design Criteria ° Capabilities to vary water body volume according to meteorological conditions ° Daily variations in parameters values ° Fast running program suitable for Monte Carlo simulations ° EXAMS algorithms where applicable 4/ 7/ 04 3 Runoff Direct Precipitation Overflow Evaporation Minimum Level Maximum Level Varying Volume Water Body Model:

modeled volume change 4/ 7/ 04 4 Littoral Input ( runoff and erosion) Washout Varying Volume Water Body Model:

modeled pesticide processes Mass Transfer Volatilization Benthic Input ( erosion) Metabolism Hydrolysis Photolysis Metabolism Hydrolysis 4/ 7/ 04 5 Effect of New Temperature Averaging Routine  10  5 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 Jan 61 Mar 61 Jun 61 Sep 61 Dec 61 Time Temperature (

C) 30 Day Backward Avg ( VVWM)

Calendar Month Avg ( EXAMS) 4/ 7/ 04 6 Effect of New Wind Representation 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 Jan 61 Mar 61 Jun 61 Sep 61 Dec 61 Time WInd Speed (

m/

s) Daily Wind Speed ( VVWM)

Calendar Month Average ( EXAMS) 4/ 7/ 04 7 Effect of New Washout Representation 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 0 200 400 600 Days Washout Rate Coefficient (

sec

1 x 106) Daily Calculated ( VVWM)

Overall Average ( Current Method) 4/ 7/ 04 8 Modeling of Individual Processes ° All processes use same algorithms as EXAMS ° EXAMS has been the accepted standard for pesticide risk assessments 4/ 7/ 04 9 Fast Running Program ° Analytical solution ° Meteorological Information is processed and stored for multiple runs ° Bulk of program takes advantage of fast array operations in F90 ° 30 year simulation runs in less than a second, subsequent runs ( Monte Carlo)

are faster 4/ 7/ 04 10 Summary of Simplifying Assumptions ° Pesticide mass input and volume changes occur instantaneously at the beginning of the day ° Suspended solids mass does not change with volume ° Mass transfer coefficient coupling water column and benthic zone does not change with volume ° Photolysis rate coefficient does not change with volume 4/ 7/ 04 11 80 85 90 95 100 0 4 8 12 Days Relative Volume (%) Volume and Mass Assumptions Instantaneous Pesticide Additions 4/ 7/ 04 12 Suspended Solids, Photolysis, and Mass Transfer Assumptions SS = SS 4/ 7/ 04 13 Summary of VVWM ° Varying volume accomplished by daily time step adjustments ° Daily parameter variations ° Fast program suitable for Monte Carlo ° Questions concerning assumptions


[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 47 (Friday, March 9, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Pages 10466-10468]
[FR Doc No: 2018-04779]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. IC18-6-000]

Commission Information Collection Activities; (FERC-65, FERC-65A,
FERC-65B, FERC-725V); Consolidated Comment Request; Extension

AGENCY: Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, DOE.

ACTION: Notice of information collection and request for comments.

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

SUMMARY: In compliance with the requirements of the Paperwork Reduction
Act of 1995, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (Commission or
FERC) is soliciting public comment on the information collections,
FERC-65 (Notice of Holding Company Status), FERC-65A (Exemption
Notification of holding Company Status), and FERC-65B (Waiver
Notification of Holding Company Status), and FERC-725V (Mandatory
Reliability Standards: COM Reliability Standards) which will be
submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for a review of
the information collection requirements.

DATES: Comments on the collection of information are due May 8, 2018.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments (identified by Docket No. IC18-6-
000) by either of the following methods:
     eFiling at Commission's Website: http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling.asp
     Mail/Hand Delivery/Courier: Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission, Secretary of the Commission, 888 First Street NE,
Washington, DC 20426.
    Instructions: All submissions must be formatted and filed in
accordance with

submission guidelines at: http://www.ferc.gov/help/submission-guide.asp. For user assistance contact FERC Online Support by email at
[email protected], or by phone at:<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll-free),
or<PHONE_NUMBER> for TTY.
    Docket: Users interested in receiving automatic notification of
activity in this docket or in viewing/downloading comments and
issuances in this docket may do so at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/docs-filing.asp.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ellen Brown may be reached by email at
[email protected], telephone at<PHONE_NUMBER>, and fax at (202)
273-0873.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
    Title: FERC-65 (Notice of Holding Company Status), FERC-65A
(Exemption Notification of Holding Company Status), and FERC-65B
(Waiver Notification of Holding Company Status).
    OMB Control No.: 1902-0218.
    Type of Request: Three-year extension of the FERC-65, FERC-65A and
FERC-65B information collection requirements with no changes to the
current reporting requirements.
    Abstract: The Pursuant to section 366.4 of the Commission's rules
and regulations, persons who meet the definition of a holding company
shall provide the Commission notification of holding company status.
    The FERC-65 is a one-time informational filing outlined in the
Commission's regulations at 18 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) 366.4.
The FERC-65 must be submitted within 30 days of becoming a holding
company.\1\ While the Commission does not require the information to be
reported in a specific format, the filing needs to consist of the name
of the holding company, the name of public utilities, the name of
natural gas companies in the holding company system, and the names of
service companies. In addition, the Commission requires the filing to
include the names of special-purpose subsidiaries (which provide non-
power goods and services) and the names of all affiliates and
subsidiaries (and their corporate interrelationship) to each other.
Filings may be submitted in hardcopy or electronically through the
Commission's eFiling system.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Persons that meet the definition of a holding company as
provided by Sec.  366.1 as of February 8, 2006 shall notify the
Commission of their status as a holding company no later than June
15, 2006. Holding companies formed after February 8, 2006 shall
notify the Commission of their status as a holding company, no later
than the latter of June 15, 2006 or 30 days after they become
holding companies.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

FERC-65A (Exemption Notification of Holding Company Status)

    While noting the previously outlined requirements of the FERC-65,
the Commission has allowed for an exemption from the requirement of
providing the Commission with a FERC-65 if the books, accounts,
memoranda, and other records of any person are not relevant to the
jurisdictional rates of a public utility or natural gas company; or if
any class of transactions is not relevant to the jurisdictional rates
of a public utility or natural gas company. Persons seeking this
exemption file the FERC-65A, which must include a form of notice
suitable for publication in the Federal Register. Those who file a
FERC-65A in good faith will have a temporary exemption upon filing,
after 60 days if the Commission has taken no action, the exemption will
be deemed granted. Commission regulations within 18 CFR 366.3 describe
the criteria in more specificity.

1. FERC-65B (Waiver Notification of Holding Company Status)

    If an entity meets the requirements in 18 CFR 366.3(c), they may
file a FERC-65B waiver notification pursuant to the procedures outlined
in 18 CFR 366.4. Specifically, the Commission waives the requirement of
providing it with a FERC-65 for any holding company with respect to one
or more of the following: (1) Single-state holding company systems; (2)
holding companies that own generating facilities that total 100 MW or
less in size and are used fundamentally for their own load or for sales
to affiliated end-users; or (3) investors in independent transmission-
only companies. Filings may be made in hardcopy or electronically
through the Commission's website.
    Type of Respondent: Public utility companies, natural gas
companies, electric wholesale generators, foreign utility holding
companies.
    Estimate of Annual Burden: \2\ The Commission estimates the annual
public reporting burden for the information collection as:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ Burden is defined as the total time, effort, or financial
resources expended by persons to generate, maintain, retain, or
disclose or provide information to or for a Federal agency. Refer to
5 CFR 1320.3 for additional information.
    \3\ The estimates for cost per response are derived using the
following formula: 2017 Average Burden Hours per Response * $76.50
per Hour = Average Cost per Response. The hourly cost figure of
$76.50 is the average FERC employee wage plus benefits. We assume
for FERC-65, FERC-65A and FERC-65B that respondents earn at a
similar rate.

   FERC-65 (Notification of Holding Company Status), FERC-65A (Exemption Notification of Holding Company Status), and FERC-65B (Waiver Notification of
                                                                 Holding Company Status)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Total annual
                                                             Number of     Annual number   Total number   Average burden   burden hours      Cost per
                                                            respondents    of responses    of responses    and cost per      and total    respondent ($)
                                                                          per respondent                   response \3\     annual cost
                                                                     (1)             (2)     (1) * (2) =             (4)     (3) * (4) =       (5) / (1)
                                                                                (3)                             (5)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FERC-65.................................................              12               1              12      3, $229.50      36, $2,754         $229.50
FERC-65A................................................               4            1.25               5       1, $76.50      5, $382.50           95.63
FERC-65B................................................               4            1.75               7       1, $76.50      7, $535.50          133.88
                                                         -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Total...............................................  ..............  ..............              24  ..............      48, $3,672  ..............
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Title: FERC-725V, Mandatory Reliability Standards: COM Reliability
Standards.
    OMB Control No.: 1902-0277.
    Type of Request: Three-year extension of the FERC-725V information
collection requirements with no changes to the current reporting
requirements.
    Abstract: On August 15, 2016, the North American Electric
Reliability Corporation (NERC) filed a petition for Commission
approval, pursuant to section 215(d)(1) of the Federal Power

Act (``FPA'') \4\ and Section 39.5 \5\ of the Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission's regulations, for Reliability Standard COM-001-3
(Communications), the associated Implementation Plan, retirement of
currently-effective Reliability Standard COM-001-2.1, and Violation
Risk Factors (``VRFs'') and Violation Severity Levels (``VSLs'')
associated with new Requirements R12 and R13 in Reliability Standard
COM-001-3. Reliability Standard COM-001-3 reflects revisions developed
under Project 2015-07 Internal Communications Capabilities, in
compliance with the Commission's directive in Order No. 888 that NERC
``develop modifications to COM-001-2, or develop a new standard, to
address the Commission's concerns regarding ensuring the adequacy of
internal communications capability whenever internal communications
could directly affect the reliability opera.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ 16 U.S.C. 824o (2012).
    \5\ 18 CFR 39.5 (2015).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Reliability Standards COM-001-2 and COM-002-4 do not require
responsible entities to file information with the Commission. COM-001-2
requires that transmission operators, balancing authorities,
reliability coordinators, distribution providers, and generator
operators must maintain documentation of Interpersonal Communication
capability and designation of Alternate Interpersonal Communication, as
well as evidence of testing of the Alternate Interpersonal
Communication facilities. COM-002-4 requires balancing authorities,
distribution providers, reliability coordinators, transmission
operators, and generator operators to develop and maintain documented
communication protocols, and to be able to provide evidence of training
on the protocols and of their annual assessment of the protocols.
Additionally, all applicable entities (balancing authorities,
reliability coordinators, transmission operators, generator operators,
and distribution providers) must be able to provide evidence of three-
part communication when issuing or receiving an Operating Instruction
during an Emergency.
    Type of Respondents: Public utilities.
    Estimate of Annual Burden: \6\ The Commission estimates the annual
public reporting burden for the information collection as:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ The Commission defines burden as the total time, effort, or
financial resources expended by persons to generate, maintain,
retain, or disclose or provide information to or for a Federal
agency. For further explanation of what is included in the
information collection burden, reference 5 Code of Federal
Regulations 1320.3.
    \7\ The loaded hourly wage figure (includes benefits) is based
on the occupational categories for 2016 found on the Bureau of Labor
Statistics website (http://www.bls.gov/oes/current/naics2_22.htm):
    Electrical Engineer (Occupation Code: 17-2071): $68.12 (review
and documentation).
    Office and Administrative Support (Occupation Code: 43-0000):
$40.89 ($68.12 + 40.89 = 109.01 / 3 = $36.34. This figure is rounded
to $36.00 for use in collection FERC-725V for calculating wage
figures in this renewal calculation.

                                          FERC-725V, Mandatory Reliability Standards: COM Reliability Standards
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                          Annual number                 Average burden and                                     Cost per
                                 Number of respondents    of responses   Total number   cost per response    Total annual burden hours and    respondent
                                                         per respondent  of responses          \7\                 total annual cost             ($)
                               (1).....................             (2)   (1) * (2) =  (4)................  (3) * (4) = (5)................    (5) / (1)
                                                                                (3)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(One-time) \8\ Development of  201 (BA, RC & TOP)......               1           201  8 hrs. & $288......  1,608 hrs. & $57,888...........         $288
 Communication Protocols [COM-
 002-4 R1].
(On-going) \9\ Maintain        1,180 (DP & GOP)........               1         1,180  4 hrs. & $144......  4,720 hrs. & $169,920..........          144
 evidence of Interpersonal
 Communication capability
 [COM-001-2 R7 and R8].
(On-going) Maintain evidence   201 (BA, RC & TOP)......               1           201  8 hrs. & $288......  1,608 hrs. & $57,888...........          288
 of training and assessments
 [COM-002-4 R2, R4, R5 and
 R6].
(On-going) Maintain evidence   1,880 (DP & GOP)........               1         1,180  8 hrs. & $288......  15,040 hrs. & $541,440.........          288
 of training [COM-002-4 R3
 and R6].
                              --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Total....................  ........................  ..............         2,762  ...................  22,976 hrs. & $827,136.........  ...........
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Comments: Comments are invited on: (1) Whether the collection of
information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of
the Commission, including whether the information will have practical
utility; (2) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden and
cost of the collection of information, including the validity of the
methodology and assumptions used; (3) ways to enhance the quality,
utility and clarity of the information collection; and (4) ways to
minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are
to respond, including the use of automated collection techniques or
other forms of information technology.

    Dated: March 5, 2018.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2018-04779 Filed 3-8-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6717-01-P