[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 182 (Wednesday, September 19, 2018)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 47284-47293]
[FR Doc No: 2018-20374]

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 151

[Docket No. USCG-2018-0245]
RIN 1625-AC45

Ballast Water Management--Annual Reporting Requirement

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard is eliminating the requirement for certain
vessels that operate on voyages exclusively within a single Captain of
the Port Zone to submit an Annual Ballast Water Summary Report for
calendar year 2018. We view this current reporting requirement as
unnecessary for us to analyze and understand ballast water management
practices. This final rule will reduce the administrative burden on
this regulated population of U.S. non-recreational vessels equipped
with ballast tanks.

DATES: This final rule is effective October 1, 2018.

ADDRESSES: To view documents mentioned in this preamble as being
available in the docket, go to http://www.regulations.gov, type USCG-
2018-0245 in the ``SEARCH'' box and click ``SEARCH.'' Click on Open
Docket Folder on the line associated with this rule.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For information about this document
call or email Mr. John Morris, Program Manager, Environmental Standards
Division, Coast Guard; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>, email
[email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Table of Contents for Preamble

I. Abbreviations
II. Basis and Purpose, and Regulatory History
    A. Legal Authority
    B. Regulatory History
    C. Purpose of the Rule
III. Discussion of Comments
IV. Discussion of the Rule
V. Regulatory Analyses
    A. Regulatory Planning and Review
    B. Small Entities
    C. Assistance for Small Entities
    D. Collection of Information
    E. Federalism
    F. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
    G. Taking of Private Property
    H. Civil Justice Reform
    I. Protection of Children
    J. Indian Tribal Governments
    K. Energy Effects
    L. Technical Standards
    M. Environment

I. Abbreviations

ANS Aquatic nuisance species
BLS Bureau of Labor Statistics
BWM Ballast water management
CFR Code of Federal Regulations
COI Collection of Information
COTP Captain of the Port
DHS Department of Homeland Security
FR Federal Register
ICR Information Collection Request
NANPCA Nonindigenous Aquatic Nuisance Prevention and Control Act of
1990
NBIC National Ballast Information Clearinghouse
NISA National Invasive Species Act of 1996
NPRM Notice of proposed rulemaking
OMB Office of Management and Budget
Pub. L. Public Law
RA Regulatory analysis
REC Record of Environmental Consideration
Sec.  Section
U.S.C. United States Code

II. Basis and Purpose, and Regulatory History

    In this section we identify our statutory authority for this rule,
the regulatory history of this rulemaking and the regulations we are
amending, this rule's effective date, and the problem we intend this
rule to address.

A. Legal Authority

    The Nonindigenous Aquatic Nuisance Prevention and Control Act of
1990 (NANPCA, Pub. L. 101-646), as amended by the National Invasive
Species Act of 1996 (NISA, Pub. L. 104-332), requires the Secretary of
the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) to ensure, to the maximum
extent practicable, that aquatic nuisance species (ANS) are not
discharged into waters of the United States from vessels (16 U.S.C.
4701 et seq.). These statutes also direct the Secretary to issue
regulations and collect records regarding vessel ballasting practices
as a means for determining vessel compliance with the ballast water
management (BWM) program (16 U.S.C. 4711(c) and (f)) and they authorize
the Secretary to revise such regulations, as necessary, on the basis of
best scientific information, and in accordance with criteria developed
by the Aquatic Nuisance Species Task Force (ANS Task Force) (16 U.S.C.
4711(e)). The Secretary has delegated the regulatory functions and
authorities in 16 U.S.C. 4711 to the Commandant of the Coast Guard
(Department of Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1 (II)(57)).

B. Regulatory History

    On May 9, 2018, the Coast Guard published a notice of proposed
rulemaking (NPRM) (83 FR 21214) in the Federal Register. In the NPRM,
we proposed to amend our regulations on ballast water management by
eliminating the requirement for vessels operating on voyages
exclusively within a single Captain of the Port (COTP) Zone to submit
an Annual Ballast Water Summary Report for calendar year 2018. Ten
individuals or organizations submitted comments relevant to the NPRM
during the comment period that ended June 9, 2018.
    Coast Guard regulations regarding BWM are located in 33 CFR part
151, subparts C (Sec. Sec.  151.1500 through 151.1518) and D
(Sec. Sec.  151.2000 through 151.2080). The existing regulations we are
amending, Sec. Sec.  151.2015 and 151.2060, were issued in 2015 and
concern BWM reporting and recordkeeping requirements. See ``Ballast
Water Management Reporting and Recordkeeping'' final rule (80 FR 73105,
Nov. 24, 2015). We noted in the NPRM that we received recommendations
to issue a rule like the one we proposed in the NPRM. These three
recommendations were in response to our June 8, 2017 (82 FR 26632),
request to the public to identify rules that should be repealed,
replaced, or modified to alleviate unnecessary regulatory burdens.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ See items -0102, -0143, and -0147 in docket USCG-2017-0480,
Evaluation of Existing Coast Guard Regulations and Collections of
Information.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(1) and (d)(3), the Coast Guard is
making this rule effective less than 30 days after publication in the
Federal Register. Under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(1), agencies may make a rule
effective less than 30 days after publication if the rule is ``a
substantive rule which grants or recognizes an exemption or relieves a
restriction.'' This rule relieves a restriction by allowing vessels
operating on voyages exclusively within a single COTP Zone to do so
without having to file an Annual Ballast Water Summary Report for 2018.
Therefore, 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(1) allows us to make this rule effective
less than 30 days after the rule is published. Moreover, under 5 U.S.C.
553(d)(3), agencies may make a rule effective less than 30 days after
publication if the agency finds good cause for dispensing with the
delayed effective date requirement. In this instance, it would be
unnecessary for the Coast Guard to wait to make the rule effective 30
days after publication. The October 1, 2018 effective date makes it
clear that as of that date vessels that operate on voyages exclusively
within a single COTP Zone no longer need to obtain or retain
information that would have been required for the Annual Ballast Water
Summary Report for calendar year 2018. Also, it would be contrary to
public interest to continue to impose a requirement into the month of
October when the requirement to report those data in March 2019 has
been removed.

C. Purpose of the Rule

    The purpose of this rule is to remove an unnecessary burden. The
Coast Guard determined that the annual reporting requirement in 33 CFR
151.2060(e) for vessels operating in a single Captain of the Port
(COTP) Zone is unnecessary for us to analyze and understand ballast
water management practices. As stated in the NPRM, the Coast Guard
reviewed the 2016 annual reports and concluded that the reports do not
contribute to the quality and breadth of BWM data as originally
intended because the current annual reporting data fields are too
simplistic to capture vessel movements and ballasting operations in the
necessary level of detail. (83 FR 21214, 21216) Our amendments to 33
CFR 151.2015 and 151.2060 are in accordance with 16 U.S.C. 4711(e),
which authorizes the Secretary to revise such regulations, as
necessary, on the basis of best scientific information, and in
accordance with criteria developed by the ANS Task Force.
    The 2015 final rule established a 3-year requirement starting in
2016 for the master, owner, operator, agent, or person in charge of
certain vessels with ballast tanks to submit an annual report of their
BWM practices. The requirement applies to U.S. non-recreational vessels
that operate on voyages exclusively between ports or places within a
single COTP Zone. The annual reports contain information, specified in
Sec.  151.2060(f), about the vessel, the number of ballast tanks on

board, total ballast water capacity, and a record of ballast water
loadings and discharges. The reports are submitted to the National
Ballast Information Clearinghouse (NBIC).
    Under current regulations, the annual report for calendar year 2018
is due on March 31, 2019. This rule will eliminate the annual reporting
requirement in Sec.  151.2060(e) before the 2018 report is due.

III. Discussion of Comments

    The Coast Guard received 11 public submissions in response to the
NPRM, 10 of which were germane to the proposed rule. Of those 10
submissions, 7 supported the proposed rule and 3 opposed it. The Coast
Guard appreciates these commenters taking the time to submit comments.
    In the following discussion, we summarize the reasons or
information some commenters gave in support of their position or
recommendation. After each summary, we state our response.
    Most of the seven commenters who wrote in support of the rule
tended not to provide detailed reasons for their support. They said
that the annual report had no value or was unnecessary and burdensome,
that vessels operating in a limited geographic area pose a low risk of
introducing ANS, or simply indicated their support for the rule as
proposed. One commenter pointed out that the annual reports do not have
a field to indicate if the vessel is using ballast water from a U.S.
public water system. The Coast Guard is removing the reporting
requirement because the annual reports did not provide data to help the
Coast Guard determine whether vessels that operate solely in a single
COTP Zone should be subject to the same or similar BWM regulations as
those applicable to vessels operating in multiple COTP Zones.
    One commenter who opposed the proposed rule stated that, without
information, there is no way to determine any adverse or advantageous
results and that the annual reports should continue so we can be
certain of no ill effects. We have received and reviewed annual reports
for 2016 and 2017 and have concluded that they do not contribute to the
quality and breadth of BWM data as we originally intended. The
objective of our annual reporting requirement was to gather sufficient
data--without imposing an undue burden on vessels that were otherwise
not required to report--to determine whether vessels that operate
solely in a single COTP Zone should be subject to the same or similar
BWM regulations as those applicable to vessels operating in multiple
COTP Zones.\2\ We have concluded that the annual reports do not
effectively contribute to the quality and breadth of BWM data to the
extent necessary for us to make the determination, including
determining whether there are any ill effects. The information called
for in the report is a simplistic summary of discharges rather than
detailed information on the volume, number, and location of discharges.
This level of detail is insufficient to determine whether this
population of vessels presents a threat of spreading ANS and, as
explained later in this document, we are unable to improve the
reporting fields before the reporting requirement expires. Accordingly,
we are issuing this final rule to relieve an unnecessary burden by
eliminating the annual report requirement for calendar year 2018.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ From the preamble of the 2015 final rule, 80 FR 73105,
73106, November 24, 2015.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    This same commenter suggested that the staff resources necessary to
remove the annual reporting requirement for 2018 is sharply higher than
the total savings we estimated for this final rule in the NPRM. We
disagree with the premise that this deregulatory effort was not worth
doing. The Coast Guard received multiple requests from the public to
remove this reporting requirement. This rule will not require
additional Coast Guard resources to implement and will be budget
neutral. Executive Order 12866 calls for agencies not to impose
unreasonable costs on society. Having concluded the annual reporting
requirement is an unnecessary burden, it would be unreasonable to
impose its cost on those required to comply with 33 CFR 151.2060(e).
    A public interest group that focuses on Hawaii suggested that the
Coast Guard revise the reporting form instead of eliminating the
reporting requirement if the requirement does not provide necessary
information or, alternatively, identify a different way to assess risk
and mitigation measures. Although we have described weaknesses in the
annual reports, the Coast Guard has not identified revisions to the
reporting form that would effectively contribute to the quality and
breadth of existing BWM data and could be implemented in time for the
final reporting deadline. The reporting requirement itself would expire
before we could identify better reporting parameters and implement them
in regulation. In that situation, it is important to remove an
unnecessary burden in a timely manner before the affected population
has to submit its 2018 annual reports.
    The Coast Guard will consider future improvements to reporting
requirements and forms. The Coast Guard's investment in ballast water
management research and data collection is significant. There are
currently multiple existing sources of information that effectively
contribute to the quality and breadth of BWM data. The Coast Guard, in
partnership with other federal agencies, has coordinated a shared
approach to ballast water management and data collection.
    As stated in the NPRM, the annual reporting requirement failed to
meet the objective, which was to serve as a minimally burdensome method
of gathering data to help the Coast Guard determine whether vessels
that operate solely in a single COTP zone should be subject to the same
or similar BWM regulations as those applying to vessels operating in
multiple COTP zones. A discussion of the objective can be found in the
preamble of the 2015 final rule (80 FR 73105, 73106). The 2016 and 2017
annual reports do not contribute to the quality and breadth of BWM
data, nor do they contribute to a better understanding of patterns of
ballast water management and discharge, including in Hawaii and the
Honolulu COTP Zone.
    This same public interest group stated that the exemption for
vessels traveling within a single COTP Zone from ballast water
management and annual reporting requirements may make some sense for
some parts of the United States, but not for the Honolulu COTP Zone,
which includes many islands, some separated by thousands of miles. This
group stated that the areas of ocean between each of these islands
serve as barriers that result in unique marine communities for each of
the islands, yet ballast water and vessel biofouling provide species
the opportunity to move thousands of miles to new areas within the COTP
Zone. It also stated that it is not clear whether the unique and non-
contiguous nature of the Honolulu COTP Zone was considered during the
National Environmental Policy Act review or in the drafting of the
proposed rule. The commenter believed that the Coast Guard should
provide an analysis of the proposed rule's impact on the vast and
diverse ecologies of the Honolulu COTP Zone.
    The public interest group's comment begins by referencing two
separate issues. One issue is the requirement to conduct ballast water
management. The other issue is the requirement to submit ballast water
annual reports.
    In our NPRM, we did not propose to amend any ballast water
management requirements, and this final rule does

not relieve ship owners and operators of any existing mandatory ballast
water management practices. As we plan to do with other comments not
directed at the annual reporting requirement, we will take this comment
into consideration for possible future action. However, we did not
revise this final rule in response to it, because this rulemaking is
narrowly focused on removing an annual reporting requirement that the
Coast Guard has concluded does not provide useful information. The
reporting requirement was intended to obtain data that would lead to a
better understanding of patterns of ballast water management and
discharge. The Coast Guard considers the requirement for the 2018
annual report to be unduly burdensome because the data submitted in
annual reports from vessels operating exclusively in one COTP Zone have
not been helpful in analyzing trends in transport, management, or
discharge of ballast water.
    The preliminary Record of Environmental Consideration (REC) for the
NPRM did not mention Hawaii or the Honolulu COTP Zone, but the REC for
this final rule does respond to these comments. Again, this rule is
narrowly focused on removing the requirement to file a 2018 annual
report.
    Finally, this commenter states that ballast water reports should be
available to the states, and that the Coast Guard should also be
sampling ballast discharges to verify whether ballast water mitigation
measures detailed in annual reports are effective. For information
related to ballast water reports, states and interested persons may
contact the NBIC for information through its website.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ Visit NBIC website at: http://invasions.si.edu/nbic/index.html.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Regarding the sampling of ballast water discharges, it would be
impracticable under the current annual reporting requirement for the
Coast Guard to sample ballast discharges because vessel owners and
operators are not required to report in advance when they discharge
their ballast water. Also, the annual report does not require detailed
information about mitigation measures. As a possible future action, we
may consider changing the annual reporting requirement to include more
on mitigation measures and to facilitate discharge sampling, but such
changes would need to go through notice-and-comment rulemaking and that
would take more time to complete than the limited time we have to
effectively remove the 2018 annual report requirement.
    A Hawaii state agency commented that the Honolulu COTP Zone
(described in 33 CFR 3.70-10) stretches across a vast and ecologically
diverse expanse of the Pacific Ocean and that the unique geographic
circumstances of Hawaii (and other Pacific Islands within U.S.
jurisdiction) make this annual reporting requirement of particular
value to the state of Hawaii. Certain islands in the Honolulu COTP Zone
are more than 2,500 miles from each other. The agency urges the Coast
Guard to reject the proposed rule because it says information obtained
from the annual report required under 33 CFR 151.2060 is the only way
to track and understand the possible threat these vessels pose in terms
of ballast water discharge. They stated this information will also
become an integral part of the ``best scientific information
available'' that is required as guidance in developing future Coast
Guard regulations.
    This Hawaii state agency points to differences between COTP Zones
in other jurisdictions and the COTP Honolulu Zone. Noting that Hawaii
is the only purely archipelagic state in the United States, the agency
requests not only that the 2018 annual reporting requirement be kept in
place, but that annual reporting be made permanent. This state agency
views vessel ballast water and biofouling as the only vector for most
aquatic invasive species to reach Hawaiian waters because each county
in Hawaii is separated by deep channels of open ocean. It views these
annual reports as an integral part of their understanding of the
movement of ballast water into and between the islands in the Hawaiian
Archipelago and vital to the protection of Hawaiian aquatic resources.
    The Coast Guard appreciates the unique geographic circumstances of
Hawaii identified in this comment. The comments we received with
respect to the Honolulu COTP Zone caused us to reexamine how we
describe COTP Zones for purposes of ballast water regulations intended
to prevent the discharge of ANS into waters of the United States from
vessels. But, the reporting requirement did not produce data to help
the Coast Guard understand trends in transport, management, or
discharge of ballast water. As stated earlier in this preamble, the
2016 and 2017 annual reports do not contribute to the quality and
breadth of BWM data, nor do they contribute to a better understanding
of patterns of ballast water management and discharge, including in
Hawaii and the Honolulu COTP Zone. The aggregate volumes of ballast
water taken up and discharged by each vessel over the course of a
calendar year do not provide enough detail on vessel movement or
ballasting operations. The Coast Guard also disagrees that this is the
only source of relevant information, and notes that states may require
vessels in their jurisdiction to start submitting more detailed data
for their own uses.
    As stated in the NPRM (83 FR 21216) and earlier in this section,
the Coast Guard views the existing reporting requirement as not meeting
the necessary objective for any COTP Zone, including the Honolulu COTP
Zone. Therefore, in this final rule, we have eliminated the annual and
final reporting requirements for calendar year 2018.
    In calling for a permanent annual reporting system for these
vessels, the Hawaii state agency requested that all avenues of
receiving and documenting information regarding ballast water as a
vector for aquatic invasive species be retained to ensure that future
regulations are based on the full spectrum of facts presented. Instead
of removing a reporting requirement, this commenter stated that
shortcomings of the current system should be used to inform the
development of future regulations. Finally, the state agency commented
that if the annual reports were freely accessible to state government
entities through the NBIC website, these annual reports could help
guide the development of state regulations.
    The Coast Guard agrees that there are lessons to be learned from
the shortcomings in the annual reporting requirement. We may consider
in the future whether a different, possibly permanent, reporting
requirement is appropriate, but it would take time to evaluate what
fields to include and then to offer proposed changes for public notice
and comment. To attempt to do that in this rulemaking would prevent us
from removing an unnecessary burden within the limited time frame we
have to do so. We do not believe the 2018 annual report will contribute
to a comprehensive understanding of the threats posed by ballast water.
Accordingly, we do not believe that we should continue to impose the
unnecessary burden of requiring a 2018 annual report. Therefore, this
final rule eliminates the annual and final reporting requirements for
calendar year 2018. All other reporting and recordkeeping requirements
remain in effect. In addition, states may contact the NBIC regarding
access to information from annual reports.
    One commenter recommended that the Coast Guard make ballast water
reporting an annual requirement for all

vessels operating on the Great Lakes and allow for an aggregate total
rather than a tank-by-tank accounting. If the Coast Guard does not
implement annualized submissions for vessels operating on the Great
Lakes, the commenter recommended that we modify the Equivalent
Reporting Program requirement of 10 or more arrivals per month. These
recommendations would affect the BWM reporting requirements for vessels
that travel between COTP Zones and are therefore outside the scope of
this rulemaking, which focuses on eliminating an annual reporting
requirement for vessels that operate exclusively in one COTP Zone.
    The commenter also expressed a concern that the NBIC's web-based
reporting form allows only one log-in per company. This concern is also
beyond the scope of this rulemaking, but the Coast Guard will take it
into consideration for future improvements.
    One company that supported our proposed rule appeared to believe
that the amendments to Sec.  151.2015 created a new exemption from
reporting requirements. We want to make clear that our amendment to the
table in Sec.  151.2015 is a conforming change in response to our
change in Sec.  151.2060(b). Under this final rule, as well as under
existing regulations, vessels operating exclusively in a single COTP
Zone are not required to comply with Sec.  151.2060(b) reporting
requirements.
    In this final rule, we made no changes from the proposed rule based
on our consideration of comments we received on the NPRM.

IV. Discussion of the Rule

    This final rule removes the Annual Ballast Water Summary Report
requirement for vessels equipped with ballast tanks that operate
exclusively in a single COTP Zone so that they will not be required to
file the 2018 annual report. In this section, we describe the changes
we are making to 33 CFR 151.2015 and 151.2060 to accomplish the removal
of this reporting requirement. The text of this final rule is the same
as we proposed in the NPRM.
    Section 151.2015. Currently Sec.  151.2015(c) exempts vessels that
operate exclusively on voyages between ports or places within a single
COTP Zone from the ballast water management requirements in Sec.
151.2025 and from the recordkeeping requirements in Sec.  151.2070. We
have added the reporting requirements in Sec.  151.2060 to this list of
exemptions in Sec.  151.2015(c). This makes it clear to vessels that
operate exclusively on voyages between ports or places within a single
COTP Zone that they are not subject to the reporting requirements in
Sec.  151.2060.
    We have amended Table 1 to Sec.  151.2015, which lists specific
exemptions for types of vessels. Specifically, we are amending the
column ``151.2060 (Reporting)'' to reflect that vessels operating
exclusively on voyages between ports or places within a single COTP
Zone are exempt from the reporting requirements in Sec.  151.2060.
    We also added a footnote to the same table for non-seagoing
vessels. This footnote replaced the current lengthy qualifying language
in the ``151.2070 (Recordkeeping)'' column of the table for those non-
seagoing vessels that operate exclusively on voyages between ports or
places within a single COTP Zone. We extend the footnote to the table's
``151.2060 (Reporting)'' column in that row based on our amendment to
Sec.  151.2015(c). Non-seagoing vessels are the only category of
vessels in the table that may need this potential exemption reminder
because the other categories of vessels are either exempt or operate in
multiple COTP Zones.
    Section 151.2060. Section 151.2060(e) and (f) applied only to
vessels operating exclusively on voyages between ports or places within
a single COTP Zone. We have removed Sec.  151.2060(e) and (f).
Paragraph (e) contained the requirement to submit the Annual Ballast
Water Summary Report to the NBIC, and paragraph (f) described the
information to be included in that report. The only remaining reporting
requirement in Sec.  151.2060 is now based in paragraph (b). That
paragraph contained language exempting vessels operating exclusively on
voyages between ports or places within a single COTP Zone. We are
deleting that language because it is now unnecessary. With the removal
of Sec.  151.2060(e) and (f), we can now state in Sec.  151.2015(c)
that vessels operating exclusively on voyages between ports or places
within a single COTP Zone are exempt from any and all reporting
requirements in Sec.  151.2060. With our amendment to Sec.
151.2060(b), vessels subject to the reporting requirements of paragraph
(b) will not need to first read through an exemption that does not
apply to them.

V. Regulatory Analyses

    We developed this rule after considering numerous statutes and
Executive orders related to rulemaking. Below we summarize our analyses
based on these statutes or Executive orders.

A. Regulatory Planning and Review

    Executive Orders 12866 (Regulatory Planning and Review) and 13563
(Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review) direct agencies to assess
the costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if
regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize
net benefits (including potential economic, environmental, public
health and safety effects, distributive impacts, and equity). Executive
Order 13563 emphasizes the importance of quantifying both costs and
benefits, of reducing costs, of harmonizing rules, and of promoting
flexibility. Executive Order 13771 (Reducing Regulation and Controlling
Regulatory Costs) directs agencies to reduce regulation and control
regulatory costs and provides that ``for every one new regulation
issued, at least two prior regulations be identified for elimination,
and that the cost of planned regulations be prudently managed and
controlled through a budgeting process.''
    The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has not designated this
rule a ``significant regulatory action,'' under section 3(f) of
Executive Order 12866. Accordingly, OMB has not reviewed it. DHS
considers this rule to be an Executive Order 13771 deregulatory action.
See the OMB Memorandum ``Guidance Implementing Executive Order 13771,
Titled `Reducing Regulation and Controlling Regulatory Costs' '' (April
5, 2017). A regulatory analysis (RA) follows.
    The Coast Guard received no comments regarding the RA. However, the
Coast Guard did receive revised data from the NBIC for year 2017. The
updated data increase the affected population by 112 vessels, bringing
the total affected population to 278 vessels. We have amended the final
rule RA to reflect the new information from NBIC.
    This is a deregulatory rulemaking that removes reporting
requirements for vessels with ballast tanks operating exclusively
within a single COTP. The removal of the reporting requirement will
provide a one-time cost savings for those vessels affected by this
deregulatory action. We estimate an industry cost saving of $5,796
(non-discounted), and individual vessel cost savings of $20.85. We
provide a detailed analysis of the cost savings associated with this
deregulatory rule below. This final rule will not impose costs on
industry.
    The Coast Guard considers all estimates and analysis in this RA
final. Table 1 presents a summary of the economic impact of the final
rule.

                            Table 1--Summary of the Economic Impact of the Final Rule
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                              Affected
             Change                    Description           population        Cost savings         Benefits
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Eliminate the requirement for    Owners or operators of  70 owners or       No Costs. One-     The final rule
 vessels operating exclusively    vessels with ballast    operators of 278   time industry      removes the
 within a single COTP Zone to     tanks and operating     vessels            savings of         reporting
 report ballast management        exclusively on          operating in one   $5,796.            requirement for
 practices to the NBIC.           voyages between ports   COTP Zone.                            the remainder of
                                  and places within one                                         2018 and
                                  COTP Zone will not                                            provides a one-
                                  have to report their                                          time partial
                                  ballast management                                            year savings for
                                  practices for the                                             owners or
                                  final year of a 3-                                            operators.
                                  year requirement to
                                  report ballasting
                                  operations.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Under this final rule, the Coast Guard will no longer require
owners or operators of vessels with ballast tanks operating exclusively
on voyages between ports or places within a single COTP Zone to submit
an annual summary report of their ballast water management practices.
    Starting with the 2016 annual report, owners or operators of
vessels affected by the 2015 final rule provision in Sec.  151.2060(e)
have submitted annual summary reports, as required, to the NBIC. These
summary reports were used to estimate the number of vessels that
operated and the amount of ballast water discharged within a single
COTP Zone. Based on the data received and analyzed by the NBIC, the
Coast Guard was able to determine the actual number of vessels affected
by the 2015 final rule. The NBIC data confirms that 70 owners or
operators of 278 U.S.-flagged vessels \4\ have reported ballasting
operations in accordance with Sec.  151.2060(e). Table 2 presents the
vessel types and number of these vessels.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ We estimated the population of affected vessels in the 2015
final rule to be 1,280. This was an estimate based on potential
vessels that might operate exclusively within a single COTP Zone.
Since the publication of the 2015 final rule, vessel owners or
operators have been providing information to the NBIC regarding
their ballasting operations and area of operation. From this
information, we are able to determine the actual vessel population
that operates exclusively within a single COTP Zone. This final
rule, in addition to eliminating Sec.  151.2060(e), also reduces the
affected population estimated in the 2015 final rule from 1,280 to
278 vessels.

Table 2--U.S.-Flagged Vessels Operating Exclusively Within a Single COTP
                    Zone Affected by This Final Rule
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                             Affected
                                                            population
                       Vessel type                       ---------------
                                                           NPRM     FR
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tanker--Other...........................................       1       1
Tug only................................................      57     126
Offshore supply vessel..................................      38      41
Other (research, fishing, etc.).........................      21      24
Passenger...............................................       2       7
Bulk Carries............................................       2  ......
Tug--Barge Combo........................................  ......       1
Barge only..............................................      45      77
General Cargo...........................................  ......       1
                                                         ---------------
    Total...............................................     166     278
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: NBIC Data https://invasions.si.edu/nbic/.

    We estimated in the 2015 final rule that the total annual amount of
burden hours for owners or operators completing the reporting
requirement at 40 minutes per vessel per year. We break down those 40
minutes as 25 minutes to account for time needed throughout the year to
record ballast management operations, and 15 minutes for time needed by
owners or operators to aggregate and calculate the recorded ballast
water discharge information and to complete the electronic form
submitted to the NBIC.
    This final rule, which becomes effective October 1, 2018, allows
the Coast Guard to stop enforcing of the requirements of Sec.
151.2060(e) at the end of fiscal year 2018, which is September 30,
2018. The current regulation requires annual reports only through the
calendar year 2018. Therefore, any realized savings from this final
rule will account for the last 3 months of calendar year 2018. We
estimate that the total time saved by this final rule will be 21.25
minutes per vessel (15 minutes for submission of report + 6.25 total
minutes from the last 3 months of 2018). Converting this time to an
hourly equivalent, we arrive at 0.35 hours (21.25 minutes / 60
minutes).
    We anticipate that the person charged with collecting and reporting
the information to NBIC will be a vessel Captain, Mate, or Pilot. The
mean hourly wage rate associated with these professions is reported by
the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) to be $39.19 per hour.\5\ We
calculated the load factor from data collected in the Employer Cost for
Employee Compensation survey conducted by the BLS and applied it to the
mean hourly wage rate to obtain a fully loaded wage rate, which more
accurately represents the employer's cost per hour for an employee's
work.\6\ The load factor we used for this economic analysis is
1.52.7 8 The loaded mean hourly wage rate used to assess the
savings estimates for this final rule is calculated at $59.57 ($39.19 x
1.52).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ Information about the wage rates for Captains, Mates and
Vessel Pilots (53-5021) can be found at https://www.bls.gov/oes/2016/may/oes535021.htm.
    \6\ A loaded wage rate is what a company pays per hour to employ
a person, not the hourly wage the employee receives. The loaded wage
rate includes the cost of benefits (health insurance, vacation,
etc.).
    \7\ From the BLS, Employer Cost for Employee Compensation
survey. Total compensation divided by wage and salary compensation.
    \8\ The load factor for wages is calculated by dividing total
compensation by wages and salaries. For this report, we used the
Transportation and Materials Moving Occupations, Private Industry
report (Series IDs, CMU2010000520000D and CMU2020000520000D) for all
workers using the multi-screen data search. Using 2016 Q2 data, we
divide $27.55/$18.08 to get the load factor of 1.52. See https://data.bls.gov/cgi-bin/srgate.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We anticipate that by eliminating the reporting requirement from
the last quarter of the year, this final rule will reduce industry's
economic burden by 97.3 hours (278 vessels x 0.35 hours). We calculate
the dollar value saved to be $20.85 per vessel ($59.57 wage x 0.35
hours). The estimated one-time total savings for removing the reporting
requirement for the 278 vessels operating exclusively between ports or
places within a single COTP Zone is $5,796 ($20.85 per vessel savings x
278 vessels), non-discounted. Table 3 presents the total savings to the
affected population.

               Table 3--Total Savings for Affected Vessels
------------------------------------------------------------------------

------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hourly Wage Paid to Employee...................................   $39.19
Load Factor to Account for Cost of Benefits....................     1.52
Loaded Wage....................................................   $59.57
Hours Saved Per Vessel.........................................     0.35
Savings per Vessel (Hours x Loaded Wage Rate)..................   $20.85

Affected Population............................................      278
                                                                --------
    Total Savings* (Savings per Vessel x Affected Population)..   $5,796
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Represents undiscounted savings totals. Totals may not sum due to
  rounding.

    This final rule will not have annual recurring savings. It does not
require additional Coast Guard resources to implement it, and it is
budget neutral. In addition, a one-time savings of $5,796 in 2018 is
equivalent to approximately $331 in 2016 dollars using perpetual time
horizon discounting at 7 percent.

B. Small Entities

    Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601-612, we have
considered whether this final rule will have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small entities. The term ``small
entities'' comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations
that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their
fields, and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than
50,000.
    As described in the ``Regulatory Planning and Review'' section of
this RA, we expect that the savings per vessel will be $20.85 for the
remainder of 2018. The Coast Guard is eliminating the reporting
requirement under Sec.  151.2060(e), which applies to owners or
operators of vessels operating exclusively between ports or places
within a single COTP Zone. Based on our economic assessment of the
rule, we conclude that this final rule will add no cost burden to
industry.
    Therefore, the Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that
this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial
number of small entities

C. Assistance for Small Entities

    Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement
Fairness Act of 1996, Public Law 104-121, we offer to assist small
entities in understanding this rule so that they can better evaluate
its effects on them and participate in the rulemaking. If the final
rule will affect your small business, organization, or governmental
jurisdiction and you have questions concerning its provisions or
options for compliance, please contact the person in the FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT section of this final rule. The Coast Guard will
not retaliate against small entities that question or complain about
this rule or any policy or action of the Coast Guard.
    Small businesses may send comments on the actions of Federal
employees who enforce, or otherwise determine compliance with, Federal
regulations to the Small Business and Agriculture Regulatory
Enforcement Ombudsman and the Regional Small Business Regulatory
Fairness Boards. The Ombudsman evaluates these actions annually and
rates each agency's responsiveness to small business. If you wish to
comment on actions by employees of the Coast Guard, call 1-888-REG-FAIR
(1-888-734-3247).

D. Collection of Information

    This rule calls for a change to an existing collection of
information (COI) under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, 44 U.S.C.
3501-3520. As defined in 5 CFR 1320.3(c), ``collection of information''
comprises reporting, recordkeeping, monitoring, posting, labeling, and
other similar actions. The title and description of the information
collections, a description of those who must collect the information,
and an estimate of the total annual burden follow. The estimate covers
the time for reviewing instructions, searching existing sources of
data, gathering and maintaining the data needed, and completing and
reviewing the collection.
    Title: Ballast Water Management Reporting and Recordkeeping.
    OMB Control Number: 1625-0069.
    Summary of the Collection of Information: This rule modifies the
existing BWM reporting and recordkeeping requirement in Sec.
151.2060(e). In the current regulation, the Coast Guard requires
vessels with ballast tanks that operate exclusively on voyages between
ports or places within a single COTP Zone to submit an annual summary
report on their ballast water practices. The final rule published in
2015 requires vessels to report to the NBIC for a 3-year period, after
which a sunset clause in the rule has this provision expiring at the
end of the 2018 calendar year. This final rule will remove the last
year of reporting requirements for the population affected by the 2015
final rule and prior to the provision's sunset, thereby returning the
overall COI burden estimates to the 2015 final rule's level.
    Need for Information: The Coast Guard is removing the reporting
requirement under Sec.  151.2060(e) because the value of information
provided by the affected population did not meet the expectations of
the Coast Guard.
    Proposed Use of Information: The collection of this BWM data was
intended to fill a limited gap in information about vessels operating
exclusively within a single COTP Zone. The data was to measure ballast
water practices within a COTP Zone by vessels that operated exclusively
within a single COTP Zone. We removed Sec.  151.2060(e) and (f) because
the data collected did not help the Coast Guard to better understand
these ballasting practices.
    Description of the Respondents: The respondents are the owners or
operators of vessels with ballast water tanks operating exclusively on
voyages between ports or place within a single COTP Zone.
    Number of Respondents: The current number of respondents is 9,663.
However, in the 2015 final rule, we incorrectly estimated the
additional number of respondents in the COI to be 1,280. The population
of 1,280 was an overestimation because information about vessels
operating exclusively within a single COTP Zone had not been documented
prior to the 2015 final rule. For the purpose of maintaining continuity
between the number of respondents in the 2015 final rule and number of
respondents in the overall COI OMB Control Number: 1625-0069, the Coast
Guard estimates changes to the overall COI using the 2015 final rule
COI values to obtain a net result of zero.\9\ Therefore, in order to
revert back to the 2015 baseline, we needed to subtract the 1,280
respondents we incorrectly estimated in the 2015 final rule.\10\ With
this change, we are maintaining the 2015 baseline of 8,383 respondents
because we would be subtracting the incorrect estimated population of
1,280 respondents. The incurred cost savings and burden-hour reduction
we estimate in this final rule will affect only 278 respondents for the
last 3 months of this calendar year. After this time, the OMB-approved
number of respondents would remain at the 2015 baseline level of 8,383
respondents because of the sunset clause in the 2015 final rule. We
show these calculations, for illustrative purposes, in Table 4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ The goal is to revert the COI Control No. 625-0069 back to
its original collection prior to the 2015 ballast water
recordkeeping and reporting final rule.
    \10\ Appendix A of COI OMB Control No. 1625-0069.

                           Table 4--Summary of Collection of Information, Respondents
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                    Current COI     Final rule
                         Reporting items                            respondents       change      New COI values
(A)                                                                          (B)             (C)         (B - C)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Voyage Reports..................................................           8,383               0           8,383
Annual Reports..................................................           1,280           1,280               0
Compliance Extension Request....................................               0               0               0
                                                                 -----------------------------------------------
        Total...................................................           9,663           1,280           8,383
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Frequency of Response: The reporting requirement under this COI is
scheduled to occur annually. With this final rule, current respondents
under Sec.  151.2060(e) are no longer required to maintain and submit
BMW information on an annual basis.
    Burden of Response: The Coast Guard anticipates that the
elimination of the rule will decrease burden by approximately 40
minutes per report for vessels with ballast water tanks operating
exclusively on voyages between ports or places within a single COTP
Zone.
    Estimate of Total Annual Burden: The annual reduction in burden is
estimated as follows:
    (a) Annual reduction in burden resulting from removing reporting
requirement for vessels operating within a single COTP Zone.
    This final rule will reduce the private sector burden hours for
this COI by 97.3 hours (278 vessels x 0.35 hours [3 months of
savings]). There are three items associated with this COI: Voyage
reports, annual reports (which are applicable to this final rule), and
compliance extension requests. The voyage reports and compliance
extension requests are not included in this final rule. The burden
estimates in this COI stemming from these voyage reports and compliance
requests will be unaffected. Voyage reports account for 60,727 hours,
annual reports account for 858 hours, and compliance extension requests
account for 234 hours, for a total of 61,819 hours. Essentially, with
this final rule, we are accounting for the 97.3 burden hours of
reduction in annual reports in the last 3 months of this calendar year
only, prior to the sunset clause becoming effective. To capture this
change we must first correct for the erroneously estimated hourly
burden of 858 hours. First, we subtract the 858 erroneous burden hours
from the total of 61,819 hours and replace it with the correct burden
estimate of 97 hours. This gives us a total burden of 61,058 hours and
represents the corrected amount from which to estimate the burden
reduction due to the final rule. The final rule will then remove the
corrected 97 burden hours that should have been included in the 2015
COI. After December 31, 2018, the burden hours will return to the 2015
baseline level of 60,961 hours.
    Moreover, due to the establishment of a sunset clause in the 2015
final rule, all recordkeeping and reporting burden associated with this
regulation will be eliminated. This adjustment would only reduce
current Information Collection Request (ICR) burden levels prior to the
2015 final rule. We show the burden hour calculations in Table 5.

                           Table 5--Summary of Collection of Information, Burden Hours
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                    Current COI     Final rule
                         Reporting items                            respondents       change      New COI values
(A)                                                                          (B)             (C)         (B - C)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Voyage Reports..................................................          60,727               0          60,727
Annual Reports..................................................             858             858               0
Compliance Extension Request....................................             234               0             234
                                                                 -----------------------------------------------
        Total...................................................          61,819             858        * 60,961
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Although this final rule would subtract 97.3 hours for the last 3 months of this year, after this time, the
  total hour burden estimate would revert back to the 2015 baseline level or current OMB inventory amount of
  60,961 due to the fact that there will no longer be a need to complete annual reports for vessels traveling
  exclusively between ports or places within a single COTP Zone.

    (b) Reduction of annual burden due to the elimination of the
current rule.
    This final rule will result in a reduction of annual burden of 97.3
hours for the last 3 months of the year ending December 31, 2018.
However, after correcting for the overestimated burden in the 2015 COI,
the reduction in annual burden hours as reflected in the Supporting
Statement for this COI is 858 hours (as explained above).
    As required by 44 U.S.C. 3507(d), we will submit a copy of this
final rule to OMB for its review of the collection of information. You
are not required to respond to a COI unless it displays a currently
valid OMB control number.

E. Federalism

    A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132
(Federalism) if it has a substantial direct effect on States, on the
relationship between the national government and the States, or on the
distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of
government. We have analyzed this final rule under Executive Order
13132 and have determined that it is consistent with the fundamental
federalism principles and preemption requirements described in
Executive Order 13132. Our analysis follows.
    This final rule will revise the Coast Guard's BWM reporting and
recordkeeping requirements promulgated under the authority of NANPCA,
as amended by NISA. Specifically, we are removing the requirement that
an Annual Ballast Water Summary Report for calendar year 2018 be
submitted for vessels operating on voyages exclusively between ports or
places within a single COTP Zone. NANPCA, as amended by

NISA, contains a ``savings provision'' that saves to States their
authority to ``adopt or enforce control measures'' for ANS (16 U.S.C.
4725). Nothing in the Act would diminish or affect the jurisdiction of
any State over species of fish and wildlife. This type of BWM reporting
and recordkeeping is a ``control measure'' saved to States under the
savings provision and would not be preempted unless State law makes
compliance with Coast Guard requirements impossible or frustrates the
purpose of Congress. Additionally, the Coast Guard has long interpreted
this savings provision to be a congressional mandate for a Federal-
State cooperative regime in which Federal preemption under NANPCA, as
amended by NISA, would be unlikely. The Coast Guard does not intend for
the removal of this Federal reporting requirement to be a
determination, or have any implications, with regard to the necessity
of existing or future state BWM reporting requirements. Therefore, this
final rule is consistent with the fundamental federalism principles and
preemption requirements described in Executive Order 13132.

F. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

    The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995, 2 U.S.C. 1531-1538,
requires Federal agencies to assess the effects of their discretionary
regulatory actions. In particular, the Act addresses actions that may
result in the expenditure by a State, local, or tribal government, in
the aggregate, or by the private sector of $100,000,000 (adjusted for
inflation) or more in any 1 year. Although this final rule will not
result in such an expenditure, we do discuss the effects of this rule
elsewhere in this preamble.

G. Taking of Private Property

    This final rule will not cause a taking of private property or
otherwise have taking implications under Executive Order 12630
(Governmental Actions and Interference with Constitutionally Protected
Property Rights).

H. Civil Justice Reform

    This final rule meets applicable standards in sections 3(a) and
3(b)(2) of Executive Order 12988 (Civil Justice Reform) to minimize
litigation, eliminate ambiguity, and reduce burden.

I. Protection of Children

    We have analyzed this final rule under Executive Order 13045
(Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety
Risks). This rule is not an economically significant rule and will not
create an environmental risk to health or risk to safety that might
disproportionately affect children.

J. Indian Tribal Governments

    This final rule does not have tribal implications under Executive
Order 13175 (Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal
Governments), because it will not have a substantial direct effect on
one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal
Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and
responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes.

K. Energy Effects

    We have analyzed this final rule under Executive Order 13211
(Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy
Supply, Distribution, or Use). We have determined that it is not a
``significant energy action'' under that order because it is not a
``significant regulatory action'' under Executive Order 12866 and is
not likely to have a significant adverse effect on the supply,
distribution, or use of energy.

L. Technical Standards

    The National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act, codified as a
note to 15 U.S.C. 272, directs agencies to use voluntary consensus
standards in their regulatory activities unless the agency provides
Congress, through OMB, with an explanation of why using these standards
would be inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise impractical.
Voluntary consensus standards are technical standards (e.g.,
specifications of materials, performance, design, or operation; test
methods; sampling procedures; and related management systems practices)
that are developed or adopted by voluntary consensus standards bodies.
    This final rule does not use technical standards. Therefore, we did
not consider the use of voluntary consensus standards.

M. Environment

    We have analyzed this rule under Department of Homeland Security
Management Directive 023-01 and Commandant Instruction M16475.lD
(COMDTINST M16475.1D), which guide the Coast Guard in complying with
the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f),
and have made a determination that this action is one of a category of
actions that do not individually or cumulatively have a significant
effect on the human environment. A final Record of Environmental
Consideration supporting this determination is available in the docket
where indicated under the ADDRESSES section of this preamble. This rule
is categorically excluded under paragraph L54 of Appendix A, Table 1 of
DHS Instruction Manual 023-01-001-01, Rev. 01. Paragraph L54 pertains
to regulations which are editorial or procedural. This rule involves
the removal of the last year of a 3-year annual ballast water reporting
requirement.

List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 151

    Administrative practice and procedure, Ballast water management,
Oil pollution, Penalties, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements,
Water pollution control.

    For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard amends
33 CFR part 151, subpart D, as follows:

PART 151--VESSELS CARRYING OIL, NOXIOUS LIQUID SUBSTANCES, GARBAGE,
MUNICIPAL OR COMMERCIAL WASTE, AND BALLAST WATER

0
1. The authority citation for part 151, subpart D, is revised to read
as follows:

    Authority:  16 U.S.C. 4711; Department of Homeland Security
Delegation No. 0170.1(II)(57).

0
2. Amend Sec.  151.2015 as follows:
0
a. In paragraph (c), after the text ``(ballast water management (BWM)
requirements),'' add the text ``151.2060 (reporting),''; and
0
b. Revise the fourth and sixth rows in table 1 to Sec.  151.2015.
    The revisions read as follows:

Sec.  151.2015  Exemptions.

* * * * *

          Table 1 to Sec.   151.2015--Table of 33 CFR 151.2015 Specific Exemptions for Types of Vessels
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                     151.2025 (management)      151.2060 (reporting)    151.2070 (recordkeeping)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                                  * * * * * * *
Vessel operates exclusively on     Exempt...................  Exempt..................  Exempt.
 voyages between ports or places
 within a single COTP Zone.

                                                  * * * * * * *
Non-seagoing vessel..............  Exempt...................  Applicable \1\..........  Applicable.\1\

                                                  * * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Unless operating exclusively on voyages between ports or places within a single COTP Zone.

Sec.  151.2060   [Amended]

0
3. Amend Sec.  151.2060 as follows:
0
a. In paragraph (b), remove the words ``Unless operating exclusively on
voyages between ports or places within a single COTP Zone, the'' and
add, in their place, the word ``The''; and
0
b. Remove paragraphs (e) and (f).

    Dated: September 14, 2018.
J.P. Nadeau,
Rear Admiral, U.S. Coast Guard, Assistant Commandant for Prevention
Policy.
[FR Doc. 2018-20374 Filed 9-18-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 9110-04-P