Ballast Water Management-Annual Reporting Requirement, 47284-47293 [2018-20374]
Download as PDF
47284
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 182 / Wednesday, September 19, 2018 / Rules and Regulations
eca.state.gov/cultural-heritage-center/
cultural-property-protection/bilateralagreements by clicking on ‘‘Cambodia.’’
The restrictions on the importation of
archaeological material from Cambodia
are to continue in effect through
September 19, 2023. Importation of such
material from Cambodia continues to be
restricted through that date unless the
conditions set forth in 19 U.S.C. 2606
and 19 CFR 12.104c are met.
Inapplicability of Notice and Delayed
Effective Date
This amendment involves a foreign
affairs function of the United States and
is, therefore, being made without notice
or public procedure under 5 U.S.C.
553(a)(1). For the same reason, a
delayed effective date is not required
under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3).
Regulatory Flexibility Act
Because no notice of proposed
rulemaking is required, the provisions
of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5
U.S.C. 601 et seq.) do not apply.
Executive Orders 12866 and 13771
CBP has determined that this
document is not a regulation or rule
subject to the provisions of Executive
Order 12866 or Executive Order 13771
because it pertains to a foreign affairs
function of the United States, as
described above, and therefore is
specifically exempted by section 3(d)(2)
of Executive Order 12866 and section
4(a) of Executive Order 13771.
Signing Authority
This regulation is being issued in
accordance with 19 CFR 0.1(a)(1),
pertaining to the Secretary of the
Treasury’s authority (or that of his/her
delegate) to approve regulations related
to customs revenue functions.
List of Subjects in 19 CFR Part 12
Cultural property, Customs duties and
inspection, Imports, Prohibited
merchandise.
Amendment to CBP Regulations
For the reasons set forth above, part
12 of title 19 of the Code of Federal
Regulations (19 CFR part 12) is
amended as set forth below:
amozie on DSK3GDR082PROD with RULES
PART 12—SPECIAL CLASSES OF
MERCHANDISE
1. The general authority citation for
part 12 and the specific authority
citation for § 12.104g continue to read as
follows:
■
Authority: 5 U.S.C. 301; 19 U.S.C. 66, 1202
(General Note 3(i), Harmonized Tariff
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:33 Sep 18, 2018
Jkt 244001
Schedule of the United States (HTSUS)),
1624.
*
*
*
*
*
Sections 12.104 through 12.104i also
issued under 19 U.S.C. 2612;
*
*
§ 12.104g
*
*
*
[Amended]
2. In § 12.104g(a), the table is
amended in the entry for Cambodia by
removing the words ‘‘CBP Dec. 13–15’’
in the column headed ‘‘Decision No.’’
and adding in its place the words ‘‘CBP
Dec. 18–11’’.
■
Kevin K. McAleenan,
Commissioner, U.S. Customs and Border
Protection.
Approved: September 13, 2018.
Timothy E. Skud,
Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Treasury.
This rule is not significant under
Executive Order (E.O.) 12866,
‘‘Regulatory Planning and Review,’’
therefore, the requirements of E.O.
13771, ‘‘Reducing Regulation and
Controlling Regulatory Costs’’ do not
apply.
List of Subjects in 32 CFR Part 571
Recruiting and enlistment eligibility.
PART 571—[REMOVED]
Accordingly, by the authority of 5
U.S.C. 301, 32 CFR part 571 is removed.
■
Dated: September 13, 2018.
Brenda S. Bowen,
Army Federal Register Liaison Officer.
[FR Doc. 2018–20365 Filed 9–18–18; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 5001–03–P
[FR Doc. 2018–20316 Filed 9–18–18; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9111–14–P
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND
SECURITY
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
Coast Guard
Department of the Army
33 CFR Part 151
32 CFR Part 571
[Docket No. USCG–2018–0245]
[Docket No. USA–2018–HQ–0012]
Ballast Water Management—Annual
Reporting Requirement
RIN 0702–AA78
Recruiting and Enlistments
This final rule removes the
Army’s regulation governing recruiting
and enlistments. This part does not
impose obligations on members of the
public that are not already imposed by
statute. The language in this part
already exists elsewhere in the Code of
Federal Regulations, and thus is
duplicative.
DATES: This final rule is effective on
September 19, 2018.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr.
Alphonsa Green, (703) 695–7490.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: It has been
determined that publication of this CFR
part removal for public comment is
impracticable, unnecessary, and
contrary to public interest since it is
based on removing content from the
CFR which already exists at 32 CFR part
66 and for which public comment was
taken.
Army internal guidance governing
recruiting and enlistments will continue
to be published in AR 601–210, Regular
Army and Reserve Components
Enlistment Program, and is available at
https://www.apd.army.mil/Search/
ePubsSearch/ePubsSearchForm.aspx?
x=AR.
SUMMARY:
Frm 00002
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
Coast Guard, DHS.
Final rule.
AGENCY:
Department of the Army, DoD.
ACTION: Final rule.
AGENCY:
PO 00000
RIN 1625–AC45
ACTION:
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 https://
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 202–
372–1402, email environmental_
standards@uscg.mil.
SUMMARY:
E:\FR\FM\19SER1.SGM
19SER1
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 182 / Wednesday, September 19, 2018 / Rules and Regulations
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
§ Section
U.S.C. United States Code
amozie on DSK3GDR082PROD with RULES
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
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:33 Sep 18, 2018
Jkt 244001
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 (§§ 151.1500 through
151.1518) and D (§§ 151.2000 through
151.2080). The existing regulations we
are amending, §§ 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
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
1 See items –0102, –0143, and –0147 in docket
USCG–2017–0480, Evaluation of Existing Coast
Guard Regulations and Collections of Information.
PO 00000
Frm 00003
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
47285
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 3year 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. nonrecreational vessels that operate on
voyages exclusively between ports or
places within a single COTP Zone. The
annual reports contain information,
specified in § 151.2060(f), about the
vessel, the number of ballast tanks on
E:\FR\FM\19SER1.SGM
19SER1
47286
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 182 / Wednesday, September 19, 2018 / Rules and Regulations
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
§ 151.2060(e) before the 2018 report is
due.
amozie on DSK3GDR082PROD with RULES
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
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:33 Sep 18, 2018
Jkt 244001
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.
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.
2 From the preamble of the 2015 final rule, 80 FR
73105, 73106, November 24, 2015.
PO 00000
Frm 00004
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
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
E:\FR\FM\19SER1.SGM
19SER1
amozie on DSK3GDR082PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 182 / Wednesday, September 19, 2018 / Rules and Regulations
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
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-andcomment rulemaking and that would
take more time to complete than the
limited time we have to effectively
remove the 2018 annual report
requirement.
3 Visit NBIC website at: https://invasions.si.edu/
nbic/.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:33 Sep 18, 2018
Jkt 244001
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
PO 00000
Frm 00005
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
47287
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
E:\FR\FM\19SER1.SGM
19SER1
47288
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 182 / Wednesday, September 19, 2018 / Rules and Regulations
amozie on DSK3GDR082PROD with RULES
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 § 151.2015 created a
new exemption from reporting
requirements. We want to make clear
that our amendment to the table in
§ 151.2015 is a conforming change in
response to our change in § 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
§ 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
§ 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 § 151.2025
and from the recordkeeping
requirements in § 151.2070. We have
added the reporting requirements in
§ 151.2060 to this list of exemptions in
§ 151.2015(c). This makes it clear to
vessels that operate exclusively on
voyages between ports or places within
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:33 Sep 18, 2018
Jkt 244001
a single COTP Zone that they are not
subject to the reporting requirements in
§ 151.2060.
We have amended Table 1 to
§ 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
§ 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
§ 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 § 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
§ 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
§ 151.2060(e) and (f), we can now state
in § 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 § 151.2060. With our
amendment to § 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.
PO 00000
Frm 00006
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
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 (nondiscounted), 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.
E:\FR\FM\19SER1.SGM
19SER1
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 182 / Wednesday, September 19, 2018 / Rules and Regulations
47289
TABLE 1—SUMMARY OF THE ECONOMIC IMPACT OF THE FINAL RULE
Change
Description
Eliminate the requirement for vessels operating exclusively
within a single
COTP Zone to report ballast management practices
to the NBIC.
Owners or operators of vessels with ballast
tanks and operating exclusively on voyages between ports and places within one
COTP Zone will not have to report their
ballast management practices for the final
year of a 3-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
§ 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 § 151.2060(e). Table 2
presents the vessel types and number of
these vessels.
TABLE 2—U.S.-FLAGGED VESSELS
OPERATING EXCLUSIVELY WITHIN A
SINGLE COTP ZONE AFFECTED BY
THIS FINAL RULE
Vessel type
amozie on DSK3GDR082PROD with RULES
Tanker—Other ................................
Tug only ..........................................
Offshore supply vessel ...................
Other (research, fishing, etc.) .........
Passenger .......................................
Bulk Carries ....................................
Tug—Barge Combo ........................
Barge only ......................................
Affected
population
NPRM
FR
1
57
38
21
2
2
..........
45
1
126
41
24
7
..........
1
77
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 § 151.2060(e), also reduces the affected
population estimated in the 2015 final rule from
1,280 to 278 vessels.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:33 Sep 18, 2018
Jkt 244001
Affected population
Cost savings
70 owners or operators of 278 vessels
operating in one
COTP Zone.
No Costs. One-time
industry savings of
$5,796.
TABLE 2—U.S.-FLAGGED VESSELS
OPERATING EXCLUSIVELY WITHIN A
SINGLE COTP ZONE AFFECTED BY
THIS FINAL RULE—Continued
Affected
population
Vessel type
NPRM
FR
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 § 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
PO 00000
Frm 00007
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
Benefits
The final rule removes
the reporting requirement for the
remainder of 2018
and provides a onetime partial year
savings for owners
or operators.
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 × 1.52).
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 × 0.35 hours).
We calculate the dollar value saved to
be $20.85 per vessel ($59.57 wage × 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 × 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 ..................
Load Factor to Account for Cost of Benefits
Loaded Wage ..............................................
Hours Saved Per Vessel .............................
Savings per Vessel (Hours × Loaded Wage
Rate) ........................................................
$39.19
1.52
$59.57
0.35
$20.85
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.
E:\FR\FM\19SER1.SGM
19SER1
47290
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 182 / Wednesday, September 19, 2018 / Rules and Regulations
TABLE 3—TOTAL SAVINGS FOR
AFFECTED VESSELS—Continued
Affected Population .....................................
278
Total Savings* (Savings per Vessel ×
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.
amozie on DSK3GDR082PROD with RULES
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
§ 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
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.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:33 Sep 18, 2018
Jkt 244001
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
§ 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 § 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
§ 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.
10 Appendix A of COI OMB Control No. 1625–
0069.
PO 00000
Frm 00008
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
E:\FR\FM\19SER1.SGM
19SER1
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 182 / Wednesday, September 19, 2018 / Rules and Regulations
47291
TABLE 4—SUMMARY OF COLLECTION OF INFORMATION, RESPONDENTS
Reporting items
Current COI
respondents
Final rule
change
New COI
values
(A)
(B)
(C)
(B ¥ C)
Voyage Reports ...........................................................................................................................
Annual Reports ............................................................................................................................
Compliance Extension Request ..................................................................................................
8,383
1,280
0
0
1,280
0
8,383
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
§ 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 × 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
Reporting items
Current COI
respondents
Final rule
change
New COI
values
(A)
(B)
(C)
(B ¥ C)
Voyage Reports ...........................................................................................................................
Annual Reports ............................................................................................................................
Compliance Extension Request ..................................................................................................
60,727
858
234
0
858
0
60,727
0
234
Total ...............................................................................................................................
61,819
858
* 60,961
amozie on DSK3GDR082PROD with RULES
* 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
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:33 Sep 18, 2018
Jkt 244001
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
PO 00000
Frm 00009
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
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
E:\FR\FM\19SER1.SGM
19SER1
47292
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 182 / Wednesday, September 19, 2018 / Rules and Regulations
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 FederalState 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
amozie on DSK3GDR082PROD with RULES
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.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:33 Sep 18, 2018
Jkt 244001
I. Protection of Children
M. Environment
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.
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.
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.
PO 00000
Frm 00010
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
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
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).
2. Amend § 151.2015 as follows:
a. In paragraph (c), after the text
‘‘(ballast water management (BWM)
requirements),’’ add the text ‘‘151.2060
(reporting),’’; and
■ b. Revise the fourth and sixth rows in
table 1 to § 151.2015.
The revisions read as follows:
■
■
§ 151.2015
Exemptions.
*
*
E:\FR\FM\19SER1.SGM
*
19SER1
*
*
47293
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 182 / Wednesday, September 19, 2018 / Rules and Regulations
TABLE 1 TO § 151.2015—TABLE OF 33 CFR 151.2015 SPECIFIC EXEMPTIONS FOR TYPES OF VESSELS
151.2025
(management)
151.2060
(reporting)
*
*
*
*
Vessel operates exclusively on voyages between ports or places within a single COTP
Zone.
*
Exempt .............
*
Exempt .............
*
Exempt.
*
*
*
*
Non-seagoing vessel ...........................................................................................................
*
Exempt .............
*
Applicable 1 .......
*
Applicable.1
*
1 Unless
*
*
[Amended]
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
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND
SECURITY
I. Table of Abbreviations
CFR Code of Federal Regulations
DHS Department of Homeland Security
FR Federal Register
NPRM Notice of proposed rulemaking
§ Section
U.S.C. United States Code
Coast Guard
33 CFR Part 165
[Docket Number USCG–2018–0859]
RIN 1625–AA00
Safety Zone; Snowbirds Over Fort Erie,
Lake Erie, Niagara River, Buffalo, NY
Coast Guard, DHS.
Temporary final rule.
AGENCY:
The Coast Guard is
establishing a temporary safety zone on
Lake Erie and the Niagara River, Buffalo,
NY. This safety zone is intended to
restrict vessels from a portion of Lake
Erie and the Niagara River during the
Snowbirds over Fort Erie air show on
September 19, 2018. This temporary
safety zone is necessary to protect
participants, spectators, and vessels
from the hazards associated with aerial
stunts, low flying aircraft, and aircraft
maneuvers. Entry of vessels or persons
into this zone is prohibited unless
specifically authorized by the Captain of
the Port Buffalo (COTP).
DATES: This rule is effective from 3:30
p.m. to 5:30 p.m. on September 19,
2018.
SUMMARY:
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:33 Sep 18, 2018
To view documents
mentioned in this preamble as being
available in the docket, go to https://
www.regulations.gov, type USCG–2018–
0859 in the ‘‘SEARCH’’ box and click
‘‘SEARCH.’’ Click on Open Docket
Folder on the line associated with this
rule.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If
you have questions on this rule, call or
email LTJG Sean Dolan, Chief
Waterways Management Division, U.S.
Coast Guard; telephone 716–843–9322,
email D09-SMB-SECBuffalo-WWM@
uscg.mil.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
ADDRESSES:
3. Amend § 151.2060 as follows:
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
■ b. Remove paragraphs (e) and (f).
■
■
amozie on DSK3GDR082PROD with RULES
*
*
*
operating exclusively on voyages between ports or places within a single COTP Zone.
§ 151.2060
ACTION:
*
151.2070
(recordkeeping)
Jkt 244001
II. Background Information and
Regulatory History
The Coast Guard is issuing this
temporary rule without prior notice and
opportunity to comment pursuant to
authority under section 4(a) of the
Administrative Procedure Act (APA) (5
U.S.C. 553(b)). This provision
authorizes an agency to issue a rule
without prior notice and opportunity to
comment when the agency for good
cause finds that those procedures are
‘‘impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary
to the public interest.’’ Under 5 U.S.C.
553(b)(B), the Coast Guard finds that
good cause exists for not publishing a
notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM)
with respect to this rule due to it being
impracticable and contrary to public
interest. The final details of this event
were not known to the Coast Guard
until there was insufficient time
remaining before the event to publish a
NPRM.
Under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), the Coast
Guard finds that good cause exists for
making this rule effective less than 30
days after publication in the Federal
PO 00000
Frm 00011
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
Register. Delaying the effective date
would be contrary to the rule’s
objectives of enhancing safety of life on
the navigable waters and protection of
persons and vessels in vicinity of the
Snowbirds over Fort Erie air show.
III. Legal Authority and Need for Rule
The Coast Guard is issuing this rule
under authority in 33 U.S.C. 1231. The
Captain of the Port Buffalo (COTP) has
determined that potential hazards
associated with an air show over a
navigable waterway pose a significant
risk to public safety and property within
the immediate location of the show.
IV. Discussion of the Rule
This rule establishes a safety zone on
September 19, 2018, from 3:30 p.m.
until 5:30 p.m. The safety zone will
encompass all waters of Lake Erie and
the Niagara River starting at position
42°54′01.25″ N, 78°54′21.07″ W, then
East to 42°54′01.20″ N, 78°54′17.35″ W,
then South to 42°53′18.18″ N,
78°54′21.94″ W, then West to
42°53′18.39″ N, 78°54′43.64″ W, and
then North along the international
boundary line to the point of origin. The
duration of the zone is intended to
ensure the safety of spectators and
vessels during the Snowbirds over Fort
Erie air show. No vessel or person will
be permitted to enter the safety zone
without obtaining permission from the
COTP or a designated representative.
V. Regulatory Analyses
We developed this rule after
considering numerous statutes and
Executive orders related to rulemaking.
Below we summarize our analyses
based on a number of these statutes and
Executive orders, and we discuss First
Amendment rights of protestors.
A. Regulatory Planning and Review
Executive Orders 12866 and 13563
direct agencies to assess the costs and
benefits of available regulatory
alternatives and, if regulation is
necessary, to select regulatory
E:\FR\FM\19SER1.SGM
19SER1
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 182 (Wednesday, September 19, 2018)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 47284-47293]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[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 https://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 202-372-1402, email
[email protected].
[[Page 47285]]
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
[[Page 47286]]
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
[[Page 47287]]
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: https://invasions.si.edu/nbic/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
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
[[Page 47288]]
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.
[[Page 47289]]
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
[[Page 47290]]
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.
[[Page 47291]]
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
[[Page 47292]]
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.
* * * * *
[[Page 47293]]
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