77996 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 248 / Monday, December 29, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

(3) Representatives of seafarers’ 

welfare and labor organizations; and 

(4) Other authorized individuals in 

accordance with the Declaration of 

Security (DoS) or other arrangement 

between the vessel and facility. 

(c) Timely Access. The facility owner 

or operator must provide the access 

described in this section without 

unreasonable delay, subject to review by 

the Captain of the Port (COTP). The 

facility owner or operator must consider 

the following when establishing timely 

access without unreasonable delay: 

(1) Length of time the vessel is in port. 

(2) Distance of egress/ingress between 

the vessel and facility gate. 

(3) The vessel watch schedules. 

(4) The facility’s safety and security 

procedures as required by law. 

(5) Any other factors specific to the 

vessel or facility that could affect access 

to and from the vessel. 

(d) Access Methods. The facility 

owner or operator must ensure that the 

access described in this section is 

provided through one or more of the 

following methods: 

(1) Regularly scheduled escort 

between the vessel and the facility gate 

that conforms to the vessel’s watch 

schedule as agreed upon between the 

vessel and facility. 

(2) An on-call escort between the 

vessel and the facility gate. 

(3) Arrangements with taxi services, 

ensuring that any costs for providing the 

access described in this section, above 

the taxi’s standard fees charged to any 

customer, are not charged to the 

individual to whom such access is 

provided. If a facility provides 

arrangements with taxi services as the 

only method for providing the access 

described in this section, the facility is 

responsible to pay the taxi fees for 

transit within the facility. 

(4) Arrangements with seafarers’ 

welfare organizations to facilitate the 

access described in this section. 

(5) Monitored pedestrian access 

routes between the vessel and facility 

gate. 

(6) A method, other than those in 

paragraphs (d)(1) through (d)(5) of this 

section, approved by the COTP. 

(7) If an access method relies on a 

third party, a back-up access method 

that will be used if the third-party is 

unable to or does not provide the 

required access in any instance. An 

owner or operator must ensure that the 

access required in paragraph (a) of this 

section is actually provided in all 

instances. 

(e) No cost to individuals. The facility 

owner or operator must provide the 

access described in this section at no 

cost to the individual to whom such 

access is provided. 

(f) Described in the Facility Security 

Plan (FSP). On or before [INSERT DATE 

10 MONTHS AFTER PUBLICATION OF 

THE FINAL RULE], the facility owner or 

operator must document the facility’s 

system for providing the access 

described in this section in the 

approved FSP in accordance with 33 

CFR 105.410 or 33 CFR 105.415. The 

description of the facility’s system must 

include— 

(1) Location of transit area(s) used for 

providing the access described in this 

section; 

(2) Duties and number of facility 

personnel assigned to each duty 

associated with providing the access 

described in this section; 

(3) Methods of escorting and/or 

monitoring individuals transiting 

through the facility; 

(4) Agreements or arrangements 

between the facility and private parties, 

nonprofit organizations, or other parties, 

to facilitate the access described in this 

section; and 

(5) Maximum length of time an 

individual would wait for the access 

described in this section, based on the 

provided access method(s). 

■ 6. Amend § 105.405 as follows: 

■ a. In paragraph (a), at the end of the 

first sentence, remove the text ‘‘(a)’’; 

■ b. Redesignate paragraphs (a)(9) 

through (a)(18) as (a)(10) through (a)(19); 

■ c. In newly designated paragraphs 

(a)(18) and (a)(19), at the beginning of 

the paragraphs, add the word ‘‘The’’ 

before the word ‘‘Facility’’; and 

■ d. Add new paragraph (a)(9) as 

follows: 

§ 105.405 Format and content of the 

Facility Security Plan (FSP). 

(a) * * * 

(9) System for seafarers’ access; 

* * * * * 

Dated: December 17, 2014. 

J.C. Burton, 

Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Director of 

Inspections & Compliance. 

[FR Doc. 2014–30013 Filed 12–24–14; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 9110–04–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R07–OAR–2014–0399; FRL–9920–67– 

Region 7] 

Approval and Promulgation of 

Implementation Plans; State of 

Missouri; St. Louis Inspection and 

Maintenance Program 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency. 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA) proposes to approve State 

Implementation Plan (SIP) revisions 

submitted by the State of Missouri 

relating to the Inspection and 

Maintenance (I/M) Program. On August 

16, 2007, and December 7, 2007, the 

Missouri Department of Natural 

Resources (MDNR) requested to amend 

the SIP to replace the St. Louis 

centralized transient I/M240 vehicle test 

program Gateway Clean Air Program 

(GCAP) and associated state rule with a 

de-centralized, OBD only vehicle I/M 

program called, the Gateway Vehicle 

Inspection Program (GVIP), and a new I/ 

M rule reflecting these changes. In this 

action, EPA is also proposing approval 

of three additional SIP revisions 

submitted by Missouri related to the 

state’s I/M program including minor 

clarification edits to the new I/M rule, 

exemptions for specially constructed 

vehicles or ‘‘kit-cars,’’ exemptions for 

Plugin Hybrid Electric Vehicles (PHEV), 

and rescission of Missouri State 

Highway Patrol rules from the Missouri 

SIP. 

These revisions to Missouri’s SIP do 

not have an adverse effect on air quality 

as demonstrated in the technical 

support document which is a part of 

this docket. EPA’s approval of these SIP 

revisions is being done in accordance 

with the requirements of the Clean Air 

Act (CAA). 

DATES: Comments must be received on 

or before January 28, 2015. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R07– 

OAR–2014–0399, by one of the 

following methods: 

1. www.regulations.gov: Follow the 

on-line instructions for submitting 

comments. 

2. Email: brown.steven@epa.gov 

3. Mail or Hand Delivery or Courier: 

Steven Brown, Environmental 

Protection Agency, Air Planning and 

Development Branch, 11201 Renner 

Boulevard, Lenexa, Kansas 66219. 

Instructions: Direct your comments to 

Docket ID No. EPA–R07–OAR–2014– 

0399. EPA’s policy is that all comments 

received will be included in the public 

docket without change and may be 

made available online at 

www.regulations.gov, including any 

personal information provided, unless 

the comment includes information 

claimed to be Confidential Business 

Information (CBI) or other information 

whose disclosure is restricted by statute. 

Do not submit information that you 

consider to be CBI or otherwise 

protected through www.regulations.gov 

or email. The www.regulations.gov Web 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 248 / Monday, December 29, 2014 / Proposed Rules 77997 

site is an ‘‘anonymous access’’ system, 

which means EPA will not know your 

identity or contact information unless 

you provide it in the body of your 

comment. If you send an email 

comment directly to EPA without going 

through www.regulations.gov, your 

email address will be automatically 

captured and included as part of the 

comment that is placed in the public 

docket and made available on the 

Internet. If you submit an electronic 

comment, EPA recommends that you 

include your name and other contact 

information in the body of your 

comment and with any disk or CD–ROM 

you submit. If EPA cannot read your 

comment due to technical difficulties 

and cannot contact you for clarification, 

EPA may not be able to consider your 

comment. Electronic files should avoid 

the use of special characters, any form 

of encryption, and be free of any defects 

or viruses. 

Docket. All documents in the 

electronic docket are listed in the 

www.regulations.gov index. Although 

listed in the index, some information is 

not publicly available, e.g., CBI or other 

information whose disclosure is 

restricted by statute. Certain other 

material, such as copyrighted material, 

will be publicly available only in hard 

copy. Publicly available docket 

materials are available either 

electronically in www.regulations.gov or 

in hard copy at the Environmental 

Protection Agency, Air Planning and 

Development Branch, 11201 Renner 

Boulevard, Lenexa, Kansas 66219. EPA 

requests that you contact the person 

listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION

CONTACT section to schedule your 

inspection. The interested persons 

wanting to examine these documents 

should make an appointment with the 

office at least 24 hours in advance. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Steven Brown Environmental Protection 

Agency, Air Planning and Development 

Branch, 11201 Renner Boulevard, 

Lenexa, Kansas 66219 at (913) 551– 

7718, or by email at brown.steven@

epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Throughout this document ‘‘we,’’ ‘‘us,’’ 

or ‘‘our’’ refer to EPA. This section 

provides additional information by 

addressing the following: 

I. What is being addressed? 

II. Have the requirements for approval of a 

SIP revision been met? 

III. What action is EPA taking? 

IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

I. What is being addressed? 

EPA is proposing approval into the 

SIP, revisions to St. Louis vehicle I/M 

program to replace the centralized, 

transient I/M240 vehicle I/M program 

(GCAP) with the de-centralized, OBD 

only, vehicle I/M program (GVIP). 

MDNR submitted to EPA five SIP 

revision submissions to address the 

vehicle I/M program replacement and 

associated state rule plus one 

supplemental demonstration. They are 

as follows: 

On August 16, 2007, MDNR requested 

that Missouri Rule 10 CSR 10–5.380, 

‘‘Motor Vehicle Emissions Inspection’’ 

be rescinded and replaced with the new 

rule 10 CSR 10–5.381, ‘‘On-Board 

Diagnostics Motor Vehicle Emissions 

Inspection.’’ In that same submittal 

letter, MDNR also requested that 

Missouri Rule 10 CSR 10–5.375, ‘‘Motor 

Vehicles Emissions Inspection Waiver’’ 

be rescinded. EPA does not plan on 

taking any action on 10 CSR 10–5.375 

as it is not a part of the SIP. 

On December 14, 2007, MDNR 

submitted the new GVIP plan and 

performance standard demonstration to 

show that the GVIP program meets the 

basic requirements as described in 40 

CFR part 51 subpart S. This submission 

also requests that EPA approve the plan 

to replace the GCAP I/M program with 

the new GVIP program. 

On December 21, 2007, Missouri 

submitted a revision requesting that the 

Missouri State Highway Patrol rules be 

removed from the Missouri SIP because 

the new rule 10 CSR 10–5.381 does not 

rely on the Missouri Highway Patrol 

rules for enforcement. More details can 

be found in the technical support 

document that is a part of this docket. 

On January 2, 2009, MDNR submitted 

a required supplemental demonstration 

for I/M network type and program 

evaluation as required by 40 CFR 

51.353. This demonstration is required 

within one year after the I/M program 

begins. 

On June 17, 2009, Missouri submitted 

a revision to I/M rule 10 CSR 10–5.381 

which includes minor clarification edits 

and exempts specially constructed 

vehicles or ‘‘kit-cars’’ from the rule. 

On December 10, 2012, Missouri 

submitted another revision to exempt 

Plugin Hybrid Electric Vehicles (PHEV) 

from the I/M program as codified in rule 

10 CSR 10–5.381. As part of our review, 

EPA performed a separate analysis of all 

the state’s SIP submissions and a 

cumulative analysis as documented in 

the technical support document that is 

part of this docket. 

II. Have the requirements for approval 

of a SIP revision been met? 

The state submission has met the 

public notice requirements for SIP 

submissions in accordance with 40 CFR 

51.102. The submission also satisfied 

the completeness criteria of 40 CFR part 

51, appendix V. In addition, as 

explained in this proposed action and in 

more detail in the technical support 

document which is part of this docket, 

the revisions meet the substantive SIP 

requirements of the CAA, including 

section 110(l) and implementing 

regulations. EPA has determined that 

the revisions meet all applicable CAA 

regulations, policy and guidance as 

detailed in the technical support 

document. 

III. What action is EPA taking? 

EPA is proposing to approve these SIP 

revisions. While these SIP revisions 

were submitted in separate requests, 

they are direct changes to the St. Louis 

Vehicle Inspection Program and are 

being addressed in one SIP action. We 

are processing this as a proposed action. 

Final rulemaking will occur after 

consideration of any comments 

provided in response to this proposal. 

IV. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

Under the CAA, the Administrator is 

required to approve a SIP submission 

that complies with the provisions of the 

Act and applicable Federal regulations. 

42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). 

Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, 

EPA’s role is to approve state choices, 

provided that they meet the criteria of 

the CAA. Accordingly, this proposed 

action merely approves state law as 

meeting Federal requirements and does 

not impose additional requirements 

beyond those imposed by state law. For 

that reason, this proposed action: 

• Is not a ‘‘significant regulatory 

action’’ under the terms of Executive 

Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 

1993) and is therefore not subject to 

review under Executive Orders 12866 

and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21, 

2011); 

• Does not impose an information 

collection burden under the provisions 

of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 

U.S.C. 3501 et seq.); 

• Is certified as not having a 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities 

under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 

U.S.C. 601 et seq.); 

• Does not contain any unfunded 

mandate or significantly or uniquely 

affect small governments, as described 

in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–4); 

• Does not have Federalism 

implications as specified in Executive 

Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 

1999); 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
77998 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 248 / Monday, December 29, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

• Is not an economically significant 

regulatory action based on health or 

safety risks subject to Executive Order 

13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997); 

• Is not a significant regulatory action 

subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 

28355, May 22, 2001); 

• Is not subject to requirements of 

Section 12(d) of the National 

Technology Transfer and Advancement 

Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because 

application of those requirements would 

be inconsistent with the CAA; and 

• Does not provide EPA with the 

discretionary authority to address, as 

appropriate, disproportionate human 

health or environmental effects, using 

practicable and legally permissible 

methods, under Executive Order 12898 

(59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994). 

In addition, this rule does not have 

tribal implications as specified by 

Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, 

November 9, 2000), because the SIP is 

not approved to apply in Indian country 

located in the state, and EPA notes that 

it will not impose substantial direct 

costs on tribal governments or preempt 

tribal law. 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, Carbon monoxide, 

Incorporation by reference, 

Intergovernmental relations, Lead, 

Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Particulate 

matter, Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements, Sulfur oxides, Volatile 

organic compounds. 

Dated: December 10, 2014. 

Becky Weber, 

Acting Regional Administrator, Region 7. 

For the reasons stated in the 

preamble, the Environmental Protection 

Agency proposes to amend 40 CFR part 

52 as set forth below: 

PART 52—APPROVAL AND 

PROMULGATION OF 

IMPLEMENTATION PLANS 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 52 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et. seq. 

Subpart AA—Missouri 

■ 2. In § 52.1320, the table in paragraph 

(c) is amended by removing the entry 

‘‘10–5.380’’ and adding the entry ‘‘10– 

5.381’’ to read as follows: 

§ 52.1320 Identification of Plan. 

* * * * * 

(c) * * * 

EPA-APPROVED MISSOURI REGULATIONS

Missouri citation Title State effective 

date EPA approval date Explanation 

Missouri Department of Natural Resources 

*******

Chapter 5—Air Quality Standards and Air Pollution Control Regulations for the St. Louis Metropolitan Area 

*******

10–5.381 .......... On-Board Diagnostics Motor Vehicle Emissions Inspection.12/30/12 12/29/14 [Insert Federal Register citation].

*******

* * * * * 

[FR Doc. 2014–29869 Filed 12–24–14; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration 

50 CFR Part 224 

[Docket No. 130808698–4999–02] 

RIN 0648–XC809 

Endangered and Threatened Wildlife 

and Plants; Notice of 12-Month Finding 

on Petitions To List the Pinto Abalone 

as Threatened or Endangered Under 

the Endangered Species Act (ESA) 

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries 

Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), 

Commerce. 

ACTION: Notice of 12-month finding and 

availability of a status review report. 

SUMMARY: We, NMFS, announce a 12- 

month finding on two petitions to list 

the pinto abalone (Haliotis 

kamtschatkana) as threatened or 

endangered under the Endangered 

Species Act (ESA). We have completed 

a comprehensive status review of the 

pinto abalone in response to these 

petitions. Based on the best scientific 

and commercial information available, 

we have determined that the species 

does not warrant listing at this time. We 

conclude that the pinto abalone is not 

currently in danger of extinction 

throughout all or a significant portion of 

its range and is not likely to become so 

within the foreseeable future. The 

species will remain on the NMFS 

Species of Concern list, with one 

revision to apply the Species of Concern 

status throughout the species’ range 

(Alaska to Mexico). We also announce 

the availability of the pinto abalone 

status review report. 

DATES: This finding was made on 

December 29, 2014. 

ADDRESSES: The pinto abalone status 

review report is available electronically 

at: http://www.westcoast.fisheries.

noaa.gov/. You may also receive a copy 

by submitting a request to the Protected 

Resources Division, West Coast Region, 

NMFS, 501 West Ocean Blvd., Suite 

4200, Long Beach, CA 90802–4213, 

Attention: Pinto Abalone 12-month 

Finding. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Melissa Neuman, NMFS, West Coast 

Region (562) 980–4115; or Lisa 

Manning, NMFS, Office of Protected 

Resources (301) 427–8466. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

The pinto abalone (Haliotis 

kamtschatkana) was added to the 

National Marine Fisheries Service’s 

(NMFS’) ‘‘Species of Concern’’ list on 

April 15, 2004 (69 FR 19975). On July 

1, 2013, the National Marine Fisheries 

Service (NMFS) received a petition from 

the Natural Resources Defense Council 

(NRDC) requesting that the pinto 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS