Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 246 / Thursday, December 22, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 79541 

Environmental Protection on March 14, 

2011: 

Applicable geographic area Year Tons per day 

(TPD) VOC 

Tons per day 

(TPD) NOX

Charleston Area (Kanawha and Putnam Counties) .................................................................... 2009 16.7 38.9

Charleston Area (Kanawha and Putnam Counties) .................................................................... 2018 13.5 17.1

* * * * * 

(e) EPA approves the following 

revised 2009 and 2018 motor vehicle 

emissions budgets (MVEBs) for the 

Wheeling, West Virginia 8-hour ozone 

maintenance area submitted by the 

Secretary of the Department of 

Environmental Protection on March 14, 

2011: 

Applicable geographic area Year Tons per day 

(TPD) VOC 

Tons per day 

(TPD) NOX

Wheeling Area (Marshall and Ohio Counties) ............................................................................. 2009 10.4 9.1 

Wheeling Area (Marshall and Ohio Counties) ............................................................................. 2018 7.7 3.1 

[FR Doc. 2011–32647 Filed 12–21–11; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–HQ–OAR–2011–0081; FRL–9609–4] 

RIN 2060–AQ69 

Revisions to Final Response to 

Petition From New Jersey Regarding 

SO2 Emissions From the Portland 

Generating Station 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Direct final rule. 

SUMMARY: The EPA is taking direct final 

action to amend the preamble and rule 

text to the Final Response to Petition 

From New Jersey Regarding SO2

Emissions From the Portland Generating 

Station (Portland) published November 

7, 2011, to revise minor misstatements. 

These revisions clarify the EPA’s 

finding that Portland significantly 

contributes to nonattainment or 

interferes with maintenance of the 

1-hour sulfur dioxide (SO2) national 

ambient air quality standard (NAAQS) 

in the State of New Jersey, and not in 

specific counties within the state. These 

revisions have no impact on any other 

provisions of the rule. 

DATES: The direct final rule is effective 

on March 21, 2012 without further 

notice, unless the EPA receives adverse 

comment by February 21, 2012. If the 

EPA receives an adverse comment, we 

will publish a timely withdrawal in the 

Federal Register informing the public 

that this direct final rule will not take 

effect. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket ID No. EPA–HQ– 

OAR–2011–0081, by one of the 

following methods: 

• www.regulations.gov: Follow the 

on-line instructions for submitting 

comments. 

• Email: a-and-r-docket@epa.gov. 

Attention Docket ID No. EPA–HQ– 

OAR–2011–0081. 

• Fax: (202) 566–9744. Attention 

Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2011– 

0081. 

• Mail: EPA Docket Center, EPA West 

(Air Docket), Attention Docket ID No. 

EPA–HQ–OAR–2011–0081, 

Environmental Protection Agency, 

Mailcode: 2822T, 1200 Pennsylvania 

Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460. 

• Hand Delivery: EPA Docket Center 

(Air Docket), Attention Docket ID No. 

EPA–HQ–OAR–2011–0081, 

Environmental Protection Agency, 1301 

Constitution Avenue NW., Room 3334, 

Washington, DC. Such deliveries are 

only accepted during the Docket’s 

normal hours of operation, and special 

arrangements should be made for 

deliveries of boxed information. 

Instructions: Direct your comments to 

Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2011– 

0081. The 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 

site is an ‘‘anonymous access’’ system, 

which means the 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 the 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, the 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 the EPA cannot read your 

comment due to technical difficulties 

and cannot contact you for clarification, 

the EPA may not be able to consider 

your comment. Electronic files should 

avoid the use of special characters and 

any form of encryption, and be free of 

any defects or viruses. For additional 

information about the EPA’s public 

docket, visit the EPA Docket Center 

homepage at http://www.epa.gov/

epahome/dockets.htm. 

Docket: All documents in the 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 EPA Docket 

Center EPA/DC, EPA West, Room 3334, 

1301 Constitution Ave. NW., 

Washington, DC. The Public Reading 

Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 

p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding 

legal holidays. The telephone number 

for the Public Reading Room is (202) 

566–1744, and the telephone number for 

the EPA Docket Center is (202) 566– 

1742. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. 

Todd Hawes (919) 541–5591, hawes.

todd@epa.gov, or Ms. Gobeail McKinley 


jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with RULES
79542 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 246 / Thursday, December 22, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 

(919) 541–5246, mckinley.gobeail@epa.

gov, Office of Air Quality Planning and 

Standards, Air Quality Policy Division, 

Mail Code C539–04, Research Triangle 

Park, NC 27711. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Why is the EPA using a direct final rule? 

II. Specific Revisions 

III. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory 

Planning and Review and Executive 

Order 13563: Improving Regulation and 

Regulatory Review 

B. Paperwork Reduction Act 

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) 

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism 

F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation 

and Coordination With Indian Tribal 

Governments 

G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of 

Children From Environmental Health 

and Safety Risks 

H. Executive Order 13211: Actions That 

Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution, or Use 

I. National Technology Transfer and 

Advancement Act 

J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions 

To Address Environmental Justice in 

Minority Populations and Low-Income 

Populations 

K. Congressional Review Act 

L. Judicial Review 

I. Why is the EPA using a direct final 

rule? 

The EPA is publishing this rule 

without a prior proposed rule because 

we view this as a noncontroversial 

action and anticipate no adverse 

comment since the changes will not 

affect the emission limits, increments of 

progress, compliance schedules, or the 

reporting provisions specified in the 

November 7, 2011, final rule. However, 

in the ‘‘Proposed Rules’’ section of 

today’s Federal Register, we are 

publishing a separate document that 

will serve as the proposed rule to amend 

the preamble and regulatory text to the 

Final Response to Petition From New 

Jersey Regarding SO2 Emissions From 

the Portland Generating Station if 

adverse comments are received on this 

direct final rule. We will not institute a 

second comment period on this action. 

Any parties interested in commenting 

must do so at this time. For further 

information about commenting on this 

rule, see the ADDRESSES section of this 

document. 

If the EPA receives adverse comment, 

we will publish a timely withdrawal in 

the Federal Register informing the 

public that this direct final rule will not 

take effect. We would address all public 

comments in any subsequent final rule 

based on the proposed rule. 

II. Specific Revisions 

The preamble and rule text to the 

Final Response to Petition From New 

Jersey Regarding SO2 Emissions From 

the Portland Generating Station (See FR 

76 69052) contain minor misstatements 

that the EPA is revising in this action. 

In the preamble section IV.A, Summary 

of the Modeling for the Proposed Rule, 

the EPA inadvertently referred to four 

specific counties in New Jersey when 

discussing violations of the 1-hour SO2

NAAQS. The statement reads, ‘‘The EPA 

also modeled the emissions from 

Portland using the AERMOD dispersion 

model and determined that the modeled 

concentrations from Portland, when 

combined with the relatively low 

background concentrations, cause 

violations of the 1-hour SO2 NAAQS in 

Morris, Sussex, Warren and Hunterdon 

Counties in New Jersey.’’ This 

conclusion is not correctly stated as the 

EPA’s modeling did not separately 

examine air quality in each of the four 

counties identified. A more accurate 

description of the EPA’s conclusion was 

presented in the April 7, 2011, proposal 

which did not refer to those counties in 

our explanations of the modeling 

results. Furthermore, between proposal 

and promulgation, the EPA did not 

separately examine each of the four 

counties identified, so in the final rule 

there was no reason to change this 

proposed description to specifically list 

counties. Therefore, we are now revising 

the statement in the November 7, 2011, 

final rule preamble to be consistent with 

the description in the April 7, 2011, 

proposal by removing the references to 

Morris, Sussex, Warren, and Hunterdon 

Counties. The statement will now read, 

‘‘The EPA also modeled the emissions 

from Portland using the AERMOD 

dispersion model and determined that 

the modeled concentrations from 

Portland, when combined with the 

relatively low background 

concentrations, cause violations of the 

1-hour SO2 NAAQS in New Jersey.’’ 

Similarly, in the rule text, Part 52— 

[Amended], Subpart NN–Pennsylvania, 

section 52.2039 in 40 CFR part 52, of the 

final rule, the EPA inadvertently 

referred to those same four counties in 

describing the finding of significant 

contribution to nonattainment and 

interference with maintenance of the 1- 

hour SO2 NAAQS. The provision reads, 

‘‘The EPA has made a finding pursuant 

to section 126 of the Clean Air Act (the 

Act) that emissions of sulfur dioxide 

(SO2) from the Portland Generating 

Station in Northampton County, Upper 

Mount Bethel Township, Pennsylvania 

(Portland) significantly contribute to 

nonattainment and interfere with 

maintenance of the 1-hour SO2 national 

ambient air quality standard (NAAQS) 

in Morris, Sussex, Warren, and 

Hunterdon Counties in New Jersey.’’ We 

are revising the rule text so that it now 

reads, ‘‘The EPA has made a finding 

pursuant to section 126 of the Clean Air 

Act (the Act) that emissions of sulfur 

dioxide (SO2) from the Portland 

Generating Station in Northampton 

County, Upper Mount Bethel Township, 

Pennsylvania (Portland) significantly 

contribute to nonattainment and 

interfere with maintenance of the 1-hour 

SO2 national ambient air quality 

standard (NAAQS) in New Jersey.’’ 

Although the New Jersey Department 

of Environmental Protection (NJDEP) 

modeling analysis submitted with the 

September 2010 petition identified 

NAAQS violations at receptors in 

certain counties, the purpose of the EPA 

modeling was not to identify or 

corroborate the entire geographic 

footprint of the violations in New Jersey. 

The EPA modeling analysis was 

conducted for the purpose of 

corroborating the existence of NAAQS 

violations in New Jersey caused by 

Portland and for determining the 

remedy needed to eliminate all NAAQS 

violations caused by Portland. The EPA 

modeling thus focused upon identifying 

only the area where the maximum 

concentration was expected to occur. 

We used the same receptor grid for the 

final rule as for the proposed rule, 

which was focused on the area of 

maximum impacts occurring in Warren 

County, New Jersey. The remedy was 

determined by assessing the emission 

reduction needed to eliminate the 

maximum modeled violation in New 

Jersey, which occurs in close proximity 

to Portland in Warren County. There 

was no need to make an assessment of 

impacts at all locations within New 

Jersey since eliminating the NAAQS 

violations at the highest impacted 

receptor provided the basis for the 

remedy which, by its nature, would 

eliminate all modeled violations caused 

by Portland in the entire state. 

Therefore, the EPA finding pursuant to 

section 126 of the Clean Air Act (the 

Act) applies to New Jersey generally. 

The revision finalized in this rule is 

consistent with NJDEP’s request for a 

finding that emissions from Portland 

significantly contribute to 

nonattainment or interfere with 

maintenance of the 1-hour SO2 NAAQS 

in New Jersey. The revision is also 

consistent with the language in sections 

110 and 126 of the Act which is phrased 

such that the petitioner can request a 

finding that a source in one state is 

significantly contributing to 


jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 246 / Thursday, December 22, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 79543 

nonattainment or interfering with 

maintenance of the NAAQS in another 

state. The addition of the counties was 

neither necessary nor intentional and 

did not arise from a request from the 

petitioner or any other commenter. 

The revision finalized in this rule will 

not affect the emission limits, 

increments of progress, compliance 

schedules, or the reporting provisions 

specified in the November 7, 2011, final 

rule. No adjustments to the existing 

modeling or other technical analyses 

and no new analyses were necessary to 

make the revisions. Accordingly, we are 

publishing this direct final rule because 

we view this as a noncontroversial 

action and anticipate no adverse 

comment. The revisions do not change 

the conclusions that the EPA made in 

the final rule. Therefore, the EPA is not 

revising any other aspect of the rule 

published on November 7, 2011. 

III. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory 

Planning and Review and Executive 

Order 13563: Improving Regulation and 

Regulatory Review 

This action simply revises minor 

wording errors in the November 7, 2011 

rule. This action corrects a response to 

a petition that is narrow in scope and 

affects a single facility. This type of 

action is exempt from review under 

Executive Orders12866 (58 FR 51735, 

October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, 

January 21, 2011). 

B. Paperwork Reduction Act 

This action does not impose an 

information collection burden under the 

provisions of the Paperwork Reduction 

Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq., because this 

rule under section 126 of the CAA will 

not in-and-of itself create any new 

information collection burdens but 

simply revises minor wording errors in 

the November 7, 2011, rule. Burden is 

defined at 5 CFR 1320.3(b). 

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) 

The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) 

generally requires an agency to prepare 

a regulatory flexibility analysis of any 

rule subject to notice and comment 

rulemaking requirements under the 

Administrative Procedure Act or any 

other statute unless the agency certifies 

that the rule will not have a significant 

economic impact on a substantial 

number of small entities. Small entities 

include small businesses, small 

organizations, and small governmental 

jurisdictions. 

For purposes of assessing the impacts 

of this rule on small entities, small 

entity is defined as: (1) A small business 

as defined by the Small Business 

Administration’s (SBA) regulations at 13 

CFR 121.201; (2) a small governmental 

jurisdiction that is a government of a 

city, county, town, school district or 

special district with a population of less 

than 50,000; and (3) a small 

organization that is any not-for-profit 

enterprise which is independently 

owned and operated and is not 

dominant in its field. 

After considering the economic 

impacts of this rule on small entities, I 

certify that this action will not have a 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities. 

The revisions in this notice do not 

impose any new requirements on small 

entities. These revisions clarify the 

EPA’s finding that Portland significantly 

contributes to nonattainment or 

interferes with maintenance of the 

1-hour SO2 NAAQS in the State of New 

Jersey, and not in specific counties 

within the state. 

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

This action does not contain a federal 

mandate that may result in expenditures 

of $100 million or more for state, local, 

and tribal governments, in the aggregate, 

or the private sector in any 1 year. This 

action includes minor wording revisions 

to the November 7, 2011, final rule in 

this notice that are not expected to 

exceed $100 million or more for state, 

local, and tribal governments, in 

aggregate, or the private sector in any 1 

year. This action simply revises minor 

wording errors in the November 7, 2011, 

rule. These revisions clarify the EPA’s 

finding that Portland significantly 

contributes to nonattainment or 

interferes with maintenance of the 

1-hour SO2 NAAQS in the State of New 

Jersey, and not in specific counties 

within the state. Thus, this rule is not 

subject to the requirements of sections 

202 or 205 of UMRA. 

This rule is also not subject to the 

requirements of section 203 of UMRA 

because it contains no regulatory 

requirements that might significantly or 

uniquely affect small governments. 

Again, this action simply revises minor 

wording errors in the November 7, 2011, 

rule. These revisions clarify the EPA’s 

finding that Portland significantly 

contributes to nonattainment or 

interferes with maintenance of the 

1-hour SO2 NAAQS in the State of New 

Jersey, and not in specific counties 

within the state. 

E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism 

This action does not have federalism 

implications. It will not have substantial 

direct effects on the 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, as specified in 

Executive Order 13132. The November 

2011 rule primarily affects private 

industry, and does not impose 

significant economic costs on state or 

local governments. This action simply 

revises minor wording errors in the 

November 7, 2011, rule. These revisions 

clarify the EPA’s finding that Portland 

significantly contributes to 

nonattainment or interferes with 

maintenance of the 1-hour SO2 NAAQS 

in the State of New Jersey, and not in 

specific counties within the state. Thus, 

Executive Order 13132 does not apply 

to this action. 

F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation 

and Coordination With Indian Tribal 

Governments 

This action does not have tribal 

implications, as specified in Executive 

Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 

2000). It will not have a substantial 

direct effect on tribal governments, on 

the relationship between the federal 

government and Indian tribes, or the 

distribution of power and 

responsibilities between the federal 

government and Indian Tribes. This 

action simply revises minor wording 

errors in the November 7, 2011, rule. 

These revisions clarify the EPA’s 

finding that Portland significantly 

contributes to nonattainment or 

interferes with maintenance of the 1- 

hour SO2 NAAQS in the State of New 

Jersey, and not in specific counties 

within the state. Thus, Executive Order 

13175 does not apply to this action. 

G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of 

Children From Environmental Health 

and Safety Risks 

This action is not subject to EO 13045 

(62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997) because 

it is not economically significant as 

defined in EO 12866, and because the 

agency does not believe the 

environmental health or safety risks 

addressed by this action present a 

disproportionate risk to children. This 

action simply revises minor wording 

errors in the November 7, 2011, rule. 

These revisions clarify the EPA’s 

finding that Portland significantly 

contributes to nonattainment or 

interferes with maintenance of the 1- 

hour SO2 NAAQS in the State of New 

Jersey, and not in specific counties 

within the state. 


jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with RULES
79544 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 246 / Thursday, December 22, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 

H. Executive Order 13211: Actions That 

Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution, or Use 

This action is not subject to Executive 

Order 13211 (66 FR 28355 (May 22, 

2001)), because it is not a significant 

regulatory action under Executive Order 

12866. 

I. National Technology Transfer and 

Advancement Act 

Section 12(d) of the National 

Technology Transfer and Advancement 

Act of 1995 (‘‘NTTAA’’), Public Law 

104–113, 12(d) (15 U.S.C. 272 note) 

directs the EPA to use voluntary 

consensus standards in its regulatory 

activities unless to do so would be 

inconsistent with applicable law or 

otherwise impractical. Voluntary 

consensus standards are technical 

standards (e.g., materials specifications, 

test methods, sampling procedures, and 

business practices) that are developed or 

adopted by voluntary consensus 

standards bodies. NTTAA directs the 

EPA to provide Congress, through OMB, 

explanations when the agency decides 

not to use available and applicable 

voluntary consensus standards. 

This rulemaking does not involve 

technical standards. Therefore, the EPA 

is not considering the use of any 

voluntary consensus standards. 

J. Executive Order 12898: Federal 

Actions To Address Environmental 

Justice in Minority Populations and 

Low-Income Populations 

Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, 

February 16, 1994), establishes federal 

executive policy on environmental 

justice. Its main provision directs 

federal agencies, to the greatest extent 

practicable and permitted by law, to 

make environmental justice part of their 

mission by identifying and addressing, 

as appropriate, disproportionately high 

and adverse human health or 

environmental effects of their programs, 

policies, and activities on minority 

populations and low-income 

populations in the United States. 

The EPA has determined that this rule 

will not have disproportionately high 

and adverse human health or 

environmental effects on minority or 

low-income populations because it 

increases the level of environmental 

protection for all affected populations 

without having any disproportionately 

high and adverse human health or 

environmental effects on any 

population, including any minority or 

low-income population. This action is 

not subject to EO 13045 (62 FR 19885, 

April 23, 1997) because it is not 

economically significant as defined in 

EO 12866, and because the agency does 

not believe the environmental health or 

safety risks addressed by this action 

present a disproportionate risk to 

children. This action simply revises 

minor wording errors in the November 

7, 2011, rule. These revisions clarify the 

EPA’s finding that Portland significantly 

contributes to nonattainment or 

interferes with maintenance of the 1- 

hour SO2 NAAQS in the State of New 

Jersey, and not in specific counties 

within the state. 

K. Congressional Review Act 

The Congressional Review Act, 5 

U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the Small 

Business Regulatory Enforcement 

Fairness Act of 1996, generally provides 

that before a rule may take effect, the 

agency promulgating the rule must 

submit a rule report, which includes a 

copy of the rule, to each House of the 

Congress and to the Comptroller General 

of the United States. Section 804 

exempts from section 801 the following 

types of rules: (1) Rules of particular 

applicability; (2) rules relating to agency 

management or personnel; and (3) rules 

of agency organization, procedure, or 

practice that do not substantially affect 

the rights or obligations of non-agency 

parties. 5 U.S.C. 804(3). The EPA is not 

required to submit a rule report 

regarding today’s action under section 

801 because this is a rule of particular 

applicability. Nonetheless, this action 

will be effective March 21, 2012. 

L. Judicial Review 

Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, 

petitions for judicial review of this 

action must be filed in the United States 

Court of Appeals for the District of 

Columbia Circuit Court within 60 days 

from the date the final action is 

published in the Federal Register. 

Filing a petition for review by the 

Administrator of this final action does 

not affect the finality of this action for 

the purposes of judicial review nor does 

it extend the time within which a 

petition for judicial review must be 

final, and shall not postpone the 

effectiveness of such action. 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 

Environmental protection, 

Administrative practice and procedures, 

Air pollution control, Incorporation by 

reference, Intergovernmental relations, 

and Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements, Sulfur dioxide. 

Dated: December 14, 2011. 

Lisa P. Jackson, 

Administrator. 

For the reasons set forth in the 

preamble part 52 of chapter I of title 40 

of the Code of Federal regulations are 

amended as follows: 

PART 52—[AMENDED] 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 52 

continues to read as follows: 

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

Subpart NN—Pennsylvania [Amended] 

■ 2. Section 52.2039 is amended by 

revising the introductory text to read as 

follows: 

§ 52.2039 Interstate transport. 

The EPA has made a finding pursuant 

to section 126 of the Clean Air Act (the 

Act) that emissions of sulfur dioxide 

(SO2) from the Portland Generating 

Station in Northampton County, Upper 

Mount Bethel Township, Pennsylvania 

(Portland) significantly contribute to 

nonattainment and interfere with 

maintenance of the 1-hour SO2 national 

ambient air quality standard (NAAQS) 

in New Jersey. The owners and 

operators of Portland shall comply with 

the requirements in paragraphs (a) 

through (d) of this section. 

* * * * * 

[FR Doc. 2011–32652 Filed 12–21–11; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND 

SECURITY 

Coast Guard 

46 CFR Parts 10, 11, 12, and 15 

[Docket No. USCG–2011–0465] 

Processing of Merchant Mariner 

Credentials for Those Mariners Not 

Requiring a Transportation Worker 

Identification Credential 

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS. 

ACTION: Notice of availability. 

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard announces 

the availability of Policy Letter 11–15, 

which describes steps the Coast Guard 

is taking to implement a statutory 

change in mariner credentialing 

requirements. This policy letter details 

how the Coast Guard is relaxing its 

Transportation Worker Identification 

Credential (TWIC) enforcement posture 

for mariners who serve on board vessels 

that are not required to have a vessel 

security plan. It also describes policy 

changes to allow these mariners to 

acquire and renew a Merchant Mariner 

Credential (MMC) without holding a 

valid TWIC. 

DATES: This policy is effective upon 

publication of this notice. 


jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with RULES