Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 174 / Friday, September 7, 2012 / Proposed Rules 55171 

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 proposed rule related 

to Virginia permits for major stationary 

sources and major modifications 

locating in PSD or Nonattainment Areas 

or the Ozone Transport Region 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, 

Intergovernmental relations, Lead, 

Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Particulate 

matter, Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements, Sulfur oxides, Volatile 

organic compounds. 

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

Dated: August 23, 2012. 

W.C. Early, 

Acting Regional Administrator, Region III. 

[FR Doc. 2012–22094 Filed 9–6–12; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R03–OAR–2012–0305; FRL–9724–9] 

Approval and Promulgation of Air 

Quality Implementation Plans; 

Maryland; Deferral for CO2 Emissions 

From Bioenergy and Other Biogenic 

Sources Under the Prevention of 

Significant Deterioration Program 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to approve 

a State Implementation Plan (SIP) 

revision submitted by the Maryland 

Department of the Environmental (MDE) 

on April 4, 2012. This revision proposes 

to defer until July 21, 2014 the 

application of the Prevention of 

Significant Deterioration (PSD) 

permitting requirements to biogenic 

carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions from 

bioenergy and other biogenic stationary 

sources in the State of Maryland. This 

action is being taken under the Clean 

Air Act (CAA). 

DATES: Written comments must be 

received on or before October 9, 2012. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket ID Number EPA– 

R03–OAR–2012–0305 by one of the 

following methods: 

A. www.regulations.gov. Follow the 

on-line instructions for submitting 

comments. 

B. Email: cox.kathleen@epa.gov. 

C. Mail: EPA–R03–OAR–2012–0305, 

Ms. Kathleen Cox, Associate Director, 

Office of Permits and Air Toxics, 

Mailcode 3AP10, U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency, Region III, 1650 

Arch Street, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 

19103. 

D. Hand Delivery: At the previouslylisted EPA Region III address. 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–R03–OAR–2012– 

0305. 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 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, i.e., CBI or other 

information whose disclosure is 

restricted by statute. Certain other 

material, such as copyrighted material, 

is not placed on the Internet and will be 

publicly available only in hard copy 

form. Publicly available docket 

materials are available either 

electronically in www.regulations.gov or 

in hard copy during normal business 

hours at the Air Protection Division, 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 

Region III, 1650 Arch Street, 

Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103. 

Copies of the State submittal are 

available at the Maryland Department of 

the Environment, 1800 Washington 

Boulevard, Suite 705, Baltimore, 

Maryland 21230. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. 

David Talley, (215) 814–2117, or by 

email at talley.david@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Throughout this document, whenever 

‘‘we,’’ ‘‘us,’’ or ‘‘our’’ is used, we mean 

EPA. On April 4, 2012, MDE submitted 

a revision (#12–02) to its State 

Implementation Plan (SIP) to maintain 

consistency with Federal greenhouse 

gas (GHG) permitting requirements 

under the PSD program. 

I. Background 

A. The Tailoring Rule 

On June 3, 2010 (effective August 2, 

2010), EPA promulgated a final 

rulemaking, the Tailoring Rule, for the 

purpose of relieving overwhelming 

permitting burdens from the regulation 

of GHG’s that would, in the absence of 

the rule, fall on permitting authorities 

and sources (75 FR 31514). EPA 

accomplished this by tailoring the 

applicability criteria that determine 

which GHG emission sources become 

subject to the PSD program of the CAA. 

In particular, EPA established in the 

Tailoring Rule a phase-in approach for 

PSD applicability and established the 

first two steps of the phase-in for the 

largest GHG-emitters. 

For the first step of the Tailoring Rule, 

which began on January 2, 2011, PSD 

requirements apply to major stationary 

source GHG emissions only if the 

sources are subject to PSD anyway due 

to their emissions of non-GHG 

pollutants. Therefore, in the first step, 

EPA did not require sources or 

modifications to evaluate whether they 

are subject to PSD requirements solely 

on account of their GHG emissions. 

Specifically, for PSD, Step 1 requires 

that as of January 2, 2011, the applicable 

requirements of PSD, most noticeably 

the best available control technology 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

55172 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 174 / Friday, September 7, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

1As with the Tailoring Rule, the Biomass Deferral 

addresses both PSD and Title V requirements. 

However, EPA is only taking action on Maryland’s 

PSD program as part of this action. 

(BACT) requirement as defined in CAA 

section 169(3), apply to projects that 

increase net GHG emissions by at least 

75,000 tons per year (tpy) of CO2

equivalent (CO2e), but only if the project 

also significantly increases emissions of 

at least one non-GHG pollutant. CO2e is 

a metric used to compare the emissions 

from various greenhouse gases based 

upon their global warming potential 

(GWP). The CO2e for a gas is determined 

by multiplying the mass of the gas by 

the associated GWP. The applicable 

GWP’s and guidance on how to 

calculate a source’s GHG emissions in 

tpy CO2e can be found in EPA’s 

‘‘Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse Gas 

Emissions and Sinks,’’ which is updated 

annually under existing commitment 

under the United Nations Framework 

Convention on Climate Change 

(UNFCCC). 

The second step of the Tailoring Rule, 

which began on July 1, 2011, phased in 

additional large sources of GHG 

emissions. New sources that emit, or 

have the potential to emit (PTE), at least 

100,000 tpy CO2e are subject to the PSD 

requirements. In addition, sources that 

emit or have the PTE at least 100,000 

tpy CO2e and that undertake a 

modification that increases net GHG 

emissions by at least 75,000 tpy CO2e 

are also be subject to PSD requirements. 

For both steps, EPA noted that if sources 

or modifications exceed these CO2eadjusted GHG triggers, they are not 

covered by permitting requirements 

unless their GHG emissions also exceed 

the corresponding mass-based triggers 

in tpy. 

Maryland implements its PSD 

program by incorporating 40 CFR 52.21 

by reference, under COMAR 

26.11.06.14B(1). This incorporation 

references a date specific version of the 

CFR and is updated periodically and 

submitted to EPA for approval into the 

SIP. In order to adopt the Tailoring 

Rule, Maryland’s previous update 

incorporated 40 CFR 52.21 ‘‘as 

published in the 2009 edition, as 

amended by the ‘Prevention of 

Significant Deterioration and Title V 

Greenhouse Gas Tailoring Rule’ (75 FR 

31514).’’ EPA approved this revision 

into the Maryland SIP on August 2, 

2012 (77 FR 45949). 

B. EPA’s Biomass Deferral Rule 

On July 20, 2011, EPA promulgated 

the final ‘‘Deferral for CO2 Emissions 

from Bioenergy and other Biogenic 

Sources Under the Prevention of 

Significant Deterioration (PSD) and Title 

V Programs’’ (Biomass Deferral). 

Following is a brief discussion of the 

deferral. For a full discussion of EPA’s 

rationale for the rule, see the notice of 

final rulemaking at 76 FR 43490. 

The biomass deferral delays until July 

21, 2014 the consideration of CO2

emissions from bioenergy and other 

biogenic sources (hereinafter referred to 

as ‘‘biogenic CO2 emissions’’) when 

determining whether a stationary source 

meets the PSD and Title V applicability 

thresholds, including those for the 

application of BACT 1. Stationary 

sources that combust biomass (or 

otherwise emit biogenic CO2 emissions) 

and construct or modify during the 

deferral period will avoid the 

application of PSD to the biogenic CO2

emissions resulting from those actions. 

The deferral applies only to biogenic 

CO2 emissions and does not affect nonGHG pollutants or other GHG’s (e.g., 

methane (CH4) and nitrous oxide (N2O)) 

emitted from the combustion of biomass 

fuel. Also, the deferral only pertains to 

biogenic CO2 emissions in the PSD and 

Title V programs and does not pertain 

to any other EPA programs such as the 

GHG Reporting Program. 

Biogenic CO2 emissions are defined as 

emissions of CO2 from a stationary 

source directly resulting from the 

combustion or decomposition of 

biologically-based materials other than 

fossil fuels and mineral sources of 

carbon. Examples of ‘‘biogenic CO2

emissions’’ include, but are not limited 

to: 

• CO2 generated from the biological 

decomposition of waste in landfills, 

wastewater treatment or manure 

management processes; 

• CO2 from the combustion of biogas 

collected from biological decomposition 

of waste in landfills, wastewater 

treatment or manure management 

processes; 

• CO2 from fermentation during 

ethanol production or other industrial 

fermentation processes; 

• CO2 from combustion of the 

biological fraction of municipal solid 

waste or biosolids; 

• CO2 from combustion of the 

biological fraction of tire-derived fuel; 

and 

• CO2 derived from combustion of 

biological material, including all types 

of wood and wood waste, forest residue, 

and agricultural material. 

EPA recognizes that use of certain 

types of biomass can be part of the 

national strategy to reduce dependence 

on fossil fuels. Efforts are underway at 

the Federal, state and regional level to 

foster the expansion of renewable 

resources and promote bioenergy 

projects when they are a way to address 

climate change, increase domestic 

alternative energy production, enhance 

forest management and create related 

employment opportunities. We believe 

part of fostering this development is to 

ensure that those feedstocks with 

negligible net atmospheric impact not 

be subject to unnecessary regulation. At 

the same time, it is important that EPA 

have time to conduct its detailed 

examination of the science and 

technical issues related to accounting 

for biogenic CO2 emissions and 

therefore have finalized this deferral. 

The deferral is intended to be a 

temporary measure, in effect for no 

more than three years, to allow the 

Agency time to complete its work and 

determine what, if any, treatment of 

biogenic CO2 emissions should be in the 

PSD and Title V programs. The biomass 

deferral rule is not EPA’s final 

determination on the treatment of 

biogenic CO2 emissions in those 

programs. The Agency plans to 

complete its science and technical 

review and any follow-on rulemakings 

within the three-year deferral period 

and further believes that three years is 

ample time to complete these tasks. It is 

possible that the subsequent 

rulemaking, depending on the nature of 

EPA’s determinations, would supersede 

the biomass deferral rulemaking and 

become effective in fewer than three 

years. In that event, Maryland may 

revise its SIP accordingly. 

For stationary sources co-firing fossil 

fuel and biologically-based fuel, and/or 

combusting mixed fuels (e.g., tire 

derived fuels, municipal solid waste 

(MSW)), the biogenic CO2 emissions 

from that combustion are included in 

the biomass deferral. However, the fossil 

CO2 emissions are not. Emissions of CO2

from processing of mineral feedstocks 

(e.g., calcium carbonate) are also not 

included in the deferral. Various 

methods are available to calculate both 

the biogenic and fossil portions of CO2

emissions, including those methods 

contained in the GHG Reporting 

Program (40 CFR Part 98). Consistent 

with the other pollutants in PSD and 

Title V, there are no requirements to use 

a particular method in determining 

biogenic and fossil CO2 emissions. 

EPA’s final biomass deferral rule is an 

interim deferral for biogenic CO2

emissions only and does not relieve 

sources of the obligation to meet the 

PSD and Title V permitting 

requirements for other pollutant 

emissions that are otherwise applicable 

to the source during the deferral period 

or that may be applicable to the source 

at a future date pending the results of 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 174 / Friday, September 7, 2012 / Proposed Rules 55173 

EPA’s study and subsequent rulemaking 

action. This means, for example, that if 

the deferral is applicable to biogenic 

CO2 emissions from a particular source 

during the three-year effective period 

and the study and future rulemaking do 

not provide for a permanent exemption 

from PSD and Title V permitting 

requirements for the biogenic CO2

emissions from a source with particular 

characteristics, then the deferral would 

end for that type of source and its 

biogenic CO2 emissions would have to 

be appropriately considered in any 

applicability determinations that the 

source may need to conduct for future 

stationary source permitting purposes, 

consistent with that subsequent 

rulemaking and the Final Tailoring Rule 

(e.g., a major source determination for 

Title V purposes or a major modification 

determination for PSD purposes). EPA 

also wishes to clarify that we do not 

require that a PSD permit issued during 

the deferral period be amended or that 

any PSD requirements in a PSD permit 

existing at the time the deferral took 

effect, such as BACT limitations, be 

revised or removed from an effective 

PSD permit for any reason related to the 

deferral or when the deferral period 

expires. 

Section 52.21(w) of 40 CFR requires 

that any PSD permit shall remain in 

effect, unless and until it expires or it 

is rescinded, under the limited 

conditions specified in that provision. 

Thus, a PSD permit that is issued to a 

source while the deferral was effective 

need not be reopened or amended if the 

source is no longer eligible to exclude 

its biogenic CO2 emissions from PSD 

applicability after the deferral expires. 

However, if such a source undertakes a 

modification that could potentially 

require a PSD permit and the source is 

not eligible to continue excluding its 

biogenic CO2 emissions after the 

deferral expires, the source will need to 

consider its biogenic CO2 emissions in 

assessing whether it needs a PSD permit 

to authorize the modification. 

Any future actions to modify, shorten, 

or make permanent the deferral for 

biogenic sources are beyond the scope 

of the biomass deferral action and this 

proposed approval of the deferral into 

the Maryland SIP, and will be addressed 

through subsequent rulemaking. The 

results of EPA’s review of the science 

related to net atmospheric impacts of 

biogenic CO2 and the framework to 

properly account for such emissions in 

Title V and PSD permitting programs 

based on the study are prospective and 

unknown. Thus, we are unable to 

predict which biogenic CO2 sources, if 

any, currently subject to the deferral as 

incorporated into the Maryland SIP 

would be subject to any permanent 

exemptions or which currently deferred 

sources would be potentially required to 

account for their emissions in the future 

rulemaking EPA has committed to 

undertake for such purposes in three or 

fewer years. Only in that rulemaking 

can EPA address the question of 

extending the deferral or putting in 

place requirements that would have the 

equivalent effect on sources covered by 

the biomass deferral. Once that 

rulemaking has occurred, Maryland may 

address related revisions to its SIP. 

II. Summary of SIP Revision 

Similar to our approach with the 

Tailoring Rule, EPA incorporated the 

biomass deferral into the regulations 

governing state programs and into the 

Federal PSD program by amending the 

definition of ‘‘subject to regulation’’ 

under 40 CFR sections 51.166 and 52.21 

respectively. As discussed above, 

Maryland implements its PSD program 

by incorporating section 52.21 by 

reference. This incorporation references 

a date specific version of the CFR and 

is updated periodically and submitted 

to EPA for approval into the SIP. In 

order to adopt the Biomass Deferral, 

Maryland has revised COMAR 

26.11.06.14B(1) to incorporate the 2009 

version of 40 CFR 52.21 ‘‘as amended 

by’’ the Tailoring Rule and the Biomass 

Deferral. Additionally, the definitions of 

‘‘PSD source’’ and greenhouse gas’’ at 

COMAR 26.11.01.01 and 26.11.02.01 

respectively have been revised to 

incorporate the Biomass Deferral. 

III. Proposed Action 

EPA’s review of this material 

indicates that it is consistent with 

Federal regulations. EPA is proposing to 

approve the Maryland SIP revision 

incorporating the Biomass Deferral, 

which was submitted on April 4, 2012. 

EPA is soliciting public comments on 

this proposed approval of Maryland’s 

SIP revision request. These comments 

will be considered before taking final 

action. 

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 

CAA 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 action 

merely proposes to approve 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’’ subject to review by the Office 

of Management and Budget under 

Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, 

October 4, 1993); 

• 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); 

• 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 proposed rule 

relating to the Biomass Deferral and 

GHG permitting under Maryland’s PSD 

program 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, 

Intergovernmental relations, Lead, 

Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Particulate 

matter, Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements, Sulfur oxides, Volatile 

organic compounds. 

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

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

55174 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 174 / Friday, September 7, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

Dated: August 23, 2012. 

W.C. Early, 

Acting Regional Administrator, Region III. 

[FR Doc. 2012–22098 Filed 9–6–12; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND 

SECURITY 

Coast Guard 

46 CFR Part 10 

[Docket No. USCG–2012–0734] 

Medical Waivers for Merchant Mariner 

Credential Applicants With AntiTachycardia Devices or Implantable 

Cardioverter Defibrillators 

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS. 

ACTION: Notice of proposed policy 

change and request for comments. 

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard is seeking 

public comment regarding criteria for 

granting medical waivers to mariners 

who have anti-tachycardia devices or 

implantable cardioverter defibrillators 

(ICDs). Current Coast Guard guidance 

found in Navigation and Vessel 

Inspection Circular 04–08, Medical and 

Physical Evaluation Guidelines for 

Merchant Mariner Credentials (NVIC 

04–08), states that anti-tachycardia 

devices or ICDs are generally not 

waiverable. The Coast Guard is 

considering changing that policy. Prior 

to issuing a policy change on whether 

to grant waivers for anti-tachycardia 

devices or ICDs and the criteria for such 

waivers, the Coast Guard will accept 

comments from the public on whether 

the proposed criteria would adequately 

address safety concerns regarding 

merchant mariners with ICDs. 

DATES: Comments and related material 

must either be submitted to our online 

docket via http://www.regulations.gov 

on or before October 9, 2012 or reach 

the Docket Management Facility by that 

date. 

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments 

identified by docket number USCG– 

2011–0734 using any one of the 

following methods: 

(1) Federal eRulemaking Portal: 

http://www.regulations.gov. 

(2) Fax: 202–493–2251. 

(3) Mail: Docket Management Facility 

(M–30), U.S. Department of 

Transportation, West Building Ground 

Floor, Room W12–140, 1200 New Jersey 

Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590– 

0001. 

(4) Hand delivery: Same as mail 

address above, between 9 a.m. and 5 

p.m., Monday through Friday, except 

Federal holidays. The telephone number 

is 202–366–9329. 

To avoid duplication, please use only 

one of these four methods. See the 

‘‘Public Participation’’ portion of the 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section 

below for instructions on submitting 

comments. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If 

you have questions about this notice, 

call or email Lieutenant Ashley Holm, 

Mariner Credentialing Program Policy 

Division (CG–CVC–4), U.S. Coast Guard, 

telephone 202–372–1128, email 

MMCPolicy@uscg.mil. If you have 

questions on viewing material in the 

docket, call Renee V. Wright, Program 

Manager, Docket Operations, telephone 

202–366–9826. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Public Participation 

You may submit comments and 

related material regarding whether this 

proposed policy change should be 

incorporated into a final policy on 

issuing medical waivers to mariners 

with ICDs. All comments received will 

be posted, without change, to http:// 

www.regulations.gov and will include 

any personal information you have 

provided. 

Submitting comments: If you submit a 

comment, please include the docket 

number for this notice (USCG–2012– 

0734) and provide a reason for each 

suggestion or recommendation. You 

may submit your comments and 

material online or by fax, mail or hand 

delivery, but please use only one of 

these means. We recommend that you 

include your name and a mailing 

address, an email address, or a 

telephone number in the body of your 

document so that we can contact you if 

we have questions regarding your 

submission. 

To submit your comment online, go to 

http://www.regulations.gov and insert 

‘‘USCG–2012–0734’’ in the ‘‘Search’’ 

box. Click ‘‘Search,’’ find this notice in 

the list of Results, and then click on the 

corresponding ‘‘Comment Now’’ box. If 

you submit your comments by mail or 

hand delivery, submit them in an 

unbound format, no larger than 81⁄2 by 

11 inches, suitable for copying and 

electronic filing. If you submit 

comments by mail and would like to 

know that they reached the Facility, 

please enclose a stamped, self-addressed 

postcard or envelope. We will consider 

all comments and material received 

during the comment period. 

Viewing the comments: To view 

comments, as well as documents 

mentioned in this notice as being 

available in the docket, go to http:// 

www.regulations.gov and insert ‘‘USCG– 

2012–0734’’ in the ‘‘Search’’ box. Click 

‘‘Search’’ and use the filters on the left 

side of the page to highlight ‘‘Public 

Submissions’’ or other document types. 

If you do not have access to the Internet, 

you may view the docket online by 

visiting the Docket Management Facility 

in Room W12–140 on the ground floor 

of the Department of Transportation 

West Building, 1200 New Jersey Avenue 

SE., Washington, DC 20590, between 9 

a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through 

Friday, except Federal holidays. We 

have an agreement with the Department 

of Transportation to use the Docket 

Management Facility. 

Privacy Act: Anyone can search the 

electronic form of comments received 

into any of our dockets by the name of 

the individual submitting the comment 

(or signing the comment, if submitted 

on behalf of an association, business, 

labor union, etc.). You may review a 

Privacy Act system of records notice 

regarding our public dockets in the 

January 17, 2008 issue of the Federal 

Register (73 FR 3316). 

Background and Purpose 

Coast Guard regulations in 46 CFR 

10.215 contain the medical standards 

that merchant mariners must meet prior 

to being issued a merchant mariner 

credential (MMC). In cases where the 

mariner does not meet the medical 

standards in 46 CFR 10.215, the Coast 

Guard may issue a waiver when 

extenuating circumstances exist that 

warrant special consideration. See 46 

CFR 10.215(g). 

In NVIC 04–08, the Coast Guard states 

that anti-tachycardia devices and ICDs 

are generally not waiverable. Since the 

issuance of NVIC 04–08 on September 

15, 2008, a number of mariners have 

sought and received waivers for antitachycardia devices or ICDs in 

accordance with 46 CFR 10.215(g). 

However, because NVIC 04–08 does not 

identify waiver criteria associated with 

anti-tachycardia devices or ICDs, it has 

been difficult for Coast Guard personnel 

to consistently evaluate merchant 

mariners with anti-tachycardia devices 

or ICDs and assess whether an 

applicant’s medical condition warrants 

granting a medical waiver under 46 CFR 

10.215(g). Accordingly, the Coast Guard 

is considering whether to change its 

policy regarding waivers for antitachycardia devices or ICDs, and under 

what criteria a mariner may be eligible 

for waiver consideration. 

The Coast Guard intends to consider 

public input as well as the 

recommendations of the Merchant 

Mariner Medical Advisory Committee, 

established under the authority of 46 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS