44000 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 142 / Friday, July 24, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

compliance, please submit a comment 

(see ADDRESSES) explaining why you 

think it qualifies and how and to what 

degree this rule would economically 

affect it. 

The Coast Guard will not retaliate 

against small entities that question or 

complain about this proposed rule or 

any policy or action of the Coast Guard. 

4. Collection of Information 

This proposed rule would call for no 

new collection of information under the 

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 

U.S.C. 3501–3520.). 

5. Federalism 

A rule has implications for federalism 

under Executive Order 13132, 

Federalism, if it has a substantial direct 

effect 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. We have 

analyzed this proposed rule under that 

Order and have determined that it does 

not have implications for federalism. 

6. Protest Activities 

The Coast Guard respects the First 

Amendment rights of protesters. 

Protesters are asked to contact the 

person listed in the FOR FURTHER

INFORMATION CONTACT section to 

coordinate protest activities so that your 

message can be received without 

jeopardizing the safety or security of 

people, places or vessels. 

7. 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 one year. Though this 

proposed rule would not result in such 

an expenditure, we do discuss the 

effects of this rule elsewhere in this 

preamble. 

8. Taking of Private Property 

This proposed rule would 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. 

9. Civil Justice Reform 

This proposed 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. 

10. Protection of Children From 

Environmental Health Risks 

We have analyzed this proposed rule 

under Executive Order 13045, 

Protection of Children from 

Environmental Health Risks and Safety 

Risks. This rule is not an economically 

significant rule and would not create an 

environmental risk to health or risk to 

safety that might disproportionately 

affect children. 

11. Indian Tribal Governments 

This proposed rule does not have 

tribal implications under Executive 

Order 13175, Consultation and 

Coordination with Indian Tribal 

Governments, because it would 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. 

12. Energy Effects 

We have analyzed this proposed rule 

under Executive Order 13211, Actions 

Concerning Regulations That 

Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution, or Use. 

13. Technical Standards 

This proposed rule does not use 

technical standards. Therefore, we did 

not consider the use of voluntary 

consensus standards. 

14. Environment 

We have analyzed this proposed rule 

under Department of Homeland 

Security Management Directive 023–01 

and Commandant Instruction 

M16475.lD, which guide the Coast 

Guard in complying with the National 

Environmental Policy Act of 1969 

(NEPA) 42 U.S.C. 4321–4370f), and have 

made a preliminary determination that 

this action is one of a category of actions 

which do not individually or 

cumulatively have a significant effect on 

the human environment. This proposed 

rule involves the establishment of a 

safety zone around an OCS facility to 

protect life, property and the marine 

environment. This proposed rule is 

categorical excluded from further 

review, under figure 2–1, paragraph 

(34)(g), of the Commandant Instruction. 

A preliminary environmental analysis 

checklist supporting this determination 

and the Categorical Exclusion 

Determination are available in the 

docket where indicated under 

ADDRESSES. We seek any comments or 

information that may lead to the 

discovery of a significant environmental 

impact from this proposed rule. 

List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 147 

Continental shelf, Marine safety, 

Navigation (water). 

For the reasons discussed in the 

preamble, the Coast Guard proposes to 

amend 33 CFR part 147 as follows: 

PART 147—SAFETY ZONES 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 147 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 14 U.S.C. 85; 43 U.S.C. 1333; 

and Department of Homeland Security 

Delegation No. 0170.1. 

■ 2. Add § 147.865 to read as follows: 

§ 147.865 Titan SPAR Facility Safety Zone. 

(a) Description. The Titan SPAR 

system is in the deepwater area of the 

Gulf of Mexico at Mississippi Canyon 

941. The facility is located at 28°02′02′′ 

N. 89°06′04′′ W. and the area within 500 

meters (1640.4 feet) from each point on 

the facility structure’s outer edge is a 

safety zone. 

(b) Regulation. No vessel may enter or 

remain in this safety zone except the 

following: 

(1) An attending vessel; 

(2) A vessel under 100 feet in length 

overall not engaged in towing; or 

(3) A vessel authorized by the 

Commander, Eighth Coast Guard 

District. 

Dated: June 7, 2015. 

David R. Callahan, 

Rear Admiral, U.S. Coast Guard, Commander, 

Eighth Coast Guard District. 

[FR Doc. 2015–18202 Filed 7–23–15; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 9110–04–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R06–OAR–2015–0172; FRL–9931–08– 

Region 6] 

Approval and Promulgation of Air 

Quality Implementation Plans; New 

Mexico; Electronic Reporting 

Consistent With the Cross Media 

Electronic Reporting Rule 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA) is proposing to approve a 

State Implementation Plan (SIP) 

revision submitted by the State of New 

Mexico. The revision pertains primarily 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 142 / Friday, July 24, 2015 / Proposed Rules 44001 

to electronic reporting and would 

require electronic reporting of 

documents submitted for compliance 

with Clean Air Act (CAA) requirements. 

The revision also includes other 

changes which are non-substantive and 

primarily address updates to New 

Mexico Environment Department 

(NMED) document viewing locations. 

DATES: Written comments should be 

received on or before August 24, 2015. 

ADDRESSES: Comments may be mailed to 

Mr. Guy Donaldson, Chief, Air Planning 

Section (6PD–L), Environmental 

Protection Agency, 1445 Ross Avenue, 

Suite 1200, Dallas, Texas 75202–2733. 

Comments may also be submitted 

electronically or through hand delivery/ 

courier by following the detailed 

instructions in the ADDRESSES section of 

the direct final rule located in the rules 

section of this Federal Register. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Sherry Fuerst, 214–665–6454, 

fuerst.sherry@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In the 

final rules section of this Federal 

Register, EPA is approving the State’s 

SIP submittal as a direct rule without 

prior proposal because the Agency 

views this as noncontroversial submittal 

and anticipates no adverse comments. A 

detailed rationale for the approval is set 

forth in the direct final rule. If no 

relevant adverse comments are received 

in response to this action no further 

activity is contemplated. If EPA receives 

relevant adverse comments, the direct 

final rule will be withdrawn and all 

public comments received will be 

addressed in a subsequent final rule 

based on this proposed rule. EPA will 

not institute a second comment period. 

Any parties interested in commenting 

on this action should do so at this time. 

For additional information, see the 

direct final rule which is located in the 

rules section of this Federal Register. 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, Incorporation by 

reference, Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements. 

Dated: July 10, 2015. 

Ron Curry, 

Regional Administrator, Region 6. 

[FR Doc. 2015–18097 Filed 7–23–15; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R09–OAR–2015–0257; FRL–9931–04– 

Region 9] 

Approval of Air Plans; California; 

Multiple Districts; Prevention of 

Significant Deterioration 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: The EPA is proposing 

approval of five permitting rules 

submitted for inclusion in the California 

State Implementation Plan (SIP). The 

State of California (State) is required 

under the Clean Air Act (CAA or Act) 

to adopt and implement a SIP-approved 

Prevention of Significant Deterioration 

(PSD) permit program. This SIP revision 

proposes to incorporate PSD rules for 

five local California air districts into the 

SIP to establish a PSD permit program 

for pre-construction review of certain 

new and modified major stationary 

sources in attainment and unclassifiable 

areas. The local air districts with PSD 

rules that are the subject of this proposal 

are the Feather River Air Quality 

Management District (Feather River or 

FRAQMD), Great Basin Unified Air 

Pollution Control District (Great Basin 

or GBUAPCD), Butte County Air Quality 

Management District (Butte or 

BCAQMD), Santa Barbara County Air 

Pollution Control District (Santa Barbara 

or SBAPCD), and San Luis Obispo 

County Air Pollution Control District 

(San Luis Obispo or SLOAPCD)— 

collectively, the Districts. We are 

soliciting public comment on this 

proposal and plan to follow with a final 

action after consideration of comments 

received. 

DATES: Any comments must be 

submitted no later than August 24, 

2015. 

ADDRESSES: Submit comments, 

identified by docket number EPA–R09– 

OAR–2015–0257, by one of the 

following methods: 

1. Federal eRulemaking Portal: 

www.regulations.gov. Follow the online 

instructions. 

2. Email: R9airpermits@epa.gov. 

3. Mail or deliver: Lisa Beckham (Air– 

3), U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency Region IX, 75 Hawthorne Street, 

San Francisco, CA 94105–3901. 

Instructions: All comments 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 

Confidential Business Information (CBI) 

or other information the disclosure of 

which is restricted by statute. 

Information that you consider CBI or 

otherwise protected should be clearly 

identified as such and should not be 

submitted through www.regulations.gov 

or email. www.regulations.gov is an 

‘‘anonymous access’’ system, and the 

EPA will not know your identity or 

contact information unless you provide 

it in the body of your comment. If you 

send email directly to the EPA, your 

email address will be automatically 

captured and included as part of the 

public comment. 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. 

Docket: The index to the docket for 

this proposed action is available 

electronically at www.regulations.gov, 

docket number EPA–R09–OAR–2015– 

0257, and in hard copy at EPA Region 

IX, 75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, 

California. While all documents in the 

docket are listed in the index, some 

information may be publicly available 

only at the hard copy location (e.g., 

copyrighted material), and some may 

not be publicly available in either 

location (e.g., CBI). To inspect the hard 

copy materials, please schedule an 

appointment during normal business 

hours with the contact listed in the FOR

FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section 

below. Due to building security 

procedures, appointments must be 

scheduled at least 48 hours in advance. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Lisa 

Beckham, Permits Office (AIR–3), U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency, 

Region IX, (415) 972–3811, 

beckham.lisa@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

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

and ‘‘our’’ refer to the EPA. 

Table of Contents 

I. The State’s Submittal 

A. What rules did the State submit? 

B. Are there other versions of these rules? 

C. What is the purpose of the submitted 

rules? 

II. The EPA’s Evaluation and Action 

A. How is the EPA evaluating these rules? 

B. Do the rules meet the evaluation 

criteria? 

C. Significant impact levels and significant 

monitoring concentrations for PM2.5.

D. Greenhouse Gases 

E. Transfer of existing permits issued by 

the EPA 

F. Public comment and proposed action 

III. Incorporation by Reference 

IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS