### 6676 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 25 / Friday, February 6, 2015 / Proposed Rules

13 See, e.g., EPA’s disapproval of a SIP submission from Colorado on the grounds that it would have included a director’s discretion provision inconsistent with CAA requirements, including section 110(a)(2)(A). See, e.g., 75 FR 42342 at 42344 (July 21, 2010) (proposed disapproval of director’s discretion provisions); 76 FR 4540 (January 26, 2011) (final disapproval of such provisions). among the statutory bases that EPA relies upon in the course of addressing such deficiency in a subsequent action. 13 IV. Summary of EPA’s Rationale for Proposing Approval

In this rulemaking action, EPA is proposing approval of the Commonwealth’s four infrastructure SIP submittals for the 2008 ozone, 2010 NO 2, 2010 SO 2, and 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS as addressing requirements in section 110(a)(2)(A), (B), (C), (D)(i)(II) (prevention of significant deterioration), (D)(ii), (E), (F), (G), (H), (J), (K), (L), and (M) of the CAA. A detailed analysis of EPA’s review and rationale for proposing to approve the four infrastructure SIP submittals as addressing these CAA requirements may be found in the Technical Support Document (TSD) for this proposed rulemaking action which is available on line at www.regulations.gov, Docket ID Number EPA–R03–OAR–2014–0910. EPA is not taking rulemaking action at this time on the portion of the infrastructure SIP submittals which address section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) (visibility protection) for the four NAAQS. EPA will take later rulemaking action on these submittals regarding section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) (visibility protection).

EPA is soliciting public comments on the issues discussed in this document. These comments will be considered before taking final action. V. Proposed Action

EPA is proposing to approve the Commonwealth’s infrastructure submittals dated July 15, 2014 for the 2008 ozone, the 2010 NO 2 , the 2010 SO 2, and the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS respectively, as meeting the requirements of section 110(a)(2) of the CAA, including specifically section 110(a)(2)(A), (B), (C), (D)(i)(II) (prevention of significant deterioration), (D)(ii), (E), (F), (G), (H), (J), (K), (L), and (M) for the four NAAQS with the exception of the requirements related to section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) (visibility protection). The Commonwealth’s infrastructure SIP submissions for the four NAAQS did not include provisions addressing CAA 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) and therefore EPA is not taking any action on section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) for any of the four NAAQS. The Commonwealth’s infrastructure SIP submissions for the four NAAQS also did not include provisions addressing section 110(a)(2)(I) for any nonattainment requirements of part D, Title I of the CAA, because this element is not required to be submitted by the 3 year submission deadline of CAA section 110(a)(1). EPA is also not taking action at this time on the portions of the four infrastructure SIP submittals intended to address section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) (visibility protection). EPA will take later separate action on the portion of the infrastructure SIP submittals addressing CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) (visibility protection) for the four NAAQS. VI. 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 rulemaking action, pertaining to Pennsylvania’s section 110(a)(2) infrastructure requirements for the 2008 ozone, the 2010 NO 2, the 2010 SO 2, and 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS 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, Incorporation by reference, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Particulate matter, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur oxides, Volatile organic compounds.

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq. Dated: January 13, 2015. William C. Early, Acting Regional Administrator, Region III.

[FR Doc. 2015–02482 Filed 2–5–15; 8:45 am]

**BILLING CODE 6560–50–P**

**ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY** 

**40 CFR Part 63**

**[EPA–HQ–OAR–2014–0471 [FRL–9922–13– OAR]** 

**RIN 2060–AS26**

**Petition To Add n-Propyl Bromide to the List of Hazardous Air Pollutants** 

**AGENCY :**  Environmental Protection Agency.

**ACTION :**  Receipt of a complete petition.

**SUMMARY :**  The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is announcing the receipt of a complete petition requesting that the EPA add the chemical n-Propyl Bromide (nPB) (Chemical Abstract Service No. 106–94– 5) to the list of hazardous air pollutants (HAP) contained in section 112(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act (CAA). On October 28, 2010 and November 28, 2012, the Halogenated Solvent Industry Alliance (HSIA) submitted a petition to list nPB as a HAP and a supplement to the petition, respectively. In addition, on


### 6677 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 25 / Friday, February 6, 2015 / Proposed Rules

November 24, 2011, the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC) submitted a petition to add nPB to the HAP list. We have determined that these petitions are complete for purposes of this process, which means they provide sufficient information to assess the human health impacts on people living in the vicinity of facilities emitting nPB. Today’s document initiates our comprehensive technical review phase of the petition process. The EPA invites the public to comment on these petitions and to provide additional data, beyond what are in these petitions, on sources, emissions, exposure, health effects and environmental impacts associated with nPB that may be relevant to our technical review. These petitions and supporting information are available through Docket ID EPA–HQ–OAR– 2014–0471. Following completion of the technical review phase that is initiated by today’s notice and runs through the EPA’s evaluation of all the comments received, the EPA will decide whether to grant or deny the petitions.

**DATES :**  Comments. Comments must be received on or before March 9, 2015.

**ADDRESSES :**  Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA–HQ– OAR–2014–0471, by one of the following methods:

• Federal eRulemaking Portal: http:// www.regulations.gov. Follow the online instructions for submitting comments.

• Email: a-and-r-docket@epa.gov, include Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–OAR– 2014–0471 in the subject line of the

message.

• Fax: (202) 566–9744, Attention Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2014–

0471.

• Mail: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, EPA Docket Center (EPA/DC), Mail Code 28221T, Attention Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2014– 0471, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20460. Please include a total of two copies. In addition, please mail a copy of your comments on the information collection provisions to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget (OMB), Attn: Desk Officer for EPA, 725 17th Street NW., Washington, DC 20503.

• Hand/Courier Delivery: EPA Docket Center, Room 3334, EPA WJC West Building, 1301 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20004, Attention Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2014– 0471. 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: All submissions must include agency name and docket number or Regulatory Information Number (RIN) for this rulemaking. Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2014–0471. The EPA’s policy is that all comments received will be included in the public docket and may be made available online at: http://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 http:// www.regulations.gov or email. The http://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 http:// 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, 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.regulations.gov.

Docket: The EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2014–0471. All documents in the docket are listed in the http://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 form. Publicly available docket materials are available either electronically at: http://www.regulations.gov, or in hard copy at the EPA Docket Center, EPA WJC West Building, 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. John Schaefer, U.S. EPA, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, Sector Policies and Programs Division, Policies and Strategies Group (D205–02), Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711; telephone number: (919) 541– 0296; fax number: (919) 541–5600; email address: schaefer.john@epa.gov.

**SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION :** 

Organization of This Document. The following outline is provided to aid in locating information in this preamble.

I. General Information

A. What should I consider as I prepare my

comments for EPA? B. Where can I get a copy of this

document? II. Background Information for Petitions Received by the EPA A. What is the list of hazardous air

pollutants? B. What is a listing petition? C. How does the EPA review a petition to

list a HAP? D. How is the decision to list a HAP made? III. Completeness Determination and Request for Public Comment IV. Description of the Petitions

I. General Information A. What should I consider as I prepare my comments for EPA?

Submitting CBI. Do not submit information that you consider to be CBI electronically through http:// www.regulations.gov or email. Send or deliver information identified as CBI to only the following address: OAQPS Document Control Officer (Room C404– 02), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711, Attn: Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2014–0471.

Clearly mark the part or all of the information that you claim to be CBI. For CBI information in a disk or CD– ROM that you mail to the EPA, mark the outside of the disk or CD–ROM as CBI and then identify electronically within the disk or CD–ROM the specific information that is claimed as CBI. In addition to one complete version of the comment that includes information claimed as CBI, a copy of the comment that does not contain the information claimed as CBI must be submitted for inclusion in the public docket. If you submit a CD–ROM or disk that does not contain CBI, mark the outside of the disk or CD–ROM clearly that it does not contain CBI. Information marked as CBI will not be disclosed except in


### 6678 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 25 / Friday, February 6, 2015 / Proposed Rules

accordance with procedures set forth in 40 CFR part 2.

If you have any questions about CBI or the procedures for claiming CBI, please consult the person identified in the **FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT** section. B. Where can I get a copy of this document?

In addition to being available in the docket, electronic copies of this notice will be available on the World Wide Web through the Technology Transfer Network (TTN). Following signature, a copy of this proposed rule will be posted on the TTN’s Air Toxics Web site at the following address: http:// www.epa.gov/ttn/atw/pollutants/ atwsmod.html. II. Background Information for Petitions Received by the EPA A. What is the list of hazardous air pollutants?

The HAPs, which can be found in CAA section 112(b)(1), is a list of a wide variety of organic and inorganic substances released from large and small industrial operations, fossil fuelcombustion, gasoline and dieselpowered vehicles, and many other sources. These HAPs have been associated with a wide variety of adverse health effects, including cancer, neurological effects, reproductive effects and developmental effects. The health effects associated with various HAPs may differ depending upon the toxicity of the individual HAP and the particular circumstances of exposure, such as the amount of chemical present, the length of time a person is exposed, and the stage in life of the person when the

exposure occurs. B. What is a listing petition?

CAA section 112(b)(3)(A) specifies that any person may petition the Administrator to modify, by addition or deletion, the list of HAPs contained in CAA section 112(b)(1). The EPA Administrator is required under CAA section 112(b)(3)(A) to either grant or deny a petition to list a specific HAP within 18 months of the receipt of a petition to add a substance to the HAP list. CAA section 112(b)(3)(B) says the, ‘‘Administrator shall add a substance to the list upon a showing by the petitioner or on the Administrator’s own determination that the substance is an air pollutant and that emissions, ambient concentrations, bioaccumulation or deposition of the substance are known to cause or may reasonably be anticipated to cause adverse effects to human health or adverse environmental effects.’’ The addition of a HAP to the list in CAA section 112(b)(1) brings sources emitting HAP into consideration in the EPA’s program to promulgate national technology-based emissions control standards. This technology-based standards program is commonly referred to as the maximum achievable control technology (MACT) program. C. How does the EPA review a petition to list a HAP?

The petition review process consists of two phases: A completeness determination and a technical review. During the completeness determination, the EPA conducts a broad review of the petition to determine whether all of the necessary subject areas are addressed. In addition, the EPA determines if adequate data, analyses, and evaluation are included for each subject area. Once the petition is determined to be complete, the EPA places a notice of receipt of a complete petition in the Federal Register. That notice announces a public comment period on the petition and starts the technical review phase of our decision-making process. The technical review determines whether the petition has satisfied the necessary requirements and can support a decision to list the HAP. All comments and data submitted during the public comment period are considered during the technical review.

D. How is the decision to list a HAP made?

The decision to either grant or deny a petition is made after a comprehensive technical review of both the petition and the information received from the public to determine whether the petition satisfies the requirements of CAA section 112(b)(3)(B). If the Administrator decides to grant a petition, a proposal will be published in the Federal Register announcing that decision and the opportunity for public comment. That notice would propose a modification of the HAP list and present the reasoning for doing so. However, if the Administrator decides to deny a petition, a notice setting forth an explanation of the reasons for denial will be published in the Federal Register instead. A notice of denial constitutes final agency action of nationwide scope and applicability and is subject to judicial review as provided in CAA section 307(b). III. Completeness Determination and Request for Public Comment

The EPA Administrator is required under CAA section 112(b)(3)(A) to either grant or deny a petition to list a specific HAP within 18 months of the receipt of a petition. On October 28, 2010, we received a petition from the HSIA to add nPB to the HAP list. Because of incomplete emissions estimates, modeling procedures and a lack of sufficient citations supporting adverse human health effects, the EPA determined that the petition was incomplete and requested that the petitioner provide additional information. On November 30, 2012, the petitioner submitted supplemental information and data addressing the EPA’s concerns regarding the completeness of the petition. Additionally, on November 24, 2011, the NYSDEC submitted a petition to add nPB to the HAP list.

After reviewing these petitions and supplemental information, we have determined that all of the necessary subject areas for a human health and environmental risk assessment have been addressed and, therefore, the petitions are ready for technical review. Today’s notice initiates our comprehensive technical review of the petition and invites public comment on the substance of the petitions as described above. IV. Description of the Petitions

These petitions contain the following information:

• Background data on nPB including chemical properties, physical properties, production data, and use data;

• Toxicological data describing the human health and environmental effects of nPB;

• Atmospheric dispersion modeling that provides estimates of nPB concentrations adjacent to facilities that emit it; and

• Characterization of risks to human health due to emissions of nPB.

Based on the chemical and physical properties of nPB, petitioners claim that nPB is carcinogenic, has toxic reproductive effects, and is a neurotoxin. HSIA’s petition estimated cancer incidence by estimating emissions from five facilities that use nPB. HSIA also used the site-specific data as input for air dispersion modeling to develop anticipated lifetime cancer risk that would occur beyond facility boundaries. Neither HSIA nor NYSDEC provided estimates of anticipated chronic or acute adverse health impacts in people living near nPB-emitting facilities, although such effects were identified in the scientific literature referenced by both petitioners.

We invite the public to comment on the technical merits of these petitions and to submit any information that may


### 6679 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 25 / Friday, February 6, 2015 / Proposed Rules

impact the EPA’s ultimate decision to grant or deny these requests to list nPB as a HAP.

Dated: January 21, 2015. Janet G. McCabe, Acting Assistant Administrator for Air and Radiation.

[FR Doc. 2015–01705 Filed 2–5–15; 8:45 am]

**BILLING CODE 6560–50–P**

**DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY** 

**Coast Guard**

**33 CFR Parts 140, 143, and 146**

**46 CFR Parts 61 and 62**

**[USCG–2014–0063]**

**RIN 1625–AC16**

**Requirements for MODUs and Other Vessels Conducting Outer Continental**  **Shelf Activities With Dynamic Positioning Systems—Comment**  **Period Extension**

**AGENCY :**  Coast Guard, DHS.

**ACTION :**  Notice.

**SUMMARY :**  The Coast Guard is extending for 90 days the comment period for the notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) entitled ‘‘Requirements for MODUs and Other Vessels Conducting Outer Continental Shelf Activities With Dynamic Positioning Systems’’ published on November 28, 2014. This extension is necessary to allow sufficient time for the Coast Guard to hold a public meeting and receive any subsequent public comments on the NPRM.

**DATES :**  Comments and related material must either be submitted to our online docket via http://www.regulations.gov on or before May 27, 2015 or reach the Docket Management Facility by that date.

**ADDRESSES :**  You may submit comments identified by docket number USCG– 2014–0481 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 and Request for Comments’’ portion of the

**SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION** section below for instructions on submitting

comments.

**FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT :**  If you have questions on this notice, call or email LT Stephanie Waller, Human Element and Ship Design Division, Commandant (CG–ENG–1), Coast Guard; telephone 202–372–1374, email Stephanie.E.Waller@uscg.mil, or fax 202–372–8380. If you have questions on viewing or submitting material to the docket, call Ms. Cheryl Collins, Program Manager, Docket Operations, telephone

202–366–9826.

**SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION :**  I. Public Participation and Request for Comments

We encourage you to participate in this rulemaking by submitting comments and related materials. All comments received will be posted without change to http:// www.regulations.gov and will include any personal information you have provided. A. Submitting Comments

If you submit a comment, please include the docket number for this rulemaking (USCG–2014–0063), indicate the specific section of this document to which each comment applies, 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 phone 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–2014–0063’’ in the ‘‘Search’’ box. Click on ‘‘Submit a Comment’’ in the ‘‘Actions’’ column. If you submit your comments by mail or hand delivery, submit them in an unbound format, no larger than 8 1 ⁄ 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 and may change this notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) based on your comments. B. Viewing Comments and Documents
To view comments, as well as documents mentioned in this preamble as being available in the docket, go to http://www.regulations.gov and insert ‘‘USCG–2014–0063’’ in the ‘‘Search’’ box. Click ‘‘Search.’’ Click the ‘‘Open Docket Folder’’ in the ‘‘Actions’’ column. 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.
C. 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 notice regarding our public dockets in the January 17, 2008 issue of the Federal Register (73 FR 3316). II. Background and Purpose

The Coast Guard published a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) in the Federal Register on November 28, 2014 entitled, ‘‘Requirements for MODUs and Other Vessels Conducting Outer Continental Shelf Activities With Dynamic Positioning Systems’’ (79 FR 70943). The proposed rule would establish minimum design, operation, training, and manning standards for mobile offshore drilling units (MODUs) and other vessels using dynamic positioning systems to engage in Outer Continental Shelf activities. Establishing these minimum standards is necessary to improve the safety of people and property involved in such operations, and the protection of the environment in which they operate. The rule would decrease the risk of a loss of position by a dynamically-positioned MODU or other vessel that could result in a fire, explosion, or subsea spill, and support the Coast Guard’s strategic goals of maritime safety and protection of natural resources.

In the NPRM, we stated our intention to hold a public meeting, and to publish a notice to announce the location and date of that meeting (79 FR 70944). In order to allow sufficient time for the Coast Guard to hold such a meeting and receive any subsequent public comments on the NPRM, we are