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

13See, 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 

NO2, 2010 SO2, 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 NO2, the 2010 

SO2, 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 NO2, the 2010 SO2, 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 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 25 / Friday, February 6, 2015 / Proposed Rules 6677 

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 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
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 fuel 

combustion, 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 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 25 / Friday, February 6, 2015 / Proposed Rules 6679 

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 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 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 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS