11992 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 39 / Tuesday, February 28, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

B. Do the rules meet the evaluation 

criteria? 

We believe these rules are consistent 

with the relevant policy and guidance 

regarding enforceability, RACT, RACM 

and SIP relaxations. The TSDs have 

more information on our evaluation. 

C. EPA Recommendations To Further 

Improve the Rules 

The TSDs describe additional rule 

revisions that we recommend for the 

next time the local agencies modify the 

rules but are not currently the basis for 

rule disapproval. 

D. Public Comment and Final Action 

Because EPA believes the submitted 

rules fulfill all relevant requirements, 

we are proposing to fully approve them 

as described in section 110(k)(3) of the 

Act. We will accept comments from the 

public on this proposal for the next 30 

days. Unless we receive convincing new 

information during the comment period, 

we intend to publish a final approval 

action that will incorporate these rules 

into the federally enforceable SIP. 

III. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

Under the Clean Air Act, the 

Administrator is required to approve a 

SIP submission that complies with the 

provisions of the Act 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 Clean Air Act. 

Accordingly, this proposed 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 Clean Air Act; 

and 

• Does not provide EPA with the 

discretionary authority to address 

disproportionate human health or 

environmental effects with practical, 

appropriate, and legally permissible 

methods under Executive Order 12898 

(59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994). 

In addition, this proposed action 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, Intergovernmental 

relations, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, 

Particulate matter, Reporting and 

recordkeeping requirements. 

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

Dated: February 15, 2012. 

Jared Blumenfeld, 

Regional Administrator, Region IX. 

[FR Doc. 2012–4729 Filed 2–27–12; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R09–OAR–2012–0089; FRL–9638–5] 

Revisions to the California State 

Implementation Plan, Mojave Desert 

Air Quality Management District 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: EPA is proposing a limited 

approval and limited disapproval of 

revisions to the Mojave Desert Air 

Quality Management District 

(MDAQMD) portion of the California 

State Implementation Plan (SIP). These 

revisions concern oxides of nitrogen 

(NOX) emissions from stationary gas 

turbines. We are proposing action on a 

local rule that regulates these emission 

sources under the Clean Air Act as 

amended in 1990 (CAA or the Act). We 

are taking comments on this proposal 

and plan to follow with a final action. 

DATES: Any comments must arrive by 

March 29, 2012. 

ADDRESSES: Submit comments, 

identified by docket number EPA–R09– 

OAR–2012–0089, by one of the 

following methods: 

1. Federal eRulemaking Portal: www.

regulations.gov. Follow the on-line 

instructions. 

2. Email: steckel.andrew@epa.gov. 

3. Mail or deliver: Andrew Steckel 

(Air-4), 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 whose disclosure 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 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 EPA, your email address will 

be automatically captured and included 

as part of the public comment. 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. 

Docket: Generally, documents in the 

docket for this action are available 

electronically at www.regulations.gov 

and in hard copy at EPA Region IX, 75 

Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, 

California. While all documents in the 

docket are listed at www.regulations.

gov, some information may be publicly 

available only at the hard copy location 

(e.g., copyrighted material, large maps), 

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. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Idalia Perez, EPA Region IX, (415) 972– 

3248. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

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

and ‘‘our’’ refer to EPA. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 39 / Tuesday, February 28, 2012 / Proposed Rules 11993 

Table of Contents 

I. The State’s Submittal 

A. What rule did the State submit? 

B. Are there other versions of this rule? 

C. What is the purpose of the submitted 

rule? 

II. EPA’s Evaluation and Action 

A. How is EPA evaluating the rule? 

B. Does the rule meet the evaluation 

criteria? 

C. What are the rule deficiencies? 

D. EPA Recommendations to Further 

Improve the Rule 

E. Proposed Action and Public Comment 

III. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

I. The State’s Submittal 

A. What rule did the State submit? 

Table 1 lists the rule addressed by this 

proposal with the dates that it was 

adopted by the local air agency and 

submitted by the California Air 

Resources Board (CARB). 

TABLE 1—SUBMITTED RULE

Local agency Rule No. Rule title Amended Submitted 

MDAQMD ........................................................ 1159 Stationary Gas Turbines ................................ 09/28/09 05/17/10 

On June 8, 2010, the submittal for 

MDAQMD Rule 1159 was found to meet 

the completeness criteria in 40 CFR Part 

51 Appendix V, which must be met 

before formal EPA review. 

B. Are there other versions of this rule? 

We approved an earlier version of 

Rule 1159 into the SIP on April 9, 1996 

(61 FR 15719). 

C. What is the purpose of the submitted 

rule? 

NOX helps produce ground-level 

ozone, smog and particulate matter, 

which harm human health and the 

environment. Section 110(a) of the CAA 

requires States to submit regulations 

that control NOX emissions. Rule 1159 

regulates emissions of NOX and carbon 

monoxide (CO) from non-utility 

stationary gas turbine systems with 

ratings equal to or greater than 0.3 

megawatts (MW). EPA’s technical 

support document (TSD) has more 

information about this rule. 

II. EPA’s Evaluation and Action 

A. How is EPA evaluating the rule? 

Generally, SIP rules must be 

enforceable (see section 110(a) of the 

Act), must require Reasonably Available 

Control Technology (RACT) for each 

category of sources covered by a Control 

Techniques Guidelines (CTG) document 

as well as each major source in 

nonattainment areas (see sections 

182(a)(2) and 182(f)), and must not relax 

existing requirements (see sections 

110(l) and 193). In addition, SIP rules 

must implement Reasonably Available 

Control Measures (RACM), including 

RACT, in moderate PM nonattainment 

areas, and Best Available Control 

Measures (BACM), including Best 

Available Control Technology (BACT), 

in serious PM nonattainment areas (see 

CAA sections 189(a)(1) and 189(b)(1)). 

The MDAQMD regulates an ozone 

nonattainment area (see 40 CFR part 81), 

so Rule 1159 must fulfill RACT. In 

addition, the MDAQMD regulates a PM 

nonattainment area classified as 

moderate (see 40 CFR part 81), so Rule 

1159 must implement RACM. 

Guidance and policy documents that 

we use to evaluate enforceability, RACT 

and RACM requirements consistently 

include the following: 

1. ‘‘State Implementation Plans; 

General Preamble for the 

Implementation of Title I of the Clean 

Air Act Amendments of 1990,’’ 57 FR 

13498 (April 16, 1992); 57 FR 18070 

(April 28, 1992). 

2. ‘‘State Implementation Plans; 

Nitrogen Oxides Supplement to the 

General Preamble; Clean Air Act 

Amendments of 1990 Implementation of 

Title I; Proposed Rule,’’ (the NOX

Supplement), 57 FR 55620, November 

25, 1992. 

3. ‘‘Issues Relating to VOC Regulation 

Cutpoints, Deficiencies, and 

Deviations,’’ EPA, May 25, 1988 (the 

Bluebook). 

4. ‘‘Guidance Document for Correcting 

Common VOC & Other Rule 

Deficiencies,’’ EPA Region 9, August 21, 

2001 (the Little Bluebook). 

5. ‘‘State Implementation Plans for 

Serious PM–10 Nonattainment Areas, 

and Attainment Date Waivers for PM–10 

Nonattainment Areas Generally; 

Addendum to the General Preamble for 

the Implementation of Title I of the 

Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990,’’ 59 

FR 41998, August 16, 1994. 

6. ‘‘PM–10 Guideline Document,’’ 

EPA 452/R–93–008, April 1993. 

7. ‘‘Alternative Control Technology 

Document, NOX Emissions from 

Stationary Gas Turbines,’’ U.S. EPA, 

453/R–93–007, January 1993. 

9. ‘‘Determination of Reasonably 

Available Control Technology and Best 

Available Retrofit Control Technology 

for the Control of Oxides of Nitrogen 

from Stationary Gas Turbines,’’ 

California Air Resources Board, May 18, 

1992. 

10. ‘‘Status Report on NOX Controls 

for Gas Turbines, Cement Kilns, Boilers, 

and Internal Combustion Engines,’’ 

Northeast States for Coordinated Air 

Use Management, December 2000. 

B. Does the rule meet the evaluation 

criteria? 

Rule 1159 improves the SIP by 

establishing more stringent emission 

limits and expanding the applicability 

of the rule to include units in the 

attainment area of the District. The rule 

is largely consistent with the relevant 

policy and guidance regarding 

enforceability, RACT and SIP 

relaxations. Rule provisions which do 

not meet the evaluation criteria are 

summarized below and discussed 

further in the TSD. 

C. What are the rule deficiencies? 

The following provision conflicts 

with section 110 and part D of the Act 

and prevents full approval of the SIP 

revision. Section D.3 exempts the 

Southern California Gas Company 

General Electric Model Frame 3 turbine 

located in Kelso, California from testing 

requirements. This undermines 

enforceability of the rule which 

contradicts CAA requirements for 

enforceability. 

D. EPA Recommendations to Further 

Improve the Rule 

The TSD describes additional rule 

revisions that we recommend for the 

next time the local agency modifies the 

rule. 

E. Proposed Action and Public 

Comment 

As authorized in sections 110(k)(3) 

and 301(a) of the Act, EPA is proposing 

a limited approval of the submitted rule 

to improve the SIP. If finalized, this 

action would incorporate the submitted 

rule into the SIP, including those 

provisions identified as deficient. This 

approval is limited because EPA is 

simultaneously proposing a limited 

disapproval of the rule under section 

110(k)(3). Neither sanctions nor a 

Federal Implementation Plan (FIP) 

would be imposed should EPA finalize 

this limited disapproval. Sanctions 

would not be imposed under CAA 

179(b) because the deficiency pertains 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

11994 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 39 / Tuesday, February 28, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

to provisions of Rule 1159 that are 

discretionary (i.e., not required to be 

included in the SIP), and EPA would 

not promulgate a FIP in this instance 

under CAA 110(c)(1) because the 

disapproval does not reveal a deficiency 

in the SIP for the area that such a FIP 

must correct. Specifically, the 

disapproval pertains to requirements 

only applicable in the portion of the 

MDAQMD that is classified as 

attainment for ozone and which thus 

does not have RACT requirements per 

CAA 182(a)(2) and 182(f). Accordingly, 

the failure of the MDAQMD to adopt 

revisions to Rule 1159 would not 

adversely affect the SIP’s compliance 

with the CAA’s mandated requirements, 

such as the requirements for section 182 

ozone RACT, reasonable further 

progress, and attainment 

demonstrations. 

Note that the submitted rule has been 

adopted by the MDAQMD, and EPA’s 

final limited disapproval would not 

prevent the local agency from enforcing 

it. The limited disapproval also would 

not prevent any portion of the rule from 

being incorporated by reference into the 

federally enforceable SIP as discussed in 

a July 9, 1992 EPA memo found at: 

http://www.epa.gov/nsr/ttnnsr01/gen/

pdf/memo-s.pdf. 

We will accept comments from the 

public on the proposed limited approval 

and limited disapproval for the next 30 

days. 

III. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

A. Executive Order 12866, Regulatory 

Planning and Review 

The Office of Management and Budget 

(OMB) has exempted this regulatory 

action from Executive Order 12866, 

entitled ‘‘Regulatory Planning and 

Review.’’ 

B. Paperwork Reduction Act 

This action does not impose an 

information collection burden under the 

provisions of the Paperwork Reduction 

Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. Burden is 

defined at 5 CFR 1320.3(b). 

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act 

The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) 

generally requires an agency to conduct 

a regulatory flexibility analysis of any 

rule subject to notice and comment 

rulemaking requirements unless the 

agency certifies that the rule will not 

have a significant economic impact on 

a substantial number of small entities. 

Small entities include small businesses, 

small not-for-profit enterprises, and 

small governmental jurisdictions. 

This rule will not have a significant 

impact on a substantial number of small 

entities because SIP approvals or 

disapprovals under section 110 and 

subchapter I, part D of the Clean Air Act 

do not create any new requirements but 

simply approve or disapprove 

requirements that the State is already 

imposing. Therefore, because the 

proposed Federal SIP limited approval/ 

limited disapproval does not create any 

new requirements, I certify that this 

action will not have a significant 

economic impact on a substantial 

number of small entities. 

Moreover, due to the nature of the 

Federal-State relationship under the 

Clean Air Act, preparation of flexibility 

analysis would constitute Federal 

inquiry into the economic 

reasonableness of State action. The 

Clean Air Act forbids EPA to base its 

actions concerning SIPs on such 

grounds. Union Electric Co., v. U.S. 

EPA, 427 U.S. 246, 255–66 (1976); 42 

U.S.C. 7410(a)(2). 

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

Under sections 202 of the Unfunded 

Mandates Reform Act of 1995 

(Unfunded Mandates Act), signed into 

law on March 22, 1995, EPA must 

prepare a budgetary impact statement to 

accompany any proposed or final rule 

that includes a Federal mandate that 

may result in estimated costs to State, 

local, or tribal governments in the 

aggregate; or to the private sector, of 

$100 million or more. Under section 

205, EPA must select the most costeffective and least burdensome 

alternative that achieves the objectives 

of the rule and is consistent with 

statutory requirements. Section 203 

requires EPA to establish a plan for 

informing and advising any small 

governments that may be significantly 

or uniquely impacted by the rule. 

EPA has determined that the limited 

approval/limited disapproval action 

proposed does not include a Federal 

mandate that may result in estimated 

costs of $100 million or more to either 

State, local, or tribal governments in the 

aggregate, or to the private sector. This 

Federal action proposes to approve and 

disapprove pre-existing requirements 

under State or local law, and imposes 

no new requirements. Accordingly, no 

additional costs to State, local, or tribal 

governments, or to the private sector, 

result from this action. 

E. Executive Order 13132, Federalism 

Federalism (64 FR 43255, August 10, 

1999) revokes and replaces Executive 

Orders 12612 (Federalism) and 12875 

(Enhancing the Intergovernmental 

Partnership). Executive Order 13132 

requires EPA to develop an accountable 

process to ensure ‘‘meaningful and 

timely input by State and local officials 

in the development of regulatory 

policies that have federalism 

implications.’’ ‘‘Policies that have 

federalism implications’’ is defined in 

the Executive Order to include 

regulations that have ‘‘substantial direct 

effects on the States, on the relationship 

between the national government and 

the States, or on the distribution of 

power and responsibilities among the 

various levels of government.’’ Under 

Executive Order 13132, EPA may not 

issue a regulation that has federalism 

implications, that imposes substantial 

direct compliance costs, and that is not 

required by statute, unless the Federal 

government provides the funds 

necessary to pay the direct compliance 

costs incurred by State and local 

governments, or EPA consults with 

State and local officials early in the 

process of developing the proposed 

regulation. EPA also may not issue a 

regulation that has federalism 

implications and that preempts State 

law unless the Agency consults with 

State and local officials early in the 

process of developing the proposed 

regulation. 

This rule will not have substantial 

direct effects on the States, on the 

relationship between the national 

government and the States, or on the 

distribution of power and 

responsibilities among the various 

levels of government, as specified in 

Executive Order 13132, because it 

merely proposes to approve or 

disapprove a State rule implementing a 

federal standard, and does not alter the 

relationship or the distribution of power 

and responsibilities established in the 

Clean Air Act. Thus, the requirements of 

section 6 of the Executive Order do not 

apply to this rule. 

F. Executive Order 13175, Coordination 

With Indian Tribal Governments 

Executive Order 13175, entitled 

‘‘Consultation and Coordination with 

Indian Tribal Governments’’ (65 FR 

67249, November 9, 2000), requires EPA 

to develop an accountable process to 

ensure ‘‘meaningful and timely input by 

tribal officials in the development of 

regulatory policies that have tribal 

implications.’’ This proposed rule does 

not have tribal implications, as specified 

in Executive Order 13175. It will not 

have substantial direct effects on tribal 

governments, 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. 

Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not 

apply to this rule. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 39 / Tuesday, February 28, 2012 / Proposed Rules 11995 

1See, FMC Policy and Procedures Regarding 

Proper Consideration of Small Entities in 

Rulemakings (February 7, 2003). (Commission 

SBREFA Policy). See, http://www.fmc.gov/assets/1/ 

Page/SBREFA_Guidelines_2003.pdf. 

2Regulatory Flexibility Act, Pub. L. 96–354, 94 

Stat. 1164 (codified at 5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.). 

EPA specifically solicits additional 

comment on this proposed rule from 

tribal officials. 

G. Executive Order 13045, Protection of 

Children From Environmental Health 

Risks and Safety Risks 

EPA interprets Executive Order 13045 

(62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997) as 

applying only to those regulatory 

actions that concern health or safety 

risks, such that the analysis required 

under section 5–501 of the Executive 

Order has the potential to influence the 

regulation. This rule is not subject to 

Executive Order 13045, because it 

proposes to approve a State rule 

implementing a Federal standard. 

H. Executive Order 13211, Actions That 

Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution, or Use 

This rule is not subject to Executive 

Order 13211, ‘‘Actions Concerning 

Regulations That Significantly Affect 

Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use’’ (66 

FR 28355, May 22, 2001) because it is 

not a significant regulatory action under 

Executive Order 12866. 

I. National Technology Transfer and 

Advancement Act 

Section 12 of the National Technology 

Transfer and Advancement Act 

(NTTAA) of 1995 requires Federal 

agencies to evaluate existing technical 

standards when developing a new 

regulation. To comply with NTTAA, 

EPA must consider and use ‘‘voluntary 

consensus standards’’ (VCS) if available 

and applicable when developing 

programs and policies unless doing so 

would be inconsistent with applicable 

law or otherwise impractical. 

The EPA believes that VCS are 

inapplicable to this action. Today’s 

action does not require the public to 

perform activities conducive to the use 

of VCS. 

J. Executive Order 12898: Federal 

Actions To Address Environmental 

Justice in Minority Populations and 

Low-Income Population 

Executive Order (EO) 12898 (59 FR 

7629 (Feb. 16, 1994)) establishes federal 

executive policy on environmental 

justice. Its main provision directs 

federal agencies, to the greatest extent 

practicable and permitted by law, to 

make environmental justice part of their 

mission by identifying and addressing, 

as appropriate, disproportionately high 

and adverse human health or 

environmental effects of their programs, 

policies, and activities on minority 

populations and low-income 

populations in the United States. 

EPA lacks the discretionary authority 

to address environmental justice in this 

rulemaking. 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, Intergovernmental 

relations, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, 

Particulate matter, Reporting and 

recordkeeping requirements. 

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

Dated: February 15, 2012. 

Jared Blumenfeld, 

Regional Administrator, Region IX. 

[FR Doc. 2012–4737 Filed 2–27–12; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

FEDERAL MARITIME COMMISSION 

46 CFR Parts 501 and 540 

[Docket No. 11–16] 

RIN 3072–AC45 

Passenger Vessel Operator Financial 

Responsibility Requirements for NonPerformance of Transportation 

AGENCY: Federal Maritime Commission. 

ACTION: Proposed rule: Request for 

additional comments and information. 

SUMMARY: The Federal Maritime 

Commission requests additional 

comments and information in order to 

assist the Commission’s determination 

whether passenger vessel operators may 

be deemed ‘‘small entities’’ under the 

Regulatory Flexibility Act (as amended 

by the Small Business Regulatory 

Enforcement Fairness Act). 

DATES: Submit comments on or before 

March 30, 2012. 

ADDRESSES: Address all comments 

concerning this proposed rule to: Karen 

V. Gregory, Secretary, Federal Maritime 

Commission, 800 North Capitol Street 

NW., Washington, DC 20573–0001, 

Phone: (202) 523–5725, Email: 

secretary@fmc.gov. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Vern W. Hill, Director, Bureau of 

Certification and Licensing, 800 North 

Capitol Street NW., Washington, DC 

20573–0001, Phone: (202) 523–5787, 

Email: bcl@fmc.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Submit Comments 

Non-confidential Comments and 

Information. For non-confidential 

comments submit an original and five 

(5) paper copies, and if possible, send a 

PDF of the document by email to 

secretary@fmc.gov. Include in the 

subject line: Docket No. 11–16 and 

[Company/Individual Name]. 

Confidential Comments and 

Information. Confidential filings must 

be submitted in the traditional manner 

on paper, rather than by email. 

Comments and information that are 

submitted for confidential treatment 

must be submitted in hard copy by U.S. 

mail or courier. Confidential filings 

must be accompanied by a transmittal 

letter that identifies the filing as 

‘‘confidential’’ and describes the nature 

and extent of the confidential treatment 

requested. Responses to this Request 

that contain confidential information 

must consist of (1) the complete filing 

and (2) be marked by the filer as 

‘‘Confidential-Restricted,’’ with the 

confidential material clearly marked on 

each page. When a confidential filing is 

submitted, an original and one 

additional copy of the public version of 

the filing must be submitted. The public 

version of the filing should exclude 

confidential materials, and be clearly 

marked on each affected page, 

‘‘confidential materials excluded.’’ The 

Commission will provide confidential 

treatment to the extent allowed by law 

for those submissions, or parts of 

submissions, for which the parties 

request confidentiality. 

Questions regarding filing or 

treatment of confidential responses to 

this NPRM should be directed to the 

Commission’s Secretary, Karen V. 

Gregory, at the telephone number or 

email provided above. 

Discussion 

On September 13, 2011, the 

Commission issued its Notice of 

Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) to update 

its financial responsibility requirements 

for nonperformance of passenger vessel 

service by passenger vessel operators 

that are subject to section 3 of Public 

Law 89–777, 46 U.S.C. 44101–44106. 

The NPRM was published in the 

Federal Register on September 20, 2011. 

76 FR 58227–58236. 

In the NPRM, the Commission relied 

upon the rebuttable presumption 

established in 20031 that PVOs are 

generally large companies with more 

than 500 employees and noted that 

there are no PVO small entities that 

would be affected by the proposed rule. 

NPRM, p. 12. In addition, the 

Commission also provided the factual 

basis under the Regulatory Flexibility 

Act (RFA),2 as amended by the Small 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS