17326 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 62 / Wednesday, April 1, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 

6. 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 rule 

will not result in such an expenditure, 

we do discuss the effects of this rule 

elsewhere in this preamble. 

7. Taking of Private Property 

This rule will 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. 

8. Civil Justice Reform 

This 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. 

9. Protection of Children 

We have analyzed this rule under 

Executive Order 13045, Protection of 

Children from Environmental Health 

Risks and Safety Risks. This rule is not 

an economically significant rule and 

does not create an environmental risk to 

health or risk to safety that might 

disproportionately affect children. 

10. Indian Tribal Governments 

This rule does not have tribal 

implications under Executive Order 

13175, Consultation and Coordination 

with Indian Tribal Governments, 

because it does 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. 

11. Energy Effects 

This action is not a ‘‘significant 

energy action’’ under Executive Order 

13211, Actions Concerning Regulations 

That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution, or Use. 

12. Technical Standards 

This rule does not use technical 

standards. Therefore, we did not 

consider the use of voluntary consensus 

standards. 

13. Environment 

We have analyzed this rule under 

Department of Homeland Security 

Management Directive 023–01 and 

Commandant Instruction M16475.lD, 

which guides the Coast Guard in 

complying with the National 

Environmental Policy Act of 1969 

(NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321–4370f), and 

have concluded that this action is one 

of a category of actions that do not 

individually or cumulatively have a 

significant effect on the human 

environment. This rule involves 

removing drawbridge operating 

regulations. This rule is categorically 

excluded, under figure 2–1, paragraph 

(32)(e), of the Instruction. 

Under figure 2–1, paragraph (32)(e), of 

the Instruction, an environmental 

analysis checklist and a categorical 

exclusion determination are not 

required for this rule. 

List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 117 

Bridges. 

For the reasons discussed in the 

preamble, the Coast Guard amends 33 

CFR part 117 as follows: 

PART 117—DRAWBRIDGE 

OPERATION REGULATIONS 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 117 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 33 U.S.C. 499; 33 CFR 1.05–1; 

Department of Homeland Security Delegation 

No. 0170.1. 

§ 117.639 [Removed] 

■ 2. Remove § 117.639. 

Dated: March 19, 2015. 

F. M. Midgette, 

Rear Admiral, U. S. Coast Guard, 

Commander, Ninth Coast Guard District. 

[FR Doc. 2015–07318 Filed 3–31–15; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 9110–04–P 

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND 

SECURITY 

Coast Guard 

33 CFR Parts 161 and 164 

[Docket No. USCG–2005–21869] 

RIN 1625–AA99 

Vessel Requirements for Notices of 

Arrival and Departure, and Automatic 

Identification System 

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS. 

ACTION: Correcting amendments. 

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard published a 

final rule in the Federal Register on 

January 30, 2015, to expand the 

applicability of notice of arrival and 

automatic identification system (AIS) 

requirements and make related 

amendments regarding AIS. In that rule 

there is an error in the definition of 

Vessel Traffic Service (VTS) User and 

one in the AIS applicability regulation. 

This rule corrects those errors. 

DATES: This rule is effective April 1, 

2015. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If 

you have questions on this rule, call or 

email call or email Mr. Jorge Arroyo, 

Office of Navigation Systems (CG–NAV– 

2), Coast Guard; telephone 202–372– 

1563, email Jorge.Arroyo@uscg.mil. 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: 

Viewing Documents Associated With 

This Rule 

To view the final rule published on 

January 30, 2015 (80 FR 5282), or other 

documents in the docket for this 

rulemaking, go to www.regulations.gov, 

type the docket number, USCG–2005– 

21869, in the ‘‘SEARCH’’ box and click 

‘‘SEARCH.’’ Click on ‘‘Open Docket 

Folder’’ in the first item listed. Use the 

following link to go directly to the 

docket: www.regulations.gov/

#!docketDetail;D=USCG-2005-21869. 

Background 

On January 30, 2015, the Coast Guard 

published a final rule to expand the 

applicability of notice of arrival and 

automatic identification system (AIS) 

requirements and make related 

amendments regarding AIS. 80 FR 5282. 

We have identified two errors in this 

correction document. 

In the final rule, we revised the 

definition of ‘‘VTS User’’ (Vessel Traffic 

Service User) in 33 CFR 161.2. 80 FR 

5334. Paragraph (3) of that definition 

should only have included vessels 

required to install and use a Coast 

Guard type-approved AIS, instead the 

definition included all vessels equipped 

with a Coast Guard type-approved AIS 

whether it is required or not. The 

definition published in the final rule is 

inconsistent with the discussion in the 

preambles of both the NPRM and final 

rule which encourage all vessel owners 

to use AIS. 73 FR 76295, 76301, 

December 16, 2008; and 80 FR 5311, 

Jan. 30, 2015. The definition of ‘‘VTS 

User’’ in the final rule is also 

inconsistent with our authority to 

impose VTS User requirements. 

Also in the final rule at paragraph 

(b)(1)(iii) of 33 CFR 164.46, we omitted 

the word ‘‘self-propelled’’ when 

describing vessels certificated to carry 

more than 150 passengers that are 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 62 / Wednesday, April 1, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 17327 

1 79 FR 58302–58309. 

2 79 FR 64160. 

3Letter from Nathan Miller (NPCA) to Thomas 

Webb (EPA) dated November 29, 2014. 

required to have on board a properly 

installed, operational Coast Guard typeapproved AIS Class A device. 80 FR 

5335. As indicated in the final rule 

preamble (80 FR 5307, January 30, 2015) 

and the NPRM proposed rule (73 FR 

76317, December 16, 2008), we intended 

to limit the applicability of 

§ 164.46(b)(1)(iii) to self-propelled 

vessels. 

Need for Corrections 

As discussed above, the published 

definition of ‘‘VTS User’’ in 33 CFR 

161.2 and AIS applicability paragraph 

(b)(1)(iii) in § 164.46 each contain an 

error which is misleading and needs to 

be corrected. 

List of Subjects 

33 CFR Part 161 

Harbors, Navigation (water), 

Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements, Vessels, Waterways. 

33 CFR Part 164 

Incorporation by reference, Marine 

safety, Navigation (water), Reporting 

and recordkeeping requirements, 

Waterways. 

Accordingly, 33 CFR parts 161 and 

164 are corrected by making the 

following correcting amendments: 

PART 161—VESSEL TRAFFIC 

MANAGEMENT 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 161 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 33 U.S.C. 1223, 1231; 46 U.S.C. 

70114, 70119; Pub. L. 107–295, 116 Stat. 

2064; Department of Homeland Security 

Delegation No. 0170.1. 

■ 2. In § 161.2, add the word ‘‘required’’ 

before the words ‘‘Coast Guard’’ in 

paragraph (3) of the definition of ‘‘VTS 

User.’’ 

PART 164–NAVIGATION SAFETY 

REGULATIONS 

■ 3. The authority citation for part 164 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 33 U.S.C. 1222(5), 1223, 1231; 

46 U.S.C. 2103, 3703; E.O. 12234, 45 FR 

58801, 3 CFR, 1980 Comp., p. 277; 

Department of Homeland Security Delegation 

No. 0170.1. Sec. 164.13 also issued under 46 

U.S.C. 8502. Sec. 164.46 also issued under 46 

U.S.C. 70114 and Sec. 102 of Pub. L. 107– 

295. Sec. 164.61 also issued under 46 U.S.C. 

6101. 

■ 4. In § 164.46(b)(1)(iii), add the word 

‘‘self-propelled’’ before the word 

‘‘vessel’’. 

Dated: March 25, 2015. 

K. Kroutil, 

Chief, Office of Regulations and 

Administrative Law, U.S. Coast Guard. 

[FR Doc. 2015–07228 Filed 3–31–15; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 9110–04–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R09–OAR–2014–0586; FRL–9924–64– 

Region 9] 

Approval and Promulgation of State 

Implementation Plans; California; 

Regional Haze Progress Report 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency. 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA) is approving a revision to 

the California Regional Haze (RH) State 

Implementation Plan (SIP) submitted by 

the California Air Resources Board 

(CARB) documenting that the State’s 

existing plan is making adequate 

progress to achieve visibility goals by 

2018. The revision consists of the 

California Regional Haze Plan 2014 

Progress Report that addresses the 

Regional Haze Rule (RHR) requirements 

under the Clean Air Act (CAA) to 

describe progress in achieving visibility 

goals in Federally designated Class I 

areas in California and nearby states. 

EPA is taking final action to approve 

California’s determination that the 

existing RH SIP is adequate to meet 

these visibility goals and requires no 

substantive revision at this time. 

DATES: Effective date: This rule is 

effective May 1, 2015. 

ADDRESSES: EPA has established docket 

number EPA–R09–OAR–2014–0586 for 

this action. Generally, documents in the 

docket are available electronically at 

http://www.regulations.gov or in hard 

copy at EPA Region 9, 75 Hawthorne 

Street, San Francisco, California. Please 

note that while many of the documents 

in the docket are listed at http://

www.regulations.gov, some information 

may be publicly available only at the 

hard copy location (e.g., copyrighted 

material, large maps, multi-volume 

reports, or otherwise voluminous 

materials), and some may not be 

available at either location (e.g., 

confidential business information). To 

inspect the hard copy materials that are 

publicly available, please schedule an 

appointment during normal business 

hours with the contact listed directly 

below. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Thomas Webb, U.S. EPA, Region 9, 

Planning Office, Air Division, AIR–2, 75 

Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, CA 

94105. Thomas Webb may be reached at 

telephone number (415) 947–4139 and 

via electronic mail at webb.thomas@

epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Table of Contents 

I. Overview of Proposed Action 

II. Public Comments and EPA Responses 

III. Summary of Final Action 

IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

I. Overview of Proposed Action 

EPA proposed on September 29, 2014, 

to approve the California Regional Haze 

Plan 2014 Progress Report (‘‘Progress 

Report’’ or ‘‘Report’’) as a revision to the 

California RH SIP.1 CARB submitted the 

Progress Report to EPA on June 16, 

2014, to address the RHR requirements 

at 40 CFR 51.308(g), (h), and (i). As 

described in our proposal, CARB 

demonstrated that the emission control 

measures in the existing California RH 

SIP are sufficient to enable California, as 

well as other states with Class I areas 

affected by emissions from sources in 

California, to meet all established 

visibility goals (known as reasonable 

progress goals or RPGs) for 2018. Based 

on our evaluation of the Report, we 

proposed to approve CARB’s 

determination that the California RH SIP 

requires no substantive revision at this 

time. We also proposed to find that 

CARB fulfilled the requirements in 

51.308(i)(2), (3), and (4) to provide 

Federal Land Managers (FLMs) with an 

opportunity to consult on the RH SIP 

revision, describe how CARB addressed 

the FLMs’ comments, and provide 

procedures for continuing the 

consultation. Please refer to our 

proposed rule for background 

information on the RHR, the California 

RH SIP, and the specific requirements 

for Progress Reports. 

II. Public Comments and EPA 

Responses 

EPA’s proposed action provided for a 

public comment period that, upon 

request, was extended to 60 days ending 

on November 28, 2014.2 We received 

one set of comments from the National 

Parks Conservation Association 

(NPCA).3 NPCA’s comments and our 

responses are summarized below. 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with RULES