62470 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 196 / Tuesday, October 12, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 

e-mail Ms. Judy Leung-Yee, Project 

Officer, First Coast Guard District, 

judy.k.leung-yee@uscg.mil, telephone 

(212) 668–7165. If you have questions 

on viewing the docket, call Renee V. 

Wright, Program Manager, Docket 

Operations, telephone 202–366–9826. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The 

Greenpoint Avenue Bridge, across 

Newtown Creek at mile 1.3, at New 

York, has a vertical clearance in the 

closed position of 26 feet at mean high 

water and 31 feet at mean low water. 

The drawbridge operation regulations 

are listed at 33 CFR 117.801(g)(1). 

The owner of the bridge, New York 

City Department of Transportation 

(NYCDOT), requested a temporary 

deviation from the regulations to 

facilitate the completion of scheduled 

bridge rehabilitation maintenance 

previously authorized for two six-week 

closures from July 5, 2010 through 

August 13, 2010, and from August 30, 

2010, through October 8, 2010. The first 

six-week closure was not implemented 

due to materials not being fabricated in 

time. The second six-week closure was 

implemented but unfinished work 

remains to be completed. This 

temporary deviation will allow the work 

to be completed within a one-week 

bridge closure period. 

Under this temporary deviation the 

Greenpoint Avenue Bridge may remain 

in the closed position from October 26, 

2010 through November 1, 2010. Vessels 

that can pass under the bridge in the 

closed position may do so at any time. 

Waterway users were advised of the 

requested bridge closures and offered no 

objection. 

In accordance with 33 CFR 117.35(e), 

the bridge must return to its regular 

operating schedule immediately at the 

end of the designated time period. This 

deviation from the operating regulations 

is authorized under 33 CFR 117.35. 

Dated: September 28, 2010. 

Gary Kassof, 

Bridge Program Manager, First Coast Guard 

District. 

[FR Doc. 2010–25497 Filed 10–8–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 9110–04–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R04–OAR–2007–0228–201038; FRL– 

9212–6] 

Approval and Promulgation of 

Implementation Plans and 

Designations of Areas for Air Quality 

Planning Purposes; Tennessee: 

Knoxville; Determination of Attaining 

Data for the 1997 8-Hour Ozone 

Standards 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: On February 19, 2010, the 

State of Tennessee, through the 

Tennessee Department of Environment 

and Conservation (TDEC), submitted a 

request to EPA to make a determination 

that the Knoxville, Tennessee 

nonattainment area for the 1997 8-hour 

ozone National Ambient Air Quality 

Standards (NAAQS) has attained these 

standards based on quality assured, 

quality controlled monitoring data from 

2007 through 2009. The Knoxville 1997 

8-hour ozone nonattainment area is 

comprised of Anderson, Blount, 

Jefferson, Knox, Loudon, and Sevier 

Counties in their entireties, and the 

portion of Cocke County that falls 

within the boundary of the Great Smoky 

Mountains National Park (hereafter 

referred to as ‘‘the Knoxville Area’’). In 

this action, EPA is taking final action to 

determine that the Knoxville Area has 

attained the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS. 

This determination is based upon 

complete, quality assured, quality 

controlled, and certified ambient air 

monitoring data for the years 2007–2009 

showing that the Knoxville Area has 

monitored attainment of the 1997 8- 

hour ozone NAAQS. This final action is 

consistent with the CAA, and EPA 

policy and guidance. 

DATES: Effective Date: This final rule is 

effective on October 12, 2010. 

ADDRESSES: EPA has established a 

docket for this action under Docket ID 

Number EPA–R04–OAR–2007–0228. All 

documents in the docket are listed in 

the http://www.regulations.gov Web 

site. Although listed in the electronic 

docket, some information is not publicly 

available, i.e., confidential business 

information (CBI) or other information 

whose disclosure is restricted by statute. 

Certain other material, such as 

copyrighted material, is not placed on 

the Internet and will be publicly 

available only in hard copy form. 

Publicly available docket materials are 

available either electronically through 

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

copy for public inspection during 

normal business hours at the Regulatory 

Development Section, Air Planning 

Branch, Air, Pesticides and Toxics 

Management Division, U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency, 

Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street, SW., 

Atlanta, Georgia 30303–8960. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Royce Dansby-Sparks, Regulatory 

Development Section, Air Planning 

Branch, Air, Pesticides and Toxics 

Management Division, U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency, 

Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street, SW., 

Atlanta, Georgia 30303–8960. Mr. 

Dansby-Sparks may be reached by 

phone at (404) 562–9187 or via 

electronic mail at dansbysparks.royce@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. What action is EPA taking? 

II. What is the effect of this action? 

III. What is EPA’s final action? 

IV. What is the effective date? 

V. What are the statutory and executive order 

reviews? 

I. What action is EPA taking? 

EPA is determining that the Knoxville 

Area (comprised of Anderson, Blount, 

Jefferson, Knox, Loudon, and Sevier 

Counties in their entireties, and the 

portion of Cocke County that falls 

within the boundary of the Great Smoky 

Mountains National Park) has attaining 

data for the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS. 

This determination is based upon 

quality assured, quality controlled and 

certified ambient air monitoring data 

that shows the Knoxville Area has 

monitored attainment of the 1997 8- 

hour ozone NAAQS based on the 2007– 

2009 data. 

Other specific requirements of the 

determination and the rationale for 

EPA’s final action are explained in the 

notice of proposed rulemaking (NPR) 

published on August 3, 2010 (75 FR 

45568) and will not be restated here. 

The comment period closed on 

September 2, 2010. No comments, 

adverse or otherwise, were received in 

response to the NPR. 

II. What is the effect of this action? 

This final action, in accordance with 

40 CFR 51.918, suspends the 

requirements for this area to submit 

attainment demonstrations, associated 

reasonably available control measures 

(RACM), reasonable further progress 

plans (RFP), contingency measures, and 

other planning SIPs related to 

attainment of the 1997 8-hour ozone 

NAAQS as long as this Area continues 

to meet the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS. 

Finalizing this action does not 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with RULES_PART 1
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 196 / Tuesday, October 12, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 62471 

constitute a redesignation of the 

Knoxville Area to attainment for the 

1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS under 

section 107(d)(3) of the Clean Air Act 

(CAA). Further, finalizing this action 

does not involve approving 

maintenance plans for the Area as 

required under section 175A of the 

CAA, nor does it involve a 

determination that the Area has met all 

requirements for a redesignation. 

III. What is EPA’s final action? 

EPA is determining that the Knoxville 

Area has attaining data for the 1997 8- 

hour ozone NAAQS. This determination 

is based upon quality assured, quality 

controlled, and certified ambient air 

monitoring data showing that the 

Knoxville Area has monitored 

attainment of the 1997 8-hour ozone 

NAAQS during the period 2007–2009. 

This final action, in accordance with 40 

CFR 51.918, will suspend the 

requirements for this Area to submit 

attainment demonstrations, associated 

RACM, RFP plans, contingency 

measures, and other planning SIPs 

related to attainment of the 1997 8-hour 

ozone NAAQS as long as the Area 

continues to meet the 1997 8-hour 

ozone NAAQS. 

IV. What is the effective date? 

An expedited effective date for this 

action is authorized under both 5 U.S.C. 

553(d)(1), which provides that rule 

actions may become effective less than 

30 days after publication if the rule 

‘‘grants or recognizes an exemption or 

relieves a restriction’’ and section 5 

U.S.C. 553(d)(3), which allows an 

effective date less than 30 days after 

publication ‘‘as otherwise provided by 

the agency for good cause found and 

published with the rule.’’ EPA finds that 

there is good cause for this approval to 

become effective upon publication. 

Approval of a clean data 

determination relieves the obligation for 

the State of Tennessee to submit for the 

Knoxville Area an attainment 

demonstration and associated RACM, 

RFP plan, contingency measures, and 

any other SIP-related planning 

requirements to attainment of the 1997 

8-hour ozone NAAQS provided the Area 

does not monitor any violations of the 

ozone standard. The relief from these 

obligations is sufficient reason to allow 

an expedited effective date of the rule 

under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(1). In addition, 

Tennessee’s relief from these obligations 

provides good cause to make this rule 

effective immediately upon publication, 

pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3). The 

purpose of the 30-day waiting period 

prescribed in 5 U.S.C. 553(d) is to give 

affected parties a reasonable time to 

adjust their behavior and prepare before 

the final rule takes effect. Where, as 

here, the final rule relieves obligations 

rather than imposes obligations, affected 

parties, such as the State of Tennessee 

and the Knox County Department of Air 

Quality Management, do not need time 

to adjust and prepare before the rule 

takes effect. 

V. What are statutory and executive 

order reviews? 

Under the CAA, the Administrator is 

required to approve a SIP submission or 

State request 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 or state requests, EPA’s role 

is to approve state choices, provided 

that they meet the criteria of the CAA. 

Accordingly, this action merely 

approves state law as meeting Federal 

requirements and does not impose 

additional requirements beyond those 

imposed by state law. For that reason, 

this 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 rule 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. 

The Congressional Review Act, 5 

U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the Small 

Business Regulatory Enforcement 

Fairness Act of 1996, generally provides 

that before a rule may take effect, the 

agency promulgating the rule must 

submit a rule report, which includes a 

copy of the rule, to each House of the 

Congress and to the Comptroller General 

of the United States. EPA will submit a 

report containing this action and other 

required information to the U.S. Senate, 

the U.S. House of Representatives, and 

the Comptroller General of the United 

States prior to publication of the rule in 

the Federal Register. A major rule 

cannot take effect until 60 days after it 

is published in the Federal Register. 

This action is not a ‘‘major rule’’ as 

defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2). 

Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, 

petitions for judicial review of this 

action must be filed in the United States 

Court of Appeals for the appropriate 

circuit by December 13, 2010. Filing a 

petition for reconsideration by the 

Administrator of this final rule does not 

affect the finality of this action for the 

purposes of judicial review nor does it 

extend the time within which a petition 

for judicial review may be filed, and 

shall not postpone the effectiveness of 

such rule or action. This action, 

pertaining to the determination of 

attaining data for the 1997 8-hour ozone 

standard for the Knoxville Area, may 

not be challenged later in proceedings to 

enforce its requirements. (See section 

307(b)(2)). 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, Ozone, Volatile 

organic compounds. 

Dated: September 27, 2010. 

Gwendolyn Keyes Fleming, 

Regional Administrator, Region 4. 

■ Accordingly, 40 CFR part 52 is 

amended as follows: 

PART 52—[AMENDED] 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 52 

continues to read as follows: 

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


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with RULES_PART 1
62472 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 196 / Tuesday, October 12, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 

Subpart RR—Tennessee 

■ 2. Section 52.2235 is amended by 

adding paragraph (c) to read as follows: 

§ 52.2235 Control strategy: Ozone. 

* * * * * 

(c) Determination of Attaining Data. 

EPA has determined, as of October 12, 

2010 the Knoxville, Tennessee 

nonattainment area has attaining data 

for the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS. This 

determination, in accordance with 40 

CFR 51.918, suspends the requirements 

for this area to submit an attainment 

demonstration, associated reasonably 

available control measures, a reasonable 

further progress plan, contingency 

measures, and other planning SIPs 

related to attainment of the standards 

for as long as this area continues to meet 

the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS. 

[FR Doc. 2010–25461 Filed 10–8–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Maritime Administration 

46 CFR Part 389 

[Docket No. MARAD–2008–0045] 

RIN 2133–AB67 

Determination of Availability of 

Coastwise-Qualified Vessels for the 

Transportation of Platform Jackets 

AGENCY: Maritime Administration, DOT. 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: The Maritime Administration 

(MARAD) is publishing this final rule to 

establish regulations governing 

administrative determinations of 

availability of coastwise-qualified 

vessels to be used in the transportation 

and, if needed, launch or installation of 

offshore oil drilling or production 

platform jackets in specified projects 

only. MARAD views this as a special, 

technical adjustment that does not 

indicate a change in MARAD’s full 

support for other requirements of the 

coastwise laws. 

Specifically, this final rulemaking 

implements provisions of Public Law 

108–293 (2004) (the Act) which requires 

the Secretary of Transportation, acting 

through the Maritime Administrator, to 

adopt procedures to maximize use of 

coastwise-qualified vessels, but would 

permit the use of non-coastwisequalified (foreign) launch barges if it is 

determined that coastwise-qualified 

vessels are not available. 

DATES: This final rule will be effective 

November 12, 2010. 

ADDRESSES: For access to the docket to 

read background documents, go to 

http://www.regulations.gov. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Murray A. Bloom, Chief, Division of 

Maritime Programs, Office of Chief 

Counsel, Maritime Administration, 1200 

New Jersey Ave., SE., Washington, DC 

20590; Ph. (202) 366–5320, fax: (202) 

366–3511; or e-mail 

murray.bloom@dot.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: A notice 

of proposed rulemaking was published 

on August 15, 2005 (70 FR 47771). 

Three years later an interim final rule 

was published on May 29, 2008 (73 FR 

30783). 

Public Comments Discussion 

In the Interim Final Rule published 

on May 29, 2008, MARAD offered the 

public the opportunity to submit 

comments, which were due by July 28, 

2008. Based on consideration of 

comments received, MARAD made 

changes incorporated into this final 

rule. 

MARAD received three sets of 

comments on the Interim Final Rule 

from three entities. A summary of the 

comments received and MARAD’s 

responses follows: 

Item #1: Two commenters noted that 

the enabling legislation provided that 

launch barge work can be conducted by 

any coastwise-qualified vessel, not 

exclusively coastwise-qualified launch 

barges. 

Maritime Administration: MARAD 

changed the final rule to reflect that a 

coastwise-qualified vessel may meet the 

definition of a launch barge even if it is 

not capable of launching a platform 

jacket or needs the assistance of other 

coastwise-qualified vessels in the 

installation of a platform jacket. 

Item #2: Two commenters pointed out 

that the Interim Final Rule contained no 

incentive for a project owner to search 

in good faith for available coastwisequalified services. 

Maritime Administration: The rule 

has been amended to require a good 

faith search for a coastwise-qualified 

vessel. Refusal to attempt to obtain 

coastwise-qualified vessel services will 

result in an application being 

disapproved. 

Item #3: One commenter noted that 

the Interim Final Rule contained no 

transition period to implement the 21- 

month application process and 

recommended an interim transition 

period that would require companies 

with offshore projects to make their 

intentions known at an early time. 

Maritime Administration: MARAD 

did not amend the regulation to 

specifically provide for a transition 

period to implement the 21-month 

application process or provide an 

interim transition period. MARAD does 

not believe a change to the regulation 

with regard to a transition period is 

required, as the Interim Final Rule 

already provides the agency with the 

flexibility to adjust due dates on a caseby-case basis. Please see Section 389.4 

Application and fee, paragraph (2), 

specifically, ‘‘(2) MARAD reserves the 

right to waive or reduce or extend the 

time requirements based upon its 

evaluation of any national emergency or 

other situation.’’ 

Item #4: MARAD also received 

comments requesting that: (a) The 21- 

month advance-notice period be ruled 

unrealistic, (b) offshore contractors and 

foreign vessel owners, in addition to 

platform owners and operators, should 

be allowed to apply for waivers, (c) the 

time period for which a waiver is valid 

should be extended to project 

completion instead of being limited to 

120 days, and (d) that it be clarified that 

MARAD has the authority to approve an 

incomplete application for ‘‘good cause’’ 

in certain circumstances. 

Maritime Administration: The issues 

addressed in items (a) and (b) have been 

discussed and reviewed in previous 

comment periods. In response to item 

(c), the Interim Final Rule already 

allows MARAD to extend a waiver 

granted for good cause, which the 

agency finds satisfactory. Regarding 

item (d), because the Interim Final Rule 

allows for flexibility in the application 

of deadlines and waiver time periods, 

and because MARAD may give the 

applicant an opportunity to redress any 

deficiencies in its application, there is 

enough flexibility to effectively 

administer the application process 

under the public law. Therefore, no rule 

changes were made based on the 

comments noted above. 

Section 27 of the Merchant Marine 

Act of 1920, commonly known as the 

Jones Act (46 U.S.C. 55102), requires, 

with a few exceptions, that all cargo 

transported in the coastwise trade be 

carried on ships that are U.S.-owned 

and U.S.-built. In 1988 the Jones Act 

was amended to allow for the use of 

foreign-built platform jacket launch 

barges in the coastwise trade if no U.S.- 

built vessels were found to be available. 

Subsequently, Section 417 of the Coast 

Guard and Maritime Transportation Act 

of 2004, Public Law 108–293 (the Act), 

codified at 46 U.S.C. 55108, directed the 

Secretary of Transportation to establish 

procedures to issue determinations as to 

whether suitable U.S.-built vessels are 

available for use in transportation and, 

if needed, launch or installation of 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with RULES_PART 1