### 20780 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 76 / Wednesday, April 21, 2010 / Rules and Regulations

Interference with Constitutionally Protected Property Rights.
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.

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 may disproportionately affect children.

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. Energy Effects

We have analyzed this rule under Executive Order 13211, Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use. We have determined that it is not a ‘‘ significant energy action’’ under that order because it is not a ‘‘ significant regulatory action’’ under Executive Order 12866 and is not likely to have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use of energy. The Administrator of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs has not designated it as a significant energy action. Therefore, it does not require a Statement of Energy Effects under Executive Order 13211.

Technical Standards

The National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA) (15 U.S.C. 272 note) directs agencies to use voluntary consensus standards in their regulatory activities unless the agency provides Congress, through the Office of Management and Budget, with an explanation of why using these standards would be inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise impractical. Voluntary consensus standards are technical standards ( e.g., specifications of materials, performance, design, or operation; test methods; sampling procedures; and related management systems practices) that are developed or adopted by voluntary consensus standards bodies.

This rule does not use technical standards. Therefore, we did not consider the use of voluntary consensus standards.

Environment

We have analyzed this rule under Department of Homeland Security Management Directive 023–01 and Commandant Instruction M16475.lD, which guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321–4370f), and have concluded 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 is categorically excluded, under figure 2–1, paragraph (34)(g), of the Instruction. This rule involves the establishment of a security

zone.

An environmental analysis checklist and a categorical exclusion determination are available in the docket where indicated under

**ADDRESSES**

. List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 165

Harbors, Marine safety, Navigation (water), Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Security measures, Waterways.

■ For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard amends 33 CFR part 165 as follows:

**PART 165—REGULATED NAVIGATION AREAS AND LIMITED ACCESS AREAS** 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 165 continues to read as follows:

Authority: 33 U.S.C. 1226, 1231; 46 U.S.C. Chapter 701, 3306, 3703; 50 U.S.C. 191, 195; 33 CFR 1.05–1, 6.04–1, 6.04–6, 160.5; Pub. L. 107–295, 116 Stat. 2064; Department of Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1.

■ 2. Add § 165.T13–136 to read as follows:

**§ 165.T13–136 Security Zone; Portland Rose Festival Fleet Week, Willamette River,**  **Portland, Oregon.**

(a) Location. The following area is a security zone: All waters of the Willamette River, from surface to bottom, between the Hawthorne and Steel Bridges.

(b) Regulations. Under 33 CFR part 165, subpart D, no person or vessel may enter or remain in the security zone created by this section without the authorization of the Captain of the Port or his designated representatives. Subpart D has other requirements applicable to the security zone created by this section. Permission to enter the security zone created by this section may be requested by contacting the Captain of the Port at 503–240–9311 or on VHF channels 16 or 22.

(c) Effective period. This section is effective from June 2, 2010, through June 7, 2010.

Dated: April 9, 2010. F.G. Myer, Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Port, Portland.
[FR Doc. 2010–9185 Filed 4–20–10; 8:45 am]

**BILLING CODE 9110–04–P**

**ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY** 

**40 CFR Part 52**

**[EPA–R04–OAR–2010–0502–201011; FRL– 9139–1]** 

**Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; Revisions to the**  **Kentucky State Implementation Plan**

**AGENCY :**  Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

**ACTION :**  Final rule.

**SUMMARY :**  EPA is taking final action to approve the transportation conformity revisions to the Kentucky State Implementation Plan (SIP) submitted by the Commonwealth of Kentucky, through the Kentucky Energy and Environment Cabinet’s Division of Air Quality (KY DAQ). This addition consists of transportation conformity criteria and procedures related to interagency consultation andenforceability of certain transportationrelated control measures and mitigation measures. The intended effect is to establish the transportation conformity criteria and procedures in the Kentucky SIP. This action is being taken pursuant to section 110 of the Clean Air Act (CAA).

**DATES :**  Effective Date: This rule will be effective May 21, 2010.

**ADDRESSES :**  EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket Identification No. EPA–R04–OAR– 2010–0502. All documents in the docket are listed on the http:// www.regulations.gov Web site. Although listed in the index, some information is not publicly available, i.e., Confidential Business Information 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


### 20781 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 76 / Wednesday, April 21, 2010 / Rules and Regulations

electronically through http:// www.regulations.gov or in hard copy 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. EPA requests that if at all possible, you contact the person listed in the **FOR**
**FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT** section to schedule your inspection. The Regional Office’s official hours of business are Monday through Friday, 8:30 to 4:30, excluding federal holidays.

**FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT :**  Amanetta Somerville, Air Quality Modeling and Transportation 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. Ms. Somerville’s telephone number is 404– 562–9025. She can also be reached via electronic mail at Somerville.amanetta@epa.gov.

**SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION :** 
Table of Contents
I. Today’s Action II. Background III. Final Action IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews I. Today’s Action

EPA is taking final action to approve the transportation conformity section of the SIP revision, submitted by the Commonwealth of Kentucky, through KDAQ, on December 31, 2008 for the purpose of establishing transportation conformity criteria and procedures in the Kentucky SIP. This approval action is based on EPA’s analysis that Kentucky’s request complies with section 176(c) of the CAA.

In a December 4, 2009, rulemaking notice, EPA proposed approval of the aforementioned revision to the Kentucky SIP. The comment period closed on January 4, 2010, and no comments were received. A detailed discussion of Kentucky’s submittal and EPA’s rationale for approval of the December 31, 2008, Kentucky SIP revision may be found in the proposed rulemaking notice (74 FR 63697). EPA is finalizing the approval as proposed based on the rationale stated in the proposal and in this final action. II. Background for This Action A. Transportation Conformity

Transportation conformity (hereafter referred to as ‘‘ conformity’’ ) is required under section 176(c) of the Clean Air Act (CAA or Act) to ensure that federally supported highway, transit projects, and other activities are consistent with ( ‘‘ conform to ’’ ) the purpose of the SIP. Conformity currently applies to areas that are designated nonattainment, and to areas that have been redesignated to attainment after 1990 (maintenance areas) with plans developed under section 175A of the Act, for the following transportation related criteria pollutants: ozone, particulate matter (PM 2.5 and PM 10 ), carbon monoxide, and nitrogen dioxide.

Conformity to the purpose of the SIP means that transportation activities will not cause new air quality violations, worsen existing violations, or delay timely attainment of the relevant criteria pollutants, also known as national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS). The transportation conformity regulation is found in 40 CFR Part 93 and provisions related to conformity SIPs are found in 40 CFR 51.390. B. Federal Requirements

EPA promulgated the Federal transportation conformity criteria and procedures ( ‘‘ Conformity Rule ’’ ) on November 24, 1993 (58 FR 62188). Among other things, the rule required states to address all provisions of the conformity rule in their SIPs frequently referred to as ‘‘ conformity SIPs. ’’ Under 40 CFR 51.390, most sections of the conformity rule were required to be copied verbatim. States were also required to tailor all or portions of the following three sections of the conformity rule to meet their state’s individual circumstances: 40 CFR 93.105, which addresses consultation procedures; 40 CFR 93.122(a)(4)(ii), which addresses written commitments to control measures that are not included in a metropolitan planning organization’s (MPO’s) transportation plan and transportation improvement program that must be obtained prior to a conformity determination, and the requirement that such commitments, when they exist, must be fulfilled; and 40 CFR 93.125(c), which addresses written commitments to mitigation measures that must be obtained prior to a project-level conformity determination, and the requirement that project sponsors must comply with such commitments, when they exist.

On August 10, 2005, the ‘‘ Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users ’’ (SAFETEA–LU) was signed into law. SAFETEA–LU revised section 176(c) of the CAA transportation conformity provisions. One of the changes streamlines the requirements for conformity SIPs. Under SAFETEA– LU, states are required to address and tailor only three sections of the rule in their conformity SIPs: 40 CFR 93.105, 40 CFR 93.122(a)(4)(ii), and 40 CFR 93.125(c), described above. In general, states are no longer required to submit conformity SIP revisions that address the other sections of the conformity rule. These changes took effect on August 10, 2005, when SAFETEA–LU was signed into law.

C. SIP Submission

On December 31, 2008, the Commonwealth of Kentucky, through the KY DAQ, submitted the Commonwealth’s transportation conformity and consultation interagency rule to EPA as an addition to the SIP. The interagency consultation procedures for the transportation conformity partners are outlined in the document, Transportation Conformity: A Guide for Interagency Consultation, which is referenced in the Kentucky transportation conformity rule.

The Commonwealth of Kentucky developed its consultation rule based on the elements contained in 40 CFR 93.105, 93.122(a)(4)(ii), and 93.125(c). As a first step, the Commonwealth worked with the existing transportation planning organization’s interagency committee that included representatives from Kentucky’s air quality agency, Kentucky Department of Transportation (DOT), U.S. DOT (i.e., Federal Highway Administration—Kentucky Division, Federal Transit Administration), the MPOs of the maintenance and nonattainment areas of Kentucky, and EPA. The interagency committee met regularly and drafted the consultation rules considering elements in 40 CFR 93.105, 93.122(a)(4)(ii), and 93.125(c), and integrated the local procedures and processes into the rule. The proposed rule provides additional information regarding Kentucky’s analysis and applicable nonattainment and maintenance areas.

III. Final Action

EPA is taking final action to approve the December 31, 2008, SIP revision request from Kentucky for the purpose of establishing transportation conformity criteria and procedures in the Kentucky SIP. This SIP revision is consistent with section 176(c) of the CAA. IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

Under the CAA, 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).


### 20782 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 76 / Wednesday, April 21, 2010 / Rules and Regulations

Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, EPA’s role is to approve state choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. Accordingly, this proposed 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 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 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 June 21, 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 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, Carbon monoxide, Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Lead, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Particulate matter, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur oxides, Volatile organic compounds.

Dated: April 1, 2010. Beverly H. Banister, Acting Regional Administrator, Region 4.

■ 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.
**Subpart S—Kentucky**

■ 2. Section 52.920(c) is amended by adding an entry for ’’401 KAR 50:066 ’’ to Table 1 to read as follows:

**§ 52.920 Identification of plan.**
* * * * *

(c) * * *



### TABLE 

### 1—EPA-A PPROVED 

### K ENTUCKY 

### R EGULATIONS

State citation Title/subject State effective date EPA approval date Explanation

**Chapter 50 Division for Air Quality; General Administrative Procedures**

* * * * * * * 401 KAR 50:066 ........................... Conformity of transportation plans, programs, and projects. (Amendment). 11/12/2008 04/21/2010 ................................... [Insert citation of publication] .......

* * * * * [FR Doc. 2010–8933 Filed 4–20–10; 8:45 am]

**BILLING CODE 6560–50–P**