Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 43 / Thursday, March 5, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 11885 

States, which will have jurisdiction over 

such an action without regard to the 

amount in controversy. A party to an 

action brought under this paragraph 

shall be entitled to trial by jury. 

(b) A proceeding under paragraph (a) 

of this section shall be governed by the 

same legal burdens of proof specified in 

§ 1980.109. An employee prevailing in 

any action under paragraph (a) of this 

section shall be entitled to all relief 

necessary to make the employee whole, 

including: 

(1) Reinstatement with the same 

seniority status that the employee 

would have had, but for the retaliation; 

(2) The amount of back pay, with 

interest; 

(3) Compensation for any special 

damages sustained as a result of the 

retaliation; and 

(4) Litigation costs, expert witness 

fees, and reasonable attorney fees. 

(c) Within seven days after filing a 

complaint in federal court, a 

complainant must file with OSHA, the 

ALJ, or the ARB, depending on where 

the proceeding is pending, a copy of the 

file-stamped complaint. A copy of the 

complaint also must be served on the 

OSHA official who issued the findings 

and/or preliminary order, the Assistant 

Secretary, and the Associate Solicitor, 

Division of Fair Labor Standards, U.S. 

Department of Labor. 

§ 1980.115 Special circumstances; waiver 

of rules. 

In special circumstances not 

contemplated by the provisions of this 

part, or for good cause shown, the ALJ 

or the ARB on review may, upon 

application, after three days notice to all 

parties, waive any rule or issue any 

orders that justice or the administration 

of the Act requires. 

[FR Doc. 2015–05001 Filed 3–4–15; 08:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4510–26–P 

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND 

SECURITY 

Coast Guard 

33 CFR Part 165 

[Docket Number USCG–2013–0907] 

RIN 1625–AA00 

Safety Zones; Upper Mississippi River 

Between Mile 38.0 and 46.0, Thebes, IL; 

and Between Mile 78.0 and 81.0, Grand 

Tower, IL 

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS. 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard is 

establishing safety zones for all waters 

of the Upper Mississippi River (UMR) 

from mile 38.0 to 46.0 and from mile 

78.0 to 81.0. These safety zones are 

needed to protect persons, property, and 

infrastructure from potential damage 

and safety hazards associated with 

subsurface rock removal in the Upper 

Mississippi River. Any deviation from 

the conditions and requirements put 

into place are prohibited unless 

specifically authorized by the cognizant 

Captain of the Port (COTP) Ohio Valley 

or his designated representatives. 

DATES: This rule is effective on March 5, 

2015. 

ADDRESSES: Documents mentioned in 

this preamble are part of docket [USCG– 

2013–0907]. To view documents 

mentioned in this preamble as being 

available in the docket, go to http://

www.regulations.gov, type the docket 

number in the ‘‘SEARCH’’ box and click 

‘‘SEARCH.’’ Click on Open Docket 

Folder on the line associated with this 

rulemaking. You may also visit 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. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If 

you have questions on this rule, call or 

email LT Dan McQuate, U.S. Coast 

Guard; telephone 270–442–1621, email 

daniel.j.mcquate@uscg.mil. If you have 

questions on viewing or submitting 

material to the docket, call Cheryl F. 

Collins, Program Manager, Docket 

Operations, telephone (202) 366–9826. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Table of Acronyms 

AIS Automated Information System 

BNM Broadcast Notice to Mariners 

COTP Captain of the Port 

DHS Department of Homeland Security 

FR Federal Register 

LNM Local Notice to Mariners 

MM Mile Marker 

MSU Marine Safety Unit 

M/V Motor Vessel 

NPRM Notice of Proposed Rulemaking 

RIAC River Industry Action Committee 

UMR Upper Mississippi River 

USACE United States Army Corps of 

Engineers 

A. Regulatory History and Information 

Based on forecasted historical low 

water on the UMR in the fall of 2012, 

the USACE contracted subsurface rock 

removal operations in Thebes, IL to 

mitigate the effects of the forecasted low 

water event. In order to provide 

additional safety measures and regulate 

navigation during low water and the 

planned rock removal operations, the 

Coast Guard published a temporary final 

rule in the Federal Register for an RNA 

from mile 0.0 to 185.0 UMR (77 FR 

75850). The RNA was in effect from 

December 1, 2012 until March 31, 2013, 

which is when river levels rebounded 

and the subsurface rock removal 

operation was delayed because of high 

water levels. During the effective period 

for this temporary RNA, restrictions 

were enforced for a total of 

approximately 45 days. 

In the fall of 2013, based on changing 

river conditions, low water was again 

forecasted and the USACE’s contracted 

subsurface rock removal operations in 

Thebes, IL were scheduled to resume. 

The Coast Guard then published a 

second temporary final rule in the 

Federal Register re-establishing the 

RNA (78 FR 70222). Based on the 

forecasted water levels and the plans 

and needs for the resumed rock removal 

operations, the RNA covered a smaller 

river section extending from mile 0.0 to 

109.9 on the UMR. The RNA was 

implemented to ensure the safety of the 

USACE contractors and marine traffic 

during the actual rock removal work, 

and to support the safe and timely 

clearing of vessel queues at the 

conclusion of the work each day. The 

RNA was in effect from November 4, 

2013 until April 12, 2014, but was only 

enforced from December 10, 2013 until 

February 19, 2014 due to water levels 

increasing and forcing the USACE 

contractors to cease rock removal 

operations. During the times the RNA 

was enforced, the Coast Guard worked 

with the USACE, RIAC, and the USACE 

contractor to implement river closures 

and various restrictions to maximize the 

size of tows that could safely pass while 

keeping the USACE contractor crews 

safe. The Coast Guard also assisted in 

clearing vessel queues after each closure 

or restriction. 

On April 17, 2014, MSU Paducah 

contacted USACE St. Louis to determine 

if subsurface rock removal operations 

will be conducted in the Upper 

Mississippi River in the vicinity of 

Thebes, IL in future years. USACE St. 

Louis reported that such operations are 

anticipated to continue as river 

conditions permit, and that there are 

multiple phases of subsurface rock 

removal operations remaining. On 

August 28, 2014 USACE St. Louis 

notified the Coast Guard that based on 

recently acquired data, rock removal 

operations will also be required in the 

Upper Mississippi River between miles 

78.0 and 81.0 at Grand Tower, IL in the 

future. 

USACE St. Louis also informed the 

Coast Guard that the environmental 

window for these operations each year 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES

11886 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 43 / Thursday, March 5, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 

moving forward is July 1 to April 12. 

However, river conditions likely will 

not permit work for the majority of that 

timeframe each year, and in some years 

river conditions may not permit any 

work on this project to be completed. 

This project is expected to go on 

indefinitely when river conditions 

permit during the allowable times 

within the environmental windows. For 

continuity and based on the necessary 

restrictions, USACE St. Louis requested 

continued involvement of the Coast 

Guard for navigation expertise and 

facilitating restrictions with users of the 

waterway and the contractor. According 

to USACE St. Louis, the majority of the 

rock removal operations will impact 

vessel traffic and requested that the 

Coast Guard establish restrictions under 

33 CFR part 165, Regulated Navigation 

Areas and Limited Access Areas to 

maintain safety of navigation during the 

rock removal project. The Coast 

determined that safety zones, one type 

of Limited Access Area provided for 

under 33 CFR part 165, will provide the 

necessary additional safety measures to 

ensure commerce can continue to 

navigate safely while the contractors are 

working. These safety zones limit access 

to specific areas of the river during rock 

removal operations rather than creating 

a larger regulated area encompassing the 

entire stretch of river where the work 

may take place. 

On November 10, 2014, an interim 

rule was published in the Federal 

Register (79 FR 66622). This interim 

rule was effective upon publication 

without prior notice through 

publication in the Federal Register, but 

also invited comments regarding the 

creation of permanent safety zones 

before the rule was published in final 

form. The Coast Guard received no 

comments on the interim rule and no 

requests for public meeting. No public 

meetings were held. No changes were 

made to the rule as it was published in 

the interim rule. 

B. Basis and Purpose 

The legal basis and authorities for this 

rule are found in 33 U.S.C. 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, and 160.5; Public Law 107–295, 

116 Stat. 2064; and Department of 

Homeland Security Delegation No. 

0170.1, which collectively authorize the 

Coast Guard to establish and define 

safety zones. 

The purpose of these safety zones are 

to protect persons and vessels while 

subsurface rock removal operations are 

ongoing on the UMR from mile 38.0 to 

mile 46.0 and from mile 78.0 to mile 

81.0. The removal operations pose 

significant safety hazards to vessels and 

mariners operating on the UMR. At the 

previous request of RIAC and after 

reviewing best practices from the 

previous temporary RNAs in effect in 

2012 and 2013, the Coast Guard plans 

to assist in facilitating the clearing of 

vessel queues in future years following 

restricted access on the UMR from mile 

38.0 to mile 46.0 and from mile 78.0 to 

mile 81.0. For these reasons, the Coast 

Guard is to establishing these safety 

zones to limit vessel access between 

mile 38.0 and mile 46.0, and between 

mile 78.0 and mile 81.0 on the UMR. 

C. Discussion of Comments, Changes 

and the Final Rule 

No comments were received by the 

Coast Guard on this rule. No changes to 

the rule have been made from the 

interim rule and request for comments. 

D. Regulatory Analyses 

We developed this rule after 

considering numerous statutes and 

executive orders related to rulemaking. 

Below we summarize our analyses 

based on a number of these statutes or 

executive orders. 

1. Regulatory Planning and Review 

This rule is not a significant 

regulatory action under section 3(f) of 

Executive Order 12866, Regulatory 

Planning and Review, as supplemented 

by Executive Order 13563, Improving 

Regulation and Regulatory Review, and 

does not require an assessment of 

potential costs and benefits under 

section 6(a)(3) of Executive Order 12866 

or under section 1 of Executive Order 

13563. The Office of Management and 

Budget has not reviewed it under those 

Orders. 

This rule establishes safety zones for 

vessels on all waters of the UMR from 

mile 38.0 to mile 46.0, and from mile 

78.0 to mile 81.0. The safety zones listed 

in this final rule will only restrict vessel 

traffic from entering, transiting, or 

anchoring within specific sections of the 

UMR. Notifications of enforcement 

times and restrictions put into effect for 

these safety zones will be 

communicated to the marine 

community via BNM, through outreach 

with RIAC, and through LNMs. Such 

notices provide the opportunity for 

industry to plan transits accordingly 

and work around the schedule of rock 

removal operations as necessary. The 

impacts on navigation will be limited to 

ensuring the safety of mariners and 

vessels associated with hazards 

presented by USACE contractor 

operations involving subsurface rock 

removal, and the safe and timely 

resumption of vessel traffic following 

any river closures or restrictions 

associated with subsurface rock removal 

operations. Restrictions under these 

safety zones will be the minimum 

necessary to protect mariners, vessels, 

the public, and the environment from 

known or perceived risks. 

2. Impact on Small Entities 

The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 

(RFA), 5 U.S.C. 601–612, as amended, 

requires federal agencies to consider the 

potential impact of regulations on small 

entities during rulemaking. The term 

‘‘small entities’’ comprises small 

businesses, not-for-profit organizations 

that are independently owned and 

operated and are not dominant in their 

fields, and governmental jurisdictions 

with populations of less than 50,000. 

The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 

605(b) that this rule will not have a 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities. 

This rule will affect the following 

entities, some of which may be small 

entities: The owners or operators of 

vessels intending to transit the UMR 

during USACE contracted subsurface 

rock removal operations. These safety 

zones will not have a significant 

economic impact on a substantial 

number of small entities for the 

following reasons. While the safety 

zones listed in this final rule will 

restrict vessel traffic from entering, 

transiting, or anchoring within specific 

sections of the UMR, this rule does 

allow for the intermittent passing of 

vessels. Traffic in this area is limited to 

almost entirely recreational vessels and 

commercial towing vessels subject to 

noticed restrictions and requirements. 

Notifications to the marine community 

will be made through BNM, LNM, and 

communications with RIAC. Notices of 

changes to the safety zones and 

enforcement times will also be made. 

Additionally, deviation from the 

restrictions may be requested from the 

COTP Ohio Valley or designated 

representative and will be considered 

on a case-by-case basis. 

3. Assistance for Small Entities 

Under section 213(a) of the Small 

Business Regulatory Enforcement 

Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104–121), 

we want to assist small entities in 

understanding this rule. If the rule 

would affect your small business, 

organization, or governmental 

jurisdiction and you have questions 

concerning its provisions or options for 

compliance, please contact the person 

listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION

CONTACT, above. 

Small businesses may send comments 

on the actions of Federal employees 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES

Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 43 / Thursday, March 5, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 11887 

who enforce, or otherwise determine 

compliance with, Federal regulations to 

the Small Business and Agriculture 

Regulatory Enforcement Ombudsman 

and the Regional Small Business 

Regulatory Fairness Boards. The 

Ombudsman evaluates these actions 

annually and rates each agency’s 

responsiveness to small business. If you 

wish to comment on actions by 

employees of the Coast Guard, call 1– 

888–REG–FAIR (1–888–734–3247). The 

Coast Guard will not retaliate against 

small entities that question or complain 

about this rule or any policy or action 

of the Coast Guard. 

4. Collection of Information 

This rule will not call for a new 

collection of information under the 

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 

U.S.C. 3501–3520). 

5. Federalism 

A rule has implications for federalism 

under Executive Order 13132, 

Federalism, if it has a substantial direct 

effect 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. We have 

analyzed this rule under that Order and 

determined that this rule does not have 

implications for federalism. 

6. Protest Activities 

The Coast Guard respects the First 

Amendment rights of protesters. 

Protesters are asked to contact the 

person listed in the FOR FURTHER

INFORMATION CONTACT section to 

coordinate protest activities so that your 

message can be received without 

jeopardizing the safety or security of 

people, places or vessels. 

7. 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. 

8. 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. 

9. 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. 

10. 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. 

11. 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. 

12. 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. 

13. Technical Standards 

This rule does not use technical 

standards. Therefore, we did not 

consider the use of voluntary consensus 

standards. 

14. 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 determined 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 

creation of safety zones from mile 38.0 

to mile 46.0, and from mile 78.0 to mile 

81.0 UMR. This rule is categorically 

excluded from further review under 

paragraph 34(g) of Figure 2–1 of the 

Commandant Instruction. An 

environmental analysis checklist and a 

categorical exclusion determination are 

available in the docket where indicated 

under the ADDRESSES. We seek any 

comments or information that may lead 

to the discovery of a significant 

environmental impact from this rule. 

List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 165 

Harbors, Marine safety, Navigation 

(water), Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements, Security measures, 

Waterways. 

Accordingly, the interim rule 

amending 33 CFR part 165 that 

published at 77 FR 75850 on December 

26, 2012, is adopted as a final rule 

without change. 

Dated: December 29, 2014. 

R.V. Timme, 

Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the 

Port Ohio Valley. 

[FR Doc. 2015–03331 Filed 3–4–15; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 9110–04–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R04–OAR–2014–0810; FRL–9923–94– 

Region 4] 

Approval and Promulgation of 

Implementation Plans; Tennessee; 

Emissions Statement Requirement for 

the 2008 8-Hour Ozone Standard 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency. 

ACTION: Direct final rule. 

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA) is taking direct final 

action to approve a revision to the 

Tennessee state implementation plan 

(SIP) submitted by the State of 

Tennessee, through the Tennessee 

Department of Environment and 

Conservation (TDEC) on January 5, 

2015, to address the emissions 

statement requirements for the 2008 8- 

hour ozone national ambient air quality 

standards (NAAQS). The revision affects 

Davidson, Rutherford, Shelby, Sumner, 

Knox, Blount, Anderson, Williamson, 

and Wilson Counties. Annual emissions 

statements are required for certain 

sources in all ozone nonattainment 

areas. These changes address 

requirements for the Knoxville, 

Tennessee 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS 

nonattainment area (hereinafter referred 

to as the Knoxville Area) and the 

Tennessee portion of the Memphis, 

Tennessee-Arkansas-Mississippi 2008 8- 

hour ozone NAAQS nonattainment area 

(hereinafter referred to as the Memphis 

Area). The Knoxville Area is comprised 

of Knox and Blount County, and a 

portion of Anderson County, Tennessee, 

and the Tennessee portion of the 

Memphis Area is comprised of Shelby 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES