[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 163 (Tuesday, August 23, 2011)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 52623-52624]
[FR Doc No: 2011-21368]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R09-OAR-2011-0601; FRL-9453-1]

Revisions to the California State Implementation Plan, San
Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to approve revisions to the San Joaquin
Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District (SJVUAPCD) portion of the
California State Implementation Plan (SIP). These revisions concern
volatile organic compound (VOC), oxides of nitrogen (NOx),
and particulate matter (PM) emissions from flares. We are approving 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 September 22, 2011.

ADDRESSES: Submit comments, identified by docket number EPA-R09-OAR-
2011-0601, by one of the following methods:
    1. Federal eRulemaking Portal: www.regulations.gov. Follow the on-
line instructions.
    2. E-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    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 e-mail.
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 e-mail directly to EPA, your e-mail
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: Nicole Law, EPA Region IX, (415) 947-
4126<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document, ``we,'' ``us'' and
``our'' refer to EPA.

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 revisions?
II. EPA's Evaluation and Action
    A. How is EPA evaluating the rule?
    B. Does the rule meet the evaluation criteria?
    C. EPA Recommendations To Further Improve the Rule
    D. Public Comment and Final Action
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 date
that it was amended by the local air agency and submitted by the
California Air Resources Board.

                                            Table 1--Submitted Rules
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
            Local agency                Rule No.              Rule title              Amended        Submitted
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SJVUAPCD...........................            4311  Flares.....................        06/18/09        01/10/10
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On February 4, 2010, EPA determined that the submittal for SJVUAPCD
Rule 4311 met 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 4311 into the SIP on
February 26,

2003 (68 FR 8835). The SJVUAPCD amended revisions to the SIP-approved
version on June 15, 2006 and June 18, 2009 and CARB submitted them to
us on December 29, 2006 and January 10, 2010. While we can act on only
the most recently submitted version, we have reviewed materials
provided with previous submittals.

C. What is the purpose of the submitted rule revisions?

    VOCs and NOX help produce ground-level ozone and smog,
which harm human health and the environment. PM contributes to effects
that are harmful to human health and the environment, including
premature mortality, aggravation of respiratory and cardiovascular
disease, decreased lung function, visibility impairment, and damage to
vegetation and ecosystems. Section 110(a) of the CAA requires States to
submit regulations that control VOC, NOX, and PM emissions.
SJVUAPCD Rule 4311 minimizes flaring events by requiring flare
minimization plans (FMPs), monitoring of flare activity and emissions,
and related recordkeeping. 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 (b)(2)), must not interfere with any applicable
requirements concerning attainment and reasonable further progress
(RFP), and must not relax existing requirements (see sections 110(l)
and 193). Section 172(c)(1) of the Act also requires implementation of
all reasonably available control measures (RACM) as expeditiously as
practicable in nonattainment areas. The SJVUAPCD regulates an ozone
nonattainment area (see 40 CFR part 81), so Rule 4311 must fulfill
RACT. Additionally, the RACM requirement in CAA section 172(c)(1)
applies to this area.
    Guidance and policy documents that we use to evaluate
enforceability and RACT and RACM requirements consistently include the
following:
    1. ``Issues Relating to VOC Regulation Cutpoints, Deficiencies, and
Deviations,'' EPA, May 25, 1988 (the Bluebook).
    2. ``Guidance Document for Correcting Common VOC & Other Rule
Deficiencies,'' EPA Region 9, August 21, 2001 (the Little Bluebook).
    3. Portions of the proposed post-1987 ozone and carbon monoxide
policy that concern RACT, 52 FR 45044, November 24, 1987.
    4. ``State Implementation Plans, General Preamble for the
Implementation of Title I of the Clean Air Amendments of 1990'' 57 FR
13498, April 16, 1992.
    5. ``Preamble, Final Rule to Implement the 8-Hour Ozone National
Ambient Air Quality Standard'' 70 FR 71612; Nov. 29, 2005.
    6. Letter from William T. Hartnett to Regional Air Division
Directors, ``RACT Qs & As--Reasonable Available Control Technology
(RACT) Questions and Answers,'' May 18, 2006.

B. Does the rule meet the evaluation criteria?

    We believe this rule is consistent with the relevant policy and
guidance regarding enforceability, RACT, and SIP relaxations. The TSD
has more information on our evaluation.

C. 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 but are not currently
the basis for rule disapproval.

D. Public Comment and Final Action

    Because EPA believes the submitted rule fulfills all relevant
requirements, we are proposing to fully approve it 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 this rule 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 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 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 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.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Intergovernmental
relations, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Particulate matter, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements, Volatile organic compounds.

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

    Dated: August 8, 2011.
Jared Blumenfeld,
Regional Administrator, Region IX.
[FR Doc. 2011-21368 Filed 8-22-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 71 (Monday, April 14, 2014)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 20797-20800]
[FR Doc No: 2014-08374]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 177

[Docket No. USCG-2013-0216]
RIN 1625-AC01

Regulated Navigation Areas; Bars Along the Coasts of Oregon and
Washington

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Final rule.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard finalizes regulations previously published as
an interim rule on July 9, 2013. In this final rule, the Coast Guard
removes the wave height and surface current provisions and regulated
boating areas for bar crossing locations along the coasts of Oregon and
Washington because they conflict with more recently promulgated wave
height provisions and regulated boating areas for the same bar
crossings. This amendment is necessary in order to remove confusion as
to which safety requirements apply to recreational vessels, uninspected
passenger vessels, small passenger vessels, and commercial fishing
vessels when operating within the regulated navigation areas.

DATES: This final rule is effective May 14, 2014.

ADDRESSES: Comments and material received from the public, as well as
documents mentioned in this preamble as being available in the docket,
are part of docket USCG-2013-0216 and are available for inspection or
copying at the Docket Management Facility (M-30), U.S. Department of
Transportation, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m.,
Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. You may also find this
docket on the Internet by going to http://www.regulations.gov,
inserting USCG-2013-0216 in the ``Keyword'' box, and then clicking
``Search.''

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions on this rule,
email or call Mr. Burt Lahn, U.S. Coast Guard Office of Navigation
Standards (CG-NAV-3), email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>telephone 202-372-
1526. If you have questions on viewing or submitting material to the
docket, call Cheryl Collins, Program Manager, Docket Operations,
telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Table of Contents for Preamble

I. Abbreviations
II. Regulatory History and Information
III. Basis and Purpose
IV. Discussion of the Final Rule
V. Discussion of Comments on the Interim Rule
VI. Regulatory Analyses
    A. Regulatory Planning and Review
    B. Small Entities
    C. Assistance for Small Entities
    D. Collection of Information
    E. Federalism
    F. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
    G. Taking of Private Property
    H. Civil Justice Reform
    I. Protection of Children
    J. Indian Tribal Governments
    K. Energy Effects
    L. Technical Standards
    M. Environment

I. Abbreviations

CFR Code of Federal Regulations
DHS Department of Homeland Security
FR Federal Register
NPRM Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
NTSB National Transportation Safety Board
RNA Regulated Navigation Area
U.S.C. United States Code

II. Regulatory History and Information

    The bars along the coasts of Oregon and Washington are a maritime
operating environment unique to the Pacific Northwest. Bars are
commonly defined as areas of shallow water that lead into rivers and
bays. At times, bars become extremely hazardous for vessels to navigate
due to strong currents and large waves that can form when strong ocean
currents pass over the bars. Until 2009, the bars along the coast of
Oregon and Washington were regulated in 33 CFR Part 177. On February
12, 2009, the Coast Guard published a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
(NPRM) in the Federal Register (74 FR 7022) that proposed to establish
Regulated Navigation Areas (RNAs) in 33 CFR 165.1325 for bars along the
coasts of Oregon and Washington. RNAs are areas of water within a
defined boundary that, for reasons of safety or environmental concerns,
the Coast Guard has implemented regulations on the operation of vessels
permitted inside the defined area. The proposals in the NPRM were
designed to help ensure the safety of persons and vessels operating on
or in the vicinity of the bars. The Coast Guard subsequently published
a final rule in the Federal Register on November 17, 2009 (74 FR
59098), adopting most of the NPRM's proposals.
    Certain provisions in that 2009 final rule superseded other
provisions in Part 177 that governed bar crossing along the coasts of
Oregon and Washington. Specifically, 33 CFR 165.1325(a) sets forth the
specific locations for the RNAs that cover the bars along the Oregon
and Washington coasts, and supersedes the

regulated boating areas in 33 CFR 177.08. Additionally, 33 CFR
165.1325(b)(13) defines the term unsafe condition to include certain
wave height conditions, and supersedes the unsafe wave height formula
and surface current provisions in 33 CFR 177.07(f). The purpose of this
final rule is to remove those superseded provisions from the CFR.
    As discussed in the 2009 NPRM, the Coast Guard determined that the
wave height and surface current provisions in 33 CFR 177.07(f), and the
regulated boating areas in 33 CFR 177.08, did not provide a sufficient
measure of safety for persons and vessels operating in those areas. In
addition, multiple Coast Guard and National Transportation Safety Board
(NTSB) accident investigations indicated a need for additional
regulations to mitigate the risks associated with the bars and to
enhance the safety of the persons and vessels operating on and in the
bars' vicinity.
    Because the 2009 amendments to 33 CFR 1625.1325(a) and
1625.1325(b)(13) superceded the provisions in 33 CFR 177.07(f) and
177.08 specific to the wave height and surface current provisions and
regulated boating areas for bar crossing locations along the coasts of
Oregon and Washington, the Coast Guard, on July 9, 2013, issued an
Interim Rule with request for comments (78 FR 40963) for the purpose of
removing the superseded provisions in 33 CFR 177.07(f) and 177.08. In
that Interim Rule, we explained that it was necessary to remove the
wave height and surface current provisions contained in 33 CFR
177.07(f) and 177.08 specific to bar crossings along the coasts of
Oregon and Washington because they conflict with the more recently
promulgated regulations in 33 CFR 1625.1325. This rule finalizes the
2013 interim rule with no changes.

III. Basis and Purpose

    Under 46 U.S.C. 4302, the Coast Guard is authorized to establish
regulations to promulgate minimum safety standards and procedures for
recreational vessels. Under 46 U.S.C. 4105(a), uninspected passenger
vessels are also subject to Chapter 43 of Title 46, U.S. Code.
    This rulemaking is necessary in order to remove the wave height and
surface current provisions under 33 CFR 177.07(f) and the geographic
coordinates in 33 CFR 177.08 that have been superseded by 33 CFR
165.1325, to eliminate confusion regarding which provisions apply
specifically to the bars along the coasts of Oregon and Washington. The
regulations in 33 CFR 165.1325 establish clear procedures for
restricting and/or closing the bars as well as mandating additional
safety requirements for recreational and uninspected commercial vessels
operating on or in the vicinity of the bars, when certain conditions
exist. The RNAs established in 33 CFR 165.1325 help to expedite bar
restrictions and closures and include a mariner notification process
that helps keep vessels away from hazardous bars. The RNAs also require
the use and/or making ready of safety equipment, as well as additional
reporting requirements when certain conditions exist, which help
safeguard the persons and vessels that operate on or in the vicinity of
hazardous bars.

IV. Discussion of the Final Rule

    Certain provisions of 33 CFR part 177, governing maritime traffic
operating on and in the vicinity of the bars along the coasts of Oregon
and Washington, provide insufficient safety measures for the persons
and vessels that operate in those areas. As discussed in the February
12, 2009 NPRM (74 FR 7022), multiple Coast Guard and NTSB casualty
investigations indicated a need for additional regulations to mitigate
the risks associated with the bars and to enhance the safety of the
persons and vessels operating on and in the bars' vicinity. To fulfill
this need, in 2009, the Coast Guard established the RNAs in 33 CFR
165.1325.
    The provisions in 33 CFR 165.1325 establish an increased measure of
safety and supersede the existing provisions in 33 CFR 177.07(f) and
177.08. Accordingly, the Coast Guard, through this rule, removes the
wave height provisions in 33 CFR 177.07(f)(1) and (2), the surface
current provision in 33 CFR 177.07(f)(3), and the regulated boating
areas in 33 CFR 177.08.

V. Discussion of the Comments on the Interim Rule

    The Coast Guard received one comment on the interim rule. The
commenter stated that the interim rule does not explain what specific
changes are being made or how they are more protective than the
existing regulations, and requested a table showing the difference
between the existing regulations and the new language. Such a table,
the commenter suggests, would make this rulemaking action more useful
and would also increase the transparency of the Coast Guard's actions.
    The Coast Guard reviewed the published interim rule. We do not
agree that the interim rule fails to explain the specific changes
effectuated by the rule. In the interim rule, the Coast Guard explained
that the wave height and surface current restrictions in 33 CFR
177.07(f) and the geographic coordinates in 33 CFR 177.08 were in
conflict with, and had been superseded by, the more recently
promulgated regulations in 33 CFR 165.1325 (promulgated in a final rule
in 2009, 74 FR 59098, after notice and comment on the proposed rule, 74
FR 7022). The Coast Guard further explained that the rulemaking is
necessary in order to remove the provisions in 33 CFR 177.07(f) and
177.08 that conflict with 33 CFR 165.1325, and thereby remove confusion
regarding which provisions apply specifically to the bars along the
coasts of Oregon and Washington. Further, it is worth emphasizing that
this rulemaking is not adding new regulatory provisions. For these
reasons, we do not believe adding a table is necessary in order to
understand the effect of this rule, nor would it add clarity to the
public on the removal of the provisions in 33 CFR 177.07(f) and 177.08
that conflict with 33 CFR 165.1325.

VI. Regulatory Analyses

    We developed this final rule after considering numerous statutes
and executive orders related to rulemaking. Below we summarize our
analyses based on these statutes and executive orders.

A. Regulatory Planning and Review

    Executive Orders 12866 (``Regulatory Planning and Review'') and
13563 (``Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review'') direct agencies
to assess the costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives
and, if regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that
maximize net benefits (including potential economic, environmental,
public health and safety effects, distributive impacts, and equity).
Executive Order 13563 emphasizes the importance of quantifying both
costs and benefits, of reducing costs, of harmonizing rules, and of
promoting flexibility.
    This final rule is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under
section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866, ``Regulatory Planning and
Review'', and does not require an assessment of potential costs and
benefits under section 6(a)(3) of that Order. The Office of Management
and Budget has not reviewed it under that Order.
    The Coast Guard does not expect any economic impact as a result of
this rule because it involves removing two criteria for unsafe
conditions in 33 CFR part 177 that have been superseded by 33 CFR
165.1325.

B. Small Entities

    Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601-612), we have
considered whether this rule would have a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities. 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.
This rulemaking, which finalizes a lawfully promulgated interim rule,
does not require a general notice of proposed rulemaking and,
therefore, is exempt from the analysis requirements of the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 604).

C. 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 so that they can better evaluate
its effects on them and participate in the rulemaking. If the rule
would affect your small business, organization, or governmental
jurisdiction and you have questions concerning its provisions or
options for compliance, please consult Burt Lahn, U.S. Coast Guard
Office of Navigation Standards (CG-NAV-3), email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>. 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.

D. Collection of Information

    This rule calls for no new collection of information under the
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520).

E. 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 have
determined that it is consistent with the fundamental federalism
principles and preemption requirements described in Executive Order
13132. Our analysis is explained below.
    Under 46 U.S.C. 4306, Federal regulations promulgated under the
authority of 46 U.S.C. 4302 preempt State law unless the State law is
identical to a Federal regulation or a State is specifically provided
an exemption to those regulations, or permitted to regulate marine
safety articles carried or used to address a hazardous condition or
circumstance unique to that State. As noted above, this rule simply
removes superseded regulations regarding wave height and surface
current provisions, and certain regulated boating areas from 33 CFR
part 177.
    Additionally, there are no existing State laws that are identical
to these Federal regulations, nor have the States been provided an
exemption to those regulations or permitted to regulate marine safety
articles. Therefore, the rule is consistent with the principles of
federalism and preemption requirements in Executive Order 13132.

F. 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. This rule will not result in such
expenditure.

G. 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.''

H. 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.

I. 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.

J. 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.

K. 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.

L. Technical Standards

    The National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (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.

M. 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 (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 is categorically excluded, under section 2.B.2, Figure 2-1,
paragraph 34(g), of the Instruction because it involves regulations
establishing, disestablishing, or changing RNAs. 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 177

    Marine safety.

Title 33--Navigation and Navigable Waters

PART 177--CORRECTION OF ESPECIALLY HAZARDOUS CONDITIONS

    For the reasons discussed in the preamble, under authority of 46
U.S.C. 4302, 4311; Pub. L. 103-206, 107 Stat. 2439, the interim rule
amending 33 CFR part 177 that was published at 78 FR 40963 on July 9,
2013, is adopted as a final rule without change.

    Dated: March 27, 2014.
Gary C. Rasicot,
Director of Marine Transportation Systems, U.S. Coast Guard.
[FR Doc. 2014-08374 Filed 4-11-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-04-P


[Federal Register: May 15, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 93)]
[Notices]
[Page 22990-22991]
[DOCID:fr15my09-112]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-59893; File No. SR-NYSEArca-2009-38]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; NYSE Arca, Inc.; Notice of Filing
and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change Implementing Fee
Change

May 8, 2009.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) \1\ of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 (the ``Act'') \2\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\3\ notice is hereby
given that on April 30, 2009, NYSE Arca, Inc. (``NYSE Arca'' or the
``Exchange'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the
``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in Items I, II
and III below, which Items have been prepared by the self-regulatory
organization. NYSE Arca filed the proposal pursuant to Section
19(b)(3)(A) \4\ of the Act and Rule 19b-4(f)(2) \5\ thereunder. The
Commission is publishing this notice to solicit comments on the
proposed rule change from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 15 U.S.C. 78a.
    \3\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \4\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \5\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

I. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Terms of Substance
of the Proposed Rule Change

    The Exchange proposes to amend its Schedule of Fees and Charges for
Exchange Services (the ``Schedule''). While changes to the Schedule
pursuant to this proposal will be effective upon filing, the changes
will become operative on May 1, 2009. A copy of this filing is
available on the Exchange's Web site at http://www.nyse.com, at the
Exchange's principal office and at the Commission's Public Reference
Room.

II. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Purpose of, and
Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change

    In its filing with the Commission, the self-regulatory organization
included statements concerning the purpose of, and basis for, the
proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received

on the proposed rule change. The text of those statements may be
examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has
prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the
most significant parts of such statements.

A. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Purpose of, and
Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change

1. Purpose
    The Exchange proposes adding a fee for Market-on-Close (``MOC'')
and Limit-on-Close (``LOC'') orders executed in the Closing Auction. A
fee of $.0005 per share will be charged for all MOC and LOC orders
executed in the Closing Auction in NYSE Arca primary listed securities,
including all exchange traded funds (``ETFs'') and exchange traded
notes (``ETNs''). The Exchange also proposes charging a fee of $.0005
per share for all MOC and LOC orders executed in the Closing Auction in
Tape C ETFs and ETNs. Currently, the Exchange does not charge a fee for
orders executed in the Closing Auction. Lead Market Makers (``LMMs'')
executing orders in the Closing Auction in securities in which the firm
is registered as the LMM will continue to not be charged a fee. The
proposed fee will become operative on May 1, 2009, and will apply to
all pricing levels, including tiered and basic rate pricing. The
Exchange believes that the proposed changes to the Schedule are
equitable in that they apply uniformly to all similarly situated Users.
2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent
with the provisions of Section 6 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(the ``Act''), in general, and Section 6(b)(4) of the Act, in
particular, in that it is designed to provide for the equitable
allocation of reasonable dues, fees, and other charges among its
members and other persons using its facilities. The Exchange believes
that the proposed changes to the Schedule are equitable in that they
apply uniformly to all similarly situated Users.

B. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Burden on Competition

    The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will
impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate
in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.

C. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Comments on the Proposed
Rule Change Received From Members, Participants, or Others

    No written comments were solicited or received with respect to the
proposed rule change.

III. Date of Effectiveness of the Proposed Rule Change and Timing for
Commission Action

    The foregoing proposed rule change is effective upon filing
pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) \6\ of the Act and subparagraph (f)(2)
of Rule 19b-4 \7\ thereunder, because it establishes a due, fee, or
other charge imposed by NYSE Arca on its members. At any time within 60
days of the filing of the proposed rule change, the Commission may
summarily abrogate such rule change if it appears to the Commission
that such action is necessary or appropriate in the public interest,
for the protection of investors, or otherwise in furtherance of the
purposes of the Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \7\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Solicitation of Comments

    Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and
arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule
change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of
the following methods:

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://
www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an e-mail to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-NYSEArca-2009-38 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

     Send paper comments in triplicate to Elizabeth M. Murphy,
Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street, NE.,
Washington, DC 20549-1090.

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-NYSEArca-2009-38. This
file number should be included on the subject line if e-mail is used.
To help the Commission process and review your comments more
efficiently, please use only one method. The Commission will post all
comments on the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/
rules/sro.shtml). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments,
all written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that
are filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating
to the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person,
other than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance
with the provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for inspection
and copying in the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street,
NE, Washington, DC 20549, on official business days between the hours
of 10 a.m. and 3 p.m. Copies of the filing also will be available for
inspection and copying at the principal office of the Exchange. All
comments received will be posted without change; the Commission does
not edit personal identifying information from submissions. You should
submit only information that you wish to make available publicly. All
submissions should refer to File Number SR-NYSEArca-2009-38 and should
be submitted on or before June 5, 2009.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Florence E. Harmon,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. E9-11358 Filed 5-14-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8010-01-P