[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 236 (Thursday, December 9, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Pages 76762-76763]
[FR Doc No: 2010-30942]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-63425; File No. SR-NASDAQ-2010-156]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; The NASDAQ Stock Market LLC;
Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To
Amend NASDAQ Rules 2270 and 2910 To Reflect Changes to Corresponding
FINRA Rule

December 3, 2010.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(``Act''),\1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given that
on December 1, The NASDAQ Stock Market LLC (the ``Exchange'' or
``NASDAQ'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in Items I, II,
and III below, which Items have been prepared by the Exchange. The
Exchange has designated the proposed rule change as constituting a non-
controversial rule change under Rule 19b-4(f)(6) under the Act,\3\
which renders the proposal effective upon filing with the Commission.
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\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \3\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The Exchange is filing this proposed rule change to amend NASDAQ
Rules 2270 and 2910 to reflect recent changes to a corresponding rule
of the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (``FINRA''). NASDAQ
proposes to implement the proposed rule change immediately. [sic] The
text of the proposed rule change is available at http://nasdaqomx.cchwallstreet.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 Exchange 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 these 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 aspects of such
statements.

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

1. Purpose
    Many of NASDAQ's rules are based on rules of FINRA (formerly the
National Association of Securities Dealers (``NASD'')). During 2008,
FINRA embarked on an extended process of moving rules formerly
designated as ``NASD Rules'' into a consolidated FINRA rulebook. In
most cases, FINRA has renumbered these rules, and in some cases has
substantively amended them. Accordingly, NASDAQ initiated a process of
modifying its rulebook to ensure that NASDAQ rules corresponding to
FINRA/NASD rules continue to mirror them as closely as practicable.
NASDAQ proposes to update its rules to reflect changes [sic] NASDAQ
Rules 2270 and 2910 which corresponds to FINRA Rule 2261.
    NASDAQ Rule 2270 (Disclosure of Financial Condition to Customers)
and NASDAQ Rule 2910 (Disclosure of Financial Condition to Other
Members) formerly corresponded to NASD Rule 2270 (Disclosure of
Financial Condition to Customers) and NASD Rule 2910 (Disclosure of
Financial Condition to Other Members). In SR-FINRA-2009-081,\4\ FINRA
re-designated NASD Rules 2270 and 2910 as FINRA Rule 2261 and made
substantive amendments to strengthen and simplify the rules.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ Securities Exchange Act Release No. 61540 (February 18,
2010), 75 FR 8771 (February 25, 2010) (SR-FINRA-2008-081).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    More specifically, the current NASDAQ Rule 2270, which incorporates
NASD Rule 2270 by reference, requires that the members make information
relative to a member's financial condition, as disclosed in its most
recent balance sheet, available for inspection by any bona fide regular
customer upon request. In FINRA SR-2009-081, [sic] FINRA provided
members the option of delivering their balance sheet, in paper or
electronic form, to customers who request it. Additionally, if the
delivery is electronic, the requesting customer must provide consent to
receive the balance sheet in electronic form to ensure that such
information is accessible to the customer.
    This proposed filing also addresses NASDAQ Rule 2910, which
compares to the former NASD Rule 2910. NASDAQ Rule 2910 requires that
any member that is a party to an open transaction or who

has on deposit cash or securities of another member to furnish, upon
the written request of the other member, a statement of its financial
condition as disclosed in its most recently prepared balance sheet. In
SR-FINRA-2009-081, FINRA amended NASD Rule 2910 and consolidated it
within FINRA Rule 2261 to require that members provide to other members
the balance sheet that was prepared in accordance with the member's
usual practice or as required by state or federal securities laws or
any corresponding rule or regulation. Also, FINRA amended the provision
to require that members be permitted to provide their balance sheet to
other members in paper or electronic form; however, this does not
require obtaining consent of the other members for delivery.
    NASDAQ believes that NASDAQ Rule 2270 and 2910 should be
consolidated and amended to reflect the provisions in the new FINRA
2261. For clarification, this results in deleting NASDAQ Rules 2270 and
2910. This will allow customers and other members to continue to have
access to a copy of the member's most recent balance sheet at any time
upon request while simplifying the provisions. NASDAQ is adopting the
new FINRA rule in full by incorporating by reference FINRA Rule 2261
into the proposed NASDAQ Rule 2261.
2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent
with the provisions of Section 6 of the Act,\5\ in general, and with
Sections 6(b)(5) of the Act,\6\ in particular, in that the proposal is
designed to prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts and practices, to
promote just and equitable principles of trade, to foster cooperation
and coordination with persons engaged in regulating, clearing,
settling, processing information with respect to, and facilitating
transactions in securities, to remove impediments to and perfect the
mechanism of a free and open market and a national market system, and,
in general, to protect investors and the public interest. The proposed
changes will conform NASDAQ Rules 2270 and 2910 to recent changes made
to corresponding FINRA Rule 2261 to promote application of consistent
regulatory standards.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ 15 U.S.C. 78f.
    \6\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

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

    Written comments were neither solicited nor received.

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

    Because the foregoing proposed rule change does not: (i)
Significantly affect the protection of investors or the public
interest; (ii) impose any significant burden on competition; and (iii)
become operative for 30 days from the date on which it was filed, or
such shorter time as the Commission may designate, it has become
effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act \7\ and Rule 19b-
4(f)(6) thereunder.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \8\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule
change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend 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. If the Commission
takes such action, the Commission shall institute proceedings to
determine whether the proposed rule should be approved or disapproved.

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-NASDAQ-2010-156 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-NASDAQ-2010-156. 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 Web site viewing and printing in
the Commission's Public Reference Room. 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-
NASDAQ-2010-156 and should be submitted on or before December 30, 2010.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Florence E. Harmon,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2010-30942 Filed 12-8-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 121 (Tuesday, June 24, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Page 35751]
[FR Doc No: 2014-14698]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Combined Notice of Filings

    Take notice that the Commission has received the following Natural
Gas Pipeline Rate and Refund Report filings:

Filings Instituting Proceedings

    Docket Numbers: RP14-1044-000.
    Applicants: Chief Oil & Gas LLC, Tug Hill Marcellus, LLC, Enerplus
Resources (USA) Corporation, Chesapeake Energy Marketing Inc.
    Description: Joint Petition for Limited Waiver and Request for
Expedited Action of Chesapeake Energy Marketing, Inc. et al.
    Filed Date: 6/11/14.
    Accession Number: 20140611-5065.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 6/20/14.

    The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by
clicking on the links or querying the docket number.
    Any person desiring to intervene or protest in any of the above
proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the
Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214) on or before 5:00
p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date. Protests may be
considered, but intervention is necessary to become a party to the
proceeding.
    eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing
requirements, interventions, protests, service, and qualifying
facilities filings can be found at: http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling/filing-req.pdf. For other information, call<PHONE_NUMBER>
(toll free). For TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Dated June 12, 2014.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2014-14698 Filed 6-23-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 119 (Wednesday, June 20, 2012)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 36955-36958]
[FR Doc No: 2012-14973]

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 165

[Docket No. USCG-2011-0906]
RIN 1625-AA87

Security Zone; Cruise Ships, Santa Barbara Harbor, Santa Barbara,
CA

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard proposes to establish fixed security zones
around and under any cruise ships visiting Santa Barbara Harbor, Santa
Barbara, California. This proposed regulation is needed for national
security reasons to protect cruise ships, vessels, users of the
waterway and the port from potential terrorist acts. These security
zones would encompass all navigable waters from the surface to the sea
floor within a 100-yard radius of any cruise ship located within 3
nautical miles of the Santa Barbara Harbor Breakwater Light (Light List
Number 3750). Entry into these zones would be prohibited unless
specifically authorized by the Captain of the Port (COTP) Los Angeles--
Long Beach (LA-LB), or his designated representative.

DATES: Comments and related material must be received by the Coast
Guard on or before July 20, 2012.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments identified by docket number USCG-
2011-0906 using any one of the following methods:
    (1) Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov.
    (2) Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    (3) Mail: Docket Management Facility (M-30), U.S. Department of
Transportation, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590-0001.
    (4) Hand delivery: Same as mail address above, between 9 a.m. and 5
p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The telephone
number is<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    To avoid duplication, please use only one of these four methods.
See the ``Public Participation and Request for Comments'' portion of
the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section below for instructions on
submitting comments.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions on this proposed
rule, call or email Ensign Brett M. DiManno, Prevention, Sector Los
Angeles--Long Beach, Coast Guard; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>, email
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>If you have questions on viewing or
submitting material to the docket, call Renee V. Wright, Program
Manager, Docket Operations, telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Public Participation and Request for Comments

    We encourage you to participate in this rulemaking by submitting
comments and related materials. All comments received will be posted
without change to http://www.regulations.gov and will include any
personal information you have provided.

Submitting Comments

    If you submit a comment, please include the docket number for this
rulemaking (USCG-2011-0906), indicate the specific section of this
document to which each comment applies, and provide a reason for each
suggestion or recommendation. You may submit your comments and material
online (via http://www.regulations.gov) or by fax, mail, or hand
delivery, but please use only one of these means. If you submit a
comment online via www.regulations.gov, it will be considered received
by the Coast Guard when you successfully transmit the comment. If you
fax, hand deliver, or mail your comment, it will be considered as
having been received by the Coast Guard when it is received at the
Docket Management Facility. We recommend that you include your name and
a mailing address, an email address, or a telephone number in the body
of your document so that we can contact you if we have questions
regarding your submission.

    To submit your comment online, go to http://www.regulations.gov,
click on the ``submit a comment'' box, which will then become
highlighted in blue. In the ``Document Type'' drop down menu select
``Proposed Rule'' and insert ``USCG-2011-0906'' in the ``Keyword'' box.
Click ``Search'' then click on the balloon shape in the ``Actions''
column. If you submit your comments by mail or hand delivery, submit
them in an unbound format, no larger than 8\1/2\ by 11 inches, suitable
for copying and electronic filing. If you submit comments by mail and
would like to know that they reached the Facility, please enclose a
stamped, self-addressed postcard or envelope. We will consider all
comments and material received during the comment period and may change
the rule based on your comments.

Viewing Comments and Documents

    To view comments, as well as documents mentioned in this preamble
as being available in the docket, go to http://www.regulations.gov,
click on the ``read comments'' box, which will then become highlighted
in blue. In the ``Keyword'' box insert ``USCG-2011-0906'' and click
``Search.'' Click the ``Open Docket Folder'' in the ``Actions'' column.
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. We have an
agreement with the Department of Transportation to use the Docket
Management Facility.

Privacy Act

    Anyone can search the electronic form of comments received into any
of our dockets by the name of the individual submitting the comment (or
signing the comment, if submitted on behalf of an association,
business, labor union, etc.). You may review a Privacy Act notice
regarding our public dockets in the January 17, 2008, issue of the
Federal Register (73 FR 3316).

Public Meeting

    We do not now plan to hold a public meeting. But you may submit a
request for one using one of the four methods specified under
ADDRESSES. Please explain why you believe a public meeting would be
beneficial. If we determine that one would aid this rulemaking, we will
hold one at a time and place announced by a later notice in the Federal
Register.

Basis and Purpose

    In its effort to thwart terrorist activity, the Coast Guard has
increased safety and security measures on U.S. ports and waterways. As
part of the Diplomatic Security and Antiterrorism Act of 1986 (Pub. L.
99-399), Congress added section 7 of the Ports and Waterways Safety Act
(PWSA), 33 U.S.C. 1226, to allow the Coast Guard to take actions,
including the establishment of security and safety zones, to prevent or
respond to acts of terrorism against individuals, vessels, or public or
commercial structures. The Coast Guard also has authority to establish
security zones pursuant to the Magnuson Act (50 U.S.C. 191 et seq.) and
implementing regulations promulgated by the President in subparts 6.01
and 6.04 of part 6 of title 33 of the Code of Federal Regulations.
    In this particular rulemaking, to address the aforementioned
security concerns, and to take steps to prevent the catastrophic impact
a terrorist attack against a cruise ship would have on the public
interest, the Coast Guard proposes to establish security zones around
and under cruise ships visiting Santa Barbara Harbor, Santa Barbara,
California. This security zone helps the Coast Guard to prevent vessels
or persons from engaging in terrorist actions against cruise ships. The
Coast Guard has determined the establishment of security zones is
prudent for cruise ships because they carry a multitude of passengers.
    Based on experience with security zone enforcement operations, the
Captain of the Port (COTP) Los Angeles--Long Beach has concluded that
these security zones should encompass all navigable waters from the
surface to the sea floor within a 100-yard radius of any cruise ship
which is located within 3 nautical miles seaward of the Santa Barbara
Harbor Breakwater Light (Light List Number 3750; 34-24-17.364 N, 119-
41-16.260W). These security zones are necessary to provide for the
safety of the cruise ship, vessels, and users of the waterway.

Discussion of Proposed Rule

    The Coast Guard proposes to establish security zones around and
under cruise ships which visit Santa Barbara Harbor, Santa Barbara,
California. This proposed rule, for security concerns, prohibits entry
of any vessel inside the security zone surrounding a cruise ship. These
security zones would encompass all navigable waters from the surface to
the sea floor within a 100-yard radius of any cruise ship located
within 3 nautical miles of the Santa Barbara Harbor Breakwater Light
(Light List Number 3750; 34-24-17.364 N, 119-41-16.260W). These
security zones are needed for national security reasons to protect
cruise ships, the public, and transiting vessels, from potential
subversive acts, accidents, or other events of a similar nature. Entry
into the zone would be prohibited unless specifically authorized by the
Captain of the Port or his designated representative. Vessels already
moored or anchored when these security zones take effect are not
required to get underway to avoid the zones unless specifically ordered
to do so by the Captain of the Port or his designated representative.
    The Captain of the Port will enforce these zones and may request
the use of resources and personnel of other government agencies to
assist in the patrol and enforcement of the regulation.

Regulatory Analyses

    We developed this proposed rule after considering numerous statutes
and executive orders related to rulemaking. Below we summarize our
analyses based on 13 of these statutes or executive orders.

Regulatory Planning and Review

    This proposed 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. We expect the economic
impact of this rule to be so minimal that full Regulatory Evaluation is
unnecessary. Although this regulation restricts access to a portion of
navigable waters, the effect of this regulation is not significant
because:
    i. The zones only encompass a small portion of the waterway;
    ii. Vessels are able to pass safely around the zones; and
    iii. Vessels may be allowed to enter these zones on a case-by-case
basis with permission of the Captain of the Port (COTP) Los Angeles--
Long Beach, or his designated representative.
    The size of the zone is the minimum necessary to provide adequate
protection for all cruise ships and other vessels operating in the
vicinity of these vessels, adjoining areas, and the public. The
entities most likely to be affected are fishing vessels and pleasure
craft engaged in recreational activities and sightseeing.

Small Entities

    Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601-612), we have
considered whether this proposed 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.
    The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this proposed
rule would 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
or anchor in Santa Barbara Harbor within a 100-yard radius of cruise
ships covered by this rule.
    This security zone regulation will not have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small entities because vessel traffic
can pass safely around the zones.
    If you think that your business, organization, or governmental
jurisdiction qualifies as a small entity and that this rule would have
a significant economic impact on it, please submit a comment (see
ADDRESSES) explaining why you think it qualifies and how and to what
degree this rule would economically affect it.

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 proposed 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 contact 1-888-REG-FAIR (1-888-734-3247).
The Coast Guard will not retaliate against small entities that question
or complain about this proposed rule or any policy or action of the
Coast Guard.

Collection of Information

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

Federalism

    A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132,
Federalism, if it has a substantial direct effect on State or local
governments and would either preempt State law or impose a substantial
direct cost of compliance on them. We have analyzed this proposed rule
under that Order and have determined that it does not have implications
for federalism.

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 proposed rule would not
result in such an expenditure, we do discuss the effects of this rule
elsewhere in this preamble.

Taking of Private Property

    This proposed rule would 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.

Civil Justice Reform

    This proposed 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 proposed rule under Executive Order 13045,
Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety
Risks. This rule is not an economically significant rule and would not
create an environmental risk to health or risk to safety that might
disproportionately affect children.

Indian Tribal Governments

    This proposed rule does not have tribal implications under
Executive Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal
Governments, because it would 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 proposed 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 proposed rule does not use technical standards. Therefore, we
did not consider the use of voluntary consensus standards.

Environment

    We have analyzed this proposed 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
made a preliminary determination that this action is one of a category
of actions that do not individually or cumulatively have a significant
effect on the human environment. A preliminary environmental analysis
checklist supporting this determination is available in the docket
where indicated under ADDRESSES. This proposed rule involves the
establishment of security zones. We seek any comments or information
that may lead to the discovery of a significant environmental impact
from this proposed rule.

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 proposes
to amend 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. 1231; 46 U.S.C. Chapter 701, 3306, 3703; 50
U.S.C. 191, 195; 33 CFR 1.05-1(g), 6.04-1, 6.04-6, and 160.5; Pub.
L. 107-295, 116 Stat. 2064; Department of Homeland Security
Delegation No. 0170.1.

    2. Add Sec.  165.1157 to read as follows:

Sec.  165.1157  Security Zone; Cruise Ships, Santa Barbara, California.

    (a) Location. The following areas are security zones: All navigable
waters, from the surface to the sea floor within a 100-yard radius of
any cruise ship located within 3 nautical miles of the Santa Barbara
Harbor Breakwater Light (Light List Number 3750; 34-24-17.364 N, 119-
41-16.260W).
    (b) Definition. ``Cruise ship'' as used in this section means any
vessel, except for a ferry, over 100 feet in length, authorized to
carry more than 12 passengers for hire; making voyages lasting more
than 24 hours, any part of which is on the high seas; and for which
passengers are embarked or disembarked in the U.S. or its territories.
    (c) Regulations. (1) Under general security zone regulations in
subpart D, entry into or remaining in the zones described in paragraph
(a) of this section is prohibited unless authorized by the Coast Guard
Captain of the Port (COTP) Los Angeles--Long Beach (LA-LB), or a
designated representative of COTP LA-LB.
    (2) Persons desiring to transit the area of the security zone may
contact the COTP LA-LB at telephone number 1-310-521-3801 or on VHF-FM
channel 16 (156.800 MHz) to seek permission to transit the area. If
permission is granted, all persons and vessels must comply with the
instructions of the Captain of the Port, or his designated
representative.

    Dated: May 11, 2012.
R.R. Laferriere,
Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Port Los Angeles Long Beach.
[FR Doc. 2012-14973 Filed 6-19-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-04-P


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 55 (Friday, March 21, 2014)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 15718-15720]
[FR Doc No: 2014-06225]

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R04-OAR-2012-0814 & EPA-R04-OAR-2012-0692; FRL-9908-43-Region 4]

Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; Florida;
Infrastructure Requirement (Visibility) for the 1997 and 2006 PM, and
2008 8-Hour Ozone NAAQS

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: On April 18, 2008, and September 23, 2009, the Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) received state implementation plan (SIP)
submissions from the State of Florida, through the Florida Department
of Environmental Protection (FDEP), regarding the infrastructure
elements for the 1997 annual Fine Particulate Matter (PM2.5)
National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) and 2006 24-hour
PM2.5 NAAQS, respectively. On October 31, 2012, EPA received
a SIP submission from FDEP regarding the infrastructure elements for
the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS. Additionally, on October 22, 2013, FDEP
supplemented the three aforementioned infrastructure SIP submissions.
EPA is proposing to approve the elements of these infrastructure SIP
submissions, as supplemented on October 22, 2013, as they relate to the
protection of visibility in other states.

DATES: Written comments must be received on or before April 21, 2014.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments related to the 1997 and 2006
PM2.5 SIP submissions, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R04-
OAR-2012-0814, and related to the 2008 8-hour ozone SIP submission,
identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R04-OAR-2012-0692, by one of the
following methods:
    1. www.regulations.gov: Follow the on-line instructions for
submitting comments.
    2. E-Mail: R4-RDS-epa.gov.
    3. Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    4. Mail: ``EPA-R04-OAR-2012-0814,'' for the 1997 and 2006
PM2.5 SIP submissions or ``EPA-R04-OAR-2012-0692'' for the
2008 8-hour ozone SIP submission, 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.
    5. Hand Delivery or Courier: Lynorae Benjamin, Chief, 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. Such deliveries are
only accepted during the Regional Office's normal hours of operation.
The Regional Office's official hours of business are Monday through
Friday, 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., excluding Federal holidays.
    Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-R04-OAR-
2012-0814 for the 1997 and 2006 PM2.5 SIP submissions, or to
Docket ID No. EPA-R04-OAR-2012-0692 for the 2008 8-hour ozone SIP
submission. EPA's policy is that all comments received 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 information claimed to be Confidential
Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is
restricted by statute. Do not submit through www.regulations.gov or
email, information that you consider to be CBI or otherwise protected.
The www.regulations.gov Web site is an ``anonymous access'' system,
which means EPA will not know your identity or contact information
unless you provide it in the body of your comment. If you send an email
comment directly to EPA without going through www.regulations.gov, your
email address will be automatically captured and included as part of
the comment that is placed in the public docket and made available on
the Internet. If you submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends that
you include your name and other contact information in the body of your
comment and with any disk or CD-ROM you submit. 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.
Electronic files should avoid the use of special characters, any form
of encryption, and be free of any defects or viruses. For additional
information about EPA's public docket visit the EPA Docket Center
homepage at http://www.epa.gov/epahome/dockets.htm.
    Docket: All documents in the electronic docket are listed in the
www.regulations.gov index. Although listed in the index, some
information is not publicly available, i.e., 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 in 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 a.m. to 4:30 p.m.,
excluding Federal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Sean Lakeman or Nacosta Ward,
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.
Lakeman can be reached via electronic mail at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or
via telephone at<PHONE_NUMBER>. Ms. Ward can be reached via electronic
mail at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or via telephone at<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

    On July 18, 1997 (62 FR 38652), EPA established an annual
PM2.5 NAAQS of 15.0 micrograms per cubic meter ([mu]g/m\3\),
based on a 3-year average of annual mean PM2.5
concentrations, and a 24-hour NAAQS of 65 [mu]g/m\3\. On October 17,
2006 (71 FR 61144), EPA retained the 1997 annual PM2.5 NAAQS
at 15.0 [mu]g/m\3\ based on a 3-year average of annual mean
PM2.5 concentrations and promulgated a new 24-hour NAAQS of
35 [mu]g/m\3\ based on a 3-year average of the 98th percentile of 24-
hour concentrations. On March 27, 2008 (77 FR 16436), EPA revised the
8-hour ozone NAAQS to 0.075 parts per million. By statute, SIPs meeting
the requirements of sections 110(a)(1) and (2) are to be submitted by
states within three years after promulgation of a new or revised NAAQS.
Sections 110(a)(1) and (2) require states to address basic SIP
requirements, including emissions inventories, monitoring, and modeling
to assure attainment and maintenance of the NAAQS.
    EPA received Florida's infrastructure submissions on April 18,
2008, for the 1997 annual PM2.5 NAAQS; on September 23,
2009, for the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS; and on October 31,
2012, for the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS. The rulemaking proposed through
today's action only addresses section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) visibility
requirements. Florida supplemented its September 23, 2009, submission
on April 18, 2011, to further address the required elements of sections
110(a)(2)(D)(i) and 110(a)(2)(D)(ii), and it supplemented the April 18,
2008, September 23, 2009, and October 31, 2012, submissions on October
23, 2013, stating that Florida has met the section 110(a)(2)(D)(ii)
visibility requirements for the 1997 annual PM2.5 NAAQS,
2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS, and 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS
through EPA's approval of the State's regional haze SIP submission and
incorporation of all relevant portions of Florida's visibility program
into the State's implementation plan.

II. What are states required to address under Section 110(a)(2)(D)?

    Section 110(a)(2)(D) has two components: 110(a)(2)(D)(i) and
110(a)(2)(D)(ii). Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) includes four distinct
elements, commonly referred to as ``prongs,'' that must be addressed in
infrastructure SIP submissions. The first two prongs, which are
codified in section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I), prohibit any source or other
type of emissions activity in one state from contributing significantly
to nonattainment of the NAAQS in another state (``prong 1'') and from
interfering with maintenance of the NAAQS in another state (``prong
2''). The third and fourth prongs, which are codified in section
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II), prohibit emissions activity in one state from
interfering with measures required to prevent significant deterioration
of air quality in another state (``prong 3'') and to protect visibility
in another state (``prong 4''). Section 110(a)(2)(D)(ii) requires SIPs
to include provisions ensuring compliance with sections 115 and 126 of
the Act relating to interstate and international pollution abatement.
    Today's proposed rulemaking pertains only to requirements related
to prong 4 of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II), which as previously
described, requires that the SIP contain adequate provisions to protect
visibility in other states. EPA's rationale for today's proposal that
Florida is meeting these prong 4 requirements for purposes of the 1997
annual PM2.5 NAAQS, 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS, and
2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS is provided below.

III. What is EPA's analysis of how Florida addressed the Section
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) Visibility Element?

    EPA has made the preliminary determination that Florida's
infrastructure SIP submissions for the 1997 annual PM2.5
NAAQS, 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS, and 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS
meet the requirements of prong 4 of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) because
the Agency has approved Florida's regional haze SIP,\1\ and Florida has
confirmed, through its October 22, 2013, supplement to its SIP
submissions, that it has met the prong 4 requirements of section
110(a)(2)(D)(ii) for these NAAQS through EPA's approval of the State's
regional haze SIP submission and incorporation of all relevant portions
of Florida's visibility program into the State's implementation plan.
Federal regulations require that a state's regional haze SIP contain a
long-term strategy to address regional haze visibility impairment in
each Class I area within the state and each Class I area outside the
state that may be affected by emissions from the state.\2\ A state
participating in a regional planning process, such as Florida, must
include all measures needed to achieve its apportionment of emissions
reduction obligations agreed upon through that process.\3\ EPA's
approval of Florida's regional haze SIP therefore ensures that
emissions from Florida are not interfering with measures to protect
visibility in other states, satisfying the requirements of prong 4 of
section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) for the 1997 and 2006

PM2.5 NAAQS and for the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 77 FR 71111 (November 29, 2012); 78 FR 53250 (August 29,
2013).
    \2\ 40 CFR 51.308(d).
    \3\ See, e.g., 40 CFR 51.308(d)(3)(ii). Florida participated in
the Visibility Improvement State and Tribal Association of the
Southeast (VISTAS) regional planning organization, a collaborative
effort of state governments, tribal governments, and various Federal
agencies established to initiate and coordinate activities
associated with the management of regional haze, visibility, and
other air quality issues in the Southeastern United States. Member
state and tribal governments included: Alabama, Florida, Georgia,
Kentucky, Mississippi, North Carolina, South Carolina, Tennessee,
Virginia, West Virginia, and the Eastern Band of the Cherokee
Indians.
    \4\ See EPA's September 13, 2013, guidance document entitled
``Guidance on Infrastructure State Implementation Plan (SIP)
Elements under Clean Air Act Sections 110(a)(1) and 110(a)(2)'' at
pp. 32-35, available at: http:[sol][sol]www.epa.gov/air/urbanair/
sipstatus/infrastructure.html; see also memorandum from William T.
Harnett, Director, Air Quality Policy Division, Office of Air
Quality Planning and Standards, to Regional Air Division Directors,
entitled ``Guidance on SIP Elements Required Under Sections
110(1)(1) and (2) for the 2006 24-Hour Fine Particle
(PM2.5) National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS)''
(September 25, 2009) at pp. 5-6, available at:
http:[sol][sol]www.epa.gov/ttn/caaa/t1/memoranda/ 20090925_
harnett_pm25_sip_110a12.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Proposed Action

    As described above, EPA is proposing to approve the infrastructure
SIP submissions from FDEP as addressing prong 4 of section
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) of the CAA for the 1997 and 2006 PM2.5
NAAQS and for the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS. Specifically, EPA is
proposing to approve FDEP's April 18, 2008, and September 23, 2009,
submissions for the 1997 and 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS, and FDEP's
October 31, 2011, submission for the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS, as
supplemented on October 22, 2013, as they pertain to prong 4 of section
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) because they are consistent with section 110 of the
CAA.

V. 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. See 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 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.

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: March 10, 2014.
A. Stanley Meiburg,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region 4.
[FR Doc. 2014-06225 Filed 3-20-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register: December 28, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 249)]
[Notices]
[Page 78174]
[DOCID:fr28de06-51]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. RP04-274-008]

Kern River Gas Transmission Company; Notice of Compliance Filing

December 19, 2006.
    Take notice that on December 18, 2006, Kern River Gas Transmission
Company (Kern River) tendered for filing as part of its FERC Gas
Tariff, Second Revised Volume No. 1, the tariff sheets listed on
Appendix A submitted with the filing.
    Kern River states that it has served an electronic notice of this
filing on all parties on the official service list compiled by the
Secretary in this proceeding. The complete filing can be viewed on Kern
River's Web site.
    Any person desiring to protest this filing must file in accordance
with Rule 211 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18
CFR 385.211). Protests to this filing will be considered by the
Commission in determining the appropriate action to be taken, but will
not serve to make protestants parties to the proceeding. Such protests
must be filed in accordance with the provisions of Section 154.210 of
the Commission's regulations (18 CFR 154.210). Anyone filing a protest
must serve a copy of that document on all the parties to the
proceeding.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests in lieu
of paper using the ``eFiling'' link at http://www.ferc.gov. Persons

unable to file electronically should submit an original and 14 copies
of the protest to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First
Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426.
    This filing is accessible on-line at http://www.ferc.gov, using the

``eLibrary'' link and is available for review in the Commission's
Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an ``eSubscription''
link on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive e-mail
notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For
assistance with any FERC Online service, please e-mail
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or call<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll free). For

TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

Magalie R. Salas,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. E6-22214 Filed 12-27-06; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P