68568 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 215 / Monday, November 8, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

53See 17 CFR 240.0–10(a). 

preliminarily does not believe that any 

such entities would be ‘‘small entities’’ 

as defined in Exchange Act Rule 0–10.53

Feedback from industry participants 

about the security-based swap markets 

indicates that only persons or entities 

with assets significantly in excess of $5 

million (or with annual receipts 

significantly in excess of $7 million) 

participate in the security-based swap 

market. Even to the extent that a 

handful of transactions did have a 

counterparty that was defined as a 

‘‘small entity’’ under the Commission 

Rule 0–10, we believe it is unlikely that 

proposed Rule 9j–1 would have a 

significant economic impact on such 

entity, as the rule prohibits fraudulent 

and manipulative acts, activities which 

are in most cases already prohibited. 

Finally, because the proposed rule 

applies to any person, the proposed rule 

applies equally to large and small 

entities and therefore would not have a 

disproportionate impact on small 

entities. Therefore, the Commission 

preliminarily does not believe that 

proposed Rule 9j–1 will have an impact 

on ‘‘small entities’’ in terms of the 

prohibitions included in the proposed 

rule. 

For the foregoing reasons, the 

Commission certifies that proposed Rule 

9j–1 would not have a significant 

economic impact on a substantial 

number of small entities for purposes of 

the RFA. The Commission encourages 

written comments regarding this 

certification. The Commission requests 

that commenters describe the nature of 

any impact on small entities and 

provide empirical data to support the 

extent of the impact. 

XI. Statutory Authority 

Pursuant to Exchange Act and, 

particularly, Sections 2, 3(b), 9(i), 9(j), 

10, 15, 15F, and 23(a) thereof, 15 U.S.C. 

78b, 78c(b), 78i(i), 78i(j), 78j, 78o, 78o– 

8, and 78w(a), the Commission is 

proposing a new antifraud rule, Rule 

9j–1, to address fraud, manipulation, 

and deception in connection with 

security-based swaps. 

List of Subjects in 17 CFR Part 240 

Brokers, Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements, Securities. 

Text of the Proposed Rule 

For the reasons set forth in the 

preamble, Title 17, Chapter II of the 

Code of Federal Regulations is proposed 

to be amended as follows: 

PART 240—GENERAL RULES AND 

REGULATIONS, SECURITIES 

EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934 

1. The authority citation for part 240 

is amended by adding an authority for 

§ 240.9j–1 to read as follows: 

Authority: 15 U.S.C. 77c, 77d, 77g, 77j, 

77s, 77z–2, 77z–3, 77eee, 77ggg, 77nnn, 

77sss, 77ttt, 78b, 78c, 78d, 78e, 78f, 78g, 78i, 

78j, 78j–1, 78k, 78k–1, 78l, 78m, 78n, 78o, 

78o–8, 78p, 78q, 78s, 78u–5, 78w, 78x, 78ll, 

78mm, 80a–20, 80a–23, 80a–29, 80a–37, 80b– 

3, 80b–4, 80b–11, and 7201 et seq.; and 18 

U.S.C. 1350, unless otherwise noted. 

Section 240.9j–1 is also issued under sec. 

943, Pub. L. No. 111–203, 124 Stat. 1376. 

2. Add § 240.9j–1 to read as follows: 

§ 240.9j–1. Prohibition against fraud, 

manipulation, and deception in connection 

with security-based swaps. 

It shall be unlawful for any person, 

directly or indirectly, in connection 

with the offer, purchase or sale of any 

security-based swap, the exercise of any 

right or performance of any obligation 

under a security-based swap, or the 

avoidance of such exercise or 

performance, 

(a) To employ any device, scheme, or 

artifice to defraud or manipulate; 

(b) To knowingly or recklessly make 

any untrue statement of a material fact, 

or to knowingly or recklessly omit to 

state a material fact necessary in order 

to make the statements made, in the 

light of the circumstances under which 

they were made, not misleading; 

(c) To obtain money or property by 

means of any untrue statement of a 

material fact or any omission to state a 

material fact necessary in order to make 

the statements made, in light of the 

circumstances under which they were 

made, not misleading; or 

(d) To engage in any act, practice, or 

course of business which operates or 

would operate as a fraud or deceit upon 

any person. 

By the Commission. 

Dated: November 3, 2010. 

Elizabeth M. Murphy, 

Secretary. 

[FR Doc. 2010–28136 Filed 11–5–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 8011–01–P 

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND 

SECURITY 

United States Coast Guard 

33 CFR Part 167 

[USCG–2010–0833] 

Port Access Route Study: In the Bering 

Strait 

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS. 

ACTION: Notice of study; request for 

comments. 

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard (USCG) is 

conducting a Port Access Route Study 

(PARS) to evaluate: The continued 

applicability of and the need for 

modifications to current vessel routing 

measures; and the need for creation of 

new vessel routing measures in the 

Bering Strait. The goal of the study is to 

help reduce the risk of marine casualties 

and increase the efficiency of vessel 

traffic in the study area. The 

recommendations of the study may lead 

to future rulemaking action or 

appropriate international agreements. 

DATES: Comments and related material 

must either be submitted to our online 

docket via http://www.regulations.gov 

on or before May 9, 2011 or reach the 

Docket Management Facility by that 

date. 

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments 

identified by docket number USCG– 

2010–0833 using any one of the 

following methods: 

• Federal eRulemaking Portal: http:// 

www.regulations.gov. 

• Fax: 202–493–2251. 

• 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. 

• 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 202–366–9329. 

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 notice of 

study, call or e-mail Lieutenant Faith 

Reynolds, Project Officer, Seventeenth 

Coast Guard District, telephone 907– 

463–2270; e-mail 

Faith.A.Reynolds@uscg.mil; or George 

Detweiler, Office of Waterways 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 215 / Monday, November 8, 2010 / Proposed Rules 68569 

Management, Coast Guard, telephone 

202–372–1566, e-mail 

George.H.Detweiler@uscg.mil. If you 

have questions on viewing or submitting 

material to the docket, call Ms. Renee K. 

Wright, Program Manager, Docket 

Operations, telephone 202–366–9826. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Public Participation and Request for 

Comments 

We encourage you to participate in 

this study 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 

comments, please include the docket 

number for this notice (USCG–2010– 

0833), 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, or by fax, mail or hand 

delivery, but please use only one of 

these means. We recommend that you 

include your name and a mailing 

address, an e-mail 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 ‘‘Notices’’ and insert ‘‘USCG– 

2010–0833’’ 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 them 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. 

Viewing comments and documents: 

To view comments and 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–2010– 

0833’’ and click ‘‘Search.’’ Click the 

‘‘Open Docket Folder’’ in the ‘‘Actions’’ 

column. If you do not have access to the 

internet, you may view the docket 

online by visiting 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, system of records notice 

regarding our public dockets in the 

January 17, 2008, issue of the Federal 

Register (73 FR 3316). 

Definitions 

The following definitions (except 

‘‘Regulated Navigation Area’’) are from 

the International Maritime 

Organization’s (IMO’s) publication 

‘‘Ships’ Routeing’’ Tenth Edition 2010 

and should help you review this notice: 

Area to be avoided (ATBA) means a 

routing measure comprising an area 

within defined limits in which either 

navigation is particularly hazardous or 

it is exceptionally important to avoid 

casualties and which should be avoided 

by all ships, or certain classes of ships. 

Deep-water route means a route 

within defined limits, which has been 

accurately surveyed for clearance of sea 

bottom and submerged obstacles as 

indicated on the chart. 

Inshore traffic zone means a routing 

measure comprising a designated area 

between the landward boundary of a 

traffic separation scheme and the 

adjacent coast, to be used in accordance 

with the provisions of Rule 10(d), as 

amended, of the International 

Regulations for Preventing Collisions at 

Sea, 1972 (COLREGS). 

Precautionary area means a routing 

measure comprising an area within 

defined limits where ships must 

navigate with particular caution and 

within which the direction of traffic 

flow may be recommended. 

Recommended route means a route of 

undefined width, for the convenience of 

ships in transit, which is often marked 

by centerline buoys. 

Recommended track is a route which 

has been specially examined to ensure 

so far as possible that it is free of 

dangers and along which vessels are 

advised to navigate. 

Regulated Navigation Area (RNA) 

means a water area within a defined 

boundary for which regulations for 

vessels navigating within the area have 

been established under 33 CFR part 165. 

Roundabout means a routing measure 

comprising a separation point or 

circular separation zone and a circular 

traffic lane within defined limits. Traffic 

within the roundabout is separated by 

moving in a counterclockwise direction 

around the separation point or zone. 

Separation zone or separation line 

means a zone or line separating the 

traffic lanes in which ships are 

proceeding in opposite or nearly 

opposite directions; or separating a 

traffic lane from the adjacent sea area; 

or separating traffic lanes designated for 

particular classes of ship proceeding in 

the same direction. 

Traffic lane means an area within 

defined limits in which one-way traffic 

is established. Natural obstacles, 

including those forming separation 

zones, may constitute a boundary. 

Traffic Separation Scheme (TSS) 

means a routing measure aimed at the 

separation of opposing streams of traffic 

by appropriate means and by the 

establishment of traffic lanes. 

Two-way route means a route within 

defined limits inside which two-way 

traffic is established, aimed at providing 

safe passage of ships through waters 

where navigation is difficult or 

dangerous. 

Vessel routing system means any 

system of one or more routes or routing 

measures aimed at reducing the risk of 

casualties; it includes traffic separation 

schemes, two-way routes, recommended 

tracks, areas to be avoided, no anchoring 

areas, inshore traffic zones, 

roundabouts, precautionary areas, and 

deep-water routes. 

Background and Purpose 

Requirement for Port Access Route 

Studies 

Under the Ports and Waterways Safety 

Act (PWSA) (33 U.S.C. 1223(c)), the 

Commandant of the Coast Guard may 

designate necessary fairways and traffic 

separation schemes (TSSs) to provide 

safe access routes for vessels proceeding 

to and from U.S. ports. The designation 

of fairways and TSSs recognizes the 

paramount right of navigation over all 

other uses in the designated areas. 

The PWSA requires the Coast Guard 

to conduct a study of potential traffic 

density and the need for safe access 

routes for vessels before establishing or 

adjusting fairways or TSSs. Through the 

study process, we must coordinate with 

Federal, State, and foreign state agencies 

(as appropriate) and consider the views 

of maritime community representatives, 

environmental groups, and other 

interested stakeholders. A primary 

purpose of this coordination is, to the 

extent practicable, to reconcile the need 

for safe access routes with other 

reasonable waterway uses. 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS
68570 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 215 / Monday, November 8, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

Previous Port Access Route Studies 

A port access route study was 

announced in the Federal Register on 

April 16, 1979 (44 FR 22543) and 

modified on January 31, 1980 (45 FR 

7026) that studied the whole of Alaska’s 

maritime coast. Notice of study results 

were published on December 14, 1981 

(46 FR 61049). Only a portion of the 

current study area was included in the 

previous port access route study, as the 

previous study excluded all areas west 

of 170 degrees West longitude and also 

did not consider areas north of the 

Bering Strait. 

Necessity for a New Port Access Route 

Study 

The Coast Guard is always seeking 

ways to enhance the safety of life at sea. 

Since 2007’s record minimum for 

summer sea ice cover in the Arctic, 

international attention has been focused 

on the region and its potential 

accessibility for shipping and natural 

resource exploration. One significant 

study released in April 2009 by the 

Arctic Council entitled ‘‘Arctic Marine 

Shipping Assessment’’ noted both the 

sparse nature of aids to navigation in the 

United States Arctic as well as the 

absence of vessel routing measures in 

the Bering Strait. According to the 

study, significant increases in shipping 

are not expected in the near term. 

However, the U.S. Coast Guard desires 

to begin its study process so that 

essential safeguards are in place in 

advance of any future shipping increase. 

The Coast Guard has identified a 

potential safety enhancement by 

increasing predictability of vessel traffic 

patterns in this area with an established 

vessel routing system. When vessels 

follow predictable and charted routing 

measures such as a TSS, congestion may 

be reduced, and mariners may be better 

able to predict where vessel interactions 

may occur and act accordingly. 

This study will assess whether the 

creation of a vessel routing system is 

advisable to increase the predictability 

of vessel movements, which may 

decrease the potential for collisions, oil 

spills, and other events that could 

threaten the marine environment. 

There are numerous interested 

stakeholders with concerns regarding 

this region, and the U.S. Coast Guard is 

committed to ensuring that all 

viewpoints are obtained and considered 

prior to moving forward with any vessel 

routing measure implementation. 

Timeline, Study Area, and Process of 

this PARS: The Seventeenth Coast 

Guard District will conduct this PARS. 

The study will begin immediately upon 

publication of this notice and should 

take at least 24 months to complete. 

The study area is described as an area 

bounded by a line connecting the 

following geographic positions: 

• 62°30′ N, 173°00′ W; 

• 62°30′ N, 167°30′ W; 

• 67°30′ N, 167°30′ W; 

• 67°30′ N, 168°58′37′′ W, thence 

following the Russian Federation/ 

United States maritime boundary line to 

position 

• 63°40′ N, 173°00′ W, thence to the 

first geographical position. 

As part of this study, we will analyze 

vessel traffic density, agency and 

stakeholder experience in vessel traffic 

management, navigation, ship handling, 

and effects of weather. We encourage 

you to participate in the study process 

by submitting comments in response to 

this notice. 

We will publish the results of the 

PARS in the Federal Register. It is 

possible that the study may validate the 

status quo (no routing measures) and 

conclude that no changes are necessary. 

It is also possible that the study may 

recommend one or more changes to 

enhance navigational safety and the 

efficiency of vessel traffic management. 

The recommendations may lead to 

future rulemakings or appropriate 

international agreements. 

Possible Scope of the Recommendations 

We are attempting to determine the 

scope of any safety problems associated 

with vessel transits in the study area. 

We expect that information gathered 

during the study will help us identify 

any problems and appropriate solutions. 

The study may recommend that we— 

Æ Maintain current vessel routing 

measures, if any; 

Æ Establish a Traffic Separation 

Scheme (TSS); 

Æ Create one or more precautionary 

areas; 

Æ Create one or more inshore traffic 

zones; 

Æ Create deep-draft routes; 

Æ Establish area(s) to be avoided; 

Æ Establish, disestablish, or modify 

anchorage grounds; 

Æ Establish a Regulated Navigation 

Area (RNA) with specific vessel 

operating requirements to ensure safe 

navigation near shallow water; and 

Æ Identify any other appropriate 

ships’ routing measures to be used. 

Questions 

To help us conduct the port access 

route study, we request information that 

will help answer the following 

questions, although comments on other 

issues addressed in this document are 

also welcome. In responding to a 

question, please explain your reasons 

for each answer and follow the 

instructions under ‘‘Public Participation 

and Request for Comments’’ above. 

1. What navigational hazards do 

vessels operating in the study areas 

face? Please describe. 

2. Are there strains on safe navigation 

in the Bering Strait, such as increasing 

traffic density? If so, please describe. 

3. What are the benefits and 

drawbacks to establishing new routing 

measures? Please describe. 

4. What impacts, both positive and 

negative, would new routing measures 

have on the study area? 

5. What costs and benefits are 

associated with the potential study 

recommendations listed above? What 

measures do you think are most cost 

effective? 

This document is issued under 

authority of 33 U.S.C. 1223(c) and 

5 U.S.C. 552. 

Dated: September 24, 2010. 

Christopher C. Colvin, 

Rear Admiral, U.S. Coast Guard, Commander, 

Seventeenth Coast Guard District. 

[FR Doc. 2010–28115 Filed 11–5–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–15–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R08–OAR–2007–1027; FRL–9223–3] 

Approval and Disapproval and 

Promulgation of Air Quality 

Implementation Plans; Colorado; 

Revision to Definitions; Construction 

Permit Program; Regulation 3 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed Rule. 

SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to partially 

approve and partially disapprove State 

Implementation Plan (SIP) revisions 

submitted by the State of Colorado on 

June 20, 2003 and April 12, 2004. The 

intended effect of this proposal is to 

approve those portions of the revisions 

to Colorado’s Regulation 3 that place 

restrictions on increment consumption, 

add innovative control technology as an 

alternative to BACT requirements and 

make other changes as described in 

more detail below. In addition, EPA 

proposes to disapprove those portions of 

the rule revisions that EPA determined 

are inconsistent with the Clean Air Act 

(CAA), including provisions relating to 

pollution control projects. This action is 

being taken under section 110 of the 

CAA. 

DATES: Comments must be received on 

or before December 8, 2010. 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS