Response to Comments Inclusion of Delaware and New Jersey in the Clean Air Interstate Rule ( CAIR) ( May 12, 2005)

Notice of Data Availability ( NODA) ( June 21, 2005)

Docket # EPA HQ OAR 2003 0053 March 15, 2005 2 Table of Contents I. Comments on the Inclusion of Delaware and New Jersey in the CAIR . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 II. General Comments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 III. Comments on the NODA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 IV. Comments Outside the Scope of the Proposed Rule to Include Delaware and New Jersey in the CAIR . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 I. Comments on the Inclusion of Delaware and New Jersey in the CAIR Commenter: State of Delaware, Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Control ( EPAHQ OAR 2003 0053 2204)

Comment: The EPA is proposing to cover Delaware and New Jersey under the CAIR for annual sulfur dioxide ( SO2) and nitrogen oxides ( NOX) requirements. In the CAIR, the EPA determined that upwind States that contribute 0.2 Fg/ m3 or more to a downwind fine particulate ( PM2.5) non attainment area are potentially deemed to contribute significantly to non attainment0. EPA is proposing this action because it believes Delaware and New Jersey, combined, contribute 0.23 Fg/ m3 to the New York County, New York PM2.5 nonattainment [ Delaware does not agree with EPA's 0.2 Fg/ m3 threshold. Emissions from upwind sources must be mitigated regardless of whether or not they are located in a state with a total contribution of 0.2 Fg/ m3 or more.] ( p. 1)

All of Delaware is designated as moderate non attainment with regard to the 8 hour ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standard ( NAAQS) and all of Delaware is within an ozone transport region established by CAA Section 184. New Castle County, Delaware is designated non attainment for the fine particulate matter NAAQS, and the remainder of Delaware marginally attains this NAAQS. All of Delaware is significantly impacted by emissions from upwind states relative to both ozone and fine particulate matter. DNREC is submitting these comments to 1) reiterate its belief that CAIR does not fully address the upwind transport problem, 2) show that this EPA determination is based on incomplete technical information and, 3) despite these first two reasons, support the end result of EPA's proposal ( i. e., controls on Delaware air pollution sources relative to the transport of fine particulate matter). ( p. 2) 3 Delaware Supports End Result: Not withstanding the above comments, we believe that inclusion of Delaware in the CAIR program is directionally correct, and supports the EPA proposal. ( p. 3)

EPA Response: See comments and EPA responses in sections below " Comments on NODA" and " Comments Outside the Scope of the Proposed Rule to Include Delaware and New Jersey in the CAIR."

Commenter: NRG Energy, Inc, Princeton, NJ ( EPA HQ OAR 2003 0053 2188)

Comment: The following comments address our concerns with the Agency's inclusion of Delaware and New Jersey in the CAIR. ( p. 1)

CAIR Applicability   Delaware and New Jersey Inclusion: NRG requests reconsideration of EPA's proposed rule for inclusion of Delaware and New Jersey by expanding CAIR applicability methodology. Two states were combined to form one applicable region. ( p. 2)

Although NRG agrees with EPA's determination for CAIR applicability in the final CAIR rule, we request reconsideration of EPA's proposed rule for inclusion of Delaware and New Jersey. Expanding the CAIR applicability methodology by combining two states to form one subject region sets an arbitrary precedent for future rulemakings. ( p. 2)

Based on EPA's existing applicability requirements, Delaware and New Jersey are not significant contributors for fine particulate matter and would not be included in this portion of CAIR. NRG requests that the established applicability rules be followed and that EPA reconsider its proposed additional rule for inclusion of New Jersey and Delaware. ( p. 2)

Due to the lack of comments on combining the states and areas for applicability in the NOx SIP Call, EPA justified changing the rules of applicability. However, it is probable that voluminous comments were not received because the effected states were already in the Ozone Transport Region and subject to their own NOx Budget program; this lack of comments should not be taken by the EPA as acquiescence to the arbitrary imposition of additional standards through bringing New Jersey and Delaware into the ambit of CAIR.

EPA Response: The EPA believes that aggregating New Jersey and Delaware emissions for purposes of assessing significance of contribution is reasonable, for the reasons provided in the preamble to the final rule. Moreover, to the extent the commenter is suggesting that EPA cannot alter, or supplement, its approach to assessing significance of contribution, the commenter is mistaken. The term ` significant contribution' has no absolute fixed 4 meaning. State of Michigan v. EPA, 213 F. 3d 663, 674 ( D. C. Cir. 1999). EPA may thus reasonably interpret the term in response to different factual circumstances.

Comment: Second, significant emissions that could reasonably and cost effectively be controlled on sources other than Electric Generating Units ( EGU's) will remain. These include emissions that could be reduced by Control Technology Guideline Reasonably Available Control Technology ( RACT), Vehicle Inspection and Maintenance programs, Ozone Transport Commissions Architectural and Industrial Maintenance ( AIM) Coating and Consumer Products model rules, etc. These emissions must be controlled in all upwind states, including Delaware and New Jersey in order for areas to attain and maintain compliance with the 8 hour ozone and PM2.5 NAAQS. Delaware urges the EPA to initiate rulemaking to mitigate these upwind emissions. ( p. 2)

EPA Response: The EPA's rationale for not including emissions reductions of SO2 and NOx for sources other than EGUs in the model trading program is discussed in detail in Section IV. B of the final Clean Air Interstate rule. ( See pages 70 FR 25213 25215, May 5, 2005).

Some of the suggested emission reductions described in this comment ( AIM, coatings, consumer products rules, etc) would involve emissions reductions of VOC. EPA's rationale for not requiring VOC emission reductions in the CAIR rule are described in Section III of the preamble to the final rule, beginning on 70 FR 25179, May 5, 2005).

Finally, as discussed in the final CAIR rule, particularly on 70 FR 25203 25204, May 5, 2005, EPA notes that future efforts will determine the combination of control strategies necessary to reach attainment of the PM2.5 and 8 hour ozone standards, and the geographic areas for which those strategies will be targeted.

Commenter: State of New Jersey, Department of Environmental Protection, Trenton, NJ ( EPA HQOAR 2003 0053 2188)

Comment: This letter is to request an extension to the commenting period for this proposed rule, which ends on June 27, 2005. The Department is requesting this extension because the Notice of Data Availability ( NODA) is still not available and the Department finds it impossible to comprehensively comment on this proposed rule without first reviewing and understanding the technical data which forms the basis for this rule. Because the Department is expecting the NODA for this proposed rule to be voluminous and complicated, I am requesting a 60 day extension from June 27, 2005, to allow the Department to conduct a complete and thorough review of the technical data and submit comments as appropriate. ( p. 1)

EPA Response: On June 28, 2005, we published a notice of data availability ( NODA), " Availability of Additional Information Supporting the Proposed Rule to Include Delaware and New 5 Jersey in the Clean Air Interstate Rule, and Extension of Comment Period For the Proposed Rule." The original 45 day comment period for the May 12, 2005 proposal ended on June 27, 2005. The extension published on June 28, 2005 extended to comment period 21 days to coincide with the end of comment period for the NODA. Your letter expressed concern that the NODA would be " voluminous and complicated" and would require an additional 60 days to prepare comments. Your request was sent prior to publication of the NODA, therefore, you were unaware that the additional information was contained in a 2 page table. We feel that the 21 day extension was sufficient for review of this new material.

II. General Comments Commenter: NRG Energy, Inc., Princeton NJ ( EPA HQ OAR 2003 0053 2188)

Comment: NRG is party to comments on the original IAQR ( now CAIR) submitted by the Class of ` 85 Regulatory Response Group (" Class of ` 85") and the Electric Power Supply Association (" EPSA") as well as NRG's independent comments filed on March 30, 2004. Within those comments, NRG stated its overall support for CAIR on the bases that: ( I) regionally coordinated pollutant emission control programs are required to effectively address ambient air quality issues caused in part by long range transport, transformation and deposition of air pollutants, ( ii) such market based emissions trading provide the most cost effective means for reductions, and ( iii) if properly implemented, will ultimately help provide the regulatory certainty long sought after by companies like NRG that operate across numerous jurisdictions. Our position as reflected in those comments has not changed and is merely supplemented by these comments. ( p. 1)

We also want to highlight that the promulgated rule contains a serious potential liability as a result of what we see as a flawed nitrogen oxide allocation approach. ( p. 1)

NOx Allocation Methodology: NRG is taking this opportunity to comment on this methodology now as it was not published in the IAQR or presented to the public until the final version of CAIR was published in the Federal Register. ( p. 2)

NRG asserts that the fuel adjustment factors that disadvantage oil and gas facilities should be reduced and/ or eliminated and that the Compliance Supplement Pool needs to be expanded and distributed to all states due to the following flaws in the allocation methodology.

The NOX allocation methodology has significant flaws because of three key issues: 1) the fuel adjustment factor, 2) the lack of non acid rain sources in the initial caps, and 3) the lack of evaluation against weather related load. NRG recommends that EPA reevaluates the potential effects of those flaws to determine necessary changes. ( p. 2) 6 The first issue is the fuel adjustment factor. The adjustment factors applied under CAIR are: 1.0 for coal, 0.4 for gas and 0.6 for oil, and are used to ultimately give more NOX allocations to coal fired sources. These fuel adjustment factors arbitrarily assign weighting factors for coal, oil and gas to " reflect the inherently higher emissions rate of coal fired plants, and consequently the greater burden on coal plants to control emissions." There is no justification for the specific factors and this adjustment disadvantages the allocation for states with significant oil and gas generation. EPA's reliance on the IPM model results to predict future emissions without adequate review by stakeholders has led to a situation where the real impacts of this adjustment have been under estimated. ( pp. 2 3)

The second issue is that EPA did not include non Acid Rain program sources in their initial cap calculation. The proposed rule should not have been promulgated until these sources were included in the cap calculations. Failure to do so could have significant consequences.

Finally, EPA did not evaluate whether its cap allocation methodology appropriately addresses variations in weather related load. This means the EPA allocation will be insufficient. The initial CAIR cap was calculated by " determining the highest recent Acid Rain Program ( ARP) heat input from years 1999 2002 for each affected State, summing the highest State heat inputs into a region wide heat input, and multiplying the region wide heat input by 0.15 lb/ mmBtu and 0.125 lb/ mmBtu for 2009 and 2015, respectively". The analysis contained in Exhibit 2 [ see docket number 2188, p. 5] shows that the CAIR baseline of 1999 2002 does not adequately represent climatological variations for the majority of the 31 sites analyzed for the annual data but does represent the ozone season variations sufficiently. ( p. 3)

In response to comments, EPA used the choice of their baseline methodology to address one of the short comings of their approach. In response to comments it was stated, " EPA believes that the use of the highest annual heat input provides for a reasonable adjustment to reflect that there are some non Acid Rain units that operate in these States that will be subject to the NOx budgets". While that may be a reasonable assumption, it casts doubt whether the highest annual heat input provides a reasonable adjustment for both the non Acid Rain units and weather related variations. Due to these flaws in allocation methodology, NRG asserts that the fuel adjustment factor effect should be reduced and/ or eliminated and that the Compliance Supplement Pool needs to be expanded and distributed to all states. ( p. 3)

EPA Response: The EPA addresses the use of fuel adjustment factors in section III. B of the CAIR Notice of Final Action on Reconsideration. See also the final CAIR preamble and the final CAIR FIP preamble. These factors were not assigned " arbitrarily" as the commenter suggests, but rather were based differences in average emissions rates over the three fuels, as discussed in section V of the final CAIR preamble. 7 The EPA did not reopen the region wide NOx budgets. The commenter's points ( 1) and ( 2) are discussed in detail in section IV of the final CAIR preamble. EPA believes that the many flexibilities provided in the CAIR cap and trade programs, particularly the ability to bank allowances without restriction, as well as the compliance supplement pool, will provide sufficient flexibility to sources in the case of weather related load increases in certain years.

While the chosen allocation methodology can affect the distribution of compliance costs under the cap and trade program, it will have little effect on overall compliance costs or environmental outcome, as the commenter appears to suggest. This is because the incentives provided by cap and trade encourage economically efficient compliance over the entire region.

III. Comments on the NODA Commenter: State of Delaware, Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Control ( EPAHQ OAR 2003 0053 2186; 2187 is a duplicate letter)

Comment: Incomplete Technical Information: EPA's proposal is based solely on Delaware and New Jersey, combined, having an impact of greater than 0.20 Fg/ m3 on a downwind nonattainment area. If this criteria were not met, would the EPA then believe that it makes sense to keep Delaware and New Jersey out of CAIR ( i. e., create an illogical hole)? As EPA points out in the proposal, and Delaware agrees, this would not make sense, and Delaware and New Jersey should be covered by the rule regardless of whether or not their modeled impact is greater or less than 0.20 Fg/ m3, and regardless of whether the Rule is adequate in magnitude and coverage to accomplish an attainment status. ( p. 3)

In the NODA the EPA is soliciting comment on modeling information used to show that Delaware and New Jersey have a combined impact of greater than 0.20 Fg/ m3 on a downwind non attainment area. In this modeling, Delaware is projected in 2010 to have base statewide SO2 and NOx emissions of 107,322, and 48,699 tons per year respectively. This modeling does not include reductions resulting from a joint EPA/ DNREC enforcement action against the largest SO2 source in the State. Under this action federally enforceable requirements are in place in Consent Decrees and final permits that require a 27,000 tons per year ( TPY) SO2 reduction from the Premcor refinery in Delaware prior to 2008. A 27,000 TPY SO2 reduction in DE is very significant, and not accounting for this reduction inflates Delaware's entire base 2010 SO2 inventory by more than one third. As this reduction is associated with a joint action initiated by the EPA; is enforceable by the EPA, and will occur prior to 2010, there is no reason why the EPA should have not considered it in this rulemaking. ( p. 3)

What is not known is the impact of this 27,000 TPY reduction in SO2 on modeled downwind concentrations. Delaware's position is that it shouldn't matter. Emission transport is a known problem, and EPA must require consistent controls across the 8 eastern U. S., to address it. This means cost effective controls on all source categories, not just EGU's. ( p. 3)

EPA Response: See our response in Section III of the rule to include Delaware and New Jersey in the CAIR.

IV. Comments Outside the Scope of the Proposed Rule to Include Delaware and New Jersey in the CAIR The comments in this section are beyond the scope of the proposed rule and relate to CAIR rather than this proposal. EPA is not reconsidering or otherwise reopening the CAIR in this proposed rulemaking..

Commenter: State of New Jersey, Department of Environmental Protection Trenton, NJ ( EPA HQOAR 2003 0053 2191 Comment: The final CAIR is a step in the right direction, unfortunately, it is neither stringent enough nor soon enough to provide the relief New Jersey needs from transported power plant air pollution. ( p. 1)

The USEPA made some helpful changes to CAIR after the original notice of proposed rulemaking (" NPR") and the supplemental notice of proposed rulemaking " SNPR"). Those changes include retaining an ozone season NOx cap and trade program, in addition to the annual NOx program; the acceleration of the NOx Phase I year from 2010 to 2009; and deleting proposed language that would have changed other regulations/ programs, such as 42 U. S. C. § 7426 ( Sect. 126 Petitions) and 42 U. S. C. § 7502( c)( 5), 7503 ( New Source Review), as well as Best Available Retrofit Technology requirements. ( p. 1)

Unfortunately, the USEPA also made changes to CAIR that hinder efforts to attain the ozone and fine particulate health standards. Those changes include the 200,000 tons NOx supplemental compliance pool; the arbitrary rounding of the significant contribution criterion upward to 0.2 Fg/ m3; and the use of the " fuel weight allocation" for different fuel when calculating the state budget ( 1.0 for coal, 0.4 for gas, and 0.6 for oil), which disproportionately subsidizes coal fired power plants. ( p. 2)

The USEPA also passed up other opportunities to improve CAIR, most importantly by setting stricter emission caps that would still have been considered highly cost effective under the standards previously applied in the NOx SIP Call. The USEPA characterization of its caps as " highly cost effective" may be true for the power industry, but these caps are clearly not cost effective when considering overall societal costs aid benefits, including public health costs. In addition, the USEPA declined to use electricity output or consumption as a basis for calculating the state budgets, instead using heat input and thus 9 subsidizing the states with less energy efficient electric generation. The USEPA also chose not to employ flow control, which would have limited plants' ability to accumulate allowances in years with low demand for electricity and then use those allowances in later years to support emissions far greater than the CAIR caps. Similarly, the USEPA chose to preserve the full value of the enormous amount of SO2 allowances banked before 2010. ( p. 2)

EPA Response: This comment is beyond the scope of the proposed rule.

Comment: The rule proposal to include New Jersey in CAIR would not have been necessary if the USEPA had used a more appropriate significant contribution criterion for PM2.5. Instead of using 0.2 Fg/ m3, the USEPA should have stayed with the proposed 0.15 Fg/ m3 as originally written in the NPR. The rounding to 0.2 Fg/ m3 had no scientific basis since significant contributions are determined by air quality modeling which can predict impacts lower than the sensitively of air monitors. ( p. 2)

EPA Response: This comment is likewise beyond the scope of the proposed rule.

Comment: The USEPA should not limit states' rights to require more emissions reduction than CAIR, while at the same time participating in CAIR. I understand the USEPA's concern on being able to have workable cap and trade programs by limiting variations to the mechanics of the program. However, there are any number of ways for states to achieve greater reductions in emissions than what CAIR will yield, without interfering with the smooth operation of CAIR trading markets. States will certainly find that additional reductions beyond CAIR are cost effective when compared to other regional and local control measures which will be required for states' attainment demonstrations. The USEPA should allow and encourage the use of CAIR to obtain the cost effective control of EGU's without states having to develop a completely separate control program from CAIR. Unfortunately, USEPA staff has been non committal about whether particular state measures to achieve greater reductions in emissions would disqualify a state from participating in CAIR, advising that it will not be ripe to consider such measures until a state both outlines the measures specifically and also demonstrates the need for the measures. ( p. 2).

I urge the USEPA to take the opportunity in the Supplemental CAIR Rule Proposal to clarify the ability of states and regions to participate in CAIR in ways that will achieve further emission reductions to protect the citizens of New Jersey and other states that need further cost effective emission reductions to help attain the NAAQS. CAIR is the right direction to mitigate air pollution, but it can be and must be improved in order to achieve clean air. ( p. 3) 10 Commenter: State of Delaware, Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Control, Dover, DE ( EPA HQ OAR 2003 0053 2204)

Comment: At the outset, we want to reiterate our support for the overall goals for the CAIR program, as we commented in 2004, especially the overall goal of address interstate and regional contributions to state pollution problems. Nonetheless, we have serious concerns about the specifics of the CAIR program, and hope that EPA takes our comments seriously and commits to working together as a constructive partner to make CAIR work more effectively in achieving our mutual goal of cleaning up our air. ( p. 1)

Comment: Mitigating Upwind Transport: CAIR applicability, relative to PM2.5, is based on zero out modeling using projected 2010 emissions. States are included in CAIR if their modeled impact is greater than a 0.20 Fg/ m3 threshold. The EPA notes that Delaware and New Jersey fail this test. This result does not make sense, so the EPA is creating new criteria that Delaware and New Jersey satisfy. Delaware agrees with the EPA that it does not make sense for Delaware and New Jersey to be left out of the CAIR relative to PM2.5 but does not agree that EPA's action fully addresses the problem. Delaware has never been part of New Jersey, and has no intention of beginning now. Prior to the Revolutionary War, Delaware was referred to as the " lower counties" of Pennsylvania. As The First State, we take great exception to being grouped with New Jersey for the convenience of EPA modeling to produce a desired ( in the modelers minds, perhaps) effect of producing a resultant 0.23 Fg/ m3 impact. Please note also that Newark is properly pronounced NewARK'. ( p. 2 )

The problem EPA is attempting to address with this rulemaking is that they don't believe all of the emissions that significantly contribute to downwind non attainment are being mitigated by CAIR. The EPA has arbitrarily limited this problem to emissions from DE and NJ. The EPA states in the proposal that " ignoring the contributions of Delaware and New Jersey could result in both air quality detriments and cost inefficiencies and inequities." EPA is proposing to fix this by creating criteria to bring DE and NJ into CAIR. Delaware does not believe this fixes the problem ( i. e., that all emissions that significantly contribute to downwind non attainment will be mitigated). Upwind emissions far greater in magnitude than those being addressed by this Delaware/ New Jersey proposal, and that significantly contribute to downwind non attainment will remain. First, the emissions due to the lack of adequate stringency of the CAIR NOx and SO2 caps will remain. This has been discussed extensively in the past, and many states are now working together to address this shortcoming of CAIR. Delaware urges the EPA to work with the states in this effort. ( p. 2)

Comment: As indicated above, Delaware is now working with other eastern and mid western States on a rule to more adequately address transport. DNREC agrees with the basic structure of CAIR, and is hopeful that a rule can be developed which uses the CAIR as a 11 foundation but, for example, alters SO2 and NOX retirement ratios to ensure transport from EGU's is, in fact, mitigated. Delaware urges the EPA to work with the States in the development of this concept, to quickly approve resultant rules, and to help administer the resultant rules through the CAIR framework. ( p. 3)

EPA Response: These comments are beyond the scope of the proposed rule.


[Federal Register: March 3, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 42)]
[Notices]
[Page 11466-11467]
[DOCID:fr03mr08-112]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

[Docket No. NHTSA-2008-0036]

Notice of Receipt of Petition for Decision That Nonconforming
2006 and 2007 Subaru Forester Passenger Cars Are Eligible for
Importation

AGENCY: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, DOT.

ACTION: Notice of receipt of petition for decision that nonconforming
2006 and 2007 Subaru Forester passenger cars are eligible for
importation.

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

SUMMARY: This document announces receipt by the National Highway
Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) of a petition for a decision that
2006 and 2007 Subaru Forester passenger cars that were not originally
manufactured to comply with all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety
standards (FMVSS) are eligible for importation into the United States
because (1) they are substantially similar to vehicles that were
originally manufactured for sale in the United States and that were
certified by their manufacturer as complying with the safety standards
(the U.S.-certified version of the 2006 and 2007 Subaru Forester
passenger car), and (2) they are capable of being readily altered to
conform to the standards.

DATES: The closing date for comments on the petition is April 2, 2008.

ADDRESSES: Comments should refer to the docket and notice numbers above
and be submitted by any of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to http://
www.regulations.gov. Follow the online instructions for submitting
comments.
     Mail: Docket Management Facility: U.S. Department of
Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., West Building Ground
Floor, Room W12-140, Washington, DC 20590-0001.
     Hand Delivery or Courier: West Building Ground Floor, Room
W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m. ET,
Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Instructions: Comments must be written in the English language, and
be no greater than 15 pages in length, although there is no limit to
the length of necessary attachments to the comments. If comments are
submitted in hard copy form, please ensure that two copies are
provided. If you wish to receive confirmation that your comments were
received, please enclose a stamped, self-addressed postcard with the
comments. Note that all comments received will be posted without change
to http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information
provided. Please see the Privacy Act heading below.
    Privacy Act: Anyone is able to search the electronic form of all
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 DOT's
complete Privacy Act Statement in the Federal Register published on
April 11, 2000 (65 FR 19477-78) or you may visit http://
DocketInfo.dot.gov.
    How To Read Comments Submitted to the Docket: You may read the
comments received by Docket Management at the address and times given
above. You may also see the comments on the Internet. To read the
comments on the Internet, take the following steps:
    (1) Go to the Federal Docket Management System (FDMS) Web page
http://www.regulations.gov.
    (2) On that page, click on ``Advanced Docket Search.''
    (3) On the next page select ``NATIONAL HIGHWAY TRAFFIC SAFETY
ADMINISTRATION'' from the drop-down menu in the Agency field and enter
the Docket ID number shown at the heading of this document.
    (4) After entering that information, click on ``submit.''
    (5) The next page contains docket summary information for the
docket you selected. Click on the comments you wish to see. You may
download the comments. Please note that even after the comment closing
date, we will continue to file relevant information in the Docket as it
becomes available. Further, some people may submit late comments.
Accordingly, we recommend that you periodically search the Docket for
new material.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Coleman Sachs, Office of Vehicle
Safety Compliance, NHTSA<PHONE_NUMBER>).

Supplementary Information:

Background

    Under 49 U.S.C. 30141(a)(1)(A), a motor vehicle that was not
originally manufactured to conform to all applicable FMVSS shall be
refused

admission into the United States unless NHTSA has decided that the
motor vehicle is substantially similar to a motor vehicle originally
manufactured for importation into and sale in the United States,
certified under 49 U.S.C. 30115, and of the same model year as the
model of the motor vehicle to be compared, and is capable of being
readily altered to conform to all applicable FMVSS.
    Petitions for eligibility decisions may be submitted by either
manufacturers or importers who have registered with NHTSA pursuant to
49 CFR Part 592. As specified in 49 CFR 593.7, NHTSA publishes notice
in the Federal Register of each petition that it receives, and affords
interested persons an opportunity to comment on the petition. At the
close of the comment period, NHTSA decides, on the basis of the
petition and any comments that it has received, whether the vehicle is
eligible for importation. The agency then publishes this decision in
the Federal Register.
    J.K. Technologies, LLC, of Baltimore, Maryland (JK)(Registered
Importer 90-006) has petitioned NHTSA to decide whether nonconforming
2006 and 2007 Subaru Forester passenger cars are eligible for
importation into the United States. The vehicles which JK believes are
substantially similar are 2006 and 2007 Subaru Forester passenger cars
that were manufactured for sale in the United States and certified by
their manufacturer as conforming to all applicable FMVSS.
    The petitioner claims that it compared non-U.S. certified 2006 and
2007 Subaru Forester passenger cars to their U.S.-certified
counterparts, and found the vehicles to be substantially similar with
respect to compliance with most FMVSS.
    JK submitted information with its petition intended to demonstrate
that non-U.S. certified 2006 and 2007 Subaru Forester passenger cars,
as originally manufactured, conform to many FMVSS in the same manner as
their U.S. certified counterparts, or are capable of being readily
altered to conform to those standards.
    Specifically, the petitioner claims that non-U.S. certified 2006
and 2007 Subaru Forester passenger cars are identical to their U.S.
certified counterparts with respect to compliance with Standard Nos.
102 Transmission Shift Lever Sequence, Starter Interlock, and
Transmission Braking Effect, 103 Windshield Defrosting and Defogging
Systems, 104 Windshield Wiping and Washing Systems, 106 Brake Hoses,
109 New Pneumatic Tires, 113 Hood Latch System, 116 Motor Vehicle Brake
Fluids, 124 Accelerator Control Systems, 135 Passenger Car Brake
Systems, 201 Occupant Protection in Interior Impact, 202 Head
Restraints, 204 Steering Control Rearward Displacement, 205 Glazing
Materials, 206 Door Locks and Door Retention Components, 207 Seating
Systems, 209 Seat Belt Assemblies, 210 Seat Belt Assembly Anchorages,
212 Windshield Mounting, 214 Side Impact Protection, 216 Roof Crush
Resistance, 219 Windshield Zone Intrusion, 225 Child Restraint
Anchorage Systems, 301 Fuel System Integrity, and 302 Flammability of
Interior Materials.
    In addition, the petitioner claims that the vehicles comply with
the Bumper Standard found in 49 CFR Part 581.
    The petitioner also contends that the vehicles are capable of being
readily altered to meet the following standards, in the manner
indicated:
    Standard No. 101 Controls and Displays: installation of a U.S.-
model instrument cluster that has been reprogrammed to reflect the
correct mileage on the vehicle.
    Standard No. 108 Lamps, Reflective Devices and Associated
Equipment: (a) Installation of U.S.-model front sidemarker lamps; (b)
installation of U.S.-model headlamps; and (c) installation of U.S.-
model taillamp assemblies which incorporate rear U.S.-model sidemarker
lamps.
    Standard no. 110 Tire Selection and Rims: installation of vehicle
placard.
    Standard No. 111 Rearview Mirrors: installation of a U.S.-model
passenger side rearview mirror, or inscription of the required warning
statement on the face of that mirror.
    Standard No. 114 Theft Protection: installation of U.S. version
software to meet the requirements of this standard.
    Standard No. 118 Power-Operated Window, Partition, and Roof Panel
Systems: installation of U.S.-version software to meet the requirements
of this standard.
    Standard No. 208 Occupant Crash Protection: (a) installation of
U.S.-version software to ensure that the seat belt warning system meets
the requirements of this standard, and (b) inspection of all vehicles
and replacement of any non-U.S.-model components needed to achieve
conformity with this standard with U.S.-model components.
    The petitioner states that the European version of the subject
vehicle does not meet the requirements of FMVSS No. 208. According to
the petitioner, the passenger occupant detection system must be added,
the driver's and front passenger's seat belt buckle switch must be
replaced, and the Control ECU must be reprogrammed. The petitioner also
states that on account of regulatory differences around the world parts
of the occupant protection system must be inspected to verify that
U.S.-model seat belts and control units are installed.
    The agency is especially interested in obtaining comments
concerning the subject vehicle's capability of being readily altered to
conform to the advanced air bag requirements of this standard. For
example, the agency wishes to know whether U.S.-model components can be
readily installed in the subject vehicle and be readily calibrated to
interface with that vehicle in such a way as to assure its conformity
with the air bag low risk deployment and air bag automatic suppression
performance requirements of the standard. The agency is willing to
consider all information relating to this issue, be it test information
or otherwise.
    The petitioner additionally states that a vehicle identification
plate must be affixed to the vehicles near the left windshield post to
meet the requirements of 49 CFR Part 565.
    All comments received before the close of business on the closing
date indicated above will be considered, and will be available for
examination in the docket at the above addresses both before and after
that date. To the extent possible, comments filed after the closing
date will also be considered. Notice of final action on the petition
will be published in the Federal Register pursuant to the authority
indicated below.

    Authority: 49 U.S.C. 30141(a)(1)(A) and (b)(1); 49 CFR 593.8;
delegations of authority at 49 CFR 1.50 and 501.8.

    Issued on: February 26, 2008.
Claude H. Harris,
Director, Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance.
[FR Doc. E8-4026 Filed 2-29-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910-59-P


[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 185 (Tuesday, September 26, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Page 44827]
[FR Doc No: 2017-20483]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

[Docket No. USCG-2017-0747]

Boston Area Maritime Security Advisory Committee; Vacancies

AGENCY: Coast Guard, Department of Homeland Security.

ACTION: Request for applications.

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

SUMMARY: This notice requests individuals interested in serving on the
Boston Area Maritime Security Committee (AMSC) to submit their
applications for membership, to the Captain of the Port (COTP), Boston,
MA.

DATES: Requests for membership should reach the U.S. Coast Guard COTP
Boston October 26, 2017.

ADDRESSES: Applications for membership should be submitted to the
Captain of the Port Boston at the following address: Commander (sx),
USCG Sector Boston, 427 Commercial Street, Boston, MA 02109 or by email
to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For questions about submitting an
application or about the AMSC in general, contact Mr. Phillip C. Smith
at<PHONE_NUMBER> or by email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Authority

    Section 102 of the Maritime Transportation Security Act (MTSA) of
2002 (Pub. L. 107-295) added section 70112 to Title 46 of the U.S.
Code, and authorized the Secretary of the Department in which the Coast
Guard is operating to establish Area Maritime Security Advisory
Committees for any port area of the United States. (See 33 U.S.C. 1226,
1231; 46 U.S.C. chapter 701; 50 U.S.C. 191, 192; 33 CFR 1.05-1, 6.01;
Department of Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1). Under 46 U.S.C.
70112(g)(1)(B), the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA) does not
apply to AMSCs.

Boston AMSC Purpose

    The AMSCs shall assist the Captain of the Port in the development,
review, update, and exercise of the AMS Plan for their area of
responsibility. Such matters may include, but are not limited to:
Identifying critical port infrastructure and operations; Identifying
risks (threats, vulnerabilities, and consequences); Determining
mitigation strategies and implementation methods; Developing strategies
to facilitate the recovery of the MTS after a Transportation Security
Incident; Developing and describing the process to continually evaluate
overall port security by considering consequences and vulnerabilities,
how they may change over time, and what additional mitigation
strategies can be applied.

AMSC Composition

    The composition of an AMSC, to include the Boston AMSC, is
prescribed under 33 CFR 103.305. Pursuant to that regulation, members
may be selected from the Federal, Territorial, or Tribal government;
the State government and political subdivisions of the State; local
public safety, crisis management, and emergency response agencies; law
enforcement and security organizations; maritime industry, including
labor; other port stakeholders having a special competence in maritime
security; and port stakeholders affect by security practices and
policies. Also, at least 7 of the AMSC members must each have 5 or more
years of experience related to maritime or port security operations.

AMSC Membership

    The Boston AMSC has 41 members who represent Federal, State, local,
and industry stakeholders from Massachusetts. We are seeking to fill 11
positions with this solicitation.
    Applicants may be required to pass an appropriate security
background check prior to appointment to the committee. Members' terms
of office will be for 5 years; however, a member is eligible to serve
additional terms of office. Members will not receive any salary or
other compensation for their service on an AMSC.

Request for Applications

    Those seeking membership are not required to submit formal
applications to the local Captain of the Port, however, because we do
have an obligation to ensure that a specific number of members have the
prerequisite maritime security experience, we encourage the submission
of resumes highlighting experience in the maritime and security
industries.
    The Department of Homeland Security does not discriminate in
selection of Committee members on the basis of race, color, religion,
sex, national origin, political affiliation, sexual orientation, gender
identity, marital status, disability and genetic information, age,
membership in an employee organization, or other non-merit factor. The
Department of Homeland Security strives to achieve a widely diverse
candidate pool for all of its recruitment actions.

    Dated: September 19, 2017.
C.C. Gelzer,
Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Federal Maritime Security Coordinator
Boston.
[FR Doc. 2017-20483 Filed 9-25-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE P


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 176 (Tuesday, September 11, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Page 55885]
[FR Doc No: 2012-22218]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-67780; File No. SR-Phlx-2012-106]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; NASDAQ OMX PHLX LLC; Notice of
Withdrawal of Proposed Rule Change To Modify Exchange Rule 3307 To
Institute a Five Millisecond Delay in the Execution Time of Marketable
Orders on NASDAQ OMX PSX

September 5, 2012.
    On August 9, 2012, NASDAQ OMX PHLX LLC (``Phlx'' or ``Exchange'')
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (``Commission''),
pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 \1\
and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ a proposed rule change to institute a
five millisecond delay in the execution time of marketable orders on
NASDAQ OMX PSX. Notice of the proposed rule change was published in the
Federal Register on August 23, 2012.\3\ The Commission received no
comments on the proposed rule change. On August 30, 2012, Phlx withdrew
the proposed rule change (SR-Phlx-2012-106).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \3\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 67680 (August 17,
2012), 77 FR 51073.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Kevin M. O'Neill,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2012-22218 Filed 9-10-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 122 (Friday, June 26, 2009)]
[Notices]
[Pages 30651-30653]
[FR Doc No: E9-15025]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-60147; File No. SR-ISE-2009-35]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; International Securities Exchange,
LLC; Notice of Filing of Proposed Rule Change Relating to Qualified
Contingent Cross Orders

June 19, 2009.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(the ``Act''),\1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\

notice is hereby given that, on June 15, 2009, the International
Securities Exchange, LLC (``Exchange'' or the ``ISE'') filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission (the ``SEC'' or 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. 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The Exchange is proposing a Qualified Contingent Cross Order. This
rule would be effective contemporaneously with the effectiveness of the
rules implementing the Order Protection and Locked/Crossed Market Plan
(``Plan'').\3\ The text of the proposed rule change is available on the
Exchange's Internet Web site at http://www.ise.com, at the Exchange and
at the Commission's Public Reference Room.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ See Filing No. SR-ISE-2009-27 (``Linkage Rules'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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 these statements may be examined at
the places specified in Item IV below. The self regulatory organization
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 purpose of this filing is to provide for Qualified Contingent
Cross Orders. The Exchange is proposing such an order type in
conjunction with the Linkage Rules. Those rules, together with the
underlying Plan, are based on Regulation NMS under the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''), and the rules implementing
that regulation. Among other things, the Plan requires that its parties
``establish, maintain and enforce written policies and procedures * * *
that are reasonably designed to prevent Trade-Throughs * * *.'' \4\ A
Trade-Through is a transaction in an options series at a price that is
inferior to the best price available in the market.\5\ Among other
things, the Linkage Rules contain provisions designed to prevent Trade-
Throughs.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ Section 5(a) of the Plan.
    \5\ Section 2(21) of the Plan.
    \6\ Proposed Rule 1901.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Plan will replace the Plan for the Purpose of Creating and
Operating an Intermarket Option Linkage (``Old Plan''), and the Linkage
Rules will replace the ISE's current rules implementing the Old Plan.
The Old Plan and the ISE's current rules provide a limited Trade-
Through exemption for ``Block Trades,'' defined to be trades of 500 or
more contracts with a premium value of at least $150,000.\7\ However,
as with Regulation NMS, the Plan does not provide a Block Trade
exemption. The Exchange believes that the loss of the Block Trade
exemption will adversely affect the ability of its members to effect
large trades that are tied to stock.\8\ Thus, the Exchange is proposing
the Qualified Contingent Trade Order as a limited substitute for the
Block Trade exemption, to be implemented contemporaneously with the
Linkage Rules.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ Old Plan Sections 2(3) and 8(c)(i)(C); ISE Rule 1902(d)(2).
    \8\ Both the Old Plan and the Plan have a Trade-Through
exemption for ``Complex Trades,'' including options trades tied to
stock. See Old Plan section 7(c)(iii)(G), and Plan section
5(b)(viii). However, and while not free from doubt, the common
application of that exemption has been to apply it only to trades
announced to exchange members as a single trade at a net price. As
so interpreted, that exemption would cover only trades executed in
the ISE's ``Complex Order Mechanism.'' See ISE Rule 722.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    While Regulation NMS does not provide a Block Trade exemption from
Trade-Through liability, the Commission, by order, has provided Trade-
Through relief for ``Qualified Contingent Trades'' (``QCTs'').\9\ The
QCT Release provides an exemption from Trade-Through liability in the
equity market for multi-component, fully-hedged trades where one order
is contingent on the execution of one or more additional orders.
Building on this concept, we propose that when an ISE member effects a
QCT trade in a Regulation NMS Stock that the member be permitted to
cross the options leg of the trade on the ISE immediately upon entry if
the order is for at least 500 contracts, is part of a QCT, and is
executed at a price at least equal to the national best bid or offer
(``NBBO'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ Release No. 34-57620 (April 4, 2008) (the ``QCT Release'').
That release superseded a release initially granting the Qualified
Contingent Trade exemption, Release No. 34-54389 (August 31, 2006).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We propose to define a QCT trade substantively identical to the
Commission's definition in the QCT release. Thus, the trade would have
to meet the following conditions:
     At least one component must be an NMS Stock;
     All the components must be effected with a product price
contingency that either has been agreed to by all the respective
counterparties or arranged for by a broker-dealer as principal or
agent;
     The execution of one component must be contingent upon the
execution of all other components at or near the same time;
     The specific relationship between the component orders
(e.g., the spread between the prices of the component orders) must be
determined by the time the contingent order is placed;
     The component orders must bear a derivative relationship
to one another, represent different classes of shares of the same
issuer, or involve the securities of participants in mergers or with
intentions to merge that have been announced or cancelled; and
     The transaction must be fully hedged (without regard to
any prior existing position) as a result of other components of the
contingent trade.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ Consistent with the QCT Release we would require that the
member demonstrate that the transaction is fully hedged using
reasonable risk-valuation methodologies. See the QCT Release at note
9.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    ISE will adopt policies and procedures to ensure that members use
the Qualified Contingent Cross Order properly. First, we will require
members to properly mark all Qualified Contingent Cross Orders as such.
In addition, we will institute surveillance procedures to identify that
the member executed the stock leg of the transaction at or near the
same time as the options leg.
    We believe that the Qualified Contingent Cross Order is necessary
to facilitate the execution of large stock/options combination orders.
Broker-dealers can execute these orders in various ways, such as on the
ISE's complex order book.\11\ However, broker-dealers often seek the
flexibility to execute the various legs of such orders in different
markets, and may seek to execute the options leg alone on the ISE.
Under the Plan, and without a Block Trade exemption, it will be
extremely difficult for ISE members to effect the execution of the
options leg on the ISE.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ See ISE Rule 722, Supplementary Material .01 and .02.

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

    The Contingent Trade Order will address those concerns by
permitting the member to provide its customer a net price for the
entire trade, and then allowing the member to execute the options leg
of the trade on the ISE at a price at least equal to the NBBO while
using the CQT [sic] exemption to effect the trade in the equities leg
at a price necessary to achieve the net price. While there is no
exposure for price improvement for the options leg of a stock-option
order with our proposed Qualified Contingent Cross Order, that order
must be executed at the NBBO or better, [sic]. Moreover, since the
price of a stock-options order is a net price derived from the price of
the options leg and the price of the stock leg, we believe it is
reasonable for any potential improvement of the net price to originate
from the execution of the stock leg. On balance, we believe that
providing members with the certainty that they can execute the options
legs of these large complex orders for their customers, coupled with
the flexibility members have with respect to the price at which the
equity legs are executed, will provide customers with the flexibility
needed to achieve their investment objectives.
2. Statutory Basis
    The basis under the Act for this proposed rule change is the
requirement under Section 6(b)(5) that an exchange have rules that are
designed to prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts and practices, to
promote just and equitable principles of trade, to remove impediments
to and perfect the mechanism for a free and open market and a national
market system, and, in general, to protect investors and the public
interest. In particular, the proposal will facilitate the ability of
ISE members to execute large options orders that are tied to stock in
an efficient manner, while also protecting the national market system
against trade-throughs.

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

    The proposed rule change does not 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

    The Exchange has not solicited, and does not intend to solicit,
comments on this proposed rule change. The Exchange has not received
any unsolicited written comments from members or other interested
parties.

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

    Within 35 days of the date of publication of this notice in the
Federal Register or within such longer period (i) as the Commission may
designate up to 90 days of such date if it finds such longer period to
be appropriate and publishes its reasons for so finding or (ii) as to
which the self-regulatory organization consents, the Commission will:
    (A) By order approve such proposed rule change, or
    (B) Institute proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule
change should be 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-ISE-2009-35 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-ISE-2009-35. 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 will also be available for
inspection and copying at the principal office of the self-regulatory
organization. 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-ISE-
2009-35 and should be submitted on or before July 17, 2009.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

Florence E. Harmon,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. E9-15025 Filed 6-25-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8010-01-P