User Guide to the Docket for the 2008 Proposed Effluent Limitation
Guidelines and New Source Performance Standards for the Construction and
Development Category

Prepared for:

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

Engineering and Analysis Division

Office of Water

1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW

Washington, D.C.  20460

Prepared by:

PG Environmental, LLC

447B Carlisle Drive

Herndon, VA 20170

December 2008

1.0 OVERVIEW

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing effluent
limitation guidelines (ELGs) and New Source Performance Standards (NSPS)
for discharges associated with construction and development activities.
These guidelines and standards would require discharges from certain
construction sites to meet a numeric turbidity limit. The guidelines and
standards would also require all construction sites currently required
to obtain a NPDES permit to implement a variety of best management
practices (BMPs) designed to limit erosion and control sediment
discharges from construction sites.

This document provides information on the documents and analyses in the
docket supporting the 2008 Proposed Effluent Limitation Guidelines and
New Source Performance Standards for the Construction and Development
Category [Federal Register: November 28, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 230)].

2.0 BACKGROUND INFORMATION ON THE DOCKET

What is the Docket and How Can I Gain Access to It?

Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0465 is the official docket for EPA’s
2008 Proposed Effluent Limitation Guidelines and New Source Performance
Standards for the Construction and Development Category.  The official
docket consists of the documents specifically referenced in the Federal
Register notices of these actions, any public comments received, and
other related information.  Although it is a part of the official
docket, Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information
whose disclosure is restricted by statute is not included in the
materials available to the public.

The official public docket is the collection of electronic and hard copy
materials that is available for public viewing at the Water Docket in
the EPA Docket Center, (EPA/DC), located in the EPA Headquarters
Library, EPA West, Room Number 3334, 1301 Constitution Avenue, NW,
Washington, DC.  An electronic version of the public docket is available
through a federal-wide electronic docket management system located at
HYPERLINK "http://www.regulations.gov"  www.regulations.gov .

You may use the Regulations.gov web site to view public comments, access
a listing of the contents of the official docket, and access those
documents in the public docket that are available electronically.
Certain documents are not available in the electronic docket system.
These documents include, but are not limited to, copyright-protected
material and physical objects such as maps, aerial photographs, colored
charts, etc., as well as electronic files such as databases.  Although
not all docket materials may be available electronically, you may still
access any of the publicly available docket materials at the EPA Docket
Center.

How is the Docket for EPA’s 2008 Proposed Effluent Limitation
Guidelines and New Source Performance Standards for the Construction and
Development Category related to the Docket for the 2002 and 2004
Rulemaking Efforts?

Documents supporting the 2002 and 2004 regulatory efforts related to the
Construction and Development Category are located in Docket ID No.
EPA-HQ-OW-2002-0030.  References contained in the rulemaking docket that
were used in the 2008 Proposed Effluent Limitation Guidelines and New
Source Performance Standards for the Construction and Development
Category are included in this docket (Docket ID No.
EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0465).

3.0 ACCESSING INFORMATION IN THE DOCKET

How do I Find Documents in the Docket?

Water Docket in the EPA Docket Center

The official public docket is the collection of electronic and hard copy
materials that is available for public viewing at the Water Docket in
the EPA Docket Center, (EPA/DC), located in the EPA Headquarters
Library, EPA West, Room Number 3334, 1301 Constitution Avenue, NW,
Washington, DC.  The Public Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30
p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays.  The telephone
number for the Public Reading Room is (202) 566–1744, and the
telephone number for the Water Docket is (202) 566–2426.  You can also
contact the Water Docket via e-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
Regulations.gov

You will find instructions for using Regulations.gov on its Internet
home page.  Regulations.gov provides limited electronic search
capabilities.  Click on the "Search for Dockets" link found at the top
of the webpage.  Input the docket identification number
(EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0465) in the field marked as "Docket ID.”  Click on
the "EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0465" link found under the table row marked as
"Docket ID.”  You will now see a listing of the contents of the
official docket in the public record.  The listing includes the Document
ID Number (e.g., EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0465-0001), Document Title (e.g.,
“Notice of Availability of the 2008 Proposed Effluent Limitation
Guidelines and New Source Performance Standards for the Construction and
Development Category”), Date Posted (e.g., “06/12/2008”), and
Document Type (e.g., “Notice”).

You can use the Regulations.gov advanced search tools to search for
documents using all or a portion of the document title or its full
Regulations.gov Document ID Number.  You can also search the specified
docket for selected Document Types (e.g., public submission).  Finally,
you can use Regulations.gov advanced search tools and a Document Control
Number (DCN) to retrieve a particular document.  Specifically, from the
main Regulations.gov webpage you will click on the "Search for
Documents" found at the top of the page.  Next, key in
“EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0465” in the "Document ID" field and the Document
Control Number (DCN) (e.g. “DCN 45100”) in the "Document Title"
field in order to retrieve your document.

What is the Docket EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0465 Subject Outline?

EPA has prepared a subject outline of the documents included in
EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0465 to help you locate documents that address related
topics or subjects.  The subject outline for EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0465 is
provided in Attachment 1.  Each section of the subject outline contains
one or more documents that relate to a particular subject or topic.
With the exception of public submissions, each document in the docket
has been assigned to an outline section.

What is the Docket EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0465 Subject Index?

The docket EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0465 subject index is a list of documents in
the docket, sorted by subject outline section, available as Attachment 2
to this document.  Because of its size, Attachment 2 is available
separately, at DCN 43110.  Each document in the docket has two document
identification numbers.  One is the Regulations.gov Document ID Number
(e.g., EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0465-0001) that was assigned when EPA added the
document to the official docket.  The second is the document control
number (DCN) that was assigned during the development of the document
(e.g., DCN 45100).  In documents prepared for the docket, EPA typically
identified references by their DCN.  The DCN appears at the end of the
document titles in the Document Title field listed in Regulations.gov
(e.g., “Technical Development Document for the 2008 Proposed Effluent
Limitation Guidelines and New Source Performance Standards for the
Construction and Development Category [DCN 43107]”).  Public
Submissions (comments) that were submitted directly to the docket by the
public also have DCNs and are included in the subject index.

The subject index summarizes certain information that may be provided
for each document, including the subject outline section,
Regulations.gov Document ID Number, DCN, document title, author, and
abstract.

The subject index for the docket includes the following fields:

Field Name 	Description

Subject Outline Section 	Section number from docket outline

DCN 	Unique document control number (DCN) assigned during the
development of the document

Type of Record Item (Sub-Type)	Sub-type of supporting and related
materials

Title 	Title of document

Abstract 	Additional description of document

Pages 	Number of pages in document

Author 	Author of document (Last name, first full name)

Author Date 	Date of publication, issue, edition, or version. Actual
date of meeting or telephone call.

Source Citation 	For copyright protected documents, this is a
bibliographic citation (without title or author) that you can use to
find the document in a library. For materials retrieved from the
Internet, Source Citation lists the URL.

Copyrighted 	Materials that are copyright protected (e.g., books and
other published material).  These documents are not available through
Regulations.gov but are only available in hard copy at the EPA Docket
Center.

CBI 	Confidential Business Information (Yes/No). CBI is not available to
the public.

Regulations.gov Document ID Number 	Unique document number assigned when
EPA added the document to the official docket. The Document ID Number
includes the Docket Number followed by a consecutive document number.

How Do I Use the Subject Listing to Find Documents in the Docket?

Review the subject outline to determine which section may contain the
documents of interest. Then locate documents for that section in the
index and note their Regulations.gov Document ID Number.  Documents
available electronically can be accessed through Regulations.gov.  Other
documents can be reviewed at the Water Docket in the EPA Docket Center
in Washington, DC. See information on the Water Docket above.  You may
also be able to locate copyright protected materials (for example,
articles from technical publications) at an academic or public library.

Confidential Business Information

The docket contains some documents that contain confidential business
information (CBI).  CBI documents are not available for review by the
public, and are not filed in the Water Docket in the EPA Docket Center.
Some documents are classified as CBI because companies providing the
information specifically claimed certain information (e.g., operating or
financial data) as CBI. Other documents are classified as CBI because
release of these documents could indirectly reveal information claimed
to be confidential.

Documents Cited in the Federal Register Notice and Other Key Documents

Documents cited in the 2008 Proposed Effluent Limitation Guidelines and
New Source Performance Standards for the Construction and Development
Category [Federal Register: November 28, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 230)]
are listed in Attachment 3, with their Regulations.gov Document ID
Numbers noted.  Key supporting documents are also available on EPA’s
Effluent Guidelines Program Planning webpage:   HYPERLINK
"http://epa.gov/waterscience/guide/construction"
http://epa.gov/waterscience/guide/construction .

4.0 FURTHER INFORMATION

The primary contact regarding questions or comments on Docket ID No.
EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0465, the 2008 Proposed Effluent Limitation Guidelines
and New Source Performance Standards for the Construction and
Development Category is as follows:

Mr. Jesse Pritts, P.E.

U.S. EPA Engineering and Analysis Division (4303T)

1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW

Washington, DC 20460

(202) 566-1038 (telephone)

(202) 566-1053 (fax)

<EMAIL_ADDRESS>

Attachment 1

SUBJECT OUTLINE FOR THE 2008 PROPOSED EFFLUENT LIMITATION GUIDELINES AND
NEW SOURCE PERFORMANCE STANDARDS FOR THE CONSTRUCTION AND DEVELOPMENT
CATEGORY DOCKET

EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0465

2008 Proposed Effluent Limitation Guidelines and New Source Performance
Standards for the Construction and Development Category Docket Subject
Outline

Docket EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0465

The following existing sections include the docket materials for Docket
EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0465:

1	STATE, REGIONAL, AND MUNICIPAL CONSTRUCTION REGULATIONS

2	TECHNICAL BACKGROUND INFORMATION

2.1	Erosion and Sediment Controls

	2.2	USDA National Resource Inventory Database

	2.3	State Soil Geographic Database

	2.4	EPA Notice of Intent (NOI) Database

	2.5	State NOI Data

	2.6	Reach File 1 Data

	2.7	NOAA National Weather Service Precipitation Data

	2.8	National Land Cover Dataset (NLCD)

	2.9	Other

3	LOADINGS ESTIMATION METHODOLOGY

4	ADVANCED TREATMENT SYSTEMS

5	PUBLIC PARTICIPATION

6	USAGE AND COST COMPLIANCE (ECONOMIC ANALYSIS)

7	ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT

8	REGULATORY OPTIONS SELECTION AND RATIONALE

9	STATISTICAL ANALYSIS

10	OMB REVIEW

10.1	Documents Submitted to OMB

10.2	Changes to Rule Proposal

11	TECHNICAL SUPPORT DOCUMENTS AND APPENDICES

12	FEDERAL REGISTER NOTICE

Attachment 2

SUBJECT INDEX LISTING ALL DOCUMENTS SUPPORTING

THE 2008 PROPOSED EFFLUENT LIMITATION GUIDELINES AND NEW SOURCE
PERFORMANCE STANDARDS FOR THE CONSTRUCTION AND DEVELOPMENT CATEGORY

See DCN 43110.  The Subject Index is in a separate document due to page
length.

Attachment 3

DOCUMENTS CITED IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER NOTICE SUPPORTING

THE 2008 PROPOSED EFFLUENT LIMITATION GUIDELINES AND NEW SOURCE
PERFORMANCE STANDARDS FOR THE CONSTRUCTION AND DEVELOPMENT CATEGORY

Attachment 3: Documents Cited in the Proposed 2008 ELG FRN

DCN	Regulations.gov

Document ID Number	Title / Subject

01350	EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0465-0140	Final Report: Improving the Cost
Effectiveness of Highway Construction Site Erosion and Pollution Control
(DCN 01350)

41005	EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0465-0329	Soil Facts Chemical Treatment to Control
Turbidity on Construction Sites (DCN 41005)

41010	EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0465-0331	The Feasibility of Numeric Effluent
Limits Applicable to Discharges of Storm Water Associated with
Municipal, Industrial and Construction Activities: Storm Water Panel
Recommendations to the California State Water Resources Control Board
(DCN 41010)

41109	EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0465-0412	Email from Dick Hetherington to Jesse
Pritts re: polymer floc logs (DCN 41109)

41111	EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0465-0413	Chemical Treatment Guideline (DCN 41111)

41113	EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0465-0414	Guidelines for the Use of the Revised
Universal Soil Loss Equation (RUSLE) Version 1.06 on Mined Lands,
Construction Sites and Reclaimed Lands (DCN 41113)

41114	EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0465-0415	Geosyntec Memo 8/07 for CA Building
Industry (DCN 41114)

41115	EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0465-0532	Small Business Enforcement Fairness Act
(SBREFA) Background Materials (DCN 41115)

41116	EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0465-0416	Power Point Meeting Handout (DCN 41116)

41117	EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0465-0417	Questions for Potential Small Entity
Representatives (SERs) (DCN 41117)

41118	EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0465-0418	Costs and Loadings Estimates (DCN 41118)

41119	EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0465-0433	Appendix on Evaluating Soil Nature and
Soil Erosion Representative of Major U.S. Metropolitan Areas (DCN 41119)

41120	EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0465-0501, -0501.1, -0501.2, and -0501.3	Pre-Panel
Comments Received - 4 parts (DCN 41120)

41121	EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0465-0489	List of participating Small Entity
Representatives (SERs) (DCN 41121)

41122	EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0465-0490	Revised version of Questions for Small
Entity Representatives (SERs) (DCN 41122)

41123	EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0465-0533	Summary of Vendor ATS Meeting held on 8
September 2008 (DCN 41123)

41124	EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0465-0491	Advanced Treatment System (ATS)
California Site #5 Spreadsheet (DCN 41124)

41125	EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0465-0492	Trio of Advanced Treatment System (ATS)
Vendor Bids (DCN 41125)

41126	EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0465-0493	Response to Small Entity Representatives
(SERs) Questions from 8/25/08 Outreach (DCN 41126)

41127	EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0465-0494	Technical Engineering Evaluation Report
for the Chitosan-Enhanced Sand Filtration Technology for Flow-Through
Operations (DCN 41127)

41128	EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0465-0495	Clear Creek Systems, Inc., Active
Treatment Systems for Construction Stormwater (DCN 41128)

41129	EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0465-0496	Evaluation of Active Treatment Systems
(ATS) for Construction Site Runoff (DCN 41129)

41130	EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0465-0497	Rain for Rent Chitosan-Enhanced Sand
Filtration Example Quote #1 (March 2008) (DCN 41130)

41131	EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0465-0498	Rain for Rent Chitosan-Enhanced Sand
Filtration Example Quote #2 (March 2008) (DCN 41131)

41132	EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0465-0499	Summary of Vendor Costs (DCN 41132)

41133	EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0465-0500	Agenda for Wednesday, September 17, 2008
meeting of the Small Business Advocacy Review Panel (DCN 41133)

41136	EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0465-0572	Summary of the Convening of a Small
Business Advocacy Review Panel for EPA's proposed rule for the ELGs for
the Construction and Development Point Source Category (DCN 41136)

41137	EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0465-0487	California Draft Construction Permit
March 08 and Draft Fact Sheet for Water Quality Order 2008-XX-DWQ (DCN
41137)

41138	EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0465-0488	Memorandum to Record from J Pritts on
additional discharge data and sensitivity analysis of loads (DCN 41138)

43017	EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0465-0290	EPA 2007 California Regulations Summary
(DCN 43017)

43071	EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0465-0264	Erosion Prevention and Sediment Control
Computer Modeling Project (DCN 43071)

43082	EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0465-0393	The Potential for Substantial
Improvements in Sediment and Turbidity Control (DCN 43082)

43083	EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0465-0392	NC DOT COIR Fiber Baffle (DCN 43083)

51017	EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0465-0176	Reed Construction U.S. Housing Starts
Forecast (DCN 51017)

52105	EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0465-0162	Housing Impact Analysis (DCN 52105)

 PAGE

 PAGE   11

EPA Docket Number EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0465

DCN 43109

  PAGE  1


arrival, it is more properly categorized as part of the identity of the carrier than as part of the
identity of the planned shipment information.  Therefore, the requirement for the submission of
the license plate number (and State or province that issued the license) for food arriving by
privately owned vehicle has been moved to § 1.281(a)(16) and (c)(16). The final rule requires the
submission of the license plate number of the vehicle and the state or province that issued the
license plate number, if the carrier is a privately owned vehicle.  By including the identification
of the privately owned vehicle as a carrier information requirement, when applicable, you must
resubmit the prior notice in accordance with this subpart (see § 1.282) if the privately owned
vehicle information changes after the prior notice has been confirmed by FDA for review.
Identification of the license plate number and state or province that issued the license is not
required for an article of food that is imported or offered for import via international mail.
i. Harmonized tariff schedule (HTS) codes - § 1.281(a)(17)(viii) and (c)(17)(viii).
(Comments) One comment suggests the use of the HTS codes in lieu of FDA product

256
codes and asserts that the HTS codes provide all the information that the FDA would
need for prior notice.
(Response) The HTS codes often are not sufficient to specifically identify a product for
FDA decisionmaking.  For example, in many cases, the tariff code does not describe how the
product was processed (e.g., commercially sterile or shelf-stable) or how the product is
packaged, which is indicated in the Process Indicator Code (PIC) element of FDA’s product
code.  Several products that FDA considers different from each other (because these differences
affect the potential safety of the food) may be combined under one HTS code.  Therefore, the
HTS codes do not provide all the information that is required to identify the food.
Additionally, at the time that FDA and CBP issued the IFR, we believed that the HTS
code was needed for communication between FDA and CBP and that the identification of the
HTS would assist CBP in the efficient processing of prior notice through ACS.  We also thought
that, for prior notices submitted through the FDA’s PNSI, the HTS numbers were needed to
ensure that the data collected from the CBP entry when it is transmitted through ABI/ACS could
be matched to prior notice.  We have found that the HTS code is neither critical for
communication with CBP nor for identification of the food for examination purposes.
Accordingly, we have removed the requirement to submit the HTS code as a part of prior notice
planned shipment information.
(Comments) One comment suggests that FDA and CBP upgrade the flags associated with
HTS numbers.  The comment also states that prior notice cannot be submitted through ABI/ACS
if the HTS code does not have a FDA flag.  One comment states that FDA should not rely solely
upon HTS flags to implement the prior notice requirements.

257
(Response) FDA agrees and monitors and updates the HTS flags.  Guidance about the
HTS flags is posted at http://www.cfsan.fda.gov/~dms/htsguid3.html.  Prior notice can be
submitted on any product because of intended use, regardless of the HTS flag.  Not having a
FDA flag associated with the HTS code does not prevent submission of prior notice via
ABI/ACS or PNSI.
(Final rule) Section 1.281(a)(17) and (c)(17) of the final rule requires submission of the
following planned shipment information, as applicable, based on the mode of transportation:
•
Bill of lading number(s), Airway bill number(s), or express consignment operator
or carrier tracking number when the article of food is arriving by express
consignment operator or carrier and the submitter is not the express consignment
operator or carrier (not applicable to food carried by or otherwise accompanying
an individual);
•
For food arriving by ocean vessel, vessel name and voyage number;
•
For food arriving by air carrier, flight number or the express consignment
operator or carrier tracking number when the article of food is arriving by express
consignment operator or carrier and the submitter is not the express operator or
carrier;
•
For food arriving by truck, bus, or rail, the trip number;
•
For food arriving as containerized cargo by water, air, or land, the container
number(s) (not applicable to food carried by or otherwise accompanying an
individual); and
•
For food arriving by rail, car number (not applicable to food carried by or
otherwise accompanying an individual).

258
We also added the phrase “to the mode of transportation and when it exists” after “as
applicable” in the opening sentence of § 1.281(a)(17) and (c)(17) to clarify that the data elements
under planned shipment information are applicable by mode of transportation and when the data
element exists.  For example, rail car number, container number, and train trip number may be
applicable for rail shipments, and vessel name, voyage number, and container number may be
applicable for food arriving by ocean vessel.
The final rule does not require that prior notice be cancelled and resubmitted if this
planned shipment information changes after FDA has confirmed the prior notice for review.  A
prior notice will not be inadequate if any of the planned shipment information changes between
the confirmation of prior notice and the time of arrival.
j. Refused Articles. (Comments) One comment requests clarification of the process for
resubmission if a prior notice is refused for reasons other than failure to satisfy prior notice
requirements.  The comment asks once the failure is rectified, should companies use the PNSI or
ABI/ACS to resubmit the load for clearance?
(Response) A food may be refused under 801(m) of the act only if it is imported or
offered for import with inadequate prior notice; i.e., no prior notice, untimely prior notice, or
inaccurate prior notice.  To resolve a refusal, prior notice or a revised prior notice must be
submitted via PNSI until such time as ACS or its successor system can accommodate such
transactions.

259
The following table 2 summarizes the information required under § 1.281(a), (b), and (c):
TABLE 2.--PRIOR NOTICE INFORMATION REQUIRED BY CATEGORY
Information Transshipment Accompanying
Carried By or
an Individual
Food Not in
Natural State
Food in
Natural State
Mail
After
Section
8
01(m) of
the Act
Refusal
9
.2
8
1
paragraph(s)
(a) and (c)
(a)
(a)
(a)
(b)
(c)
Submitter Y Y Y Y Y Y
Transmitter Y Y Y Y Y Y
Entry type
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Entry identifier
Y
Y
Y
Y
N
Y
FDA product code
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Common, usual, or
market name
Y Y Y Y Y Y
Estimated quantity
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Actual
Lot/Code #
Y
Y
Y
N
Y
Y
Manufacturer
Y
Y
Y
N
Y
Y
Grower, if known
Y
Y
N
Y
Y
Y
Country of
production
Y Y Y Y Y Y
Shipper Y Y Y Y Y Y
Country from which
article is shipped
Y Y Y Y Y Y
Port of arrival
Anticipated
<s>1</s>
Anticipated
<s>1</s>
Anticipated
<s>1</s>
Anticipated
<s>1</s>
N
Actual
<s>1</s>
Date of arrival
Anticipated
<s>1</s>
Anticipated
<s>1</s>
Anticipated
<s>1</s>
Anticipated
<s>1</s>
N
Actual
Time of arrival
Anticipated
<s>1</s>
Anticipated
<s>1</s>
Anticipated
<s>1</s>
Anticipated
<s>1</s>
N
N
Date of mailing
N
N
N
N
Anticipated
N
Importer N Y Y Y N Y
Owner N Y Y Y N Y
Ultimate consignee
N
Y
Y
Y
N
Y
U.S
. recipient
N
N
N
N
Y
N
Mode of transport
Y
Y
Y
Y
N
Y
Carrier Y Y Y Y N Y
Bill of lading/airbill
Planned
<s>1</s>
N Planned
<s>1</s>
Planned
<s>1</s>
N Actual
<s>1</s>
Vessel/Voyage
Planned Planned Planned Planned N Actual
Flight #
Planned
<s>1</s>
Planned
<s>1</s>
Planned
<s>1</s>
Planned
<s>1</s>
N Actual
<s>1</s>
Trip #
Planned
Planned
Planned
Planned
N
Actual
Container #
Planned
N
Planned
Planned
N
Actual
Car #
Planned
N
Planned
Planned
N
Actual
Hold information
N
N
N
N
N
Y
1
If the article of food is arriving by express consignment carrier or operator, and the submitter and/or transmitter is not the
express consignment operator or carrier, and the prior notice is submitted via the FDA PNSI, the express consignment
operator or carrier tracking number may be submitted in lieu of this information.

260
I. What Must You Do if Information Changes After You Have Received Confirmation of a Prior
Notice From FDA? (§ 1.282)
In § 1.282 (a)(1) of the IFR, if any of the information required in § 1.281(a) except the
quantity information, the anticipated arrival information, or the planned shipment information,
changes after FDA has confirmed the prior notice submission for review, you must resubmit
prior notice.  For food arriving by international mail, if any of the information required in §
1.281(b), except the anticipated date of mailing, changes after FDA has confirmed the prior
notice submission for review, you must resubmit prior notice.
The IFR also states that the original prior notice should be cancelled in PNSI or if
originally submitted via ABI/ACS, the entry should be deleted.
(Comments) Some comments request that FDA revisit the concepts outlined in §§ 1.289
through 1.294 of the proposed rule, which allowed amendments to be made to product identity,
estimated quantity, and arrival information, without having to cancel the entry and resubmit the
prior notice under a new entry.  The comments contend that such amendments were acceptable
and would not taint the adequacy of a prior notice or compromise food security, if the
amendments are made within the applicable 2, 4, or 8-hour timeframes per mode of
transportation at issue.  The comments suggest that amendments allow for a degree of flexibility
in the prior notice system and acknowledge a well-known fact in the industry that this type of
information may change after prior notice has been submitted.  Some comments suggest that
allowing the submitter or filer to update or correct information provided in a prior notice will
facilitate the steady flow of prior notice submissions, without jeopardizing the security and safety
of the food supply.

261
(Response) Unlike the proposed rule, the IFR does not allow for amendments relating to
the product identity.  After considering the comments on whether the final rule should allow
amendments, and based on our experience with the IFR, we believe the approach in the IFR is
sound.  The reduced timeframes in the IFR, which are continued in the final rule, provide very
little leeway in the time FDA has to receive, review, and respond to the prior notice submissions.
Moreover, the timeframes are based, in part, on not receiving amendments because allowing
amendments would increase the review time.  In addition, ACS cannot accommodate changes in
prior notice submissions that have been confirmed by FDA for review because CBP also needs
finality so it can complete its own screening of the entry.  Therefore, to keep the timeframes as
short as possible, we are not permitting changes to prior notice without restarting the clock.
Moreover, we believe that the prior notice information required by the final rule should
be sufficiently fixed to be submitted within the timeframes.  The final rule allows for estimates
for some information--estimated quantity, anticipated arrival information, and planned shipment
information--and changes to any of these data elements does not require that the prior notice be
resubmitted.
(Comments) Some comments request that FDA create a mechanism to allow correction
of errors in a manner that does not restart the prior notice clock.  One comment requests the final
rule provide for correction of errors within the timeframe of the 2, 4, or 8-hour deadline. The
comments suggest that a streamlined process, possibly through electronic means, of making
clerical corrections or correcting errors in timely filed prior notice should be a permanent feature
of the integrated FDA-CBP process.  Some comments contend that without the opportunity to
correct the error post-submission, shippers may find their shipments frozen in an extended period
of delay, which would frustrate the purpose of the FDA-CBP Integration Plan that is aimed at

262
reducing such timeframes.  Comments also suggest this would create an unintended legislative
loop between the two regulatory frameworks meant by the Integration Plan to be seamlessly and
efficiently integrated.
Some comments object to the IFR’s requirements because after the CBP entry or entry
summary has been certified, there currently is no mechanism for making corrections, including
corrections of simple clerical errors, without canceling the entry and submitting a new entry.
Comments state that the requirement to cancel and resubmit a prior notice when submitted
information changes or to correct a clerical error creates additional work in an already
overburdened environment.  According to the comments, in the air and truck environment where
cargo is processed on weekends and at off-hour operations, CBP is unavailable to process these
entry cancellations.  The comments state that in such circumstances, cargo could be forced into
refused status due to CBP’s inability to act in a timely manner.
Similarly, other comments state that many imported articles of food are time sensitive
and must be shipped in a temperature controlled environment.  The comments note that clerical
errors in the prior notice may not be corrected, and if an error is discovered after a CBP entry is
certified, the entry must be cancelled. According to the comments, if CBP is not available to
cancel the entry (e.g., the shipment arrives over the weekend), the delay may cause the shipment
to be destroyed.  The comments request that FDA and CBP find a way to address this problem,
either by allowing clerical revisions after the entry has been certified, permitting entry deletions
under certain circumstances, or ensuring CBP availability on a 24 hours/7 days a week/365 days
a year schedule.
(Response) Because we reduced the timeframes for submitting prior notice in the IFR to
the least amount of time that we need to meet our statutory responsibility to receive, review, and

263
respond to prior notice submissions, the IFR did not provide for amendments or updates.  The
timeframes in the final rule also provide the least amount of time we need to receive, review and
respond to prior notice submissions and therefore, the final rule also does not provide for
amendments or updates.  The use of ABI/ACS precludes amendments and updates without
substantial and costly revisions to the system; such technical changes are not cost-effective or a
good use of limited resources given the development of the Automated Commercial
Environment, which will replace ACS.  Changes to ABI/ACS submissions that have been


[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 233 (Wednesday, December 6, 2023)]
[Notices]
[Pages 84865-84867]
[FR Doc No: 2023-26728]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-99049; File No. SR-NYSE-2023-45]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; New York Stock Exchange LLC;
Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To
Update Citations to Rule 600(b) of Regulation National Market System

November 30, 2023.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) \1\ of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 (``Act'' or ``Exchange Act'') \2\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\3\
notice is hereby given that on November 20, 2023, New York Stock
Exchange LLC (``NYSE'' or ``Exchange'') filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission (``Commission'') the proposed rule change as
described in Items I and II 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\ 15 U.S.C. 78a.
    \3\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.

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

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

    The Exchange proposes to update citations to Rule 600(b) of
Regulation National Market System (``Regulation NMS'') in Rule 7.31
(Orders and Modifiers); Rule 5320 (Prohibition Against Trading Ahead of
Customer Orders); Rule 6140 (Other Trading Practices); and Rule 6810
(Consolidated Audit Trail--Definitions). The proposed rule change is
available on the Exchange's website at www.nyse.com, at the principal
office of the Exchange, and at the Commission's Public Reference Room.

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

    In its filing with the Commission, the self-regulatory organization
included statements concerning the purpose of, and basis for, the
proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the
proposed rule change. The text of those statements may be examined at
the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared
summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most
significant parts of such statements.

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

1. Purpose
    The Exchange proposes to update citations to Rule 600(b) of
Regulation NMS in Rule 7.31 (Orders and Modifiers); Rule 5320
(Prohibition Against Trading Ahead of Customer Orders); Rule 6140
(Other Trading Practices); and Rule 6810 (Consolidated Audit Trail--
Definitions).
    In 2021, the Securities and Exchange Commission (the
``Commission'') amended Regulation NMS under the Act in connection with
the adoption of the Market Data Infrastructure Rules.\4\ As part of
that initiative, the Commission adopted new definitions in Rule 600(b)
of Regulation NMS and renumbered the remaining definitions, including
the definition of Intermarket Sweep Order (formerly Rule 600(b)(30)),
Listed Option (formerly Rule 600(b)(35)), and NMS Stock (formerly Rule
600(b)(47)).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 90610, 86 FR 18596
(April 9, 2021) (S7-03-20).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange accordingly proposes to update the relevant citations
to Rule 600(b) in its rules as follows.
     The citation to the definition of Intermarket Sweep Order
in Rule 7.31(e)(3) and Rule 5320, Supplementary Material .04 would be
changed to Rule 600(b)(38).
     The citation to the definition of NMS Stock in Rule
6140(a) and Rule 6810(qq) would be changed to Rule 600(b)(55).
     The citation to the definition of Listed Option in Rule
6810(y) would be changed to Rule 600(b)(43).
2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent
with Section 6(b)(5) of the Exchange Act,\5\ in that it 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 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The Exchange believes that the proposed changes to its rules to
correct citations to Rule 600(b) of Regulation NMS would remove
impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and
a national market system because the proposed change is designed to
update an external rule reference. The Exchange believes that member
organizations would benefit from the increased clarity, thereby
reducing potential confusion and ensuring that persons subject to the
Exchange's jurisdiction, regulators, and the investing public can more
easily navigate and understand the Exchange's rules. The Exchange
further believes that the proposed amendment would not be inconsistent
with the public interest and the protection of investors because
investors will not be harmed and in fact would benefit from increased
clarity, thereby reducing potential confusion.

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

    In accordance with Section 6(b)(8) of the Act,\6\ the Exchange
believes that the proposed rule change would not impose any burden on
competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the
purposes of the Act. The proposed rule change is not intended to
address competitive issues but rather would modify Exchange rules to
update citations to Rule 600(b) of Reg NMS. Since the proposal does not
substantively modify system functionality or processes on the Exchange,
the proposed changes will not impose any burden on competition.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(8).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

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

    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act \7\ and Rule 19b-4(f)(6)
\8\ thereunder, the Exchange has designated this proposal as one that
effects a change that: (i) does not significantly affect the protection
of investors or the public interest; (ii) does not impose any
significant burden on competition; and (iii) by its terms, does not
become operative for 30 days after the date of the filing, or such
shorter time as the Commission may designate if consistent with the
protection of investors and the public interest.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \8\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6).
    \9\ In addition, Rule 19b-4(f)(6) requires a self-regulatory
organization to give the Commission written notice of its intent to
file the proposed rule change at least five business days prior to
the date of filing of the proposed rule change, or such shorter time
as designated by the Commission. The Exchange has satisfied this
requirement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    A proposed rule change filed pursuant to Rule 19b-4(f)(6) under the
Act normally does not become operative for 30 days after the date of
its filing. However, Rule 19b-4(f)(6)(iii) \10\ permits the Commission
to designate a shorter time if such action is consistent with the
protection of investors and the public interest. The Exchange requested
that the Commission waive the 30-day operative delay so that the
proposal may become operative immediately upon filing. The proposed
change raises no novel legal or regulatory issues and modifies the
Exchange's rules to correct citations to Rule 600(b) of Regulation NMS,
which should help prevent confusion and result in increased clarity
within the Exchange's rules. Therefore, the Commission believes that
waiver of the 30-day operative delay is consistent with the protection
of investors and the public interest. Accordingly, the Commission
hereby waives the 30-day operative delay and designates the proposed
rule change operative upon filing.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6)(iii).
    \11\ For purposes only of waiving the 30-day operative delay,
the Commission has also considered the proposed rule's impact on
efficiency, competition, and capital formation. See 15 U.S.C.
78c(f).

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

    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.

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 (https://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an email to [email protected]. Please include
file number SR-NYSE-2023-45 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to file number SR-NYSE-2023-45. This file
number should be included on the subject line if email 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 website (https://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 website viewing and
printing in the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street NE,
Washington, DC 20549, on official business days between the hours of 10
a.m. and 3 p.m. Copies of the filing also will be available for
inspection and copying at the principal office of the Exchange. Do not
include personal identifiable information in submissions; you should
submit only information that you wish to make available publicly. We
may redact in part or withhold entirely from publication submitted
material that is obscene or subject to copyright protection. All
submissions should refer to file number SR-NYSE-2023-45 and should be
submitted on or before December 27, 2023.

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

    \12\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12), (59).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sherry R. Haywood,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2023-26728 Filed 12-5-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 141 (Monday, July 23, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Pages 43145-43146]
[FR Doc No: 2012-17892]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

[Docket No. NHTSA-2009-0084; Notice 2]

American Honda Motor Co., Inc., Grant of Petition for Decision of
Inconsequential Noncompliance

AGENCY: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, DOT.

ACTION: Notice of petition grant.

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

SUMMARY: American Honda Motor Co., Inc. (Honda), has determined that
certain 2008 and 2009 model year Honda Civic Si model passenger cars
when equipped with dealer accessory 18-inch diameter wheels do not
fully comply with paragraph S4.2(a) of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety
Standard (FMVSS) No. 138, Tire Pressure Monitoring Systems. Honda filed
an appropriate report dated December 3, 2008, pursuant to 49 CFR part
573 Defect and Noncompliance Responsibility and Reports.
    Pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 30118(d) and 30120(h) and the rule
implementing those provisions at 49 CFR Part 556, Honda has petitioned
for an exemption from the notification and remedy requirements of 49
U.S.C. Chapter 301 on the basis that this noncompliance is
inconsequential to motor vehicle safety. Notice of receipt of the
petition was published, with a 30-day public comment period, on May 12,
2009 in the Federal Register (74 FR 22202). No comments were received.
To view the petition, and supporting documents log onto the Federal
Docket Management System (FDMS) Web site at: http://www.regulations.gov/. Then follow the online search instructions to
locate docket number ``NHTSA-2009-0084.''
    For further information on this decision contact Mr. John Finneran,
Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance, the National Highway Traffic
Safety Administration (NHTSA), telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>, facsimile (202)
366-5930.
    Vehicles involved: The exact number of vehicles involved is not
known. However, a total of approximately 952 wheels, or 238 complete
wheel sets, were sold to Honda dealerships by Honda between July, 2006
and September, 2008. These wheel sets were sold with a replacement tire
pressure placard in accordance with FMVSS No. 110, indicating a tire
inflation pressure of 250 kPa (36 PSI) for 215/40RZ18 tires having a
load capacity rating of 85Y.
    Noncompliance: Honda explains that the noncompliance occurred
because the recommended electronic method of updating the TPMS
inflation pressure settings to accommodate proper installation of the
subject optional wheel sets incorrectly informed technicians that the
adjustments had been completed successfully. The result is that the
TPMS inflation pressure warning threshold remains at the standard
setting for the original equipment 17-inch wheels of not less than 175
kPa (25 PSI) for the standard recommended tire pressure of 230 kPa (33
PSI). The minimum allowable TPMS threshold for the 18-inch accessory
wheels should be 190 kPa (27 PSI), based on the recommended pressure of
250 kPa (36 PSI) as indicated on the replacement tire pressure placard.
As a result, the low tire pressure warning telltale required by S4.2(a)
will not illuminate at the 27 PSI minimum allowable TPMS threshold
necessitated by installation of the dealer accessory wheels and tires.

Summary of Honda's Analysis and Arguments

    Honda stated that it believes the noncompliance is inconsequential
to motor vehicle safety because even at the lower TPMS threshold,
adequate load capacity remains for the tires on the subject vehicles.
Along with this statement Honda explained that the load capacity for
each of the 215/40RZ18 85Y tires is 500 kilograms (1,100 lbs) at 230
kPa (33 PSI), calculated using the Japan Automotive Tyre Manufacturer's
Association (JATMA) method, as recognized by NHTSA in FMVSS No. 110.
The maximum allowable load according to the Gross Axle Weight Ratings
(GAWR) for a 2008 or 2009 Civic Si is 477 kilograms (1,050 lbs) for
each front tire and 425 kilograms (938 lbs) for each rear tire, well
within the load capacity specified by JATMA.
    Honda believes that the described noncompliance of its vehicles is
inconsequential to motor vehicle safety, and that its petition, to
exempt from providing recall notification of noncompliance as required
by 49 U.S.C. 30118 and remedying the recall noncompliance as required
by 49 U.S.C. 30120 should be granted.

NHTSA's Decision

    NHTSA's Analysis: For the agency's analysis of this petition the
requirements of three associated Federal motor vehicle safety standards
(FMVSS) were evaluated. First, as relates to FMVSS No. 110, we agree
with Honda's statement that the 18-inch diameter tires have adequate
load carrying capacity for the gross axle weight ratings assigned to
any of the subject vehicles equipped with the dealer-installed tires.
Two

corresponding requirements exist in FMVSS No. 110 for passenger cars,
S<IP_ADDRESS>, which states ``[t]he vehicle maximum load on the tire shall
not be greater than the applicable maximum load rating as marked on the
sidewall of the tire'' and S4.3.4, requires that ``No inflation
pressure other than the maximum permissible inflation pressure may be
shown on the placard and, if any, tire inflation pressure label
unless--(c) The tire load rating specified in a submission by an
individual manufacturer, pursuant to S4.1.1(a) of Sec.  571.139 or
contained in one of the publications described in S4.1.1(b) of Sec.
571.139, for the tire size at that inflation pressure is not less than
the vehicle maximum load and the vehicle normal load on the tire for
those vehicle loading conditions. We asked Honda for data for fully
loaded vehicles. Honda provided the maximum weight on the front and
rear axles with the vehicles loaded to capacity weight, and we
calculated the weight per tire assuming an equal distribution between
the tires:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                         Front axle               Front axle/2                Rear axle                Rear axle/2
                      Model                      -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                       kg           lb           kg           lb           kg           lb           kg           lb
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2-door..........................................          930         2050          465         1025          805         1774          402          887
4-door..........................................          950         2094          475         1047          830         1830          415          915
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The 18-inch tires at the maximum load rating on the sidewall of the
tires and at the recommended inflation pressures of 33 psi or 36 psi
specified on the FMVSS No. 110 vehicle placards appear to meet the two
FMVSS No. 110 requirements identified above.
    We then turned our attention to FMVSS No. 138. FMVSS No. 138 does
not require the TPMS telltale activation pressure to be set at a level
such that the tires at that pressure will have a load rating
appropriate for the vehicle when loaded to its capacity weight.\1\ The
standard requires the TPMS activation pressure to be the value at 25
percent below the manufacturer's recommended cold inflation pressure or
140kPa (from table 1 in FMVSS No. 138), whichever is higher. For the
subject 18-inch tires, as discussed in the previous paragraph under the
requirements of FMVSS No. 110, Honda could have specified a recommended
cold inflation pressure of 33 psi or the 36 psi and either pressure
would have been appropriate for the vehicles maximum load on the tires.
Twenty-five percent below either of these recommended inflation
pressures would have been appropriate under the requirements of FMVSS
No. 138.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ See Federal Register Notice 70 FR 18138, 18146 (April 8,
2005) describing NHTSA's testing of a variety of Standard Load P-
metric tires at 20 psi with 100 percent load, and no tires failed.
``This testing led the agency to conclude that warnings of less
severe conditions [i.e., in Honda's case 25 psi] will give drivers
sufficient time to check and re-inflate their vehicles' tires before
the tires experience appreciable damage.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Finally, as relates to FMVSS No. 139, we examined the low inflation
pressure performance test required by that standard. FMVSS No. 139
specifies a low inflation pressure performance test in which the tire
is loaded to its maximum tire load capacity and inflated to only 140kPa
(20 psi), less than the TPMS telltale activation pressure for the
subject vehicles. Although NHTSA did not test a sample of the 18-inch
tire to FMVSS No. 139, tire manufacturers are required to certify that
the tires meet all applicable requirements of the standard, evidenced
by labeling each tire with the letters ``DOT.''
    NHTSA's Conclusion: Honda is asking the agency to determine that
its noncompliance be deemed inconsequential to safety because it
believes the 18-inch tires have adequate load capacity at the 36 psi
recommended inflation pressure for these tires and at the lower 33 psi
recommended inflation pressure for the 17-inch tire being replaced.
NHTSA's analysis determined that Honda was correct in its assessment.
Furthermore, FMVSS No. 138 does not include a minimum tire load rating
margin requirement at the TPMS activation pressure thus a 25 percent
below either pressure would be appropriate under the standard's
requirements. NHTSA's analysis also noted that the subject tires must
be certified to the low inflation pressure performance testing of FMVSS
No. 139 which is conducted at an inflation pressure further below the
subject tires TPMS activation inflation pressures. Finally, we
conducted a search of the agency's Office of Defects Investigation's
complaint data base and found no complaints associated directly with
the incorrect TPMS activation inflation pressure thresholds for the
2008 and 2009 Honda Civic vehicles.
    NHTSA's Decision: In consideration of the foregoing, NHTSA has
determined that Honda has adequately demonstrated, under the specific
facts and circumstances presented here, that the noncompliance with
FMVSS No. 138 in the case of 2008 and 2009 2-door and 4-door Civic SI
vehicles is inconsequential to motor vehicle safety. Accordingly,
Honda's petition is granted and the petitioner is exempted from the
obligation of providing notification of, and a remedy for, that
noncompliance under 49 U.S.C. 30118 and 30120.

    Authority:  (49 U.S.C. 30118, 30120: Delegations of authority at
CFR 1.50 and 501.8).

    Issued on: July 17, 2012.
Claude H. Harris,
Director, Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance.
[FR Doc. 2012-17892 Filed 7-20-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P


[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 122 (Tuesday, June 27, 2023)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 41506-41507]
[FR Doc No: 2023-13658]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 165

[Docket No. USCG-2023-0477]

Safety Zone; Recurring Events in Captain of the Port Duluth--City
of Superior 4th of July Fireworks

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Notice of enforcement of regulation.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard will enforce a safety zone for the City of
Superior 4th of July Fireworks in Superior, WI from

10 p.m. through 10:20 p.m. This action is necessary to protect
participants and spectators during the City of Superior 4th of July
Fireworks taking place in Superior Bay. During the enforcement period,
entry into, transiting, or anchoring within the safety zone is
prohibited unless authorized by the Captain of the Port Duluth or their
designated on-scene representative.

DATES: The regulations in 33 CFR 165.943, table 1, paragraph (8) will
be enforced from 10 p.m. through 10:20 p.m. on July 4, 2023.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions about this
notice of enforcement, call or email LT Joe McGinnis, telephone 218-
725-3818, email [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Coast Guard will enforce the safety zone
in 33 CFR 165.943, table 1, paragraph (8) on all waters of Superior Bay
in Superior, WI bounded by the arc of a circle with a 1,120-foot radius
from the fireworks launch site with its center in position
46[deg]43'28'' N, 092[deg]03'38'' W from 10 p.m. through 10:20 p.m. on
July 04, 2023. This action is necessary to protect participants and
spectators during the City of Superior 4th of July Fireworks.
    Pursuant to 33 CFR 165.23, entry into, transiting, or anchoring
within the safety zone is prohibited unless authorized by the Captain
of the Port Duluth or their designated on-scene representative. The
Captain of the Port's designated on-scene representative may be
contacted via VHF Channel 16.
    This document is issued under authority of 33 CFR 165.943 and 5
U.S.C. 552 (a). In addition to this publication in the Federal
Register, the Coast Guard will provide the maritime community with
advance notification of the enforcement of this safety zone via
Broadcast Notice to Mariners.

    Dated: June 20, 2023.
J.M. DeWitz,
Commander, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Port Duluth.
[FR Doc. 2023-13658 Filed 6-26-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-04-P


[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 124 (Thursday, July 1, 2021)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 35042-35044]
[FR Doc No: 2021-14055]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R02-OAR-2020-0466, FRL 10025-61-Region 2]

Approval of Air Quality Implementation Plans; New York; Part 212,
Process Operations

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to
approve a revision to the New York State Implementation Plan concerning
process operations. The intended effect of this revision is to
streamline and update provisions, align those provisions with
permitting regulations, and provide regulatory certainly for the
regulated community. New York's comprehensive submittal also included
Operating Permit Program requirements; however, the EPA will be acting
on these revisions under a separate action.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before August 2, 2021.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID number EPA-
R02-OAR-2020-0466, at http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online
instructions for submitting comments. Once submitted, comments cannot
be edited or withdrawn. The EPA may publish any comment received to its
public docket. Do not submit electronically any information you
consider to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other
information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Multimedia
submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be accompanied by a written
comment. The written comment is considered the official comment and
should include discussion of all points you wish to make. The EPA will
generally not consider comments or comment contents located outside of
the primary submission (i.e., on the web, cloud, or other file sharing
system). For additional submission methods, the full EPA public comment
policy, information about CBI or multimedia submissions, and general
guidance on making effective comments, please visit http://www2.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Marina Cubias-Castro, Air Programs
Branch, Environmental Protection Agency, Region 2, 290 Broadway, 25th
Floor, New York, New York 10007-1866,<PHONE_NUMBER>, or by email at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Table of Contents

I. Background
II. EPA's Evaluation of New York's Submittal
III. Proposed Action
IV. Incorporation by Reference
V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. Background

    The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) proposes to approve New
York's State Implementation Plan (SIP) submittal consisting of
revisions to Title 6 of the New York Codes, Rules and Regulations (6
NYCRR) Part 212, now entitled, ``Process Operations,'' which applies to
process emission sources and/or emission points associated with a
process operation, and which will streamline and update provisions,
align those provisions with permitting regulations, and provide
regulatory certainly for the regulated community. In addition,
attendant revisions were made to 6 NYCRR Part 200, ``General
Provisions,'' in order to add a new Subdivision (cy) to define
``Polychlorinated Dibenzo-para-dioxins and Polychlorinated
Dibenzofurans'' to Section 200.1. The EPA is proposing to approve these
revisions, requested by

New York, to strengthen the effectiveness of New York's SIP.

II. EPA's Evaluation of New York's Submittal

    On February 5, 2019, the New York State Department of Environmental
Conservation (NYSDEC) submitted to the EPA the proposed revisions to
Parts 200 and 212, along with supplemental materials, including
documentation of the comment period and public hearings, and the
NYSDEC's responses to public comments. On March 26, 2021, the NYSDEC
submitted to the EPA additional proposed attendant revisions to Part
212, along with documentation of the comment period and public
hearings, and the NYSDEC's responses to public comments. These
materials are in the EPA's docket for this proposal. The State's March
26, 2021 comprehensive SIP submittal also proposes revisions to the
Part 201 Operating Permit Program to require owners and operators of
air contamination sources to obtain a permit or registration, and for
Part 200.1 General Provisions for combustion installation, emergency
power generating station internal combustion engine, fossil fuel and
furnace. However, the EPA will act on these revisions in a separate
action.

Revisions to Parts 200 and 212

    The EPA is proposing to approve the revisions to Parts 200 and 212.
The revisions to Part 200 apply to a combination or mixture containing
four to eight chlorinated dibenzo-para-dioxins and/or chlorinated
dibenzofurans and/or specific polychlorinated biphenyls. The revisions
to Part 212 apply to process emission sources and/or emission points
associated with a process operation. These revisions streamline and
update provisions, align those provisions with permitting regulations,
and provide regulatory certainly for the regulated community. The EPA
proposes to approve these revisions to strengthen the New York's
SIP.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ The NYSDEC repealed Part 212, which was previously entitled,
``General Process Emission Sources,'' and replaced it with the
current version, entitled, ``Process Operations.'' The NYSDEC
proposes to revise the New York SIP to remove an outdated version of
Part 212 that was previously approved by the EPA on July 12, 2013
(78 FR 41846), and incorporate the current March 26, 2021 version of
Part 212.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The proposed changes to Part 212 include: Establishing consistent
terminology between Part 212 Part 200, as well as 6 NYCRR Part 201,
``Permits and Registrations''; establishing a Toxic Best Available
Control Technology (T-BACT) standard for toxic air contaminants;
clarifying the interaction between Part 212 and the National Emission
Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAPs); offering a
streamlined approach for demonstrating compliance with regulatory
standards for air contaminants by adopting a mass emission rate option;
replacing the current Part 212 control requirement, which provides the
NYSDEC Commissioner with discretion to establish the degree of required
air cleaning, with a performance of air dispersion modeling analysis in
order to demonstrate compliance with the NYSDEC Guideline
Concentrations or National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS);
controlling High Toxicity Air Contaminants (HTACs) to the greatest
extent possible; and generally reorganizing and clarifying Part 212.
Aside from renumbering and replacement of the term ``Lower Orange
County'' with a list of regulated Orange County towns, this proposed
rulemaking does not change the language of existing Section 212.10,
``Reasonably Available Control Technology for Major Facilities,'' which
is renumbered in the proposed revisions as Subpart 212-3. Neither does
this proposed rulemaking change the language of existing Section
212.12, ``Control of Nitrogen Oxides for Hot Mix Asphalt Production
Plants,'' other than renumbering the section to Section 212-2.4 in line
with the proposed new numbering. Under Sections 212-3.1(c)(3) and 212-
4.1(c), process specific Reasonably Available Control Technology (RACT)
determinations must be submitted to the EPA as SIP revisions and are
effective only if approved by the EPA.
    In addition, Subdivision 212-1.4(a) is revised to clarify its
requirements. Subdivision 212-1.4(k) is revised to address toxic
emissions from the iron and steel industry. Paragraph 212-1.5(e)(2) is
revised to include an alternative toxic impact assessment method. Table
2 in Section 212-2.2 is revised to be consistent with Table 1 in
Subpart 201-9 and to reflect the latest toxicological information.
Table 6 in Subdivision 212-2.5(b) is revised to show permissible
emission rates consistent with the formula presented in that
Subdivision.

III. Proposed Action

    The EPA proposes to approve the revisions to New York's Title 6 of
the New York Codes, Rules and Regulations Part 212, ``General Process
Emission Sources'' and Section 200.1, ``Definitions,'' both with a
State effective date of April 30, 2015, along with additional revisions
to Part 212, with a State effective date of February 25, 2021, into New
York's SIP, in order to strengthen enforcement of the State's air
pollution control regulations. The EPA is soliciting public comments on
the issues discussed in this proposed rulemaking action. These comments
will be considered before taking final action.

IV. Incorporation by Reference

    In this rule, the EPA is proposing to include in a final rule
regulatory text that includes incorporation by reference. In accordance
with requirements of 1 CFR 51.5, we are proposing to incorporate by
reference the provisions described above in Section II.
    The EPA has made, and will continue to make, these documents
generally available electronically through http://www.regulations.gov
and/or in hard copy at the EPA Region 2 Office (please contact the
person identified in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of
this preamble for more information).

V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under the Clean Air Act (CAA), the Administrator is required to
approve a SIP submission that complies with the provisions of the CAA
and applicable Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a).
Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state
choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. Accordingly,
this action merely proposes to approve state law that meets 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) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21,
2011);
     Is not an Executive Order 13771 (82 FR 9339, February 3,
2017) regulatory action because SIP approvals are exempted under
Executive Order 12866;
     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 the 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 proposed rule does not have tribal implications
as specified by Executive Order 13175, because the SIP is not approved
to apply in Indian country located in the state, and the EPA notes that
it will not impose substantial direct compliance costs on tribal
governments or preempt tribal law. Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not
apply to this action.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

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

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

    Dated: June 26, 2021.
Walter Mugdan,
Acting Regional Administrator, EPA Region 2.
[FR Doc. 2021-14055 Filed 6-30-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P