[Federal Register: June 17, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 117)]
[Notices]
[Page 34296-34304]
[DOCID:fr17jn08-53]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[FRL-8580-9; EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0055 and EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0056]

Draft National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES)
General Permits for Discharges Incidental to the Normal Operation of a
Vessel

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice of proposed permit issuance and Notice of Public
Hearing.

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

SUMMARY: EPA Regions 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, and 10 are proposing an
NPDES Vessel General Permit (VGP) to cover discharges incidental to the
normal operation of commercial vessels and recreational vessels greater
than or equal to 79 feet in length and an NPDES Recreational General
Permit (RGP) to cover discharges incidental to the normal operation of
recreational vessels less than 79 feet in length. This action is in
response to a District Court ruling that vacates, as of September 30,
2008, a long-standing EPA regulation that excludes discharges
incidental to the normal operation of a vessel from the need to obtain
an NPDES permit. Nw. Envt'l Advocates et al. v. EPA, 2005 WL 756614
(N.D. Cal.). Although EPA has filed an appeal with the 9th Circuit
Court of Appeals, as a practical matter, the Agency cannot simply await
the outcome of that appeal. This is because if the District Court's
order remains unchanged, as of September 30, 2008, discharges of
pollutants incidental to the normal operation of a vessel that had
formerly been exempted from NPDES permitting by the regulation will be
subject to the prohibition in CWA section 301(a) against the discharge
of pollutants without a permit.
    EPA solicited information and data on discharges incidental to
normal vessel operations to assist in developing these proposed NPDES
permits in a Federal Register Notice published June 21, 2007 (72 FR
32421). The majority of information and data in response to that notice
came from seven different groups: Individual citizens, commercial
fishing representatives, commercial shipping groups, environmental or
outdoor recreation groups, the oil and gas industry, recreational
boating-related businesses, and state governments. EPA considered all
such resulting information and data along with other available
information in developing the two proposed vessel permits.

DATES: Comments must be submitted on or before August 1, 2008.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OW-
2008-0055 for the VGP or Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0056 for the RGP,
by one of the following methods:
     http://www.regulations.gov: Follow the on-line
instructions for submitting comments.
     E-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>     Mail: Original and three copies to: Water Docket,
Environmental Protection Agency, Mail Code: 2822T, 1200 Pennsylvania
Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460.
     Hand Delivery: EPA Docket Center, Public Reading Room, EPA
Headquarters West Building, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave., NW.,
Washington, DC 20460. Such deliveries are only accepted during the
Docket's normal hours of operation, and special arrangements should be
made for deliveries of boxed information.
    Instructions: A copy of the draft RGP and VGP and their respective
accompanying fact sheets are available at http://www.epa.gov/npdes/
vessels. Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0055 for
the VGP and Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0056 for the RGP. EPA's policy
is that public comments, whether submitted electronically or in paper,
will be made available for public viewing in EPA's electronic public
docket as EPA receives them and without change, unless the comment
contains copyrighted material, CBI, or other information whose
disclosure is restricted by statute. When EPA identifies a comment
containing copyrighted material, EPA will provide a reference to that
material in the version of the comment that is placed in EPA's
electronic public docket. The entire printed comment, including the
copyrighted material, will be available in the public docket. Do not
submit information that you consider to be CBI or otherwise protected
through http://

www.regulations.gov or e-mail. The http://www.regulations.gov Web site
is an ``anonymous access'' system, which means EPA will not know your
identity or contact information unless you provide it in the body of
your comment. If you send an e-mail comment directly to EPA without
going through http://www.regulations.gov your e-mail address will be
automatically captured and included as part of the comment that is
placed in the public docket and made available on the Internet. If you
submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends that you include your name
and other contact information in the body of your comment and with any
disk or CD-ROM you submit. If EPA cannot read your comment due to
technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, EPA
may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic files should avoid
the use of special characters, any form of encryption, and be free of
any defects or viruses.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For further information on the
proposed commercial vessel NPDES general permit, including on how to
obtain copies of the draft general permit and fact sheet, contact Ryan
Albert at EPA Headquarters, Office of Water, Office of Wastewater
Management, Mail Code 4203M, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington,
DC 20460; or at tel.<PHONE_NUMBER>; or e-mail:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>For further information on the proposed
recreational vessel NPDES general permit, including on how to obtain
copies of the draft general permit and fact sheet, contact Juhi Saxena
at EPA Headquarters, Office of Water, Office of Wastewater Management,
Mail Code 4203M, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460; or
at tel.<PHONE_NUMBER>; or e-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. General Information

A. How Can I Get Copies of These Documents and Other Related
Information?

    1. Docket. EPA has established an official public docket for this
action under Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0055 for the VGP and Docket
ID No. EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0056 for the RGP. The official public docket is
the collection of materials, including the administrative record for
the draft permit required by 40 CFR 124.9, that is available for public
viewing at the Water Docket in the EPA Docket Center (EPA/DC), EPA
West, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460.
Although all documents in the docket are listed in an index, some
information is not publicly available, i.e., CBI or other information
whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Publicly available docket
materials are available electronically through http://
www.regulations.gov and in hard copy at the EPA Docket Center Public
Reading Room, 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<PHONE_NUMBER> and the telephone number for the Water Docket is
(202) 566-2426. In addition, the comments and information that EPA
received in response to its June 21, 2007, Federal Register notice can
be found in the public docket at http://www.regulations.gov by
searching Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OW-2007-0483.
    2. Electronic Access. You may access this Federal Register document
electronically through the EPA Internet under the ``Federal Register''
listings at http://www.epa.gov/fedrgstr/.
    An electronic version of the public docket is available through the
Federal Docket Management System (FDMS) found at http://
www.regulations.gov. You may use the FDMS to submit or view public
comments, access the index listing of the contents of the official
public docket, and to access those documents in the public docket that
are available electronically. Once at the Web site, enter the
appropriate Docket ID No. in the ``Search'' box to view the docket.
    Certain types of information will not be placed in the EPA dockets.
Information claimed as CBI and other information whose disclosure is
restricted by statute, which is not included in the official public
docket, will not be available for public viewing in EPA's electronic
public docket. EPA policy is that copyrighted material will not be
placed in EPA's electronic public docket but will be available only in
printed, paper form in the official public docket. Although not all
docket materials may be available electronically, you may still access
any of the publicly available docket materials through the docket
facility identified in section I.A.1.

B. What Should I Consider as I Prepare My Comments for EPA?

    1. Submitting CBI. Do not submit this information to EPA through
regulations.gov or e-mail. Clearly mark all of the information that you
claim to be CBI. For CBI information on computer disks mailed to EPA,
mark the surface of the disk as CBI. Also identify electronically the
specific information contained in the disk or that you claim is CBI. In
addition to one complete version of the specific information claimed as
CBI, you must submit a copy that does not contain the information
claimed as CBI for inclusion in the public document. Information so
marked will not be disclosed except in accordance with procedures set
forth in 40 CFR Part 2.
    2. Tips for Preparing Your Comments. When submitting comments,
remember to:
     Identify the permit by docket number and other identifying
information (subject heading, Federal Register date, and page number).
     Follow directions--The agency may ask you to respond to
specific questions or organize comments by referencing a section or
part of the permit
     Explain why you agree or disagree, suggest alternatives,
and substitute language for your requested changes.
     Describe any assumptions and provide any technical
information and/or data that you used.
     If you estimate potential costs or burdens, explain how
you arrived at your estimate in sufficient detail to allow for it to be
reproduced.
     Provide specific examples to illustrate your concerns, and
suggest alternatives.
     Explain your views as clearly as possible
     Make sure to submit your comments by the comment period
deadline identified.

C. How and To Whom Do I Submit Comments?

    The opportunity to raise issues and provide information on these
general permits is during the public comment period (see 40 CFR 124.13
for more information). You may submit comments electronically, by mail,
or through hand delivery/courier. To ensure proper receipt by EPA,
identify the appropriate docket identification number in the subject
line on the first page of your comment. To ensure that EPA can read,
understand, and therefore properly respond to comments, the Agency
would prefer that commenters cite, where possible, the paragraph(s) or
section in the fact sheet or permit to which each comment refers.
Please ensure that your comments are submitted within the specified
comment period. Comments received after the close of the comment period
will be marked ``late.'' EPA is not required to consider these late
comments.
    EPA seeks comment on all aspects of the two proposed general
permits and the accompanying fact sheets. In

particular, EPA is soliciting comments on the following specific
aspects of the VGP (for more detail on each element see the Permit Fact
Sheet):
     Whether uses of Tetrachloroethylene (TCE) other than dry
cleaning should be explicitly included or excluded from permit
coverage. EPA is also interested in comments on the frequency and
nature of the use of TCE-containing products on vessels. (TCE
discharges associated with dry-cleaning activities on vessels are not
proposed to be eligible for coverage because they are not considered to
be incidental to the normal operation of a vessel.)
     The approach for requiring NOIs for commercial vessels.
     Whether the permit should establish numeric discharge
limits for discharges incidental to the normal operation of a vessel
for which the proposed permit would solely impose Best Management
Practices (BMPs). (The proposed permit establishes numeric discharge
limits for graywater from Cruise Ships, oily discharges, including oily
mixtures, and residual biocide limits from vessels utilizing
experimental ballast water treatment standards; for the remainder of
the discharges incidental to the normal operation of vessels, the
proposed permit imposes BMPs, based on EPA's conclusion that numeric
effluent limitations are not feasible for vessel discharges in this
permit iteration.) EPA requests that if commenters provide suggested
numeric limits, that they should also provide any supporting data that
identifies technologies or BMPs are available to meet these limits, and
if these limits are more stringent than requirements of this permit,
provide the costs and non-water quality impacts of setting those
limits, and any other relevant information that would be helpful in
setting these limits.
     Whether EPA should limit discharges of bilgewater in
embayments such as the Chesapeake Bay for large vessels that regularly
leave waters subject to this permit.
     Whether the requirement of mandatory saltwater flushing
for all vessels with unpumpable ballast water and residual sediment
which sail more than 200 nm (nautical mile) from any shore is
appropriate.
     Whether Ballast Water Exchange requirements similar to
those proposed for Pacific near shore voyages should be applicable for
vessels engaged in coastwise trade on the Atlantic or Gulf Coasts that
will discharge to waters subject to this permit. There are several
fundamental differences between the Pacific Coasts and the Atlantic and
Gulf Coasts. EPA does not have credible data or analyses as to whether
the practice for vessels engaged in Pacific coastwise trade would
mitigate or increase the risk for the spread of aquatic nuisance
species (ANS) on the Atlantic or Gulf Coasts. Note that the proposed
permit would require that all vessels that leave the U.S. Exclusive
Economic Zone (EEZ), travel more than 200 nm from any shore, and will
discharge to waters subject to this permit must complete a Ballast
Water Exchange and all such vessels with unpumpable ballast water and
residual sediment must conduct Mandatory Saltwater Flushing.
     Whether the questions developed for a one-time report are
appropriate and whether alternative or supplemental questions should be
considered. (The proposed permit requires owner/operators to submit a
one-time report that contains basic information about the vessel after
the 30th month of permit coverage).
     Whether the proposed operational limits for large cruise
ships are appropriate and whether the discharge standards proposed for
within 1 nm of any shore should be extended to 3 nm from any shore,
regardless of the speed of the vessel. (For large cruise ships, the
proposed permit would prohibit the discharge of graywater within 1
nautical mile of shore unless the graywater has been treated to
treatment standards in part <IP_ADDRESS>.2 of the proposed permit. The
proposed permit would also require the discharge to either meet the
effluent limits outlined in this proposed permit under Part <IP_ADDRESS>.2
or be discharged while the vessel is moving at least 6 knots for
discharges between 1 nm and 3 nm of shore).
     Whether the proposed prohibition on discharges of
untreated graywater within 1 nm of shore for large and medium cruise
ships, and into nutrient-impaired waters such as the Chesapeake Bay and
Puget Sound for large cruise ships, is appropriate and whether EPA's
economic analyses are accurate. EPA estimates that most to all large
and medium cruise ships have sufficient graywater holding capacity to
avoid discharging graywater within 1 nm of shore and so estimates no
incremental costs for complying with this requirement. EPA further
estimates that some vessels will be able to hold graywater so that they
do not have to discharge that graywater into nutrient impaired waters.
Those large cruise ships that do not have sufficient holding capacity
and do not have the ability to treat graywater to secondary standards
may have to install advanced wastewater treatment systems. EPA further
estimates that of the total large cruise ship population of 143
vessels, 30 vessels are certified to operate in Alaskan waters and thus
are already equipped to treat graywater or hold sufficient quantities
that they would be able to avoid discharging in nutrient impaired
waters. EPA separately estimates that approximately 57 vessels have
advanced wastewater treatment systems (which likely includes most or
all of the vessels certified to operate in Alaskan waters), some to
many of which are already equipped to treat graywater (or hold
sufficient quantities that they would be able to avoid discharging in
nutrient impaired waters or within 1 nm of shore). This leaves a range
of 86 to 113 large cruise ships that do not currently treat graywater
and might have to install treatment to avoid discharging untreated
greywater in nutrient impaired waters, EPA estimates that 30 of these
vessels would actually need to install graywater treatment systems to
allow discharge of graywater in nutrient-impaired waters. EPA believes
that cruise ship operators could arrange their schedules and
itineraries such that the remaining 56 to 83 vessels could avoid
operating in nutrient impaired waters for prolonged periods or avoid
itineraries that would require them to stay within 1 nm of shore for
prolonged periods. Based on information previously gathered for Alaskan
cruise ships, EPA estimates that the annualized cost for installing and
operating such treatment is $7.09 per passenger/crew berth per season.
EPA further estimates that the average capacity of large cruise ships
is 3,211 passengers and crew members. EPA thus estimates an average
annualized cost of installing graywater treatment of $22,766 per
vessel, or about $683,000 per year for 30 vessels. (See Section 3.6.1
on p 70 of the Economic and Benefits Analysis for further details.) EPA
requests comment on all of these estimates. If commenters disagree with
any of these estimates, EPA requests any available data that could form
the basis of revised estimates.
     Whether large ferries should be subject to additional
graywater treatment standards similar to those proposed for medium and
large cruise ships.
    EPA is also particularly interested in comments on the following
aspects of the RGP (for more detail on each element see the Permit Fact
Sheet):
     The approach to not require NOIs for recreational boats
and recommendations (and rationale supporting them) where commenters
favor NOI submittal for recreational boaters.

     Whether the permit should establish numeric discharge
limits for discharges incidental to the normal operation of a vessel
for which the proposed permit would solely require BMPs. (The proposed
permit establishes one numeric effluent limit in the form of a zero
discharge standard for leaching of tribulyl tin from vessel hulls, a
second numeric effluent limit for graywater discharges from Cruise
ships when they discharge in certain waters, and a third for residual
biocides from experimental ballast water treatment systems. EPA
requests that if commenters provide suggested numeric limits, that they
should also provide any supporting data that identifies technologies or
BMPs available to meet these limits, and if these limits are more
stringent than requirements of this permit, provide the costs and non-
water quality impacts of setting those limits, and any other relevant
information that would be helpful in setting these limits.
     Whether any of the BMPs listed under the `Encouraged Best
Management Practices' Section should be made mandatory under this
permit or completely removed as an encouraged practice.

D. Public Hearing

    Because EPA anticipates a significant degree of public interest in
these draft permits, EPA will hold a public hearing Monday, July 21,
2008, to receive public comment and answer questions concerning the
proposed permits. The hearing will be held at EPA East Building, Room
1153, 1201 Constitution Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20004, from 8 a.m. to
4:30 p.m. EST. Any person may provide written or oral statements and
data pertaining to the proposed permits at the public hearing.
Depending on the number of persons who desire to make an oral
statement, EPA may impose limits on the time allowed for oral
statements, which may result in the full statement not being heard.
Therefore, EPA recommends that all those planning to present an oral
statement also submit a written statement. Any person not making an
oral statement may also submit a written statement.

E. Public Meetings

    EPA and the U.S. Coast Guard are co-hosting three (3) public
meetings. The U.S. Coast Guard has vast experience in researching,
evaluating and regulating ballast water discharges, as well as expert
knowledge of other discharges related to the normal operation of a
vessel directly relevant to EPA's proposed vessel permits. The focus of
each meeting is to present the proposed requirements of the VGP and RGP
and the basis for those requirements, as well as to answer questions
concerning the proposed permits. At these meetings, any person may
provide written or oral statements and data pertaining to the proposed
permits. The date, time and location of the public meetings are as
follows:
     Washington, DC: Thursday, June 19, 2008, at the EPA East
Building, Room 1153, 1301 Constitution Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20004,
from 8 a.m. to 4:30 p.m.
     Portland, Oregon: Tuesday, June 24, 2008, at the Red Lion
Hotel-Portland Convention Center, 1021 NE Grand Ave., Portland, OR
97232, from 8 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. If you require overnight
accommodations, contact the hotel directly to make reservations at Tel:
503-235-2100.
     Chicago, Illinois: Thursday, June 26, 2008, at the Avenue
Hotel, 160 E. Huron Street, Chicago, IL, 60611, from 8 a.m. to 4:30
p.m. If you require overnight accommodations, contact the hotel
directly at Tel: 877-AVE-5110.
    EPA encourages interested and potentially affected stakeholders to
attend one of the scheduled public meetings and provide oral or written
comments. These meetings are open to the public. Please note that the
public meeting may close early if all business is finished. Oral or
written comments received at the public meeting will be entered into
the Docket. If you are unable to attend, you may submit comments to the
EPA Water Docket at the address listed under ADDRESSES.

F. Web Casts

    EPA has scheduled a Web cast to provide information on the proposed
permits and to answer questions for interested parties that are unable
to attend the public meetings or hearing. The Web cast will be
broadcast on July 2, 2008, from 12 p.m. to 1:30 p.m. ET. For
information on how to register and attend the Web cast, see EPA's Web
site at http://www.epa.gov/npdes/training approximately 2 weeks prior
to the date of the scheduled Web cast.

G. Finalizing the Permits

    After the close of the public comment period, EPA will issue final
permit decisions. These decisions will not be made until after all
public comments have been considered and appropriate changes made to
the permits. EPA's response to comments received will be included in
the docket as part of the final permit decisions. For a discussion of
the timing of permit finalization, see section III.E of this notice
below.

H. Who Are the EPA Regional Contacts for This Proposed Permit?

    For EPA Region 1, contact Sara Green at USEPA REGION 1, 1 Congress
Street Suite 1100, Mail Code: CIP, Boston, MA 02114-2023; or at tel.:
(617) 918-1574; or e-mail at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    For EPA Region 2, contact James Olander at USEPA REGION 2, 290
Broadway, New York, NY 10007-1866; or at tel.:<PHONE_NUMBER>; or e-
mail at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    For EPA Region 3, contact Mark Smith at USEPA REGION 3, 1650 Arch
Street, Mail Code: 3WP41, Philadelphia, PA 19103-2029; or at tel.:
(215) 814-3105; or e-mail at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    For EPA Region 4, contact Marshall Hyatt at USEPA REGION 4, 61
Forsyth Street, SW., Atlanta, GA 30303-8960; or at tel.: (404) 562-
9304; or e-mail at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    For EPA Region 5, contact Sean Ramach at USEPA REGION 5, 77 West
Jackson Boulevard, Mail Code: WN-16J, Chicago, IL 60604-3507; or at
tel.:<PHONE_NUMBER>; or e-mail at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    For EPA Region 6, contact J. Scott Wilson at USEPA REGION 6, 1445
Ross Avenue, Suite 1200, Mail Code: 6WQPP, Dallas, TX 75202-2733; or at
tel.:<PHONE_NUMBER>; or e-mail at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    For EPA Region 7, contact Alex Owutaka at USEPA REGION 7, 901 North
Fifth Street, Mail Code: WWPDWIMB, Kansas City, KS 66101; or at tel:
(913) 551-7584; or e-mail at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    For EPA Region 8, contact Sandy Stavnes, at USEPA REGION 8, 1595
Wynkoop St., Mail Code: 8P-W-WW, Denver, CO 80202-1129; or at tel:
(303) 312-6117; or e-mail at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    For EPA Region 9, contact Eugene Bromley at USEPA REGION 9, 75
Hawthorne Street, Mail Code: WTR-5, San Francisco, CA 94105; or at
tel.:<PHONE_NUMBER>; or e-mail at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    For EPA Region 10, contact Cindi Godsey at USEPA Region 10--Alaska
Operations Office, Federal Building Room 537, 222 West 7th Avenue
19 Mail Code: AOO/A, Anchorage, AK 99513-7588; or at tel.:
(907) 271-6561; or e-mail at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
II. Statutory and Regulatory History

A. The Clean Water Act

    Section 301(a) of the Clean Water Act (CWA) provides that ``the
discharge of any pollutant by any person shall be unlawful'' unless the
discharge is in compliance with certain other sections of the Act. 33
U.S.C. 1311(a). The CWA

defines ``discharge of a pollutant'' as ``(A) any addition of any
pollutant to navigable waters from any point source, (B) any addition
of any pollutant to the waters of the contiguous zone or the ocean from
any point source other than a vessel or other floating craft.'' 33
U.S.C. 1362(12). A ``point source'' is a ``discernible, confined and
discrete conveyance'' and includes a ``vessel or other floating
craft.'' 33 U.S.C. 1362(14).
    The term ``pollutant'' includes, among other things, ``garbage * *
* chemical wastes * * * and industrial, municipal, and agricultural
waste discharged into water.'' The Act's definition of ``pollutant''
specifically excludes ``sewage from vessels or a discharge incidental
to the normal operation of a vessel of the Armed Forces'' as defined in
Clean Water Act section 312. 33 U.S.C. 1362(6). One way a person may
discharge a pollutant without violating the section 301 prohibition is
by obtaining a section 402 National Pollutant Discharge Elimination
System (NPDES) permit (33 U.S.C. 1342). Under section 402(a), EPA may
``issue a permit for the discharge of any pollutant, or combination of
pollutants, notwithstanding section 1311(a)'' upon certain conditions
required by the Act.

B. The History of the Exclusion of Vessels From the NPDES Program

    Less than one year after the CWA was enacted, EPA promulgated a
regulation that excluded discharges incidental to the normal operation
of vessels from NPDES permitting. 38 FR 13528, May 22, 1973. After
Congress re-authorized and amended the CWA in 1977, EPA invited another
round of public comment on the regulation. 43 FR 37078, August 21,
1978. In 1979, EPA promulgated the final revision that established the
regulation largely in its current form. 44 FR 32854, June 7, 1979. The
current regulation identifies several types of vessel discharges as
being subject to NPDES permitting, but specifically excludes discharges
incidental to the normal operation of a vessel.

    The following discharges do not require NPDES permits:
    (a) Any discharge of sewage from vessels, effluent from properly
functioning marine engines, laundry, shower, and galley sink wastes
or any other discharge incidental to the normal operation of a
vessel. This exclusion does not apply to rubbish, trash, garbage, or
other such materials discharged overboard; nor to other discharges
when the vessel is operating in a capacity other than as a means of
transportation such as when used as an energy or mining facility, a
storage facility or a seafood processing facility, or when secured
to a storage facility or a seafood processing facility, or when
secured to the bed of the ocean, contiguous zone or waters of the
United States for the purpose of mineral or oil exploration or
development. 40 CFR 122.3(a).

    Although other subsections of 40 CFR 122.3 and its predecessor were
the subject of legal challenges (See NRDC v. Costle, 568 F.2d 1369
(D.C. Cir. 1977)), following its promulgation, the regulatory text
relevant to discharges incidental to the normal operation of vessels
went unchallenged, and has been in effect ever since.

C. The Legal Challenge

    In December 2003, the long-standing exclusion of discharges
incidental to the normal operation of vessels from the NPDES program
became the subject of a lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California. The lawsuit arose from a January 13,
1999, rulemaking petition submitted to EPA by a number of parties
concerned about the effects of ballast water discharges. The petition
asked the Agency to repeal its regulation at 40 CFR 122.3(a) that
excludes certain discharges incidental to the normal operation of
vessels from the requirement to obtain an NPDES permit. The petition
asserted that vessels are ``point sources'' requiring NPDES permits for
discharges to U.S. waters; that EPA lacks authority to exclude point
source discharges from vessels from the NPDES program; that ballast
water must be regulated under the NPDES program because it contains
invasive plant and animal species as well as other materials of concern
(e.g., oil, chipped paint, sediment and toxins in ballast water
sediment); and that enactment of CWA section 312(n) (Uniform National
Discharge Standards, also known as the UNDS program) demonstrated
Congress' rejection of the exclusion.
    In response to the 1999 petition, EPA first prepared a detailed
report for public comment, Aquatic Nuisance Species in Ballast Water
Discharges: Issues and Options (September 10, 2001). See, 66 FR 49381,
September 27, 2001. After considering the comments received, EPA
declined to reopen the exclusion for additional rulemaking, and denied
the petition on September 2, 2003. EPA explained that since enactment
of the CWA, EPA has consistently interpreted the Act to provide for
NPDES regulation of discharges from industrial operations that
incidentally occur onboard vessels (e.g., seafood processing facilities
or oil exploration operations at sea) and of discharges overboard of
materials such as trash, but not of discharges incidental to the normal
operation of a vessel (e.g., ballast water) subject to the 40 CFR
122.3(a) exclusion. EPA further explained that Congress had expressly
considered and accepted the Agency's regulation in the years since its
promulgation, and that Congress chose to regulate discharges incidental
to the normal operation of vessels through programs other than CWA
section 402 permitting. Thus, it was EPA's understanding that Congress
had acquiesced to EPA's long-standing interpretation of how the CWA
applied to vessels. Denial of the petition did not reflect EPA's
dismissal of the significant impacts of aquatic invasive species, but
rather the understanding that other programs had been enacted to
specifically address the issue and that the CWA does not currently
provide an appropriate framework for addressing ballast water and other
discharges incidental to the normal operation of non-military vessels.
    In the denial of the petition, EPA noted that when Congress
specifically focused on the problem of aquatic nuisance species in
ballast water, it did not look to or endorse the NPDES program as the
means to address the problem. Instead, Congress enacted new statutes
which directed and authorized the Coast Guard, rather than EPA, to
establish a regulatory program for discharges incidental to the normal
operation of vessels, including ballast water (i.e., Nonindigenous
Aquatic Nuisance Prevention and Control Act as amended, 16 U.S.C. 4701
et seq.; Act to Prevent Pollution from Ships, 33 U.S.C. 1901 et seq.).
Furthermore, Congress made no effort to legislatively repeal EPA's
interpretation of the NPDES program or to expressly mandate that
discharges incidental to the normal operation of vessels be addressed
through the NPDES permitting program. EPA reasoned that this
Congressional action and inaction in light of Congress' awareness of
the regulatory exclusion confirmed that Congress accepted EPA's
interpretation and chose the Coast Guard as the lead agency under other
statutes.
    In addition, EPA found significant practical and policy reasons not
to re-open the longstanding CWA regulatory exclusion, reasoning that
there are a number of ongoing activities within the Federal government
related to control of invasive species in ballast water, many of which
are likely to be more effective and efficient than use of NPDES permits
under the CWA. EPA also noted that nothing in the CWA prevents states
from independently regulating ballast water discharges under State law,
should they choose to do so, pursuant to CWA section 510.

    After EPA's September 2003 denial of the petition, a number of
groups filed a complaint in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California. Nw. Envt'l Advocates et al. v. EPA, 2005 WL
756614 (N.D. Cal.). The complaint was brought pursuant to the
Administrative Procedure Act (APA), 5 U.S.C. 701 et seq., and set out
two causes of action. First, the complaint challenged EPA's
promulgation of 40 CFR 122.3(a), an action the Agency took in 1973. The
second cause of action challenged EPA's September 2003 denial of their
petition to repeal the Sec. 122.3(a) exclusion.

D. District Court Decision

    In March 2005, the Court determined that the exclusion exceeded the
Agency's authority under the CWA. Specifically, in March 2005 the Court
granted summary judgment to the plaintiffs:

    ``The Court DECLARES that EPA's exclusion from NPDES permit
requirements for discharges incidental to the normal operation of a
vessel at 40 CFR 122.3(a) is in excess of the Agency's authority
under the Clean Water Act * * * ''.

    After this ruling, the Court granted motions to intervene on behalf
of the Plaintiffs by the States of Illinois, New York, Michigan,
Minnesota, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin, and on behalf of the
Government-Defendant by the Shipping Industry Ballast Water Coalition.
    Following submission of briefs and oral argument by the parties and
interveners on the issue of a proper remedy, the Court issued a final
order in September 2006 providing that:

    ``The blanket exemption for discharges incidental to the normal
operation of a vessel, contained in 40 CFR 122.3(a), shall be
vacated as of September 30, 2008.''

    This means that, effective September 30, 2008 (and assuming the
order is not overturned or altered on appeal), discharges incidental to
the normal operation of vessels currently excluded from NPDES
permitting by that regulation, will become subject to CWA section 301's
prohibition against discharging, unless covered under an NPDES permit.
The CWA authorizes civil and criminal enforcement for violations of
that prohibition and also allows for citizen suits against violators.
    Because the Government respectfully disagrees with the District
Court's decision, on November 16, 2006, EPA filed an appeal in the U.S.
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. Oral argument was held on
August 14, 2007, and a decision is pending. Additional material related
to the lawsuit is contained in the docket accompanying these proposed
permits and fact sheets.
    If the 9th Circuit reverses or otherwise modifies the District
Court's decision on appeal, this proposed permit or any final permit
may be terminated, reopened, or modified, as appropriate.

III. Scope and Applicability of the 2008 VGP and RGP

A. Geographic Coverage of VGP and RGP

    The proposed VGP and RGP apply to discharges incidental to the
normal operation of a vessel identified as being eligible for coverage
in the proposed permits, into waters subject to the permits. These
waters are ``waters of the United States'' as defined in 40 CFR 122.2
(extending to the reach of the 3-mile territorial seas as defined in
section 502(8) of the CWA). The draft general permits would cover
vessel discharges in the waters of the U.S. in all states and
territories, regardless of whether a state is otherwise authorized to
implement the NPDES permit program within its jurisdiction. For more
information on this approach, see the fact sheets accompanying the
draft permits.

B. Categories of Vessels Covered Under VGP and RGP

    The draft vessel general permit (VGP) applies to owners and
operators of commercial vessels and recreational vessels that are
greater than 79 feet (24.08 meters) in length. The recreational vessel
permit (RGP) applies to all recreational vessels and un-inspected
passenger vessels that are less than 79 feet in length, measured from
bow to stern, excluding any attachments or extensions. Recreational
vessels are vessels manufactured or operated primarily for pleasure or
leased, rented, or chartered to another for the latter's pleasure (46
United State Code (U.S.C.) 2101(25)). Recreational vessels include, but
are not limited to, motorboats, sailboats, recreational fishing boats,
personal watercraft, rowboats, canoes, and kayaks. Vessel owner/
operators must only comply with the provisions of the permit that are
applicable to them. For instance, non-motorized vessels do not need to
do any BMPs for fuel control, or the discharge of oil, including oily
mixtures. This permit (RGP) also applies to un-inspected passenger
vessels that are less than 79 feet in length, measured from bow to
stern, excluding any attachments or extensions, whose operation is
substantially similar to that of a recreational vessel of less than 79
feet in length. For purposes of this permit, these vessels include
sailboats for-hire, charter-fishing vessels engaging in hook-and-line
fishing, and personal watercraft for hire. For purposes of the RGP,
vessels that are not considered ``un-inspected passenger vessels'' and
are not covered by this permit include, but are not limited to,
commercial fishing vessels, commercial ferries, tug boats, freighters,
water taxis, and small cruise ships. These vessels are covered by the
VGP.

C. Summary of VGP Terms and Requirements

    The proposed VGP addresses 28 potential vessel discharge streams by
establishing effluent limits, including Best Management Practices
(BMPs) to control the discharge of the waste streams and constituents
found in those waste streams. The discharge streams eligible for
coverage under this proposed permit are: ballast water, deck washdown
and runoff, bilge water, anti-fouling leachate from anti-fouling hull
coatings, aqueous film forming foam (AFFF), boiler/economizer blowdown,
cathodic protection, chain locker effluent, controllable pitch
propeller hydraulic fluid, distillation and reverse osmosis brine,
elevator pit effluent, firemain systems, freshwater layup, gas turbine
water wash, graywater, motor gasoline and compensating discharge, non-
oily machinery wastewater, refrigeration and air condensate discharge,
rudder bearing lubrication discharge, seawater cooling overboard
discharge, seawater piping biofouling prevention, small boat engine wet
exhaust, stern tube oily discharge, sonar dome discharge, underwater
ship husbandry, welldeck discharges, graywater mixed with sewage from
vessels, and exhaust gas scrubber wash water discharge.
    For each discharge type, the permit establishes effluent limits
pertaining to the constituents found in the effluent and BMPs designed
to decrease the amount of constituents entering the waste stream. A
vessel might not produce all of these discharges, but a vessel owner or
operator is responsible for meeting the applicable effluent limits and
complying with all the effluent limits for every listed discharge that
the vessel produces.
Discharge Authorization Timeframe
    To obtain authorization, the owner or operator of a vessel that is
either 300 or more gross registered tons or has the capacity to hold or
discharge more than 8 cubic meters (2113 gallons) of ballast water is
required to submit a Notice of Intent (NOI) to receive permit coverage,
beginning six months after the permit's issuance date, but no later
than nine

months after the permit's issuance date. For vessels that were
delivered to the owner or operator no later than 9 months after the
permit's issuance date, the vessel will receive permit coverage on the
date that EPA receives the complete NOI. Vessels that are delivered
after that date will receive permit coverage 30 days after EPA receives
the complete NOI.
    Vessels that meet the applicable eligibility requirements for
permit coverage but are not required to submit an NOI, including
vessels less than 300 gross registered tons with no more than 8 cubic
meters of ballast water capacity and recreational vessels subject to
the RGP, will be automatically authorized by the proposed permits to
discharge according to the permit requirements.
Monitoring and Reporting
    The VGP requires routine self-inspection and monitoring of all
areas of the vessel that the permit addresses. The routine self-
inspection must be documented in the ship's logbook. Analytical
monitoring is required for certain types of vessels. The VGP also
requires comprehensive annual vessel inspections, to ensure even the
hard-to-reach areas of the vessel are inspected for permit compliance.
If the vessel is placed in dry dock while covered under this permit, a
dry dock inspection and report must be completed. Additional monitoring
requirements are imposed on certain classes of vessels, based on unique
characteristics not shared by other vessels covered under the VGP.
Vessel Type-Specific Requirements
    The permit imposes additional requirements for 8 specific types of
vessels which have unique characteristics resulting in discharges not
shared by other types of vessels. These vessel types are medium cruise
ships, large cruise ships, large ferries, barges, oil or petroleum
tankers, research vessels, rescue boats, and vessels employing
experimental ballast water treatment systems. The permit requirements
are designed to address the discharges from features unique to those
vessels, such as parking decks on ferries and overnight accommodations
for passengers on cruise ships.

D. Summary of RGP Permit Terms and Requirements

    The RGP addresses a smaller range of discharges than the VGP,
because recreational vessels produce different types of discharges that
are fewer in number and variety than the discharges from commercial and
large recreational vessels covered under the VGP. Discharges most
likely to occur from recreational vessels include anti-fouling hull
leachate, deck washdown and runoff, graywater, engine cooling water,
and bilge water. Constituents found in these discharge streams include
aquatic nuisance species (ANS), oil and oily mixtures, nutrients,
metals and toxins, and pathogens. The RGP is a much simpler permit than
the VGP and primarily includes BMPs designed to minimize the amount of
any discharge produced as well as reduce the likelihood the discharge
will enter a waterbody. In addition to required BMPs, the permit
includes a section of encouraged BMPs. These are recommended practices
which can further reduce pollution from vessel discharges.
    The RGP does not require the vessel owner or operator to submit an
NOI to receive permit coverage. As long as the vessel owner or operator
has met the eligibility requirements found in the permit and discharges
in accordance with the applicable terms of the permit, the eligible
discharges are authorized.

E. Timing of Permit Finalization

    As discussed above, if the Northern District of California's order
remains unchanged, the exclusion from NPDES permitting for discharges
incidental to the normal operation of a vessel will be vacated as of
September 30, 2008, which is approximately three and a half months from
today's notice seeking public comment on the draft permits. Even for
non-controversial and straightforward permits, it normally takes the
Agency significantly more time than that to complete all of the tasks
required to finalize a draft general permit, such as considering and
responding to public comment, completing Coastal Zone Management Act
consistency determinations, and completing the Clean Water Act section
401 certification process. Although EPA expects significant public
interest and comment on today's proposed permits, EPA will make every
effort to finalize today's permits by the date of vacatur.

IV. Regulatory Flexibility Act

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) generally requires an agency
to prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis of any rule subject to
notice and comment rulemaking requirements under the Administrative
Procedure Act or any other statute unless the agency certifies that the
rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial
number of small entities. Small entities include small businesses,
small organizations, and small governmental jurisdictions.
    The legal question of whether a general permit (as opposed to an
individual permit) qualifies as a ``rule'' or as an ``adjudication''
under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) has been the subject of
periodic litigation. In a recent case, the court held that the CWA
Section 404 Nationwide general permit before the court did qualify as a
``rule'' and therefore that the issuance of the general permit needed
to comply with the applicable legal requirements for the issuance of a
``rule.'' National Ass'n of Home Builders v. U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers, 417 F.3d 1272, 1284-85 (DC Cir.2005) (Army Corps general
permits under section 404 of the Clean Water Act are rules under the
APA and the Regulatory Flexibility Act; ``Each NWP [nationwide permit]
easily fits within the APA's definition `rule.'. . . As such, each NWP
constitutes a rule . . .'').
    As EPA stated in 1998, ``the Agency recognizes that the question of
the applicability of the APA, and thus the RFA, to the issuance of a
general permit is a difficult one, given the fact that a large number
of dischargers may choose to use the general permit.'' 63 FR 36489,
36497 (July 6, 1998). At that time, EPA ``reviewed its previous NPDES
general permitting actions and related statements in the Federal
Register or elsewhere,'' and stated that ``[t]his review suggests that
the Agency has generally treated NPDES general permits effectively as
rules, though at times it has given contrary indications as to whether
these actions are rules or permits.'' Id. at 36496. Based on EPA's
further legal analysis of the issue, the Agency ``concluded, as set
forth in the proposal, that NPDES general permits are permits [i.e.,
adjudications] under the APA and thus not subject to APA rulemaking
requirements or the RFA.'' Id. Accordingly, the Agency stated that
``the APA's rulemaking requirements are inapplicable to issuance of
such permits,'' and thus ``NPDES permitting is not subject to the
requirement to publish a general notice of proposed rulemaking under
the APA or any other law * * * [and] it is not subject to the RFA.''
Id. at 36497.
    However, the Agency went on to explain that, even though EPA had
concluded that it was not legally required to do so, the Agency would
voluntarily perform the RFA's small-entity impact analysis. Id. EPA
explained the strong public interest in the Agency following the RFA's
requirements on a voluntary basis: ``[The notice and comment] process
also provides an opportunity for EPA to consider the potential impact
of general permit terms on small entities and how

to craft the permit to avoid any undue burden on small entities.'' Id.
Accordingly, with respect to the NPDES permit that EPA was addressing
in that Federal Register notice, EPA stated that ``the Agency has
considered and addressed the potential impact of the general permit on
small entities in a manner that would meet the requirements of the RFA
if it applied.'' Id.
    Subsequent to EPA's conclusion in 1998 that general permits are
adjudications, rather than rules, as noted above, the DC Circuit
recently held that nationwide general permits under section 404 are
``rules'' rather than ``adjudications.'' Thus, this legal question
remains ``a difficult one'' (supra). However, EPA continues to believe
that there is a strong public policy interest in EPA applying the RFA's
framework and requirements to the Agency's evaluation and consideration
of the nature and extent of any economic impacts that a CWA general
permit could have on small entities (e.g., small businesses). In this
regard, EPA believes that the Agency's evaluation of the potential
economic impact that a general permit would have on small entities,
consistent with the RFA framework discussed below, is relevant to, and
an essential component of, the Agency's assessment of whether a CWA
general permit would place requirements on dischargers that are
appropriate and reasonable. Furthermore, EPA believes that the RFA's
framework and requirements provide the Agency with the best approach
for the Agency's evaluation of the economic impact of general permits
on small entities. While using the RFA framework to inform its
assessment of whether permit requirements are appropriate and
reasonable, EPA will also continue to ensure that all permits satisfy
the requirements of the Clean Water Act.
    Accordingly, EPA has committed that the Agency will operate in
accordance with the RFA's framework and requirements during the
Agency's issuance of CWA general permits (in other words, the Agency
commits that it will apply the RFA in its issuance of general permits
as if those permits do qualify as ``rules'' that are subject to the
RFA). In satisfaction of this commitment, during the course of this VGP
and RGP proceeding, the Agency conducted the analysis and made the
appropriate determinations that are called for by the RFA. In addition,
and in satisfaction of the Agency's commitment, EPA will apply the
RFA's framework and requirements in any future issuance of other NPDES
general permits. EPA anticipates that for most general permits the
Agency will be able to conclude that there is not a significant
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. In such
cases, the requirements of the RFA framework are fulfilled by including
a statement to this effect in the permit fact sheet, along with a
statement providing the factual basis for the conclusion. A
quantitative analysis of impacts would only be required for permits
that may affect a substantial number of small entities, consistent with
EPA guidance regarding RFA certification\1\.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ EPA's current guidance, entitled Final Guidance for EPA
Rulewriters: Regulatory Flexibility Act as Amended by the Small
Business Regulatory Enforcement and Fairness Act, was issued in
November 2006 and is available on EPA's Web site: http://
www.epa.gov/sbrefa/documents/rfafinalguidance06.pdf. After
considering the Guidance and the purpose of CWA general permits, EPA
concludes that general permits affecting less than 100 small
entities do not have a significant economic impact on a substantial
number of small entities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

V. Analysis of Economic Impacts of VGP and RGP

    EPA determined that, in consideration of the discussion in Section
IV above, the issuance of the VGP and RGP may have the potential to
affect a substantial number of small entities. Therefore, in order to
determine what, if any, economic impact these permits may have on small
businesses, EPA conducted an economic assessment of these general
permits. This economic analysis is included in the records for these
permits. Based on this assessment, EPA concludes that despite a minimal
economic impact on all entities, including small businesses, these
permits are not likely to have a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities. For the RGP, the total annual
estimated compliance cost per permittee ranges from $8.79 to $25.99 per
year for motorboats, $5.39 to $22.59 for sailboats, and $0.29 to $2.39
per year for non-motorized small craft. Nationally, the draft economic
impact analysis indicates that the RGP has an expected cost of $88.2
million annually.
    Including the ballast water and other discharge requirements, the
draft economic impact analysis indicates that the best management
practices in the VGP would cost between $5.6 million and $19.1 million
annually. Including paperwork requirements, the permit is estimated to
cost between $7.1 and $25.0 million annually. Dependent upon sector,
median costs per firm range from $4 to $795 in the low end assumptions
and from $53 to $1,598 in the high end assumptions. EPA applied a cost-
to-revenue test which calculates annualized pre-tax compliance cost as
a percentage of total revenues and used a threshold of 1 and 3 percent
to identify entities that would be significantly impacted as a result
of this Permit. The total number of entities expected to exceed a 1%
cost ratio ranges from 285 under low cost assumptions to 389 under high
cost assumptions. Of this universe, the total number of entities
expected to exceed a 3% cost ratio ranges from 71 under low cost
assumptions to 76 under high cost assumptions. The total domestic
flagged vessel universe that would be affected by this permit includes
approximately 91,000 vessels. Accordingly, EPA concludes that this
permit is unlikely to result in a significant economic impact on any
businesses and in particular, small businesses. The economic analyses
are available in the record for these permits.

    Authority: Clean Water Act, 33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.

    Dated: June 9, 2008.
Ira Leighton,
Acting Regional Administrator, EPA, Region 1.

    Dated: June 10, 2008.
Kevin Bricke,
Acting Director, Division of Environmental Planning and Protection,
EPA, Region 2.

    Dated: June 10, 2008.
Carl-Axel P. Soderberg,
Division Director, Caribbean Environmental Protection Division, EPA,
Region 2.

    Dated: June 9, 2008.
Jon M. Capacasa,
Director, Water Protection Division, EPA Region 3.

    Dated: June 9, 2008.
Jim Giattina,
Director, Water Management Division, EPA, Region 4.

    Dated: June 10, 2008.
Tinka G. Hyde,
Acting Director, Water Division, EPA, Region 5.

    Dated: June 10, 2008.
William Honker,
Acting Director, Water Quality Protection Division, EPA, Region 6.

    Dated: June 9, 2008.
William A. Spratlin,
Director, Water, Wetlands and Pesticides Division, EPA, Region 7.

    Dated: June 10, 2008.
Stephen S. Tuber,
Assistant Regional Administrator, Office of Partnerships and Regulatory
Assistance, EPA, Region 8.

    Dated: June 10, 2008.
Alexis Strauss,
Director, Water Divsion, EPA, Region 9.

    Dated: June 11, 2008.
Michael Lidgard,
Acting Director, Office of Water and Watersheds, EPA, Region 10.
 [FR Doc. E8-13615 Filed 6-16-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 224 (Monday, November 21, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Pages 83322-83323]
[FR Doc No: 2016-27891]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-79311; File No. SR-BOX-2016-45]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; BOX Options Exchange LLC; Order
Approving a Proposed Rule Change To Amend the Treatment of Quotes To
Provide That All Quotes on BOX Are Liquidity Adding Only

November 15, 2016.

I. Introduction

    On September 13, 2016, BOX Options Exchange LLC (``BOX'' or
``Exchange'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(``Commission''), pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 (``Act'') \1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ a
proposed rule change to amend the treatment of quotes to provide that
all quotes on BOX are liquidity adding only. The proposed rule change
was published for comment in the Federal Register on October 3,
2016.\3\ The Commission received no comments on the proposal. This
order approves the proposed rule change.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \3\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 78946 (Septemeber
27, 2016), 81 FR 68069 (October 3, 2016) (``Notice'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. Description of the Proposal

    The Exchange proposes to amend the treatment of incoming quotes to
BOX so that they are only accepted if they are liquidity adding.\4\
Under the Exchange's proposed rule change, if an incoming quote or
quote update is marketable because it would execute against a resting
order or quote on the BOX Book,\5\ it will be rejected. The Exchange
will not reject incoming quotes during the opening of the market.\6\ As
is the case today, rejected quotes will not be considered when
determining a Market Maker's quoting obligations.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ See Notice, supra note 3 (proposing a new IM-8050-3 to
Exchange Rule 8050).
    \5\ The term ``Central Order Book'' or ``BOX Book'' means the
electronic book of orders on each single option series maintained by
the BOX Trading Host. See Exchange Rule 100(a)(10).
    \6\ Transactions occurring on the opening are deemed to neither
add nor remove liquidity and therefore are exempt from the liquidity
fees and credits on the Exchange. See Section II.C. of the BOX Fee
Schedule.
    \7\ On a daily basis, a Market Maker must, during regular market
hours, make markets and enter into any resulting transactions
consistent with the applicable quoting requirements, such that on a
daily basis a Market Maker must post valid quotes at least sixty
percent (60%) of the time that the classes are open for trading.
These obligations apply to all of the Market Maker's appointed
classes collectively, rather than on a class-by-class basis. See
Exchange Rule 8050(e); see also Exchange Rule 8040.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange also proposes to amend the treatment of incoming
quotes after they interact with the Price Improvement Period
(``PIP'').\8\ Currently, when an incoming quote is on the same side as
a PIP Order, it may cause the PIP auction to end early, if, at the time
of submission, the price of the incoming quote would cause an execution
to occur prior to the end of the PIP.\9\ Under the proposal, the
incoming quote will continue to cause the PIP auction to end early if
the conditions of Rule 7150(i) exist. However, after the PIP auction is
concluded, if the incoming quote is executable against resting orders
or quotes on the BOX Book, it will be rejected. Additionally,
currently, when an incoming quote on the opposite side of the PIP Order
is received such that it would cause an execution to occur prior to the
end of the PIP auction, the incoming quote will be immediately

executed.\10\ Under the proposal, any remaining balance of the incoming
quote that did not execute against the PIP Order, and that would
execute against a resting order or quote on the BOX Book, will be
rejected.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ Options Participants, both Order Flow Providers and Market
Makers, executing agency orders may designate Market Orders and
marketable limit Customer Orders for price improvement and
submission to the PIP. Customer Orders designated for the PIP (``PIP
Orders'') shall be submitted to BOX with a matching contra order
equal to the full size of the PIP Order. See Exchange Rule 7150.
    \9\ Specifically, the submission to BOX of a Market Order on the
same side as a PIP Order will prematurely terminate the PIP when, at
the time of the submission of the Market Order, the best Improvement
Order is equal to or better than the NBBO on the same side of the
market as the best Improvement Order. The submission to BOX of an
executable Limit Order or generation of an executable Legging Order
on the same side as a PIP Order will prematurely terminate the PIP
if at the time of submission: (1) The Buy (Sell) Limit Order or
Legging Order price is equal to or higher (lower) than the National
Best Offer (Bid) and either: (i) The BOX Best Offer (Bid) is equal
to the National Best Offer (Bid); or (ii) the BOX Best Offer (Bid)
is higher (lower) than the National Best Offer (Bid) and the price
of the best Improvement Order is equal to or lower (higher) than the
National Best Offer (Bid); or (2) the Buy (Sell) Limit Order or
Legging Order price is lower (higher) than the National Best Offer
(Bid) and its limit price equals or crosses the price of the best
Improvement Order. See Exchange Rule 7150(i).
    \10\ Specifically, a Market Order on the opposite side of a PIP
Order will immediately execute against the PIP Order when, at the
time of the submission of the Market Order, the best Improvement
Order does not cross the NBBO on the same side of the market as the
PIP Order. The submission to BOX of an executable Limit Order or
generation of an executable Legging Order on the opposite side of a
PIP Order will immediately execute against a PIP Order when the Sell
(Buy) Limit Order price is equal to or crosses the National Best Bid
(Offer), and: (1) The BOX Best Bid (Offer) is equal to the National
Best Bid (Offer); or (2) the BOX Best Bid (Offer) is lower (higher)
than the National Best Bid (Offer) and neither the best Improvement
Order nor BOX Best Offer (Bid) is equal to or crosses the National
Best Bid (Offer). See Exchange Rule 7150(j).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange represents that it will provide BOX Participants with
notice, via Information Circular, about the implementation date of the
proposed rule change.

III. Discussion and Commission Findings

    After careful review, the Commission finds that the proposed rule
change is consistent with the requirements of the Act and the rules and
regulations thereunder applicable to a national securities exchange
and, in particular, with Section 6(b) of the Act.\11\ Specifically, the
Commission finds that the proposed rule change is consistent with
Section 6(b)(5) of the Act,\12\ which requires, among other things,
that a national securities exchange have rules designed to prevent
fraudulent and manipulative acts and practices, to promote just and
equitable principles of trade, to foster cooperation and coordination
with persons engaged in regulating, clearing, settling, processing
information with respect to, and facilitating transactions in
securities, to remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a
free and open market and a national market system, and, in general, to
protect investors and the public interest. The Commission believes that
the proposed rule change is designed to help Market Makers more
efficiently submit quotes to provide liquidity on BOX, which could
benefit investors. The Commission notes that Market Makers still will
be able to take liquidity on BOX by submitting orders in or out of
their appointed classes.\13\ In addition, according to the Exchange,
the proposed rule change will not alter a Market Maker's obligations
pursuant BOX Rules 8040 and 8050, including the obligation to provide
continuous two-sided quotes on a daily basis.\14\ Further, the
Commission notes that other options exchanges offer liquidity adding
only order types.\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b). In approving this proposed rule change,
the Commission has considered the proposed rule's impact on
efficiency, competition, and capital formation. See 15 U.S.C.
78c(f).
    \12\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
    \13\ Id.
    \14\ Id. at 68070-71.
    \15\ See id. (citing International Securities Exchange, LLC
(``ISE'') Rule 715(n) and NYSE Arca Options, Inc. (``NYSE Arca'')
Rule 6.62(t)).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Conclusion

    It is therefore ordered, pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the
Act,\16\ that the proposed rule change (SR-BOX-2016-45) be, and hereby
is, approved.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2).

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

Brent J. Fields,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2016-27891 Filed 11-18-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


Denise Gerth/ RTP/ USEPA/ US 01/ 18/ 2006 01: 20 PM To " Flynn, Amy E." < Amy_ E._ Flynn@ omb. eop. gov> cc bcc Subject RE: Overwhelming Transport Reconsideration Proposal Amy, I've been meaning to call you about this proposal. We are going to make a change to the proposal to remove the change in the eligibility criteria. Originally we had expanded the criteria because Shenandoah National Park could have gotten the classification with the revised wording. It is come to our attention that they are now in attainment and are about to be redesignated ( if they haven't been already). Can you continue to look at this version ( if you are in fact reviewing it yet given other priorities) and then we'll send you a revised package. I wanted to talk over the phone but I cannot locate your phone number. E mail or call me  whatever is better. Thanks.

Denise M. Gerth Ozone Policy and Strategies Group U. S. Environmental Protection Agency Research Triangle Park, NC 27711 ( 919) 541 5550  telephone ( 919) 54l 0824  fax


[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 107 (Tuesday, June 4, 2019)]
[Notices]
[Pages 25862-25863]
[FR Doc No: 2019-11584]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Investment Company Act Release No. 33495; 812-14791]

Columbia Funds Series Trust, et al.

May 30, 2019.
AGENCY:  Securities and Exchange Commission (``Commission'').

ACTION:  Notice.

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

    Notice of an application under section 6(c) of the Investment
Company Act of 1940 (``Act'') for an exemption from section 15(a) of
the Act and rule 18f-2 under the Act, as well as from certain
disclosure requirements in rule 20a-1 under the Act, Item 19(a)(3) of
Form N-1A, Items 22(c)(1)(ii), 22(c)(1)(iii), 22(c)(8) and 22(c)(9) of
Schedule 14A under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and Sections 6-
07(2)(a), (b), and (c) of Regulation S-X (``Disclosure Requirements'').
The requested exemption would permit an investment adviser to hire and
replace certain sub-advisers without shareholder approval and grant
relief from the Disclosure Requirements as they relate to fees paid to
the sub-advisers. The requested order would supersede a prior order.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ AXP Market Advantage Series, Inc., et al., Investment
Company Act Release Nos. 25619 (June 19, 2002) (notice) and 25664
(July 16, 2002) (order).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Applicants: Columbia Funds Series Trust, Columbia Funds Series
Trust I, Columbia Funds Series Trust II, Columbia Funds Variable
Insurance Trust, Columbia Funds Variable Series Trust II, Columbia ETF
Trust, Columbia ETF Trust I, and Columbia ETF Trust II (each, a
``Trust'' and collectively, the ``Trusts''), each a Delaware statutory
trust or a Massachusetts business trust registered under the Act as an
open-end management investment company with multiple series (each a
``Series''), and Columbia Management Investment Advisers, LLC (the
``Adviser''), a Minnesota limited liability company registered as an
investment adviser under the Investment Advisers Act of 1940.
    Filing Dates: The application was filed on June 28, 2017 and
amended on December 11, 2017, September 28, 2018, March 7, 2019, and
May 17, 2019.
    Hearing or Notification of Hearing: An order granting the
application will be issued unless the Commission orders a hearing.
Interested persons may request a hearing by writing to the Commission's
Secretary and serving applicants with a copy of the request, personally
or by mail. Hearing requests should be received by the Commission by
5:30 p.m. on June 25, 2019, and should be accompanied by proof of
service on applicants, in the form of an affidavit or, for lawyers, a
certificate of service. Pursuant to rule 0-5 under the Act, hearing
requests should state the nature of the writer's interest, any facts
bearing upon the desirability of a hearing on the matter, the reason
for the request, and the issues contested. Persons who wish to be
notified of a hearing may request notification by writing to the
Commission's Secretary.

ADDRESSES:  Secretary, U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F
Street NE, Washington, DC 20549-1090. Applicants: Ryan C. Larrenaga,
Esq., Columbia Management Investment Advisers, LLC, 225 Franklin
Street, Boston, MA 02110.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:  Laura J. Riegel, Senior Counsel, at
(202) 551-3038, or Trace W. Rakestraw, Branch Chief, at<PHONE_NUMBER>
(Division of Investment Management, Chief Counsel's Office).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:  The following is a summary of the
application. The complete application may be obtained via the
Commission's website by searching for the file number, or for an
applicant using the Company name box, at http://www.sec.gov/search/search.htm or by calling<PHONE_NUMBER>.

Summary of the Application

    1. The Adviser serves as the investment adviser to each Series,
pursuant to an investment management agreement with the applicable
Trust (``Investment Management Agreement'').\2\ Under the terms of the
Investment Management Agreement, the Adviser, subject to the
supervision of the board of trustees of the applicable Trust
(``Board''), provides continuous investment management of the assets of

each Subadvised Series. Consistent with the terms of the Investment
Management Agreement, the Adviser may, subject to the approval of the
Board, delegate portfolio management responsibilities of all or a
portion of the assets of a Subadvised Series to one or more Sub-
Advisers.\3\ The Adviser will continue to have overall responsibility
for the management and investment of the assets of each Subadvised
Series. The Adviser will evaluate, select, and recommend Sub-Advisers
to manage the assets of a Subadvised Series and will oversee, monitor
and review the Sub-Advisers and their performance and recommend the
removal or replacement of Sub-Advisers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ Applicants request relief with respect to the named
Applicants, as well as to any future Series, and any other existing
or future registered open-end management investment company or
series thereof that, in each case, (i) is advised by the Adviser or
any entity controlling, controlled by, or under common control with,
the Adviser or its successors (each, also an ``Adviser''), (ii) uses
the multi-manager structure described in the application, and (iii)
complies with the terms and conditions set forth in the application
(each, a ``Subadvised Series''). For purposes of the requested
order, ``successor'' is limited to an entity that results from a
reorganization into another jurisdiction or a change in the type of
business organization. Future Subadvised Series may be operated as a
master-feeder structure pursuant to section 12(d)(1)(E) of the Act.
In such a structure, certain series of the applicable Trust (each, a
``Feeder Fund'') may invest substantially all of their assets in a
Subadvised Series (a ``Master Fund'') pursuant to section
12(d)(1)(E) of the Act. No Feeder Fund will engage any sub-advisers
other than through approving the engagement of one or more of the
Master Fund's sub-advisers.
    \3\ As used herein, a ``Sub-Adviser'' for a Subadvised Series is
(1) an indirect or direct ``wholly owned subsidiary'' (as such term
is defined in the Act) of the Adviser for that Subadvised Series, or
(2) a sister company of the Adviser for that Subadvised Series that
is an indirect or direct ``wholly-owned subsidiary'' of the same
company that, indirectly or directly, wholly owns the Adviser (each
of (1) and (2) a ``Wholly-Owned Sub-Adviser'' and collectively, the
``Wholly-Owned Sub-Advisers''), or (3) not an ``affiliated person''
(as such term is defined in section 2(a)(3) of the Act) of the
Subadvised Series, any Feeder Fund invested in a Master Fund, any
Trust, or the Adviser, except to the extent that an affiliation
arises solely because the Sub-Adviser serves as a sub-adviser to a
Subadvised Series (``Non-Affiliated Sub-Advisers'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    2. Applicants request an order to permit the Adviser, subject to
the approval of the Board, to enter into investment sub-advisory
agreements with the Sub-Advisers (each, a ``Sub-Advisory Agreement'')
and materially amend such Sub-Advisory Agreements without obtaining the
shareholder approval required under section 15(a) of the Act and rule
18f-2 under the Act.\4\ Applicants also seek an exemption from the
Disclosure Requirements to permit a Subadvised Series to disclose (as
both a dollar amount and a percentage of the Subadvised Series' net
assets): (a) The aggregate fees paid to the Adviser and any Wholly-
Owned Sub-Adviser; (b) the aggregate fees paid to Non-Affiliated Sub-
Advisers; and (c) the fee paid to each Affiliated Sub-Adviser
(collectively, Aggregate Fee Disclosure'').\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ The requested relief will not extend to any sub-adviser,
other than a Wholly-Owned Sub-Adviser, who is an affiliated person,
as defined in section 2(a)(3) of the Act, of the Subadvised Series,
of any Feeder Fund, or of the Adviser, other than by reason of
serving as a sub-adviser to one or more of the Subadvised Series
(``Affiliated Sub-Adviser'').
    \5\ For any Subadvised Series that is a Master Fund, the relief
would also permit any Feeder Fund invested in that Master Fund to
disclose Aggregate Fee Disclosure.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    3. Applicants agree that any order granting the requested relief
will be subject to the terms and conditions stated in the application.
Such terms and conditions provide for, among other safeguards,
appropriate disclosure to Subadvised Series' shareholders and
notification about sub-advisory changes and enhanced Board oversight to
protect the interests of the Subadvised Series' shareholders.
    4. Section 6(c) of the Act provides that the Commission may exempt
any person, security, or transaction or any class or classes of
persons, securities, or transactions from any provisions of the Act, or
any rule thereunder, if such relief is necessary or appropriate in the
public interest and consistent with the protection of investors and
purposes fairly intended by the policy and provisions of the Act.
Applicants believe that the requested relief meets this standard
because, as further explained in the application, the Investment
Management Agreements will remain subject to shareholder approval,
while the role of the Sub-Advisers is substantially equivalent to that
of individual portfolio managers, so that requiring shareholder
approval of Sub-Advisory Agreements would impose unnecessary delays and
expenses on the Subadvised Series. Applicants believe that the
requested relief from the Disclosure Requirements meets this standard
because it will improve the Adviser's ability to negotiate fees paid to
the Sub-Advisers that are more advantageous for the Subadvised Series.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Investment Management,
under delegated authority.
Eduardo A. Aleman,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2019-11584 Filed 6-3-19; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 223 (Monday, November 19, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Pages 69539-69541]
[FR Doc No: 2012-28069]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

[Docket No. NHTSA-2012-0151, Notice 1]

Notice of Receipt of Petition for Decision That Nonconforming
2007 Chevrolet Corvette Passenger Cars Are Eligible for Importation

AGENCY: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, DOT.

ACTION: Notice of receipt of petition.

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

SUMMARY: This document announces receipt by the National Highway
Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) of a petition for a decision that
nonconforming 2007 Chevrolet Corvette 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 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 2007 Chevrolet Corvette
passenger cars) and they are capable of being readily altered to
conform to the standards.

DATES: The closing date for comments on the petition is December 19,
2012.

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).
    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 view the documents from the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online instructions for accessing the
dockets. The docket ID number and title of this notice are shown at the
heading of this document notice. 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: George Stevens, 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.
    G&K Automotive Conversion, Inc. (G&K), of Santa Ana, California
(Registered Importer 90-007) has petitioned NHTSA to decide whether
nonconforming 2007 Chevrolet Corvette passenger cars are eligible for
importation into the United States. The vehicles which G&K believes are
substantially similar are 2007 Chevrolet Corvette 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
nonconforming 2007 Chevrolet Corvette passenger cars to their U.S.-
certified counterparts, and found the vehicles to be substantially
similar with respect to compliance with most FMVSS.
    G&K submitted information with its petition intended to demonstrate
that non-U.S. certified 2007 Chevrolet Corvette 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 2007
Chevrolet Corvette 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, 108 Lamps,
Reflective Devices and Associated Equipment, 109 New Pneumatic Tires,
113 Hood Latch System, 114 Theft Protection, 116 Motor Vehicle Brake
Fluids, 118 Power-Operated Window, Partition, and Roof Panel Systems,
124 Accelerator Control Systems, 135 Light Vehicle Brake Systems, 138
Tire Pressure Monitoring 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, and 302 Flammability of Interior
Materials.
    With regard to Standard No. 108 Lamps, Reflective Devices and
Associated Equipment, the petition asserts: ``All lamps, reflective
devices and associated equipment are identical to those found in the
U.S. Companion Model and therefore comply with the requirements of
FMVSS 108.'' Because the headlamp requirements in European and other
foreign markets differ from those in the U.S., NHTSA is concerned that
the headlamps on the vehicles that are the subject of the petition may
not, in fact, have been originally manufactured to comply with all
requirements of Standard No. 108. As a consequence, the agency is
soliciting specific comments with respect to this issue.
    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 Telltales, and Indicators: (a)
Inscription of the word ``brake'' on the brake failure indicator lamp
in place of the international ECE warning symbol; and (b) replacement
of the speedometer with a unit reading in miles per hour, or
modification of the existing speedometer so that it reads in miles per
hour.
    Standard No. 110--Tire Selection and Rims for Motor Vehicles with a
GVWR of 4,536 kilograms (10,000 pounds) or Less: Installation of a tire
information 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 the existing mirror.
    Standard No. 208--Occupant Crash Protection: Petitioner claims that
the passive restraint system hardware in the nonconforming 2007
Chevrolet Corvette is identical to that found on the U.S.-certified
2007 Chevrolet Corvette, and has included a comparison of the advanced
air bag component part numbers in its petition as proof. The petitioner
also states that the software and firmware associated with the occupant
protection system must be verified and updated with U.S.-version
software as necessary to ensure that the system conforms to the
standard. This may require the replacement of system components.
    The petitioner additionally states that it will provide any owner's
manual inserts that are required by this standard but not present in
the vehicle.
    Standard No. 301--Fuel System Integrity: Inspection of all vehicles
and replacement of any non U.S.-model fuel system components with U.S.-
model components.
    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), (a)(1)(B), and (b)(1); 49
CFR 593.7; delegation of authority at 49 CFR 1.95 and 501.8.

    Issued on: November 8, 2012.
Claude H. Harris,
Director, Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance.
[FR Doc. 2012-28069 Filed 11-16-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P


[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 117 (Tuesday, June 20, 2017)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 27988-27990]
[FR Doc No: 2017-12550]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 71

[Docket No. FAA-2016-9476; Airspace Docket No. 16-AWP-28]

Establishment of Class E Airspace, Sacramento, CA

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: This action establishes Class E en route airspace extending
upward from 1,200 feet above the surface to accommodate instrument
flight rules (IFR) aircraft under control of the Oakland Air Route
Traffic Control Center (ARTCC), centered near Sacramento, CA.
Establishment of this airspace area is necessary to ensure controlled
airspace exists in those areas where the Federal airway structure is
inadequate.

DATES: Effective 0901 UTC, August 17, 2017. The Director of the Federal
Register approves this incorporation by reference action under Title 1,
Code of Federal Regulations, part 51, subject to the annual revision of
FAA Order 7400.11 and publication of conforming amendments.

ADDRESSES: FAA Order 7400.11A, Airspace Designations and Reporting
Points, and subsequent amendments can be viewed online at http://www.faa.gov/air_traffic/publications/. For further

information, you can contact the Airspace Policy Group, Federal
Aviation Administration, 800 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC,
20591; telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>. The Order is also available for
inspection at the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA).
For information on the availability of this material at NARA, call
(202) 741-6030, or go to http://www.archives.gov/federal_register/code_of_federal-regulations/ibr_locations.html.
    FAA Order 7400.11, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, is
published yearly and effective on September 15.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Tom Clark, Federal Aviation
Administration, Operations Support Group, Western Service Center, 1601
Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA, 98057; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Authority for This Rulemaking

    The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is
found in Title 49 of the United States Code. Subtitle I, Section 106
describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII,
Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the agency's
authority. This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described
in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart I, Section 40103. Under that section,
the FAA is charged with prescribing regulations to assign the use of
airspace necessary to ensure the safety of aircraft and the efficient
use of airspace. This regulation is within the scope of that authority
as it establishes Class E en route airspace at the Oakland ARTCC,
centered near Sacramento, CA, to ensure controlled airspace exists in
those areas where the Federal airway structure is inadequate.

History

    On March 13, 2017, the FAA published a notice of proposed
rulemaking in the Federal Register (82 FR 13407) Docket No. FAA-2016-
9476 to establish Class E en route airspace extending upward from 1,200
feet above the surface at Oakland Air Route Traffic Control Center,
near Sacramento, CA. Interested parties were invited to participate in
this rulemaking effort by submitting written comments on the proposal
to the FAA. Three comments were received supporting the proposal; one
from an anonymous commenter and two from Wally Roberts on behalf of the
National Business Aviation Association (NBAA).

Discussion of Comments

    Two comments were received supporting the proposed action. One
commenter, in a separate comment, noted a small portion of Class E
airspace upward from 5,000 feet mean sea level near the Hunter MOA was
excluded from the proposed area. The FAA discovered a typographical
error on one geographic coordinate in the proposed airspace legal
description caused this exclusion (lat. 36[deg]45'00'' N., instead of
lat. 35[deg]45'00'' N.). Also, the FAA determined the western edge of
the proposed airspace required slight adjustments to ensure it captured
that airspace within 12 miles of the shoreline. This action makes these
corrections.
    Class E airspace designations are published in paragraph 6006 of
FAA Order 7400.11A, dated August 3, 2016, and effective September 15,
2016, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR part 71.1. The Class
E airspace designation listed in this document will be published
subsequently in the Order.

Availability and Summary of Documents for Incorporation by Reference

    This document amends FAA Order 7400.11A, Airspace Designations and
Reporting Points, dated August 3, 2016, and effective September 15,
2016. FAA Order 7400.11A is publicly available as listed in the
ADDRESSES section of this document. FAA Order 7400.11A lists Class A,
B, C, D, and E airspace areas, air traffic service routes, and
reporting points.

The Rule

    This amendment to Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR)
part 71 establishes Class E en route airspace extending upward from
1,200 feet above the surface centered near Sacramento, CA, extending
from the southern border of the Rogue Valley en route airspace area
near Redding, CA, west to include that airspace within 12 miles of the
shoreline, south to the southern boundary of the Oakland Air Route
Traffic Control Center near Monterey, CA, east to the western boundary
of the Coaldale en route airspace area, and northeast to near Reno, NV.
This airspace is established to allow the most efficient routing
between airports without reducing margins of safety or requiring
additional coordination and pilot/controller workload. This action
ensures the safety and management of controlled airspace within the
national airspace system as it transitions from ground based navigation
aids to satellite-based Global Navigation Satellite System for
navigation.

Regulatory Notices and Analyses

    The FAA has determined that this regulation only involves an
established body of technical regulations for which frequent and
routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current, is
non-controversial and unlikely to result in adverse or negative
comments. It, therefore: (1) Is not a ``significant regulatory action''
under Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a ``significant rule'' under
DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26,
1979); and (3) does not warrant preparation of a Regulatory Evaluation
as the anticipated impact is so minimal. Since this is a routine matter
that only affects air traffic procedures and air navigation, it is
certified that this rule, when promulgated, will not have a significant
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the
criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

Environmental Review

    The FAA has determined that this action qualifies for categorical
exclusion under the National Environmental Policy Act in accordance
with FAA Order 1050.1F, ``Environmental Impacts: Policies and
Procedures,'' paragraph 5-6.5a. This airspace action is not expected to
cause any potentially significant environmental impacts, and no
extraordinary circumstances exist that warrant preparation of an
environmental assessment.

Lists of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 71

    Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (air).

Adoption of the Amendment

    In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation
Administration amends 14 CFR part 71 as follows:

PART 71--DESIGNATION OF CLASS A, B, C, D, AND E AIRSPACE AREAS; AIR
TRAFFIC SERVICE ROUTES; AND REPORTING POINTS

0
1. The authority citation for part 71 continues to read as follows:

     Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(f), 106(g); 40103, 40113, 40120; E.O.
10854, 24 FR 9565, 3 CFR, 1959-1963 Comp., p. 389.

Sec.  71.1   [Amended]

0
2. The incorporation by reference in 14 CFR 71.1 of FAA Order 7400.11A,
Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated August 3, 2016, and
effective September 15, 2016, is amended as follows:

Paragraph 6006 En Route Domestic Airspace Areas.

* * * * *

AWP CA E6 Sacramento, CA [New]

    That airspace extending upward from 1,200 feet above the surface
within an area bounded by a line beginning at lat. 39[deg]05'16''
N., long. 124[deg]05'00'' W.; to lat. 38[deg]50'52'' N., long.
123[deg]58'27'' to lat. 37[deg]41'35'' N., long. 123[deg]23'24'' W.;
to lat. 37[deg]05'15'' N., long. 122[deg]43'32'' W.; to lat.
36[deg]12'53'' N., long. 122[deg]09'02'' W.; to lat. 36[deg]06'41''
N., long. 122[deg]02'23'' W.; to lat. 35[deg]36'08'' N., long.
121[deg]31'31'' W.; to lat. 35[deg]31'48'' N., long. 121[deg]29'41''
W.; to lat. 35[deg]21'58'' N., long. 121[deg]13'57'' W.; to lat.
35[deg]32'00'' N., long. 120[deg]51'00'' W.; to lat. 35[deg]45'00''
N., long. 120[deg]07'00'' W.; to lat. 35[deg]38'00'' N., long.
119[deg]30'00'' W.; to lat. 36[deg]08'00'' N., long. 119[deg]10'00''
W.; to lat. 36[deg]08'00'' N., long. 118[deg]52'00'' W.; to lat.
37[deg]47'57'' N., long. 120[deg]22'00'' W.; to lat. 38[deg]53'30''
N., long. 119[deg]49'00'' W.; to lat. 39[deg]39'28'' N., long.
117[deg]59'55'' W.; to lat. 40[deg]27'51'' N., long. 119[deg]37'10''
W.; to lat. 39[deg]33'53'' N., long. 120[deg]19'02'' W.; thence to
the point of beginning, excluding that airspace offshore beyond 12
miles from the shoreline.

    Issued in Seattle, Washington, on June 8, 2017.
Sam S.L. Shrimpton,
Acting Group Manager, Operations Support Group, Western Service Center.
[FR Doc. 2017-12550 Filed 6-19-17; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P