56794 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 172 / Thursday, September 5, 2002 / Proposed Rules Washington, DC 20240. You may also email the comments to this address: Exsec@ ios. doi. gov. Drafting Information: The primary authors of this regulation were Jim Holland, Park Planner; Nancy Hendricks, Resource Management Specialist; and Kevin Hendricks, Assistant Chief Ranger, Lake Mead National Recreation Area. Public Participation: If you wish to comment, you may submit your comments by any one of several methods. You may mail written comments to: Jim Holland, Management Assistant, Lake Mead National Recreation Area, 601 Nevada Way, Boulder City, Nevada 89005. You may also comment via the Internet to lame    pwcrule@ nps. gov. Please also include `` PWC rule'' in the subject line and your name and return address in the body of your Internet message. Finally, you may hand deliver comments to Jim Holland at the above address. Our practice is to make comments, including names and addresses of respondents, available for public review during regular business hours. Individual respondents may request that we withhold their home address from the rulemaking record, which we will honor to the extent allowable by law. If you wish us to withhold your name and/ or address, you must state this prominently at the beginning of your comment. However, we will not consider anonymous comments. We will make all submissions from organizations or businesses, and from individuals identifying themselves as representatives or officials or organizations or businesses, available for public inspection in their entirety.

List of Subjects in 36 CFR Part 7 District of Columbia, National parks, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements. In consideration of the foregoing, the National Park Service proposes to amend 36 CFR part 7 as follows:

PART 7— SPECIAL REGULATIONS, AREAS OF THE NATIONAL PARK SYSTEM 1. The authority citation for part 7 continues to read as follows:

Authority: 16 U. S. C. 1, 3, 9a, 460( q), 462( k); Sec. 7.96 also issued under D. C. Code 8Ð 137( 1981) and D. C. Code 40Ð 721 (1981).

2. Section 7.48 is amended by adding paragraph (g) to read as follows:

§ 7.48 Lake Mead National Recreation Area.

* * * * * (g) Personal watercraft (1) Personal watercraft may operate, transit and launch in park waters or beach on park land except in the following Primitive and Semi primitive areas as described below and illustrated on the park management zones map: (i) Arizona T33N; R16W Portions of sections 16, 17, 21, 22, 27, 28, 29, 33 and 34, and T32 1 Ú2 N; R16W Portions of Sections 32 and 33 known as Grand Wash Bay; (ii) Arizona T31N; R20W Portions of sections 2, 3, 10 and 11 known as The Gypsum Beds; (iii) Nevada T36N; R68E Portions of Sections 25, 26, 34, 35, 36 known as the Virgin River Bowl; (iv) Nevada T22S; R65E Portions of Sections 32; T23S; R65E Portions of Sections 5, 8, 17, 20, 21, 28, 29, 34; T23 1 Ú2 S; R65E Portions of Sections 34; T23S; R65E Portions of Sections 1, 2, and 12. Arizona T30N; R23W Portions of Sections 3, 10, 15, 22, 27, 34; T29N; R23W Portions of Sections 2, 12, 13; T29N; R22W Portions of Sections 18, 19, 20, 29; known as Black Canyon. (2) Personal watercraft may not be operated at a speed in excess of flatwake within 100 feet of any shoreline. (3) Personal watercraft that do not meet the 2006 emission standards set by EPA for the manufacturing of two cycle engines will be prohibited from operating within Lake Mead NRA after December 31, 2012. All personal watercraft that meet the EPA 2006 emission standards through the use of direct injection two cycle or four cycle engines shall not be affected by this prohibition and will be allowed to operate as described in paragraphs (g)( 1) and (2) of this section. (4) The Superintendent may temporarily limit, restrict or terminate access to the areas designated for PWC use after taking into consideration public health and safety, natural and cultural resource protection, and other management activities and objectives.

Dated: August 29, 2002.

Craig Manson,

Assistant Secretary for Fish and Wildlife and Parks. [FR Doc. 02Ð 22630 Filed 9Ð 4Ð 02; 8: 45 am]

BILLING CODE 4310– 70– P ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 300 [FRL– 7272– 2]

National Priorities List for Uncontrolled Hazardous Waste Sites, Proposed Rule No. 38 AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency. ACTION: Proposed rule.

SUMMARY: The Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (`` CERCLA'' or `` the Act''), requires that the National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan (`` NCP'') include a list of national priorities among the known releases or threatened releases of hazardous substances, pollutants, or contaminants throughout the United States. The National Priorities List (`` NPL'') constitutes this list. The NPL is intended primarily to guide the Environmental Protection Agency (`` EPA'' or `` the Agency'') in determining which sites warrant further investigation. These further investigations will allow EPA to assess the nature and extent of public health and environmental risks associated with the site and to determine what CERCLAfinanced remedial action( s), if any, may be appropriate. This proposed rule proposes to add new sites to the NPL; all to the General Superfund Section of the NPL. DATES: Comments regarding any of these proposed listings must be submitted (postmarked) on or before November 4, 2002. ADDRESSES: By Postal Mail: Mail original and three copies of comments (no facsimiles or tapes) to Docket Coordinator, Headquarters, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, CERCLA Docket Office, (Mail Code 5305T), 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20460. By Express Mail or Courier: Send original and three copies of comments (no facsimiles or tapes) to Docket Coordinator, Headquarters, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, CERCLA Docket Office, 1301 Constitution Avenue, EPA West, Room B102, Washington, DC 20004. By E Mail: Comments in ASCII format only may be mailed directly to superfund. docket@ epa. gov. E mailed comments must be followed up by an original and three copies sent by mail or express mail. For additional Docket addresses and further details on their contents, see VerDate Aug< 30> 2002 15: 01 Sep 04, 2002 Jkt 197001 PO 00000 Frm 00027 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\ FR\ FM\ 05SEP1. SGM 05SEP1 56795 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 172 / Thursday, September 5, 2002 / Proposed Rules section II, `` Public Review/ Public Comment, '' of the Supplementary Information portion of this preamble. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Yolanda Singer, phone (703) 603Ð 8835, State, Tribal and Site Identification Center, Office of Emergency and Remedial Response (Mail Code 5204G), U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20460, or the Superfund Hotline, Phone (800) 424Ð 9346 or (703) 412Ð 9810 in the Washington, DC metropolitan area. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Table of Contents I. Background A. What are CERCLA and SARA? B. What is the NCP? C. What is the National Priorities List (NPL)? D. How are Sites Listed on the NPL? E. What Happens to Sites on the NPL? F. How Are Site Boundaries Defined? G. How Are Sites Removed From the NPL? H. Can Portions of Sites Be Deleted from the NPL as They Are Cleaned Up? I. What is the Construction Completion List (CCL)? II. Public Review/ Public Comment A. Can I Review the Documents Relevant to This Proposed Rule? B. How Do I Access the Documents? C. What Documents Are Available for Public Review at the Headquarters Docket? D. What Documents Are Available for Public Review at the Regional Dockets? E. How Do I Submit My Comments? F. What Happens to My Comments? G. What Should I Consider When Preparing My Comments? H. Can I Submit Comments After the Public Comment Period Is Over? I. Can I View Public Comments Submitted by Others? J. Can I Submit Comments Regarding Sites Not Currently Proposed to the NPL? III. Contents of This Proposed Rule A. Proposed Additions to the NPL B. Status of NPL IV. Executive Order 12866 A. What is Executive Order 12866? B. Is This Proposed Rule Subject to Executive Order 12866 Review? V. Unfunded Mandates A. What is the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA)? B. Does UMRA Apply to This Proposed Rule? VI. Effect on Small Businesses A. What is the Regulatory Flexibility Act? B. How Has EPA Complied with the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)? VII. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act A. What is the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act? B. Does the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act Apply to This Proposed Rule? VIII. Executive Order 12898 A. What is Executive Order 12898? B. Does Executive Order 12898 Apply to this Proposed Rule? IX. Executive Order 13045 A. What is Executive Order 13045? B. Does Executive Order 13045 Apply to this Proposed Rule? X. Paperwork Reduction Act A. What is the Paperwork Reduction Act? B. Does the Paperwork Reduction Act Apply to this Proposed Rule? XI. Executive Orders on Federalism What Are The Executive Orders on Federalism and Are They Applicable to This Proposed Rule? XII. Executive Order 13175 A. What is Executive Order 13175? B. Does Executive Order 13175 Apply to This Proposed Rule? XIII. Executive Order 13211 A. What is Executive Order 13211? B. Is this Rule Subject to Executive Order 13211?

I. Background A. What Are CERCLA and SARA?

In 1980, Congress enacted the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act, 42 U. S. C. 9601Ð 9675 (`` CERCLA'' or `` the Act''), in response to the dangers of uncontrolled releases of hazardous substances. CERCLA was amended on October 17, 1986, by the Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act (`` SARA''), Public Law 99Ð 499, 100 Stat. 1613 et seq.

B. What Is the NCP?

To implement CERCLA, EPA promulgated the revised National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan (`` NCP''), 40 CFR part 300, on July 16, 1982 (47 FR 31180), pursuant to CERCLA section 105 and Executive Order 12316 (46 FR 42237, August 20, 1981). The NCP sets guidelines and procedures for responding to releases and threatened releases of hazardous substances, pollutants, or contaminants under CERCLA. EPA has revised the NCP on several occasions. The most recent comprehensive revision was on March 8, 1990 (55 FR 8666). As required under section 105( a)( 8)( A) of CERCLA, the NCP also includes `` criteria for determining priorities among releases or threatened releases throughout the United States for the purpose of taking remedial action and, to the extent practicable, taking into account the potential urgency of such action for the purpose of taking removal action. '' `` Removal'' actions are defined broadly and include a wide range of actions taken to study, clean up, prevent or otherwise address releases and threatened releases (42 U. S. C. 9601( 23)). C. What Is the National Priorities List (NPL)?

The NPL is a list of national priorities among the known or threatened releases of hazardous substances, pollutants, or contaminants throughout the United States. The list, which is appendix B of the NCP (40 CFR part 300), was required under section 105( a)( 8)( B) of CERCLA, as amended by SARA, section 105( a)( 8)( B) defines the NPL as a list of `` releases'' and the highest priority `` facilities'' and requires that the NPL be revised at least annually. The NPL is intended primarily to guide EPA in determining which sites warrant further investigation to assess the nature and extent of public health and environmental risks associated with a release of hazardous substances. The NPL is only of limited significance, however, as it does not assign liability to any party or to the owner of any specific property. Neither does placing a site on the NPL mean that any remedial or removal action necessarily need be taken. See Report of the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works, Senate Rep. No. 96Ð 848, 96th Cong., 2d Sess. 60 (1980), 48 FR 40659 (September 8, 1983). For purposes of listing, the NPL includes two sections, one of sites that are generally evaluated and cleaned up by EPA (the `` General Superfund Section''), and one of sites that are owned or operated by other Federal agencies (the `` Federal Facilities Section''). With respect to sites in the Federal Facilities section, these sites are generally being addressed by other Federal agencies. Under Executive Order 12580 (52 FR 2923, January 29, 1987) and CERCLA section 120, each Federal agency is responsible for carrying out most response actions at facilities under its own jurisdiction, custody, or control, although EPA is responsible for preparing an HRS score and determining whether the facility is placed on the NPL. EPA generally is not the lead agency at Federal Facilities Section sites, and its role at such sites is accordingly less extensive than at other sites.

D. How Are Sites Listed on the NPL?

There are three mechanisms for placing sites on the NPL for possible remedial action (see 40 CFR 300.425( c) of the NCP): (1) A site may be included on the NPL if it scores sufficiently high on the Hazard Ranking System (`` HRS''), which EPA promulgated as a appendix A of the NCP (40 CFR part 300). The HRS serves as a screening device to evaluate the relative potential of uncontrolled hazardous substances to VerDate Aug< 30> 2002 13: 28 Sep 04, 2002 Jkt 197001 PO 00000 Frm 00028 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\ FR\ FM\ 05SEP1. SGM 05SEP1 56796 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 172 / Thursday, September 5, 2002 / Proposed Rules pose a threat to human health or the environment. On December 14, 1990 (55 FR 51532), EPA promulgated revisions to the HRS partly in response to CERCLA section 105( c), added by SARA. The revised HRS evaluates four pathways: Ground water, surface water, soil exposure, and air. As a matter of Agency policy, those sites that score 28.50 or greater on the HRS are eligible for the NPL; (2) Each State may designate a single site as its top priority to be listed on the NPL, regardless of the HRS score. This mechanism, provided by the NCP at 40 CFR 300.425( c)( 2) requires that, to the extent practicable, the NPL include within the 100 highest priorities, one facility designated by each State representing the greatest danger to public health, welfare, or the environment among known facilities in the State (see 42 U. S. C. 9605( a)( 8)( B)); (3) The third mechanism for listing, included in the NCP at 40 CFR 300.425( c)( 3), allows certain sites to be listed regardless of their HRS score, if all of the following conditions are met:   The Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR) of the U. S. Public Health Service has issued a health advisory that recommends dissociation of individuals from the release.   EPA determines that the release poses a significant threat to public health.   EPA anticipates that it will be more cost effective to use its remedial authority than to use its removal authority to respond to the release.

EPA promulgated an original NPL of 406 sites on September 8, 1983 (48 FR 40658). The NPL has been expanded since then, most recently on September 13, 2001 (66 FR 47583).

E. What Happens to Sites on the NPL?

A site may undergo remedial action financed by the Trust Fund established under CERCLA (commonly referred to as the `` Superfund'') only after it is placed on the NPL, as provided in the NCP at 40 CFR 300.425( b)( 1). (`` Remedial actions'' are those `` consistent with permanent remedy, taken instead of or in addition to removal actions. * * *'' 42 U. S. C. 9601( 24).) However, under 40 CFR 300.425( b)( 2) placing a site on the NPL `` does not imply that monies will be expended. '' EPA may pursue other appropriate authorities to remedy the releases, including enforcement action under CERCLA and other laws.

F. How Are Site Boundaries Defined?

The NPL does not describe releases in precise geographical terms; it would be neither feasible nor consistent with the limited purpose of the NPL (to identify releases that are priorities for further evaluation), for it to do so. Although a CERCLA `` facility'' is broadly defined to include any area where a hazardous substance release has `` come to be located'' (CERCLA section 101( 9)), the listing process itself is not intended to define or reflect the boundaries of such facilities or releases. Of course, HRS data (if the HRS is used to list a site) upon which the NPL placement was based will, to some extent, describe the release( s) at issue. That is, the NPL site would include all releases evaluated as part of that HRS analysis. When a site is listed, the approach generally used to describe the relevant release( s) is to delineate a geographical area (usually the area within an installation or plant boundaries) and identify the site by reference to that area. As a legal matter, the site is not coextensive with that area, and the boundaries of the installation or plant are not the `` boundaries'' of the site. Rather, the site consists of all contaminated areas within the area used to identify the site, as well as any other location to which contamination from that area has come to be located, or from which that contamination came. In other words, while geographic terms are often used to designate the site (e. g., the `` Jones Co. plant site'') in terms of the property owned by a particular party, the site properly understood is not limited to that property (e. g., it may extend beyond the property due to contaminant migration), and conversely may not occupy the full extent of the property (e. g., where there are uncontaminated parts of the identified property, they may not be, strictly speaking, part of the `` site''). The `` site'' is thus neither equal to nor confined by the boundaries of any specific property that may give the site its name, and the name itself should not be read to imply that this site is coextensive with the entire area within the property boundary of the installation or plant. The precise nature and extent of the site are typically not known at the time of listing. Also, the site name is merely used to help identify the geographic location of the contamination. For example, the `` Jones Co. plant site, '' does not imply that the Jones company is responsible for the contamination located on the plant site. EPA regulations provide that the `` nature and extent of the problem presented by the release'' will be determined by a Remedial Investigation/ Feasibility Study (`` RI/ FS'') as more information is developed on site contamination (40 CFR 300.5). During the RI/ FS process, the release may be found to be larger or smaller than was originally thought, as more is learned about the source( s) and the migration of the contamination. However, this inquiry focuses on an evaluation of the threat posed; the boundaries of the release need not be exactly defined. Moreover, it generally is impossible to discover the full extent of where the contamination `` has come to be located'' before all necessary studies and remedial work are completed at a site. Indeed, the boundaries of the contamination can be expected to change over time. Thus, in most cases, it may be impossible to describe the boundaries of a release with absolute certainty. Further, as noted above, NPL listing does not assign liability to any party or to the owner of any specific property. Thus, if a party does not believe it is liable for releases on discrete parcels of property, supporting information can be submitted to the Agency at any time after a party receives notice it is a potentially responsible party. For these reasons, the NPL need not be amended as further research reveals more information about the location of the contamination or release.

G. How Are Sites Removed From the NPL? EPA may delete sites from the NPL where no further response is appropriate under Superfund, as explained in the NCP at 40 CFR 300.425( e). This section also provides that EPA shall consult with states on proposed deletions and shall consider whether any of the following criteria have been met: (i) Responsible parties or other persons have implemented all appropriate response actions required; (ii) All appropriate Superfund financed response has been implemented and no further response action is required; or (iii) The remedial investigation has shown the release poses no significant threat to public health or the environment, and taking of remedial measures is not appropriate. As of August 20, 2002, the Agency has deleted 259 sites from the NPL.

H. Can Portions of Sites Be Deleted From the NPL as They Are Cleaned Up? In November 1995, EPA initiated a new policy to delete portions of NPL sites where cleanup is complete (60 FR 55465, November 1, 1995). Total site cleanup may take many years, while portions of the site may have been cleaned up and available for productive use. As of August 20, 2002, EPA has deleted 31 portions of 28 sites.

VerDate Aug< 30> 2002 13: 28 Sep 04, 2002 Jkt 197001 PO 00000 Frm 00029 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\ FR\ FM\ 05SEP1. SGM 05SEP1 56797 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 172 / Thursday, September 5, 2002 / Proposed Rules I. What Is the Construction Completion List (CCL)?

EPA also has developed an NPL construction completion list (`` CCL'') to simplify its system of categorizing sites and to better communicate the successful completion of cleanup activities (58 FR 12142, March 2, 1993). Inclusion of a site on the CCL has no legal significance. Sites qualify for the CCL when: (1) Any necessary physical construction is complete, whether or not final cleanup levels or other requirements have been achieved; (2) EPA has determined that the response action should be limited to measures that do not involve construction (e. g., institutional controls); or (3) The site qualifies for deletion from the NPL. As of August 20, 2002, there are a total of 818 sites on the CCL. For the most up to date information on the CCL, see EPA's Internet site at http:// www. epa. gov/ superfund.

II. Public Review/ Public Comment A. Can I Review the Documents Relevant to This Proposed Rule?

Yes, documents that form the basis for EPA's evaluation and scoring of the sites in this rule are contained in dockets located both at EPA Headquarters in Washington, DC and in the Regional offices.

B. How Do I Access the Documents?

You may view the documents, by appointment only, in the Headquarters or the Regional dockets after the appearance of this proposed rule. The hours of operation for the Headquarters docket are from 9 a. m. to 4 p. m., Monday through Friday excluding Federal holidays. Please contact the Regional dockets for hours. Following is the contact information for the EPA Headquarters docket: Docket Coordinator, Headquarters; U. S. Environmental Protection Agency; CERCLA Docket Office; 1301 Constitution Avenue; EPA West, Room B102, Washington, DC 20004, 202/ 566Ð 0276. (Please note this is a visiting address only. Mail comments to EPA Headquarters as detailed at the beginning of this preamble.) The contact information for the Regional dockets is as follows: Ellen Culhane, Region 1 (CT, ME, MA, NH, RI, VT), U. S. EPA, Superfund Records Center, Mailcode HSC, One Congress Street, Suite 1100, Boston, MA 02114Ð 2023; 617/ 918Ð 1225 Dennis Munhall, Region 2 (NJ, NY, PR, VI), U. S. EPA, 290 Broadway, New York, NY 10007Ð 1866; 212/ 637Ð 4343 Dawn Shellenberger (ASRC), Region 3 (DE, DC, MD, PA, VA, WV), U. S. EPA, Library, 1650 Arch Street, Mailcode 3PM52, Philadelphia, PA 19103; 215/ 814Ð 5364 Lauren Brantley, Region 4 (AL, FL, GA, KY, MS, NC, SC, TN), U. S. EPA, 61 Forsyth Street, SW, 9th floor, Atlanta, GA 30303; 404/ 562Ð 8127 Janet Pfundheller, Region 5 (IL, IN, MI, MN, OH, WI), U. S. EPA, Records Center, Superfund Division SMRÐ 7J, Metcalfe Federal Building, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, IL 60604; 312/ 353Ð 5821 Brenda Cook, Region 6 (AR, LA, NM, OK, TX), U. S. EPA, 1445 Ross Avenue, Mailcode 6SFÐ RA, Dallas, TX 75202Ð 2733; 214/ 665Ð 7436 Michelle Quick, Region 7 (IA, KS, MO, NE), U. S. EPA, 901 North 5th Street, Kansas City, KS 66101; 913/ 551Ð 7335 David Williams, Region 8 (CO, MT, ND, SD, UT, WY), U. S. EPA, 999 18th Street, Suite 500, Mailcode 8EPRÐ SA, Denver, CO 80202Ð 2466; 303/ 312Ð 6757 Carolyn Douglas, Region 9 (AZ, CA, HI, NV, AS, GU), U. S. EPA, 75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, CA 94105; 415/ 972Ð 3092 Robert Phillips, Region 10 (AK, ID, OR, WA), U. S. EPA, 11th Floor, 1200 6th Avenue, Mail Stop ECLÐ 110, Seattle, WA 98101; 206/ 553Ð 6699 You may also request copies from EPA Headquarters or the Regional dockets. An informal request, rather than a formal written request under the Freedom of Information Act, should be the ordinary procedure for obtaining copies of any of these documents.

C. What Documents Are Available for Public Review at the Headquarters Docket?

The Headquarters docket for this rule contains: HRS score sheets for the proposed sites; a Documentation Record for the sites describing the information used to compute the score; information for any sites affected by particular statutory requirements or EPA listing policies; and a list of documents referenced in the Documentation Record.

D. What Documents Are Available for Public Review at the Regional Dockets?

The Regional dockets for this rule contain all of the information in the Headquarters docket, plus, the actual reference documents containing the data principally relied upon and cited by EPA in calculating or evaluating the HRS score for the sites. These reference documents are available only in the Regional dockets. E. How Do I Submit My Comments? Comments must be submitted to EPA Headquarters as detailed at the beginning of this preamble in the ADDRESSES section. Please note that the addresses differ according to method of delivery. There are two different addresses that depend on whether comments are sent by express mail or by postal mail.

F. What Happens to My Comments? EPA considers all comments received during the comment period. Significant comments will be addressed in a support document that EPA will publish concurrently with the Federal Register document if, and when, the site is listed on the NPL.

G. What Should I Consider When Preparing My Comments? Comments that include complex or voluminous reports, or materials prepared for purposes other than HRS scoring, should point out the specific information that EPA should consider and how it affects individual HRS factor values or other listing criteria (Northside Sanitary Landfill v. Thomas, 849 F. 2d 1516 (D. C. Cir. 1988)). EPA will not address voluminous comments that are not specifically cited by page number and referenced to the HRS or other listing criteria. EPA will not address comments unless they indicate which component of the HRS documentation record or what particular point in EPA's stated eligibility criteria is at issue.

H. Can I Submit Comments After the Public Comment Period Is Over? Generally, EPA will not respond to late comments. EPA can only guarantee that it will consider those comments postmarked by the close of the formal comment period. EPA has a policy of not delaying a final listing decision solely to accommodate consideration of late comments.

I. Can I View Public Comments Submitted by Others? During the comment period, comments are placed in the Headquarters docket and are available to the public on an `` as received'' basis. A complete set of comments will be available for viewing in the Regional docket approximately one week after the formal comment period closes.

J. Can I Submit Comments Regarding Sites Not Currently Proposed to the NPL? In certain instances, interested parties have written to EPA concerning sites which were not at that time proposed to VerDate Aug< 30> 2002 13: 28 Sep 04, 2002 Jkt 197001 PO 00000 Frm 00030 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\ FR\ FM\ 05SEP1. SGM 05SEP1 56798 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 172 / Thursday, September 5, 2002 / Proposed Rules the NPL. If those sites are later proposed to the NPL, parties should review their earlier concerns and, if still appropriate, resubmit those concerns for consideration during the formal comment period. Site specific correspondence received prior to the period of formal proposal and comment will not generally be included in the docket.

III. Contents of This Proposed Rule A. Proposed Additions to the NPL With today's proposed rule, EPA is proposing to add 7 new sites to the NPL; all to the General Superfund of the NPL. All of the sites in this proposing rulemaking are being proposed based on HRS scores of 28.50 or above. The sites are presented in Table 1 which follows this preamble.

B. Status of NPL A final rule published elsewhere in today's Federal Register finalizes 19 sites to the NPL; resulting in an NPL of 1,239 final sites; 1,080 in the General Superfund Section and 159 in the Federal Facilities Section. With this proposal of 7 new sites, there are now 62 sites proposed and awaiting final agency action, 56 in the General Superfund Section and 6 in the Federal Facilities Section. Final and proposed sites now total 1,301. (These numbers reflect the status of sites as of August 20, 2002. Site deletions occurring after this date may affect these numbers at time of publication in the Federal Register.)

IV. Executive Order 12866 A. What Is Executive Order 12866?

Under Executive Order 12866, (58 FR 51735 (October 4, 1993)) the Agency must determine whether a regulatory action is `` significant'' and therefore subject to OMB review and the requirements of the Executive Order. The Order defines `` significant regulatory action'' as one that is likely to result in a rule that may: (1) Have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more or adversely affect in a material way the economy, a sector of the economy, productivity, competition, jobs, the environment, public health or safety, or State, local, or tribal governments or communities; (2) create a serious inconsistency or otherwise interfere with an action taken or planned by another agency; (3) materially alter the budgetary impact of entitlements, grants, user fees, or loan programs or the rights and obligations of recipients thereof; or (4) raise novel legal or policy issues arising out of legal mandates, the President's priorities, or the principles set forth in the Executive Order.

B. Is This Proposed Rule Subject to Executive Order 12866 Review?

No. The listing of sites on the NPL does not impose any obligations on any entities. The listing does not set standards or a regulatory regime and imposes no liability or costs. Any liability under CERCLA exists irrespective of whether a site is listed. It has been determined that this action is not a `` significant regulatory action'' under the terms of Executive Order 12866 and is therefore not subject to OMB review.

V. Unfunded Mandates A. What Is the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA)?

Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), Public Law 104Ð 4, establishes requirements for Federal Agencies to assess the effects of their regulatory actions on State, local, and tribal governments and the private sector. Under section 202 of the UMRA, EPA generally must prepare a written statement, including a cost benefit analysis, for proposed and final rules with `` Federal mandates'' that may result in expenditures by State, local, and tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector, of $100 million or more in any one year. Before EPA promulgates a rule for which a written statement is needed, section 205 of the UMRA generally requires EPA to identify and consider a reasonable number of regulatory alternatives and adopt the least costly, most costeffective or least burdensome alternative that achieves the objectives of the rule. The provisions of section 205 do not apply when they are inconsistent with applicable law. Moreover, section 205 allows EPA to adopt an alternative other than the least costly, most cost effective, or least burdensome alternative if the Administrator publishes with the final rule an explanation why that alternative was not adopted. Before EPA establishes any regulatory requirements that may significantly or uniquely affect small governments, including tribal governments, it must have developed under section 203 of the UMRA a small government agency plan. The plan must provide for notifying potentially affected small governments, enabling officials of affected small governments to have meaningful and timely input in the development of EPA regulatory proposals with significant Federal intergovernmental mandates, and informing, educating, and advising small governments on compliance with the regulatory requirements.

B. Does UMRA Apply to This Proposed Rule?

No, EPA has determined that this rule does not contain a Federal mandate that may result in expenditures of $100 million or more for State, local, and tribal governments in the aggregate, or by the private sector in any one year. This rule will not impose any federal intergovernmental mandate because it imposes no enforceable duty upon State, tribal or local governments. Listing a site on the NPL does not itself impose any costs. Listing does not mean that EPA necessarily will undertake remedial action. Nor does listing require any action by a private party or determine liability for response costs. Costs that arise out of site responses result from site specific decisions regarding what actions to take, not directly from the act of listing a site on the NPL. For the same reasons, EPA also has determined that this rule contains no regulatory requirements that might significantly or uniquely affect small governments. In addition, as discussed above, the private sector is not expected to incur costs exceeding $100 million. EPA has fulfilled the requirement for analysis under the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act.

VI. Effect on Small Businesses A. What Is the Regulatory Flexibility Act?

Pursuant to the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U. S. C. 601 et seq., as amended by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act (SBREFA) of 1996) whenever an agency is required to publish a notice of rulemaking for any proposed or final rule, it must prepare and make available for public comment a regulatory flexibility analysis that describes the effect of the rule on small entities (i. e., small businesses, small organizations, and small governmental jurisdictions). However, no regulatory flexibility analysis is required if the head of an agency certifies the rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. SBREFA amended the Regulatory Flexibility Act to require Federal agencies to provide a statement of the factual basis for certifying that a rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.

VerDate Aug< 30> 2002 13: 28 Sep 04, 2002 Jkt 197001 PO 00000 Frm 00031 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\ FR\ FM\ 05SEP1. SGM 05SEP1 56799 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 172 / Thursday, September 5, 2002 / Proposed Rules B. How Has EPA Complied With the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)? This proposed rule listing sites on the NPL, if promulgated, would not impose any obligations on any group, including small entities. This proposed rule, if promulgated, also would establish no standards or requirements that any small entity must meet, and would impose no direct costs on any small entity. Whether an entity, small or otherwise, is liable for response costs for a release of hazardous substances depends on whether that entity is liable under CERCLA 107( a). Any such liability exists regardless of whether the site is listed on the NPL through this rulemaking. Thus, this proposed rule, if promulgated, would not impose any requirements on any small entities. For the foregoing reasons, I certify that this proposed rule, if promulgated, will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.

VII. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act A. What Is the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act? Section 12( d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (NTTAA), Public Law 104Ð 113, section 12( d) (15 U. S. C. 272 note), directs EPA to use voluntary consensus standards in its regulatory activities unless to do so would be inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise impractical. Voluntary consensus standards are technical standards (e. g., materials specifications, test methods, sampling procedures, and business practices) that are developed or adopted by voluntary consensus standards bodies. The NTTAA directs EPA to provide Congress, through OMB, explanations when the Agency decides not to use available and applicable voluntary consensus standards.

B. Does the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act Apply to This Proposed Rule? No. This proposed rulemaking does not involve technical standards. Therefore, EPA did not consider the use of any voluntary consensus standards.

VIII. Executive Order 12898 A. What Is Executive Order 12898? Under Executive Order 12898, `` Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low Income Populations, '' as well as through EPA's April 1995, `` Environmental Justice Strategy, OSWER Environmental Justice Task Force Action Agenda Report, '' and National Environmental Justice Advisory Council, EPA has undertaken to incorporate environmental justice into its policies and programs. EPA is committed to addressing environmental justice concerns, and is assuming a leadership role in environmental justice initiatives to enhance environmental quality for all residents of the United States. The Agency's goals are to ensure that no segment of the population, regardless of race, color, national origin, or income, bears disproportionately high and adverse human health and environmental effects as a result of EPA's policies, programs, and activities, and all people live in clean and sustainable communities.

B. Does Executive Order 12898 Apply to This Proposed Rule? No. While this rule proposes to revise the NPL, no action will result from this proposal that will have disproportionately high and adverse human health and environmental effects on any segment of the population.

IX. Executive Order 13045 A. What Is Executive Order 13045? Executive Order 13045: `` Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks'' (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997) applies to any rule that: (1) Is determined to be `` economically significant'' as defined under Executive Order 12866, and (2) concerns an environmental health or safety risk that EPA has reason to believe may have a disproportionate effect on children. If the regulatory action meets both criteria, the Agency must evaluate the environmental health or safety effects of the planned rule on children, and explain why the planned regulation is preferable to other potentially effective and reasonably feasible alternatives considered by the Agency.

B. Does Executive Order 13045 Apply to This Proposed Rule? This proposed rule is not subject to Executive Order 13045 because it is not an economically significant rule as defined by Executive Order 12866, and because the Agency does not have reason to believe the environmental health or safety risks addressed by this proposed rule present a disproportionate risk to children.

X. Paperwork Reduction Act A. What Is the Paperwork Reduction Act? According to the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA), 44 U. S. C. 3501 et seq., an agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to a collection of information that requires OMB approval under the PRA, unless it has been approved by OMB and displays a currently valid OMB control number. The OMB control numbers for EPA's regulations, after initial display in the preamble of the final rules, are listed in 40 CFR part 9. The information collection requirements related to this action have already been approved by OMB pursuant to the PRA under OMB control number 2070Ð 0012 (EPA ICR No. 574).

B. Does the Paperwork Reduction Act Apply to This Proposed Rule?

No. EPA has determined that the PRA does not apply because this rule does not contain any information collection requirements that require approval of the OMB.

XI. Executive Orders on Federalism What Are The Executive Orders on Federalism and Are They Applicable to This Proposed Rule?

Executive Order 13132, entitled `` Federalism'' (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999), requires EPA to develop an accountable process to ensure `` meaningful and timely input by State and local officials in the development of regulatory policies that have federalism implications. '' `` Policies that have federalism implications'' is defined in the Executive Order to include regulations that have `` substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. '' Under section 6 of Executive Order 13132, EPA may not issue a regulation that has federalism implications, that imposes substantial direct compliance costs, and that is not required by statute, unless the Federal government provides the funds necessary to pay the direct compliance costs incurred by State and local governments, or EPA consults with State and local officials early in the process of developing the proposed regulation. EPA also may not issue a regulation that has federalism implications and that preempts State law, unless the Agency consults with State and local officials early in the process of developing the proposed regulation. This proposed rule does not have federalism implications. It will not have substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government, as specified in Executive Order 13132. Thus, the VerDate Aug< 30> 2002 13: 28 Sep 04, 2002 Jkt 197001 PO 00000 Frm 00032 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\ FR\ FM\ 05SEP1. SGM 05SEP1 56800 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 172 / Thursday, September 5, 2002 / Proposed Rules requirements of section 6 of the Executive Order do not apply to this rule.

XII. Executive Order 13175 A. What Is Executive Order 13175? Executive Order 13175, entitled `` Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments'' (65 FR 67249, November 6, 2000), requires EPA to develop an accountable process to ensure `` meaningful and timely input by tribal officials in the development of regulatory policies that have tribal implications. '' `` Policies that have tribal implications'' is defined in the Executive Order to include regulations that have `` substantial direct effects on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal government and the Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal government and Indian tribes. ''

B. Does Executive Order 13175 Apply to This Proposed Rule? This proposed rule does not have tribal implications. It will not have substantial direct effects on tribal governments, on the relationship between the Federal government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal government and Indian tribes, as specified in Executive Order 13175. Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not apply to this proposed rule.

XIII. Executive Order 13211 A. What Is Executive Order 13211? Executive Order 13211, `` Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use'' (66 FR 28355 (May 22, 2001), requires EPA to prepare and submit a Statement of Energy Effects to the Administrator of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, for certain actions identified as `` significant energy actions. '' Section 4( b) of Executive Order 13211 defines `` significant energy actions'' as `` any action by an agency (normally published in the Federal Register) that promulgates or is expected to lead to the promulgation of a final rule or regulation, including notices of inquiry, advance notices of proposed rulemaking, and notices of proposed rulemaking: (1)( i) That is a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866 or any successor order, and (ii) is likely to have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use of energy; or (2) that is designated by the Administrator of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs as a significant energy action. ''

B. Is This Rule Subject to Executive Order 13211?

This proposed rule is not subject to Executive Order 13211, `` Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use'' (66 FR 28355 (May 22, 2001)) because it is not a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866 (See discussion of Executive Order 12866 above.)

TABLE 1.— NATIONAL PRIORITIES LIST PROPOSED RULE NO. 38, GENERAL SUPERFUND SECTION State Site name City/ county FL .... United Metals, Inc Marianna. NC ... Ward Transformer Raleigh.

OH .. Lammers Barrel .. Beavercreek. OR .. Harbor Oil ........... Portland. PR ... Pesticide Warehouse III. Manati.

TX ... Falcon Refinery .. Ingleside. TX ... Gulfco Marine Maintenance. Freeport.

Number of Sites Proposed to General Superfund Section: 7.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 300 Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Chemicals, Hazardous substances, Hazardous waste, Intergovernmental relations, Natural resources, Oil pollution, Penalties, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Superfund, Water pollution control, Water supply.

Authority: 33 U. S. C. 1321( c)( 2); 42 U. S. C. 9601Ð 9657; E. O. 12777, 56 FR 54757, 3 CFR, 1991 Comp., p. 351; E. O. 12580, 52 FR 2923, 3 CFR, 1987 Comp., p. 193.

Dated: August 27, 2002.

Marianne Lamont Horinko,

Assistant Administrator, Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response. [FR Doc. 02Ð 22539 Filed 9Ð 4Ð 02; 8: 45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560– 50– P DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 50 CFR Part 697 [Docket No. 010413093– 2190– 02; I. D. 032301C]

RIN 0648– AP18 American Lobster; Intent to Prepare an Environmental Impact Statement AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce. ACTION: Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (ANPR), Notice of Intent (NOI) to combine rulemaking and prepare an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS); request for comments.

SUMMARY: NMFS announces its intent to consider revisions to the Federal lobster regulations in response to the recommendations of the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission (Commission) in Addendum III to Amendment 3 of the Interstate Fishery Management Plan for American Lobster (ISFMP), and prepare one EIS to assess the impact on the human environment of potential management measures for the American lobster fishery in the U. S. Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) as recommended by the Commission in Addenda II and III to Amendment 3 of the ISFMP (Addendum II and Addendum III; Addenda II and III). Written comments are requested from the public regarding issues that NMFS should address in the EIS relative to Addenda II and III. NMFS is also soliciting comments with this notification of potential modifications to parts of the current Federal lobster regulations to clarify these rules, assist with their enforcement, and better describe the inter relationship between the Federal lobster regulations, the Atlantic Coastal Fisheries Cooperative Management Act (ACFCMA), and other applicable laws. DATES: Written comments on the intent to prepare the EIS relative to Addenda II and III and on the potential modifications to parts of the current lobster regulations must be received no later than 5 p. m. Eastern Standard Time on or before October 7, 2002. ADDRESSES: Written comments should be sent to Harold C. Mears, Director, State, Federal, and Constituent Programs Office, Northeast Region, NMFS, One Blackburn Drive, Gloucester, MA 01930. Comments may also be sent via fax to (978) 281Ð 9117.

VerDate Aug< 30> 2002 13: 28 Sep 04, 2002 Jkt 197001 PO 00000 Frm 00033 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\ FR\ FM\ 05SEP1. SGM 05SEP1


(6) If materials used for body, heads, closures, and fittings are
not compatible with the contents to be transported, suitable internal
protective coatings or treatments must be applied. These coatings or
treatments must retain their protective properties under normal
conditions of transport.
    (7) Maximum capacity of drum: 450 L (119 gallons).
    (8) Maximum net mass: 400 kg (882 pounds).
0
49. In Sec.  178.506, redesignate paragraphs (b)(6) and (7) as (b)(7)
and (8), respectively, and add new paragraph (b)(6) to read as follows:

Sec.  178.506   Standards for metal drums other than steel or aluminum.

* * * * *
    (b) * * *
    (6) If materials used for body, heads, closures, and fittings are
not compatible with the contents to be transported, suitable internal
protective coatings or treatments must be applied. These coatings or
treatments must retain their protective properties under normal
conditions of transport.
    (7) Maximum capacity of drum: 450 L (119 gallons).
    (8) Maximum net mass: 400 kg (882 pounds).
0
50. In Sec.  178.609, revise paragraph (g) to read as follows:

Sec.  178.609   Test requirements for packagings for infectious
substances.

* * * * *
    (g) Where packaging is intended to contain dry ice, an additional
drop test to that specified in paragraph (d), and when appropriate, (e)
or (f) of this section must be performed on one sample in one of the
orientations described in (d)(1) or (d)(2) of this section, as
appropriate, which is most likely to result in failure of the
packaging. The sample must be stored so that all the dry ice dissipates
prior to being subjected to the drop test.
* * * * *
0
51. In Sec.  178.703, revise paragraphs (b)(6) introductory text and
(b)(7)(iv) to read as follows:

Sec.  178.703   Marking of IBCs.

* * * * *
    (b) * * *
    (6) For each composite IBC, the inner receptacle must be marked
with at least the following information. The marking must be visible
while inside of the outer receptacle. If the marking is not visible
from the outer receptacle, the marking must be duplicated on the outer
receptacle and include an indication that the marking applies to the
inner receptacle.
* * * * *
    (7) * * *
    (iv) For IBCs designed for stacking, the maximum permitted stacking
load must be displayed with the symbol. The mass in kilograms (kg)
marked above the symbol must not exceed the load imposed during the
design test, as indicated by the marking in paragraph (a)(1)(vii) of
this section, divided by 1.8. The letters and numbers indicating the
mass must be at least 12 mm (0.48 inches).
0
52. In Sec.  178.705, revise paragraph (c)(1)(iv) introductory text to
read as follows:

Sec.  178.705   Standards for metal IBCs.

* * * * *
    (c) * * *
    (1) * * *
    (iv) Minimum wall thickness. For metal IBCs with a capacity of more
than 1500 liters, the minimum wall thickness must be determined as
follows:
    (A) For a reference steel having a product of Rm x Ao = 10,000,
where Ao is the minimum elongation (as a percentage) of the reference
steel to be used on fracture under tensile stress (Rm x Ao = 10,000 x
145; if tensile strength is in U.S. Standard units of pounds per square
inch), the wall thickness must not be less than:

                                            Wall Thickness (T) in mm
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                      Types 11A, 11B, 11N                              Types 21A, 21B, 21N, 31A, 31B, 31N
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Unprotected                      Protected               Unprotected               Protected
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
T = C/2000 + 1.5.....................  T = C/2000 + 1.0.......  T = C/1000 + 1.0.......  T = C/2000 + 1.5
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

* * * * *

PART 180--CONTINUING QUALIFICATION AND MAINTENANCE OF PACKAGINGS

0
53. The authority citation for part 180 continues to read as follows:

    Authority:  49 U.S.C. 5101-5128; 49 CFR 1.81 and 1.97.

0
54. In Sec.  180.207, revise paragraph (d)(3) and add (7) to read as
follows:

Sec.  180.207   Requirements for requalification of UN pressure
receptacles.

* * * * *
    (d) * * *
    (3) Dissolved acetylene UN cylinders: Each dissolved acetylene
cylinder must be requalified in accordance with ISO 10462:2013(E) (IBR,
see Sec.  171.7 of this subchapter). A cylinder requalified in
accordance with ISO 10462(E) up until December 31, 2018, may continue
to be used until the next required requalification. The porous mass and
the shell must be requalified no sooner than 3 years, 6 months, from
the date of manufacture. Thereafter, subsequent requalifications of the
porous mass and shell must be performed at least once every ten years.
* * * * *
    (7) UN cylinder bundles: UN cylinder bundles containing compressed,
liquefied, and dissolved gas must be inspected and tested in accordance
with ISO 20475:2018(E) (IBR, see Sec.  171.7 of this subchapter).

    Issued in Washington, DC on July 15, 2021, under authority
delegated in 49 CFR 1.97.
William S. Schoonover,
Associate Administrator for Hazardous Materials Safety, Pipeline and
Hazardous Materials Safety Administration.
[FR Doc. 2021-15425 Filed 8-9-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-60-P


[Federal Register: September 29, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 189)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 56475-56476]
[DOCID:fr29se08-15]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 71

[Docket No. FAA-2008-0203; Airspace Docket No. 08-ANE-99]

Modification of Class D and E Airspace; Brunswick, ME

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Direct final rule, request for comments.

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

SUMMARY: This action modifies Class D and E Airspace at Brunswick, ME.
The Brunswick NAS Air Traffic Control Tower operates on an other than a
full time basis; therefore, the Class D Airspace and its extensions
associated with the tower operations must be modified to reflect the
times when the controlled airspace is effective. This action enhances
the National Airspace System by relaxing the restrictions to the
controlled airspace areas in the vicinity of Brunswick, ME.

DATES: Effective 0901 UTC, January 15, 2009. 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 7400.9 and publication of conforming amendments.
Comments for inclusion in the Rules Docket must be received on or
before November 13, 2008.

ADDRESSES: Send comments on this rule to: U.S. Department of
Transportation, Docket Operations, West Building Ground Floor, Room
W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590-0001;
Telephone: 1-800-647-5527; Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>. You must identify the
Docket Number FAA-2008 0203; Airspace Docket No. 08-ANE-99, at the
beginning of your comments. You may also submit and review received
comments through the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov.
    You may review the public docket containing the rule, any comments
received, and any final disposition in person in the Dockets Office
(see ADDRESSES section for address and phone number) between 9 a.m. and
5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal Holidays. An informal
docket may also be examined during normal business hours at the office
of the Eastern Service Center, Federal Aviation Administration, Room
210, 1701 Columbia Avenue, College Park, Georgia 30337.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Melinda Giddens, Operations Support
Group, Federal Aviation Administration, P.O. Box 20636, Atlanta,
Georgia 30320; Telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>, Fax<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

The Direct Final Rule Procedure

    The FAA anticipates that this regulation will not result in adverse
or negative comments, and, therefore, issues it as a direct final rule.
The FAA has determined that this rule only involves an established body
of technical regulations for which frequent and routine amendments are
necessary to keep them operationally current. Unless a written adverse
or negative comment or a written notice of intent to submit an adverse
or negative comment is received within the comment period, the
regulation will become effective on the date specified above. After the
close of the comment period, the FAA will publish a document in the
Federal Register indicating that no adverse or negative comments were
received and confirming the effective date. If the FAA receives, within
the comment period, an adverse or negative comment, or written notice
of intent to submit such a comment, a document withdrawing the direct
final rule will be published in the Federal Register, and a notice of
proposed rulemaking may be published with a new comment period.

Comments Invited

    Although this action is in the form of a direct final rule, and was
not preceded by a notice of proposed rulemaking, interested persons are
invited to comment on this rule by submitting such written data, views,
or arguments as they may desire. The direct final rule is used in this
case to facilitate the timing of the charting schedule and enhance the
operation at the airport, while still allowing and requesting public
comment on this rulemaking action. An electronic copy of this document
may be downloaded from and comments submitted through http://
www.regulations.gov. Communications should identify both docket numbers
and be submitted in triplicate to the address specified under the
caption ADDRESSES above or through the Web site. All communications
received on or before the closing date for comments will be considered,
and this rule may be amended or withdrawn in light of the comments
received. Recently published rulemaking documents can also be accessed
through the FAA's web page at http://www.faa.gov or the Federal
Register's Web page at http://www.gpoaccess.gov/fr/index.html.
    Comments are specifically invited on the overall regulatory,
economic, environmental, and energy aspects of the rule that might
suggest a need to modify the rule. Factual information that supports
the commenter's ideas and suggestions is extremely helpful in
evaluating the effectiveness of this action and determining whether
additional rulemaking action would be needed. All comments submitted
will be available, both before and after the closing date for comments,
in the Rules Docket for examination by interested persons. Those
wishing the FAA to acknowledge receipt of their comments submitted in
response to this rule must submit a self-addressed, stamped postcard on
which the following statement is made: ``Comments to Docket No. FAA-
2008-0203; Airspace Docket No. 08-ANE-99.'' The postcard will be date
stamped and returned to the commenter.

The Rule

    This amendment to Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR)
part 71 modifies Class D and E airspace at Brunswick, ME, by adding to
the descriptions of the controlled airspace areas the hours of
operation of the Air Traffic Control Tower (ATCT) at Brunswick NAS
Airport. The ATCT at Brunswick operates on an other than full-time
basis and, therefore, the Class D Airspace and its extensions
associated with the tower operations must be modified to reflect the
times when the controlled airspace is effective. Controlled airspace
extending upward from the surface of the Earth is required to encompass
the airspace necessary for instrument approaches for aircraft operating
under Instrument Flight Rules (IFR). The current Class D and E airspace
areas are sufficient for these approaches, so no additional controlled
airspace must be defined. Effective times for the Brunswick Class D and
E airspace areas will be published first by Notice to Airman, and then
thereafter

published continuously in the Airport/Facility Directory. The FAA is
amending Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) part 71 by
modifying the Class D and E airspace description at Brunswick NAS to
reflect the effective times of the Air Traffic Control Tower's
operation. Designations for Class D and E airspace areas extending
upward from the surface of the Earth are published in FAA Order
7400.9R, signed August 15, 2007 effective September 15, 2007, which is
incorporated by reference in 14 CFR part 71.1. The Class D and E
designations listed in this document will be published subsequently in
the Order.

Agency Findings

    The regulations adopted herein will not have substantial direct
effects on the States, on the relationship between the national
government and the States, or on the distribution of power and
responsibilities among various levels of government. Therefore, it is
determined that this final rule does not have federalism implications
under Executive Order 13132.
    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 will only affect 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.
    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 modifies controlled airspace at Brunswick, ME.

Lists of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 71

    Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (Air).

Adoption of the Amendment

0
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(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 Federal Aviation
Administration Order 7400.9R, Airspace Designations and Reporting
Points, signed August 15, 2007, effective September 15, 2007, is
amended as follows:

Paragraph 5000 Class D Airspace.

* * * * *

ANE ME D Brunswick, ME [REVISED]

Brunswick NAS Airport,
    (Lat. 43[deg]53'32'' N., long 69[deg]56'19'' W.)

    That airspace extending upward from the surface of the Earth to
and including 2,600 feet MSL within a 4.3-mile radius of Brunswick
NAS. This Class D airspace area is effective during the specific
dates and times established in advance by a Notice to Airmen. The
effective date and time will thereafter be continuously published in
the Airport/Facility Directory.
* * * * *

ANE ME E4 Brunswick, ME [REVISED]

Brunswick NAS Airport,
    (Lat. 43[deg]53'32'' N., long 69[deg]56'19'' W.)

    That airspace extending upward from the surface within 3 miles
each side of the 169[deg] bearing from the Brunswick NAS extending
from the 4.3-mile radius of the airport to 6.5 miles south of the
airport and within 2 miles each side of the 017[deg] bearing from
the Brunswick NAS extending from the 4.3-mile radius of the airport
to 9.5 miles northeast of the airport. This Class E airspace area is
effective during the specific dates and times established in advance
by a Notice to Airmen. The effective date and time will thereafter
be continuously published in the Airport/Facility Directory.
* * * * *

    Issued in College Park, Georgia, on September 3, 2008.
Mark D. Ward,
Manager, Operations Support Group, Eastern Service Center, Air Traffic
Organization.
[FR Doc. E8-22452 Filed 9-26-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910-13-M


[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 72 (Thursday, April 14, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Pages 22136-22138]
[FR Doc No: 2016-08553]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-77565; File No. SR-FINRA-2016-005]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Financial Industry Regulatory
Authority, Inc.; Order Approving a Proposed Rule Change To Reduce the
Synchronization Tolerance for Computer Clocks That Are Used To Record
Events in NMS Securities and OTC Equity Securities

April 8, 2016.

I. Introduction

    On February 9, 2016, the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority,
Inc. (``FINRA'') 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 reduce the synchronization tolerance for
computer clocks that are used to record events in NMS Securities,
including standardized options and OTC Equity Securities. The proposed
rule change was published for comment in the Federal Register on
February 25, 2016.\3\ Four comments were received in response to the
proposal.\4\ 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. 77196 (Feb. 19,
2016), 81 FR 9550 (``Notice'').
    \4\ See Letter from Kermit Kubitz, dated March 18, 2016
(``Kubitz Letter''); Letter from Dave Lauer, Chairman, Healthy
Markets Association, to Brent J. Fields, Secretary, Commission,
dated March 17, 2016 (``Healthy Markets Letter); Letter from Manisha
Kimmel, Chief Regulatory Officer, Wealth Management, Thompson
Reuters, to Brent J. Fields, Secretary, Commission, dated March 17,
2015 (``Reuters Letter''); Letter from Mary Lou Von Kaenel, Managing
Director, Financial Information Forum, to Brent J. Fields,
Secretary, Commission, dated March 22, 2016 (``FIF Letter'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. Description of the Proposed Rule Change

    FINRA rules require that firms synchronize their business clocks in
conformity with procedures prescribed by FINRA. Specifically, FINRA
Rule 7430 requires that firms synchronize their business clocks that
are used for purposes of recording the date and time of any event that
must be recorded pursuant to the FINRA By-Laws or other FINRA rules
(i.e., the time a trade was executed or the time an order was received
or routed), with reference to a time source as designated by FINRA.
Current OATS technical specifications provide that all computer system
clocks and mechanical time stamping devices must be synchronized to
within one

second of the NIST atomic clock.\5\ As stated in the Notice, FINRA
proposed to reduce the synchronization tolerance for members' computer
clocks that are used to record events in NMS securities,\6\ including
standardized options, and OTC Equity Securities.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ Any time provider may be used for synchronization; however,
all clocks and time stamping devices must remain accurate to within
a one-second tolerance of the NIST clock. This tolerance includes
(1) the difference between the NIST standard and a time provider's
clock, (2) the transmission delay from the source and (3) the amount
of drift of the member firm's clock. The OATS technical
specifications further specify that computer system and mechanical
clocks must be synchronized every business day before market open to
ensure the accuracy of recorded order event timestamps.
    \6\ See Rule 600(b)(46) of Regulation NMS; 17 CFR
242.600(b)(46).
    \7\ See FINRA Rule 6420(f).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Given the increasing speed of trading in today's automated markets,
FINRA believes the current one second tolerance is no longer
appropriate for computer system clocks recording events in NMS
securities and OTC Equity Securities, thus FINRA proposed to tighten
the synchronization requirement for computer system clocks that record
events in NMS securities and OTC Equity Securities by reducing the
drift tolerance from one second to 50 milliseconds.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ The proposal does not change the current clock
synchronization requirement for members' mechanical time stamping
devices or computer clocks that are used to record events for
securities other than NMS securities or OTC Equity Securities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Under a combination of Rule 7430 and the OATS technical
specifications, the current one second synchronization standard applies
to the recording of the date and time of any event that must be
recorded under FINRA By-Laws or rules. In this proposal, FINRA proposed
to consolidate and codify the clock synchronization requirements in new
Rule 4590 for clarity and ease of reference. This consolidation
includes the current provision in the OATS technical specifications
that conveys guidance on recordkeeping to demonstrate compliance with
the synchronization standard, which would be codified without material
change as Supplementary Material .01 to Rule 4590.
    FINRA proposed a phased implementation for the 50 millisecond
standard.\9\ FINRA would require firms with systems that capture time
in milliseconds to comply with the new 50 millisecond standard within
six months of the effective date; firms that do not have systems that
capture time in milliseconds must comply with the new standard within
18 months of the effective date.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ FINRA will announce the effective date of the proposed rule
change in a Regulatory Notice to be published no later than 90 days
following Commission approval. See Notice, 81 FR at 9553.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

III. Comment Letters

    The Commission received four comment letters on the proposal.\10\
Healthy Markets supports the proposal noting: ``[s]ub-second clock
synchronization standards are an important element of market data and
audit trail reliability, and most market technology is already
synchronized at tolerances far more precise than the fifty milliseconds
proposed.'' Further, it states that ``[c]lock synchronization is a
critical component of today's market structure and is long overdue for
reform,'' and notes that ``[t]ighter synchronization standards would
enhance regulators' abilities to surveil for manipulative trading
practices.'' The commenter suggests that FINRA recognize the
differences between ``extremely time-sensitive trading firms and other
market participants'' by imposing a higher standard on the firms it
labels ``extremely time-sensitive.'' \11\ A second commenter urges
``higher time synchronization requirements than proposed.'' \12\ FIF
indicates that its members ``generally agree the 50 millisecond clock
synchronization requirement is appropriate for order and execution
events'' \13\ and acknowledges the ``compelling regulatory need for
fine precision time stamps on order and execution events,'' \14\
however, FIF expresses concern about FINRA proposing this rule given
the pending implementation of the CAT NMS Plan.\15\ The fourth
commenter requests that ``FINRA provide a list of impacted events to
ensure that firms are appropriately implementing reduced clock
synchronization across all relevant systems,'' \16\ and states that
nine months is a more reasonable timeframe within which to implement
the requirement.\17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ See supra, note 4.
    \11\ See Healthy Markets letter at 1-2.
    \12\ See Kubitz letter.
    \13\ See FIF letter at 1.
    \14\ See FIF letter at 2.
    \15\ See FIF letter at 1. FIF also raises concerns about
applying the synchronization requirement to post-trade activities.
See pages 1-3. The National Market System Plan governing the
Consolidated Audit Trail (``CAT NMS Plan'') was required by Rule 613
under the Act, which directed FINRA and the national securities
exchanges to submit a national market systems plan to govern the
creation, implementation, and maintenance of a consolidated audit
trail and central repository. See Securities Exchange Act Release
No. 67457 (July 17, 2012), 77 FR 45722 (August 1, 2012) (``Rule 613
Adopting Release''). The CAT NMS Plan submitted by the national
securities exchanges and FINRA on February 27, 2015 is available at
http://www.catnmsplan.com/.
    \16\ See Thomson Reuters letter at 1.
    \17\ See id. at 2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    With respect to the scope of events covered under the proposal,
FINRA stated in the filing that through a combination of FINRA Rule
7430 and the OATS technical specifications, the current clock
synchronization standard already applies to the recording of the date
and time of any event that must be recorded under FINRA By-Laws or
rules.\18\ For instance, FINRA stated that Rule 7430 requires that
firms synchronize business clocks used for purposes of recording the
date and time of any event that must be recorded pursuant to the FINRA
By-Laws or other FINRA Rules (e.g., the time a trade was executed or
the time an order was received or routed), with reference to a time
source as designated by FINRA.\19\ Under existing OATS technical
specifications, all computer system clocks and mechanical stamping
devices must be synchronized to within one second of the NITS atomic
clock.\20\ FINRA stated that this proposal consolidates and codifies
its clock synchronization requirements, including the new 50
millisecond standard, in a new Rule 4590 for clarity and ease of
reference, so as to make clear that the requirements apply to the
recording of the date and time of any event that must be recorded under
FINRA By-Laws or rules.\21\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ See Notice, 81 FR at 9551.
    \19\ See Notice, 81 FR at 9550.
    \20\ See id.
    \21\ See Notice, 81 FR at 9551.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    With respect to implementation, in the proposal FINRA stated that
it has accommodated such concerns in two ways. First, FINRA tailored
the proposal so that the 50 millisecond standard would apply only to
NMS Securities and OTC Equity Securities and not to fixed income
securities.\22\ Second, FINRA proposed a phased implementation schedule
for the 50 millisecond standard that allows firms that capture time in
milliseconds to comply with the 50 millisecond standard within six
months of the effective date of the rule and firms that do not capture
time in milliseconds to comply with the standard within 18 months of
the effective date of the rule.\23\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \22\ See Notice, 81 FR at 9553.
    \23\ See id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Finally, in the filing, FINRA stated that it believes that it is
appropriate and necessary to proceed with the 50 millisecond standard
now, rather than forego this proposal in light of the proposed CAT NMS
Plan, because the

standard is an important element of market data reliability, and it may
be sometime before the clock-synchronization requirements of the CAT
NMS Plan take effect.\24\ FINRA stated that it relies on the accuracy
of market data to fulfill its regulatory obligations as a national
securities association.\25\ Accordingly, FINRA believes it has a
current need to tighten the clock synchronization standard for events
that must be recorded pursuant to the FINRA By-Laws or other FINRA
Rules.\26\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \24\ In the Notice, FINRA also notes that the proposed clock
synchronization standard is consistent with the 50 millisecond clock
synchronization standard advanced by the CAT NMS Plan. See Notice,
81 FR at 9552.
    \25\ See id.
    \26\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Two commenters suggested that FINRA should consider differentiating
between market participants when setting clock-synchronization
standards.\27\ For instance, one commenter stated that FINRA should
recognize differences between extremely time-sensitive trading firms
and other market participants, and suggested differentiating between
co-located broker-dealers and others.\28\ Similarly, one commenter
suggested that firms that co-locate their equipment to or otherwise
have access to an exchange datacenter should be held to tighter
requirements.\29\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \27\ See Healthy Markets Letter and Kubitz Letter.
    \28\ See Healthy Markets Letter.
    \29\ See Kubitz Letter.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In the filing, FINRA stated that audit trail integrity relies on
the ability to accurately sequence events for a given period of time,
including events generated by firms that do not engage in high-
frequency trading.\30\ FINRA believes it is important to apply the same
standard to all computer-related events, regardless of firm size or
activity type.\31\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \30\ See Notice, 81 FR at 9552.
    \31\ In the Notice, FINRA states that while it does not believe
it is practicable to adopt different standards for market
participants, as some commenters suggested, it is proposing to
provide less automated firms with more time to adjust their systems
to the new proposed standard. See Notice, 81 FR 9552 n.25.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Discussion and Commission Findings

    After carefully considering the proposed rule change and the
comment letters, 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
association.\32\ In particular, the Commission finds that the proposed
rule change is consistent with Section 15A(b)(6) of the Act, which
requires, among other things, that FINRA rules be designed to prevent
fraudulent and manipulative acts and practices, to promote just and
equitable principles of trade, and, in general, to protect investors
and the public interest.\33\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \32\ In approving the proposed rule change, the Commission has
also considered the rule change's impact on efficiency, competition,
and capital formation. See 15 U.S.C. 78c(f).
    \33\ 21 U.S.C. 78o-3(b)(6).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission agrees with the commenter's observation that clock
synchronization is a ``critical component of today's market
structure.'' \34\ Tightening the clock synchronization requirement to
50 milliseconds will bolster FINRA's ability to meet its regulatory
obligations as a national securities association. As the Commission has
noted, time drift away from a universal, synchronized standard is an
important issue to address to enhance the integrity of audit trail
data.\35\ The Commission agrees with the commenter's observation that
updating clock synchronization standards is important to improve
transparency and enhance surveillance and enforcement capabilities.
Further, the Commission believes that FINRA's decision to have a
consistent clock synchronization standard across the industry at this
time is a reasonable decision. The Commission believes it is important
to pursue a 50 millisecond standard at this time so that FINRA can
compile more accurate audit trail data and conduct surveillance with
more precise time-sequenced data, rather than waiting for the issue to
be addressed by the CAT NMS Plan.\36\ Tighter synchronization is
critical to precisely reconstructing market events, as the commenter
noted,\37\ which will facilitate FINRA's efforts to detect and prevent
fraudulent and manipulative acts and practices, to promote just and
equitable principles of trade, and, in general, to protect investors
and the public interest. In addition, the Commission notes that the
proposed rule change does not alter the events that are covered by the
clock synchronization requirement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \34\ See Healthy Markets letter at 1.
    \35\ See Rule 613 Adopting Release, 77 FR at 45774. The
Commission notes that the FINRA proposal is consistent with the
clock-synchronization standard advanced by the CAT NMS Plan.
    \36\ See supra, note 24.
    \37\ See Healthy Markets letter at 1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For the reasons discussed above, the Commission finds that the
proposed rule change is consistent with Section 15A of the Act.

V. Conclusion

    It is therefore ordered pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the Act
\38\ that the proposed rule change (SR-FINRA-2016-005) be and hereby is
approved.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \38\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2).

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\39\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \39\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Robert W. Errett,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2016-08553 Filed 4-13-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 8011-01-P