[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 243 (Friday, December 18, 2015)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 79010-79012]
[FR Doc No: 2015-31899]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 165

[Docket Number USCG-2015-1025]
RIN 1625-AA00

Safety Zone; JI Mei Design Construction Co., LTD, Hudson River,
Manhattan, NY

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard proposes to establish a temporary safety zone
for certain waters of the Hudson River. This action is necessary to
provide for the safety of life on these navigable waters of the Hudson
River near Hells Kitchen, NY during a fireworks display, on February 6,
2016. This proposed rulemaking would prohibit persons and vessels from
being in the safety zone unless authorized by the Captain of the Port
New York or a designated

representative. We invite your comments on this proposed rulemaking.

DATES: Comments and related material must be received by the Coast
Guard on or before January 19, 2016.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments identified by docket number USCG-
2015-1025 using the Federal eRulemaking Portal at http://www.regulations.gov. See the ``Public Participation and Request for
Comments'' portion of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section for further
instructions on submitting comments.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions about this
proposed rulemaking, call or email MST1 Daniel Vazquez, Sector New York
Waterways Management Division, U.S. Coast Guard; telephone 718-354-
4154, email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Table of Abbreviations

CFR Code of Federal Regulations
COTP Captain of the Port
E.O. Executive order
NPRM Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
Sec.  Section
U.S.C. United States Code

II. Background, Purpose, and Legal Basis

    On October 7, 2015, the JI Mei Design Construction Co. notified the
Coast Guard that it will be conducting a fireworks display from 8:00 to
9:30 p.m. on February 6, 2016. The fireworks are to be launched from
five barges in the Hudson River bound by a box drawn from the following
points: 40[deg]46'24.41'' N., 074[deg]00'16.14'' W. thence to
40[deg]46'15.64' N., 073[deg]59'55.74' W. thence to 40[deg]45'28.60''
N., 074[deg]00'30.84'' W. thence to 40[deg]45'37.40'' N.,
074[deg]00'51.23'' W. thence to point of origin. Hazards from firework
displays include accidental discharge of fireworks, dangerous
projectiles, and falling hot embers or other debris. The COTP has
determined that potential hazards associated with this fireworks
display be a safety concern for anyone within close proximity of the
barges.
    The purpose of this rulemaking is to ensure the safety of vessels
on the navigable waters within close proximity of the fireworks barges
before, during, and after the scheduled event. The Coast Guard proposes
this rulemaking under authority in 33 U.S.C. 1231.

III. Discussion of Proposed Rule

    The COTP proposes to establish a safety zone from 8:00 to 9:30 p.m.
on February 6, 2016. The safety zone would cover all navigable waters
in the Hudson River located approximately 375 yards west of Pier 94,
Manhattan, NY and extending south to approximately 375 yards west of
Pier 76, Manhattan, NY. The duration of the zone is intended to ensure
the safety of vessels on these navigable waters before, during, and
after the scheduled 8:00 p.m. to 9:30 p.m. fireworks display. No vessel
or person would be permitted to enter the safety zone without obtaining
permission from the COTP or a designated representative. The regulatory
text we are proposing appears at the end of this document.

IV. Regulatory Analyses

    We developed this proposed rule after considering numerous statutes
and E.O.s related to rulemaking. Below we summarize our analyses based
on a number of these statutes and E.O.s, and we discuss First Amendment
rights of protestors.

A. Regulatory Planning and Review

    E.O.s 12866 and 13563 direct agencies to assess the costs and
benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if regulation is
necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits.
E.O. 13563 emphasizes the importance of quantifying both costs and
benefits, of reducing costs, of harmonizing rules, and of promoting
flexibility. This NPRM has not been designated a ``significant
regulatory action,'' under E.O. 12866. Accordingly, the NPRM has not
been reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget.
    This regulatory action determination is based on the size,
location, duration, and time-of-day of the safety zone. Vessel traffic
would be able to safely transit around this safety zone which would
impact a small designated area of the Hudson River for less than 2
hours during the evening when vessel traffic is normally low. Moreover,
the Coast Guard would issue a Broadcast Notice to Mariners via VHF-FM
marine channel 16 about the zone, and the rule would allow vessels to
seek permission to enter the zone.

B. Impact on Small Entities

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, 5 U.S.C. 601-612, as
amended, requires Federal agencies to consider the potential impact of
regulations on small entities during rulemaking. The term ``small
entities'' comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations
that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their
fields, and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than
50,000. The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this
proposed rule would not have a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities.
    While some owners or operators of vessels intending to transit the
safety zone may be small entities, for the reasons stated in section
IV.A above this proposed rule would not have a significant economic
impact on any vessel owner or operator.
    If you think that your business, organization, or governmental
jurisdiction qualifies as a small entity and that this rule would have
a significant economic impact on it, please submit a comment (see
ADDRESSES) explaining why you think it qualifies and how and to what
degree this rule would economically affect it.
    Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement
Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we want to assist small
entities in understanding this proposed rule. If the rule would affect
your small business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction and you
have questions concerning its provisions or options for compliance,
please contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT
section. The Coast Guard will not retaliate against small entities that
question or complain about this proposed rule or any policy or action
of the Coast Guard.

C. Collection of Information

    This proposed rule would not call for a new collection of
information under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-
3520).

D. Federalism and Indian Tribal Governments

    A rule has implications for federalism under E.O. 13132,
Federalism, if it has a substantial direct effect 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. We have analyzed this proposed rule under that Order and
have determined that it is consistent with the fundamental federalism
principles and preemption requirements described in E.O. 13132.
    Also, this proposed rule does not have tribal implications under
E.O. 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal
Governments, because it would not have a substantial direct effect on
one or more Indian tribes, 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. If
you believe this proposed rule has implications for federalism or
Indian

tribes, please contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION
CONTACT section above.

E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

    The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538)
requires Federal agencies to assess the effects of their discretionary
regulatory actions. In particular, the Act addresses actions that may
result in the expenditure by a State, local, or tribal government, in
the aggregate, or by the private sector of $100,000,000 (adjusted for
inflation) or more in any one year. Though this proposed rule would not
result in such an expenditure, we do discuss the effects of this rule
elsewhere in this preamble.

F. Environment

    We have analyzed this proposed rule under Department of Homeland
Security Management Directive 023-01 and Commandant Instruction
M16475.lD, which guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National
Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have made
a preliminary determination that this action is one of a category of
actions that do not individually or cumulatively have a significant
effect on the human environment. This proposed rule involves a safety
zone lasting less than 2 hours that would prohibit entry within the
proposed safety zone around all fireworks barges. Normally such actions
are categorically excluded from further review under paragraph 34(g) of
Figure 2-1 of Commandant Instruction M16475.lD. A preliminary
environmental analysis checklist is available in the docket where
indicated under ADDRESSES. We seek any comments or information that may
lead to the discovery of a significant environmental impact from this
proposed rule.

G. Protest Activities

    The Coast Guard respects the First Amendment rights of protesters.
Protesters are asked to contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT section to coordinate protest activities so that
your message can be received without jeopardizing the safety or
security of people, places, or vessels.

V. Public Participation and Request for Comments

    We view public participation as essential to effective rulemaking,
and will consider all comments and material received during the comment
period. Your comment can help shape the outcome of this rulemaking. If
you submit a comment, please include the docket number for this
rulemaking, indicate the specific section of this document to which
each comment applies, and provide a reason for each suggestion or
recommendation.
    We encourage you to submit comments through the Federal eRulemaking
Portal at http://www.regulations.gov. If your material cannot be
submitted using http://www.regulations.gov, contact the person in the
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of this document for alternate
instructions.
    We accept anonymous comments. All comments received will be posted
without change to http://www.regulations.gov and will include any
personal information you have provided. For more about privacy and the
docket, you may review a Privacy Act notice regarding the Federal
Docket Management System in the March 24, 2005, issue of the Federal
Register (70 FR 15086).
    Documents mentioned in this NPRM as being available in the docket,
and all public comments, will be in our online docket at http://www.regulations.gov and can be viewed by following that Web site's
instructions. Additionally, if you go to the online docket and sign up
for email alerts, you will be notified when comments are posted or a
final rule is published.

List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 165

    Harbors, Marine safety, Navigation (water), Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements, Security measures, Waterways.

    For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard proposes
to amend 33 CFR part 165 as follows:

PART 165--REGULATED NAVIGATION AREAS AND LIMITED ACCESS AREAS

0
1. The authority citation for part 165 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 33 U.S.C. 1231; 50 U.S.C. 191; 33 CFR 1.05-1, 6.04-1,
6.04-6, and 160.5; Department of Homeland Security Delegation No.
0170.1.

0
2. Add Sec.  165.T01-1025 to read as follows:

Sec.  165.T01-1025  Safety Zone; JI Mei Design Construction Co., LTD,
Hudson River, Manhattan, NY.

    (a) Regulated Area. The following area is a temporary safety zone:
all navigable waters of the Hudson River within a box bound by a line
drawn from position 40[deg]46'24.41'' N., 074[deg]00'16.14'' W. thence
to 40[deg]46'15.64' N., 073[deg]59'55.74' W., thence to
40[deg]45'28.60'' N., 074[deg]00'30.84'' W., thence to
40[deg]45'37.40'' N., 074[deg]00'51.23'' W., thence to point of origin.
    (b) Effective Period. This section will be enforced from 8:00 p.m.
until 9:30 p.m. on February 6, 2016.
    (c) Definitions. The following definitions apply to this section:
    (1) Designated Representative. A ``designated representative'' is
any Coast Guard commissioned, warrant or petty officer of the U.S.
Coast Guard who has been designated by the Captain of the Port (COTP)
Sector New York, to act on his or her behalf. The designated
representative may be on an official patrol vessel or may be on shore
and will communicate with vessels via VHF-FM radio or loudhailer. In
addition, members of the Coast Guard Auxiliary may be present to inform
vessel operators of this regulation.
    (2) Official Patrol Vessels. Official patrol vessels may consist of
any Coast Guard, Coast Guard Auxiliary, state, or local law enforcement
vessels assigned or approved by the COTP.
    (d) Regulations.
    (1) The general safety zone regulations contained in 33 CFR 165.23,
as well as the following regulations apply.
    (2) No vessels, except for the fireworks barges and the
accompanying vessels, will be allowed to transit the safety zone
without the permission of the COTP.
    (3) All persons and vessels shall comply with the instructions of
the COTP or the designated representative. Upon being hailed by a U.S.
Coast Guard vessel, or other Federal, State, or local agency vessel, by
siren, radio, flashing light, or other means, the operator of a vessel
shall proceed as directed.
    (4) Vessel operators desiring to enter or operate within the safety
zone shall contact the COTP or the designated representative via VHF
channel 16 or<PHONE_NUMBER> (Sector New York Command Center) to obtain
permission to do so.

    Dated: November 25, 2015.
M.H. Day,
Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Port New York.
[FR Doc. 2015-31899 Filed 12-17-15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-04-P


[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 237 (Friday, December 9, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Pages 89112-89113]
[FR Doc No: 2016-29588]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Food and Drug Administration

[Docket No. FDA-2014-D-0609]

Drug Supply Chain Security Act Implementation: Identification of
Suspect Product and Notification; Guidance for Industry; Availability

AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

ACTION: Notice of availability.

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

SUMMARY: The Food and Drug Administration (FDA or Agency) is announcing
the availability of a guidance for industry entitled ``Drug Supply
Chain Security Act Implementation: Identification of Suspect Product
and Notification.'' The guidance addresses provisions in the Federal
Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (the FD&C Act), as amended by the Drug
Supply Chain Security Act (DSCSA). The guidance is intended to aid
certain trading partners (manufacturers, repackagers, wholesale
distributors, and dispensers) in identifying a suspect product and
specific scenarios that could significantly increase the risk of a
suspect product entering the pharmaceutical distribution supply chain.
The guidance also describes how trading partners should notify FDA of
illegitimate product and sets forth a process for terminating
notifications of illegitimate product in consultation with FDA. This
guidance also includes a new section, for comment purposes only, that
describes when manufacturers should notify FDA of a high risk that a
product is illegitimate. Aside from that section, this guidance is a
final guidance subsequent to the draft guidance that was issued on June
11, 2014.

DATES: You may submit either electronic or written comments on Agency
guidances at any time. However, the portion of this guidance that
describes when manufacturers should notify FDA if there is a high risk
that a product is illegitimate, is being distributed for comment
purposes only. To ensure that the Agency considers your comment on this
draft section before it begins work on the final version of this
section of the guidance, submit either electronic or written comments
on this section by February 7, 2017.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments as follows:

Electronic Submissions

    Submit electronic comments in the following way:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: https://www.regulations.gov.
Follow the instructions for submitting comments. Comments submitted
electronically, including attachments, to https://www.regulations.gov
will be posted to the docket unchanged. Because your comment will be
made public, you are solely responsible for ensuring that your comment
does not include any confidential information that you or a third party
may not wish to be posted, such as medical information, your or anyone
else's Social Security number, or confidential business information,
such as a manufacturing process. Please note that if you include your
name, contact information, or other information that identifies you in
the body of your comments, that information will be posted on https://www.regulations.gov.
     If you want to submit a comment with confidential
information that you do not wish to be made available to the public,
submit the comment as a written/paper submission and in the manner
detailed (see ``Written/Paper Submissions'' and ``Instructions'').

Written/Paper Submissions

    Submit written/paper submissions as follows:
     Mail/Hand delivery/Courier (for written/paper
submissions): Division of Dockets Management (HFA-305), Food and Drug
Administration, 5630 Fishers Lane, Rm. 1061, Rockville, MD 20852.
     For written/paper comments submitted to the Division of
Dockets Management, FDA will post your comment, as well as any
attachments, except for information submitted, marked, and identified
as confidential, if submitted as detailed in ``Instructions.''
    Instructions: All submissions received must include the Docket No.
FDA-2014-D-0609 for ``Drug Supply Chain Security Act Implementation:
Identification of Suspect Product and Notification; Guidance for
Industry; Availability.'' Received comments will be placed in the
docket and, except for those submitted as ``Confidential Submissions,''
publicly viewable at https://www.regulations.gov or at the Division of
Dockets Management between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday.
     Confidential Submissions--To submit a comment with
confidential information that you do not wish to be made publicly
available, submit your comments only as a written/paper submission. You
should submit two copies total. One copy will include the information
you claim to be confidential with a heading or cover note that states,
``THIS DOCUMENT CONTAINS CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION.'' The Agency will
review this copy, including the claimed confidential information, in
its consideration of comments. The second copy, which will have the
claimed confidential information redacted/blacked out, will be
available for public viewing and posted on https://www.regulations.gov.
Submit both copies to the Division of Dockets Management. If you do not
wish your name and contact information to be made publicly available,
you can provide this information on the cover sheet and not in the body
of your comments, and you must identify this

information as ``confidential.'' Any information marked as
``confidential'' will not be disclosed except in accordance with 21 CFR
10.20 and other applicable disclosure law. For more information about
FDA's posting of comments to public dockets, see 80 FR 56469, September
18, 2015, or access the information at http://www.fda.gov/regulatoryinformation/dockets/default.htm.
    Docket: For access to the docket to read background documents or
the electronic and written/paper comments received, go to https://www.regulations.gov and insert the docket number, found in brackets in
the heading of this document, into the ``Search'' box, and follow the
prompts; and/or go to the Division of Dockets Management, 5630 Fishers
Lane, Rm. 1061, Rockville, MD 20852.
    Submit written requests for single copies of this guidance to the
Division of Drug Information, Center for Drug Evaluation and Research,
Food and Drug Administration, 10001 New Hampshire Ave., Hillandale
Bldg. 4th Floor, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002; or the Office of
Communication, Outreach and Development, Center for Biologics
Evaluation and Research, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New
Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 71, Rm. 3128, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002. Send
one self-addressed adhesive label to assist that office in processing
your requests. See the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section for electronic
access to the guidance document.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Office of Compliance, Center for Drug
Evaluation and Research, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New
Hampshire Ave., Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002,<PHONE_NUMBER>,
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

    FDA is announcing the availability of a guidance for industry
entitled ``Drug Supply Chain Security Act Implementation:
Identification of Suspect Product and Notification.'' The guidance
addresses provisions in the FD&C Act, as amended by the DSCSA (Pub. L.
113-54). Section 202 of the DSCSA adds section 582(h)(2) to the FD&C
Act (21 U.S.C. 360eee-1(h)(2)), which requires FDA to issue guidance to
aid certain trading partners (manufacturers, repackagers, wholesale
distributors, and dispensers) in identifying a suspect product and
terminating notifications. The guidance identifies specific scenarios
that could significantly increase the risk of a suspect product
entering the pharmaceutical distribution supply chain, and provides
recommendations on how trading partners can identify such product and
determine whether the product is a suspect product as soon as
practicable.
    Beginning January 1, 2015, section 582 of the FD&C Act required
trading partners, upon determining that a product in their possession
or control is illegitimate, to notify: (1) FDA and (2) all immediate
trading partners that they have reason to believe may have received the
illegitimate product, not later than 24 hours after making the
determination. Manufacturers are additionally required under section
582(b)(4)(B)(ii)(II) of the FD&C Act to notify FDA and any immediate
trading partners that the manufacturer has reason to believe may
possess a product manufactured by (or purported to be manufactured by)
the manufacturer, not later than 24 hours after the manufacturer
determines or is notified by FDA or a trading partner that there is a
high risk that a product is illegitimate. Section III.C of this
guidance, entitled ``For Manufacturers: High Risk of Illegitimacy
Notification'' and highlighted in grey, describes notifications related
to products that pose a high risk of illegitimacy, and is marked ``for
comment purposes only'' to provide an opportunity for comment before it
is finalized. The guidance also addresses how trading partners should
notify FDA using Form FDA 3911. In addition, in accordance with section
582(h)(2) of the FD&C Act, the guidance sets forth the process by which
trading partners must terminate the notifications using Form FDA 3911,
in consultation with FDA, regarding illegitimate product and, for a
manufacturer, a product with a high risk of illegitimacy, under section
582(b)(4)(B), (c)(4)(B), (d)(4)(B), and (e)(4)(B) of the FD&C Act.
    In the Federal Register of June 11, 2014 (79 FR 33564), FDA
announced the availability of a draft guidance entitled ``Drug Supply
Chain Security Act Implementation: Identification of Suspect Product
and Notification.'' FDA has carefully considered the comments received
and made the following changes in response to the comments: Section C,
``For Manufacturers: High Risk of Illegitimacy Notifications,'' on pgs.
8-11 of the guidance, is a new section added in response to comments
and questions received. In addition, FDA made minor changes to the Form
FDA 3911 and to the instructions for completing the form.
    This guidance is being issued consistent with FDA's good guidance
practices regulation (21 CFR 10.115). The guidance represents the
current thinking of FDA on ``Drug Supply Chain Security Act
Implementation: Identification of Suspect Product and Notification.''
It does not establish any rights for any person and, with the exception
of section IV.B, is not binding on FDA or the public. You can use an
alternative approach if it satisfies the requirements of the applicable
statutes and regulations.

II. Electronic Access

    Persons with access to the Internet may obtain the guidance at
http://www.fda.gov/Drugs/GuidanceComplianceRegulatoryInformation/Guidances/default.htm, http://www.fda.gov/BiologicsBloodVaccines/GuidanceComplianceRegulatoryInformation/Guidances/default.htm, or
https://www.regulations.gov.

III. Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995

    This guidance contains information collection provisions that are
subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under
the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520). The
collection of information in this guidance was approved under OMB
control number 0910-0806.

    Dated: December 5, 2016.
Leslie Kux,
Associate Commissioner for Policy.
[FR Doc. 2016-29588 Filed 12-8-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4164-01-P


                        EPA and NACS and SIGMA Meeting
                                 June 6, 2013

Attendees
EPA  -  Mark Barolo
NACS and SIGMA  -  John Eichberger

EPA and NACS and SIGMA met to discuss a number of issues from the proposed revisions to the UST regulations.


[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 43 (Monday, March 8, 2021)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 13171-13172]
[FR Doc No: 2021-04212]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 71

[Docket No. FAA-2020-1014; Airspace Docket No. 20-ASW-7]
RIN 2120-AA66

Amendment of Class D and Class E Airspace; Farmington, NM

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: This action modifies the Class D airspace at Four Corners
Regional Airport, Farmington, NM. This action also modifies the Class E
airspace, designated as a surface area, to match the modified Class D
dimensions. Additionally, this action modifies the Class E airspace
extending upward from 700 feet above the surface. Further, this action
removes the Class E airspace, extending upward from 1,200 feet above
the surface. This action also removes the Four Corners Regional ILS
Localizer and the Farmington VORTAC from the legal descriptions' text
headers and airspace descriptions. Lastly, this action implements
several administrative corrections to the Class D, Class E2, and Class
E5 airspaces' legal descriptions.

DATES: Effective 0901 UTC, June 17, 2021. The Director of the Federal
Register approves this incorporation by reference action under 1 CFR
part 51, subject to the annual revision of FAA Order 7400.11 and
publication of conforming amendments.

ADDRESSES: FAA Order 7400.11E, Airspace Designations and Reporting
Points, and subsequent amendments can be viewed online at https://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: (202) 267-
8783. The Order is also available for inspection at the National
Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For information on the
availability of FAA Order 7400.11E at NARA, email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or go to https://www.archives.gov/federal-register/cfr/ibr-locations.html.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Matthew Van Der Wal, Federal Aviation
Administration, Western Service Center, Operations Support Group, 2200
S. 216th Street, Des Moines, WA 98198; 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 modifies the Class D and Class E airspace at Four Corners
Regional Airport, Farmington, NM, to ensure the safety and management
of Instrument Flight Rules (IFR) operations at the airport.

History

    The FAA published a notice of proposed rulemaking in the Federal
Register (85 FR 78811, December 7, 2020) for Docket No. FAA-2020-1014
to modify the Class D and Class E airspace at Four Corners Regional
Airport, Farmington, NM. Interested parties were invited to participate
in this rulemaking effort by submitting written comments on the
proposal to the FAA. No comments were received.
    Subsequent to the publication of the NPRM, the FAA discovered ``The
Proposal'' section in SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION of the preamble for the
NPRM contained incorrect verbiage. The section that discussed the Class
E airspace designated as a surface area incorrectly stated ``Within a
4.7-mile radius of Four Corners Regional Airport and within 1 mile each
side of the Four Corners Regional ILS Localizer east course extending
from the 4.7-mile radius to 5.6 miles east of the airport.''
    However, the proposed regulatory text contained the correct
verbiage which reads ``That airspace extending upward from the surface
within a 4.7-mile radius of the airport, and within 1.8 miles each side
of the 086[deg] bearing from the airport, extending from the 4.7-mile
radius to 5.6 miles east of Four Corners Regional Airport.''
    Class D, E2, and E5 airspace designations are published in
paragraphs 5000, 6002, and 6005, respectively, of FAA Order 7400.11E,
dated July 21, 2020, and effective September 15, 2020, which is
incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1. The Class D and 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 7400.11E, Airspace Designations and
Reporting Points, dated July 21, 2020, and effective September 15,
2020. FAA Order 7400.11E is publicly available as listed in the
ADDRESSES section of this document. FAA Order 7400.11E lists Class A,
B, C, D, and E airspace areas, air traffic service routes, and
reporting points.

The Rule

    This amendment to 14 CFR part 71 modifies the Class D airspace at
Four Corners Regional Airport, Farmington, NM. To properly contain IFR
departures flying toward or over rising terrain an area is added to the
eastern boundary of the Class D airspace.
    This action also modifies the Class E airspace, designated as a
surface area, to be coincident with the new Class D dimensions.
    Additionally, this action modifies the Class E airspace extending
upward from 700 feet above the surface. This airspace is designed to
contain IFR departures to 1,200 feet above the surface and IFR arrivals
descending below 1,500 feet above the surface. The current

configuration does not properly contain IFR aircraft performing
instrument approaches to the airport. To properly contain IFR arrivals,
the areas to the east and the west of the airport have been expanded.
    This action also removes the Class E airspace extending upward from
1,200 feet above the surface. This area is wholly contained with the
Denver en route airspace and duplication is not necessary.
    Further, this action removes the Four Corners Regional ILS
Localizer from the Class D and Class E2 text headers and airspace
descriptions. The action also removes the Farmington VORTAC from the
Class E5 airspace text header and airspace description. The
navigational aids (NAVAIDs) are not needed to define the airspace.
Removal of the NAVAIDs allows the airspace to be defined from a single
reference point which simplifies how the airspace is described.
    Lastly, this action implements several administrative corrections
to the Class D, Class E2, and Class E5 airspaces' legal descriptions.
This action removes the city name from the second line of Class D,
Class E2, and Class E5 text headers. The legal descriptions for the
Class D and Class E2 airspace contain the outdated term ``Airport/
Facility Directory.'' this action updates the term to ``Chart
Supplement.'' The airport's geographic coordinates in the Class D and
Class E2 text headers do not match the FAA database; this action
updates the geographic coordinates to ``lat. 36[deg]44'29'' N., long.
108[deg]13'48'' W.''
    FAA Order 7400.11, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, is
published yearly and effective on September 15.

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 will only affect air traffic procedures and air navigation, it is
certified that this rule, when promulgated, would 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 the preparation of an
environmental assessment.

List 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 14 CFR 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 7400.11E,
Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated July 21, 2020, and
effective September 15, 2020, is amended as follows:

Paragraph 5000 Class D Airspace.

* * * * *

ASW NM D Farmington, NM [Amended]

Four Corners Regional Airport, NM
    (Lat. 36[deg]44'29'' N, long. 108[deg]13'48'' W)

    That airspace extending upward from the surface to and including
8,000 feet MSL within a 4.7-mile radius of the airport, and within
1.8 miles each side of the 086[deg] bearing from the airport,
extending from the 4.7-mile radius to 5.6 miles east of Four Corners
Regional Airport. 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 Chart Supplement.

Paragraph 6002 Class E Airspace Designated as a Surface Area.

* * * * *

ASW NM E2 Farmington, NM [Amended]

Four Corners Regional Airport, NM
    (Lat. 36[deg]44'29'' N, long. 108[deg]13'48'' W)

    That airspace extending upward from the surface within a 4.7-
mile radius of the airport, and within 1.8 miles each side of the
086[deg] bearing from the airport, extending from the 4.7-mile
radius to 5.6 miles east of Four Corners Regional 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 Chart
Supplement.

Paragraph 6005 Class E Airspace Areas Extending Upward From 700
Feet or More Above the Surface of the Earth.

* * * * *

ASW NM E5 Farmington, NM [Amended]

Four Corners Regional Airport, NM
    (Lat. 36[deg]44'29'' N, long. 108[deg]13'48'' W)

    That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface
within a 6.7-mile radius of the airport, and within 4 miles north
and 8 miles south of the 088[deg] bearing from the airport,
extending from 4 miles east of the airport to 22.4 miles east of the
airport, and within 4.2 miles each side of the 267[deg] bearing from
the airport, extending from the 6.7-mile radius to 12.5 miles west
of Four Corners Regional Airport.

    Issued in Seattle, Washington, on February 24, 2021.
B.G. Chew,
Acting Group Manager, Operations Support Group, Western Service Center.
[FR Doc. 2021-04212 Filed 3-5-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


SUPPORTING STATEMENT

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

NESHAP for Petroleum Refineries, Catalytic Cracking, Reforming and
Sulfur Units (40 CFR Part 63, Subpart UUU) (Renewal)

1.  Identification of the Information Collection

1(a)  Title of the Information Collection

NESHAP for Petroleum Refineries, Catalytic Cracking, Reforming and
Sulfur Units (40 CFR Part 63, Subpart UUU) (Renewal), EPA ICR Number
1844.04, OMB Control Number 2060-0554

1(b)  Short Characterization/Abstract

The National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP)
for Petroleum Refineries, Catalytic Cracking, Reforming and Sulfur Units
(40 CFR part 63, subpart UUU) were proposed on September 11, 1998,
promulgated on April 11, 2002, and amended on February 9, 2005.  These
regulations apply to three types of affected sources at major source
petroleum refineries.  The three affected sources are: the fluid
catalytic cracking unit catalyst regeneration; the catalytic reforming
unit catalyst regeneration; and the sulfur recovery unit.  The rule also
includes requirements for by-pass lines associated with the three
affected sources.  New facilities include those that commenced
construction or reconstruction after the date of proposal.  This
information is being collected to assure compliance with 40 CFR part 63,
subpart UUU.

The rule provides a wide variety of compliance and monitoring options.
Depending on the affected source and compliance option, the rule may
require a continuous opacity monitoring system, a continuous emission
monitoring system, a continuous parameter monitoring system, manual
inspections, and/or calculations.  Continuous opacity monitoring systems
(COMS) and continuous emission monitoring systems (CEMS) are in-place at
a majority of the facilities due to the requirements of the New Source
Performance Standards (NSPS) for Petroleum Refineries (40 CFR part 60,
subpart J).

In general, all NESHAP standards require initial notifications,
performance tests, and periodic reports by the owners/operators of the
affected facilities.  They are also required to maintain records of the
occurrence and duration of any startup, shutdown, or malfunction in the
operation of an affected facility, or any period during which the
monitoring system is inoperative.  These notifications, reports, and
records are essential in determining compliance, and are required of all
affected facilities subject to NESHAP.

Any owner/operator subject to the provisions of this part shall maintain
a file of these measurements, and retain the file for at least five
years following the date of such measurements, maintenance reports, and
records.  All reports are sent to the delegated state or local
authority.  In the event that there is no such delegated authority, the
reports are sent directly to the United States Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) regional office.

Based on our consultations with industry representatives and AFS, we
have determined that 132 major petroleum refineries have one or ore
affected facilities subject to the standard.  Furthermore, we have
estimated that there is an average of 486 affected units at the 132
major source petroleum refineries.  No new or reconstructed facilities
are expected over the next 3 years.  However, it is estimated that three
affected emission source units had qualified for a compliance date
extension and would be complying with the initial compliance
requirements during the period of this ICR (one per year); and one
affected facility (0.33 per year) will conduct a performance test due to
a process/operating change.  The 132 respondents to this ICR are
publicly owned and operated by petroleum refineries.  None of the
facilities are owned by either state, local and tribal agencies or the
Federal Government.

The burden to the “Affected Public” (i.e., major source petroleum
refineries) can be found below in Table 1: Annual Respondent Burden and
Cost: NESHAP for Petroleum Refineries, Catalytic Cracking, Reforming and
Sulfur Units (40 CFR Part 63, Subpart UUU) (Renewal).  The burden to the
“Federal government” is attributed entirely to work performed by
Federal employees or government contractors.  The burden to the Federal
government can be found below in Table 2: Annual Burden and Cost to the
Federal/State Government: NESHAP for Petroleum Refineries, Catalytic
Cracking, Reforming and Sulfur Units (40 CFR Part 63, Subpart UUU)
(Renewal).

The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) approved the currently active
Information Collection Request (ICR) without any “Terms of
Clearance.”

2.  Need for and Use of the Collection

2(a)  Need/Authority for the Collection

	The EPA is charged under section 112 of the Clean Air Act, as amended,
to establish standards of performance for each category or subcategory
of major sources and area sources of hazardous air pollutants.  These
standards are applicable to new or existing sources of hazardous air
pollutants and shall require the maximum degree of emission reduction.
In addition, section 114(a) states that the Administrator may require
any owner/operator subject to any requirement of this Act to:

(A) Establish and maintain such records; (B) make such reports; (C)
install, use, and maintain such monitoring equipment, and use such audit
procedures, or methods; (D) sample such emissions (in accordance with
such procedures or methods, at such locations, at such intervals, during
such periods, and in such manner as the Administrator shall prescribe);
(E) keep records on control equipment parameters, production variables
or other indirect data when direct monitoring of emissions is
impractical; (F) submit compliance certifications in accordance with
Section 114(a)(3); and (G) provide such other information as the
Administrator may reasonably require.

In the Administrator's judgment, metal hazardous air pollutants (HAP)
and organic HAP emissions from catalytic cracking units; organic and
inorganic HAP emissions from catalytic reforming units; and HAP
emissions from sulfur recovery units and bypass lines, either cause or
contribute to air pollution that may reasonably be anticipated to
endanger public health or welfare.  Therefore, the NESHAP were
promulgated for this source category at 40 CFR part 63, subpart UUU.

2(b)  Practical Utility/Users of the Data

The recordkeeping and reporting requirements in the standards ensure
compliance with the applicable regulations which where promulgated in
accordance with the Clean Air Act.  The collected information is also
used for targeting inspections and as evidence in legal proceedings.

Performance tests are required in order to determine an affected
facility’s initial capability to comply with the emission standards.
Continuous emission monitors are used to ensure compliance with the
standards at all times.  During the performance test, a record of the
operating parameters under which compliance was achieved may be recorded
and used to determine compliance in place of a continuous emission
monitor.

The notifications required in the standards are used to inform the
Agency or delegated authority when a source becomes subject to the
requirements of the regulations.  The reviewing authority may then
inspect the source to check if the pollution control devices are
properly installed and operated and leaks are being detected and
repaired and the standards are being met.  The performance test may also
be observed.

The required semiannual reports are used to determine periods of excess
emissions, identify problems at the facility, verify
operation/maintenance procedures and for compliance determinations.

3.  Non-duplication, Consultations, and Other Collection Criteria

The requested recordkeeping and reporting are required under 40 CFR part
63, subpart UUU.

3(a)  Non-duplication

 If the subject standards have not been delegated, the information is
sent directly to the appropriate EPA regional office.  Otherwise, the
information is sent directly to the delegated state or local agency.  If
a state or local agency has adopted its own similar standards to
implement the Federal standards, a copy of the report submitted to the
state or local agency can be sent to the Administrator in lieu of the
report required by the Federal standards.  Therefore, no duplication
exists.

3(b)  Public Notice Required Prior to ICR Submission to OMB

An announcement of a public comment period for the renewal of this ICR
was published in the Federal Register (75 FR 30812) on June 2, 2010.  No
comments were received on the burden published in the Federal Register.

3(c)  Consultations

	The assumptions made in the development of this ICR, including the
estimate on the number of petroleum refineries subject to the standard,
were reviewed and updated, if needed, by the Agency in consultation with
David Friedman of the National Petrochemical and Refiners Association
(NPRA) who consulted with some of its committee members.  In addition,
we consulted the Agency’s internal data sources including our own
industry experts and the Air Facility System (AFS), which is the EPA
database for the collection, maintenance, and retrieval of all
compliance data.  The information in AFS is reported by industry as
required in the recordkeeping and reporting provisions of the standard.
AFS is operated and maintained by the EPA Office of Compliance.  We have
estimated that there are approximately 132 existing respondents subject
to the standard, and no new sources will become subject to the standard
over the three-year period covered by this ICR.

	The Agency also has the policy to respond after a thorough review of
the comments received from the public since the last ICR renewal, as
well as those submitted in response to the first Federal Register
notice.  In this case, no comments were received.

3(d)  Effects of Less Frequent Collection

Less frequent information collection would decrease the margin of
assurance that facilities are continuing to meet the standards.
Requirements for information gathering and recordkeeping are useful
techniques to ensure that good operation and maintenance practices are
applied and emission limitations are met.  If the information required
by these standards was collected less frequently, the proper operation
and maintenance of control equipment and the possibility of detecting
violations would be less likely.

3(e)  General Guidelines

These reporting or recordkeeping requirements do not violate any of the
regulations promulgated by OMB under 5 CFR part 1320, section 1320.5.

These standards require the respondents to maintain all records,
including reports and notifications for at least five years.  This is
consistent with the General Provisions as applied to the standards.  EPA
believes that the five-year records retention requirement is consistent
with Part 70 permit program and the five-year statute of limitations on
which the permit program is based.  The retention of records for five
years allows EPA to establish the compliance history of a source, any
pattern of non-compliance, and to determine the appropriate level of
enforcement action.  EPA has found that the most flagrant violators have
violations extending beyond five years.  In addition, EPA would be
prevented from pursuing the violators due to the destruction or
nonexistence of essential records.

3(f)  Confidentiality

Any information submitted to the Agency for which a claim of
confidentiality is made will be safeguarded according to the Agency
policies set forth in title 40, chapter 1, part 2, subpart B -
Confidentiality of Business Information (CBI) (see 40 CFR 2; 41 FR
36902, September 1, 1976; amended by 43 FR 40000, September 8, 1978; 43
FR 42251, September 20, 1978; 44 FR 17674, March 23, 1979).

3(g)  Sensitive Questions

The reporting or recordkeeping requirements in the standard do not
include sensitive questions.

4.  The Respondents and the Information Requested

4(a)  Respondents/SIC Codes

The respondents to the recordkeeping and reporting requirements are
owners or operators of major source petroleum refineries.  The United
States Standard Industrial Classification (SIC) code for the respondents
affected by the standards is code 2911 which corresponds to the North
American Industry Classification System (NAICS) code 32411 for petroleum
refineries that operate catalytic cracking units, catalytic reforming
units, or sulfur recovery units.

4(b)  Information Requested

(i)  Data Items

In this ICR, all the data that is recorded or reported is required by
the NESHAP for Petroleum Refineries, Catalytic Cracking, Reforming and
Sulfur Units (40 CFR Part 63, Subpart UUU).

A source must make the following reports:

Notification Reports

Notification of intention to construct or reconstruct	63.9(b)(5),
63.1574(a)

Notification of anticipated date of initial startup 	63.9(b)(4)(iv),
63.1574(a)

Notification of commencement of construction 	63.9(b)(4)(iii),
63.1574(a)

Notification of the actual date of startup	63.9(b)(4)(v), 63.1574(a)

Notification of performance tests 	63.7(a) and 63.9(e), 63.1574(a)

Notification of compliance status	63.9(g), 63.1574(d), (f)

Request for compliance extension	63.9(c), 63.1574(e)

Reports

Semiannual compliance reports 	63.10(e)(3), 63.1575

Startup, shutdown, and malfunction plan/reports 	63.6(3), 63.10(d)(5),
63.1570, 63.1575

A source must keep the following records:

Recordkeeping

Maintain records of startup, shutdown, and malfunction plan/reports
63.1576(a)(2), 63.10(b)(2)

Maintenance	63.10(b)(2)(iii), 63.1576(d)

CMS/CEM malfunction	63.1576(b), 63.10(c)

Emissions data	63.1576(a)(3), 63.10(d)

Notification of compliance status	63.1576(a)(1), 63.9(h)

CEM quality assurance plan	63.1576(b), 63.8(d)

CEM general provisions	63.1576(b), 63.10(c)

Records are required to be retained for 5 Years	63.10(c), 63.428(d)

Electronic Reporting

Some of the respondents are using monitoring equipment that
automatically records parameter data.  Although personnel at the
affected facility must still evaluate the data, internal automation has
significantly reduced the burden associated with monitoring and
recordkeeping at a plant site.

Also, regulatory agencies, in cooperation with the respondents, continue
to create reporting systems to transmit data electronically.  However,
electronic reporting systems are still not widely used.  At this time,
it is estimated that approximately 10 percent of the respondents use
electronic reporting.

(ii)  Respondent Activities

Respondent Activities

Read instructions.

Install, calibrate, maintain, and operate CMS for opacity or emission
monitoring for catalytic cracking units, catalytic reforming units and
sulfur recovery systems.

Perform initial performance test, Reference Method 5B or 5F (40 CFR Part
60) test for PM, and repeat performance tests if necessary.

Write the notifications and reports listed above.

Enter information required to be recorded above.

Submit the required reports developing, acquiring, installing, and
utilizing technology and systems for the purpose of collecting,
validating, and verifying information.

Develop, acquire, install, and utilize technology and systems for the
purpose of processing and maintaining information.

Develop, acquire, install, and utilize technology and systems for the
purpose of disclosing and providing information.

Train personnel to be able to respond to a collection of information.

Transmit, or otherwise disclose the information.

5.  The Information Collected:  Agency Activities, Collection
Methodology, and Information Management

5(a)  Agency Activities

EPA conducts the following activities in connection with the
acquisition, analysis, storage, and distribution of the required
information.

Agency Activities

Review notifications and reports, including performance test reports,
and excess emissions reports, required to be submitted by industry.

Audit facility records.

Input, analyze, and maintain data in the Air Facility System (AFS).

5(b)  Collection Methodology and Management

Following notification of startup, the reviewing authority might inspect
the source to determine whether the pollution control devices are
properly installed and operated.  Performance test reports are used by
the Agency to discern a source’s initial capability to comply with the
emission standard.  Data and records maintained by the respondents are
tabulated and published for use in compliance and enforcement programs.
The semiannual reports are used for problem identification, as a check
on source operation and maintenance, and for compliance determinations.

Information contained in the reports is entered into the AFS which is
operated and maintained by the EPA Office of Compliance.  AFS is the EPA
database for the collection, maintenance, and retrieval of compliance
and annual emission inventory data for over 100,000 industrial and
government-owned facilities.  EPA uses the AFS for tracking air
pollution compliance and enforcement by local and state regulatory
agencies, EPA regional offices and EPA headquarters.  EPA and its
delegated authorities can edit, store, retrieve and analyze the data.

The records required by this regulation must be retained by the owner or
operator for five years.

5(c)  Small Entity Flexibility

A majority of the respondents are large entities (i.e., large
businesses).  However, the impact on small entities (i.e., small
businesses) was taken into consideration during the development of the
regulation.  A small entity for petroleum refineries is defined as a
firm having no more than 1,500 employees and no more than 75,000 barrels
per day capacity corporately.  Numerous compliance and monitoring
alternatives are provided in the rule to give small entities a maximum
degree of operational flexibility.  The rule requirements are considered
to be the minimum necessary to demonstrate compliance.

Under section 112(i) of the Clean Air Act, the Administrator or
applicable permitting authority also may grant one (1) additional year
if more time is needed to install controls for a source.  This
additional time will ease any capital availability problems for plants
in marginal economic condition.  The Agency expected three affected
units to qualify for the compliance extension.

5(d)  Collection Schedule

The specific frequency for each information collection activity within
this request is shown below in Table 1: Annual Respondent Burden and
Cost: NESHAP for Petroleum Refineries, Catalytic Cracking, Reforming and
Sulfur Units (40 CFR Part 63, Subpart UUU) (Renewal).

6.  Estimating the Burden and Cost of the Collection

Table 1 documents the computation of individual burdens for the
recordkeeping and reporting requirements applicable to the industry for
each of the subparts included in this ICR.  The individual burdens are
expressed under standardized headings believed to be consistent with the
concept of burden under the Paperwork Reduction Act.  Specific tasks and
major assumptions have been identified.  Responses to this information
collection are mandatory.

The Agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to
respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently
valid OMB Control Number.

6(a)  Estimating Respondent Burden

The average annual burden to industry over the next three years from
these recordkeeping and reporting requirements is estimated to be 11,040
( Total Labor Hours from Table 1).  The recordkeeping hours shown below
in Table 1 are 7,936.  The reporting requirement hours shown below in
Table 1 are 3,103.  These hours are based on Agency studies and
background documents from the development of the regulation, Agency
knowledge and experience with the NESHAP program, the previously
approved ICR, and any comments received.

6(b)  Estimating Respondent Costs

(i)  Estimating Labor Costs

This ICR uses the following labor rates:

Managerial	$105.86 ($50.41 + 110%)

Technical	$92.61   ($44.10 + 110%)

Clerical	$45.32   ($21.58 + 110%)

These rates are from the United States Department of Labor, Bureau of
Labor Statistics, December 2006, Table 2. Civilian Workers, by
Occupational and Industry group.  The rates are from column 1, Total
Compensation.  The rates have been increased by 110 percent to account
for the benefit packages available to those employed by private
industry.

(ii)  Estimating Capital/Startup and Operation and Maintenance Costs

The type of industry costs associated with the information collection
activities in the subject standards are both labor costs which are
addressed elsewhere in this ICR and the costs associated with continuous
monitoring.

The capital/startup costs are one-time costs when a facility becomes
subject to the regulation.  There is no capital cost for continuous
monitoring since we have assumed that all existing respondent have
installed the necessary equipment for monitoring and for file storage,
as described in the total of column D below.  The annual operation and
maintenance costs are the ongoing costs to maintain continuous emission
monitors (CEMS), continuous opacity monitors (COMS) and/or parametric
monitors (CPMS) at the affected facilities including: fuel catalytic
cracking units (FCCUs); catalytic reforming units (CRUs); sulfur
recovery units (SRUs); photocopying and postage, as described below.  We
have assumed that a respondent would monitor the affected emission units
either using a CEMS or CPMS.

(iii)  Capital/Startup vs. Operation and Maintenance (O&M) Costs

Capital/Startup vs. Operation and Maintenance (O&M) Costs

(A)

Continuous Monitoring Device	(B)

Capital/Startup Cost for One Affected Facility	(C)

Number of New Affected Facilities	(D)

Total Capital/Startup Cost

(B X C)	(E)

Annual O&M Costs for One Affected Facility	(F)

Number of Affected Facilities with O&M	(G)

Total O&M,

(E X F)

COMS (FCCUs)	$95,700	0	$0.00	$28,600	13	371,800

CPMS (FCCUs)	$18,900	0	$0.00	$25,350	43	$1,090,050

CPMS (CRUs)	$0.00	0	$0.00	$24,056 *	132 	$3,175,392

CPMS (SRUs)	$74,000	0	$0.00	$26,000	84	$2,184,000

CEMS (SRUs)	$150, 000	0	$0.00	$34,840	29	$1,010,360

TOTAL

	$0.00

	$7,831,602

* Note: We estimate that there are 177 CRUs using CPMS for monitoring
(i.e., an average of 1.34 CRUs per respondent ) at a cost of $17,940 per
CPMS which total $24,056 per respondent.

The annual cost for capital/startup and operation and maintenance costs
to industry     over the next three years of the ICR are estimated to be
$7,831,602.  There are no capital costs  in the renewal of this ICR
since existing sources have already installed the necessary monitoring
equipment to comply with the standard, as described in the total of
column D, above.  The operation and maintenance costs to industry over
the next three years of the ICR are estimated to be $7,831,602, as
described in Column G, above.  We have determined that many of the FCCUs
and SRUs are now subject to the NSPS requirements and the associated
monitoring would not be attributed to this ICR.

6(c)  Estimating Agency Burden and Cost

The only costs to the Agency are those costs associated with analysis of
the reported information.  The EPA compliance and enforcement program
includes activities such as: the review examination of records
maintained by the respondents; periodic inspection of sources of
emissions; and the publication and distribution of collected
information.

The average annual Agency cost during the three years of the ICR is
estimated to be $25,813 (see Table 2 below.)

This cost is based on the average hourly labor rate as follows:

	Managerial	$58.18  (GS-13, Step 5, $36.36 + 60%)

	Technical	$43.17  (GS-12, Step 1, $26.98 + 60%)

	Clerical	$23.36  (GS-6, Step 3, $14.60 + 60%)

These rates are from the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) 2007
General Schedule, which excludes locality rates of pay.  The rates have
been increased by 60 percent to account for the benefit packages
available to government employees.  Details upon which this estimate is
based appear below in Table 2: Annual Burden and Cost to the
Federal/State Government: NESHAP for Petroleum Refineries, Catalytic
Cracking, Reforming and Sulfur Units (40 CFR Part 63, Subpart UUU)
(Renewal).

6(d)  Estimating the Respondent Universe and Total Burden and Costs

Based on our research for this ICR, on average over the next three
years, approximately 132 existing respondents will be subject to the
standard.  It is estimated that no additional respondents per year will
become subject to the standard.  However, it is estimated that three
affected emission source units had qualified for a compliance date
extension and would be complying with the initial compliance
requirements during the period of this ICR (one per year); and one
affected facility (0.33 per year) will conduct a performance test due to
a process/operating change.  The overall average number of respondents
per year subject to this standard is calculated using the following
table that addresses the three years covered by this ICR.

Number of Respondents

	Respondents That Submit Reports	Respondents That Do Not Submit Any
Reports

	Year	(A)

Number of New Respondents 1	(B)

Number of Existing Respondents	(C)

Number of Existing Respondents that keep records but do not submit
reports	(D)

Number of Existing Respondents That Are Also New Respondents	(E)

Number of Respondents

(E=A+B+C-D)

1	1.3	132	0	1.3	132

2	1.3	132	0	1.3	132

3	1.3	132	0	1.3	132

Average	1.3	132	0	1.3	132

1  New respondents include sources with constructed, reconstructed, and
modified affected facilities.  In this standard, existing respondents
submit initial notifications.

.

Column D is subtracted to avoid double-counting respondents.  As shown
above, the average Number of Respondents over the three-year period of
this ICR is 132.

The total number of annual responses per year is calculated using the
following table:

Total Annual Responses

(A)

Information Collection Activity	(B)

Number of Respondents	(C)

Number of Responses	(D)

Number of Existing Respondents That Keep Records But Do Not Submit
Reports	(E)

Total Annual Responses

E=(BxC)+D

Notification of performance test	1.33	1	0	1.33

Semiannual compliance report	2	132	0	264

	Total	265.33

The number of Total Annual Responses is 265 (rounded).  The total annual
labor costs are $983,339 (rounded).  Details regarding these estimates
may be found below in Table 1: Annual Respondent Burden and Cost: NESHAP
for Petroleum Refineries, Catalytic Cracking, Reforming and Sulfur Units
(40 CFR Part 63, Subpart UUU) (Renewal).

6(e)  Bottom Line Burden Hours Burden Hours and Cost Tables

The detailed bottom line burden hours and cost calculations for the
respondents and the Agency are shown in Tables 1 and 2, respectively,
and summarized below.

(i)  Respondent Tally

The total annual labor hours are 11,040.  Details regarding these
estimates may be found below in Table 1: Annual Respondent Burden and
Cost: NESHAP for Petroleum Refineries, Catalytic Cracking, Reforming and
Sulfur Units (40 CFR Part 63, Subpart UUU) (Renewal).  Furthermore, the
annual public reporting and recordkeeping burden for this collection of
information is estimated to average 42 hours (rounded) per response.

The total annual capital/startup and O&M costs to the regulated entity
are $7,831,602.  The cost calculations are detailed in Section
6(b)(iii), Capital/Startup vs. Operation and Maintenance (O&M) Costs.

(ii)  The Agency Tally

The average annual Agency burden and cost over next three years is
estimated to be 620 labor hours (rounded) at a cost of $25,813
(rounded).  See below Table 2: Annual Agency Burden and Cost: NESHAP for
Petroleum Refineries, Catalytic Cracking, Reforming and Sulfur Units (40
CFR Part 63, Subpart UUU) (Renewal).

6(f)  Reasons for Change in Burden

There is no change in the labor hours or cost to the respondents in this
ICR compared to the previous ICR.  This is due to two considerations: 1)
the regulations have not changed over the past three years and are not
anticipated to change over the next three years; and 2) the growth rate
for the respondents is very low, negative or non-existent.  Therefore,
the labor hours and cost figures in the previous ICR reflect the current
burden to the respondents and are reiterated in this ICR.  However,
there is a correction of a previous error in the calculation of the O&M
costs from $6,850,602 to $7,831,602.

6(g)  Burden Statement

The annual public reporting and recordkeeping burden for this collection
of information is estimated to average 42 hours per response.  Burden
means the total time, effort, or financial resources expended by persons
to generate, maintain, retain, or disclose or provide information to or
for a Federal agency.  This includes the time needed to review
instructions; develop, acquire, install, and utilize technology and
systems for the purposes of collecting, validating, and verifying
information, processing and maintaining information, and disclosing and
providing information; adjust the existing ways to comply with any
previously applicable instructions and requirements; train personnel to
be able to respond to a collection of information; search data sources;
complete and review the collection of information; and transmit or
otherwise disclose the information.

An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to
respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a valid OMB
Control Number.  The OMB Control Numbers for EPA regulations are listed
at 40 CFR part 9 and 48 CFR chapter 15.

	To comment on the Agency's need for this information, the accuracy of
the provided burden estimates, and any suggested methods for minimizing
respondent burden, including the use of automated collection techniques,
EPA has established a public docket for this ICR under Docket ID Number
EPA-HQ-OECA-2010-0375.  An electronic version of the public docket is
available at http://www.regulations.gov/ which may be used to obtain a
copy of the draft collection of information, submit or view public
comments, access the index listing of the contents of the docket, and to
access those documents in the public docket that are available
electronically.  When in the system, select “search,” then key in
the docket ID number identified in this document.  The documents are
also available for public viewing at the Enforcement and Compliance
Docket and Information Center in the EPA Docket Center (EPA/DC), EPA
West, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Avenue N.W., Washington, D.C.  The
EPA Docket Center Public Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30
p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays.  The telephone
number for the Reading Room is<PHONE_NUMBER>, and the telephone number
for the docket center is<PHONE_NUMBER>.  Also, you can send comments to
the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management
and Budget, 725 17th Street N.W., Washington, D.C. 20503, Attention:
Desk Officer for EPA.  Please include the EPA Docket ID Number
EPA-HQ-OECA-2010-0375 and OMB Control Number 2060-0554 in any
correspondence.

Part B of the Supporting Statement

This part is not applicable because no statistical methods were used in
collecting this information.

Table 1.  Annual Respondent Burden and Cost: NESHAP for Petroleum
Refineries, Catalytic Cracking, Reforming and Sulfur Units (40 CFR Part
63, Subpart UUU) (Renewal)

Burden item	(A)

Person-hours per

occurrence	(B)

No. of occurrences per respondent per year	(C)

Person-hours per respondent per year

(C=AxB)	(D)

Respondents per year  a	(E)

Technical person-hours per year

(E=CxD)	(F)

Management person-hours per year

(Ex0.05)	(G)

Clerical person- hours per year

(Ex0.1)	(H)

Cost,$ b

1. Applications	N/A

	2. Survey and Studies	N/A

	3. Acquisition, Installation, and

   Utilization of Technology and

   Systems  	40	1	40	0	0.0	0.0	0.0	$0.00

4. Reporting Requirements

A. Read instructions  c	2	1	2	1.33	2.7	0.1	0.3	$274.24

B. Required activities  c

  Initial Performance test  c 	40	1	40	1	40.0	2.0	4.0	$4,097.40

  Performance test  d  	40	1	40	0.33	13.2	0.7	1.3	$1,355.47

  Startup, shutdown, malfunction

  Plan	40	1	40	0	0.0	0.0	0.0	$0.00

  Operating, maintenance, and

  monitoring plan  b	40	1	40	0	0.0	0.0	0.0	$0.00

C. Create information	See 4B

	D. Gather existing information	See 4B

	E. Write report

  Notification of construction/ reconstruction	2	1	2	0	0.0	0.0	0.0	$0.00

  Notification of actual startup	2	1	2	0	0.0	0.0	0.0	$0.00

  Notification of special

  compliance requirements	N/A

	  Notification of performance

  test  b	2	1	2	1.33	2.7	0.1	0.3	$274.24

  Notification of compliance

  Status  b	4	1	4	0	0.0	0.0	0.0	$0.00

  Extended compliance request  	N/A

	  Report of performance test   c 	See 4B

	  Semiannual compliance

  reports  e	10	2	20	132	2,640.0	132.0	264.0	$270,428.40

5. Recordkeeping Requirements

A. Read instructions	See 4A

	B. Plan activities  c	See 4B

	C. Implement activities  c	See 4B

	D. Develop record system  f	N/A

	E. Time to enter information  g& h

    Records of operations  	1	52	52	132	6,864.0	343.2	686.4	$703,113.84

F. Time to train personnel  	4	1	4	1	4	0.02	0.4	$409.74

G. Time to adjust existing ways to comply with previously applicable
requirements  	N/A

	H. Time to transmit or disclose

Information  b& i	0.25	1 	0.25	132	33.0	1.7	3.3	$3,385.65

I. Time for audits	N/A

	 Subtotal Labor Burden

	9,596.9	479.9	959.74	$983,338.98

TOTAL LABOR BURDEN AND COST

	11,040 (rounded)	$983,339

Assumptions:

a  We have determined that 132 major petroleum refineries operate have
one or more affected facilities subject to the standard.  Furthermore,
we have estimated that there is an average of 486 affected units at the
132 major source petroleum refineries.  No new or reconstructed
facilities are expected over the next 3 years.

b  This ICR uses the following labor rates: $105.86 per hour for
Executive, Administrative, and Managerial labor; $92.61 per hour for
Technical labor, and $45.32 per hour for Clerical labor.  These rates
are from the United States Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor
Statistics, September 2006, ”Table 2. Civilian Workers, by
Occupational and Industry group.”  The rates are from column 1,
”Total compensation.”  The rates have been increased by 110 percent
to account for the benefit packages available to those employed by
private industry.

c  We have assumed that all existing respondents (132 major source
petroleum refineries) over the 3-year term of this ICR have complied
with rule initial requirements including the initial performance test.
However, it was estimated that three (3) affected units had qualified
for the compliance date extension due to installation of control
equipment and, therefore, would be complying with the initial
performance test during the period of this ICR (one per year).

d  We have assumed that one respondent over the 3-year term of this ICR
will conduct a performance test due to significant process/operating
change

(1/3 = 0.333).

e  All sources would be submitting semiannual compliance reports.

f  We have assumed that sources have the record system in place to
monitor operations.

g  Depending on the compliance option for the affected facility (i.e.,
catalytic cracking unit, sulfur recovery units, and by-pass lines)
selected by the respondent and the size of the catalytic cracking unit
and control device used (e.g., wet scrubber, electrostatic precipitator
and thermal incinerators), sources are required to either installed
continuous opacity monitoring systems and/or continuous parameter
monitoring, or choose an alternative option for parameter monitoring.

h  We have assumed that all respondents would have to keep records of
their operations according to the operation and maintenance plan.

i  We have assumed that it takes respondents approximate one hour to
record data per week (52 weeks) and 15 minutes to transmit it
semiannually.

N/A  Not applicable.

Table 2.  Annual Burden and Cost to the Federal/State Government:
NESHAP for Petroleum Refineries, Catalytic Cracking, Reforming and
Sulfur Units (40 CFR Part 63, Subpart UUU) (Rounded)

Activity	(A)Hours per occurrence	(B)

Hours per plant per year	(C)

Plants per year  	(D)

Technical person-hours per year

(D=BxC)	(E)

Management person-hours per year

(Dx0.05)	(F)

Clerical person-hours per year

(Dx0.1)	(G)

Cost, $ a

Report Review

	   Notification of construction/reconstruction	N/A

   Notification of actual startup	N/A

   Notification of special compliance

   Requirements 	N/A

   Notification of initial performance test  b	2	2	1.33	2.7	0.1	0.3
$129.39

      Notification of performance test  c  	2	2	1.33	2.7	0.1	0.3	$129.39

   Notification of compliance status	2	2	0	0	0.0	0.0	$0.00

   Review of operation, maintenance, and

   monitoring plan  b 	4	4	0	0	0.0	0.0	$0.00

   Review of repeat performance test report	8	8	0	0	0.0	0.0	$0.00

   Review of compliance report	N/A

   Review of semiannual compliance reports d	2	4	132	528	26.4	52.8
$25,553.77

   Review of NESHAP waiver application	4	4	0	0.0	0.0	0.0	$0.00

   Subtotal Burden and Cost

533.4	26.6	53.8	$25,812.55

TOTAL BURDEN AND COST (SALARY)

614	$25,813

Assumptions:

a  This cost is based on the following labor rates:  Managerial rate of
$58.18 (GS-13, Step 5, $36.36 + 60%), Technical rate of $43.17 (GS-12,
Step 1, $26.98 + 60%), and Clerical rate of $23.36 (GS-6, Step 3, $14.60
+ 60%).  These rates are from the Office of Personnel Management (OPM)
(2007 General Schedule( which excludes locality rates of pay.

b  We have assumed that all existing respondents (132 major source
petroleum refineries) over the 3-year term of this ICR have complied
with the rule initial requirements including the initial performance
test.  However, it was estimated that three (3) affected units had
qualified for the compliance date extension due to installation of
control equipment and, therefore, would be complying with the initial
performance test during the period of this ICR (one per year).

c  We have assumed that one respondent over the 3-year term of this ICR
will conduct a performance test due to significant process/operating
change

(1/3 = 0.333).

d  All sources would be submitting semiannual compliance reports.

N/A  Not applicable.

 PAGE

 PAGE   13

 PAGE   16

 PAGE

 PAGE  17


[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 223 (Wednesday, November 18, 2020)]
[Notices]
[Pages 73541-73544]
[FR Doc No: 2020-25381]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-90396; File No. SR-FINRA-2020-029]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Financial Industry Regulatory
Authority, Inc.; Order Approving Proposed Rule Change Relating to
Granularity of Timestamps in Trade Reports Submitted to FINRA's Equity
Trade Reporting Facilities

November 12, 2020.

I. Introduction

    On September 17, 2020, the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority,
Inc. (``FINRA'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(``SEC'' or ``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 require member firms, in accordance with a Commission order
granting exemptive relief from certain requirements of the Consolidated
Audit Trail (``CAT'') NMS Plan,\3\ to report time fields, in trade
reports submitted to an equity trade reporting facility (``FINRA
Facility''),\4\ using the same timestamp granularity that they use to
report to the CAT. The proposed rule change was published for comment
in the Federal Register on September 29, 2020.\5\ The Commission
received no comment letters on the proposed rule change. 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. 89051 (June 11,
2020), 85 FR 36631 (June 17, 2020) (``Facility Data Exemption
Order'' or ``Order''). The Commission approved the CAT NMS Plan, as
modified, on November 15, 2016. See Securities Exchange Act Release
No. 79318 (November 15, 2016), 81 FR 84696 (November 23, 2016)
(``CAT NMS Plan Approval Order'').
    \4\ The FINRA Facilities are the Alternative Display Facility
(``ADF''), the FINRA/Nasdaq Trade Reporting Facilities (``TRFs''),
the FINRA/NYSE TRF, and the OTC Reporting Facility (``ORF''). Member
firms use the ORF to report transactions in OTC Equity Securities
and use the other facilities to report transactions in NMS stocks.
    \5\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 88973 (September 23,
2020), 85 FR 61044 (September 29, 2020) (``Notice'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. Description of the Proposal

A. Background

    Currently, FINRA's equity trade reporting rules require a member to
report all time fields--including time of trade execution and, if
applicable, time of trade cancellation--to a FINRA Facility in
milliseconds, if the member's system captures time in milliseconds;
otherwise a report in seconds is permissible.\6\ However, FINRA's CAT
Compliance Rule \7\ requires an Industry Member \8\ to report a
timestamp for a Reportable Event,\9\ including a trade execution, to
the CAT's Central Repository \10\ in milliseconds and, if the member's
system captures time in finer increments, to report in such finer
increments up to nanoseconds (except as otherwise provided under FINRA
Rule 6860 for Manual Order Events).\11\ Thus, currently there is a
difference between the timestamp granularity requirements applicable to
member firms reporting to the FINRA Facilities (up to milliseconds) and
to the CAT (up to nanoseconds).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ See FINRA Rules 6282.04 and 7130.01 (relating to the ADF);
6380A.04 and 7230A.01 (relating to the FINRA/Nasdaq TRFs); 6380B.04
and 7230B.01 (relating to the FINRA/NYSE TRF); 6622.04 and 7330.01
(relating to the ORF).
    \7\ See FINRA Rule 6860(a). ``Compliance Rule'' is defined under
Section 1.1 of the CAT NMS Plan to mean ``with respect to a
Participant, the rule(s) promulgated by such Participant as
contemplated by Section 3.11.'' FINRA's CAT Compliance Rule is the
FINRA Rule 6800 Series (Consolidated Audit Trail Compliance Rule).
    \8\ ``Industry Member'' is defined under FINRA Rule 6810(s) to
mean a ``member of a national securities exchange or a member of a
national securities association that is required to record and
report information pursuant to the CAT NMS Plan and [the FINRA] Rule
6800 Series.''
    \9\ ``Reportable Event'' is defined under Section 1.1 of the CAT
NMS Plan and FINRA Rule 6810(kk) to include, ``but is not limited
to, the original receipt or origination, modification, routing,
execution (in whole or in part) and allocation of an order, and
receipt of a routed order.''
    \10\ ``Central Repository'' is defined under Section 1.1 of the
CAT NMS Plan and FINRA Rule 6810(j) to mean ``the repository
responsible for the receipt, consolidation, and retention of all
information reported to the CAT'' pursuant to Rule 613 of Regulation
NMS and the CAT NMS Plan.
    \11\ ``Manual Order Event'' is defined under FINRA Rule 6810(x)
to mean ``a non-electronic communication of order related
information for which Industry Members must record and report the
time of the event.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On June 11, 2020, the Commission granted the CAT NMS Plan
Participants (``Participants'') exemptive relief from, in pertinent
part, Section 6.4(d)(ii)(B) of the CAT NMS Plan, which states that each
Participant, through its CAT Compliance Rule, must require its Industry
Members to record and report to the Central Repository a cancelled
trade indicator for any trade that is cancelled. In their request for
exemptive relief, the Participants explained that the FINRA Facility
Data,\12\ which would contain cancelled trade indicators, are required
to be reported to the Central Repository in each instance currently
required under the CAT NMS Plan. Industry Members would continue to be
required to submit either a trade report or a trade cancellation with
the requisite information to a FINRA Facility, in accordance with
existing rules set by each Participant for its members. For a cancelled
trade, an Industry Member would continue to be required to submit a
trade cancellation to a FINRA Facility.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ ``FINRA Facility Data'' was defined by the Participants in
their request for exemptive relief to include the clearing number of
the clearing broker and the canceled trade indicator. See Facility
Data Exemption Order, 85 FR at 36631.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Participants stated in their request for exemptive relief that
they would require the Plan Processor \13\ to link the FINRA Facility
Data to Industry Member execution reports submitted to the Central
Repository beginning on October 26, 2020. The Participants explained
that the Compliance Rules would require an Industry Member to submit to
the Central Repository an execution report submitted to a FINRA
Facility for the corresponding trade report or trade cancellation,
beginning on June 22, 2020. Industry Members would be required to
report a unique trade identifier, beginning on October 26, 2020, that
would be used by the Plan Processor to link the data, including the
number of the clearing broker and cancelled trade information, with the
Industry Member's execution report.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ ``Plan Processor'' is defined under Section 1.1 of the CAT
NMS Plan as ``the Initial Plan Processor or any other Person
selected by the Operating Committee pursuant to SEC Rule 613 and
Sections 4.3(b)(i) and 6.1, and with regard to the Initial Plan
Processor, the Selection Plan, to perform the CAT processing
functions required by SEC Rule 613'' and set forth in the CAT NMS
Plan.
    \14\ See Facility Data Exemption Order, 85 FR at 36632.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Noting the current difference in the timestamp granularity
requirements for Industry Members reporting to a FINRA Facility and
Industry Members reporting to the Central Repository, the Participants
stated in the request for exemptive relief that FINRA would seek to
amend its rules and technical specifications to require the FINRA
Facilities to accept timestamps to same level of granularity required
by the CAT NMS Plan (which, as noted above, is nanoseconds) and to
implement such changes by December 15, 2021, for the TRFs and ADF and
by December 15, 2022, for the ORF.\15\ FINRA explained in the Notice
that, given the difference in timestamp granularity requirements
between firms reporting to the FINRA Facilities and to the CAT, it is
possible that the CAT could receive the time of trade cancellation in
milliseconds from FINRA, while the time of trade cancellation for the
same event might have been expressed in increments finer than
milliseconds, had the firm reported such information directly to the
CAT. In such instances, the CAT would not receive the same data that it
would have received absent the exemptive relief.\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ See id.
    \16\ For example, assume that a firm cancels a trade at
10:30:00.123456 and reports the cancellation to a FINRA Facility
with a trade cancellation time of 10:30:00.123 (the timestamp is
truncated at the millisecond level for reporting to the FINRA
Facility). As a consequence of the Facility Data Exemption Order,
the data in the CAT reflects the time of cancellation as
10:30:00.123, which is the time submitted in the FINRA Facility
Data. Had the firm reported the trade cancellation directly to the
CAT, the data in the CAT would reflect the time of cancellation as
10:30:00.123456. See Notice, 85 FR at 61045.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. Proposed Amendments to FINRA Facility Rules

    To comply with the conditions set forth in the Facility Data
Exemption Order, FINRA has proposed identical amendments to FINRA
Facility rules \17\ that will require an Industry Member with an
obligation to report an order

execution event to the Central Repository pursuant to FINRA's CAT
Compliance Rule to report the time field (including time of execution
and time of cancellation, if applicable) in the trade report submitted
to a FINRA Facility using the same timestamp granularity, as set forth
in FINRA Rule 6860 (nanoseconds), that the member would use to report
to the CAT.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ See FINRA Rules 6282.04, 6380A.04, 6380B.04, 6622.04,
7130.01, 7230A.01, 7230B.01 and 7330.01.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Because almost all trades that must be reported to a FINRA Facility
also must be reported to the CAT,\18\ a member firm with a trade
reporting obligation under the FINRA Facility rules also has a CAT
reporting obligation, and is therefore already subject to the timestamp
granularity requirements of the CAT Compliance Rule. Given that a CAT
Reporter \19\ must have systems that capture time in at least
milliseconds to comply with CAT requirements, FINRA expects that firm
to report to the appropriate FINRA Facility in milliseconds under
FINRA's current trade reporting rules.\20\ Once the proposed rule
change is implemented, any firm capturing and reporting time to the CAT
in increments finer than milliseconds would be required to report time
to the FINRA Facilities in such finer increments, up to
nanoseconds.\21\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ In the Facility Data Exemption Order, the Commission
described four limited instances, outlined by the Participants, in
which an Industry Member would be unable to provide a link between
the execution reported to the Central Repository and the related
FINRA Facility trade report. See Facility Data Exemption Order, 85
FR at 36632.
    \19\ ``CAT Reporter'' is defined under Section 1.1 of the CAT
NMS Plan to mean ``each national securities exchange, national
securities association and Industry Member that is required to
record and report information to the Central Repository pursuant to
SEC Rule 613(c).''
    \20\ See Notice, 85 FR at 61045. Small Industry Members that do
not currently report to OATS are not required to begin reporting to
the CAT until December 13, 2021. See FINRA Rule 6830(a)(2)(E).
Accordingly, FINRA would not require these non-OATS reporters to
report to a FINRA Facility in milliseconds until December 13, 2021,
unless their systems currently capture milliseconds.
    \21\ Because the FINRA Facilities do not currently accept
timestamps more granular than milliseconds, FINRA is unable to
estimate, based on trade report information, how many firms capture
or have the ability to report trade events in increments more
granular than milliseconds. In the Notice, FINRA provided statistics
with respect to the number and percentage of order execution events
reported with a timestamp granularity finer than milliseconds. See
Notice, 85 FR at 61045.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In accordance with the conditions of the Facility Data Exemption
Order,\22\ FINRA has stated that the implementation date of the
proposed rule change relating to the TRFs and ADF will be no later than
December 15, 2021, and the implementation date of the proposed rule
change relating to the ORF will be no later than December 15, 2022.
FINRA has represented that it will provide advance notice of the
implementation dates, including publication of a Regulatory Notice, as
well as updated technical specifications and testing schedule, at least
120 days prior to the implementation dates.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \22\ See 85 FR at 36632.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

III. Discussion and Commission Findings

    After careful consideration, 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.\23\ In particular, the Commission finds that the proposed
rule change is consistent with Section 15A(b)(6) of the Act,\24\ 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \23\ In approving this proposal, the Commission has considered
the proposed rule's impact on efficiency, competition, and capital
formation. See 15 U.S.C. 78c(f).
    \24\ 15 U.S.C. 78o-3(b)(6).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On June 11, 2020, the Commission issued the Facility Data Exemption
Order, which among other things granted an exemption from certain
provisions of the CAT NMS Plan relating to the reporting of cancelled
trade indicators.\25\ As a result of that Order, FINRA Facility Data
submitted to the Central Repository can be the source of canceled trade
indicators rather than records submitted to the Central Repository
directly by Industry Members. However, the granularity of timestamps
that the Industry Members are required to report to the Central
Repository differs from the granularity that FINRA members are
currently required to report to the FINRA Facilities. Therefore, the
Commission conditioned the Order on FINRA amending the FINRA Facility
rules to accept timestamps up to the granularity required by the CAT
NMS Plan.\26\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \25\ See Facility Data Exemption Order, 85 FR 36631.
    \26\ The Commission imposed other conditions in the Facility
Data Exemption Order that are not germane to this proposed rule
change.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission previously has found that the CAT NMS Plan is
consistent with the Act because, among other things, it will help
ensure that regulators can sequence order and execution events with a
reasonable degree of accuracy.\27\ When approving the CAT NMS Plan, the
Commission stated that, given the speed with which the industry
currently handles orders and executes trades, it is important that the
CAT utilize a timestamp that will enable regulators to reasonably
sequence the order in which Reportable Events occur.\28\ The Commission
believed that timestamps in increments greater than a millisecond would
undermine the improved ability to sequence events with any reasonable
degree of reliability.\29\ The Commission concluded that this approach
will improve the accuracy of order event records, particularly those
occurring rapidly across multiple markets, without imposing undue
burdens on market participants.\30\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \27\ See CAT NMS Plan Approval Order, 81 FR at 84787-88.
    \28\ For example, the ability to reconstruct market activity,
perform other detailed market analyses, or determine whether a
series of orders rapidly entered by a particular market participant
is manipulative or otherwise violates SRO rules or federal
securities laws requires the audit trail to sequence each order and
event accurately. See id., 81 FR at 84788, n. 1632.
    \29\ See id., 81 FR at 84788.
    \30\ See id. The Commission recognizes that, as stated on
Appendix C-25 of the CAT NMS Plan, an accurately-sequenced record of
orders cannot be based solely on the timestamps provided by CAT
Reporters.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission finds that the proposed rule change is consistent
with the Act because it satisfies a condition that the Commission
imposed in the Facility Data Exemption Order. As a result of the
proposed rule change, the granularity of time stamps reported to the
FINRA Facilities will match the granularity of time stamps reported by
Industry Members directly to the CAT. Thus, the proposed rule change
will facilitate the sequencing event reports in the CAT, thereby
improving the ability of SROs and the Commission to utilize the CAT to
oversee the securities markets. By supporting the efficient
implementation of the CAT NMS Plan, the proposed rule change furthers
the principles of the Act identified by the Commission when approving
the CAT NMS Plan.\31\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \31\ See, e.g., id., 81 FR at 84698 (describing the background
and impetus behind the Commission's adoption of Rule 613 of
Regulation NMS).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The proposal also is consistent with the Act because the
implementation schedule proposed by FINRA complies with Facility Data
Exemption Order.\32\ Pursuant to the terms of that Order, FINRA has
represented that the implementation date of the proposed rule change
relating to the TRFs and ADF will be no later than December 15, 2021,
and the implementation date relating to the ORF will be no later than
December 15, 2022. Moreover, FINRA has represented that it will provide
advance notice of the implementation date at least 120 days prior to
the

implementation date. This schedule appears reasonably designed to
afford members sufficient time to come into compliance with the
proposed rule change while adhering to the conditions set forth in the
Facility Data Exemption Order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \32\ See Facility Data Exemption Order, 85 FR at 36632.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Conclusion

    It is therefore ordered, pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the
Act,\33\ that the proposed rule change (SR-FINRA-2020-029) is approved.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \33\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2).

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\34\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \34\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

J. Matthew DeLesDernier,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2020-25381 Filed 11-17-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P