        DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
        National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
        50 CFR Part 224
        RIN 0648-XD314
        Finding for a Petition To Exclude Federally-Maintained Dredged Port Channels From New York to Jacksonville From Vessel Speed Restrictions Designed To Reduce Vessel Collisions With North Atlantic Right Whales

          AGENCY:
          National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.

          ACTION:
          Petition finding.

          SUMMARY:

          NMFS received a petition to exclude federally-maintained dredged channels and pilot boarding areas (and the immediately adjacent waters) for ports from New York to Jacksonville from the vessel speed restrictions that were established to reduce the threat of vessel collisions with North Atlantic right whales. After reviewing the information in the petition and public comments thereon, NMFS finds that the petition does not present substantial information indicating that that exclusion of these areas is necessary to address the concerns, and denies the petition. NMFS will review and revise our existing compliance guide to provide clarifying information about the navigational safety exception (i.e., the October 10, 2008, final rule's deviation provision) for the speed restrictions.

          DATES:
          October 15, 2015.

          ADDRESSES:

          Notice of receipt of the petition, information related to the previous request for public comment, and related information is available at: http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/shipstrike/.

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
          Gregory Silber, Office of Protected Resources, Silver Spring, MD (301) 427-8402.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

        Background
        On October 10, 2008, NMFS published a final rule (73 FR 60173) that established a 10-knot vessel speed restriction for vessels 65 feet or greater in length in certain locations and at certain times of the year along the east coast of the United States to reduce the likelihood of deaths and serious injuries to endangered North Atlantic right whales from collisions with vessels. Of note here, the 2008 final speed regulation included a provision allowing for deviation from the speed restriction if weather and/or sea conditions severely restrict the vessel's maneuverability, operating at a higher speed is necessary to maintain safe maneuvering speed, and the need to operate at a higher speed is confirmed by the pilot or, if there is no pilot on board, by the master of the vessel. The 2008 regulation also contained a December 9, 2013, expiration or “sunset” date.
        On June 6, 2013, NMFS published a proposed rule to eliminate the rule's sunset provision (78 FR 34024). Following a notice and public comment period, on December 9, 2013, NMFS published a final rule (78 FR 73726) that removed the sunset provision. All other aspects of the regulation remained the same, including the navigational safety exception referenced above.
        During the public comment period on the June 2013 proposed rule to remove the sunset provision, some commenters expressed their continuing concern that the speed regulation, notwithstanding the navigational safety exception noted above, compromised navigational safety through reduced vessel maneuverability in some circumstances. In particular, the American Pilots' Association indicated that safe navigation is hindered by operating at or below ten knots in specific areas and recommended that NMFS “exclude federally-maintained dredged channels and pilot boarding areas (and the immediately adjacent waters) for ports from New York to Jacksonville”—which they stated is an approximate aggregate area of 15 square miles—from the vessel speed restrictions.

        NMFS elected to treat the American Pilots' Association's recommendation to exclude vessels using federally-maintained dredged port entrance channels from the speed restrictions as a petition for rulemaking under the Administrative Procedure Act. Accordingly, we issued a Notice in the Federal Register announcing receipt of the petition and solicited comments on the request (79 FR 4883; January 31, 2014). The Notice indicated that if we decided to proceed with the suggested rulemaking, we would notify the petitioner within 120 days, publish a notice in the Federal Register of our decision to engage in rulemaking, and thereafter proceed in accordance with the requirements for rulemaking. If we decided not to proceed with the petitioned rulemaking, we would notify the petitioner, provide a brief statement of the grounds for the decision, and publish a notice in the Federal Register regarding our decision not to proceed with the petitioned action.
        Based on consideration of information in the petition, public comments thereon, and related information, NMFS finds that the petitioned action is not necessary to address the concerns. The petitioner and commenters in favor of the petitioned action maintained that vessels navigating federally-maintained port entrance channels are faced with hazardous conditions unique to those channels. Commenters, including the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (ACOE) identified incidents where vessels lost propulsion and, had the vessel not been travelling in excess of 10 knots, it could have created a considerable safety risk. ACOE submitted a study that found the speed limit increases the likelihood of pilot error. Concerns were also raised that communication barriers among foreign vessel masters, owners, and pilots, coupled with the need to sometimes make speed adjustments on short time frames, can place the vessel in jeopardy.
        The speed regulation, including the navigational safety exception provision, has been in effect for over 6 years, and in that time there have been no specific reports of navigational safety issues or related problems that were not addressed by the existing exception. Recent studies indicate that the vessel speed restriction appears to be achieving the objective of reducing fatal collisions with North Atlantic right whales. NMFS believes that it does not need to exclude federally-dredged and maintained navigation channels from the speed restrictions in order to effectively address the concerns.
        NMFS will review and revise our existing compliance guide for the speed restrictions to provide clarifying information about the deviation provision. For these reasons and as further explained in the responses to comments, NMFS denies the petition.
        Comments and Responses

        NMFS received over 32,000 public comments in response to the January 30, 2014, Federal Register notice regarding this petition that were provided by 88 separate organizations or commenters. The majority of these were signed form letters from members of environmental groups; 18 commenters provided substantive or new data or information (e.g., analysis or synthesis of new or existing data; legal analyses; draft or final technical papers or reports; or information about vessel navigation) not previously considered in our analysis of vessel speed restrictions.
        All of the signed form letters, and 39 of the commenters that provided information beyond a signed form letter, opposed the petitioned action. A total of 46 commenting organizations or individuals favored the petitioned action. Several comments were ambiguous or offered no specific opinion about the petition. Summaries of key points in the substantive comments and responses to these comments are included below.

          Comment 1: Commenters in favor of the petitioned action indicated that the vessel speed restrictions create serious navigational safety concerns, particularly in areas encompassing narrow, federally-maintained dredged channels where two-way traffic, cross currents, seas and winds impact safe navigation.

          Response: Navigational safety is of paramount importance to NMFS. The original 2006 proposed speed regulation (71 FR 36299; June 26, 2006) did not contain a navigational safety exception. During the public comment period for that proposed rule, NMFS received comments indicating that large vessels experience reduced steerage at low speeds, which is exacerbated in adverse wind and sea conditions, thereby compromising navigational safety. At that time a number of pilots and pilots' associations indicated that adequate maneuverability was particularly important when negotiating a port entrance or channel.

        As a result, in the 2008 final rule, NMFS instituted a navigational safety exception to account for severe wind and sea conditions (73 FR 60173, 60178; October 10, 2008). Vessels may operate at a speed greater than 10 knots when oceanographic, hydrographic or meteorological conditions restrict the maneuverability of the vessel to the point that increased speed is necessary to ensure the safe operation of the vessel, as confirmed by the pilot or master. Any deviation from the speed restriction must be entered into the logbook, including the specific conditions necessitating the deviation, time and duration of deviation, location (latitude/longitude) where the deviation began and ended, and speed at which vessel was operated. The master of the vessel must sign and date the logbook entry, attesting to its accuracy. The speed regulation, including the navigational safety exception provision (which has been invoked a number of times), has been in effect for over 6 years, and in that time there have been no specific reports of navigational safety issues or related problems that were not addressed by the existing exception. In fact, thousands of trips at or below 10 knots have occurred in the period since the rule was implemented, including in the port areas identified by the petitioners, and NMFS is not aware of any instance in which a vessel was endangered by a loss of maneuverability as a result of the speed restrictions. We continue to believe the navigational safety exception provides vessel pilots and masters sufficient discretion to deviate from the speed regulation when necessary to ensure vessel safety. Nonetheless, there may be specific areas within navigation channels where conditions supporting a deviation occur frequently. NMFS is working with the U.S. Coast Guard to better understand the specific conditions under which deviations may frequently occur in these areas.

          Comment 2: Most commenters who opposed the petitioned action noted that the rule (73 FR 60173; October 10, 2008) contains an exception provision for navigational safety concerns and encouraged NMFS not to grant the petition.

          Response: NMFS agrees. See our response to Comment 1, above.

          Comment 3: We received comments that the rule's (73 FR 60173; October 10, 2008) navigational safety exception is ambiguous and that some mariners are confused by the provision; specifically that communication barriers among foreign vessel masters, owners, and pilots make the speed limit impracticable; that vessel owners and shipping interests have been discouraging, or even prohibiting, their masters from invoking the deviation authority; and that the lack of understanding may result in a deviation not being invoked when necessary, placing the vessel in jeopardy.

          Response: To facilitate compliance, NMFS will review our existing compliance guide for the speed restrictions and provide clarifying information about the deviation provision. We will also investigate other ways to provide such clarifying information to the regulated community (e.g., through the U.S. Coast Pilot). Further, as noted in the December 9, 2013, final rule that removed the sunset provision, NMFS will continue to synthesize, review, and report on various aspects of the speed regulation, including navigational safety impacts, within 5 years (78 FR 73734).

          Comment 4: Some commenters suggested that any lack of understanding or confusion about the deviation would be better addressed through further outreach and communication with stakeholders, rather than excluding some areas from the restrictions.

          Response: NMFS agrees that a rulemaking is not necessary at this time. See our response to the previous comment.

          Comment 5: A number of commenters contended that because the area in federally-maintained channels is a fraction of the total area included in vessel speed restriction zones, the conservation value would not be diminished by excluding these areas. Conversely, commenters indicated that the vessel speed restrictions are working as intended—both the probability and actual number of fatal vessel-related right whale deaths have been reduced by the speed restrictions—as demonstrated by several recent studies. Commenters also noted that vessel traffic density is most concentrated in port entrances and right whale vulnerability to vessel collisions is elevated in these areas. They concluded that the requested exclusions would increase right whale vulnerability to vessel strikes in excluded areas.

          Response: Recent studies indicate that the vessel speed restriction appears to be achieving the objective of reducing fatal collisions with North Atlantic right whales. By design, the speed restriction focuses on those areas where vessels and whale occurrences overlap, including port entrance channels. Therefore, if NMFS were to grant the petitioned action the conservation value of the speed regulation would be diminished.

          Comment 6: One commenter noted that nearly all comments from shipping industry representatives on the proposed rule to remove the sunset provision accepted an extension of the speed restrictions (for at least a fixed period) without expressing concern for vessel safety in federally-maintained dredged entrance channels.

          Response: NMFS acknowledges that most industry comments regarding our proposal to remove the rule's sunset provision were in favor of extending (rather than removing) the sunset provision and most did not discuss concerns about safety in federally dredged channels. However, several pilots' associations and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (ACOE) submitted comments citing safety-related concerns.

          Comment 7: Another commenter observed that the petitioned action did not include all the U.S. east coast federally-maintained channels and noted, in particular, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (ACOE) imposed vessel speed restrictions in the Cape Cod Canal.

          Response: NMFS has verified the existence of an ACOE speed control regulation in Cape Cod Canal (33 CFR 207.20) and acknowledges that the Canal is not among the areas included in the petition.

          Comment 8: Several commenters stated that ship captains were being issued notices of violation for going speeds just above the 10-knot limit and, in particular, after the vessel captain had invoked the deviation for weather conditions.

          Response: The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's (NOAA) Office of General Counsel, Enforcement Section (GC) issued a total of 53 Notices of Violation and Assessment of civil penalties (NOVAs) between November 2010 and December 2014. In all cases to date, NOVAs were only issued in cases in which the vessel exceeded the 10-knot speed restriction by a significant amount and for a significant distance. Cases involving justified deviations from the speed restriction, properly documented in a manner consistent with 50 CFR 224.105(c), have not resulted in the imposition of penalties. In addition, NOAA only began issuing NOVAs after several years of outreach and education during the initial phase of the regulation to ensure that the regulated community was informed of and educated regarding the new speed restriction.
        OLE/GC has also changed the way in which violations are investigated. Current procedures now include an opportunity, prior to a NOVA being issued, for vessel operators to provide log entries documenting their need to deviate from the speed restrictions for incidents under investigation.

          Comment 9: A number of commenters cited analysis and anecdotal information about hazardous situations that occurred in several instances when a vessel's propulsion system malfunctioned or a vessel suffered a complete loss of power. These commenters maintained that had these vessels been traveling 10-knots or less at the time of power loss, the situation could have been far worse.

          Response: NMFS recognizes that deviating from the speed limit when necessary to ensure the safety of the vessel is appropriate and allowed under our regulations. NMFS will revise its compliance guide to clarify how and when to properly invoke the regulation's deviation provision. NMFS will consult with the ACOE and the USCG on these revisions. As noted, NOAA has the utmost concern for the safety of humans and the safe and efficient transport of materials.

          Comment 10: Several commenters reiterated earlier public comments on the need for modifications to the speed restriction rule (73 FR 60173; October 10, 2008), in particular the need to: Increase management zones to include waters 30 nautical miles from shore; make the voluntary Dynamic Management Areas program mandatory; and consider making vessels <65 feet in length also subject to the provisions of the rule.

          Response: NMFS has addressed comments regarding modification of the rule in previous responses to public comments (78 FR 73733, 73734; December 9, 2013). While not germane to the petitioned action, NMFS is continuing to evaluate and consider these and other suggestions for possible future rulemaking. No decisions have been made.

          Comment 11: The ACOE submitted a study concluding that vessel speed restrictions can adversely impact the risk of ship grounding accidents when a ship loses power in the Charleston, SC, harbor entrance, based on the assumption that the restriction increased the “likelihood of a piloting error by 20%” due to diminished vessel maneuverability.

          Response: NMFS acknowledges the concerns raised by ACOE and others regarding the potential safety risk if a pilot does not deviate from the speed restrictions when necessary. NMFS is working with ACOE, the U.S. Coast Guard, and other relevant agencies to facilitate increased awareness and appropriate use of the deviation provision. This collaboration will inform NMFS' review and revision of our existing compliance guide which provides clarifying information about the deviation provision.

          Comment 12: The ACOE commented that NOAA lacks the legal authority to establish vessel speed restrictions and the authority lies instead with the Secretary of the Army and the ACOE under the 1894 Rivers and Harbors Act.

          Response: NMFS does not dispute the ACOE's assertion of authority to regulate activity in navigation channels. However, NMFS does not believe this equates to an exclusive authority to do so. The 2008 speed regulation, which was extended in 2013 through the removal of a sunset provision, is a valid exercise of NMFS' own regulatory authority under the Endangered Species Act and Marine Mammal Protection Act to further the purposes of those laws (in this case, protecting highly endangered right whales from injury and death from collisions with ships). NMFS notes the U.S. Coast Guard has likewise imposed speed regulations in river and port entrances pursuant to their own regulatory authorities (some of which are cited in our 2013 final rule).

          Authority:
          5 U.S.C. 551 et seq.

          Dated: October 7, 2015.
          Donna S. Wieting,
          Director, Office of Protected Resources, National Marine Fisheries Service.

      [FR Doc. 2015-26225 Filed 10-14-15; 8:45 am]
       BILLING CODE 3510-22-P


        ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
        40 CFR Part 721
        [EPA-HQ-OPPT-2015-0810; FRL-9955-71]
        Significant New Use Rule on Certain Chemical Substances; Reopening of Comment Period

          AGENCY:
          Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

          ACTION:
          Proposed rule; reopening of comment period.

          SUMMARY:
          EPA issued a proposed rule in the Federal Register of October 27, 2016 proposing significant new use rules (SNURs) under the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) for three chemical substances which were the subject of premanufacture notices (PMNs). This document reopens the comment period for 60 days. A commenter requested additional time to submit written comments for the proposed rule. EPA believes that the request is reasonable and is therefore reopening the comment period in order to give all interested persons the opportunity to comment fully

          DATES:
          Comments on the proposed rule published in the Federal Register of October 27, 2016 (81 FR 74755), identified by docket identification (ID) number EPA-HQ-OPPT-2015-0810, must be received on or before March 6, 2017.

          ADDRESSES:
          Submit your comments, identified by docket identification (ID) number EPA-HQ-OPPT-2015-0810, by one of the following methods:
          • Federal eRulemaking Portal:
            http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online instructions for submitting comments. Do not submit electronically any information you consider to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute.
          • Mail: Document Control Office (7407M), Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics (OPPT), Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001.
          • Hand Delivery: To make special arrangements for hand delivery or delivery of boxed information, please follow the instructions at http://www.epa.gov/dockets/contacts.html.

          Additional instructions on commenting or visiting the docket, along with more information about dockets generally, is available at http://www.epa.gov/dockets.

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

            For technical information contact: Kenneth Moss, Chemical Control Division (7405M), Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001; telephone number: (202) 564-9232; email address: moss.kenneth@epa.gov.

            For general information contact: The TSCA-Hotline, ABVI-Goodwill, 422 South Clinton Ave., Rochester, NY 14620; telephone number: (202) 554-1404; email address: TSCA-Hotline@epa.gov.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

        This document reopens the public comment period established in the Federal Register document of October 27, 2016. In that document, EPA proposed SNURs under the TSCA for three chemical substances which were the subject of PMNs. EPA is hereby reopening the comment period for 60 days.

        To submit comments, or access the docket, please follow the detailed instructions provided under ADDRESSES. If you have questions, consult the technical person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.

          Authority:
           15 U.S.C. 2604, 2607, and 2625(c).

          Dated: December 5, 2016.
          Maria J. Doa,
          Director, Chemical Control Division, Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics.

      [FR Doc. 2016-29755 Filed 12-30-16; 8:45 am]
       BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


        FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
        47 CFR Part 20
        [CC Docket No. 94-102 and WT Docket No. 00-80; DA 00-1098]
        Wireless E911; Call Back Number Issues Associated With Non-Service Initialized Wireless 911 Calls

          AGENCY:
          Federal Communications Commission.

          ACTION:
          Proposed rule.

          SUMMARY:
          The Commission, in this document, seeks comment on a request for further consideration of call back number issues associated with non-service initialized wireless 911 calls. The action is needed to establish a strong, inclusive record on these issues that the Commission may use in making well-informed decisions in this critical enhanced 911 proceeding.

          DATES:
          Submit comments on or before June 19, 2000; submit reply comments on or before July 5, 2000.

          ADDRESSES:
          Send comments and reply comments to the Office of the Secretary, Federal Communications Commission, Washington, DC 20554.

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
          Barbara Reideler or Jay Whalely, 202-418-1310.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
        1. On April 28, 2000, the Texas 911 Agencies,1
           the National Emergency Number Association (NENA), the Association of Public-Safety Communications Officials-International, Inc. (APCO) and the National Association of State Nine-One-One Administrators (NASNA) (collectively, the Public Safety Entities) filed a letter with the Federal Communications Commission (Commission) seeking further consideration of call back number issues associated with non-service initialized 911 calls.

            1 The Texas 911 Agencies are comprised of the Texas Commission of State Emergency Communications (a state agency) and the following local Texas Emergency Communications Districts: Tarrant County 911 District, Bexar Metro 911 Network, Brazos County Emergency Communication District, DENCO Area 911 District, 911 Network of East Texas, Galveston County Emergency Communication District, Greater Harris County 911 Emergency Network, Henderson County 911 Communication District, Howard County 911 Communication District, Kerr Emergency 911 Network, Lubbock County Emergency Communication District, McLennan County Emergency Assistance District, Midland Emergency Communication District, Montgomery County Emergency Communication District, Potter-Randall County Emergency Communication District, and Texas Eastern 911 Network.

        2. Phase I Enhanced 911 rules require that a dialable number accompany each 911 call to enable Public Safety Answering Points (“PSAPs”) dispatchers to either call back if the call is disconnected or obtain additional information. (47 CFR 20.18((d)). In its E911 First Report and Order (61 FR 40348, August 2, 1996) the Commission recognized that it would not always be possible for carriers to provide reliable call back numbers for all wireless 911 calls. Thus, the Commission exempted covered carriers from providing reliable call back numbers to PSAPs in cases where the wireless telephone is not associated with a dialable telephone number, such as those designed or offered on an originate-only rate plan or those never initialized with an underlying carrier service.
        3. The Public Safety Entities note that, increasingly, refurbished wireless telephones are being distributed by many organizations. While not challenging the benefits of these donations, the Public Safety Entities note that these distributed telephones and other 911-only non-serviced initialized telephones, may not provide valid call back emergency information even when used in areas where 911 Phase I services have been implemented. The Public Safety Entities assert that increased sales and use of these wireless telephones create a public safety concern that should be further considered. Accordingly, the Public Safety Entities request that the Commission seek additional comment concerning call back capabilities for non-serviced initialized handsets and address whether further Commission action, such as technical solutions or educational programs, is needed or appropriate.
        Procedural Matters
        4. Pursuant to § 1.45 of the Commission's Rules, 47 CFR 1.45, interested parties may file comments on the proposed implementation deadline no later than June 19, 2000. Replies shall be filed no later than July 19, 2000. All comments shall reference the docket number of this proceeding. Comments may be filed using the Commission's Electronic Comment Filing System (ECFS) or by filing paper copies. Comments filed through the ECFS can be sent as an electronic file via the Internet to http://www.fcc.gov/e-file/ecfs.html. In completing the transmittal screen, commenters should include their full name, Postal Service mailing address, and the docket number of this proceeding. Parties filing electronically should also e-mail a copy of their comments to jwhaley@fcc.gov. Parties who choose to file by paper must file an original and four copies of each filing with the Commission's Secretary (Magalie Roman Salas, Office of the Secretary, Federal Communications Commission, 445 12th Street SW, Washington, DC 20554) and a diskette copy to the Commission's copy contractor (International Transcription Service, Inc. (ITS), CY-B400, (202) 857-3800).

        5. Pursuant to § 1.1206 of the Commission's Rules, 47 CFR 1.1206, this proceeding is a permit-but-disclose proceeding in which ex parte communications are permitted subject to disclosure.

          Federal Communications Commission.
          Magalie Roman Salas,
          Secretary.

      [FR Doc. 00-14032 Filed 6-2-00; 8:45 am]
      BILLING CODE 6712-01-P


        FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
        47 CFR Part 80
        [WT Docket No. 04-344; FCC 06-108]
        Maritime Communications

          AGENCY:
          Federal Communications Commission.

          ACTION:
          Proposed rule.

          SUMMARY:

          In this document, the Federal Communications Commission (Commission) requests additional comment on issues pertaining to maritime Automatic Identification Systems (AIS). AIS is an important tool for enhancing maritime safety and homeland security. Having determined in the Report and Order in this proceeding that VHF maritime Channels 87B and 88B should be allocated for exclusive AIS use, in keeping with the international allocation of those channels for AIS, the Commission now seeks comment on whether the designation of those channels for ASIS should be effective throughout the Nation or, as the Commission initially proposed, only in the nine maritime VHF public coast (VPC) service areas (VPCSAs). The Commission asks commenters to consider, in this regard, the United States Coast Guard's plans to develop satellite AIS tracking capabilities. Second, the Commission requests comment on equipment standards and other issues pertaining to AIS base stations. Finally, the Commission requests comment on a proposed standard for authorizing Class B AIS devices.

          DATES:
          Submit comments on or before November 13, 2006, and reply comments are due on or before November 27, 2006.

          ADDRESSES:
          You may submit comments, identified by WT Docket No. 04-344; FCC 06-108, by any of the following methods:
          • Federal eRulemaking Portal:
             http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the instructions for submitting comments.
          • Federal Communications Commission's Web Site: http://www.fcc.gov/cgb/ecfs/. Follow the instructions for submitting comments.
          • People with Disabilities: Contact the FCC to request reasonable accommodations (accessible format documents, sign language interpreters, CART, etc.) by e-mail: FCC504@fcc.gov or phone 202-418-0530 or TTY: 202-418-0432.

          For detailed instructions for submitting comments and additional information on the rulemaking process, see the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of this document.

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
          Jeffrey Tobias, Jeff.Tobias@FCC.gov, Public Safety and Critical Infrastructure Division, Wireless Telecommunications Bureau, (202) 418-0680, or TTY (202) 418-7233.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

        This is a summary of the Federal Communications Commission's Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (FNPRM) in WT Docket No. 04-344, FCC 06-108, adopted on July 20, 2006, and released on July 24, 2006. The full text of this document is available for inspection and copying during normal business hours in the FCC Reference Center, 445 12th Street, SW., Washington, DC 20554. The complete text may be purchased from the Commission's copy contractor, Best Copy and Printing, Inc., 445 12th Street, SW., Room CY-B402, Washington, DC 20554. The full text may also be downloaded at: http://www.fcc.gov. Alternative formats are available to persons with disabilities by sending an e-mail to fcc504@fcc.gov or by calling the Consumer & Governmental Affairs Bureau at 202-418-0530 (voice), 202-418-0432 (tty).

        1. The Commission tentatively concluded in the Notice of Proposed Rule Making in this proceeding (AIS NPRM) that Channel 87B should be designated for exclusive AIS use only in the nine maritime VPCSAs. The National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA) and other commenters disagree, arguing that the designation of Channel 87B for AIS should apply throughout the Nation, including the inland VPCSAs as well as the maritime VPCSAs. Although the proponents of a nationwide designation offer several considerations in support of their position, NTIA and ORBCOMM, Inc. have emphasized that satellite AIS capabilities may be developed, and that the effectiveness of satellite AIS depends to a great deal on the establishment of a truly nationwide AIS channel designation. The possibility of satellite AIS was not discussed in the AIS NPRM, however, and was not introduced into the record of this proceeding until NTIA filed comments, and ORBCOMM, Inc. reply comments, addressing the issue. The Commission therefore believes that it would be beneficial to obtain further information regarding satellite AIS before deciding this important and complex issue. The Commission requests, in particular, that interested parties provide technical and operational information regarding satellite AIS, including its susceptibility to interference from terrestrial stations, and discuss the public interest costs and benefits of satellite AIS. Commenters should also address whether satellite AIS can function adequately without a nationwide designation of Channel 87B for AIS.
        2. In addition to providing information specifically with respect to satellite AIS, interested parties are again invited to address the larger issue of whether the designation of Channel 87B for AIS should be limited to the maritime VPCSAs or should cover the entire Nation, whether or not satellite AIS proves feasible. The Commission would especially welcome input on this issue from licensees of inland VPCSAs. In addition, the Commission requests further comment on the potential benefits of terrestrial AIS in inland areas. The Commission also requests that commenters provide more information on the extent to which vessels on navigable waterways in the inland VPCSAs may benefit from AIS on the one hand, and VPC services, including maritime public correspondence services, on the other.
        3. As the Commission noted in the AIS NPRM, two duplex channels in each inland VPCSA are set aside for public safety use. These channels are designated for interoperability operations in the inland VPCSAs. The Commission's Universal Licensing System database indicates that only two public safety entities are licensed for these channels. The Commission has designated other spectrum in the VHF and other bands, for interoperability operations. The Commission therefore seeks comment on whether, in the event it designates Channel 87B for exclusive AIS use nationwide, it would be appropriate to redesignate any of these set-aside channels for VPC use in order to avoid a negative impact on inland VPCSA licensees.
        4. NTIA observes that the International Electrotechnical Commission (IEC) is in the process of developing AIS base station equipment standards, and says that the Commission should address issues concerning the authorization, coordination, and operation of AIS base stations. The Commission agrees, and does not believe it necessary to defer requesting comment on these questions until the IEC completes its work. Requesting comment at this stage will permit the Commission to more expeditiously amend its rules following the development of the IEC standards, either to incorporate the IEC standards, promulgate different standards, or take other appropriate action. In addition, it may be possible to crystallize some of the relevant issues even before the IEC publishes its AIS base station standards. The Commission accordingly requests comment on standards and procedures for authorizing AIS base station equipment. The Commission also requests comment on what, if any, rules it should adopt for the licensing and use of AIS base stations, including, for example, license eligibility criteria, an appropriate license term, and whether AIS base station licenses should be assignable. With respect to operational issues, commenters should address, for example, limits on permissible communications, and whether AIS base stations should be permitted to operate on a for-profit basis.
        5. NTIA notes that low-cost, Class B AIS devices are being developed for vessels not covered by a mandatory carriage requirement under the International Convention for the Safety of Life at Sea. Class B AIS devices are intended to provide a less expensive alternative to Class A AIS equipment, while still providing vessel information critical to maritime safety and security. In standardizing AIS, the ITU Radiocommunications Sector Recommendation 1371-1, “Technical characteristics for a universal shipborne Automatic Identification System (AIS) using SOTDMA (Self-Organizing Time Division).”
        6. “Multiple Access in the VHF maritime mobile band,” provides for a Class B AIS device. The Commission notes, moreover, that the IEC recently adopted and published an international standard, IEC 62287-1, that sets forth requirements and test procedures for Class B AIS equipment. During the development of this Class B AIS standard, concerns arose regarding the potential impact on the operation of the AIS network from widespread deployment of Class B AIS devices that are not compatible with the Class A devices used on SOLAS ships, AIS base stations, and AIS-equipped Aids to Navigation. To resolve these concerns, a network access technology was developed that allows large numbers of Class B-fitted vessels to coexist with Class A-fitted vessels with negligible detrimental effect on the AIS network. This new technology, known as Carrier Sense TDMA (CS or CSTDMA), requires that the Class B CS AIS device “listen” to the AIS network, and then determine that the network is free of competing traffic before transmitting. This “polite” operation of Class B CS AIS devices minimizes the probability of their causing interference to Class A devices and other AIS network operations.
        7. The Commission believes that accommodating Class B devices under its rules will advance the goal of ensuring that AIS is deployed widely, quickly, reliably, cost-effectively, and in a manner that will maximize its capabilities. Class B AIS devices can significantly enhance the overall effectiveness of AIS at a low cost. In addition, the IEC 62287-1 international standard appears to adequately protect the overall AIS network. The Commission tentatively concludes, therefore, that it should amend its part 80 rules to incorporate by reference the IEC 62287-1 standard and provide for the certification of Class B AIS equipment that complies with that standard. The Commission believes this action will promote the domestic public interest by facilitating the sale, installation and use of internationally interoperable Class B AIS devices in the United States. It invites comment on this proposal generally, and, more specifically, on the merits of proposed new § 80.231.
        8. In addition, the Commission requests comment on the measures, if any, that it might take to ensure the accuracy of AIS data transmitted via Class B AIS devices. Class B AIS devices broadcast such user-programmed information as Maritime Mobile Service Identity (MMSI) number, vessel name, vessel type, call sign and dimension of the ship and reference point for reported position. They also broadcast such dynamic information as true heading, speed over ground and course over ground. Ships, vessel traffic systems and others often make navigation decisions based upon the accuracy of the information received. The Commission seeks comments regarding means which could be employed to ensure that user-programmed as well as dynamic data on AIS units used on non-compulsory ships is accurate.
        I. Procedural Matters
        A. Ex Parte Rules—Permit-But-Disclose Proceeding

        9. This is a permit-but-disclose notice and comment rulemaking proceeding. Ex parte presentations are permitted, except during the Sunshine Agenda period, provided they are disclosed as provided in the Commission's rules.
        B. Comment Dates

        10. Pursuant to §§ 1.415 and 1.419 of the Commission's rules, 47 CFR 1.415, 1.419, interested parties may file comments on or before November 13, 2006 and reply comments on or before November 27, 2006. All filings related to this Further Notice of Proposed Rule Making should refer to WT Docket No. 04-344.

        11. Comments may be filed using the Commission's Electronic Comment Filing System (ECFS), the Federal Government's eRulemaking Portal, or by filing paper copies. See Electronic Filing of Documents in Rulemaking Proceedings, 63 FR 24121 (1998).

        12. Comments may be filed electronically using the Internet by accessing the ECFS: http://www.fcc.gov/cgb/ecfs/ or the Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov. Filers should follow the instructions provided on the Web site for submitting comments.

        13. For ECFS filers, if multiple docket or rulemaking numbers appear in the caption of this proceeding, filers must transmit one electronic copy of the comments for each docket or rulemaking number referenced in the caption. In completing the transmittal screen, filers should include their full name, U.S. Postal Service mailing address, and the applicable docket or rulemaking number. Parties may also submit an electronic comment by Internet e-mail. To get filing instructions, filers should send an e-mail to ecfs@fcc.gov, and include the following words in the body of the message, “get form.” A sample form and directions will be sent in response.

        14. Parties who choose to file by paper must file an original and four copies of each filing. If more than one docket or rulemaking number appears in the caption of this proceeding, filers must submit two additional copies for each additional docket or rulemaking number.
        15. Filings can be sent by hand or messenger delivery, by commercial overnight courier, or by first-class or overnight U.S. Postal Service mail (although we continue to experience delays in receiving U.S. Postal Service mail). All filings must be addressed to the Commission's Secretary, Office of the Secretary, Federal Communications Commission.
        16. The Commission's contractor will receive hand-delivered or messenger-delivered paper filings for the Commission's Secretary at 236 Massachusetts Avenue, NE., Suite 110, Washington, DC 20002. The filing hours at this location are 8 a.m. to 7 p.m. All hand deliveries must be held together with rubber bands or fasteners. Any envelopes must be disposed of before entering the building.
        17. Commercial overnight mail (other than U.S. Postal Service Express Mail and Priority Mail) must be sent to 9300 East Hampton Drive, Capitol Heights, MD 20743.
        18. U.S. Postal Service first-class, Express, and Priority mail should be addressed to 445 12th Street, SW., Washington DC 20554.

        19. All filings must be addressed to the Commission's Secretary, Marlene H. Dortch, Office of the Secretary, Federal Communications Commission, 445 12th Street, SW., Washington, DC 20554. Parties shall also serve one copy with the Commission's copy contractor, Best Copy and Printing, Inc. (BCPI), Portals II, 445 12th Street, SW., Room CY-B402, Washington, DC 20554, (202) 488-5300, or via e-mail to fcc@bcpiweb.com.
        20. Availability of documents. The public may view the documents filed in this proceeding during regular business hours in the FCC Reference Information Center, Federal Communications Commission, 445 12th Street, SW., Room CY-A257, Washington, DC 20554, and on the Commission's Internet Home Page: http://www.fcc.gov. Copies of comments and reply comments are also available through the Commission's duplicating contractor: Best Copy and Printing, Inc. (BCPI), Portals II, 445 12th Street, SW., Room CY-B402, Washington, DC 20554, telephone 1-800-378-3160, or via e-mail at the following e-mail address: http://www.bcpiweb.com. To request materials in accessible formats for people with disabilities (braille, large print, electronic files, audio format), send an e-mail to fcc504@fcc.gov or call the Consumer & Governmental Affairs Bureau at 202-418-0530 (voice), 202-418-0432 (tty).
        C. Paperwork Reduction Act
        21. The action contained herein has been analyzed with respect to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA) and found to impose no new or modified reporting or recordkeeping requirements or burdens to the public, including businesses with fewer than 25 employees.
        22. Specifically, in the FNPRM, the Commission proposes to establish requirements for the certification of Class B AIS devices. If adopted, the proposed rule would require, among other things, that applicants for certification submit specified information, including copies of test reports and test data, to the United States Coast Guard prior to filing their applications with the Commission, and that they include with their applications to the Commission copies of letters from the United States Coast Guard stating that the device in question satisfies all of the requirements of the pertinent international standard, IEC 62287-1, “Maritime navigation and radio communication equipment and systems—Class B shipborne equipment of the automatic identification system—Part 1: Carrier-sense time division multiple access (CSTDMA) techniques,” 2006 (IEC 62287-1). The Commission does not believe that the requirement to submit this information would impose a significant increased administrative burden on businesses with fewer than 25 employees, primarily because such businesses would need to submit the same or similar information in order to obtain certification for Class B AIS devices under international requirements. By incorporating the international standard into the Commission's rules, rather than establishing a different standard, the Commission's proposed rule would avoid subjecting businesses to disparate equipment certification requirements for Class B AIS devices. In addition, whatever burden the Commission's proposed rule might impose on businesses with fewer than 25 employees is more than justified by the underlying purpose of the rule, which to ensure that Class B devices operate effectively and safely, and are interoperable with other AIS devices. Given the important role AIS is to play in promoting homeland security and maritime safety, the public interest in establishing rules for the certification of Class B AIS devices outweighs the minimal burden it might impose on businesses with fewer than 25 employees.
        II. Supplemental Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis

        23. As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) as amended, the Commission has prepared this present supplemental Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) of the possible significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities of the policies and rules proposed in this Further Notice of Proposed Rule Making in WT Docket No. 04-344 (FNPRM). Written public comments are requested on this IRFA. Comments must be identified as responses to the IRFA and must be filed by the deadlines for comments on the FNPRM as provided in paragraph 74 of the item. The Commission will send a copy of the FNPRM, including the IRFA, to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration. In addition, the FNPRM and IRFA (or summaries thereof) will be published in the Federal Register.
        Need for, and Objectives of, the Proposed Rules
        24. In the FNPRM, the Commission contemplates rules changes involving three issues. First, with the objective of ensuring that AIS operations are implemented in an effective and efficient manner without imposing unnecessary restrictions on a VPC operations, the Commission requests comment as to whether there is a need to revisit the issue of the appropriate geographic scope of the AIS set-aside, i.e., whether it should be nationwide or limited to the nine maritime VPCSAs. The Commission seeks comment, in particular, on whether and how the potential development of satellite AIS should weigh in that decision. Second, with the objective of ensuring that AIS base stations operate in a manner consonant with the overall goals and purposes of AIS, the Commission requests comment on equipment certification, licensing, and other issues pertaining to AIS base stations. The Commission notes, in this regard, that AIS base stations are a critical component of the AIS network, and that there is an apparent need for some regulation of AIS base stations just as there is a need for some regulation of AIS ship stations. Finally, with the objective of accommodating Class B as well as Class A AIS devices, the Commission requests comment on the Commission's proposal to incorporate by reference IEC 62287-1, “Maritime navigation and radio communication equipment and systems—Class B shipborne equipment of the automatic identification system—Part 1: Carrier-sense time division multiple access (CSTDMA) techniques,” 2006 (IEC 62287-1), as the standard for certifying Class B AIS devices under part 80 of the Commission's rules.
        Legal Basis for Proposed Rules
        25. The proposed action is authorized under sections 1, 4(i), 302, 303(f) and (r), and 332 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 1, 154(i), 302, 303(f) and (r), and 332.
        Description and Estimate of the Number of Small Entities To Which the Proposed Rules Will Apply
        26. The RFA directs agencies to provide a description of and, where feasible, an estimate of the number of small entities that may be affected by the proposed rules, if adopted. The RFA defines the term “small entity” as having the same meaning as the terms “small business,” “small organization,” and “small governmental jurisdiction.” In addition, the term “small business” has the same meaning as the term “small business concern” under the Small Business Act.. A small business concern is one which: (1) Is independently owned and operated; (2) is not dominant in its field of operation; and (3) satisfies any additional criteria established by the Small Business Administration (SBA).
        27. Small businesses in the aviation and marine radio services use a very high frequency (VHF) marine or aircraft radio and, as appropriate, an emergency position-indicating radio beacon (and/or radar) or an emergency locator transmitter. The Commission has not developed a small business size standard specifically applicable to these small businesses. For purposes of this analysis, the Commission uses the SBA small business size standard for the category “Cellular and Other Wireless Telecommunications,” which is 1,500 or fewer employees. Between December 3, 1998 and December 14, 1998, the Commission held an auction of 42 VHF Public Coast (VPC) licenses in the 157.1875-157.4500 MHz (ship transmit) and 161.775-162.0125 MHz (coast transmit) bands. For purposes of the auction, the Commission defined a “small” business as an entity that, together with controlling interests and affiliates, has average gross revenues for the preceding three years not to exceed fifteen million dollars. In addition, a “very small” business is one that, together with controlling interests and affiliates, has average gross revenues for the preceding three years not to exceed three million dollars. There are approximately 10,672 licensees in the Marine Coast Service, and the Commission estimates that almost all of them qualify as “small” businesses under the above special small business size standards.
        Description of Projected Reporting, Recordkeeping, and Other Compliance Requirements
        28. There are no projected reporting, recordkeeping or other compliance requirements.
        Steps Taken To Minimize Significant Economic Impact on Small Entities, and Significant  Alternatives Considered
        29. The RFA requires an agency to describe any significant, specifically small business, alternatives that it has considered in reaching its proposed approach, which may include the following four alternatives (among others): “(1) The establishment of differing compliance or reporting requirements or timetables that take into account the resources available to small entities; (2) the clarification, consolidation, or simplification of compliance or reporting requirements under the rule for small entities; (3) the use of performance rather than design standards; and (4) an exemption from coverage of the rule, or any part thereof, for small entities.”
        30. In the FNPRM, the Commission asks that interested parties, and in particular inland VPCSA licensees, provide information on the potential impact on inland VPCSA licensees of designating Channel 87B for AIS use exclusively throughout the Nation. To the extent that commenters foresee such an impact, they are invited to suggest alternatives that would minimize or eliminate any adverse effect on small entities. For example, commenters may suggest that inland VPCSA licensees be accorded treatment similar to that which we are providing to site-based incumbent licensees, permitting them to continue to operate on Channel 87B on a shared basis with AIS for the remainder of their current license terms, but with no opportunity for renewal of the licenses. Commenters may also address the possibility of migrating such licensees to different channels if such were available.
        31. In the FNPRM, the Commission also invites comment on rules to govern AIS base stations, including certification standards for AIS base station equipment. In the absence of specific proposals, we invite interested parties to consider generally whether any special measures should be adopted in the AIS base station rules to prevent a significant adverse impact on small entities. Parties providing such comments should also address the extent to which they believe small entities may seek to become AIS base station licensees.
        32. Finally, the Commission requests comment in the FNPRM on its proposal to incorporate by reference IEC 62287-1, “Maritime navigation and radio communication equipment and systems—Class B shipborne equipment of the automatic identification system—Part 1: Carrier-sense time division multiple access (CSTDMA) techniques,” 2006 (IEC 62287-1), as the standard for certifying Class B AIS devices under part 80 of the Commission's rules. The Commission believes that incorporating by reference the international standard for Class B AIS devices will reduce costs to manufacturers by eliminating the possible need to design devices to two potentially conflicting standards, and will reduce costs to users of the devices both from a pass-through of manufacturers' cost savings and by eliminating the possible need to fit their vessels with more than one Class B AIS device if they travel outside U.S. territorial waters, i.e., removing the need to carry one Class B AIS device to function within U.S. territorial waters, and another Class B AIS device to function in international waters or other nations' territorial waters. The Commission notes, in addition, that Class B AIS devices are intended generally for use on vessels that are not required by law to carry AIS devices. Since carriage of Class B AIS devices is voluntary, the establishment of standards for certifying such devices should not impose a new compliance burden on vessel operators. However, to the extent that any commenters believe that he establishment of equipment certification standards for Class B AIS devices may impose a significant new compliance burden on any small entities, the Commission invites them to suggest alternative or complementary approaches that may reduce or eliminate that burden, including, but not limited to, the establishment of less rigorous standards, or the provision of exemptions or grandfathering protection for small entities.
        Federal Rules That May Duplicate, Overlap, or Conflict With the Proposed Rules
        33. None.
        III. Ordering Clauses

        34. Pursuant to Sections 4(i), 303(r), and 403 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 154(i), 303(r) and 403, this Further Notice of Proposed Rule Making is adopted.

        35. It is further ordered that pursuant to the applicable procedures set forth in §§ 1.415 and 1.419 of the Commission's Rules, 47 CFR 1.415, 1.419, interested parties may file comments on the Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking on or before November 13, 2006 and reply comments on or before November 27, 2006.

        36. It is further ordered that the Commission's Consumer Information Bureau, Reference Information Center, shall send a copy of the Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking and the IRFA, to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration.

          List of Subjects in 47 CFR Part 80
          Communications, Radio.

          Federal Communications Commission.
          Marlene H. Dortch,
          Secretary.

        Proposed Rule Changes
        For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Federal Communications Commission proposes to amend 47 CFR part 80 as follows:

          PART 80—STATIONS IN THE MARITIME SERVICES
          1. The authority citation for part 80 continues to read as follows:

            Authority:
            Secs. 4, 303, 307(e), 309, and 332, 48 Stat. 1066, 1082, as amended; 47 U.S.C. 154, 303, 307(e), 309, and 332, unless otherwise noted. Interpret or apply 48 Stat. 1064-1068, 1081-1105, as amended; 47 U.S.C. 151-155, 301-609; 3 UST 3450, 3 UST 4726, 12 UST 2377.

          2. Section 80.231 is added to read as follows:

            § 80.231
            Technical Requirements for Class B Automatic Identification System (AIS) equipment.

            (a) Class B Automatic Identification System (AIS) equipment must meet the technical requirements of the International Electrotechnical Commission (IEC) 62287-1 International Standard, “Maritime navigation and radio communication equipment and systems—Class B shipborne equipment of the Automatic Identification System—Part 1: Carrier -sense time division multiple access (CSTDMA) techniques,” 2006. The Director of the Federal Register approves this incorporation by reference in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51. Copies of these standards can be inspected at the Federal Communications Commission, 445 12th Street, SW., Washington, DC (Reference Information Center) or at the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For information on the availability of this material at NARA, call 202-741-6030 or, go to: http://www.archives.gov/federal_register/code_of_federal_regulations/ibr_locations.html. IEC publications can be purchased from the International Electro-technical Commission, 3 Rue de Varembe, CH-1211 Geneva 20, Switzerland, or from the American National Standards Institute (ANSI), 25 West 43rd Street, New York, NY 10036, telephone (212) 642-4900.
            (b) Prior to submitting a certification application for a Class B AIS device, the following information must be submitted in duplicate to the Commandant (G-PSE), U.S. Coast Guard, 2100 2nd Street, SW., Washington, DC 20593-0001:
            (1) The name of the manufacturer or grantee and the model number of the AIS device;
            (2) Copies of the test report and test data obtained from the test facility showing that the device complies with the environmental and operational requirements identified in IEC 62287-1.
            (c) After reviewing the information described in paragraph (b) of this section, the U.S. Coast Guard will issue a letter stating whether the AIS device satisfies all of the requirements specified in IEC 62287-1.
            (d) A certification application for an AIS device submitted to the Commission must contain a copy of the U.S. Coast Guard letter stating that the device satisfies all of the requirements specified in IEC 62287-1, a copy of the technical test data, and the instruction manual(s).
            3. Section 80.275 is amended by revising the section heading and paragraph (a) introductory text to read as follows:

            § 80.275
            Technical Requirements for Class A Automatic Identification System (AIS) equipment.
            (a) Prior to submitting a certification application for a Class A AIS device, the following information must be submitted in duplicate to the Commandant (G-MSE), U.S. Coast Guard, 2100 2nd Street, SW., Washington DC 20593-0001:

            4. Section 80.1101 is amended by adding paragraph (c)(12)(vi) to read as follows:

            § 80.1101
            Performance standards.
            (c) * * *
            (12) * * *
            (vi) with respect to Class B AIS devices only, IEC 62287-1 International Standard, “Maritime navigation and radio communication equipment and systems—Class B shipborne equipment of the Automatic Identification System—Part 1: Carrier—sense time division multiple access (CSTDMA) techniques,” 2006.

       [FR Doc. E6-16832 Filed 10-11-06; 8:45 am]
      BILLING CODE 6712-01-P


        DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
        Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration
        49 CFR Part 172
        [RSPA Docket No. 2006-26322 (HM-206F)]
        RIN 2137-AE21
        Hazardous Materials: Revision of Requirements for Emergency Response Telephone Numbers

          AGENCY:
          Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA), DOT.

          ACTION:
          Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM).

          SUMMARY:
          In this NPRM, PHMSA proposes to amend the Hazardous Materials Regulations (HMR) to clarify requirements governing emergency response information services provided by arrangement with hazardous materials offerors. In order to preserve the effectiveness of these arrangements for providing accurate and timely emergency response information, PHMSA proposes to require that basic identifying information (offeror name or contract number) be included in shipping papers. This information will enable the service provider to identify the shipper on whose behalf it is accepting responsibility for providing emergency response information in the event of a hazardous materials incident.

          DATES:
          Comments must be received by August 31, 2007. To the extent possible, we will consider late filed comments as we determine what further action will be taken.

          ADDRESSES:
          You may submit comments by any of the following methods:
          • Federal Rulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the instructions for submitting comments.
          • Web Site: http://dms/dot/gov. Follow the instructions for submitting comments on the DOT electronic docket site.
          • Fax: 1-202-493-2251.
          • Mail: Docket Management System; U.S. Department of Transportation, Dockets Operations, M-30, Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590-0001.
          • Hand Delivery: To U.S. Department of Transportation, Dockets Operations, M-30, Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590-0001 between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m. Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.

            Instructions: Include the agency name and docket number PHMSA-06-26322 (HM-206F) or the Regulatory Identification Number (RIN) for this rulemaking at the beginning of your comment. Note that all comments received will be posted without change to http://dms.dot.gov including any personal information provided. If sent by mail, comments must be submitted in duplicate. Persons wishing to receive confirmation of receipt of their comments must include a self-addressed stamped postcard or access our Web site at http://dms.dot.gov.

            Docket: You may view the public docket through the Internet at http://dms.dot.gov or in person at the Docket Operations office at the above address.

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
          Joan McIntyre, Office of Hazardous Materials Standards, telephone (202) 366-8553, Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration.

        FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
        Joan McIntyre, Office of Hazardous Materials Standards, (202) 366-8553, Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration, U.S. Department of Transportation.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

        I. Background

        The proposed rule would make a narrow, clarifying change to the requirements of the Hazardous Materials Regulations (HMR; 49 CFR parts 171-180) applicable to shipping papers for certain hazardous materials shipments. With limited exceptions not applicable here, the HMR require that shipments of hazardous materials be accompanied by shipping papers and other documentation designed to communicate to transport workers and emergency responders the hazards associated with a specific shipment. This information must include the immediate hazard to health; risks of fire or explosion; immediate precautions to be taken in the event of an accident; immediate methods for handling fires; initial methods for handling spills in the absence of fire; and preliminary first aid measures. The information must be in writing, in English, and presented on a shipping paper or related shipping document (see § 172.602).
        In addition to written emergency response information, § 172.604 of the HMR requires a person who offers a hazardous material for transportation in commerce to provide an emergency response telephone number on the shipping paper. The emergency response telephone number must connect a caller to the offeror or to a party capable of, and accepting responsibility for, providing detailed information about the hazardous materials shipment. The emergency response telephone number is used by emergency responders and transport workers to obtain detailed, product-specific information, including directions for remedial measures to be taken in the event of an incident during transportation.
        The telephone number must be answered by a person who is knowledgeable about the material being shipped and possesses comprehensive emergency response and incident mitigation information for that material, or has immediate access to a person who possesses such knowledge. Under this standard, “immediate access” requires that the emergency response information be provided to the emergency responder or transportation worker promptly and with no undue delay. Additionally, the emergency response telephone number must be active, with no limitations, during the entire time a shipment is in transportation, including storage incidental to movement and intermodal shipments that are transferred from one carrier to another for continued transportation. The term “storage incidental to movement” means storage occurring between the time a hazardous material is offered for transportation and the time it is delivered to the consignee (see definition for “storage incidental to movement” in § 171.8).
        As set forth in § 172.604(a), it is the responsibility of the person who offers a hazardous material for transportation to provide an emergency response telephone number meeting the requirements in the HMR. As currently required in § 172.604(b), a person offering a hazardous material must ensure that the emergency response service provider has up-to-date information on the hazardous material and that the emergency response service provider is capable of and has accepted responsibility for providing detailed emergency response information.
        As revised under a final rule, HM-223A, published on July 28, 2005 (70 FR 43638), the definition of a “person who offers or offeror” (49 CFR 171.8) includes “any person who performs, or is responsible for performing, any pre-transportation function required under this subchapter for transportation of the hazardous material in commerce.” The definition goes on to provide that a carrier is not an offeror when it performs a function as a condition of accepting a hazardous material shipment for continued transportation without performing a pre-transportation function (see definition for “pre-transportation function” in § 171.8). Offerors and carriers may rely on information provided by a previous offeror or carrier unless they know, or a reasonable person acting in the circumstances and exercising reasonable care would know, that the information provided to them is incorrect.
        Any person subject to the HMR, who by action or inaction and with knowledge of incorrect information, prevents immediate access to emergency response information creates a potential safety hazard and is in violation of the HMR. Additionally, an offeror or an interconnecting carrier who knowingly or willfully provides incorrect information to a subsequent carrier, or a subsequent carrier who knowingly accepts and continues to use inaccurate information, is in violation of the HMR. A civil or criminal penalty (see §§ 107.329 and 107.333) may be assessed against any person subject to the HMR who knowingly or willfully offers for transportation or transports a hazardous material in a manner not complying with the HMR.
        II. Purpose of This NPRM
        We have become aware of a number of problems associated with emergency response telephone numbers on shipping papers, specifically related to the increasing use by shippers of emergency response service providers to comply with the requirements of § 172.604. In such situations, the original shipper (offeror) enters into a contract or agreement with an agency or organization (industry associations may offer this service to their members) accepting responsibility for providing detailed emergency response information in accordance with § 172.604(b). The telephone number on the shipping paper is the telephone number of the emergency response service provider, but the original shipper is not required to include a notation to this effect on the shipping paper, nor is the name of the original shipper required to appear on the shipping paper. Thus, the identity of the person who arranged with the emergency response service provider is not readily available through shipping documentation.
        The International Vessel Operators Hazardous Materials Association (VOHMA) has requested that we revise the emergency response telephone number requirement to link the emergency response service provider to the original shipper who arranged for the emergency response service. VOHMA states that valuable time is lost when shipments are delayed while emergency responders or enforcement officers are attempting to obtain or verify emergency response information and their efforts are obstructed because the party who arranged with the emergency response service is not noted on the shipping papers.
        This problem is exacerbated because, under the HMR, a carrier or freight forwarder preparing a shipping paper for the continued movement of a hazardous material in commerce may rely on information provided by the original shipper for the preparation of the new shipping paper (for example, the classification of the material, the compatibility of the material with the packaging being used, or the emergency response telephone number), so long as the carrier or freight forwarder exercises due care. For example, a carrier or freight forwarder may rely on an emergency response telephone number provided by a preceding offeror unless it is aware (or should be aware) of facts indicating the emergency response telephone number is not operative and does not meet the requirements of § 172.604(b).

        The initial shipment of hazardous materials may be handled by several entities before reaching its final destination. For example, a motor carrier may accept a shipment from the originating shipper for transportation and deliver the material to a freight forwarder to arrange continued transportation. The freight forwarder may prepare shipping papers using the emergency response telephone number provided by the originating shipper. The freight forwarder may then arrange for continued shipment of the hazardous material by rail; a rail carrier may prepare shipping documentation using the information, including the emergency response telephone number, provided by the freight forwarder. The shipping documentation accompanying the shipment may or may not include the name of the originating shipper. In cases where the originating shipper arranges with an emergency response service to provide telephone service, the nexus between the shipper and emergency response service provider may be lost as new shipping papers are prepared at each stage of transportation.
        Without the name of the person who arranged for an emergency response service, an emergency response service provider may not be able to communicate the product-specific information that was provided by the shipper. This could result in a serious problem if transportation workers or emergency response personnel must use the telephone number to request assistance in handling an accident or emergency. Most emergency response services will attempt to provide assistance whether or not they can verify that the original shipper arranged for emergency response service. However, without the identification of the party who has made arrangements with the service, it may not be possible for the emergency response service to quickly access information specific to the material involved in the accident, thereby defeating the purpose of the requirement in § 172.604 to enable transport workers and emergency response personnel to expeditiously obtain detailed information about a hazardous materials shipment. A delay or improper response due to lack of accurate and timely emergency response information may place emergency response personnel, transportation workers and the general public and environment at increased risk. Expeditious identification of the hazards and direction for appropriate clean up associated with specific hazardous materials is critical in mitigating the consequences of hazardous materials incidents.
        III. Proposals in this NPRM
        To remedy the problem discussed above, in this NRPM, we propose to require the person who offers a hazardous material for transportation and who uses an emergency response service provider to comply with the requirements of § 172.604 to be identified on the originating shipping paper and any subsequent shipping papers that use the service provider's emergency response number. Specifically, we propose to:
        • Require that the shipper (offeror) who has made the arrangement with the emergency response service provider be identified on the shipping paper. Any party preparing a shipping paper would be required to identify the original shipper, by name or contract number, with the emergency response telephone number indicated on the shipping paper, and clearly note the identification in association with the emergency response telephone number, or insert and identify its own emergency response telephone number conforming to the requirements in Subpart G of Part 172.
        • Clarify that any person preparing a subsequent shipping paper for continued transport of hazardous materials may not omit the original shipper's (offeror's) name if the shipper is the registrant for the emergency response telephone service. Again, the name of the original shipper or its contract number with the emergency response service provider would be required to be included on the shipping paper, or the person preparing subsequent shipping papers must insert and identify by name its own valid emergency response number conforming to the requirements in Subpart G of Part 172.
        In addition to the amendments described above, we are also proposing the following clarifications:

        —To clarify that international telephone numbers used to comply with the emergency response telephone number requirement must include the country code and city code. VOHMA requested this clarification to ensure that emergency responders and transportation workers have a complete emergency response telephone number for international shipments.
        —To clarify that the emergency response telephone number requirements do not apply to transport vehicles or freight containers containing lading that has been fumigated and displays the FUMIGANT marking, as required by § 173.9 of the HMR, unless other hazardous materials are present in the cargo transport unit.
        The proposals in this NPRM are intended to fill a gap that was unforeseen when we initially adopted these requirements in 1989 under Docket HM-126C (54 FR 27138, 06/27/89). If adopted, the proposed rule should serve to eliminate delays in transportation due to lack of information, and eliminate enforcement problems created when enforcement personnel are not able to verify emergency response telephone numbers. Most importantly, the proposals in this NPRM will help to ensure that transportation workers and emergency response personnel are provided with accurate, timely information about the hazardous materials involved in a transportation accident or other emergency.
        IV. Rulemaking Analyses and Notices
        A. Executive Order 12866 and DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures
        This proposed rule is not a significant regulatory action under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866 and was not reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget. This proposed rule is a non-significant rule under the Regulatory Policies and Procedures of the Department of Transportation [44 FR 11034].
        If adopted, the proposals in this NPRM should result in minimal costs to shippers to add the required information to shipping papers. The emergency response telephone number is currently required on the shipping paper. Adding a notation to identify the person who arranged with an emergency response services provider should not add any significant time to the process of completing a shipping paper or to the cost of providing it. Moreover, the proposed notation on a shipping paper of the identity of the person who made arrangements with an emergency response telephone service is currently common industry practice for the initial shipper.
        The small costs that may be incurred are more than offset by the safety benefits resulting from faster and more efficient response to hazardous materials transportation accidents and other emergencies. The provisions of this NPRM clarify and support the intent of the current emergency response telephone number requirement by ensuring emergency response personnel have immediate access to crucial emergency information specific to the hazardous material involved.
        B. Executive Order 13132
        This proposed rule has been analyzed in accordance with the principles and criteria set forth in Executive Order 13132 (“Federalism”). Any rule resulting from this rulemaking will preempt State, local and Indian tribe requirements but will not have substantial direct effects on the States, the relationship between the national government and the States, or the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. Therefore, the consultation and funding requirements of Executive Order 13132 do not apply.

        The Federal hazmat law contains an express preemption provision (49 U.S.C. 5125(b)), preempting State, local, and Indian tribe requirements on covered subjects, as follows:
        (1) The designation, description, and classification of hazardous materials;
        (2) The packing, repacking, handling, labeling, marking, and placarding of hazardous materials;
        (3) The preparation, execution, and use of shipping documents related to hazardous materials and requirements related to the number, contents, and placement of those documents;
        (4) The written notification, recording, and reporting of the unintentional release in transportation of hazardous materials; or
        (5) The design, manufacture, fabrication, marking, maintenance, recondition, repair, or testing of a packaging or container represented, marked, certified, or sold as qualified for use in transporting hazardous material.

        This proposed rule addresses covered subject item (3) above and would preempt State, local, and Indian tribe requirements not meeting the “substantively the same” standard. Federal hazmat law provides at section 5125(b)(2) that, if DOT issues a regulation concerning any of the covered subjects, DOT must determine and publish in the Federal Register the effective date of Federal preemption. The effective date may not be earlier than the 90th day following the date of issuance of a final rule and not later than two years after the date of issuance. The proposed effective date of Federal preemption for this rule is (90 days after publication of a final rule).
        C. Executive Order 13175
        This proposed rule was analyzed in accordance with the principles and criteria set forth in Executive Order 13175 (“Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments”). Because this proposed rule does not have tribal implications, and does not impose substantial direct compliance costs, the funding and consultation requirements of Executive Order 13175 do not apply.
        D. Regulatory Flexibility Act
        The Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.) requires an agency to review regulations to assess their impact on small entities unless the agency determines the rule is not expected to have a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities. In this case, although the requirements of the proposed rule would apply to a substantial number of small entities, none would sustain significant economic impact as a result of the rule.

          Identification of potentially affected small entities. Businesses likely to be affected by the rule are persons who offer for transportation or transport hazardous materials in commerce, including hazardous materials manufacturers and distributors; freight forwarders, transportation companies, including air, highway, rail, and vessel carriers and hazardous waste generators.
        Unless alternative definitions have been established by the agency in consultation with the Small Business Administration (SBA), the definition of “small business” has the same meaning as under the Small Business Act. Since no such special definition has been established, we employ the thresholds published by SBA for establishments that will be subject to the proposed amendments if adopted. Based on data for 1997 compiled by the U.S. Census Bureau, more than 95 percent of persons that would be affected by this rule are small businesses.

          Related Federal rules and regulations. There are no related Federal rules or regulations governing the transportation of hazardous materials in domestic or international commerce.

          Alternate proposals for small businesses. The Regulatory Flexibility Act directs agencies to establish exceptions and differing compliance standards for small businesses, where it is possible to do so and still meet the objectives of applicable regulatory statutes. In the case of hazardous materials transportation, it is not possible to establish exceptions or differing standards and still accomplish our safety objectives.

          Conclusion. While the proposed rule would apply to a substantial number of small entities, there would not be a significant impact on those entities. This proposed rule revises the HMR's emergency response telephone requirements to enable emergency response services and others providing such service to supply the required HMR emergency response information to first responders. The impact of this new requirement is expected to be minimal; the indication of the emergency response telephone number on shipping papers is a current requirement and the proposed notation of the identity of the emergency response telephone services' registrant is currently common industry practice for the initial shipper. The problem, as discussed in the preamble of this rulemaking, primarily arises from subsequent carriers omitting the registrant's name when preparing new shipping papers for a shipment continuing on to its final destination. Our proposal to add the identification of the telephone number's registrant to shipping papers will eliminate an obstruction that could interfere with the transmission of crucial emergency response information to first responders on the scene of an incident. Additionally, the proposal would serve to eliminate delays in transportation due to lack of information, and eliminate enforcement problems stemming from possible invalid emergency response telephone number violations.
        This proposed rule has been developed in accordance with Executive Order 13272 (“Proper Consideration of Small Entities in Agency Rulemaking”) and DOT's procedures and policies to promote compliance with the Regulatory Flexibility Act to ensure that potential impacts of draft rules on small entities are properly considered.
        E. Paperwork Reduction Act
        By requiring that additional information be included in certain shipping papers, this NPRM may result in a minimal increase in annual paperwork burden and costs attributable to the HMR. PHMSA currently has an approved information collection under OMB Control Number 2137-0034, “Hazardous Materials Shipping Papers & Emergency Response Information,” reflecting 6,536,111 burden hours and expiring on May 31, 2008.
        Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, no person is required to respond to an information collection unless it has been approved by OMB and displays a valid OMB control number. Section 1320.8(d), Title 5, Code of Federal Regulations requires that PHMSA provide interested members of the public and affected agencies an opportunity to comment on information and recordkeeping requests.
        This notice identifies a revised information collection request that PHMSA will submit to OMB for approval based on the requirements in this proposed rule. PHMSA has developed burden estimates to reflect changes in this proposed rule. PHMSA estimates that the additional information collection and recordkeeping burden as proposed in this rule would be as follows:
        OMB Control No. 2137-0034:
        Annual Number of Respondents: 250,000.
        Annual Responses: 260,000,000.
        Annual Burden Hours: 1,805.
        Annual Costs: $1,805.00.

        PHMSA specifically requests comments on the information collection and recordkeeping burdens associated with developing, implementing, and maintaining these requirements for approval under this proposed rule.
        Requests for a copy of this information collection should be directed to Deborah Boothe or T. Glenn Foster, Office of Hazardous Materials Standards (PHH-11), Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., East Building, 2nd Floor, PHH-10, Washington, DC 20590-0001, Telephone (202) 366-8553.

        Address written comments to the Dockets Unit as identified in the ADDRESSES section of this rulemaking. We will consider all comments regarding information collection burdens received prior to the close of the comment period identified in the DATES section of this rulemaking. In addition, you may submit comments specifically related to the information collection burden to the PHMSA Desk Officer, Office of Management and Budget at fax number 202-395-6974. If these proposed requirements are adopted in a final rule, PHMSA will submit the revised information collection and recordkeeping requirements to the OMB for approval.
        F. Regulation Identifier Number (RIN)
        A regulation identifier number (RIN) is assigned to each regulatory action listed in the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulations. The Regulatory Information Service Center publishes the Unified Agenda in April and October of each year. The RIN contained in the heading of this document can be used to cross-reference this action with the Unified Agenda.
        G. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
        This proposed rule does not impose unfunded mandates under the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995. It does not result in costs of $120.7 million or more to either State, local or tribal governments, in the aggregate, or to the private sector, and is the least burdensome alternative that achieves the objective of the rule.
        H. Environmental Assessment
        The National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) requires Federal agencies to consider the consequences of major Federal actions and prepare a detailed statement on actions significantly affecting the quality of the human environment. We regulate hazardous materials transported by aircraft, vessel, rail, and highway. The potential for environmental damage or contamination exists when packages of hazardous materials are involved in accidents or en route incidents resulting from cargo shifts, valve failures, package failures, or loading, unloading, or handling problems. The ecosystems that could be affected by a release include air, water, soil, and ecological resources (for example, wildlife habitats). The adverse environmental impacts associated with releases of most hazardous materials are short-term impacts that can be greatly reduced or eliminated through proper emergency response action and prompt clean up of the accident scene. The proposals in this NPRM would improve the effectiveness of the HMR by enabling emergency responders on the scene of a hazardous materials incident to quickly and efficiently identify hazards and mitigate potential risks to the environment. There are no significant environmental impacts associated with proposals in this NPRM.
        I. Privacy Act

        Anyone is able to search the electronic form of any written communications and comments received into any of our dockets by the name of the individual submitting the document (or signing the document, if submitted on behalf of an association, business, labor union, etc.). You may review DOT's complete Privacy Act Statement in the Federal Register published on April 11, 2000 (Volume 65, Number 70; Pages 19477-78), which may also be found at http://dms.dot.gov.

          List of Subjects in 49 CFR Part 172
          Education, Hazardous materials transportation, Hazardous waste, Labeling, Markings, Packaging and containers, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

        In consideration of the foregoing, we propose to amend 49 CFR Chapter I as follows:

          PART 172—HAZARDOUS MATERIALS TABLE, SPECIAL PROVISIONS, HAZARDOUS MATERIALS COMMUNICATIONS, EMERGENCY RESPONSE INFORMATION, AND TRAINING REQUIREMENTS
          1. The authority citation for part 172 continues to read as follows:

            Authority:
            49 U.S.C. 5101-5128, 44701; 49 CFR 1.45 and 1.53.

          2. In § 172.201, revise paragraph (d) to read as follows:

            § 172.201
            Preparation and retention of shipping papers.

            (d) Emergency response telephone number. Except as provided in § 172.604(c), a shipping paper must contain an emergency response telephone number and, if utilizing an emergency response telephone number service provider, identify the person who has a contractual agreement with the service provider, as prescribed in subpart G of this part.

            3. In § 172.604, make the following changes:
            a. Revise paragraph (a) introductory text;
            b. At the end of paragraph (a)(3)(i), remove the word “or”;
            c. Revise paragraphs (a)(3)(ii) and (b); and
            d. Add new paragraph (c)(3).
            The addition and revisions read as follows:

            § 172.604
            Emergency response telephone number.
            (a) A person who offers a hazardous material for transportation must provide an emergency response telephone number, including the area code or country code and city code. This information is for use in the event of an emergency involving the hazardous material. The telephone number must be—
            (1) * * *
            (2) * * *
            (3) * * *
            (ii) Entered once on the shipping paper in a clearly visible location. This provision may be used only if the telephone number applies to each hazardous material entered on the shipping paper, and if it is indicated that the telephone number is for emergency response information (for example: “EMERGENCY CONTACT: * * *).
            (b) The telephone number required by paragraph (a) of this section must include the number of the person offering the hazardous material for transportation or of an emergency response service provider capable of, and accepting responsibility for, providing the information required by paragraph (a)(2). Where an emergency response service provider is used, the offeror must be identified by name or contract number on the shipping paper and must ensure the service provider has received current information on the material. A person preparing subsequent shipping papers for continued transportation in commerce must include the information required by this section.
            (c) * * *

            (3) Transport vehicles or freight containers containing lading that has been fumigated and displays the FUMIGANT marking (see § 172.302(g)) as required by § 173.9 of this subchapter), unless other hazardous materials are present in the cargo transport unit.

            Issued in Washington, DC on June 21, 2007 under authority delegated in 49 CFR Part 106.
            Theodore L. Willke,
            Acting Associate Administrator for Hazardous Materials Safety.

       [FR Doc. E7-12665 Filed 6-29-07; 8:45 am]
      BILLING CODE 4910-60-P


        ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
        40 CFR Part 271
        [EPA-R01-RCRA-2013-0554; FRL-9904-46-Region 1]
        Vermont: Proposed Authorization of State Hazardous Waste Management Program Revisions

          AGENCY:
          Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

          ACTION:
          Proposed rule.

          SUMMARY:

          EPA proposes to grant final authorization to the State of Vermont for changes to its hazardous waste program. In the “Rules and Regulations” section of this Federal Register we are authorizing the changes to the Vermont hazardous waste program under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) as a direct final rule without prior proposed rule. EPA has determined that these changes satisfy all requirements needed to qualify for final authorization. If we receive no adverse comment, we will not take further action on this proposed rule.

          DATES:
          Written comments must be received by January 30, 2014.

          ADDRESSES:

          Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R01-RCRA-2013-0554, by mail to Sharon Leitch, RCRA Waste Management and UST Section, Office of Site Remediation and Restoration (OSRR07-1), US EPA Region 1, 5 Post Office Square, Suite 100, Boston, MA 02109-3912. Comments may also be submitted electronically or thorough hand delivery/courier by following the detailed instructions in the ADDRESSES section of the direct final rule located in the rules section of this Federal Register.

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

          Sharon Leitch, RCRA Waste Management and UST Section, Office of Site Remediation and Restoration (OSRR07-1), US EPA Region 1, 5 Post Office Square, Suite 100, Boston, MA 02109-3912; telephone number: (617) 918-1647; fax number: (617) 918-0647; email address: leitch.sharon@epa.gov.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
        In the “Rules and Regulations” section of this Federal Register, EPA is authorizing these changes by a direct final rule. EPA did not make a proposal prior to the direct final rule because we believe this action is not controversial and do not expect adverse comments that oppose it. We have explained the reasons for this authorization in the preamble to the direct final rule. Unless we receive written adverse comments which oppose this authorization during the comment period, the direct final rule will become effective on the date it establishes, and we will not take further action on this proposal. If we get comments that oppose this action, we will withdraw the direct final rule and it will not take immediate effect. We will then respond to public comments in a later final rule based on this proposal. You may not have another opportunity for comment. If you want to comment on this action, you should do so at this time.

          Dated: November 5, 2013.
          H. Curtis Spalding,
          Regional Administrator, EPA Region 1.

      [FR Doc. 2013-31125 Filed 12-30-13; 8:45 am]
      BILLING CODE 6560-50-P