Interested persons are invited to participate in the making of the proposed rule by submitting such written data, views, or arguments as they may desire. Communications shall identify the Rules Docket number and be submitted in triplicate to the address specified above. All communications received on or before the closing date for comments, specified above, will be considered before taking action on the proposed rule. The proposals contained in this action may be changed in light of the comments received.

Submit comments using the following format:

• Organize comments issue-by-issue. For example, discuss a request to change the compliance time and a request to change the service bulletin reference as two separate issues.

• For each issue, state what specific change to the proposed AD is being requested.

• Include justification (e.g., reasons or data) for each request.

Comments are specifically invited on the overall regulatory, economic, environmental, and energy aspects of the proposed rule. All comments submitted will be available, both before and after the closing date for comments, in the Rules Docket for examination by interested persons. A report summarizing each FAA-public contact concerned with the substance of this proposal will be filed in the Rules Docket.

Commenters wishing the FAA to acknowledge receipt of their comments submitted in response to this action must submit a self-addressed, stamped postcard on which the following statement is made: “Comments to Docket 2001-NM-232-AD.” The postcard will be date stamped and returned to the commenter.

Any person may obtain a copy of this NPRM by submitting a request to the FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, ANM-114, Attention: Rules Docket 2001-NM-232-AD, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington 98055-4056.

The FAA has received reports of fires inside and outside the outboard struts of Boeing Model 747 series airplanes equipped with General Electric CF6-45 and CF6-50 series engines. The fires were caused by leaking strut fuel line couplings, improperly installed fuel lines that chafed against a pneumatic duct insulation blanket, and clogged or restricted strut drain lines. Fuel leakage into the hot engine compartment and/or onto the hot engine case can ignite and result in a fire. In certain cases, external flame flashback through the strut drain holes has ignited fuel that had leaked and accumulated in the strut. These fires have occurred outside a designated “fire zone” where there is no means to detect, contain, or extinguish a fire. All known cases of engine strut fires have occurred on the ground during taxi-in after landing; such fires could result in airplane damage and an emergency evacuation. Leaking fuel line couplings, chafed fuel lines, restricted or clogged strut drain lines, fluids or vapors migrating to ignition sources, and flashback of external flame into the strut, if not corrected, could result in an uncontained engine strut fire.

The FAA has reviewed and approved the service information listed in the following table:

The FAA has reviewed Notice of Status Change 747-54-2122 NSC 2, dated May 14, 1992, which revises Boeing Service Bulletin 747-54-2122, Revision 4, and was issued to notify certain operators of part number changes. The FAA has also reviewed Information Notice 747-54-2122 IN 03, dated August 19, 1999, which was issued to notify operators of errors in certain Figures in Boeing Service Bulletin 747-54-2122, Revision 4.

Accomplishment of the actions specified in the service information is intended to adequately address the identified unsafe condition.

Boeing Service Bulletins 747-28-2230 and 747-36-2122 recommend accomplishment of certain actions specified by other service bulletins; however, those additional actions are not included in this proposed AD because they are required by existing ADs or are not necessary to address the identified unsafe condition of this proposed AD. Those other service bulletins are described in the following table:

Since an unsafe condition has been identified that is likely to exist or develop on other products of this same type design, the proposed AD would require accomplishment of the actions specified in the service information described previously, except as discussed below.

Although Boeing Service Bulletin 747-28-2230 recommends accomplishing the leak check and drain inspection within 18 months (after the release of the service bulletin), we have determined that an interval of 18 months would not address the identified unsafe condition in a timely manner. In developing an appropriate compliance time for this proposed AD, we considered not only the manufacturer's recommendation, but the degree of urgency associated with addressing the subject unsafe condition, the average utilization of the affected fleet, and the time necessary to perform the actions. In light of all of these factors, we find a 12-month compliance time for completing the proposed actions to be warranted, in that it represents an appropriate interval of time allowable for affected airplanes to continue to operate without compromising safety.

Boeing Service Bulletin 747-36-2111 specifies that, if the ultimate corrected clearance achieved between the fuel line and the pneumatic duct insulation blanket (for any strut position) is 0.50 inch or less, operators may repetitively inspect the area every 1,000 flight hours. However, this proposed AD would require replacement of the fuel tube on the number 4 engine strut position, as specified in Boeing Service Bulletin 747-28-2162, if clearance of at least 0.40 inch cannot be achieved during accomplishment of the actions specified in Boeing Service Bulletin 747-36-2111.

Boeing Service Bulletin 747-54-2122 specifies that accomplishment of some of the actions that are specified in this proposed AD are to be done in accordance with either the Boeing 747 Airplane Maintenance Manual (AMM) or an “operator's equivalent procedure.” However, this proposed AD would require that the actions be accomplished in accordance with the procedures specified in the applicable subject of the Boeing 747 AMM. An “operator's equivalent procedure” may be used only if approved as an alternative method of compliance in accordance with paragraph (i) of this AD.

In addition, Boeing Service Bulletin 747-36-2111 recommends that operators “tell Boeing” if the fuel line is chafed. Operators may report these findings to Boeing, but this proposed AD would not require a report.

The applicability of this proposed AD is different from the effectivity of some of the cited service bulletins. The unsafe condition identified by this proposed AD is limited to the outboard struts on Model 747 series airplanes equipped with General Electric CF6-45 and CF6-50 series engines. However, the effectivity in Service Bulletins 747-54-2122, 747-36-2118, and 747-28-2162, and Service Letter 747-SL-28-052-B is broader to encompass additional features common to other engine model structures not addressed by this proposed AD.

The following table provides the cost estimates to accomplish the proposed actions:

The cost impact figures discussed above are based on assumptions that no operator has yet accomplished any of the proposed requirements of this AD action, and that no operator would accomplish those actions in the future if this proposed AD were not adopted. The cost impact figures discussed in AD rulemaking actions represent only the time necessary to perform the specific actions actually required by the AD. These figures typically do not include incidental costs, such as the time required to gain access and close up, planning time, or time necessitated by other administrative actions.

The regulations proposed herein would not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national Government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. Therefore, it is determined that this proposal would not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132.

For the reasons discussed above, I certify that this proposed regulation (1) is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a “significant rule” under the DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979); and (3) if promulgated, will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act. A copy of the draft regulatory evaluation prepared for this action is contained in the Rules Docket. A copy of it may be obtained by contacting the Rules Docket at the location provided under the caption ADDRESSES.

Accordingly, pursuant to the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the Federal Aviation Administration proposes to amend part 39 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR part 39) as follows:

1. Take notice that a technical conference will be held on February 4, 2003, from approximately 9:30 a.m. to 3 p.m. in Hearing Room 1 on the second floor of the offices of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC. The goal of the conference is to discuss issues relating to the proposed rules for cyber-security of entities interacting on the nation's electric grid.

2. The Commission's proposed cyber-security standard was described in section M and appendix G of the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NOPR) published in this docket on July 31, 2002. That proposal was developed by the Critical Infrastructure Protection Advisory Group (CIPAG) of the North American Electric Reliability Council (NERC), which has since proposed a set of revisions to the standard that have been approved by the NERC Board.

3. Copies of the NOPR security proposal may be obtained from: http://www.ferc.gov/Electric/RTO/Mrkt-Strct-comments/discussion_paper.htm. Copies of the NERC security proposal are available in Attachment A at: ftp://www.nerc.com/pub/sys/all_updl/docs/ferc/RM01-12-000-SMD.pdf.

4. This conference will build upon the concepts found in the original and revised cyber-security standards. The discussions will focus on the following questions pertaining to implementation and timing of, and compliance with, the standards:

• When should compliance with the standard become mandatory? The original NOPR would require compliance in January 2004, but recent discussions have suggested that this standard be advisory in 2004 and mandatory in 2005.

• What is the best way to establish a verification and compliance process for the standards? What is the current and expected process that NERC uses to determine compliance with the NERC standards, and would it be appropriate for the cyber-security standards as well? Should regular audits be used as part of the compliance and verification effort? Should there be a role for third-party testing or investigation of complaints about the compliance of wholesale market participants?

• What are the appropriate penalties and remedies for non-compliance or inadequate compliance with the cyber-security standards, once they are in effect?

• Should new technical issues that were neither technologically nor commercially ripe for resolution in the proposed standard be identified and recognized now so the wholesale industry and the information technology industry can anticipate the issues and requirements ahead? What issues and cyber-security challenges were not addressed in the proposed standard but should be ready for inclusion in the next standard, if the next standard is adopted in two to three years?

5. Other than with respect to the last bullet above, this workshop will not discuss the substance of the NERC-approved cyber-security standard.

6. The bulk of this workshop will be discussion between attendees. Commission staff has asked selected individuals to speak at this conference, and is not entertaining requests to make presentations. However, interested persons will be permitted to make very brief public statements that are not repetitive of materials already filed in the public record of this docket.

7. All interested persons may attend the technical conference, and registration is not required. However, in-person attendees are asked to notify the Commission of their intent to attend by sending an e-mail message to conferences@ferc.gov.

8. Transcripts of the conference will be immediately available from Ace Reporting Company (202-347-3700 or 1-800-336-6646), for a fee. They will be available for the public on the Commission's FERRIS system two weeks after the conference. Additionally, Capitol Connection offers the opportunity for remote listening of the conference for a fee. Persons interested in this service should contact David Reininger or

9. Julia Morelli at the Capitol Connection (703-993-3100) as soon as possible or visit the Capitol Connection Web site at http://www.capitolconnection.gmu.edu and click on “FERC.”

10. For more information about the conference, please contact Sarah McKinley at (202) 502-8004 or sarah.mckinley@ferc.gov.

The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms (ATF) is responsible for implementing Title XI, Regulation of Explosives (18 United States Code (U.S.C.) chapter 40), of the Organized Crime Control Act of 1970. One of the stated purposes of the Act is to reduce the hazards to persons and property arising from misuse of explosive materials. Under section 847 of title 18, U.S.C., the Secretary of the Treasury “may prescribe such rules and regulations as he deems reasonably necessary to carry out the provisions of this chapter.” Regulations that implement the provisions of chapter 40 are contained in title 27, Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), part 55 (“Commerce in Explosives”).

The term “explosive materials,” as defined in section 55.11, means explosives, blasting agents, water gels, and detonators. The term includes, but is not limited to, all items in the “List of Explosive Materials” provided for in section 55.23. Section 55.202 provides that there are three classes of explosive materials: (1) High explosives (e.g., dynamite, flash powders, and bulk salutes); (2) low explosives (e.g., black powder, safety fuses, igniters, igniter cords, fuse lighters, and display fireworks (except bulk salutes)); and (3) blasting agents (e.g., ammonium nitrate-fuel oil and certain water gels).

Under the law and its implementing regulations (section 55.41), persons engaging in the business of manufacturing, importing, or dealing in explosive materials are required to be licensed. In general, persons acquiring or receiving explosive materials in interstate commerce for their own use are required to obtain a permit.

Licensees and permittees must comply with the provisions of part 55, including those relating to storage and other safety requirements, as well as recordkeeping and theft reporting requirements. However, certain items and activities have been given exempt status under the law (18 U.S.C. 845) and its implementing regulations (section 55.141). For example, the provisions of part 55 do not apply to the transportation, shipment, receipt, or importation of explosive materials for delivery to any agency of the United States or to any State or its political subdivision.

Explosive pest control devices contain black powder, flash powder, and/or a similar pyrotechnic composition. Many of these devices contain flash powder, a high explosive, as the component that produces the audible report. These devices are used for wildlife management purposes as an effective deterrent and are necessary for pest control efforts within the agricultural, aquacultural (commercial fishing operations), horticultural, and aviation industries. Commonly known as “bird bombs,” “shell crackers,” “seal bombs,” etc., explosive pest control devices are used to deter wildlife pests without harming them.

Generally, the current regulations in part 55 require that persons acquiring or receiving explosive materials in interstate commerce must possess a license or permit. Thus, prior to acquiring any explosive pest control devices in interstate commerce, persons must submit an application for a license or permit to ATF along with the appropriate fee. The issuance of a license or permit can be a lengthy process. Consequently, the threat and damage to crops, aircraft, etc., may have long passed before a person with a legitimate need for the devices has obtained the necessary license or permit. In addition, the requirement to obtain a license or permit can be cost prohibitive, particularly in instances where persons have only an intermittent need for using explosive pest control devices.

ATF received a petition, dated April 30, 2001, filed by Reed-Joseph International Company (Reed-Joseph), requesting an amendment of the explosives regulations. Specifically, Reed-Joseph requested an amendment of section 55.141(a) to provide that the requirements of part 55 not apply to the importation and distribution of certain 15 mm and 18.2 mm pyrotechnic devices used for wildlife damage control purposes. As suggested by Reed-Joseph, a new exception would specify that the provisions of part 55 would not apply to:

The importation and distribution of 15 MM and 18.2 MM pyrotechnic devices for animal damage control purposes with U.S. Department of Transportation “Classification of Explosives” as follows:

In its petition, Reed-Joseph states that to its knowledge, no 15 mm or 18.2 mm wildlife damage control pyrotechnic devices are manufactured in the United States and that there are only two companies that import and distribute 15 mm or 18.2 mm pyrotechnics used for wildlife damage control, Reed-Joseph and Sutton Ag Enterprises of Salinas, California. As such, the petitioner contends that by limiting exemptions to 15 mm and 18.2 mm wildlife damage control pyrotechnics imported by reputable and licensed firms, ATF will be able to separate firms meeting legitimate wildlife control damage control needs from those that will sell these devices to the general public. The petitioner also states that these pyrotechnics “may only be fired from hand-held launchers that use .22 caliber blank cartridges as ignition source or Very-type flare launchers.”

ATF recognizes that the use of explosive pest control devices can be an important part of an effective wildlife management program within the agricultural, aquacultural, horticultural, and aviation industries. We also recognize that the current regulations in part 55 impose a significant hardship on these affected industries, particularly with respect to licensing and permit requirements and requirements concerning the storage of explosives. As indicated, farmers, ranchers, etc. often have an immediate need for these pest control devices and any delay in acquiring them can result in serious and significant consequences.

Accordingly, we are proposing to amend the regulations to provide a limited exemption from the requirements of part 55 for persons having a legitimate need to use explosive pest control devices. As proposed, the term “explosive pest control device” will be defined as any explosive device that is designed and intended solely for use in controlling wildlife pests and that has a container that is a cardboard/pasteboard-type tube not exceeding 4 inches in length and 3/4 inch in diameter or a shotgun shell type container. Explosive pest control devices may contain only pyrotechnic compositions, e.g., black powder, flash powder, or smokeless powder. The component that produces the audible report may not contain more than 40 grains (2.592 grams) of explosive composition. These devices must have been tested, classified, and approved by the U.S. Department of Transportation.

The proposed definition of the term “explosive pest control device” is not limited to 15 mm and 18.2 mm wildlife damage control pyrotechnic devices (that can only be fired from hand-held launchers) as requested by Reed-Joseph in its petition. Based on information we have obtained, it is clear that there are many types of explosive pest control devices available to those persons who have legitimate pest control needs. For example, according to the U.S. Department of Agriculture, problems associated with large concentrations of birds, e.g., depredation of agricultural crops, creation of health hazards, etc., can be reduced through the use of 12-gauge exploding shells (also known as “shell crackers”) fired from a shotgun, or 15 mm or 17 mm pyrotechnics fired from a pistol. The Department of Agriculture states that rope firecrackers (also known as “rope salutes”) are also useful in frightening birds. With this particular device, the fuses of large firecrackers are inserted through cotton rope. As the rope burns, the fuses are ignited.

To ensure that explosive pest control devices will not be obtained for illicit purposes, the proposed regulations require that persons acquiring such devices must complete an ATF form certifying, under penalty of perjury, that their use of the devices will be solely for legitimate wildlife pest control purposes and that they are not prohibited by law from possessing explosive materials. The form will be retained by the licensee or permittee as part of his permanent records.

In considering the appropriate storage of explosive pest control devices, we have noted that these devices often contain flash powder as the audible charge used to frighten wildlife pests. Therefore, they are considered high explosives and would ordinarily be required to be stored in a type-1 or type-2 storage magazine. ATF believes that persons acquiring explosive pest control devices will, for the most part, be storing these devices at intermittent times for specific uses and will only be storing small quantities. In addition, we believe that acquiring type-1 and type-2 explosives storage magazines will be cost prohibitive for most end-users due to the infrequent need and use of these devices. Accordingly, we are proposing that explosive pest control devices that are maintained in their original shipping packages may be stored in a type-4 magazine or other similar storage container that is approved by the Director in accordance with the provisions of § 55.22 and that provides an equivalent level of safety and security. We believe that this will ensure a sufficient level of security from theft and, if the explosive pest control devices are maintained in their original shipping packages, will provide a sufficient safeguard against accidental mass explosion.

Except as provided, the proposed regulations do not apply to persons operating businesses that provide on-site wildlife pest control services using explosive pest control devices. Such persons will be required to obtain, at a minimum, a Federal explosives permit and must comply with all applicable provisions of 18 U.S.C. chapter 40 and the regulations in part 55. Unlike farmers and others whose crops, etc., might be endangered if they were made to await issuance of an explosives permit, businesses providing pest control services using explosive pest control devices do not operate under the same time constraints. Moreover, these businesses are likely to maintain large quantities of explosive pest control devices. Similarly, those engaged in the business of dealing, importing, and/or manufacturing explosive pest control devices must obtain Federal explosives licenses and must comply with the applicable provisions of 18 U.S.C. chapter 40 and the regulations in part 55.

We have determined that this proposed regulation is not a significant regulatory action as defined by Executive Order 12866. Therefore, a Regulatory Assessment is not required.

The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), 5 U.S.C. 601 et seq., requires an agency to conduct a regulatory flexibility analysis of any rule subject to notice and comment rulemaking requirements unless the agency certifies that the rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. Small entities include small businesses, small not-for-profit enterprises, and small governmental jurisdictions. We hereby certify that this proposed regulation, if adopted, will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. Indeed, the proposed regulations will reduce the burden placed on small businesses.

The collections of information contained in this notice of proposed rulemaking have been submitted to the Office of Management and Budget for review in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3507(d)). Comments on the collections of information should be sent to the Office of Management and Budget, Attention: Desk Officer for the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Washington, DC 20503, with copies to the Chief, Document Services Branch, Room 3110, Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms, at the address previously specified. Comments are specifically requested concerning:

• Whether the proposed collections of information are necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms, including whether the information will have practical utility;

• The accuracy of the estimated burden associated with the proposed collections of information (see below);

• How the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected may be enhanced; and

• How the burden of complying with the proposed collections of information may be minimized, including through the application of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology.

The collections of information in this proposed regulation are in 27 CFR 55.141(c). This information is required to ensure that persons acquiring explosive pest control devices will be using such devices for legitimate wildlife pest control purposes. The collections of information are mandatory. The likely respondents are individuals and businesses.

• Estimated total annual reporting and/or recordkeeping burden: 3,000 hours.

• Estimated average burden hours per respondent and/or recordkeeper: 0.33 hours (20 minutes).

• Estimated number of respondents and/or recordkeepers: 4,500.

• Estimated annual frequency of responses: 2.

An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a valid control number assigned by the Office of Management and Budget. This collection is associated with the forthcoming certification form, ATF F 5430.1. The estimated burden for this regulation revision is 1 hour.

We are requesting comments on the proposed regulations from all interested persons. In addition, we are specifically requesting comments on the clarity of this proposed rule and how it may be made easier to understand.

Comments received on or before the closing date will be carefully considered. Comments received after that date will be given the same consideration if it is practical to do so, but assurance of consideration cannot be given except as to comments received on or before the closing date.

ATF will not recognize any material in comments as confidential. Comments may be disclosed to the public. Any material that the commenter considers to be confidential or inappropriate for disclosure to the public should not be included in the comment. The name of the person submitting a comment is not exempt from disclosure.

You may submit written comments by facsimile transmission to (202) 927-8525. Facsimile comments must:

• Be legible;

• Reference this notice number;

• Be 81/2″ × 11″ in size;

• Contain a legible written signature; and

• Be not more than five pages long.

We will not acknowledge receipt of facsimile transmissions. We will treat facsimile transmissions as originals.

Any interested person who desires an opportunity to comment orally at a public hearing should submit his or her request, in writing, to the Director within the 30-day comment period. The Director, however, reserves the right to determine, in light of all circumstances, whether a public hearing is necessary.

Copies of this notice and the comments received will be available for public inspection by appointment during normal business hours at: ATF Reference Library, Room 6480, 650 Massachusetts Avenue, NW., Washington, DC; telephone (202) 927-7890.

A regulation identification 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 the Federal Register 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.

The author of this document is James P. Ficaretta, Firearms, Explosives, and Arson, Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms.

For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms proposes to amend 27 CFR Part 55 as follows:

On February 5, 1990, ATF published a final rule in the Federal Register amending certain regulations contained in 27 CFR part 55 (T.D. ATF-293, 55 FR 3717). The final rule, which became effective on March 7, 1990, implemented storage and recordkeeping requirements for industry members engaged in manufacturing, importing, dealing in, or using fireworks and implemented the provisions of Public Law 99-308, 100 Stat. 449 (1986) relating to black powder. Some of the major provisions of the amendments were:

1. Extending the definition of high explosives to cover, for storage purposes, flash powder and bulk salutes, since these materials can be made to detonate by means of a blasting cap when unconfined (ATF has subsequently held that flash powder and bulk salutes are high explosives for all purposes of part 55);

2. Limiting to no more than 10 pounds the amount of flash powder used in special (display) fireworks that can be kept outside an approved magazine and in any one processing building during a day's assembling operations;

3. Limiting to no more than 500 pounds the amount of other explosive materials that can be kept outside an approved magazine and in any processing building or area during a day's assembling operations;

4. Requiring that, under certain conditions, processing buildings or areas holding no more than 10 pounds of flash powder or 500 pounds of other explosive materials used in special fireworks be located in accordance with the table of distances in section 55.218;

5. Establishing new minimum separation of distance tables applicable to fireworks plants, fireworks process buildings, and fireworks plant magazines;

6. Amending the recordkeeping requirements to include information regarding quantity and description of special fireworks; and

7. Eliminating the recordkeeping requirements for licensees and permittees selling or disposing of exempt quantities of black powder for sporting, recreational, or cultural purposes in antique firearms or antique devices.

Section 610 of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), 5 U.S.C. 610, requires an agency to review within 10 years of publication rules for which the agency prepared a final regulatory flexibility analysis addressing the impact of the rule on small businesses or other small entities. In that regard, ATF prepared a final regulatory flexibility analysis with respect to T.D. ATF-293. (See 55 FR 3719.)

The periodic review of regulations under section 610(b) of RFA requires agencies to consider the following factors: (1) The continued need for the rule; (2) the nature of complaints or comments received concerning the rule from the public; (3) the complexity of the rule; (4) the extent to which the rule overlaps, duplicates, or conflicts with other Federal rules and, to the extent feasible, with State and local governmental rules; and (5) the length of time since the rule has been evaluated or the degree to which technology, economic conditions, or other factors have changed in the area affected by the rule.

To comply with section 610 of RFA, on January 10, 1997, we published a General Notice in the Federal Register (Notice No. 845, 62 FR 1386) initiating the review of T.D. ATF-293. In the notice we requested comments from members of the explosives industry and other interested persons as to the effectiveness of the regulations issued in that final rule. We also reviewed the regulations issued in T.D. ATF-293 addressing the factors specified in section 610(b) of RFA, which include the continued need for the rule, the nature of the complaints received, the complexity of the rule, the extent to which the rule overlaps, duplicates, or conflicts with other Federal rules, and changes in the area affected by the rule.

The comment period for Notice No. 845 closed on April 10, 1997.

We received six comments in response to Notice No. 845. Two commenters recommended amendments to the marking requirements for fireworks as set forth in section 55.109.

One commenter suggested that this section require only a part number and size of shell. We are not proposing this suggestion since it would negatively affect the traceability of fireworks. Generally, licensees and permittees must record the manufacturer's marks of identification on all explosives they receive. These requirements help ensure that explosive materials can be effectively traced for criminal enforcement purposes, i.e., the explosives can be tracked through the records kept by licensees and permittees. This process often provides valuable information in explosion and bombing investigations and is useful for inspection purposes in verifying inventory and proper conduct of business practices.

The other commenter suggested that this section be amended to require the size and type of shell and a date of production, omitting the shift code. ATF believes that the additional burden of requiring each shell to be marked with the size and type of shell is not warranted because it would provide no additional information useful to ATF in tracing the origin of explosives used in crime. Therefore, we are not proposing this portion of the suggestion. However, we agree that amending the date code to omit the shift of manufacture would not significantly affect traceability in instances where fireworks manufacturers are operating only a single shift. This issue is being addressed in a separate rulemaking proceeding. Accordingly, we are not now proposing this suggestion.

Two comments addressed the recordkeeping requirements for display fireworks aerial shells under sections 55.123 and 55.124. The commenters stated that the current requirement that all manufacturer's marks of identification be recorded for acquisitions and dispositions is burdensome to proprietors due to large numbers of shells manufactured, acquired, and disposed of in most fireworks businesses. The commenters suggested that recordkeeping requirements for manufacture, acquisition, and distribution of aerial fireworks shells be amended to require that the number and size of shells be recorded in lieu of the current requirement that all manufacturer's marks be recorded. We believe that adoption of this suggestion would have a significant negative effect on our ability to trace fireworks. To trace fireworks, ATF must have access to markings reflecting the name of the manufacturer, as well as the location and date of manufacture. Without these markings, tracing is impossible. In consideration of ATF's mission to reduce violent crime and protect public safety, we are not proposing this suggestion.

We received four comments regarding the classification of flash powder as a high explosive. As specified in section 55.202(a), “high explosives” are explosive materials that can be caused to detonate by means of a blasting cap when unconfined (e.g., dynamite, flash powders, and bulk salutes).

Two commenters contended that this classification was not appropriate and they questioned the validity of past tests on flash powder. ATF may rely upon several sources for information and expertise regarding explosive materials, including ATF and industry experts, associations (e.g., the National Fire Protection Association (NFPA)), publications, and scientific tests. According to ATF's explosives experts and others, flash powders can detonate when unconfined. Further, ATF's classification of flash powder as a high explosive is consistent with the NFPA 1124 (“Code for the Manufacture, Transportation, and Storage of Fireworks and Pyrotechnic Articles”) recommendation that bulk flash powders be stored in accordance with the regulations governing storage for high explosives (section 55.218). In the interest of public safety, we are not proposing to change the classification of flash powder.

Another commenter suggested that ATF provide a better description of flash powder based on its chemical makeup. Due to the variety of combinations of fuels and oxidizers that can be used to make flash powder, we believe that basing a definition solely on the chemical makeup would prove cumbersome and may restrict ATF's discretion to accurately determine whether new explosive materials are flash powders. Furthermore, the definition that is being proposed in this notice is sufficient to enable ATF to accurately classify the various types of flash powders. Therefore, we are not proposing this suggestion.

The fourth commenter suggested that the regulations be revised to state that in addition to flash powder, “any specific quantity of pyrotechnic composition capable of detonation by means of a blasting cap when unconfined” is a high explosive. We believe that this is unnecessary because the definition of high explosives found at section 55.202(a) prescribes that all explosive compositions that can be caused to detonate when unconfined are to be classified as high explosives. Accordingly, we are not proposing this suggestion.

ATF received four comments regarding operations in fireworks process buildings as follows:

1. Current regulations at sections 55.221 and 55.222 mandate that no more than 10 pounds of flash powder be present in any fireworks process building. Three commenters contended that the 10-pound limit is overly restrictive. They suggested increasing the maximum allowable quantity of flash powder in a fireworks process building to 50 pounds. Due to the volatile nature of flash powder, we believe that allowing more than 10 pounds of flash powder in a fireworks process building would pose an excessive and unnecessary risk of injury to employees in the fireworks plant and to the general public.

2. All of the commenters argued that the 500-pound limitation on pyrotechnic compositions used in a process building or area is too restrictive. One commenter suggested that in-process compositions and materials not be considered explosives for tables of distances purposes. ATF believes that, due to the possibility for accidental explosions of pyrotechnic compositions, it is in the interest of public safety to require that pyrotechnic compositions in assembly processes be subject to table of distances requirements. Therefore, we are not proposing to exempt in-process materials from the regulations.

3. Two commenters suggested that partially completed display fireworks be allowed to remain in process buildings overnight. They argued that the movement of explosives to and from magazines over the course of a business day may have an adverse effect on safety. They suggested that the buildings could be “securely locked” when unoccupied. ATF has adopted minimum security standards for the storage of explosives, including construction and locking requirements. Permanent magazines used for overnight storage of explosives must meet the prescribed minimum standards. Further, we believe that the employment of proper safety practices when handling or moving explosive materials used in the assembly of fireworks will minimize safety risks. The threat to public safety posed by leaving display fireworks components overnight in process buildings outweighs any risks associated with the movement of the materials to and from storage magazines. Therefore, we are not proposing this suggestion.

4. Two commenters suggested that ATF adopt by reference NFPA 1124 standards to establish limits for pyrotechnic materials in process buildings. That is, the commenters suggested that ATF's regulations be amended to require persons to comply with NFPA 1124 standards. ATF relies upon groups such as the American Pyrotechnics Association (APA) and the NFPA for guidance on certain explosives issues. ATF often incorporates sections of NFPA guidelines into its regulations. However, adopting an outside organization's guidelines by reference may limit ATF's control over its own regulations because regulatory requirements could be changed based upon decisions made by NFPA to revise its code. Therefore, we are not proposing to adopt the NFPA standards by reference.

5. Finally, two commenters suggested that the 500-pound limitation (on the amount of pyrotechnic compositions allowed in fireworks process buildings) not apply to drying operations that are part of the manufacturing process and that these operations be subject to the table of distances in section 55.219. The tables at sections 55.222 and 55.223 currently require that process operations, including drying, be located specific distances from, among other things, fireworks process and nonprocess buildings, fireworks plant buildings, and fireworks shipping buildings. The table at section 55.219 applies to the storage of low explosives other than display fireworks. Although some drying operations may present less of a mass explosion hazard than others, we believe that the application of the low explosives table to display fireworks, which sometimes contain high explosives, would not be in the interest of public safety. Therefore, we are not proposing this suggestion.

ATF received four comments on the application of the table of distances in section 55.224. Those comments are discussed as follows:

1. Two commenters suggested modifying the table such that it would provide distance requirements specifically for display fireworks up to 200,000 pounds. Under the current table, persons are required to refer to section 55.218 for the storage of display fireworks in excess of 10,000 pounds to calculate separation distances of magazines from inhabited buildings, public highways, passenger railways, and other magazines. The problem presented is that the distance requirements change drastically when going from section 55.224 (for weights up to 10,000 pounds) to section 55.218 (for weights over 10,000 pounds). In comparing the two tables, there are also discrepancies in separation requirements for distances between magazines. The proposed table provides for more proportionate increases in distances for weights of materials above 10,000 pounds, and it provides for a smooth transition to the table at section 55.218 for weights above 200,000 pounds. ATF agrees that the adoption of this table will not jeopardize public safety. Accordingly, we are proposing this suggestion. (See section IV (“Proposed Amendments to Part 55”), amendment of section 55.224.)

2. One commenter suggested that the table in section 55.219, rather than the table in section 55.218 (as currently required), be used for weights over 10,000 pounds. The transition from the distance requirements in the table in section 55.224 to those in the table in section 55.219 would not be consistent. In fact, the requirements for slightly over 10,000 pounds in the table in section 55.219 are less than those for up to 10,000 pounds in the table in section 55.224. We have determined that this does not further public safety. Therefore, we are not proposing this suggestion. However, as stated above, we are proposing a revision to the table in section 55.224 that remedies this problem by providing for more proportionate increases in distances for weights of materials above 10,000 pounds, and by providing for a smooth transition to the table at section 55.218 for weights above 200,000 pounds.

3. Finally, one commenter stated that the table in section 55.224 is unnecessarily restrictive for hobbyists storing less than 1,000 pounds of fireworks. The commenter suggested that the table be further broken down to account for smaller weight categories, with corresponding shorter distances than those currently required for up to 1,000 pounds. The commenter submitted a specific table of distances for consideration. We have determined through consultation with the APA that the suggested table would apply to certain shell sizes only. We believe that implementation of such a provision would result in confusion as to the applicability of the table in situations in which a variety of sizes and types of fireworks shells are stored together. Accordingly, in the interest of clarity and administration, we are not proposing this suggestion.

Two commenters proposed that ATF implement regulations relaxing the requirements for explosives storage at a display site. The commenters suggested that the language formerly contained on ATF Form 5400.21, “Application for Permit User Limited Display Fireworks,” be incorporated into the regulations. The language formerly used in the instructions on Form 5400.21 has been changed specifically because it tended to cause a misconception that fireworks could be stored in a manner not in compliance with the regulations in part 55. ATF believes that adoption of this language would not be consistent with our mission to protect the public from unsafe storage of explosives. Therefore, we are not proposing this suggestion.

ATF received three comments regarding shipping operations. Two commenters stated that ATF regulations should address “shipping buildings,” in which articles commonly used to pack and prepare fireworks for shipping, such as empty cardboard boxes, chairs, telephones, and computers, could be used and kept. The commenters suggested that the regulations be amended to allow such items, as well as certain operations, such as unpacking and handling of fireworks, in separate shipping buildings. ATF regulations currently define the term “fireworks shipping building.” The regulations do not prohibit the use or presence of the noted articles or the unpacking or handling of fireworks in a fireworks shipping building. Therefore, we are not proposing this suggestion.

One commenter suggested that ATF allow packing items, such as tape and empty containers to be stored in magazines. The housekeeping requirements in section 55.215 generally prohibit the presence of empty containers and certain other items in magazines, in the interest of reducing fire and explosion hazards in magazines. We believe that implementing provisions allowing for the storage of these items in magazines would be contrary to the regulations and ATF's goal of protecting the public. Therefore, we are not proposing this suggestion.

In addition to the comments regarding Notice No. 845, ATF received correspondence from the explosives industry concerning additional amendments to part 55. In a letter to ATF dated October 31, 2000, the Institute of Makers of Explosives (IME) submitted suggestions for amending the Federal explosives regulations in part 55. IME stated in its letter that it is the safety association of the commercial explosives industry and that its mission is to promote safety and the protection of employees, users, the public, and the environment, and to encourage the adoption of uniform rules and regulations in the manufacture, transportation, storage, handling, use, and disposal of explosive materials used in blasting and other essential operations. In the following paragraphs, we will summarize IME's suggested amendments to the regulations, along with our evaluation of each proposal.

1. ATF regulations currently require that licensees and permittees maintain all required records in permanent form (i.e., commercial invoices, record books). The regulations do not currently provide for computer recordkeeping, although ATF has allowed computer recordkeeping on a case-by-case basis by variance. IME has suggested that ATF standardize the requirements for computer recordkeeping in order to eliminate the necessity for variances for such recordkeeping systems. In this notice, for reasons similar to those noted by IME, ATF is proposing guidelines for computer recordkeeping systems. (See section IV (“Proposed Amendments to Part 55”), amendment of section 55.121.)

2. IME has proposed that ATF eliminate the provisions requiring the use of non-sparking materials in the construction of magazines where spark-insensitive materials are stored. It stated that modern high explosives and blasting agents are not sensitive to frictional sparks. However, IME further proposed that the requirement should be retained for spark-sensitive materials such as powders and fireworks. ATF's magazine construction requirements are based upon the type of magazine (e.g., type 1, type 2, etc.) in question, not the spark-sensitivity of the explosives to be stored. This is because magazines used for the storage of spark-insensitive explosives may also be used for the storage of spark-sensitive explosives such as black powder and flash powder. We believe that basing construction standards on the spark-sensitivity of the explosives stored, rather than on the type of magazine and class of explosives, may lead to confusion and ambiguity. Furthermore, there would be a burden on proprietors to determine whether the materials being stored are sensitive to sparks. Due to the potential for creating a public safety hazard, we are not proposing this suggestion.

3. IME has suggested that ATF accept Department of Defense (DOD) specifications for DOD magazines that are used to store explosives as an alternative to compliance with ATF requirements. IME has stated that companies sometimes lease DOD magazines for storage of commercial explosives and that companies storing commercial explosives in compliance with DOD requirements are sometimes not in compliance with ATF standards. Explosive materials manufactured under DOD contracts and subject to DOD requirements, however, often differ significantly from materials manufactured for commercial use and distribution and subject to ATF requirements. Additionally, DOD generally requires that a level of physical security be maintained (e.g., armed guards) to reduce the threat of bullet penetration and thefts. Conversely, ATF's magazine construction requirements contemplate a lack of physical security, which is common practice in commercial operations. Therefore, we believe that it is appropriate to ensure that any storage of commercial explosive materials be in compliance with these ATF regulations developed specifically for commercial explosive materials and operations. Accordingly, we are not proposing IME's suggestion.

4. IME has suggested that ATF convert to United Nations terminology for hazard classifications in determining the appropriate storage for explosive materials. It stated that ATF should accept for purposes of explosives storage, the hazard classifications assigned by the U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT), which uses United Nations terminology in classifying hazardous materials for transportation purposes. DOT assigns United Nations hazard classifications for transportation of explosives based, in part, upon the performance of the packaging of the explosives. For example, where packaging that will reduce the likelihood of mass detonation is used, DOT will assign a “lower” hazard classification (triggering less stringent transportation requirements) than would be assigned if the explosive materials were not packaged in such a manner. ATF often encounters instances in which explosives are removed from DOT-mandated packaging when placed in magazines, potentially changing the mass detonation/deflagration qualities of the explosives. Adoption of the UN hazard classification standards for storage of explosive materials could result in unpackaged high explosives being stored in magazines intended for storage of low explosives. Therefore, we are not proposing IME's suggestion.

5. IME has suggested that ATF adopt its standards for bullet-resistant magazine construction. IME states that the requirements in the regulations (sections 55.207 and 55.208) and the standards found in ATF Ruling 76-18 (1976-ATF C.B. 106) are inconsistent with respect to bullet-resistance standards. It suggested that ATF adopt the bullet-resistance standards found in IME's Safety Library Publication No. 1. These standards were derived from research and testing sponsored by IME and ATF. IME stated that most magazines used in the commercial industry already meet the 1/4-inch steel and 3-inch hardwood standard, so this amendment should not prove particularly burdensome to the industry. ATF agrees that bullet-resistance standards should be consistent throughout part 55. Therefore, we are adopting IME's suggestion and we are proposing amendments to the regulations to reflect IME's standards. (See section IV (“Proposed Amendments to Part 55”), amendment of sections 55.207 and 55.208.) We are also proposing that the requirement be effective one year from the date of publication of the final rule. In addition, the provisions of ATF Ruling 76-18 are being incorporated into the proposed regulations. (See section IV (“Proposed Amendments to Part 55”), amendment of sections 55.207 and 55.208.) This ruling will become obsolete upon the effective date of the final rule.

6. IME has stated that outdoor type 2 magazines are often located on terrain that precludes a bullet from being fired through the roof. It proposed that ATF amend the regulations (section 55.208) to require bullet-resistant roofs on outdoor type 2 magazines only when it is possible for a bullet to be fired directly through the roof and at such an angle that the bullet would strike the explosives within. This is similar to language used for type 1 magazines in section 55.207. Type 2 magazines are mobile or portable magazines. As such, they are commonly relocated to suit the needs of companies engaged in construction and similar activities. Implementing this amendment could cause proprietors to unwittingly create a bullet-penetration risk by placing a magazine whose roof does not meet bullet-resistance standards in a location where bullet penetration is a potential problem. By requiring bullet-resistant roofs, ATF helps protect against this risk, regardless of how often type 2 magazines are relocated. Therefore, we are not proposing IME's suggestion.

7. Section 55.63 requires that proprietors notify ATF of newly acquired magazines and of certain changes to explosives magazines, with the exception of mobile or portable type 5 magazines. IME suggested that ATF amend the regulation to expand and clarify the exception to include all portable magazines. Type 4 portable magazines are occasionally relocated or added to maximize the amount of material that can be safely stored at fireworks premises. We believe that it is important for ATF to be notified of such changes in order to help the proprietor maintain compliance with the tables of distances. Furthermore, we believe that the public safety benefits of requiring this notification far outweigh the minimal burden to these proprietors. However, we recognize that type 3 and type 5 magazines are commonly used for transportation by construction, quarrying, and mining companies on a daily basis. The requirement to notify ATF in advance of additions and relocations would create a substantially greater burden on proprietors in these cases. Therefore, we are adopting IME's suggestion, in part, and we are proposing to except type 3 and type 5 mobile and portable magazines from the notification requirements of section 55.63. We would note that all magazines used to store explosives must meet all applicable construction and table of distance requirements, regardless of how long they are in a particular location.

8. IME has stated that the industry has taken measures to promote usage of the term “detonator” in place of “blasting cap.” It has encouraged ATF to uniformly adopt this term throughout the regulations in part 55. The term “detonator” is commonly referred to as “blasting cap” and ATF believes that there are many users of detonators who actually use that term. In addition, although IME is trying to promote usage of the term “detonator,” many of the makers and users of explosives are not members of IME. These persons routinely use the term “blasting cap” and might be confused were IME's suggestion to be adopted. ATF is also concerned that if only the term “detonator” is used, certain explosives information may not be reported to us because of the limited terminology. Accordingly, we are not proposing IME's suggestion.

9. IME has suggested that ATF require any person storing explosives to post a warning sign advising against fighting fires in explosives storage magazines. It has stated that one of its most important policies is to never fight a fire that involves explosive materials. IME also stated that it is aware of instances where fires were fought that involved explosives and those materials detonated, killing and injuring firefighters. As such, IME proposes a requirement that all normal access routes to explosive material storage facilities be posted with a sign warning against fighting explosive fires and advising of a specific emergency phone number.

On August 24, 1998, ATF published in the Federal Register a final rule amending the regulations in section 55.201 to require persons storing explosive materials to notify the local fire authority of the type, magazine capacity, and location of each site where such explosive materials are stored (T.D. ATF-400, 63 FR 44999). We believe that this requirement ensures that local fire authorities are apprised of explosive materials storage and the possibility that these materials may be involved in a fire at explosives premises. We also believe that it would be inappropriate to require those proprietors storing explosives in a non-industrial setting to place outside their homes or businesses a warning sign such as that suggested by IME. In addition to placing an undue burden on proprietors, such a requirement would create a security risk by drawing attention to the fact that explosives are stored on the premises. Accordingly, ATF is not proposing IME's suggestion. However, ATF will not require the removal of warning signs that have been posted.

10. IME has suggested that ATF revise the prohibition on storing explosive materials against interior walls of magazines. It has stated that this restriction is not necessary for modern solid explosive products, such as cutters and perforators. Section 55.214 requires that explosive materials not be placed directly against interior walls and that they must be stored so as not to interfere with ventilation. The ventilation afforded by storage in this manner benefits certain explosive materials (e.g., dynamite, boosters, fireworks) and also helps maintain the integrity of the packaging of the explosives, regardless of the configuration or type of explosive materials. Accordingly, ATF is not proposing IME's suggestion.

11. IME has suggested that ATF amend the permit requirement for interstate transportation of explosives in section 55.141, noting in this regard that DOT regulates both interstate and intrastate transportation of explosives and that, therefore, the exemption at section 55.141(a)(1) makes the requirement for a permit for interstate transportation under section 55.41 superfluous. It has suggested that ATF remove the requirement that a person who intends to transport explosive materials interstate acquire a permit. Title XI of the Organized Crime Control Act of 1970 (18 U.S.C. 842(a)(3)) prohibits persons without a license or permit from transporting or shipping explosive materials interstate (except in cases where the individual's State specifically allows the interstate purchase, transport, and shipment from a contiguous State). Accordingly, legislative action would be necessary to relax this requirement.

12. IME has proposed an amendment to the requirement in section 55.104 that a license or permit furnished for the purpose of purchasing explosives contain an original signature. It has suggested that this section be amended to require that the licensee or permittee retain an original signed copy at his or her premises and furnish a photocopy thereof for verification purposes when purchasing explosives. Under the current regulations, licensees and permittees are required to furnish a copy of their license or permit prior to receiving explosive materials. This copy must contain an original signature certifying that the license or permit is a true copy of a valid license or permit. In the past, ATF has considered similar suggestions to relax the requirement for an original signature. However, we are concerned about the possibility of persons unlawfully acquiring explosives on a stolen copy of a license with a photocopied signature. We believe that this concern is still valid. Accordingly, we are not proposing IME's suggestion.

This section contains a compilation of all the proposed amendments to part 55, including those initiated by ATF, those based on comments received in response to Notice No. 845, and those suggested by IME.

Currently, “bulk salutes” are defined in section 55.11 as salute components prior to final assembly into aerial shells, and finished salute shells held separately prior to being packed with other types of display fireworks. This definition allows packages containing a majority of salute shells and a minimal number of display fireworks to be stored as display fireworks, rather than as high explosives. This is a problem because storage requirements for display fireworks are less stringent than requirements for the storage of bulk salutes, which are high explosives. Therefore, we are amending the definition of “bulk salutes” to specify that the term includes a collection of salute shells packaged with other types of aerial shells in quantities such that the salute shells comprise more than 50 percent of the total number of shells in the package. This will ensure that packages containing mostly salute shells will be stored properly, as high explosives. This change is consistent with NFPA guidelines.

The term “business premises,” as currently defined in the regulations, includes the property where the records of a manufacturer, importer, or dealer are kept if different than the premises where explosive materials are manufactured, imported, stored, or distributed. ATF has encountered situations in which an inspection could not be conducted properly or in a timely manner due to the fact that the records were not at the actual location listed on the license. Therefore, we are amending the definition of “business premises” to specify that the term, when used with respect to a manufacturer, importer, or dealer, means the property on which explosive materials are manufactured, imported, stored, or distributed. Similarly, when used with respect to an explosives permittee, the term will mean the property on which the explosive materials are received or stored.

The definitions for the terms “articles pyrotechnic,” “consumer fireworks,” and “display fireworks” are being amended for clarification purposes. In addition, technical non-substantive changes are being made to the definition of the term “fireworks process building.”

A definition for the term “fireworks process area” is being added in order to ensure that open-air processing operations are conducted in compliance with the tables of distances in sections 55.222 and 55.223. This is being done in the interest of public safety.

The definition of the term “fireworks shipping building” is being amended to clarify that such a building may be used for the packing of assorted display fireworks into shipping cartons for individual displays or for the loading of packaged displays for shipment to purchasers.

The definition of the term “flash powder” is being amended in order to be more descriptive of the possible ingredients of this explosive.

The definition of the term “hardwood” is being amended to be consistent with the well-recognized industry standards of the NFPA.

As defined in the regulations, the term “highway” means any public street, public alley, or public road, including a privately financed, constructed, or maintained road that is regularly and openly traveled by the general public. It has come to our attention that there is confusion as to the meaning of the term “general public.” We believe that even small segments of the general public traveling on roads near explosives magazines are entitled to protections similar to those afforded to large numbers of persons traveling on similar roadways. Moreover, we believe that individuals employed by, or otherwise associated with, one explosives facility should be deemed to be members of the “general public” with respect to any other explosives facility. We are amending the definition of the term “highway” to clarify that any road regularly and openly traveled by any member of the general public would be subject to the table of distance requirements.

The definition of “inhabited building” is being amended to clarify specific conditions where a building would be considered to be occupied in connection with the manufacture, storage, transportation, and use of explosive materials and, therefore, not be considered an inhabited building. For example, where there are two explosives businesses (Business A and Business B), a building occupied solely by Business A will be considered an “inhabited building” with respect to the explosives storage magazines that are maintained by Business B. However, this same building would fall within the exception for “buildings occupied in connection with the manufacture, transportation, storage, or use of explosive materials” with respect to explosives storage magazines maintained by Business A. This clarification ensures that personnel employed by or otherwise associated with one explosives facility will not “assume the risk” associated with another explosives facility's operations.

The definition of the term “manufacturer” is being amended to include persons who assemble explosive materials from other explosive materials and/or non-explosive materials, such as fireworks and pyrotechnics. By adding “assemblers” to the definition, the marking requirements of section 55.109 will apply to persons assembling explosive materials.

The definition of the term “softwood” is being amended to be consistent with the well-recognized industry standards of the NFPA.

Section 55.22 is being amended to clarify that copies of approved variances (rather than the applications) are to be kept by the permittee or licensee to whom they are issued so that they can be reviewed by ATF officers. This section is also being amended to provide that the Director may require the resubmission of all variances for the purpose of re-evaluation. For example, the Director may require the resubmission of all variances when there is a change of ownership, control, or personnel; at the time of renewal; or upon disclosure of a person's possible inability or unwillingness to comply with the terms of a variance.

Section 55.46 is being amended to provide that the Chief, Firearms and Explosives Licensing Center (now known as the “Chief, National Licensing Center”) may, in writing, require the applicant for license or permit renewal to file an original application for license or permit as required by section 55.45. This would be in addition to filing an application for license renewal on ATF F 5400.14 (part III), or application for permit renewal on ATF F 5400.15 (part III). This ensures compliance with existing requirements in part 55 and is consistent with the firearms regulations in part 178 of this chapter with respect to the renewal of Federal firearms licenses.

Several amendments are being made to section 55.63, relating to changes in explosives magazines:

1. Paragraph (a)(1) is being amended to clarify that magazines used for storage of explosives are subject to the table of distances and magazine construction requirements prescribed in sections 55.206 through 55.211.

2. Paragraphs (a)(2) and (a)(3) are being removed. The provisions of these paragraphs are considered unnecessary because they duplicate the standards specified in sections 55.206 through 55.211.

3. Paragraph (a)(4) is being revised for clarification purposes and is being redesignated as paragraph (e).

4. Paragraph (b), which exempts mobile or portable type 5 magazines from the requirements of section 55.63, is being amended by redesignating the paragraph as paragraph (f) and by providing that type 3 magazines are also exempt from the requirements of this section. We are not proposing to exempt type 4 magazines from the notification provisions of this section, as such magazines are often used and relocated at the premises of fireworks companies. Due, in part, to the seasonal nature of their business, such companies often relocate type 4 magazines during periods of high volume. In the interest of public safety, we will still require that such businesses notify ATF of relocations of type 4 magazines.

5. Paragraphs (c) and (d) provide that the regional director (compliance) (now known as the “Director of Industry Operations”) must be notified prior to repairing, reconstructing, or acquiring new magazines. These paragraphs further require that the regional director (compliance) be notified prior to commencing storage in a new or repaired magazine. We believe that the additional burden of this second notification to ATF after acquisition or repair and prior to storing is not justified. Accordingly, we are amending these paragraphs by redesignating them as paragraphs (b) and (c), respectively, and by removing the requirement that the regional director (compliance) be notified after the acquisition of a new magazine or the repair or reconstruction of an existing magazine.

6. Finally, we are amending section 55.63 by adding a new paragraph (d) to require licensees and permittees to notify ATF prior to the relocation of magazines. ATF has encountered recurring instances where industry members have relocated their explosives storage magazines to new locations. This has caused difficulty in administration of the regulations and has disclosed unsafe storage conditions in some instances where magazine relocations have been discovered. In the interest of public safety and the effective administration of the regulations, we believe that the notification provisions of this section should apply to the relocation of magazines.

Sections 55.105(g), 55.106(d), and 55.108(b) are being removed as they are redundant. The exemption provisions contained in section 55.141(b) make it clear that, except for the provisions pertaining to licensees, the requirements of part 55 do not apply to certain distributions of black powder under certain conditions. The sections noted above simply reiterate the applicable portions of section 55.141(b). With the removal of paragraph (b) in section 55.108, paragraphs (c) and (d) of that section are being redesignated as paragraphs (b) and (c), respectively.

Section 55.121(a)(1) states that licensees and permittees must keep records pertaining to explosive materials in permanent form, i.e., in commercial invoices or record books. This section is being amended to specify that records may be kept in computer format, provided certain conditions are met. Computer recordkeeping has become a common industry practice and we have approved numerous variances allowing this practice. Paragraph (b) of section 55.121 is being amended by adding the word “business” before “premises” in the first sentence to clarify that this subsection refers to “business premises” as defined in section 55.11.

Section 55.122(a), introductory text, is being amended to provide that the physical inventory required to be taken by licensed importers must consist of all the information specified in paragraph (b) of section 55.122, such as the manufacturer's marks of identification. This will facilitate the tracing of explosives that may be intended for criminal use. Paragraph (a)(4) is being amended to provide that all discrepancies disclosed between the physical inventory of explosive materials and the records required by part 55 must be reconciled in the importer's records by the close of the next business day. This will ensure that thefts and losses of explosives are more quickly detected. Paragraph (c) of section 55.122 is being amended to add the term “use” to the recordkeeping requirements for licensed importers. This will require importers using explosive materials they import to keep records of such use. This is consistent with requirements that are being proposed for licensed manufacturers and dealers.

Section 55.123, which relates to records maintained by licensed manufacturers, is being amended by revising the introductory text of paragraph (a) to provide that the physical inventory required to be taken by licensed manufacturers consists of all the information specified in paragraph (b) of this section, such as the manufacturer's marks of identification. This will facilitate the tracing of explosives that may be intended for criminal use. Paragraph (a)(4) is being amended to provide that all discrepancies disclosed between the physical inventory of explosive materials and the records required by part 55 must be reconciled in the manufacturer's records by the close of the next business day. This will ensure that thefts and losses of explosives are more quickly detected. Paragraphs (b)(2) through (b)(4) are being redesignated as paragraphs (b)(3) through (b)(5), respectively. New paragraph (b)(2) provides that records of acquisition kept by manufacturers of explosive materials must contain the importer's or manufacturer's name or brand name when explosives are acquired other than by their own manufacture. This is consistent with the requirements for manufacturer's disposition records and with the required records of acquisition for importers, dealers, and permittees. Paragraph (c) is being amended to require manufacturers to record their use of explosive materials, regardless of the source. This will require manufacturers using explosive materials they manufacture to keep records of such use. Since paragraph (d) is no longer necessary, it is being removed and paragraphs (e) and (f) are being redesignated as paragraphs (d) and (e), respectively.

Section 55.124, regarding records maintained by licensed dealers, is being amended by providing in the introductory text of paragraph (a) that the physical inventory required to be taken by licensed dealers consists of all the information specified in paragraph (b) of this section, such as the manufacturer's marks of identification. This will facilitate the tracing of explosives that may be intended for criminal use. Paragraph (a)(4) is being amended to provide that all discrepancies disclosed between the physical inventory of explosive materials and the records required by part 55 must be reconciled in the dealer's records by the close of the next business day. This will ensure that thefts and losses of explosives are more quickly detected. Paragraph (c)(1) is being amended to require licensed dealers to record their use of explosive materials. This will require dealers using explosive materials that they are not distributing to other persons to keep records of such use.

Section 55.125(a), introductory text, is being amended to provide that the physical inventory required to be taken by permittees consists of all the information specified in paragraph (b) of section 55.125, such as the manufacturer's marks of identification. This will facilitate the tracing of explosives that may be intended for criminal use. Paragraph (a)(4) is being amended to provide that all discrepancies disclosed between the physical inventory of explosive materials and the records required by part 55 must be reconciled in the permittee's records by the close of the next business day. This will ensure that thefts and losses of explosives are more quickly detected.

Section 55.126(b) is being amended to require licensees and permittees to verify the identity of nonlicensees and nonpermittees purchasing explosive materials. Under the current regulations, ATF Form 5400.4 must be executed by the buyer for purchases of explosive materials. A Federal explosives licensee or permittee who purchases explosive materials is not required to complete Form 5400.4. Before explosive materials are distributed to nonlicensees or nonpermittees, Form 5400.4 provides that the licensee or permittee must verify the identity of the buyer (distributee), either by acknowledging on the form that the buyer is known to the licensee or permittee or by obtaining from the buyer proof of identification (e.g., a driver's license). ATF believes that the phrase “is known to me,” as it currently appears on Form 5400.4, is ambiguous and lends itself to confusion and misinterpretation. We believe that it is in the best interests of public safety and our enforcement efforts to require that all nonlicensed/nonpermitted purchasers provide proof of identification prior to the distribution of explosive materials. Accordingly, we are amending section 55.126(b) to require that licensees and permittees obtain proof of identification from all nonlicensees or nonpermittees purchasing explosive materials. This requirement is consistent with respect to purchases of firearms by nonlicensed individuals.

Section 55.129 is being amended to require that where commercial explosives (except for defense articles subject to the Arms Export Control Act) are exported, exportation is to be in compliance with the Export Administration Act. We are also amending this section to require licensees to maintain proof of exportation of explosive materials to the actual end user. This is intended to prevent diversion activities.

Section 55.141 is being amended by revising paragraph (a)(7) to clarify the items exempt from the requirements of part 55. Paragraph (a)(9) is being amended to remove the DOT's regulation cite (49 CFR parts 100 to 177) in order to eliminate possible confusion in the event these regulations are subsequently revised or removed.

Section 55.206(a) currently states that magazines in which high explosives are stored must be a minimum distance from other high explosive magazines. This section is being amended to clarify that, except where magazines are “combined” as provided in footnote 2 of section 55.218, magazines in which high explosives are stored must be located no closer to magazines in which any explosive materials are stored, than the minimum distances specified in the table of distances for storage of explosive materials in section 55.218. This will ensure that all types of explosive materials will be stored appropriately when located in proximity to magazines containing high explosives. To be consistent with the proposed amended definition of “highway,” the word “public” is being removed in paragraph (b) of section 55.206. Paragraph (c)(1) of section 55.206 is being amended to require that minimum separation distances be placed between outdoor magazines containing any amount of blasting agents and inhabited buildings, highways, and passenger railways, per the table in section 55.218. This was previously unclear in the notes to the tables of distances in sections 55.218 and 55.220, and the fact that section 55.206 only specifies minimum separation distances for amounts over 50 pounds.

Several amendments are being proposed with respect to section 55.207:

1. IME has suggested that ATF make all references to bullet resistance within part 55 consistent with its standard of 1/4-inch steel lined with 3 inches of hardwood. In its letter, IME referred to section 55.207(a)(7)(ii) that describes the bullet-resistance standard for roof construction for type 1 magazines. Accordingly, this section is being amended to reflect the suggested standard of 1/4-inch steel and 3 inches of hardwood. However, 3/16-inch steel lined with 4 inches of hardwood, which is currently prescribed in section 55.207(a)(7)(ii), will still be considered bullet-resistant construction as referenced in ATF Ruling 76-18. We are also removing the parenthetical text in section 55.207(a)(7)(ii) to ensure that the exteriors of magazines are constructed with a sufficient amount of fire-resistant materials. In addition, this section is being amended to remove the word “plate” in the phrase “plate steel.” This provides consistency with the standards prescribed for other high explosives storage magazines.

Paragraph (a)(8) of section 55.207 is being amended to increase the thickness of hardwood required for magazine door linings from 2 inches to 3 inches. Previously, ATF believed that a wall or door constructed of 1/4-inch steel lined with 2 inches of hardwood would resist the penetration of a bullet, based on the standard test. The standard test involves firing a 150 grain M2 ball ammunition having a nominal muzzle velocity of 2700 feet per second from a .30 caliber rifle from a distance of 100 feet perpendicular to the wall or door (see ATF Rul. 76-18). Examination of bullet-resistance tests conducted by IME indicates that the previous standard is not sufficient. Paragraph (a)(8) is being amended to reflect the standard recommended by IME. Accordingly, effective 1 year from the date of publication of the final rule in the Federal Register, all type 1 magazines must have 1/4-inch steel doors lined with 3 inches of hardwood. This is consistent with the provisions of ATF Rul. 76-18. For the same reason explained above, this paragraph is also being amended to remove the word “plate” in the phrase “plate steel.”

2. Paragraph (a)(9)(v) of section 55.207 provides that, with respect to type 1 magazines, padlocks must have at least five tumblers and a case-hardened shackle of at least 3/8-inch diameter. We believe that a 3/8-inch diameter requirement is insufficient to prevent cutting the shackle. Accordingly, we are proposing that case-hardened shackles be at least 1/2-inch diameter.

3. Finally, section 55.207 is being amended by adding a new paragraph (c) that incorporates the provisions of ATF Ruling 76-18.

Sections 55.208, 55.210, and 55.211 require that magazines be equipped with 2 hooded locks with at least 3/8-inch shackles and five tumblers. In past years, ATF issued a number of variances allowing mobile outdoor type 2 and type 4 magazines to have only one lock, with no hood requirement. This variance was subsequently extended to the entire explosives industry. A review of explosives theft data indicates that in a significant number of explosives thefts access was gained to the explosives by cutting or prying the padlocks. Based on these findings, ATF has determined that the reduction in explosives magazine security allowed by these variances is inappropriate. Therefore, we are proposing to amend the regulations to require that all types 1, 2, 4, and 5 outdoor magazines (except for type 5 bins used to load bulk trucks), including vehicular/mobile magazines, be secured with 2 hooded locks with 1/2-inch (rather than 3/8-inch) shackles and five tumblers. We are proposing the same requirement for types 2, 4, and 5 indoor magazines. Upon the effective date of the final rule, the above-mentioned variances will no longer be valid. ATF is soliciting comments from the industry on the economic burden these actions will impose. Commenters should address such issues as whether it is physically and economically viable to lock all magazines as stated in the proposed regulations in sections 55.207 through 55.211 and whether such actions will afford increased security. In addition, commenters should address the costs associated with increasing the lock size requirements as stated above. Comments should contain specific estimates of the monetary cost of this action.

Several other amendments are being proposed with respect to section 55.208:

1. The word “exterior” in the heading of paragraphs (a)(2) and (b)(2) is being removed for clarification purposes.

2. Paragraph (a)(2) is being amended to impose a bullet-resistance standard of 1/4-inch steel and 3 inches of hardwood for the construction of type 2 magazines. We are proposing that the effective date of this particular amendment be one year from the date of publication of the final rule in the Federal Register.

3. Paragraphs (a)(2) and (b)(2) are being amended to add the exposed metal restriction specified in section 55.207(a)(11) in order to ensure that construction of type 2 magazines is such that there will exist a reduced chance of a sparking hazard.

4. Paragraph (b)(1) is being amended to increase the poundage allowable for indoor storage of explosives from 50 pounds to 60 pounds. This is consistent with the standards for indoor storage set forth by IME. It also reflects the fact that commercial explosives are now shipped in 55 and 60 pound cases. ATF believes that adoption of this proposal would not compromise safety.

5. Paragraph (c) is being amended to clarify that a detonator box is a specific type of indoor magazine and that, therefore, detonator boxes must be stored indoors. There has been some confusion as to the requirements for the location of detonator boxes, and this amendment is intended to eliminate the confusion.

6. Paragraph (c) is also being amended to ensure that construction of detonator boxes is such that there will exist a reduced chance of a sparking hazard. This will afford greater public safety.

7. Finally, new paragraph (d) is being added to incorporate the provisions of ATF Ruling 76-18.

Section 55.209 provides that for type 3 magazines one steel padlock (which need not be protected by a steel hood) having at least five tumblers and a case-hardened shackle of at least 3/8-inch diameter is sufficient for locking purposes. We are amending this section to replace the 3/8-inch diameter requirement with 1/2-inch for purposes of added security. We are also amending this section to ensure that construction of type 3 magazines is such that there will exist a reduced chance of a sparking hazard. We are not proposing to incorporate the provisions of ATF Ruling 76-18 because bullet-resistance standards with respect to type 3 magazines were removed pursuant to T.D. ATF-87 (46 FR 40382, Aug. 7, 1981).

Section 55.210 is being amended to provide in paragraph (a)(1) an additional method (i.e., use of a steering wheel locking device) by which vehicular magazines may be immobilized. Storage in this additional manner must be attended at all times. This is consistent with the requirements that have been imposed by ATF in issuing variances for temporary storage. The primary purpose of this amendment is to allow the temporary storage of low explosives on vehicles prior to use or shipment. ATF has processed numerous variance requests from the fireworks industry to temporarily store display fireworks (except for bulk salutes) on trucks prior to the delivery or set up of fireworks shows. ATF is aware that this practice promotes safety in that trucks are not hastily packed. Since other low explosives are subject to substantially the same security and safety-related requirements as display fireworks (except bulk salutes), we are also providing for temporary storage of these other low explosives. These provisions do not remove the construction requirements specified in section 55.210. It should also be noted that we are not proposing to amend the regulations to allow for similar temporary storage of high explosives (including bulk salutes) on trucks. This is due to the fact that most trucks used for transportation do not meet the bullet resistance requirements for storage of high explosives. Therefore, temporary storage of high explosives on trucks could pose a public safety hazard. However, ATF will consider variances for the temporary storage of high explosives on vehicles in cases in which the construction of the vehicle ensures that a bullet will not penetrate the vehicle. Paragraphs (a)(2) and (b)(2) are being amended to ensure that construction of type 4 magazines is such that there will exist a reduced chance of a sparking hazard. Paragraph (b)(1) is being amended to increase the indoor storage of low explosives from 50 to 60 pounds. This is consistent with industry shipment standards and IME recommendations.

Several amendments are being proposed with respect to section 55.211:

1. Paragraph (a)(1) is being amended to provide that vehicular magazines must be immobilized by one of the following methods: (a) Have the wheels removed; (b) be equipped with a kingpin locking device; or (c) be equipped with a steering wheel locking device and, if unattended, secured by a fence and locked gate. Any person storing explosives in a magazine immobilized by use of a steering wheel locking device must inspect such magazine at least every 72 hours. This amendment allows the temporary storage of blasting agents on vehicles. ATF has processed numerous requests from the blasting industry to temporarily store blasting agents on trucks. We are aware that this practice promotes safety in that explosive materials are handled less frequently. This proposed amendment sets forth conditions for the temporary storage of blasting agents.

2. Paragraph (a)(4) provides that, in general, padlocks for type 5 magazines must have at least five tumblers and a case-hardened shackle of at least 3/8-inch diameter. This paragraph also provides that trailers, semitrailers, and similar vehicular magazines may, for each door, be locked with one steel padlock (which need not be protected by a steel hood) having at least five tumblers and a case-hardened shackle of at least 3/8-inch diameter, if the door hinges and lock hasp are securely fastened to the magazine and to the door frame. As mentioned, a review of explosives theft data indicates that in a significant number of explosives thefts access was gained to the explosives by cutting the padlock. We believe a general requirement that type 5 magazines be secured with two hooded locks with 1/2-inch (rather than 3/8-inch) diameter shackles is necessary. However, in the case of bins, we believe that the two hooded locks requirement is unwarranted due to the difficulty in accessing the bins. Accordingly, we are proposing to amend paragraph (a)(4) to provide that type 5 magazines must be secured with two hooded locks with 1/2-inch diameter shackles and that bins used to load bulk trucks may be locked with one steel padlock (which need not be protected by a steel hood) having at least five tumblers and a case-hardened shackle of at least 1/2-inch diameter.

3. Paragraph (b)(1) is being amended to increase the indoor storage of blasting agents from 50 to 60 pounds. This is consistent with industry shipment standards and IME recommendations.

Section 55.213(b)(1) is being amended to allow shock tube to be stored with detonators that will not mass detonate with electric squibs, safety fuse, igniters, and igniter cord in a type 4 storage magazine because these materials when stored together do not pose a mass detonation hazard.

Section 55.217(b) is being amended to reference the correct NFPA publication and to clarify that all electrical outlets, switches, and devices containing electrical switches must be located outside magazines.

Section 55.218 is being amended to remove the word “public” with respect to highways wherever it appears in the table headings, since under the proposed regulations the term “highway” can mean a private road. In addition, while not a specific regulatory proposal, we are considering amending the table of distances in this section to eliminate the column titled “Public highways with traffic volume 3000 or fewer vehicles/day.” ATF believes that this table reference allows a diminished level of protection to travelers on smaller highways than is afforded to travelers on highways with greater traffic volume. Moreover, because roads may become more heavily traveled due to population growth, magazines that may have initially been placed to comply with the low-volume traffic column of the table can become noncompliant. We are also considering amending the table of distances in this section by changing the heading from “Passenger railways—public highways with traffic volume of more than 3,000 vehicles/day” to “Highways and passenger railways.” We believe that this change would provide for the consistent application of this table where highways are concerned and further facilitate consistent application of the proposed definition of “highway.” ATF is soliciting comments on these issues.

To be consistent with the proposed amended definition of “highway,” the word “public” is being removed from footnote six at the end of the table in section 55.220.

Section 55.222 is being amended to include fireworks process areas in the table heading. The footnotes at the end of the table are being amended to indicate that this table applies to outdoor areas in which fireworks are processed.

Section 55.223 is being amended to clarify that the placement of explosive materials in a fireworks process area must comply with the requirements of the table of distances contained in this section at all times. We are also amending this section by removing the word “public” with respect to highways in the title heading of the table, since under the proposed amended definition of the term a “highway” can be a private road.

Section 55.224 is being amended to incorporate a table for the storage of display fireworks developed by the APA. The current table requires the storer to refer to section 55.218 for the storage of display fireworks in excess of 10,000 pounds to calculate distances separating magazines from inhabited buildings, public highways, passenger railways, and other magazines. The problem presented is that the distance requirements change drastically when going from section 55.224 (for weights up to 10,000 pounds) to section 55.218 (for weights over 10,000 pounds). In comparing the two tables, there are also discrepancies in separation requirements for distances between magazines. APA proposed revising the table at section 55.224 to increase maximum allowable storage under section 55.224 to 200,000 pounds. The revised table provides for more proportionate increases in distances for weights of materials above 10,000 pounds, and it provides for a smooth transition to the table at section 55.218 for weights above 200,000 pounds. ATF has reviewed the table and agrees that the adoption of APA's table will not jeopardize public safety. Bulk salutes remain subject to the table specified in section 55.218.

In addition to the above, a technical nonsubstantive amendment is being made to section 55.224 by removing the parenthetical text in footnote 3 at the end of the table and adding in its place “March 7, 1990.” This was the date that the provisions of section 55.224 became effective, pursuant to T.D. ATF-293.

We have determined that this proposed rule is not a significant regulatory action as defined in E.O. 12866. Therefore, a Regulatory Assessment is not required.

The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) requires an agency to conduct a regulatory flexibility analysis of any rule subject to notice and comment rulemaking requirements unless the agency certifies that the rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. Small entities include small businesses, small not-for-profit enterprises, and small governmental jurisdictions. The proposed amendments clarify the existing regulations and will have a minimal economic impact on the explosives industry. Furthermore, we certify that the revised rule will no longer have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. We base this certification on the lack of response we received to the RFA analysis set forth in T.D. ATF-293 and comments received on Notice No. 845.

Accordingly, we certify that this proposed rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.

The collections of information contained in this notice of proposed rulemaking have been submitted to the Office of Management and Budget for review in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3507(d)). Comments on the collections of information should be sent to the Office of Management and Budget, Attention: Desk Officer for the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Washington, DC 20503, with copies to the Chief, Document Services Branch, Room 3110, Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms, at the address previously specified. Comments are specifically requested concerning:

• Whether the proposed collections of information are necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms, including whether the information will have practical utility;

• The accuracy of the estimated burden associated with the proposed collections of information (see below);

• How the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected may be enhanced; and

• How the burden of complying with the proposed collections of information may be minimized, including through the application of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology.

The collections of information in this proposed regulation are in 27 CFR 55.22(c), 55.63, and 55.129(b) and (c).

This information is required to ensure that public safety is maintained with respect to explosives storage and accountability. The collections of information are mandatory. The likely respondents are businesses.

With respect to 27 CFR 55.22(c):

• Estimated total annual reporting and/or recordkeeping burden: 12.5 hours.

• Estimated average burden hours per respondent and/or recordkeeper: 0.5 hours (30 minutes).

• Estimated number of respondents and/or recordkeepers: 25.

• Estimated annual frequency of responses: 25.

With respect to 27 CFR 55.63:

• Estimated total annual reporting and/or recordkeeping burden: 128 hours.

• Estimated average burden hours per respondent and/or recordkeeper: 0.1 hours (6 minutes).

• Estimated number of respondents and/or recordkeepers: 1,281.

• Estimated annual frequency of responses: 1,281.

With respect to 27 CFR 55.129(b) and (c):

• Estimated total annual reporting and/or recordkeeping burden: 33.3 hours.

• Estimated average burden hours per respondent and/or recordkeeper: 0.03 hours (2 minutes).

• Estimated number of respondents and/or recordkeepers: 1,000.

• Estimated annual frequency of responses: 1,000.

An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a valid control number assigned by the Office of Management and Budget.

We are requesting comments on the proposed regulations from all interested persons. In addition, we are specifically requesting comments on the clarity of this proposed rule and how it may be made easier to understand.

Comments received on or before the closing date will be carefully considered. Comments received after that date will be given the same consideration if it is practical to do so, but assurance of consideration cannot be given except as to comments received on or before the closing date.

ATF will not recognize any material in comments as confidential. Comments may be disclosed to the public. Any material that the commenter considers to be confidential or inappropriate for disclosure to the public should not be included in the comment. The name of the person submitting a comment is not exempt from disclosure.

You may submit written comments by facsimile transmission to (202) 927-8525. Facsimile comments must:

• Be legible;

• Reference this notice number;

• Be 81/2″ x 11″ in size;

• Contain a legible written signature; and

• Be not more than five pages long.

We will not acknowledge receipt of facsimile transmissions. We will treat facsimile transmissions as originals.

Any interested person who desires an opportunity to comment orally at a public hearing should submit his or her request, in writing, to the Director within the 90-day comment period. The Director, however, reserves the right to determine, in light of all circumstances, whether a public hearing is necessary.

Copies of this notice and the comments received will be available for public inspection by appointment during normal business hours at: ATF Reference Library, Room 6480, 650 Massachusetts Avenue, NW., Washington, DC; telephone (202) 927-7890.

A regulation identification 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 the Federal Register 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.

The authors of this document are James P. Ficaretta, Firearms, Explosives, and Arson, and Chad Yoder, Public Safety Branch, Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms.

For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms proposes to amend 27 CFR part 55 as follows:

This document and additional information concerning OFAC are available from OFAC's Web site http://www.treas.gov/offices/enforcement/ofac/index.html or via facsimile through a 24-hour fax-on-demand service, tel: 202/622-0077. Comments on these Guidelines may be submitted electronically through OFAC's Web site http://www.treas.gov/offices/ enforcement/ofac/comment.html.

Pursuant to the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601 et seq., it is hereby certified that this rule would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. OFAC's Guidelines impose no regulatory burdens on the public. The Guidelines simply explain OFAC's enforcement practices based on existing substantive and procedural rules. Accordingly, no regulatory flexibility analysis is required. A regulatory assessment is not required because this rule is not a “significant regulatory action” as defined in Executive Order 12866.

Comments must be submitted in writing. The addresses and deadline for submitting comments appear near the beginning of this notice. OFAC will not accept comments accompanied by a request that all or part of the submission be treated confidentially because of its business proprietary nature or for any other reason. All comments received by the deadline will be a matter of public record and will be made available on OFAC's Web site http://www.treas.gov/offices/enforcement/ofac/index.html.

The collections of information related to the Reporting and Procedures Regulations and the Cuban Assets Control Regulations have been previously approved by the Office of Management and Budget (“OMB”) under control number 1505-0164. A small adjustment to that collection has been submitted to OMB in order to take into account the voluntary disclosure rule proposed in this notice. An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a valid control number assigned by OMB.

The new collection of information is contained in subpart B of part III of the new Appendix to part 501—Economic Sanctions Enforcement Guidelines. This subpart explains that when apparent violations are voluntarily disclosed by the actor to OFAC, the proposed penalty will generally be mitigated by at least 50%. This voluntary disclosure rule provides an incentive for persons who have violated economic sanctions laws to come forward and provide OFAC information that it can use to better enforce its economic sanctions programs.

The likely submitters who will avail themselves of the voluntary disclosure rule are financial institutions, business organizations, other entities, and individuals who find that they have violated a sanctions prohibition and wish to disclose their violation.

The estimated total annual reporting and/or recordkeeping burden: 50 hours. The estimated annual burden per respondent/record keeper: 1 hour. Estimated number of respondents and/or record keepers: 50. Estimated annual frequency of responses: once or less, given that OFAC expects that persons who voluntarily disclose their violations will take better care to avoid future violations.

Comments are invited on: (a) Whether this new collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information has practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the collection of information; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology; and (e) estimates of capital or start-up costs and costs of operation, maintenance, and purchase of services to provide information.

Comments concerning the above information, the accuracy of estimated average annual burden, and suggestions for reducing this burden should be directed to OMB, Paperwork Reduction Project, control number 1505-0164, Washington, DC, 20503, with a copy to the Office of Foreign Assets Control, Department of the Treasury, 1500 Pennsylvania Ave., NW.,—Annex, Washington, DC 20220. Any such comments should be submitted not later than March 31, 2003. Comments on aspects of this proposed rule other than those involving collections of information subject to the PRA should not be sent to OMB.

OFAC hereby publishes as appendices to 31 CFR parts 501 and 515 its Guidelines for the enforcement of the various economic sanctions programs it administers. These Guidelines review OFAC's procedures for determining whether an economic sanctions violation has occurred and outline the range of enforcement options available, including the imposition of a civil monetary penalty. A schedule of proposed penalties for certain violations of the Cuban Assets Control Regulations, 31 CFR part 515, is published as a separate appendix to those particular regulations. These Guidelines serve as a general framework for OFAC's enforcement activities, but OFAC may depart from them in particular cases.

The primary mission of OFAC is to administer and enforce economic sanctions against targeted foreign countries, terrorists and terrorist organizations, and narcotic traffickers in furtherance of U.S. foreign policy and national security objectives. OFAC acts under general Presidential wartime and national emergency powers, as well as specific legislation, to prohibit transactions and freeze (or “block”) assets subject to U.S. jurisdiction. Economic sanctions are designed to deprive the target of the use of its assets and deny the target access to the U.S. financial system and the benefits of trade, transactions, and services involving U.S. markets, businesses, and individuals. These same authorities have also been used to protect assets subject to U.S. jurisdiction of countries subject to foreign occupation and to further important U.S. nonproliferation goals.

OFAC currently administers and enforces 24 economic sanctions programs pursuant to Presidential and Congressional mandates. Active enforcement of these programs is a crucial element in preserving and advancing the foreign policy and national security objectives that underlie these initiatives, usually taken in conjunction with diplomatic and occasionally military action. Penalties, both civil and criminal, serve as a deterrent to conduct that undermines or prevents these sanctions from achieving their foreign policy and national security goals. When violations occur, penalties serve a punitive purpose.

The Economic Sanctions Enforcement Guidelines (the “Guidelines”) published today are intended to provide OFAC with a procedural framework of general applicability to promote consistency while allowing for the appropriate exercise of agency discretion. They are also intended to promote the transparency of OFAC's procedures and better inform the regulated community. OFAC has always sought to maximize voluntary compliance by the public with U.S. sanction laws and regulations. To further its commitment to maximize voluntary compliance, OFAC is publishing these Guidelines in the Federal Register for comment. These Guidelines supersede and replace internal Guidelines previously used by OFAC.

The United States Department of the Treasury has a long history of dealing with economic sanctions. Prior to the War of 1812, Secretary of the Treasury Gallatin administered sanctions against Great Britain, in the form of the Embargo Act and the Non-Intercourse Act, for British harassment of American sailors. In 1861, during the Civil War, Congress passed the “Trading With the Enemy Act,” which prohibited transactions with the Confederacy, called for the forfeiture of goods involved in such transactions, and provided a licensing system under rules and regulations administered by the Treasury Department. This Civil War legislation was updated as the Trading With the Enemy Act of 1917, 50 U.S.C. App. 1-44, for purposes of responding to World War I.

OFAC and The Trading with the Enemy Act of 1917. OFAC is the successor to the Office of Foreign Funds Control (the “FFC”), which was established at the advent of World War II following the German invasion of Norway in 1940. The FFC's initial purpose, in exercising authorities under Section 5(b) of the Trading With the Enemy Act of 1917 (“TWEA”), was to prevent Nazi use of the occupied countries' holdings of foreign exchange and securities and to prevent forced repatriation of funds belonging to nationals of those countries. These controls were later extended to protect assets of other invaded countries.

After the United States formally entered World War II, the FFC played a leading role in economic warfare against the Axis powers by blocking enemy assets and prohibiting foreign trade and financial transactions. These assets also would serve as a future source of war reparations. The FFC program was administered by the Secretary of the Treasury throughout the war. After the cessation of hostilities, most foreign property subject to protective blocking was gradually released by licenses under the Foreign Funds Control Regulations (the “FFCR”). Most enemy property was vested by the U.S. Government during and immediately after the war. Responsibility for administering the FFCR was transferred to the Attorney General (Office of Alien Property), effective October 1, 1948.

OFAC was formally created in December 1950, following the entry of China into the Korean War, when President Truman declared a national emergency under TWEA in response to the threat of international communism and blocked all Chinese and North Korean assets subject to U.S. jurisdiction. Economic sanctions against these countries, later expanded to include Vietnam and Cambodia, were promulgated at 31 CFR part 500. Part 505 was added in 1953 to restrict offshore trade with the Soviet Bloc in items of the kind controlled for export from the United States for national security reasons.

In 1963, pursuant to TWEA, President Kennedy imposed a trade embargo and ordered the blocking of assets of Cuba and Cuban nationals in response to hostile acts against the United States by the Castro regime. Regulations implementing these sanctions are set forth at 31 CFR part 515. In 1966, the Justice Department returned responsibility for administering the FFCR to the Treasury Department, and these regulations were set forth at 31 CFR part 520.

Section 16 of TWEA provides for corporate criminal penalties of up to $1,000,000, and individual criminal penalties not to exceed $100,000 or ten years' imprisonment, or both, per count. Fines for criminal violations may be increased pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 3571. TWEA also provides for forfeiture of property that is the subject of a violation. TWEA authorizes civil penalties of up to $50,000 per count, adjusted for inflation to $55,000. It also allows the respondent to request an agency hearing, with the right to prehearing discovery, and, if the respondent elects this option, the civil penalty may be imposed only after such a hearing.

The International Emergency Economic Powers Act. In 1977, the Congress passed the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (“IEEPA”), 50 U.S.C. 1701-06, replacing TWEA as the statutory authority for a Presidential declaration of a national emergency in peacetime for the purpose of imposing economic sanctions. Pre-existing programs continue to be administered under TWEA, but new programs under TWEA may be established only during wartime. At this time, sanctions remain in place under TWEA solely with respect to (1) comprehensive sanctions against Cuba, (2) a residual blocking of North Korean assets previously blocked and an ongoing prohibition against the importation of certain goods from North Korea without an OFAC license, and (3) certain offshore trade in strategic goods with the former Soviet Bloc.

A significant distinction between the two statutes is that, until recently, IEEPA contained no Presidential vesting authority. With the passage of the USA PATRIOT Act of 2001, Pub. L. No. 107-56, IEEPA was amended to permit the vesting of assets under defined circumstances. While IEEPA does not authorize forfeiture absent an exercise of vesting authority, it does provide civil and criminal penalty authority, but in amounts less than those provided in TWEA. OFAC relies upon the U.S. Customs Service, operating under separate statutory authority, for the forfeiture of seized property.

IEEPA provides for civil penalties not to exceed $10,000, adjusted for inflation to $11,000. Criminal penalties range up to $50,000, or, if a natural person, up to ten years imprisonment, or both. Fines for criminal violations may be increased pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 3571.

National Emergencies under IEEPA. The first use of IEEPA occurred in 1979, in response to the Iranian hostage crisis. President Carter blocked over twelve billion dollars in Iranian assets subject to U.S. jurisdiction, enabling those assets to be used as leverage in negotiating the release of the U.S. hostages. Although most of the prohibitions contained in these sanctions were lifted prospectively by general license in 1981 in accordance with the Algiers Accords, transactions involving Iranian property within the United States or in the possession or control of U.S. persons remain regulated pursuant to 31 CFR part 535, that is, permitted only by general license. Import sanctions were imposed against Iran by President Reagan in 1987, under the authority of the International Security and Development Cooperation Act of 1985 (“ISDCA”), 22 U.S.C. 2349aa-9. Since this statute does not provide for criminal or civil penalty authority, OFAC relied upon the U.S. Customs Service, operating under separate statutory authority, for the imposition of criminal and civil penalties (including forfeiture of merchandise). President Clinton invoked IEEPA in 1995 to prohibit all trade with and investment in Iran, imposing the most comprehensive economic sanctions currently in place short of an assets freeze. Regulations implementing these sanctions are set forth at 31 CFR part 560.

President Reagan invoked IEEPA in 1985 to impose a trade embargo against the Sandinista regime in Nicaragua, and then again in 1986 to impose comprehensive economic sanctions, including an assets freeze, against the Government of Libya. The Libyan Sanctions Regulations remain in place at this time and are set forth at 31 CFR part 550. In 1986, Congress passed the Comprehensive Anti-Apartheid Act, prohibiting trade in certain goods and new investment in South Africa by codifying and expanding Executive Branch sanctions against that country imposed under IEEPA in 1985.

President Bush invoked IEEPA in 1988 to impose comprehensive economic sanctions against the Noriega regime in Panama, which sanctions were lifted after the U.S. invasion of that country in 1989. Assets of the Government of Panama remained blocked until the new government settled claims against it by U.S. persons. President Bush invoked IEEPA again in 1990 in response to the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait. Kuwaiti assets subject to U.S. jurisdiction were protected under an assets freeze until the Government of Kuwait was restored. Although OFAC did not conduct a formal census of these assets, the total Kuwaiti assets blocked under this program were estimated to exceed sixty billion dollars. Punitive sanctions against Iraq, including a comprehensive assets freeze, also were imposed in 1990 and remain in effect as set forth at 31 CFR part 575.

Since 1990, other countries have been subject to economic sanctions imposed under IEEPA, calibrated to respond to the given situation and U.S. foreign policy and national security objectives. Many “country-based” sanctions programs have a nexus to the U.S. government's response over time to the threat to U.S. national security and foreign policy posed by international terrorism. The Secretary of State has designated seven countries—Cuba, North Korea, Libya, Iran, Iraq, Sudan and Syria—as supporting international terrorism. Most of these countries are subject to comprehensive economic sanctions.

In 1995, President Clinton used IEEPA to deal with the threat to U.S. foreign policy and national security posed by terrorists who threaten to disrupt the Middle East Peace Process. This marked an expansion in the use of economic sanctions as a tool of U.S. foreign policy to target groups and individuals, as well as foreign governments. The Terrorism Sanctions Regulations are set forth at 31 CFR part 595. The trend of targeting groups and individuals continued later in 1995 when President Clinton invoked IEEPA to block assets and prohibit transactions with significant narcotics traffickers centered in Colombia. Regulations implementing these sanctions are set forth at 31 CFR part 536.

IEEPA has also been invoked to promote the national security and foreign policy objectives of the United States with respect to nonproliferation. In 1998, certain foreign entities were designated by the Secretary of State as promoting the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. As set forth in 31 CFR part 539, OFAC regulations prohibit the importation of goods, technology, or services produced or provided by these entities. In 2000, President Clinton also invoked IEEPA to protect assets of the Russian Federation relating to the implementation of the agreement between the United States and Russia on the disposition of highly enriched uranium. Transfers of these assets in support of the agreements are licensed by OFAC. These protective blocking regulations are set forth at 31 CFR part 540.

Most recently, in Executive Order 13224 of September 23, 2001, President George W. Bush declared a national emergency under IEEPA in response to the unusual and extraordinary threat to the national security, foreign policy, and economy of the United States posed by the grave acts of terrorism and threats of terrorism committed by foreign terrorists, including the terrorist attacks committed in New York and Pennsylvania and at the Pentagon on September 11, 2001. The President also relied on the United Nations Participation Act (discussed below) as authority for the imposition of economic sanctions, citing United Nations Security Council Resolution (“UNSCR”) 1214 of December 8, 1998, UNSCR 1267 of October 15, 1999, UNSCR 1333 of December 19, 2000, and the multilateral sanctions contained therein.

The Iraq Sanctions Act. An additional statute containing penalty authority with respect to Iraq is the Iraq Sanctions Act of 1990 (“ISA”), Pub. L. 101-513, 104 Stat. 1079, 2047-55. The ISA dramatically increased the amount of civil and criminal penalties that may be assessed against U.S. persons violating these sanctions. ISA provides for civil penalties of up to $250,000, adjusted for inflation to $275,000, and criminal penalties of up to $1,000,000 and 12 years imprisonment.

The United Nations Participation Act. The Iraqi sanctions are also multilateral and administered under the authority not only of IEEPA but also the United Nations Participation Act (the “UNPA”). The UNPA permits the President to incorporate United Nations-mandated economic sanctions into domestic law. The UNPA provides for criminal penalties of up to $10,000 in fines and up to ten years' imprisonment. Fines for criminal violations may be increased pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 3571. The UNPA also provides for forfeiture authority. United Nations-sponsored multilateral economic sanctions against the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (Serbia & Montenegro) were imposed in 1992 in response to the disintegration of the former Yugoslavia and the civil strife fomented and genocide committed by the Milosevic regime in Bosnia and Herzegovina.

The Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act. Title III of the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 (“AEDPA”), Pub. L. 104-132, 110 Stat. 1214, makes it a criminal offense to (1) engage in a financial transaction with the government of a country designated as supporting international terrorism, or (2) provide material support or resources to a designated foreign terrorist organization. Violators may be fined or imprisoned for not more than ten years, or both. AEDPA also provides that any financial institution that knowingly fails to retain possession of or control over blocked funds or to report the existence of such funds shall be subject to a civil penalty in an amount that is the greater of $50,000 per violation, or twice the amount of the funds at issue. Regulations implementing these sanctions are set forth at 31 CFR parts 596 and 597.

The Foreign Narcotics Kingpin Designation Act. In 1999, new legislation expanded the scope of the 1995 sanctions against narcotics traffickers centered in Colombia. The Foreign Narcotics Kingpin Designation Act (the “FNKDA”), 21 U.S.C. 1901-08, provides for criminal penalties of up to ten years imprisonment, fines in the amounts provided in title 18 of the U.S. Code, or both, or, in the case of an entity, fines of not more than $10,000,000 per violation. Criminal penalties for any officer, director, or agent range up to $5,000,000 or 30 years imprisonment, or both. Civil penalties not to exceed $1,000,000 per violation also may be imposed. Regulations implementing these sanctions are set forth at 31 CFR part 598.

For the reasons set forth in the preamble, 31 CFR parts 501 and 515 are amended as follows:

2. Business travel-related transactions:

3. Travel-related transactions involving unlicensed visits to close relatives:

4. Travel-related transactions where no specific license was issued under 31 CFR 515.560(a)(3)-(12) but where there is evidence that the purpose of the travel fits within one of the categories of licensable activities:

5. Exports (or attempted exports) of unauthorized funds in which Cuba or a Cuban national has an interest: Value of unauthorized funds

6. Unauthorized use of a credit card in Cuba:

7. Importations of Cuban-origin goods in conjunction with travel-related violations:

1. Provision of remittance forwarding services:

2. Provision of travel services:

3. Provision of carrier services:

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Region 4 announces its intent to delete approximately 16,496.14 acres of land from the Cecil Field Naval Air Station Superfund Site, Jacksonville, Duval and Clay Counties, Florida from the National Priorities List (NPL). The NPL constitutes appendix B to the National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan (NCP), 40 CFR part 300, which EPA promulgated pursuant to section 105 of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) of 1980, as amended, 42 U.S.C. 9605.

The NPL is a list of facilities which EPA determined may pose a significant threat to public health, welfare, or the environment. 40 CFR 300.425(e) authorizes deletion of facilities, or portions of facilities, from the NPL provided that facility meets certain criteria. Deletion from the NPL does not necessarily preclude further remedial action. If a significant release occurs at a facility deleted from the NPL, that facility is restored to the NPL without application of the Hazard Ranking System. Non-federal facilities deleted from the NPL are eligible for Fund-financed remedial actions should future conditions warrant such action. While federal facilities are not eligible for Fund-financed remedial action, all federal facilities, whether listed on the NPL or not, have a continuing statutory duty to conduct further remediation, if required, even after the federal property is transferred to non-federal owners. Where a release attributable to federal facility's historical activities is discovered after a property transfer, CERCLA section 120(h)(3)(A)(i) requires the federal entity to conduct further remediation if needed for protection of human health and the environment.

An environmental assessment was conducted at the facility on the parcels proposed for transfer. All media were sampled. Results of this sampling were compiled in Remedial Investigations reports which were used to conduct a Risk Assessments. Feasibility Studies were generated which evaluated potential remedies required to address the contamination. The remedies were summarized in a public notice soliciting comments on the remedies. All public comments received during the public comment period were considered by the Navy and EPA before a final remedy was selected. Several parcels did not require a remedial action to be protective of human health and the environment.

The parcels proposed for deletion are described in more detail later in this document. EPA proposes deleting these parcels from the NPL because no further CERCLA response is appropriate. The remaining portions of property comprising the Cecil Field Naval Air Station Superfund Site will remain on the NPL. This notice will be published in the Federal Register to solicit public comment on the proposed partial deletion. The public comment period is thirty (30) days beginning on the date of publication.

Section II of this action explains the criteria for the partial deletion of sites from the NPL. Section III discusses the procedures that EPA is using for this action. Section IV discusses the history of the Cecil Field Naval Air Station Site and explains how the portions of the Site proposed for deletion meet deletion criteria. Section V states EPA's action to delete the portions of the site from the NPL unless dissenting comments are received during the comment period.

Section 300.425(e) of the NCP provides that sites may be deleted from, or recategorized on, the NPL where no further response is appropriate. In making a determination to delete a release from the NPL, EPA shall consider, in consultation with the state, whether any of the following criteria have been met:

(i) Responsible parties or other persons have implemented all appropriate response actions required; or

(ii) All appropriate Fund-financed response under CERCLA has been implemented, and no further response action by responsible parties is appropriate; or

(iii) The Remedial Investigation has shown that the release poses no significant threat to public health or the environment and, therefore, taking of remedial measures is not appropriate.

As explained below, portions of the Site meet the NCP's deletion criteria listed above. Therefore, a partial deletion is being proposed.

The following procedures were used for the intended partial deletion of portions from the Site:

(1) All appropriate responses under CERCLA have been implemented and no further action by EPA is appropriate for the identified areas; (2) The State of Florida concurred with the proposed deletion decision via letter dated July 3, 2002; (3) Simultaneous with this notice, a similar notice of Intent for Partial Deletion was published in a major local newspaper with general circulation in and around the Site and distributed to appropriate federal, state, and local officials and other interested parties announcing a thirty (30) day comment period starting on the date of publication in the Federal Register and a major local newspaper; and (4) All relevant documents have been made available for public review in the local Site information repositories.

The public is asked to comment on the proposed partial deletion within thirty (30) days of the date of this document. EPA will evaluate all comments received during this period before issuing a final decision. If appropriate, EPA will prepare a Responsiveness Summary, responding to each significant comment submitted during the public comment period. The Responsiveness Summary will be available for public viewing at the information repositories listed above. If EPA determines that the proposed partial deletion is appropriate, EPA will publish a Final Notice of Partial Deletion in the Federal Register. Actual deletion of the proposed parcels does not occur until the Final Notice of Partial Deletion is published in the Federal Register. As stated in 40 CFR 300.425, a site, or portions of a site, deleted from the NPL remain eligible for future response actions if conditions warrant.

The following site summary provides the Agency's rational for the proposed partial deletion. It also includes information demonstrating satisfaction of the deletion criteria specified under 40 CFR 300.425(e).

Cecil Field Naval Air Station is located 14-miles west of Jacksonville, Florida in Duval and Clay Counties. The entire Site encompasses approximately 17,200 acres. The Site operated as Naval Air Station Cecil Field from 1941 until 1999 when the base was closed as a result of the Defense Base Realignment and Closure (BRAC) Act of 1990. During that period the base provided facilities, services, and material support for the operation and maintenance of naval weapons, aircraft and other units of the operation forces as designated by the Chief of Naval Operations. Some of the tasks required to accomplish this mission include operation of fuel storage facilities and performance of aircraft maintenance. Maintenance activities at NAS Cecil Field over the years generated a variety of waste materials including municipal solid waste, municipal wastewater treatment plant sludge, industrial wastes including waste oils, solvents, paints and spilled fuels, and waste pesticides. Contaminants of concern include pesticides, chlorinated solvents, waste fuels and metals.

Cecil Field Naval Air Station was listed on the NPL in 1989. At that time the entire base was included in the listing, fence line to fence line. The Department of the Navy, State of Florida and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency approved a Federal Facilities Agreement in October 1990, which outlined procedures for identifying and addressing contamination at the Site. The entirety of Cecil Field Naval Air Station was included on the NPL listing. Upon listing, the facility began identifying sites where activities involving hazardous substances may have occurred. The sites requiring further investigation were grouped into Operable Units (OU). Twelve operable units (OU) have been identified at Cecil Field many with subunits denoted as “sites.” The numbering of sites within an OU is not necessarily consecutive because the sites were identified prior to the OU grouping. Operable Units identified at Cecil Field are: OU 1, Site 1—Old Landfill and Site 2—Recent Landfill; OU 2, Site 5—Oil Disposal Area Northwest and Site 17—Oil and Sludge Disposal Pit Southwest; OU 3, Site 7—Old Firefighter Training Area and Site 8—Boresite Range/Hazardous Waste Storage/Firefighting Area; OU 4, Site 10—Rubble Disposal Area; OU 5, Site 14—Blue 5 Ordnance Disposal Area, Site 15—Blue 10 Ordnance Disposal Area, Site 49—Recent Skeet Range; OU 6, Site 11—Golf Course Pesticide Disposal Area; OU 7, Site 16—AIMD Seepage Pit/NDI Holding Tank; OU 8, Site 3—Oil and Sludge Disposal Pit; OU 9, Site 36—Control Tower TCE Plume, Site 37—Hangars 13 and 14 DCE Plume, Site 57—Building 824A/Day Tank 1 Area, and Site 58—Building 312 Area; OU 10, Site 21—Golf Course Maintenance Area and Site 25—Former Transformer Storage Area; OU 11, Site 45—Former Steam Generating Plant; OU 12, Site 32—Former DRMO Area, Site 42—Former Boiler House/Steam Plant, Site 44—DRMO/Lake Fretwell Drainage Ditch; and the Old Golf Course.

This document proposes deletion of some OUs in their entirety or only certain sites within an OU. Remedial Investigations are complete for operable units (OU) 1 (sites 1 and 2), 2 (sites 5 and 17), 3 (sites 7 and 8), 4 (site 10), 5 (site 14), 6 (site 11), 7 (site 16), 8 (site 3), and 9 (sites 36/37). Records of Decisions (ROD) have been finalized for all of these operable units as well. Remedial Investigations/Feasibility Studies are still under way for OU 5 (site 15 and 49), 9 (sites 56 and 57), 10 (sites 21 and 25), and 11 (site 45). An Engineering Evaluation and Cost Analysis has been completed for OU 5 (site 49) and OU 12 (site 32). Removal actions have been completed for OU 12 (sites 42, 44, and the old golf course) which resulted in no further action decisions.

As a result of the BRAC designation in July 1993, an Environmental Baseline Survey (EBS), which identifies parcels of land for sale, lease or needing further investigation, was completed in November 1994. The 1994 EBS also provided descriptions of the environmental condition of property for buildings and open areas on the base. Environmental conditions of property can be divided into seven types: BRAC 1 or White—areas which do not require further investigation because no release or disposal of hazardous substances or petroleum products have occurred (including migration of these substances from an adjacent area); BRAC 2 or Blue—areas where only a release or disposal of petroleum products have occurred; BRAC 3 or light green—areas where a release, disposal and/or migration of hazardous substances have occurred, but at concentrations that do not require a removal or remedial action; BRAC 4 or dark green—areas where release, disposal, and/or migration of hazardous substances have occurred, and all remedial actions necessary to protect human health and the environment have taken place; BRAC 5 or yellow—areas where release, disposal, and/or migration of hazardous substances have occurred, and removal or remedial actions are underway, but all required actions have not yet been taken; BRAC 6 or red—areas where release, disposal, and/or migration of hazardous substances have occurred, but required actions have not been implemented; or BRAC 7 or gray areas that are not evaluated or require additional evaluation. The EPA concurred on 270 buildings/parcels receiving the uncontaminated designation per CERCLA section 120(h)(4)(A) in a letter dated June 20, 1995. Between 1995 and 2001, EPA has concurred on another 125 buildings/parcels as being uncontaminated following further evaluation. EPA has also evaluated another 250 buildings/parcels for BRAC and has approved their designation as BRAC 2, BRAC 3, or BRAC 4. These areas were evaluated in accordance to section 120(h) of CERCLA as amended by the Community Environmental Response Facilitation Act (CERFA) as well as the NCP. Remedial activity for areas where there has been a release or disposal of petroleum products has been deferred to the State of Florida's Petroleum Program. To date approximately 95% of the property has been transferred to the Jacksonville Port Authority and the City of Jacksonville for redevelopment and includes the property being proposed for partial deletion.

The portions of Cecil Field to be deleted from the NPL include OU 4 (site 10), OU 5 (site 14), OU 12 (sites 44, 42 and the Old Golf Course) and an additional 16,527 acres which are not associated with an operable unit that have been evaluated as not posing a risk to human health and the environment (BRAC environmental condition of property 1, 2, 3 and 4).

The boundaries of the base are within the following coordinates: 30.3012 North Latitude, 81.9306 West Longitude; 30.3012 North Latitude, 81.9244 West Longitude; 30.3063 North Latitude, 81.8781 West Longitude; 30.2468 North Latitude, 81.8445 West Longitude; 30.1784 North Latitude, 81.8676 West Longitude; 30.1783 North Latitude, 81.8847 West Longitude. Within these coordinates are several areas which are not part of this partial deletion. The areas not included are Building 635, Building 605, Potential Source of Contamination (PSC) 51 (Current Golf Course), Operable Unit (OU) 1 (Sites 1—Old Landfill and Site 2—recent landfill), OU 2 (Site 5—Oil Disposal Area Northwest and Site 17—Oil and Sludge Disposal Pit Southwest), OU 3 (Site 7—Old Firefighter Training Area and Site 8—Boresite Range/Hazardous Waste Storage/Firefighting Area), OU 5 (Site 15—Blue 10 Ordnance Disposal Area, Site 49—Recent Skeet Range), OU 6 (Site 11—Golf Course Pesticide Disposal Area), OU 7, (Site 16—AIMD Seepage Pit/NDI Holding Tank), OU 8 (Site 3—Oil and Sludge Disposal Pit), OU 9 (Site 36—Control Tower TCE Plume, Site 37—Hangars 13 and 14 DCE Plume, Site 57—Building 824A/Day Tank 1 Area, and Site 58—Building 312 Area), OU 10 (Site 21—Golf Course Maintenance Area and Site 25—Former Transformer Storage Area), OU 11 (Site 45—Former Steam Generating Plant), and OU 12 (Site 32—Former DRMO Area). Maps identifying all areas are available for review in the partial deletion docket.

Operable Unit 4 (site 10) occupies approximately 6.5 acres and operated as a rubble disposal area in the 1950's and 1960's. The Remedial Investigation was conducted in 1996, and did not identify any contamination which would pose a risk to human health or the environment. At OU 4 the primary source of contamination would be from demolition and rubble debris resulting from infrastructure demolition including runway and taxiway pavement. Historical records and physical debris did not indicate the presence of solvents, petroleum products, or other hazardous materials. In July 1997, a Record of Decision was signed for no further action. In June 1999, an Explanation of Significant Differences was approved which would address surface soil contamination with arsenic levels above the State of Florida's residential cleanup target levels. In October 1999, 335 tons of arsenic contaminated soil were removed from this site and taken to an approved landfill, confirmation samples were collected and the area was backfilled with clean fill. No further action is required at this site.

Operable Unit 5 (site 14) was known as the Blue 5 Ordnance Disposal Area and consisted of 19 acres located in the Yellow Water Weapons Area. The site was used for ordnance disposal from 1967 through 1977. Disposal operations at this site consisted of detonation of excess ordnance such as fuses, 100-pound bombs, large munitions and explosive materials that normally do not burn. Typical explosives detonated included trinitrotoluene (TNT), trinitrophenylmethylnitramine and cyclotrimethylenetrinitramine. Ordnance detonation generates residual metals, primarily aluminum and lead oxides with minor amounts of unreacted or partially reacted organics. The Remedial Investigation (RI) was completed in October 1997. As part of the RI 102 soil samples were collected. Results showed that TNT is sporadically distributed at low concentrations that pose no explosive or biological hazards over the area of investigation. It was determined that the site did not pose a threat to human health or the environment. In July 1998, a Record of Decision (ROD) was signed for no further action.

Operable Unit 12 consists of four sites, site 32, 42, 44 and the old golf course. Removal actions have been completed at all four sites, however, because contamination remains at site 32 above residential levels it is not part of this partial deletion proposal. Site 42 was known as the former boiler house/steam plant and general storehouse. The steam plant and storehouse were demolished about 40-years ago. Currently, only the foundations remain and the area is heavily vegetated. Surface and subsurface soil samples identified polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs), total recoverable petroleum hydrocarbons and metals (chromium, arsenic, and barium). An Action memorandum was prepared and approved in September 2000. Areas of soil where BaPEqs, TRPH, antimony, arsenic, barium and chromium concentrations were greater than the leachability soil concentration target level or three times that residential soil target cleanup level were excavated in March 2001. A total of 2,420.36 tons of soil was excavated, transported and disposed off-site. The site was backfilled with certified clean fill, graded and seeded.

Site 44 is referred to as the ditch from the Defense Reutilization and Marketing Organization (DRMO) to the active federally owned wastewater treatment building. The ditch received storm water runoff from the western edge of the east-west runways, the DRMO area and from the UNF 6 wash rack. Sampling identified lead, Polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), pesticides, PAHs, and inorganics (aluminum, cadmium, chromium, lead, mercury, and zinc) in excess of ecological screening criteria in the ditch as well as PCB's above residential risk levels in and around the ditch. No groundwater issues were identified. An action memorandum was prepared and approved in June 2000. Soil with PCB concentrations in excess of 1,500 μg/kg were excavated and disposed at a permitted solid waste disposal facility in September 2000. This resulted in a UCL concentration of PCBs before the Florida residential soil target level of 500 μg/kg. A total of 292 tons of soil was excavated. The site was then backfilled with certified clean fill, graded and seeded.

The old golf course operated from the early 1940's until 1946 when the current golf course was constructed. The area is now heavily wooded with a portion occupied by the former bachelor officer's quarters (BOQ). Surface and Subsurface soil sampling identified arsenic above Florida soil target cleanup levels. An action memorandum was prepared and approved in June 2000. Areas of soil where arsenic concentrations were greater than the residential cleanup levels established by statistical analyses have been excavated. During August 2000, 483-tons of contaminated soil was removed, transported and disposed off site. The site was backfilled with certified clean fill, graded and seeded.

The initial Five-Year Review for Naval Air Station Cecil Field was concurred upon by EPA in October 2000. The review focused on interim remedial actions that had been conducted at Operable Unit (OU) 2 (Sites 5 and 17), OU 7 (Site 16), OU 6 (Site 11). Discussions and recommendations were included for the long-term groundwater actions at these three operable units as well as operable units 1, 3, 4, 5, and 8 where the remedies had been in place for less than five years. The next five-year review is scheduled for October 2005.

Approximately 17,200 acres of Cecil Field have been evaluated for potential property transfer under the BRAC program. As was stated above, using the BRAC environmental condition of property classifications 16,496.14 acres have been determined to either be uncontaminated or BRAC category 1, areas where only a release or disposal of petroleum products have occurred or BRAC category 2; or areas where a release, disposal and/or migration of hazardous substances have occurred, but at concentrations that do not require a removal or remedial action or BRAC category 3; or areas where release, disposal, and/or migration of hazardous substances have occurred, and all remedial actions necessary to protect human health and the environment have taken place or BRAC category 4. No further action under CERCLA is required in these areas. Documentation for BRAC activities are available for public viewing at Building 907, 13357 Lake Newman Street, Cecil Commerce Center, Jacksonville, Florida 32252, Phone: 904-573-0336., which also houses the NPL Site Administrative Record.

EPA, with the State of Florida concurrence, has determined that no responses are necessary at the 16,527 acres which comprised a major portion of the Cecil Field Naval Air Station, and no further CERCLA response is appropriate or necessary in order to provide protection of human health and the environment other than the ongoing inspection, maintenance and monitoring activities. Therefore, EPA is deleting these portions of the Site.

Title 40, Chapter 1 of the Code of Federal Regulations is proposed to be amended as follows:

On June 12, 2001, NMFS received a petition from the Environmental Protection Information Center, Center for Biological Diversity, and WaterKeepers Northern California requesting that NMFS list the North American green sturgeon (Acipenser medirostris) as either an endangered or threatened species under the ESA, and that critical habitat be designated for the species concurrently with any listing determination.