Large Aircraft Security Program, Other Aircraft Operator Security Program, and Airport Operator Security Program; Withdrawal, 11667-11668 [2018-05401]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 52 / Friday, March 16, 2018 / Proposed Rules
and adding paragraph (e) to read as
follows:
§ 273.33
Waste management.
daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with PROPOSALS
*
*
*
*
*
(c) * * *
(2) * * *
(iii) Ensures that a mercury clean-up
system is readily available to
immediately transfer any mercury
resulting from spills or leaks of broken
ampules from that containment device
to a container that meets the
requirements of 40 CFR 262.16 or
262.17, as applicable.
(iv) Immediately transfers any
mercury resulting from spills or leaks
from broken ampules from the
containment device to a container that
meets the requirements of 40 CFR
262.16 or 262.17, as applicable.
*
*
*
*
*
(e) Aerosol cans. A large quantity
handler of universal waste must manage
universal waste aerosol cans in a way
that prevents releases of any universal
waste or component of a universal waste
to the environment, as follows:
(1) Universal waste aerosol cans must
be accumulated in a container that is
structurally sound, compatible with the
contents of the aerosol cans, and lacks
evidence of leakage, spillage, or damage
that could cause leakage under
reasonably foreseeable conditions;
(2) A large quantity handler of
universal waste may conduct the
following activities as long as each
individual aerosol can is not breached
and remains intact:
(i) Sorting aerosol cans by type; and
(ii) Mixing intact cans in one
container; and (iii) Removing actuators
to reduce the risk of accidental release;
(3) A large quantity handler of
universal waste who punctures and
drains their aerosol cans must recycle
the empty punctured aerosol cans and
meet the following requirements while
puncturing and draining hazardous
waste aerosol cans:
(i) Conduct puncturing and draining
activities using a device specifically
designed to safely puncture aerosol cans
and effectively contain the residual
contents and any emissions thereof;
(ii) Establish a written procedure
detailing how to safely puncture and
drain universal waste aerosol can
(including proper assembly, operation
and maintenance of the unit; segregation
of incompatible wastes; and proper
waste management practices to prevent
fires or releases), maintain a copy of the
manufacturer’s specification and
instruction onsite, and ensure
employees operating the device are
trained in the proper procedures;
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:06 Mar 15, 2018
Jkt 244001
(iii) Ensure that puncturing of the can
is in a manner designed to prevent fires
and to prevent the release of any
component of universal waste to the
environment. This includes, but is not
limited to, locating the equipment on a
solid, flat surface in a well ventilated
area;
(iv) Immediately transfer the contents
from the waste aerosol can, or
puncturing device if applicable, to a
container or tank that meets the
applicable requirements of § 262.14, 15,
16, or 17;
(v) Conduct a hazardous waste
determination on the emptied aerosol
can and its contents per 40 CFR 262.11.
Any hazardous waste generated as a
result of puncturing and draining the
aerosol can is subject to all applicable
requirements of 40 CFR parts 260
through 272. The handler is considered
the generator of the hazardous waste
and is subject to 40 CFR part 262;
(vi) If the contents are determined not
to be hazardous, the handler may
manage the waste in any way that is in
compliance with applicable federal,
state or local solid waste regulations;
and
(vii) A written procedure must be in
place in the event of a spill or release
and a spill clean-up kit must be
provided. All spills or leaks of the
contents of the aerosol cans must be
cleaned up promptly.
■ 21. Section 273.34 is amended by
adding paragraph (f) to read as follows:
§ 273.34
Labeling/marking.
*
*
*
*
*
(f) Universal waste aerosol cans (i.e.,
each aerosol can), or a container in
which the aerosol cans are contained,
must be labeled or marked clearly with
any of the following phrases: ‘‘Universal
Waste—Aerosol Can(s)’’, ‘‘Waste
Aerosol Can(s)’’, or ‘‘Used Aerosol
Can(s)’’.
[FR Doc. 2018–05282 Filed 3–15–18; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
PO 00000
11667
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND
SECURITY
Transportation Security Administration
49 CFR Parts 1515, 1520, 1522, 1540,
1542, 1544, and 1550
[Docket No. TSA–2008–0021]
RIN 1652–AA53
Large Aircraft Security Program, Other
Aircraft Operator Security Program,
and Airport Operator Security
Program; Withdrawal
Transportation Security
Administration, DHS.
ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking;
withdrawal.
AGENCY:
The Transportation Security
Administration (TSA) is withdrawing its
rulemaking concerning the proposed
establishment of a large aircraft security
program (LASP). TSA published a
notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM)
for LASP on October 30, 2008. In the
NPRM, TSA proposed that certain
private and corporate aircraft operations
should adopt security standards similar
to those of commercial aircraft
operations, including the use of security
programs, crew vetting, and passenger
watchlist matching. The NPRM also
proposed new requirements for airports
that serve the private and corporate
operations. TSA held a series of public
meetings and reviewed more than 7,000
public comments submitted in response
to the NPRM. Based on all of the
information received and a reevaluation of the proposal in light of
risk-based principles, TSA has decided
not to pursue this rulemaking at this
time.
SUMMARY:
TSA is withdrawing the
proposed rule published in Part III of
the Federal Register on October 30,
2008 (73 FR 64789) as of March 16,
2018.
DATES:
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Alan Paterno, Office of Security Policy
and Engagement, TSA–28,
Transportation Security Administration,
601 South 12th Street, Arlington, VA
20598–6028; telephone (571) 227–5698;
facsimile (571) 227–2928; email
alan.paterno@tsa.dhs.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Overview of the NPRM
TSA administers an extensive range of
regulatory programs that address
security for scheduled and charter
commercial aviation operations. See 49
CFR parts 1544, 1546, 1548, 1550, 1560,
and 1562. In the LASP NPRM, TSA
Frm 00020
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\16MRP1.SGM
16MRP1
11668
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 52 / Friday, March 16, 2018 / Proposed Rules
daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with PROPOSALS
proposed to apply many of the current
commercial requirements to private and
corporate operations in aircraft with a
certificated maximum take-off weight
(MTOW) above 12,500 pounds (large
aircraft) and airports that serve those
aircraft.
TSA proposed to require—
• (1) Non-commercial, large aircraft
operators to adopt a security program
like the security programs that
commercial aviation services must
implement;
• (2) Large aircraft operators to
contract with TSA-approved auditors to
conduct audits of the operators’
compliance with their security
programs, and with TSA-approved
watch-list service providers to verify
that their passengers are not on the No
Fly and/or Selectee portions of the
consolidated terrorist watch-lists
maintained by the Federal Government;
• (3) Security measures for large
aircraft operators in all-cargo operations
and for operators of passenger aircraft
with a MTOW of over 45,500 kilograms
(100,309.3 pounds), operated for
compensation or hire; and
• (4) Certain airports that serve large
aircraft to adopt new security programs.
TSA believed the proposed rule
would yield benefits in the areas of
transportation security and
accountability. TSA included a ‘‘breakeven’’ analysis that showed the tradeoffs
between program cost and program
benefits that would be required for the
LASP to be a cost-beneficial
undertaking. TSA estimated that under
the NPRM, covered aircraft operators,
airport operators, passengers, and TSA
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:06 Mar 15, 2018
Jkt 244001
would incur approximately $1.4 billion
in costs over 10 years to comply with
the proposed LASP, discounted at 7
percent in 2006 dollars.
TSA received more than 7,000
comments from pilots, aircraft
operators, airports, aviation workers,
individuals, members of congress,
aviation associations, and civic
organizations. TSA also held numerous
public meetings to solicit stakeholder
input on the NPRM. Many supported
some aspects of the LASP NPRM, but
the overwhelming majority of
commenters objected to it based on their
views that it increased costs
unnecessarily, created burdensome new
processes, and would lead small airport
and aircraft operators to go out of
business causing widespread loss of
employment. These commenters also
asserted that there was no need for the
LASP NPRM, as evidenced in part by
the fact that there was no specific
statutory mandate for it.
TSA analyzed the comments carefully
and considered issuing a supplemental
notice of proposed rulemaking (SNPRM)
to incorporate some of the ideas from
the commenters into a new proposal. As
part of this evaluation, TSA considered
separating out some of the requirements
into stand-alone rules, because the
LASP NPRM covered several different
kinds of airport and aircraft operations.
Also, TSA considered changing the
scope of the large aircraft that would be
subject to the new regulations.
II. The Withdrawal
Based on all of the foregoing
information and consistent with risk-
PO 00000
Frm 00021
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 9990
based principles, TSA has decided to
withdraw the LASP rulemaking at this
time. In reaching this decision, TSA
considered the relative costs and
benefits of the NPRM identified through
the agency’s preliminary analysis.
Moreover, TSA has several regulatory
initiatives underway that are required
by statute and have deadlines.
As part of TSA’s ongoing review of
existing regulatory programs and to
reduce the costs of regulations,1 TSA
evaluated this withdrawal based on the
requirements of E.O. 13771. The
withdrawal of the NPRM qualifies as a
deregulatory action under E.O. 13771.
See OMB’s Memorandum titled
‘‘Guidance Implementing Executive
Order 13771, Titled ‘Reducing
Regulation and Controlling Regulatory
Costs’ ’’ (April 5, 2017). However, there
are no quantifiable cost savings
associated with the withdrawal of this
NPRM.
Dated: March 12, 2018.
David P. Pekoske,
Administrator.
[FR Doc. 2018–05401 Filed 3–15–18; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110–05–P
1 E.O. 13771 (Jan. 30, 2017), Reducing Regulation
and Controlling Regulatory Costs, directs that,
unless prohibited by law, whenever an executive
department or agency publicly proposes for notice
and comment or otherwise promulgates a new
regulation, it must repeal two or more existing
regulations. Also, any new incremental costs
associated with new regulations must, to the extent
permitted by law, be offset by the elimination of
existing costs. Only rules that are significant under
section 3(f) of E.O. 12866 (Sept. 30, 1993),
Regulatory Planning and Review, are subject to
these requirements.
E:\FR\FM\16MRP1.SGM
16MRP1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 52 (Friday, March 16, 2018)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 11667-11668]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2018-05401]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY
Transportation Security Administration
49 CFR Parts 1515, 1520, 1522, 1540, 1542, 1544, and 1550
[Docket No. TSA-2008-0021]
RIN 1652-AA53
Large Aircraft Security Program, Other Aircraft Operator Security
Program, and Airport Operator Security Program; Withdrawal
AGENCY: Transportation Security Administration, DHS.
ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking; withdrawal.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Transportation Security Administration (TSA) is
withdrawing its rulemaking concerning the proposed establishment of a
large aircraft security program (LASP). TSA published a notice of
proposed rulemaking (NPRM) for LASP on October 30, 2008. In the NPRM,
TSA proposed that certain private and corporate aircraft operations
should adopt security standards similar to those of commercial aircraft
operations, including the use of security programs, crew vetting, and
passenger watchlist matching. The NPRM also proposed new requirements
for airports that serve the private and corporate operations. TSA held
a series of public meetings and reviewed more than 7,000 public
comments submitted in response to the NPRM. Based on all of the
information received and a re-evaluation of the proposal in light of
risk-based principles, TSA has decided not to pursue this rulemaking at
this time.
DATES: TSA is withdrawing the proposed rule published in Part III of
the Federal Register on October 30, 2008 (73 FR 64789) as of March 16,
2018.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Alan Paterno, Office of Security
Policy and Engagement, TSA-28, Transportation Security Administration,
601 South 12th Street, Arlington, VA 20598-6028; telephone (571) 227-
5698; facsimile (571) 227-2928; email [email protected].
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Overview of the NPRM
TSA administers an extensive range of regulatory programs that
address security for scheduled and charter commercial aviation
operations. See 49 CFR parts 1544, 1546, 1548, 1550, 1560, and 1562. In
the LASP NPRM, TSA
[[Page 11668]]
proposed to apply many of the current commercial requirements to
private and corporate operations in aircraft with a certificated
maximum take-off weight (MTOW) above 12,500 pounds (large aircraft) and
airports that serve those aircraft.
TSA proposed to require--
(1) Non-commercial, large aircraft operators to adopt a
security program like the security programs that commercial aviation
services must implement;
(2) Large aircraft operators to contract with TSA-approved
auditors to conduct audits of the operators' compliance with their
security programs, and with TSA-approved watch-list service providers
to verify that their passengers are not on the No Fly and/or Selectee
portions of the consolidated terrorist watch-lists maintained by the
Federal Government;
(3) Security measures for large aircraft operators in all-
cargo operations and for operators of passenger aircraft with a MTOW of
over 45,500 kilograms (100,309.3 pounds), operated for compensation or
hire; and
(4) Certain airports that serve large aircraft to adopt
new security programs.
TSA believed the proposed rule would yield benefits in the areas of
transportation security and accountability. TSA included a ``break-
even'' analysis that showed the tradeoffs between program cost and
program benefits that would be required for the LASP to be a cost-
beneficial undertaking. TSA estimated that under the NPRM, covered
aircraft operators, airport operators, passengers, and TSA would incur
approximately $1.4 billion in costs over 10 years to comply with the
proposed LASP, discounted at 7 percent in 2006 dollars.
TSA received more than 7,000 comments from pilots, aircraft
operators, airports, aviation workers, individuals, members of
congress, aviation associations, and civic organizations. TSA also held
numerous public meetings to solicit stakeholder input on the NPRM. Many
supported some aspects of the LASP NPRM, but the overwhelming majority
of commenters objected to it based on their views that it increased
costs unnecessarily, created burdensome new processes, and would lead
small airport and aircraft operators to go out of business causing
widespread loss of employment. These commenters also asserted that
there was no need for the LASP NPRM, as evidenced in part by the fact
that there was no specific statutory mandate for it.
TSA analyzed the comments carefully and considered issuing a
supplemental notice of proposed rulemaking (SNPRM) to incorporate some
of the ideas from the commenters into a new proposal. As part of this
evaluation, TSA considered separating out some of the requirements into
stand-alone rules, because the LASP NPRM covered several different
kinds of airport and aircraft operations. Also, TSA considered changing
the scope of the large aircraft that would be subject to the new
regulations.
II. The Withdrawal
Based on all of the foregoing information and consistent with risk-
based principles, TSA has decided to withdraw the LASP rulemaking at
this time. In reaching this decision, TSA considered the relative costs
and benefits of the NPRM identified through the agency's preliminary
analysis. Moreover, TSA has several regulatory initiatives underway
that are required by statute and have deadlines.
As part of TSA's ongoing review of existing regulatory programs and
to reduce the costs of regulations,\1\ TSA evaluated this withdrawal
based on the requirements of E.O. 13771. The withdrawal of the NPRM
qualifies as a deregulatory action under E.O. 13771. See OMB's
Memorandum titled ``Guidance Implementing Executive Order 13771, Titled
`Reducing Regulation and Controlling Regulatory Costs' '' (April 5,
2017). However, there are no quantifiable cost savings associated with
the withdrawal of this NPRM.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ E.O. 13771 (Jan. 30, 2017), Reducing Regulation and
Controlling Regulatory Costs, directs that, unless prohibited by
law, whenever an executive department or agency publicly proposes
for notice and comment or otherwise promulgates a new regulation, it
must repeal two or more existing regulations. Also, any new
incremental costs associated with new regulations must, to the
extent permitted by law, be offset by the elimination of existing
costs. Only rules that are significant under section 3(f) of E.O.
12866 (Sept. 30, 1993), Regulatory Planning and Review, are subject
to these requirements.
Dated: March 12, 2018.
David P. Pekoske,
Administrator.
[FR Doc. 2018-05401 Filed 3-15-18; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-05-P
