[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 97 (Monday, May 20, 2019)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 22756-22762]
[FR Doc No: 2019-10247]

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

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Occupational Safety and Health Administration

29 CFR Part 1910

[Docket No. OSHA-2016-0013]
RIN 1218-AD00

The Control of Hazardous Energy (Lockout/Tagout)

AGENCY: Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), DOL.

ACTION: Request for Information (RFI).

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

SUMMARY: The control of hazardous energy is regulated under OSHA's
control of hazardous energy (Lockout/Tagout) standard. The standard's
purpose is to protect workers from the dangers of hazardous energy.
This RFI seeks information regarding two areas where modernizing the
Lockout/Tagout standard might better promote worker safety without
additional burdens to employers: control circuit type devices and
robotics. OSHA's Lockout/Tagout standard currently requires that all
sources of energy, including energy stored in the machine itself, be
controlled during servicing and maintenance of machines and equipment
using an energy-isolating device (EID). Control circuit type devices
are specifically excluded from

OSHA's definition of an EID and are thus not a compliant method of
controlling hazardous energy during service and maintenance activities.
But technological advances since the standard was issued in 1989
suggest that, at least in some circumstances, control circuit type
devices may be at least as safe as EIDs. OSHA requests information,
data, and comments that would assist the agency in determining under
what conditions control circuit type devices could safely be used for
the control of hazardous energy. OSHA may also consider changes to the
Lockout/Tagout standard that address hazardous energy control for new
robotics technologies. Employers are increasingly using robots and
robotic components in their workplaces. OSHA would like to know more
about what hazards and benefits this presents with respect to control
of hazardous energy, safeguards that can be used, increased
efficiencies that result, and any other information related to ensuring
employee safety in interfacing with robots. OSHA will use the
information received in response to this RFI to determine what action,
if any, it may take to reduce regulatory burdens while maintaining
worker safety.

DATES: Submit comments on or before August 19, 2019. All submissions
must bear a postmark or provide other evidence of the submission date.

ADDRESSES: Submit comments and additional materials, identified by
Docket No. OSHA-2016-0013, by any of the following methods:
    Electronically: Submit comments and attachments electronically at
https://www.regulations.gov, which is the Federal eRulemaking Portal.
Follow the instructions online for making electronic submissions.
    Facsimile: OSHA allows facsimile transmission of comments and
additional material that are 10 pages or fewer in length (including
attachments). Send these documents to the OSHA Docket Office at (202)
693-1648. OSHA does not require hard copies of these documents. Instead
of transmitting facsimile copies of attachments that supplement these
documents (for example, studies, journal articles), commenters must
submit these attachments to the OSHA Docket Office, Technical Data
Center, Room N3653, Occupational Safety and Health Administration, U.S.
Department of Labor, 200 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20210.
These attachments must identify clearly the sender's name, the date,
subject, and docket number (OSHA-2016-0013) so that the Docket Office
can attach them to the appropriate document.
    Regular mail, express mail, hand delivery, or messenger (courier)
service: Submit comments and any additional material (for example,
studies or journal articles) to the OSHA Docket Office, Docket No.
OSHA-2016-0013 or RIN 1218-AD00, Technical Data Center, Room N3653,
Occupational Safety and Health Administration, U.S. Department of
Labor, 200 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20210; telephone:
(202) 693-2350. (OSHA's TTY number is<PHONE_NUMBER>). All additional
materials must clearly identify your electronic submission by name,
date, and docket number so that OSHA can attach them to your comments.
Due to security procedures, there may be delays in receiving materials
that are sent by regular mail. For more information about security
procedures concerning the delivery of materials by express delivery,
hand delivery, and messenger or courier service, please contact the
OSHA Docket Office. The hours of operation for the OSHA Docket Office
are 10:00 a.m. to 3:00 p.m., ET.
    Instructions: All submissions must include the agency's name and
the docket number for this RFI (OSHA-2016-0013). When submitting
comments or recommendations on the issues that are raised in this RFI,
commenters should explain their rationale and, if possible, provide
data and information to support their comments or recommendations.
Comments and other material, including any personal information, will
be placed in the public docket without revision, and will be publicly
available online at https://www.regulations.gov. Therefore, commenters
should not submit statements that they do not want made available to
the public or include any comments that may contain personal
information (either about themselves or others) such as Social Security
Numbers, birth dates, and medical data.
    Docket: To read or download submissions or other material in the
docket, go to https://www.regulations.gov or the OSHA Docket Office at
the above address. The https://www.regulations.gov index lists all
documents in the docket. However, some information (e.g., copyrighted
material) is not available to publicly read or download through the
website. All submissions, including copyrighted material, are available
for inspection at the OSHA Docket Office. Contact the OSHA Docket
Office for assistance in locating docket submissions.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
    Press Inquiries: Frank Meilinger, Director, OSHA Office of
Communications; telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    General and technical information: Lisa Long, OSHA Directorate of
Standards and Guidance; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
    Copies of this Federal Register notice: Electronic copies are
available at https://www.regulations.gov. This Federal Register notice,
as well as news releases and other relevant information, is also
available at OSHA's web page at https://www.osha.gov.
    References and Exhibits (optional): Documents referenced by OSHA in
this RFI, other than OSHA standards and Federal Register notices, are
in Docket No. OSHA-2016-0013 (Lock-out/Tag-out Update). The docket is
available at https://www.regulations.gov, the Federal eRulemaking
Portal. For additional information on submitting items to, or accessing
items in, the docket, please refer to the ``ADDRESSES'' section of this
RFI. Most exhibits are available at https://www.regulations.gov; some
exhibits (e.g., copyrighted material) are not available to download
from that web page. However, all materials in the dockets are available
for inspection at the OSHA Docket Office.

Table of Contents

I. Introduction
II. Background
    A. Control Circuit Type Devices and Other Alternative Methods to
Lockout/Tagout
    B. Addressing New Robotics Technology
    C. Economic Impacts
III. Request for Information, Data, and Comments
IV. Authority and Signature

I. Introduction

    OSHA is considering whether to initiate rulemaking to revise its
control of hazardous energy standard for general industry. One aim of
this RFI is to seek public comment on modernization of the control of
hazardous energy standard without compromising worker safety. OSHA is
requesting information from the public on its control of hazardous
energy standard to help the agency determine how to best protect
employees.
    OSHA's control of hazardous energy (Lockout/Tagout) standard covers
the servicing and maintenance of machines and equipment in which the
unexpected energization or start-up of machines or equipment, or
release of stored energy, could harm employees.\1\ These hazards exist
not only for the employees working directly with the machines or
equipment, but also for the employees nearby. The Lockout/Tagout
standard

was developed to address these hazards by establishing minimum
performance requirements for the control of hazardous energy.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 29 CFR 1910.147(a)(1)(i).
    \2\ Id. 1910.147(a)(1)(i).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Lockout/Tagout standard currently requires that all hazardous
energy from power sources and energy stored in the machine itself be
controlled using energy isolating devices (EIDs) when an employee is
performing servicing or maintenance of a machine or equipment.\3\
OSHA's definition of EIDs excludes push buttons, selector switches, and
other control circuit type devices.\4\ Nevertheless, OSHA recognizes
that there have been safety advancements to control circuit type
devices since OSHA adopted the standard in 1989. Accordingly, OSHA is
revisiting the Lockout/Tagout standard to consider whether to allow the
use of control circuit type devices instead of EIDs for some tasks or
under certain conditions. OSHA seeks information, data, and comments
that would help the agency determine under which conditions, if any,
control circuit type devices could safely be used. OSHA is also
considering changes to the Lockout/Tagout standard that would reflect
new industry best practices and technological advances for hazardous
energy control in the robotics industry. OSHA invites information,
data, and comments on these and any other issues or concerns that
regulated employers, affected employees, and other interested parties
may have regarding the existing Lockout/Tagout standard.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ Id. 1910.147(a)(2)(i); 1910.147(a)(3)(i); 1910.147(c)(i).
    \4\ Id. 1910.147(b).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. Background

A. Control Circuit Type Devices and Other Alternative Methods to
Lockout/Tagout

    The OSHA standard currently requires employers to use an EID to
control hazardous energy during the servicing and maintenance of
machines and equipment. Over the years, some employers have stated that
they believe that control circuit type devices that use approved
components, redundant systems, and control-reliable circuitry are as
safe as EIDs. OSHA recognizes that recent technological advances may
have resulted in safety improvements to control circuit type devices.
    In April 2016, OSHA granted a permanent variance to Nucor Steel
Connecticut Incorporated (NSCI), permitting the use of a control
circuit type device for the control of hazardous energy under the
specific conditions presented in NSCI's request for a variance.\5\
NSCI, a manufacturer of steel wire rod and coiled rebar, had proposed
the implementation of a complete system that would provide an
alternative means of compliance to the requirements of
1910.147(d)(4)(i) and (ii) with regard to grinding rolls on a roll mill
stand. The engineered system used a ``trapped key'' concept and
monitored safety-rated power relays in combination with administrative
procedures. The trapped key system was designed to replace a locked out
EID and to function similarly to a lockout device, in that only the
employee in possession of the key could restart the machine undergoing
maintenance. The single key was controlled through administrative group
lockout procedures that NSCI asserted matched the requirements of 29
CFR 1910.147.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ OSHA-2014-0022-0013/FR 2016-08004.
    \6\ OSHA-2014-0022/FR 2015-30483.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    OSHA evaluated whether the device provided an equivalent level of
employee personal control over machine re-energization, ability to
account for exposed employees, and verification of isolation to that
required by the OSHA standard.\7\ OSHA reached three conclusions.
First, OSHA concluded that the alternate device allowed energy control
measures to remain under the personal control of the exposed employee
through control of the trapped key using a group lockbox. Second, OSHA
concluded that employees were able to verify de-energization. Third,
OSHA concluded that authorized employees were easily identified before
equipment restart.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ 29 CFR 1910.147(c)(8); 1910.147(d)(4); 1910.147(d)(6).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    After reviewing the alternative safety measures proposed in NSCI's
application, and its responses to OSHA's follow-up questions,\8\ OSHA
granted the employer a variance permitting use of this device
exclusively for this task. 81 FR 20680. OSHA granted the variance based
on a safety evaluation of the complete system, not just its individual
components. Specifically, OSHA evaluated whether the alternative system
could, as a whole, be considered as protective as an energy isolating
device. OSHA concluded that the proposed trapped key system was as
effective as full lockout during this task in ensuring against internal
and external failures that could lead to the release of hazardous
energy. The agency determined that internal failures, such as welded
relay contacts or errors in the safety relays, would not cause a
critical failure without alerting employees. With respect to
vulnerability from outside failures, such as attempts to bypass the
system, OSHA determined that the system also provided equivalent
protection to full lockout for these types of failures.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ https://www.regulations.gov/document?D=OSHA-2014-0022-0007,
https://www.regulations.gov/document?D=OSHA-2014-0022-0009.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Although control circuit type devices may not permit easy visual
confirmation of their application, in this instance, the system allowed
the exposed employee to verify the effectiveness of the system through
attempted startup of the machine. In addition, the safety system was
designed to revert to a safe mode in the event of a failure, the status
of the safety system was monitored by multiple safety relays, and any
faults would be signaled to operators. After completing an analysis of
the company's variance request and accompanying documentation, OSHA
determined the proposed system was an effective alternative to full
lockout for the task identified in the request.
    As a result of the evaluation of this recent variance request, OSHA
has determined that there may be a basis for amending the Lockout/
Tagout standard to allow the use of control circuit type devices for
hazardous energy control under certain conditions. Based on preliminary
research and alliance-partner feedback, OSHA believes the use of
control circuit type devices is typically limited to the types of tasks
that do not meet the minor servicing exception in the Lockout/Tagout
standard but that also do not require either extensive disassembly of
the machine or worker entrance into hazardous areas that may be
difficult to escape quickly. An example of such a task is machine
setup. OSHA is requesting information about how employers have been
using these devices, including information about the types of circuitry
and safety procedures being used and the limitations of their use, to
determine under what other conditions control circuit type devices
could safely be used.
    As part of this RFI, OSHA is also evaluating criteria used by
consensus standards to determine the safety effectiveness of control
circuits. For example, the International Organization for
Standardization (ISO) and International Electrotechnical Commission
(IEC) both have standards with detailed requirements for control
circuit devices used for protection from machine hazards.\9\ The ISO
and IEC

standards evaluate the safety of a control system by considering its
design and function. The IEC standards evaluate whether a system can
achieve a certain ``safety integrity level,'' while the ISO 13849-1
consensus standard evaluates ``performance levels'' for each safety
function. The ISO 13849-2 consensus standard also has safety categories
that describe both the performance level required for that category and
the characteristics of the error-checking of a system in that category.
The highest safety category requires both the highest performance level
of the control system and the most extensive error checking.
Additionally, to determine the level of safety of a control system,
both the IEC and the ISO standards consider the reliability of the
system as a whole and its components, the operating environment, and
the effects of failure.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ See, e.g., ANSI/ISO 12100:2012 Safety of machinery--General
principles for design--Risk assessment and risk reduction; ISO
13849-1:2015(E) Safety of machinery--Safety-related parts of control
systems--Part 1: General principles for design; ISO 13849-2:2012(E)
Safety of machinery--Safety-related parts of control systems--Part
2: Validation; ISO/TR 22100-1:2015(E) Safety of machinery--
Relationship with ISO 12100--Part 1: How ISO 12100 relates to type-B
and type-C standards; ISO/TR 22100-2:2013(E) Safety of machinery--
Relationship with ISO 12100--Part 2: How ISO 12100 relates to ISO
13849-1; ISO 14118:2000(E) Safety of machinery--Prevention of
unexpected start-up; ISO/TR 14121-2:2012(E) Safety of machinery--
Risk assessment-- Part 2:Practical guidance and examples of methods;
IEC 62040-1:2017-04 PRV(en-fr) FINAL DRAFT INTERNATIONAL STANDARD
Uninterruptible power systems (UPS)--Part 1: Safety requirements;
IEC 62061:2005-01+AMD1:2012-11+AMD2:2015-06 CSV(en-fr) CONSOLIDATED
VERSION Safety of machinery--Functional safety of safety-related
electrical, electronic and programmable electronic control systems;
IEC 61508-1:2010 INTERNATIONAL STANDARD Functional safety of
electrical/electronic/programmable electronic safety-related
systems--Part 1: General requirements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    OSHA promulgated the current version of 29 CFR 1910.147 on
September 1, 1989. OSHA relied heavily on a 1982 consensus standard
published by the American National Standards Institute (ANSI).\10\ The
1989 preamble stated that the ANSI standard was ``[o]f great assistance
to OSHA'' and that ``[t]he consensus standard was utilized by OSHA as
the primary basis for development of its proposed standard.'' 54 FR
36645. ANSI reaffirmed the 1982 consensus standard ``without any
changes in content'' in 1988 and again in 1992.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ See ANSI Z244.1, American National Standard for Personnel
Protection--Lockout/Tagout of Energy Sources--Minimum Safety
Requirements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    But by 2014, the Z244.1 committee recognized that, with the rapid
advancement of technology, ``[a]dvanced control systems provide new
opportunities for addressing energy control where conventional lockout
is not feasible, where energy is required to perform a task, where
repetitive cycling of an energy-isolating device increases risk, and
where energy is required to maintain equipment in a safe state, etc.''
As a result, ANSI revised its standard to include ``distinct
requirements for controlling hazardous energy through three different
approaches: lockout (the primary approach), tagout and alternative
methods.''
    In 2016, the committee released a new consensus standard, ANSI/
ASSPP Z244.1--2016 The Control of Hazardous Energy Lockout, Tagout and
Alternative Methods. The standard's Introduction states that it
``provides for decision-making flexibility regarding hazardous energy
control methodology. Alternative methods, when used, are based upon
risk assessment and application of the classic hazard control hierarchy
(clause 8.1.2). However, lockout continues to be emphasized as the
primary hazardous energy control method.'' The ANSI standard requires
that lockout or tagout ``be used unless the user can demonstrate an
alternative method will provide effective protection for persons. When
lockout or tagout is not used, then alternative methods shall be used
only after the hazards have been assessed and risks documented.'' Thus,
before using an alternative method, the employer is required to
complete a practicability/justification analysis, a risk assessment,
and other applicable evaluations. An accompanying chart and table in
the standard go through the risk assessment process and the hazard
control hierarchy.
    OSHA is seeking information, comments, and data on the
effectiveness of these approaches to control system safety and any
limitations or potential issues regarding their use for some tasks that
currently require lockout/tagout.

B. Addressing New Robotics Technology in Relation to Lockout/Tagout

    Because robots may contain hazardous energy, the Lockout/Tagout
standard can apply to their servicing and maintenance. OSHA has
previously focused on industrial robots, defined as ``programmable
multifunctional mechanical devices designed to move material, parts,
tools, or specialized devices through variable programmed motions to
perform a variety of tasks.'' \11\ OSHA is now studying the evolution
of the use of robots in the workplace and how this affects employee
protections related to the control of hazardous energy in the context
of the Lockout/Tagout standard.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ OSHA, Robotics: Overview, available at https://www.osha.gov/SLTC/robotics/index.html.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The traditional robot model involves a large device that welds
metal pieces or moves panels or assemblies. This type of robot has a
fixed base and an arm that moves freely. It is kept separate from
workers during its operating stage and stays behind a locked door or
within a locked compartment as it works. During periods of maintenance
or adjustment, these robots' movements are supposed to be limited or
greatly slowed to reduce or eliminate the potential for worker injury.
    The technological innovations of a new generation of robots,
however, suggest that this may be changing. Unlike traditional robots,
newer robots are more mobile and may be allowed to roam freely in a
specified area, even if that area is separate from employees.
Collaborative robots go a step further by working with human workers.
In some cases, such robots are worn directly by the employees
themselves, for example, as exoskeletons.
    Due to these advances in robotics, OSHA is seeking information,
comments, and data about any new risks of exposure to hazardous energy
that employees may face as a result of increased interaction with
robots. OSHA is seeking information, comments, and data on whether the
agency should consider changes to the Lockout/Tagout standard that
would address these new risks, as well as to account for any reduction
in risks or other benefits to worker safety, associated with using
robots.

C. Economic Impacts

    In addition to the specific questions posed in Part III of this
RFI, OSHA welcomes data and information on the potential economic
impacts should OSHA decide to make changes to the Lockout/Tagout
standard. When responding to the questions in this RFI, OSHA requests,
whenever possible, that stakeholders discuss potential economic impacts
in terms of:
    a. Quantitative benefits (e.g., reductions in injuries, fatalities,
and property damage);
    b. Costs (e.g., compliance costs or decreases in productivity); and
    c. Offsets to costs (e.g., increases in productivity, less need for
maintenance and repairs).
    OSHA also invites comment on any unintended consequences and
consistencies or inconsistences with other policies or regulatory
programs that might result if OSHA revises the 29 CFR 1910.147
standard.
    OSHA welcomes all comments but requests that stakeholders discuss

economic impacts in as specific terms as possible. For example, if a
provision or policy change would necessitate additional employee
training, it is most helpful to OSHA to receive information on the
following:
    1. The training courses necessary;
    2. The topics training would cover;
    3. The types of employees who would need training and what percent
(if any) of those employees currently receive the training;
    4. The length and frequency of training;
    5. Any retraining necessary; and
    6. The training costs, whether conducted by a third-party vendor or
by an in-house trainer.
    For discussion of equipment-related costs, OSHA is interested in
all relevant factors including:
    1. The prevalence of current use of the equipment;
    2. The purchase price;
    3. Cost of installation and training;
    4. Cost of equipment maintenance and operation and upgrades; and
    5. Expected life of the equipment.
    The agency also invites comment on the time and level of expertise
required if OSHA were to implement potential changes this RFI
discusses, even if dollar-cost estimates are not available.

III. Request for Information, Data, and Comments

    OSHA is seeking information, data, and comments to help the agency
determine what action, if any, it should take to modernize the control
of hazardous energy standard while maintaining or improving worker
safety. OSHA also seeks information, data, and comments that will
inform the agency's analysis of the technological and economic
feasibility of any such action.
    OSHA would like data, information, and comments on the following
questions:

Control Circuit Type Devices

    1. In what work processes should OSHA consider allowing the use of
control circuit type devices for hazardous energy control?
    2. What are the limitations to using control circuit type devices?
Do they have specific weaknesses or failure points that make them
unsuitable for hazardous energy control?
    3. If OSHA were to allow the use of control circuit type devices or
other methods to control hazardous energy, would your firm choose to
use them? Why or why not? Do you anticipate that these devices would
save your firm money? For example, would these devices simplify
operations or maintenance? Are there fewer steps needed to implement
the controls? How frequently do you employ some form of lockout/tagout
system in your facility?
    4. Are there any specific conditions under which the use of control
circuit type devices would not be advisable?
    5. When the Lockout/Tagout standard was originally drafted, OSHA
rejected the use of control circuit type devices for hazardous energy
control due to concerns that the safety functions of these devices
could fail as a result of component failure, program errors, magnetic
field interference, electrical surges, or improper use or maintenance.
Have new technological advances to control circuit type devices
resolved these concerns? How so?
    6. Are there issues with physical feedback for control circuit type
devices?
    7. What are the safety and health issues involving maintenance,
installation, and use of control circuit type devices? Have you found
that alternative safety measures themselves cause any new or unexpected
hazards or safety problems? Please provide any examples if you have
them.
    8. Do control circuit type devices address over-voltage or under-
voltage conditions that may signal power-off, power-on, or false
negatives on error checking?
    9. How do control circuit systems detect if a component of a
control circuit device breaks, bends, or otherwise goes out of
specification? How do the systems signal this to the exposed employee?
Could these types of failures create a hazard while the system
continues to signal that conditions are safe?
    10. What level of redundancy is necessary in determining whether a
control circuit type device could be used instead of an EID?
    11. Lockout/tagout on EIDs ensures that machines will not restart
while an employee is in a hazardous area. How do control circuit type
devices similarly account for employees working in areas where they are
exposed to hazardous machine energy?
    12. How do control circuit type devices permit an employee to
maintain control over his/her own safety?
    13. How do control circuit type devices permit employees to verify
that energy has been controlled before beginning work in danger zones?
How do the devices account for exposed employees before equipment is
restarted?
    14. Control circuit type devices have a number of claimed benefits
compared to energy isolating devices, including workers' greater
willingness to use such devices, better efficiency, less downtime, and
the lack of a requirement to clear programming on computer controlled
devices. Are there any other benefits to using control circuit type
devices? Are there certain situations where these devices are
especially advantageous? For example, where machine tasks require
frequent repetitive access, is the process faster and/or less
physically demanding than applying mechanical lock(s)?
    15. What other methods or devices, if any, are being used with
control circuit type devices to control the release of hazardous
energy, especially in cases where the control circuit devices are only
used to prevent machine start-up? Are there control circuit type
devices that require additional methods or devices to fully control the
release of hazardous energy? What improvements to safety or health does
the use of these devices or methods provide?
    16. What are the unit costs for installing and using control
circuit type devices or other alternative methods of hazardous energy
control? Are the costs of installing and using control circuit type
devices or other alternative methods of controlling hazardous energy
dependent on the capacity or efficiency of the devices? If so, please
include details on the effects of capacity on these unit costs
including the capacity of any equipment you use in your facility. Are
these devices generally integrated into newly purchased machinery, or
are they purchased and installed separately? What steps need to be
taken, and how long do those steps take, for these systems to be
engaged in a manner that fully protects workers from the release of
hazardous energy?
    17. What additional actions is your firm taking to protect workers
when they are servicing machinery with control circuit type devices in
order to meet OSHA's Lockout/Tagout standard requirements? For example,
does your firm purchase and use physical devices that you feel do not
enhance worker protections but nonetheless are required by the OSHA
standard? What are these items and how much do they cost? Please
explain why you feel these items do not enhance worker protections.
    18. The American National Standards Institute (ANSI), the
International Organization for Standardization (ISO), and the
International Electrotechnical Commission (IEC) all have standards that
may be applicable to control circuit type devices.\12\ Should OSHA
consider

adopting portions of any ANSI, ISO, or IEC standard that specifies
requirements for control circuit devices as part of an updated OSHA
standard? Are there recommendations in the consensus standards that you
choose not to follow? If so, please explain why. Are there any
requirements in these standards that would impose significant cost
burdens if OSHA were to include those requirements in a revised Logout/
Tagout standard? Are there provisions of one consensus standard when
compared to the others that you perceive as having lower costs to
implement and use on a day-to-day basis while providing protection to
workers that is equal to or greater than that provided by the other
standards? If so, please explain.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ These include, but are not limited to, ANSI B11.19-2010
American National Standard for Machines--Performance Criteria for
Safeguarding, ISO 12100, ISO 14118, ISO 14121, IEC 62040, IEC 62061,
and IEC 61508.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    19. ISO categorizes ``the ability of safety-related parts of
control systems to perform a safety function under foreseeable
conditions'' into one of five levels, called performance levels.\13\
These performance levels ``are defined in terms of probability of
dangerous failures per hour.'' Should OSHA consider requiring a
specific performance level in determining whether a control circuit
type device could be a safe alternative to an EID?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ See ISO 13849-1:2015 Safety of Machinery--Safety-Related
Parts of Control Systems--Part 1: General Principles of Design.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    20. Can System Isolation Equipment, as discussed in the UL
consensus standard UL6420 Standard for Equipment Used for System
Isolation and Rated as a Single Unit,\14\ provide protection equal to
that obtained through lockout/tagout?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ UL6420 ``applies to isolating equipment incorporating
electromechanical contactors remotely controlled and monitored to
provide remote isolation status indication with a defined integrity
level. This equipment is intended for use as an additional isolating
means on the load side of the required supply-disconnecting device
and over current protection. This standard applies to isolating
equipment that is to be used in circuits of which the rated voltage
does not exceed 1000 Vac or 1500 Vdc.'' See https://standardscatalog.ul.com/standards/en/standard_6420.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    21. The ANSI/ASSE Z244.1 consensus standard encourages the use of
risk assessment and hazard control hierarchy as alternative methods of
hazardous energy control. Should OSHA consider incorporating these
methods in any new standard with respect to the use of control circuit
type devices?
    22. Do you currently utilize the services of a specialized safety
engineer or employment safety administrator to test for competency and/
or ensure that the hazardous energy control system is operational? If
so, how many hours does this individual spend on these tasks? Do you
anticipate you would need to make use of these services if OSHA revised
the Lockout/Tagout requirements to align with the consensus standards?
Based on data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics, OSHA estimates that
an occupational health and safety specialist makes $33.14 an hour or
$68,930 annually plus benefits.\15\ If you have used the services of
such specialists, how does this compare with your experience?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ Bureau of Labor Statistics, Occupational Employment
Statistics, May 2016 National Occupational Employment and Wage
Estimate for SOC 29-9010 Occupational Health and Safety Specialists
and Technicians,
     https://www.bls.gov/oes/current/oes_nat.htm. Accessed March 14,
2018.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    23. How much training do you currently provide on Lockout/Tagout
requirements? How long does training on this subject take and how often
do employees receive training on the subject? If OSHA were to revise
the Lockout/Tagout standard to permit use of control circuit type
devices in some circumstances, would newly hired workers require more
training or less than under the current standard? What format do you
use to provide training on the Lockout/Tagout standard at your facility
(i.e., small group classroom session, self-guided computer modules,
etc.)? If you have used third-party training vendors to provide similar
training, what are the costs? If training is provided in-house, what
sort of employee provides the training (i.e., a first-line supervisor,
a safety and health specialist, etc.)?

Robotics

    24. Should OSHA consider making revisions to the Lockout/Tagout
standard that address advances to robotics technology with respect to
hazardous energy control? If so, what revisions should OSHA consider?
    25. What are the aspects of design and build, the features, or the
specifications of modern robots that are relevant to an evaluation of
whether a robot has the potential to release hazardous energy while in
the presence of employees? How do you use robotics? Are robotics
isolated from nearby employees? Near employees? Directly employed or
worn by employees?
    26. Are you aware of any instances where workers have been injured
or killed by the release of hazardous energy when working with robotic
technologies? Please provide examples if you have them.
    27. Robots operate using software. What processes or tools exist to
ensure that this software is safely operating (including protection
from malware, tampering, and other threats) or displaying signs that a
robot could malfunction and lead to a release of hazardous energy while
in the presence of employees? Should OSHA consider making revisions to
the Lockout/Tagout standard with respect to the safe functioning of
robotics software? If so, what revisions should OSHA consider? To the
extent that there are such revisions, how much would they increase the
costs of or development hours for the software?
    28. Are you currently using some form of lockout/tagout to control
hazardous energy in robots? What steps do you take? How long do those
steps take? Do you use any specially purchased equipment or materials
for this process? How frequently do you take steps to control hazardous
energy releases in your industrial robots? How does the process compare
to the steps undertaken to comply with OSHA's Lockout/Tagout standard?
How many labor hours do these additional steps require? Do these steps
require any additional equipment? If so, what does this equipment cost?
    29. Should OSHA consider adopting portions of the ANSI/RIA R15.06-
2012 standard on Industrial Robots and Robot Systems, which outlines
the safety requirements for risk assessments of robotic system
installations? Are there any requirements in the ANSI/RIA standard that
would be prohibitively expensive for your company to implement? Are
there any requirements that do not provide sufficient protections for
workers?
    30. Is there another standard, besides ANSI/RIA R15.06-2012
Industrial Robots and Robot Systems--Safety Requirements, that OSHA
should consider in developing requirements for the control of hazardous
energy involving robotics?

Specific Questions Regarding Economic Impacts

    31. Please describe in detail how a standard for the control of
hazardous energy that incorporates the use of control circuit type
devices or new robotic technology could create more jobs; eliminate
outdated, unnecessary, or ineffective requirements; or produce other
economic benefits. Please provide information supporting your view,
including data, studies and articles.
    32. The Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601, as amended)
requires OSHA to assess the impact of proposed and final rules on small
entities. OSHA requests comments, information, and data on how many and
what kinds of small businesses, or other small entities, in general
industry employment could be affected if OSHA decides to revise

provisions in 29 CFR 1910.147. Describe any such effects. Where
possible, please provide detailed descriptions of the size and scope of
operation for affected small entities and the likely technical,
economic, and safety impacts for those entities.
    33. In addition, are there any reasons that the benefits of
reducing exposure to hazardous energy might be different in small firms
than in larger firms? Are there any reasons why the costs for
controlling hazardous energy would be higher for small employers than
they would be for larger employers? Are there provisions that would be
especially costly to small employers? Please describe any specific
concerns related to potential impacts on small entities that you
believe warrant special attention from OSHA. Please describe
alternatives that might serve to minimize those impacts while meeting
the requirements of the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970, 29
U.S.C. 651 et seq.

IV. Authority and Signature

    Loren Sweatt, Acting Assistant Secretary of Labor for Occupational
Safety and Health, authorized the preparation of this notice pursuant
to 29 U.S.C. 653, 655, and 657, Secretary's Order 1-2012 (77 FR 3912,
Jan. 25, 2012), and 29 CFR part 1911.

    Signed at Washington, DC, on May 7, 2019.
Loren Sweatt,
Acting Assistant Secretary of Labor for Occupational Safety and Health.
[FR Doc. 2019-10247 Filed 5-17-19; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510-26-P


[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 187 (Thursday, September 26, 2019)]
[Notices]
[Pages 50869-50871]
[FR Doc No: 2019-20955]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Investment Company Act Release No. 33630; 812-15001]

CIM Real Assets & Credit Fund, et al.

September 23, 2019.
AGENCY: Securities and Exchange Commission (``Commission'').

ACTION: Notice.

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

    Notice of an application under section 6(c) of the Investment
Company Act of 1940 (the ``Act'') for an exemption from sections
18(a)(2), 18(c) and 18(i) of the Act, under sections 6(c) and 23(c) of
the Act for an exemption from rule 23c-3 under the Act, and for an
order pursuant to section 17(d) of the Act and rule 17d-1 under the
Act.

Summary of Application: Applicants request an order to permit certain
registered closed-end management investment companies to issue multiple
classes of shares and to impose asset-based distribution and/or service
fees, early withdrawal charges (``EWCs''), and early repurchase fees.

Applicants: CIM Real Assets & Credit Fund (the ``Initial Fund''), CIM
Capital IC Management, LLC (the ``Adviser'').

Filing Dates: The application was filed on February 7, 2019 and amended
on July 3, 2019.

Hearing or Notification of Hearing: An order granting the requested
relief will be issued unless the Commission orders a hearing.
Interested persons may request a hearing by writing to the Commission's
Secretary and serving applicants with a copy of the request, personally
or by mail. Hearing requests should be received by the Commission by
5:30 p.m. on October 18, 2019, and should be accompanied by proof of
service on the applicants, in the form of an affidavit, or, for
lawyers, a certificate of service. Pursuant to rule 0-5 under the Act,
hearing requests should state the nature of the writer's interest, any
facts bearing upon the desirability of a hearing on the matter, the
reason for the request, and the issues contested. Persons who wish to
be notified of a hearing may request notification by writing to the
Commission's Secretary.

ADDRESSES: Secretary, U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F
Street NE, Washington, DC 20549-1090; Applicants: 4700 Wilshire
Boulevard, Los Angeles, California 90010.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Zeena Abdul-Rahman, Senior Counsel, at
(202) 551-4099, or Andrea Ottomanelli Magovern, Branch Chief, at (202)
551-6825 (Division of Investment Management, Chief Counsel's Office).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The following is a summary of the
application. The complete application may be obtained via the
Commission's website by searching for the file number, or for an
applicant using the Company name box, at http://www.sec.gov/search/search.htm or by calling<PHONE_NUMBER>.

Applicants' Representations:

    1. The Initial Fund is a Delaware statutory trust that is
registered under the Act as a continuously offered, non-diversified,
closed-end management investment company. The Initial Fund's primary
investment objective is to generate current income through cash
distributions and preserve and protect shareholders' capital across
various market cycles, with a secondary objective of capital
appreciation.
    2. The Adviser, a Delaware limited liability company, is registered
as an investment adviser under the Investment Advisers Act of 1940, as
amended. The Adviser will serve as investment adviser to the Initial
Fund.
    3. The applicants seek an order to permit the Initial Fund to issue
multiple classes of shares and to impose EWCs, asset-based distribution
and/or service fees with respect to certain classes.
    4. Applicants request that the order also apply to any
continuously-offered registered closed-end management investment
company that has been previously organized or that may be organized in
the future for which the Adviser, or any entity controlling, controlled
by, or under common control with the Adviser, or any successor in
interest to any such entity,\1\ acts as investment adviser and that
operates as an interval fund pursuant to rule 23c-3 under the Act or
provides periodic liquidity with respect to its shares pursuant to rule
13e-4 under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (``Exchange Act'')
(each, a ``Future Fund'' and together with the Initial Fund, the
``Funds'').\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ A successor in interest is limited to an entity that results
from a reorganization into another jurisdiction or a change in the
type of business organization.
    \2\ Any Fund relying on this relief in the future will do so in
compliance with the terms and conditions of the application.
Applicants represent that each entity presently intending to rely on
the requested relief is listed as an applicant.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    5. The Initial Fund anticipates making a continuous public offering
of its shares following the effectiveness of its registration
statement. Applicants state that additional offerings by any Fund
relying on the order may be on a private placement or public offering
basis. Shares of the Funds will not be listed on any securities
exchange nor quoted on any quotation medium. The Funds do not expect
there to be a secondary trading market for their shares.
    6. If the requested relief is granted, the Initial Fund anticipates
offering Class I shares, Class C shares, Class A shares, and Class L
shares, with each class having its own fee and expense structure. The
Funds may in the future offer additional classes of shares and/or
another sales charge structure. Because of the different distribution
fees, service fees and any other class expenses that may be
attributable to each class of shares, the net income attributable to,
and the dividends payable on, each class of shares may differ from each
other.
    7. Applicants state that, from time to time, the Fund may create
additional

classes of shares, the terms of which may differ from the initial
classes pursuant to and in compliance with rule 18f-3 under the Act.
    8. Applicants state that shares of a Fund may be subject to an
early repurchase fee (``Early Repurchase Fee'') at a rate of no greater
than 2% of the shareholder's repurchase proceeds if the interval
between the date of purchase of the shares and the valuation date with
respect to the repurchase of those shares is less than one year. Any
Early Repurchase Fees will apply to all classes of shares of a Fund,
consistent with section 18 of the Act and rule 18f-3 thereunder. To the
extent a Fund determines to waive, impose scheduled variations of, or
eliminate any Early Repurchase Fee, it will do so in compliance with
the requirements of rule 22d-1 under the Act as if the Early Repurchase
Fee were a CDSL (defined below) and as if the Fund were an open-end
investment company and the Fund's waiver of, scheduled variation in, or
elimination of, any such Early Repurchase Fee will apply uniformly to
all shareholders of the Fund regardless of class.
    9. Applicants state that the Initial Fund has adopted a fundamental
policy to repurchase a specified percentage of its shares at net asset
value on a quarterly basis. Such repurchase offers will be conducted
pursuant to rule 23c-3 under the Act. Any Future Fund will likewise
adopt fundamental investment policies in compliance with rule 23c-3 and
make periodic repurchase offers to its shareholders or will provide
periodic liquidity with respect to its shares pursuant to rule 13e-4
under the Exchange Act.\3\ Any repurchase offers made by the Funds will
be made to all holders of shares of each such Fund.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ Applicants submit that rule 23c-3 and Regulation M under the
Exchange Act permit an interval fund to make repurchase offers to
repurchase its shares while engaging in a continuous offering of its
shares pursuant to Rule 415 under the Securities Act of 1933, as
amended.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    10. Applicants represent that any asset-based service and/or
distribution fees for each class of shares of the Funds will comply
with the provisions of the FINRA Rule 2341(d) (``FINRA Sales Charge
Rule'').\4\ Applicants also represent that each Fund will disclose in
its prospectus the fees, expenses and other characteristics of each
class of shares offered for sale by the prospectus, as is required for
open-end multiple class funds under Form N-1A. As is required for open-
end funds, each Fund will disclose its expenses in shareholder reports,
and describe any arrangements that result in breakpoints in or
elimination of sales loads in its prospectus.\5\ In addition,
applicants will comply with applicable enhanced fee disclosure
requirements for fund of funds, including registered funds of hedge
funds.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ Any reference to the FINRA Sales Charge Rule includes any
successor or replacement to the FINRA Sales Charge Rule.
    \5\ See Shareholder Reports and Quarterly Portfolio Disclosure
of Registered Management Investment Companies, Investment Company
Act Release No. 26372 (Feb. 27, 2004) (adopting release) (requiring
open-end investment companies to disclose fund expenses in
shareholder reports); and Disclosure of Breakpoint Discounts by
Mutual Funds, Investment Company Act Release No. 26464 (June 7,
2004) (adopting release) (requiring open-end investment companies to
provide prospectus disclosure of certain sales load information).
    \6\ Fund of Funds Investments, Investment Company Act Rel. Nos.
26198 (Oct. 1, 2003) (proposing release) and 27399 (Jun. 20, 2006)
(adopting release). See also Rules 12d1-1, et seq. of the Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    11. Each of the Funds will comply with any requirements that the
Commission or FINRA may adopt regarding disclosure at the point of sale
and in transaction confirmations about the costs and conflicts of
interest arising out of the distribution of open-end investment company
shares, and regarding prospectus disclosure of sales loads and revenue
sharing arrangements, as if those requirements applied to the Fund. In
addition, each Fund will contractually require that any distributor of
the Fund's shares comply with such requirements in connection with the
distribution of such Fund's shares.
    12. Each Fund will allocate all expenses incurred by it among the
various classes of shares based on the net assets of that Fund
attributable to each class, except that the net asset value and
expenses of each class will reflect the expenses associated with the
distribution plan of that class (if any), service fees attributable to
that class (if any), including transfer agency fees, and any other
incremental expenses of that class. Expenses of a Fund allocated to a
particular class of shares will be borne on a pro rata basis by each
outstanding share of that class. Applicants state that each Fund will
comply with the provisions of rule 18f-3 under the Act as if it were an
open-end investment company.
    13. Applicants state that each Fund may impose an EWC on shares
submitted for repurchase that have been held for less than a specified
period and may waive the EWC for certain categories of shareholders or
transactions to be established from time to time. Applicants state that
each Fund will apply the EWC (and any waivers, scheduled variations, or
eliminations of the EWC) uniformly to all shareholders in a given class
and consistently with the requirements of rule 22d-1 under the Act as
if the Funds were open-end investment companies.
    14. Each Fund operating as an interval fund pursuant to rule 23c-3
under the Act may offer its shareholders an exchange feature under
which the shareholders of the Fund may, in connection with such Fund's
periodic repurchase offers, exchange their shares of the Fund for
shares of the same class of (i) registered open-end investment
companies or (ii) other registered closed-end investment companies that
comply with rule 23c-3 under the Act and continuously offer their
shares at net asset value, that are in the Fund's group of investment
companies (collectively, ``Other Funds''). Shares of a Fund operating
pursuant to rule 23c-3 that are exchanged for shares of Other Funds
will be included as part of the amount of the repurchase offer amount
for such Fund as specified in rule 23c-3 under the Act. Any exchange
option will comply with rule 11a-3 under the Act, as if the Fund were
an open-end investment company subject to rule 11a-3. In complying with
rule 11a-3, each Fund will treat an EWC as if it were a contingent
deferred sales load (``CDSL'').

Applicants' Legal Analysis

Multiple Classes of Shares

    1. Section 18(a)(2) of the Act provides that a closed-end
investment company may not issue or sell a senior security that is a
stock unless certain requirements are met. Applicants state that the
creation of multiple classes of shares of the Funds may violate section
18(a)(2) because the Funds may not meet such requirements with respect
to a class of shares that may be a senior security.
    2. Section 18(c) of the Act provides, in relevant part, that a
closed-end investment company may not issue or sell any senior security
if, immediately thereafter, the company has outstanding more than one
class of senior security. Applicants state that the creation of
multiple classes of shares of the Funds may be prohibited by section
18(c), as a class may have priority over another class as to payment of
dividends because shareholders of different classes would pay different
fees and expenses.
    3. Section 18(i) of the Act provides that each share of stock
issued by a registered management investment company will be a voting
stock and have equal voting rights with every other outstanding voting
stock. Applicants state that multiple classes of shares of the Funds
may violate section

18(i) of the Act because each class would be entitled to exclusive
voting rights with respect to matters solely related to that class.
    4. Section 6(c) of the Act provides that the Commission may exempt
any person, security or transaction or any class or classes of persons,
securities or transactions from any provision of the Act, or from any
rule or regulation under the Act, if and to the extent such exemption
is necessary or appropriate in the public interest and consistent with
the protection of investors and the purposes fairly intended by the
policy and provisions of the Act. Applicants request an exemption under
section 6(c) from sections 18(a)(2), 18(c) and 18(i) to permit the
Funds to issue multiple classes of shares.
    5. Applicants submit that the proposed allocation of expenses
relating to distribution and voting rights among multiple classes is
equitable and will not discriminate against any group or class of
shareholders. Applicants submit that the proposed arrangements would
permit a Fund to facilitate the distribution of its securities and
provide investors with a broader choice of shareholder services.
Applicants assert that the proposed closed-end investment company
multiple class structure does not raise the concerns underlying section
18 of the Act to any greater degree than open-end investment companies'
multiple class structures that are permitted by rule 18f-3 under the
Act. Applicants state that each Fund will comply with the provisions of
rule 18f-3 as if it were an open-end investment company.

Early Withdrawal Charges

    1. Section 23(c) of the Act provides, in relevant part, that no
registered closed-end investment company shall purchase securities of
which it is the issuer, except: (a) On a securities exchange or other
open market; (b) pursuant to tenders, after reasonable opportunity to
submit tenders given to all holders of securities of the class to be
purchased; or (c) under other circumstances as the Commission may
permit by rules and regulations or orders for the protection of
investors.
    2. Rule 23c-3 under the Act permits an ``interval fund'' to make
repurchase offers of between five and twenty-five percent of its
outstanding shares at net asset value at periodic intervals pursuant to
a fundamental policy of the interval fund. Rule 23c-3(b)(1) under the
Act permits an interval fund to deduct from repurchase proceeds only a
repurchase fee, not to exceed two percent of the proceeds, that is paid
to the interval fund and is reasonably intended to compensate the fund
for expenses directly related to the repurchase.
    3. Section 23(c)(3) provides that the Commission may issue an order
that would permit a closed-end investment company to repurchase its
shares in circumstances in which the repurchase is made in a manner or
on a basis that does not unfairly discriminate against any holders of
the class or classes of securities to be purchased.
    4. Applicants request relief under section 6(c), discussed above,
and section 23(c)(3) from rule 23c-3 to the extent necessary for the
Funds to impose EWCs on shares of the Funds submitted for repurchase
that have been held for less than a specified period.
    5. Applicants state that the EWCs they intend to impose are
functionally similar to CDSLs imposed by open-end investment companies
under rule 6c-10 under the Act. Rule 6c-10 permits open-end investment
companies to impose CDSLs, subject to certain conditions. Applicants
note that rule 6c-10 is grounded in policy considerations supporting
the employment of CDSLs where there are adequate safeguards for the
investor and state that the same policy considerations support
imposition of EWCs in the interval fund context. In addition,
applicants state that EWCs may be necessary for the distributor to
recover distribution costs. Applicants represent that any EWC imposed
by the Funds will comply with rule 6c-10 under the Act as if the rule
were applicable to closed-end investment companies. The Funds will
disclose EWCs in accordance with the requirements of Form N-1A
concerning CDSLs.

Asset-Based Distribution and/or Service Fees

    1. Section 17(d) of the Act and rule 17d-1 under the Act prohibit
an affiliated person of a registered investment company, or an
affiliated person of such person, acting as principal, from
participating in or effecting any transaction in connection with any
joint enterprise or joint arrangement in which the investment company
participates unless the Commission issues an order permitting the
transaction. In reviewing applications submitted under section 17(d)
and rule 17d-1, the Commission considers whether the participation of
the investment company in a joint enterprise or joint arrangement is
consistent with the provisions, policies and purposes of the Act, and
the extent to which the participation is on a basis different from or
less advantageous than that of other participants.
    2. Rule 17d-3 under the Act provides an exemption from section
17(d) and rule 17d-1 to permit open-end investment companies to enter
into distribution arrangements pursuant to rule 12b-1 under the Act.
Applicants request an order under section 17(d) and rule 17d-1 under
the Act to the extent necessary to permit the Fund to impose asset-
based distribution and/or service fees. Applicants have agreed to
comply with rules 12b-1 and 17d-3 as if those rules applied to closed-
end investment companies, which they believe will resolve any concerns
that might arise in connection with a Fund financing the distribution
of its shares through asset-based distribution fees.
    3. For the reasons stated above, applicants submit that the
exemptions requested under section 6(c) are necessary and appropriate
in the public interest and are consistent with the protection of
investors and the purposes fairly intended by the policy and provisions
of the Act. Applicants further submit that the relief requested
pursuant to section 23(c)(3) will be consistent with the protection of
investors and will insure that applicants do not unfairly discriminate
against any holders of the class of securities to be purchased.
Finally, applicants state that the Funds' imposition of asset-based
distribution and/or service fees is consistent with the provisions,
policies and purposes of the Act and does not involve participation on
a basis different from or less advantageous than that of other
participants.

Applicants' Condition

    Applicants agree that any order granting the requested relief will
be subject to the following condition:
    Each Fund relying on the order will comply with the provisions of
rules 6c-10, 12b-1, 17d-3, 18f-3, 22d-1, and, where applicable, 11a-3
under the Act, as amended from time to time, as if those rules applied
to closed-end management investment companies, and will comply with the
FINRA Sales Charge Rule, as amended from time to time, as if that rule
applied to all closed-end management investment companies.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Investment Management,
under delegated authority.
Jill M. Peterson,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2019-20955 Filed 9-25-19; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


Discussion of Short-term limits:

Petitioners have asserted that units are not operating their controls at all times and request EPA impose unit-specific 30-day emission rate limits.  EPA analyzed ozone-season emission rates from all coal-fired units equipped with SCR and found that, based on 2017 emissions with the CSAPR Update in place, that 261 of 274 units had ozone-season emission rates below 0.2 lb/mmBtu indicating they were likely operating their controls throughout the ozone season.  Five of the fourteen units with emission rates above 0.2 lb/mmBtu are not located in the CSAPR Update region.   To examine whether units with SCR operate their controls at all times during the ozone season, EPA examined hourly NOX rates for coal-fired units with SCR and found that at low (hourly) capacity factors, units are not able to operate their SCRs and achieve optimal NOX rates. Here we define hourly capacity factor (i.e., the ratio of the hourly output to the maximum possible hourly output) as the utilization factor.  Note that capacity factor is usually based on an annual average operation, and here we are explicitly assessing the operation in each hour. For each unit, and for each hour that unit operated, EPA characterized: (1) the relative NOX rate calculated as the hourly NOX rate divided by the unit's ozone‐season average NOX rate and (2) the unit's hourly utilization factor. EPA examined the 2017 operational year. EPA then segregated (i.e., "binned") the data by units of hourly utilization factor (from 0 to values higher than 100). The numbers of hours of operation were tallied (i.e., counted) in each bin and the relative NOX rates were averaged across units in bin. The result was a list of average relative NOX emission rates and total numbers of hours of operation for all units as a function of hourly utilization factor. For 2017, the agency found that, assessed across all units, NOX rates can be substantially higher at low hourly utilization factors as compared to higher hourly utilization factors. At about 25% hourly utilization factor, relative NOX rates increased from 1.11 to 1.41 lb/mmBtu. As hourly utilization factor decreased further, the relative NOX rate increased to a maximum of 4.15 at an hourly utilization factor of 17%. The hourly NOX rate and hourly utilization factor data suggest that, on average, when operated below about 25% hourly utilization factor, the SCRs may not achieve the low NOX emission rates that are achieved at higher hourly utilization factors (Figure 1). However, EPA assessed the amount of time units operate less than 25% hourly utilization factor and found that this equated to 2.2% of the time (Figure 2).  Consequently, EPA concludes that, at a fleet wide level, current operational data do not suggest that there is widespread operation at hourly utilization factors where the SCR is not running with a reasonable efficiency.  It is possible that the fleetwide evaluation averages out particular individual units that are not consistently operating their controls.  Consequently, EPA examined whether units turn off or turn down controls on high electricity demand days (HEDD) when demand for electricity is high (perhaps as a result of hot ozone-conducive weather conditions resulting in additional cooling demand).  The auxiliary power savings for a unit would result in an approximate 0.6% savings in electricity generation.  We identified HEDD based on cumulative gross load for all EGUs in CAMD in Pennsylvania, New Jersey, New York, Delaware, Connecticut, and Maryland.  For the top 10% of hours, we observe that 19 of the 27 units had NOX rates below their seasonal average rate (Table 1).  For the top 1% of hours, 17 of 26 units had NOX rates below their seasonal average rate and only 2 units had emission rates more than 20% higher than their seasonal average (Table 2).  We conclude that, if there is any effect at all, that units typically operate their controls more-effectively on HEDD than on other days. However, we observed some units cycling their SCRs, turning them down or off during low demand times (Table 3).  We identified 15 units in 2017 that had at least 20 days where the hourly NOX rate doubled during the course of a single calendar day.  These include units at the following facilities: Belews Creek, Cheswick, Roxboro, Montour, Conemaugh, Pleasants Power Station, Mountaineer, Gibson, JH Campbell, Gen JM Gavin, and Thomas Hill Energy Center.  For these units, the maximum NOx rate occurred between noon and 6 pm only 17% of the time.  That is, the units typically operated the SCR during the afternoon when ozone formation is most conducive.  The maximum rates often occurred in the early morning (when demand is the lowest). Consequently, EPA finds that units are consistently operating their SCRs throughout the season.  The rare hours when the SCRs are turned down or off are usually associated with periods of low generation, most likely not occurring during peak ozone formation times in the afternoon hours. Stakeholders have asserted that engineering challenges of operating controls at low utilization, such as fouling and minimum operating temperature constraints, may drive some of this behavior.

Figure 1.  Average SCR rate relative to the seasonal average rate for the fleet as a function of hourly utilization factor. (Source: AMPD (https://ampd.epa.gov/ampd/), EPA, 2018)

Figure 2.  Number of hours of operation for the fleet as a function of hourly utilization factor. (Source: AMPD (https://ampd.epa.gov/ampd/), EPA, 2018)

Table 1. Each unit's NOx emission rate during the top 10% of regional load hours compared with its seasonal average. (Source: AMPD (https://ampd.epa.gov/ampd/) , EPA, 2018)

Table 2. Each unit's NOX emission rate during the top 1% of regional load hours compared with its seasonal average. (Source: AMPD (https://ampd.epa.gov/ampd/) , EPA, 2018)

Table 3. Units that exhibit daily cycling behavior, where NOX rates are at least twice as high in one of the hours.  Number of days is the number of days in the ozone season, where this behavior is observed.  We also note when during the day the peak NOX rate was found. (Source: AMPD (https://ampd.epa.gov/ampd/) , EPA, 2018) Facility Name State ORIS Boiler ID    # Of Days    Non-Afternoon NOX Maximum  Afternoon NOX Maximum Belews Creek NC 8042 1 99 87 12 Cheswick PA 8226 1 65 63   2 Roxboro NC 2712 2 58 52   6 Belews Creek NC 8042 2 56 40 16 Montour, LLC PA 3149 1 49 45  4 Montour, LLC PA 3149 2 45 43  2 Conemaugh PA 3118 2 41 34  7 Pleasants Power Station WV 6004 2 36 29  7 Mountaineer (1301) WV 6264 1 35 33  2 Gibson IN 6113 3 30 9 21 Gibson IN 6113 5 30 19 11 J H Campbell MI 1710 3 24 14 10 Conemaugh PA 3118 1 23 20   3 Gen J M Gavin OH 8102 1 23 19   4 Thomas Hill Energy Center MO 2168 MB3 22 22   0


[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 48 (Wednesday, March 11, 2020)]
[Notices]
[Pages 14212-14213]
[FR Doc No: 2020-04936]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Federal Emergency Management Agency

[Docket ID: FEMA-2020-0013; OMB No. 1660-0061]

Agency Information Collection Activities: Proposed Collection;
Comment Request; Federal Assistance to Individuals and Households
Program

AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.

ACTION: Notice and request for comments.

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

SUMMARY: The Federal Emergency Management Agency, as part of its
continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, invites
the general public to take this opportunity to comment on a revision of
a currently approved information collection. In accordance with the
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, this notice seeks comments concerning
the need to collect information from individuals or households, and
States, territories, and Tribal governments in order to provide and/or
administer disaster assistance through the Individuals and Households
Program.

DATES: Comments must be submitted on or before May 11, 2020.

ADDRESSES: To avoid duplicate submissions to the docket, please use
only one of the following means to submit comments:
    (1) Online. Submit comments at www.regulations.gov under Docket ID
FEMA-2020-0013. Follow the instructions for submitting comments.
    (2) Mail. Submit written comments to Docket Manager, Office of
Chief Counsel, DHS/FEMA, 500 C Street SW, 8NE-1604, Washington, DC
20472-3100.
    All submissions received must include the agency name and Docket
ID. Regardless of the method used for submitting comments or material,
all submissions will be posted, without change, to the Federal
eRulemaking Portal at http://www.regulations.gov, and will include any
personal information you provide. Therefore, submitting this
information makes it public. You may wish to read the Privacy Act
notice that is available via the link in the footer of
www.regulations.gov.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Brian Thompson, Supervisory Program
Specialist, FEMA Recovery Directorate,<PHONE_NUMBER>. You may contact
the

Information Management Division for copies of the proposed collection
of information at email address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and
Emergency Assistance Act (Stafford Act), Public Law 93-288, as amended,
is the legal basis for the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA)
to provide financial assistance and services to individuals applying
for disaster assistance benefits in the event of a federally declared
disaster. Regulations in 44 CFR, 206.110--Federal Assistance to
Individuals and Households implements the policy and procedures set
forth in Section 408 of the Stafford Act, 42 U.S.C. 5174, as amended.
This program provides financial assistance and, if necessary, direct
assistance to eligible individuals and households who, as a direct
result of a major disaster or emergency, have uninsured or under-
insured, necessary expenses and serious needs, and are unable to meet
such expenses or needs through other means.
    This collection provides applicants the ability to request approval
of late applications, request continued temporary housing assistance,
appeal program decisions, request advance disaster assistance, request
assistance checks not received be stopped and reissued, and to
authorize the release of information third parties. This collection
also allows for the establishment of an annual agreement between FEMA
and States, territories, or Tribal governments regarding how the Other
Needs provision of IHP will be administered: By FEMA, by the State,
territory, or Tribal government, or jointly.

Collection of Information

    Title: Federal Assistance to Individuals and Households Program.
    Type of Information Collection: Revision of a currently approved
information collection.
    OMB Number: 1660-0061.
    FEMA Forms: FEMA Form 010-0-11, Individuals and Households Program
(IHP)--Other Needs Assistance Administrative Option Selection;
Development of State/Tribal Administrative Plan (SAP) for Other Needs
Provision of IHP; FEMA Form 010-0-12 (English), Individuals and
Households Program Application for Continued Temporary Housing
Assistance; FEMA Form 010-0-12S (Spanish), Programa de Individuos y
Familias Solicitud Para Continuar La Asistencia de Vivienda Temporera;
Request for Approval of Late Registration; Appeal of Program Decision;
FEMA Form 009-0-95 (English), Request for Advance Disaster Assistance;
FEMA Form 009-0-95S (Spanish), Solicitud de Adelanto de la Asistencia
por Desastre; FEMA Form 009-0-96 (English), Request to Stop Payment and
Reissue Disaster Assistance Check; FEMA Form 009-0-96S (Spanish),
Solicitud para Detener el Pago y Reemitir el Cheque de Asistencia por
Desastre; FEMA Form 140-003d-1--(English), Authorization for the
Release of Information Under the Privacy Act; FEMA Form 140-003d-1S--
(Spanish), Autorizaci[oacute]n para la Divulgaci[oacute]n de
Informaci[oacute]n bajo el Acta de Privacidad.
    Abstract: This collection provides applicants the ability to
request approval of late applications, request continued temporary
housing assistance, appeal program decisions, request advance disaster
assistance, request assistance checks not received be stopped and
reissued, and to authorize the release of information third parties. It
also establishes an agreement between FEMA and States, territories, and
Tribal governments regarding the administration of the Other Needs
provision of IHP.
    Affected Public: Individuals or Households; State, local, or Tribal
Government.
    Estimated Number of Respondents: 140,753.
    Estimated Number of Responses: 185,057.
    Estimated Total Annual Burden Hours: 150,828.
    Estimated Total Annual Respondent Cost: $5,530,313.
    Estimated Respondents' Operation and Maintenance Costs: NA.
    Estimated Respondents' Capital and Start-Up Costs: NA.
    Estimated Total Annual Cost to the Federal Government: $1,089,213.

Comments

    Comments may be submitted as indicated in the ADDRESSES caption
above. Comments are solicited to (a) evaluate whether the proposed data
collection is necessary for the proper performance of the agency,
including whether the information shall have practical utility; (b)
evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the
proposed collection of information, including the validity of the
methodology and assumptions used; (c) enhance the quality, utility, and
clarity of the information to be collected; and (d) minimize the burden
of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including
through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or
other technological collection techniques or other forms of information
technology, e.g., permitting electronic submission of responses.

Maile Arthur,
Deputy Director of Information Management, Mission Support, Federal
Emergency Management Agency, Department of Homeland Security.
[FR Doc. 2020-04936 Filed 3-10-20; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 9111-23-P


[Federal Register: February 25, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 37)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 8486-8489]
[DOCID:fr25fe10-14]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 165

[Docket No. USCG-2010-0009]
RIN 1625-AA11

Regulated Navigation Area; Hudson River south of the Troy Locks,
New York

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Temporary final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard is establishing a temporary regulated
navigation area on the navigable waters of the Hudson River south of
the Troy Locks. This regulated navigation area is necessary to promote
maritime safety, and protect mariners and the environment from the
hazards associated with ice conditions. The regulated navigation area
is intended to restrict vessels with less than 3000 horsepower while
engaged in towing operations, from operating on the navigable waters of
the Hudson River south of the Troy locks when ice conditions are 8
inches or greater unless authorized by the Captain of the Port New York
or a designated representative.

DATES: Effective Date: this rule is effective in the CFR on February
25, 2010 until March 31, 2010. This rule is effective with actual
notice for purposes of enforcement on February 5, 2010.

ADDRESSES: Documents indicated in this preamble as being available in
the docket are part of docket USCG-2010-0009 and are available online
by going to http://www.regulations.gov, inserting USCG-2010-0009 in the
``Keyword'' box, and then clicking ``Search.'' They are also available
for inspection or copying at the Docket Management Facility (M-30),
U.S. Department of Transportation, West Building Ground Floor, Room
W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590, between 9
a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions on this
temporary rule, call or e-mail Lieutenant William George, Coast Guard
Sector New York, Waterways Management Division; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>,
e-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>If you have questions on viewing the
docket, call Renee V. Wright, Program Manager, Docket Operations,
telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Regulatory Information

    The Coast Guard is issuing this temporary final rule without prior
notice and opportunity to comment pursuant to authority under section
4(a) of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) (5 U.S.C. 553(b)). This
provision authorizes an agency to issue a rule without prior notice and
opportunity to comment when the agency for good cause finds that those
procedures are ``impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public
interest.'' Under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), the Coast Guard finds that good
cause exists for not publishing a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM)

with respect to this rule because publishing an NPRM and delaying its
effective date would be contrary to public interest, since immediate
action is needed to protect mariners and to ensure the safety of the
environment against potential hazards associated with ice build-up on
the navigable waters of the Hudson River.
    Under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), the Coast Guard finds that good cause
exists for making this rule effective less than 30 days after
publication in the Federal Register. Immediate implementation of this
rule promotes the public interest by ensuring the safety of mariners
and protecting the environment against the dangers associated with
vessel traffic when there are hazardous ice conditions on the navigable
waters of the Hudson River.

Background and Purpose

    Historically ice has been an impediment to navigation on the
navigable waters of the Hudson River south of the Troy Locks. West
Point, Storm King Mountain, Danskammer Point, Crum Elbow, and Esopus
Meadows are all natural choke points on the Hudson River where ice
buildups have the potential to severely restrict vessel traffic.
    There are several situations faced by vessels during severe winter
conditions that can place the vessels, passengers, and crew in great
danger including being beset in the ice, and ice accretion, where ice
forms on the superstructure and decks of transiting vessels. Also, ice
may also cause significant damage to propellers, rudders, and hull
plating.
    Vessels with less than 3000 horsepower, while engaged in towing
operations, have significant difficulty transiting the Hudson River in
locations where ice thickness is eight inches or greater. This
difficulty in transiting the Hudson River during ice buildup poses a
safety threat to the environment and a potential hazard to navigation.
    When ice thickness is reported to be eight inches or greater on the
Hudson River, vessels engaged in towing operations with less than 3000
horsepower usually request break-out assistance from the Coast Guard. A
vessel's inability to independently transit the waterway may become a
hazard to navigation and the environment.
    The formation of ice on the Hudson River contains many variables
and is not consistent from year to year. During a moderate or severe
winter, the frozen waterways may impede a vessel's ability to maneuver.
Once ice build-up begins it can affect the transit of vessels on the
navigable waterways. In addition a vessel's watertight integrity may
also be compromised by ice abrasion and ice pressure on the vessel's
hull.
    Ice floes on the navigable waterways may also cause visual aids to
navigation to become submerged, destroyed, or moved off station. Ice
conditions on the navigable waterways may create hazardous conditions
in which the operations of certain vessels become unsafe.
    It becomes necessary to impose operating restrictions to ensure the
safe navigation of vessels. This Regulated Navigation Area (RNA) allows
the Coast Guard to restrict and manage vessel movement when hazardous
ice conditions exist within a specified area of the Hudson River.
    The Coast Guard is establishing a regulated navigation area on the
navigable waters of the Hudson River south of the Troy Locks. The
regulated navigation area is intended to restrict vessels with less
than 3000 horsepower while engaged in towing operations when ice
conditions are 8 inches or greater, from operating on the Hudson River
south of the Troy Locks unless authorized by the Captain of the Port
New York or a designated representative.

Discussion of Rule

    This rule establishes a regulated navigation area encompassing all
navigable waters of the Hudson River south of the Troy Locks. Vessels
with less than 3000 horsepower while engaged in towing operations are
not authorized to transit the Hudson River south of the Troy Locks when
ice thickness is greater than eight inches.
    The COTP New York will notify the maritime community, of the
location and thickness of the ice as well as any restrictions via
marine broadcast.

Regulatory Analyses

    We developed this rule after considering numerous statutes and
executive orders related to rulemaking. Below we summarize our analyses
based on 13 of these statutes or executive orders.

Regulatory Planning and Review

    This rule is not a significant regulatory action under section 3(f)
of Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review, and does not
require an assessment of potential costs and benefits under section
6(a)(3) of that Order. The Office of Management and Budget has not
reviewed it under that Order.
    The Coast Guard's implementation of this temporary regulated
navigational area will only be enforced at the location on the
navigable waters of the Hudson River south of the Troy Locks where ice
conditions are 8 inches or greater, and only restrict vessels that are
less than 3,000 horsepower while engaged in towing operations.
    Before the effective period, the Coast Guard will issue maritime
advisories widely available to users of the navigable waters of the
Hudson River. Furthermore, vessels affected by this restriction may be
authorized to transit the zone with permission of the Captain of the
Port New York.

Small Entities

    Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601-612), we have
considered whether this rule would have a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities. The term ``small entities''
comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations that are
independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their fields,
and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than 50,000.
    The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this rule will
not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small
entities.
    This rule will affect the following entities, some of which may be
small entities: The owners and operators of tug vessels with less than
3000 horsepower while engaged in towing operations and are intending to
transit an area of the Hudson River that has a specified ice condition
of eight inches or greater.
    This regulated navigation area will not have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small entities for the following
reasons: The ice conditions remain very dynamic for the duration of the
winter due to the ebb and flood of the current and varying wind
directions. Ice is driven by wind and current and can change location
on an hourly basis. This rule will only be enforced in the location
where the reported ice thickness is eight inches or greater and for the
amount of time the specified ice condition is deemed a threat to safe
navigation.
    The regulated navigation area will apply to the navigable waters of
the Hudson River south of the Troy Locks only during the Ice Season
which ends on March 31st. Vessels that are restricted from operating in
an affected area due to the thickness of the ice will be allowed to
transit despite the restriction with the permission of the COTP New
York.
    Before any restriction is in place, Coast Guard Sector New York
will issue maritime advisories widely available to

users of the navigable waters of the Hudson River.

Assistance for Small Entities

    Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement
Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we offer to assist small
entities in understanding the rule so that they can better evaluate its
effects on them and participate in the rulemaking process.
    Small businesses may send comments on the actions of Federal
employees who enforce, or otherwise determine compliance with, Federal
regulations to the Small Business and Agriculture Regulatory
Enforcement Ombudsman and the Regional Small Business Regulatory
Fairness Boards. The Ombudsman evaluates these actions annually and
rates each agency's responsiveness to small business. If you wish to
comment on actions by employees of the Coast Guard, call 1-888-REG-FAIR
(1-888-734-3247). The Coast Guard will not retaliate against small
entities that question or complain about this rule or any policy or
action of the Coast Guard.

Collection of Information

    This rule calls for no new collection of information under the
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520).

Federalism

    A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132,
Federalism, if it has a substantial direct effect on State or local
governments and would either preempt State law or impose a substantial
direct cost of compliance on them. We have analyzed this rule under
that Order and have determined that it does not have implications for
federalism.

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

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

Taking of Private Property

    This rule will not affect a taking of private property or otherwise
have taking implications under Executive Order 12630, Governmental
Actions and Interference with Constitutionally Protected Property
Rights.

Civil Justice Reform

    This rule meets applicable standards in sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2)
of Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform, to minimize litigation,
eliminate ambiguity, and reduce burden.

Protection of Children

    We have analyzed this rule under Executive Order 13045, Protection
of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks. This rule
is not an economically significant rule and does not create an
environmental risk to health or risk to safety that may
disproportionately affect children.

Indian Tribal Governments

    This rule does not have Tribal implications under Executive Order
13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments,
because it does not have a substantial direct effect on one or more
Indian Tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and
Indian Tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities
between the Federal Government and Indian Tribes.

Energy Effects

    We have analyzed this rule under Executive Order 13211, Actions
Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply,
Distribution, or Use. We have determined that it is not a ``significant
energy action'' under that order because it is not a ``significant
regulatory action'' under Executive Order 12866 and is not likely to
have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use
of energy. The Administrator of the Office of Information and
Regulatory Affairs has not designated it as a significant energy
action. Therefore, it does not require a Statement of Energy Effects
under Executive Order 13211.

Technical Standards

    The National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA) (15
U.S.C. 272 note) directs agencies to use voluntary consensus standards
in their regulatory activities unless the agency provides Congress,
through the Office of Management and Budget, with an explanation of why
using these standards would be inconsistent with applicable law or
otherwise impractical. Voluntary consensus standards are technical
standards (e.g., specifications of materials, performance, design, or
operation; test methods; sampling procedures; and related management
systems practices) that are developed or adopted by voluntary consensus
standards bodies.
    This rule does not use technical standards. Therefore, we did not
consider the use of voluntary consensus standards.

Environment

    We have analyzed this rule under Department of Homeland Security
Management Directive 023-01 and Commandant Instruction M16475.lD, which
guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental
Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have concluded
this action is one of a category of actions that do not individually or
cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment. This
rule is categorically excluded, under figure 2-1, paragraph (34)(g), of
the Instruction. This rule involves the establishment of a regulated
navigation area. An environmental analysis checklist and a categorical
exclusion determination will be available in the docket.

List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 165

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

0
For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard amends 33
CFR Part 165 as follows:

PART 165--REGULATED NAVIGATION AREAS AND LIMITED ACCESS AREAS

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

    Authority: 33 U.S.C. 1226, 1231; 46 U.S.C. Chapter 701; 50
U.S.C. 191, 195; 33 CFR 1.05-1(g), 6.04-1, 6.04-6, and 160.5; Pub.
L. 107-295, 116 Stat. 2064; Department of Homeland Security
Delegation No. 0170.1

0
2. Add temporary Sec.  165.T01-0009 to read as follows:

Sec.  165.T01-009  Regulated Navigation Area, Hudson River south of the
Troy Locks, New York.

    (a) Regulated navigation area. All navigable waters of the Hudson
River south of the Troy Locks.
    (b) Definitions. The following definitions apply to this section:
    (1) Designated representative means any Coast Guard commissioned,
warrant, or petty officer, or a Federal, State, or local law
enforcement officer designated by or assisting the Captain of the Port
New York.
    (c) Applicability. This section applies to tugs with less than
3,000 horsepower when engaged in towing operations.
    (d) Regulations. (1) Except as provided in paragraph (c) (3) of
this

section, vessels less than 3,000 horsepower while engaged in towing
operations are not authorized to transit that portion of the Hudson
River south of the Troy Locks when ice thickness reaches eight inches
or greater.
    (2) All Coast Guard assets enforcing this regulated navigation area
can be contacted on VHF marine band radio, channel 13 or 16. The
captain of the Port can be contacted at telephone number (718) 354-
4356.
    (3) All persons desiring to transit through a portion of the
regulated area that has operating restriction in effect must contact
the COTP at telephone number<PHONE_NUMBER> or on VHF channel 13 or 16
to seek permission prior to transiting the affected regulated area.
    (5) The COTP will notify the public of any changes in the status of
this regulated navigation area by Marine Safety Information Broadcast
on VHF-FM marine band radio, channel 22A (157.1 MHZ).

    Dated: February 5, 2010.
Joseph L. Nimmich,
Rear Admiral, U.S. Coast Guard, Commander, First Coast Guard District.
[FR Doc. 2010-3471 Filed 2-24-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-04-P