[Federal Register: February 25, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 37)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 8566-8570]
[DOCID:fr25fe10-32]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 165

[Docket No. USCG-2010-0063]
RIN 1625-AA00

Safety Zones; Annual Firework Displays Within the Captain of the
Port, Puget Sound Area of Responsibility

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard proposes to establish multiple permanent
safety zones to ensure public safety during annual firework displays at
various locations the Captain of the Port, Puget Sound Area of
Responsibility (AOR). When these safety zones are activated, and thus
subject to enforcement, this rule would limit the movement of vessels
within the established firework display areas. This action is necessary
to prevent injury and to protect life and property of the maritime
public from the hazards associated with firework displays. Entry into,
transit through, mooring, or anchoring within these zones during times
of enforcement is prohibited unless authorized by the Captain of the
Port, Puget Sound or Designated Representative.

DATES: Comments and related material must be received by the Coast
Guard on or before May 26, 2010. Requests for public meetings must be
received by the Coast Guard on or before March 29, 2010.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments identified by docket number USCG-
2010-0063 using any one of the following methods:
    (1) Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov.
    (2) Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    (3) Mail: Docket Management Facility (M-30), U.S. Department of
Transportation, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590-0001.
    (4) Hand delivery: Same as mail address above, between 9 a.m. and 5
p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The telephone
number is<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    To avoid duplication, please use only one of these four methods.
See the ``Public Participation and Request for Comments'' portion of
the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section below for instructions on
submitting comments.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions on this
temporary rule, call or e-mail Ensign Ashley M. Wanzer, USCG Sector
Seattle Waterways Management Division, Coast Guard; telephone 206-217-
6175, 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:

Public Participation and Request for Comments

    We encourage you to participate in this rulemaking by submitting
comments and related materials. All comments received will be posted
without change to http://www.regulations.gov and will include any
personal information you have provided.

Submitting Comments

    If you submit a comment, please include the docket number for this
rulemaking (USCG-2010-0063), indicate the specific section of this
document to which each comment applies, and provide a reason for each
suggestion or recommendation. You may submit your comments and material
online (via http://www.regulations.gov) or by fax, mail, or hand
delivery, but please use only one of these means. If you submit a
comment online via http://www.regulations.gov, it will be considered
received by the Coast Guard when you successfully transmit the comment.
If you fax, hand deliver, or mail your comment, it will be considered
as having been received by the Coast Guard when it is received at the
Docket Management Facility. We recommend that you include your name and
a mailing address, an e-mail address, or a telephone number in the body
of your document so that we can contact you if we have questions
regarding your submission.
    To submit your comment online, go to http://www.regulations.gov,
click on the

``submit a comment'' box, which will then become highlighted in blue.
In the ``Document Type'' drop down menu select ``Proposed Rule'' and
insert ``USCG-2010-0063'' in the ``Keyword'' box. Click ``Search'' then
click on the balloon shape in the ``Actions'' column. If you submit
your comments by mail or hand delivery, submit them in an unbound
format, no larger than 8\1/2\ by 11 inches, suitable for copying and
electronic filing. If you submit comments by mail and would like to
know that they reached the Facility, please enclose a stamped, self-
addressed postcard or envelope. We will consider all comments and
material received during the comment period and may change the rule
based on your comments.

Viewing Comments and Documents

    To view comments, as well as documents mentioned in this preamble
as being available in the docket, go to http://www.regulations.gov,
click on the ``read comments'' box, which will then become highlighted
in blue. In the ``Keyword'' box insert ``USCG-2010-0063'' and click
``Search.'' Click the ``Open Docket Folder'' in the ``Actions'' column.
You may also visit the Docket Management Facility in Room W12-140 on
the ground floor of the Department of Transportation West Building,
1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5
p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. We have an
agreement with the Department of Transportation to use the Docket
Management Facility.

Privacy Act

    Anyone can search the electronic form of comments received into any
of our dockets by the name of the individual submitting the comment (or
signing the comment, if submitted on behalf of an association,
business, labor union, etc.). You may review a Privacy Act notice
regarding our public dockets in the January 17, 2008, issue of the
Federal Register (73 FR 3316).

Public Meeting

    We do not now plan to hold a public meeting. But you may submit a
request for one on or before 30 days after publication in the Federal
Register using one of the four methods specified under ADDRESSES.
Please explain why you believe a public meeting would be beneficial. If
we determine that one would aid this rulemaking, we will hold one at a
time and place announced by a later notice in the Federal Register.
    For information on facilities or services for individuals with
disabilities or to request special assistance at the public meeting,
contact Ensign Ashley M. Wanzer at the telephone number or e-mail
address indicated under the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of
this notice.

Background and Purpose

    The U.S. Coast Guard is proposing to establish multiple permanent
safety zones to ensure public safety during annual firework shows
occurring within the Captain of the Port, Puget Sound, WA, AOR. These
events may result in a number of vessels congregating near fireworks
launching barges and sites. These safety zones are necessary to protect
watercraft and their occupants from the hazards associated with
fireworks displays. The Captain of the Port, Puget Sound, may be
assisted by other Federal, State and local agencies in the enforcement
of this safety zone.
    The Coast Guard typically receives numerous applications in these
geographic areas for firework displays. Currently, temporary safety
zones are established on an emergency basis for each individual display
thereby limiting opportunity for public comment. Establishing permanent
safety zones through notice and comment rulemaking provides the public
the opportunity to comment on safety zone locations, size and length of
time each zone will be enforced. Additionally, this proposed rule
includes a variety of locations and date ranges to allow for speedy and
safe activation of permanent safety zones. Firework displays occur in
these locations and on these dates with regularity. The establishment
of multiple permanent safety zones provides enhanced public safety
measures by reducing the number of emergency safety zones needed for
firework displays. Notification of the specific dates and time for
activation of safety zones will be available to the maritime public.
    Each year organizations sponsor firework displays in the same
general location and time period. Each event uses a barge, a tug and a
barge, or an on-shore site near the shoreline as the fireworks launch
platform. A safety zone is used to control vessel movement within a
specified distance surrounding the launch platforms to ensure the
safety of persons and property. An on-scene patrol commander may allow
persons within the safety zone if conditions permit.
    The Captain of the Port, Puget Sound, will give notice of the
enforcement of each safety zone by all appropriate means to provide the
widest publicity among the affected segments of the public. This will
include publication in the Local Notice to Mariners and Marine
Information Broadcasts. The public will also be notified about many of
these firework displays by local newspapers, radio and television
stations. These various methods of notification will facilitate
informing mariners so they may adjust their plans accordingly.
    Firework barges or launch sites on land used in locations stated in
this proposed rule shall display a sign. The sign will be affixed to
the port and starboard side of the barge or mounted on a post 3 feet
above ground level when on land and in close proximity to the shoreline
facing the water labeled ``FIREWORKS--DANGER--STAY AWAY''. This will
provide on scene notice that the safety zone is, or will, be enforced
on that day. This notice will consist of a diamond shaped sign, 4 foot
by 4 foot, with a 3 inch orange retro-reflective border. The word
``DANGER'' shall be 10 inch black block letters centered on the sign
with the words ``FIREWORKS'' and ``STAY AWAY'' in 6 inch black block
letters placed above and below the word ``DANGER'' respectively on a
white background. There will also be an on-scene patrol vessel present
to enforce the safety zone 30 minutes prior to the start and 30 minutes
after the conclusion of the fireworks display.
    The enforcement period for the proposed safety zones are from 5:30
p.m. until 1 a.m. local time. However, vessels may enter, remain in, or
transit through these safety zones during this timeframe if authorized
by the Captain of the Port or designated on-scene patrol commander.
    This proposed rule is necessary to protect the safety of life and
property on navigable waters during these firework events and provide
the marine community information on safety zone locations, size and
length of time the zones will be active.

Discussion of Proposed Rule

    This proposed rule will create permanent safety zones on the
waterways of Puget Sound, WA to assist in minimizing the inherent
dangers associated with firework displays. These safety zones will
extend 450 yards from their launch site. This zone size allows for the
use of up to a 16'' mortar shell in annual firework displays. However,
safety zones will only be enforced for the appropriate size for the
largest mortar shell used. These zones are nominal in size and are
typically positioned in areas which allow for transit around the zone
thus the safety zones have an inconsequential impact on the majority of
waterway users. These zones are also short in duration and allow
waterway users to enter or

transit through the zone when deemed safe by the on-scene patrol
commander. The COTP, through this action, intends to promote the safety
of personnel, vessels, and facilities in the area.

Regulatory Analyses

    We developed this proposed 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 proposed 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. This proposed rule is not
a significant regulatory action because the period of enforcement and
size of these safety zones is minimal.

Small Entities

    Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601-612), we have
considered whether this proposed 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 proposed
rule would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial
number of small entities.
    This temporary rule will affect the following entities, some of
which may be small entities: The owners or operators of vessels
intending to transit a portion of the affected waterways while this
rule is enforced. These safety zones will not have significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small entities for the following
reasons. This temporary rule will be in effect for minimal times when
vessel traffic volume is low and are limited in size. If safe to do so,
traffic will be allowed to pass through the zone with the permission of
the Captain of the Port or Designated Representative.
    If you think that your business, organization, or governmental
jurisdiction qualifies as a small entity and that this rule would have
a significant economic impact on it, please submit a comment (see
ADDRESSES) explaining why you think it qualifies and how and to what
degree this rule would economically affect it.

Assistance for Small Entities

    Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement
Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we want to assist small
entities in understanding this proposed rule so that they can better
evaluate its effects on them and participate in the rulemaking process.
If the rule would affect your small business, organization, or
governmental jurisdiction and you have questions concerning its
provisions or options for compliance, please contact Ensign Ashley
Wanzer via the contact information listed under for further information
in this docket. The Coast Guard will not retaliate against small
entities that question or complain about this proposed rule or any
policy or action of the Coast Guard.

Collection of Information

    This proposed rule would call 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 proposed 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 or more in any
one year. Though this proposed rule would not result in such an
expenditure, we do discuss the effects of this rule elsewhere in this
preamble.

Taking of Private Property

    This proposed rule would not effect 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 proposed 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 proposed rule under Executive Order 13045,
Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety
Risks. This rule is not an economically significant rule and would not
create an environmental risk to health or risk to safety that might
disproportionately affect children.

Indian Tribal Governments

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

Energy Effects

    We have analyzed this proposed 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 proposed rule does not use technical standards. Therefore, we
did

not consider the use of voluntary consensus standards.

Environment

    We have analyzed this proposed rule under Department of Homeland
Security Management Directive 023-01 and Commandant Instruction
M16475.lD, which guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National
Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and
have made a preliminary determination that this action is one of a
category of actions which do not individually or cumulatively have a
significant effect on the human environment. A preliminary
environmental analysis checklist supporting this determination is
available in the docket where indicated under ADDRESSES. This proposed
rule involves multiple discharging of various aerial shelled fireworks
within the COTP Puget Sound AOR. Each event will individually comply
with NEPA requirements on an annual basis as ensured through the
requirement of an annual marine event permit. We seek any comments or
information that may lead to the discovery of a significant
environmental impact from this proposed rule.

List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 165

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

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

PART 165--REGULATED NAVIGATION AREAS AND LIMITED ACCESS AREAS

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

    Authority:  33 U.S.C. 1226, 1231; 46 U.S.C. Chapters 701, 3306,
3703; 50 U.S.C. 191, 195; 33 CFR 1.05-1, 6.04-1, 6.04-6, and 160.5;
Pub. L. 107-295, 116 Stat. 2064; Department of Homeland Security
Delegation No. 0170.1

    2. Add Sec.  165.1332 to read as follows:

Sec.  165.1332  Safety Zones; Annual Firework Displays within the
Captain of the Port, Puget Sound Area of Responsibility.

    (a) Safety Zones. The following areas are designated safety zones:
    (1) All waters of Puget Sound, WA extending to a 450 yard radius
from the following launch sites:

                          Captain of the Port Puget Sound AOR Annual Firework Displays
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
       Event name (typically)              Event location              Latitude                 Longitude
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Steilicom Annual Fireworks..........  Steilicom..............  47[deg]10.4' N            122[deg]36.2' W
Tacoma Freedom Fair.................  Commencement Bay.......  47[deg]16.817' N          122[deg]27.933' W
City of Anacortes Fireworks.........  Fidalgo Bay............  47[deg]17.1' N            122[deg]28.4' W
Alderbrook Resort & Spa Fireworks...  Hood Canal.............  47[deg]21.033' N          123[deg]04.1' W
Fireworks Display...................  Henderson Bay..........  47[deg]21.8' N            122[deg]38.367' W
Des Moines Fireworks................  Des Moines.............  47[deg]24.117' N          122[deg]20.033' W
Three Tree Point Community Fireworks  Three Tree Point.......  47[deg]27.033' N          122[deg]23.15' W
City of Renton Fireworks............  Renton, Lake Washington  47[deg]29.986' N          122[deg]11.85' W
Port Orchard Fireworks..............  Port Orchard...........  47[deg]32.883' N          122[deg]37.917' W
Chimes and Lights...................  Port Orchard...........  47[deg]32.75' N           122[deg]38.033' W
Seattle Seafair.....................  Lake Washington........  47[deg]34.333' N          122[deg]16.017' W
Mercer Island Celebration...........  Mercer Island..........  47[deg]35.517' N          122[deg]13.233' W
Medina Days.........................  Medina Park............  47[deg]36.867' N          122[deg]14.5' W
Bainbridge Island Fireworks.........  Eagle Harbor...........  47[deg]37.267' N          122[deg]31.583' W
Whaling Days........................  Dyes Inlet.............  47[deg]38.65' N           122[deg]41.35' W
Yarrow Point Community..............  Yarrow Point...........  47[deg]38.727' N          122[deg]13.466' W
City of Kenmore Fireworks...........  Lake Forest Park.......  47[deg]39.0' N            122[deg]13.55'W
Kirkland Concours D'Elegence........  Kirkland...............  47[deg]39.521' N          122[deg]12.439' W
Kirkland Fireworks..................  Kirkland...............  47[deg]40.583' N          122[deg]12.84' W
Liberty Bay Fireworks...............  Liberty Bay............  47[deg]43.917' N          122[deg]39.133' W
Sheridan Beach Community............  Lake Forest Park.......  47[deg]44.783' N          122[deg]16.917' W
Langlie's Old Fashioned Independence  Indianola..............  47[deg]44.817' N          122[deg]31.533' W
 Celebration.
Lake Forest Park Fireworks..........  Lake Forest Park.......  47[deg]45.117' N          122[deg]16.367' W
Vashon Island Fireworks.............  Quartermaster Harbor...  47[deg]45.25' N           122[deg]15.75' W
Kingston Fireworks..................  Appletree Cove.........  47[deg]47.65' N           122[deg]29.917' W
Mikilteo Lighthouse Festival........  Possession Sound.......  47[deg]56.9' N            122[deg]18.6' W
Brewster Fire Department Fireworks..  Brewster...............  48[deg]06.367' N          119[deg]47.15' W
Port Angeles........................  Port Angeles Harbor....  48[deg]07.033' N          123[deg]24.967' W
Port Townsend Sunrise Rotary........  Port Townsend..........  48[deg]08.067' N          122[deg]46.467' W
Friday Harbor Independence..........  Friday Harbor..........  48[deg]32.6' N            122[deg]00.467' W
Roche Harbor Fireworks..............  Roche Harbor...........  48[deg]36.7' N            123[deg]09.5' W
Deer Harbor Annual Fireworks Display  Deer Harbor............  48[deg]37.0' N            123[deg]00.25' W
Orcas Island........................  Orcas Island...........  48[deg]41.317' N          122[deg]54.467' W
Blast Over Bellingham...............  Bellingham Bay.........  48[deg]44.933' N          122[deg]29.667' W
True Colors Event...................  Blaine.................  48[deg]59.488' N          122[deg]46.339' W
John Eddy Wedding...................  Magnolia Bluff.........  49[deg]38.988' N          122[deg]25.356' W
City of Mount Vernon Fireworks......  Edgewater Park.........  48[deg]25.178' N          122[deg]20.424' W
Chase Family Fourth at Lake Union...  Lake Union.............  47[deg]38.418' N          122[deg]20.111' W
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (2) [Reserved]
    (b) Special Requirements. Firework barges or launch sites on land
used in locations stated in this proposed rule shall display a sign.
The sign will be affixed to the port and starboard side of the barge or
mounted on a post 3 feet above ground level when on land and in close
proximity to the shoreline facing the water labeled ``FIREWORKS--
DANGER--STAY AWAY''. This will provide on scene notice that the safety
zone is, or will, be enforced on that day. This notice will consist of
a diamond shaped sign, 4 foot by 4 foot, with a 3

inch orange retro-reflective border. The word ``DANGER' shall be 10
inch black block letters centered on the sign with the words
``FIREWORKS'' and ``STAY AWAY'' in 6 inch black block letters placed
above and below the word ``DANGER'' respectively on a white background.
There will also be an on-scene patrol vessel present to enforce the
safety zone 30 minutes prior to the start and 30 minutes after the
conclusion of the fireworks display.
    (c) Notice of Enforcement. These safety zones will be activated and
thus subject to enforcement, under the following conditions: The Coast
Guard must receive and approve a marine event permit for each firework
display and then the Captain of the Port will cause notice of the
enforcement of these safety zones to be made by all appropriate means
to provide notice to the affected segments of the public as
practicable, in accordance with 33 CFR 165.7(a). The Captain of the
Port will issue a Broadcast Notice to Mariners and Local Notice to
Mariners notifying the public of activation and suspension of
enforcement of these safety zones. Additionally, an on-scene Patrol
Commander will ensure enforcement of this safety zone by limiting the
transit of non-participating vessels in the designated areas described
above.
    (d) Regulations. In accordance with the general regulations in 33
CFR Part 165, Subpart C, no vessel may enter, transit, moor, or anchor
within this safety zone, except for vessels authorized by the Captain
of the Port or Designated Representative.
    (e) Authorization. All vessel operators who desire to enter the
safety zone must obtain permission from the Captain of the Port or
Designated Representative by contacting either the on-scene patrol
craft on VHF Ch 13 or Ch 16 or the Coast Guard Sector Seattle Joint
Harbor Operations Center (JHOC) via telephone at<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    (f) Enforcement Period. This rule will be enforced from 5:00 pm
until 1:00 am each day a barge with a ``FIREWORKS--DANGER--STAY AWAY''
sign is located within any of the designated safety zone locations
listed in paragraph (a) of this section and meets the criteria
established in paragraph (b) of this section, within the following
timeframes:
    (1) The last two weeks of December until the conclusion of the
first weekend of January.
    (2) The last weekend of June until the conclusion of the third week
in July.
    (3) The second weekend of August until the conclusion of the fourth
week of August.
    (4) The first weekend of September until the conclusion of the
third week of September.
    (5) The first weekend of December.
    (g) Contact Information. Questions about safety zones and related
events should be addressed to COMMANDER (spw), U.S. COAST GUARD SECTOR,
Attention: Waterways Management Division, 1519 Alaskan Way South,
Seattle, WA 98134-1192.

    Dated: February 4, 2010.
L.R. Tumbarello,
Commander, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Port, Puget Sound Acting.
[FR Doc. 2010-3812 Filed 2-24-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-04-P


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 244 (Wednesday, December 19, 2012)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 75073-75075]
[FR Doc No: 2012-30588]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2011-1285; Directorate Identifier 2010-SW-073-AD]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Eurocopter Deutschland GmbH Helicopters

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Supplemental notice of proposed rulemaking (SNPRM); reopening
of comment period.

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

SUMMARY: We are revising an earlier proposed airworthiness directive
(AD) for Eurocopter Deutschland GmbH (Eurocopter) Model BO-105A, BO-
105C, BO-105LS A-1, BO-105LS A-3, and BO-105S helicopters, which
proposed inspecting for debonding of the erosion protective shell
(abrasion strip) on the leading edge of each main rotor blade. This
SNPRM proposes to revise those inspection requirements by identifying
specific dates of replacement of the applicable parts and identifying a
specific inspection method for debonding of an abrasion strip.

DATES: We must receive comments on this proposed AD by February 4,
2013.

ADDRESSES: You may send comments by any of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Docket: Go to http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online instructions for sending your
comments electronically.
     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
     Mail: Send comments to the U.S. Department of
Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor,
Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590-0001.
     Hand Delivery: Deliver to the ``Mail'' address between 9
a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.

Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov or in person at the Docket Operations Office
between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal
holidays. The AD docket contains this proposed AD, the economic
evaluation, any comments received, and other information. The street
address for the Docket Operations Office (telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>) is in
the ADDRESSES section. Comments will be available in the AD docket
shortly after receipt.
    For service information identified in this proposed AD, contact
American Eurocopter Corporation, 2701 N. Forum Drive, Grand Prairie,
Texas 75052; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER> or<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax (972) 641-
3775; or at http://www.eurocopter.com/techpub. You may review the
referenced service information at the FAA, Office of the Regional
Counsel, Southwest Region, 2601 Meacham Blvd., Room 663, Fort Worth,
Texas 76137.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jim Grigg, Manager, Safety Management
Group, Rotorcraft Directorate, FAA, 2601 Meacham Blvd., Fort Worth,
Texas 76137; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Comments Invited

    We invite you to participate in this rulemaking by submitting
written comments, data, or views. We also invite comments relating to
the economic, environmental, energy, or federalism impacts that might
result from adopting the proposals in this document. The most helpful
comments reference a specific portion of the proposal, explain the
reason for any recommended change, and include supporting data. To
ensure the docket does not contain duplicate comments, commenters
should send only one copy of written comments, or if comments are filed
electronically, commenters should submit only one time.
    We will file in the docket all comments that we receive, as well as
a report summarizing each substantive public contact with FAA personnel
concerning this proposed rulemaking. Before acting on this proposal, we
will consider all comments we receive on or before the closing date for
comments. We will consider comments filed after the comment period has
closed if it is possible to do so without incurring expense or delay.
We may change this proposal in light of the comments we receive.

Discussion

    On November 29, 2011, we issued a proposal to amend part 39 of the
Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR part 39) to include an AD that
would apply to Eurocopter Model BO-105A, BO-105C, BO-105LS A-1, BO-
105LS A-3, and BO-105S helicopters with a main rotor blade, part number
(P/N) 105-15103, 105-15141, 105-15141V001, 105-15143, 105-15150, 105-
15150V001, 105-15152, 105-81013, 105-87214, 1120-15101, or 1120-15103;
where the main rotor blade erosion protective shell was replaced
between September 2006

and March 2010. This proposal was published in the Federal Register as
a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) on December 6, 2011 (76 FR
76068). The NPRM proposed to require a one-time inspection of each main
rotor blade for debonding of the erosion protective shell within 50
hours time-in-service (TIS). If debonding was detected during the
inspection, the NPRM proposed replacing the main rotor blade with an
airworthy main rotor blade before further flight. The proposed
requirements were intended to detect debonding of the main rotor blade
erosion protective shell, which could lead to an unbalanced main rotor,
high vibration, damage to the tail boom or tail rotor, and loss of
control of the helicopter.
    The European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), which is the Technical
Agent for the Member States of the European Union, has issued EASA
Emergency AD No. 2010-0216-E, dated October 21, 2010 (corrected October
29, 2010), applicable to Eurocopter Model BO105 A, BO105 C, BO105 D,
BO105 LS A-1, BO105 LS A-3, and BO105 S helicopters, all variants
(except variants CB-5 and DBS-5). EASA advises that during an
inspection on a BO105 helicopter, debonding was found on the erosion
protective shell of a main rotor blade, and investigation showed the
debonding was caused by incorrect installation of the erosion
protective shell. In addition, EASA states that an incident occurred
where a second BO105 helicopter lost its erosion protective shell
during hover flight. EASA advises that this condition, if not
corrected, could result in loss of the main rotor blade erosion
protective shell during flight, leading to an unbalanced main rotor and
high vibrations, which could damage the tail boom or tail rotor or
result in loss of tail rotor control and loss of control of the
helicopter.

Actions Since Previous NPRM Was Issued

    Since we issued the previous NPRM (76 FR 76068, December 6, 2011),
we discovered the need for identifying specific dates of replacement of
the applicable parts and identifying that a tap inspection would be the
required method for inspecting for debonding of an abrasion strip. The
previous NPRM stated the proposed AD would apply to certain part-
numbered main rotor blades with a main rotor blade abrasion strip that
was replaced between September 2006 and March 2010. This supplemental
NPRM proposes clarifying the date range to be inclusive of September 1,
2006 through March 31, 2010. The previous NPRM also proposed to require
inspecting for debonding of the abrasion strip along the leading edge
of each main rotor blade. This supplemental NPRM clarifies that the
proposed inspection method is a tap inspection.
    Because these proposed changes expand the applicability and may
increase the economic burden on some operators, the FAA will reopen the
comment period to provide additional opportunity for public comment.

FAA's Determination

    We are proposing this AD because we evaluated all known relevant
information and determined that an unsafe condition is likely to exist
or develop on other helicopters of these same type designs. Certain
changes described above expand the scope of the original NPRM (76 FR
76068, December 6, 2011). As a result, we have determined that it is
necessary to reopen the comment period to provide additional
opportunity for the public to comment.

Related Service Information

    Eurocopter has issued Emergency Alert Service Bulletin (ASB) No.
ASB BO105-10-124, dated July 14, 2010, for the Model BO105 helicopter,
with a main rotor blade, P/N 105-15103, 105-15141, 105-15141V001, 105-
15143, 105-15150, 105-15150V001, 105-15152, 105-81013, 105-87214, 1120-
15101, or 1120-15103, where the main rotor blade erosion protective
shell was replaced between September 2006 and March 2010. Eurocopter
also issued Emergency ASB No. ASB-BO105LS-10-12, dated July 14, 2010,
for the Model BO105LS A-3 helicopter, with a main rotor blade, P/N 105-
15141, where the main rotor blade erosion protective shell was replaced
between September 2006 and March 2010. Both Emergency ASBs exclude
helicopters from this inspection if each main rotor blade was inspected
at the last 600 flight hour inspection and no debonding was detected
during the inspection. Both Emergency ASBs specified a one-time
inspection of the main rotor blades within the next 50 flight hours to
determine if debonding of the main rotor blade erosion protective shell
has occurred.
    Eurocopter subsequently issued Emergency ASB No. ASB BO105-10-124,
Revision 1, dated October 18, 2010, and Emergency ASB No. ASB-BO105LS-
10-12, Revision 1, dated October 20, 2010. These service bulletins
specify the same inspection requirements as the original service
bulletins, but revise the inspection compliance time from 50 flight
hours to 10 flight hours. EASA classified these service bulletins as
mandatory and issued EASA Emergency AD No. 2010-0216-E, dated October
21, 2010 (corrected October 29, 2010) to ensure the continued
airworthiness of these helicopters.

Proposed Requirements of the Supplemental NPRM

    This proposed AD would require, within 50 hours TIS, inspecting for
debonding by tap testing the abrasion strip of the leading edge of each
main rotor blade. If there is debonding in any area of the abrasion
strip, this proposed AD would require, before further flight, replacing
the main rotor blade.

Differences Between This Supplemental NPRM and the EASA AD

    The differences between this proposed AD and the EASA AD are:
     The EASA AD allows compliance within ``10 flight hours, or
4 flight cycles, or 4 weeks, whichever occurs first,'' and this
proposed AD would require compliance within 50 hours TIS.
     The EASA AD allows you to replace the main rotor blade
erosion protective shell if debonding is detected, and this proposed AD
would require you to replace the main rotor blade with an airworthy
main rotor blade if debonding is detected.
     The EASA AD is applicable to the Model BO105 D helicopter;
however, this proposed AD would not include this model because it does
not have a type certificate in the U.S.

Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this AD would affect 97 helicopters of U.S.
Registry. We estimate that operators may incur the following costs in
order to comply with this proposed AD. It would take about 1.0 work-
hour per helicopter to perform the inspection at an average labor rate
of $85 per work-hour. Based on these figures, we estimate the cost of
the inspection on U.S. operators would be $8,245 or $85 per helicopter.
If there is debonding, we estimate that it would take about 2 work-
hours to replace a main rotor blade and required parts would cost
$114,182, for a total cost of $114,352 per blade. We have no way of
determining how many operators will incur replacement costs.

Authority for This Rulemaking

    Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to
issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the
authority of the FAA Administrator. ``Subtitle VII: Aviation
Programs,'' describes in more

detail the scope of the Agency's authority.
    We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in
``Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: General
requirements.'' Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with
promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing
regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator
finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within
the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition
that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this
rulemaking action.

Regulatory Findings

    We determined that this proposed AD would not have federalism
implications under Executive Order 13132. This proposed AD would not
have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship
between the national Government and the States, or on the distribution
of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
    For the reasons discussed, I certify this proposed regulation:
    1. Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under Executive Order
12866;
    2. Is not a ``significant rule'' under the DOT Regulatory Policies
and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979);
    3. Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska to the extent that
it justifies making a regulatory distinction; and
    4. Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or
negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria
of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
    We prepared an economic evaluation of the estimated costs to comply
with this proposed AD and placed it in the AD docket.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

    Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by
reference, Safety.

The Proposed Amendment

    Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the
Administrator, the FAA proposes to amend 14 CFR part 39 as follows:

PART 39--AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES

    1. The authority citation for part 39 continues to read as follows:

    Authority:  49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.

Sec.  39.13  [Amended]

    2. The FAA amends Sec.  39.13 by adding the following new
airworthiness directive (AD):

Eurocopter Deutschland GmbH: Docket No. FAA-2011-1285; Directorate
Identifier 2010-SW-073-AD.

(a) Applicability

    This AD applies to Model BO-105A, BO-105C, BO-105LS A-1, BO-
105LS A-3, and BO-105S helicopters, with a main rotor blade, part
number 105-15103, 105-15141, 105-15141V001, 105-15143, 105-15150,
105-15150V001, 105-15152, 105-81013, 105-87214, 1120-15101, or 1120-
15103; where the main rotor blade erosion protective shell (abrasion
strip) was replaced between September 1, 2006 and March 31, 2010,
inclusive; certificated in any category.

(b) Unsafe Condition

    This AD defines the unsafe condition as debonding of a main
rotor blade erosion protective shell (abrasion strip). This
condition could result in loss of the abrasion strip and an
unbalanced main rotor, high vibration, damage to the tail boom or
tail rotor, and loss of control of the helicopter.

(c) Compliance

    You are responsible for performing each action required by this
AD within the specified compliance time unless it has already been
accomplished prior to that time.

(d) Required Actions

    (1) Within 50 hours time-in-service, inspect the main rotor
blade for debonding of the erosion protective shell by tap testing
the abrasion strip of the leading edge of each main rotor blade.
    (2) If the abrasion strip is debonding in any area, before
further flight, replace the main rotor blade.

(e) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs)

    (1) The Manager, Safety Management Group, FAA, may approve AMOCs
for this AD. Send your proposal to: Jim Grigg, Manager, Safety
Management Group, Rotorcraft Directorate, FAA, 2601 Meacham Blvd.,
Fort Worth, Texas 76137; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; email
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    (2) For operations conducted under a 14 CFR part 119 operating
certificate or under 14 CFR part 91, subpart K, we suggest that you
notify your principal inspector, or lacking a principal inspector,
the manager of the local flight standards district office or
certificate holding district office before operating any aircraft
complying with this AD through an AMOC.

(f) Additional Information

    (1) Eurocopter Emergency Alert Service Bulletin No. ASB BO105-
10-124, Revision 1, dated October 18, 2010, and No. ASB-BO105LS-10-
12, Revision 1, dated October 20, 2010, which are not incorporated
by reference, contain additional information about the subject of
this AD. For this service information, contact American Eurocopter
Corporation, 2701 N. Forum Drive, Grand Prairie, Texas 75052;
telephone<PHONE_NUMBER> or<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>; or
at http://www.eurocopter.com/techpub. You may review a copy of the
service information at the FAA, Office of the Regional Counsel,
Southwest Region, 2601 Meacham Blvd., Room 663, Fort Worth, Texas
76137.
    (2) The subject of this AD is addressed in European Aviation
Safety Agency Emergency AD No. 2010-0216-E, dated October 21, 2010
(corrected October 29, 2010).

 (g) Subject

    Joint Aircraft Service Component (JASC) Code: 6210, Main Rotor
Blades.

    Issued in Fort Worth, Texas, on December 12, 2012.
S. Frances Cox,
Acting Directorate Manager, Rotorcraft Directorate, Aircraft
Certification Service.
[FR Doc. 2012-30588 Filed 12-18-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


Site Visit Report

	Oswego Harbor Power

	261 Washington Boulevard

	Oswego, NY 13126

April 2, 2008

Background and Objectives

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is in the process of
developing 316(b) cooling water intake structure requirements that
reflect the best technology available (BTA) for minimizing adverse
environmental impact for all existing power plants and manufacturing
facilities. As part of this process, EPA staff is visiting electric
generators and manufacturers to better understand the cooling water
intake structure (CWIS) technologies in use at facilities, including the
site-specific characteristics of each facility and how these affect the
selection and performance of CWIS technologies.  EPA is also visiting
facilities to better understand cooling water use and specific issues or
technologies that can affect 316(b) compliance.  Oswego Harbor Power
(Oswego) was selected for a site visit due to its use of an offshore
intake location and its large intake flows.

Facility Description

The Oswego facility, owned and operated by NRG Oswego Harbor Power, LLC,
is a fossil-fueled steam electric generating facility located in Oswego,
NY. The facility occupies a large industrially-zoned site approximately
90 acres in size on the southern shore of Lake Ontario near the Oswego
River. Residential and municipal use areas border the facility to the
south, east and west.

Cooling water withdrawals from and discharges to Lake Ontario for Units
5 and 6 are permitted under SPDES Permit No. NY0002186, which has been
administratively extended pending adoption of a new permit. An
additional discharge to Oswego Harbor is covered under the same permit
for Units 1-4 but is currently inactive. The facility discharges from
Units 5 and 6 offshore into Lake Ontario beyond the intake structures.

Electricity Generation and Transmission

Oswego Harbor originally began operating with four coal-fired units
(Units 1-4) first constructed in 1939 with a total nameplate rating of
400 MW. These units were converted to burn fuel oil (#6) in the early
1970s. While not all Units 1-4 have been formally retired from service,
market conditions and environmental restrictions, combined with their
age and relative inefficiency, make their future use highly unlikely.

Units 5 and 6, constructed in the mid 1970s and early 1980s, are each
rated at 817 MW and use fuel oil (#6) as their main fuel source.  Unit 6
is capable of burning natural gas up to a 170 MW capacity and both units
require approximately 16 hours to be brought online. Unit 5’s
condenser tubes were originally composed of admiralty brass and were
changed to stainless steel, the same as Unit 6.

Oswego Harbor is now a peaking facility that provides electricity to the
grid infrequently and only during periods of high demand or when
baseload facilities such as nearby nuclear plants are taken offline for
refueling, emergencies, or maintenance.  Most recently, on an annual
basis, Oswego Harbor has a capacity utilization rate of 1-2 percent. The
facility representative indicated that the facility will typically
operate Units 5 and 6 for no more than a two week continuous period in
the summer and/or during a cold winter. At peak operation, the plant can
provide 1700 MW. The plant also operates briefly once a month for
station service.

There are no immediate plans to repower or replace the existing units.

Oswego Units 5 and 6 typically have a spring and fall outage for
maintenance, but have a great deal of flexibility in determining the
outage period due to their minimal operation.

Cooling Water Intake Structure

The facility maintains 3 distinct cooling water intake structures:  one
serving Units 1-4 and one each serving Units 5 and 6.

The Unit 1-4 intake extends approximately 500 feet offshore into Lake
Ontario and withdraws water through a submerged wooden anti-vortex
octagonal structure supported by steel pedestals bolted to the concrete
intake tunnel. The Unit 5 intake extends approximately 850 feet offshore
where the lakebed depth is approximately 22 feet deep at the intake
structure. The lakebed is primarily a rocky substrate at this depth and
distance from shore. The Unit 1-4 intake does not use technologies
specifically designed to reduce impingement and/or entrainment, although
an offshore location may result in reduced or different impacts compared
with an onshore location. Unit 5 is fitted with a velocity cap but does
not have a fish diversion and return system like Unit 6.

The Unit 6 structure is also located offshore at a distance of 950 feet
at a depth of approximately 22 feet (see Attachment A).  The intake
conduit is submerged beneath the lakebed with the terminal end rising 10
feet from the bottom, the same as Unit 5. On average, the top of the
structure is approximately 12 feet below the lake surface. The intake is
fitted the same as Unit 5, with a 2 foot thick, hexagonal velocity cap,
each side 21.2 feet wide by 5 feet high. Each aperture is equipped with
heated bar racks to prevent the formation of frazil ice.  The bars are
spaced at 12 inch centers to keep large debris from entering the system.
 The intake is designed so the horizontal approach velocity is 1.0 feet
per second (fps) when the generating unit is operated at maximum (two
pump operation) output.  There is negligible vertical approach velocity.
 A 3 foot sill at the bottom of the structure prevents silting of the
intake.

The onshore portion of the Unit 6 intake structure consists of two
parallel trains.  Each train has a trash rack, two angled traveling
screens, and one circulating water pump (two pumps total).  A fish
bypass and collection system, and fish return pipe starts at the
convergence of the traveling screens. The trash rack is installed on a 5
on 1 slope and consists of 3 inch by 3/8 inch parallel steel bars spaced
at 3½ inch centers. The angled traveling screen assemblies consisting
of 10 foot wide panels with 3/8 inch mesh are mirror images of each
other divided by a concrete barrier wall and offset at a 25º angle. At
their nearest point the screen assemblies are 5 feet apart (see
Attachment B). A secondary diversion screen well exists for extremely
high debris loads, but it has not been necessary to use the secondary
system.

The fish diversion system consists of a diversion duct, fish pump and
return conduit. The diversion duct directs fish through the narrow point
between the angled screen assemblies and into a secondary screenwell.
This contains a secondary traveling screen identical in design to the
main screens and moves the fish into a 6 inch wide bypass slot that
converges to the secondary jet pump.  This pump discharges into a 30
inch diameter discharge pipe embedded in the roof of the intake tunnel
for approximately 925 feet offshore where it rises vertically and
terminates as a horizontal discharge approximately 6 feet off of the
bottom and 270 feet from the offshore intake structure.  Fish impinged
on the angled screens are collected in a dumpster and removed to a
landfill.

Intake pumps are single speed rated at 162,500 gallons per minute (gpm),
or 234 million gallons per day (mgd), for a unit total intake capacity
of 468 mgd. When operating the facility at higher loads, greater than
400 MW, both intake pumps will run at their maximum capacity.  The pumps
on Units 5 and 6 have slightly different pumping capability.

The facility does not chlorinate intake water to control biofouling but
does conduct periodic heat treatments that raise circulating water
temperatures to 90-95º F. Thermal treatments are used  as necessary to
control zebra mussel buildup in the intake system.

Facility representatives noted the intake structure and associated
components require little maintenance and that debris build-up is not an
issue because of long-shore currents and wave activity.  Facility
representatives stated that Oswego had originally planned to comply with
the Phase 2 rule with a combination of variable speed drives, reduced
flow, fine mesh, and the location of the intake offshore.

Impingement and Entrainment Information

Oswego Harbor has conducted impingement and entrainment sampling as part
of its reapplication process at the direction of NYSDEC.

The entrainment analysis has consisted of weekly sampling in the onshore
portion of the intake structure (the forebay) as well as in the vicinity
of the velocity cap at the offshore location. Oswego also collected
nearshore samples to establish a baseline to evaluate the effectiveness
of the offshore placement.  In conducting its entrainment sampling at
each location, Oswego collected a 24-hour composite sample from multiple
depths (surface, bottom, and middle) from April to September, 2007 via a
pump and then filtered the samples through plankton nets.   The
entrainment samples were invalid, however, due to an influx of
cladophora (seaweed) which plugged the plankton nets.  Oswego believes
it has resolved this issue and is repeating its entrainment study in
2008.

The facility has conducted more extensive sampling to evaluate
impingement impacts and the effectiveness of the Unit 6 velocity cap and
fish diversion/return system by comparing impingement rates at Unit 5
with Unit 6. Impingement sampling consists of weekly 24-hour gill net
samples collected in the vicinity of the intake structure as well as in
nearshore areas to establish a baseline for comparison over a one year
period.   The gill net data showed a 2-3 fold increase in the numbers of
fish caught near shore in comparison to the number of fish caught near
the velocity cap.

Alewife, spottail and emerald shiner are typically the most abundant
species subject to impingement. A 1991 study conducted by LMS showed a
high 96-hour survival rate for fish returned through the diversion
system.

The facility has not evaluated other technologies to reduce impingement
and entrainment.

Cooling Tower Feasibility

The facility representative stated that siting wet cooling towers on the
existing location would be difficult due to the proximity of residential
and municipal use areas as well as the limited space at the site.

Additional Information

Oswego noted the ecology of the Lake has changed significantly over the
past four years.  Phosphate control and invasive zebra mussels have
greatly increased the clarity of the lake which has significantly
altered light penetration.  Forage fish are rarely observed at the
intakes anymore.

The facility also houses approximately 7 fuel oil tanks on land it owns
approximately 4 miles south of the site.  Fuel delivered to this South
Oswego Terminal is typically delivered via rail and is either stored
on-site or piped to Oswego Harbor Power, as needed.  Oswego Harbor Power
typically receives fuel oil by barge/ship.

Attachments

Attachment A		List of Attendees

Attachment B		Aerial Photo

Attachment C		CWIS Line Drawings

Attachment D		Unit 6 Onshore Intake Structure Schematic

Attachment E		Site Photo

Attachment A--List of Attendees

Paul Shriner, EPA

Jan Matuszko, EPA

Tim Havey, Tetra Tech

Tom Coats, NRG

Gary Smythe, Shaw Environmental

Attachment B—Aerial Photo

Please see DCN 10-6511A accompanying this document.

Attachment E—Site Photo

Please see DCN 10-6511B accompanying this document.

Attachment C--CWIS Line Drawing

Attachment D--Unit 6 Onshore Intake Structure Schematic

 Oswego runs once per month for station service.

 This reflects the typical entrainment season for this location.

 PAGE

 PAGE   6