[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 77 (Tuesday, April 22, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Pages 22511-22517]
[FR Doc No: 2014-09179]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Federal Emergency Management Agency

[Docket ID FEMA-2014-0016]

Assistance to Firefighters Grant Program; Fire Prevention and
Safety Grants

AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.

ACTION: Notice of guidance.

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

SUMMARY: This Notice provides guidelines that describe the application
process for grants and the criteria for awarding Fire Prevention and
Safety (FP&S) grants in the fiscal year (FY) 2013 Assistance to
Firefighters Grant (AFG) Program year. It explains the differences, if
any, between these guidelines and those recommended by representatives
of the Nation's fire service leadership during the annual Criteria
Development meeting, which was held December 13-14, 2012. The
application period for the FY 2013 FP&S Grant Program year was held
February 18-March 21, 2014, and was announced on www.grants.gov.
Approximately

1,200 applications for FP&S Grant Program funding were submitted
electronically, using the application submission form and process
available at https://portal.fema.gov. The ``FY 2013 Fire Prevention and
Safety Program Funding Opportunity Announcement'' was published on the
AFG Web site (www.fema.gov/firegrants). Additional information to
assist applicants was provided on the AFG Web site, including an
applicant tutorial, list of frequently asked questions, a ``Get Ready
Guide, and a Quick Reference Guide.'' The FP&S Grant Program is
composed of two eligible activities; the Fire Prevention and Safety
(FP&S) Activity and Firefighter Research and Development (R&D)
Activity. FP&S Grants are made available directly to fire departments;
national, regional, state, and local organizations; native American
tribal organizations, and nonprofit organizations that are recognized
for their experience in fire prevention and safety programs and
activities. The grant program's authorizing statute requires that a
minimum of 10 percent of available grant funds for AFG be expended for
the FP&S Grant Program.

    Authority: 15 U.S.C. 2229.

DATES: Grant applications for the FP&S Grant Program were accepted
electronically at https://portal.fema.gov, from February 18-March 21,
2014.

ADDRESSES: Assistance to Firefighters Grants Branch, Stop 3620, DHS/
FEMA, 800 K Street NW., Washington, DC 20472-3620.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Catherine Patterson, Chief, Assistance
to Firefighters Grants Branch, 1-866-274-0960.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The purpose of the AFG Program is to enhance
the safety of the public and firefighters with respect to fire and
fire-related hazards. The FEMA Grant Programs Directorate administers
the FP&S Grant Program as part of the AFG Program.
    FP&S Grants are offered to support projects in two activities:
    1. Activities designed to reach high-risk target groups and
mitigate the incidence of death and injuries caused by fire and fire-
related hazards (``FP&S Activity'').
    2. Projects aimed at improving firefighter safety, health and
wellness through research and development that reduces firefighter
fatalities and injuries (``R&D Activity'')
    The grant program's authorizing statute requires that each year DHS
publish in the Federal Register the guidelines that describe the
application process and the criteria for grant awards.
    Approximately 1,200 applications for FP&S Grant Program funding
were submitted electronically, using the application submission form
and process available at the AFG e-Grant application portal: https://portal.fema.gov. Specific information about the submission of grant
applications can be found in the ``FY 2013 Fire Prevention and Safety
Program Funding Opportunity Announcement,'' which is available for
download at www.fema.gov/firegrants and at www.regulations.gov under
Docket ID FEMA-2014-0016.

Appropriations

    Congress appropriated $320,920,083 for AFG in FY 2013 pursuant to
the Department of Homeland Security Appropriations Act, 2013, Public
Law 113-6. From this amount, $32,092,008 will be made available for
FP&S Grant awards, pursuant to 15 U.S.C. 2229(h)(5), which states that
not less than 10 percent of available grant funds each year are awarded
under the FP&S Grant Program. Funds appropriated for all FY 2013 AFG
awards, pursuant to Public Law 113-6, will be available for obligation
and award until September 30, 2014.
    From the approximately 1,200 applications that were submitted
requesting assistance, FEMA anticipates that it will award
approximately 250 FP&S Grants from available grant funding.

Background of the AFG Program

    DHS awards grants on a competitive basis to the applicants that
best address the FP&S Grant Program's priorities and provide the most
compelling justification. Applications that best address the Program's
priorities will be reviewed by a panel composed of fire service
personnel. All applications for grants will be prepared and submitted
through the AFG e-Grant application portal (https://portal.fema.gov).

Award Criteria

    The FP&S Grant Program panels will review the applications and
score them using the following criteria areas:

 Vulnerability
 Implementation
 Evaluation Plan
 Cost Benefit
 Sustainability
 Financial Need
 Experience and Expertise (additional consideration)
 Performance (additional consideration)
 Funding Priorities
    The applications submitted under the R&D Activity will be reviewed
first by a panel of fire service members to identify those applications
most relevant to the fire service, and then by technology and science
experts. The following evaluation criteria will be used for each
review:
    The Scientific Technical Evaluation Panel for the R&D Activity will
review the application and evaluate it using the following criteria:

 Project purpose(s), goals and objectives, and specific aims
 Literature Review
 Project Methods
 Project Measurements
 Project Analysis
 Resources--People and Facilities
 Dissemination and Implementation
 Cost vs. Benefit (additional consideration)
 Financial Need (additional consideration
    The Fire Service Technical Evaluation Panel for the R&D Activity
will review the application and evaluate it using the following
criteria:
 Purpose
 Potential Impact
 Implementation by the fire service
 Partners
 Barriers

Eligible Applicants

    The following entities are eligible to apply directly to FEMA under
this solicitation:
    1. Fire Prevention and Safety (FP&S) Activity: Eligible applicants
for this activity include fire departments, national, regional, State,
local, Native American tribal organizations, and nonprofit
organizations that are recognized for their experience and expertise in
fire prevention and safety programs and activities. Both private and
public non-profit organizations are eligible to apply for funding in
this activity. For-profit organizations, Federal agencies, and
individuals are not eligible to receive a FP&S Grant Award under the
F&S Activity.
    2. Firefighter Safety Research and Development (R&D) Activity:
Eligible applicants for this activity include national, State, local,
Native American tribal organizations, and nonprofit organizations, such
as academic (e.g., universities), public health, occupational health,
and injury prevention institutions. Both private and public non-profit
organizations are eligible to apply for funding in this activity.
    The aforementioned entities are encouraged to apply, especially
those that are recognized for their experience

and expertise in firefighter safety, health, and wellness research and
development activities. Under the grant program's authorizing statute,
fire departments are not eligible to apply for funding in the R&D
activity. Additionally, for-profit organizations, Federal agencies, and
individuals are not eligible to receive a grant award under the R&D
Activity.

Statutory Limits to Funding

    Applications and awards are limited to a maximum Federal share of
$1.5 million dollars, regardless of applicant type.

Cost Sharing

    Grantees must share in the costs of the projects funded under this
grant program as required by 15 U.S.C. 2229(k)(1) and in accordance
with 44 CFR 13.24 and 2 CFR 215.23, but they are not required to have
the cost-share at the time of application nor at the time of award.
However, before a grant is awarded, FEMA will contact potential
awardees to determine whether the grantee has the funding in hand or if
the grantee has a viable plan to obtain the funding necessary to
fulfill the cost-sharing requirement.
    All eligible applicants must provide a cost match of 5 percent of
non-Federal funds, unless the matching requirement is modified by a
waiver, subject to waiver eligibility as described below. Cash match
and in-kind matches are both allowable in the FP&S Grant Program.
    Cash (hard) matches include non-Federal cash spent for project-
related costs. In-kind matches are allowable for the FP&S Grant
Program. In-kind (soft) matches include, but are not limited to, the
valuation of in-kind services. In-kind is the value of something
received or provided that does not have a cost associated with it. For
example, where an in-kind match (other than cash payments) is
permitted, then the value of donated services could be used to comply
with the match requirement. Also, third party in-kind contributions may
count toward satisfying match requirements provided the grantee
receiving the contributions expends them as allowable costs in
compliance with provisions listed above.
    Grantees under this grant program must also agree to a maintenance
of effort requirement as required by 15 U.S.C. 2229(k)(3) (referred to
as a ``maintenance of expenditure'' requirement in that statute). Per
this requirement, a grantee shall agree to maintain during the term of
the grant the applicant's aggregate expenditures relating to the
activities allowable under the FP&S Funding Opportunity Announcement at
not less than 80 percent (80%) of the average amount of such
expenditures in the two (2) fiscal years preceding the fiscal year in
which the grant amounts are received.
    In cases of demonstrated economic hardship, and on the application
of the grantee, the Administrator of FEMA may waive or reduce certain
grantees' cost share or maintenance of expenditure requirements. The
Administrator of FEMA shall establish and publish guidelines for
determining what constitutes economic hardship. Per 15 U.S.C.
2229(k)(4)(C), FP&S Grantees that are not fire departments are not
eligible to receive a waiver of their cost share or economic hardship
requirements.

System for Award Management (SAM)

    On July 29, 2010, the Central Contractor Registration (CCR) was
moved into the System for Award Management (SAM). The Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) issued guidance to Federal agencies
requiring all prime recipients of Federal grants to register in SAM.
SAM is the primary vendor database for the Federal Government to
collect, validate, store, and disseminate data from a secure
centralized system. SAM consolidated the capabilities found in CCR and
other Federal procurement systems into one new system.
    There is no charge to register in SAM.gov. Registrations must be
completed on-line at https://www.sam.gov/portal/public/SAM/. The
applicant organization is responsibile for having a valid DUNS number
at the time of registration. Organizations with an active record in CCR
have an active record in SAM but may need to validate their
information. For registration, go to https://www.sam.gov/portal/public/SAM/.

Application Process

    Applicants may only submit one (1) application, but may submit for
up to three (3) projects under each activity (FP&S and R&D). Any
applicant that submits more than one (1) application, and requests the
same activities, may have all applications for any duplicated
request(s) deemed ineligible.
    Under the FP&S Activity, applicants may apply under the following
categories:
     General Education/Awareness;
     Fire & Arson Investigation;
     Code Enforcement/Awareness;
     National/State/Regional Programs and Studies.
    Under the R&D Activity, applicants may apply under the following
categories:
     Clinical Studies;
     Technology and Product Development;
     Database System Development;
     Dissemination and Implementation Research;
     Preliminary Studies.
    Prior to the start of the FY 2013 FP&S Grant Program application
period, FEMA provided applicants with technical assistance tools
(available at the AFG Web site: www.fema.gov/firegrants) and other
online information to help them prepare quality grant applications. AFG
also staffed a Help Desk throughout the application period to assist
applicants with navigation through the automated application as well as
assistance with any questions they have. Applicants can reach the AFG
Help Desk through a toll-free telephone number (1-866-274-0960) or
electronic mail (firegrants@dhs.gov).
    Applicants were advised to access the application electronically at
https://portal.fema.gov. The application also was accessible from the
grants.gov Web site (http://www.grants.gov). New applicants were
required to register and establish a username and password for secure
access to their application. Applicants that applied to any previous
AFG funding opportunities were required to use their previously
established usernames and passwords.
    In completing the application in the FP&S Activity, applicants are
asked to provide relevant information on their organization's
characteristics and existing capabilities. Those applicants are asked
to answer questions about their grant request that reflect the FP&S
Activity funding priorities, described below. In addition, each
applicant completed narratives for each project or grant activity
requested.
    The following are the funding priorities for each category under
the FP&S Activity:
     General Education/Awareness--programs that target high
risk population to conduct both door-to-door smoke alarm installations
and provide home safety inspections (including sprinkler awareness), as
part of a comprehensive home fire safety campaign.
     Code Enforcement/Awareness--projects that focus on first
time or reinstatement of code adoption and code enforcement.
     Fire & Arson Investigation--projects that aim to
investigate aggressively every fire.
     National/State/Regional Programs and Studies--projects
that focus on

residential fire issues and/or firefighter behavior and decision-
making.
    In completing an application under the R&D Activity, applicants are
asked to provide relevant information on their organization's
characteristics and existing capabilities. Applicants are asked to
answer questions about their grant request that reflect the R&D
Activity funding priorities, which are described below. In addition,
each applicant completed narratives for each project or grant activity
requested.
    Under the R&D Activity, in order to identify and address the most
important elements of firefighter safety, FEMA looked to the fire
service for its input and recommendations. In June 2005, the National
Fallen Firefighters' Foundation (NFFF) hosted a working group to
facilitate the development of an agenda for the nation's fire service,
and in particular for firefighter safety. In May 2011, the NFFF again
hosted a working group to update the agenda with current priorities. A
copy of the research agenda is available on the NFFF Web site at http://www.everyonegoeshome.com/symposium.html.
    Projects that meet the intent of this research agenda with respect
to firefighter health and safety, as identified by the NFFF working
group, will be given consideration under the R&D Activity. However, the
applicant is not limited to these specific projects. All proposed
projects, regardless of whether they have been identified by this
working group, will be evaluated on their relevance to firefighter
health and safety and scientific rigor.
    The electronic application process will permit the applicant to
enter and save the application data. The system does not permit the
submission of incomplete applications. Except for the narrative
textboxes, the application will use a ``point-and-click'' selection
process or require the entry of data (e.g., name and address).
Applicants will be encouraged to read the FP&S Funding Opportunity
Announcement for more details.

Criteria Development Process

    Each year, DHS convenes a panel of fire service professionals to
develop the funding priorities and other implementation criteria for
AFG. The Criteria Development Panel is comprised of representatives
from nine major fire service organizations who are charged with making
recommendations to FEMA regarding the creation of new funding
priorities and the modification of existing funding priorities as well
as developing criteria for awarding grants. The nine major fire service
organizations represented on the panel are:

 Congressional Fire Services Institute (CFSI)
 International Association of Arson Investigators (IAAI)
 International Association of Fire Chiefs (IAFC)
 International Association of Fire Fighters (IAFF)
 International Society of Fire Service Instructors (ISFSI)
 National Association of State Fire Marshals (NASFM)
 National Fire Protection Association (NFPA)
 National Volunteer Fire Council (NVFC)
 North American Fire Training Directors (NAFTD)

    The FY 2013 criteria development panel meeting occurred December
13-14, 2012. The content of the FY 2013 FP&S Funding Opportunity
Announcement reflects the implementation of the Criteria Development
Panel's recommendations with respect to the priorities, direction, and
criteria for awards. All of the funding priorities for the FY 2013 FP&S
Grant Program are designed to address the following:

 First responder safety
 Enhancing national capabilities
 Risk
 Interoperability

Changes for FY 2013

FY 2013 FP&S Funding Opportunity Announcement

    (1) The ``Guidance and Application Kit'' has been reformatted to
match the DHS Funding Opportunity Announcement (FOA) template.
    (2) A question was added to the application under the FP&S Activity
to ascertain how the proposed project addresses prevention and
survivability from fire.
    (3) Applications and awards are now limited to a maximum federal
share of $1.5 million dollars, regardless of applicant type. In FY2012
the maximum federal share was $1 million dollars, regardless of
applicant type.
    (4) The cost share requirement is now 5% for all eligible
applicants for both FP&S and R&D Activities regardless of population
size or applicant type.
    (5) Cash and in-kind cost matching is allowable in FY2013 whereas
in FY2012 the only type of allowable match was cash.
    (6) The evaluation criteria under the R&D Activity have been
modified and now clarifies that all applications will first be
preliminarily evaluated by a fire service panel and then those
applications deemed ``most relevant'' will move forward to a scientific
evaluation panel. Modifications under the scientific evaluation
criteria include removing ``Partners'' as a criteria and moving it to
be evaluated by the fire service panel. In addition, the weight of both
the ``project measurements'' and ``dissemination and implementation''
criteria were then modified from ten percent to fifteen percent.

Changes to Criteria Development Panel Recommendations

    DHS must explain any differences between the published guidelines
and the recommendations made by the criteria development panel and
publish this information in the Federal Register prior to making any
grants under the Program (15 U.S.C. 2229(b)(14)). For FY 2013, DHS
accepted and is implementing all of the Criteria Development Panel's
recommendations.

Application Review Process and Considerations

    The program's authorizing statute requires that each year DHS
publish in the Federal Register a description of the grant application
process and the criteria for grant awards. This information is provided
below.
    DHS will review and evaluate all FP&S applications submitted using
the funding priorities and evaluation criteria described in this
document, which are based on recommendations from the AFG Criteria
Development Panel. FEMA will rank all submitted applications based on
how well they match the funding priorities for the type of community
served. Answers to the application's activity-specific questions
provide information used to determine each application's ranking
relative to the stated priorities.

Peer Review Process

Technical Evaluation Process--Fire Prevention and Safety Activity
    All eligible applications will be evaluated by a Technical
Evaluation Panel (TEP). The TEP is comprised of a panel of Peer
Reviewers. The TEP will assess each application's merits with respect
to the detail provided in the Narrative Statement on the activity,
including the evaluation elements listed in the Evaluation Criteria
identified above.
    The panel of Peer Reviewers will independently score each project
within the application, discuss the merits and/or shortcomings of the
application, and document the findings. A consensus is not required.
The highest ranked

applications will receive further technical review to assess strengths
and weaknesses, how readily weaknesses may be resolved, and the likely
impact of the proposed activities on the safety of the target audience.
Technical Evaluation Process--Research and Development Activity
    R&D applications will go through a two-phase review process. First,
all applications will be reviewed by a panel of fire service experts to
assess relevance, meaning the likely impact of the proposed R&D
application to enable improvement in firefighter safety, health, or
wellness. They will also assess the need for the research results and
the likelihood that the results would be implemented by the fire
service in the U.S. Applications that are deemed likely to be
implemented to enable improvement in firefighter safety, health, or
wellness will then receive further consideration by a science review
panel. This panel will be comprised of scientists and technology
experts who have expertise pertaining to the subject matter of the
proposal.
    Reviewers will independently score applications and, if necessary,
discuss the merits or shortcomings of the application in order to
reconcile any major discrepancies identified by the reviewers. A
consensus is not required.
    With input from these panels, for the highest ranked applications,
FEMA will review each application's strengths and weaknesses, how best
the strengths fit the priorities of the FP&S Program, and how readily
the weaknesses may be resolved to support likely impact of the project
to improve firefighter safety, heath, or wellness.
Technical Review Process
    Projects receiving the highest scores then will undergo a technical
review by a subject matter specialist to assess the technical
feasibility of the project and a programmatic review to assess
eligibility and other factors.
    DHS generally makes funding decisions using rank order resulting
from the panel evaluation. However, DHS may deviate from rank order and
make funding decisions based on the type of department (career,
combination, or volunteer) and/or the size and character of the
community the applicant serves (urban, suburban, or rural) to the
extent it is required to satisfy statutory provisions.
    After the completion of the technical reviews, DHS will select a
sufficient number of awardees from this application period to obligate
all of the available grant funding. It will evaluate and act on
applications within 90 days following the close of the application
period. Award announcements will be made on a rolling basis until all
available grant funds have been committed. Awards will not be made in
any specified order. DHS will notify unsuccessful applicants as soon as
it is feasible.

Application Review Considerations

    The governing statute requires that each year DHS publish in the
Federal Register a description of the grant application process and the
criteria for grant awards. This information is provided below.

Evaluation Criteria for Projects--Fire Prevention and Safety Activity

    Funding decisions will be informed by an assessment of how well the
application addresses the criteria and considerations listed below.
Applications will be reviewed by the TEP using weighted evaluation
criteria to score the project. These scores will impact the ranking of
a project for funding.
    The relative weight of the evaluation criteria in the determination
of the grant award is listed below.
     Vulnerability Statement (20%): The assessment of fire risk
is essential in the development of an effective project goal, as well
as meeting FEMA's goal to reduce risk by conducting a risk analysis as
a basis for action. Vulnerability is a ``weak link'' demonstrating high
risk behavior, living conditions or any type of high risk situation or
behavior. The Vulnerability Statement should include a description of
the steps taken to determine the vulnerability (weak link) and identify
the target audience. The methodology for determination of vulnerability
(how you found the weak link) should be discussed in-depth in the
application's Narrative Statement.
    [cir] The specific vulnerability (weak link) that will be addressed
with the proposed project can be established through a formal or
informal Risk Assessment. FEMA encourages the use of local statistics,
rather than national statistics, when discussing the vulnerability.
    [cir] The applicant should summarize the vulnerability (weakness)
the project will address in a clear, to-the-point statement that
addresses who is at risk, what the risks are, where the risks are and
how the risks can be prevented.
    [cir] For the purpose of the FY2013 FP&S FOA, formal Risk
Assessments consist of the use of software programs or recognized
expert analysis that assess risk trends.
    [cir] Informal Risk Assessments could include an in-house review of
available data (e.g., NFIRS) to determine fire loss, burn injuries or
loss of life over a period of time, and the factors that are the cause
and origin for each occurrence.
     Implementation Plan (20%): Projects should provide details
on the implementation plan which discusses the proposed project's goals
and objectives. The following information should be included to support
the implementation plan:
    [cir] Goals and objectives.
    [cir] Details regarding the methods and specific steps that will be
used to achieve the goals and objectives.
    [cir] Timelines--place the project steps in the order they will be
accomplished.
    [cir] Where applicable, examples of marketing efforts to promote
the project, who will deliver the project (e.g., effective
partnerships), and the manner in which materials or deliverables will
be distributed.
    [cir] Requests for props (i.e., tools used in educational or
awareness demonstrations), including specific goals, measurable
results, and details on the frequency for which the prop will be
utilized as part of the implementation plan. Applicants should include
information describing the efforts that will be used to reach the high
risk audience and/or the number of people reached through the proposed
project (examples of props include safety trailers, puppets, robots, or
portable safety houses).
     Evaluation Plan (20%): Projects should include an
evaluation of effectiveness and should identify measurable goals.
Applicants seeking to carry out awareness and educational projects, for
example, should identify how they intend to determine that there has
been an increase in knowledge about fire hazards, or measure a change
in the safety behaviors of the audience. Applicants should demonstrate
how they will measure risk at the outset of the project in comparison
to how much the risk decreased after the project is finished. There are
various ways to measure the knowledge gained including the use of
surveys, pre- and post-tests or documented observations.
     Cost-Benefit (10%): Projects will be evaluated based on
how well the applicant addresses the fire prevention needs of the
department or organization in an economic and efficient manner. Show
how to maximize the level of funding that goes directly into the
delivery of the project. The costs associated with the project must
also be reasonable for the target audience that will be reached and a
description of how the anticipated benefit(s) of their

projects outweighs the cost(s) of the requested item(s) should be
included. Providing justification for costs assists the Technical
Evaluation Panel with this review.
     Sustainability (15%): Each project will also be evaluated
to determine whether the overall activity will be sustained (continued)
beyond the grant performance period and whether it has a greater
potential for long-term benefits. Examples of sustainable projects can
be shown through the long-term benefits derived from the delivery of
the project, the number of non-Federal partners likely to continue the
effort, or the demonstrated long-term commitment of the applicant.
     Financial Need (10%): Applicants should provide details on
the need for financial assistance to carry out the proposed project(s).
Included in the description might be other unsuccessful attempts to
acquire financial assistance or specific examples of the applicant's
operational budget.
     Funding Priorities (5%): Applicants will be evaluated on
whether or not the proposed project meets the stated funding priority
for the applicable category.
    [cir] General Education/Awareness Priority: Comprehensive home fire
safety campaign with door-to-door smoke alarm installations.
    [cir] Fire/Arson Investigation Priority: Projects that aim to
investigate aggressively every fire.
    [cir] Code Enforcement/Awareness Priority: Projects that focus on
first time or reinstatement of code adoption and code enforcement.
    [cir] National/State/Regional Programs and Studies Priority:
Projects that focus on residential fire issues and/or firefighter
safety projects or strategies that are designed to measureable change
firefighter behavior and decision-making.
     Experience and Expertise (additional consideration):
Applicants that demonstrate their experience and ability to conduct
fire prevention and safety activities, and to execute the proposed or
similar project(s), will receive additional consideration.
     Performance (additional consideration): Applicants that
have a proven track record for timely project completion and
satisfactory performance in other AFG, FP&S, and SAFER Awards will
receive additional consideration.
     Meeting the needs of people with disabilities (additional
consideration): Applicants in the General Education/Awareness category
will receive additional consideration if, as part of their
comprehensive smoke alarm installation and education program, they
address the needs of people with disabilities (e.g., deaf/hard-of-
hearing) in their community.

Evaluation Criteria for Projects--Firefighter Safety Research and
Development Activity

    Funding decisions will be informed by an assessment of how well the
application addresses the criteria and considerations listed below.
Applications will be reviewed by a fire service expert panel using
weighted evaluation criteria and by a scientific peer review panel
evaluation using weighted evaluation criteria to score the project.
These scores will impact the ranking of a project for funding. In
addition, other Science Panel considerations are indicated in the list
below:

Fire Service Evaluation Criteria

     Purpose (25%): Clearly identify the vital firefighter
safety and wellness issue(s) addressed by the project proposal that
would benefit from additional research to fill in gaps in knowledge.
     Potential Impact (15%): Discuss the potential impact of
the research outcome/product on firefighter safety by quantifying the
possible reduction in the number of fatal or non-fatal injuries or on
wellness by significantly improving the overall health of firefighters.
     Implementation by Fire Service (25%): Discuss how the
outcomes/products of this research, if successful, are likely to be
widely/nationally adopted and accepted by the fire service as changes
that enhance safety and wellness.
     Partners (20%): Describe the fire service partners that
will support the project to accomplish the objectives of the study. The
specific roles and contributions of the partners to the project should
be described. Partnerships may be formed with local and regional fire
departments and also with national fire-related organizations. Because
grants under the R&D Activity aim to improve the safety, health, and
wellness of firefighters, having strong partnerships with the fire
service is essential to the likely relevance and effectiveness of the
project. Letters of support and letters of commitment to actively
participate in the project should be included in the Appendix of the
application.
     Barriers (15%): The applicant needs to identify fire
service and other potential barriers to the successful completion of
the project and strategies to overcome such barriers if they
materialize.

Science Panel Evaluation Criteria

     Project goals, objectives, and specific aims (15%):
Applicants need to address how the purpose, goals, objectives, and aims
of the proposal will lead to results that will improve firefighter
safety, health, and wellness. For multi-year projects, greater detail
should be given for the first year. Also, describe the specific goals
and objectives for the second and third year.
     Literature Review (10%): With reference to the project's
goals, objectives, and specific aims, provide a literature review that
includes citations in the text and references at the end of the
Narrative Statement (and not in the Appendix) of the application. The
review should be in sufficient depth to make it clear that the proposed
project is necessary, adds to an existing body of knowledge, is
different from current and previous studies, and offers a unique
contribution.
     Project Methods (20%): This is a description of how the
project will be carried out, including demonstration of the overall
scientific and technical rigor and merit of the project. This provides
the operations to accomplish the purpose, goals and objectives, and the
specific aims previously stated. Plans to recruit and retain human
subjects, where applicable, should be described. Where human subjects
are involved in the project, describe plans for submission to the
Institutional Review Board (IRB).
     Project Measurements (15%): Provide evidence of the
technical rigor and merit of the project, such as data pertaining to
validity, reliability, and sensitivity (where established) of the
equipment, instruments, standards, and procedures that will be used to
carry out the specific aims previously stated. Data is collected to
evaluate the performance of methods, technologies, and products
proposed to enhance firefighter safety, health, and wellness.
Measurement methods and equipment selected for use should be
appropriate and sufficient to the project objectives.
     Project Analysis (10%): Indicate the planned approach for
analysis of the data obtained from measurements, questionnaires, or
computations. Specify within the plan what will be analyzed, the
statistical methods that will be used, the sequence of steps, and
interactions as appropriate. It should be clear that the Principal
Investigator (PI) and research team have the expertise to perform the
planned analysis and defend the results in a peer review process.

     Resources--People and Facilities (15%): Describe the
strengths of the PI, the lead scientists, and other staff of the
research and development team, especially with regard to similar R&D
Activities, studies involving the fire service, and successful
completion of prior grant-funded research and development. Also
describe the institutional resources (e.g., labs, experimental
facilities) to be used to support and carry out the proposed project.
Emphasis should be given to unique people and facilities that
contribute substantially to the project in addition to past fire
service research.
     Dissemination and Implementation (15%): Indicate
dissemination plans for scientific audiences (such as plans for
submissions to specific peer review publications) and for firefighter
audiences (such as via Web sites, magazines, and conferences). Also,
assuming positive results and where applicable, indicate future steps
that would support dissemination and implementation throughout the fire
service. These are likely to be beyond the current study, so those
features of the research activity that will facilitate future
dissemination and implementation should be discussed. All applicants
should specify how the results of the project, if successful, might be
disseminated and implemented in the fire service to improve firefighter
safety, health, and wellness, especially in the short term. It is
expected that successful R&D Activity Projects may give rise to future
programs including FP&S Activity Projects.
     Cost vs. Benefit (additional consideration): Cost vs.
benefit in this evaluation element refers to the costs of the grant for
the research and development project vs. the benefits that are
projected for firefighters who would have improved safety, health, and
wellness. Projects will be evaluated on the extent to which they
demonstrate a high benefit for the cost incurred.
     Financial Need (additional consideration): In the
Narrative Statement, applicants should provide details on the need for
federal financial assistance to carry out the proposed project(s).

Other Selection Information

    Awards will be made using the results of peer-reviewed applications
as the primary basis for decisions, regardless of activity. However,
there are some exceptions to strictly using the peer review results.
    Fire departments and other eligible applicants that have received
funding under the FP&S program in previous years are eligible to apply
for funding in the current year. However, DHS may take into account an
applicant's performance on prior grants when making funding decisions
on current applications.
    Once every application in the competitive range has been through
the technical evaluation phase, the applications will be ranked
according to the average score awarded by the panel.
    The ranking will be summarized in a Technical Report prepared by
the AFG Program Office. A Grants Management Specialist will contact the
applicant to discuss and/or negotiate the content of the application
and SAM.gov registration before making final award decisions.

    Dated: April 11, 2014.
W. Craig Fugate,
Administrator, Federal Emergency Management Agency.
[FR Doc. 2014-09179 Filed 4-21-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9111-64-P


[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 184 (Tuesday, September 22, 2020)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 59454-59457]
[FR Doc No: 2020-20718]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2016-3343; Product Identifier 2015-SW-078-AD]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Airbus Helicopters

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

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

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

SUMMARY: The FAA is revising an earlier proposal to supersede
Airworthiness Directive (AD) 2014-12-12, which applies to certain
Airbus Helicopters Model EC120B and EC130B4 helicopters. This action
revises the notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) by revising the
compliance time, expanding the applicability, and providing improved
procedures for modifying the sliding door star support as specified in
a European Union Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) AD, which will be
incorporated by reference. The FAA is proposing this AD to address the
unsafe condition on these products. Since these actions would impose an
additional burden over those in the NPRM, the FAA is reopening the
comment period to allow the public the chance to comment on these
changes.

DATES: The comment period for the NPRM published in the Federal
Register on October 26, 2016 (81 FR 74362), is reopened.
    The FAA must receive comments on this SNPRM by November 6, 2020.

ADDRESSES: You may send comments, using the procedures found in 14 CFR
11.43 and 11.45, by any of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to https://www.regulations.gov. Follow the instructions for submitting comments.
     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
     Mail: U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket
Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590.
     Hand Delivery: Deliver to Mail address above between 9
a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
    For material incorporated by reference (IBR) in this AD, contact
the EASA, Konrad-Adenauer-Ufer 3, 50668 Cologne, Germany; telephone +49
221 8999 000; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>internet www.easa.europa.eu.
You may find this IBR material on the EASA website at https://ad.easa.europa.eu. You may view this IBR material at the FAA, Office of
the Regional Counsel, Southwest Region, 10101 Hillwood Pkwy., Room 6N-
321, Fort Worth, TX 76177. For information on the availability of this
material at the FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>. It is also available in the AD
docket on the internet at https://www.regulations.gov by searching for
and locating Docket No. FAA-2016-3343.

Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket on the internet at https://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2016-
3343; or in person at Docket Operations between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m.,
Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD docket contains
this SNPRM, any comments received, and other information. The street
address for Docket Operations is listed above. Comments will be
available in the AD docket shortly after receipt.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: David Hatfield, Aviation Safety
Engineer, Rotorcraft Standards Branch, FAA, 10101 Hillwood Pkwy., Fort
Worth, TX 76177; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Comments Invited

    The FAA invites you to participate in this rulemaking by submitting
written comments, data, or views about this proposal. 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. Send your
comments to an address listed under the ADDRESSES section. Include
``Docket No. FAA-2016-3343; Product Identifier 2015-SW-078-AD'' at the
beginning of your comments.
    Except for Confidential Business Information (CBI) as described in
the following paragraph, and other information as described in 14 CFR
11.35, the FAA will post all comments received, without change, as well
as a report summarizing each substantive public contact with FAA
personnel concerning this proposed rulemaking. Before acting on this
proposal, the FAA will consider all comments received by the closing
date for comments. The FAA will consider comments filed after the

comment period has closed if it is possible to do so without incurring
expense or delay. The FAA may change this NPRM because of those
comments.

Confidential Business Information

    CBI is commercial or financial information that is both customarily
and actually treated as private by its owner. Under the Freedom of
Information Act (FOIA) (5 U.S.C. 552), CBI is exempt from public
disclosure. If your comments responsive to this NPRM contain commercial
or financial information that is customarily treated as private, that
you actually treat as private, and that is relevant or responsive to
this NPRM, it is important that you clearly designate the submitted
comments as CBI. Please mark each page of your submission containing
CBI as ``PROPIN.'' The FAA will treat such marked submissions as
confidential under the FOIA, and they will not be placed in the public
docket of this NPRM. Submissions containing CBI should be sent to David
Hatfield, Aviation Safety Engineer, Rotorcraft Standards Branch, FAA,
10101 Hillwood Pkwy., Fort Worth, TX 76177; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>;
email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Any commentary that the FAA receives
which is not specifically designated as CBI will be placed in the
public docket for this rulemaking.

Discussion

    The FAA issued AD 2014-12-12, Amendment 39-17873 (79 FR 36638, June
30, 2014) (``AD 2014-12-12''). AD 2014-12-12 requires actions to
address an unsafe condition on certain Airbus Helicopters Model EC120B
and EC130B4 helicopters. AD 2014-12-12 requires inspecting the upper
and lower locking pin control rod fittings for a bend, twist, or
breakage and the star support pin for a crack; replacing control rod
end fittings and star support pins if necessary; and reinforcing the
sliding door star support stringer by installing three carbon fabric
plies.
    The FAA issued an NPRM to amend 14 CFR part 39 by adding an AD to
supersede AD 2014-12-12 that would apply to certain Airbus Helicopters
Model EC120B and EC130B4 helicopters. The NPRM published in the Federal
Register on October 26, 2016 (81 FR 74362) (``the NPRM''). The NPRM was
prompted by a report of passengers not being able to open a
helicopter's left-hand door after landing. The NPRM proposed to require
inspecting each upper and lower locking pin control rod end fitting and
replacing it if necessary, cleaning and dye-penetrant inspecting the
star support pin for cracking and replacing it if necessary, and
reinforcing the sliding door star support stringer.

Actions Since Previous NPRM Was Issued

    Since the FAA issued the NPRM, there have been several incidents
involving helicopter left-hand doors (both swinging and sliding) that
revealed weaknesses in the locking mechanism. The FAA has determined
the NPRM must be revised by revising the compliance time, expanding the
applicability, and providing improved procedures for modifying the
sliding door star support.
    The EASA, which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the
European Union, has issued EASA AD 2020-0095, dated April 29, 2020
(``EASA AD 2020-0095'') (referred to after this as the Mandatory
Continuing Airworthiness Information, or ``the MCAI''), to correct an
unsafe condition for certain Airbus Helicopters Model EC120B and
EC130B4 helicopters. EASA advises that, after landing, the passengers
on an Airbus Helicopters Model EC120B helicopter could not open the
sliding door from inside. The passengers had to leave the helicopter
through the other door. The results of the subsequent investigation
revealed failure of a sliding door star axle support. This condition,
if not corrected, could delay the evacuation from the helicopter in
case of emergency, possibly resulting in injury to the occupants.
    EASA AD 2020-0095 superseded EASA AD 2015-0020, dated February 11,
2015 (``EASA AD 2015-0020''), which corresponds to FAA NPRM, Docket No.
FAA-2016-3343. EASA AD 2015-0020 superseded EASA AD 2013-0093, dated
April 15, 2013; corrected April 17, 2013, which corresponds to FAA AD
2014-12-12.
    EASA AD 2020-0095 revises the compliance time that was specified in
EASA AD 2015-0020 and expands the applicability.
    You may examine the MCAI in the AD docket on the internet at
https://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No.
FAA-2016-3343.
    This proposed AD was prompted by a report of passengers not being
able to open a helicopter's left-hand door after landing. The FAA is
proposing this AD to address failure of the sliding door star support,
which could inhibit the operation of the sliding door from the inside,
delaying the evacuation of passengers during an emergency. See the MCAI
for additional background information.

Related Material Under 1 CFR Part 51

    EASA AD 2020-0095 describes improved procedures for modifying the
door locking/unlocking mechanism (e.g. modifying the sliding door star
support by installing a reinforcing bracket and replacing rod ends).
This material is reasonably available because the interested parties
have access to it through their normal course of business or by the
means identified in the ADDRESSES section.

Comments

    The FAA gave the public the opportunity to participate in
developing this proposed AD. The following presents the comment
received on the NPRM and the FAA's response to that comment.

Request To Refer to Revised Service Information

    Airbus Helicopters proposed that the service information specified
in the NPRM be revised because it was not the current revision level.
The commenter stated that revising the service information to reflect
the current revision level would prevent having to revise the final
rule in the near future. The commenter explained that Airbus
Helicopters Alert Service Bulletin EC120-52A018, Revision 01; and Alert
Service Bulletin EC130-52A019, Revision 01, were released July 12,
2016, and included improved procedures for replacing the rod ends and
installing the reinforcements of the sliding door star support. The
commenter noted that the revised service information also included
additional helicopters in the effectivity.
    The FAA acknowledges the commenter's concern regarding the revision
level of the service information specified in the proposed AD (in the
NPRM). Since the FAA issued the NPRM, the AD format has changed and
instead of specifying the required service information in paragraph
(g), Requirements, of this proposed AD (SNPRM), operators would be
required to comply with all required actions and compliance times
specified in, and in accordance with, EASA AD 2020-0095, except for any
differences identified as exceptions in the regulatory text of this
proposed AD and except as discussed under ``Differences Between This
Proposed AD and the MCAI.'' EASA AD 2020-0095 specifies that operators
must use Airbus Helicopters Alert Service Bulletin EC120-52A018,
Revision 01; and Alert Service Bulletin EC130-52A019, Revision 01, both
dated July 12, 2016, as the required service information. The FAA has
not changed

this proposed AD (SNPRM) in regard to this issue.

FAA's Determination and Requirements of This Proposed AD

    This product has been approved by the aviation authority of another
country, and is approved for operation in the United States. Pursuant
to the bilateral agreement with the State of Design Authority, the FAA
has been notified of the unsafe condition described in the MCAI
referenced above. The FAA is proposing this AD because the FAA
evaluated all the relevant information and determined the unsafe
condition described previously is likely to exist or develop in other
products of the same type design.

Proposed AD Requirements

    This proposed AD would require accomplishing the actions specified
in EASA AD 2020-0095 described previously, as incorporated by
reference, except for any differences identified as exceptions in the
regulatory text of this AD and except as discussed under ``Differences
Between this Proposed AD and the MCAI.''

Explanation of Required Compliance Information

    In the FAA's ongoing efforts to improve the efficiency of the AD
process, the FAA initially worked with Airbus and EASA to develop a
process to use certain EASA ADs as the primary source of information
for compliance with requirements for corresponding FAA ADs. The FAA has
since coordinated with other manufacturers and civil aviation
authorities (CAAs) to use this process. As a result, EASA AD 2020-0095
will be incorporated by reference in the FAA final rule. This proposed
AD would, therefore, require compliance with EASA AD 2020-0095 in its
entirety, through that incorporation, except for any differences
identified as exceptions in the regulatory text of this proposed AD.
Using common terms that are the same as the heading of a particular
section in the EASA AD does not mean that operators need comply only
with that section. For example, where the AD requirement refers to
``all required actions and compliance times,'' compliance with this AD
requirement is not limited to the section titled ``Required Action(s)
and Compliance Time(s)'' in the EASA AD. Service information specified
in EASA AD 2020-0095 that is required for compliance with EASA AD 2020-
0095 will be available on the internet at https://www.regulations.gov
by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2016-3343 after the FAA
final rule is published.

Differences Between This Proposed AD and the MCAI

    EASA AD 2020-0095 specifies to do the modification within 24
months. This proposed AD would require the modification be done within
460 hours time-in-service (TIS), based on an average of 230 hours TIS
per year. The FAA has determined this compliance time represents the
maximum interval of time allowable for the affected helicopters to
continue to safely operate before the modification is done.

Costs of Compliance

    The FAA estimates that this proposed AD affects 355 helicopters of
U.S. registry. The FAA estimates the following costs to comply with
this proposed AD:

                                      Estimated Costs for Required Actions
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Cost per       Cost on U.S.
                          Labor cost                              Parts cost        product         operators
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
20 work-hours x $85 per hour = $1,700........................            $642           $2,342         $831,410
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    According to the manufacturer, some or all of the costs of this
proposed AD may be covered under warranty, thereby reducing the cost
impact on affected operators. The FAA does not control warranty
coverage for affected operators. As a result, the FAA has included all
known costs in the cost estimate.

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.
    The FAA is 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

    The FAA 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 above, I certify this proposed
regulation:
    (1) Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under Executive
Order 12866,
    (2) Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska, and
    (3) 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.

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

0
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]

0
2. The FAA amends Sec.  39.13 by removing Airworthiness Directive (AD)
2014-12-12, Amendment 39-17873 (79 FR 36638, June 30, 2014), and adding
the following new AD:

Airbus Helicopters: Docket No. FAA-2016-3343; Product Identifier
2015-SW-078-AD.

(a) Comments Due Date

    The FAA must receive comments by November 6, 2020.

(b) Affected ADs

    This AD replaces AD 2014-12-12, Amendment 39-17873 (79 FR 36638,
June 30, 2014) (``AD 2014-12-12'').

(c) Applicability

    This AD applies to Airbus Helicopters Model EC120B and EC130B4
helicopters, certificated in any category, as identified in European
Union Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) AD 2020-0095, dated April 29,
2020 (``EASA AD 2020-0095'').

(d) Subject

    Joint Aircraft System Component (JASC) Code 5200, Doors.

(e) Reason

    This AD was prompted by reports of passengers not being able to
open a helicopter's left-hand door after landing. The FAA is issuing
this AD to address failure of the sliding door star support, which
could inhibit the operation of the sliding door from the inside,
delaying the evacuation of passengers during an emergency.

(f) Compliance

    Comply with this AD within the compliance times specified,
unless already done.

(g) Requirements

    Except as specified in paragraph (h) of this AD: Comply with all
required actions and compliance times specified in, and in
accordance with, EASA AD 2020-0095.

(h) Exceptions to EASA AD 2020-0095

    (1) Where EASA AD 2020-0095 refers to its effective date, this
AD requires using the effective date of this AD.
    (2) Where paragraph (1) of EASA AD 2020-0095 specifies to
complete the actions within 24 months after its effective date, this
AD requires completion within 460 hours time-in-service after the
effective date of this AD.
    (3) The ``Remarks'' section of EASA AD 2020-0095 does not apply
to this AD.
    (4) Although the service information referenced in EASA AD 2020-
0095 specifies to discard certain parts, this AD does not include
that requirement.

(i) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs)

    (1) The Manager, Rotorcraft Standards Branch, FAA, may approve
AMOCs for this AD. Send your proposal to: David Hatfield, Aviation
Safety Engineer, Rotorcraft Standards Branch, FAA, 10101 Hillwood
Pkwy., Fort Worth, TX 76177; 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, 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.

(j) Related Information

    (1) For information about EASA AD 2020-0095, contact the EASA,
Konrad-Adenauer-Ufer 3, 50668 Cologne, Germany; telephone +49 221
8999 000; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>internet www.easa.europa.eu. You
may find this EASA AD on the EASA website at https://ad.easa.europa.eu. You may view this material at the FAA, Office of
the Regional Counsel, Southwest Region, 10101 Hillwood Pkwy., Room
6N-321, Fort Worth, TX 76177. For information on the availability of
this material at the FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>. This material may be
found in the AD docket on the internet at https://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-
2016-3343.
    (2) For more information about this AD, contact David Hatfield,
Aviation Safety Engineer, Rotorcraft Standards Branch, FAA, 10101
Hillwood Pkwy., Fort Worth, TX 76177; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; email
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
    Issued on September 15, 2020.
Lance T. Gant,
Director, Compliance & Airworthiness Division, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. 2020-20718 Filed 9-21-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


From<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Sent: Wednesday, January 27, 2010 4:22 PM
To: Sunda, John B.

John,

During our phone conversation, you asked about the cost impact of sound attenuation on cooling towers.

As you suggested, I ran a selection to cool 150,000 gpm, with a 15 deg Range, 10 deg Approach to a 78 wet-bulb temperature. The baseline tower is 10 cells, about 48' x 486' in plan area with one 200 horsepower fan motor per cell.  The overall tower SPL (considering sound from both the mechanical equipment/fan exit, and the air inlet is 60 dBA at 500'.

You mentioned a target of 50 dBA at 500'.  There are many ways to reduce sound, which include reducing fan speed, low noise fans, barrier walls, inlet and outlet attenuation and water splash attenuation.  For this example, in order to meet the target, I reduced the fan speed (which requires a physically larger tower), added fan deck and perimeter barrier walls, and splash attenuation.  The resulting selection is a 10 cell tower, 54' x 546' in plan area, with 125 horsepower fan motors.  The total estimated cost of the larger tower, along with the additional sound features is about 60% higher than the baseline tower.

For lower sound levels, inlet and possibly outlet attenuation packages would be involved, probably driving the cost to more than 2x a standard tower.

Please let me know if you have any further questions on this topic.

I am doing a global search to determine if we have any plume-abated towers on seawater, or brackish water, and will let you know when I get some responses.

Kent A. Martens, P. E.
Chief Technical Advisor - Evaporative Cooling
SPX Cooling Technologies
7401 W 129 Street
Overland Park, KS 66213 USA
Tel:      913/664-7501
Fax:     913/693-9522
Cell:     913/302-7234
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>

The information contained in this electronic mail transmission is intended by SPX Corporation for the use of the named individual or entity to which it is directed and may contain information that is confidential or privileged.  If you have received this electronic mail transmission in error, please delete it from your system without copying or forwarding it, and notify the sender of the error by reply email so that the sender's address records can be corrected.


[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 62 (Thursday, March 31, 2022)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 18755-18757]
[FR Doc No: 2022-06790]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 165

[Docket Number USCG-2022-0139]
RIN 1625-AA00

Safety Zone; Columbia River, Richland, WA

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard is proposing to establish a temporary safety
zone for certain waters of the Columbia River. This action is necessary
to provide for the safety of participants and the maritime public
during a high-speed boat race. This proposed rulemaking would prohibit
non-participant persons and vessel from being in the safety zone unless
authorized by the Captain of the Port Columbia River or a designated
representative. We invite your comments on this proposed rulemaking.

DATES: Comments and related material must be received by the Coast
Guard on or before May 2, 2022.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments identified by docket number USCG-
2022-0139 using the Federal Decision Making Portal at https://www.regulations.gov. See the ``Public Participation and Request for
Comments'' portion of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section for further
instructions on submitting comments.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions about this
proposed rulemaking, call or email LCDR Sean Morrison, Waterways
Management Division, Marine Safety Unit Portland, U.S. Coast Guard;
telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>, email [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Table of Abbreviations

CFR Code of Federal Regulations
DHS Department of Homeland Security
FR Federal Register
NPRM Notice of proposed rulemaking
Sec.  Section
U.S.C. United States Code
COTP Captain of the Port Columbia River

II. Background, Purpose, and Legal Basis

    On November 3, 2021, Northwest Powerboat Association notified the
Coast Guard that it will be conducting a high-speed boat race from 8
a.m. to 7 p.m. on June 24, 2022 through June 26, 2022. These boats will
be traveling at a rate of speed greater than usual boat traffic, and
will be utilizing all of the wateryway in the vicinity of Howard Amon
Park, between mile markers 337 and 338. The Captain of the Port
Columbia River (COTP) has determined that potential hazards associated
with the high speed boat race would be a safety concern for anyone in
the regulated area.
    The purpose of this rulemaking is to protect personnel, vessels,
and the marine environment in these navigable waters in the vicinity of
Howard Amon Park, between mile markers 337 and 338, for the duration of
the 3-day event. The Coast Guard is proposing this rulemaking under
authority in 46 U.S.C. 70034 (previously 33 U.S.C. 1231).

III. Discussion of Proposed Rule

    The COTP is proposing to establish a safety zone that will be
subject to enforcement from 7:30 a.m. to 7:30 p.m. on June 24, 2022
through June 26, 2022. The safety zone will cover all navigable waters
of the Columbia River from surface to bottom, in the vicinity of Howard
Amon Park, between mile markers 337 and 338. The duration of the zone
is intended to protect personnel, vessels, and the marine environment
in these navigable waters for the duration of the 3-day event. No
vessel or person would be permitted to enter the regulated area without
obtaining permission from the COTP or a designated representative. The
regulatory text we are proposing appears at the end of this document.

IV. Regulatory Analyses

    We developed this proposed rule after considering numerous statutes
and Executive orders related to rulemaking. Below we summarize our
analyses based on a number of these statutes and Executive orders, and
we discuss First Amendment rights of protestors.

A. Regulatory Planning and Review

    Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 direct agencies to assess the
costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if
regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize
net benefits. This NPRM has not been designated a ``significant
regulatory action,'' under Executive Order 12866. Accordingly, the NPRM
has not been reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB).
    This regulatory action determination is based on based on the size,
location, and duration of the safety zone. This regulatory action will
only impact a small 1-mile section of the Columbia River. Moreover, the
Coast Guard will issue a Broadcast Notice to Mariners via VHF-FM marine
channel 16 about the zone and the rule allows vessels to seek
permission to enter the zone.

B. Impact on Small Entities

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, 5 U.S.C. 601-612, as
amended, requires Federal agencies to consider the potential impact of
regulations on small entities during rulemaking. 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.
    While some owners or operators of vessels intending to transit the
safety zone may be small entities, for the reasons stated in section
IV.A above, this proposed rule would not have a significant economic
impact on any vessel owner or operator.
    If you think that your business, organization, or governmental
jurisdiction qualifies as a small entity and that this proposed 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.
    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. If the proposed rule
would affect your small business, organization, or governmental
jurisdiction and you have questions concerning its provisions or
options for compliance, please call or email the person listed in the
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section. 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.

C. Collection of Information

    This proposed rule would not call for a new collection of
information under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-
3520).

D. Federalism and Indian Tribal Governments

    A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132
(Federalism), if it has 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. We have analyzed this proposed rule under that Order and
have determined that it is consistent with the fundamental federalism
principles and preemption requirements described in Executive Order
13132.
    Also, 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. If
you believe this proposed rule has implications for federalism or
Indian tribes, please call or email the person listed in the FOR
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section.

E. 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 proposed rule would not
result in such an expenditure, we do discuss the potential effects of
this proposed rule elsewhere in this preamble.

F. Environment

    We have analyzed this proposed rule under Department of Homeland
Security Directive 023-01, Rev. 1, associated implementing
instructions, and Environmental Planning COMDTINST 5090.1 (series),
which guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National
Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have made
a preliminary determination that this action is one of a category of
actions that do not individually or cumulatively have a significant
effect on the human environment. This proposed rule involves a safety
zone lasting only 60 hours that will prohibit entry within a 1 mile
length of the Columbia River for the duration of a high-speed boat
race. Normally such actions are categorically excluded from further
review under paragraph L[60a] of Appendix A, Table 1 of DHS Instruction
Manual 023-01-001-01, Rev. 1. A preliminary Record of Environmental
Consideration supporting this determination is available in the docket.
For instructions on locating the docket, see the ADDRESSES section of
this preamble. We seek any comments or information that may lead to the
discovery of a significant environmental impact from this proposed
rule.

G. Protest Activities

    The Coast Guard respects the First Amendment rights of protesters.
Protesters are asked to call or email the person listed in the FOR
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section to coordinate protest activities so
that your message can be received without jeopardizing the safety or
security of people, places, or vessels.

V. Public Participation and Request for Comments

    We view public participation as essential to effective rulemaking,
and will consider all comments and material received during the comment
period. Your comment can help shape the outcome of this rulemaking. If
you submit a comment, please include the docket number for this
rulemaking, indicate the specific section of this document to which
each comment applies, and provide a reason for each suggestion or
recommendation.
    Submitting comments. We encourage you to submit comments through
the Federal Decision Making Portal at https://www.regulations.gov. To
do so, go to https://www.regulations.gov, type USCG-2022-0139 in the
search box and click ``Search.'' Next, look for this document in the
Search Results column, and click on it. Then click on the Comment
option. If you cannot submit your material by using https://www.regulations.gov, call or email the person in the FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT section of this proposed rule for alternate
instructions.
    Viewing material in docket. To view documents mentioned in this
proposed rule as being available in the docket, find the docket as
described in the previous paragraph, and then select ``Supporting &
Related Material'' in the Document Type column. Public comments will
also be placed in our online docket and can be viewed by following
instructions on the https://www.regulations.gov Frequently Asked
Questions web page. We review all comments received, but we will only
post comments that address the topic of the proposed rule. We may
choose not to post off-topic, inappropriate, or duplicate comments that
we receive.
    Personal information. We accept anonymous comments. Comments we
post to https://www.regulations.gov will include any personal
information you have provided. For more about privacy and submissions
to the docket in response to this document, see DHS's eRulemaking
System of Records notice (85 FR 14226, March 11, 2020).

List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 165

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

    For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard is
proposing to amend 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: 46 U.S.C. 70034, 70051; 33 CFR 1.05-1, 6.04-1, 6.04-
6, and 160.5; Department of Homeland Security Delegation No.
00170.1, Revision No. 01.2.

0
2. Add Sec.  165.T13-0139 to read as follows:

Sec.  165.T13-0139  Safety Zone; Columbia River, Richland, WA.

    (a) Location. The following area is a safety zone: All navigable
waters of the Columbia River from surface to bottom, in the vicinity of
Howard Amon Park, between mile markers 337 and 338.
    (b) Definitions. As used in this section--
    Designated representative means a Coast Guard Patrol Commander,

including a Coast Guard coxswain, petty officer, or other officer
operating a Coast Guard vessel and a Federal, State, and local officer
designated by or assisting the Captain of the Port Columbia River
(COTP) in the enforcement of the safety zone.
    Participant means all persons and vessels registered with the event
sponsor as a participant in the race.
    (c) Regulations.
    (1) Under the general safety zone regulations in subpart C of this
part, all non-participants may not enter the safety zone described in
paragraph (a) of this section unless authorized by the COTP or the
COTP's designated representative.
    (2) To seek permission to enter, contact the COTP or the COTP's
representative by calling<PHONE_NUMBER> or the Sector Columbia River
Command Center on Channel 16 VHF-FM. Those in the safety zone must
comply with all lawful orders or directions given to them by the COTP
or the COTP's designated representative.
    (3) The COTP will provide notice of the regulated area through
advanced notice via broadcast notice to mariners and by on-scene
designated representatives.
    (d) Enforcement periods. This section will be enforced from 7:30
a.m. until 7:30 p.m. on June 24, June 25, and June 26, 2022. It will be
subject to enforcement this entire period unless the COTP determines it
is no longer needed, in which case the Coast Guard will inform mariners
via Notice to Mariners.

    Dated: March 24, 2022.
M. Scott Jackson,
Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Port Sector Columbia River.
[FR Doc. 2022-06790 Filed 3-30-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-04-P