[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 185 (Wednesday, September 23, 2020)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 59663-59665]
[FR Doc No: 2020-20930]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2020-0483; Product Identifier 2016-SW-066-AD; Amendment
39-21241; AD 2020-18-20]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; MD Helicopters Inc. (MDHI), Helicopters

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The FAA is adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for
certain MD Helicopters Inc. (MDHI) Model 369A, 369D, 369E, 369FF, 369H,
369HE, 369HM, 369HS, 500N, and 600N helicopters. This AD was prompted
by reports of abrasion strips departing the main rotor (MR) blade in-
flight. This AD requires tap inspecting each MR blade leading edge
abrasion strip. The FAA is issuing this AD to address the unsafe
condition on these products.

DATES: This AD is effective October 28, 2020.
    The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by
reference of a certain publication listed in this AD as of October 28,
2020.

ADDRESSES: For service information identified in this final rule,
contact Helicopter Technology Company, LLC, address 12902 South
Broadway, Los Angeles, CA 90061; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; email
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or at http://www.helicoptertech.com. You
may view this service information 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 on the internet
at https://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No.
FAA-2020-0483.

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-2020-
0483; 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 final rule, any comments received, and other information. The
address for Docket Operations is Docket Operations, U.S. Department of
Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor,
Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Payman Soltani, Aviation Safety
Engineer, Los Angeles ACO Branch, FAA, 3960 Paramount Blvd., Lakewood,
California 90712; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; email
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Discussion

    The FAA issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14
CFR part 39 by adding an AD that would apply to MDHI Model 369A, 369D,
369E, 369FF, 369H, 369HE, 369HM, 369HS, 500N, and 600N helicopters with
a MR blade part number (P/N) 500P2100-105, P/N 500P2100-305, P/N
500P2300-505, P/N 369D21120-505, P/N 369D21121-505, or P/N 369D21123-
505 with a 1.25 inch chord length nickel abrasion strip (abrasion
strip) manufactured or installed by Helicopter Technology Company, LLC
(HTC), or

where the manufacturer of the abrasion strip is unknown, except if the
abrasion strip has accumulated 700 or more hours time-in-service (TIS).
The NPRM published in the Federal Register on May 14, 2020 (85 FR
28895).
    The NPRM was prompted by reports of leading edge abrasion strips
manufactured by HTC departing the MR blades during flight. An
investigation determined that the abrasion strips were manufactured
from electroformed nickel, have a chord length of 1.25 inch, and are
delaminating from the MR blade before departing from the helicopter.
HTC has determined that a repetitive tap inspection of the abrasion
strips should be performed on all blades with abrasion strips that have
less than 700 hours TIS to detect any voids, including blistering,
bubbling, or lifting of the abrasion strip. Identical looking
electroformed nickel abrasion strips with a chord length of 1.25 inch
manufactured by other repair stations have not departed in flight and
therefore were not proposed as the subject of this AD.
    To address this unsafe condition, the NPRM proposed to require tap
inspecting the abrasion strip within 10 hours TIS and thereafter before
the first flight of each day until the abrasion strip has accumulated
700 or more hours TIS since installation.

Comments

    The FAA gave the public the opportunity to participate in
developing this final rule. The following presents the comments
received on the NPRM and the FAA's response to each comment.

Supportive Comment

    The FAA received one comment in support of the NPRM.

Requests

    Request: HTC stated that the NPRM proposed to mandate its service
bulletin that was issued June 1, 2017, and that there has not been a
documented case of an abrasion strip departure related to this issue in
4 years. HTC further stated that the majority of affected operators
have either modified the abrasion strip or accumulated more than 700
hours TIS, such that the proposed AD would no longer apply. Although
HTC did not request any changes to the NPRM, the FAA infers that this
commenter would like the FAA to withdraw the proposed AD.
    FAA's Response: The FAA partially agrees. The FAA has not received
any reports of an abrasion strip departure related to this issue since
issuance of the HTC service bulletin. In addition, about a third of the
abrasion strips have been modified and others have accumulated more
than 700 hours TIS, and therefore would not be affected by this AD.
However, because some affected abrasion strips are still in service or
may be stored as spare parts, the unsafe condition exists and
corrective action is necessary. The FAA has made no changes based on
these comments.
    Request: Wilson Construction requested that the FAA change the NPRM
to allow pilots to perform the tap test following proper training, to
avoid difficulties complying with the AD while away from base of
operations or during cross country flights. The commenter stated that
this would be consistent with AD 88-17-09 R1 (Amendment 39-6400; 54 FR
48583, November 24, 1989) (``AD 88-17-09 R1''), which allows a pilot to
perform a pre-flight check, and that the test itself is simple to
perform.
    FAA's Response: The FAA disagrees. AD 88-17-09 R1 allows the pilot
to perform a check of the tail boom extension for security. This check
is an exception to the FAA's standard maintenance regulations and is
allowed in AD 88-17-09 R1 because it is a visual check that can be
performed equally well by a pilot or a mechanic and does not require
training or the use of tools. Since the tap inspection proposed in the
NPRM would require both training and the use of a tool, allowing a
pilot to perform it is not acceptable. The FAA made no changes in this
final rule based on this comment.
    Request: Wilson Construction stated the inspection criteria in the
proposed AD are already specified by the manufacturer of the MR blades
(HTC) and by MDHI. The commenter stated if owners/operators would
follow the manufacturer's instructions, then an AD would not be
necessary.
    FAA's Response: The FAA agrees. Not all operators are required to
incorporate a manufacturer's maintenance instructions into the
operator's maintenance program. Where the FAA has determined that a
manufacturer's maintenance instructions are necessary to correct an
unsafe condition, the FAA must issue an AD to mandate those
instructions. The FAA made no changes in this final rule based on this
comment.

FAA's Determination

    The FAA has reviewed the relevant information, considered the
comments received, and determined that an unsafe condition exists and
is likely to exist or develop on other products of these same type
designs and that air safety and the public interest require adopting
the AD requirements as proposed with minor editorial changes. These
minor changes are consistent with the proposals in the NPRM and will
not increase the economic burden on any operator nor increase the scope
of the AD.

Related Service Information Under 1 CFR Part 51

    The FAA reviewed HTC Mandatory Service Bulletin Notice No. 2100-
8R4, dated June 1, 2017, which specifies a daily tap inspection of the
MR blade abrasion strip to detect voids. If there are any voids, this
service information specifies repairing or replacing the MR blade,
depending on the size, quantity, and location of any damage.
    This service information 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.

Costs of Compliance

    The FAA estimates that this AD affects 50 helicopters of U.S.
Registry. The FAA estimates that operators may incur the following
costs in order to comply with this AD.
    At an average labor rate of $85 per hour, tap-testing the MR blades
requires about 0.25 work-hour, for a cost per helicopter of $22 per
inspection cycle. If required, replacing an MR blade requires about 1
work-hour and required parts cost up to $24,130, for a cost per
helicopter of $24,215.
    According to HTC's service information, some of the costs of this
AD may be covered under warranty, thereby reducing the cost impact on
affected individuals. The FAA does not control warranty coverage by
HTC. Accordingly, the FAA has included all costs in this 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

    This AD will not have federalism implications under Executive Order
13132. This AD will 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 that this AD:
    (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.

Adoption of the Amendment

    Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the
Administrator, the FAA amends 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 adding the following new airworthiness
directive (AD):

2020-18-20 MD Helicopters Inc. (MDHI): Amendment 39-21241; Docket
No. FAA-2020-0483; Product Identifier 2016-SW-066-AD.

(a) Applicability

    This AD applies to MD Helicopters Inc. (MDHI) Model 369A, 369D,
369E, 369FF, 369H, 369HE, 369HM, 369HS, 500N, and 600N helicopters,
certificated in any category, with a main rotor (MR) blade part
number (P/N) 500P2100-105, P/N 500P2100-305, P/N 500P2300-505, P/N
369D21120-505, P/N 369D21121-505, or P/N 369D21123-505 with a 1.25
inch chord length nickel abrasion strip (abrasion strip)
manufactured or installed by Helicopter Technology Company, LLC
(HTC), or where the manufacturer of the abrasion strip is unknown.
This AD does not apply if the abrasion strip has accumulated 700 or
more hours time-in-service (TIS).

(b) Unsafe Condition

    This AD defines the unsafe condition as failure of the bond
between the leading edge abrasion strip and an MR blade. This
condition could result in the abrasion strip departing the MR blade
in-flight, subsequent imbalance of the rotor system, and loss of
control of the helicopter.

(c) Effective Date

    This AD becomes effective October 28, 2020.

(d) 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.

(e) Required Actions

    Within 10 hours TIS and thereafter before the first flight of
each day, tap inspect each MR blade leading edge abrasion strip for
a void in accordance with Part 1--Inspection, paragraphs 2 through
4, of HTC Mandatory Service Bulletin Notice No. 2100-8R4, dated June
1, 2017.
    (1) If there is a void within 0.5 inch (12.7 mm) of the edge of
the abrasion strip, before further flight, replace the MR blade.
    (2) If there is a void larger than 0.5 square inch (322.6 square
mm) or if there is more than one void of any size, before further
flight, replace the MR blade.

(f) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOC)

    (1) The Manager, Los Angeles ACO Branch, FAA, may approve AMOCs
for this AD. Send your proposal to: Payman Soltani, Aviation Safety
Engineer, Los Angeles ACO Branch, FAA, 3960 Paramount Blvd.,
Lakewood, California 90712; 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, the FAA suggests
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.

(g) Subject

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

(h) Material Incorporated by Reference

    (1) The Director of the Federal Register approved the
incorporation by reference (IBR) of the service information listed
in this paragraph under 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51.
    (2) You must use this service information as applicable to do
the actions required by this AD, unless the AD specifies otherwise.
    (i) Helicopter Technology Company, LLC, Mandatory Service
Bulletin Notice No. 2100-8R4, dated June 1, 2017.
    (ii) [Reserved]
    (3) For service information identified in this AD, contact
Helicopter Technology Company, LLC, address 12902 South Broadway,
Los Angeles, CA 90061; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; email
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or at http://www.helicoptertech.com.
    (4) You may view this service information 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>.
    (5) You may view this service information that is incorporated
by reference at the National Archives and Records Administration
(NARA). For information on the availability of this material at
NARA, email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or go to: https://www.archives.gov/federal-register/cfr/ibr-locations.html.

    Issued on August 31, 2020.
Gaetano A. Sciortino,
Deputy Director for Strategic Initiatives, Compliance & Airworthiness
Division, Aircraft Certification Service.
[FR Doc. 2020-20930 Filed 9-22-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


Risk and Technology Review -

Analysis of Socio-Economic Factors for Populations Living Near Wool Fiberglass Facilities

Prepared by:

EC/R Incorporated

501 Eastowne Drive, Suite 250

Chapel Hill, NC  27514

EPA Contract No. EP-D-06-119

Work Assignment No. 4-01

Prepared for:

Regina Chappell, Work Assignment Manager

Community and Tribal Programs Group

Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711

August 17, 2011	Disclaimer

Although the analysis described in this document has been funded wholly or in part by the United States Environmental Protection Agency contract EP-D-06-119 to EC/R Incorporated, it has not been subject to the Agency's review and therefore does not necessarily reflect the views of the Agency, and no official endorsement should be inferred.Contents

  TOC \o "1-3" \h \z \u    HYPERLINK \l "_Toc301356644"  1.	Introduction   PAGEREF _Toc301356644 \h  1

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc301356645"  2.	Census Data	  PAGEREF _Toc301356645 \h  2

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc301356646"  3.	Calculation Methods	  PAGEREF _Toc301356646 \h  4

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc301356647"  3.1	Racial, Ethnic and Age Categories and the Total Population	  PAGEREF _Toc301356647 \h  4

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc301356648"  3.2	Level of Education	  PAGEREF _Toc301356648 \h  5

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc301356649"  3.3	Household Income	  PAGEREF _Toc301356649 \h  6

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc301356650"  3.4	Poverty Level	  PAGEREF _Toc301356650 \h  7

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc301356651"  3.5	Disability	  PAGEREF _Toc301356651 \h  7

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc301356652"  3.6	Linguistic Isolation	  PAGEREF _Toc301356652 \h  8

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc301356653"  4.	Results	  PAGEREF _Toc301356653 \h  8

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc301356654"  5.	Uncertainty Discussion	  PAGEREF _Toc301356654 \h  10

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc301356655"  Appendix A	A-  PAGEREF _Toc301356655 \h  1

Introduction

	This document describes the approach used to evaluate the potential cancer risks associated with inhalation and air-related exposures to hazardous air pollutants (HAP) in different social, demographic, and economic groups within the population living near wool fiberglass manufacturing facilities in the United States.  This work was carried out in support of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s Residual Risk and Technology Review (RTR) for wool fiberglass manufacturing emissions subject to Maximum Available Control Technology (MACT) requirements under 40 CFR 63 Subpart NNN.

	In the RTR analysis, the Human Exposure Model, Version 3 (HEM-3), was used to estimate cancer risks due to the inhalation of HAP for the populations residing within 50 kilometers of each wool fiberglass facility in the country.  HEM-3 estimates cancer risks at the level of census blocks using the AERMOD state-of-the-art air dispersion model developed under the direction of the American Meteorological Society (AMS) / EPA Regulatory Model Improvement Committee (AERMIC).  Each census block typically includes about 50 people.  Additional information on the risk analysis is available in the docket for the proposed National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutant Emissions: Wool Fiberglass Manufacturing Operations rulemaking where a report is provided, covering the inputs and specific assumptions, and addressing uncertainties.

	In the current analysis, cancer risk estimates from the wool fiberglass HEM-3 modeling effort were linked to detailed census data in order to evaluate the distribution of risks for different demographic groups (including racial, ethnic, age, economic, educational, disabled and linguistically isolated population categories).  The following population categories were included in this analysis:

Total population

White

Minority

African American (or Black)

Native Americans

Other races and multiracial

Hispanic or Latino

Children 18 years of age and under

Adults 19 to 64 years of age

Adults 65 years of age and over

Adults without a high school diploma

Households earning under the national median income

People living below the poverty line

Working aged people (16-64) with a disability

Linguistically isolated people

The HEM-3 results for a particular census block reflect the estimated level of cancer risk that would be experienced by an individual residing in the block for 70 years. In this analysis, the demographic composition of the population estimated to experience a risk greater than 1 in 1 million as a result of wool fiberglass manufacturing emissions is compared to the demographic composition of the overall nationwide population.

	The census data used in this analysis is described in Section 2.  The algorithms used to compute the distributions of risk and exposure are presented in Section 3.  The results of this analysis are presented in Section 4.

Census Data

	Table 1 summarizes the census data used in this analysis, showing the source of each dataset and the level of geographic resolution.  All of the data are from the 2000 Decennial census.  Race, ethnicity and age data were obtained at the census block level.  Distributions regarding educational status, poverty status, household income, disabilities and linguistic isolation were obtained at the block group level.  A census block contains about 50 people on average; and a block group contains about 26 blocks on average, or about 1,350 people.  (For comparison, a census tract is larger than a block group, with each tract containing an average of 3 block groups, or about 4,300 people.)

Table 1.  Summary of Census Data used to Analyze Risks for Different Socio-economic Groups

Type of population category	Source of data	Level of geographic resolution

Racial and ethnic categories	Landview®	Census block

Age groups	SF1 Table P12	Census block

Level of education - adults without a high school diploma	SF3 Table 37 Block group

Households earning below the national median income	SF3 Table 52	Block group

People living below the poverty line	SF3 Table P87	Block group

Working age people (16-64) with a

      disability	SF3 Table P42	Block group

Linguistically isolated people	SF3 Table P20	Block group

	Data on race and ethnicity were obtained primarily from the Landview® database compiled by the Census Department.  Landview® gives a breakdown for the population of each census block among different racial classifications, including: White, African American or Black, American Indian or Native Alaskan, Asian, Native Hawaiian or other South Pacific Islander, other race, and two or more races.  In the current analysis, the Asian, Native Hawaiian or other South Pacific Islander, and other race categories were combined into a single category.  The Landview® database also indicates the number of people in each tract that are of Hispanic or Latino ethnicity.  Landview® covers the 50 states, the District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico, but does not cover the Virgin Islands.  Race and ethnicity data on the Virgin Islands were obtained from the Virgin Islands Summary File.

	Data on age distributions in the U.S. and Puerto Rico for each census block were obtained from the 2000 Census of Population and Housing Summary File 1 (SF1) Short Form, Table P12.  Data on poverty status, household income, education level, disabilities and linguistic isolation for each block group in the U.S. and Puerto Rico were obtained from the 2000 Census of Population and Housing Summary File 3 (SF3) Long Form.  For the U.S. this file was accessed on a DVD version prepared by GeoLytics.  SF3 data for Puerto Rico were obtained from the Census Department website,  and data for the Virgin Islands were retrieved from similar tables in the Virgin Islands Summary File.4

	The SF3 data set consists of over 800 separate tables, each providing information on a different subject.  For the current analysis, data were obtained from Tables P20, P37, P42, P52, and P87.  Table P37 analyzes the level of education attained by men and women over 25 years of age (e.g. some high school but no high school diploma, high school graduate, some college, etc.) in each block group.  Table P52 gives information on household income in 1999.  Table P87 estimates the number of people living below the poverty line in each block group.  Table P42 estimates the number of people in different age categories with disabilities in each block group.  And Table P20 estimates the fraction of households in each block group that are considered linguistically isolated.

Calculation Methods

	The HEM-3 models the cancer and noncancer risk at a point near the geographic center of each census block.  For the current analysis, this risk estimate was assumed to apply to all individuals residing in the block.  We used block identification codes to link the HEM-3 modeling results for each block to the appropriate census statistics.  This allowed us to estimate the numbers of people falling into different population categories within each block.  We then analyzed the distribution of estimated inhalation risks within each population category, given the numbers of people within the category that are exposed to different risk levels.  Each distribution involved a tabulation of all the census blocks modeled for the wool fiberglass source category.  We also computed the average risk for all individuals in each population category.

	Distributions of risk and average risks were computed for the raw HEM-3 model results for wool fiberglass operations.  For comparison, the nationwide demographic composition (i.e., population percentage in each demographic group for the country as a whole, based on the 2000 Census) is also provided in the results table.

	Section 3.1 describes the calculation method used for categories where block-level data were available – racial, ethnic and age categories and the total population.  Sections 3.2 through 3.6 describe calculation methods for education status, household income, poverty status, disability and linguistic isolation, respectively.

Racial, Ethnic and Age Categories and the Total Population

	Since race, ethnicity and age data are available at the census block level, the calculation of risk distributions for these categories involved a simple block-by-block accumulation of the people in each category.  We began by identifying a set of bins reflecting the level of risk.  The population of each block was then assigned to the appropriate risk bin based on the modeled risk level in the block.  The numbers of people in each risk bin were then added together for all of the blocks modeled for the wool fiberglass source category:

∑i(Ra≤Ri<Rb) [N(s,i)]	(1)

where:

	H(Rab,s) =	the population count for risk bin Rab, which is between Ra and Rb for population subgroup “s”

	Ri =	the modeled risk level in block “í” (estimated lifetime cases of cancer per million population)

	∑i(Ra≤Ri<Rb)	refers to the summation over all blocks i where Ri falls in bin Rab, between Ra and Rb

	N(s,i) =	the number of people within population subcategory s, in block i

The same approach was used for the total population.  The average risk for a given populati湯挠瑡来牯⁹牯映牯琠敨琠瑯污瀠灯汵瑡潩慷 ⁳桴湥挠污畣慬整獵湩桴潦汬睯湩煥慵楴湯ഺ

		A(S) = ∑i [N(s,i) × Ri] ∕ ∑i [N(s,i)]	(2)

where:

	A(s) =	the average risk for population subgroup “s” (estimated lifetime cases of cancer per million population)

	∑i	refers to the summation over all blocks “í” modeled for the emission source category

	N(s,i) and Ri 	were defined above

Level of Education

Table P37 of the SF3 dataset specifies the education status for men and women age 25 and older for each census block group, based on the last grade completed.  To obtain the total number of adults without a high school degree, we added together the numbers who had completed grades below a high school senior.  Thus, the number of people without a high school degree equals the sum of the number of males with no schooling, the number of females with no schooling, the numbers of males and females who have completed nursery school through 4th grade, up to the numbers of males and females who have completed some high school but not received a high school degree.

The number of adults without a high school degree as a fraction of the total population was assumed to be the same for each block in the block group.  Thus, the number of adults without a high school degree in each block was computed as follows:

) ∕ N(t,bg)	(3)

where:

	N(nhs,b/bg) =	number of adults without a high school diploma, in block “b” of block group “bg”

	N(t,b/bg) =	total number of people in block “b” of block group “bg”

	N(nhs,bg) =	number of adults without a high school diploma in block group “bg”

	N(t,bg) =	total number of people in block group “bg”

Equation (1) was then used to generate risk distributions based on the block-level results, and Equation (2) was used to compute the average risk for adults without a high school diploma.

Household Income

	Table P52 of the SF3 dataset estimates the numbers of households in each block group with income for the year 1999 in various ranges, generally divided into $5,000 increments (e.g. $10,000 to $14,999, $15,000 to $19,999, etc.).  The median national income for 1999 was about $42,000 per year.  Therefore, in order to determine the number of households with incomes under the median income, we added the estimates for the ranges below that level.  We assumed that the household incomes in the $40,000 to $44,999 increment were evenly distributed over this range.  Therefore, 40% of the households in the $40,000 to $44,999 income range were assumed to be below the national median income of about $42,000.  The following equation was used to estimate the fraction of households below the national median income within each census block group:

		F(nm,bg) = [C<10 + C10-15 + …. + C35-40 + (0.4×C40-45)] ∕ CT	(4)

where:

	F(nm,bg) =	fraction of households in block group “bg” with incomes below the median national income

	C<10 =	number of households with incomes under $10,000

	C10-15 =	number of households with incomes from $10,000 to $14,999

	C35-40 =	number of households with incomes from $35,000 to $39,999

	C40-45 =	number of households with incomes from $40,000 to $44,999

	CT =	total number of households in block group “bg”

	The fraction of people living in households below the median income for each block within the block group was assumed to be the same as the fraction of households below the median income for the block group.

		N(nm,b/bg) =  F(sm,bg) × N(t,b/bg)	(5)

where:

	N(nm,b/bg) =	number of people in block “b” of block group “bg” living in households below the national median income

	F(nm,bg) =	fraction of households in block group “bg” below the national median income

	N(t,b/bg) =	total number of people in block “b” of block group “bg”

Equation (1) was then used to generate risk distributions based on the block-level results, and Equation (2) was used to compute the average risk for people living in households below the national median income.  It must be noted that this approach neglects any potential relationship between household size and income level within a particular block group.  However, it is expected to provide a reasonable indication of the risk level of people living below the national median income, relative to the population as a whole.

Poverty Level

	Table P87 of the SF3 dataset estimates the total number people in each block group living below the poverty level, as well as the numbers of people below the poverty level in different age groups.  The current study did not include an analysis of poverty status by age group, only of the total population below the poverty line.  The fraction of people below the poverty line was assumed to be the same for each block in the block group.  Thus, the population below the poverty line in each block was computed as follows:

) ∕ N(T,bg)	(6)

where:

	N(p,b/bg) =	number of people below the poverty line in block “b” of block group “bg”

	N(T,b/bg) =	total number of people in block “b” of block group “bg”

	N(p,bg) =	number of people below the poverty line in block group “bg”

	N(T,bg) =	total number of people in block group “bg”

Equation (1) was then used to generate risk distributions based on the block-level results, and Equation (2) was used to compute the average risk for people living below the poverty level.

3.5	Disability

Table P42 of the SF3 dataset estimates the total number of people in each block group with disabilities, as well as the numbers of people with disabilities in different age groups.  This analysis includes the total number of working aged people (16 through 64 years of age) with a disability.  The fraction of working aged people with a disability was assumed to be the same for each block in the block group.  Thus, the population of working aged people with a disability in each block was computed as follows:

) ∕ N(T,bg)	(7)

where:

	N(d,b/bg) =	number of working aged people with a disability in block “b” of block group “bg”

	N(T,b/bg) =	total number of people in block “b” of block group “bg”

	N(d,bg) =	number of working aged people with a disability in block group “bg”

	N(T,bg) =	total number of people in block group “bg”

Equation (1) was then used to generate risk distributions based on the block-level results, and Equation (2) was used to compute the average risk for working aged people with a disability.

3.6	Linguistic Isolation

Table P20 of the SF3 dataset estimates the fraction of households in linguistic isolation in each block group.  For this analysis, the fraction of people living in linguistic isolation for each block within the block group was assumed to be the same as the fraction of households in linguistic isolation for the block group.  Thus, the population of linguistically isolated people in each block was computed as follows:

		N(li,b/bg) =  F(li,bg) × N(t,b/bg)	(8)

where:

	N(li,b/bg) =	number of people in block “b” of block group “bg” living in linguistically isolated households

	F(li,bg) =	fraction of households in block group “bg” in linguistic isolation

	N(t,b/bg) =	total number of people in block “b” of block group “bg”

Equation (1) was then used to generate risk distributions based on the block-level results, and Equation (2) was used to compute the average risk for people living in linguistic isolation.

Results

	The distribution of estimated lifetime inhalation cancer risks greater than or equal to1 in a million for different racial and ethnic groups among the population living near wool fiberglass facilities is shown in Table 2.  For comparison purposes, Table 2 provides the nationwide percentages of the various demographic groups.  Detailed demographics data and analyses used to create Table 2 can be found in Appendix A of this document.

	The results of the demographic analysis presented in Table 2 indicate that there are approximately 850,000 people exposed to a cancer risk greater than or equal to 1-in-1 million.  The demographic results for the population potentially impacted by wool fiberglass emissions indicate that the Minority, African American, Other and Multiracial, and Hispanic or Latino percentages are higher than their respective national percentages (by 11, 7, 5, and 2 percentage points, respectively).  With respect to age categories, there is a modest percentage increase (of 4 percentage points) for the “ages 19 to 64” demographic compared to the national demographic percentage for that age group.  With respect to the population below the poverty level potentially impacted by wool fiberglass emissions, there is a modest percentage increase (of 2 percentage points) compared to the national percentage.  With respect to the population over 25 without a high school diploma, there is a small percentage increase (of 1 percentage point) compared to the national percentage.  With respect to the working age population with a disability, there is a modest percentage increase (of 2 percentage points) compared to the national percentage.  The percentages for the other demographic categories are similar to or below the respective national percentages.

Table 2.  Summary of Demographic Assessment of Risk Results for the Wool Fiberglass Source Category

Emissions Basis

Demographic Group

Total	Minority	African

American	Other and

Multiracial	Hispanic

or Latino	Native

American	Ages 0

to 18	Ages 19

to 64	Ages 65

and up	Below the Poverty Level	Over 25 Without a HS Diploma

Working Age with

Disability

Linguistic Isolation

Nationwide Demographic Breakdown	n/a	285,339,128	25%	12%	12%	14%	0.9% 27%	60%	12%	13%	13%	12%	5.4%

	Maximum

Risk

(in 1 million)	Population With Cancer Risk Greater Than or Equal to 1 in 1 million

Source Category	40	848,782	36%	19%	17%	16%	0.7%	25%	64%	12%	15%	14%	14% 5.7%

Notes:

Source Category emissions were estimated based on Information Collection Request (ICR) data from March of 2010.

Minority population is the total population minus the white population.

Population figures are for the population residing within 50 km from the center of these facilities whose cancer risks are estimated to be greater than or equal to 1 in a million.

Uncertainty Discussion

	Our analysis of the distribution of risks across various demographic groups is subject to the typical uncertainties associated with census data (e.g., errors in filling out and transcribing census forms), which are generally thought to be small, as well as the additional uncertainties associated with the extrapolation of census-block group data (e.g., income level and education level) down to the census block level.

	The uncertainties in these risk estimates include the same uncertainties in emissions data sets, in air dispersion modeling, in inhalation exposure and in dose response relationships that are associated with our source category risk estimates.

g

Æ

g

p

q

r

s

Þ

Ā

ᘍ詨ꄧ㔀脈䩃$ᬀý

þ

ÿ

b

¹

㄀$摧➊¡ċ̀$☊଀ņ愀$摧⠥3

摧睋tᐇഀࣆȀͰ⒆ȀĀ ᐀A

B

\

]

^

_

`

a

b

c

d

€

‚

ƒ

†

‡

—

˜

™

³

´

µ

¶

·

¸

¹

º

»

×

Ø

ᄀ脈栖睋tࡕ洁H渄H甄ĈḀØ

Ù

Ú

Ý

Þ

ë

ì

í

kd¸

摧⠥3欀ᡤ

欀쵤

@

h

h

h

ꀂ吅Ȇ㄀$摧㾗Z

Æ

hži

D

„Tᄆ겄ㇹ$葞ٔ葠怜摧穵

huz

huz

hži

huz

huz

$༂咄ᄆ겄ㇹ$葞ٔ葠怜摧䥧A ഀெ̀֠ٔ܈ༀ咄ᄆ겄ㇹ$葞ٔ葠怜摧穵

摧穵

huz

huz

huz

hži

摧穵

hži

hži

huz

huz

hži

hži

摧榞

Ѐ摧榞

hži

  hži

hži

 hži

hži

hži

@

摧榞

摧榞

hži

tainties, to EPA decision makers and the public as additional analyses to inform RTR decisions.Appendix A

.	EC/R.  2006.  Modeling for the Residual Risk and Technology Review Using the Human Exposure Model 3 – AERMOD Version.  Prepared by EC/R Incorporated for the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC.

. 	EC/R.  2008.  HEM-3 User’s Guide.  Prepared by EC/R Incorporated for the U.S. Environmental 	Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC.    HYPERLINK "http://www.epa.gov/ttn/fera/human_hem.html" \l "guide"  http://www.epa.gov/ttn/fera/human_hem.html#guide

.	Census.  2002.  LandView 5 on DVD [electronic resource] : a viewer for EPA, Census and USGS data and maps. U.S. Census Bureau, Washington, D.C.

.	Census.  2008.  Virgin Islands Summary File. U.S. Census Bureau, Washington, D.C.    HYPERLINK "http://www.factfinder.census.gov"  www.factfinder.census.gov

.	Census.  2004.  Census DVD 2000 Long Form SF3, Release 2.2.  Geolytics, Inc., East Brunswick, NJ.    HYPERLINK "http://www.geolytics.com"  www.geolytics.com

.	Census.  2008.  SF3 Data for Puerto Rico.  U.S. Census Bureau, Washington, D.C.    HYPERLINK "http://www.factfinder.census.gov"  www.factfinder.census.gov

7.	HEM-3 generally uses the coordinates given by the census for the internal point, or “centroid” of each 	block.  However, when the footprint of an industrial facility includes the block centroid, the model is 	designed to identify the highest-risk point outside of the facility’s footprint.

  PAGE   \* MERGEFORMAT  iv

  PAGE   \* MERGEFORMAT  ii

A-  PAGE   \* MERGEFORMAT  1


Pentachlorophenol Reader’s Guide

Reader’s Guide to Pentachlorophenol E-Docket # EPA-HQ-OPP-2004-0402

EPA has created this document to provide an organizational structure to
the pentachlorophenol e-Docket.  The docket index organizes and explains
related documents.  The first group contains the Federal Register and
Docket Organizational Documents; the second group contains the
Biological and Economics Division Documents and the Antimicrobial
Division Documents.  The Agency is providing the “Reader’s Guide”
to allow the reader to more easily access and navigate the various items
contained in the pentachlorophenol e-docket.

Federal Register and Docket Organizational Documents:

Docket Item 1:	Federal Register Notice: Pentachlorophenol Revised Risk
Assessments, Notice of Availability, and Solicitation of Risk Reduction
Options

This notice announces that the risk assessments are available for public
review.

Docket Item 2:	Issues to Consider in Commenting on the Revised Risk
Assessments for the Wood Preservative Uses of Pentachlorophenol (Case
2505)

Note to reader is designed to give a brief description of the present
changes and/or upcoming changes to the risk assessments and to solicit
potential mitigation strategies to help reduce risks of concern.

Docket Item 3:	Reader’s Guide to the Pentachlorophenol E-Docket #
EPA-HQ-OPP-2004-0402

The reader’s guide is designed to give a brief description of all the
pentachlorophenol documents in the pentachlorophenol e-Docket.

Antimicrobial Documents:

Docket Item 4:  	Response to Comments (2005) Pertaining to Cancelling
Certain Pentachlorophenol (PCP) Wood Preservative Products, and/or to
Amend to Terminate Certain Uses of Other Pentachlorophenol Products

April 3, 2008 – Talia Lindheimer, Nader Elkassabany, Timothy McMahon,
Siroos Mostaghimi, Rick Petrie, and Najm Shamim

This document is the Agency’s response to Phase 3 comments.

Docket Item 5:	Pentachlorphenol-Toxicology Chapter for the
Reregistration Eligibility Decision Document

February 29, 2008 – Timothy F. McMahon

This document describes the toxicology supporting the endpoint selection
for pentachlorophenol.

Docket Item 6:  	PENTACHLOROPHENOL: - Revised Toxicology Endpoint
Report.

			February 11, 2008 – Timothy F. McMahon

This document describes the revised toxicological endpoints for
pentachlorophenol.

Docket Item 7:  	Previous Pentachlorophenol Use Characterization/Profile
Chapter Used In 2004 for the Reregistration Eligibility Decision (RED)
Document

			March 7, 2008 – Norm Cook

This document describes the use pattern of pentachlorophenol.

Docket Item 8:  	Product Chemistry Science Chapter for Pentachlorophenol
for Reregistration Eligibility Decision (RED) Process

		February 16, 2008 – A. Najm Shamim

This document describes the product chemistry for pentachlorophenol.

Docket Item 9:  	Product Chemistry Science Chapter of Hexachlorobenzene
for the PCP Reregistration Eligibility Decision (RED) Process

		February 17, 2008 – A. Najm Shamim

This document describes the product chemistry for hexachlorobenzene
(HCB).

Docket Item 10:  	Product Chemistry Science Chapter ofCDDs and CDFs for
PCP Reregistration Eligibility Decision (RED) Process

		February 18, 2008 – A. Najm Shamim

This document describes the product chemistry for dioxins/furans
(CDDs/CDFs).

Docket Item 11:	Previous Pentachlorophenol Dietary Exposure and Risk
Chapter Used In 2004 for the Reregistration Eligibility Decision (RED)
Document

			March 7, 2008 – Norm Cook

This document describes the previous dietary exposure assessment for
pentachlorophenol.

Docket Item 12:  	Previous Hexachlorobenzene (HCB) Dietary Exposure
Chapter Developed in 2005 for the Pentachlorophenol Reregistration
Eligibility Decision (RED) Document

			March 7, 2008 – Norm Cook

This document describes the previous dietary exposure assessment for the
hexachlorobenzene (HCB) contaminant of pentachlorophenol.

Docket Item 13:  	Previous Polychlorinated dibenzo-p-dioxins (CDDs) and
Polychlorinated dibenzofurans (CDFs) Dietary Exposure Chapter Developed
in 2005 for the Pentachlorophenol Reregistration Eligibility Decision
(RED) Document

			March 7, 2008 – Norm Cook

This document describes the previous dietary exposure assessment for the
dioxins/furans (CDDs/CDFs) contaminants of pentachlorophenol.

Docket Item 14:  	Review of Inhalation Dosimetry and Biomonitoring
Assessment of Worker Exposure to Pentachlorophenol During
Pressure-Treatment of Lumber

			March 6, 2008 – Siroos Mostaghimi

This document reviews the submitted dosimetry and biomonitoring
assessment for pentachlorophenol.

Docket Item 15:  	Revised PCP Human Exposure Chapter

			February 27, 2008 – Siroos Mostaghimi

This document describes the occupational exposure and risks associated
with the use of pentachlorophenol.

Docket Item 16:  	Occupational Exposure and Risk Assessment of
Hexachlorobenzene (HCB) in Pentachlorophenol

			March 6, 2008 – Siroos Mostaghimi

This document describes the occupational exposure and risks associated
with the hexachlorobenzene (HCB) contaminant of pentachlorophenol.

Docket Item 17:  	Occupational Exposure and Risk Assessment of Dioxns
and Furans (CDDs/CDFs) in Pentachlorophenol

			March 6, 2008 – Siroos Mostaghimi

This document describes the occupational exposure and risks associated
with the dioxin and furan (CDDs/CDFs) contaminants of pentachlorophenol.

Docket Item 18:  	Environmental Fate and Transport Assessment of
Pentachlorophenol (PCP) for Reregistration Eligibility Decision (RED)
Process

			February 16, 2008 – A. Najm Shamim

This document describes the environmental fate and transport of
pentachlorophenol.

Docket Item 19:  	Environmental Fate and Transport Assessment of
Hexachlorobenzene for PCP Reregistration Eligibility Decision (RED)
Process

			February 17, 2008 – A. Najm Shamim

This document describes the environmental fate and transport of the
hexachlorobenzene (HCB) contaminant of pentachlorophenol.

Docket Item 20:  	Environmental Fate and Transport Assessment of CDDs
and CDFs for PCP Reregistration Eligibility Decision (RED) Process

			February 18, 2008 – A. Najm Shamim

This document describes the environmental fate and transport of the
dioxin/furan (CDDs/CDFs) contaminants of pentachlorophenol.

Docket Item 21:  	Estimated Environmental Concentrations (EECs) for
Pentachlorophenol Using PRZM-EXAMS Models

			March 3, 2008 – Siroos Mostaghimi

This document describes the modeled environmental concentrations
resulting from the use of pentachlorophenol.

Docket Item 22:  	Environmental Fate Modeling of Hexachlorobenzene in
Technical Grade Pentachlorophenol

			March 4, 2008 – Siroos Mostaghimi

This document describes the modeled environmental concentrations of
hexachlorobenzene (HCB) present in the technical grade
pentachlorophenol.

Docket Item 23:  	Environmental Fate Modeling of Dioxin in Technical
Grade Pentachlorophenol

			March 3, 2008 – Siroos Mostaghimi

This document describes the modeled environmental concentrations of
dioxin/furan (CDDs/CDFs) present in the technical grade
pentachlorophenol.

Docket Item 24:  	Ecological Hazard and Environmental Risk Assessment
RED Chapter for Pentachlorophenol

			February 26, 2008 – Richard Petrie

This document describes the ecological hazards and the environmental
risks associated with the use of pentachlorophenol.

Docket Item 25:  	Ecological Hazard and Environmental Risk Assessment
RED Chapter for Hexachlorobenzene (HCB) – Supplement to the
Pentachlorophenol RED

			February 26, 2008 – Richard Petrie

This document describes the ecological hazards and the environmental
risks associated with the hexachlorobenzene (HCB) contaminant of
pentachlorophenol.

Docket Item 26:  	Ecological Hazard and Environmental Risk Assessment
RED Chapter for Chlorinated Dibenzo Dioxins and Chlorinated Dibenzo
Furans (CDDs and CDFs) – Supplement to the Pentachlorophenol RED

			February 26, 2008 – Richard Petrie

This document describes the ecological hazards and the environmental
risks associated with the dioxin/furan (CDDs/CDFs) contaminants of
pentachlorophenol.

Docket Item 27:  	Pentachlorophenol- Preliminary Risk Assessment for the
Reregistration Eligibility Decision (RED) Document

			February 14, 2008 – Timothy McMahon

This document describes the risks associated with the use of
pentachlorophenol.

Docket Item 28:  	Previous Pentachlorophenol References Used in 2004 for
the Reregistration Eligibility Decision (RED) Document

			March 7, 2008 – Norm Cook

This document describes the references used for the previous
pentachlorophenol assessments.

Docket Item 29:  	Epidemiology and Incident Reports Associated with
Pentachlorophenol

			March 9, 2008 – Jonathan Chen

This document describes the incident reports associated with the use of
pentachlorophenol.

Biological and Economics Division Documents:

Docket Item 30:  	A Qualitative Economic Impact Assessment of
Alternatives to Pentachlorophenol as a Wood Preservative

			April 14, 2008 – Timothy Kiley

This document describes the alternatives and benefits associated with
the use of pentachlorophenol as a wood preservative.

Docket Item 31:  	Cost Estimates for Risk Mitigation Technologies at a
Typical Wood Treatment Plant

			April 10, 2008 – Jonathan Becker

This document describes the potential costs associated with the
implementation of certain risk mitigation technologies.


[Federal Register: April 20, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 74)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 17928-17931]
[DOCID:fr20ap09-17]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 165

[Docket No. USCG-2009-0070]
RIN 1625-AA00

Safety Zone; Rockets Over the River; Bullhead City, AZ

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard proposes a safety zone, on the navigable
waters of the lower Colorado River, Bullhead City, AZ, in support of a
fireworks display fired from the Arizona State Land Base in approximate
position 35[deg]09.15' N, 114[deg]34.07' W. This safety zone is
necessary to provide for the safety of the participants, crew,
spectators, participating vessels, and other vessels and users of the
waterway. Persons and vessels are prohibited from entering into,
transiting through, or anchoring within this safety zone unless
authorized by the Captain of the Port, or his designated
representative.

DATES: Comments and related material must be received by the Coast
Guard on or before May 20, 2009.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments identified by docket number USCG-
2009-0070 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 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 proposed
rule, call Petty Officer Shane Jackson, USCG, Waterways Management,
U.S. Coast Guard Sector San Diego at<PHONE_NUMBER>. If you have
questions on viewing or submitting material to 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-2009-0070), 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 delivery, 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 phone 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,
select the Advanced Docket Search option on the right side of the
screen, insert ``USCG-2009-0070'' in the Docket ID box, press Enter,
and 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
select the Advanced Docket Search option on the right side of the
screen, insert USCG-2009-0070 in the Docket ID box, press Enter, and
then click on the item in the Docket ID column. You may also visit
either 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; or the U.S. Coast Guard
Sector San Diego, 2710 N. Harbor Drive, San Diego, CA 92101 between 8
a.m. and 2 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 all 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 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.

Background and Purpose

    The Coast Guard is establishing a temporary safety zone on the
navigable waters of the Lower Colorado River, Bullhead City, AZ in
support of a fireworks show fired from the Arizona State Land Base near
the navigational channel of the Lower Colorado River, Bullhead City,
AZ. The fireworks show is being sponsored by The Laughlin Tourism
Committee. The safety zone is set at a 1200 foot radius around the
firing site. This temporary safety zone is necessary to provide for the
safety of the show's crew, spectators, participants of the event,
participating vessels, and other vessels and users of the waterway.

Discussion of Proposed Rule

    The Coast Guard proposes a safety zone that would be enforced from
8:30 p.m. to 9:30 p.m. on July 4, 2009. The limits of the safety
include all navigable waters within 1200 feet of the firing location in
approximate position: 35[deg]09.15' N, 114[deg]34.07' W.
    This safety zone is necessary to provide for the safety of the
crews, spectators, and participants of the event and to protect other
vessels and users of the waterway. Persons and vessels will be
prohibited from entering into, transiting through, or anchoring within
this safety zone unless authorized by the Captain of the Port, or his
designated representative.

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. Although the safety zone
will restrict boating traffic within the navigable waters of the Lower
Colorado River, Bullhead City, AZ, the effect of this regulation will
not be significant as the safety zone will encompass only a small
portion of the waterway and will be very short in duration. The
entities most likely to be affected are pleasure craft engaged in
recreational activities and sightseeing. As such, the Coast Guard
expects the economic impact of this rule to be 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 proposed rule would affect the following entities, some of
which might be small entities: The owners or operators of vessels
intending to transit or anchor in the region of the lower Colorado
River adjacent to Bullhead City, AZ from 8:30 p.m. to 9:30 p.m. on July
4, 2009.

    This safety zone will not have a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities for the following reasons. The
safety zone only encompasses a small portion of the waterway, it is
short in duration at a relatively late hour when vessel traffic is low,
and the Captain of the Port may authorize entry into the zone, if
necessary. Before the effective period, the Coast Guard will publish a
local notice to mariners (LNM) and will issue broadcast notice to
mariners (BNM) alerts via marine channel 16 VFH before the safety zone
is enforced.
    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. 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 Petty Officer Shane Jackson,
USCG, Waterways Management, U.S. Coast Guard Sector San Diego at (619)
278-7267. The Coast Guard will not retaliate against small entities
that question or complain about this rule or any policy or action of
the Coast Guard.

Collection of Information

    This 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 0023.1 and Commandant Instruction
M16475.1D, 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 under the Instruction 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 rule involves the establishment of a safety zone around
a pyrotechnics firing site. 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. Chapter 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 new temporary zone Sec.  165.T11-169 to read as follows:

Sec.  165.T11-169  Safety zone; Rockets Over the River; Bullhead City,
Arizona.

    (a) Location. The limits of the proposed safety zone are as
follows: All navigable waters within 1200 feet of the Arizona State
Land Base firing site in approximate position: 35[deg]09.15[min] N,
114[deg]34.07[min] W.
    (b) Enforcement Period. This section will be enforced from 8:30
p.m. to 9:30 p.m. on July 4, 2009. If the event concludes prior to the
scheduled termination time, the Captain of the Port will cease
enforcement of this safety zone and will announce that fact via
Broadcast Notice to Mariners.
    (c) Definitions. The following definition applies to this section:
designated representative, means any commissioned, warrant, and petty
officers of the Coast Guard on board Coast Guard, Coast Guard
Auxiliary, and local, state, and federal law enforcement vessels who
have been authorized to act on the behalf of the Captain of the Port.
    (d) Regulations. (1) Entry into, transit through or anchoring
within this safety zone is prohibited unless authorized by the Captain
of the Port of San Diego or his designated on-scene representative.
    (2) Mariners requesting permission to transit through the safety
zone may request authorization to do so from the Patrol Commander
(PATCOM). The PATCOM may be contacted on VHF-FM Channel 16.
    (3) All persons and vessels shall comply with the instructions of
the Coast Guard Captain of the Port or the designated representative.
    (4) Upon being hailed by U.S. Coast Guard patrol personnel by
siren, radio, flashing light, or other means, the operator of a vessel
shall proceed as directed.
    (5) The Coast Guard may be assisted by other federal, state, or
local agencies.

    Dated: March 27, 2009.
T.H. Farris,
Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Port San Diego.
[FR Doc. E9-9002 Filed 4-17-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910-15-P