[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 184 (Tuesday, September 22, 2020)]
[Notices]
[Pages 59557-59559]
[FR Doc No: 2020-20876]

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

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Occupational Safety and Health Administration

[Docket No. OSHA-2013-0017]

QAI Laboratories, Ltd. Applications for Expansion of Recognition

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

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: In this notice, OSHA announces the applications of QAI
Laboratories, Ltd., for expansion of recognition as a Nationally
Recognized Testing Laboratory (NRTL) and presents the agency's
preliminary finding to grant the applications.

DATES: Submit comments, information, and documents in response to this
notice, or requests for an extension of time to make a submission, on
or before October 7, 2020.

ADDRESSES: Submit comments by any of the following methods:
    Electronically: You may submit comments and attachments
electronically at https://www.regulations.gov, which is the Federal
eRulemaking Portal. Follow the instructions online for submitting
comments.
    Facsimile: If your comments, including attachments, are not longer
than 10 pages, you may fax them to the OSHA Docket Office at (202) 693-
1648.
    Mail, hand delivery, express mail, messenger, or courier service:
When using this method, you must submit a copy of your comments and
attachments to the OSHA Docket Office, Docket No. OSHA-2013-0017,
Occupational Safety and Health Administration, U.S. Department of
Labor, Room N-3653, 200 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20210;
telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>. OSHA's TTY number is<PHONE_NUMBER>. Please
note: While OSHA's docket office is continuing to accept and process
submissions by regular mail, due to the COVID-19 pandemic, the docket
office is closed to the public and not able to receive submissions to
the rulemaking record by express delivery, hand delivery, and messenger
service.
    Instructions: All submissions must include the agency name and OSHA
docket number (OSHA-2013-0017). OSHA places comments and other
materials, including any personal information, in the public docket
without revision, and these materials will be available online at
http://www.regulations.gov. Therefore, the agency cautions commenters
about submitting statements they do not want made available to the
public, or submitting comments that contain personal information
(either about themselves or others) such as Social Security numbers,
birth dates, and medical data.
    Docket: To read or download comments or other material in the
docket, go to https://www.regulations.gov or the OSHA Docket Office at
the above address. All documents in the docket (including this Federal
Register notice) are listed in the https://www.regulations.gov index;
however, some information (e.g., copyrighted material) is not publicly
available to read or download through the website. All submissions,
including copyrighted material, are available for inspection through
the OSHA Docket Office.
    Extension of comment period: Submit requests for an extension of
the

comment period on or before October 7, 2020 to the Office of Technical
Programs and Coordination Activities, Directorate of Technical Support
and Emergency Management, Occupational Safety and Health
Administration, U.S. Department of Labor, 200 Constitution Avenue NW,
Room N-3653, Washington, DC 20210, or by fax to<PHONE_NUMBER>.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Information regarding this notice is
available from the following sources:
    Press inquiries: Contact Mr. Frank Meilinger, Director, OSHA Office
of Communications, U.S. Department of Labor, telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>;
email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    General and technical information: Contact Mr. Kevin Robinson,
Director, Office of Technical Programs and Coordination Activities,
Directorate of Technical Support and Emergency Management, Occupational
Safety and Health Administration, U.S. Department of Labor, phone:
(202) 693-2110 or email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Notice of the Applications for Expansion

    OSHA is providing notice that QAI Laboratories, Ltd. (QAI), is
applying for expansion of recognition as a NRTL. QAI requests the
addition of one test standard to the NRTL scope of recognition.
    OSHA recognition of a NRTL signifies that the organization meets
the requirements specified in 29 CFR 1910.7. Recognition is an
acknowledgment that the organization can perform independent safety
testing and certification of the specific products covered within the
scope of recognition. Each NRTL's scope of recognition includes (1) the
type of products the NRTL may test, with each type specified by the
applicable test standard; and (2) the recognized site(s) that has/have
the technical capability to perform the product-testing and product-
certification activities for test standards within the NRTL's scope.
Recognition is not a delegation or grant of government authority;
however, recognition enables employers to use products approved by the
NRTL to meet OSHA standards that require product testing and
certification.
    The agency processes applications by a NRTL for initial recognition
and for an expansion or renewal of this recognition, following
requirements in Appendix A to 29 CFR 1910.7. This appendix requires
that the agency publish two notices in the Federal Register in
processing an application. In the first notice, OSHA announces the
application and provides a preliminary finding. In the second notice,
the agency provides the final decision on the application. These
notices set forth the NRTL's scope of recognition or modifications of
that scope. OSHA maintains an informational web page for each NRTL,
including QAI, which details the NRTL's scope of recognition. These
pages are available from the OSHA website at http://www.osha.gov/dts/otpca/nrtl/index.html.
    QAI currently has two facilities (sites) recognized by OSHA for
product testing and certification, with headquarters located at: QAI
Laboratories, Ltd., 3980 North Fraser Way, Burnaby, BC, Canada, V5J
5K5. A complete list of QAI's scope of recognition is available at
https://www.osha.gov/dts/otpca/nrtl/qai.html.

II. General Background on the Applications

    QAI submitted three applications, one dated October 16, 2017 (OSHA-
2013-0017-0015), to expand recognition to include seventeen additional
test standards. This application was amended on June 12, 2019 (OSHA-
2013-0017-0016) to remove some standards from the original request and
add others. This revised application was amended again on February 11,
2020 (OSHA-2013-0017-0017) to request twenty-one additional standards
to be added to QAI's NRTL scope of recognition. OSHA staff performed a
detailed analysis of the application packet and reviewed other
pertinent information. OSHA did not perform any on-site reviews in
relation to this application.
    Table 1 lists the appropriate test standard found in QAI's
application to expand for testing and certification of products under
the NRTL Program.

  Table 1--Proposed List of Appropriate Test Standards for Inclusion in
                     QAI's NRTL Scope of Recognition
------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Test standard                     Test standard title
------------------------------------------------------------------------
UL 1740......................  Standard for Robots and Robotic
                                Equipment.
UL 22........................  Standard for Amusement and Gaming
                                Machines.
UL 73........................  Standard for Motor-Operated Appliances.
UL 499.......................  Standard for Electric Heating Machines.
UL 506.......................  Standard for Specialty Transformers.
UL 676.......................  Standard for Underwater Luminaires and
                                Submersible Junction Boxes.
UL 1838......................  Standard for Low Voltage Landscape
                                Lighting Systems.
UL 2202......................  Standard for Electric Vehicle (EV)
                                Charging System Equipment.
UL 2388......................  Standard for Flexible Lighting Products.
UL 5085-1....................  Low Voltage Transformers--Part 1: General
                                Requirements.
UL 5085-2....................  Low Voltage Transformers--Part 2: General
                                Purpose Transformers.
UL 5085-3....................  Low Voltage Transformers--Part 3: Class 2
                                and Class 3 Transformers.
UL 8752......................  Organic Light Emitting Diode (OLED)
                                Panels.
UL 60950-22..................  Information Technology Equipment--Safety--
                                Part 22: Equipment to be Installed
                                Outdoors.
UL 61010-2-010...............  Electrical Equipment Measurement, Control
                                and Laboratory Use--Part 2-010:
                                Particular Requirements for Laboratory
                                Equipment for the Heating of Materials.
UL 61010-2-020...............  Electrical Equipment for Measurement,
                                Control and Laboratory Use--Part 2-020:
                                Particular Requirements for Laboratory
                                Equipment for Laboratory Centrifuges.
UL 61010-2-081...............  Electrical Equipment for Measurement,
                                Control and Laboratory Use--Part 2-081:
                                Particular Requirements for Laboratory
                                Equipment for Automatic and Semi-
                                Automatic Equipment for Analysis and
                                Other Purposes.
UL 61010-2-091...............  Electrical Equipment for Measurement,
                                Control and Laboratory Use--Part 2-091:
                                Particular Requirements for Laboratory
                                Equipment for Cabinet X-Ray Systems.
UL 61010-2-101...............  Electrical Equipment for Measurement,
                                Control and Laboratory Use--Part 2-101:
                                Particular Requirements for In Vitro
                                Diagnostic (IVD) Medical Equipment.
UL 62368-1...................  Audio/Video, Information and
                                Communication Technology Equipment--Part
                                1: Safety Requirements.
ASME A17.5-2014..............  Elevator and Escalator Electrical
                                Equipment.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

III. Preliminary Findings on the Applications

    QAI submitted acceptable applications for expansion of recognition.
OSHA's review of the application file, and pertinent documentation,
indicates QAI can meet the requirements prescribed by 29 CFR 1910.7 for
expanding recognition to include the addition of these twenty-one test
standards for NRTL testing and certification listed above. This
preliminary finding does not constitute an interim or temporary
approval of QAI's applications.
    OSHA welcomes public comment as to whether QAI meets the
requirements of 29 CFR 1910.7 for expansion of recognition as a NRTL.
Comments should consist of pertinent written documents and exhibits.
Commenters needing more time to comment must submit a request in
writing, stating the reasons for the request. Commenters must submit
the written request for an extension by the due date for comments. OSHA
will limit any extension to 10 days unless the requester justifies a
longer period. OSHA may deny a request for an extension if the request
is not adequately justified. To obtain or review copies of the exhibits
identified in this notice, as well as comments submitted to the docket,
contact the Docket Office at the above address. These materials also
are available online at http://www.regulations.gov under Docket No.
OSHA-2013-0017.
    OSHA staff will review all comments to the docket submitted in a
timely manner. After addressing the issues raised by these comments,
the agency will make a recommendation to the Assistant Secretary for
Occupational Safety and Health whether to grant QAI's applications for
expansion of recognition. The Assistant Secretary will make the final
decision on granting the applications. In making this decision, the
Assistant Secretary may undertake other proceedings prescribed in
Appendix A to 29 CFR 1910.7.
    OSHA will publish a public notice of the final decision in the
Federal Register.

IV. Authority and Signature

    Loren Sweatt, Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary of Labor for
Occupational Safety and Health, authorized the preparation of this
notice. Accordingly, the agency is issuing this notice pursuant to 29
U.S.C. 657(g)(2), Secretary of Labor's Order No. 1-2012 (77 FR 3912,
Jan. 25, 2012), and 29 CFR 1910.7.

    Signed at Washington, DC, on September 15, 2020.
Loren Sweatt,
Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary of Labor for Occupational Safety
and Health.
[FR Doc. 2020-20876 Filed 9-21-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510-26-P


                              STATE OF WASHINGTON
                             DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH
                OFFICE OF ENVIRONMENTAL PUBLIC HEALTH SCIENCES
        243 Israel Road SE  PO Box 47825 Olympia, Washington 98504-7825
                       TDD Relay Service: 1-800-833-6384

July 31, 2019
Scientific Advisory Committee on Chemicals
Draft Risk Evaluation for Cyclic Aliphatic Bromide Cluster
Rosslyn, VA

      Good afternoon. I am Dr. Holly Davies, a toxicologist at the Washington State Dept. of Health here to comment on the draft risk evaluation for Hexabromocyclododecane (HBCD).
      As other people have mentioned, there is too much material to carefully review all of it before this opportunity to speak with you. There may be material in the draft that I have missed in preparing these comments.
      Washington State has been concerned about flame retardants for quite some time, especially persistent, bioaccumulative, and toxic chemicals (PBTs) like HBCD. The State Departments of Health and Ecology have worked together to address these risks to human health and the environment. We operate under a different authorizing environment than TSCA and the Dept. of Health has supported the concepts in state bills to ban halogenated flame retardants when there is good scientific evidence to support that they are toxic, they are in consumer products or in people, and there are safer alternatives that don't compromise fire safety. We also support stopping the use of PBTs whenever possible, because of their persistence and accumulation in organisms and in the food chain.
      Because PBTs pose a unique threat to human health and the environment, in 2006 Washington State adopted our PBT Rule that included HBCD on our list of PBTs and laid out our process to enhance how we address PBTs through the use of Chemical Action Plans. We completed a Chemical Action Plan for another group of flame retardants, polybrominated diphenylethers (PBDEs), and have continued to work on reducing exposure to PBDEs and other flame retardants, including HBCD. The Dept. of Ecology has also completed studies to analyze for flame retardants in environmental media and consumer products. EPA also considers HBCD a PBT, but did not expedite action on this chemical because they had already completed a Work Plan Problem Formulation for it, which made it ineligible for the expedited process for PBTs under the updated TSCA.
      Washington's Children's Safe Products Act (CSPA) includes HBCD as a Chemical of High Concern to Children. The 2011 rule requires manufacturers to report HBCD's presence in children's products sold in Washington State. We've been concerned about HBCD for the same reasons as in this risk evaluation, which are effects on thyroid, liver, reproduction and development. In 2016 our state law was amended to ban HBCD and four other additive flame retardants in children's products and residential upholstered furniture as of July 1, 2017. The legislature also directed the Departments of Ecology and Health to further investigate six additional flame retardants and recommend actions. More recently the legislature passed additional legislation on a class of flame retardants and gave more authority to the Dept. of Ecology. This is to discourage the use of regrettable substitutes and encourage manufacturers to use safer alternatives. The existing bans in Washington have focused on children's exposure and children's products, not because that is where HBCD is most used, but because we are concerned about children's greater susceptibility and we don't want manufacturers to increase their use of HBCD for children's products as a regrettable substitute.
      Table A.2 in Appendix A on state laws includes Washington's state ban on HBCD in specific products in the detailed description, but not the larger description of what the state actions are. The table doesn't include that Minnesota banned HBCD in 2015 and expanded their law in 2019 to ban organohalogen flame retardants. Since 2017 several states have passed broad flame retardant bans on specific products that would include HBCD.
      EPA noticeably has not used its new authority under the updated TSCA to order manufacturers to provide additional information before the next round of CDR in 2020 and relies on the 2016 CDR and additional information from manufacturers on how much HBCD is produced/imported. It also relies on assurances that HBCD is no longer made in certain facilities, not likely to be made by small facilities that are not required to report, and not made by other countries and imported to a large amount. While information from manufacturers can be quite useful, in Washington State we experienced misrepresentations by the brominated flame retardant industry in particular, as documented in the series by the Chicago Tribune Playing with Fire. There seems to be different standards for different information used in the risk evaluation and industry information does not go through the same systematic review and data quality assessment.
      There could be a lot more HBCD made in other countries and imported into the US, including in products, than EPA acknowledges. The draft risk evaluation notes that 171 of 188 Parties to the Stockholm convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants have agreed to ban the production, use, import, and export of HBCD, but does not mention which countries have not agreed. This document also mentions that only three Parties have registered for an exemption for production for EPS and XPS in buildings, but does not mention that one of the three countries is China and none of them report the volumes they are producing or using.
      This draft risk evaluation states that uses such as high impact polystyrene in electronics, textiles, coatings, furniture and children's products are discontinued uses and does not address those uses of HBCD in consumer products. In our CSPA database we have reports of HBCD used as a flame retardant at in the range of 1000-5000 ppm for three children's products, with the most recent report from 8/24/18. On p.39 you mention a past use of bean bag chairs, which may be an unreferenced reference to our product testing database where were detected HBCD in a child's chair in 2013.
      EPA should include consumer products in its risk evaluation. TSCA directs EPA to evaluate chemicals under conditions of use that are "circumstances, as determined by the Administrator, under which a chemical substance is intended, known, or reasonably foreseen to be manufactured, processed, distributed in commerce, used, or disposed of." While EPA cannot evaluate all possible uses, it is reasonably foreseen that HBCD would be used in ways that it has been used recently and for which there is no independent verification that it is no longer used and that HBCD would be used in ways that similar flame retardants are being used.
      EPA should more carefully consider children's exposure and children as a susceptible subpopulation. In 4.4.1 EPA discusses taking age-specific differences into account, but does not identify children as a susceptible subpopulation due to their greater exposure. The risk evaluation takes into account dust ingestion, which may account for exposure from existing products in the home, but it was hard to tell if the exposure assessment fully considered children's exposure even though child-specific exposure factors were used. EPA presented without comment, data showing that the fetal and placental exposures are much higher than other exposures (Figure 2-2) and does not mention higher infant exposures compared to mothers, as in the biomonitoring study by Kim and Oh (2014).
      EPA finds risks of HBCD exposure to the environment and workers but then states they are not unreasonable risks. For the environment EPA does not follow standard practice of acceptable risk being a risk quotient below 1. While a risk quotient of 1 does not have to be a bright line, a risk quotient of 5 is not close to 1. An additional consideration for risk that is not mentioned is that HBCD is a PBT that will persist in the environment and build up in the food chain and that is a reason to be more cautious rather than less cautious. The importance of PBTs is specifically mentioned several times in TSCA.
      EPA also found risks to workers, but stated they are not unreasonable when PPE is used. Earlier in the document (p. 180) EPA correctly describes the hierarchy of controls with elimination first as the most effective measure to address hazardous exposures in the workplace and PPE last in the hierarchy. By finding risk to workers and then determining the use of PPE makes this risk not unreasonable, EPA is turning this hierarchy on its head. In addition, it is not correct to state that because an SDS suggests use of PPE that employers will provide equipment and workers will always use the equipment properly.
      While Washington's existing ban on HBCD will not be preempted, we are concerned about state preemption if EPA determines there is no unreasonable risk from a chemical. This determination of no unreasonable risk for HBCD seems to rest on industry assurances that this chemical is no longer used, but EPA's determination will preempt state actions even if manufacturers begin using it again next year.
      It's important for EPA to make its determinations on data and not on the lack of data. We recommend EPA use approaches described in the new report from the National Academies of Science, Engineering, and Medicine A Class Approach to Hazard Assessment of Organohalogen Flame Retardants, in which they placed HBCD in a subclass of flame retardants and recommended ways to fill data gaps using data from other flame retardants and new approach methodologies.
      Thank you for the opportunity to speak.


[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 14 (Friday, January 21, 2011)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 3854-3856]
[FR Doc No: 2011-1221]

========================================================================
Proposed Rules
                                                Federal Register
________________________________________________________________________

This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER contains notices to the public of
the proposed issuance of rules and regulations. The purpose of these
notices is to give interested persons an opportunity to participate in
the rule making prior to the adoption of the final rules.

========================================================================

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 14 / Friday, January 21, 2011 /
Proposed Rules

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2011-0058; Directorate Identifier 2010-CE-071-AD]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; REIMS AVIATION S.A. Model F406
Airplanes

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Department of
Transportation (DOT).

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

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

SUMMARY: We propose to adopt a new airworthiness directive (AD) for the
products listed above that would supersede an existing AD. This
proposed AD results from mandatory continuing airworthiness information
(MCAI) originated by an aviation authority of another country to
identify and correct an unsafe condition on an aviation product. The
MCAI describes the unsafe condition as:

    In early 2005, several reports had been received regarding
discovery of cracks in rudder pulley brackets installed on Reims
F406 aeroplanes. This pulley bracket, Part Number (P/N) 6015511-1,
is installed on aeroplanes with the optional ``Camera Hole''
modification.
    This condition, if not detected and corrected, could result in
the loss of rudder control on the airplane.

The proposed AD would require actions that are intended to address the
unsafe condition described in the MCAI.

DATES: We must receive comments on this proposed AD by March 7, 2011.

ADDRESSES: You may send comments by any of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to http://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: U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket
Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m.,
Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
    For service information identified in this proposed AD, contact
Reims Aviation Industries, A[eacute]rodrome de Reims Prunay, 51360
Prunay, France; telephone + 33 3 26 48 46 65; fax + 33 3 26 49 18 57;
e-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>You may review copies of the
referenced service information at the FAA, Small Airplane Directorate,
901 Locust, Kansas City, Missouri 64106. For information on the
availability of this material at the FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov; or in person at the Docket Management Facility
between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal
holidays. The AD docket contains this proposed AD, the regulatory
evaluation, any comments received, and other information. The street
address for the Docket Office (telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>) is in the
ADDRESSES section. Comments will be available in the AD docket shortly
after receipt.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Albert Mercado, Aerospace Engineer,
FAA, Small Airplane Directorate, 901 Locust, Room 301, Kansas City,
Missouri 64106; telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Comments Invited

    We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or
arguments about this proposed AD. Send your comments to an address
listed under the ADDRESSES section. Include ``Docket No. FAA-2011-0058;
Directorate Identifier 2010-CE-071-AD'' at the beginning of your
comments. We specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory,
economic, environmental, and energy aspects of this proposed AD. We
will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend
this proposed AD because of those comments.
    We will post all comments we receive, without change, to http://regulations.gov, including any personal information you provide. We
will also post a report summarizing each substantive verbal contact we
receive about this proposed AD.

Discussion

    On January 12, 2007, we issued AD 2007-02-12, Amendment 39-14899
(72 FR 3047; January 24, 2007). That AD required actions intended to
address an unsafe condition on the products listed above.
    Since we issued AD 2007-02-12, REIMS AVIATION S.A. discovered that
airplane serial number (SN) F406-0091 had inadvertently not been
included in the service information and has revised the service
information to correct the omission.
    The European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), which is the Technical
Agent for the Member States of the European Community, has issued AD
No.: 2010-0230, dated November 5, 2010 (referred to after this as ``the
MCAI''), to correct an unsafe condition for the specified products. The
MCAI states:

    In early 2005, several reports had been received regarding
discovery of cracks in rudder pulley brackets installed on Reims
F406 aeroplanes. This pulley bracket, Part Number (P/N) 6015511-1,
is installed on aeroplanes with the optional ``Camera Hole''
modification.
    This condition, if not detected and corrected, could result in
the loss of rudder control on the airplane.
    To address this unsafe condition, DGAC France issued Emergency
(Urgent) AD UF-2005-080, followed by the final AD F-2005-080,
requiring repetitive inspections of the P/N 6015511-1 rudder pulley
bracket and replacement of the bracket with a modified bracket, P/N
4061-2701-1, as terminating action.
    Recently, Reims discovered that aeroplane s/n F406-0091 had
inadvertently not been included in the SB and this has been revised
to correct the omission.
    For the reasons described above, this AD retains the
requirements of DGAC France AD F-2005-080, which is superseded, and
adds aeroplane s/n F406-0091 to the Applicability of the AD, by
referencing Revision 2 of the Reims Aviation Industries SB F406-58.

You may obtain further information by examining the MCAI in the AD
docket.

Relevant Service Information

    Reims Aviation S.A. has issued Reims Aviation Industries Service
Bulletin No. F406-58, REV 1, dated October 27,

2006; and Reims Aviation Industries Service Bulletin No. F406-58, REV
2, dated July 27, 2010. The actions described in this service
information are intended to correct the unsafe condition identified in
the MCAI.

FAA's Determination and Requirements of the 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 our bilateral agreement with this State of Design Authority, they
have notified us of the unsafe condition described in the MCAI and
service information referenced above. We are proposing this AD because
we evaluated all information and determined the unsafe condition exists
and is likely to exist or develop on other products of the same type
design.

Differences Between This Proposed AD and the MCAI or Service
Information

    We have reviewed the MCAI and related service information and, in
general, agree with their substance. But we might have found it
necessary to use different words from those in the MCAI to ensure the
AD is clear for U.S. operators and is enforceable. In making these
changes, we do not intend to differ substantively from the information
provided in the MCAI and related service information.
    We might also have proposed different actions in this AD from those
in the MCAI in order to follow FAA policies. Any such differences are
highlighted in a Note within the proposed AD.

Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this proposed AD will affect 7 products of U.S.
registry. We also estimate that it would take about 11 work-hours per
product to comply with the basic requirements of this proposed AD. The
average labor rate is $85 per work-hour. Required parts would cost
about $750 per product.
    Based on these figures, we estimate the cost of the proposed AD on
U.S. operators to be $11,795, or $1,685 per product.

Authority for This Rulemaking

    Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to
issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the
authority of the FAA Administrator. ``Subtitle VII: Aviation
Programs,'' describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's
authority.
    We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in
``Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: General
requirements.'' Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with
promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing
regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator
finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within
the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition
that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this
rulemaking action.

Regulatory Findings

    We determined that this proposed AD would not have federalism
implications under Executive Order 13132. This proposed AD would not
have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship
between the national Government and the States, or on the distribution
of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
    For the reasons discussed above, I certify this proposed
regulation:
    1. Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under Executive Order
12866;
    2. Is not a ``significant rule'' under the DOT Regulatory Policies
and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979); 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.
    We prepared a regulatory evaluation of the estimated costs to
comply with this proposed AD and placed it in the AD docket.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

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

The Proposed Amendment

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

PART 39--AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES

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

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

Sec.  39.13  [Amended]

    2. The FAA amends Sec.  39.13 by removing Amendment 39-14899 (72 FR
3047; January 24, 2007), and adding the following new AD:

Reims Aviation S.A.: Docket No. FAA-2011-0058; Directorate
Identifier 2010-CE-071-AD.

Comments Due Date

    (a) We must receive comments by March 7, 2011.

Affected ADs

    (b) This AD supersedes AD 2007-02-12, Amendment 39-14899.

Applicability

    (c) This AD applies to Reims Aviation S.A. Model F406 airplanes,
serial numbers (SNs) 0002, 0003, 0004, 0006, 0008, 0009, 0010, 0012,
0013, 0017, 0024, 0025, 0039, 0042, 0044, 0045, 0066, 0070, 0073,
0074, 0075, 0077, 0080 through 0092, certificated in any category.

Subject

    (d) Air Transport Association of America (ATA) Code 27: Flight
Controls.

Reason

    (e) The mandatory continuing airworthiness information (MCAI)
states:

    In early 2005, several reports had been received regarding
discovery of cracks in rudder pulley brackets installed on Reims
F406 aeroplanes. This pulley bracket, Part Number (P/N) 6015511-1,
is installed on aeroplanes with the optional ``Camera Hole''
modification.
    This condition, if not detected and corrected, could result in
the loss of rudder control on the airplane.
    To address this unsafe condition, DGAC France issued Emergency
(Urgent) AD UF-2005-080, followed by the final AD F-2005-080,
requiring repetitive inspections of the P/N 6015511-1 rudder pulley
bracket and replacement of the bracket with a modified bracket, P/N
4061-2701-1, as terminating action.
    Recently, Reims discovered that aeroplane s/n F406-0091 had
inadvertently not been included in the SB and this has been revised
to correct the omission.
    For the reasons described above, this AD retains the
requirements of DGAC France AD F-2005-080, which is superseded, and
adds aeroplane s/n F406-0091 to the Applicability of the AD, by
referencing Revision 2 of the Reims Aviation Industries SB F406-58.

Actions and Compliance

    (f) Unless already done, do the following actions:
    (1) For all affected SNs except F406-0091:
    (i) Within the next 10 hours time-in-service (TIS) after
February 13, 2007 (the effective date retained from AD 2007-02-12),
perform the initial inspection as specified in Reims Aviation
Industries Service Bulletin No. F406-58, REV 1, dated October 27,
2006; or Reims Aviation Industries Service Bulletin No. F406-58, REV
2, dated July 27, 2010.
    (ii) If no cracking is found following the initial inspection
required in paragraph (f)(1)(i) of this AD, repetitively thereafter
inspect every 50 hours TIS or 1 month, whichever occurs first, until
the installation of the modified pulley bracket specified in
paragraphs (f)(1)(iii) or (f)(1)(iv) of this AD is done.
    (iii) If any cracking is found during the inspection required in
paragraph (f)(1)(i) of this AD, before further flight, install the

modified pulley bracket as specified in Reims Aviation Industries
Service Bulletin No. F406-58, REV 1, dated October 27, 2006; or
Reims Aviation Industries Service Bulletin No. F406-58, REV 2, dated
July 27, 2010. This installation terminates the repetitive
inspections required in paragraph (f)(1)(ii) of this AD.
    (iv) Within the next 100 hours TIS or 2 months after February
13, 2007 (the effective date retained from AD 2007-02-12), whichever
occurs first, install the modified pulley bracket as specified in
Reims Aviation Industries Service Bulletin No. F406-58, REV 1, dated
October 27, 2006; or Reims Aviation Industries Service Bulletin No.
F406-58, REV 2, dated July 27, 2010. This installation terminates
the repetitive inspections required in paragraph (f)(1)(ii) of this
AD.
    (v) The modified pulley bracket specified in Reims Aviation
Industries Service Bulletin No. F406-58, REV 1, dated October 27,
2006; or Reims Aviation Industries Service Bulletin No. F406-58, REV
2, dated July 27, 2010, may be installed at any time after the
inspection required in paragraph (f)(1)(i) of this AD, as long as no
cracking is found, but no later than the compliance time specified
in paragraph (f)(1)(iv) of this AD. If cracking is found, it must be
replaced before further flight as required in paragraph (f)(1)(iii)
of this AD.
    (2) For serial number F406-0091:
    (i) Within the next 10 hours TIS after the effective of this AD,
perform the initial inspection as specified in Reims Aviation
Industries Service Bulletin No. F406-58, REV 2, dated July 27, 2010.
    (ii) If no cracking is found following the initial inspection
required in paragraph (f)(2)(i) of this AD, repetitively thereafter
inspect every 50 hours TIS or 1 month, whichever occurs first, until
the installation of the modified pulley bracket specified in
paragraphs (f)(2)(iii) and (f)(2)(iv) of this AD is done.
    (iii) If any cracking is found during the inspection required in
paragraph (f)(2)(i) of this AD, before further flight, install the
modified pulley bracket as specified in Reims Aviation Industries
Service Bulletin No. F406-58, REV 2, dated July 27, 2010. This
installation terminates the repetitive inspections required in
paragraph (f)(2)(ii) of this AD.
    (iv) Within the next 100 hours TIS or 2 months after the
effective of this AD, whichever occurs first, install the modified
pulley bracket as specified in Reims Aviation Industries Service
Bulletin No. F406-58, REV 2, dated July 27, 2010. This installation
terminates the repetitive inspections required in paragraph
(f)(2)(ii) of this AD.
    (v) The modified pulley bracket specified in Reims Aviation
Industries Service Bulletin No. F406-58, REV 2, dated July 27, 2010,
may be installed at any time after the inspection required in
paragraph (f)(2)(i) of this AD as long as no cracking is found, but
no later than the compliance time specified in paragraph (f)(2)(iv)
of this AD. If cracking is found, it must be replaced before further
flight as required in paragraph (f)(2)(iii) of this AD.

FAA AD Differences

    Note: This AD differs from the MCAI and/or service information
as follows: No differences.

Other FAA AD Provisions

    (g) The following provisions also apply to this AD:
    (1) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs): The Manager,
Standards Office, FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this
AD, if requested using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. Send
information to ATTN: Albert Mercado, Aerospace Engineer, FAA, Small
Airplane Directorate, 901 Locust, Room 301, Kansas City, Missouri
64106; telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>. Before using
any approved AMOC on any airplane to which the AMOC applies, notify
your appropriate principal inspector (PI) in the FAA Flight
Standards District Office (FSDO), or lacking a PI, your local FSDO.
    (2) Airworthy Product: For any requirement in this AD to obtain
corrective actions from a manufacturer or other source, use these
actions if they are FAA-approved. Corrective actions are considered
FAA-approved if they are approved by the State of Design Authority
(or their delegated agent). You are required to assure the product
is airworthy before it is returned to service.
    (3) Reporting Requirements: For any reporting requirement in
this AD, a federal agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person
is not required to respond to, nor shall a person be subject to a
penalty for failure to comply with a collection of information
subject to the requirements of the Paperwork Reduction Act unless
that collection of information displays a current valid OMB Control
Number. The OMB Control Number for this information collection is
2120-0056. Public reporting for this collection of information is
estimated to be approximately 5 minutes per response, including the
time for reviewing instructions, completing and reviewing the
collection of information. All responses to this collection of
information are mandatory. Comments concerning the accuracy of this
burden and suggestions for reducing the burden should be directed to
the FAA at: 800 Independence Ave., SW., Washington, DC 20591, Attn:
Information Collection Clearance Officer, AES-200.

Related Information

    (h) Refer to MCAI European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) AD
2010-0230, dated November 5, 2010; Reims Aviation Industries Service
Bulletin No. F406-58, REV 1, dated October 27, 2006; and Reims
Aviation Industries Service Bulletin No. F406-58, REV 2, dated July
27, 2010, for related information. For service information related
to this AD, contact Reims Aviation Industries, A[eacute]rodrome de
Reims Prunay, 51360 Prunay, France; telephone + 33 3 26 48 46 65;
fax + 33 3 26 49 18 57; e-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>You may
review copies of the referenced service information at the FAA,
Small Airplane Directorate, 901 Locust, Kansas City, Missouri 64106.
For information on the availability of this material at the FAA,
call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Issued in Kansas City, Missouri, on January 14, 2011.
John Colomy,
Acting Manager, Small Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. 2011-1221 Filed 1-20-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 211 (Wednesday, November 2, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Pages 66204-66206]
[FR Doc No: 2022-23811]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

[Docket No. USCG-2022-0348]

Cooperative Research and Development Agreement--Artificial
Intelligence (AI) Detection With Coast Guard Optical Sensors

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Notice of intent; request for comments.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard announces its intent to enter into a
cooperative research and development agreement (CRADA) with companies
to evaluate autonomous detection and tracking systems to determine its
potential use in Search and Rescue planning. The Coast Guard will
provide video output from various sensors to detect and characterize
targets for search along with collaboratively developing methods to
evaluate the effectiveness of the autonomous detection and tracking
systems to allow for the integration with accepted search planning
systems and methodologies. From a recent demonstration, the Coast Guard
is currently considering partnering with Zelim to investigate their
artificial intelligence-based casualty detection system, SARBox, and
solicits public comment on the possible participation of other parties
in the proposed CRADA, and the nature of that participation. The Coast
Guard also invites other potential non-Federal participants, who have
the interest and capability to bring similar contributions to this type
of research, to consider submitting proposals for consideration in
similar CRADAs.

DATES: Comments must reach the Coast Guard on or before December 2,
2022. Synopses of proposals regarding future CRADAs must also reach the
Coast Guard on or before December 2, 2022.

ADDRESSES: Submit comments online at http://www.regulations.gov
following website instructions. Submit synopses of proposals regarding
future CRADAs to Ms. Shelly Wyman at her address listed in the FOR
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions on this notice
or wish to submit proposals for future CRADAs, contact Ms. Shelly
Wyman, Project Official, Aviation Branch, U.S. Coast Guard Research and
Development Center, 1 Chelsea Street, New London, CT 06320, telephone
860-271-2600, email [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Public Participation and Request for Comments

    We request public comments on this notice. Although we do not plan
to publish responses to comments in the Federal Register, we will
respond directly to commenters and may modify our proposal in light of
comments.
    Comments should be marked with docket number USCG-2022-0348 and
should provide a reason for each suggestion or recommendation. You
should provide personal contact information so that we can contact you
if we have questions regarding your comments; but please note that all
comments will be posted to the online docket without change and that
any personal information you include can be searchable online. For more
about privacy and the docket, visit http://www.regulations.gov/privacyNotice. We do accept anonymous comments.
    We encourage you to submit comments through the Federal Portal at
http://www.regulations.gov. If your material cannot be submitted using
http://www.regulations.gov, contact the Coast Guard (see FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT). Documents mentioned in this notice and all public
comments, will be in our online docket at http://www.regulations.gov
and can be viewed by following that website's instructions.
Additionally, if you go to the online docket and sign up for email
alerts, you will be notified when comments are posted.
    Do not submit detailed proposals for future CRADAs to http://www.regulations.gov. Instead, submit them directly to the Coast Guard
(see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT).

Discussion

    CRADAs are authorized under 15 U.S.C. 3710(a).\1\ A CRADA promotes
the transfer of technology to the private sector for commercial use, as
well as specified research or development efforts that are consistent
with the mission of the Federal parties to the CRADA. The Federal party
or parties agree with one or more non-Federal parties to share research
resources, but the Federal party does not contribute funding.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ The statute confers this authority on the head of each
Federal agency. The Secretary of DHS's authority is delegated to the
Coast Guard and other DHS organizational elements by DHS Delegation
No. 0160.1, para. II.B.34.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    CRADAs are not procurement contracts. Care is taken to ensure that
CRADAs are not used to circumvent the contracting process. CRADAs have
a specific purpose and should not be confused with procurement
contracts, grants, and other type of agreements.
    Under the proposed CRADA, the Coast Guard's Research and
Development Center (R&DC) will collaborate with one or more non-Federal
participants. Together, the R&DC and the non-Federal participants will
evaluate autonomous detection and tracking systems to determine their
potential for search and rescue planning that may greatly increase
mission performance on select USCG platforms and improve Maritime
Domain Awareness(MDA) capability.
    We anticipate that the Coast Guard's contributions under the
proposed CRADA will include the following:
    (1) In conjunction with the non-Federal participant(s), develop the
demonstration test plan to be executed under the CRADA;
    (2) Provide video output from various Coast Guard sensors to test
and integrate with non-Federal participant(s) autonomous detection
systems;
    (3) Provide access to and coordinate the use of necessary Coast
Guard facilities, surface assets, and R&D Center equipment to
facilitate assessments. Responsible for ensuring that all necessary
approvals have been obtained before the execution of the test plan;
    (4) Provide discussions on sound search planning theory to help
identify ways of collecting quantitative measures to better define the
effectiveness of AI technology compared to current SAR efficiency
calculations;
    (5) Collaboratively collect and analyze demonstration test plan
data; and
    (6) Collaboratively develop a summary documenting the
methodologies, findings, conclusions, and recommendations of this CRADA
work.
    We anticipate that the non-Federal participants' contributions
under the proposed CRADA will include the following:
    (1) Provide the autonomous detection and tracking system and all
other equipment to conduct the demonstration described in the
demonstration test plan;
    (2) Provide engineering support, including all required operators
and technicians to conduct the demonstration;
    (3) Provide shipment and delivery of all autonomous detection and
tracking system equipment required for the demonstration; and
    (4) Provide travel and associated personnel and other expenses as
required.
    (5) Assist with compiling the results of the demonstration(s) with
R&D Center that documents the methodologies, findings, conclusions, and
recommendations under this CRADA.
    The Coast Guard reserves the right to select for CRADA participants
all, some, or no proposals submitted for this CRADA. The Coast Guard
will provide no funding for reimbursement of proposal development
costs. Proposals and any other material submitted in response to this
notice will not be returned. Proposals submitted are expected to be
unclassified and have no more than five single-sided pages

(excluding cover page, DD 1494, JF-12, etc.). The Coast Guard will
select proposals at its sole discretion on the basis of:
    (1) How well they communicate an understanding of, and ability to
meet, the proposed CRADA's goal; and
    (2) How well they address the following criteria:
    (a) Technical capability to support the non-Federal party
contributions described; and
    (b) Resources available for supporting the non-Federal party
contributions described.
    Currently, the Coast Guard is considering Zelim for participation
in this CRADA, because they have a solution in place for providing an
AI casualty detection system that can be used on multiple platforms
using Coast Guard optical sensors. However, we do not wish to exclude
other viable participants from this or future similar CRADAs.
    This is a technology demonstration effort to evaluate and assess
how AI detection can be utilized with Coast guard optical sensors. The
goal of this CRADA is to identify and determine methods of checking
effectiveness of AI systems compared to current accepted Search and
Rescue standards and determine their potential use in a maritime
environment by the first responder and the DHS operational components.
Special consideration will be given to small business firms/consortia,
and preference will be given to business units located in the U.S.
    This notice is issued under the authority of 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 15
U.S.C. 3710(a).

    Dated: October 27, 2022.
Daniel P. Keane,
Captain, USCG, Commanding Officer, U.S. Coast Guard Research and
Development Center.
[FR Doc. 2022-23811 Filed 11-1-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE P


[Federal Register: June 25, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 121)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 30256-30258]
[DOCID:fr25jn09-21]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 100

[Docket No. USCG-2009-0460]
RIN 1625-AA08

Special Local Regulation for Marine Events; Mattaponi River,
Wakema, VA

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard proposes to establish special local
regulations during the ``Mattaponi Madness Drag Boat Race Series,'' a
series of power boat races to be held on the waters of the Mattaponi
River, near Wakema, Virginia. These special local regulations are
necessary to provide for the safety of life on navigable waters during
the events. This action is intended to restrict vessel traffic during
the power boat races in a segment of the Mattaponi River that flows
along the border of King William County and King and Queen County near
Wakema, Virginia.

DATES: Comments and related material must be received by the Coast
Guard on or before July 27, 2009.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments identified by docket number USCG-
2009-0460 using any one of the following methods:
    (1) Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov.
    (2) Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    (3) Mail: Docket Management Facility (M-30), U.S. Department of
Transportation, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590-0001.
    (4) Hand delivery: Same as mail address above, between 9 a.m. and 5
p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The telephone
number is<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    To avoid duplication, please use only one of these four methods.
See the ``Public Participation and Request for Comments'' portion of
the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section below for instructions on
submitting comments.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions on this proposed
rule, call or e-mail Dennis Sens, Project Manager, Fifth Coast Guard
District Prevention Division, Portsmouth, VA, telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>,
e-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>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-2009-0460), 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 telephone number in the body
of your document so that we can contact you if we have questions
regarding your submission.
    To submit your comment online, go to http://www.regulations.gov,
select the Advanced Docket Search option on the right side of the
screen, insert ``USCG-2009-0460'' 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-2009-0460 in the Docket ID box, press Enter, and
then click on the item in the Docket ID column. You may also visit the
Docket Management Facility in Room W12-140 on the ground floor of the
Department of Transportation West Building, 1200 New Jersey Avenue,
SE., Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through
Friday, except Federal holidays. We have an agreement with the
Department of Transportation to use the Docket Management Facility.

Privacy Act

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

Public Meeting

    We do not now plan to hold a public meeting. But you may submit a
request for one 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 Mattaponi Volunteer Rescue Squad will be sponsoring a series of
power boat racing events titled the ``Mattaponi Madness Drag Boat
Event.'' The power boat races will be held on the following dates:
August 15, 2009, and in the case of inclement weather, the event will
be rescheduled for August 16, 2009. The races will be held on the
Mattaponi River immediately adjacent to the Rainbow Acres Campground,
King and Queen County, Virginia. The power boat races will consist of
approximately 40 vessels conducting high speed straight line runs along
the river and parallel with the shoreline. A fleet of spectator vessels
is expected to gather near the event site to view the competition. To
provide for the safety of participants, spectators and other transiting
vessels, the Coast Guard will temporarily restrict vessel traffic in
the event area during the power boat races.

Discussion of Proposed Rule

    The Coast Guard proposes to establish special local regulations on
specified waters of the Mattaponi River, in the vicinity of Wakema,
Virginia. The regulated area includes all waters of Mattaponi River
immediately adjacent to Rainbow Acres Campground, King and Queen
County, Virginia. The regulated area includes a section of the
Mattaponi River approximately \3/4\-mile long and bounded in width by
each shoreline, bounded to the east by a line that runs parallel along
longitude 076[deg] 52'43'' W, near the mouth of Mitchell Hill Creek,
and bounded to the west by a line that runs parallel along longitude
076[deg] 53'41'' W just north of Wakema, Virginia. The effect of this
regulation would be to restrict general navigation in the regulated
area during the drag boat races. This special local regulation will be
enforced from 9 a.m. to 7 p.m. on August 15, 2009; and in the case of
inclement weather, the race will be rescheduled for 9 a.m. to 7 p.m. on
August 16, 2009. Except for persons or vessels authorized by the Coast
Guard Patrol Commander, no person or vessel may enter or remain in the
regulated area. Non-participating vessels will be allowed to transit
the regulated area between races, when the Coast Guard Patrol Commander
determines it is safe to do so. This regulation is needed to control
vessel traffic during the event to enhance the safety of participants,
spectators and transiting vessels.

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.
    We expect the economic impact of this proposed rule to be so
minimal that a full Regulatory Evaluation is unnecessary. Although this
regulation will prevent traffic from transiting a portion of the
Mattaponi River during the events, the effect of this regulation will
not be significant due to the limited duration that the regulated area
will be in effect and the extensive advance notification that will be
made to the maritime community via marine information broadcast, local
radio stations and area newspapers so mariners can adjust their plans
accordingly. Additionally, the regulated area has been narrowly
tailored to impose the least impact on general navigation yet provide
the level of safety deemed necessary. Vessel traffic will be able to
transit the regulated area between heats, when the Coast Guard Patrol
Commander deems it is safe to do so.

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: owners or operators of vessels intending to
transit this section of the Mattaponi River from 9 a.m. to 7 p.m. on
August 15, 2009 and August 16, 2009. This purposed rule would not have
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities
for the following reasons. Although the regulated area will apply to a
\3/4\ mile segment of the Mattaponi River, traffic may be allowed to
pass through the regulated area with the permission of the Coast Guard
Patrol Commander. In the case where the Patrol Commander authorizes
passage through the regulated area during the event, vessels shall
proceed at the minimum speed necessary to maintain a safe course that
minimizes wake near the race course. The Patrol Commander will allow
non-participating vessels to transit the area between races. Before the
enforcement period, we will issue maritime advisories so mariners can
adjust their plans accordingly.
    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 see 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.

Collection of Information

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

Federalism

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

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

    The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538)
requires

Federal agencies to assess the effects of their discretionary
regulatory actions. In particular, the Act addresses actions that may
result in the expenditure by a State, local, or tribal government, in
the aggregate, or by the private sector of $100,000,000 or more in any
one year. Though this proposed rule would not result in such an
expenditure, we do discuss the effects of this rule elsewhere in this
preamble.

Taking of Private Property

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

Civil Justice Reform

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

Protection of Children

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

Indian Tribal Governments

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

Energy Effects

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

Technical Standards

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

Environment

    We have analyzed this proposed rule under Department of Homeland
Security Management Directive 023-01 and Commandant Instruction
M16475.lD, which guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National
Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and
have made a preliminary determination that this action is one of a
category of actions which do not individually or cumulatively have a
significant effect on the human environment. This rule is categorically
excluded, under figure 2-1, paragraph (34)(h), of the Instruction. A
preliminary environmental analysis checklist supporting this
determination is available in the docket where indicated under
ADDRESSES. This proposed rule involves implementation of regulations
within 33 CFR Part 100 that apply to organized marine events on the
navigable waters of the United States that may have potential for
negative impact on the safety or other interest of waterway users and
shore side activities in the event area. The category of water
activities includes but is not limited to sail boat regattas, boat
parades, power boat racing, swimming events, crew racing, and sail
board racing. 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 100

    Marine safety, Navigation (water), Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, Waterways.
    For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard proposes
to amend 33 CFR part 100 as follows:

PART 100--SAFETY OF LIFE ON NAVIGABLE WATERS

    1. The authority citation for part 100 continues to read as
follows:

    Authority:  33 U.S.C. 1233.

    2. Add temporary Sec.  100.35-T05-0460 to read as follows:

Sec.  100.35-T05-0460  Mattaponi River, Wakema, Virginia.

    (a) Regulated area. The regulated area includes all waters of
Mattaponi River immediately adjacent to Rainbow Acres Campground, King
and Queen County, Virginia. The regulated area includes a section of
the Mattaponi River approximately \3/4\-mile long and bounded in width
by each shoreline, bounded to the east by a line that runs along
longitude 076[deg]52'43'' W near the mouth of Mitchell Hill Creek, and
bounded to the west by a line that runs along longitude 076[deg]53'41''
W just north of Wakema, Virginia. All coordinates reference Datum NAD
1983.
    (b) Definitions: (1) Coast Guard Patrol Commander means a
commissioned, warrant, or petty officer of the Coast Guard who has been
designated by the Commander, Coast Guard Sector Hampton Roads.
    (2) Official Patrol means any vessel assigned or approved by
Commander, Coast Guard Sector Hampton Roads with a commissioned,
warrant, or petty officer on board and displaying a Coast Guard ensign.
    (c) Special local regulations: (1) Except for persons or vessels
authorized by the Coast Guard Patrol Commander, no person or vessel may
enter or remain in the regulated area.
    (2) The operator of any vessel in the regulated area shall: (i)
Stop the vessel immediately when directed to do so by any Official
Patrol.
    (ii) Proceed as directed by any official patrol.
    (d) Enforcement period. This section will be enforced from 9 a.m.
to 7 p.m. on August 15, 2009. In the case of inclement weather, this
section will be enforced from 9 a.m. to 7 p.m. on August 16, 2009.

    Dated: June 10, 2009.
Fred M. Rosa, Jr.,
Rear Admiral, U.S. Coast Guard Commander, Fifth Coast Guard District.
[FR Doc. E9-15023 Filed 6-24-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910-15-P


[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 138 (Thursday, July 18, 2019)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 34302-34303]
[FR Doc No: 2019-15272]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 165

[Docket Number USCG-2019-0514]
RIN 1625-AA00

Safety Zone; Cumberland River, Grand Rivers, KY

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Temporary final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard is establishing a temporary safety zone for
all navigable waters of the Cumberland River. This action is necessary
to ensure safety of life on these navigable waters immediately prior
to, during, and after a pyrotechnics display near Green Turtle Bay
Resort, Grand Rivers, KY. Entry of vessels or persons into this zone is
prohibited unless specifically authorized by the Captain of the Port
Sector Ohio Valley or a designated representative.

DATES: This rule is effective from 8:15 p.m. through 9:45 p.m. on
August 17, 2019.

ADDRESSES: To view documents mentioned in this preamble as being
available in the docket, go to https://www.regulations.gov, type USCG-
2019-0514 in the ``SEARCH'' box and click ``SEARCH.'' Click on Open
Docket Folder on the line associated with this rule.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions about this
rulemaking, call or email MST2 Dylan Caikowski, MSU Paducah, U.S. Coast
Guard; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER> ext. 2120, email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
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

II. Background Information and Regulatory History

    The Coast Guard is issuing this temporary rule without prior notice
and opportunity to comment pursuant to authority under section 4(a) of
the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) (5 U.S.C. 553(b)). This
provision authorizes an agency to issue a rule without prior notice and
opportunity to comment when the agency for good cause finds that those
procedures are ``impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public
interest.'' Under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), the Coast Guard finds that good
cause exists for not publishing a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM)
with respect to this rule because doing so would be impracticable. It
is impracticable to publish an NPRM because this safety zone must be
established by August 17, 2019, and we lack sufficient time to provide
a reasonable comment period and then consider those comments before
issuing the rule.

III. Legal Authority and Need for Rule

    The Coast Guard is issuing this rule under authority in 46 U.S.C.
70034 (previously 33 U.S.C. 1231). The Captain of the Port Sector Ohio
Valley (COTP) has determined that potential hazards associated with a
pyrotechnics display on August 17, 2019, will be a safety concern for
anyone within a 420-foot radius of the pyrotechnics display. This rule
is needed to protect personnel and vessels in the navigable waters
within the safety zone prior to, during, and after a pyrotechnics
display.

IV. Discussion of the Rule

    This rule establishes a safety zone from 8:15 p.m. until 9:45 p.m.
on August 17, 2019. The safety zone will cover all navigable waters
within a 420-foot radius from the pyrotechnics launch site at the
entrance to Green Turtle Bay Resort at mile marker 31.5 on the
Cumberland River in Grand Rivers, KY. The duration of the zone is
intended to protect personnel and vessels in these navigable waters
prior to, during, and after a pyrotechnic display. No vessel or person
will be permitted to enter the safety zone without obtaining permission
from the COTP or a designated representative.

V. Regulatory Analyses

    We developed this 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. Executive Order 13771 directs agencies to control
regulatory costs through a budgeting process. This rule has not been
designated a ``significant regulatory action,'' under Executive Order
12866. Accordingly, this rule has not been reviewed by the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB), and pursuant to OMB guidance it is exempt
from the requirements of Executive Order 13771.
    This regulatory action determination is based on the size,
location, and duration of the safety zone. Vessel traffic will be able
to safely transit around this safety zone, which will impact a 420-foot
radius designated area of the Cumberland River for one hour and thirty
minutes on August 17, 2019. Moreover, the Coast Guard will issue a
Broadcast Notice to Mariners (BNMs) via VHF-FM marine channel 16 to
inform mariners 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 rule
will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of
small entities.
    While some owners or operators of vessels intending to transit the
temporary safety zone may be small entities, for the reasons stated in
section V.A above, this rule will not have a significant economic
impact on any vessel owner or operator.
    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 rule. 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 the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT
section.
    Small businesses may send comments on the actions of Federal
employees who enforce, or otherwise determine compliance with, Federal
regulations to the Small Business and Agriculture

Regulatory Enforcement Ombudsman and the Regional Small Business
Regulatory Fairness Boards. The Ombudsman evaluates these actions
annually and rates each agency's responsiveness to small business. If
you wish to comment on actions by employees of the Coast Guard, call 1-
888-REG-FAIR (1-888-734-3247). The Coast Guard will not retaliate
against small entities that question or complain about this rule or any
policy or action of the Coast Guard.

C. Collection of Information

    This rule will 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 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 rule does not have tribal implications under Executive
Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal
Governments, because it does not have a substantial direct effect on
one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal
Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and
responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes. If
you believe this rule has implications for federalism or Indian tribes,
please contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT
section above.

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 rule will not result in
such an expenditure, we do discuss the effects of this rule elsewhere
in this preamble.

F. Environment

    We have analyzed this rule under Department of Homeland Security
Directive 023-01 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
determined 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 rule involves a safety zone lasting only one hour and
thirty minutes that will prohibit the entry of vessels and persons
within a 420-foot radius of the entrance to Green Turtle Bay Resort at
mile marker 31.5 on the Cumberland River in Grand Rivers, KY. It is
categorically excluded from further review under paragraph L60(a) in
Table 3-1 of U.S. Coast Guard Environmental Planning Implementing
Procedures 5090.1. A Record of Environmental Consideration supporting
this determination is available in the docket where indicated under
ADDRESSES.

G. Protest Activities

    The Coast Guard respects the First Amendment rights of protesters.
Protesters are asked to contact 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.

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 amends
33 CFR part 165 as follows:

PART 165--REGULATED NAVIGATION AREAS AND LIMITED ACCESS AREAS

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

    Authority:  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. 0170.1.

0
2. Add Sec.  165.T08-0514 to read as follows:

Sec.  165.T08-0514   Safety Zone; Cumberland River, Grand Rivers, KY.

    (a) Location. The safety zone will cover all navigable waters of
the Cumberland River at mile marker 31.5 within a 420-foot radius from
the fireworks launch site on the Green Turtle Bay Resort in Grand
Rivers, KY.
    (b) Enforcement period. This section will be enforced from 8:15
p.m. through 9:45 p.m. on August 17, 2019.
    (c) Regulations. (1) In accordance with the general regulations in
Sec.  [thinsp]165.23, entry into this zone is prohibited unless
authorized by the Captain of the Port Sector Ohio Valley (COTP) or a
designated representative.
    (2) Persons or vessels desiring to enter into or pass through the
zone must request permission from the COTP or a designated
representative. They may be contacted on VHF-FM Channel 16 or by phone
at<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    (3) If permission is granted, all persons and vessels must transit
at their slowest safe speed and comply with all lawful directions
issued by the COTP or a designated representative.
    (d) Informational broadcasts. The COTP or a designated
representative will inform the public through broadcast notices to
mariners of any changes in the planned schedule.

    Dated: July 12, 2019.
A.M. Beach,
Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Port Sector Ohio Valley.
[FR Doc. 2019-15272 Filed 7-17-19; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 9110-04-P