[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 106 (Monday, June 5, 2017)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 25748-25750]
[FR Doc No: 2017-11128]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2017-0491; Directorate Identifier 2016-SW-020-AD]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Sikorsky Aircraft Corporation
Helicopters

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

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

SUMMARY: We propose to adopt a new airworthiness directive (AD) for
Sikorsky Aircraft Corporation (Sikorsky) Model S-76A, S-76B, S-76C, and
S-76D helicopters. This proposed AD would require inspecting the main
rotor (M/R) servo pushrod (pushrod) assembly and applying slippage
marks. This proposed AD is prompted by an accident of a Sikorsky Model
S-76C helicopter caused by a failed pushrod assembly. The proposed
actions are intended to prevent an unsafe condition on these products.

DATES: We must receive comments on this proposed AD by August 4, 2017.

ADDRESSES: You may send comments by any of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Docket: Go to http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online instructions for sending your
comments electronically.
     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
     Mail: Send comments to the U.S. Department of
Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor,
Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590-0001.

     Hand Delivery: Deliver to the ``Mail'' address between 9
a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.

Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2017-
0491; or in person at the Docket Operations Office between 9 a.m. and 5
p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD docket
contains this proposed AD, the economic evaluation, any comments
received, and other information. The street address for the Docket
Operations Office (telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>) is in the ADDRESSES section.
Comments will be available in the AD docket shortly after receipt.
    For service information identified in this proposed rule, contact
Sikorsky Aircraft Corporation, Customer Service Engineering, 124 Quarry
Road, Trumbull, CT 06611; telephone 1-800-Winged-S or<PHONE_NUMBER>;
email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>You may review the
referenced service information at the FAA, Office of the Regional
Counsel, Southwest Region, 10101 Hillwood Pkwy, Room 6N-321, Fort
Worth, TX 76177.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Blaine Williams, Aerospace Engineer,
Boston Aircraft Certification Office, Engine & Propeller Directorate,
1200 District Avenue, Burlington, Massachusetts 01803; telephone (781)
238-7161; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Comments Invited

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

Discussion

    We propose to adopt a new AD for Sikorsky Model S-76A, S-76B, S-
76C, and S-76D helicopters with a serial number up to and including
761075 and with an M/R pushrod assembly part number (P/N) 76400-00034-
059, 76400-00014-074, 76400-00014-076, or 76400-00014-077 installed.
This proposed AD would not affect the requirements of AD 2015-19-51,
which was issued as an emergency AD on September 14, 2015, and
published in the Federal Register on October 26, 2015 (80 FR 65128). AD
2015-19-51 applies to Sikorsky Model S-76A, S-76B, S-76C, and S-76D
helicopters with M/R pushrod assembly P/N 76400-00034-059 or tail rotor
pushrod assembly P/N 76400-00014-071. AD 2015-19-51 requires inspecting
the pushrod assemblies and jamnuts, and applying slippage marks across
the pushrod tubes and jamnuts. This new proposed AD would apply to M/R
pushrod assembly P/N 76400-00034-059 as well as M/R pushrod assemblies
that are installed farther away from the servo actuators. Further
flight testing has revealed additional data regarding the vibration
environment of these M/R pushrod assemblies making it necessary to
inspect the pushrod assemblies and jamnuts and apply torque to the
jamnuts.
    This proposed AD would require inspecting the M/R forward, aft, and
lateral pushrod assembly control rods and jamnuts, applying torque to
the jamnuts, and applying slippage marks across the control rods and
jamnuts. This proposed AD is prompted by an accident of a Sikorsky
Model S-76C helicopter caused by a loose jamnut and subsequent failure
of the pushrod assembly. Separation of the control rod and the rod end
was found. The proposed actions are intended to detect a loose jamnut
and prevent failure of the pushrod assembly, loss of M/R flight
control, and subsequent loss of control of the helicopter.

FAA's Determination

    We are proposing this AD because we evaluated all known relevant
information and determined that an unsafe condition exists and is
likely to exist or develop on other helicopters of these same type
designs.

Related Service Information

    We reviewed Sikorksy S-76 Helicopter Alert Service Bulletin 76-67-
58, Basic Issue, dated November 19, 2015 (ASB), which specifies a one-
time inspection of the M/R forward, aft, and lateral pushrod assemblies
and jamnuts for proper installation, condition, and security. If a
pushrod or jamnut does not meet criteria specified in the inspections,
the ASB specifies replacing the assembly. The ASB also specifies
applying torque to each jamnut and applying two slippage marks across
each control rod and jamnut.

Proposed AD Requirements

    This proposed AD would require, within 300 hours time-in-service,
inspecting each pushrod assembly by inspecting the position of the rod
end in the control rod. If the lockwire passes through the inspection
hole, this proposed AD would require replacing the pushrod assembly. If
the lockwire does not pass through the inspection hole, this proposed
AD would require inspecting the jamnut to determine seating position
against the control rod and whether the jamnut can be turned with
finger pressure. If the jamnut is not seated against the control rod or
is loose, this proposed AD would require replacing the pushrod
assembly. If the jamnut is seated against the control rod and cannot be
turned with finger pressure, this proposed AD would require applying
140 inch-pounds of torque to the jamnut while using a pushrod tool.
This proposed AD would also require, both for those pushrod assemblies
that are replaced and for those that pass the inspections, applying two
slippage marks across each control rod and jamnut.

Differences Between This Proposed AD and the Service Information

    The Sikorsky ASB specifies returning any removed M/R pushrod
assembly to Sikorsky. This proposed AD does not require returning any
parts to Sikorsky.

Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this proposed AD would affect 198 helicopters of
U.S. Registry.
    We estimate that operators may incur the following costs in order
to comply with this AD. Labor costs are estimated at $85 per work-hour.
Inspecting the M/R pushrod assemblies would take about 2.2 work-hours
for an estimated cost of $187 per helicopter and $37,026 for the U.S.
fleet. Replacing an M/R pushrod assembly would take about 2 work-hours
for a labor cost of $170. Parts to replace M/R pushrod assembly P/N
76400-00034-059 would cost about

$2,411 for a total estimated replacement cost of $2,581.
    Parts to replace M/R pushrod assembly P/N 76400-00014-074 would
cost about $2,224 for a total estimated replacement cost of $2,394.
Parts to replace M/R pushrod assembly P/N 76400-00014-076 would cost
about $2,488 for a total estimated replacement cost of $2,658. Parts to
replace M/R pushrod assembly P/N 76400-00014-077 would cost about
$2,414 for a total estimated replacement cost of $2,584. It takes a
minimal amount of time to apply the slippage marks for a negligible
cost.

Authority for This Rulemaking

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

Regulatory Findings

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

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

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

The Proposed Amendment

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

PART 39--AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES

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):

Sikorsky Aircraft Corporation: Docket No. FAA-2017-0491; Directorate
Identifier 2016-SW-020-AD.

(a) Applicability

    This AD applies to Model S-76A, S-76B, S-76C, and S-76D
helicopters, serial numbers up to and including 761075, with a main
rotor (M/R) servo pushrod (pushrod) assembly part number (P/N)
76400-00034-059, 76400-00014-074, 76400-00014-076, or 76400-00014-
077 installed, certificated in any category.
    Note 1 to paragraph (a) of this AD: M/R pushrod P/N 76400-00034-
059 is included in the Applicability section of AD 2015-19-51,
Amendment 39-18300 (80 FR 65128, October 26, 2015). This AD does not
affect AD 2015-19-51.

(b) Unsafe Condition

    This AD defines the unsafe condition as a loose jamnut. This
condition could result in failure of a pushrod assembly, loss of M/R
flight control, and subsequent loss of control of the helicopter.

(c) Comments Due Date

    We must receive comments by August 4, 2017.

(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 300 hours time-in-service:
    (1) Inspect the control rod of each pushrod assembly (control
rod) to determine whether 0.020 inch diameter lockwire can pass
through the inspection hole.
    (i) If the lockwire passes through the inspection hole, before
further flight, replace the pushrod assembly.
    (ii) If the lockwire does not pass through the inspection hole,
inspect the jamnut to determine whether it is seated against the
control rod and whether it can be turned with finger pressure.
    (A) If the jamnut is not seated against the control rod or can
be turned with finger pressure, before further flight, replace the
pushrod assembly.
    (B) If the jamnut is seated against the control rod and cannot
be turned with finger pressure, using a pushrod tool, apply 140
inch-pounds of torque to the jamnut.
    (2) Apply two slippage marks across each control rod and jamnut
as follows:
    (i) Clean the area where a slippage mark is to be applied.
    (ii) Apply two slippage marks across the control rod and jamnut,
parallel and on opposite sides of each other. Each slippage mark
must extend at least 0.5 inch onto the control rod and must not
cover the inspection hole. Figure 1 (Sheet 2) of Sikorsky S-76
Helicopter Alert Service Bulletin 76-67-58, Basic Issue, dated
November 19, 2015, illustrates a slippage mark across a control rod
and jamnut.

(f) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOC)

    (1) The Manager, Boston Aircraft Certification Office, FAA, may
approve AMOCs for this AD. Send your proposal to: Blaine Williams,
Aerospace Engineer, Boston Aircraft Certification Office, Engine &
Propeller Directorate, 1200 District Avenue, Burlington,
Massachusetts 01803; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; email
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    (2) For operations conducted under a 14 CFR part 119 operating
certificate or under 14 CFR part 91, subpart K, we suggest that you
notify your principal inspector, or lacking a principal inspector,
the manager of the local flight standards district office or
certificate holding district office before operating any aircraft
complying with this AD through an AMOC.

(g) Additional Information

    Sikorksy S-76 Helicopter Alert Service Bulletin 76-67-58, Basic
Issue, dated November 19, 2015, which is not incorporated by
reference, contains additional information about the subject of this
AD. For service information identified in this AD, contact Sikorsky
Aircraft Corporation, Customer Service Engineering, 124 Quarry Road,
Trumbull, CT 06611; telephone 1-800-Winged-S or<PHONE_NUMBER>; email:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>You may review a copy of
information at the FAA, Office of the Regional Counsel, Southwest
Region, 10101 Hillwood Pkwy, Room 6N-321, Fort Worth, TX 76177.

(h) Subject

    Joint Aircraft Service Component (JASC) Code: 6700, Rotorcraft
Flight Control.

    Issued in Fort Worth, Texas, on May 17, 2017.
Scott A. Horn,
Acting Manager, Rotorcraft Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service.
[FR Doc. 2017-11128 Filed 6-2-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 176 (Monday, September 12, 2011)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 56132-56134]
[FR Doc No: 2011-23136]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R09-OAR-2011-0733; FRL-9462-2]

Revisions to the California State Implementation Plan, San
Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to approve revisions to the San Joaquin
Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District (SJVUAPCD) portion of the
California State Implementation Plan (SIP). These revisions concern
volatile organic compound (VOC) emissions from polyester resin
operations. We are approving a local rule that regulates these emission
sources under the Clean Air Act as amended in 1990 (CAA or the Act). We
are taking comments on this proposal and plan to follow with a final
action. In a separate interim final action published in the Rules
section in today's Federal Register, we are deferring related CAA
sanctions that would otherwise apply to the SJVUAPCD.

DATES: Any comments must arrive by October 12, 2011.

ADDRESSES: Submit comments, identified by docket number EPA-R09-OAR-
2011-0733, by one of the following methods:
    1. Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov. Follow
the on-line instructions.
    2. E-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    3. Mail or deliver: Andrew Steckel (Air-4), U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency Region IX, 75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, CA
94105-3901.
    Instructions: All comments will be included in the public docket
without change and may be made available online at http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information provided,
unless the comment includes Confidential Business Information (CBI) or
other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute.
Information that you consider CBI or otherwise protected should be
clearly identified as such and should not be submitted through http://www.regulations.gov or e-mail. http://www.regulations.gov is an
``anonymous access'' system, and EPA will not know your identity or
contact information unless you provide it in the body of your comment.
If you send e-mail directly to EPA, your e-mail address will be
automatically captured and included as part of the public comment. If
EPA cannot read your comment due to technical difficulties and cannot
contact you for clarification, EPA may not be able to consider your
comment.
    Docket: Generally, documents in the docket for this action are
available electronically at http://www.regulations.gov and in hard copy
at EPA Region IX, 75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, California. While
all documents in the docket are listed at http://www.regulations.gov,
some information may be publicly available only at the hard copy
location (e.g., copyrighted material, large maps), and some may not be
publicly available in either location (e.g., CBI). To inspect the hard
copy materials, please schedule an appointment during normal business
hours with the contact listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT
section.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: David Grounds, EPA Region IX, (415)
972-3019<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document, ``we,'' ``us'' and
``our'' refer to EPA.

Table of Contents

I. The State's Submittal
    A. What rule did the State submit?
    B. Are there other versions of this rule?
    C. What is the purpose of the submitted rule revisions?
II. EPA's Evaluation and Action
    A. How is EPA evaluating the rule?
    B. Does the rule meet the evaluation criteria?
    C. EPA Recommendations to Further Improve the Rule
    D. Public Comment and Final Action
III. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. The State's Submittal

A. What rule did the State submit?

    By letter dated July 22, 2011, CARB submitted to EPA on behalf of
SJVUAPCD a proposed rule, with request for parallel processing.\1\ See
June 22, 2011 letter to Jared Blumenfeld, Regional Administrator, EPA
Region 9, from James N. Goldstene, Executive Officer, CARB.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Under EPA's ``parallel processing'' procedure, EPA proposes
rulemaking action concurrently with the State's proposed rulemaking.
If the State's proposed rule is changed, EPA will evaluate that
subsequent change and may publish another notice of proposed
rulemaking. If no significant change is made, EPA will publish a
final rulemaking on the rule after responding to any submitted
comments. Final rulemaking action by EPA will occur only after the
rule has been fully adopted by California and submitted formally to
EPA for incorporation into the SIP. See 40 CFR part 51, appendix V.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Table 1 lists the rule addressed by this proposal with the rule
title.

      Table 1--Rule Submitted by California for Parallel Processing
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                         Rule
             Local  agency               No.           Rule title
------------------------------------------------------------------------
SJVUAPCD..............................   4684  Polyester Resin
                                                Operations.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    CARB's July 22, 2011 parallel processing request includes the
District Notice of Public Hearing to be held on August 18, 2011 and the
amended District Rule 4684. SJVUAPCD amended Rule 4684 on June 16,
2011. Due to procedural issues with the local public notification
process, SJVUAPCD readopted these amendments on August 18, 2011 and
expects CARB to submit them to EPA soon.
    EPA is granting CARB's request that EPA ``parallel process'' our
review and propose action on the rule. All of the relevant documents
are available for

review in the docket for today's proposed rulemaking.

B. Are there other versions of this rule?

    We approved an earlier version of Rule 4684 (adopted locally
December 20, 2001) into the SIP on June 26, 2002 (67 FR 42999). We also
finalized a simultaneous limited approval and limited disapproval of a
subsequent version of Rule 4684 (adopted locally on September 20, 2007)
on January 26, 2010 (75 FR 3996), thereby incorporating that version of
the rule into the SIP. The SJVUAPCD adopted revisions to the SIP-
approved version on September 17, 2009 and CARB submitted them to us on
May 17, 2010, but we did not act on those revisions. On July 22, 2011,
CARB submitted a request to EPA to approve further draft revisions to
Rule 4684 using EPA's authority to parallel process SIP revisions.
SJVUAPCD adopted these amendments on August 18, 2011 and expects CARB
to submit them to EPA soon. While we are only acting on the ``parallel
processing'' version, we have reviewed materials provided with previous
submittals.

C. What is the purpose of the submitted rule revisions?

    VOCs help produce ground-level ozone and smog, which harm human
health and the environment. Section 110(a) of the CAA requires States
to submit regulations that control VOC emissions. Rule 4684 limits VOC
emissions from polyester resin operations, associated organic solvent
cleaning and storage, and disposal of solvents and waste solvent
materials. EPA's technical support document (TSD) has more information
about this rule.

II. EPA's Evaluation and Action

A. How is EPA evaluating the rule?

    Several statutory provisions apply to EPA's evaluation of the
rules. CAA section 110(a)(2)(A) requires that regulations submitted to
EPA for approval into a SIP must be clear and legally enforceable. CAA
section 110(l) prohibits EPA from approving any SIP revision that would
interfere with any applicable requirement concerning attainment and
reasonable further progress (RFP) or any other applicable requirement
of the CAA, and CAA section 193 prohibits the modification of any SIP-
approved control requirement in effect before November 15, 1990, in a
nonattainment area. CAA section 172(c)(1) requires nonattainment areas
to implement all reasonably available control measures (RACM),
including such reductions in emissions from existing sources in the
area as may be obtained through the adoption, at a minimum, of
reasonably available control technology (RACT), as expeditiously as
practicable. In addition, under CAA section 182(b)(2), ozone
nonattainment areas classified as moderate or above must implement RACT
for all VOC sources covered by a Control Technique Guideline (CTG)
document and for all other major sources of VOCs. The SJVUAPCD
regulates an ozone nonattainment area that is classified as Extreme
under both the one-hour ozone and eight-hour ozone standards (40 CFR
81.305 (2011)) and Rule 4684 applies to major sources, as well as
sources covered by a CTG document. Therefore, Rule 4684 must fulfill
RACT requirements for VOCs.
    Guidance and policy documents that we use to evaluate
enforceability and RACT requirements include the following:
    1. ``Issues Relating to VOC Regulation Cutpoints, Deficiencies, and
Deviations,'' EPA, May 25, 1988 (the Bluebook).
    2. ``Guidance Document for Correcting Common VOC & Other Rule
Deficiencies,'' EPA Region 9, August 21, 2001 (the Little Bluebook).
    3. ``Control Techniques Guidelines for Fiberglass Boat
Manufacturing Materials,'' EPA-453/R-08-004, September 2008.

B. Does the rule meet the evaluation criteria?

    We believe this rule is consistent with the relevant CAA
requirements and guidance regarding enforceability, RACT, and SIP
revisions. The TSD has more information on our evaluation.

C. EPA Recommendations to Further Improve the Rule

    The TSD describes one additional rule revision that we recommend
for the next time the local agency modifies the rule but is not
currently the basis for rule disapproval.

D. Proposed Action, Public Comment and Final Action

    Because EPA believes the submitted rule fulfills all relevant
requirements, we are proposing to fully approve it as described in
section 110(k)(3) of the Act once we receive the final adopted version
as a revision to the California SIP. If the final version of the rule
submitted for SIP approval differs substantially from the version
proposed and submitted for ``parallel processing,'' this will result in
the need for additional proposed rulemaking on this rule.
    We will accept comments from the public on this proposal for the
next 30 days. Unless we receive convincing new information during the
comment period, we intend to publish a final approval action that will
incorporate this rule into the federally enforceable SIP. Our final
action will permanently terminate the sanctions clocks associated with
our January 26, 2010 action on the effective date of the final
approval.

III. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under the Clean Air Act, the Administrator is required to approve a
SIP submission that complies with the provisions of the Act and
applicable Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a).
Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve State
choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the Clean Air Act.
Accordingly, this proposed action merely proposes to approve State law
as meeting Federal requirements and does not impose additional
requirements beyond those imposed by State law. For that reason, this
proposed action:
     Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' subject to
review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Order
12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993);
     Does not impose an information collection burden under the
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
     Is certified as not having a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
     Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or
uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
     Does not have Federalism implications as specified in
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
     Is not an economically significant regulatory action based
on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR
19885, April 23, 1997);
     Is not a significant regulatory action subject to
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
     Is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272
note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent
with the Clean Air Act; and
     Does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to
address disproportionate human health or

environmental effects with practical, appropriate, and legally
permissible methods under Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February
16, 1994).
    In addition, this proposed action does not have Tribal implications
as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000),
because the SIP is not approved to apply in Indian country located in
the State, and EPA notes that it will not impose substantial direct
costs on Tribal governments or preempt Tribal law.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Intergovernmental
relations, Ozone, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Volatile
organic compounds.

    Authority:  42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.

    Dated: August 31, 2011.
Jared Blumenfeld,
Regional Administrator, Region IX.
[FR Doc. 2011-23136 Filed 9-9-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 216 (Monday, November 9, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Pages 69272-69275]
[FR Doc No: 2015-28411]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Railroad Administration

[Safety Advisory No. 2015-05]

Addressing Rail Head Surface Conditions Identified During the
Internal Rail Inspection Process

AGENCY: Federal Railroad Administration (FRA), Department of
Transportation.

ACTION: Notice of safety advisory.

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

SUMMARY: On February 16, 2015, a derailment occurred in West Virginia
due to a broken rail that resulted from an internal rail defect,
specifically a vertical split head (VSH). Although rail flaw detection
equipment had indicated rail flaw conditions at the location of the
failure in December 2014 and January 2015, the operator of the
equipment failed to carry out an on-ground examination of the defect.
The operator later claimed that he believed the reading on the monitor
was a false-positive due to rail head surface conditions. FRA believes
that if the operator better understood the indications for various rail
flaw conditions, including the rough rail surface conditions he was to
look for and properly identified the rail flaw indications, the
operator would have reported the defect to the track owner. Upon
reporting, the track owner would have been alerted to its duty under
the Track Safety Standards (49 CFR part 213) to take remedial action
(either repair or replacement of the rail or reduction of the maximum
authorized train speed over the rail to the specified level). Had the
track owner then taken proper remedial action, that action may have
prevented the broken rail and the derailment.
    In response, FRA is issuing this Safety Advisory No. 2015-05 to
remind track owners (typically railroads), their track maintenance
personnel, and their rail flaw detection equipment operators of the
importance of complying with their rail management programs and
engineering procedures that address rail with rail head surface
conditions while performing rail flaw inspections and track inspections
generally. This is particularly vital on track carrying passengers and
hazardous materials due to the catastrophic consequences that may
result from a derailment. This Safety Advisory also contains
recommendations to track owners to ensure their rail flaw detection
equipment operators are properly trained and exercise due diligence
when a rail head surface condition interferes with a valid rail
inspection.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Carlo M. Patrick, Staff Director, Rail
and Infrastructure Integrity Division, Office of Railroad Safety, FRA,
1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590, telephone (202) 493-
6399; or John Seguin, Trial Attorney, Office of Chief Counsel, FRA,
1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590, telephone (202) 493-
6045.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background, Including Accident Summary and Regulatory Context

    The overall safety of railroad operations has improved in recent
years. However, a February 2015 accident highlights the need for
additional focus on detection of internal rail flaws by each track
owner responsible for compliance with the Track Safety Standards, and
its respective employees and internal rail inspection service
providers, particularly on track that carries passengers or hazardous
materials. See relevant sections of the regulations, for example, 49
CFR 213.5, Responsibility for compliance; 213.113, Defective rails;
213.237, Inspection of rail; and 213.238, Qualified operator. The
following section summarizes the circumstances of this train derailment
based on FRA's internal investigation and findings to date.

Accident Summary

    At 1:15 p.m., Eastern Standard Time, on Monday, February 16, 2015,
CSX Transportation, Inc. (CSXT) Train K08014, a loaded unit train
transporting Bakken crude oil, traveling eastward at 33 miles per hour
(mph) on the railroad's Huntington Division, New River Subdivision,
experienced an automated emergency brake application in Fayette County,
west of Mt. Carbon, WV, as a result of a derailment. The derailment
occurred on Class 4 track due to a VSH rail defect. See 49 CFR 213.09.
Twenty-seven tank cars derailed, and 20 of the derailed tank cars
released approximately 362,300 gallons of crude oil that immediately
ignited. The resulting fire burned for four days, requiring an
evacuation approximately 1,100 residents within a half-mile of the
accident site. One occupant of a house located adjacent to the accident
site reported an injury due to smoke inhalation, and a resident outside
the evacuation zone was also injured (hypothermia due to a lack of heat
from power loss). A small amount of the crude oil entered the Kanawha
River. As a precaution, officials closed downstream water treatment
intakes at Montgomery, WV, approximately three miles west of the
accident site. A one-half-mile evacuation zone around the derailment
site affected approximately 1,100 residents

Prior Rail Inspections

    As part of its derailment investigation, FRA reviewed the rail test
data from CSXT's two most recent rail inspections in the area where the
derailment occurred. The two most recent inspections occurred on
December 17, 2014, and January 12, 2015, and were conducted by a CSXT
contractor, a rail inspection provider. Those inspections included
ultrasonic and induction equipment specially designed for the detection
of internal rail flaws.
    During the December 17, 2014, inspection, the rail inspection
provider's test equipment recorded indications with an icon on the
display screen showing a vertical ultrasonic channel equipment response
and induction test-channel responses at the point of derailment (POD).
The test equipment recorded a similar but more significant indication
at the same location during the next test on January 12, 2015. During
both inspections, the test equipment also responded to a potential
longitudinal-type rail head condition with multiple ``boxed'' equipment
responses. The rail inspection data produced during the two inspections
exhibited equipment responses typically indicating the presence of a
significant rail head surface anomaly or longitudinal rail head defect
such as the VSH defect that would become the POD on February 16, 2015.
    Despite the indications of a defect that was becoming more
significant over time, the rail flaw detection equipment operator did
not conduct a visual ground examination and/or hand test to meet the 49
CFR 213.113(b) requirement to verify the multiple VSH defect
indications the test equipment identified. Instead, the rail inspection
operator told FRA that he looked out the window of his test equipment,
decided a ``dirty rail'' \1\ had caused each indication.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ During the interview of the operator, he used the term
``dirty rail''. In this context, FRA believes the operator was
referring to a rail that exhibits a top of rail surface condition
that could account for the inspection equipment response. However,
FRA notes that the term can also mean that the rail contained an
internal metallurgical impurity that is inherent from the
manufacturing process.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

VSH Rail Defect

    A VSH rail defect is a progressive longitudinal fracture in the
head of the rail (i.e., the upper part of a rail, used for supporting
and guiding the wheels of railroad cars), where separation along an
internal seam, segregation, or inclusion propagates vertically through
the rail head. The formation of a VSH defect is found predominantly in
locations where the train wheel stress loads are off center on the rail
head. Separation progresses longitudinally and vertically along the
rail length, typically for some distance before turning to the gage or
field side of the rail head and often progresses rapidly before
failure. FRA's investigation

confirmed there was evidence of multiple, centrally located VSH defects
at the derailment site.

Use of Rail Flaw Detection Equipment

    The railroad industry primarily uses ultrasonic test equipment to
conduct non-destructive testing (NDT) for internal rail flaw
inspection. As with any NDT method, ultrasonic technology contains
physical limitations that allow certain types of rail head surface
conditions to influence the proper transfer of sound into the rail and
impede detection of rail flaws. The predominant types of these
mechanically-formed conditions are referred to as shells, engine-driver
burns, spalling, flaking, corrugation, and head checking. Other
conditions that are encountered are heavy lubrication or debris on the
rail head. Indeed, track owners and rail inspection providers should be
aware that the NDT system is designed to perform optimally on an ideal
test surface (i.e., no rail head surface conditions). Conditions such
as extreme cyclical loading can result in head wear and rail head
surface conditions that affect the integrity of these rail flaw
inspections.
    Any type of surface condition can impede the transfer of sound from
a rail inspection transducer into the rail being tested and the proper
transfer of sound from a reflector in the rail back to the transducer.
If the rail flaw detection equipment operator has any doubt or
uncertainty about the integrity of the test process because of surface
conditions, the operator should record the rail section searched as an
invalid search for internal defects, and the track owner must take
appropriate action under paragraph (h) of 49 CFR 213.237. Briefly
summarized, paragraph (h) requires the track owner to conduct a valid
search, reduce operating speed to a maximum of 25 mph until a valid
search can be made, or replace the rail that had not been inspected.

General Responsibilities of Rail Flaw Detection Equipment Operators

    The rail flaw detection equipment operator must have the knowledge
and experience to proficiently identify the types of rail head surface
conditions that can result in an improper or invalid test of the rail
section where the condition is located. See 49 CFR 213.237(i). Unless a
rail flaw detection equipment operator has already demonstrated
proficiency operating the equipment before January 24, 2014, and,
therefore, satisfied the qualified operator requirement under 49 CFR
213.238(f),\2\ FRA requires them to be specifically trained and have
written authorization from his or her employer to: (1) Conduct a valid
search for internal rail defects that is continuous and completely
covers both rails of the track; (2) determine that the rail inspection
equipment is operating within manufacturer guidelines and settings and
performing all its required functions as designed; and (3) conduct the
inspection according to established track owner and regulatory
procedures and guidelines, including determining that all equipment
responses are interpreted and attributed to a known condition that is
not considered a rail defect. 49 CFR 213.238. Indeed, it is essential
that the rail inspection's test integrity not be influenced by surface
contamination, rail condition, or environmental conditions that can
result in changes to the operational settings of the test equipment
beyond allowable tolerances, changes to the equipment's alignment, or
diminished equipment responses. Therefore, it is imperative that the
track owner or rail inspection provider perform a hand test or visual
on-ground examination of these suspect conditions to verify whether a
defect is present.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ The operator of the rail flaw detector equipment that
performed the December 17, 2014, and January 12, 2015 internal rail
inspections was deemed a qualified operator under 49 CFR 213.238(f).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    FRA regulations specify that the rail flaw detection equipment
operator must be trained as specified in FRA regulations to interpret
the test data and to ``demonstrate proficiency in the rail defect
detection process . . . .'' 49 CFR 213.238(c). Test equipment includes
all hand-test instrumentation, recording instrumentation, front-end
devices (roller search units, skids, induction search units, cabling,
etc.), and detection control center (processing computer) equipment.
    Under paragraph (a) of 49 CFR 213.238, each provider of rail flaw
detection services shall (1) have a documented training program in
place and (2) identify the types of rail flaw detection equipment for
which each equipment operator it employs has received training and is
qualified. Operators who are deemed a qualified operator under
paragraph (f) remain subject to paragraph (d), which, in part, requires
an employer to ``reevaluate the qualifications of, and administer any
necessary recurrent training for, the operator as determined by and in
accordance with the employer's documented program.'' This requirement
for recurrent training applies to operators who have completed the
initial training program and operators who have been deemed qualified
operators under paragraph (f).
    FRA determined during its investigation into the February 16, 2015,
derailment that the presence of the rail head surface condition was not
sufficient to account for the equipment response in its entirety, and
that the rail flaw detection equipment operator should have inspected
further. FRA believes that a visual ground examination, or hand test,
or both, would have identified the presence of the underlying VSH
defect at the time of the test on January 12, 2015, at what would
become the POD.
    Recommended Action: In light of the discussion above, and to
instill a heightened sense of vigilance in track owners and their rail
inspection provider(s), FRA recommends that each track owner:

    1. Review with its employees and its rail inspection provider(s)
the circumstances of the derailment described above and ensure its
employees and rail inspection provider(s) carefully scrutinize
occurrences of localized areas containing rail head surface
conditions that may impede detection of an internal rail flaw and
result in an invalid inspection;
    2. Ensure its rail inspection procedures contain specific
instructions that make clear what its rail inspection provider(s)
are responsible for (for example, including identifying and
reporting defects and invalid searches) and that incentivizes its
rail inspection provider(s) to identify and report areas where a
valid search could not be conducted;
    3. Ensure that its employees and its rail inspection provider(s)
follow the requirements of its own engineering instructions and
ensure that the employees and rail inspection provider(s) can
identify locations that exhibit excessive rail head wear and rail
head surface conditions;
    4. Ensure that its rail flaw detection equipment operators
perform an on-ground examination of any suspect rail defect location
in conformance with 49 CFR 213.113(b). The operators should verify
the suspect locations by hand as necessary, using a hand-held
ultrasonic instrument or comparable device;
    5. Ensure that its rail flaw detection equipment operators have
been adequately trained on its procedures, are fully capable of
performing proficient inspections, and are fully capable of
determining whether a rail inspection is valid;
    6. Continue the research and development of technology that will
permit real-time comparison of the inspection data from the most
current rail inspection with inspection data from the previous rail
inspection to enable the operator to identify rail conditions that
have significantly changed between inspections;
    7. Review its current engineering instructions to ensure that
the procedures are consistent with the industry standard for rail
replacement and repair, particularly in track

over which passengers or large quantities of ethanol, crude oil, or
other hazardous materials are transported;
    8. In applying appropriate slow orders, focus on locations that
exhibit rail head surface conditions and rail head wear loss
approaching the limits specified in its own engineering instructions
until the rail is replaced or repaired; and
    9. Aggressively monitor and evaluate its rail inspection
provider's or providers' performance through a quality control
program.

    FRA encourages railroad industry members and other track owners to
take actions consistent with the preceding recommendations and to take
other complementary actions to help ensure the safety of the Nation's
railroads, its employees, and the general public. FRA may modify this
Safety Advisory No. 2015-05, issue additional safety advisories, or
take other appropriate actions it deems necessary to ensure the highest
level of safety on the Nation's railroads, including pursuing other
corrective measures under its rail safety authority.

    Issued in Washington, DC, on November 4, 2015.
Robert C. Lauby,
Associate Administrator for Railroad Safety Chief Safety Officer.
[FR Doc. 2015-28411 Filed 11-6-15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-06-P


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 155 (Tuesday, August 12, 2014)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 47040-47043]
[FR Doc No: 2014-19072]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 100

[Docket Number USCG-2014-0636]
RIN 1625-AA08

Special Local Regulations for Marine Events, Patuxent River;
Solomons, MD

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard proposes to temporarily change the enforcement
periods of special local regulations for a recurring marine event in
the Fifth Coast Guard District. These regulations apply to the
Chesapeake Challenge power boat race, a recurring marine event, and
would be effective from October 4, 2014, to October 5, 2014. Special
local regulations are necessary to provide for the safety of life on
navigable waters during the event. This action is intended to restrict
vessel traffic in a portion of the Patuxent River at Solomons, MD
during the event.

DATES: Comments and related material must be received by the Coast
Guard on or before September 11, 2014.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments identified by docket number using
any one of the following methods:
    (1) Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov.
    (2) Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    (3) Mail or Delivery: 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. Deliveries
accepted between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except
federal holidays. The telephone number is<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    See the ``Public Participation and Request for Comments'' portion
of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section below for further instructions
on submitting comments. To avoid duplication, please use only one of
these three methods.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions on this rule,
call or email Mr. Ronald Houck, U.S. Coast Guard Sector Baltimore, MD;
telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>, email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>If you have
questions on viewing or submitting material to the docket, call Cheryl
Collins, Program Manager, Docket Operations, telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Table of Acronyms

DHS Department of Homeland Security
FR Federal Register
NPRM Notice of Proposed Rulemaking

A. 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.

1. Submitting Comments

    If you submit a comment, please include the docket number for this
rulemaking, indicate the specific section of this document to which
each comment applies, and provide a reason for each suggestion or
recommendation. You may submit your comments and material online at
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, it
will be considered received by the Coast Guard when you successfully
transmit the comment. If you fax, hand deliver, or mail your comment,
it will be considered as having been received by the Coast Guard when
it is received at the Docket Management Facility. We recommend that you
include your name and a mailing address, an email 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,
type the docket number [USCG-2014-0636] in the ``SEARCH'' box and click
``SEARCH.'' Click on ``Submit a Comment'' on the line associated with
this rulemaking.
    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.

2. 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,
type the docket number (USCG-2014-0636) in the ``SEARCH'' box and click
``SEARCH.'' Click on Open Docket Folder on the line associated with
this rulemaking. 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.

3. 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).

4. Public Meeting

    We do not now plan to hold a public meeting. But you may submit a
request for one, using one of the 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.

B. Regulatory History and Information

    This marine event is regulated at 33 CFR 100.501. The dates of the
event as published are September 2nd, 3rd or 4th (Friday, Saturday and
Sunday).

C. Basis and Purpose

    The legal basis and authorities for this rulemaking establishing a
special local regulation are found in 33 U.S.C. 1233, which authorize
the Coast Guard to establish and define special local regulations. The
Captain of the Port Baltimore is establishing a special local
regulation for the waters of the Patuxent River, near Solomons, MD to
protect event participants, spectators and transiting vessels. Entry
into this area is prohibited unless specifically authorized by the
Captain of the Port Baltimore or designated representative.

D. Discussion of Proposed Rule

    Marine events are frequently held on the navigable waters within
the boundary of the Fifth Coast Guard District. The activities that
typically comprise marine events include but are not limited to sailing
regattas, power boat races, swim races and holiday parades. The
regulation listing annual marine events within the Fifth Coast Guard
District and their regulated dates

is 33 CFR 100.501. The Table to Sec.  100.501 identifies marine events
by Captain of the Port zone. For a description of the geographical area
of each Coast Guard Sector--Captain of the Port Zone, please see 33 CFR
3.25.
    Event planners notified the Coast Guard of date changes for the
``Chesapeake Challenge'' marine event that is listed at 33 CFR 100.501,
Table to Sec.  100.501. This regulation temporarily changes the
enforcement periods for this marine event for 2014 only. The
enforcement dates for 2014 are October 4, 2014, and October 5, 2014.
    The annual ``Chesapeake Challenge,'' marine event is sponsored by
the Chesapeake Bay Powerboat Association; and takes place on the waters
of the Patuxent River at Solomons, MD. The regulation at 33 CFR 100.501
is effective annually for the Chesapeake Challenge marine event. The
event consists of power boat racing on the waters of the Patuxent River
at Solomons, MD. Participants operate on a marked course with sponsor-
provided support craft. Therefore, to ensure the safety of participants
and support vessels, 33 CFR 100.501 is enforced for the duration of the
event. During the enforcement period vessels may not enter the
regulated area unless they receive permission from the Coast Guard
Patrol Commander. Vessel traffic may contact the Coast Guard Patrol
Commander to request permission to pass through the regulated area. If
permission is granted, vessels must pass directly through the regulated
area at safe speed and without loitering. Spectators are only allowed
inside the regulated area if they remain within the designated
spectator area.

E. Regulatory Analyses

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

1. 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,
as supplemented by Executive Order 13563, Improving Regulation and
Regulatory Review, and does not require an assessment of potential
costs and benefits under section 6(a)(3) of Executive Order 12866 or
under section 1 of Executive Order 13563. The Office of Management and
Budget has not reviewed it under those Orders.
    The economic impact of this rule is not significant for the
following reasons: (i) The regulated area will be in effect for a
limited duration; (ii) the regulated area has been narrowly tailored to
impose the least impact on general navigation, yet provide the level of
safety deemed necessary; and (iii) advance notifications will be made
to the maritime community via marine information broadcasts and local
notices to mariners, so mariners can adjust their plans accordingly.
Additionally, this rulemaking does not change the permanent regulated
areas that have been published in 33 CFR 100.501, Table to Sec.
100.501. In some cases, vessel traffic may be able to transit the
regulated area when the Coast Guard Patrol Commander grants permission
to do so. For the above reasons, the Coast Guard does not anticipate
any significant economic impact.

2. Impact on Small Entities

    Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601-612), we have
considered the impact of this proposed rule on small entities. The
Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this proposed rule
will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of
small entities.
    This rule may affect the following entities, some of which may be
small entities: The owners or operators of vessels intending to enter,
transit through, anchor in, or remain within the area where the marine
event is being held. This regulation will not have a significant impact
on a substantial number of small entities because it will be enforced
only during a marine event that has been permitted by the Coast Guard
Captain of the Port. The Captain of the Port will ensure that small
entities are able to operate in the area where the event is occurring
by requesting permission from the Coast Guard Patrol Commander. Vessels
may transit through the regulated area with the permission of the
Patrol Commander. In some cases, vessels will be able to safely transit
around the regulated area. Before the enforcement period, the Coast
Guard 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.

3. 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. 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, above. 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.

4. Collection of Information

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

5. Federalism

    A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132,
Federalism, if it has a substantial direct effect on the States, on the
relationship between the national government and the States, or on the
distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of
government. We have analyzed this proposed rule under that Order and
determined that this rule does not have implications for federalism.

6. 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.

7. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

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

8. Taking of Private Property

    This proposed rule would not cause a taking of private property or
otherwise have taking implications under Executive Order 12630,
Governmental Actions and Interference with

Constitutionally Protected Property Rights.

9. 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.

10. Protection of Children From Environmental Health Risks

    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.

11. 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.

12. Energy Effects

    This proposed rule is not a ``significant energy action'' under
Executive Order 13211, Actions Concerning Regulations That
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use.

13. Technical Standards

    This proposed rule does not use technical standards. Therefore, we
did not consider the use of voluntary consensus standards.

14. 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 that do not individually or cumulatively have a significant
effect on the human environment. This proposed rule involves
implementation of regulations within 33 CFR Part 100 applicable to
organized marine events on the navigable waters of the United States
that could negatively impact the safety 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, canoe and sail board racing.
This rule is categorically excluded from further review under paragraph
34(h) of Figure 2-1 of the Commandant Instruction. A preliminary
environmental analysis checklist supporting this determination and a
Categorical Exclusion Determination are available in the docket where
indicated under ADDRESSES. 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

0
1. The authority citation for part 100 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 33 U.S.C. 1233.

0
2. In Sec.  100.501:
0
a. In the Table to Sec.  100.501, temporarily suspend line No. (b.)20;
and
0
b. Add temporary line No. (b.)24 to the Table to Sec.  100.501 to read
as follows:

Sec.  100.501  Special Local Regulations; Marine Event in the Fifth
Coast Guard District.

* * * * *

                                             Table to Sec.   100.501
                [All coordinates listed in the Table to Sec.   100.501 reference Datum NAD 1983]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
       No.                Date                Event              Sponsor                    Location
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                                  * * * * * * *
                                     Coast Guard Sector Baltimore--COTP Zone
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                                  * * * * * * *
24...............  October 4 and 5,    Chesapeake          Chesapeake Bay      All waters of the Patuxent River,
                    2014.               Challenge.          Powerboat           within boundary lines connecting
                                                            Association.        the following positions;
                                                                                originating near north entrance
                                                                                of MD Route 4 bridge, latitude
                                                                                38[deg] 19' 45'' N, longitude
                                                                                076[deg] 28' 06'' W, thence
                                                                                southwest to south entrance of
                                                                                MD Route 4 bridge, latitude
                                                                                38[deg] 19' 24'' N, longitude
                                                                                076[deg] 28' 30'' W, thence
                                                                                south to a point near the
                                                                                shoreline, latitude 38[deg] 18'
                                                                                32'' N, longitude 076[deg] 28'
                                                                                14'' W, thence southeast to a
                                                                                point near the shoreline,
                                                                                latitude 38[deg] 17' 38'' N,
                                                                                longitude 076[deg] 27' 26'' W,
                                                                                thence northeast to latitude
                                                                                38[deg] 18' 00'' N, longitude
                                                                                076[deg] 26' 41'' W, thence
                                                                                northwest to latitude 38[deg]
                                                                                18' 59'' N, longitude 076[deg]
                                                                                27' 20'' W, located at Solomons,
                                                                                MD, thence continuing northwest
                                                                                and parallel to shoreline to
                                                                                point of origin.

                                                  * * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Dated: July 28, 2014.
M.M. Dean,
Commander, U.S. Coast Guard, Acting Captain of the Port Baltimore.
[FR Doc. 2014-19072 Filed 8-11-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-04-P