[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 157 (Wednesday, August 14, 2013)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 49412-49420]
[FR Doc No: 2013-19677]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 175

46 CFR Parts 160 and 169

[Docket No. USCG-2013-0263]
RIN 1625-AC02

Personal Flotation Devices Labeling and Standards

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard proposes to remove references to type codes in
its regulations on the carriage and labeling of Coast Guard-approved
personal flotation devices (PFDs). PFD type codes are unique to Coast
Guard approval and are not well understood by the public. Removing
these type codes from our regulations would facilitate future
incorporation by reference of new industry consensus standards for PFD
labeling that will more effectively convey safety information, and is a
step toward harmonization of our regulations with PFD requirements in
Canada and in other countries.

DATES: Comments and related material must either be submitted to our
online docket via http://www.regulations.gov on or before October 15,
2013 or reach the Docket Management Facility by that date.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments identified by docket number USCG-
2013-0263 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 email Ms. Brandi Baldwin, Coast Guard; telephone 202-372-
1394, email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>If you have questions on viewing
or submitting material to the docket, call Ms. Barbara Hairston,
Program Manager, Docket Operations, telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Table of Contents for Preamble

I. Public Participation and Request for Comments
    A. Submitting Comments
    B. Viewing Comments and Documents
    C. Privacy Act
    D. Public Meeting
II. Abbreviations
III. Basis and Purpose
IV. Background
V. Discussion of Proposed Rule
VI. Regulatory Analyses
    A. Regulatory Planning and Review
    B. Small Entities
    C. Assistance for Small Entities
    D. Collection of Information
    E. Federalism
    F. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
    G. Taking of Private Property
    H. Civil Justice Reform
    I. Protection of Children
    J. Tribal Governments
    K. Energy Effects
    L. Technical Standards
    M. Environment

I. 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.

A. Submitting Comments

    If you submit a comment, please include the docket number for this
rulemaking (USCG-2013-0263), 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 or by fax, mail, or hand delivery, but please use only one of
these means. We recommend that you include your name and a mailing
address, an email address, or a phone number in the body of your
document so that we can contact you if we have questions regarding your
submission.
    To submit your comment online, go to http://www.regulations.gov and
insert ``USCG-2013-0263'' in the ``Search'' box. Press Enter and then
click on the comment box in the row listing the NPRM. 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 this proposed rule based on your
comments.

B. 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 and
insert ``USCG-2013-0263'' in the ``Search'' box. Click ``Search'' and
then click the ``Open Docket Folder'' icon. The following link will
take you directly to the docket: http://www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D=USCG-2013-0263. If you do not have access to the
Internet, you may view the docket online by visiting 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.

C. 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).

D. Public Meeting

    We do not now plan to hold a public meeting. You may submit a
request for one to the docket using one of the methods specified under
ADDRESSES. In your request, 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.

II. Abbreviations

ASE Applied Safety and Ergonomics
DHS Department of Homeland Security
CFR Code of Federal Regulations
FDA Food and Drug Administration
FR Federal Register
NPRM Notice of proposed rulemaking
NBSAC National Boating Safety Advisory Council
NPS National Park Service
OMB Office of Management and Budget
OSHA Occupational Safety and Health Administration
PFD Personal flotation device
Pub. L. Public Law
RA Regulatory Analysis
RCC Regulatory Cooperation Council
Sec.  Section
STP Standards Technical Panel
UL Underwriters Laboratories
U.S.C. United States Code
USFWS United States Fish and Wildlife Service

III. Basis and Purpose

    Under 46 U.S.C. 3306, 4102, and 4302, the Secretary of the
Department in which the Coast Guard is operating is charged with
prescribing safety requirements for lifesaving equipment on inspected
vessels, uninspected vessels, and recreational vessels. Type approval
and carriage requirements for personal flotation devices (PFDs) fall
under this authority. The Secretary has delegated this 46 U.S.C.,
Subtitle II authority to the Commandant. See Department of Homeland
Security Delegation No. 0170.1(II)(92)(b). As required under 46 U.S.C.
4302(c)(4), the Coast Guard has consulted with the National Boating
Safety Advisory Council (NBSAC) regarding the issue addressed by this
notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM). See NBSAC Resolution 2012-90-05
(available in the docket).
    The purpose of this proposed rule, which would remove references to
type codes in our regulations on the carriage and labeling of Coast
Guard-approved PFDs, is to facilitate future adoption of new industry
consensus standards for PFD labeling that will more effectively convey
safety information and to help harmonize our regulations with PFD
requirements in Canada and in other countries.

IV. Background

    Labeling of PFDs is an important safety matter, as it is the
primary means by which the manufacturer communicates to the end user
how to select the right PFD and use and maintain it properly. Based on
the volume of queries to the Coast Guard including questions from NBSAC
members in recent years, we believe that the current labels on Coast
Guard-approved PFDs are confusing to the boating public and do not
effectively communicate important safety and regulatory information to
users and law enforcement personnel.
    As noted in the previous section, the Coast Guard is charged with
establishing minimum safety standards, as well as procedures and tests
required to measure compliance with those standards, for commercial and
recreational vessels, and associated equipment. See 46 U.S.C. 3306,
4302, and Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1, section II,
paragraph (92)(b). Under this authority, the Coast Guard has
established requirements for the carriage of approved PFDs that meet
certain minimum safety standards.
    The minimum requirements for Coast Guard-approved PFDs are codified
in 46 CFR part 160, and include requirements for labeling. Our current
regulations require that a type code be marked on each Coast Guard-
approved PFD. The Coast Guard historically has used type codes in its
regulations to identify the level of performance of an approved PFD.
Types I, II, and III refer to wearable PFDs (lifejackets) in decreasing
order of performance; Type IV refers to throwable PFDs; and Type V
refers to any PFD which is conditionally approved as equivalent in
performance to Type I, II, III, or IV.
    Coast Guard regulations specify which Coast Guard-approved PFDs are
acceptable for particular applications. Although most of the carriage
requirements for inspected vessels identify the appropriate PFDs by the
applicable approval series (see, for example, 46 CFR 199.10 and
199.70(b)), our carriage requirements for recreational boats (33 CFR
part 175), uninspected commercial vessels (46 CFR part 25) and sailing
school vessels (46 CFR part 169) specify particular type codes.
Approval series refers to the first six digits of a number assigned by
the Coast Guard to approved equipment.
    In 2004, the consultant Applied Safety and Ergonomics (ASE) did a
study of the current PFD classification and labeling system through the
National Non-Profit Organization Recreational Boating Safety Grant
Program. The ASE final report, entitled ``Revision of Labeling and
Classification for Personal Flotation Devices (PFDs)'' (available in
the docket), suggested that our current labels are inadequate and that
users do not adequately understand our PFD type codes.

V. Discussion of Proposed Rule

    The Coast Guard proposes to remove references to longstanding PFD
type codes from its requirements for the approval and carriage of Coast
Guard-approved PFDs. Under these proposed amendments, the number and
kind of PFDs required to be carried on a vessel would not change --
just the terminology used to refer to approved PFDs. Our current
assigning of a type code to the PFD does not affect its suitability for
meeting the applicable vessel carriage requirements. This proposed rule
would remove regulatory barriers to the development of a new industry
consensus standard for PFD labels, which would potentially allow
manufacturers to use a more user-friendly label format on Coast Guard-
approved PFDs in the future.

Carriage Requirements

    The carriage requirements for PFDs vary based on the kind of
vessel.
    As noted in Section IV, for commercial vessels, many of the
carriage requirements in the CFR specify the applicable approval
series, as defined in 46 CFR 199.30, rather than the type code. This
proposed rule does not affect those regulations because they do not
contain a specific reference to PFD type. The only exceptions are 46
CFR 169.539, pertaining to sailing school vessels, and 46 CFR 25.25-5,
pertaining to uninspected vessels, which do refer to type codes. In
this NPRM, the Coast Guard is proposing to remove references to the
type codes in 46 CFR 169.539. References in 46 CFR 25.25-5 to type
codes for PFD requirements for uninspected commercial vessels are
already being addressed in a separate rulemaking; see RIN 1625-AB83,
Lifesaving Devices on

Uninspected Vessels, in the 2013 Spring Unified Agenda on
www.reginfo.gov.
    The carriage requirements for recreational vessels do specify type
codes. However, PFDs currently labeled Type I, II, or III all meet the
same regulatory carriage requirements, so our regulations for
recreational vessels need not differentiate PFDs based on type codes.
The Coast Guard proposes to revise 33 CFR part 175 subpart B--Personal
Flotation Devices to remove the references to type codes in the
carriage requirements. In Sec.  175.15, the terms ``Type I PFD,''
``Type II PFD,'' and ``Type III PFD'' would be replaced with the term
``wearable PFD'' and the term ``Type IV PFD'' would be replaced by the
term ``throwable PFD.'' In proposed Sec.  175.13, we define the terms
``wearable PFD'' and ``throwable PFD.''
    These changes would impose no burdens on users. Coast Guard-
approved PFDs which are marked as ``Type I,'' ``Type II,'' ``Type
III,'' or ``Type V with Type [I, II, or III] performance'' would be
considered wearable PFDs and would meet the same carriage requirements
as Coast Guard-approved wearable PFDs without a type code marking.
Likewise, PFDs marked as ``Type IV'' would be considered throwable PFDs
and would meet the same carriage requirements as throwable PFDs without
a type code marking.
    Additionally, the Coast Guard proposes to amend Sec.  175.15 so
that it would require that PFDs be used in accordance with any
limitations specified on the approval label, and with the
manufacturer's instructions. This language is taken from the existing
text of Sec.  175.17(a), which permits the carriage of conditionally
approved (Type V) PFDs in lieu of Type I, II, III, or IV PFDs.
    The Coast Guard proposes conforming changes to 33 CFR 175.19 and
175.21 to replace language referring to PFD type codes I-IV and
conditionally approved (Type V) PFDs.

Marking Requirements

    The Coast Guard also proposes to revise the PFD marking
requirements contained in 46 CFR part 160, Lifesaving Equipment, to
remove the requirement that Coast Guard-approved PFDs be marked as Type
I, II, III, IV, or V. As discussed, the marking of a type code on a PFD
has no practical effect on its compliance with the carriage
requirements applicable to a given vessel.
    For many of the affected subparts (see for example proposed edits
to 46 CFR 160.002-6, 160.005-6, and 160.047-6), we accomplish this by
deleting the line in the marking requirements which refers to the PFD
approval type. However, the regulations pertaining to marine buoyant
devices and inflatable recreational PFDs, 46 CFR subparts 160.064 and
160.076 respectively, rely on industry consensus standards in addition
to the regulatory text. In these two subparts, the Coast Guard proposes
to remove references to PFD approval type and refer to the relevant
industry standard for the marking requirements, with the provision that
all labels contain the following information:
     Size information, as appropriate;
     The Coast Guard approval number;
     Manufacturer's contact information;
     Model name/number;
     Lot number, manufacturer date; and
     Any limitations or restrictions on approval or special
instructions for use.
    The Coast Guard is aware that the Underwriters Laboratories (UL)
Standards Technical Panel (STP), the consensus body responsible for
maintaining the industry consensus standards for PFDs, is considering a
proposal to revise the industry standards for labeling PFDs which would
remove reference to type codes. Once the revised standard is available,
the Coast Guard will consider incorporating it by reference into its
regulations.
    This rulemaking supports the efforts of the U.S.-Canada Regulatory
Cooperation Council (RCC), a high-level bilateral effort coordinated by
the Office of Management and Budget (OMB). The current RCC workplan
calls for the development of a ``North American Standard for
lifejackets.'' This NPRM will enable the STP to complete development of
the North American standard for wearable PFDs without including
unnecessary references to type codes. Thus, this rulemaking to adopt
the revised labeling standard would allow for the future harmonization
of U.S. and Canadian PFD approvals, which supports one of the
initiatives of the RCC's Joint Action Plan of December 2011 (available
in the docket).
    While we cannot anticipate the timing for the adoption and
accreditation of the revised labeling standard, we recognize the
benefits of harmonizing Coast Guard approval standards with the
relevant industry consensus standards, and minimizing confusion and
burden on the industry. Our proposed rule would not prohibit the use of
the type code in the marking, so currently approved markings would be
able to remain in use while the manufacturers design new labels
conforming to the new standard under development by the UL STP.

VI. Regulatory Analyses

    We developed this proposed rule after considering numerous statutes
and executive orders related to rulemaking. Below we summarize our
analyses based on 14 of these statutes or executive orders.

A. Regulatory Planning and Review

    Executive Orders 12866 (''Regulatory Planning and Review'') and
13563 (``Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review'') 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 (including potential economic, environmental,
public health and safety effects, distributive impacts, and equity).
Executive Order 13563 emphasizes the importance of quantifying both
costs and benefits, of reducing costs, of harmonizing rules, and of
promoting flexibility.
    This NPRM has not been designated a ``significant regulatory
action,'' under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866. Accordingly, the
NPRM has not been reviewed by OMB. A combined preliminary Regulatory
Analysis (RA) and Threshold Regulatory Flexibility Analysis follows:
    The RA provides an evaluation of the economic impacts associated
with this proposed rule. The table which follows provides a summary of
the proposed rule costs and benefits.

               Table 1--Summary of the Proposal's Impacts
------------------------------------------------------------------------
           Category                             Summary
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Affected Population..........  66 PFD manufacturers.
                               6 Federal agencies.
                               Up to 56 State/territorial jurisdictions.
Costs ($, 7% discount rate)..  $14,992 (annualized: $710 private sector,
                                $14,283 government).
                               $105,301 (10-year: $4,985 private sector,
                                $100,316 government).
Unquantified Benefits........  * Improve effectiveness of PFD marking/
                                labels without compromising safety.

                               * Prevent misuse and misunderstandings of
                                PFDs.
                               * Remove impediment to future
                                harmonization with international
                                standards.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The proposed rule would revise the existing regulations regarding
labeling of PFDs, by removing requirements for type codes to be
included on PFD labels.
Affected Population
    Based on the Coast Guard Guard's Marine Information for Safety and
Law Enforcement database, we estimate that this proposed rule would
affect approximately 66 PFD manufacturers. There are six Federal
governmental agencies--the Department of Labor's Occupational Safety
and Health Administration (OSHA); the Department of the Interior's
Bureau of Reclamation, National Park Service (NPS), and United States
Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS); the Department of Agriculture's
Forest Service; and the Department of Defense--which may have to adjust
their regulations or policy documents because they incorporate Coast
Guard standards which mention PFD type codes. Of these six, the only
agency we have identified that specifically references Coast Guard type
codes in their regulations is OSHA. We are coordinating with the OSHA
Directorate of Standards and Guidance to ensure that the relevant
regulations align with the revisions to the Coast Guard regulations. We
have also reached out to NPS, Bureau of Reclamation, Forest Service,
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, and USFWS, via the Interagency Working
Group for Visitor Safety, and they have not expressed any objections to
our proposed action.
Costs
    The Coast Guard expects that this rule, if promulgated, will result
in one-time costs of approximately $105,301 (7% discount).\1\ The Coast
Guard estimates that $4,085 (7% discount) is attributable to the
private sector. We estimate that this proposed rule would affect 66
manufacturers of PFDs. No additional equipment would be required by the
rule. PFD manufacturers would need to reprogram stitching machines or
silk screen machines to conform with the new label requirements. This
rule only would affect labeling on PFDs manufactured after the
effective date of this rule. The Coast Guard seeks comment from PFD
manufacturers regarding the costs associated with changing PFD labels
in response to the proposed rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ As derived by the equation: [(1 hour * $78.74/hour * 66 PFD
manufacturer managers + 0.5 hour * $73.76/hour * 56 State managers +
0.5 hour * $78.82/hour * 6 Federal managers) + 10 hours * $73.76/
hour State managers * 36 States + 100 hours * $73.76/hour State
managers * 5 States + 10 hours * $78.82/hour * 6 Federal managers]*
7% discount rate.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Federal agencies which incorporate these Coast Guard regulations by
reference would need to review their regulations to assure consistency
with the proposed change. Some States and Federal agencies may need to
initiate rulemakings to update their regulations or statutes to remove
unnecessary references to type codes.
    Recreational boaters would experience no cost increase because of
the rulemaking. Existing PFDs may continue to be used. No action would
be required by recreational boaters.
    The table which follows presents the estimated cost of compliance
with the rulemaking.

                                   Table 2--Total Estimated Cost of Compliance
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                              Discounted 7%     Discounted 3%     Undiscounted
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Year 1....................................................          $105,301          $109,390          $112,672
Year 2....................................................                 0                 0                 0
Year 3....................................................                 0                 0                 0
Year 4....................................................                 0                 0                 0
Year 5....................................................                 0                 0                 0
Year 6....................................................                 0                 0                 0
Year 7....................................................                 0                 0                 0
Year 8....................................................                 0                 0                 0
Year 9....................................................                 0                 0                 0
Year 10...................................................                 0                 0                 0
                                                           -----------------------------------------------------
    Total.................................................           105,301           109,390           112,672
Annualized................................................            14,992            12,824            11,267
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Coast Guard estimates that reprogramming stitching machines or
silk screen machines would take approximately 1 hour per manufacturer.
This estimate comports with the Food and Drug Administration's (FDA's)
estimated cost of compliance for relabeling of sunscreens to comply
with new labeling requirements.\2\ This is the most similar Federal
rulemaking we found in our research that involves a regulatory
requirement on labels. Both the FDA's and this rulemaking involve
changes to labeling. The FDA estimated that it would take 0.5 hours to
prepare, complete, and review the labeling for each product. The Coast
Guard used a higher value than FDA: 1 hour per product to prepare,
complete and review the new labeling. The higher value accounts for
possible involvement of more than one type of machine (i.e., stiching
or silk screen), more complex machiney for PFD labels and the need for
management communication to multiple factories or stitching machine
designers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ See SPF Labeling and Testing Requirements and Drug Facts
Labeling for Over-the-Counter Sunscreen Drug Products; Agency
Information Collection Activities; Proposed Collection (76 FR 35678,
June 17, 2011); and Labeling and Effectiveness Testing; Sunscreen
Drug Products for Over-the-Counter Human Use Final rule (76 FR
35620, June 17, 2011).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Labor costs are estimated at $78.74 per hour (fully loaded) for a
manager based on a mean wage rate of $46.87;

this estimate is based on Bureau of Labor Statistics data Occupational
Employment Statistics, Occupational Employment and Wages, for
Industrial Production Managers (11-3051, May 2012).\3\ From there, we
applied a load factor (or benefits multiplier) of 1.68, to determine
the actual cost of employment to employers and industry.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ The reader may review the source data at http://www.bls.gov/oes/current/oes_nat.htm#11-0000.
    \4\ This was calculated using data found on the Bureau of Labor
Statistics' Web site. The load factor is calculated specifically for
Production, transportation and material moving occupations, Full-
time, Private Industry (Series ID: CMU2010000520610D, 2012, 2nd
Quarter). This category was used as it was the closest available
corresponding to the industry being analyzed in this regulatory
analysis. Total cost of compensation per hour worked: $26.61, of
which $15.84 is wages, resulting in a load factor of 1.6799 ($26.61/
$15.84). We rounded this factor to 1.68. (Source: http://data.bls.gov/cgi-bin/dsrv) Using similar applicable industry groups
and time periods results in the same estimate of load factor.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For other costs, States would need to review their laws and
regulations to assure comportment with the proposed change. In turn,
some States may need to initiate rulemakings or make statutory changes
to remove references to type codes; we discuss this further in this
section. The Coast Guard estimates that these agencies would take
approximately 0.5 hour to review their laws and regulations. Their
review task is estimated by the loaded wage rate of $73.76
(Occupational Employment and Wages, May 2012 11-1021 General and
Operations Managers Local Government). The average cost for a State to
perform this task would be approximately $37.
    In addition, the proposal would impact some Federal agencies and
they would need to review their regulations or policy documents to
determine if any change were needed. The Coast Guard estimates that it
would take 0.5 hour to do this task. The Coast Guard estimates the
labor cost to be $78.82 per hour for a Federal manager (Bureau of Labor
Statistics, ``Occupational Employment and Wages, First-Line Supervisors
of Transportation and Material-Moving Machine and Vehicle Operators,
Federal Executive Branch and a load factor of 1.65) \5\ and there are
an estimated six Federal agencies potentially impacted. Based on these
data, this task would cost Federal agencies less than $50 to review
regulations or policy documents. To update a policy document, we
estimate that 10 hours would be expended by a Federal agency to do so.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ This load factor is calculated specifically for Public
Administration, State and Local Government occupations, Full-time,
Private Industry (Series ID: CMU3019200000000D,CMU3019200000000P,
2012, 2nd Quarter. Total cost of compensation per hour worked:
$39.642, of which $23.97 is wages, resulting in a load factor of
1.653734 ($39.64/$23.97). We rounded this factor to 1.65 (rounded to
the nearest hundredth). (Source: http://www.bls.gov/ncs/ect/data.htm)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Additional costs may occur as a result of this proposed rule; these
costs would arise from labor expended for rulemaking. More
specifically, some State and Federal agencies may require a rulemaking
to update their regulations to incorporate this proposed change into
their regulations, policy documents or statutes.
    To assess these costs, we first note the rulemaking process varies
greatly across State and territorial governmental units. The reader
should note that not all impacted governmental units are expected to
incur a cost associated with this task because some States incorporate
by reference Coast Guard standards and would not need to take action.
Some agencies may be able to update their regulations for this proposed
change by incorporating this change into an existing or planned
rulemaking. As well, some also may choose not to pursue a rulemaking
immediately.
    To estimate a cost for this step, we reviewed publicly available
data on the Internet for States and territories. Based on that review,
we estimated the number of States and territories which would fall into
the various categories of rulemaking. In the first category, we
estimate that there would be six States and territories which
incorporate by reference Coast Guard regulations and, therefore, would
incur no costs. Next, another 36 States and territories are estimated
to engage in rulemaking activities by State commissions. In the next
category, an estimated 10 States and territories update their
regulations by more lengthy processes either by statute change, by a
legislative vote, or by a rulemaking process involving the legislative
branch of government or the State-level executive branch of government.
The change may be a stand-alone proposed rule or legislation, or the
change may be part of an omnibus set of changes. In the last category,
we estimate that four States and territories would take no rulemaking
action; for these, their regulations or statutes may not need revision
because of how they are written. The table which follows presents a
summary of this data.

                       Table 3--Estimated Rulemaking Activities for States and Territories
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                            Number of states   Level of effort
                     Level of activity                       or territories   required (hours)     Total cost
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Incorporate by Reference..................................                 6                 0                $0
Rulemaking by State Commission............................                36                10            26,552
Rulemaking by Statute or Legislative Process..............                10               100            73,755
No change necessary.......................................                 4                 0                 0
                                                           -----------------------------------------------------
    Total.................................................  ................  ................           100,307
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We estimate that costs to a given State or territory for this step
would range from no cost to $7,412. Some costs may be offset because
some States may have already started this process in anticipation of
the new industry standard for PFD labeling. The Coast Guard seeks
comment from States and Federal agencies regarding the costs associated
with making the requisite changes to their laws or regulations.
    In addition to the costs noted in the previous paragraphs, the
Coast Guard may experience some costs in subsequent years to augment
existing boater education efforts to include information associated
with this proposed rule. However, the Coast Guard may be able to use
existing partnerships, Internet resources, and other technologies which
offer more cost effective solutions.
Benefits
    The proposed rule would amend existing regulations regarding
labeling of PFDs. The Coast Guard is pursuing this amendment to
existing standards to prevent misuse, misunderstandings, and

inappropriate selection of PFDs without compromising the existing level
of safety. The proposed rule would promote maritime safety by
eliminating confusion associated with type codes, and by improving
understanding of PFD performance and use.
    The rulemaking would improve the relevance of markings on PFDs. The
Coast Guard believes that removing irrelevant information would
increase the likelihood that the user will read and understand the
label, and thus select the proper PFD and be able to use it correctly.
This would also provide benefits by reducing confusion among
enforcement officers and the boating public over whether a particular
PFD is approved and meets the relevant carriage requirements.
    The rulemaking also would harmonize our regulations with industry
standards for label requirements. For recreational PFDs, which comprise
about 97 percent of the U.S. PFD market, the approvals are based on
industry consensus standards that contain marking requirements. By
referring to those standards directly, the Coast Guard reduces
regulatory redundancy and minimizes the risk of conflict between
regulatory requirements and industry standards.

B. 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 fewer than
50,000 people.
    The Coast Guard expects that this rule will not have a significant
economic impact on small entities. As described in the ``Regulatory
Planning and Review'' section, the Coast Guard expects this rule to
result in low costs to industry (approximately $78 per PFD
manufacturer). An estimated 92.4 percent of all PFD manufacturers are
considered small by the Small Business Administration size standards.
The compliance costs for this rulemaking amount to less than 1 percent
of revenue for all small entities. Costs would be incurred in the first
year of the final rule's enactment for PFD manufacturers. No additional
costs for labor or equipment would be incurred in future years. No
small governmental jurisidctions are impacted by the rulemaking.
    Therefore, the Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that
this proposed rule, if promulgated, will not have a significant
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. 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 to the Docket Management
Facility at the address under ADDRESSES. In your comment, explain why
you think it qualifies and how and to what degree this rule would
economically affect it.

C. Assistance for Small Entities

    Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement
Fairness Act of 1996, Public Law 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
proposed rule would affect your small business, organization, or
governmental jurisdiction and you have questions concerning its
provisions or options for compliance, please consult Ms. Brandi Baldwin
at the address listed at the beginning of this preamble. 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.
    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).

D. 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. As
defined in 5 CFR 1320.3(c), ``collection of information'' comprises
reporting, recordkeeping, monitoring, posting, labeling, and other
similar actions. The proposal would not require a change to existing
OMB-approved collection of information (1625-0035 Title 46 CFR
Subchapter Q: Lifesaving, Electrical, Engineering and Navigation
Equipment, Construction and Materials & Marine Sanitation Devices (33
CFR 159)). The proposed rule would not require relabeling of PFDs, but
instead would remove minor data elements from existing labeling
requirements. Labeling of PFDs is an automated process, and the change
in content would not result in any appreciable change in burden hours.

E. 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 have determined that it is consistent with the fundamental
federalism principles and preemption requirements described in the
Executive Order. Our analysis follows.
    It is well settled that States may not regulate in categories
reserved for regulation by the Coast Guard. It is also well settled
that all of the categories covered for inspected vessels in 46 U.S.C.
3306, 3703, 7101, and 8101 (design, construction, alteration, repair,
maintenance, operation, equipping, personnel qualification, and manning
of vessels), as well as the reporting of casualties and any other
category in which Congress intended the Coast Guard to be the sole
source of a vessel's obligations are within the field foreclosed from
regulation by the States. (See the decision of the Supreme Court in the
consolidated cases of United States v. Locke and Intertanko v. Locke,
529 U.S. 89, 120 S.Ct. 1135 (March 6, 2000).) In this rule, the Coast
Guard proposes to replace unnecessary references to type codes in
labeling and carriage requirements for Coast Guard-approved PFDs on
inspected vessels and recreational vessels. With regard to these
regulations promulgated under the authority of 46 U.S.C. 3306
concerning inspected vessels, they fall within fields foreclosed from
regulation by State or local governments. Therefore, this proposed rule
is consistent with the fundamental federalism principles and preemption
requirements described in Executive Order 13132.
    With regard to regulations promulgated under 46 U.S.C. 4302
concerning recreational vessels, under 46 U.S.C. 4306, those Federal
regulations that establish minimum safety standards for recreational
vessels and their associated equipment, as well as regulations that
establish procedures and tests required to measure conformance with
those standards, preempt State law, unless the State law is identical
to a Federal regulation or a State is specifically provided an

exemption to those regulations, or permitted to regulate marine safety
articles carried or used to address a hazardous condition or
circumstance unique to that State. As an exemption has not been
granted, and because the States may not issue regulations that differ
from Coast Guard regulations within these categories for recreational
vessels, this proposed rule is consistent with the fundamental
federalism principles and preemption requirements described in
Executive Order 13132.
    Nevertheless, the Coast Guard recognizes the key role State and
local governments may have in making regulatory or statutory
determinations. Sections 4 and 6 of Executive Order 13132 require that
for any rules with preemptive effect, the Coast Guard shall provide
elected officials of affected State and local governments and their
representative national organizations the notice and opportunity for
appropriate participation in any rulemaking proceedings, and to consult
with such officials early in the rulemaking process.
    Therefore, we invite affected State and local governments and their
representative national organizations to indicate their desire for
participation and consultation in this rulemaking process by submitting
comments on this NPRM. In accordance with Executive Order 13132, the
Coast Guard will provide a federalism impact statement to document (1)
The extent of the Coast Guard's consultation with State and local
officials that submit comments to this notice of proposed rulemaking,
(2) a summary of the nature of any concerns raised by state or local
governments and the Coast Guard's position thereon, and (3) a statement
of the extent to which the concerns of State and local officials have
been met. We will also report to OMB any written communications with
the states.

F. 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.

G. 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'').

H. 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.

I. Protection of Children

    We have analyzed this proposed rule under Executive Order 13045
(``Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety
Risks''). This proposed 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.

J. 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 Tribal governments, on the relationship between
the Federal Government and Tribal governments, or on the distribution
of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Tribal
governments.

K. 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 OMB's 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.

L. Technical Standards

    The National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act, codified as a
note to 15 U.S.C. 272, directs agencies to use voluntary consensus
standards in their regulatory activities unless the agency provides
Congress, through OMB, 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.

M. 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, 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. A preliminary environmental analysis
checklist supporting this determination is available in the docket
where indicated under the ``Public Participation and Request for
Comments'' section of this preamble. This rule is likely to be
categorically excluded under section 2.B.2, figure 2-1, paragraph
(34)(a) and (e) of the Instruction and 6(a) of Coast Guard Procedures
for Categorical Exclusions published July 23, 2002 (67 FR 48243). This
rule involves regulations which are editorial and concern carriage
requirements and vessel operation safety standards. We seek any
comments or information that may lead to the discovery of a significant
environmental impact from this proposed rule.

List of Subjects

33 CFR Part 175

    Marine safety.

46 CFR Part 160

    Marine safety, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

46 CFR Part 169

    Fire prevention, Marine safety, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, Schools, Vessels.
    For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard proposes
to amend 33 CFR part 175 and 46 CFR parts 160 and 169 as follows:

TITLE 33--NAVIGATION AND NAVIGABLE WATERS

PART 175--EQUIPMENT REQUIREMENTS

0
1. The authority citation for part 175 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 46 U.S.C. 4302; Department of Homeland Security
Delegation No. 0170.1.

0
2. Revise Sec.  175.13 to read as follows:

Sec.  175.13  Definitions.

    As used in this subpart:
    Personal flotation device or PFD means a device that is approved by
the Commandant under 46 CFR part 160.
    Throwable PFD means a PFD that is intended to be thrown to a person
in the water. A PFD marked as ``Type IV'' or ``Type V with Type IV
performance'' is considered a throwable PFD. Unless specifically marked
otherwise, a wearable PFD is not a throwable PFD.
    Wearable PFD means a PFD that is intended to be worn or otherwise
attached to the body. A PFD marked as ``Type I'', ``Type II'', ``Type
III'', ``Type V with Type I performance'', ``Type V with Type II
performance'', or ``Type V with Type III performance'', is considered a
wearable PFD.
0
3. Amend Sec.  175.15 by revising the introductory text and paragraphs
(a) and (b) to read as follows:

Sec.  175.15  Personal flotation devices required.

    Except as provided in Sec. Sec.  175.17 and 175.25 of this subpart:
    (a) No person may use a recreational vessel unless-
    (1) At least one wearable PFD is on board for each person;
    (2) Each PFD is used in accordance with any requirements on the
approval label; and
    (3) Each PFD is used in accordance with any requirements in its
owner's manual, if the approval label makes reference to such a manual.
    (b) No person may use a recreational vessel 16 feet or more in
length unless one throwable PFD is on board in addition to the total
number of wearable PFDs required in paragraph (a) of this section.
* * * * *
0
4. Revise Sec.  175.17 to read as follows:

Sec.  175.17  Exemptions.

    (a) Canoes and kayaks 16 feet in length and over are exempted from
the requirements for carriage of the additional throwable PFD required
under Sec.  175.15(b) of this subpart.
    (b) Racing shells, rowing sculls, racing canoes and racing kayaks
are exempted from the requirements for carriage of any PFD required
under Sec.  175.15 of this subpart.
    (c) Sailboards are exempted from the requirements for carriage of
any PFD required under Sec.  175.15 of this subpart.
    (d) Vessels of the United States used by foreign competitors while
practicing for or racing in competition are exempted from the carriage
of any PFD required under Sec.  175.15 of this subpart, provided the
vessel carries one of the sponsoring foreign country's acceptable
flotation devices for each foreign competitor on board.
0
5. Revise Sec.  175.19 to read as follows:

Sec.  175.19  Stowage.

    (a) No person may use a recreational boat unless each wearable PFD
required by Sec.  175.15 of this subpart is readily accessible.
    (b) No person may use a recreational boat unless each throwable PFD
required by Sec.  175.15 of this subpart is immediately available.
0
6. Amend Sec.  175.21 by revising the introductory text and paragraph
(a) to read as follows:

Sec.  175.21  Condition; size and fit; approval marking.

    No person may use a recreational boat unless each PFD required by
Sec.  175.15 of this subpart is--
    (a) In serviceable condition as provided in Sec.  175.23 of this
subpart;
* * * * *

TITLE 46--SHIPPING

PART 160--LIFESAVING EQUIPMENT

0
7. The authority citation for part 160 is revised to read as follows:

    Authority: 46 U.S.C. 2103, 3306, 3703 and 4302; E.O. 12234; 45
FR 58801; 3 CFR, 1980 Comp., p. 277; and Department of Homeland
Security Delegation No. 0170.1.

Sec.  160.001-1  [Amended]

0
8. Amend Sec.  160.001-1(a)(1) by removing the words ``(Type I personal
flotation devices (PFDs))''.

Sec.  160.001-3  [Amended]

0
9. Amend Sec.  160.001-3(d) as follows:
0
a. Remove paragraph(d)(4); and
0
b. Redesignate paragraphs (d)(5), (d)(6), (d)(7), and (d)(8) as (d)(4),
(d)(5), (d)(6), and (d)(7), respectively.

Sec.  160.002-6  [Amended]

0
10. Amend Sec.  160.002-6(b) by removing the words ``Type I Personal
Flotation Device.''.

Sec.  160.005-6  [Amended]

0
11. Amend Sec.  160.005-6(b) by removing the words ``Type I Personal
Flotation Device.''.

Sec.  160.047-6  [Amended]

0
12. Amend Sec.  160.047-6(a) by removing the words ``Type II Personal
Flotation Device.''.

Sec.  160.052-8  [Amended]

0
13. Amend Sec.  160.052-8(a) by removing the words ``Type II-Personal
flotation device.''.

Sec.  160.055-8  [Amended]

0
14. Amend Sec.  160.055-8(b) by removing the words ``Type I or Type V
Personal Flotation Device.''.

Sec.  160.060-8  [Amended]

0
15. Amend Sec.  160.060-8(a) by removing the words ``Type II Personal
Flotation Device.''.
0
16. Revise Sec.  160.064-4 to read as follows:

Sec.  160.064-4  Marking.

    (a) Each water safety buoyant device must be marked in accordance
with the recognized laboratory's listing and labeling requirements in
accordance with Sec.  160.064-3(a) of this subpart. At a minimum, all
labels must include:
    (1) Size information, as appropriate;
    (2) The Coast Guard approval number;
    (3) Manufacturer's contact info;
    (4) Model name/number;
    (5) Lot number, manufacturer date; and
    (6) Any limitations or restrictions on approval or special
instructions for use.
    (b) Durability of marking. Marking must be of a type which will be
durable and legible for the expected life of the device.
0
17. Amend Sec.  160.076-5 by revising the definitions of ``Conditional
approval'' and ``Performance type'' to read as follows, and by removing
the definition of ``PFD Approval Type'':

Sec.  160.076-5  Definitions.

* * * * *
    Conditional approval means a PFD approval which has condition(s)
with which the user must comply in order for the PFD to be counted
toward meeting the carriage requirements for the vessel on which it is
being used.
* * * * *
    Performance type means the in-water performance classification of
the PFD.
* * * * *

Sec.  160.076-7  [Removed and Reserved]

0
18. Remove and reserve Sec.  160.076-7.
0
19. Amend Sec.  160.076-9 as follows:
0
a. In paragraph (a), remove the words ``is categorized as a Type V PFD
and''; and
0
b. Revise paragraph (b) to read as follows:

Sec.  160.076-9  Conditional approval.

* * * * *

    (b) PFDs not meeting the performance specifications in UL 1180
(incorporated by reference, see Sec.  160.076-11) may be conditionally
approved when the Commandant determines that the performance or design
characteristics of the PFD make such classification appropriate.

Sec.  160.076-13  [Amended]

0
20. Amend Sec.  160.076-13 as follows:
0
a. Remove paragraph (c)(3); and
0
b. Redesignate paragraphs (c)(4), (c)(5), (c)(6), (c)(7), (c)(8), and
(c)(9) as paragraphs (c)(3), (c)(4), (c)(5), (c)(6), (c)(7), and
(c)(8), respectively.

Sec.  160.076-23  [Amended]

0
21. Amend Sec.  160.076-23(a)(1) by removing the words ``applicable to
the PFD performance type for which approval is sought''.

Sec.  160.076-25  [Amended]

0
22. Amend Sec.  160.076-25(b) by removing the words ``that are
applicable to the PFD performance type for which approval is sought''.
0
23. Revise Sec.  160.076-39 to read as follows:

Sec.  160.076-39  Marking.

    Each inflatable PFD must be marked as specified in UL 1180
(incorporated by reference, see Sec.  160.076-11). At a minimum, all
labels must include--
    (a) Size information, as appropriate;
    (b) The Coast Guard approval number;
    (c) Manufacturer's contact information;
    (d) Model name/number;
    (e) Lot number, manufacturer date; and
    (f) Any limitations or restrictions on approval or special
instructions for use.

Sec.  160.176-23  [Amended]

0
24. Amend Sec.  160.176-23 as follows:
0
a. In paragraph (c), remove the words ``Type V PFD-'' and remove the
words ''in lieu of (see paragraph (f) of this section for exact text to
be used here)''; and
0
b. Remove paragraph (f).

PART 169--SAILING SCHOOL VESSELS

0
25. The authority citation for part 169 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 33 U.S.C. 1321(j); 46 U.S.C. 3306, 6101; Pub. L. 103-
206, 107 Stat. 2439; E.O. 11735, 38 FR 21243, 3 CFR, 1971-1975
Comp., p. 793; Department of Homeland Security Delegation No.
0170.1; Sec.  169.117 also issued under the authority of 44 U.S.C.
3507.

0
26. Amend Sec.  169.539 as follows:
0
a. In the introductory text, remove the word ``either'';
0
b. In paragraph (a), remove the words ``A Type I approved'' and add, in
their place, the word ``Approved'', and remove the second use of the
word ``or'';
0
c. In paragraph (b), remove the words ``a Type V approved'' and add, in
their place, the word ``Approved''; and
0
d. Revise paragraph (c) to read as follows:

Sec.  169.539  Type required.

* * * * *
    (c) Approved under subparts 160.047, 160.052, or 160.060 or
approved under subpart 160.064 if the vessel carries exposure suits or
exposure PFDs, in accordance with Sec.  169.551 of this subpart.

    Dated: August 2, 2013.
J.G. Lantz,
Director of Commercial Regulations and Standards, U.S. Coast Guard.
[FR Doc. 2013-19677 Filed 8-13-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-04-P


MEMORANDUM

Date:		August 20, 2007

Subject:	Conversation with Michigan DOT

From:		Laura Berry

		State Measures and Conformity Group, OTAQ

To:		Docket EPA-HQ-OAR-2006-0612

Today, my team members Astrid Larsen, Rudy Kapichak, and I spoke with
Polly Kent and others of Michigan DOT (MI DOT).  Also on the phone call
was Emily Biondi of FHWA.  The purpose of the call was to clarify MI
DOT’s comments on the provision proposed in this action that would
allow DOT to make categorical hot-spot findings for projects in CO
areas.  MI DOT’s comments are found at in the docket with document
number EPA-HQ-2006-0612-0041.  Representatives of MI DOT explained that
they were concerned that the proposed flexibility to allow DOT to make
categorical hot-spot findings would be a requirement, rather than an
option.  We clarified that it is an optional flexibility that MI DOT can
choose to take advantage of, or not.  With this explanation,
representatives of MI DOT concluded that they are indifferent to this
proposal, rather than opposed.

We also asked them to clarify their comment on the proposal for
conformity SIPs; they clarified that they support our proposal as
written.


[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 28 (Tuesday, February 11, 2020)]
[Notices]
[Pages 7842-7843]
[FR Doc No: 2020-02702]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration

Hazardous Materials: Notice of Applications for Modifications to
Special Permits

AGENCY: Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA),
DOT.

ACTION: List of applications for modification of special permits.

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

SUMMARY: In accordance with the procedures governing the application
for, and the processing of, special permits from the Department of
Transportation's Hazardous Material Regulations, notice is hereby given
that the Office of Hazardous Materials Safety has received the
application described herein. Each mode of transportation for which a
particular special permit is requested is indicated by a number in the
``Nature of Application'' portion of the table below as follows: 1--
Motor vehicle, 2--Rail freight, 3--Cargo vessel, 4--Cargo aircraft
only, 5--Passenger-carrying aircraft.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before February 26, 2020.

ADDRESSES: Record Center, Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety
Administration, U.S. Department of Transportation, Washington, DC
20590.
    Comments should refer to the application number and be submitted in
triplicate. If confirmation of receipt of comments is desired, include
a self-addressed stamped postcard showing the special permit number.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Donald Burger, Office of Hazardous
Materials Approvals and Permits Division, Pipeline and Hazardous
Materials Safety Administration, U.S. Department of Transportation,
East Building, PHH-30, 1200 New Jersey Avenue Southeast, Washington, DC
20590-0001,<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Copies of the applications are available for
inspection in the Records Center, East Building, PHH-30, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue Southeast, Washington, DC.
    This notice of receipt of applications for special permit is
published in accordance with part 107 of the Federal hazardous
materials transportation law (49 U.S.C. 5117(b); 49 CFR 1.53(b)).

    Issued in Washington, DC, on February 3, 2020.
Donald P. Burger,
Chief, General Approvals and Permits Branch.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Nature of the special permits
       Application No.                 Applicant          Regulation(s) affected              thereof
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                              Special Permits Data
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
14951-M......................  Hexagon Lincoln, LLC....  173.301(f), 173.302(a)..  To modify the special permit
                                                                                to authorize permitted
                                                                                cylinders to have an ``in-
                                                                                service date'' on their
                                                                                labels. This date would be
                                                                                the date in which the
                                                                                cylinder was released from
                                                                                the Hexagon inventory and
                                                                                placed in the possession of
                                                                                the end user. (modes 1, 2,
                                                                                3).
15347-M......................  Raytheon Missile Systems  173.301, 173.302a.......  To modify the special permit
                                Co.                                                 to authorize passenger
                                                                                carrying aircraft as a mode
                                                                                of transportation. (modes 1,
                                                                                2, 3, 4, 5).
16560-M......................  Lightstore, Inc.........  173.302(a)..............  To modify the special permit
                                                                                to authorize additional 2.1
                                                                                and 2.2 hazmat and to
                                                                                authorize an increase in the
                                                                                allowable maximum working
                                                                                pressure of certain
                                                                                cylinders. (modes 1, 2, 3).
20324-M......................  General Dynamics Mission  172.101(j),               To modify the special permit
                                Systems, Inc.             173.185(a)(1)(i).         to authorize the
                                                                                transportation in commerce
                                                                                of slightly modified designs
                                                                                of approved batteries and
                                                                                cells. (mode 4).
20474-M......................  Space Exploration         172.300, 172.400, 173.1.  To modify the special permit
                                Technologies Corp.                                  to authorize an increase in
                                                                                tank pressure for certain
                                                                                propellant tanks. (modes 1,
                                                                                3).
20861-M......................  Ayalytical Instruments    173.120(c)..............  To modify the special permit
                                Inc.                                                to authorize an additional
                                                                                ASTM Standard Test Method
                                                                                D6450. (modes 1, 2, 3, 4,
                                                                                5).
20902-M......................  Eastern Upper Peninsula   176.164(e)..............  To modify the special permit
                                Transportation                                      to authorize additional
                                Authority.                                          hazmat. (mode 3).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[FR Doc. 2020-02702 Filed 2-10-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4909-60-P


Comment Info: =================

General Comment:Please accept the attached Supplement to Ferring Pharmaceuticals Inc.'s Petition for Reconsideration and Petition for Stay of Action, dated March 21, 2014.

Thank you, Barbara A. Binzak Blumenfeld


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 79 (Tuesday, April 24, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Pages 24485-24486]
[FR Doc No: 2012-9782]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Notice of Commission Staff Attendance

    The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission hereby gives notice that
members of the Commission's staff may attend the following meetings
related to the transmission planning activities of the Midwest
Independent Transmission System Operator, Inc. (MISO):

MISO Advisory Committee--April 18, 2012.
Order 1000--Right of First Refusal Task Team--April 26, 2012.

    The above-referenced meeting will be held at: MISO Headquarters,
720 City Center Drive, Carmel, IN 46032.
    The above-referenced meeting is open to the public.
    Further information may be found at www.misoenergy.org.
    The discussions at the meeting described above may address matters
at issue in the following proceedings:

Docket No. ER12-715, Midwest Independent Transmission System Operator,
Inc.
Docket No. ER12-480, Midwest Independent Transmission System Operator,
Inc.
Docket No. ER12-309, Midwest Independent Transmission System Operator,
Inc.
Docket No. ER11-1844, Midwest Independent Transmission System Operator,
Inc.
Docket No. EL11-56, FirstEnergy Service Company.
Docket No. EL11-30, E.ON Climate & Renewables North America, LLC v.
Midwest Independent Transmission System Operator, Inc.
Docket No. EL12-24-000, Pioneer Transmission LLC v. Midwest Independent
Transmission System Operator, Inc.
Docket No. EL12-28-000, Xcel Energy Services Inc. v. American
Transmission Company, LLC
Docket No. OA08-53, Midwest Independent Transmission System Operator,
Inc.

    For more information, contact Christopher Miller, Office of Energy
Markets Regulation, Federal Energy

Regulatory Commission at<PHONE_NUMBER> or<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
    Dated: April 17, 2012.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2012-9782 Filed 4-23-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


MEMORANDUM

DATE:	July 5, 2018

SUBJECT:	Flonicamid. Revised Human Health Risk Assessment for the Petition for the Establishment of Permanent Tolerances for Clover, Crop Group Conversions to Brassica, Head and Stem Vegetable, Group 5-16; Brassica, Leafy Greens, Subgroup 4-16B, Leaf Petiole Vegetable, Subgroup 22B; Leafy Greens, Subgroup 4-16A, Except Spinach; Celtuce; Florence Fennel; and Kohlrabi; Expansion of Cottonseed Tolerances to Cottonseed Subgroup 20C Tolerance, and Revised Use Directions for Citrus.

PC Code:  128016
DP Barcodes:  D447674
Decision No.: 526902
Registration No.:  71512-9, 71512-10, 71512-7
Petition No.:  7E8556
Regulatory Action:  Section 3 registration, Revised Label
Risk Assessment Type:  not applicable
Case No.:  NA
TXR No.:  not applicable
CAS No.:  158062-67-0
MRID No:  see below
40 CFR:  §180.613

FROM:	William D. Wassell, Chemist
Risk Assessment Branch III (RAB3)
Health Effects Division (7509P)

THROUGH:	Thomas Moriarty, Branch Chief
RAB3/HED (7509P)

TO:		Sidney Jackson/Carmen Rodia, RM 05
		Minor Use and Emergency Response Branch
            Registration Division (7505P)

The Registration Division (RD) has requested that HED harmonize to the extent possible the U.S tolerances for residues of flonicamid [N-(cyanomethyl)-4-(trifluoromethyl)-3-pyridinecarboxamide] and its metabolites TFNA (4-trifluoromethylnicotinic acid), TFNA-AM (4-trifluoromethylnicotinamide), and TFNG, N-(4-trifluoromethylnicotinoyl)glycine, with the Codex maximum residue limits (MRLs) for residues of flonicamid.

In the most recent flonicamid risk assessment (Memo, 05/09/2018, W.D. Wassell, D439902), HED harmonized certain flonicamid tolerances but (i) did not harmonize for all commodities of Brassica, leafy greens, subgroup 4-16B, where a U.S. tolerance level of 16 ppm was recommended for residues of flonicamid and its metabolites; and, (ii) did not harmonize for leaf lettuce.

With respect to harmonization of commodities of Brassica, leafy greens, subgroup 4-16B, HED notes that Codex has a MRL for residues of flonicamid in/on radish tops at 20 ppm.  Radish tops is a member of subgroup 4-16B.  HED examined tolerances and Codex MRLs of the other commodities of subgroup 4-16B and notes that for all other commodities of subgroup 4-16B, the Codex MRLs are lower than the U.S. tolerance (MRLs at 15 ppm verses the U.S. tolerance at 16 ppm).  Consequently, only harmonization with radish tops was considered.  HED notes:  The tolerance expression for the U.S. tolerances is flonicamid and its metabolites TFNA, TFNA-AM and TFNG while the tolerance expression for Codex only includes flonicamid.

HED concludes that the tolerance for residues of flonicamid and its metabolites at 20 ppm in/on radish tops is adequate.  Therefore, the tolerance for residues of flonicamid and its metabolites at 16 ppm should be set on Brassica, leafy greens, subgroup 4-16B, except radish tops and a tolerance for flonicamid and its metabolites in/on radish tops should be set at 20 ppm.

With respect to leaf lettuce, a commodity of leafy greens, subgroup 4-16A, the US tolerance is 4 ppm whereas the Codex MRL is 8 ppm.  It is HED's understanding that the petitioner, Interregional Research Project 4 (IR-4) has indicated that it is IR-4's preference that US tolerance for leaf lettuce not be harmonized with Codex MRL.  The Canadian MRL for leaf lettuce is also 4 ppm and IR-4 indicated that harmonization of the US tolerance for leaf lettuce with Codex MRL would result in a trade irritant with Canada, which is considered the more important trade partner of the US respect to leaf lettuce.  Therefore, HED is not proposing to harmonize US tolerance for leaf lettuce with the Codex MRL for leaf lettuce.

HED also notes that the dietary exposure and risk estimates identified in the most recent flonicamid risk assessment is not altered by modifying the tolerance level for radish, tops from 16 ppm to 20 ppm.  Therefore, all risk estimates and risk conclusions identified in the most recent risk assessment, (Memo, 05/09/2018, W.D. Wassell, D439902) remain unchanged.