[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 248 (Monday, December 28, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Pages 80788-80789]
[FR Doc No: 2015-32656]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

[Docket No. USCG-2015-0915]

Information Collection Request to Office of Management and
Budget; OMB Control Number: 1625-0038

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Sixty-day notice requesting comments.

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

SUMMARY: In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, the
U.S. Coast Guard intends to submit an Information Collection Request
(ICR) to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), Office of
Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA), requesting approval of
revisions to the following collection of information: 1625-0038, Plan
Approval & Records for Tank, Passenger, Cargo & Miscellaneous Vessels,
Mobile Offshore Drilling Units, Nautical Schools Vessels &
Oceanographic Research Vessels. Our ICR describes the information we
seek to collect from the public. Before submitting this ICR to OIRA,
the Coast Guard is inviting comments as described below.

DATES: Comments must reach the Coast Guard on or before February 26,
2016.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments identified by Coast Guard docket
number [USCG-2015-0915] to the Coast Guard using the Federal
eRulemaking Portal at http://www.regulations.gov. See the ``Public
participation and request for comments'' portion of the SUPPLEMENTARY
INFORMATION section for further instructions on submitting comments.
    A copy of the ICR is available through the docket on the Internet
at http://www.regulations.gov. Additionally, copies are available from:
Commandant (CG-612), Attn: Paperwork Reduction Act Manager, U.S. Coast
Guard, 2703 Martin Luther King Jr. Ave. SE., Stop 7710, Washington, DC
20593-7710.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Anthony Smith, Office of
Information Management, telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>, or fax<PHONE_NUMBER>,
for questions on these documents.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Public Participation and Request for Comments

    This Notice relies on the authority of the Paperwork Reduction Act
of 1995; 44 U.S.C. chapter 35, as amended. An ICR is an application to
OIRA seeking the approval, extension, or renewal of a Coast Guard
collection of information (Collection). The ICR contains information
describing the Collection's purpose, the Collection's likely burden on
the affected public, an explanation of the necessity of the Collection,
and other important information describing the Collection. There is one
ICR for each Collection.
    The Coast Guard invites comments on whether this ICR should be
granted based on the Collection being necessary for the proper
performance of Departmental functions. In particular, the Coast Guard
would appreciate comments addressing: (1) The practical utility of the
Collection; (2) the accuracy of the estimated burden of the Collection;
(3) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of information
subject to the Collection; and (4) ways to minimize the burden of the
Collection on respondents, including the use of automated collection
techniques or other forms of information technology. In response to
your comments, we may revise this ICR or decide not to seek approval of
revisions of the Collection. We will consider all comments and material
received during the comment period.
    We encourage you to respond to this request by submitting comments
and related materials. Comments must contain the OMB Control Number of
the ICR and the docket number of this request, [USCG-2015-0915], and
must be received by February 26, 2016.

Submitting Comments

    We encourage you to submit comments through the Federal eRulemaking
Portal at http://www.regulations.gov. If your material cannot be
submitted using http://www.regulations.gov, contact the person in the
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of this document for alternate
instructions. Documents mentioned in this notice, and all public
comments, are in our online docket at http://www.regulations.gov and
can be viewed by following that Web site's instructions. Additionally,
if you go to the online docket and sign up for email alerts, you will
be notified when comments are posted.
    We accept anonymous comments. All comments received will be posted
without change to http://www.regulations.gov and will include any
personal information you have provided. For more about privacy and the
docket, you may review a Privacy Act notice regarding the Federal
Docket Management System in the March 24, 2005, issue of the Federal
Register (70 FR 15086).

Information Collection Request

    1. Title: Plan Approval & Records for Tank, Passenger, Cargo &
Miscellaneous Vessels, Mobile Offshore Drilling Units, Nautical Schools
Vessels & Oceanographic Research Vessels.
    Omb Control Number: 1625-0038.
    Place: This collection requires the shipyard, designer or
manufacturer for the construction of a vessel to submit plans,
technical information and operating manuals to the Coast Guard.
    Need: Under 46 U.S.C. 3301 and 3306, the Coast Guard is responsible
for enforcing regulations promoting the safety of life and property in
marine transportation. The Coast Guard uses this information to ensure
that a vessel meets the applicable standards for construction,
arrangement and equipment under 46 CFR subchapter D, H, I, I-A, R, and
U.
    Forms: N/A.
    Respondents: Shipyards, designers, and manufacturers of certain
vessels.

    Frequency: On occasion. There are no recordkeeping requirements for
this information collection.
    Hour Burden Estimate: The estimated burden has increased from 3,589
hours to 6,671 hours a year due to an increase in the estimated annual
number of responses.

    Authority:  The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995; 44 U.S.C.
chapter 35, as amended.

    Dated: December 21, 2015.
Thomas P. Michelli,
 Deputy Chief Information Officer, U.S. Coast Guard.
[FR Doc. 2015-32656 Filed 12-24-15; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 9110-04-P


     UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460

                             OFFICE OF CHEMICAL SAFTEY
AND POLLUTION PREVENTION
MEMO TO DOCKET #EPA-HQ-OPPT-2020-0548
From: Richard Garrison, Nationwide Foam Recycling
Date: July 1, 2021
Subject: Small entity representative comment on HBCD rulemaking

Find attached: Richard Garrison's written answers to questions that were asked by US EPA at the Small Business Panel Outreach meeting on June 17, 2021.

From: Richard Garrison<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Sent: Thursday, July 01, 2021 8:56 PM
To: Muellerleile, Caryn<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Subject: RE: EPA Pre-Panel Outreach Meeting on HBCD Risk Management under TSCA - written feedback by July 1

Hello Caryn:

Please find attached my answers to the questions you provided to us.

Thank you for involving us in the process.  I am hopeful that we can continue this dialogue as I believe there are ways to recycle and reuse this insulation that has a net positive affect on the environment and our country at large.

Thank You

Richard Garrison - VP
Nationwide Foam Recycling
Office<PHONE_NUMBER> Mobile<PHONE_NUMBER>
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>www.nationwidefoamrecycling.com

Attachment:
SER: Nationwide Foam Recycling  -  responses below (in bold italics)
EPA's SBAR Pre-Panel Outreach Meeting with Small Entity Representatives on Proposed Rulemaking for Cyclic Aliphatic Cluster (HBCD) under TSCA Section 6(a
5) Questions for recycling and reuse operations
a. Do you recycle EPS insulation board, XPS insulation board, or both?
We reclaim both EPS and XPS from large re-roofing projects throughout the country.  EPS is normally recycled (densified and sold as a feedstock) and XPS is normally sold "as is" into a reuse market (repurposed).
b. What new products do you produce from recycling of insulation boards?
We do not produce "products" from recycling EPS insulation board.  We produce densified EPS "bricks" that are sold to product manufacturers, predominantly exported to styrene picture manufacturers in China.  We have also sold to domestic manufacturers of styrene architectural molding.
We do not recycle XPS insulation boards, we move them to reuse markets.  As such, they are sold as reclaimed rigid foam insulation.
c. At your facility, are insulation boards recycled by themselves or mixed with other recycling feedstock?
NFR sends EPS insulation boards to companies throughout the country with EPS recycling lines that are most proximate to each jobsite that we service. EPS collected from jobsites in New England is sent to our sister company's recycling facility in Framingham, MA. NFR's office is co-located at the Conigliaro Industries 85,000 sf recycling plant.
EPS insulation boards are a very low percentage of the feedstock moving through processing lines of companies that we deliver to.  My rough estimate is that for every load of EPS insulation we deliver to these companies they will process 100 loads or more of EPS bracing/packaging scrap.  Some will mix the two streams together and some will run the insulation boards as a separate batch.  Depends on how much EPS they have in the plant waiting to process.  At our (Conigliaro Industries) facility in Framingham, we typically run the insulation boards as a separate batch.
I know there are some, however I am not aware of any facility that we deliver to that recycles XPS.  I think that is mostly due to the fact that XPS is not normally used in bracing (which is where the scrap volume is) and the fact that reclaimed XPS insulation is much more valuable "as is" than if densified and sold as a feedstock for new product.
d. Do you reuse EPS insulation or XPS insulation board or know of any reuse?
100% of the XPS we collect is sold "as is" for reuse/repurposing
90% of the EPS is recycled, 10% reused.  Recent shortages of new rigid insulation has changed the trend  -  our customers will now buy reclaimed EPS as a substitute for new polyiso so moving more EPS to reuse than recycle in past several months.
e. Do you mainly facilitate recycling and/or reuse?
See d. above.
f. What materials are recovered when EPS and XPS insulation boards are recycled?
XPS and EPS Rigid Foam Insulation Boards  -  typically 2'x8' and 4'x8' sheets in varying thicknesses ranging from 1"-6" thick.
We also collect/reclaim single ply polymeric membranes (EPDM/PVC/TPO) from re-roofing projects,
g. Are you able to identify whether insulation boards contain HBCD? What would it cost if you were required to track them in your recycling process?
We have never tried to do identify insulation boards that contain HBCD.  Is there a simple burn test available?  We have experience identifying different plastic resins via burn tests  -  melt temperature, smoke color, drip.  We also ID various carpet fiber types using spectroscopic analyzers (lazer gun).  The lazer gun was fairly expensive, $800?
Given that most of the re-roofing projects that we service were last roofed 15-20 years ago perhaps just knowing the age of the roof may be one simple way to evaluate the likely presence of HBCD insulation.
It would not be particularly difficult or expensive to track the flow of insulation boards.
h. What is the value of discarded insulation boards that you recycle?
Reclaimed XPS insulation boards are typically priced at $.21 per board foot (1'x1'x1"thick).
EPS insulation (densified) ranges from $.11/lb to .$26/lb in 40,000 lb lots.  FOB shipper.
How much EPS board and XPS board do you recycle?
We average:
 2.5 million board feet (400,000 lbs) per year of XPS that is collected and sold into the reuse market "as is"
 1.7 million board feet ((123,000 lbs) per year of EPS that is collected and delivered to recycling facilities for densification and ultimate sale to manufacturing facilities as feedstock
What percentage of your total recycling revenue is from insulation board?
97% (includes polyiso)
j. How would it affect your business if EPA prohibited recycling of insulation boards containing HBCD?
If we were prohibited from recycling EPS we would loose about 10% of our revenue stream
k. How would it affect your business if EPA prohibited reuse of insulation boards containing HBCD?
If we were prohibited from reusing XPS we would loose about 60% of our revenue stream and have to either find new materials to replace the revenue with shut down the company
l. What would it cost if EPA required you to reduce levels of HBCD in indoor air to reduce or prevent release to outdoor air? Examples of requirements:
 Segregation of operations into separate rooms  -  $0, already in place
 ii. Monitoring of respirable dust in work area  -  ?
 iii. Reducing the speed of equipment  -  We estimate that it costs about $.11 per lb. to densify EPS for recycling.  Labor is at least half of that cost, say $.06 per lb. So a 50% decrease in speed would increase our costs by 25%.
 iv. Increasing the amount of recycling back into the manufacturing process  -  N/A we do not manufacture
 v. Use of particular containers and equipment that prevent releases - What would these be?
 vi. Cleaning protocols such as sprays to knock down dust  -  We used to make a rough packing peanut called "polycorn" that were just small balls of broken EPS.  We used a mister on our breaking line to reduce the "static cling" of the polycorn balls before they conveyed into large bags.  Our current process is just a breaker that sends the broken pieces into a compression chamber where it is densified.  The breaking process creates a substantial static charge and EPS beads that are released during the breaking process cling to everything near by.  It works a bit like the first stages of an electrostatic precipitator.  I would be surprised if any significant levels of EPS dust exist in the air around the process line  -  everything is clinging onto the machinery!  Could this be an opportunity to capture any particles that could cause harm? Would EPA consider doing some testing at our facility to quantify the dust levels?
 vii. Exhaust systems  -  We have a large ceiling vent fan in the EPS recycling room that vents to the outside recycling yard.  We sit on 7 acres in an industrial zone bordered by railroad tracks on one side and solar panel farm on the other.
 viii. Filters on exhaust mechanisms to prevent pollution in local community  -  Yes possibly.
 ix. Use of closed systems to protect workers  -  not sure this is practical  -  better to use respirators.
 x. Hoods or other containment on equipment - possible
 xi. Numerical limits on HBCD dust or modified foam dust in indoor or outdoor air - ?
m. What would it cost if EPA required you to do more to prevent HBCD dust from entering streams, rivers, or lakes, in your experience? Examples:
 Facility or equipment cleaning ii. Spraying water at outdoor site to reduce fugitive dust  -  I don't think it would be expensive to create a misting system over the breaker or conveying line.  This is doable.
n. Do you have recommendations for EPA?
 Consider the benefit of our services to the environment. Balance the environmental impacts of recycling and reusing HBCD containing insulation with the alternatives which are landfilling and waste to energy.  Very significant reduction in energy inputs and carbon emissions  -  especially when the XPS is reused.
 Consider the benefit of our services to our roofing customers.  Our EPS/XPS services eliminate the costs of disposal for the roofing companies and the building owners when they re-roof.  This is significant  -  a typical 200,000 sf re-roofing project will normally generate 10 tractor trailer loads (1,000 CY) of used rigid foam insulation.  At typical disposal costs of $15 per CY this results in $15,000 in disposal cost savings for that project.
Consider the benefit to our customers.  Most of our customers are DIY people, using the XPS insulation to insulate below concrete slabs and exterior foundation walls.  They buy our product for half of what they would pay for new and are tickled pink.


EPA estimates that each year, an additional 1 percent of UST facilities (i.e., 1% * 211,144 = 2,111 facilities) will experience a disruption in financial coverage due to bankruptcy.  EPA estimates that 10 percent of those owners or operators experiencing such a disruption (i.e., 10% * 2,111 = 211 facilities) will be unable to obtain alternative financial coverage within 60 days and will notify the implementing agency of such failure.

      (b)	State Program Approval Procedures

40 CFR Part 281 outlines procedures that states must follow to obtain approval to implement their own UST program in lieu of the federal program.  Based on recent program data, EPA estimates that two states (or territories) will apply for state program approval over the next three years.  For the purposes of this ICR, it is assumed that an average of one state will apply for state program approval each year.

States applying for state program approval must submit an application to EPA for review under §281.50.  The application includes a transmittal letter, a description of the state program, information on enforcement procedures, a memorandum of agreement with EPA, an attorney general's statement, and copies of state statutes and regulations.  These states must also allow for public notice and comment on their efforts to develop their underground storage tank programs.

All approved programs must maintain files and current information on program administration.  There are currently 40 approved state programs.  Between 2014 and 2016, EPA assumes that an average of 42 state programs will maintain files on program administration.  Finally, EPA estimates that it will ask one state per year to submit this information.

EPA expects that no states will be submitting revised state program applications over the next three years.  EPA does not expect any states to withdraw or transfer portions of their programs.

Respondent burden hours and costs for the activities included as burdens under this ICR are shown in Exhibits 1 and 2. The burden and cost for Agency activities are shown in Exhibits 3 and 4.

6(e) Bottom Line Burden Hours and Cost

(1)	Respondent Tally

Exhibit 5 summarizes the total annual hour and cost burden to UST owners and operators and to states (as respondents seeking program approval).  As shown in the exhibit, EPA estimates the annual respondent burden to be approximately 5 million hours and $376 million.  The bottom line burden to respondents over three years is estimated to be approximately 15 million hours and $1.1 billion.

Combined ICR  Respondent Burden
ICR
Respondents
Responses
Total Hours/ Year
Capital/Startup Cost and O&M Costs
Total Cost/Year
ICR 1360 Private

211,144

348,226

5,065,444

$223,431,403

$375,503,976
ICR 1360 States

42

49

953

131

$51,848
ICR 2405 (Region IX)

500

500

2,500

$4,025

$29,025
Total

211,686

348,775

5,068,897

$223,435,559

$375,584,849

(2) 	Agency Tally

Exhibit 6 summarizes the total annual Agency hour and cost burden associated with all of the requirements covered in this ICR.  As shown in the exhibit, EPA estimates the annual Agency burden to be approximately 346,000 hours and $18 million.  The bottom line burden to the Agency over three years is estimated to be approximately 1.0 million hours and $54 million.

Combined ICR Burden  -  Annual Agency
ICR
Hours per Year
Labor Cost
Capital/Startup
O&M
Total Cost/Year
ICR 1360
346,067
$17,869,221
$0
$14,957
$17,884,178
ICR 2405
(Region IX)
125
$5,986.25
$0
$0
$5,986.25
Total
346,192
$17,875,207
$0
$14,957
$17,890,164

6(f)	Reasons for Change in Burden

This ICR presents a comprehensive description of the total annual respondent burden for all information collection activities related to the UST program.  In renewing this ICR, EPA has updated its respondent universe and burden estimates based on updated data from the Office of Underground Storage Tanks (OUST) and the regulated community. EPA also slightly reduced the burden associated with notification requirements.  Because of these changes, the total annual time burden to respondents has decreased 25 percent (1,684,661 hours) from the previous ICR (from  6,753,558 hours per year to 5,068,897 hours per year).

Previously Approved
Change
Requested
Responses
                                                                        478,853

                                                                       -130,078

                                                                        348,775
Hours
                                                                      6,753,558
                                                                     -1,684,661
                                                                      5,068,897
Cost
                                                                    279,652,536
                                                                    -56,216,977
                                                                    223,435,559

6(g)	Burden Statement

Exhibit 7 presents the average annual respondent time burden for each UST facility and for each state that has a federally approved UST program or will apply for program approval.  For UST facilities, as shown in the exhibit, the estimated total average time burden for conducting the activities covered in this ICR is approximately 24 hours per respondent annually.  Of this total, the reporting burden is estimated to average 13 hours per respondent per year.  This estimate includes time for preparing and submitting notices, preparing and submitting demonstrations and applications, reporting releases, gathering information, and preparing and submitting reports.  The estimated average recordkeeping burden for UST facilities is 10 hours per respondent per year.  This estimate includes time for gathering information and for developing and maintaining records.  The burden for third-party disclosure is estimated to average 0.3 hours per respondent per year.  This estimate includes time to notify an UST purchaser of the owner's notification obligations.

For states applying for program approval and for states with approved programs, the estimated total average time burden is approximately 23 hours per state annually.  The estimated average reporting burden is approximately eight hours per respondent per year.  This estimate includes time for preparing and submitting an application and associated information.  The estimated average recordkeeping burden is approximately 15 hours per respondent per year.  This estimate includes time for maintaining application files.

Burden Statement: The annual public reporting and recordkeeping burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 15 hours per response. Burden means the total time, effort, or financial resources expended by persons to generate, maintain, retain, or disclose or provide information to or for a Federal agency.  This includes the time needed to review instructions; develop, acquire, install, and utilize technology and systems for the purposes of collecting, validating, and verifying information, processing and maintaining information, and disclosing and providing information; adjust the existing ways to comply with any previously applicable instructions and requirements; train personnel to be able to respond to a collection of information; search data sources; complete and review the collection of information; and transmit or otherwise disclose the information.  An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.  The OMB control numbers for EPA's regulations are listed in 40 CFR part 9 and 48 CFR chapter 15.

To comment on the Agency's need for this information, the accuracy of the provided burden estimates and any suggested methods for minimizing respondent burden, including the use of automated collection techniques, EPA has established a public docket for this ICR under Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-UST-2010-0625, which is available for online viewing at www.regulations.gov, or in person at the UST Docket in the EPA Docket Center (EPA/DC), EPA West, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington, DC.  The EPA Docket Center Public Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays.  The telephone number for the Reading Room is<PHONE_NUMBER> and the telephone number for the UST Docket is<PHONE_NUMBER>.  An electronic version of the public docket is available at www.regulations.gov.  This site can be used to submit or view public comments, access the index listing of the contents of the public docket, and to access those documents in the public docket that are available electronically.  When in the system, select "search," then key in the Docket ID Number identified above.  Also, you can send comments to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, 725 17th Street, NW, Washington, D.C. 20503, Attention: Desk Officer for EPA.  Please include the EPA Docket ID Number EPA-HQ-UST-2010-0625 and OMB Control Number 2050-0068 in any correspondence.


[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 171 (Friday, September 2, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Pages 54830-54833]
[FR Doc No: 2011-22477]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration

[Docket No. FMCSA-2010-0387]

Identification of Interstate Motor Vehicles: The Port Authority
of New York and New Jersey's Drayage Truck Registry Sticker Display
Requirements; Petition for Determination

AGENCY: Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice; Denial of petition for determination.

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

SUMMARY: FMCSA denies the New Jersey Motor Truck Association's (NJMTA)
petition requesting that FMCSA determine the Port Authority of New York
and New Jersey's (Port Authority) Drayage Truck Registry (DTR) sticker
display program is preempted by Federal law. The Safe, Accountable,
Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users
(SAFETEA-LU) prohibits States and their political subdivisions from
requiring motor carriers to display in or on commercial motor vehicles
(CMVs) any form of identification other than forms required by the
Secretary of Transportation (Secretary), with certain exceptions. FMCSA
determines that the Port Authority's sticker display program is not
preempted.

DATES: This decision is effective September 2, 2011.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Genevieve D. Sapir, Office of the
Chief Counsel, Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590,<PHONE_NUMBER>; e-mail
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    The Port Authority amended its marine tariff (PAMT FMC No. 10) to
require trucks entering marine terminal facilities to display a sticker
showing compliance with its new DTR. In response, by letter dated
September 2, 2010, NJMTA petitioned the Secretary for a determination
that the Port Authority's sticker display requirement is preempted by
Federal law. Effective October 15, 2010, and in response to the NJMTA's
petition, the Port Authority amended its tariff to clarify that the
compliance stickers are a voluntary way to demonstrate compliance with
the DTR and that no truck will be denied access to marine terminal
facilities for failure to display a sticker.
    The NJMTA is a non-profit trade association that represents over
500 trucking companies with operations in New Jersey. NJMTA states that
its mission is to foster and promote sound, economical, and efficient
service by motor carrier transportation; to promote safety and courtesy
in highway transportation; to foster and support beneficial laws and
regulations affecting the motor carrier industry and highway
transportation; to promote and encourage the construction and
maintenance of an adequate system of safely engineered highways; to
foster and promote sound and reasonable taxation at the State and
Federal levels on highway users; and to engage in any and all
activities that will advance the interests of highway transportation
and highway users generally.
    The Port Authority is a bi-State entity established by interstate
compact with the consent of Congress (42 Stat. 174, Aug. 23, 1921). It
conceives, builds, operates, and maintains infrastructure critical to
the New York/New Jersey region's trade and transportation network.
These facilities include the New York/New Jersey airport system, marine
terminals and ports, the PATH rail transit system, six tunnels and
bridges between New York and New Jersey, the Port Authority Bus
Terminal in Manhattan, and the World Trade Center.
    In an effort to reduce port-related diesel and greenhouse gas
emissions, the Port Authority is implementing a truck phase-out plan
that will deny old drayage trucks access to its marine terminal
facilities. Under this plan, the Port Authority began denying drayage
trucks with pre-1994 model year engines access to Port Authority marine
terminal facilities effective January 1, 2011. Effective January 1,
2017, the Port Authority will deny drayage trucks equipped with engines
that fail to meet or exceed 2007 model year Federal heavy-duty, diesel-
fueled, on-road engine emission standards access to marine terminal
facilities. In order to implement the truck phase-out plan, the Port
Authority will require drayage trucks accessing Port Authority marine
terminal facilities to be registered in the DTR. The Port Authority
will issue compliance stickers to drayage trucks that are compliant
with the phase-out plan to facilitate and expedite transit of those
trucks onto, through, and out of marine terminal facilities. As noted
above, the Port Authority has amended its tariff to clarify that the
compliance stickers are a voluntary way to demonstrate compliance with
the DTR, that no truck is required to display a compliance sticker, and
that no truck

will be denied access to marine terminal facilities for failure to
display a sticker.
    Section 4306(a) of SAFETEA-LU, codified at 49 U.S.C. 14506(a),
prohibits States, political subdivisions of States, interstate
agencies, or other political agencies of two or more States from
requiring motor carriers to display in or on CMVs any form of
identification other than forms required by the Secretary. Section
14506(b), as amended, however, establishes several exceptions to this
prohibition:

    (b) Exception.--Notwithstanding subsection (a), a State may
continue to require display of credentials that are required--
    (1) under the International Registration Plan under section
31704 [of title 49, United States Code];
    (2) under the International Fuel Tax Agreement under section
31705 [of title 49, United States Code] or under an applicable State
law if, on October 1, 2006, the State has a form of highway use
taxation not subject to collection through the International Fuel
Tax Agreement;
    (3) under a State law regarding motor vehicle license plates or
other displays that the Secretary determines are appropriate;
    (4) in connection with Federal requirements for hazardous
materials transportation under section 5103 [of title 49, United
States Code]; or
    (5) in connection with the Federal vehicle inspection standards
under section 31136 [of title 49, United States Code].

    The exception relevant to NJMTA's petition is Sec.  14506(b)(3),
which provides that ``a State may continue to require display of
credentials that are required * * * under a State law regarding motor
vehicle license plates or other displays that the Secretary determines
are appropriate.'' \1\ The Secretary's authority under Sec.  14506 is
delegated to FMCSA by 49 CFR 1.73(a)(7).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ FMCSA previously concluded that for the purposes of the
exceptions at 49 U.S.C. 14506(b), ``State'' means a State, political
subdivision of a State, interstate agency, or other political agency
of two or more States (75 FR 64779, Oct. 20, 2010). Because it is a
political agency of two or more States, the Port Authority is a
``State'' for the purposes of Sec.  14506(b).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Through a notice published in the Federal Register on December 3,
2010 (75 FR 75540), FMCSA sought comment on whether the Port
Authority's sticker display requirement is preempted by Federal law.
Specifically, the Agency sought comment on whether the Port Authority's
sticker display requirement should qualify for the exception in 49
U.S.C. 14506(b)(3).

Discussion of Comments

    In response to the December 3, 2010 notice, FMCSA received ten
comments, of which five were from trade associations, two were from
individuals, one was from a motor carrier, one was from a coalition,
one was from the Commercial Vehicle Safety Alliance (CVSA), and one was
from the Port Authority. All commenters except for the coalition and
the Port Authority supported preemption.
    The American Trucking Associations (ATA) commented that the Port
Authority's credential display requirement does not differ
significantly from other displays FMCSA recently preempted
(Identification of Interstate Motor Vehicles: New York City, Cook
County, and New Jersey Tax Identification Requirements; Petition for
Determination, (75 FR 64779, Oct. 20, 2010)). ATA also commented that,
based on FMCSA's previous decision on tax credential displays in Oregon
(72 FR 9996, Mar. 6, 2007), the Port Authority's display should not be
eligible for the exception at 49 U.S.C. 14506(b)(3). ATA further
commented that it is not determinative that the requirement is
voluntary.
    The National Solid Wastes Management Association (NSWMA) commented
that the exception at 49 U.S.C. 14506(b)(3) should be interpreted
narrowly so as not to interfere with Congress's intent to preempt
credential display requirements. NSWMA also commented that if FMCSA
does not grant NJMTA's petition, numerous State and local governments
will enact similar, burdensome requirements. Finally, NSWMA commented
that if Congress had intended for there to be an exception for displays
designed to reduce emissions, then it would have written one in 49
U.S.C. 14506(b).
    The Owner-Operator Independent Drivers Association (OOIDA)
commented in support of NJMTA's petition. OOIDA does not believe that
the Port Authority's requirement is voluntary because trucks that opt
out would be subject to additional delays in the port. OOIDA also
commented that, following the canon of statutory construction ejusdem
generis, FMCSA should interpret the exception at 49 U.S.C. 14506(b)(3)
to be limited to matters related to motor vehicle licensing.
    The Truck Renting and Leasing Association (TRALA) commented in
support of NJMTA's petition, strongly objecting to the Port Authority's
credential display requirement. The TRALA also commented that many
carriers lease CMVs and trailers and that the requirement would be
burdensome not only to carriers, but to lessors whose equipment may be
used in several multi-modal operations during their lifetimes. Finally,
TRALA disagreed that it would be appropriate for FMCSA to exercise its
delegated discretion under 49 U.S.C. 14506(b)(3) in this matter.
    In support of its own petition, NJMTA commented that it is not
relevant whether the Port Authority's requirement is voluntary because
49 U.S.C. 14506(b) does not contain an exception for voluntariness. In
addition, NJMTA disputed that the Port Authority's display requirement
is voluntary because trucks that do not display the sticker will be
subjected to lengthy stops and inspection. NJMTA further commented that
this lengthy stop and inspection process will cause delays and traffic
jams, inhibit operators' ability to make multiple trips, and increase
pollution.
    One individual commented that the Port Authority's credential
display requirement should be preempted because it is similar to other
credential displays that FMCSA recently preempted. Another individual
commented that ports currently have too many credential requirements.
    United Parcel Service (UPS) stated that it agreed with the comments
NJMTA and ATA filed in this docket. UPS specifically agreed that
characterizing the requirement as voluntary does not make it any less
mandatory because carriers that do not participate will be subjected to
inspections and delays at the port.
    The Coalition for Healthy Ports (Coalition) commented that NJMTA's
and ATA's comments are inconsistent with the positions they have taken
with respect to other programs including the Port of Los Angeles's
drayage truck program, which is currently the subject of litigation.
The Coalition also commented that without the sticker program, the Port
Authority would be unable to enforce the DTR. Finally, the Coalition
commented that invalidating the Port Authority's program would place
other ports' programs in jeopardy.
    CVSA commented that it believes that the Port Authority's
credential display requirement is preempted and not eligible for any of
the exceptions in 49 U.S.C. 14506(b). CVSA commented that instead of
stickers, the Port Authority should use existing identifiers to meet
its needs as well as build technological capabilities and ``back office
infrastructure'' to manage the DTR program.
    The Port Authority commented that its credential display
requirement does not violate 49 U.S.C. 14506 because it is voluntary.
Alternatively, the Port Authority commented that the requirement is not
preempted because it promotes public health and safety.

FMCSA Decision

Section 14506(a) Does Not Preempt the Port Authority's Sticker Display
Program

    Section 14506(a) preempts State requirements that mandate motor
carriers to display in or on CMVs any form of identification other than
forms required by the Secretary. The Port Authority's DTR sticker
display program is not preempted because it does not require trucks to
display the compliance sticker. Accordingly, FMCSA denies the NJMTA's
petition for preemption.
    According to the Port Authority, all vehicles servicing the marine
terminal must register with the DTR. Vehicles that do not meet the
DTR's requirements are denied registration. The Port Authority issues
all registered vehicles a set of stickers, at no cost to the
registrant, that demonstrate compliance with the registration
requirements. Trucks are briefly stopped so the Port Authority can
determine whether they are displaying a compliance sticker. Motor
carriers that choose not to display the sticker are subject to a short
wait while a Port Authority Police officer checks the truck's license
plate against the DTR database.
    Section 14506(a) states that:

    No State, political subdivision of a State, interstate agency,
or other political agency of two or more States may enact or enforce
any law, rule, regulation standard, or other provision having the
force and effect of law that requires a motor carrier, motor private
carrier, freight forwarder, or leasing company to display any form
of identification on or in a commercial motor vehicle (as defined in
section 14504a [of title 49, United States Code]), other than forms
of identification required by the Secretary of Transportation under
section 390.21 of title 49, Code of Federal Regulations. (emphasis
added).

    The preemption language of this provision turns on a State's
requirement that a motor carrier display some kind of identification,
such as a compliance sticker. In this case, however, the Port Authority
does not require motor carriers to display the compliance sticker.
Instead, motor carriers have the option of either displaying the
sticker or having Port Authority officers verify compliance with the
DTR through a license plate check. No vehicle will be issued a citation
if it is properly registered, but not displaying a compliance sticker.
    Several commenters correctly noted that given the choice between
displaying a no-cost compliance sticker or being subjected to delays
during a license plate check, most carriers would choose to display the
sticker. That does not change the fact that the Port Authority does not
mandate their display. Nor is the alternative option (license plate
check) so onerous that it acts as a penalty to drivers choosing not to
display the sticker. While it might take more time to run the license
plate check than verify the existence of a sticker, the few extra
minutes the Port Authority asserts this would take is a reasonable and
minimally-burdensome alternative for motor carriers who object to using
the stickers. Accordingly, FMCSA finds that the Port Authority's
sticker display program is not preempted.

The Port Authority's Sticker Display Program Is Appropriate

    Even if the Port Authority's display program were mandatory, FMCSA
would nonetheless determine that the program is appropriate, in
accordance with FMCSA's delegated discretion to make such a
determination pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 14506(b)(3). The U.S. Department of
Transportation generally supports initiatives designed to reduce
emissions at port facilities. The sticker display aspect of the DTR is
a minimally-burdensome method of achieving the goals of the DTR without
causing undue burden on interstate commerce at the Port Authority's
marine terminals.
    Even though the burden of stopping trucks to verify registration
with a license plate check is minimal, it requires both motor carriers
and the Port Authority to expend additional resources. Each stop would
require trucks to spend more time at the marine terminal, delaying
motor carriers, however briefly, and increasing emissions from a
potentially long line of idling trucks. The Port Authority's
alternative, a no-cost sticker, would help reduce emissions and
expedite traffic through marine terminal. FMCSA does not agree with the
NJMTA that the sticker program would have the opposite effect:
Increasing pollution and delays at the port. To the contrary, in this
particular case, FMCSA believes that not using the stickers would
increase pollution due to idling and would create a greater burden on
commerce moving in and out of the port.
    FMCSA does not agree with commenters that believe the sticker
display requirement would create a burden on carriers by making them
responsible for maintaining a patchwork of stickers from multiple
jurisdictions. First, this determination applies only to the Port
Authority's DTR program. FMCSA does not extend this determination to
any other jurisdiction's credential display requirement. Second, there
is a discrete population of trucks entering the marine terminals on a
daily basis. The vast majority of drayage trucks coming through a port
are dedicated to serving that particular port. While some trucks
service other ports as well, the effect on these motor carriers would
be minimal. The nominal burden of placing a sticker on a truck that
visits the same port over and over again is greatly outweighed by the
benefits of expedited access through the port.
    FMCSA disagrees with NSWMA's assertions that Congress did not
intend for FMCSA to exercise its authority in this manner. The statute
grants FMCSA the authority to except those requirements it deems
appropriate. There is no additional language limiting this authority.
The more reasonable interpretation is that Congress granted this broad
discretion so that FMCSA could have the flexibility to except those
requirements, such as the Port Authority's, that serve important
national policy objectives.
    NSWMA also contends that FMCSA's analysis should be governed by the
principle of statutory construction that exceptions to general rules
should be construed narrowly. FMCSA does not believe that this
principle prohibits it from determining that the Port Authority's
sticker program is appropriate. FMCSA's decision not to preempt the
Port Authority's sticker program does not grant a sweeping exception
for State credential displays. To the contrary, FMCSA's decision is
limited to the specific circumstances presented by the Port Authority's
program and is based on having balanced important policy objectives
with the minimal effect the sticker program will have on interstate
commerce. Notably, the discretion Congress granted at Sec.  14506(b)(3)
does not mandate FMCSA except State displays; nor does it entitle
States to enact requirements that otherwise conflict with Sec.  14506.
It simply grants FMCSA the discretion to determine whether display
requirements are appropriate. In the absence of such a determination,
display requirements are presumed to be preempted.
    FMCSA also disagrees with OOIDA's assertion that application of
ejusdem generis precludes FMCSA from determining that the Port
Authority's program is not preempted. Ejusdem generis is a ``canon of
construction holding that when a general word or phrase follows a list
of specifics, the general word or phrase will be interpreted to include
only items of the same class as those listed.'' [Black's Law Dictionary
9th ed. 2009]. The concept, however, is only used to ascertain the

correct meaning of words when there is uncertainty, Garcia v. United
States, 469 U.S. 70, 74-75 (1985), and the Agency finds no uncertainty
warranting its application. If the meaning is clear from the language
of the statute, there is no need to resort to legislative history or
other extraneous source. Robinson v. Shell Oil Co., 519 U.S. 337, 340-
41 (1997). The plain language of Sec.  14506(b)(3) excepts ``other
displays that the Secretary determines are appropriate.'' FMCSA rejects
any attempt to insert ambiguity into this straightforward provision.
    Even if the provision were ambiguous, moreover, it would
nonetheless be inappropriate to apply the rule of ejusdem generis.
Ejusdem generis is relevant when there is a list of specific terms with
a particular attribute or character followed by a more general or
catchall phrase or term. CSX Transp., Inc. v. Ala. Dep't of Revenue,
131 S. Ct. 1101, 1113 (2011). ``The absence of a list of specific items
undercuts the inference embodied in ejusdem generis that Congress
remained focused on the common attribute when it used the catchall
phrase.'' Ali v. Fed. Bureau of Prisons, 552 U.S. 214, 225 (2008). More
important, without a list of specific items, it is not apparent what
common attribute connects the specific and general categories. Id.
    Section 14506(b)(3) contains only two categories of exceptions
under State law: Motor vehicle license plates and other displays that
the Secretary determines are appropriate. Although the phrase ``other
displays that the Secretary determines are appropriate'' is something
of a catchall, no list of specific items precedes it. Without a list of
specific items, ejusdem generis does not apply because it would not be
possible to determine what common attribute, if any, Congress may have
intended to ascribe to the catchall phrase.
    This matter is distinguished from FMCSA's previous decisions
regarding credential displays in Oregon (72 FR 9996, Mar. 6, 2007), and
Cook County, New York City, and New Jersey (75 FR 64779, Oct. 20,
2010). In those cases, motor carriers were subject to penalty for
failure to display certain credentials, regardless of whether they had
complied with the substance of the law requiring registration or
payment of a fee. Here, the Port Authority assesses no penalty on motor
carriers for failure to display the sticker credential. It uses the
sticker as a tool for expediting verification of compliance with the
DTR and offers an alternative method for demonstrating compliance. No
carrier is cited for failing to display credentials; the Port Authority
only issues citations for failing to comply with the substantive
requirements of the DTR.
    Furthermore, in FMCSA's previous decisions, the entities enforcing
the credential display requirements failed to identify important policy
reasons that would support FMCSA's determination that their
requirements were appropriate. In the most recent decision involving
credential displays in Cook County, IL, New York City, and New Jersey,
FMCSA specifically requested that these jurisdictions justify or
present reasons that could support a determination that the display
requirement would be appropriate under the exception at 49 U.S.C.
14506(b)(3). Cook County responded, conceding preemption, but neither
of the other jurisdictions made any effort to justify their
requirements.
    In a previous credential display decision, Oregon petitioned the
FMCSA for a declaration that its weight-mile tax credentials were
appropriate. Oregon's principal argument in support of its display
requirement was that eliminating it would increase its enforcement
burden. However, the increased burden on enforcement efforts did not
present a compelling policy reason, especially in the absence of
exploring other solutions to enforcement.
    In this case, the Port Authority identified two important policy
reasons to support use of credential display stickers: Facilitating
movement through the port and reducing emissions. In addition, the
stickers present a less burdensome method for motor carriers (as
opposed to the Port Authority) for proving compliance with the DTR.
These factors present compelling policy reasons justifying FMCSA's
determination that the Port Authority's sticker program is appropriate.

Conclusion

    In consideration of the above, FMCSA denies the petition submitted
by the NJMTA. The Port Authority is not preempted from implementing its
credential display program.

    Issued on: August 29, 2011.
Anne S. Ferro,
Administrator.
[FR Doc. 2011-22477 Filed 9-1-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-EX-P


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 19 (Wednesday, January 29, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Page 4690]
[FR Doc No: 2014-01667]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[EPA-HQ-OECA-2007-0468; FRL-9905-38-OEI]

Information Collection Request Submitted to OMB for Review and
Approval; Comment Request; Environmental Impact Assessment of
Nongovernmental Activities in Antarctica (Renewal)

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency has submitted an
information collection request (ICR), ``Environmental Impact Assessment
of Nongovernmental Activities in Antarctica (Renewal)'' (EPA ICR No.
1808.07, OMB Control No. 2020-0007) to the Office of Management and
Budget (OMB) for review and approval in accordance with the Paperwork
Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.). This is a proposed extension of
the ICR, which is currently approved through March 31, 2014. Public
comments were previously requested via the Federal Register (78 FR
57847) on September 20, 2013 during a 60-day comment period. This
notice allows for an additional 30 days for public comments. A fuller
description of the ICR is given below, including its estimated burden
and cost to the public. An Agency may not conduct or sponsor and a
person is not required to respond to a collection of information unless
it displays a currently valid OMB control number.

DATES: Comments must be submitted on or before February 28, 2014.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, referencing Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OECA-
2007-0468, to (1) EPA online using www.regulations.gov (our preferred
method), by email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or by mail to: EPA Docket
Center, Environmental Protection Agency, Mail Code 28221T, 1200
Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460, and (2) OMB via email to
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Address comments to OMB Desk Officer for
EPA.
    EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included in the
public docket without change including any personal information
provided, unless the comment includes profanity, threats, information
claimed to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other
information whose disclosure is restricted by statute.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Julie Roemele, Office of Federal
Activities, Mail Code 2252A, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200
Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460; telephone number: (202)
564-5632; fax number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email address:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Supporting documents which explain in detail
the information that the EPA will be collecting are available in the
public docket for this ICR. The docket can be viewed online at
www.regulations.gov or in person at the EPA Docket Center, WJC West,
Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave. NW., Washington, DC. The telephone
number for the Docket Center is<PHONE_NUMBER>. For additional
information about EPA's public docket, visit www.epa.gov/dockets.
    EPA ICR #: 1808.07.
    OMB Control #: 2020-0007.
    Abstract: The Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA's) regulations
at 40 CFR part 8, Environmental Impact Assessment of Nongovernmental
Activities in Antarctica (Rule), were promulgated pursuant to the
Antarctic Science, Tourism, and Conservation Act of 1996 (Act), 16
U.S.C. 2401 et seq., as amended, 16 U.S.C. 2403a, which implements the
Protocol on Environmental Protection (Protocol) to the Antarctic Treaty
of 1959 (Treaty). The Rule provides for assessment of the environmental
impacts of nongovernmental activities in Antarctica, including tourism,
for which the United States is required to give advance notice under
Paragraph 5 of Article VII of the Treaty, and for coordination of the
review of information regarding environmental impact assessments
received from other Parties under the Protocol. Persons subject to the
Rule must prepare environmental documentation to support the operator's
determination regarding the level of environmental impact of the
proposed expedition. The Protocol and the Rule also require an operator
to employ procedures to assess and provide a regular and verifiable
record of the actual impacts of an activity which proceeds on the basis
of an Initial Environmental Evaluation (IEE) or Comprehensive
Environmental Evaluation (CEE).
    Form Numbers: None.
    Respondents/affected entities: Private operators.
    Respondent's obligation to respond: Mandatory (40 CFR part 8).
    Estimated number of respondents: 18.
    Frequency of response: Annual.
    Total estimated burden: 1,254 hours.
    Total estimated cost: $100,575 (per year) includes $3,390
annualized capital or operation & maintenance costs.
    Changes in Estimates: There is a decrease of 454 hours in the total
estimated respondent burden compared with the ICR currently approved by
OMB. This decrease is the result of a change to the level of
environmental documentation EPA anticipates the operators will submit
as well as an anticipated decrease of operators submitting
documentation.

John Moses,
Director, Collection Strategies Division.
[FR Doc. 2014-01667 Filed 1-28-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 74 (Wednesday, April 17, 2013)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 22802-22806]
[FR Doc No: 2013-09006]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2013-0331; Directorate Identifier 2011-NM-170-AD]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; the Boeing Company Airplanes

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

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

SUMMARY: We propose to adopt a new airworthiness directive (AD) for
certain The Boeing Company Model 747-200B, 747-200F, 747-300, 747SP,
747-400, and 747-400F series airplanes equipped with Rolls-Royce RB211-
524 engines; and certain Model 767-300 series airplanes equipped with
Rolls-Royce RB211-524 engines. This proposed AD was prompted by
multiple reports of uncommanded thrust reverser unlock events. This
proposed AD would require replacing certain relays and relay sockets,
and doing wiring changes. For certain airplanes, this proposed AD would
also require installing new relay panels, and removing and installing
certain components. Additionally, this proposed AD would require, for
certain airplanes, accomplishing concurrent actions, which include
installing an additional locking system on the thrust reversers,
installing an additional locking gearbox on each engine and modifying
system wiring for in-flight fault indications of the thrust reverser
system, and installing a second locking gearbox system on the thrust
reversers. We are proposing this AD to prevent an uncommanded thrust
reverser deployment during takeoff or in-flight resulting in decreased
airplane control and performance, possible runway excursions, and
failure to climb.

DATES: We must receive comments on this proposed AD by June 3, 2013.

ADDRESSES: You may send comments, using the procedures found in 14 CFR
11.43 and 11.45, by any of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the instructions for submitting comments.
     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
     Mail: U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket
Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590.
     Hand Delivery: Deliver to Mail address above between 9
a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
    For service information identified in this proposed AD, contact
Boeing Commercial Airplanes, Attention: Data & Services Management, P.
O. Box 3707, MC 2H-65, Seattle, WA 98124-2207; phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>,
extension 1; fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>; Internet: https://www.myboeingfleet.com. You may review copies of the referenced service
information at the FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind
Avenue SW., Renton, WA. For information on the availability of this
material at the FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov; or in person at the

Docket Management Facility between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through
Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD docket contains this proposed
AD, the regulatory evaluation, any comments received, and other
information. The street address for the Docket Office (phone: 800-647-
5527) is in the ADDRESSES section. Comments will be available in the AD
docket shortly after receipt.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Tung Tran, Aerospace Engineer,
Propulsion Branch, ANM-140S, Seattle Aircraft Certification Office
(ACO), FAA, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98057-3356; phone: 425-
917-6505; fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Comments Invited

    We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or
arguments about this proposal. Send your comments to an address listed
under the ADDRESSES section. Include ``Docket No. FAA-2013-0331;
Directorate Identifier 2011-NM-170-AD'' at the beginning of your
comments. We specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory,
economic, environmental, and energy aspects of this proposed AD. We
will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend
this proposed AD because of those comments.
    We will post all comments we receive, without change, to http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information you provide. We
will also post a report summarizing each substantive verbal contact we
receive about this proposed AD.

Discussion

    We have received multiple reports of uncommanded thrust reverser
unlock events. In three of these events, all three thrust reverser
locks had disengaged. One report stated that during takeoff roll on a
Rolls-Royce RB211-524-powered Model 747-400 airplane, the flightcrew
received the ENG 4 REV LIMTD EICAS status message and the ENG 4
REVERSER advisory and status messages. During climb, the cabin crew saw
sparks from the exhaust of the number 4 engine. The event was found to
be caused by a failure of the o-rings in the air motor switcher or
shutoff solenoid valves because of overheating. This let the air motor
shutoff valve open, which released the air motor brake. Releasing the
air motor brake in the ground mode energized the number 2 and number 3
thrust reverser gear box unlock solenoids, thereby unlocking the number
2 and number 3 gear boxes. The thrust reverser system on the Rolls-
Royce RB211-powered Model 767 airplane is similar to that on the Model
747-400 airplane, and the Model 767 airplane thrust reverser system is
likely to be susceptible to the same failure mode. This condition, if
not corrected, could result an uncommanded thrust reverser deployment
during takeoff or in-flight resulting in decreased airplane control and
performance, possible runway excursions, and failure to climb.

Relevant Service Information

    We reviewed the following service information:
     Boeing Service Bulletin 747-78-2178, Revision 1, dated
August 4, 2011.
     Boeing Service Bulletin 747-78-2180, Revision 2, dated
November 11, 2011.
     Boeing Service Bulletin 767-78-0096, Revision 1, dated
December 10, 2009.
    For information on the procedures and compliance times, see this
service information at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for
Docket No. FAA-2013-0331.

Concurrent Service Information

    Boeing Service Bulletin 747-78-2178, Revision 1, dated August 4,
2011, specifies concurrent or prior accomplishment of Boeing Service
Bulletin 747-78-2156, Revision 1, dated August 30, 2001. Boeing Service
Bulletin 747-78-2180, Revision 2, dated November 11, 2011, specifies
concurrent or prior accomplishment of Boeing Service Bulletin 747-78-
2158, Revision 2, dated July 29, 1999. Boeing Service Bulletin 767-78-
0096, Revision 1, dated December 10, 2009, specifies concurrent or
prior accomplishment of Boeing Service Bulletin 767-78-0059, Revision
3, dated January 20, 1994. For information on the procedures, see this
service information at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for
Docket No. FAA-2013-0331.

Other Relevant Rulemaking

    AD 2000-01-05, Amendment 39-11502 (65 FR 1051, January 7, 2000),
which applies to certain Boeing Model 747-100B, -200, -300, and 747SP
series airplanes equipped with Rolls-Royce RB211-524B2, C2, and D4
engines, requires repetitive inspections and tests of the thrust
reverser control and indication system on each engine, and corrective
actions if necessary; installation of a terminating modification; and
repetitive operational checks of that installation, and repair if
necessary. AD 2000-01-05 refers to Boeing Service Bulletin 747-78-2156,
dated October 31, 1996, as the appropriate source of service
information for accomplishing the required terminating modification.
    AD 2000-02-22, Amendment 39-11540 (65 FR 5222, February 3, 2000),
for certain Boeing Model 747-400 series airplanes equipped with Rolls-
Royce RB211-524G/H and RB211-524G-T/H-T engines, requires installation
of a modification of the thrust reverser control and indication system
and wiring on each engine; and repetitive operational checks of that
installation to detect discrepancies, and repair if necessary. AD 2000-
02-22 refers to Boeing Service Bulletin 747-78-2158, Revision 2, dated
July 29, 1999, as the appropriate source of service information for
accomplishing the required modification.
    AD 94-17-03, Amendment 39-8998 (59 FR 41647, August 15, 1994), for
certain Boeing Model 767 series airplanes equipped with Rolls-Royce
RB211-524 series engines, requires inspections, adjustments, and
functional checks of the thrust reverser system; installation of a
terminating modification; and repetitive operational checks of the
gearbox locks and the air motor brake following accomplishment of the
modification. AD 94-17-03 refers to Boeing Service Bulletin 767-78-
0059, Revision 2, dated June 10, 1993; or Revision 3, dated January 20,
1994; as the appropriate source of service information for
accomplishing the required terminating action.

FAA's Determination

    We are proposing this AD because we evaluated all the relevant
information and determined the unsafe condition described previously is
likely to exist or develop in other products of the same type design.

Proposed AD Requirements

    This proposed AD would require accomplishing the actions specified
in the service information described previously.
    The phrase ``related investigative actions'' might be used in this
proposed AD. ``Related investigative actions'' are follow-on actions
that: (1) Are related to the primary actions, and (2) are actions that
further investigate the nature of any condition found. Related
investigative actions in an AD could include, for example, inspections.
    In addition, the phrase ``corrective actions'' might be used in
this proposed AD. ``Corrective actions'' are actions that correct or
address any condition found. Corrective actions in an AD could include,
for example, repairs.

Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this proposed AD affects 1 airplane of U.S.
registry.
    We estimate the following costs to comply with this proposed AD:

                                                 Estimated Costs
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Cost on U.S.
              Action                    Labor cost           Parts cost        Cost per product      operators
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Replacement and wiring change for  30 work-hours x $85  $4,289.............  $6,839.............          $6,839
 Model 747-200B, 747-200F, 747-     per hour = $2,550.
 300, and 747SP series airplanes
 (1 U.S. airplane).
Removal, installations, and        Up to 90 work-hours  Up to $16,607......  Up to $24,257......              $0
 wiring changes for Model 747-400   x $85 per hour =
 and 747-400F series airplanes (0   $7,650.
 U.S. airplanes).
Replacements and wiring changes    Up to 32 work-hours  Up to $2,245.......  Up to $4,965.......              $0
 for Model 767-300 series           x $85 per hour =
 airplanes (0 U.S. airplanes).      $2,720.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We estimate the following costs to do any necessary concurrent
requirements. We have no way of determining the number of aircraft that
might need to do the concurrent requirements.

                                                Concurrent Costs
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Cost per
                    Action                                 Labor cost               Parts cost        product
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Installation of an additional locking system.  336 work-hours x $85 per hour =           $62,674         $91,234
                                                $28,560.
Installation of an additional locking gearbox  185 work-hours x $85 per hour =           $72,860         $88,585
 on each engine and modification of the         $15,725.
 system wiring.
Installation of a second locking gearbox       754 work-hours x $85 per hour =                $0         $64,090
 system.                                        $64,090.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 Authority for This Rulemaking

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

Regulatory Findings

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

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):

The Boeing Company: Docket No. FAA-2013-0331; Directorate Identifier
2011-NM-170-AD.

(a) Comments Due Date

    We must receive comments by June 3, 2013.

(b) Affected ADs

    None.

(c) Applicability

    This AD applies to The Boeing Company airplanes, certificated in
any category, identified in paragraphs (c)(1), (c)(2), and (c)(3) of
this AD, and equipped with Rolls-Royce RB211-524 engines.
    (1) Model 747-200B, 747-200F, 747-300, 747SP series airplanes,
as identified in Boeing Service Bulletin 747-78-2178, Revision 1,
dated August 4, 2011.
    (2) Model 747-400 and 747-400F airplanes, identified in Boeing
Service Bulletin 747-78-2180, Revision 2, dated November 11, 2011.
    (3) Model 767-300 airplanes, as identified in Boeing Service
Bulletin 767-78-0096, Revision 1, dated December 10, 2009.

(d) Subject

    Joint Aircraft System Component (JASC)/Air Transport Association
(ATA) of America Code 7830, Engine Thrust Reverser.

(e) Unsafe Condition

    This AD was prompted by multiple reports of uncommanded thrust
reverser unlock events, three of which had all three locks
disengaged. We are issuing this AD to prevent an uncommanded thrust
reverser deployment during takeoff or in-flight resulting in
decreased airplane control and performance, possible runway
excursions, and failure to climb.

(f) Compliance

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

(g) Replacement

    Within 60 months after the effective date of this AD: Do the
actions specified in paragraphs (g)(1), (g)(2), and (g)(3) of this
AD, as applicable.
    (1) For Model 747-200B, 747-200F, 747-300, and 747SP series
airplanes: Replace relays and relay sockets in the P252 and P253
panels with new relays and relay sockets, and do wiring changes, in
accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Service
Bulletin 747-78-2178, Revision 1, dated August 4, 2011.
    (2) For Model 747-400 and 747-400F series airplanes: Install the
components removed from the existing P252 and P253 panels, install
new relays and relay sockets, and do wiring changes on the new P252
and P253 relay panels, in accordance with the Accomplishment
Instructions of Boeing Service Bulletin 747-78-2180, Revision 2,
dated November 11, 2011.
    (3) For Model 767-300 series airplanes: Replace relays and relay
sockets in the P36 and P37 panels with new relays and relay sockets,
and do wiring changes in the P33, P36, and P37 panels, in accordance
with the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Service Bulletin 767-
78-0096, Revision 1, dated December 10, 2009.

(h) Concurrent Requirements

    (1) For Model 747-200B, 747-200F, 747-300, and 747SP series
airplanes: Prior to or concurrently with accomplishing the actions
required by paragraph (g)(1) of this AD, install an additional
locking system on the thrust reversers, in accordance with the
Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Service Bulletin 747-78-2156,
Revision 1, dated August 30, 2001. Accomplishing this installation
is a method of compliance with the installation required by
paragraph (c) of AD 2000-01-05, Amendment 39-11502 (65 FR 1051,
January 7, 2000).
    (2) For Model 747-400 and 747-400F series airplanes identified
as Group 1, 2, 3, 4, 7, 8, or 9 airplanes in Boeing Service Bulletin
747-78-2180, Revision 2, dated November 11, 2011: Prior to or
concurrently with accomplishing the actions required by paragraph
(g)(2) of this AD, install an additional locking gearbox on each
engine and modify system wiring for in-flight fault indications of
the thrust reverser system, in accordance with the Accomplishment
Instructions of Boeing Service Bulletin 747-78-2158, Revision 2,
dated July 29, 1999.

    Note 1 to paragraph (h)(2) of this AD: Paragraph (a)(1) of AD
2000-02-22, Amendment 39-11540 (65 FR 5222, February 3, 2000),
refers to Boeing Service Bulletin 747-78-2158, Revision 2, dated
July 29, 1999, as the appropriate source of service information for
accomplishing the installation required by that paragraph.

    (3) For Model 767-300 series airplanes identified as Group 2
airplanes in Boeing Service Bulletin 767-78-0096, Revision 1, dated
December 10, 2009: Prior to or concurrently with accomplishing the
actions required by paragraph (g)(3) of this AD, install a second
locking gearbox system on the thrust reversers, in accordance with
the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Service Bulletin 767-78-
0059, Revision 3, dated January 20, 1994.

    Note 2 to paragraph (h)(3) of this AD: Paragraph (c) of AD 94-
17-03, Amendment 39-8998 (59 FR 41647, August 15, 1994), refers to
Boeing Service Bulletin 767-78-0059, Revision 3, dated January 20,
1994, as an appropriate source of service information for
accomplishing the installation required by that paragraph.

(i) Credit for Previous Actions

    (1) This paragraph provides credit for the requirements of
paragraph (g)(1) of this AD, if those actions were performed before
the effective date of this AD using Boeing Service Bulletin 747-78-
2178, dated January 22, 2009.
    (2) This paragraph provides credit for the requirements of
paragraph (g)(2) of this AD, if those actions were performed before
the effective date of this AD using Boeing Service Bulletin 747-78-
2180, dated April 10, 2008.
    (3) This paragraph provides credit for the requirements of
paragraph (g)(2) of this AD, if those actions were performed before
the effective date of this AD using Boeing Service Bulletin 747-78-
2180, Revision 1, dated November 11, 2010.
    (4) This paragraph provides credit for the requirements of
paragraph (g)(3) of this AD, if those actions were performed before
the effective date of this AD using Boeing Service Bulletin 767-78-
0096, dated August 7, 2008.
    (5) This paragraph provides credit for the requirements of
paragraph (h)(1) of this AD, if those actions were performed before
the effective date of this AD using Boeing Service Bulletin 747-78-
2156, dated October 31, 1996.

    Note 3 to paragraph (i)(5) of this AD: Paragraph (c) of AD 2000-
01-05, Amendment 39-11502 (65 FR 1051, January 7, 2000), refers to
Boeing Service Bulletin 747-78-2156, dated October 31, 1996, as the
appropriate source of service information for accomplishing the
installation required by that paragraph.

    (6) This paragraph provides credit for the requirements of
paragraph (h)(2) of this AD, if those actions were performed before
the effective date of this AD using Boeing Service Bulletin 747-78-
2158, Revision 1, dated January 22, 1998.

    Note 4 to paragraph (i)(6) of this AD: In AD 2000-02-22,
Amendment 39-11540 (65 FR 5222, February 3, 2000), Note 2 to
paragraph (a)(1) of AD 2000-02-22 refers to Boeing Service Bulletin
747-78-2158, Revision 1, dated January 22, 1998, as a method of
compliance for accomplishing the installation required by paragraph
(a)(1) of AD 2000-02-22.

    (7) This paragraph provides credit for the requirements of
paragraph (h)(3) of this AD, if those actions were performed before
the effective date of this AD using Boeing Service Bulletin 767-78-
0059, Revision 2, dated June 10, 1993.

    Note 5 to paragraph (i)(7) of this AD: Paragraph (c) of AD 94-
17-03, Amendment 39-8998 (59 FR 41647, August 15, 1994), refers to
Boeing Service Bulletin 767-78-0059, Revision 2, dated June 10,
1993, as an appropriate source of service information for
accomplishing the installation required by that paragraph.

(j) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs)

    (1) The Manager, Seattle Aircraft Certification Office, FAA, has
the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested using the
procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. In accordance with 14 CFR 39.19,
send your request to your principal inspector or local Flight
Standards District Office, as appropriate. If sending information
directly to the manager of the ACO, send it to the attention of the
person identified in the Related Information section of this AD.
Information may be emailed to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    (2) Before using any approved AMOC, notify your appropriate
principal inspector, or lacking a principal inspector, the manager
of the local flight standards district office/certificate holding
district office.
    (3) An AMOC that provides an acceptable level of safety may be
used for any repair required by this AD if it is approved by the
Boeing Commercial Airplanes ODA that has been authorized by the
Manager, Seattle ACO, to make those findings. For a repair method to
be approved, the repair must meet the certification basis of the
airplane, and the approval must specifically refer to this AD.

(k) Related Information

    (1) For more information about this AD, contact Tung Tran,
Aerospace Engineer, Propulsion Branch, ANM-140S, Seattle Aircraft
Certification Office (ACO), FAA, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA
98057-3356; phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    (2) For service information identified in this AD, contact
Boeing Commercial Airplanes, Attention: Data & Services Management,
P. O. Box 3707, MC 2H-65, Seattle, WA 98124-2207; phone: 206-544-
5000, extension 1; fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>; Internet: https://www.myboeingfleet.com.You may review copies of the referenced
service information at the FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA,
1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA. For information on the
availability of this material at the FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Issued in Renton, Washington, on April 10, 2013.
Jeffrey E. Duven,
Acting Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification
Service.

[FR Doc. 2013-09006 Filed 4-16-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 54 (Monday, March 21, 2016)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 14998-15000]
[FR Doc No: 2016-05880]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 165

[Docket Number USCG-2016-0162]
RIN 1625-AA00

Safety Zone; Richland Regatta, Columbia River, Richland, WA

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard proposes to establish a safety zone for
certain waters of the Columbia River in the vicinity of Howard Amon
Park, Richland, WA, between River Miles 337 and 338, during a
hydroplane boat race from June 3, 2016, through June 5, 2016. This
action is necessary to provide for the safety of life on the navigable
waters during the event. This proposed rulemaking would prohibit
persons and vessels from being in the safety zone unless authorized by
the Captain of the Port Sector Columbia River or a designated
representative. We invite your comments on this proposed rulemaking.

DATES: Comments and related material must be received by the Coast
Guard on or before April 20, 2016.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments identified by docket number USCG-
2016-0162 using the Federal eRulemaking Portal at http://www.regulations.gov. See the ``Public Participation and Request for
Comments'' portion of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section for further
instructions on submitting comments.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions about this
proposed rulemaking, call or email Mr. Ken Lawrenson, Waterways
Management Division, MSU Portland, OR, U.S. Coast Guard; telephone 503-
240-9319, email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Table of Abbreviations

CFR Code of Federal Regulations
DHS Department of Homeland Security
FR Federal Register
NPRM Notice of proposed rulemaking
Sec.  Section
U.S.C. United States Code

II. Background, Purpose, and Legal Basis

    On December 21, 2015, the Northwest Power Boat Association notified
the Coast Guard that it will be conducting a hydroplane boat race from
7 a.m. to 7 p.m. daily from June 3, 2016, through June 5, 2016, as part
of the Richland Regatta. The race will be held in the vicinity of
Howard Amon Park, Richland, WA, and poses significant dangers to the
maritime public including excessive noise, vessels racing at high
speeds in proximity to other vessels, and flying debris in the event of
an accident. The Captain of the Port Sector Columbia River (COTP) has
determined these potential hazards would be a safety concern for
maritime traffic.
    The purpose of this rulemaking is to ensure the safety of vessels
and the navigable waters before, during and after daily scheduled
races. The Coast Guard proposes this rulemaking under authority in 33
U.S.C. 1231.

III. Discussion of Proposed Rule

    The COTP proposes to enforce a safety zone from 7 a.m. to 7 p.m.
daily from June 3, 2016, through June 5, 2016. The safety zone would
include all navigable waters of the Columbia River on all navigable
waters of the Columbia River between River Miles 337 and 338 in the
vicinity of oward Amon Park, Richland, WA. The duration of the zone is
intended to ensure the safety of vessels and these navigable waters
before, during, and after the scheduled event. No vessel or person
would be permitted to enter the safety zone without obtaining
permission from the COTP or a designated representative. The regulatory
text we are proposing appears at the end of this document.

IV. Regulatory Analyses

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

A. Regulatory Planning and Review

    Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 direct agencies to assess the
costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if
regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize
net benefits. 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 Executive Order 12866.
Accordingly, the NPRM has not been reviewed by the Office of Management
and Budget.
    This regulatory action determination is based on the following
factors. The safety zone will only be effective for 12 hours daily over
a 3 day period, and while non-participant vessels will be unable to
enter, trainsit through, anchor in, or remain within the event area
without authorization from the Captain of the Port Sector Columbia
River or a designated representative, they may operate in the
surrounding areas during the enforcement period. Additionally, non-
participant vessels may still enter, transit through, anchor in, or
remain within the event area during the enforcement period if
authorized by the COTP Sector Columbia River or a designated
representative. Moreover, the Coast Guard would issue a Broadcast
Notice to Mariners via VHF-FM marine channel 16 about the zone, and the
rule would allow vessels to seek permission to enter the zone.

B. Impact on Small Entities

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, 5 U.S.C. 601-612, as
amended, requires Federal agencies to consider the potential impact of
regulations on small entities during rulemaking. The term ``small
entities'' comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations
that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their
fields, and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than
50,000. The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this
proposed rule would not have a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities.
    While some owners or operators of vessels intending to transit the
safety zone may be small entities, for the reasons stated in section
IV.A above this proposed rule would not have a significant economic
impact on any vessel owner or operator.
    If you think that your business, organization, or governmental
jurisdiction qualifies as a small entity and that this rule would have
a significant economic impact on it, please submit a comment (see
ADDRESSES) explaining why you think it qualifies and how and to what
degree this rule would economically affect it.
    Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement
Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we want to assist small
entities in understanding this proposed rule. If the rule would affect
your small business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction and you
have questions concerning its provisions or options for compliance,
please contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT
section. The Coast Guard will not retaliate against small entities that
question or complain about this

proposed rule or any policy or action of the Coast Guard.

C. Collection of Information

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

D. Federalism and Indian Tribal Governments

    A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132,
Federalism, if it has a substantial direct effect on the States, on the
relationship between the national government and the States, or on the
distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of
government. We have analyzed this proposed rule under that Order and
have determined that it is consistent with the fundamental federalism
principles and preemption requirements described in Executive Order
13132.
    Also, this proposed rule does not have tribal implications under
Executive Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal
Governments, because it would not have a substantial direct effect on
one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal
Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and
responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes. If
you believe this proposed rule has implications for federalism or
Indian tribes, please contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT section.

E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

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

F. 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. This proposed rule involves a safety
zone that would be enforced from 7 a.m. to 7 p.m. daily from June 3,
2016, through June 5, 2016. The safety zone would cover navigable
waters of the Columbia River between River Miles 337 and 338 in the
vicinity of oward Amon Park, Richland, WA. Normally such actions are
categorically excluded from further review under paragraph 34(g) of
Figure 2-1 of Commandant Instruction M16475.lD. We seek any comments or
information that may lead to the discovery of a significant
environmental impact from this proposed rule.

G. Protest Activities

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

V. Public Participation and Request for Comments

    We view public participation as essential to effective rulemaking,
and will consider all comments and material received during the comment
period. Your comment can help shape the outcome of this rulemaking. If
you submit a comment, please include the docket number for this
rulemaking, indicate the specific section of this document to which
each comment applies, and provide a reason for each suggestion or
recommendation.
    We encourage you to submit comments through the Federal eRulemaking
Portal at http://www.regulations.gov. If your material cannot be
submitted using http://www.regulations.gov, contact the person in the
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of this document for alternate
instructions.
    We accept anonymous comments. All comments received will be posted
without change to http://www.regulations.gov and will include any
personal information you have provided. For more about privacy and the
docket, you may review a Privacy Act notice regarding the Federal
Docket Management System in the March 24, 2005, issue of the Federal
Register (70 FR 15086).
    Documents mentioned in this NPRM as being available in the docket,
and all public comments, will be in our online docket at http://www.regulations.gov and can be viewed by following that Web site's
instructions. Additionally, if you go to the online docket and sign up
for email alerts, you will be notified when comments are posted or a
final rule is published.

List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 165

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

    For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard proposes
to amend 33 CFR part 165 as follows:

PART 165--REGULATED NAVIGATION AREAS AND LIMITED ACCESS AREAS

0
1. The authority citation for part165 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 33 U.S.C. 1231; 50 U.S.C. 191; 33 CFR 1.05-1, 6.04-1,
6.04-6, and 160.5; Department of Homeland Security Delegation No.
0170.1.

0
2. Add Sec.  165.T13-0162 to read as follows:

Sec.  165.T13-0162  Safety Zone; Richland Regatta, Columbia River,
Richland, WA.

    (a) Regulated area. The following regulated area is a safety zone.
The safety zone will include all navigable waters of the Columbia River
in the vicinity of Howard Amon Park, Richland, WA, between River Miles
337 and 338.
    (b) Definitions. (1) The term ``designated representative'' means
Coast Guard Patrol Commanders, including Coast Guard coxswains, petty
officers, and other officers operating Coast Guard vessels, and
Federal, state, and local officers designated by or assisting the
Captain of the Port Sector Columbia River in the enforcement of the
regulated area.
    (2) The term ``Non-participant persons and vessels'' means a vessel
or person not participating in the event as a participant, spectator,
or event attendee.
    (c) Regulations. (1) In accordance with the general regulations in
subpart C of this part, non-participant persons and vessels are
prohibited from entering, transiting through, anchoring in, or
remaining within the regulated area unless authorized by Captain of the
Port Sector Columbia River or a designated representative.
    (2) Non-participant persons and vessels may request authorization
to enter, transit through, anchor in, or remain within the regulated
area by contacting the Captain of the Port Sector Columbia River or a
designated representative via VHF radio on channel 16. If authorization
is granted by the Captain of the Port Sector Columbia River or a
designated representative, all

persons and vessels receiving such authorization must comply with the
instructions of the Captain of the Port Sector Columbia River or a
designated representative.
    (d) Enforcement period. This safety zone as described in paragraph
(a) of this section will be enforced from 7 a.m. to 7 p.m. each day
from June 3, 2016, through June 5, 2016.

    Dated: March 4, 2016.
D.J. Travers,
Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Port, Sector Columbia River.
[FR Doc. 2016-05880 Filed 3-18-16; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-04-P