42736 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 137 / Wednesday, July 17, 2013 / Proposed Rules 

by the Captain of the Port Buffalo to act 

on his behalf. 

(4) Vessel operators desiring to enter 

or operate within the safety zone shall 

contact the Captain of the Port Buffalo 

or his on-scene representative to obtain 

permission to do so. The Captain of the 

Port Buffalo or his on-scene 

representative may be contacted via 

VHF Channel 16. Vessel operators given 

permission to enter or operate in the 

safety zone must comply with all 

directions given to them by the Captain 

of the Port Buffalo, or his on-scene 

representative. 

(e) Exemption. Public vessels, as 

defined in paragraph (c) of this section, 

are exempt from the requirements in 

this section. 

(f) Waiver. For any vessel, the Captain 

of the Port Buffalo or his designated 

representative may waive any of the 

requirements of this section, upon 

finding that operational conditions or 

other circumstances are such that 

application of this section is 

unnecessary or impractical for the 

purposes of public or environmental 

safety. 

(g) Notification. The Captain of the 

Port Buffalo will notify the public that 

the safety zones in this section is or will 

be enforced by all appropriate means to 

the affected segments of the public 

including publication in the Federal 

Register as practicable, in accordance 

with 33 CFR 165.7(a). Such means of 

notification may also include, but are 

not limited to Broadcast Notice to 

Mariners or Local Notice to Mariners. 

The Captain of the Port will issue a 

Broadcast Notice to Mariners notifying 

the public when enforcement of the 

safety zone is cancelled. 

Dated: June 27, 2013. 

J. S. Imahori, 

Commander, U.S. Coast Guard, Acting 

Captain of the Port Buffalo. 

[FR Doc. 2013–17105 Filed 7–16–13; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 9110–04–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 180 

[EPA–HQ–OPP–2012–0107; FRL–9391–6] 

RIN 2070–ZA16 

Spirotetramat; Proposed Pesticide 

Tolerances 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: This document proposes to 

establish tolerances for residues of 

spirotetramat in or on persimmon and 

sweet corn, kernel plus cob with husks 

removed; and to revise established 

tolerances in or on feijoa, papaya, and 

Spanish lime under the Federal Food, 

Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA). 

DATES: Comments must be received on 

or before August 16, 2013. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by docket identification (ID) 

number EPA–HQ–OPP–2012–0107, by 

one of the following methods: 

• Federal eRulemaking Portal: http:// 

www.regulations.gov. Follow the online 

instructions for submitting comments. 

Do not submit electronically any 

information you consider to be 

Confidential Business Information (CBI) 

or other information whose disclosure is 

restricted by statute. 

• Mail: OPP Docket, Environmental 

Protection Agency Docket Center (EPA/ 

DC), (28221T), 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. 

NW., Washington, DC 20460–0001. 

• Hand Delivery: To make special 

arrangements for hand delivery or 

delivery of boxed information, please 

follow the instructions at http:// 

www.epa.gov/dockets/contacts.htm. 

Additional instructions on commenting 

or visiting the docket, along with more 

information about dockets generally, is 

available at http://www.epa.gov/ 

dockets. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Laura Nollen, Registration Division 

(7505P), Office of Pesticide Programs, 

Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 

Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, 

DC 20460–0001; telephone number: 

(703) 305–7390; email address: 

nollen.laura@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. General Information 

A. Does this action apply to me? 

You may be potentially affected by 

this action if you are an agricultural 

producer, food manufacturer, or 

pesticide manufacturer. The following 

list of North American Industrial 

Classification System (NAICS) codes is 

not intended to be exhaustive, but rather 

provides a guide to help readers 

determine whether this document 

applies to them. Potentially affected 

entities may include: 

• Crop production (NAICS code 111). 

• Animal production (NAICS code 

112). 

• Food manufacturing (NAICS code 

311). 

• Pesticide manufacturing (NAICS 

code 32532). 

B. What should I consider as I prepare 

my comments for EPA? 

1. Submitting CBI. Do not submit this 

information to EPA through 

regulations.gov or email. Clearly mark 

the part or all of the information that 

you claim to be CBI. For CBI 

information in a disk or CD–ROM that 

you mail to EPA, mark the outside of the 

disk or CD–ROM as CBI and then 

identify electronically within the disk or 

CD–ROM the specific information that 

is claimed as CBI. In addition to one 

complete version of the comment that 

includes information claimed as CBI, a 

copy of the comment that does not 

contain the information claimed as CBI 

must be submitted for inclusion in the 

public docket. Information so marked 

will not be disclosed except in 

accordance with procedures set forth in 

40 CFR part 2. 

2. Tips for preparing your comments. 

When submitting comments, remember 

to: 

i. Identify the document by docket ID 

number and other identifying 

information (subject heading, Federal 

Register date and page number). 

ii. Follow directions. The Agency may 

ask you to respond to specific questions 

or organize comments by referencing a 

Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) part 

or section number. 

iii. Explain why you agree or disagree; 

suggest alternatives and substitute 

language for your requested changes. 

iv. Describe any assumptions and 

provide any technical information and/ 

or data that you used. 

v. If you estimate potential costs or 

burdens, explain how you arrived at 

your estimate in sufficient detail to 

allow for it to be reproduced. 

vi. Provide specific examples to 

illustrate your concerns and suggest 

alternatives. 

vii. Explain your views as clearly as 

possible, avoiding the use of profanity 

or personal threats. 

viii. Make sure to submit your 

comments by the comment period 

deadline identified. 

II. This Proposal 

EPA, on its own initiative, under 

FFDCA section 408(e), 21 U.S.C. 

346a(e), is proposing to establish a 

tolerance for residues of the insecticide 

spirotetramat, in or on corn, sweet, 

kernel plus cob with husks removed at 

1.5 parts per million (ppm). 

Additionally, EPA has noted several 

errors published in 40 CFR 180.641 that 

the Agency is also proposing to correct. 

Established tolerances for residues of 

spirotetramat in or on feijoa, papaya, 

and Spanish lime in 40 CFR 


ehiers on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 137 / Wednesday, July 17, 2013 / Proposed Rules 42737 

180.641(a)(1) are incorrectly listed and 

the previously recommended tolerance 

for residues in or on persimmon is 

missing. The tolerances are proposed to 

be corrected as follows: Feijoa from 0.30 

ppm to 2.5 ppm; papaya from 2.5 ppm 

to 0.40 ppm; Spanish lime from 0.60 

ppm to 13 ppm; and persimmon at 2.5 

ppm. 

III. Aggregate Risk Assessment and 

Determination of Safety 

Section 408(b)(2)(A)(i) of FFDCA 

allows EPA to establish a tolerance (the 

legal limit for a pesticide chemical 

residue in or on a food) only if EPA 

determines that the tolerance is ‘‘safe.’’ 

Section 408(b)(2)(A)(ii) of FFDCA 

defines ‘‘safe’’ to mean that ’’ there is a 

reasonable certainty that no harm will 

result from aggregate exposure to the 

pesticide chemical residue, including 

all anticipated dietary exposures and all 

other exposures for which there is 

reliable information.’’ This includes 

exposure through drinking water and in 

residential settings, but does not include 

occupational exposure. Section 

408(b)(2)(C) of FFDCA requires EPA to 

give special consideration to exposure 

of infants and children to the pesticide 

chemical residue in establishing a 

tolerance and to ‘‘ensure that there is a 

reasonable certainty that no harm will 

result to infants and children from 

aggregate exposure to the pesticide 

chemical residue. . . .’’ 

EPA performs a number of analyses to 

determine the risks from aggregate 

exposure to pesticide residues. For 

further discussion of the regulatory 

requirements of FFDCA section 408 and 

a complete description of the risk 

assessment process, see http:// 

www.epa.gov/fedrgstr/EPA-PEST/1997/ 

November/Day-26/p30948.htm. 

Consistent with FFDCA section 

408(b)(2)(D), EPA has reviewed the 

available scientific data and other 

relevant information in support of this 

action. EPA has sufficient data to assess 

the hazards of and to make a 

determination on aggregate exposure, 

consistent with FFDCA section 

408(b)(2), for tolerances for residues of 

spirotetramat in or on corn, sweet, 

kernel plus cob with husks removed; 

feijoa; papaya; Spanish lime; and 

persimmon. As discussed below, EPA is 

relying upon the findings in the 

preamble to the May 15, 2013 rule 

establishing tolerances for spirotetramat 

(78 FR 28507) (FRL–9382–8) and 

supporting risk assessments to establish 

and revise these tolerances. 

On May 15, 2013, EPA published a 

final rule establishing tolerances for 

residues of the insecticide spirotetramat, 

(cis-3-(2,5-dimethlyphenyl)-8-methoxy2-oxo-1-azaspiro[4.5]dec-3-en-4-yl-ethyl 

carbonate) and its metabolites in or on 

taro leaves; watercress; pomegranate; 

banana; bulb vegetable group 3–07; low 

growing berry, except strawberry, 

subgroup 13–07H; bushberry subgroup 

13–07B; globe artichoke; pome fruit 

group 11–10; fruiting vegetable group 8– 

10; citrus fruit group 10–10; pineapple; 

coffee, green bean; and instant coffee, 

based on EPA’s conclusion that 

aggregate exposure to spirotetramat is 

safe for the general population, 

including infants and children. In 

addition to the tolerances listed above, 

EPA also considered the following uses 

in the risk assessments that supported 

the May 15, 2013 final rule: persimmon 

and sweet corn, kernel plus cob with 

husks removed; and revised tolerances 

in or on feijoa, papaya, and Spanish 

lime. 

Since the publication of the May 15, 

2013 final rule, the toxicity profile of 

spirotetramat has not changed, and the 

risk assessments that supported the 

establishment of those spirotetramat 

tolerances published in the May 15, 

2013 Federal Register remain valid. 

Those risk assessments also 

recommended the proposed new uses 

and revised tolerances listed above. 

Therefore, EPA is relying on those risk 

assessments in order to propose the new 

and revised tolerances. For a detailed 

discussion of the aggregate risk 

assessments and determination of safety 

for the proposed tolerances, please refer 

to the May 15, 2013 Federal Register 

document and its supporting 

documents, available at http:// 

www.regulations.gov. EPA relies upon 

those supporting risk assessments and 

the findings made in the Federal 

Register document in support of this 

proposed rule. 

IV. Background for This Proposal 

On February 4, 2011, President Barack 

Obama and the Prime Minister of 

Canada, Stephen Harper, announced the 

creation of the United States-Canada 

Regulatory Cooperation Council (RCC) 

in order to increase regulatory 

transparency and coordination between 

the two countries. One of the areas of 

focus of the RCC is in agricultural 

production, in particular, the further 

alignment of crop protection product 

approvals and establishment of U.S. 

tolerances and Canadian maximum 

residue limits (MRLs) for major and 

minor uses of pesticides in both 

countries. 

One action item identified through 

the activities of the RCC was the 

initiation of a pilot project for the joint 

review of residue data for spirotetramat 

in the United States and Canada, 

whereby both countries would work 

together to further align practices and 

tolerances/MRLs resulting from the joint 

review of domestic and import 

tolerances/MRLs in both countries. 

Although Canada’s Pest Management 

Regulatory Agency (PMRA) had 

received a petition for the use of 

spirotetramat on sweet corn in Canada, 

EPA did not. So, as part of the RCC pilot 

project to work together and align 

tolerances/MRLs, EPA is proposing a 

tolerance without U.S. registration for 

residues of spirotetramat and its 

metabolites and degradates in or on 

corn, sweet, kernel plus cob with husks 

removed based on the evaluation of the 

sweet corn residue data. As noted 

above, EPA has also considered the 

sweet corn use in its risk assessments, 

and has made a determination of safety 

finding for the use. Additional 

information regarding the RCC pilot 

project may be found at the following 

Web site: http://www.epa.gov/oppfead1/ 

international/naftatwg/us-canadarcc.html. 

In addition to the proposed use of 

spirotetramat in or on sweet corn, EPA 

has identified several errors contained 

in 40 CFR 180.641. EPA is also 

proposing to correct these errors. 

Established tolerances for residues of 

spirotetramat in or on feijoa, papaya, 

and Spanish lime in 40 CFR 

180.641(a)(1) are incorrectly listed and 

the previously recommended tolerance 

for residues in or on persimmon is 

missing. The tolerances are proposed to 

be corrected as follows: Feijoa from 0.30 

ppm to 2.5 ppm; papaya from 2.5 ppm 

to 0.40 ppm; Spanish lime from 0.60 

ppm to 13 ppm; and persimmon at 2.5 

ppm. 

In the last risk assessment relied upon 

for the May 15, 2013 rule, EPA took a 

conservative approach by utilizing 

tolerance values of 2.5 ppm for feijoa 

(which is higher than the established 

tolerance), papaya (which is the value of 

the established tolerance), and 

persimmon and 13 ppm for Spanish 

lime (which is higher than the 

established tolerance). 

Based on the risk assessments and 

information described above, EPA 

concludes that there is a reasonable 

certainty that no harm will result to the 

general population, or to infants and 

children from aggregate exposure to 

spirotetramat residues. Further 

information about EPA’s risk assessment 

and determination of safety supporting 

the tolerances established in the May 

15, 2013 Federal Register action, as well 

as the proposed new and revised 

spirotetramat tolerances can be found at 

http://www.regulations.gov in the 

document entitled: ‘‘Spirotetramat. 


ehiers on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
42738 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 137 / Wednesday, July 17, 2013 / Proposed Rules 

Human-Health Risk Assessment for the 

Proposed Uses in/on Taro, Leaves; 

Watercress; Pomegranate; Banana; 

Vegetable, Bulb, Group 3–07; Low 

growing Berry Subgroup 13–07H, 

Except Strawberry and Lowbush 

Blueberry; Bushberry Subgroup 13–07B; 

Artichoke, Globe; Vegetable, Fruiting, 

Group 8–10; Fruit, Pome, Group 11–10; 

Fruit, Citrus, Group 10–10; Pineapple; 

and Coffee; and Tolerances without U.S. 

Registration in/on Corn, Sweet, Kernel 

Plus Cob with Husks Removed as Part 

of the U.S.-Canada Regulatory 

Cooperation Council (RCC) Pilot 

Project.’’ Further information regarding 

correcting the errors for spirotetramat in 

40 CFR 180.641 may be found in the 

document: ‘‘Spirotetramat: Acute and 

Chronic Dietary (Food and Drinking 

Water) Exposure and Risk Assessment 

to Support the Section 3 Registration 

Request For Use of Spirotetramat on 

Taro, Leaves; Watercress; Pomegranate; 

Banana; Vegetable, Bulb, Group 3–07; 

Low growing Berry Subgroup 13–07H, 

Except Strawberry and Lowbush 

Blueberry; Bushberry Subgroup 13–07B; 

Artichoke, Globe; Vegetable, Fruiting, 

Group 8–10; Fruit, Pome, Group 11–10; 

Fruit, Citrus, Group 10–10; Pineapple; 

and Coffee; and Tolerances without U.S. 

Registration in/on Corn, Sweet, Kernel 

Plus Cob with Husks Removed as Part 

of the U.S.-Canada Regulatory 

Cooperation Council (RCC) Pilot 

Project.’’ Both documents may be found 

in docket ID number EPA–HQ–OPP– 

2012–0107. 

V. Other Considerations 

A. Analytical Enforcement Methodology 

Adequate enforcement methodology, 

a high-performance liquid 

chromatography with tandem mass 

spectrometry (HPLC–MS/MS), is 

available to enforce the tolerance 

expression. 

The method may be requested from: 

Chief, Analytical Chemistry Branch, 

Environmental Science Center, 701 

Mapes Rd., Ft. Meade, MD 20755–5350; 

telephone number: (410) 305–2905; 

email address: 

residuemethods@epa.gov. 

B. International Residue Limits 

In making its tolerance decisions, EPA 

seeks to harmonize U.S. tolerances with 

international standards whenever 

possible, consistent with U.S. food 

safety standards and agricultural 

practices. EPA considers the 

international maximum residue limits 

(MRLs) established by the Codex 

Alimentarius Commission (Codex), as 

required by FFDCA section 408(b)(4). 

The Codex Alimentarius is a joint 

United Nations Food and Agriculture 

Organization/World Health 

Organization food standards program, 

and it is recognized as an international 

food safety standards-setting 

organization in trade agreements to 

which the United States is a party. EPA 

may establish a tolerance that is 

different from a Codex MRL; however, 

FFDCA section 408(b)(4) requires that 

EPA explain the reasons for departing 

from the Codex level. 

The Codex has established a MRL for 

spirotetramat in or on papaya at 0.4 mg/ 

kg. While the EPA originally assessed 

for a tolerance in or on papaya at 0.35 

ppm, the Agency is proposing to revise 

the tolerance to 0.40 ppm in order to 

harmonize with Codex. There is no risk 

concern with proposing a tolerance in or 

on papaya at 0.40 ppm because EPA 

assessed the dietary estimates using the 

conservative assumption of 2.5 ppm in 

the risk assessments supporting the use. 

Therefore, the dietary estimate is 

expected to slightly decrease upon the 

establishment of the revised papaya 

tolerance. 

VI. Conclusion 

Tolerances are proposed for residues 

of spirotetramat in corn, sweet, kernel 

plus cob with husks removed at 1.5 

ppm, and persimmon at 2.5 ppm. 

Amended tolerances are also proposed 

in or on feijoa from 0.30 ppm to 2.5 

ppm; papaya from 2.5 ppm to 0.40 ppm; 

and Spanish lime from 0.60 ppm to 13 

ppm. 

VII. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

This proposed rule proposes to 

establish tolerances under FFDCA 

section 408(d). The Office of 

Management and Budget (OMB) has 

exempted these types of actions from 

review under Executive Order 12866, 

entitled ‘‘Regulatory Planning and 

Review’’ (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993). 

Because this proposed rule has been 

exempted from review under Executive 

Order 12866 due to its lack of 

significance, this proposed rule is not 

subject to Executive Order 13211, 

entitled ‘‘Actions Concerning 

Regulations That Significantly Affect 

Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use’’ (66 

FR 28355, May 22, 2001). This proposed 

rule does not contain any information 

collections subject to OMB approval 

under the Paperwork Reduction Act 

(PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.), or 

impose any enforceable duty or contain 

any unfunded mandate as described 

under Title II of the Unfunded Mandates 

Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA) (2 U.S.C. 

1501 et seq.). Nor does it require any 

special considerations under Executive 

Order 12898, entitled ‘‘Federal Actions 

to Address Environmental Justice in 

Minority Populations and Low-Income 

Populations’’ (59 FR 7629, February 16, 

1994); or OMB review or any Agency 

action under Executive Order 13045, 

entitled ‘‘Protection of Children from 

Environmental Health Risks and Safety 

Risks’’ (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997). 

This action does not involve any 

technical standards that would require 

Agency consideration of voluntary 

consensus standards pursuant to section 

12(d) of the National Technology 

Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 

(NTTAA) (15 U.S.C. 272 note). 

Pursuant to the requirements of the 

Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) (5 

U.S.C. 601 et seq.), the Agency 

previously assessed whether 

establishment of tolerances, exemptions 

from tolerances, raising of tolerance 

levels, expansion of exemptions, or 

revocations might significantly impact a 

substantial number of small entities and 

concluded that, as a general matter, 

these actions do not impose a significant 

economic impact on a substantial 

number of small entities. These analyses 

for tolerance establishments and 

modifications, and for tolerance 

revocations were published on May 4, 

1981 (46 FR 24950) and on December 

17, 1997 (62 FR 66020), respectively, 

and were provided to the Chief Counsel 

for Advocacy of the Small Business 

Administration. Taking into account 

this analysis, and available information 

concerning the pesticides listed in this 

proposed rule, the Agency hereby 

certifies that this proposed action will 

not have significant negative economic 

impact on a substantial number of small 

entities. Any comments about the 

Agency’s determination should be 

submitted to the EPA along with 

comments on the proposal, and will be 

addressed prior to issuing a final rule. 

In addition, the Agency has 

determined that this action will not 

have a substantial direct effect on 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, as specified in 

Executive Order 13132, entitled 

‘‘Federalism’’ (64 FR 43255, August 10, 

1999). Executive Order 13132 requires 

EPA to develop an accountable process 

to ensure ‘‘meaningful and timely input 

by State and local officials in the 

development of regulatory policies that 

have federalism implications.’’ ‘‘Policies 

that have federalism implications’’ is 

defined in the Executive order to 

include regulations that have 

‘‘substantial direct effects on the States, 

on the relationship between the national 


ehiers on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 137 / Wednesday, July 17, 2013 / Proposed Rules 42739 

government and the States, or on the 

distribution of power and 

responsibilities among the various 

levels of government.’’ This proposed 

rule directly regulates growers, food 

processors, food handlers, and food 

retailers, not States. This action does not 

alter the relationships or distribution of 

power and responsibilities established 

by Congress in the preemption 

provisions of FFDCA section 408(n)(4). 

For these same reasons, the Agency has 

determined that this proposed rule does 

not have any ‘‘tribal implications’’ as 

described in Executive Order 13175, 

entitled ‘‘Consultation and Coordination 

with Indian Tribal Governments’’ (65 FR 

67249, November 9, 2000). Executive 

Order 13175, requires EPA to develop 

an accountable process to ensure 

‘‘meaningful and timely input by tribal 

officials in the development of 

regulatory policies that have tribal 

implications.’’ ‘‘Policies that have tribal 

implications’’ is defined in the 

Executive order to include regulations 

that have ‘‘substantial direct effects on 

one or more Indian tribes, on the 

relationship between the Federal 

Government and the Indian tribes, or on 

the distribution of power and 

responsibilities between the Federal 

Government and Indian tribes.’’ This 

proposed rule will not have substantial 

direct effects on tribal governments, 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, as 

specified in Executive Order 13175. 

Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not 

apply to this proposed rule. 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 180 

Environmental protection, 

Administrative practice and procedure, 

Agricultural commodities, Pesticides 

and pests, Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements. 

Dated: July 2, 2013. 

Lois Rossi, 

Director, Registration Division, Office of 

Pesticide Programs. 

Therefore, it is proposed that 40 CFR 

chapter I be amended as follows: 

PART 180—[AMENDED] 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 180 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 21 U.S.C. 321(q), 346a and 371. 

■ 2. In § 180.641, in the table in 

paragraph (a), alphabetically add the 

commodities ‘‘Corn, sweet, kernel plus 

cob with husks removed’’ and 

‘‘Persimmon’’ and revise the entries for 

‘‘Feijoa’’, ‘‘Papaya’’ and ‘‘Spanish lime,’’ 

and footnote 1 to read as follows: 

§ 180.641 Spirotetramat; tolerances for 

residues. 

(a) * * * 

Commodity Parts per 

million 

* * * * * 

Corn, sweet, kernel plus cob 

with husks removed 1 ............ 1 .5 

* * * * * 

Feijoa ........................................ 2 .5 

* * * * * 

Papaya ...................................... 0 .40 

* * * * * 

Persimmon ................................ 2 .5 

* * * * * 

Spanish lime ............................. 13 

* * * * * 

1There are no U.S. registrations as of [date 

of effective date of final rule] for use on corn, 

sweet, kernel plus cob with husks removed. 

* * * * * 

[FR Doc. 2013–16904 Filed 7–16–13; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND 

SECURITY 

Coast Guard 

46 CFR parts 2, 24, 25, 30, 70, 90, and 

188 

[Docket No. USCG–2012–0919] 

RIN 1625–AB83 

Lifesaving Devices—Uninspected 

Commercial Barges and Sailing 

Vessels 

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS. 

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking. 

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard proposes 

aligning its regulations with the 2010 

Coast Guard Authorization Act. Before 

2010, uninspected commercial barges 

and uninspected commercial sailing 

vessels fell outside the scope of a statute 

requiring the regulation of lifesaving 

devices on uninspected vessels. 

Lifesaving devices were required on 

uninspected commercial barges and 

sailing vessels only if they carried 

passengers for hire. The 2010 Act 

brought uninspected commercial barges 

and sailing vessels within the scope of 

the statutory requirement to carry 

lifesaving devices even if they carry no 

passengers. The Coast Guard proposes 

requiring use of wearable personal 

flotation devices for individuals on 

board uninspected commercial barges 

and sailing vessels, and amending 

several regulatory tables to reflect that 

requirement. This rulemaking promotes 

the Coast Guard’s marine safety mission. 

DATES: Comments and related material 

must either be submitted to our online 

docket via http://www.regulations.gov 

on or before October 15, 2013 or reach 

the Docket Management Facility by that 

date. 

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments 

identified by docket number USCG– 

2012–0919 using any one of the 

following methods: 

(1) Federal eRulemaking Portal: 

http://www.regulations.gov. 

(2) Fax: 202–493–2251. 

(3) Mail: Docket Management Facility 

(M–30), U.S. Department of 

Transportation, West Building Ground 

Floor, Room W12–140, 1200 New Jersey 

Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590– 

0001. 

(4) Hand delivery: Same as mail 

address above, between 9 a.m. and 5 

p.m., Monday through Friday, except 

Federal holidays. The telephone number 

is 202–366–9329. 

To avoid duplication, please use only 

one of these four methods. See the 

‘‘Public Participation and Request for 

Comments’’ portion of the 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section 

below for instructions on submitting 

comments. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If 

you have questions on this proposed 

rule, call or email Mr. Martin Jackson, 

Office of Design and Engineering 

Standards Lifesaving and Fire Safety 

Division (CG–ENG–4), Coast Guard; 

telephone 202–372–1391, email 

Martin.L.Jackson@uscg.mil. If you have 

questions on viewing or submitting 

material to the docket, call Ms. Barbara 

Hairston, Program Manager, Docket 

Operations, telephone 202–366–9826. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Table of Contents for Preamble 

I. Public Participation and Request for 

Comments 

A. Submitting Comments 

B. Viewing Comments and Documents 

C. Privacy Act 

D. Public Meeting 

II. Abbreviations 

III. Background 

IV. Discussion of Proposed Rule 

V. Regulatory Analyses 

A. Regulatory Planning and Review 

B. Small Entities 

C. Assistance for Small Entities 

D. Collection of Information 

E. Federalism 

F. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 


ehiers on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS-1