Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 80 / Tuesday, April 27, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 21985 

Crawfordsville, IN, Crawfordsville Muni, 

Takeoff Minimums and Obstacle DP, Orig 

Chanute, KS, Chanute Martin Johnson, RNAV 

(GPS) RWY 36, Orig 

Chanute, KS, Chanute Martin Johnson, 

Takeoff Minimums and Obstacle DP, Orig 

Chanute, KS, Chanute Martin Johnson, VOR– 

A, Amdt 10 

Chanute, KS, Chanute Martin Johnson, VOR/ 

DME RNAV OR (GPS) RWY 36, Amdt 3C, 

CANCELLED 

Coffeyville, KS, Coffeyville Muni, NDB RWY 

35, Amdt 1 

Baton Rouge, LA, Baton Rouge Metro, Ryan 

Field, RNAV (GPS) RWY 13, Amdt 1 

Baton Rouge, LA, Baton Rouge Metro, Ryan 

Field, Takeoff Minimums and Obstacle DP, 

Amdt 1 

Lake Charles, LA, Chennault Intl, RNAV 

(GPS) RWY 33, Amdt 1 

Lake Charles, LA, Chennault Intl, Takeoff 

Minimums and Obstacle DP, Orig 

Cassville, MO, Cassville Muni, RNAV (GPS) 

RWY 9, Orig 

Cassville, MO, Cassville Muni, Takeoff 

Minimums and Obstacle DP, Orig 

Cassville, MO, Cassville Muni, VOR RWY 9, 

Amdt 2 

Kennett, MO, Kennett Memorial, NDB RWY 

2, Orig, CANCELLED 

Kennett, MO, Kennett Memorial, NDB RWY 

20, Orig, CANCELLED 

Lebanon, MO, Floyd W Jones Lebanon, 

Takeoff Minimums and Obstacle DP, Orig 

Madison, MS, Bruce Campbell Field, VOR– 

A, Amdt 10 

Madison, MS, Bruce Campbell Field, VOR/ 

DME–B, Amdt 5 

Endicott, NY, Tri-Cities, GPS RWY 21, OrigA, CANCELLED 

Endicott, NY, Tri-Cities, RNAV (GPS) RWY 3, 

Orig 

Endicott, NY, Tri-Cities, RNAV (GPS) RWY 

21, Orig 

Endicott, NY, Tri-Cities, VOR–A, Amdt 5 

Rochester, NY, Greater Rochester Intl, ILS OR 

LOC RWY 22, Amdt 7 

Rochester, NY, Greater Rochester Intl, RNAV 

(GPS) RWY 22, Amdt 1 

Buffalo, OK, Buffalo Muni, NDB–A, Amdt 3 

North Bend, OR, Southwest Oregon Rgnl, 

Takeoff Minimums and Obstacle DP, Amdt 

5 

Dubois, PA, Dubois Rgnl, ILS OR LOC RWY 

25, Amdt 9 

Dubois, PA, Dubois Rgnl, RNAV (GPS) RWY 

7, Amdt 1 

Dubois, PA, Dubois Rgnl, RNAV (GPS) RWY 

25, Amdt 1 

Dubois, PA, Dubois Rgnl, Takeoff Minimums 

and Obstacle DP, Amdt 2 

Dubois, PA, Dubois Rgnl, VOR/DME RWY 7, 

Amdt 4 

Williamsport, PA, Williamsport Rgnl, ILS OR 

LOC RWY 27, Amdt 16A 

Chamberlain, SD, Chamberlain Muni, Takeoff 

Minimums and Obstacle DP, Orig 

Canadian, TX, Hemphill County, RNAV 

(GPS) RWY 22, Amdt 1 

Graford, TX, Possum Kingdom, Takeoff 

Minimums and Obstacle DP, Orig-A 

Higgins, TX, Higgins-Lipscomb County, 

Takeoff Minimums and Obstacle DP, Orig 

Higgins, TX, Higgins-Lipscomb County, 

VOR/DME–A, Amdt 1 

Perryton, TX, Perryton Ochiltree County, 

NDB–A, Amdt 4 

Perryton, TX, Perryton Ochiltree County, 

RNAV (GPS) RWY 35, Orig 

Perryton, TX, Perryton Ochiltree County, 

Takeoff Minimums and Obstacle DP, Orig 

Rockport, TX, Aransas County, RNAV (GPS) 

RWY 14, Amdt 3 

Rockport, TX, Aransas County, RNAV (GPS) 

RWY 18, Orig 

Rockport, TX, Aransas County, RNAV (GPS) 

RWY 32, Orig 

Rockport, TX, Aransas County, RNAV (GPS) 

RWY 36, Orig 

Hot Springs, VA, Ingalls Field, GPS RWY 25, 

Orig-A, CANCELLED 

Hot Springs, VA, Ingalls Field, RNAV (GPS) 

RWY 25, Orig 

West Point, VA, Middle Peninsula Rgnl, 

RNAV (GPS) RWY 10, Amdt 1 

Wenatchee, WA, Pangborn Memorial, RNAV 

(RNP) RWY 30, Orig 

Fairmont, WV, Fairmont Muni Frankman 

Field, Takeoff Minimums and Obstacle DP, 

Amdt 6 

[FR Doc. 2010–8836 Filed 4–26–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–13–P 

CONSUMER PRODUCT SAFETY 

COMMISSION 

16 CFR Part 1450 

Virginia Graeme Baker Pool and Spa 

Safety Act; Interpretation of 

Unblockable Drain 

AGENCY: Consumer Product Safety 

Commission. 

ACTION: Final interpretive rule. 

SUMMARY: The Consumer Product Safety 

Commission (‘‘Commission,’’ ‘‘CPSC’’ or 

‘‘we’’) is issuing its interpretation of the 

term ‘‘unblockable drain’’ as used in the 

Virginia Graeme Baker Pool and Spa 

Safety Act (‘‘VGB Act’’). 

DATES: This rule is effective April 27, 

2010. The incorporation by reference of 

the publication listed in this rule is 

approved by the Director of the Federal 

Register as of April 27, 2010. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Troy 

Whitfield, Lead Compliance Officer, 

Office of Compliance, Consumer 

Product Safety Commission, 4330 East 

West Highway, Bethesda, Maryland 

20814–4408; telephone (301) 504–7548 

or e-mail twhitfield@cpsc.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

A. Background 

The Virginia Graeme Baker Pool and 

Spa Safety Act, Public Law 110–140, 

Title XIV (‘‘the VGB Act’’) was signed 

into law on December 19, 2007 and 

became effective on December 19, 2008. 

The VGB Act’s purpose is to prevent 

drain entrapment and child drowning in 

swimming pools and spas. 

Section 1404(c)(1)(A)(i) of the VGB 

Act requires that each public pool and 

spa in the United States be equipped 

with drain covers that comply with the 

ASME/ANSI A112.19.8 performance 

standard or any successor standard. 

(The ASME/ANSI A112.19.8–2007 

standard includes addenda which 

ASME codes and standards identify as 

A112.19.8a [for corrections to the UV 

light testing procedure] and 8b [for 

outlet covers used on self-contained 

spas]. The addenda are part of the 2007 

version of the standard and only include 

pages with changed or revised items. 

For simplicity, any reference to ASME/ 

ANSI A112.19.8–2007 in this preamble 

is intended to incorporate the associated 

addenda.) Section 1404(c)(1)(A)(ii) of 

the VGB Act requires that each public 

pool and spa in the United States with 

a single main drain other than an 

unblockable drain be equipped, at a 

minimum, with one or more of the 

following: 

• Safety vacuum release system; 

• Suction-limiting vent system; 

• Gravity drainage system; 

• Automatic pump shut-off system; 

• Drain disablement; and/or 

• Any other system determined by 

the Commission to be equally effective 

as, or better than, the enumerated 

systems at preventing or eliminating the 

risk of injury or death associated with 

pool drainage systems. 

For purposes of this preamble, we 

will refer to these systems collectively 

as ‘‘secondary anti-entrapment systems.’’ 

Thus, under the VGB Act, public pools 

or spas with single main drains other 

than unblockable drains must be 

equipped with a secondary antientrapment system. Section 1403(7) of 

the VGB Act defines an ‘‘unblockable 

drain’’ as ‘‘a drain of any size and shape 

that a human body cannot sufficiently 

block to create a suction entrapment 

hazard.’’ 

In July 2009, CPSC staff issued draft 

technical guidance concerning an 

unblockable drain on the CPSC Web site 

(at http://www.poolsafety.gov/ 

unblockable.pdf) and invited comment 

on this guidance. The draft technical 

guidance included specifications for a 

drain cover such that, when the drain 

cover is attached to a drain, the nowcovered drain constitutes an 

‘‘unblockable drain.’’ As an unblockable 

drain, this drain would not require a 

secondary anti-entrapment system. 

On October 21, 2009, the Commission 

issued a notice in the Federal Register 

(74 FR 54301) announcing that it would 

be conducting a public hearing to 

receive views from all interested parties 

about the draft guidance regarding 

unblockable drains. The Commission 

invited public participation at this 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with RULES

21986 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 80 / Tuesday, April 27, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 

1Commissioner Robert Adler, Commissioner 

Nancy Nord, and Commissioner Anne Northup 

voted to direct the staff to draft a proposed 

interpretive rule on unblockable drain covers, 

consistent with the definition in the staff 

memorandum dated February 3, 2010. Chairman 

Inez Tenenbaum and Commissioner Thomas Moore 

voted against directing the staff to draft a proposed 

interpretive rule on unblockable drain covers. 

Chairman Inez Tenenbaum, Commissioner Robert 

Adler, Commissioner Thomas Moore, and 

Commissioner Anne Northup each issued a 

statement, a copy of which is available from the 

Commission’s Office of the Secretary or from the 

Commission’s Web site, 

http://www.cpsc.gov. On March 22, 2010, 

Commissioner Robert Adler, Commissioner Nancy 

Nord, and Commissioner Anne Northup voted to 

direct the staff to issue a final interpretive rule on 

unblockable drains. A new ballot vote was prepared 

for voting on a final interpretive rule on 

unblockable drains. Commissioner Adler, 

Commissioner Nord, and Commissioner Northup 

voted to approve the final interpretive rule. 

Chariman Tenenbaum and Commissioner Moore 

voted not to approve the final interpretive rule. 

Commissioner Adler issued a statement with his 

vote, a copy of which is available from the 

Commission’s Office of the Secretary or from the 

Commission’s Web site, http://www.cpsc.gov. 

hearing. On November 4, 2009, the 

Commission conducted a public hearing 

on the staff’s draft technical guidance 

and heard presentations from nine 

individuals. 

Following the hearing, CPSC staff 

revised its interpretation of an 

unblockable drain and presented it to 

the Commission for consideration. On 

March 1, 2010, the Commission voted to 

instruct the staff to prepare a proposed 

interpretive rule regarding unblockable 

drains, consistent with the staff’s 

interpretation.1

B. Response to Comments and 

Interpretation 

CPSC staff based the ‘‘July 2009 Staff 

Draft Technical Guidance on 

Unblockable Drains’’ on the 

requirements for drain covers found in 

ASME/ANSI A112.19.8: ‘‘Based on the 

dimensions of the blocking element 

found in the standard, an outlet cover 

with measurements in excess of 18′′ x 

23′′ (or a diagonal measurement greater 

than 29′′) would provide a means to 

render the outlet ‘unblockable’ and 

subsequently, the sumps below (drains) 

would be inaccessible and unblockable 

providing the outlet cover remains in 

place. The implication is that if the 

outlet cover cannot be ‘shadowed’ by 

the solid blocking element the 

remaining open area of the cover will 

allow sufficient water flow to prevent 

the creation of entrapping forces. In 

reaching the definition for an 

unblockable drain, the characterization 

of a suction fitting is taken from the 

standard to include the sump and cover 

as a unit, along with all of the following: 

(1) The blocking element dimension and 

the diagonal measure to define a 

minimum size requirement; (2) The 

need for the remaining open flow area 

of the cover, once shadowed, to provide 

sufficient flow to prevent entrapment; 

and (3) The general requirements (of the 

standard) for fasteners and fastening 

integrity (i.e., the cover must stay in 

place).’’ 

We received several comments as a 

result of the November 4, 2009 hearing 

and our interpretation of unblockable 

drains. We describe and respond to the 

comments in part B of this document. 

1. Diagonal Measurement: Several 

comments stated that the interpretation 

of an unblockable drain should not 

include a 29-inch diagonal requirement 

as it was an over-simplification of the 

standard and not found in the ASME/ 

ANSI A112.19.8 standard. 

Response: The Commission agrees 

with these comments and has removed 

the 29-inch diagonal reference. 

2. 18′′ x 23′′ Dimension: Several 

commenters questioned the use of the 

18′′ x 23′′ measurement. Some believed 

it was too small, while others claimed 

it was unnecessarily restrictive. Some 

commenters also indicated that the 

definition should make clear that the 

18′′ x 23′′ measurement is intended to 

represent a blocked portion of the cover 

for consideration of the remaining open 

flow area, not simply the dimensions of 

the cover. 

Response: The 18′′ x 23′′ dimension 

represents the dimensions of a 99th 

percentile male and mirrors the 

measurement used in the ASME/ANSI 

A112.19.8 standard referenced in the 

VGB Act. The Commission continues to 

believe this dimension is appropriate. 

The Commission agrees that the 18′′ x 

23′′ dimension is intended to reference 

the remaining open flow area, once 

shadowed, and has revised its definition 

to make this clear. 

3. Blocking Element. One commenter 

stated that the blocking element was not 

representative of ‘‘human skin’’ and 

therefore did not fully represent a 

body’s ability to adhere to or seal 

around an outlet cover. 

Response: The Commission agrees 

that the blocking element does not 

replicate the properties of human skin. 

However, the Commission is relying on 

the industry standard that is referenced 

in the VGB Act to further its 

interpretation of unblockable drain, and 

is thus using the same blocking element 

dimensions that are referenced in 

ASME/ANSI A112.19.8. Whether a 

flexible membrane or a more rigid 

material is used, it is the remaining 

open area of the cover when shadowed 

by the blocking element that is the 

important factor for consideration. 

4. Layers of Protection: There were 

several comments regarding the VGB 

Act’s intent to use a ‘‘layers of 

protection’’ approach to address 

entrapment. 

Response: The ‘‘layers of protection’’ 

are applicable to incidents involving 

children having unfettered access to 

swimming pools in residential 

locations. In these cases, barriers and 

warnings, such as, doors, door alarms, 

motion detectors, pool covers, fencing 

with self-closing, self-latching gates, 

etc., can all be used to delay and/or 

prevent access to the hazard. However, 

for entrapment incidents, the approach 

to prevention is different. There are five 

different types of entrapment: Body, 

limb, evisceration, hair, and 

mechanical-related. The mechanisms of 

entrapment can be slightly different 

with each. The common element in all 

five entrapment scenarios is the 

necessity of an outlet cover as a layer of 

protection. All five entrapment issues 

are addressed by the appropriate flow 

rating and size of the cover when the 

cover remains in place. Currently, the 

‘‘back-up’’ systems mentioned as 

secondary requirements in the VGB Act 

address some, but not all, potential 

hazard patterns. The ‘‘back-up’’ systems 

primarily address suction body 

entrapment and may address some limb 

entrapments. However, these back-up 

systems do not address the hair and 

mechanical entrapments, or the 

evisceration injuries associated with 

entrapments. Moreover, the back-up 

devices require the incident to occur 

before they respond and, depending on 

the type of entrapment and the 

circulation system present, the response 

may not prevent the entrapment or the 

injury. 

Based on consideration of these 

comments, the Commission is creating a 

new § 1450.2(b) to interpret 

‘‘unblockable drain’’ as follows: 

A suction outlet defined as all components, 

including the sump and/or body, cover/grate, 

and hardware such that its perforated (open) 

area cannot be shadowed by the area of the 

18′′ x 23′′ Body Blocking Element of ASME/ 

ANSI A112.19.8–2007 and that the rated flow 

through the remaining open area (beyond the 

shadowed portion) cannot create a suction 

force in excess of the removal force values in 

Table 1 of that Standard. All suction outlet 

covers, manufactured or field-fabricated, 

shall be certified as meeting the applicable 

requirements of the ASME/ANSI A112.19.8 

standard. 

C. Codification 

The Commission is currently engaged 

in a separate interpretation of another 

term, ‘‘public accommodations facility,’’ 

in the VGB Act. If finalized, this 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with RULES

Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 80 / Tuesday, April 27, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 21987 

interpretation would be codified as a 

part of CFR part 1450, where § 1450.1 

would describe the scope of part 1450 

and § 1450.2(a) would contain the 

definition of ‘‘public accommodations 

facility.’’ Thus, this rule adds the new 

CFR part 1450, defines ‘‘unblockable 

drain’’ at 1450.2(b) and indicates that 

1450.1 and 1450.2(a) are reserved. 

D. Effective Date 

Section 1405 of the VGB Act directs 

the Commission to establish a grant 

program to provide assistance to eligible 

States for specific uses related to pool 

and spa safety. The Commission has 

entered into an interagency agreement 

with the Centers for Disease Control and 

Prevention (CDC)/National Center for 

Injury Control and Prevention (NCIPC) 

to administer the grant program. CDC 

will be publishing the Funding 

Opportunity Announcement related to 

the grant program in early April. 

Because potential State applicants need 

a definitive understanding of the law in 

order to qualify for grant monies, and 

because CDC intends to publish the 

Funding Opportunity Announcement in 

April, this final rule resulting is 

effective upon publication. The rule 

does not impose obligations on 

regulated parties beyond those imposed 

by the VGB Act. In addition, as 

mentioned in the DATES section of this 

preamble, the Commission has already 

received and considered comments and/ 

or presentations with regard to this 

issue on two separate occasions: (1) In 

response to the ‘‘July 2009 Staff Draft 

Technical Guidance on Unblockable 

Drains’’ and (2) during the November 4, 

2009 Commission public hearing. 

Therefore, there is no need to provide a 

delayed effective date in order to allow 

for regulated parties to prepare for the 

rule. 

List of Subjects in 16 CFR Part 1450 

Consumer protection, Incorporation 

by reference, Infants and children, Law 

enforcement. 

■ For the reasons stated above, the 

Commission adds part 1450 to 

subchapter B of title 16 of the Code of 

Federal Regulations to read as follows: 

PART 1450—VIRGINIA GRAEME 

BAKER POOL AND SPA SAFETY ACT 

REGULATIONS 

Sec. 

1450.1 [Reserved] 

1450.2 Definitions. 

Authority: 15 U.S.C. 2051–2089, 86 Stat. 

1207; 15 U.S.C. 8001–8008, 121 Stat. 1794. 

§ 1450.1 [Reserved] 

§ 1450.2 Definitions. 

(a) [Reserved] 

(b) Unblockable drain includes a 

suction outlet defined as all 

components, including the sump and/or 

body, cover/grate, and hardware such 

that its perforated (open) area cannot be 

shadowed by the area of the 18′′ x 23′′ 

Body Blocking Element of ASME/ANSI 

A112.19.8–2007 and that the rated flow 

through the remaining open area 

(beyond the shadowed portion) cannot 

create a suction force in excess of the 

removal force values in Table 1 of that 

Standard. All suction outlet covers, 

manufactured or field-fabricated, shall 

be certified as meeting the applicable 

requirements of the ASME/ANSI 

A112.19.8 standard. You must proceed 

in accordance with ASME/ANSI 

A112.19.8–2007 (issued March 30, 

2007), including Addenda A112.19.8a– 

2008 (August 11, 2008) and A112.19.8b– 

2009 (approved October 22, 2009), 

Suction Fittings for Use in Swimming 

Pools, Wading Pools, Spas, and Hot 

Tubs. ASME/ANSI A112.19.8–2007, 

including Addenda A112.19.8a–2008 

and A112.19.8b–2009 are incorporated 

by reference. The Director of the Federal 

Register approves this incorporation by 

reference in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 

552(a) and 1 CFR part 51. You may 

obtain a copy from American Society of 

Mechanical Engineers (ASME), ATTN: 

Secretary, A112 Standards Committee, 

Three Park Avenue, New York, New 

York 10016–5990; www.asme.org, 

telephone 800–843–2763. You may 

inspect a copy at the Office of the 

Secretary, U.S. Consumer Product 

Safety Commission, Room 502, 4330 

East West Highway, Bethesda, MD 

20814, telephone 301–504–7923, or the 

National Archives and Records 

Administration (NARA). For 

information on the availability of this 

material at NARA, call 202–741–6030 or 

go to: http://www.archives.gov/ 

federal_register/ 

code_of_federal_regulations/ 

ibr_locations.html. 

Dated: April 6, 2010. 

Todd A. Stevenson, 

Secretary, Consumer Product Safety 

Commission. 

[FR Doc. 2010–8160 Filed 4–26–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6355–01–P 

FEDERAL MINE SAFETY AND HEALTH 

REVIEW COMMISSION 

29 CFR Part 2700 

Penalty Settlement Procedure 

AGENCY: Federal Mine Safety and Health 

Review Commission. 

ACTION: Interim rule with request for 

comments. 

SUMMARY: The Federal Mine Safety and 

Health Review Commission (the 

‘‘Commission’’) is an independent 

adjudicatory agency that provides 

hearings and appellate review of cases 

arising under the Federal Mine Safety 

and Health Act of 1977, or Mine Act. 

Hearings are held before the 

Commission’s Administrative Law 

Judges, and appellate review is provided 

by a five-member Review Commission 

appointed by the President and 

confirmed by the Senate. The 

Commission is adopting an interim rule 

to streamline the process for settling 

civil penalties assessed under the Mine 

Act. 

DATES: The interim rule takes effect on 

May 27, 2010. The Commission will 

accept written and electronic comments 

received on or before June 28, 2010. 

ADDRESSES: Written comments should 

be mailed to Michael A. McCord, 

General Counsel, Office of the General 

Counsel, Federal Mine Safety and 

Health Review Commission, 601 New 

Jersey Avenue, NW., Suite 9500, 

Washington, DC 20001, or sent via 

facsimile to 202–434–9944. Persons 

mailing written comments shall provide 

an original and three copies of their 

comments. Electronic comments should 

state ‘‘Comments on Penalty Settlement 

Rule’’ in the subject line and be sent to 

mmccord@fmshrc.gov. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Michael A. McCord, General Counsel, 

Office of the General Counsel, 601 New 

Jersey Avenue, NW., Suite 9500, 

Washington, DC 20001; telephone 202– 

434–9935; fax 202–434–9944. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

Since 2006, the number of new cases 

filed with the Commission has 

dramatically increased. From 2000 

through 2005, an average of 

approximately 2300 cases were filed 

with the Commission per year. In 2006 

and 2007, between approximately 3000 

and 4000 new cases were filed each 

year, while in 2008 and 2009, 

approximately 9000 cases were filed 

each year. 

In order to deal with its burgeoning 

caseload, the Commission is considering 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with RULES