[Federal Register: June 14, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 113)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 33565-33570]
[DOCID:fr14jn10-20]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

49 CFR Part 535

[Docket No. NHTSA-2010-0079]

Notice of Intent To Prepare an Environmental Impact Statement for
New Medium- and Heavy-Duty Fuel Efficiency Improvement Program

AGENCY: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA),
Department of Transportation (DOT).

ACTION: Notice of intent; request for scoping comments.

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

SUMMARY: Pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA),
NHTSA plans to prepare an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) to
analyze the potential environmental impacts of the agency's new fuel
efficiency improvement program for commercial medium- and heavy-duty
on-highway vehicles and work trucks (referred to hereinafter as MD/HD
vehicles). The EIS will consider the potential environmental impacts of
new standards starting with model year (MY) 2016 MD/HD vehicles, and
voluntary compliance standards for MY 2014-2015 MD/HD vehicles, that
NHTSA will be proposing pursuant to the Energy Independence and
Security Act of 2007.
    This notice initiates the NEPA scoping process by inviting comments
from Federal, State, and local agencies, Indian tribes, and the public
to help identify the environmental issues and reasonable alternatives
to be examined in the EIS. This notice also provides guidance for
participating in the scoping process and additional information about
the alternatives NHTSA expects to consider in its NEPA analysis.

DATES: The scoping process will culminate in the preparation and
issuance of a Draft EIS, which will be made available for public
comment. To ensure that NHTSA has an opportunity to fully consider
scoping comments and to facilitate NHTSA's prompt preparation of the
Draft EIS, scoping comments should be received on or before July 14,
2010. NHTSA will try to consider comments received after that date to
the extent the rulemaking schedule allows.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments to the docket number identified in
the heading of this document by any of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to http://
www.regulations.gov. Follow the online instructions for submitting
comments by clicking on ``Help'' or ``FAQs.''
     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.
     Hand Delivery or Courier: U.S. Department of
Transportation, West Building, Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m. Eastern
time, Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Regardless of how you submit your comments, you should mention the
docket number of this document.
    You may call the Docket at<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Note that all comments received, including any personal information
provided, will be posted without change to http://www.regulations.gov.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For technical issues, contact Angel
Jackson, Fuel Economy Division, Office of International Policy, Fuel
Economy and Consumer Standards, National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590.
Telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>. For legal issues, contact Carrie Gage,
Legislation & General Law Division, Office of the Chief Counsel,
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 1200 New Jersey Avenue,
SE., Washington, DC 20590. Telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In a forthcoming notice of proposed
rulemaking (NPRM), NHTSA intends to propose fuel efficiency standards
starting with model year (MY) 2016 commercial medium- and heavy-duty
on-highway vehicles and work trucks (hereinafter referred to
collectively as MD/HD vehicles), and voluntary compliance standards for
MYs 2014-2015 MD/HD vehicles, pursuant to the Energy Independence and
Security Act of 2007 (EISA).\1\ In connection with this action, NHTSA
intends to prepare an EIS to analyze the potential environmental
impacts of the proposed MD/HD vehicle fuel efficiency standards and
reasonable alternative standards pursuant to the NEPA and implementing
regulations issued by the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) and
NHTSA.\2\ NEPA instructs Federal agencies to consider the potential
environmental impacts of their proposed actions and possible
alternatives in their decisionmaking. To inform decisionmakers and the
public, the EIS will compare the potential environmental impacts of the
agency's preferred alternative and reasonable alternatives, including a
``no action'' alternative. As required by NEPA, the EIS will consider
direct, indirect, and cumulative impacts and discuss impacts in
proportion to their significance.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Public Law No. 110-140, 121 Stat. 1492 (Dec. 19, 2007)
(codified at 49 U.S.C. 32901 et seq.).
    \2\ NEPA is codified at 42 U.S.C. 4321-4347. CEQ's NEPA
implementing regulations are codified at 40 CFR 1500-1508, and
NHTSA's NEPA implementing regulations are codified at 49 CFR part
520.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Background. The Energy Policy and Conservation Act of 1975 (EPCA)
mandated that NHTSA establish and implement a regulatory program for
motor vehicle fuel economy to meet the various facets of the need to
conserve energy. As codified in Chapter 329 of Title 49 of the U.S.
Code, and as amended by EISA, EPCA sets forth extensive requirements
concerning the establishment of fuel economy standards for passenger
automobiles (hereinafter referred to as ``passenger cars'') and non-
passenger automobiles (hereinafter referred to as ``light trucks'').
Pursuant to this statutory authority, NHTSA sets Corporate Average Fuel
Economy (CAFE) standards for

passenger cars and light trucks.\3\ NHTSA considers the environmental
NEPA analysis when setting CAFE standards.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ See Light-Duty Vehicle Greenhouse Gas Emission Standards and
Corporate Average Fuel Economy Standards, Final Rule, 75 FR 25324
(May 7, 2010).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In December 2007, EISA provided DOT (and by delegation, NHTSA)\4\
new authority to implement, via rulemaking and regulations, ``a
commercial medium- and heavy-duty on-highway vehicle \5\ and work truck
\6\ fuel efficiency improvement program.'' \7\ This provision also
directs NHTSA to ``adopt and implement appropriate test methods,
measurement metrics, fuel economy standards, and compliance and
enforcement protocols that are appropriate, cost-effective, and
technologically feasible for commercial medium- and heavy-duty on-
highway vehicles and work trucks.'' \8\ This new authority permits
NHTSA to set ``separate standards for different classes of vehicles.''
\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ The Secretary delegated responsibility for implementing EPCA
fuel economy requirements to NHTSA. 49 CFR 1.50, 501.2(a)(8).
    \5\ EISA added the following definition to the automobile fuel
economy chapter of the United States Code: ``commercial medium- and
heavy-duty on-highway vehicle'' means an on-highway vehicle with a
gross vehicle weight rating of 10,000 pounds or more. 49 U.S.C.
32901(a)(7).
    \6\ EISA added the following definition to the automobile fuel
economy chapter of the United States Code: ``work truck'' means a
vehicle that--(A) is rated at between 8,500 and 10,000 pounds gross
vehicle weight; and (B) is not a medium-duty passenger vehicle (as
defined in section 86.1803-01 of title 40, Code of Federal
Regulations, as in effect on the date of the enactment of [EISA]).
49 U.S.C. 32901(a)(19).
    \7\ 49 U.S.C. 32902(k)(2).
    \8\ Id.
    \9\ Id. For background on the MD/HD vehicle segment, and fuel
efficiency improvement technologies available for these vehicles,
see the report recently issued by the National Academy of Sciences.
Transportation Research Board, National Research Council, Committee
to Assess Fuel Economy Technologies for Medium- and Heavy-Duty
Vehicles, Technologies and Approaches to Reducing the Fuel
Consumption of Medium- and Heavy-Duty Vehicles (March 2010), pre-
publication copy available at http://www.nap.edu/
catalog.php?record_id=12845 (last accessed May 19, 2010)
(hereinafter ``MD/HD NAS Report'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    EISA also provides for lead time and regulatory stability. The new
MD/HD vehicle fuel efficiency improvement program NHTSA adopts pursuant
to EISA must provide not less than 4 full years of regulatory lead-time
and 3 full model years of regulatory stability.\10\ Consistent with
these requirements, we tentatively plan to propose mandatory standards
to begin no sooner than MY 2016, and to remain stable for 3 years.
Although EISA prevents NHTSA from enacting mandatory standards before
MY 2016, NHTSA intends to propose an optional voluntary compliance
standard for MYs 2014-2015 prior to mandatory regulation in MY 2016.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ 49 U.S.C. 32902(k)(3).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    EISA further directs that NHTSA's MD/HD rulemaking must be
conducted in consultation with the Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA) and the Department of Energy.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ 49 U.S.C. Sec.  32902(k)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On May 21, 2010, the President issued a memorandum to the Secretary
of Transportation, the Administrator of NHTSA, the Administrator of the
EPA, and the Secretary of Energy, that calls for coordinated regulation
of the medium- and heavy-duty vehicle market segment under EISA and
under the Clean Air Act.\12\ NHTSA's forthcoming proposal and EIS will
be consistent with this directive.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ See The White House, Office of the Press Secretary,
Presidential Memorandum Regarding Fuel Efficiency Standards (May 21,
2010), available at http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/
presidential-memorandum-regarding-fuel-efficiency-standards (last
accessed May 24, 2010); see also The White House, Office of the
Press Secretary, President Obama Directs Administration to Create
First-Ever National Efficiency and Emissions Standards for Medium-
and Heavy-Duty Trucks (May 21, 2010), available at http://
www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/president-obama-directs-
administration-create-first-ever-national-efficiency-and-em (last
accessed May 24, 2010).
    \13\ See http://www.nhtsa.gov/fuel-economy (last accessed June
4, 2010); see also http://www.epa.gov/otaq/climate/regulations/
420f10038.htm (last accessed June 4, 2010).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    This Notice of Intent initiates the scoping process for the EIS
under NEPA, 42 U.S.C. Sec. Sec.  4321-4347, and implementing
regulations issued by CEQ, 40 CFR Pt. 1500-1508, and NHTSA, 49 CFR Pt.
520. See 40 CFR 1501.7, 1508.22; 49 CFR 520.21(g). Specifically, this
Notice of Intent requests public input on the scope of NHTSA's NEPA
analysis and the significant issues relating to the fuel efficiency
standards for MD/HD vehicles beginning in MY 2016, and the optional
voluntary compliance standards for MYs 2014-2015. As part of the NEPA
scoping process, this notice briefly describes the alternatives NHTSA
is currently considering for the MD/HD vehicle fuel efficiency
improvement program.
    The Alternatives: NHTSA's upcoming NPRM will propose standards for
MD/HD vehicles beginning in MY 2016, and voluntary compliance standards
for MYs 2014-2015 MD/HD vehicles. This notice briefly describes a
variety of possible alternatives that are currently under consideration
by the agency, and seeks input from the public about these alternatives
and about whether other alternatives should be considered as we proceed
with the rulemaking and the EIS.
    The medium- and heavy-duty truck segment is very complex. The
sector consists of many stakeholders, including engine manufacturers,
truck manufacturers, trailer manufacturers, and truck fleet owners.
Unlike the light-duty sector, there is a very large number of heavy-
duty truck manufacturers which vary in size and level of build process
integration. Some trucks are assembled by a body builder using
components from an engine manufacturer, powertrain manufacturer,
component suppliers, and chassis builder. Each of these stakeholders
has an impact on the fuel efficiency of the truck. NHTSA is therefore
developing alternatives which recognize the complex industry structure
and provide increasing coverage of the opportunities for fuel
consumption reduction.
    In developing alternatives, NHTSA must consider EISA's requirement
for the MD/HD fuel efficiency program noted above. 49 U.S.C.
32902(k)(2) and (3) contain the following three requirements specific
to the MD/HD vehicle fuel efficiency improvement program: (1) The
program must be ``designed to achieve the maximum feasible
improvement''; (2) the various required aspects of the program must be
appropriate, cost-effective, and technologically feasible for MD/HD
vehicles; and (3) the standards adopted under the program must provide
not less than four model years of lead time and three model years of
regulatory stability. In considering these various requirements, NHTSA
will also account for relevant environmental and safety considerations.
    The alternatives that NHTSA currently has under consideration, in
order of increasing fuel efficiency improvement, or fuel use
reductions, are:
    (1) Alternative 1: No Action. A ``no action'' alternative assumes
that NHTSA would not issue a rule regarding a MD/HD fuel efficiency
improvement program, and is considered to comply with NEPA and to
provide an analytical baseline against which to compare environmental
impacts of the other regulatory alternatives.\14\ NEPA requires
agencies to consider a ``no action'' alternative in their NEPA analyses
and to compare the effects of not taking action with the effects of the
reasonable action alternatives to demonstrate the different
environmental effects of the action alternatives.\15\ NHTSA refers to

this as the ``No Action Alternative'' or as a ``no increase'' or
``baseline'' alternative.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ See 40 CFR 1502.2(e), 1502.14(d).
    \15\ CEQ has explained that ``[T]he regulations require the
analysis of the no action alternative even if the agency is under a
court order or legislative command to act. This analysis provides a
benchmark, enabling decision makers to compare the magnitude of
environmental effects of the action alternatives. It is also an
example of a reasonable alternative outside the jurisdiction of the
agency which must be analyzed. [See 40 CFR 1502.14(c).] * * *
Inclusion of such an analysis in the EIS is necessary to inform
Congress, the public, and the President as intended by NEPA. [See 40
CFR 1500.1(a).]'' Forty Most Asked Questions Concerning CEQ's
National Environmental Policy Act Regulations, 46 FR 18026 (1981)
(emphasis added).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    NHTSA is also proposing to consider four action alternatives, each
of which would regulate the MD/HD vehicle fleet in a different way.
These action alternatives would each cause the average fuel efficiency
for the industry-wide MD/HD vehicle fleet to increase, on average,
during the rulemaking period. The alternatives below represent the
different regulatory approaches the agency is considering, in order of
increasing fuel savings:
    (2) Alternative 2: Engine Only. The EPA currently regulates heavy-
duty engines, i.e., engine manufacturers, rather than the vehicle as a
whole, in order to control criteria emissions.\16\ Under Alternative 2,
NHTSA would similarly set engine performance standards for each vehicle
class, Class 2b through Class 8, and would specify an engine cell test
procedure, as EPA currently does for criteria pollutants. MD/HD vehicle
engine manufacturers would be responsible for ensuring that each engine
could meet the applicable vehicle class engine performance standard
when tested in accordance with the specified engine cell test
procedure. Engine manufacturers could improve MD/HD vehicle engines by
applying the combinations of fuel efficiency improvement technologies
to the engine that they deem best achieve that result.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ There are several reasons for this approach. In many cases
the engine and chassis are produced by different manufacturers and
it is more efficient to hold a single entity responsible. Also,
testing an engine cell is more accurate and repeatable than testing
a whole vehicle.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (3) Alternative 3: Class 8 Combination Tractors. Combination
tractors \17\ consume the largest fraction of fuel within the medium-
and heavy-duty truck segment.\18\ Tractors also offer significant
potential for fuel savings due to the high annual mileage and high
vehicle speed of typical trucks within this segment, as compared to
annual mileage and average speeds/duty cycles of other vehicle classes.
This alternative would set performance standards for both the engine of
Class 8 vehicles and the overall vehicle efficiency performance for the
Class 8 combination tractor segment. Under Alternative 3, NHTSA would
set an engine performance standard, as discussed under Alternative 2,
for Class 8 vehicles. In addition, Class 8 combination tractor
manufacturers would be required to meet an overall vehicle performance
standard by making various non-engine fuel saving technology
improvements. These non-engine fuel efficiency improvements could be
accomplished, for example, by a combination of improvements to
aerodynamics, lowering tire rolling resistance, decreasing vehicle mass
(weight), reducing fuel use at idle, or by adding intelligent vehicle
technologies.\19\ Compliance with the overall vehicle standard could be
determined using a computer model that would simulate overall vehicle
fuel efficiency given a set of vehicle component inputs. Using this
compliance approach, the Class 8 vehicle manufacturer would supply
certain vehicle characteristics (relating to the categories of
technologies noted immediately above) that would serve as model inputs.
The agency would supply a standard Class 8 vehicle engine's
contribution to overall vehicle efficiency, making the engine component
a constant for purposes of compliance with the overall vehicle
performance standard, such that compliance with the overall vehicle
standard could only be achieved via efficiency improvements to non-
engine vehicle components. Thus, vehicle manufacturers could make any
combination of improvements of the non-engine technologies that they
believe would best achieve the Class 8 overall vehicle performance
standard.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ Class 8 combination trucks have a tractor and one or more
trailers and a gross combined weight, i.e., a maximum weight rating,
of up to 80,000 pounds, with higher weights allowed in specific
circumstances. MD/HD NAS Report, supra note 9, at 1-7.
    \18\ Id. at 8-2.
    \19\ See the MD/HD NAS Report for discussions of the potential
fuel efficiency improvement technologies that can be applied to each
of these vehicle components. MD/HD NAS Report, supra note 9, Chapter
5.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (4) Alternative 4: Engines, Tractors, and Class 2b through 8
Trucks. This alternative would set engine fuel efficiency performance
standards and overall vehicle fuel efficiency performance standards for
Class 2b and 3 work trucks and Class 3 through Class 8 vocational
trucks. This alternative essentially sets fuel efficiency performance
standards for both the engines and the overall vehicles in the entire
medium- and heavy-duty truck sector. Compliance with each vehicle
class's engine performance standard would be determined as discussed in
the description of Alternative 2. Compliance with the tractor and
vocational truck classes' overall vehicle performance standard (Class 3
through 8 trucks) would be determined as discussed in the description
of Alternative 3. Compliance for the Class 2b and 3 work trucks would
be determined through a fleet averaging process similar to determining
passenger car and light truck compliance with CAFE standards.
    (5) Alternative 5: Engines, Tractors, Trucks, and Trailers. This
alternative adds a performance standard for fuel efficiency of
commercial trailers to the fuel efficiency performance standards for
Class 2b and 3 work truck and Class 3 through Class 8 vocational truck
engines and the performance standard for the overall fuel efficiency of
those vehicles, as described above.
    Each of the alternatives proposed by NHTSA represents, in part, a
different way NHTSA could establish a MD/HD vehicle fuel efficiency
improvement program pursuant to EISA, considering each of the
requirements above and NEPA's policies. The agency may select one of
the above-identified alternatives as its Preferred Alternative or it
may structure a MD/HD vehicle fuel efficiency improvement program in
such a way that average fuel efficiency, or fuel savings, falls between
the levels reflected in the alternatives proposed in this Scoping
Notice. For example, as noted above, EISA requires that NHTSA provide a
four-year regulatory lead-time to manufacturers. For each of the action
alternatives, NHTSA will consider a voluntary early compliance program,
which would provide for an early start date with a two year lead-time.
This version of each alternative would allow the program to achieve
greater and earlier reductions in fuel consumption than a rule with a
four year lead-time.
    Under NEPA, the purpose of and need for an agency's action inform
the range of reasonable alternatives to be considered in its NEPA
analysis.\20\ The above alternatives represent a broad range of
approaches under consideration for setting proposed MD/HD vehicle fuel
efficiency standards and whose environmental impacts we propose to
evaluate under NEPA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ 40 CFR 1502.13.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As detailed below, NHTSA invites comments to ensure that the agency
considers a full range of reasonable alternatives in establishing a MD/
HD vehicle fuel efficiency improvement program and that the agency
identifies the environmental impacts and focuses its analyses on all
the potentially

significant impacts related to each alternative. Comments may go beyond
the approaches and information that NHTSA used in developing the above
alternatives and in identifying the potentially significant
environmental effects. The agency may modify the proposed alternatives
and environmental effects that will be analyzed in depth based upon the
comments received during the scoping process and upon further agency
analysis.
    Scoping and Public Participation: The scoping process initiated by
this notice seeks to determine ``the range of actions, alternatives,
and impacts to be considered'' in the EIS and to identify the most
important issues for analysis involving the potential environmental
impacts of NHTSA's MD/HD vehicle fuel efficiency improvement
program.\21\ NHTSA's NEPA analysis for the MD/HD vehicle fuel
efficiency standards beginning in MY 2016, and the voluntary MYs 2014-
2015 standards, will consider the direct, indirect and cumulative
environmental impacts of the proposed standards and those of reasonable
alternatives.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\ See 40 CFR 1500.5(d), 1501.7, 1508.25.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    While the main focus of NHTSA's prior CAFE EISs (i.e., the EIS for
Model Years 2012-2016 Passenger Car and Light Truck CAFE Standards \22\
and the EIS for Model Years 2011-2015 Passenger Car and Light Truck
CAFE Standards \23\) was the quantitative and qualitative analysis of
impacts to energy, air quality, and climate, it also addressed other
potentially affected resources. NHTSA discussed the related direct,
indirect, and cumulative impacts, positive or negative, of the
alternatives on other potentially affected resources (water resources,
biological resources, land use, hazardous materials, safety, noise,
historic and cultural resources, and environmental justice).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \22\ See Final Environmental Impact Statement, Corporate Average
Fuel Economy Standards, Passenger Cars and Light Trucks, Model Years
2012-2016, Docket No. NHTSA-2009-0059-0140 (February 2010).
    \23\ See Final Environmental Impact Statement, Corporate Average
Fuel Economy Standards, Passenger Cars and Light Trucks, Model Years
2011-2015, Docket No. NHTSA-2008-0060-0605 (October 2008).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For the current EIS, NHTSA intends to focus on the impacts in much
the same manner as it did in the prior EIS, and will incorporate by
reference any of the discussions from the February 2010 Final EIS that
are relevant. NHTSA is currently considering analyzing environmental
impacts related to fuel and energy use, emissions including GHGs and
their effects on temperature and climate change, air quality, natural
resources, and the human environment. NHTSA also will factor into its
impact analysis the cumulative impacts of the proposed MD/HD vehicle
fuel efficiency standards starting in MY 2016, and the voluntary MYs
2014-2015 standards. In accordance with CEQ regulations, cumulative
effects are ``the impact on the environment which results from the
incremental impact of the action when added to other past, present, and
reasonably foreseeable future actions regardless of what agency
(Federal or non-federal) or person undertakes such action.'' \24\ NHTSA
specifically requests comment on how the agency should assess
cumulative impacts, including those from various emissions source
categories and across a range of geographic locations. For example,
should we consider the incremental impact of MD/HD efficiency standards
when considered with the impacts of other reasonably foreseeable
actions that affect emissions in any portion of the motor vehicle
sector? Or should NHTSA expand the incremental impact examination to
all transportation sector emissions? Or should the agency limit the
incremental impact analysis to environmental effects caused by
emissions only from the MD/HD vehicle segment?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \24\ 40 CFR 1508.7.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    NHTSA anticipates considerable uncertainty in estimating and
comparing the potential environmental impacts among alternatives
related to climate change in particular. For instance, NHTSA expects
that there will be considerable uncertainty associated with its
estimates of the range of potential global mean temperature changes
that may result from changes in fuel and energy consumption and GHG
emissions due to a range of new MD/HD vehicle fuel efficiency
standards. It also may be difficult to predict and compare the ways in
which potential temperature changes attributable to new MD/HD vehicle
fuel efficiency standards may, in turn, affect many aspects of the
environment. NHTSA will work expeditiously to gather all relevant and
credible information. Where information is incomplete or unavailable,
the agency will acknowledge the uncertainties in its NEPA analysis, and
will apply the provisions in the CEQ regulations addressing
``[i]ncomplete or unavailable information.'' \25\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \25\ See 40 CFR 1502.22.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Currently, NHTSA intends to rely primarily upon the
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) 2007 Fourth Assessment
Report, and subsequent updates, reports of the U.S. Climate Change
Science Program (CCSP) and the current U.S. Global Change Research
Program (U.S. GCRP), and the EPA Endangerment and Cause or Contribute
Findings for Greenhouse Gases under Section 202(a) of the Clean Air Act
and the accompanying Technical Support Document (referred to
collectively hereinafter as the EPA Endangerment Finding), as sources
for recent ``summar[ies] of existing credible scientific evidence which
is relevant to evaluating the reasonably foreseeable significant
adverse impacts on the human environment.'' \26\ NHTSA believes that
the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report, the CCSP and U.S. GCRP Reports, and
the EPA Endangerment Finding are the most recent, most comprehensive
summaries available, but recognizes that subsequent peer-reviewed
research may provide additional relevant and credible evidence not
accounted for in these Reports. NHTSA expects to consider such
subsequent information as well, to the extent that it provides relevant
and credible evidence. NHTSA also expects to rely on the Final EIS it
published in February 2010,\27\ incorporating material by reference
``when the effect will be to cut down on bulk without impeding agency
and public review of the action.'' \28\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \26\ 40 CFR 1502.22(b)(3); see 40 CFR 1502.21. The report and
the IPCC's earlier reports are available at http://www.ipcc.ch/
(last visited March 11, 2008).
    \27\ See Final Environmental Impact Statement, Corporate Average
Fuel Economy Standards, Passenger Cars and Light Trucks, Model Years
2012-2016, Docket No. NHTSA-2009-0059-0140 (February 2010).
    \28\ 40 CFR 1502.21.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In preparing this notice of public scoping to identify the range of
actions, alternatives, and impacts to be analyzed in depth in the EIS,
NHTSA has consulted with CEQ and EPA. Through this notice, NHTSA
invites all Federal agencies, Indian Tribes, State and local agencies
with jurisdiction by law or special expertise with respect to potential
environmental impacts of proposed MD/HD vehicle fuel efficiency
standards, and the public to participate in the scoping process.\29\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \29\ Consistent with NEPA and implementing regulations, NHTSA is
sending this notice directly to: (1) Federal agencies having
jurisdiction by law or special expertise with respect to the
environmental impacts involved or authorized to develop and enforce
environmental standards; (2) the Governors of every State, to share
with the appropriate agencies and offices within their
administrations and with the local jurisdictions within their
States; (3) organizations representing state and local governments
and Indian tribes; and (4) other stakeholders that NHTSA reasonably
expects to be interested in the NEPA analysis for the MD/HD vehicle
fuel efficiency standards. See 42 U.S.C. 4332(2)(C); 49 CFR
520.21(g); 40 CFR 1501.7, 1506.6.

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

    Specifically, NHTSA invites all stakeholders to participate in the
scoping process by submitting written comments concerning the
appropriate scope of NHTSA's NEPA analysis and the significant issues
for the proposed MD/HD vehicle fuel efficiency standards to the docket
number identified in the heading of this notice, using any of the
methods described in the ADDRESSES section of this notice. NHTSA does
not plan to hold a public scoping meeting, because written comments
will be effective in identifying and narrowing the issues for analysis.
    NHTSA is especially interested in comments concerning the
evaluation of climate change impacts, and the relative impact of an
increased share of any emissions reduction resulting from the proposed
MD/HD vehicle fuel efficiency standards coming from diesel fuel
savings, as opposed to emissions reductions resulting from conventional
gasoline savings analyzed in prior CAFE NEPA analyses. Specifically,
NHTSA requests:
     Peer-reviewed scientific studies that have been issued
since the EPA Endangerment Finding and that address or may inform: (a)
The impacts on CO2 and other greenhouse gas emissions that
may be associated with any of the alternatives under consideration; (b)
the impacts on climate change that may be associated with these
emission changes; or (c) the time periods over which such impacts on
climate may occur.
     Comments on how NHTSA should discuss or estimate the
potential localized or regional impacts of decreased diesel fuel use,
including potential upstream impacts (changes in fuel use and emissions
levels resulting from the extraction, production, storage, and
distribution of fuel), and comments on how NHTSA should estimate the
potential impacts of these localized or regional changes on the
environment.
     Comments on what time frame NHTSA should use to evaluate
the environmental impacts that may result from setting MD/HD vehicle
fuel efficiency standards, both indirect and cumulative.
     Peer-reviewed reports analyzing the potential impacts of
climate change within the United States or in particular geographic
areas of the United States. Such reports could be prepared by or on
behalf of States, local governments, Indian tribes, regional
organizations, academic researchers, or other interested parties.
     NHTSA understands that there are a variety of potential
alternatives that could be considered that fit within the purpose and
need for the proposed rulemaking, as set forth in EISA. NHTSA,
therefore, seeks comments on how best to structure or describe a
reasonable alternative for purposes of evaluating it under NEPA.
Specifically, NHTSA seeks comments on what criteria should be used to
structure such alternative, given the requirements for the new
regulatory program under EISA, while being consistent with the
statutory requirement of designing the program ``to achieve the maximum
feasible improvement.'' See 49 U.S.C. 32902(k)(2). When suggesting a
possible alternative, please explain how it would satisfy the EISA
requirements (in particular, how and why it would be appropriate, cost-
effective, and technologically feasible) and give effect to NEPA's
policies.\30\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \30\ See 40 CFR 1502.14, Alternatives Including the Proposed
Action (explaining what agencies should include in the alternatives
section of an EIS).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition, as noted above, NHTSA requests comments on how the
agency should assess cumulative impacts, including those from various
emissions source categories and from a range of geographic locations.
Also in regard to cumulative impacts, the agency requests comments on
how to consider the incremental impacts from foreseeable future actions
of other agencies or persons, and how they might interact with the MD/
HD vehicle fuel efficiency improvement program's incremental cumulative
impacts.
    Two important purposes of scoping are identifying the significant
issues that merit in-depth analysis in the EIS and identifying and
eliminating from detailed analysis the issues that are not significant
and therefore require only a brief discussion in the EIS.\31\ In light
of these purposes, written comments should include an Internet citation
(with a date last visited) to each study or report you cite in your
comments if one is available. If a document you cite is not available
to the public online, you should attach a copy to your comments. Your
comments should indicate how each document you cite or attach to your
comments is relevant to the NEPA analysis and indicate the specific
pages and passages in the attachment that are most informative.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \31\ 40 CFR 1500.4(g), 1501.7(a).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The more specific your comments are, and the more support you can
provide by directing the agency to peer-reviewed scientific studies and
reports as requested above, the more useful your comments will be to
the agency. For example, if you identify an additional area of impact
or environmental concern you believe NHTSA should analyze, or an
analytical tool or model that you believe NHTSA should use to evaluate
these environmental impacts, you should clearly describe it and support
your comments with a reference to a specific peer-reviewed scientific
study, report, tool or model. Specific, well-supported comments will
help the agency prepare an EIS that is focused and relevant, and will
serve NEPA's overarching aims of making high quality information
available to decisionmakers and the public by ``concentrat[ing] on the
issues that are truly significant to the action in question, rather
than amassing needless detail.'' \32\ By contrast, mere assertions that
the agency should evaluate broad lists or categories of concerns,
without support, will likely not assist the scoping process for the
proposed standards.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \32\ 40 CFR 1500.1(b).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Please be sure to reference the docket number identified in the
heading of this notice in your comments. NHTSA intends to correspond
directly to interested parties by e-mail. Thus, please also provide an
e-mail address (or a mailing address if you decline e-mail
communications).\33\ These steps will help NHTSA to manage a large
volume of material during the NEPA process. All comments and materials
received, including the names and addresses of the commenters who
submit them, will become part of the administrative record and will be
posted on the Web site at http://www.regulations.gov.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \33\ If you prefer to receive NHTSA's NEPA correspondence by
U.S. mail, NHTSA intends to provide its NEPA publications via a CD
readable on a personal computer.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Based on comments received during scoping, NHTSA expects to prepare
a draft EIS for public comment later this year and a final EIS to
support a final rule in 2011.\34\ In regard to NHTSA's decisionmaking
schedule, the agency expects to issue a final rule in 2011 as well.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \34\ 40 CFR 1506.10.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Separate Federal Register notices will announce the availability of
the draft EIS, which will be available for public comment, and the
final EIS, which will be available for public inspection. NHTSA also
plans to continue to post information about the NEPA process and this
MD/HD vehicle fuel efficiency improvement program rulemaking on its Web
site (http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov).

    Issued: June 9, 2010.
Stephen R. Kratzke,
Associate Administrator for Rulemaking.
[FR Doc. 2010-14167 Filed 6-11-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE P


[Federal Register: September 2, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 170)]
[Notices]
[Page 53966]
[DOCID:fr02se10-55]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. CP10-491-000]

Kinder Morgan Interstate Gas Transmission, LLC; Notice of Request
Under Blanket Authorization

August 27, 2010.
    Take notice that on August 25, 2010, Kinder Morgan Interstate Gas
Transmission, LLC (Kinder Morgan), 370 Van Gordon Street, Lakewood,
Colorado 80228-8304 filed in Docket No. CP10-491-000, a prior notice
request pursuant to sections 157.205 and 157.216 of the Commission's
regulations under the Natural Gas Act (NGA). Kinder Morgan seeks
authorization to abandon its Sand Draw Compressor Station located in
Fremont County, Wyoming. Kinder Morgan proposes to perform these
activities under its blanket certificate originally issued in Docket
Nos. CP83-140-000 and CP83-140-001 [22 FERC ] 62,330 (1983)], all as
more fully set forth in the application which is on file with the
Commission and open to public inspection.
    Specifically, the facilities at issue are one 500 horsepower Ajax
DPC-540 compressor unit and one 460 horsepower Cooper Bessemer GMXE-6
compressor unit, with appurtenances, located in Section 10, Township 32
North, Range 95 West, Fremont County, Wyoming. In addition, Kinder
Morgan intends to abandon station piping, buildings, a storage tank,
valves, check meter, and other auxiliary equipment.
    The filing may be viewed on the Web at http://www.ferc.gov using
the ``eLibrary'' link. Enter the docket number excluding the last three
digits in the docket number field to access the document. For
assistance, contact FERC at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or call toll-
free,<PHONE_NUMBER> or TYY,<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Any questions regarding this application should be directed to
Robert F. Harrington, Vice President, Regulatory, Kinder Morgan
Interstate Gas Transmission, LLC, 370 Van Gordon Street, Lakewood,
Colorado 80228-8304, or by calling<PHONE_NUMBER> (telephone) or (303)
984-3272 (fax<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Ashley L. Garber,
Assistant General Counsel, Kinder Morgan Interstate Gas Transmission,
LLC, 370 Van Gordon Street, Lakewood, Colorado 80228-8304, or by
calling<PHONE_NUMBER> (telephone) or<PHONE_NUMBER> (fax), Ashley_
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or to J. Curtis Moffatt, Robert F. Christin,
and Shippen Howe, Van Ness Feldman, P.C., 1050 Thomas Jefferson Street,
NW., 7th Floor, Washington, DC 20007-3877, or by calling<PHONE_NUMBER>
(telephone) or<PHONE_NUMBER> (fax<EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS>
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    Any person or the Commission's Staff may, within 60 days after the
issuance of the instant notice by the Commission, file pursuant to Rule
214 of the Commission's Procedural Rules (18 CFR 385.214) a motion to
intervene or notice of intervention and, pursuant to section 157.205 of
the Commission's Regulations under the NGA (18 CFR 157.205) a protest
to the request. If no protest is filed within the time allowed
therefore, the proposed activity shall be deemed to be authorized
effective the day after the time allowed for protest. If a protest is
filed and not withdrawn within 30 days after the time allowed for
filing a protest, the instant request shall be treated as an
application for authorization pursuant to section 7 of the NGA.
    The Commission strongly encourages electronic filings of comments,
protests, and interventions via the Internet in lieu of paper. See 18
CFR 385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the instructions on the Commission's Web
site (http://www.ferc.gov) under the ``e-Filing'' link. Persons unable
to file electronically should submit an original and 14 copies of the
protest or intervention to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission,
888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426.

Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2010-21965 Filed 9-1-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register: August 31, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 167)]
[Notices]
[Page 44866-44867]
[DOCID:fr31au09-105]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Federal Emergency Management Agency

[Internal Agency Docket No. FEMA-1855-DR; Docket ID FEMA-2008-0018]

Kentucky; Amendment No. 1 to Notice of a Major Disaster
Declaration

AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: This notice amends the notice of a major disaster declaration
for the Commonwealth of Kentucky (FEMA-1855-DR), dated August 14, 2009,
and related determinations.

DATES: Effective Date: August 24, 2009.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Peggy Miller, Disaster Assistance
Directorate, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street, SW.,
Washington, DC 20472,<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The notice of a major disaster declaration
for the Commonwealth of Kentucky is hereby amended to include Public
Assistance in the following areas among those areas determined to have
been adversely affected by the event declared a major disaster by the
President in his declaration of August 14, 2009.

    Trimble County for Public Assistance. Jefferson County for
Public Assistance (already designated for Individual Assistance).

(The following Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Numbers (CFDA)
are to be used for reporting and drawing funds: 97.030, Community
Disaster Loans; 97.031, Cora Brown Fund; 97.032, Crisis Counseling;
97.033, Disaster Legal Services; 97.034, Disaster Unemployment
Assistance (DUA); 97.046, Fire Management Assistance Grant; 97.048,
Disaster Housing Assistance to Individuals and Households in
Presidentially Declared Disaster Areas; 97.049, Presidentially
Declared Disaster Assistance--Disaster Housing Operations for
Individuals and Households; 97.050 Presidentially Declared Disaster
Assistance to Individuals and Households--Other Needs; 97.036,
Disaster Grants--Public Assistance

(Presidentially Declared Disasters); 97.039, Hazard Mitigation
Grant.)

W. Craig Fugate,
Administrator, Federal Emergency Management Agency.
[FR Doc. E9-20889 Filed 8-28-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 9111-23-P


[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 215 (Monday, November 8, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Pages 68631-68632]
[FR Doc No: 2010-28180]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request

Upon Written Request, Copies Available From: Securities and Exchange
Commission, Office of Investor Education and Advocacy, Washington, DC
20549-0213.

Extension:
    Rule 237; SEC File No. 270-465; OMB Control No. 3235-0528.

    Notice is hereby given that, pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction
Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 350l-3520), the Securities and Exchange
Commission (the ``Commission'') has submitted to the Office of
Management and Budget a request for extension and approval of the
collection of information discussed below.
    In Canada, as in the United States, individuals can invest a
portion of their earnings in tax-deferred retirement savings accounts
(``Canadian retirement accounts''). These accounts, which operate in a
manner similar to individual retirement accounts in the United States,
encourage retirement savings by permitting savings on a tax-deferred
basis. Individuals who establish Canadian retirement accounts while
living and working in Canada and who later move to the United States
(``Canadian-U.S. Participants'' or ``participants'') often continue to
hold their retirement assets in their Canadian retirement accounts
rather than prematurely withdrawing (or ``cashing out'') those assets,
which would result in immediate taxation in Canada.
    Once in the United States, however, these participants historically
have been unable to manage their Canadian retirement account
investments. Most securities that are ``qualified investments'' for
Canadian retirement accounts are not registered under the U.S.
securities laws. Those securities, therefore, generally cannot be
publicly offered and sold in the United States without violating the
registration requirement of the Securities Act of 1933 (``Securities
Act'').\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 77. In addition, the offering and selling of
securities of investment companies (``funds'') that are not
registered pursuant to the Investment Company Act of 1940
(``Investment Company Act'') is generally prohibited by U.S.
securities laws. 15 U.S.C. 80a.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As a result of this registration requirement, Canadian-U.S.
Participants previously were not able to purchase or exchange
securities for their Canadian retirement accounts as needed to meet
their changing investment goals or income needs.
    The Commission issued a rulemaking in 2000 that enabled Canadian-
U.S. Participants to manage the assets in their Canadian retirement
accounts by providing relief from the U.S. registration requirements
for offers of securities of foreign issuers to Canadian-U.S.
Participants and sales to Canadian retirement accounts.\2\ Rule 237
under the Securities Act \3\ permits securities of foreign issuers,
including securities of foreign funds, to be offered to Canadian-

U.S. Participants and sold to their Canadian retirement accounts
without being registered under the Securities Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ See Offer and Sale of Securities to Canadian Tax-Deferred
Retirement Savings Accounts, Release Nos. 33-7860, 34-42905, IC-
24491 (June 7, 2000) [65 FR 37672 (June 15, 2000)]. This rulemaking
also included new Rule 7d-2 under the Investment Company Act,
permitting foreign funds to offer securities to Canadian-U.S.
Participants and sell securities to Canadian retirement accounts
without registering as investment companies under the Investment
Company Act. 17 CFR 270.7d-2.
    \3\ 17 CFR 230.237.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Rule 237 requires written offering documents for securities offered
and sold in reliance on the rule to disclose prominently that the
securities are not registered with the Commission and are exempt from
registration under the U.S. securities laws. The burden under the rule
associated with adding this disclosure to written offering documents is
minimal and is non-recurring. The foreign issuer, underwriter, or
broker-dealer can redraft an existing prospectus or other written
offering material to add this disclosure statement, or may draft a
sticker or supplement containing this disclosure to be added to
existing offering materials. In either case, based on discussions with
representatives of the Canadian fund industry, the staff estimates that
it would take an average of 10 minutes per document to draft the
requisite disclosure statement.
    The Commission understands that there are approximately 3,811
Canadian issuers other than funds that may rely on Rule 237 to make an
initial public offering of their securities to Canadian-U.S.
Participants.\4\ The staff estimates that in any given year
approximately 38 (or 1 percent) of those issuers are likely to rely on
Rule 237 to make a public offering of their securities to participants,
and that each of those 38 issuers, on average, distributes 3 different
written offering documents concerning those securities, for a total of
114 offering documents.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ This estimate is based on the following calculation: 3,700
equity issuers + 111 bond issuers = 3,811 total issuers. See World
Federation of Exchanges, Number of Listed Issuers, available at
http://www.world-exchanges.org/statistics/annual/2009 (providing
numbers of equity and fixed-income issuers on Canada's Toronto Stock
Exchange in 2009).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The staff therefore estimates that during each year that Rule 237
is in effect, approximately 38 respondents \5\ would be required to
make 114 responses by adding the new disclosure statements to
approximately 114 written offering documents. Thus, the staff estimates
that the total annual burden associated with the rule 237 disclosure
requirement would be approximately 19 hours (114 offering documents x
10 minutes per document). The total annual cost of burden hours is
estimated to be $6,004 (19 hours x $316 per hour of attorney time).\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ This estimate of respondents only includes foreign issuers.
The number of respondents would be greater if foreign underwriters
or broker-dealers draft stickers or supplements to add the required
disclosure to existing offering documents.
    \6\ The Commission's estimate concerning the wage rate for
attorney time is based on salary information for the securities
industry compiled by the Securities Industry and Financial Markets
Association (``SIFMA''). The $316 per hour figure for an attorney is
from SIFMA's Management & Professional Earnings in the Securities
Industry 2009, modified by Commission staff to account for an 1,800-
hour work-year and multiplied by 5.35 to account for bonuses, firm
size, employee benefits, and overhead.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition, issuers from foreign countries other than Canada could
rely on Rule 237 to offer securities to Canadian-U.S. Participants and
sell securities to their accounts without becoming subject to the
registration requirements of the Securities Act. However, the staff
believes that the number of issuers from other countries that rely on
Rule 237, and that therefore are required to comply with the offering
document disclosure requirements, is negligible.
    These burden hour estimates are based upon the Commission staff's
experience and discussions with the fund industry. The estimates of
average burden hours are made solely for the purposes of the Paperwork
Reduction Act. These estimates are not derived from a comprehensive or
even a representative survey or study of the costs of Commission rules.
    Compliance with the collection of information requirements of the
rule is mandatory and is necessary to comply with the requirements of
the rule in general. Responses will not be kept confidential. 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
control number. Background documentation for this information
collection may be viewed at the following link, http://www.reginfo.gov.
Please direct general comments to the following persons: (i) Desk
Officer for the Securities and Exchange Commission, Office of
Management and Budget, Room 10102, New Executive Office Building,
Washington, DC 20503 or send an e-mail to Shagufta Ahmed at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Thomas Bayer, Director/CIO, Securities and Exchange
Commission, C/O Remi Pavlik-Simon, 6432 General Green Way, Alexandria,
VA 22312; or send an e-mail to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Comments must be
submitted to OMB within 30 days of this notice.

     November 1, 2010.
Florence E. Harmon,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2010-28180 Filed 11-5-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 208 (Monday, November 1, 2021)]
[Notices]
[Pages 60295-60296]
[FR Doc No: 2021-23704]

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

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Occupational Safety and Health Administration

[Docket No. OSHA-2021-0001]

National Advisory Committee on Occupational Safety and Health
(NACOSH): Notice of Meeting

AGENCY: Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), Labor.

ACTION: Notice of NACOSH meeting.

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

SUMMARY: The National Advisory Committee on Occupational Safety and
Health (NACOSH) will meet Tuesday, November 16, 2021, by teleconference
and WebEx.

DATES: NACOSH will meet from 1:00 p.m. to 5:00 p.m., ET, Tuesday,
November 16, 2021.

ADDRESSES:
    Submission of comments and requests to speak: Submit comments and
requests to speak at the NACOSH meeting by November 9, 2021, identified
by the docket number for this Federal Register notice (Docket No. OSHA-
2021-0001), using the following method:
    Electronically: Comments and request to speak, including
attachments, must be submitted electronically at: http://www.regulations.gov, the Federal eRulemaking Portal. Follow the online
instructions for submitting comments.
    Requests for special accommodations: Submit requests for special
accommodations for this NACOSH meeting by Tuesday, November 9, 2021, to
Ms. Carla Marcellus, Directorate of Standards and Guidance, OSHA, U.S.
Department of Labor; telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email:
[email protected].
    Instructions: All submissions must include the agency name and the
OSHA docket number for this Federal Register notice (Docket No. OSHA-
2021-0001). OSHA will place comments and requests to speak, including
personal information, in the public docket, which may be available
online. Therefore, OSHA cautions interested parties about submitting
personal information such as Social Security numbers and birthdates.
    Docket: To read or download documents in the public docket for this
NACOSH meeting, go to http://www.regulations.gov. All documents in the
public docket are listed in the index; however, some documents (e.g.,
copyrighted material) are not publicly available to read or download
through http://www.regulations.gov. All submissions are available for
inspection and, when permitted, copying through the OSHA Docket Office.
For information on using http://www.regulations.gov to make submissions
or to access the docket, click on the ``Help'' tab at the top of the
homepage. Contact the OSHA Docket Office at<PHONE_NUMBER> for
information about materials not available through that website and for
assistance in using the internet to locate submissions and other
documents in the docket.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
    For press inquiries: Mr. Frank Meilinger, Director, OSHA Office of
Communications, U.S. Department of Labor; telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>;
email: [email protected].
    For general information about NACOSH: Ms. Amy Wangdahl, Director,
Office of Maritime and Agriculture, OSHA, U.S. Department of Labor;
telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email: [email protected].
    Telecommunication requirements: For additional information about
the telecommunication requirements for the meeting, please contact Ms.
Carla Marcellus, Directorate of Standards and Guidance, OSHA, U.S.
Department of Labor; telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email:
[email protected].
    For copies of this Federal Register Notice: Electronic copies of
this Federal Register notice are available at http://www.regulations.gov. This notice, as well as news releases and other
relevant information, are also available at OSHA's web page at
www.osha.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

    NACOSH was established by Section 7(a) of the Occupational Safety
and Health Act of 1970 (OSH Act) (29 U.S.C. 651, 656) to advise,
consult with, and make recommendations to the Secretary of Labor and
the Secretary of Health and Human Services on matters relating to the
administration of the OSH Act. NACOSH is a continuing advisory
committee of indefinite duration.
    NACOSH operates in accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee
Act (FACA) (5 U.S.C. App. 2), its implementing regulations (41 CFR part

102-3), and OSHA's regulations on NACOSH (29 CFR part 1912a).

II. Meeting Information

    Attendance at this NACOSH meeting will be by teleconference and
WebEx only. The teleconference dial-in number and passcode are as
follows: Dial-in number: 1-800-621-7762; Passcode: 2239082 and the
WebEx link is: https://usdolee.webex.com/usdolee/onstage/g.php?MTID=e15a19ce17d08e2ad4a361f785aa6cce9 and the meeting password
is: Welcome!24. The tentative agenda will include agency updates from
OSHA and NIOSH, a discussion of OSHA's work on heat illness, and a
discussion on risk-based safety.

Authority and Signature

    Amanda L. Edens, Deputy Assistant Secretary of Labor for
Occupational Safety and Health, authorized the preparation of this
notice under the authority granted by 29 U.S.C. 655(b)(1) and 656(b), 5
U.S.C. App. 2, and 29 CFR part 1912 and 1912a.

    Signed at Washington, DC, on October 20, 2021.
Amanda L. Edens,
Deputy Assistant Secretary of Labor for Occupational Safety and Health.
[FR Doc. 2021-23704 Filed 10-29-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510-26-P


58 Note that this is a conservative assumption because in general, SO 2 is a more efficient precursor of particulate matter than nitrous oxides.

59 These estimates reflect the average of a range of discount rates and scenarios. Low end estimates reflect IAQR study near term benefits using a seven percent discount rate; High end estimates reflect Clear Skies study longer term benefits using a three percent discount rate. The estimates also exclude ozone related benefits; IAQR study estimated total benefits ( including ozone related benefits) at $ 54 to $ 84 billion; the Clear Skies study estimated total benefits ( including ozone

6 58 documents and other literature, a significant percentage of the benefits associated with the control of SO 2 results from avoided health effects associated with the development of fine particulate matter ( PM) formed by SO 2 in the atmosphere. The Clear Skies Initiative and the IAQR both examine benefits associated with reduction in PM resulting from both SO 2 and nitrogen ( NOx) releases.

Our preliminary benefit estimate assumes a linear relationship between quantity of sulfur dioxide controlled and monetary benefits. In addition, we assume:

The facilities in the HWC MACT universe are similar to the national average addressed in the Clear Skies and IAQR analyses in terms of affected populations and avoided health impacts.

The relationship between benefits and quantity of SO 2 emissions reduced is linear even at relatively small quantities ( i. e., 22,000 tons).

Where benefits related to particulate matter associated with SO 2 emissions reductions and NOx reductions are not reported separately, the relationship between benefits is proportional to the quantity of pollutants ( i. e., if SO 2 emissions represent 50 percent of the per weight pollutant reductions, then they represent 50 percent of the benefits). 58 The Clear Skies and IAQR analyses each predicted a total reduction in SO 2 emissions of roughly 3.5 million tons and NOx reductions of 1.5 million tons. The total benefits associated with particulate matter reductions were estimated at $ 51.5 to $ 109.3 billion ( 1999 dollars) in the Clear Skies analysis and $ 54.5 to $ 83.6 billion ( 1999 dollars) in the IAQR analysis. 59 OMB REVIEW DRAFT: November 2003 related benefits) at $ 52 to $ 113 billion.

60 The Clear Skies and IAQR total predictions ( SO 2 plus NO x) of approximately 5.0 million tons/ yr emissions reductions ( 3.5/ 5.0 = 70 percent).

6 59 Assuming that SO 2 emissions reductions represent roughly 70 percent60 of total particulate matter benefits, we estimate that a reduction of 22,000 tons of SO 2 emissions under the HWC MACT standards would incur total monetized benefits ranging from $ 212 million to $ 350 million per year. This result reflects a " dollar per ton" range of $ 9,700 to $ 15,900 for benefits per ton of SO 2 removed. If only mortality is included, annual monetized benefits would range from $ 193 million to $ 320 million, reflecting a " dollar per ton" range of approximately $ 8,800 to 14,600 for benefits per ton of SO 2 removed.

Exhibit 2 provides a more detailed summary of the range of potential benefits based on both studies. OMB REVIEW DRAFT: November 2003 6 60 Exhibit 2 SUMMARY OF BENEFITS ASSOCIATED WITH SO2 EMISSION REDUCTIONS Benefit Category IAQR Analysis ( million 1999$) Clear Skies Analysis ( million 1999$)

Total Mortality 50,000  72,000 47,000  100,000 Total Infant Mortality Benefits 130  180   Total Other Benefits 4,902  5,019 4,518  9,184 Total Benefits 54,532  83,599 51,518  109,284 Total SO2 Benefits 39,911  57,812a 34,478  73,255b Total Benefits of HWC MACT SO2 Reductions: Agency Preferred Approach ( based on 22,000 tons/ yr) c Total Benefits ( millions) $ 247.4  $ 332.9 $ 212.4  $ 350.0 Average of Total Benefits ( millions) $ 281.7 $ 281.9 Total Benefits, per Ton ( dollars) $ 10,642  $ 15,133 $ 9,655  $ 15,908 Average of Total Benefits, per Ton ( dollars) $ 12,808 $ 12,814 Mortality Benefits Only ( millions) $ 215.2  $ 307.4 $ 193.8  $ 320.3 Average of Mortality Benefits Only ( millions) $ 259.5 $ 257.7 Mortality Benefits Only, per Ton ( dollars) $ 9,783  $ 13,971 $ 8,808  $ 14,557 Average of Mortality Benefits Only, per Ton ( dollars) $ 11,797 $ 11,714 Notes: a Based on 3.7  3.8 million tons SO2 avoided, adjusted to exclude 28 31% NOx contribution. b Based on 3.6  4.6 million tons SO2 avoided, adjusted to exclude 33% NOx contribution. c These ranges reflect the use of different discount rates, time frames, and assumptions about non mortality benefits. Low end estimates reflect near term mortality benefits only, using a seven percent discount rate; high end estimates reflect study longer term total benefits using a three percent discount rate. OMB REVIEW DRAFT: November 2003 61 Note that this assumption is very conservative and is designed solely to develop a lower bound estimate. Because boilers are designed to provide power for other facility processes, it would be unusual for them to operate at levels as low as 50 percent. In addition, trial burn data ( collected as part of the RCRA permitting process) were used to identify total coal requirements for boilers. Trial burns are typically designed to reflect maximum hazardous waste combustion. Because SO 2 is associated with the supplemental fuel coal ( and not with hazardous waste), it is possible that trial burn data may understate baseline SO 2 emissions if normal operations involve less hazardous waste and more coal.

6 61 Lower Bound Estimate of Benefits In addition to the estimates based on a simple extrapolation of Clear Skies and IAQR analyses, we have developed a conservative lower bound estimate of potential benefits ( mortality only) associated with SO 2 emissions reductions resulting from the BTF TCl level for solid fuel boilers. This estimate includes only emissions reductions from the Tennessee Eastman facility and makes the following conservative assumptions:

The facility uses only coal with a low sulfur content of one percent ( initial estimate is based on sulfur content of 2.5 percent);

The facility operates boilers at 50 percent of the intensity reflected in the trial burn data ( initial estimate assumes that boilers operate as continuous process equipment at 90 percent of annual trial burn capacity); and 61

The low end benefit estimate of $ 8,808 per ton of SO 2 eliminated accurately reflects regional benefits in northeastern Tennessee.

The resulting reductions in SO 2 emissions from the facility are therefore 3,100 tons per year rather than 15,680 tons per year. Under these lower bound assumptions, we estimate annual benefits of roughly $ 27 million associated with SO 2 emission reductions. This reflects only the Eastman Tennessee facility and does not consider any benefits associated with the remaining three facilities with coal fired hazardous waste boilers.

Key Limitations:

This assessment incorporates various key assumptions and limitations. These include:

the affected populations for each of the facilities of concern are assumed to be generally consistent with populations affected by facilities examined in the Clear Skies and IAQR analyses, OMB REVIEW DRAFT: November 2003 6 62

the boiler operation and stack heights of the facilities of concern are generally representative of the boilers and stack heights at the facilities examined in the Clear Skies and IAQR analyses,

the linear extrapolation of national level SO 2 reduction benefits is reasonable for quantities of roughly 20,000 tons; and

baseline emissions estimates used in this analysis reflect current emissions for each of the facilities of concern.


[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 193 (Friday, October 6, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Page 46880]
[FR Doc No: 2017-21543]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

[Summary Notice No. PE-2017-78]

Petition for Exemption; Summary of Petition Received

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of petition for exemption received.

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

SUMMARY: This notice contains a summary of a petition seeking relief
from specified requirements of Federal Aviation Regulations. The
purpose of this notice is to improve the public's awareness of, and
participation in, this aspect of the FAA's regulatory activities.
Neither publication of this notice nor the inclusion or omission of
information in the summary is intended to affect the legal status of
the petition or its final disposition.

DATES: Comments on this petition must identify the petition docket
number involved and must be received on or before October 16, 2017.

ADDRESSES: Send comments identified by docket number FAA-2017-0891
using any of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to http://www.regulations.gov and follow the online instructions for sending your
comments electronically.
     Mail: Send comments to Docket Operations, M-30; U.S.
Department of Transportation (DOT), 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Room
W12-140, West Building Ground Floor, Washington, DC 20590-0001.
     Hand Delivery or Courier: Take comments to Docket
Operations in Room W12-140 of the West Building Ground Floor at 1200
New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m.,
Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
     Fax: Fax comments to Docket Operations at<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Privacy: In accordance with 5 U.S.C. 553(c), DOT solicits comments
from the public to better inform its rulemaking process. DOT posts
these comments, without edit, including any personal information the
commenter provides, to http://www.regulations.gov, as described in the
system of records notice (DOT/ALL-14 FDMS), which can be reviewed at
http://www.dot.gov/privacy.
    Docket: Background documents or comments received may be read at
http://www.regulations.gov at any time. Follow the online instructions
for accessing the docket or go to the Docket Operations in Room W12-140
of the West Building Ground Floor at 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE.,
Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday,
except Federal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Lynette Mitterer, AIR-673, Federal
Aviation Administration, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98057-3356,
email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>phone<PHONE_NUMBER>; or Alphonso
Pendergrass, ARM-200, Office of Rulemaking, Federal Aviation
Administration, 800 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20591,
email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>phone<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    This notice is published pursuant to 14 CFR 11.85.

    Issued in Renton, Washington.
Victor Wicklund,
Manager, Transport Standards Branch.

Petition for Exemption

    Docket No.: FAA-2017-0891.
    Petitioner: Boeing.
    Section of 14 CFR Affected: Sec.  25.903(d)(1).
    Description of Relief Sought: Boeing is requesting relief from the
requirements of 14 CFR 25.903(d)(1), amendment 25-100 for a limited
number of 767-2C airplanes. The regulation requires that hazards due to
uncontained engine failures be minimized. There is a portion of the
wiring for the engine thrust control system where the redundant
channels are not sufficiently separated for \1/3\-disc fragments within
the uncontained engine failure hazard zone. The relief sought is
limited to those 767-2C airplanes completed prior to the production
incorporation of the design change that sufficiently separates engine
thrust control wiring.

[FR Doc. 2017-21543 Filed 10-5-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register: October 2, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 190)]
[Notices]
[Page 50965-50967]
[DOCID:fr02oc09-34]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[EPA-HQ-ORD-2009-0658; FRL-8965-4]

Human Studies Review Board; Notice of Public Meeting

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA or Agency)
Office of the Science Advisor (OSA) announces a public meeting of the
Human Studies Review Board (HSRB) to advise the Agency on EPA's
scientific and ethical reviews of research with human subjects.

DATES: The public meeting will be held from October 20-21, 2009, from
approximately 10 a.m. to approximately 5:30 p.m., through October 20,
2009 from approximately 8:30 a.m. to approximately 12:30 p.m. Eastern
Time.
    Location: Environmental Protection Agency, Conference Center--Lobby
Level, One Potomac Yard (South Bldg.), 2777 S. Crystal Drive,
Arlington, VA 22202.
    Meeting Access: Seating at the meeting will be on a first-come
basis. To request accommodation of a disability, please contact the
person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT at least 10
business days prior to the meeting, to allow EPA as much time as
possible to process your request.
    Procedures for Providing Public Input: Interested members of the
public may submit relevant written or oral comments for the HSRB to
consider during the advisory process. Additional information concerning
submission of relevant written or oral comments is provided in Unit
I.D. of this notice.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Any member of the public who wishes
further information should contact Jim Downing, EPA, Office of the
Science Advisor, (8105R), Environmental Protection Agency, 1200
Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460; telephone number: (202)
564-2468; fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>; e-mail addresses<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
General information concerning the EPA HSRB can be found on the EPA Web
site at http://www.epa.gov/osa/hsrb/.

ADDRESSES: Submit your written comments, identified by Docket ID No.
EPA-HQ-ORD-2009-0658, by one of the following methods:
    Internet: http://www.regulations.gov: Follow the on-line
instructions for submitting comments.
    E-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    Mail: Environmental Protection Agency, EPA Docket Center (EPA/DC),
ORD Docket, Mailcode: 28221T, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington,
DC 20460.
    Hand Delivery: The EPA/DC Public Reading Room is located in the EPA
Headquarters Library, Room Number 3334 in the EPA West Building,
located at 1301 Constitution Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460. The hours
of operation are 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. Eastern Time, Monday through
Friday, excluding Federal holidays. Please call<PHONE_NUMBER> or e-
mail the ORD Docket at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>for instructions. Updates to
Public Reading Room access are available on the Web site (http://
www.epa.gov/epahome/dockets.htm).
    Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-ORD-
2009-0658. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included
in the public docket without change and may be made available online at
http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information
provided, unless the comment includes information claimed to be
Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose
disclosure is restricted by statute. Do not submit information that you
consider to be CBI or otherwise protected through http://
www.regulations.gov or e-mail. The http://www.regulations.gov website
is an ``anonymous access'' system, which means EPA will not know your
identity or contact information unless you provide it in the body of
your comment. If you send an e-mail comment directly to EPA, without
going through http://www.regulations.gov, your e-mail address will be
automatically captured and included as part of the comment that is
placed in the public docket and made available on the Internet. If you
submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends that you include your name
and other contact information in the body of your comment and with any
disk or CD-ROM you submit. If EPA cannot read your comment due to
technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, EPA
may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic files should avoid
the use of special characters, any form of encryption, and be free of
any defects or viruses.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Public Meeting

A. Does This Action Apply to Me?

    This action is directed to the public in general. This action may,
however, be of interest to persons who conduct or assess human studies,
especially studies on substances regulated by EPA or to persons who are
or may be required to conduct testing of chemical substances under the
Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA) or the Federal
Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA). Since other
entities may also be interested, the Agency has not attempted to
describe all the specific entities that may be affected by this action.
If you have any questions regarding the applicability of this action to
a particular entity, consult the person listed under FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT.

B. How Can I Access Electronic Copies of This Document and Other
Related Information?

    In addition to using regulations.gov, you may access this Federal
Register document electronically through the EPA Internet under the
``Federal Register'' listings at http://www.epa.gov/fedrgstr/.
    Docket: All documents in the docket are listed in the http://
www.regulations.gov index. Although listed in the index, some
information is not publicly available, e.g., CBI or other information
whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such
as copyrighted material, will be publicly available only in hard copy.
Publicly available docket materials are available either electronically
in http://www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at the ORD Docket, EPA/
DC, Public Reading Room. The EPA/DC Public Reading Room is located in
the EPA Headquarters Library, Room Number 3334 in the EPA West
Building, located at 1301 Constitution Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460.
The hours of operation are 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. EST, Monday through
Friday, excluding Federal holidays. Please call<PHONE_NUMBER> or e-
mail the ORD Docket at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>for instructions. Updates to
Public Reading Room access are available on the Web site (http://
www.epa.gov/epahome/dockets.htm).
    EPA's position paper(s), charge/questions to the HSRB, and the
meeting agenda will be available by early October 2009. In addition,
the Agency may provide additional background documents as the materials
become available. You may obtain electronic copies of these documents,
and certain other related documents that might be available
electronically, from the regulations.gov website and the EPA HSRB Web
site at http://www.epa.gov/osa/hsrb/. For questions on document
availability or if you do not have access to the Internet, consult the
person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION.

C. What Should I Consider as I Prepare My Comments for EPA?

    You may find the following suggestions helpful for preparing your
comments:
    a. Explain your views as clearly as possible.
    b. Describe any assumptions that you used.
    c. Provide copies of any technical information and/or data that you
used to support your views.
    d. Provide specific examples to illustrate your concerns and
suggest alternatives.
    e. To ensure proper receipt by EPA, be sure to identify the docket
ID number
    assigned to this action in the subject line on the first page of
your response. You may also provide the name, date, and Federal
Register citation.

D. How May I Participate in This Meeting?

    You may participate in this meeting by following the instructions
in this section. To ensure proper receipt by EPA, it is imperative that
you identify docket ID number EPA-HQ-ORD-2009-0658 in the subject line
on the first page of your request.
    a. Oral comments. Requests to present oral comments will be
accepted up to October 13, 2009. To the extent that time permits,
interested persons who have not pre-registered may be permitted by the
Chair of the HSRB to present oral comments at the meeting. Each
individual or group wishing to make brief oral comments to the HSRB is
strongly advised to submit their request (preferably via e-mail) to the
person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT no later than noon,
Eastern time, October 13, 2009, in order to be included on the meeting
agenda and to provide sufficient time for the HSRB Chair and HSRB
Designated Federal Officer (DFO) to review the agenda to provide an
appropriate public comment period. The request should identify the name
of the individual making the presentation, the organization (if any)
the individual will represent, and any requirements for audiovisual
equipment (e.g., overhead projector, LCD projector, chalkboard). Oral
comments before the HSRB are limited to five minutes per individual or
organization. Please note that this limit applies to the cumulative
time used by all individuals appearing either as part of, or on behalf
of an organization. While it is our intent to hear a full range of oral
comments on the science and ethics issues under discussion, it is not
our intent to permit organizations to expand these time limitations by
having numerous individuals sign up separately to speak on their
behalf. If additional time is available, there may be flexibility in
time for public comments. Each speaker should bring 25 copies of his or
her comments and presentation slides for distribution to the HSRB at
the meeting.
    b. Written comments. Although you may submit written comments at
any time, for the HSRB to have the best opportunity to review and
consider your comments as it deliberates on its report, you should
submit your comments at least five business days prior to the beginning
of the meeting. If you submit comments after this date, those comments
will be provided to the Board members, but you should recognize that
the Board members may not have adequate time to consider those comments
prior to making a decision. Thus, if you plan to submit written
comments, the Agency strongly encourages you to submit such comments no
later than noon, Eastern Time, October 13, 2009. You should submit your
comments using the instructions in Unit I.C. of this notice. In
addition, the Agency also requests that person(s) submitting comments
directly to the docket also provide a copy of their comments to the
person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT. There is no limit
on the length of written comments for consideration by the HSRB.

E. Background

    a. Topics for discussion. The HSRB is a Federal advisory committee
operating in accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA)
5 U.S.C. App. 2 Sec.  9. The HSRB provides advice, information, and
recommendations to EPA on issues related to scientific and ethical
aspects of human subjects research. The major objectives of the HSRB
are to provide advice and recommendations on: (1) Research proposals
and protocols; (2) reports of completed research with human subjects;
and (3) how to strengthen EPA's programs for protection of human
subjects of research. The HSRB reports to the EPA Administrator through
EPA's Science Advisor.
    At its meeting on October 20-21, 2009, EPA's Human Studies Review
Board will consider scientific and ethical issues surrounding three
topics:

    1. Two published reports of completed, pre-rule research on the
effects of exposure to pesticides containing pyrethrins/pyrethroids.
EPA requests the advice of the HSRB on the scientific merit, relevancy,
and limitations of these studies, and on their ethical acceptability.
EPA intends to incorporate into a future revision of the EPA White
Paper, ``A Review of the Relationship between Pyrethrins, Pyrethroid
Exposure and Asthma and Allergies,'' a discussion of either or both of
these studies if they are deemed to be scientifically sound, relevant
and ethically acceptable.
    2. A proposal for new research to be conducted by Carroll-Loye
Biological Research to evaluate in the laboratory the repellent
efficacy to ticks of two registered products containing 20% picaridin.
EPA requests the advice of the HSRB concerning whether, if it is
revised as suggested in EPA's review and if it is performed as
described, this research is likely to generate scientifically reliable
data, useful for assessing the efficacy of the tested materials in
repelling ticks, and to meet the applicable requirements of 40 CFR part
26, subparts K and L.
    3. A new scenario design and associated protocol from the
Antimicrobials Exposure Assessment Task Force II (AEATF-II), describing
proposed research to monitor at three sites the dermal and inhalation
exposure of professional janitorial workers who apply an antimicrobial
pesticide formulated as an aerosol spray. EPA requests the advice of
the HSRB concerning whether, if it is revised as suggested in EPA's
review and if it is performed as described, this research is likely to
generate scientifically reliable data, useful for assessing the
exposure of those who apply antimicrobial pesticides as aerosols, and
to meet the applicable requirements of 40 CFR part 26, subparts K and
L.
    In addition, the Board will be reviewing its draft June 24-25,
2009, meeting report for subsequent Board approval. Finally, the HSRB
may also discuss planning for future HSRB meetings.
    b. Meeting minutes and reports. Minutes of the meeting, summarizing
the matters discussed and recommendations, if any, made by the advisory
committee regarding such matters, will be released within 90 calendar
days of the meeting. Such minutes will be available at http://
www.epa.gov/osa/hsrb/ and http://www.regulations.gov. In addition,
information concerning a Board meeting report, if applicable, can be
found at http://www.epa.gov/osa/hsrb/ or from the person listed under
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.

     Dated: September 24, 2009.
Kevin Teichman,
EPA Acting Science Advisor.
[FR Doc. E9-23795 Filed 10-1-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register: July 31, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 146)]
[Notices]
[Page 41742-41743]
[DOCID:fr31jy07-77]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. AD07-14-000]

Hydrokinetic Pilot Project Workshop; Notice of Technical
Conference and Soliciting Comments

July 19, 2007.
    A technical conference, led by Commissioner Philip D. Moeller, will
be held on October 2, 2007, in Portland, Oregon. Specific information
on time and location will be noticed a month prior to the conference.
All interested persons may attend, and there is no fee. Registration is
not required, but is appreciated for planning purposes; please register
at: https://www.ferc.gov/whats-new/registration/hydrokinetic-10-07-form.asp.
 Following the conference there will be a 30-day written

comment period.
    The purpose of the conference will be to present Commission staff's
proposed licensing process for hydrokinetic energy pilot projects and
to seek feedback from representatives from industry, state and federal
agencies, NGOs, Native American tribes, and members of the public.
    The goal of the proposed program is to complete licensing in as few
as six months, to provide for Commission oversight and agency input,
and to allow developers to generate while testing. This process will be
available for projects that are: (1) Small (5 MW or less), (2)
removable or able to shut down on relatively short notice, (3) not
located in waters with sensitive designations, and (4) for the purpose
of testing new hydro technologies or determining appropriate sites for
ocean wave and tidal energy projects.
    We envision the license having the following characteristics:
     A short license term (5 years);
     A standard license condition requiring project alteration
or shutdown in the event that monitoring reveals an unacceptable level
of environmental effect;
     The option of applying for a 30-50 year license at the end
of the license term; and

     A standard license condition requiring decommissioning and
site restoration at the time of license expiration if the option is not
exercised.
    A flowchart describing Commission staff's proposed licensing
process for pilot projects is attached to this notice.
    Transcripts of the conference will be immediately available from
Ace Reporting Company<PHONE_NUMBER> or 1-800-336-6646) for a fee. They
will be available to the public on the Commission's eLibrary system
seven calendar days after FERC receives the transcript.
    All comments (original and eight copies) should be filed with:
Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888
First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426. Comments may be filed
electronically via the Internet in lieu of paper. The Commission
strongly encourages electronic filings. See 18 CFR 385.2001(a)(1)(iii)
and the instructions on the Commission's Web site (http://www.ferc.gov)

under the ``e-Filing'' link.
    FERC conferences are accessible under section 508 of the
Rehabilitation Act of 1973. For accessibility accommodations please
send an e-mail to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or call toll free 866-208-
3372 (voice) or<PHONE_NUMBER> (TTY), or send a FAX to<PHONE_NUMBER> with
the required accommodations.
    Additional details regarding the agenda for this conference will be
included in a subsequent notice.
    For more information about the conference, please contact Kristen
Murphy at<PHONE_NUMBER> (kristen.murphy@ferc.gov), or Tim Welch at 202-
502-8760 (timothy.welch@ferc.gov).

Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
 [FR Doc. E7-14729 Filed 7-30-07; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register: April 9, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 68)]
[Notices]
[Page 18201]
[DOCID:fr09ap10-75]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. ER10-974-000]

Big Horn II Wind Project, LLC; Supplemental Notice That Initial
Market-Based Rate Filing Includes Request for Blanket Section 204
Authorization

April 2, 2010.
    This is a supplemental notice in the above-referenced proceeding of
Big Horn II Wind Project, LLC's application for market-based rate
authority, with an accompanying rate tariff, noting that such
application includes a request for blanket authorization, under 18 CFR
part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of
liability.
    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest should file with the
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE.,
Washington, DC 20426, in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the
Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and
385.214). Anyone filing a motion to intervene or protest must serve a
copy of that document on the Applicant.
    Notice is hereby given that the deadline for filing protests with
regard to the applicant's request for blanket authorization, under 18
CFR part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of
liability, is April 19, 2010.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and
interventions in lieu of paper, using the FERC Online links at http://
www.ferc.gov. To facilitate electronic service, persons with Internet
access who will eFile a document and/or be listed as a contact for an
intervenor must create and validate an eRegistration account using the
eRegistration link. Select the eFiling link to log on and submit the
intervention or protests.
    Persons unable to file electronically should submit an original and
14 copies of the intervention or protest to the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission, 888 First St., NE., Washington, DC 20426.
    The filings in the above-referenced proceeding are accessible in
the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the appropriate link in
the above list. They are also available for review in the Commission's
Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an eSubscription link
on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive e-mail notification
when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For assistance with
any FERC Online service, please e-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or
call<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll free). For TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2010-8070 Filed 4-8-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P